US Politics: Competence Crisis?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Though overall I agree with Hillary on more issue than with Rand Paul, I think might prefer Paul as President. Hillary's too much of an insider to even pretend to try and curtail the Security State and the Military/Security Industrial Complex.

ETA: I also with my former congressman, Rush Holt had a shot at the Senate nomination in New Jersey. I think the nation could use a man of his principles and intelligence serving as a Senator. Unfortunately he's running against a man who literally pulled an old lady out of a burning building. Not that I have anything in particular against Corey Booker.

[TrackerNeil]

Though overall I agree with Hillary on more issue than with Rand Paul, I think might prefer Paul as President. Hillary's too much of an insider to even pretend to try and curtail the Security State and the Military/Security Industrial Complex.

So you'd prefer the candidate who pretends to try instead of the one who does not try?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So you'd prefer the candidate who pretends to try instead of the one who does not try?

I don't know what Paul would do. Maybe he would spout platitudes and then let the CIA, NSA, and Pentagon run amok, like Obama did. Maybe he'll actually fight them at every step and actually shake up the status quo a bit. With Hillary, I think there's almost a guarantee that it'll just be business as usual.

[awesome possum]

If someone manages to successfully run for and win the presidency, it will be business as usual. Anyone who threatens business as usual will not win, the establishment on either side will guarantee that.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't know what Paul would do. Maybe he would spout platitudes and then let the CIA, NSA, and Pentagon run amok, like Obama did. Maybe he'll actually fight them at every step and actually shake up the status quo a bit.

Rand Paul will do nothing of the sort. During the Bush years, most of these "libertarian Republicans" didn't have a word to say about Gitmo and Abu-Graib and the other nonsense that was going on, and I doubt that a few years under Obama have changed them. Paul's little filibuster was a show for the mob and nothing more; everyone knew it would change nothing, and I suspect that the good senator would have it no other way.

[Shryke]

Rand Paul speaks about against the Civil Rights act. The Pauls have rather blatant connections to hate groups. And one could go on about retrograde social policy or their non-understanding of economics all together or numerous other things.

Why would anyone ever want to put those racist moronic chucklefucks in charge of anything. It's embarrassing/terrifying enough they got elected in the first place.

[lokisnow]

Schweitzer really hurts. Big Sky country isn't the reddest of the red, but it's still red-leaning. And that was looking like practically a safe Dem pickup which is painful to lose.

Yes, Montana hurts, it hurts more not because it makes more vulnerable to losing the chamber, but because if the Dems hold at 51-52 senators, theres a DAMN good chance they could hit 60 senators in 2016. But that's the biggest fucking problem with democrats everyone is already conceding we'll lose big in 2014, so no body is fucking strategizing long term, or working to try to prevent a 2014 bloodbath. It doesn't have to be fucking 1986 in reverse.

Riffing of of 2014 a bit, here's a John Cassidy piece on the GOP in 2016 that I enjoyed. He sort of touches on the structural issues which make the Dems strong in the Presidential election years, but there's something he doesn't really mention that I've wondered about.

If the Republicans have a good 2014, something that seems quite possible, I wonder if it actually hurts them for 2016. I think it's unlikely that Obama's presidency ends in some kind of GWB disaster that poisons the well for the next Dem candidate like Bush did for McCain. I also think that Clinton, assuming it's her, would be unusually resistant to such a thing anyway.

But I think that a good cycle in 2014 will just embolden the rank-and-file of the GOP like it did in 2010 and convince them that their philosophy is sound and that of course the nation will see it their way. Then they push their candidate too far right again, and Clinton crushes them.

I think those are good points, not only would the republicans tack hard right again after such a victory which would help democrats electorally, but democrats have a perfect storm possibility in 2016. There's the structural advantage of the presidential election years in addition to it being the 2010 class of senators up for reelection, Dems will almost certainly regain the senate if they lose it in 2014, but as I said above, if Dems hold the senate at 51 or 52 senators in 2014, then 2016 has so many advantages to the party that there is a very good chance Dems could gain 60 seats in 2016. But that possibility is almost gone, because people are already cheerfully conceding the 2014 elections. :(

Its a bad deal. There's a ton of other open executive positions that aren't being filled that need to be, and this deal does nothing to rectify that. As for repercussions of going nuclear, as Reid himself said yesterday, the Senate has already ground to a halt, there's nothing else Republicans can do to muck up the works.

Jonathan Bernstein has been pointing out for months that the idea that the republicans can't do anything more to muck up the works is a myth. There's plenty they can do in addition to their current levels of obstruction. Believe it or not they have not yet reached 100% obstruction but they could very easily ennact if Reid were to make the reform he was threatening. which would have made his reform inert and impotent.

We should have just ran reform back in 2008, Republicans will discard the filibuster first opportunity they get, just look at how viciously the state legislature republicans are attacking and destroying our systems of government, that's the threat we face with Republicans getting control back in the legislature, the Republicans will destroy and attack america from within in their fanaticism.

[Fez]

Jonathan Bernstein has been pointing out for months that the idea that the republicans can't do anything more to muck up the works is a myth. There's plenty they can do in addition to their current levels of obstruction. Believe it or not they have not yet reached 100% obstruction.

There's tactics the Republicans haven't done yet, like forcing bills to be read out in their entirety, but I don't see how the result will be any different. Also, if they had the spine, Democrats could always go back to the well of "with 51 votes we can do anything" and change all the rules to prevent any obstruction. It would lead to a meltdown with the House of course, but, again, that wouldn't change the end results very much.

[TrackerNeil]

Does it not seem, in hindsight, that Reid should have whipped out the proverbial bazooka of this morning long ago?

I never know how to take Reid, honestly. Some say he's pugilistic, but his behavior seems to indicate a rather cautious nature, testing every patch of ground before he puts his weight there.

However, I think it's possible that he didn't have the support of his caucus three months ago, before Republicans started their current batch of nonsense. The majority leader is not a king, and if Senate Democrats just did not want to go along with a plan to restrict the filibuster there really wasn't much he could do about it.

[Fez]

Does it not seem, in hindsight, that Reid should have whipped out the proverbial bazooka of this morning long ago?

Yeah, but he's clearly been ready to do so for at least a year. His problem was always that he didn't have the votes, too many of the more senior Democrats didn't want to change things, like Levin, Boxer, and Feinstein. But it would seem things finally reached a breaking point for them. It helps that Merkely and Udall were keeping up the drumbeat of "we have to change this" for the past 3 years.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Rand Paul speaks about against the Civil Rights act. The Pauls have rather blatant connections to hate groups. And one could go on about retrograde social policy or their non-understanding of economics all together or numerous other things.

Why would anyone ever want to put those racist moronic chucklefucks in charge of anything. It's embarrassing/terrifying enough they got elected in the first place.

As a hardcore Libertarian, Rand's opposition to the Civil right's act wasn't necessarily racist. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. As for Ron's views, if we assumed every person was as racist as his or her father, we'd have to get rid of three quarters of congress. Which isn't really a bad idea, but not for those reasons.

[DanteGabriel]

Elizabeth Warren continues to do what we sent her to do, and to embarrass know-nothing cheerleader dipshits at CNBC as well:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/ouch_better_cnbc_anchors_might_be_required.php?ref=fpblg

[Fez]

So does anyone have any good information or a good sense of what this means for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) now that it presumably has a Director?

Not a clue. The big banks were all deadset against it though, so I have to think that means good things. Also its a five-year term, which I guess means that even if a Republican wins in 2016, they'll have to put up with Cordray until 2018. So that's the upside of Republicans delaying the nomination so long.

[TrackerNeil]

Their website is here, and there's a blog here. I might start checking these now for updates. I think it is completely absurd that a law passed by ~60 Senators couldn't officially have its director seated. And this isn't even Warren but the second choice.

I think Liz owes Mitch McConnell a thank-you note for that manuever, which freed her up to take Scott Brown's Senate seat.

[Mad Monkey]

As a hardcore Libertarian, Rand's opposition to the Civil right's act wasn't necessarily racist.

I don't consider it racist either, I just think it's one of those things where he doesn't really care all that much about the issue. He takes that detached, academic approach to racial discrimination ("I think it's wrong, but the government shouldn't really get involved, it's a matter of principle, you see, the Constitution doesn't specifically let us get involved in private racial discrimination. Maybe it should, but it doesn't yet, so...") because it's not his ox being gored.

Pivot to abortion, however, and he's all about federal government entanglement, legislatively defining life as beginning at the point of conception not because the Constitutional specifically says that the federal government can do this (it doesn't) but because he thinks it's the right thing to do and that it would be morally unconscionable not to protect unborn children.

Most people are libertarians about issues that they aren't passionate about. If you don't care one way or another whether I smoke pot, you're hardly a freedom fighter for not trying to stop me. I look at how they react when people do thinks that they actively and vehemently oppose. Are they as laissez-faire then, about something they are really passionate about?

[Shryke]

As a hardcore Libertarian, Rand's opposition to the Civil right's act wasn't necessarily racist. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. As for Ron's views, if we assumed every person was as racist as his or her father, we'd have to get rid of three quarters of congress. Which isn't really a bad idea, but not for those reasons.

His reasons for opposing it are stupid as shit and the usual thinly disguised class/race warfare bullshit used for the argument. He also has many connections to hate groups beyond just his father.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his fuckmuppetry.

[TerraPrime]

One of the problems with Libertarianism, imo, is that it naturally leads to racist (and sexist, and anti-gay) outcomes even when the people advocating for Libertarian policies are not themselves racists. The Libertarian's point of view is that we cannot use laws to coerce people into behaving in a non-racist ways, but they never have any good answers for the victims of these discriminatory actions.

[lokisnow]

speaking of competence crisis and fuckmuppetry in general:

http://www.npr.org/2...e-with-glitches

Can we formulate an X prize to fix this or something...

[Inigima]

Well, the argument goes that if the principle is important to you, you don't abandon it just because it produces outcomes you don't like, because principles shouldn't be violated.

It's not an argument I find terribly compelling, but you aren't going to convince many libertarians on that basis.

[Ser Greguh]

One of the problems with Libertarianism, imo, is that it naturally leads to racist (and sexist, and anti-gay) outcomes even when the people advocating for Libertarian policies are not themselves racists. The Libertarian's point of view is that we cannot use laws to coerce people into behaving in a non-racist ways, but they never have any good answers for the victims of these discriminatory actions.

I'll say it: most forms of libertarianism as an encompassing philosophy appeal to those primarily of a narrow cross-section of intellect: you have to be just intelligent enough to understand the basics of a complex system, but not intelligent (or educated) enough to understand the depths of its complexity, which leads to the general libertarian insane cacophony of policies that would be horrendous if actually enacted and that only really make sense in an environment of oversimplification and extrapolation. It's not that they're (necessarily) bad people, it's that they believe so strongly in their oversimplified theory that they are blind to actual data, or don't believe that a government that produces better results should supercede one that fits their ideas of ideological purity.