American Politics

[Annelise]

It the spirit of topic at hand, does anyone have a subtitle they'd like to nominate? :)

From FLOW:

The reason he provided is so incredibly broad and subjective that it validates virtually any other reason someone else could provide. If he didn't provide any evidence or specific examples, a GOP Senator who opposes a nominee because he/she doesn't share their political views shouldn't have to provide any evidence or examples either. That's the point.

I know it's frowned upon to actually *say* you aren't voting for so and so because the candidate is of x political bent, it opens you to attacks about being too partisan and so forth, but sometimes I really wish they would instead of finding the crap they do to make hay over for show. Staying general is a blessing in my book. At least it doesn't add to the soundbytes.

I'm pretty comfortable that if someone who wasn't *qualified* was nominated, there would be an appropriate bipartisan response.

The thing about Obama saying that Republicans are going to be against whoever he picks is playing up the Party of No. It's true that many of them will oppose for reasons that you all have already discussed, but IMO the main point is re/emphasizing and selling the pattern. This particular issue seems to produce responses like, "You started it" and "You do it, too", which don't do much to shake that tag. Indeed, forcing such defenses, I would think, is part of the point.

[Annelise]

I'm reading a book about a medical con man who evidently rose to international prominence in '20's and '30's. It touched on how at one point states deregulated medicine and says all but three struck down medical licensing requirements. This is evidently what prompted the formation of the AMA in 1847.

In midcentury educator Lemuel Shattuck, asked by the Massachusetts state legislature to conduct a sanitary survey of that state, reported back:

"Any one, male or female, learned or ignorant, an honest man or a knave, can assume the name physician, and 'practice' upon any one, to cure or to kill, as either may happen, without accountability. It's a free country!"

:leaving:

[Annelise]

Tea Partiers: thank Newt for reinforcing your stereotype.

Gingrich said that the Tea Party movement is a "natural expression of frustration with Republicans and anger at Democrats," the York Dispatch reports. However, he said that it would not turn into a third-party movement, but is instead "more likely to end up as the militant wing of the Republican Party."

I wonder if there will be any backlash at some point.

[Annelise]

So yeah, immigration reform should be fun.

In an interview with anti-immigration big-wig William Gheen, Dobbs called Gheen "a dangerous, dangerous distorter of reality" for claiming that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is gay.

At a Greenville, South Carolina Tea Party over the weekend, Gheen accused Graham of selling out to pro-amnesty groups in order to keep his supposed homosexuality a secret.

Dobbs has since called out Gheen, who is president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, a self-described "national border security organization," and then invited him on his radio show to defend his remarks.

"No matter how passionate you are" on illegal immigration, Dobbs said, "I cannot imagine why you would do such a thing."

Gheen got defensive, sarcastically saying, "It's really weird that you can't understand that, while you're negotiating with Senator Schumer to support Graham's amnesty plan."

"The people of ALIPAC better understand that you're a dangerous, dangerous distorter of reality," Dobbs responded.

"How does it feel to be the Southern Poverty Law Center yourself, now Lou? Way to go, you turned 180 degrees," Gheen shot back, referring to a nonprofit group of civil rights lawyers.

Dobbs chuckled. "I think that you have really lost your way," he said. "I'm asking you to dump the hate from your heart."

Gheen had some advice for Dobbs too: "Don't sit at that amnesty table and hold hands with Obama and Napolitano."

"You've become somebody I don't recognize," said Dobbs.

[Serious Callers Only]

Lol at stupid shit.

[lokisnow]

Subtitle suggestion: Democrats have a lot to lose

Regarding the supreme court, Democrats realized in the 80s that they had a great deal to lose by Reagan's second term. They'd had two terms of Nixon/Ford, only one term of Carter and more of Reagan, the court was being deliberately stacked with justices who would overturn Roe v Wade and perhaps a host of other important citizen protections and rights (and their fears have borne out as Roberts has shown himself to be fundamentally anti-people in running the Corporate's Court). It's been the stated goal of republicans to strip women of their equal right of self determination (the right to choose) and privacy and put them back in their place and make sure the blob of fetal tissue has more rights than the host-mother.

To Democrats, that's a lot to lose. So yes, court appointments became much more contentious when they realized republican presidents were going to get enough votes to strip women of their rights. With that at stake, the approval process should have become a lot more contentious.

--

In keeping with the thread title, Democrats have a lot else to lose in the upcoming midterms. There's a lot of beaurocratic authority, from committees to appointments, that is completely lost with the loss of the majority.

I did like seeing that Democrats had resolved tofire back immediately at all the lies and misinformation being spread about the financial bill, having learned their lesson that letting stupid lies go uncontested was a bad move in the healthcare game.

And despite Obama's "play nice" lunacy about not prosecuting all the bush-era war criminals (including bush and cheney) I have no doubt if the democrats lose their house majority, the house will not have the slightest qualms about trying to impeach him for this, whether or not its legitimate, they'll still try to impeach him because he's committed the greater crime of being president while democrat.

[Annelise]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I gotta stick with Lou. It works no matter your politics, I think. Hee.

[TrackerNeil]

I know it's frowned upon to actually *say* you aren't voting for so and so because the candidate is of x political bent, it opens you to attacks about being too partisan and so forth, but sometimes I really wish they would instead of finding the crap they do to make hay over for show. Staying general is a blessing in my book. At least it doesn't add to the soundbytes.

The entire confirmation process is more show than substance, really. The nominees aren't asked real questions, they don't give real answers, and the senators spend most of their time making political speeches. Or, if you're lucky, they bring in special guest stars like the New Haven firefighters, who got to complain about a ruling Sonia Sotomayor made when she was an appellate judge. The insistence that confirmation hearings should be about qualifications apparently does not rule out bringing in disgruntled appellants to bitch about a ruling they didn't like.

[Shryke]

The idea that the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is not or as ever not been a political matter is ridiculous.

[TrackerNeil]

The GOP is still likely to have a good November for a number of reasons, but the long-term prospects are looking very good for the Democratic party.

As much as I'd like to agree, I can't. I don't think liberal victories make Americans more likely to vote for Democrats; hell, in Florida, the Medicare capital of the nation, the two Republicans for Senate are polling better than the Democrat. However, I think liberal initiatives like Social Security, Medicare and, now, health insurance reform, make it difficult for conservatives to maneuver, because de-funding, limiting or modifying those programs is nearly impossible, as George Bush found out with Social Security and Newt Gingrich with Medicare. Americans may not like taxes, but they sure do love the benefits taxation brings.

[Annelise]

However, I think liberal initiatives like Social Security, Medicare and, now, health insurance reform, make it difficult for conservatives to maneuver, because de-funding, limiting or modifying those programs is nearly impossible, as George Bush found out with Social Security and Newt Gingrich with Medicare.

That's like a summon Swordfish spell. :lol:

[Annelise]

This opens up a very interesting discussion. I'll try to just lay out a bunch of points for discussion in bullets:'

Do you agree with Sullivan? That they should tackle immigration reform before midterms?

[Swordfish]

That's like a summon Swordfish spell. :lol:

You rang?????

;)

I think that there is hope that SS and medicare will be less sacred as the population ages. Younger generations are being conditioned to understand that these programs are anathema to our economic health. I think that people under a certain age have a pretty contained expectation when it comes to ss in particular.

[Swordfish]

From what I've seen, Medicare is way more problematic than SS.

I'm going to start a society soon that is essentially aimed at uniting generations X and Y against the Baby Boomer generation. Changing Medicare will be our primary goal. We will be technically non-partisan.

Where do I sign up?

What bizarro world are we living on when the Republicans primary platform in a health care system debate is defending Medicare spending?

the same bizzaro world where the left's position on health care includes defending Medicare and SS as well run federal entitlement programs?

;)

[Shryke]

From what I've seen, Medicare is way more problematic than SS.

I'm going to start a society soon that is essentially aimed at uniting generations X and Y against the Baby Boomer generation. Changing Medicare will be our primary goal. We will be technically non-partisan.

What bizarro world are we living on when the Republicans primary platform in a health care system debate is defending Medicare spending?

One with conservatives in it. Perpetually years behind, but always roughly the same AMOUNT behind.

Years from now, you can shake your head as they defend Obamacare from being overhauled by Robotic Richard Nixon's Health Care Reform and Cyborg Rights bill.

[Shryke]

Nothing really that wrong with SS. It's just the funds that are supposed to go and were saved for it have been thrown in the governments general funds pool and gone to other places. SS was always gonna have a bump along the way because of population not rising in a straight, linear fashion.

Medicare's problems, as I remember, are with the cost of care in the US and not Medicare itself, which is just paying the bills. Essentially, take it up with the hospitals.

[Annelise]

-Is it basically that the GOP mostly wants no illegals to ever get citizenship and that the Dems want to provide a "path?" Please realize I'm asking this from a place close to total ignorance, so I'm sure there's more to it than this.

I think McCain and Obama were pretty similar on immigration reform. IIRC, McCain's plan also included a path to citizenship and I think some level of amnesty, too.

I am uncertain about an official GOP stance, if there is one. I believe they are going to be under a lot of pressure to oppose those things.

[The Iceman of the North]

I am uncertain about an official GOP stance, if there is one.

I thought the GOP stance on this issue were quite clear: "The opposite of whatever Obama proposes."

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It the spirit of topic at hand, does anyone have a subtitle they'd like to nominate? :)

From FLOW:

I know it's frowned upon to actually *say* you aren't voting for so and so because the candidate is of x political bent, it opens you to attacks about being too partisan and so forth, but sometimes I really wish they would instead of finding the crap they do to make hay over for show. Staying general is a blessing in my book. At least it doesn't add to the soundbytes.

I'm pretty comfortable that if someone who wasn't *qualified* was nominated, there would be an appropriate bipartisan response.

The thing about Obama saying that Republicans are going to be against whoever he picks is playing up the Party of No. It's true that many of them will oppose for reasons that you all have already discussed, but IMO the main point is re/emphasizing and selling the pattern. This particular issue seems to produce responses like, "You started it" and "You do it, too", which don't do much to shake that tag. Indeed, forcing such defenses, I would think, is part of the point.

There's seems to be general agreement that politics are all that matter with nominations now, so that's what I'll address.

I'm not at all sure the Party of No label hurts Republicans right now. Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent. Polls also show that a strong majority agree that the government is too large, doing too much, and spending too much. They want someone to be saying "no", and to put the brakes on things.

The themes that sold in 2008 aren't selling in 2010, and I don't think Democrats have yet absorbed that changed political reality

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think McCain and Obama were pretty similar on immigration reform. IIRC, McCain's plan also included a path to citizenship and I think some level of amnesty, too.

I am uncertain about an official GOP stance, if there is one. I believe they are going to be under a lot of pressure to oppose those things.

There isn't an "official GOP" position because there is nobody who has the authority to speak for every elected Republican. Different Republicans have different views.

But I think its fair to say that McCain's position was more liberal than that of most Republicans. It was the single issue where I think dissatifaction with him within the party was highest. A lot of Republicans weren't happy with Bush's position either.

But I think most Republicans would agree that getting control of the border is a necessary first step. That is the line in the sand. After that, there is considerable disagreement as to whether, and to what extent, amnesty should be offered.