US politics 2

[Ser Greguh]

The analogy I like to go with (granted, it's not as visceral) is that Libertarians are like kids who first learn that the human body has the capacity to heal itself and who believe that that makes them immortal.

Like I said, not as visceral, but I think it's important to remind people from time to time that a general tendency toward stabilization is not exactly the same thing as an invulnerability shield.

[Ormond]

I'm guessing he'll endorse Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. I don't see any of his voters going over to Romney, and unless Gingrich pulls off some kind of miracle this week, he's out of the race, along with Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman. So we're down to a Romney/Paul battle the rest of the way (Paul doesn't have a chance in my mind, but he'll stay in it 'til the end).

Once Paul loses the nomination he's got nothing left to lose. He's not running for re-election to Congress, he's ready to retire. I'm betting he goes back to the Libertarian Party and throws in behind Johnson, who might get 5% of the popular vote next year.

I bet you see Rand run in 2016 against Christie, Daniels, Huckabee, and Giuliani.

The problem with the idea that Ron Paul would endorse the Libertarian ticket this year is that such an action would be used against Rand Paul if he does indeed run for the Republican nomination in 2016. I think I heard a TV commentator today say that Ron Paul probably will NOT work against this year's Republican nominee, whoever it is, precisely for that reason -- to help Rand out in 2016.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To me, the way the proposal is phrased, it looks like he's trying to circumvent the possibility of filbuster and other delay tactics.

It would be more convincing if he'd actually tried proposing some of this and was rebuked. But for this to be the first thing he tries is pretty disingenuous because he knows it will (rightly) be rejected.

But I'm not so naive as to think that there's not a list of issues voters have been shown to be focused on in the polls in the President's mind, along with thoughts on how to propose something on those issues that Republicans will likely stall or not support.

In last year's State of the Union, he promised to reform government, etc. In between then and now, he's done exactly nothing on that topic. It's almost like someone who was prepping this year's speech read over last years, said "oops, we didn't do this", so now they're tossing this out so they don't get hammered for proposing it last year and doing nothing about it.

But it's also very consistent with the Obama administration's main efforts since he first came to Washington, which has been a behind the scenes, little talked about massive effort to restructure and fix the bureaucracy, on everything from the streamlining of regulations to an overhaul of OPM's procedures.

I strongly suspect the President has had zero to do with something as detail-oriented as OPM procedures. In terms of formal regulations, I've seen no evidence of a "main effort" to streamline regulations, and the federal civilian workforce is growing, so I don't see the effects there either. Anyway, this particular initiative isn't internal procedures or regs -- it's legislation. And I really can't think of any concrete proposals he's ever made there.

I'm sure he genuinely supports the plan, and I'm also sure that it's timed for maximum impact on the voters.

The first thing that strikes me is that there is no way Congress will surrender this authority to him, and he knows that. So if he knows it won't happen, then actually accomplishing something can't be the goal.

[Jon Sprunk]

In last year's State of the Union, he promised to reform government, etc. In between then and now, he's done exactly nothing on that topic. It's almost like someone who was prepping this year's speech read over last years, said "oops, we didn't do this", so now they're tossing this out so they don't get hammered for proposing it last year and doing nothing about it.

Now, I know you're just spinning hyperbole here, FLoW, but unless you work in the west wing, you have no real idea what kinds of changes the administration might be making behind the scenes. For good or bad.

As for the whole size of government spin, check this site about the relative size of the past few administrations. I know it's a liberal site, so you're probably going to shrug it off as communist lies, but here it is anyway.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Now, I know you're just spinning hyperbole here, FLoW, but unless you work in the west wing, you have no real idea what kinds of changes the administration might be making behind the scenes. For good or bad.

I didn't say that I did. I'm talking about the President, and the things on which he has focused his attention. And I don't buy a claim that he has spent any significant time on the intricacies of OPM procedures.

As for the whole size of government spin, check this site about the relative size of the past few administrations. I know it's a liberal site, so you're probably going to shrug it off as communist lies, but here it is anyway.

http://www.politicus...nt-obama-reagan

Unless Obama took office immediately after Reagan, how is that relevant to a claim that Obama has downsized government since taking office?

Anyway, I don't want to get wrapped around that tangent. To me, the open-and-shut aspect as to the "good-faith" of this proposal is that he knows it has less than a snowball's chance in hell of passing. That makes it all politics. If his goal was to actually enact legislative reform along those lines, then he'd have proposed the actual change(s) he wants to make, and worked to get that enacted rather than grandstanding with a proposal he knows isn't going to pass.

[awesome possum]

The problem with the idea that Ron Paul would endorse the Libertarian ticket this year is that such an action would be used against Rand Paul if he does indeed run for the Republican nomination in 2016. I think I heard a TV commentator today say that Ron Paul probably will NOT work against this year's Republican nominee, whoever it is, precisely for that reason -- to help Rand out in 2016.

I don't see how it can be used against him if Ron does it. Unless Rand blindly follows his father and also endorses the Libertarian, then blaming him in 2016 for something his father did four years earlier is just plain silly and illogical.

Wait a sec, this is today's Republican party we're talking about. It makes perfect sense. The GOP will likely continue skewing farther into extreme social conservatism. That election is really going to be something. Hillary will almost certainly be the Dem nominee (though I can see maybe someone like Evan Bayh getting it) but the GOP battle should be just as good if not better than this year. And then there are the tea party seats up for reelection.

The first thing that strikes me is that there is no way Congress will surrender this authority to him, and he knows that. So if he knows it won't happen, then actually accomplishing something can't be the goal.

If the primary goal of getting the authority isn't accomplished, then the secondary goal of making the GOP look like obstructionist asshats again will have been accomplished.

[Commodore]

Once Paul loses the nomination he's got nothing left to lose.

Wrong. He doesn't want to turn GOP voters against his son by playing spoiler.

I bet you see Rand run in 2016 against Christie, Daniels, Huckabee, and Giuliani.

Agree, Rand is a secret libertarian weapon waiting in the wings. He has all the good qualities of his father and none of the bad. And he is not content to be a back bencher. I honestly think if he had decided to run this year instead of his father, he would have won the nomination.

Don't think Daniels will run unless his wife changes her mind. Jindal and McDonnell are two names I would add to that list.

[C S]

Anyway, I don't want to get wrapped around that tangent. To me, the open-and-shut aspect as to the "good-faith" of this proposal is that he knows it has less than a snowball's chance in hell of passing. That makes it all politics. If his goal was to actually enact legislative reform along those lines, then he'd have proposed the actual change(s) he wants to make, and worked to get that enacted rather than grandstanding with a proposal he knows isn't going to pass.

Based on recent history, if he proposed the change he wants to make, Congress would take that as the starting point for negotiations. With this approach, he has the opportunity to "give in" and give some of the control of any reform back over to Congress where (I actually agree with you) it should be. Now it's possible that it's all just a trap. But I think it could be a legit attempt at reform that doubles as an excellent trap if things go awry.

edited to remove typo

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wrong. He doesn't want to turn GOP voters against his son by playing spoiler.

Agree, Rand is a secret libertarian weapon waiting in the wings. He has all the good qualities of his father and none of the bad. And he is not content to be a back bencher. I honestly think if he had decided to run this year instead of his father, he would have won the nomination.

Don't think Daniels will run unless his wife changes her mind. Jindal and McDonnell are two names I would add to that list.

Daniels was a real disappointment. I think he would have been a good candidate -- all of the Romney pluses and none of the minuses -- and a good President. Like him or not, the guy has a real knack for pushing through substantive legislation despite opposition. This year, I think he'll get Right to Work. Oh well.

You might add Rubio to that list as well.

[Jon Sprunk]

I didn't say that I did. I'm talking about the President, and the things on which he has focused his attention. And I don't buy a claim that he has spent any significant time on the intricacies of OPM procedures.

You and I have very little idea of what the president focuses his attention on. The presidency looks like a 20-hour-per-day job (on a light day), so there are any number of things that get discussed and decided that most Americans don't know jack shit about. Now, if you hate the president and think he's a secret Muslim socialist, that assuredly scares the shit out of you. Hence the "drop everything and get this guy out of office" mindset.

Unless Obama took office immediately after Reagan, how is that relevant to a claim that Obama has downsized government since taking office?

I just enjoy puncturing the whole "dems = growing govt / repubs = shrinking govt" bubble that the GOP constantly spews. The reality is closer to the opposite.

To me, the open-and-shut aspect as to the "good-faith" of this proposal is that he knows it has less than a snowball's chance in hell of passing. That makes it all politics. If his goal was to actually enact legislative reform along those lines, then he'd have proposed the actual change(s) he wants to make, and worked to get that enacted rather than grandstanding with a proposal he knows isn't going to pass.

So the president takes a cue from the GOP playbook (more efficient government), and it has no chance of passing? Why, ever, do you think that might be true? Because the current repubs in congress would sell their wives, daughters, and left testicles to oppose anything Obama tries to do, even when it originally came from them?

Hey, you can't support the GOP bozos in office, and then turn around and blame the president when he turns the tables on them. If McConnell and Boehner had met him even one-quarter of the way on a LOT of issues, they could have claimed some big legislative victories these past three years. Obama was more than willing to give them some very good deals if it meant he could show some genuine bipartisan accomplishments.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You and I have very little idea of what the president focuses his attention on.

Technically, yes. On the other hand, it's a pretty safe bet that the CEO of most companies doesn't personally draft HR hiring guidelines.

The presidency looks like a 20-hour-per-day job (on a light day), so there are any number of things that get discussed and decided that most Americans don't know jack shit about

I think it's possible someone asked him about changes at OPM, but it is not the type of policy-driven event on which he's going to spend much time. That's a matter of practicality and perspective, not bias. I've participated in the regulatory process to the extent of submitting comments, etc. and if you think the President puts his nose in that kind of stuff, I think you'd be surprised.

Now, if you hate the president and think he's a secret Muslim socialist, that assuredly scares the shit out of you. Hence the "drop everything and get this guy out of office" mindset.

I don't think he's a secret muslim. I think he's not really a Christian either, but that's immaterial.

So the president takes a cue from the GOP playbook (more efficient government), and it has no chance of passing? Why, ever, do you think that might be true? Because the current repubs in congress would sell their wives, daughters, and left testicles to oppose anything Obama tries to do, even when it originally came from them?

These kind of arguments fascinate me. If goes from "no, that's not it" to "yes, that's it, but it's what you deserve!" You're actually agreeing with my point, and just attempting to justify his position.

Hey, you can't support the GOP bozos in office, and then turn around and blame the president when he turns the tables on them. If McConnell and Boehner had met him even one-quarter of the way on a LOT of issues, they could have claimed some big legislative victories these past three years. Obama was more than willing to give them some very good deals if it meant he could show some genuine bipartisan accomplishments.

So it really is just politics? Then we agree.