U.S. Politics: lt's not hard

[Galactus]

States (in the real, not american sense) obviously do have rights. There are definitely rights that comes with being acknowledged as a sovereign state. (right to representation in various international bodies, diplomatic rights, etc. etc.)

[lokisnow]

IMO, neither Christie (too "North Eastern" and "Obama-loving") nor Paul (too unpredictably crazy) will get the nomination. Right now, I'd put my money on either Ryan or Gingrich.

I'd say both Ryan and Gingrich are outliers and are behind Walker. Walker is who I expect to win the nomination because I can't see Christie quitting the governership in order to campaign (as I posted the slate article before that explains New Jersey law basically prohibits Christie from fundraising for a national campaign while he holds state office). And quitting his job to run for the presidency will be a pretty negative 'first step' of his campaign. Christie was not selected as Romney's running mate because of these laws and he refused to resign the governorship.

Rand Paul will probably raise a McGovern-esque candidacy, but I don't know if he'll actually succeed at the level of McGovern, depends if he has political savants working for him that can maximize the system the way that McGovern and Obama did--so his prospects rest entirely on how well and whom he recruits as his campaign staff.

I don't think Paul Ryan will run for national office on his own terms, he's probably more likely to run for senator or governer first which will build up his 'seriousness' with the large political party bosses and donors. A Paul Ryan in his late fifties or early sixties is a far better presidential candidate than Paul Ryan now because he's so boyish that age and incumbancy will give him some 'due' and mature/gravitas factors in play.

Gingrich now has a television show and will be making far too much money having too much fun to take on the double-full-time job of running for president. He's strictly on the sidelines in this upcoming race.

Scott Walker will probably take the nomination because he won't be restricted like Christie and he has the benefit of not being in the spotlight right now, meaning he can take full advantage of the shadow primary to really network and leverage himself up within the party donors and bigwigs without the media taking any notice until after the 2014 midterms.

[thecryptile]

States (in the real, not american sense) obviously do have rights. There are definitely rights that comes with being acknowledged as a sovereign state. (right to representation in various international bodies, diplomatic rights, etc. etc.)

Depends on who's doing the acknowledging- think of the Srpska Republic. I doubt they have diplomatic immunity anywhere save perhaps Serbia.

Also, the US States are States in the "real" sense. In the case of the original 13 colonies, the US States surrendered some of their rights to a larger Federal system, similar to how European States have surrendered some sovereignty to the EU.

[Galactus]

Also, the US States are States in the "real" sense. In the case of the original 13 colonies, the US States surrendered some of their rights to a larger Federal system, similar to how European States have surrendered some sovereignty to the EU.

No they aren't. They don't have diplomatic accreditations, they don't have an independent foreign policy, they don't have sovereign territory. They were arguably states at one point, but they surrendered that status.

None of the US states can legally wage war or sign treaties on their own. European states still can.

[thecryptile]

Ultimately, I believe European States will give up those powers to some form of European Federal system. Already, the borders between European States are becoming more like the borders between US States.

[Galactus]

Ultimately, I believe European States will give up those powers to some form of European Federal system. Already, the borders between European States are becoming more like the borders between US States.

Oh, that's a definite option, however, it hasn't happened yet.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

States have the authority to accredit and send representatives to international bodies. They have the authority to choose to interact with those accredited bodies. Those are powers, not rights. They would only be rights if the States had surrenderd sovereignty/power to those bodies and as such were subject to those bodies impossing their power upon the now semi-sovereign States. To the best of my knowledge such a situation only exists in the US and other federal style nation-states.

[thecryptile]

Point taken, Galactus. US States used to be States (in some cases), but aren't anymore. European States probably have a few more decades of independence before we see a United States of Europe.

Back to government surveillance, I sometimes think that social networking is partly to blame for the general approval of constant monitoring. People who put every sordid detail of their lives out there on Twitter or Facebook don't care if the NSA is watching- anyone and everyone can get an eyeful.

Orwell never imagined that everyone, proles included, would gladly purchase tracking devices and use them to air their dirty laundry for the world to see.

[Gramsci]

Ultimately, I believe European States will give up those powers to some form of European Federal system. Already, the borders between European States are becoming more like the borders between US States.

"Nationalist" parties have been gaining momentum throughout Europe, and it is extremely unlikely that the relationship between European States will even remotely resemble that which exists between US States.

In fact, most observers believe that power is going to devolve into a more regional identity. This was visible as far back as the 70s. Joseph Rudolph wrote a fantastic paper on the topic titled "Ethnic Sub-States and the Emergent Politics of Tri-Level Interaction in Western Europe."

One of the biggest reasons that European States will never develop quite the relationship American States have is actually one of the biggest reasons they even started to try and build relationships in the first place, and that is France v. Germany, or so the likes of Saul Newman and Joseph Rudolph argued.

(If you want access to those articles, I have them sitting somewhere on my computer)

[TrackerNeil]

What an atrocious response. By doing it, our side opens the door to the other side doing it.

Atrocious? Well, let me take a break from sacking cities to explain my position, using PA as an example. Kathleen Kane is explicitly authorized by state law to decline to defend any law she believes to be unconstitutional. She asserts that she has a duty as a licensed attorney that runs the same direction. (Not being a lawyer, I'll decline to defend her assertion.) That's a pretty solid basis for her actions, in my book.

I think one can reasonably claim that independently elected attorneys general (which is what PA has) are a bad idea because they can oppose the will of the legislature and governor, although I might suggest that sometimes such opposition is sometimes a good thing. In any case, I don't see anything atrocious about my position.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TN,

I don't think your position is "attrocious". I think it is nuanced position dealing with a complex issue that has broader implications than the individual case we are looking at.

[TrackerNeil]

TN,

I don't think your position is "attrocious". I think it is nuanced position dealing with a complex issue that has broader implications than the individual case we are looking at.

Thanks for that. I will say that I can see difficulties when the AG is supporting a position directly contrary to the governor, but I can see virtues as well. The voters don't always make the right decisions, and it's nice to have a backstop to slow down truly stupid governmental activities.

[Fez]

Its almost impossible overstate how completely things have fallen apart in the House:

With support collapsing, a $44.1 billion transportation and housing bill was pulled abruptly from the House floor Wednesday, and top Republicans conceded it was a further sign that the party’s budget strategy is unraveling.

Putting the best face on the situation, Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office said that the House will return to the bill after the August recess. But House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers bluntly said the chances of resurrecting the measure are “bleak at best.”

“With this action, the House has declined to proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted three months ago,” said the Kentucky Republican. “Thus I believe that the House has made its choice: sequestration — and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary cuts — must be brought to an end.”

So-called ‘Tuesday Group” Republican moderates were among those most upset with the level of cuts debated. And while $350 million had been restored Tuesday night to soften the reductions from popular community development block grants, the combination of these defections plus a predictable bloc of conservatives who oppose most appropriations bills was fatal.

There might very well be a government shutdown in October just because of Republican incompetence at this point, and not even because leadership is trying to make a policy statement. The only path I see forward at this point is if Boehner sacrifices his Speakership and cobbles together around 40 less-extreme Republicans to start voting with Democrats on stuff. But even if they did that, most of them would probably get primaried and the whole cycle would start over again even worse in 2015.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

It would be funny if it wasn't my country... and if they weren't holding a gun to the head of the world economy.

[Shryke]

Another hilarious example of Charter School "education reform":

Former Indiana and current Florida schools chief Tony Bennett built his national star by promising to hold "failing" schools accountable. But when it appeared an Indianapolis charter school run by a prominent Republican donor might receive a poor grade, Bennett's education team frantically overhauled his signature "A-F" school grading system to improve the school's marks.

Emails obtained by The Associated Press show Bennett and his staff scrambled last fall to ensure influential donor Christel DeHaan's school received an "A," despite poor test scores in algebra that initially earned it a "C."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-exclusive-gop-donors-school-grade-changed-19807123?singlePage=true

[Arsibalt]

Atrocious? Well, let me take a break from sacking cities to explain my position, using PA as an example. Kathleen Kane is explicitly authorized by state law to decline to defend any law she believes to be unconstitutional. She asserts that she has a duty as a licensed attorney that runs the same direction.

PA constitution grants power to say what the law is to the AG? Neat. I guess state supremes are limited then - only allowed to disagree with the AG in one direction in PA's state constitution. Happen to know if her opinions are binding on lower PA courts?

[DanteGabriel]

Its almost impossible overstate how completely things have fallen apart in the House:

There might very well be a government shutdown in October just because of Republican incompetence at this point, and not even because leadership is trying to make a policy statement. The only path I see forward at this point is if Boehner sacrifices his Speakership and cobbles together around 40 less-extreme Republicans to start voting with Democrats on stuff. But even if they did that, most of them would probably get primaried and the whole cycle would start over again even worse in 2015.

I'll keep saying this just to rub it in the face of the Reaganites -- this is the result of decades of indoctrinating people into the notion that "government is the problem." Why are we surprised that people who have been weened on Reaganite snake oil are, in fact, problematic at governing?

The GOP Congress might be the most useless people on earth. They aren't even doing their jobs. So what are they drawing a salary for? Plotting how to keep their jobs?

[TrackerNeil]

PA constitution grants power to say what the law is to the AG? Neat. I guess state supremes are limited then - only allowed to disagree with the AG in one direction in PA's state constitution. Happen to know if her opinions are binding on lower PA courts?

I'm not sure where you got that impression, because I certainly did not say it. What I said was that the attorney general is not required to defend a law she feels is unconstitutional. That does not give her the power to strike down a law, nor does it require courts to agree with her.

[awesome possum]

Not sure where else to put this. A new study shows that "Medicare for all" would cover everyone and save billions in just the first year

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

[lokisnow]

Anyone out there who is a Republican willing to comment on this? I swear that there has to be a point where more people start abandoning the party. You're seeing more and more signs that people like McCain and Coburn have just had enough of the scorched earth madness. Even Burr from North Carolina said that another debt ceiling showdown was "the dumbest idea" he'd ever heard or something like it.

I think it was Coburn who said that part of why it's so insanely stupid is that it's impossible. The stated purpose cannot even be achieved. Do the people pushing it realize that? If not, how can they not?

I feel like the answer is somewhere in the story of what happened to the John Birch society and who they were. As best I can tell, all Tea Partiers are really just born again Birchers.

Anyone know a good book on that whole era of the Republican party?