First, I don't believe that or anything like that will happen. But second, given there is absolutely no chance that the senate would convict, I'm not exactly sure why I am supposed to care.
Gridlock is what we should be hoping for. If trumped up hearings (which will just paint the Republicans as extremists who are every bit as out of touch as the president) bring on gridlock, then bring on the hearings. Without gridlock, Obama will (continue to) give away the store.
Booman has been shouting down critics and defending the punching of the DFHs pretty much from the beginning. Everything is 11th dimensional chess or a "pragmatic" flushing of principle down the toilet. Once in a great while, Booman might make some mild criticism of Obama, and then castigate commenters who agree with that criticism. I gave up on Booman a long time ago. Principle matters.
It's been Obama and his post partisan unity shtick that has made all this possible if in fact it comes to pass. Obama came in with the GOP back on its heels, in disarray and with a mandate for real change. He came in with strong Democratic majorities in both houses. He came in with the chance to be bold and transformative, especially in those first hundred days. And he blew it. And he's still blowing it.
If the GOP takes the congress, or Democratic leaders from have no one to blame but themselves, starting with the White House. Especially the White House.
First, yes. There would be teeth gnashing if Hillary Clinton, acting as the presumptive nominee, did what Obama just did on this POS legislation. But what does it matter? Hillary Clinton is not the presumptive nominee, she's not my senator and she isn't the one who is supposed to be leading the party.
My ire is not reserved for Obama. There is plenty or ire to go around. Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and all the rest get their share. And yes, Clinton too if she supports this...crap.
I want Democrats to act like Democrats. At the top of the list ought to be protecting the fundamental freedoms that the Bill of Rights was designed to keep being eviscerated by "well meaning" government.
Maybe Obama would use the powers in this bill wisely. But what about the president after that, and the president after that?
The onus here is on the leader. Obama is supposed to be the leader now. Clinton's stance is not the point.
Is this "Clinton would have done it too" some sort of talking point from the Obama campaign? It sure as heck is showing up all over the blogosphere. But ya know what? What Clinton would or would not have done isn't the point. In fact, it's simply irrelevant.
What is relevant is this: FISA wasn't broken. Obama has a chance to lead and he's punting by basically grasping onto the shingle that Bush put out which says "Trust me. The intentions are good."
We're supposed to be a nation of laws. This is a bad law. It essentially grants telecoms immunity for breaking the law that was (and is) on the books and renders the idea of private communications among Americans obsolete. All that is required to stop any court from looking at any suits brought is for the AG to say "we thought it might be necessary to stop terrorism." They don't have to mean it, they just have to say it.
Quit excusing badness by telling me someone else would have done it too. I'm not a HRC supporter and if she had done it, I'd be just as upset.
Hmmm....what next, color coded warning levels?
Sorry, the coat hanger isn't a winning argument. It's weak. It's Rovian. It's Bush. It's playing on fear. No thanks.
The best way to handle any potential for far right justices that might be appointed by McCain is to get strong majorities in both houses of congress. The senate has to advise and consent and with some gains in that chamber, provided Dems have a spine, the courts will be safe.
Blanket statements like yours ("Hillary Clinton, nor her supporters, had any objection to caucuses till she started losing them.") are by definition wrong because you treat "supporters" as a monolithic block when in fact "supporters" in this case are millions of individuals
Some of us (including non-Hillary supporters as well) have been opposed to caucuses for quite a while. In my case, my opposition goes back to the words of Howard Dean in a Canadian interview that was later dragged out to ambush him and cause him to pledge his fealty to the Iowa caucuses in order to remain viable as a candidate. What did Dean say in that 2000 interview? (Free link.)
NY Times: 2000 Tape Shows Dean Maligning Iowa Caucuses
Four years ago, Howard Dean denounced the Iowa caucuses as ''dominated by special interests,'' saying on a Canadian television show that they ''don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people, they represent the extremes.''
''Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids,'' he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. ''On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?''
A moment later, he added, ''I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.''
For me, Dean had it right back then. And I bet my bottom dollar that Dean feels exactly the same way today. But it goes beyond just caucuses. It goes also to monstrosities like the Texas "primacaucus" hybrids where people who are able to take time out to turn up twice in the same day get their single person votes counted for 150 percent of the masses that turned out to vote in the primary.
The best thing that the Democratic Party could do in the future would be to totally eliminate caucuses and help the states find a way to fund full day primaries with all the apparatus of the state's ability to run the coming general election behind them.
Once again, a diary built on non sequitur. The case being made here is that HRC has somehow dissed Robert Byrd, and that HRC's proposed gas tax holiday is somehow equivalent to the McCain proposal that Byrd denounced. It is wrong on both points.
Look, I understand the desire to support the candidate that you prefer. But this stuff is just stretching to breaking points on credibility.
HRC didn't diss Byrd. And HRC's gas tax holiday plan does not deplete the highway fund. Argue it if you like but everything else is just semantics.
Ya know, I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton myself. Heck, I wasn't even a huge fan of Bill. But calling her the next Zell Miller? No, I don't think so.
Hillary is what she is and that's a moderately liberal to moderately conservative (depending on the issue) middle of the roader. To be a Zell she's have to be on the extreme and if there is one thing that neither Hillary or Bill were or will ever be, it's extreme.
I hope beyond hope that she decides to stay out of the race for the presidential nomination (though it's pretty damned apparent that she is already in.) I don't believe she can win on the national level which is one reason that I oppose her. But fear of Hillary becoming a neocon Zell Miller clone? No, I don't fear that any more than I the StayPuft Marshmallow Man.
Eoj Namrebiel blew it today. Big time. Lamont picks up more momentum and wins the primary. CT residents look at Namrebeil and the unpopular war he so loves and start asking themselves "Why should we vote for this schmuck?" Lamont rides the momentum from the primary victory into the election where Namrebeil and the token Republican split the Republican vote while Lamont picks up the Democrats and enough independents to carry the election.
Eoj Namrebeil showed his lack of campaign skills in his own presidential run and truth be told I think his presence, what with all that charisma, was actually a drag on the Gore campaign in 2000. It's time for Eoj to go back to his role as Willy Tanner on ALF.
Gov. Corzine has blown it on this. Big time. Remember how popular Gingrich's shutdown of the federal government was? Now take that to the state level where the services that people depend on are much more an immediate part of their daily lives.
The Democrats in the NJ legislature begged Corzine to go along with some form of compromise on the sales tax and budget issue (and give the legislature some credit for realizing that turning to sales taxes increases is insane) and he wouldn't listen. When Matt Stoller says that the legislature would not compromise, he's just wrong.
Another area where Stoller is absolutely wrong is when he says "The sales tax isn't ideal, but it's a reliable source of revenue, more so than income taxes." No, sales taxes are NOT more reliable. In fact, sales taxes are the very first thing to respond negatively to a cyclical economy. We depend on sales taxes here in Alabama and every time there is the least downturn in the economy our state budget goes in the toilet.
Others have pointed out the regressive nature of sales taxes (and property taxes when they inflict rates assessed at "current value" on family homes.) If NJ has a tax revenue issue, it should look at passing progressive increases in the state income tax, raising "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco and so on. Corzine is handing the state to Republicans. Count on it.
No, not if you are Joe Lieberman and just pulled out every stop to try and keep this primary from happening.
Nothing is ever sure in these things but I truly believe Lieberman thought he could keeo Lamont under 20 percent. More than 20 percent for Lamont is bad news for Lieberman. There is no way to spin this otherwise.
Running as an indy would be irresponsible and stupid. The split vote would kill any Democratic chances. I think the way Hackett was treated sucks but I'll be dang if I am going to advocate the equivalent of campaign suicide over it.
I'm inclined to disagree with the "whiny" crap and regard the "best shot at beating Dewine" as not relevant. If Brown has all the money (as Kos says), I don't see why anyone should have worried about forcing Hackett from the race. That would have taken care of itself. I don't much believe in the idea that "chosen" Democrats should be free to run in primaries unopposed when they are not the incumbent. PauL Hackett was a breath of fresh air. He was a plain talker. If he's gone for good, I think it's a loss for the party and for us.
As far as "cult of personality" and "putting your faith in one man instead of yourself and participation in the system", isn't that what the leaders who forced Hackett to withdraw are guilty of doing? Perhaps if they really believed in the "system", they'd have kept their noses out and let the "system" and those who believe in it work it all out.