US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

http://www.slate.com/id/2291596/

^^good piece

because again the latter is not going to happen

― k3vin k., Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:50 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i agree i dont think it would, although you're far too certain imo

There's talk itt about the two party system falling somehow. It will not. If one of the parties fail (the Whigs), most of their voters will join some newly calibrated bloc (the Republicans). Look at the South. As the Democrats (in league w/liberal Republicans) started to address Civil Rights, the South turned to the Republicans. As long as they were sufficiently racist or turned a blind eye, the Democrats could be the party of farmers and 'ordinary men' in the Dixie but when that changed, they lost their old bastion.

k cool read 300 posts ago

deej got to the Lithwick article before I did -- a good read indeed.

we shouldn't challenge new anti-abortion laws in court

Regardless, I'd like to see some real politcal opposition.

i get pretty unreasonable about strategy/politics/etc and am inclined (perhaps unfairly) to think that anyone that doesn't share my zeal is toady and a sell-out

― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:50 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i dont think its an issue of 'degree of zeal' though, its simply a matter of disagreeing over the smarter way to accomplish your goals

that slate piece is making a smart argument for 'our side' on this issue, and hopefully that becomes our CW about these debates going forward. but notice how it doesnt frame the debate as being about toady moderate dems

well toady mod dems do exist, which is another issue completely

i dont think its an issue of 'degree of zeal' though, its simply a matter of disagreeing over the smarter way to accomplish your goals

yeah but understand this - my imagined 22-week pregnancy that has run into disaster above, that is presently real in a number of states for a number of women, today. Actual people who can't get the abortions they need on 4/28/2011. So the other side has accomplished their goal of denying actual live women, today, their right to an abortion. The goal to protect these woman's rights is the exact place where the line in the sand ought to have been drawn.

im certainly no advocate of ends-means morality, but i do think ethical dilemmas like this -- where either option has the potential very bad outcome -- it makes sense that ppl who believe as strongly as you might disagree here

that said, i do think the evidence is building that they are wrong. i just think questioning their loyalty to the cause is a pointless / juvenile way to go about changing things

i don't think anyone who believes in exercising extreme (undue) caution in lobbying against/challenging anti-abortion laws can really be classified as an "activist", and yeah these people probably care about the issue less than some other people

i don't think anyone who believes in exercising extreme (undue) caution in lobbying against/challenging anti-abortion laws can really be classified as an "activist", and yeah these people probably care about the issue less than some other people

― k3vin k., Thursday, April 28, 2011 8:08 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you dont think someone worried that if the wrong case comes up in front of the supremes it will actually cause an even faster rollback is sufficiently with the cause, got it.

reality is complicated!

my thirdhand take on this -- from a young lawyer friend who has talked with a lot of the counsels who keep an eye on & litigate abortion laws across the country -- is that pro-choice ppl are kind of afraid of the supreme court but also of a lot of the federal appellates.

the fear is that they'll challenge a bad state law, get in front of a bad federal judge and have it be upheld, then you've effectively solidified the bad law in precedent AND spread the bad law to OTHER states in that federal circuit. so they're holding off and basically letting shitty state politics stay there, hoping for calmer seas in the future. losing a court case farther up the chain has really terrible added consequences, iow

it could be all very misguided tho, i don't really know. but the court game on this is very chess-not-checkers, i am told.

I work with several pro-choice organizations closely and I don't know anybody in any of them for whom that is a top-level concern, D-40. The top level concern is protecting the rights of women who need abortions today to get them today. Sacrificing the rights of women today to preserve the rights of women who don't need to exercise those rights today is not, among any abortion-rights activists I know, the immediate priority. I think you are speaking on behalf of Democratic party members/activists who identify as pro-choice, but whose first loyalty is to the Democratic party.

anti-abortion people know exactly how to push on this to gain traction in precedent as well, make no mistake. 'fetal homicide' laws are meant as a wedge under the door

xp

I mean challenging the fetal heartbeat bills is a no fucking brainer, that's compelling a patient to undergo a medical procedure, nightmare shit, near total radio silence from Dems on a slam-dunk - you have to twist yourself into knots to call that "strategic"

when i bring up 'strategic' its not about winning seats. im talking about preserving abortion laws, exclusively. speaking of twisting things in knots

I was gonna say, some of you are letting passion make you unable to understand relatively simple English.

the fact is -- & goole's point supports this -- its not an either-or thing. sometimes its a good case to fight, sometimes its a misdirect. theres an article in I think it was the WSJ about this recently -- that conservatives are swamping the courts w/ these cases & some are worth fighting & some are designed to hide the 'bigger deal' cases etc

it is not preserving abortion laws when they are impossible to get after 20 weeks. this is pig-in-a-poke stuff. that right, allowing a women to get an abortion after 20 weeks, is being conceded on the grounds that maybe more rights will be taken away if people make too much noise about the right they're taking away.

i think that point is often otm but i dont think it actually contradicts a lot of what im saying

but you can't preserve a right by selling half of it. which again has been the Dem strategy since Reagan and is really aggressively the Dem strategy now - invoke the fear of overturning Roe as an excuse to not defend the already-established right to abortion in every state. when the budget deal stripped DC of funding for abortion, 28 women in DC who were scheduled for abortions the next day couldn't get them. that is reality; NNAF raised enough money to pay for a few of them, and may yet raise enough to pay for more, but the ground is conceded and won't be won back - who's going to win it back? not the party that nominally supports these women's right to abortion access; they already traded that right away!

I seem to recall when South Dakota voted for that crazy draconian abortion bill a few years ago (don't remember the details), that shit got overturned fast following a groundswell of objection. If the right has learned anything from its piecemeal approach to banning abortion, is that with a little bit here and a little bit there, public outcry will never (or likely won't) ever hit a critical mass of outrage. In this sense it's really ingenious to avoid a Supreme battle, since a Supreme Court overturning Row v. Wade would be like what went on in Madison over labor on a national scale. I'm not old enough to remember first hand, but the era of the back-alley abortion was muffled/muted by shame and secrecy. I don't think anger would simmer underground in 2011. It'd explode. I'd explode.

that is OTM. While Scalia and Thomas (dunno about Alito frankly) are up for the fight, I just don't think Roberts wants to overturn Roe -- and anti-abortionists know this.

well like i said, there's a lot of unfriendly judicial territory between the local level and the supremes.

Get cracking on those recess appointments, Mr. President!

the establishment right certainly doesn't want roe v wade overturned. year-in-year-out they get elected on social issues, particularly that one, & pass continued tax reductions. thats an engine for big business basically

the establishment right certainly doesn't want roe v wade overturned. year-in-year-out they get elected on social issues, particularly that one, & pass continued tax reductions. thats an engine for big business basically

this is true. but what they are accomplishing at the state level is genuinely appalling

Will Dems bungle getting the word out on Ryan's Medicare plan:

Democrats are banking that the Ryan plan will be politically toxic for the GOP. But these two polls suggest that won't necessarily be the case: the GOP's plan could still have widespread appeal unless Democrats manage to communicate exactly how the specifics of RyanCare would impact ordinary Americans. The Dems faced the same dilemma when it came to federal health reform: Americans tend to feel positive about many of the specific benefits of the Affordable Care Act, but the Republicans have continued to succeed in making them feel queasy about the law overall. So Democrats shouldn't simply assume that Americans will recoil at RyanCare at first blush.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/poll-public-paul-ryan-medicare

Will Dems bungle getting the word out on Ryan's Medicare plan:

you forgot the word "how"

My god, I hate the word "banking" – in every sense.

lol i dunno, it conotes a fitting sense of "betting", esp given recent events

speaking of citizens united....

Former Senator Russ Feingold, a campaign finance purist who refused outside support in his own campaigns, sharply criticized Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, the new groups that will take unlimited, and partly undisclosed, money to support President Obama's re-election campaign.

"Democrats who mirror the right-wing tactics of Karl Rove and David Koch do our nation no favors. Our democracy is best served by rejecting the fundamentally corrupt strategy of embracing unlimited corporate influence," said Feingold, who now heads Progressives United.

Reflecting the abruptness of the Democrats' pivot on the question of secret cash -- a central talking point in the 2010 election -- a group that backs Democrats on campaign finance issues put out a press release this morning headed, "Campaign Watchdog: Priorities USA Not Hypocritical."

"In order to change the rules of the game, we need to engage in the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. To act otherwise after Citizens United is to take a knife to a gunfight," David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of Public Campaign Action Fund, said in the release.

In order to change the rules of the game, we need to engage in the rules as they are, not as we wish they were. To act otherwise after Citizens United is to take a knife to a gunfight

I agree with that stance 100% but I am the most pragmatic idealist on earth, so

lets skip the next 50 posts by saying me too, morbs & aerosmith disagree

and waiting for those folks to change the rules of the game is like waiting for the Soviet state to collapse, so give it 70 years.

xp, thats all

"If you can't beat em, join em" is a good enough ethos if you have actually tried in earnest to "beat em"... something Feingold's been trying to do for decades. I just wish all that money was being raised for a primary challenger and not going to Obama's campaign war chest.

the townhall videos thinkprogress upped today are fairly heartening. compared to the rednecks screaming at democratic townhall meetings last summer, people spanking the republicans these days over their trickle down bullshit seem like the soul of decency

beltway journos are trying to be all cynical abt it cause they're getting the same moveon emails the activists are, but its like come on yall you don't get to be dicks abt this one just cause you were asleep at the wheel the first time around

beltway journos can eat a bag of dicks

lets skip the next 50 posts by saying me too, morbs & aerosmith disagree

lol I am on board w/this strategy, appreciate the time-saving move

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/daniels_to_sign_bill_stripping_federal_funds_from.php

daniels to sign the anti-PP bill

jesus

Let's punish the shit out of Planned Parenthood for providing legal medical services to women (and to men - I had my vasectomy done there). Why? Because we don't like them doing it!

Bbbbbbbut they perform abortions and that's taking a life so they must be punished!

Doesn't surprise me that Daniels would sign this based on his weasel-like answers defending his role in the Bush administration regarding the destrction of the surplus and the role of tax cuts for the rich and his incorrect calculations for the cost of 2 off the book wars.

So, the GOP hates abortions, contraception, cancer screening & prevention, social workers, outpatient procedures of many varieties and family planning information and pamphlets. I don't think even the Vatican is that hardline...

feel like trump thinks he's going bullworth, but deep down inside just wants beatty's hairline

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/donald-talks-dirty-ladies-trump-laun

"you're not gonna raise that fucking price!"

what a scumbag!

Bbbbbbbut they perform abortions and that's taking a life so they must be punished!

Must be something else because significantly cutting defense spending is off the table.