American Politics mark something something

[Mad Monkey]

Shryke,

I don't support it.

... said Comrade Lenin to the Politburo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MM,

Are you calling me a leftist? Really?

[Mad Monkey]

Well, no, not really. I think that all of on this forum know that this statement:

I don't support it.

is not the same as, um, mass-murder, but I thought it was a nice (if not banal) way of pointing out how overheated rhetoric can lead to even logical, reasonable statements being painted as having come directly from a Politburo transcript or a Fascist rally.

[Shryke]

Shryke, do you know that current federal law already requires immigrants to do that, in all 50 states?

Ahh yes, and of course the Police will know EXACTLY how to tell the immigrants who are required to carry papers but aren't carrying them from the citizens who don't even have the papers and from the illegals who also don't have papers, though for different reasons.

After all, the legal citizens will be white. ;)

It is quite implicit in the statement that I am racist, sexist, and elitist. None of which makes sense because I only corrected misconceptions about what the bill does and did not pass judgment on the bill itself.

But some people can't help themselves and throw out ad homs because they have no argument, right Shryke?

Still not using ad hominem correctly. Please look it up.

And yes, strangely I have passed judgment on this terrible bill. It's probably because it's a shitty piece of racist legislation with easily foreseeable shitty outcomes. But you know, I'm crazy like that.

I don't support it.

I know Scot, and that's why I respect you.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

I don't know. I remember George Allen getting in serious electoral trouble for less than what Rand Paul said, but Virginia is not Kentucky and 2010 is not 2006. I'd be interested to see post-gaffe polling numbers; but pre-gaffe, Rand Paul was 25 points ahead of Democrat Jack Conway.

I don´t have a clue where you got that 25 point spread. The last poll before primary I know of by R2000 gave us.

Jack Conway (D): 39 [39]

Rand Paul ®: 42 [45]

Undecided: 19 [16]

[Annelise]

I don´t have a clue where you got that 25 point spread. The last poll before primary I know of by R2000 gave us.

Jack Conway (D): 39 [39]

Rand Paul ®: 42 [45]

Undecided: 19 [16]

It's a Rasmussen poll. Discussed here in fact: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/paulapolooza.html

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

The very fact that we are having this discussion shows you just how far to the right the public discourse has shifted. Liberals who want a single-payer health care system, like many other industrialized nations possess, are regarded as extremist and their views really don't have much traction with the public. However, a candidate who voices disagreement with a fundamental piece of civil-rights legislation enacted nearly fifty years ago has a decent chance of being seated in the Senate.

I don't think that's true. Explicit opposition to the Civil Rights Act was more rather than less prominent in conservative circles thirty years ago. These days conservatives typically try to hide historical conservative opposition to the CRA from the editors of the National Review, or from Ronald Reagan, or from any number of other right-wing politicians who were active in the era. (Actually, that understates the case: the bulk of the conservative movement was opposed to Brown v. Board of Education, not just individual pieces of federal civil rights legislation.)

Even Rand Paul had to back off from his opposition with a lot of hemming and hawing, and other conservative politicians explicitly refused to join him in his stance. (Mitch McConnell said that he was "glad to hear" that Rand Paul came around to supporting the CRA.) Outside political commentators may say what they wish, but it's pretty clear that forthright opposition to the CRA has become a toxic political stance even for conservative politicians.

Meanwhile, the single payer bill that Rep. John Conyers introduces into the House every session has eighty-eight co-sponsors, including prominent congressional Democrats like George Miller, the late John Murtha, and Conyers himself. It obviously doesn't command majority support in Congress, but it's a position that's well within the big tent of the Democratic party. In official Washington, it's clear which position is more extreme, and it's not single-payer.

BTW, from the Rand Paul link above, my favorite comment of his: "I thought I was supposed to get a honeymoon. When does my honeymoon start after my victory?" These are indeed sad times if extremists can't offer extremist views without being criticized by others.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Also, Joe Sestak has taken the lead against Pat Toomey, after consolidating Democratic support in the wake of his primary victory. This is one poll, so grain of salt and everything, but it reminds of another reason why Joe Sestak is a strong candidate: his base. We're used to talking about Sestak as being a more reliable progressive than Arlen Specter, and I think that's true. But Arlen Specter's base of support in the Democratic Party came from Philadelphia, since he was an old Philly pol from decades ago, while Sestak supporters tended to be located in western PA and the Philly suburbs. So as it happens, the moderate Democrats are also the most loyal to Sestak, since they've been supporting him from the beginning; while the former Specter voters, which a Republican might hope to poach, are the sort of rabid Philly Dems that wouldn't piss on Pat Toomey if he was on fire. So Sestak shouldn't have too much trouble keeping the party together, and last I checked Democrats still have a registration advantage in PA.

[TrackerNeil]

So as it happens, the moderate Democrats are also the most loyal to Sestak, since they've been supporting him from the beginning; while the former Specter voters, which a Republican might hope to poach, are the sort of rabid Philly Dems that wouldn't piss on Pat Toomey if he was on fire.

I definitely wouldn't. No sir.

Snarkiness aside, I agree with PDC's assessment. The typical statewide PA election strategy, for Republicans, is to pretty much cede Philadelphia and Pittsburgh but to make up the difference in the Philly suburbs. Sestak clearly has a great deal of popularity there; after all, such is the district that sent him twice to the House. So he can most likely call upon support that would have been beyond Snarlin' Arlen.

There's something else to consider. As we saw in 2008, a tough primary fight isn't always a bad thing. Specter has already attacked Sestak's military record, and by now it's old news. Those voters who are willing to buy it already have, and Pat Toomey won't gain much by repeating the attacks. I'm hoping Toomey will make Kurt Weldon's mistake and either get indicted or start attacking Sestak's cancer-survivor daughter.

[Shryke]

The Senate passed late Thursday night the most sweeping regulatory overhaul of the financial system since the New Deal.

The bill, which passed 59-39, imposes more oversight and stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and Wall Street firms, while aiming to stop bailouts, shine a light on complex financial products and strengthen consumer protection.

The bill only needed 51 votes to pass. Earlier in the evening, the bill cleared a tougher hurdle, a 60 vote threshold, ending a filibuster against stopping debate.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/20/news/economy/Wall_Street_reform/index.htm?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

More descriptions of the bill:

Since January 2009, financial services firms have spent nearly $600 million and hired hundreds of lobbyists to influence the debate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The legislation would establish a consumer financial protection regulatory agency that could write new rules to protect consumers from unfair or abusive mortgages and credit cards.

It would create a council of regulators that would sound an alarm before companies are in position to trigger a financial crisis. The bill would also establish new procedures for shutting down giant financial firms that are collapsing.

The bill aims to shine a brighter light on some of the different kinds of complex financial products, called derivatives, that are blamed for bringing down financial companies such as American International Group (AIG, Fortune 500) and Lehman Brothers. It would force most derivatives on to clearinghouses and exchanges, to help pinpoint the value of the trades.

The Senate bill limits the size and scope of banks' investment activities, preventing them from owning hedge funds and trading on their own accounts. It also includes a controversial measure preventing banks from trading any derivatives. Banks would be forced to spin off their swaps desks that make these trades.

The House bill lacks such limits on banks' investment work.

Also, while both versions of the bill create a council of regulators who monitor big Wall Street banks, the Senate gives the top job of running that panel to the Treasury Secretary and the House gives the top position to the Fed chair.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I wish the bill was stronger than it is, but it's already much tougher on Wall Street than people anticipated a month ago and that's all to the good as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully that will survive through conference committee.

Also, I notice that Scott Brown ended up voting for the bill. I wonder if these votes of his are going to be recounted back to him by a Tea Party primary challenge in 2012.

[Watcher]

On the other hand, illegal immigration is a major problem the Administration would prefer to sweep under the rug, and maybe Arizona's law is going to force the issue to be addressed, which is a good thing.

According to this article more illegal immigrants are being deported under Obama's policy then under Bush's.

FLOW, Tempra and others that support the Arizona law: do you believe that laws like this and expanding law enforcement powers are the best way to deal with the illegal immigration problem?

[TrackerNeil]

Also, I notice that Scott Brown ended up voting for the bill. I wonder if these votes of his are going to be recounted back to him by a Tea Party primary challenge in 2012.

It's funny; for all the hoopla about Massachusetts electing a Republican, Brown sure hasn't done much to advance the Republican cause. He never even had a chance to support a filibuster against health insurance reform, although I realize the mere threat of same kept the bill from a conference committee. Grr...that damned filibuster has to go, or at least be limited.

[Paladin of Ice]

More descriptions of the bill:

The Senate bill limits the size and scope of banks' investment activities, preventing them from owning hedge funds and trading on their own accounts. It also includes a controversial measure preventing banks from trading any derivatives. Banks would be forced to spin off their swaps desks that make these trades.

The House bill lacks such limits on banks' investment work.

Also, while both versions of the bill create a council of regulators who monitor big Wall Street banks, the Senate gives the top job of running that panel to the Treasury Secretary and the House gives the top position to the Fed chair.

The differences between the two will probably mean another interesting reconciliation process, but I'm very happy that the bill got passed with some teeth. (And this is coming from someone who has been inside of Financial services for the better part of the last 7 years).

[The Anti-Targ]

Taking things a little off track, but I just wanted to ask whether anyone knoew of the origin of Rand Paul's first name. Is he named after Ayn Rand?

I know Ron Paul is way over on the libertarian side of ideology but I wouldn't have picked him as such an objectivist devotee as to name a son after her.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Taking things a little off track, but I just wanted to ask whether anyone knoew of the origin of Rand Paul's first name. Is he named after Ayn Rand?

I know Ron Paul is way over on the libertarian side of ideology but I wouldn't have picked him as such an objectivist devotee as to name a son after her.

He didn't. Read about twenty posts back, and you'll find more.

[El-ahrairah]

Rand Paul has a point. If I want to open my little whites-only steakhouse, what's gonna happen is that a good chunk of my potential customers will refuse to eat my steaks, and more than that, likely start picketing and yelling in front of my parking lot, scaring away even more people. Hopefully I will soon realize that my policy makes no sense, repent and wail in sackcloth, and welcome gentlemen of color to my tables. And if not, would you really want to eat at a restaurant whose owner you know hates you and would only serve you if compelled by law?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

According to this article more illegal immigrants are being deported under Obama's policy then under Bush's.

FLOW, Tempra and others that support the Arizona law: do you believe that laws like this and expanding law enforcement powers are the best way to deal with the illegal immigration problem?

No.

[Shryke]

Rand Paul has a point. If I want to open my little whites-only steakhouse, what's gonna happen is that a good chunk of my potential customers will refuse to eat my steaks, and more than that, likely start picketing and yelling in front of my parking lot, scaring away even more people. Hopefully I will soon realize that my policy makes no sense, repent and wail in sackcloth, and welcome gentlemen of color to my tables. And if not, would you really want to eat at a restaurant whose owner you know hates you and would only serve you if compelled by law?

Except it turns out this doesn't happen and your assumptions for this little thought experiment are fucking terrible.

The free market doesn't stop racism.

[Alcibiades]

The free market doesn't stop racism.

Oh, I dunno. I think it might actually work today. But the fact is that it wasn't working in the South, which spent a century resisting modernization. If some sort of free market, private people shunning, solution would have worked eventually, we as a society weren't willing to wait decades for that to maybe happen. The human cost incurred while waiting for the South to move on is untenable.

I think the problem with Paul's position is a lack of appreciation of the historical realities. And of the urgent need to end injustice.