American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, Dick Cheney took care of the vulgarity with his Senate-floor "F*ck off." Bush only used useless tough-talk when it came to war. Do the words, "Bring it on" ring a bell?

Yeah. And they weren't said by the guy who was President when the Exxon Valdez spill happened.

[DanteGabriel]

So... Sue Lowden, the presumptive Republican nominee to challenge Senator Harry Reid in November, best known for suggesting that health care costs can be driven down by bartering, lost her primary. She lost to a Teabagger who's embraced an extremist militia called the Oath Keepers. They are a collection of current and former soldiers and cops who think the federal government is fixing to march everyone into concentration camps, and apparently they want to re-fight the Civil War or something.

The peculiar ideology of Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee challenging Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada, is perhaps no better illustrated than by her embrace of the patriot group Oath Keepers, whose membership of uniformed soldiers and police take an oath to refuse orders they see as unconstitutional -- including enforcement of gun laws, violations of states' sovereignty, and "any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps."

"We support what the organization stands for," Angle's husband, Ted, told TPMDC in a phone interview Monday. "Sharron does."

Members of Oath Keepers -- whose motto is "Not on our watch!" -- take a 10-item oath affirming that they will not, for example, force citizens into detention camps or invade a state "that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/reid-opponent-embraces-patriot-group-that-warns-of-giant-concentration-camps.php?ref=fpblg

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

as the one who said 150,000 getting reduced to 5000 I was assuming a class action suit against BP. say there are 10,000 fisherman that file a suit against BP, I was being very conservative in thinking they're awarded $1,500,000,000 or 150,000 each.

In the Exxon Valdez case, it was only the punitive damage award that was reduced, to an amount equal to the compensatory damage award. The amount of compensatory damages was not reduced. I suspect the compensatory damages from this spill will be at least 10 times that of the Exxon Valdez spill (which were a lot more than $5k per plaintiff), but we'll have to see. Personally, I hope they get nailed.

[TrackerNeil]

So... Sue Lowden, the presumptive Republican nominee to challenge Senator Harry Reid in November, best known for suggesting that health care costs can be driven down by bartering, lost her primary. She lost to a Teabagger who's embraced an extremist militia called the Oath Keepers. They are a collection of current and former soldiers and cops who think the federal government is fixing to march everyone into concentration camps, and apparently they want to re-fight the Civil War or something.

You know, the TEA Party may well have handed Harry Reid his best chance to survive 2010. Should things work out in his favor in November, I may have to send Ms. Angle a Christmas card. Or, even better, a holiday card.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You know, the TEA Party may well have handed Harry Reid his best chance to survive 2010. Should things work out in his favor in November, I may have to send Ms. Angle a Christmas card. Or, even better, a holiday card.

Tracker, I agree that it's stupid, but I really don't think that oath-thing will hurt her very much. The fact is that cops and military personnel are already required not to violated the Constitution regardless of orders, so she can spin this as simply a reaffirmation of Constitutional obligations everyone agrees they already have. In other words, her response to criticism will be "what, do you support them doing things that violate the Constitution?"

I still think it's nutty, but I don't think it will come close to killing her in that state.

[DanteGabriel]

Tracker, I agree that it's stupid, but I really don't think that oath-thing will hurt her very much. The fact is that cops and military personnel are already required not to violated the Constitution regardless of orders, so she can spin this as simply a reaffirmation of Constitutional obligations everyone agrees they already have. In other words, her response to criticism will be "what, do you support them doing things that violate the Constitution?"

I still think it's nutty, but I don't think it will come close to killing her in that state.

Reid's attack dogs will pick up on that, the tea party stuff, and her opposition to water fluoridation and make a (fairly convincing) case that Angle is a wackjob.

And really, it's not hard to drill down into the crazy for these Oath Keepers. Associating the American government with "concentration camps" kind of makes you ripe to be painted as a nutter.

[Shryke]

The Oath-Keepers are fucking INSANE.

I remember reading about them when they came up in some other story a few years back. They are goddamn whackjobs.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker, I agree that it's stupid, but I really don't think that oath-thing will hurt her very much. The fact is that cops and military personnel are already required not to violated the Constitution regardless of orders, so she can spin this as simply a reaffirmation of Constitutional obligations everyone agrees they already have. In other words, her response to criticism will be "what, do you support them doing things that violate the Constitution?"

I still think it's nutty, but I don't think it will come close to killing her in that state.

Perhaps not, although much will depend on how she deflects the criticism. It's really easy for that kind of association to tar the candidate as a bit strange or unsettling, which can be death. However, I think Angle's support for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will be a bigger hurdle. Reid will use that to beat her like a dusty carpet.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Reid's attack dogs will pick up on that, the tea party stuff, and her opposition to water fluoridation and make a (fairly convincing) case that Angle is a wackjob.

She may be, but I don't think those attacks are going to play as well as you think. The flouride link, for example, boils down to her saying she doesn't want to use flouride solutions if they contain lead, arsenic, etc. Maybe that will lead undecided voters to conclude she is a nutter, and maybe not. But I don't think the way it is spun on a predominantly liberal message board is going to be exactly the way it plays out in Utah.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Oath-Keepers are fucking INSANE.

I remember reading about them when they came up in some other story a few years back. They are goddamn whackjobs.

Considering they didn't even exist until last year, that's quite a feat.

[Shryke]

Considering they didn't even exist until last year, that's quite a feat.

Sorry, was thinking of Promise Keepers.

[Mad Monkey]

Tracker, I agree that it's stupid, but I really don't think that oath-thing will hurt her very much. The fact is that cops and military personnel are already required not to violated the Constitution regardless of orders, so she can spin this as simply a reaffirmation of Constitutional obligations everyone agrees they already have. In other words, her response to criticism will be "what, do you support them doing things that violate the Constitution?"

I still think it's nutty, but I don't think it will come close to killing her in that state.

I agree. Personally, I am also against the idea of blockading American cities into concentration camps. I am also against replacing all the oxygen on Earth with highly poisonous carbon monoxide, and I believe strongly that the police and prosecutors should vigorously investigate cases of rape, burglary, and murder. Perhaps this makes me a right-wing extremist, but I can live with that.

(It's funny how these guys only declare oaths against things that everyone thinks is awful anyway. I think the implication is supposed to be that anyone whom they don't agree with politically is secretly or openly in favor of these things. Sort of like how all those special interest groups (feminist groups, pro-life groups, gun control, gun rights, environmentalists, etc.) rank or grade Congresspersons by how ideologically pure they are. If that's the case, it might not matter that much either way. It's not like voters always fall in lock step for or against other groups that try to do the same thing.)

But I don't think the way it is spun on a predominantly liberal message board is going to be exactly the way it plays out in Utah.

Nevada, right? I agree with your point though. This might not even turn out to be an issue at all, if the media doesn't bite. It's funny how crazy rumors and conspiracy theories can either leap to promise or vanish into relative obscurity seemingly at random. There was a bunch of noise a while back about Sarah Palin's pastor being a witch (or maybe he was just talking about witches) and apart from a few grainy video clips the story kind of died. Last year, there was something about Obama trying to build a NAFTA superhighway connecting Canada to Mexico, and I think there was a brief mention of that rumor on Keith Olbermann's show before it disappeared.

Compare to that the equally ridiculous rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim (secretly born in Kenya) with ties to Christian extremists from a madrassa in either Indonesia or Pakistan, which was allegedly under an invisible voodoo blockade by the United States at the time, but those got insane amounts of coverage considering how dumb they were.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree. Personally, I am also against the idea of blockading American cities into concentration camps. I am also against replacing all the oxygen on Earth with highly poisonous carbon monoxide, and I believe strongly that the police and prosecutors should vigorously investigate cases of rape, burglary, and murder. Perhaps this makes me a right-wing extremist, but I can live with that.

(It's funny how these guys only declare oaths against things that everyone thinks is awful anyway. I think the implication is supposed to be that anyone whom they don't agree with politically is secretly or openly in favor of these things. Sort of like how all those special interest groups (feminist groups, pro-life groups, gun control, gun rights, environmentalists, etc.) rank or grade Congresspersons by how ideologically pure they are. If that's the case, it might not matter that much either way. It's not like voters always fall in lock step for or against other groups that try to do the same thing.)

Nevada, right? I agree with your point though. This might not even turn out to be an issue at all, if the media doesn't bite. It's funny how crazy rumors and conspiracy theories can either leap to promise or vanish into relative obscurity seemingly at random. There was a bunch of noise a while back about Sarah Palin's pastor being a witch (or maybe he was just talking about witches) and apart from a few grainy video clips the story kind of died. Last year, there was something about Obama trying to build a NAFTA superhighway connecting Canada to Mexico, and I think there was a brief mention of that rumor on Keith Olbermann's show before it disappeared.

Compare to that the equally ridiculous rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim (secretly born in Kenya) with ties to Christian extremists from a madrassa in either Indonesia or Pakistan, which was allegedly under an invisible voodoo blockade by the United States at the time, but those got insane amounts of coverage considering how dumb they were.

Nevada, Thanks. I must need more coffee.

I don't think this particular election is going to turn on those type of "gotcha" issues, given Harry Reid's role as Majority Leader. Ultimately, it's going to be a referendum on the legislation Congress has passed since the last election. I'd agree that Angle could tip a close eleciton with stupid comments, but none of this stuff is going to be a game-changer. The major issues are just too....major.

ETA:

Here's a link to a long article on my favorite 2012 candidate. Not even sure he's going to run, but he's my kind of Republican.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/ride-along-mitch

[Mad Monkey]

I don't think this particular election is going to turn on those type of "gotcha" issues,

I don't think that they ever do. These issues mostly motivate the base. Portraying Obama as an alien terrorist motivates the hardcore right-wingers (who are the only people who would believe something like that) -- issues like that don't matter to mainstream conservatives (who are more likely to care about policy positions than End Times prophecies and demented fantasies) and liberals aren't going to believe anything that their opponents say anyway.

Ultimately, it's going to be a referendum on the legislation Congress has passed since the last election

Oh, completely. It also might end up becoming a referendum on any controversial state-level issues that are going on in the state. It could probably represent the whole "anti-incumbency" thing, where even conservative Republicans who voted against most of the major Democratic legislation are getting the boot for some reason in favor of slightly younger versions of themselves.

Here's a link to a long article on my favorite 2012 candidate. Not even sure he's going to run, but he's my kind of Republican.

I don't get why the GOP leadership doesn't encourage more of these guys. I could really respect the Republicans more (not vote for them, mind, but respect them) if their political positions actually matched up with their policy decisions the way this guy's does.

I checked his Wikipedia page and it seems to fit my general perception too. He created a permanent ceiling on property taxes (essentially a massive tax cut) but then he actually enacted another tax hike (sales) to pay for it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't get why the GOP leadership doesn't encourage more of these guys. I could really respect the Republicans more (not vote for them, mind, but respect them) if their political positions actually matched up with their policy decisions the way this guy's does.

Well, it sounds to me like people are pushing him. The problem is that he doesn't seem all that eager.

And at some level, that is a core problem of small government conservatives. I mean, if you're predisposed to believe less government is better government, how likely is it that you're going to want to get into government in the first place? And even if you are, you're not going to have the same hunger for power that people who believe in a more activist government are. Unless you have an ego the size of Newt Gingrich's.

Daniels seems pretty happy in his current job, and his family, etc., give him legitimate reasons to avoid Washington. The only reason his name is in the mix at all is because of articles like that one, and party folks who think he'd be a great choice. It doesn't seem to be coming from him, though.

Without over dramatizing it, he's a bit like Cincinnatus. It sounds like he'll do it, but only if he really thinks it is necessary for the sake of the country. And I'm not sure that kind of lukewarm enthusiasm will be enough. But apparently he bought into it enough to run for Governor, so you never know.

He created a permanent ceiling on property taxes (essentially a massive tax cut) but then he actually enacted another tax hike (sales) to pay for it.

I hate tax hikes, but that was really more an issue of fairness for school funding, and I really can't argue too much with that.

[DanteGabriel]

I agree. Personally, I am also against the idea of blockading American cities into concentration camps. I am also against replacing all the oxygen on Earth with highly poisonous carbon monoxide, and I believe strongly that the police and prosecutors should vigorously investigate cases of rape, burglary, and murder. Perhaps this makes me a right-wing extremist, but I can live with that.

(It's funny how these guys only declare oaths against things that everyone thinks is awful anyway. I think the implication is supposed to be that anyone whom they don't agree with politically is secretly or openly in favor of these things. Sort of like how all those special interest groups (feminist groups, pro-life groups, gun control, gun rights, environmentalists, etc.) rank or grade Congresspersons by how ideologically pure they are. If that's the case, it might not matter that much either way. It's not like voters always fall in lock step for or against other groups that try to do the same thing.)

It's not that they profess to hate things that most people hate. It's that their definitions of what constitutes an awful thing are kind of wack, and that they think the Obama administration is planning to herd people into concentration camps. I mean, yes, everyone's against concentration camps. But what kind of government action are they saying constitutes concentration camps? Arresting people who violate gun laws?

The thing that makes me think they're planning to fight the Civil War again is this part of their platform:

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

So if Texas declares its independence, they want American soldiers to violate their oaths to the federal government on behalf of a rebel state. Shucks, if it wasn't a bunch of right wing white folks doing this, we'd call it treason. Or "the War of Federal Aggression" I suppose.

There was a bunch of noise a while back about Sarah Palin's pastor being a witch (or maybe he was just talking about witches) and apart from a few grainy video clips the story kind of died.

I posted that story a few times over the course of the 2008 election season. It was footage of Palin accepting the blessing of a Kenyan "witch hunter" who'd apparently made his bones by accusing helpless old women of witchcraft and driving them out of their villages. I don't think I ever saw anything about that anywhere except Huffington Post, which did surprise me. Palin spent so much time railing against Obama and how he's not like "one of us", not a real American or whatever, and there she is with a fucking witch hunter laying hands on her and compelling her to crush their spiritual enemies.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I posted that story a few times over the course of the 2008 election season. It was footage of Palin accepting the blessing of a Kenyan "witch hunter" who'd apparently made his bones by accusing helpless old women of witchcraft and driving them out of their villages. I don't think I ever saw anything about that anywhere except Huffington Post, which did surprise me. Palin spent so much time railing against Obama and how he's not like "one of us", not a real American or whatever, and there she is with a fucking witch hunter laying hands on her and compelling her to crush their spiritual enemies.

Yeah, and that was obviously one of the stories that swung the election in favor of Obama.

[DanteGabriel]

Yeah, and that was obviously one of the stories that swung the election in favor of Obama.

Hrm, looking for the place where I suggested that to be the case... Yeah, okay, looks like I said nothing of the sort. In fact I'm pretty sure I said, in the excerpt you quoted, that no one but Huffington Post picked up the story.

Speaking to the larger point about how much these fringe stories affects a campaign... No single story really does, that much. But an accumulation of stories -- "Sharron Angle: rebel militia sympathizer, tea bagger, anti-fluoridation kook" -- that very often helps sets the tone for the campaign. It didn't matter for shit whether or not Hillary Clinton's plane was under fire when she was landing in Bosnia. But it became a thing and fed into the general perception of her as a serial truth-embellisher. Each of these incidents will help Reid define Angle as exactly what he wants to. Just like what's happening to Rand Paul now.

[Mad Monkey]

Yeah, and that was obviously one of the stories that swung the election in favor of Obama.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, and that makes me feel stupid. Thanks a lot, jerk; now I'm glad they cut your head off.

Daniels seems pretty happy in his current job, and his family, etc., give him legitimate reasons to avoid Washington. The only reason his name is in the mix at all is because of articles like that one, and party folks who think he'd be a great choice. It doesn't seem to be coming from him, though.

Avoid Washington? According to his Wikipedia article, he was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush. He is currently the Governor of Indiana and has a really high approval rating; to me, that implies that he might not only be involved in politics, but involved enthusiastically. It doesn't fit in with popular mythology, but I firmly believe that it is not possible to be a good leader without being a good politicians. We've had Presidents like that before, guys who thought they were so above the vulgar political process and they pretty much make up the top 10 list of worst presidents ever. That made sense to me; why should a legislator risk his own political future to support the agenda of someone who doesn't care about anyone else?

I don't think that Mitch Daniels is like that though; he might not like the idea of large government but that doesn't mean that he isn't willing to play politics. According to that link, he once spent a campaign sleeping in the houses of voters; that's a pretty good example of politics (and a pretty good thing to do in the first place; it's hard for politicians to get an idea of how their constituents live and there are few better ways than living in their homes!)

If he doesn't want to run for Senate or President, it might be because he likes his current job and doesn't want to leave rather than because he thinks that the federal government is too big. After all, if it was mostly the latter then wouldn't it make sense for him to take control and make the same cuts? It's not like it would even be the first time!

I mean, if you're predisposed to believe less government is better government, how likely is it that you're going to want to get into government in the first place? And even if you are, you're not going to have the same hunger for power that people who believe in a more activist government are.

I don't agree with that at all. People's positions on what the government should do or shouldn't do doesn't seem to determine whether or not they, personally, have a "hunger for power". For the early part of our nation's history (right up to the Civil War, actually) American politics and government was dominated by people who believed that the national government should be limited to a couple of areas (military defense, collecting tariffs, and avoiding the slavery issue, mostly). That had no effect on individuals being power-hungry or desiring to enter government.

In short (:D) they all want power; they just want it to do different things in different ways.

and there she is with a fucking witch hunter laying hands on her and compelling her to crush their spiritual enemies.

Yes, because persecuting "witches" is something that would NEVER happen in America, right?

I hate tax hikes, but that was really more an issue of fairness for school funding, and I really can't argue too much with that.

And I love social responsibility and I appreciate the fact that the Governor Daniels was willing to actually pay for the tax cuts that he enacted. Many other politicians slash taxes and create massive budget shortfalls (since they can't cut spending commensurate to that without annoying all of their voters and getting booted off). He found a practical, workable solution that fulfilled his own ideological goals, and that's commendable.

[Shryke]

Random Unemployed Man wins South Carolina Democratic Primary by being first alphabetically.

http://gawker.com/5558760/random-unemployed-dude-wins-south-carolina-democratic-primary

Some unemployed guy defeated a former legislator in South Carolina's Democratic senate primary. He had no money, no signs and no website. Did he win because of his brilliant policies? Or because his last initial came first in the alphabet?

Tonight, 32 year-old unemployed veteran Alvin Greene won a 16-point victory over his seemingly much more qualified opponent, 64 year-old Vic Rawl, a former judge and legislator. Greene did not fundraise at all, while Rawl had about $186,000 in cash, according to the AP. Greene is such a nobody that the Huffington Post asks at the end of their article: "Do YOU know anything about Alvin Greene? Do you have any photos of him? Email us."