American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[aeu]

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

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

And he has a pending felony charge:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37589451/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Court records show Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

South Carolina, too small for a Republic, too large for an asylum.

* deep sigh *

Judge Rawl, the guy who lost to Green, granted me a continuance the morning my daughter was born. I mentioned it to him a couple of years back and he said it was the only time anyone had to ask for a continuance because he was holding his wife's hand while she was giving birth.

:)

[Shryke]

South Carolina, too small for a Republic, too large for an asylum.

* deep sigh *

Seriously Scot, but Abyssal Horror did your state piss off like 5 years ago?

Judge Rawl, the guy who lost to Green, granted me a continuance the morning my daughter was born. I mentioned it to him a couple of years back and he said it was the only time anyone had to ask for a continuance because he was holding his wife's hand while she was giving birth.

:)

That's incredibly sweet.

[TrackerNeil]

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.

No, I don't think so; in fact, I think specific pieces of legislation rarely influence the majority of voters. Hell, I'll bet most Nevada voters - or voters in any state, for that matter - couldn't tell you more than one or two pieces of legislation enacted by this Congress, and they probably couldn't tell you much about that one or two. Fact is, most Americans just don't pay much attention to politics, and certainly not with the kind of scrutiny one often sees in this thread. I posted some figures earlier this year that showed that a moderate voting record doesn't really help legislators very much in terms of elections, and I think that goes to show how little attention voters pay to individual bills.

Honestly, I think that, like most elections, this one will be decided on the perceived strength of the economy, influenced by any gaffes or missteps Angle (or Reid) makes in the next five months. However, if I were Harry Reid, I'd be thanking my lucky stars for the Tea Party. They delivered the Republican least likely to unseat him.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

Heh. It was sarcasm. Nobody heard about the story, and nobody really cared.

Avoid Washington? According to his Wikipedia article, he was once the head of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant as President, and was focusing largely on the family issues reported in the story. I think its a lot different being a glorified pencil pusher than President in terms of how it affects daily lives and social activities -- or lack thereof.

It's one thing to be an 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.

The stuff he seems to like, though, seems quintessentially small-town. The guy who liked the stuff reported in that story may not be like the Washington party/social scene, and his wife/family may not either.

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!)

Again, my point is that campaigning/governing a rural state like Indiana seems worlds away from being President. I'm not saying he won't be interested, but I think that huge lifestyle/environment factor may play a significant role.

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".

Make it a hunger for political power. And I'm not trying to say it's an either/or thing, but I do think there's a continuum of sorts. It's easy to understand someone who wants to go to Washington to "help people" by enacting legislation and policies. It's a bit tougher for someone to think they want to go to Washington to make sure that not very much happens. Now, I do think that the small v. big government issue has come to such a head now that it will draw in more of the small government conservatives, and that's the part I think makes it more likely Daniels will run.

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

I think people who lean Republican, and who want power, tend to gravitate more towards private industry than the public sector. Obviously, that's not always the case as there are always plenty of people willing to seek office. But I do think a lot of the smartest and most talented Republicans prefer the private sector.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, I don't think so; in fact, I think specific pieces of legislation rarely influence the majority of voters. Hell, I'll bet most Nevada voters - or voters in any state, for that matter - couldn't tell you more than one or two pieces of legislation enacted by this Congress, and they probably couldn't tell you much about that one or two. Fact is, most Americans just don't pay much attention to politics, and certainly not with the kind of scrutiny one often sees in this thread.

I think this year may be different because of the recession and the controversy over a lot of what has happened. And I think some voters are going to bundle together mentally the health care bill, bailouts, stimulus, etc., and view them all sort of as a package deal in terms of how they affect the deficit and economy. But I suppose we'll have to see.

However, if I were Harry Reid, I'd be thanking my lucky stars for the Tea Party. They delivered the Republican least likely to unseat him.

I agree with you on that.

[TerraPrime]

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.

Which is why I have found most small-government type conservative politicians to be more like shell game con artists than true statesmen. I think nobody personified this better than Reagan, who managed somehow to shepherd the national discourse to distrusting your own government while conducting a game of economic-chicken with the former USSR, supporting anti-government rebels in different countries, etc.

I think the basic philosophy of a small, limited government is ultimately at odds with modernity, at least beyond the city or county-level.

[DanteGabriel]

How's this for small government conservatism? John "Stiffy" Boehner, House Minority Leader, thinks taxpayers should help bear the cost of the BP cleanup.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/boehner-government--ie-taxpayers--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php?ref=fpa

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party! Always willing to fight the good fight on behalf of oppressed megacorporations.

[Arlingzen Bill]

South Carolina, too small for a Republic, too large for an asylum.

* deep sigh *

Judge Rawl, the guy who lost to Green, granted me a continuance the morning my daughter was born. I mentioned it to him a couple of years back and he said it was the only time anyone had to ask for a continuance because he was holding his wife's hand while she was giving birth.

:)

It may just be me, but I would find it hilarious if he won the main election... if he actually got the unemployed vote... If he actually is a plant, it would be funnier.

I vote Ser Scott has to vote for Alvin

[TrackerNeil]

How's this for small government conservatism? John "Stiffy" Boehner, House Minority Leader, thinks taxpayers should help bear the cost of the BP cleanup.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/boehner-government--ie-taxpayers--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php?ref=fpa

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party! Always willing to fight the good fight on behalf of oppressed megacorporations.

At the end of the day, I think the taxpayers are going to be stuck with at least part of the bill because - surprise, surprise - BP probably doesn't have the resources to cover it. And I'm OK with that, largely, except I'd like to see the creation of a cash reserve, funded by energy companies, earmarked towards bearing the cost of cleaning up these little oopsies. However, given that we couldn't get that kind of deal with respect to the financial industry I can't see it happening with energy.

[Frog Eater]

How's this for small government conservatism? John "Stiffy" Boehner, House Minority Leader, thinks taxpayers should help bear the cost of the BP cleanup.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/boehner-government--ie-taxpayers--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php?ref=fpa

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party! Always willing to fight the good fight on behalf of oppressed megacorporations.

It makes perfect sense: Republicans fight for LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IN BUSINESS!! NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION!! FREE MARKETS ARE THE ONLY GOOD MARKETS!!

Then, an oil rig blows up and they cant stop the gusher of oil because there were no government regulations covering the emergency shut off valves, and the government should pay for it because there there was no regulation stating that there should have been some sort of operating emergency shut off valves. This makes perfect sense.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

How's this for small government conservatism? John "Stiffy" Boehner, House Minority Leader, thinks taxpayers should help bear the cost of the BP cleanup.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/boehner-government--ie-taxpayers--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php?ref=fpa

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party! Always willing to fight the good fight on behalf of oppressed megacorporations.

From the article:

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel emails to say "Boehner made a general statement about who is responsible for the spill, and the federal government oversight was clearly lacking, but he has said repeatedly that BP is responsible for the cost of the cleanup."

This is just the left trying to cram words down his throat.

[DanteGabriel]

From the article:

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel emails to say "Boehner made a general statement about who is responsible for the spill, and the federal government oversight was clearly lacking, but he has said repeatedly that BP is responsible for the cost of the cleanup."

This is just the left trying to cram words down his throat.

No, it's his spokesman trying to remove words from his throat. I mean, who you gonna believe, what Boehner actually said, or what his spokesman said he said?

[Ormond]

At the end of the day, I think the taxpayers are going to be stuck with at least part of the bill because - surprise, surprise - BP probably doesn't have the resources to cover it. And I'm OK with that, largely, except I'd like to see the creation of a cash reserve, funded by energy companies, earmarked towards bearing the cost of cleaning up these little oopsies. However, given that we couldn't get that kind of deal with respect to the financial industry I can't see it happening with energy.

According to the financial analyst on MSNBC this morning, if present estimates of the cost of this hold up, BP should have enough money to pay for it by itself, given the profits they have reported the last few years.

That of course doesn't preclude BP or its congressional supporters arguing otherwise.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, it's his spokesman trying to remove words from his throat. I mean, who you gonna believe, what Boehner actually said, or what his spokesman said he said?

Exactly where did Boehner say that the federal government should cough up the money for this?

[DanteGabriel]

Exactly where did Boehner say that the federal government should cough up the money for this?

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

...

So today I asked Boehner, "Do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?" The shorter answer is yes.

I wish the reporter had supplied an exact quote, but I don't have a hard time believing Boehner will back the Chamber of Commerce's explicit wishes to have the government pony up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

I think he's correct. Clearly, the federal government bears some responsibility for piss-poor regulation and/or the enforcement of regulations. It is equally clear that the federal government is already taking actions to try to contain/cleanup this mess. And if BP ends up going belly-up because it can't afford the costs, then the only alternative to the Feds cleaning it up is...nobody cleaning it up.

However, I would agree that his statement could be read both ways, which is why the subsequent statement from his spokesman is relevant as a clarification rather than a retraction. But once any ambiguity was been clarified, as stated in the article, it's disingenuous for someone to post that Boehner supports the idea that taxpayers should bear the cost at this stage, because that's not what he said.

I wish the reporter had supplied an exact quote

Which is precisely the point.

but I don't have a hard time believing Boehner will back the Chamber of Commerce's explicit wishes to have the government pony up.

Your belief as to what Boehner may do in the future isn't a reasonable basis to attack him now.

[DanteGabriel]

Josh Marshall of TPM illuminates the issue a little better:

Okay, it seems like we know what Boehner meant. It seems he thinks BP should be on the line for everything. But only up to $75 million once the oil itself is cleaned up.

Basically, the position is that BP should pay for removing the oil from the places that it went. But if the oil broke your stuff or put you out of business or whatever, BP's liability for that should stay capped at $75 million.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/ahh-hah.php

Well, FLoW? Do you think BP's liability for expenses post-cleanup should be capped at $75 million?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Josh Marshall of TPM illuminates the issue a little better:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/ahh-hah.php

Well, FLoW? Do you think BP's liability for expenses post-cleanup should be capped at $75 million?

I honestly don't know. Ordinarily, I'd say absolutely not, and think they should be able to be sued to bankruptcy if that what it takes. I have zero sympathy for them.

BUT, it appears that there is a law already in place that caps their damages at $75M. So, the idea is that the law will have to be amended to eliminate or raise those caps, and the question then becomes whether it is proper to change the caps after the incident already has occured. I'd certainly be in favor of changing that law for all future spills, certainly.

But I honestly don't know if that is proper or not to do that after the fact because I'm not that familiar with the constitutional and/or statutory precedents in that regard. I do believe that you can't ignore what your legal system tells you just because you don't like the result in a particular case. So if it is okay legally, under precedent, to lift those caps, I'd support it.

By the way, it's my understanding that the feds also have the right to fine BP something like $4500/gal for any spill, apart from the direct cleanup costs. Depending on the estimates of the spill, that could be $10B or more that the Feds could then use for lawsuit damages against BP if the caps can't be lifted. I'd certainly support max fines to achieve that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Our illustrious Majority Whip S.C. Rep. Jim Clyburn now claims the victory of Mr. Greene over Judge Rawl is because Mr. Greene was a Republican Plant

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNyH1XTKf1Adc_-fGBAefXf8YYEQD9G8IMKO0

From the link:

"Here is Alvin Greene, unemployed, he goes into the Democratic headquarters and pays $10,000. That's no little bit of money for an unemployed person," House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said. "This guy, who is he? Where did he come from?"

Greene, 32, stunned the Democratic Party establishment Tuesday night when he handily defeated Vic Rawl, a four-term state lawmaker and former judge, for the party's nomination. Rawl, who had campaigned little but already raised $186,000, was forced to scrap a fundraiser planned for Thursday night.

Greene has not reported any fundraising, run any ads, or put up signs or a website in his challenge of Republican U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint. He had been considered such a long shot that neither his opponent nor the media bothered to check his background, which includes a November arrest on a charge of felony obscenity.

It sounds, as a friend of mine just said, a little "tinfoil hatty". However, I really do wonder where Mr. Greene got the $10,000.00 filing fee to run for Senate in SC.