For curiosity sake, does anyone know if that has successfully worked on in a Presidential election?A primary challenger successfully knocked LBJ out of the running in 1968.
Perry would be a lot worse, of course, but I still think the GOP nominee will be Romney in the end. They want to win, after all, and Romney has the best chance.I agree that Romney has a better chance of winning the general (given that he wins the primary) than Perry. But I am not so sure that the people who remain convinced that Republicans should win also believe that, so I'm not really sure how relevant it is.
The Stonecutters won't let them run a beautiful failure.That was actually their strategy in picking their last VP nominee.
I'll be the first to admit, I had projected qualities into him as an officeholder which I wanted to see: a left-wing version of Bush's The Decider, who would ram his policies through Congress...He isn't that. He never was that.
60 senators is a large majority, especially for the Democrats
At this point, filibustering is basically just a weapon that Dems have handed the GOP but which they themselves refuse to use.
sswiller: I'm reading The Shock Doctrine, and there is a case to be made that the current administration has been a bait & switch from the get-go. One of the chapters in the book talks about how in Poland after the break from the Soviet Union, the people had high hopes that Lech Wałęsa and the Solidarity Party would mean greater freedom and quality of life for all. He came from austere beginnings and was a dissident for a while. Ultimately, he did the opposite, privatized Poland's most lucrative industries and made life much harder for the working class*.You calling Obama one of the "Chicago Boys"? :)
*I am summing up what is obviously a complex history that I just scraped the surface of, but I think the analogy holds true.
Honestly, a constitutional amendment to set campaign finance limits may be the only way we ever get any mitigation of corporate money.How will this amendment be phrased? The details are important for deciding what it should be titled. If the phrasing limits it to campaign finance only, shutting out groups who can afford to buy commercials but not groups who can afford to buy whole publishers, then I suggest calling it the "News Corporation and General Electric Incumbency Protection Act."
Davenhill: "A lot of the bickering between Republicans and Democrats seems about as laughably absurd as the "Taste Great!" "Less Filling" shouting matches over the same brand of crappy beer. They're all bought and paid for by the same corporate interests..."No. First, I said "a lot" not "all". Secnd, the "a lot" specifically addressed voters of one party complaining about the opposing party selling out to corporate interests, when both parties are culpable. That should be clear from the very next sentence of the same paragraph. Unless I somewhere said that the primary complaint of Democratic voters in 2010 was about corporate corruption, I don't see how you could have reasonably drawn that conclusion.
Trurl : Yet you're blaming the 2010 voters for not supporting "Less Filling" and saying how important it is that they do so in 2012.
If Democrats can’t deliver on good policy with strong popular support and dominant congressional majorities, then they’re too incompetent to be in power.I don't think so. He's as unhappy with Obama as anybody. What I really meant is after the 2012 election. I don't think anybody is going to be able to govern after 2012, Republic or Democrat. Especially, after a Obama vs. Romney election. It *will* be a contest over who is liked least worst.
Davenhill: I sincerely believe that the single most important issue, the sine qua non of functioning representative democracy in our republic, is campaign finance reform.It's also funny how people latch on to things that aren't said, then condescend to their own strawmen.
ennui.bz: Nope. It's funny how people latch onto things that will never happen, are almost by their definition quixotic to avoid dealing with actual political/economic/philosophical problems.
Avenger: You speak of "environmental policies" as if they are simple political issues -- like farm subsidies or funding for highway maintenance.This comment illustrates why the Democratic party is so dysfunctional.
In reality, protecting our environment and developing a sustainable human community is a pre-condition to our continued survival as a species. If we don't have a functioning ecosystem, we have nothing. Literally nothing.
We should push for a sustainable global community whether or not it's politically popular or even feasible. It's the right thing to do for the future of the human race.
If you disagree with this -- if you think that "environmentalism" is some kind of boutique luxury that can be set aside when times are hard, then that means you must agree with the GOP that climate change isn't a threat and humanity will never be endangered by our use of the biosphere. If so, great. But just say so next time.
NY Times, May 2007: Mr. Obama would create a public plan for individuals who cannot obtain group coverage through their employers or the existing government programs, like Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.I'm getting really tired of people claiming that we're imagining Obama presenting himself in the way he absolutely did.
. . .
Wash. Post, February 2008: Both Obama and Clinton propose "option to buy into a public plan."
. . .
Chicago Tribune, October 2008: Obama's proposal "[c]reates a new public plan as another option."
jhandy: This is the first time I've actually considered not voting for Obama, because the environment isn't just another issue - it's about the survival of civilization, possibly the entire fucking human species.I agree. And these two stories are very disappointing. Here's Politifact's three page summary of Obama's overall record on the environment. IMO it's better than I expected, and certainly better than the comments here would suggest.
Bush passed his most noxious policies, like the Patriot Act and Iraq with Democratic party votes in accordance with the law.Bush passed his most noxious policies by getting lawyers at the OLC to write statements claiming that he had power, and then denying anyone, including Congress, the ability to read those statements or even to learn that they existed.
Which one of these two assholes do I want to have the nuclear launch codes?
He's already done it twice, you know. Maybe you could look at the type of people that he actually has nominated.So Obama it is. Hold your nose and vote if you have to, but do vote if for no other reason than the Supreme Court nominations.Why do we think he'll do any better with this than he has with anything else?
I no longer trust that he won't try to "compromise" or "be bipartisan" and put an anti-choice, pro-corporate dyed-in-the-wool Republican on the high court.Well OK then.
The term "Laffer curve" was reportedly coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for The Wall Street Journal) after a 1974 afternoon meeting between Laffer, Wanniski, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy press secretary Grace-Marie Arnett. In this meeting, Laffer, arguing against President Gerald Ford's tax increase, reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate the concept.[6] Cheney did not buy the idea immediately, but it caught the imaginations of those present.posted by saulgoodman at 9:13 AM on September 7, 2011 [2 favorites]
Republicanism As Religion, Andrew Sullivan, The Dish, Sep. 12th, 2011
If your view of conservatism is one rooted in an instinctual, but agile, defense of tradition, in a belief in practical wisdom that alters constantly with circumstance, in moderation and the defense of the middle class as the stabilizing ballast of democracy, in limited but strong government ... then the GOP is no longer your party (or mine).posted by ob1quixote at 2:02 PM on September 12, 2011
Religion has replaced all of this, reordered it, and imbued the entire political-economic-religious package with zeal. And the zealous never compromise. They don't even listen.
« Older Henry's Kitchen is a cooking show unlike any other... | An unbelievable collection... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hippybear at 11:29 AM on September 5, 2011 [7 favorites]