Wait, first you said those people were a strawman, and then you seemed to identify yourself as one of these people. I must be misunderstanding. Don't you feel, as I do, that Obama was doing the right thing for the Constitution and the rule of law by seeking to try KSM in a civilian court?
Yeah, the people of Arkansas definitely couldn't use a public option, that's for sure! Good call on that one.
What makes this primary challenge a no-brainer is that Lincoln is extremely likely to lose no matter what. Does the challenger have a better chance, I have no idea, but it's hard to get much worse. Hard to argue that Halter is too liberal to win in Arkansas when he currently holds statewide office.
If the incumbent were someone like Ben Nelson with a good chance to hold the seat, personally I would have a much tougher decision.
This is like saying the Republicans need to become competitive among Iraq War protestors. Tea Partiers are not swing voters, they are not some group of energized new voters who are in play for both sides. They are, by no small coincidence, as loyally Republican as the viewership of Fox News.
Remember the 52 percent of Tea Party activists who initially identify as independent? It turns out that virtually all of them lean Republican. According to CNN, 88 percent of the activists identify or lean Republican, 6 percent identify or lean Democratic and only 5 percent fall into the pure independent category.
Remember that CNN pollster Holland reported that 87 percent of the Tea Party activists would vote Republican if there were no Tea Party-endorsed third-party candidate running? That makes perfect sense for a group that is 88 percent Republican.
Holland said that the 52 percent independent number is "slightly misleading." Sides said via e-mail that he considers it "highly misleading," since most independent leaners vote loyally for their party, even among the Tea Party activists identified in their survey. That "the Tea Party activists are mostly composed of Republicans, not independents," he writes, "combined with the relatively small number of activists, may hamper the electoral prospects of any Tea Party candidates."
I was watching CNN at lunch. I don't know if their coverage was accurate (I assume nothing either way) but they seemed to be making a big point of how the Democrats are supposedly milking this for political benefit. Certainly, the Democrats risk a backlash if they don't try to break the hold as expeditiously as possible. Real people are suffering here.
I could swear I've had this very argument many times here at this site. The parliamentarian has no official role in the budget process. There is no necessity for the Democrats to find 60 or 67 votes to overturn an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian or anything like that. Rather, the official ruling is made by the presiding officer of the Senate, who is the Vice-President or another D. If the presiding officer doesn't want to bother consulting with the parliamentarian, the only fallout is political.
Your use of the term "the same policy" is misleading, if not downright false. As Elmendorf's letter explains, the reason the premium goes up is because you're getting more coverage than you were previously. It's not "the same policy" if the new policy provides more coverage than the old policy.
It's interesting how you don't acknowledge that your whole story about Obama denying the CBO projected an increase until an aide corrected him an hour later was false, but instead just offer a new story about how it was really Jon Kyl who set the record straight. If Kyl said premiums would rise "for the same policy," he was wrong. If that was just your paraphrase, then you were wrong.
One of my law school classmates was nominated by Bush to be an appellate judge... at the ripe old age of 39, the exact same age as Prof. Liu. He had more experience as a practicing lawyer than Liu, but he didn't have Liu's brilliant academic reputation, so that sort of evens out. Either way, I don't recall either the Democrats or the Republicans having much of a problem with his confirmation, and that was just a couple years ago.
Obama: "Well, exactly, so let me — let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it's not factually accurate. ... Here's what the Congressional Budget Office says: The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent. What the Congressional Budget Office says is that because now they've got a better deal, because policies are cheaper, they may choose to buy better coverage than they have right now, and that might be 10 percent to 13 percent more expensive than the bad insurance that they had previously."
So Obama had to clumsily correct himself an hour later, huh? Not sure I'm buying your account.
The Washington Post reported this week that there is "little support among either Democratic or Republican lawmakers" for the Volcker Rule. If you have evidence that it's just a couple of rogue Dems who are standing in the way, please share it. Otherwise, consider the possibility that I am not the one who is making comments that are beneath him.
On some issues, the narrative that the Democrats basically have their heart in the right place but are frustrated by the need to accommodate annoying moderates like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman is a valid one. On banking regulation, I don't think this is the case. There are some Dems in the House who are genuinely pro-regulation but the Senate caucus seems to be almost entirely bought and paid for by the banking lobby.
In other words, yes, you want the President to run against his own party. You want him to go directly to the people and say things like "my party is refusing to pass the Volcker rule, make them do it." I wish I could see that as realistic.