U.S. Senate: Burning Down the House

[Lemur]

Here's the roundup:

The Coleman/Franken deathmatch appears to be falling to the coke-addled comedian rather than the suspicious present-taking former Democrat who celebrated his 20th birthday tripping on acid at Woodstock. Anyway ... looks like some Republicans plan to block Franken from being seated (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/cornyn-promises-filibuster-on-franken-seating-2009-01-02.html). That should be worth making popcorn for:


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken next week. The new National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a certificate of election. Franken will not have that certificate as long as the election is challenged in the courts — a likely scenario, with Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) legal team already attacking the credibility of the recount process.

Meanwhile, the governor of Colorado is tapping the Denver Superintendent of Schools (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/02/ritter-make-senate-announcement-saturday/) for a Senate vacancy. Hey, why not, right? At least the guy knows how to work a mimeograph machine without turning his shirt purple. We hope.


Gov. Bill Ritter is shattering conventional wisdom in tapping the popular but politically untested Michael Bennet, superintendent of Denver Public Schools, as the U.S. Senate replacement for Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar. The surprising move, expected at a state Capitol news conference Saturday, perplexed many political insiders, most of whom considered Bennet the darkhorse candidate in a field crowded with big name, political veterans like Bennet's old boss, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper.

To some, the reaction wasn't head-scratching. It was jaw-dropping.

"I'm very surprised. He's improbable. He's risky," said pollster Floyd Ciruli, who figured the little-known Bennet would barely be a blip in the polls because he's so unknown. . "He's qualified, and he could be a really, very special and sensational senator. But at least initially, from the political side of it, you are puzzled."

Then we hear solid confirmation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28470603/) that Caroline Kennedy has been crowned anointed exalted enshrined appointed to her Uncle's Senate Seat. Except then we hear she hasn't. Except maybe she has (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/nyregion/03caroline.html?hp). Oh, who knows, really. This dynastic stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapsburg) makes my teeth ache.

Last, and certainly not least, we have Blago and Burris and that whole slow-motion train wreck. Latest news bits: Harry Reid is going to try to do something and fail at it (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6570544&page=1). 'Cause that's how he rolls, yo. Apparently the Illinois Secretary of State's threat (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/illinois_sec_of_state_refuses.php) to not certify Burris is all hot air, which is too bad.


A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.

"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.

"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added

I'm getting tired just listing all of these mini-dramas. Am I missing any?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.

[Xiahou]

"I'm very surprised. He's improbable. He's risky," ...he was the highest bidder. ~:idea:
You know there had to be some serious quid pro quo going on there. The only difference with Blago is how blatantly ham-handed he was about it.

As for Burris, I'm really looking forward to watching the fireworks. :yes:

[CountArach]

Glad to see Big Bad John (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vcB7uCqdFk) back on the political scene.

[Lemur]

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.
Actually, looks like things are breaking his way (http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1511344).


The state Canvassing Board will reconvene Monday to declare which candidate received the most overall votes in the election. Barring court intervention, it will be Franken.

Franken's lead now stands at 225 votes after gaining 176 votes more than Coleman in Saturday's review of the formerly sealed absentee ballots. Franken started the day with a 49-vote advantage.

The 933 absentee ballots were among those rejected by poll workers but later found to be excluded in error. The campaigns eventually agreed they should be added to the recount.

Unless Coleman wins a pending court petition that seeks to add hundreds more ballots to the recount, the counting is done and the Canvassing Board can sign off on the result on Monday or Tuesday. The result cannot be certified for at least one more week under state law.

I know very little about Coleman and Franken, beyond a few public factoids I can toss at either. Both Jews, both spent the majority of their lives as Democrats, both were countercultural hippies back in the day, etc. What's your basis for despising Franken, TuffStuff, beyond him being a Dem? Surely Coleman would qualify as a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only) in your book, yes?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually, looks like things are breaking his way (http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1511344).


The state Canvassing Board will reconvene Monday to declare which candidate received the most overall votes in the election. Barring court intervention, it will be Franken.

Franken's lead now stands at 225 votes after gaining 176 votes more than Coleman in Saturday's review of the formerly sealed absentee ballots. Franken started the day with a 49-vote advantage.

The 933 absentee ballots were among those rejected by poll workers but later found to be excluded in error. The campaigns eventually agreed they should be added to the recount.

Unless Coleman wins a pending court petition that seeks to add hundreds more ballots to the recount, the counting is done and the Canvassing Board can sign off on the result on Monday or Tuesday. The result cannot be certified for at least one more week under state law.

I know very little about Coleman and Franken, beyond a few public factoids I can toss at either. Both Jews, both spent the majority of their lives as Democrats, both were countercultural hippies back in the day, etc. What's your basis for despising Franken, TuffStuff, beyond him being a Dem? Surely Coleman would qualify as a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only) in your book, yes?

Coleman is no RINO. He's pro-life, pro war in Iraq, pro-gun, etc. I can't even really think of a single position that would put him at odds with the party platform, which is weird. Pro-life jews in higher US politics are the most rare thing imaginable. Until Cantor, Coleman was THE ONLY one and around 45 of our Senators and Representatives are Jewish (around 9%). I'm not so sure that I trust Coleman, he seems like an opportunist, but Franken stands agaisnt everything I beleive in AND I hate his personality.

The only consolation is that Minnesotans elected a total lunatic to the Governorship in Ventura. Nobody expects much more than some novelty from that State, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a B comedian and a B WWF wrestler run the state. Maybe they could elect a bunch of actual clowns and mimes to the House? They could all carpool to DC in a tiny car.

[InsaneApache]

I read Frankens book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right a couple of years back. It started off well enough but then it just got tedious basically re-telling the same things. A good few laughs in it though.

Looks like he might have upset a few folks on the right. Not entirely a bad thing. :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Pardon me for being cynical, but I am cynical.

So far as I am concerned every race in every election is subject to serious tampering.

Now I don’t really expect a Republican to win in Minnesota, regardless of the vote.

Maybe it is a bit like the previous Governor’s Election in Washington, count the votes till the Dems win. This time they avoided the recount by frontloading the fraud.

I believe people deserve the government they elect, but the Parties are choosing for us and the whole system need an overhaul.

Remember that saying…No matter how you vote today, when you die, you’re a Democrat…

It doesn’t matter which party or if both parties do it, it needs to be fixed or just forget about elections.

I wouldn’t trust a dogcatchers election these days.
:oops:
:focus:
:gah2:

someone voted for that guy?:smash::inquisitive:

[Lord Winter]

Wow, that wiki RINO article sickens me. I've never seen a bigger example of partisan MaCarthyism and everything else that is wrong with our system.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We deserve Senator Franken.

There are few more ardent and vocal supporters of the left-fringe of the Democrat party to be found. This one, at least, had the courage to run for office. Puts him ahead of Soros and others in my estimate.

Politics is a tough game, especially at the national level -- and this time Franken and company came out on top. Happens.

[Hooahguy]

you know when i read the title to this thread i thought that the senate actually burned down the place. o well. better luck next time.

[Lemur]

Sorry hooahguy, it was just a lame reference to an old song (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnAvTTaJjM).

-edit-

And now this from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50405S20090105) ...


Democrat Al Franken will be declared the winner of the tight U.S. Senate contest in Minnesota, emerging from a ballot recount with a slim margin over Republican Norm Coleman, state officials said on Sunday. But Coleman, the incumbent, has asked Minnesota's supreme court to require that a few hundred additional absentee ballots be included in the recount -- and he could then ask the court to investigate the contest all over again.

"At the moment, Franken has a 225-vote lead," after the weekend counting of what were deemed the last uncounted absentee ballots, said Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat who oversaw the process.

Ritchie said unless the supreme court acts on Coleman's request and orders more ballots to be counted, he will reconvene the state's Canvassing Board at 2:30 p.m. CST (2030 GMT) on Monday to certify Franken as the winner of the November 4 contest.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Alfranken.jpg

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Glad to see Big Bad John (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vcB7uCqdFk) back on the political scene.

That's hysterical! :laugh4:

[Lemur]

Looks like Burris intends to storm the doors of the Senate Chamber (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17060.html). He's gonna need ninjas. Lots and lots of ninjas.


Roland Burris touches down in Washington Monday afternoon, setting up a high-stakes showdown with Senate Democrats later this week.

Burris – traveling frugally — leaves Chicago's Midway Airport at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Southwest Airlines and is scheduled to arrive at Baltimore-Washington International Airport at 4:45 p.m., according to details released by his aides.

A defiant Burris told reporters in Chicago before his flight that he plans to tell Reid that "I'm here to take my seat."

[Marshal Murat]

It seems that Pelosi is busy buying matches (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143)


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

[Lemur]

MM, that article is hilarious. I think it's gone past hyperventilating and passed out on the sidewalk. Note that any article which cannot used "Democrat" versus "Democratic" correctly instantly loses credibility points, since the whole linguistic tic of never using "Democratic" is a holdout of the die-hard wingnuts.

Samples from the article: "Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian ... exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership ..." And all this over a rule change? Do we have any notion (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html) of how the Republicans changed the rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html) when they had their 2000-2006 joyride (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/senate.rules/index.html)? But note that the author of that article doesn't mention the current President or the recent Congresses, just goes back to the glory days of Gingrich.

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

[Vladimir]

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

:laugh4: Pot, please welcome kettle to the Backroom. :medievalcheers:

[Lemur]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

It is possible to be a leftist shill and still attempt fairness in your posts. I'm a conservative shill who tends to support the G.O.P. in pretty much everything, but I won't cheat and don't support conservatives who cheat... often.

Example. The Giants and the Patriots are playing a game. Some players would cheat on both teams in order for their own team to win. Other players desperately want their team to win, but would not compromise their own factual legitimacy to make it happen. Nobody on either team has business making the play calls.

You're like the relatively objective cornerback for the Giants wearing pinstripes to the game and hoping people confuse you with the ref.

I don't beleive that you are a bad or unfair guy, but your credibility as a mediator has been shot to hell regarding the Election of 2008. That is all we are saying. But so is mine, really.

By definition of supporting a "party" whether political or otherwise we are partisan. THere is nothing wrong with it. Everyone is partisan in some things.

[Lemur]

So by your thinking, TuffStuff, it's entirely immaterial whether I try to post reliable information or not, correct? 'Cause I picked a side in the '08 election cycle, and that means that anything I say, by definition, is on a par with the most insane mouthings from Daily Kos or MoveOn.org.

This is what I don't understand. Seamus, for example, tilts to the right, but he goes out of his way to find good information and post worthwhile stuff. But I don't see any Dems or lefties on this board jumping down his throat because he's got a viewpoint. Now, I may not live up to the exceptional level of posting quality that Seamus demonstrates, but I'm probably funnier, and I make an effort to link/source good, credible information.

That makes me a football player attempting to fool you into thinking I'm the ref? Really?

I think, rather, that you and Vladimir are attempting to create a false equivalence (http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/generalized_def.html) where everyone is a partisan shill, and therefore there's no functional difference between a post in the comments section of Michelle Malkin and a published article in the Christian Science Monitor. It's a way to not only level the playing field but destroy the very concept of a "playing field," since games with rules have a well-established liberal bias.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

Victory is mine!

Blast!

Another drive-by impailing.

Despite how much you would like to believe it, I don't have a cuddly little Lemur folder where I document all your .org contributions. But if I did, I'm sure there would *never* eeever, be anything that could be perceived as partisan.

Hell, your post in itself is reactionary and generally speaking are some of the most subjective and reactionary here (but never dull)! But that's cool, because like I indicated, this is the Backroom. :duel:

[Lemur]

Roland Burris gets body-blocked (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/07burris.html) at the U.S. Senate door. I guess it had to happen.


Burris made his way to the office of Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, to whom he presented his credentials, only to have her reject them. Afterward, the aspiring legislator stood in the rain outside and declared, “Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois.”

Not yet, he isn’t. The problem for Mr. Burris, of course, is that he was named to the seat by the embattled Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich. Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor’s office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate’s standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

[drone]

Looks like DevDave (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2097880&postcount=50) got his wish. ~D

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy. :yes:

[Lemur]

... aaaaand now the Dems say Burris can join the Senate (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08burris.html). What a complete waste of time this has been.

Is it just me, or does Harry Reid strike you as one of the most ineffective political leaders in the last 500 years? This dude does not understand arm-twisting, backroom threatening, pol bribing or just generally getting-his-way-ing. Reid lacks the spine and persistence of former Senate Majority Leaders such as Bill Frist, Tom Daschle or Trent Lott. The descriptors that come to mind for Reid are "limp," "flaccid," "empty" and "impotent."


After a private 45-minute meeting with the former Illinois state attorney general, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that they were open to recognizing Mr. Burris’s appointment as long as he met several conditions.

They said that Mr. Burris, whose appointment was challenged because of the federal corruption inquiry surrounding Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, has to win the signature of the Illinois secretary of state and persuade a state legislative committee considering Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment that there was nothing untoward about his selection.

Blago ran rings around the Washington Dems. You have to kind of admire his moxie, as well as the dead opossum on his head.

[drone]

George Bush, low approval ratings, lame duck status, and all, has run rings around Reid and the Washington Dems. Completely spineless. So don't be giving Blago too much credit. ~D

[Spino]

...Is it just me, or does Harry Reid strike you as one of the most ineffective political leaders in the last 500 years? This dude does not understand arm-twisting, backroom threatening, pol bribing or just generally getting-his-way-ing. Reid lacks the spine and persistence of former Senate Majority Leaders such as Bill Frist, Tom Daschle or Trent Lott. The descriptors that come to mind for Reid are "limp," "flaccid," "empty" and "impotent."

They left out 'arrogant' and 'immature'. Reid may look like an elder statesman but he acts like a histrionic brat who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.


Blago ran rings around the Washington Dems. You have to kind of admire his moxie, as well as the dead opossum on his head.

I suppose, but that would imply he's schooled in the Machivellan Method and thus in possession of more than a modicum of gray matter. Given that his current political woes were caused by similarly ballsy and cavalier decisions I'm inclined to think he's a mediocre minded egomaniac who blindly follows his id. Then again maybe I'm wrong, maybe a modicum of gray matter isn't required to run circles around the pack of proverbial rocket scientists currently running Washington.

I think modern science has yet to determine exactly what that thing is on the top of his head. It looks like a mutagenic manifestation of some follicular horror you'd find in a high school yearbook from the mid-70s...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It seems that Pelosi is busy buying matches (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143)


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

For a less "florid" discussion of the changes, consider this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28512317/).

These changes will, at the discretion of the House leadership, limit GOP ability to offer competing leglislation and will prevent the forced shuffling of committee chairs that would have occurred at/neaer the end of Obama's first term. This is a solidification of the power of the majority to control legislation in the HofR.

It is reflective of the fact that the Dems WON. When you win a larger majority, you win the right to promote/enforce your agenda -- within Constitutional constraints -- on the minority. The GOP changed rules when it had power, and the Dems didn't like some of those changes. Its a part of the game.

[Lemur]

Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/405406/oh-yeah-roland-burris-is-your-new-senator#more-405406) has a typically amusing summary of the Burris saga:


Burris’s brief but successful campaign was a colorful circus of race-baiting, publicity stunts, and general knavery that embarrassed everyone. But! The one thing is was not was illegal, so in the end everybody who had so firmly been against bowing to the Blagojevich Taint had to relent.

Alas, all of Roland Burris’s new Senate colleagues think he is a pathetic clown who stooped to an appointment that no decent Democrat would accept, and he is just a junior senator anyway so it’s not like he’ll be in line for any tasty committee chairmanships or anything. Basically he is now the most powerless senator in America, and the most reviled.

Meanwhile, the Minority Whip (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17384.html) is warning Dems that they won't seat Franken for at least another month.


In an unusual move, Kyl went to the Senate floor this morning to lay out all the reasons why the Minnesota Senate election remains unresolved, and he listed Sen. Norm Coleman’s arguments before the Minnesota courts. Coleman’s election lawsuit contends there are newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, wrongly rejected absentee ballots and double counting of votes.

“Clearly there’s something wrong here and it has to be resolved by court,” Kyl said. “There are no stipulations for when proceedings must be completed. Estimations are that it could take a month or more.”

Lastly, there's a whole string of Republican Senators announcing retirement, opening up seats that were thought to be safe. Three official retirements so far. (http://www.senateguru.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=447)

[Strike For The South]

4) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), 67
Hutchison recently announced the formation of a gubernatorial campaign exploratory committee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1208/Hutchison_announces_shes_running_for_governor.html). If Hutchison is to seriously challenge sitting Republican Governor Rick Perry, she would ostensibly have to resign her Senate seat so that she could campaign full time (and not be attacked by her gubernatorial opposition for leaving Texas with only one Senator - and, with that Senator being John Cornyn, she could be attacked for leaving Texas without any real Senate representation). With Texas having a relatively early filing period (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2008dates.shtml), we could expect a Hutchison resignation before the end of 2009 if she is truly serious about a 2010 gubernatorial bid, and all indications are that she is.


LOL:laugh4: But it's Big Bad john.

[Lemur]

Strike, you may tower over other men the way a great redwood tree looms over mere oaks, but even you don't have Blagojevich Balls.

Contains some bad language, but is very funny. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMwgV7QqghI)

[Strike For The South]

ahahahahahhaha. No one cares because you're a chump! ahahahahahhaahah.

Here you are sir. You're a disgrace to Illinois....Maybe not to Illinois but if you were the governor of any other state. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk5-SKdurmc)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, let's just have a look at what Pelosi herself had to say:
In 2004;
Pelosi Seeks House Minority 'Bill of Rights' (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A680-2004Jun23.html)

House Democrats’ anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber’s top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a “Bill of Rights” for the minority, regardless which party it is.
...
Pelosi’s document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: “Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority” have silenced Democrats and choked off “thoughtful debate.” She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

“When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America,” Pelosi said in an interview. “We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard.”
...
Democrats and several analysts say recommital votes are largely meaningless. Hastert’s leadership team portrays them as “procedural votes” rather than matters of policy, and unwritten parliamentary rules make it essentially treasonous for lawmakers to vote against their party’s leadership on procedural matters.

The inevitable party-line vote that keeps Democrats from recommitting a Republican bill “is the whole ballgame,” Ornstein said, because it prevents Democrats from having a debate and a vote on the substance of their alternative proposals.

And in 2008;
House rule changes squander good will:
Pelosi package angers GOP (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/07/house-faces-early-partisan-fight-over-rules/)

The spirit of bipartisan cooperation didn’t survive the first day of the 111th Congress as House Democrats pushed through a package of rule changes Tuesday that the furious Republican minority said trampled their traditional rights to affect legislation.
...
The most contentious rule change places new restrictions on motions to “recommit” a bill for new amendments to the committee that approved it. In practice, that motion often meant a lengthy or even permanent delay in passing the measure. Motions to recommit would still be possible, but the new rules allow the full House to reconsider the bill almost instantaneously.
...
Because of the special rules regarding budgetary legislation, Republicans argued that the new restrictions on motions to recommit will hobble their ability to challenge tax increases that are included in larger, “must-pass” bills.

Unlike in the Senate, where the threat of a filibuster gives the minority strong bargaining leverage, the minority party in the House has relatively few tools to challenge the majority’s will. Mr. Dreier noted that the recommit motion had been in place for 100 years, and he rejected Democratic claims that the new rules were a minor tweak to an obscure parliamentary proceeding.

In Congress, he said, “process is substance.”

Ah, hypocrisy - where would we be without it? (And yes, I am well aware it happens in both parties, so spare me the 'but the GOP did this' whining.)

CR

[Lemur]

What the heck? (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/nyregion/22caroline.html)


Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision. [...]

Ms. Kennedy’s decision comes nearly two months after she, along with several members of Congress and leading political officials, began auditioning to replace Mrs. Clinton in the coveted position. She attracted relentless attention and was viewed by many as the most likely choice for Mr. Paterson, given her national stature and ties to the incoming Obama administration.

“We’re back to Square 1 again,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College. “It’s like Chutes and Ladders — we keep climbing and then we’re down the chute again.”

[Crazed Rabbit]

Paterson has (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm) appointed an upstate NRA-backed conservative Dem congresswoman!


ALBANY - Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night.

The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.

Hahaha! This is great! So much better than Andrew "End Run Around the Constitution" Cuomo!

CR

[Lemur]

I'm just glad it's not another Kennedy. Down with dynasties!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Paterson has (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/dave_picks_gillibrand_as_liberal_dems_ho_151502.htm) appointed an upstate NRA-backed conservative Dem congresswoman!



Hahaha! This is great! So much better than Andrew "End Run Around the Constitution" Cuomo!

CR

I'm psyched. That was clearly a responsible and relatively middle ground appointment. If she doesn't turn out to be a psycho hose-beast, I might vote for her just to keep her in action. No more Hillary and her ilk. I've always even liked Chuck Schumer - honorable people who care about New York and have some talent.

Clinton is a monster. Kennedy is an entitled dud.

Dynasties and Royalty can create great heirs and heroes, but they also have more instances of inbreeding. JFK seemed like a dynastic talent, George H W Bush had a special knack for foreign policy, etc.
Filter them out mercilessly and maybe you'll find one or two worth voting for.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm psyched. That was clearly a responsible and relatively middle ground appointment. If she doesn't turn out to be a psycho hose-beast, I might vote for her just to keep her in action. No more Hillary and her ilk. I've always even liked Chuck Schumer - honorable people who care about New York and have some talent.

Clinton is a monster. Kennedy is an entitled dud.

Dynasties and Royalty can create great heirs and heroes, but they also have more instances of inbreeding. JFK seemed like a dynastic talent, George H W Bush had a special knack for foreign policy, etc.
Filter them out mercilessly and maybe you'll find one or two worth voting for.

I'm a bit more cynical than you with this. Paterson is looking to win a gubernatorial election not too long from now. To do so, he needs upstate votes and not just NYC & Albany. This is a good tool for doing that -- picks off middle-of-the-road types for him. Moreover, I think Cuomo has his sights set on the same office, though maybe a term or two further down the road.

Clinton is not a monster, just amoral -- not that this makes me all "warm and fuzzy" towards her. Schlossberg would have been a big crowd pleaser among the Dems, though her whole first few years would have to have been pure OJT. At least this nominee can be seen as an experienced legislatrix.

As to Schumer, I tend to loathe his policy stances on 90% of the issues -- but I will admit that he does keep the interestes of NY in mind (some Senators lose their path more thoroughly).

[Crazed Rabbit]

The ship is sinking! Commence firing!

Gov Paterson (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/23/2009-01-23_source_gov_paterson_was_underwhelmed_wit.html) unloads on Kennedy. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242009/news/regionalnews/gov_says_caroline_turned_nasty_151614.htm)

According to sources, at least - but why am I not surprised at this evaluation of Kennedy?

CR

[Lemur]

Lots of news today, let's see, Blago said he considered Oprah, and he's going on a media blitz tour while the Illinois Senate indicts him. How does he walk with balls that big?

Also, a New Yorker writer produces one of their 10,000 word articles about Caroline Kennedy. It's a long, tedious read, redeemed by the a few choice quotes (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/02/090202fa_fact_macfarquhar?currentPage=all):


Caroline Kennedy’s friends are always saying how normal she is, and it appears that they are right. Normal people do not run for the Senate. Normal people with lots of money and families that they like tend to want to enjoy the money and the families. They do not spend their winters on the phone grovelling for support, or their summers at obscure state fairs ingesting disagreeable and fattening local food. [...]

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

-edit-

Blago on The View, part 1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3cKSUZda4) and part 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8oEA9kHCo).

[Xiahou]

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”That alone leads me to think it was a decent choice. If this blowhard hates her so much, she can't be all bad. :yes:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Paterson has appointed Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term congresswoman from Hudson, near Albany. “Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”[/indent]

Memo from the 21st century, pal:
We no longer select rulers by dynasty. You better try real hard to get your tiny, rigid brain around that fact.

And yes, Blago has some massive cojones. But it's all for nothing.

CR

[Lemur]

I'd just like to know what's so bad about representing cows?

-edit-

Meanwhile, the Franken-Coleman trial (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/38344479.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU) began this afternoon. I'm sure it's all terribly exciting, although Coleman has kind of shown his hand by taking a lobbyist job (http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/WelcomeColeman012309) already.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Guv Patterson misplayed this Senate appointment process big time. Putting the boots to Kennedy after she bowed out was unnecessary, politically stupid, and shows a lack of class. Whatever one's opinion of her, she has Obama's ear & gratitude for the Kennedy Dynasty backing during the nomination battle with Clinton. Every state in the Union is looking for a handout/bailout/legislative policy favor from the White House...how does dissing her help the Guv's chances getting Federal help for New York State? Might be an unreturned phone call or two in his future. He also managed to piss off many of his Dem. party members for jumping Gillibrand ahead of quite a few senior party hacks, especially Cuomo, who's State Attorney Generals post is highly coveted by others if he's selected as Senator. His State budget proposal has received very little support from his own party. The special legislative session he called in late November to cut additional spending was ignored by his own party, with a majority in both the Assembly & Senate no less. They basically thumbed their collective noses, collected their per diem & had a nice $200K dinner banquet on the taxpayer. Nothing useful was accomplished.

Patterson looks weak, indecisive, dithering, in way over his head. I'm predicting he will finish this term and get the boot from his own party. I hope Gillibrand sticks just because it pisses off the Downstate Banana Republic that NYS government has become. :whip:

[||Lz3||]

little offtopic, but I read a joke last night.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con...
Then what's the opposite of Progress?"

[ICantSpellDawg]

Patterson IS in over his head and unprepared for the job. I think that he will bow out to Cuomo in the next election to make it tougher on Giuliani.

I think that a female Democratic Congresswoman that wins 58% of a Republican stronghold, seems to understand finance, speaks and writes Chinese (Mandarin), and has a gifted public persona was an eminently smart decision. She may be one of the few positive things that Patterson will leave us with.

EDIT: It seems, as expected that she is pretty hard left on abortion and has just flip-flopped on Gay issues, affirming her support for gay marriage to a prominent leader. Oh well. You wonder what a politicians true feelings are - did they support gay marriage the whole time and just vote with their local constituency or are they just voting with their constituency when they hit state-wide office? I bet a little bit of both - or they just don't care one way or another and wan't to save the political points for their core personal issues.

[CountArach]

Gillibrand, from a purely political standpoint, was really quite a poor decision. She will no doubt be fighting an incredibly tough primary battle against much more progressive Democrats (Who stand a decent chance of winning the primary in New York). That means the eventual Democratic winner will have to spend a lot of very important money and time fighting against each other while the Republicans can get themselves sorted out much more easily (Though I hear the talent pool in New York is incredibly thin...).

[Ironside]

Memo from the 21st century, pal:
We no longer select rulers by dynasty. You better try real hard to get your tiny, rigid brain around that fact.

And yes, Blago has some massive cojones. But it's all for nothing.

CR

You just keep naming them as such... ~;p

Obama II vs Mccain III
Bush II vs Kerry
Bush II vs Gore II
Clinton III (well, before the name change) vs Dole

It was slightly better before that though, but the senate seems to have a simular naming habit.

Yeah, yeah got a new hobby pointing that out after I realized how commmon that is in the US

[Lemur]

Audio and transcripts (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-blagojevich-audio,0,1146556.storygallery) of Blago being naughty. Enjoy.

[HoreTore]

I'm just glad it's not another Kennedy. Down with dynasties!

Bah!

Admit it, you envy our dynastic ways! You're just jealous because our dynasties are proper inbreds, unlike yours!

[Devastatin Dave]

Looks like DevDave (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2097880&postcount=50) got his wish. ~D

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy. :yes:

Thank you for the recognition my good fellow. :2thumbsup:

[CountArach]

Bah!

Admit it, you envy our dynastic ways! You're just jealous because our dynasties are proper inbreds, unlike yours!
American ones just act like inbreds.

[Lemur]

Today is a great day for lizard people (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0209/Coleman_wins_in_court.html).


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/coleman-franken2.jpg

A three-judge panel ruled that as many as 4,790 rejected absentee ballots can be considered for inclusion in the Minnesota Senate recount, adding a new wrinkle to the long-lasting Minnesota Senate recount between Coleman and Al Franken.

The court ruling is a victory for Coleman’s camp, which has been trying to get thousands of additional ballots counted in its efforts to overturn Franken’s 225-vote lead over Coleman.

The inclusion of these absentee ballots is at the center of the Coleman’s camp’s legal challenge. [...]

So only a subset of the 4,700 absentee ballots -- identified by the Coleman camp -- will be added to the count. The inclusion of additional ballots could be enough to shrink Franken’s lead, but unless most of them end up being included, it would still be difficult for Coleman to overturn his 225-vote deficit.

[Lemur]

More bad news (http://www.abc4.com/news/political/story/Minnesota-Senate-trial-judges-deliver-blow-to/Q8P_aVpKfEuUJXnaL1ZXyg.cspx) for Coleman. But then, he took a lobbying job already, so I guess he kind of knew this wasn't going to go his way.


The judges in Minnesota's U.S. Senate trial say Republican Norm Coleman has not yet shown a widespread problem with absentee voters being denied the right to vote.

In a ruling Friday, the three-judge panel says rejected absentee ballots in 12 of 19 categories should not be counted in the Senate race. That's a setback for Coleman, who wanted to count ballots in all but three categories.

Coleman is trying to undo Democrat Al Franken's 225-vote lead by arguing that thousands of rejected absentee ballots should be counted. But the order from the judges will limit the number of ballots to be reviewed for counting.

[KukriKhan]

Wut a way to run a railroad.

[Devastatin Dave]

I don't understand why Coleman is fighting so hard for this seat. You win once, take the pension, then make your millions as a lobbyist or a "journalist". Jeeze, you'd think these guys would have this figured out by now...

[Xiahou]

It's nice to see Roland Burris and, by extension, Blago are finding ways to keep in the news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_re_us/burris_blagojevich_donation).

It turns out that Burris may have perjured himself when he was asked if anyone tied to Blagojevich had contacted him about his appointment. Apparently, Burris now remembers that someone did contact him- It was Blago's brother and he wanted money. :smash:

Raising fresh questions about his appointment to Congress, Sen. Roland Burris admitted in a document released Saturday that former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother asked him for campaign fundraising help before the governor named Burris as Illinois' junior senator.

The disclosure reflects a major omission from Burris' testimony in January when an Illinois House impeachment committee specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

State Rep. Jim Durkin, the impeachment committee's ranking Republican, told The Associated Press that he and House Republican Leader Tom Cross will ask Sunday for an outside investigation into whether Burris perjured himself.You can't make this stuff up....

[Spino]

Today is a great day for lizard people (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0209/Coleman_wins_in_court.html).

A three-judge panel ruled that as many as 4,790 rejected absentee ballots can be considered for inclusion in the Minnesota Senate recount, adding a new wrinkle to the long-lasting Minnesota Senate recount between Coleman and Al Franken.

The court ruling is a victory for Coleman’s camp, which has been trying to get thousands of additional ballots counted in its efforts to overturn Franken’s 225-vote lead over Coleman.

The inclusion of these absentee ballots is at the center of the Coleman’s camp’s legal challenge. [...]

So only a subset of the 4,700 absentee ballots -- identified by the Coleman camp -- will be added to the count. The inclusion of additional ballots could be enough to shrink Franken’s lead, but unless most of them end up being included, it would still be difficult for Coleman to overturn his 225-vote deficit.
Sammy Sleestack will have his day in court! The Lizard People have spoken!

https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1927/sleestack1hk1.jpg (https://imageshack.us)
https://img167.imageshack.us/img167/sleestack1hk1.jpg/1/w400.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img167/sleestack1hk1.jpg/1/)

[Lemur]

Now Coleman suggests a do-over election. If Franken agreed, who would foot the bill for another election? Does this (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/norm-coleman-maybe-we-need-a-do-over-election.php) sound workable or advisable to anyone?


[Coleman said] "Yeah, you know some folks are now talking about simply saying run it again, just run it again."

"Have another statewide election?" Wilkow asked.

Coleman responded: "You know the St. Paul Pioneer Press is...one of the second largest papers in the state, last week [they] said we're never going to figure this out, just run it again. So you start hearing that. Ultimately the court has to make a determination, can they confirm, can they certify who got the most legally cast votes?"

[Major Robert Dump]

I think before another election some pretty stringent post election rules would have to be laid down before anyone would agree. It might invigorate whole new groups of people to get out and vote because they are tired of the circus, it might also invigorate a whole new group of con artists who try to think of ways to DQ ballots or cry discrimination at the polls.

I bet if they did a do-over one of the candidates would win by a very large margin, not sure who, but it would effectively end the others career. In fact, I hope that happens, because theres nothing I enjoy better than watching a politicians career end.

[Lemur]

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get. Freaky (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090227/NEWS01/90227025).


Already in conflict with his party’s leaders, Sen. Jim Bunning has reportedly said privately that if he is hindered in raising money for his re-election campaign he is ready with a response that would be politically devastating for Senate Republicans: his resignation. [...]

The implication, they said, was that Bunning would allow Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, to appoint his replacement — a move that could give Democrats the 60 votes they need to block Republican filibusters in the Senate.

“I would get the last laugh. Don’t forget Kentucky has a Democrat governor,” one of the sources quoted Bunning as saying.

“The only logical extension of that comment is, ‘(Make me mad) … enough and I’ll resign, and then you’ve got 60 Democrats,’ ” said another source who was present at the event.

That was the clear message Bunning was sending, said a third source who heard the senator’s remarks at the fundraiser, which attracted about 15 people.

[seireikhaan]

Wow...

I'm not sure what surprises me more: that anybody would threaten their party with such a maneuver, or that Kentucky has a Democratic governor.

[Major Robert Dump]

Oh come on dude, not all democrats are liberal. I'd be willing to bet that Kentucky probably is like Oklahoma and is majority democrat registered voters, with conservative voting tendencies. If the guvnah wants to be re-elected he would stick with the wishes of his constituents.

I really think this guys threat is a bluff, and even if its not people are so damned paranoid.....didn't happen in new york city like the paranoids thought it would, eh? I think some Republicans wanted Caroline Kennedy to get the seat so they could have someone else to vilify, and be closer to a fillibuster-proof dem majority, that way everything that happens can be blamed soley on the dems.

It used to be about having a majority. Now its all about a fillibuster proof majoruty. It's really sad that federal level offices have degraded into this wrangling. I can't wait for Clancey-esq poisonings and call girl scandals to begin

[Xiahou]

Senator Bunning (R-KY) threatens to quit if GOP gives him a hard time. Since Kentucky has a Dem Governor, this would put the Dems into the 60-seat supermajority that nobody thought they would ever get. My response: Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If he does opt out and the Dems get their 60, we would finally see bipartisanship calls stop. The Dems are not afraid to KATN when they have power.

[Lemur]

It's official, Norm Coleman has asked for a do-over (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/40556467.html). I'm not convinced that Minnesota really needs two Senators. They seem to be managing with just one ...


For more than a month, Norm Coleman stressed flaws in Minnesota's election system. And on Monday, Coleman lawyer Jim Langdon wrote the three-judge panel to suggest the problems are so serious they may not be able to declare a winner.

"Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.

[Kralizec]

Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates—and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast—the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election," Langdon wrote in a letter to the court.

Actually I think that's reasonable, assuming that "illegal votes" includes ballots who weren't counted because of technicalities. What kind of mandate are we talking about when you win by a couple of votes whereas a butload of them were rejected?

[seireikhaan]

A "do-over?" Shades of the 3rd-grade playground....sounds about the right level.
Indeed...

I thought we had agreed upon "no takesy-backsies". :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

I'm not sure when, but at some point this stopped being funny (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20423.html) ...


Former Sen. Norm Coleman is still considering taking his election lawsuit to federal court if he’s unsuccessful in reversing Al Franken’s 225-vote lead in the Minnesota Senate recount. [...] “I’m not ruling out anything,” Coleman said. “I think Minnesotans deserve to know each and every vote was counted fairly — that there’s a uniform standard. If that can be done at a trial level, that’s great. If it takes an appellate level to do that, then, you know, we have to look at that. But I’m not looking forward. I’m looking at where we’re at today, and right now, today, we’re waiting.”

Coleman’s basic argument in the recount case is that a slew of absentee votes have not been counted and other ballots were double counted. Some of the court’s early rulings during the seven-week trial have led many legal experts to believe that Coleman’s chances of winning at the trial level are slim.

After the lunch with Coleman, Sen. John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he would expect the court challenge to go on for a while — potentially years.

“I know it seems it’s gone on for a long time already, but this could go on for a long time,” Cornyn said. “Appeals take months, if not years, sometimes.”

[KukriKhan]

"... It’s pretty surreal,” he said. “Here we are in the end of March, moving into April, not done yet.”

Yeah. Are the good people of the State of Minnesota better served by delaying the seating of their 2nd Senator, in order to expose and fix their apparently disconnected electoral system? Or better served to seat someone now, so they're adequately represented, and fix their system later?

On the bright side: Minnesotans are saving half the $$$ they would have spent on Senatorial perq's for the second guy. :)

[Lemur]

Kukri, if this goes to the Supremes there's a fairly recent precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore) ...

[Lemur]

It's good that our elected Senators are so mature and dignified (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/your_wife_said_the_same_thing.asp).


Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) was on the receiving end of this one, after telling Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "Oh, you are good."

"Well, your wife said the same thing," Sen. Grassley responded.

[seireikhaan]

It's good that our elected Senators are so mature and dignified (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/your_wife_said_the_same_thing.asp).

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) was on the receiving end of this one, after telling Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), "Oh, you are good."

"Well, your wife said the same thing," Sen. Grassley responded.
:wall:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Franken stinks. I hope he misses a few months.

I'm an independent giving Obama a chance.... I still think it's actually a good thing that neither Coleman or Franken has the seat.

Neither one of them impress me. Both losers in my opinion.

[Lemur]

Looks like some financial shenanigans (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/41952432.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O) are emerging about Coleman. Not that this should hurt his plan for years-long litigation over the Senate seat; he can continue that from prison if need be.


The former finance chief of a Texas company controlled by Nasser Kazeminy, a close friend of former Sen. Norm Coleman, said in a deposition last week that Kazeminy ordered $100,000 in fees be paid to a Minneapolis insurance agency where Coleman's wife was employed.

B.J. Thomas, who was chief financial officer of Deep Marine Technology Inc., said that $75,000 of that sum was paid to Hays Companies even though he saw no evidence of Deep Marine receiving any consulting services from Hays. [...]

Doug Kelley, Norm Coleman's attorney, said Wednesday that no matter how much money Deep Marine paid to Hays, "I can assure you that not a penny found its way to Laurie Coleman or Senator Norm Coleman. Period. End of story.''

Hays' attorney, Doug Peterson, said he hadn't seen the transcript of Thomas' deposition and couldn't comment. Hays hasn't disputed that it received $75,000 under a consulting contract with Deep Marine. But the company has previously insisted none of the money went to the Colemans.

[KukriKhan]

B.J. Thomas, who was chief financial officer of Deep Marine Technology Inc., said that $75,000 of that sum was paid to Hays Companies even though he saw no evidence of Deep Marine receiving any consulting services from Hays. [...]

Hooked On A Feelin' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEXXm0HR4iQ&feature=related) I guess that singing career didn't pan out after "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looks like some financial shenanigans (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/41952432.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O) are emerging about Coleman. Not that this should hurt his plan for years-long litigation over the Senate seat; he can continue that from prison if need be.

I don't know for sure, Lemur, but you may have hit upon an excellent solution for Congress in general. Elect whichever thief you want, but then jail them before than can take office and avail themselves of immunity while in session. If we can incarcerate enough of them, maybe we can really limit the ongoing damage.

[Lemur]

Speaking of which, Rep. John Murtha (D) is refreshingly honest (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959114-455.stm): "If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district."

-edit-

Another update from the no-longer-funny debacle in Minnesota (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20634.html):


Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration. [...]

Cornyn believes that Minnesota can’t certify Franken the winner if Coleman seeks review from the U.S. Supreme Court or files a new federal case. And Ben Ginsberg, a Coleman attorney and a central player on the Republican side in the 2000 Florida recount, says it’s “an open question” whether a federal court challenge puts a pause on the certification process.

[Lemur]

For some reason I'm reminded of a true story: My wife and I were lost in Brooklyn, looking to meet up with some friends. We were also drunk out of our minds. Anyway, we had been walking for about two miles, which is a long way when you're drunk and it's boiling hot in August. My wife asks me, "What was that march in WWII where everybody died?"

"The Bataan Death March," I said.

"Yeah, that one. If they had just called it a fun march, maybe it wouldn't be so bad."

Since we were drunk, this struck us as hilarious. For the next half-hour we kept riffing on it. "Did you hear, man, we're on a death march!" "No, no, it's a fun march." "Oh, a fun march? Well that's okay then."

Anyway, the latest update from the Minnesota Fun March (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/minnesota-senate-election-cont.html):


A three-judge state panel convened to review an election contest brought by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman (R) in his race against entertainer Al Franken (D) has dealt the Republican a serious setback in its ruling this afternoon.

The panel will allow the consideration of only 400 wrongly rejected absentee ballots to be reviewed and possibly counted -- making it very difficult for Coleman to make up the 225-vote deficit he currently carries. (Here's the full ruling.)

"We feel pretty good about where we stand," said Marc Elias, a lawyer for Franken's campaign, on a conference call conducted moments ago. "This court has spoken clearly about the legal standards are" for the inclusion of ballots.

Ben Ginsberg, the lead attorney for Coleman, referred to the ruling as an "April Fools Day" judgment (one day early) and stated that the decision "gives us no choice but to appeal that order to Minnesota Supreme Court." Ginsberg offered no thought about whether or not an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would be considered.

Ginsberg said it would be a "long shot" for Coleman to make up the necessary ground on Franken with just 400 ballots being included.

The ballots will be opened, sorted and potentially counted by the Minnesota Secretary of State on April 7. It remains unclear how many of the 400 votes will actually be counted. It's also unknown whether Coleman will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which is within his rights.

-edit-

Oh, come on, you've got to be kidding: Another congressional race turns into an unexpected nail-biter (http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/13064/in-short). To quote that great poet Samuel L. Jackson, "I have had it with these :daisy: snakes on this :daisy: plane!"


The race in the 20th Congressional district between Republican Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy is too close to call. With 100 percent precincts reporting, Murphy leads Tedisco by only 59 votes, 77,344 to 77,285. With nearly 6,000 absentee ballots that will essentially decide the race as of Monday, the election will not be decided at least until April 13.

[Lemur]

Well, that didn't take long (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/gop-democrats-trying-to-steal-ny20-2009-04-01.html):


National Republicans are warning prospective donors that Democrats are trying to “pull a Franken” and “steal” Tuesday's special election in upstate New York.

Republicans made the charges in a fundraising e-mail sent out early Wednesday morning after a too-close-to-call finish in the New York House race between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco. [...]

“Democrats have almost succeeded in stealing the election in Minnesota and seating Al Franken,” wrote Guy Harrison, the National Republican Congressional Committee's executive director. “We cannot allow them to manipulate electoral results to seat another tax-troubled liberal.”

The e-mail indicates Republicans are gearing up for a legal fight over the election results, and suggests the party will pursue a more aggressive legal battle than in Minnesota.

Wouldn't it be cool if we could have years-long legal battles over every seat in congress? This is developing into a trend ....

[drone]

How about a little retro Senatorial action:

Justice Department seeks to throw out ex-Sen Ted Stevens' (R-AK) conviction. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040100763.html?hpid=topnews)

The Justice Department this morning asked a federal judge to toss out the conviction of former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on corruption charges.

The move comes as the judge was preparing to conduct hearings to probe allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by the team that tried one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress last year. The request, made in a court filing, caps the controversial prosecution of Stevens, who requested an early trial to clear his name but was convicted just days before he lost a reelection bid.
So the GOP-controlled Justice Department broke rules to convict Stevens, a high ranking Republican? :inquisitive: Something weird going on here, maybe this was done to help Palin's chances?

Sort of a shame, from a comedy standpoint Stevens would be hilarious as a top dog minority Senator trying to mooch as much from the stimulus packages while bashing the administration at the same time.

[Major Robert Dump]

Bonuses to congressional aides is big business. I love the way Pelosi says they deserve the bonuses because they are making such a huge sacrifice to work in Washington.....oh the self sacrifice, oh the toll of public service.....oh the 4 day weekends and free lunches and tax deductable stays in luxury hotels.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854799133476409.html

[Lemur]

Latest weird Senate news: Because the Bush administration justice department bungled the Ted Stevens prosecution, Alaskan Republicans are demanding that the Dem who won his seat step down. No, really (http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/stevens/story/746047.html).


Gov. Sarah Palin and the head of the Alaska Republican Party said Thursday that Sen. Mark Begich should give his Senate seat up to a special election now that prosecutors have abandoned their case against Ted Stevens.

"Alaskans deserve to have a fair election not tainted by some announcement that one of the candidates was convicted fairly of seven felonies, when in fact it wasn't a fair conviction," Palin said in a Thursday interview with the Daily News. [...]

The chairman of the state Republican Party, Randy Ruedrich, said that the only reason Begich won his race was because "a few thousand Alaskans thought that Senator Stevens was guilty of seven felonies."

He added that he thought Begich should step down "so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice."

[Askthepizzaguy]

Our government shames and appalls me.

[Major Robert Dump]

LOLZ, a bungled investigation does not mean Stevens was innocent. Now if this guy who holds the seat submits to a special election, he's gonna have to spend loads of money to campaign a second time. Unless they can prove he was deeply involved in the bad investigation, then really what's done is done.

anyway, can't mention Stevens ever without posting this link, too, of some the best 2 minutes in the history of congressional speeches. If only all of our Commerce Chairs were as on the ball as he, well we wouldn't be in this financial crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE


And the remix, Begich could make it his special election campaign song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8

[Xiahou]

I don't think much of Stevens, but there's little doubt that he was treated very unfairly. Springing a case against him in the runup to an election and railroading it towards conviction played no small part in his re-election loss, Im sure. And after the election is over? The case falls apart. That's definitely pretty messed up.

I don't know that the newly elected Senator should have to step down over it though- that's up to him, I guess. I would support Stevens taking any and all legal recourse against those who railroaded him though. :yes:


LOLZ, a bungled investigation does not mean Stevens was innocent.No, but we're entitled to fair trials, and he clearly didn't get one.

[seireikhaan]

Good lord... :wall: :no:

[Lemur]

I, for one, am glad that the Bush 43 administration decided to hire loads of its top Justice people from Regent University (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=1). Who needs competence when you have true believers filling out the top ranks?

I'm tempted to speculate on whether or not 43's administration deliberately ham-handed the prosecution of Stevens, but I seriously doubt it. When your top picks are born-agains from a Tier 4 law school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University), the results speak for themselves. Monica Goodling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Goodling), white courtesy telephone, please.

[KukriKhan]

Naw. Ya don't get a do-over. Alaskans have spoken.


US SENATOR
Total
Number of Precincts 438
Precincts Reporting 438 100.0 %
Times Counted 322453/495731 65.0 %
Total Votes 317723

Begich, Mark DEM 151767 47.77%
Bird, Bob AI 13197 4.15%
Gianoutsos, Ted NA 1385 0.44%
Haase, Fredrick D. LIB 2483 0.78%
Stevens, Ted REP 147814 46.52%
Write-in Votes 1077 0.34%

Begich ftw. Full stop. Try again in 6 years.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Stevens is likely guilty. However, the prosecution violated his rights in order to convict him and so his case is rightly thrown out.

I can understand some of the calls for a revote in Alaska - Specter was illegally prosecuted during the campaign.

But the result is the result, and I won't be calling for a revote. If the GOP wants to win, let them run clean candidates.

CR

[Lemur]

You can't keep a good man down: (http://juneauempire.com/stories/040909/reg_427489547.shtml)


Former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has filed a statement of candidacy for the 2014 election, but an aide cautions against reading too much into the move.

Campaign treasurer Tim McKeever said the filing does not mean Stevens has decided to seek re-election. He says it simply was done to accept donations that came into the campaign after the November election.

Stevens lost to Democrat Mark Begich days after being convicted of lying on Senate disclosure forms, but the conviction was vacated this week because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Begich wasn't declared the winner until two weeks after Election Day.

McKeever said federal election laws require donations received after Nov. 4 to count toward a future election.

If Stevens were to run, the 2014 election would look very much like the 2008 race. Begich said he intends to seek re-election.

[Spino]

You can't keep a good man down: (http://juneauempire.com/stories/040909/reg_427489547.shtml)


Former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has filed a statement of candidacy for the 2014 election, but an aide cautions against reading too much into the move.

Campaign treasurer Tim McKeever said the filing does not mean Stevens has decided to seek re-election. He says it simply was done to accept donations that came into the campaign after the November election.

Stevens lost to Democrat Mark Begich days after being convicted of lying on Senate disclosure forms, but the conviction was vacated this week because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Begich wasn't declared the winner until two weeks after Election Day.

McKeever said federal election laws require donations received after Nov. 4 to count toward a future election.

If Stevens were to run, the 2014 election would look very much like the 2008 race. Begich said he intends to seek re-election.

Clearly Stevens graduated from the same parochial school as Mayor Marion Barry; Our Lady of Perpetual Political Crucifixion & Resurrection.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Clearly Stevens graduated from the same parochial school as Mayor Marion Barry; Our Lady of Perpetual Political Crucifixion & Resurrection.

Stevens won't make the election (mortality charts comment, nothing personal). This is simply a tool to keep garnering money and insure that his people get paid without him having to do it out of pocket.

[Lemur]

The latest court ruling: Franken won in Minnesota (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD97HTHAG0). Not that it matters, I suppose, since Coleman has alraedy stated that he will appeal.


"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the judges wrote. "There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures." [...]

Coleman's lawyers have said their appeal will mostly center on violations of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, arguing that counties had differing standards in treating absentee ballots.

Franken's attorneys argued that no election is absolutely precise and that all counties operated under the same standard.

In addition to the appeal, Coleman can also initiate a new action on a federal level. Either side can appeal an eventual state Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or throw the disputed election before the U.S. Senate, which can judge the qualifications of its members.

[Monk]

The latest court ruling: Franken won in Minnesota (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD97HTHAG0). Not that it matters, I suppose, since Coleman has alraedy stated that he will appeal.


"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the judges wrote. "There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures." [...]

Coleman's lawyers have said their appeal will mostly center on violations of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, arguing that counties had differing standards in treating absentee ballots.

Franken's attorneys argued that no election is absolutely precise and that all counties operated under the same standard.

In addition to the appeal, Coleman can also initiate a new action on a federal level. Either side can appeal an eventual state Supreme Court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or throw the disputed election before the U.S. Senate, which can judge the qualifications of its members.

I wonder if Coleman's strategy is simply to tie this thing up in the courts for 2 years? :laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

deadlocked on Election Night, triggering an automatic recount of 2.9 million ballots. Coleman led by about 700 votes before routine double-checking of figures trimmed his edge to 215 votes heading into the hand recount. By the recount's end in January, Franken had pulled ahead by 225 votes.

One thing is clear: never, ever hire a Minnesota public servant to do your taxes or book keeping. Different numbers every day!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Minnesota needs its Senator. Anyone for a "Celebrity Death Match?"

[Strike For The South]

Minnesota needs its Senator. Anyone for a "Celebrity Death Match?"

We would need celebrities.

[Lemur]

Roland Burris, we barely knew ye (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0409/Burris_raises_845.html). Since his appointment by now-defrocked Governor Rod Blagodinnerjacket, Burris has managed to raise $845 in campaign money, against a debt of $111,000. His likely Dem challenger (Alexi Giannoulias) has raised $1.1 million in four weeks.

Assuming God Almighty intervenes and allows Burris to survive the primary, his likely Repub challenger (Mark Kirk) has raised $700,000 over the past three months.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm loving these updates, by the way, Lemur.

I find I agree with you most of the time, but even if I didn't, you have an eye for news stories. And I like your commentary.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The WSJ says (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html) Coleman has a good shot on appeal, based on a SCOTUS ruling I'm sure you've heard of.


Case in point: the panel's dismal handling of absentee ballots. Early in the recount, the Franken team howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. We warned at the time that this was dangerous territory, designed to pressure election officials into accepting rejected ballots after the fact.

Yet instead of shutting this Franken request down, or early on issuing a clear set of rules as to which absentees were valid, the state Supreme Court and the canvassing board oversaw a haphazard process by which some counties submitted new batches to be included in the tally, while other counties did not. The resulting additional 933 ballots were largely responsible for Mr. Franken's narrow lead.

During the contest trial, the Coleman team presented evidence of a further 6,500 absentees that it felt deserved to be included under the process that had produced the prior 933. The three judges then finally defined what constituted a "legal" absentee ballot. Countable ballots, for instance, had to contain the signature of the voter, complete registration information, and proper witness credentials.

But the panel only applied these standards going forward, severely reducing the universe of additional absentees that the Coleman team could hope to have included. In the end, the three judges allowed only about 350 additional absentees to be counted. The panel also did nothing about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of absentees that have already been legally included, yet are now "illegal" according to the panel's own ex-post definition.

If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.

This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.

CR

[GeneralHankerchief]

Roland Burris, we barely knew ye (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0409/Burris_raises_845.html). Since his appointment by now-defrocked Governor Rod Blagodinnerjacket, Burris has managed to raise $845 in campaign money, against a debt of $111,000. His likely Dem challenger (Alexi Giannoulias) has raised $1.1 million in four weeks.

Assuming God Almighty intervenes and allows Burris to survive the primary, his likely Repub challenger (Mark Kirk) has raised $700,000 over the past three months.

Interesting, I heard Kirk was gunning for Blago's seat. Love the Burris thing though. Supposedly, they've moved his office around 3 or 4 times. :laugh4:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I wonder how much service time Burris needs to get vested in the mother of all golden parachute pension plans? Hopefully it's a full term because this bum is not getting reelected.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm loving these updates, by the way, Lemur.

I find I agree with you most of the time, but even if I didn't, you have an eye for news stories. And I like your commentary.

I think he lurks Digg.com.

[KukriKhan]

I wonder how much service time Burris needs to get vested in the mother of all golden parachute pension plans? Hopefully it's a full term because this bum is not getting reelected.

I think they're under FERS. If so, then 5 years for vesting.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think they're under FERS. If so, then 5 years for vesting.

Essentially correct. I think they're a little different on the age/years of service stuff. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension).

[Lemur]

Here's a story that makes almost everybody look bad (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=1): NSA wiretapped Congresscritter who was offering to help out Israeli spies. I don't honestly know who looks worse, the NSA for tapping the phone of a sitting Representative, or the Congresscritter for consorting with spies while she was on the House Intelligence Committee, or AIPAC for offering to pressure Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy Pelosi for being openly pressurable. It's kind of a :daisy: stew.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.” [...]

Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “********.”

“I read those transcripts,” said the source, who like other former national security officials familiar with the transcript discussed it only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of domestic NSA eavesdropping.

“It’s true,” added another former national security official who was briefed on the NSA intercepts involving Harman. “She was on there.”

Such accounts go a long way toward explaining not only why Harman was denied the gavel of the House Intelligence Committee, but failed to land a top job at the CIA or Homeland Security Department in the Obama administration.

[Lemur]

No Blago reality show (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_re_us/us_blagojevich_indicted). This sucks! I wanted to see marmoset-head in the Costa Rican jungle!


A federal judge dashed indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's reality TV dream Tuesday, refusing to give the ousted Democrat permission to travel to Costa Rica to tape a show in the jungle.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel refused to modify terms of Blagojevich's bail to allow him to leave the United States, saying he needs to remain in the country to help his attorneys formulate a strategy for his defense.

The judge said that would give Blagojevich a better sense of the gravity of the legal problems he faces — including allegations he tried to auction off President Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat.

"I don't think this defendant fully understands and I don't think he could understand ... the position he finds himself in," Zagel sat during Tuesday's the hearing.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Here's a story that makes almost everybody look bad (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436&cpage=1): NSA wiretapped Congresscritter who was offering to help out Israeli spies. I don't honestly know who looks worse, the NSA for tapping the phone of a sitting Representative, or the Congresscritter for consorting with spies while she was on the House Intelligence Committee, or AIPAC for offering to pressure Nancy Pelosi, or Nancy Pelosi for being openly pressurable. It's kind of a :daisy: stew.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, “This conversation doesn’t exist.” [...]

Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “********.”

“I read those transcripts,” said the source, who like other former national security officials familiar with the transcript discussed it only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of domestic NSA eavesdropping.

“It’s true,” added another former national security official who was briefed on the NSA intercepts involving Harman. “She was on there.”

Such accounts go a long way toward explaining not only why Harman was denied the gavel of the House Intelligence Committee, but failed to land a top job at the CIA or Homeland Security Department in the Obama administration.

As it turns out, that specific criminal supported Bush's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program before she wound up on the end of an investigation! (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/harman/index.html) Classic!

[Lemur]

The irony is thick indeed, ATPG.

Meanwhile, if there was any doubt about Norm Coleman's true intentions (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/43429282.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU):

Coleman asks state Supreme Court to take it slow

Norm Coleman asked the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to set a slower timetable than his rival seeks in the next phase of the protracted U.S. Senate race.

Coleman, a Republican, proposed to the court that his appeal of Democrat Al Franken's victory in the recent Senate election trial be argued no sooner than mid-May, two weeks later than Franken suggested on Tuesday.

The Coleman camp said in documents that while it recognizes a need to resolve the case "as expeditiously as possible," the two sides and the court "must be given enough time to fully develop and consider the issues on appeal."

[drone]

Looks like the Dems are getting their 60 vote Senate majority. Arlen Specter has decided to switch parties so he can keep his job past 2010.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/index.html

[Lemur]

Wow, just wow. I didn't see that coming. And I never believed the Dems would reach a supermajority; I assumed something would stop it from happening.

Well, this is a problem with having a strict church that expels heretics. How many years has Specter been accused of being a RINO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicans_in_Name_Only)? Reap what ye sow, etc.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I doubt this will change much, TBH. Specter was always an independently-minded guy, and every Senator has his own individual motivations. If the House, being much more structured, had the filibuster limit, this would be a lot different of a story, but I think that we can still expect all the Senators to do their own things.

[Xiahou]

I doubt this will change much, TBH. Specter was always an independently-minded guy, and every Senator has his own individual motivations. If the House, being much more structured, had the filibuster limit, this would be a lot different of a story, but I think that we can still expect all the Senators to do their own things.
You could count on Specter for at least one solid conservative vote every six years..... whenever he was up for re-election. :no:

Specter knew he had no chance of winning the primary this time- so like a good politician, he's trying to save his skin. He barely beat Pat Toomey in the last primary, when the GOP was riding much higher. He stood no chance this time around.

With Specter formalizing his switch and effectively ending the primary, I hope that Pat Toomey can better use his campaign resources to get his message out. By all accounts that I've seen, he was a pretty stellar representative when he was in the House. In the House, he had a 94% rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, and an A rating from the National Taxpayers Union. :2thumbsup:
(Although, I know he'll likely lose based on name recognition alone. :shame: )


Well, this is a problem with having a strict church that expels heretics.Oh give it a rest already. I guess you've forgotten Lieberman....

[Lemur]

Oh give it a rest already. I guess you've forgotten Lieberman....
I can always count on you for a tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) argument. And I can only imagine how Repubs would have responded if, say, Tom DeLay campaigned for Kerry and made a speech at the Dem convention. And then let's say DeLay lost his primary, and ran as an Indie. If anything, allowing Lieberman to hold his seniority and committees illustrates my points about the Dems (weak and resilient) rather than otherwise. (Still waiting to see a Dem run to the Daily Show to apologize for daring to criticize Jon Stewart (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/04/nancy-pelosi-v-jon-stewart.html), but really, he's just the same as Rush Limbaugh! No, really he is!)

Forget moral relativism, let's try on empirical relativism—all facts are equal! There is no objective reality! Quickly, let's create an alternate universe (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) in which "conservative" facts are given their proper weight.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh give it a rest already. I guess you've forgotten Lieberman....

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Reactions:

Malkin (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/28/arlen-specter-makes-it-official/): Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=20528): I’m still waiting on my Soros check and forty virgins, so don’t get too excited, Arlen. Oh, and by the way, wingnuts- how is that Republican purity treating you? Is the GOP small enough to drown in a bathtub yet? Going to love hearing how a loyal foot soldier for three decades in the GOP wasn’t “conservative enough.”

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/specters-switch-more-insult-than-injury.html): This defection, coming at a time when historically low numbers of Americans are identifying themselves as Republican, would seem to be a manifestation of [the Republican] Death Spiral. These problems, indeed, were particularly acute in Pennsylvania, where many of the state's more moderate Republicans had re-registered as Democrats to vote in the state's extremely contentious primary between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Thus, given an extremely conservative Republican electorate, Specter appeared to be an underdog against his extremely conservative primary challenger, Pat Toomey, and switched parties in order to increase his odds of survival.

Matt Welch (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/133149.html): Throat-clearing aside, this strikes me as no favor at all to the Democrats. By choosing to die on the hill of the stimulus package of all things, Specter reinforces whatever notion there is that stimuli and bailouts are Democratic, not Republican, pet toys. Since professional Republicans are currently scattered in the wind, trying desperately to latch onto the anti-stimulus/bailout Tea Party movement, cementing that divide may come back to haunt Democrats when those policies (inevitably, I think) become so derided that even Barack Obama's impressive popularity can't rescue them.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

:drama2:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I doubt this will change much, TBH. Specter was always an independently-minded guy, and every Senator has his own individual motivations. If the House, being much more structured, had the filibuster limit, this would be a lot different of a story, but I think that we can still expect all the Senators to do their own things.

I'm inclined to agree.

WHY is this a surprise, Lemur? Arlen Specter has always been one of those Republicans that when he spoke, I had to wonder... what the heck are you doing with the Republicans? Back when the GOP had more moderate voices, I didn't question it. But now... all the Republican moderates are gone. It's the party of Bush, Cheney, Palin, Jindal, Steele, and Limbaugh. You question these neo-con masters and you're suddenly a traitor to the values of the GOP. There's no room in the ever shrinking "BIG TENT" for dissenting opinion and honest disagreement. You toe the line or you get tossed out by the party leadership, as Steele was hoping would happen with Specter.

The Republicans have been opposing Specter for years, more and more each year. The Democratic party put up with Joe Lieberman for far longer than they should have because they seem to be more welcoming of opposing ideas. To me, the Democratic party is much more of a coalition of various smaller parties and minority groups that they have to learn to work together; the Republican party has become progressively (ironic word) more conservative and more homogenized. The recent faces of the Republican party seem to be an attempt to hide the fact that it seems to be a party of middle-aged white men and young evangelicals only.

Frankly, this is a political world and the Republicans had been opposing Specter for quite a while. Why they acted surprised when he left the party is beyond me. People are leaving that party in droves, and until the leadership changes, so have I.

[Lemur]

Looks like it's time to get rid of Olympia Snowe (http://www.alternet.org/wire/12/snowegophasabandonedprinciplesspecterswitchdevastating) as well:


Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter’s abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party."

"I’ve always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties.

Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said.

So far, she said, she’s staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven’t abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles."

-edit-

While you're at it, give Lindsay Graham the heave-ho (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21802.html):


"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

[Spino]

Speaking purely as to his political career Specter had to ditch the party because he was about to get plastered in next year's primary...

From March 19 – 23, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,056 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. The survey includes 423 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.

1. (If registered Republican) If the 2010 Republican primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey, for whom would you vote?

Reg Reps

Specter 27%
Toomey 41%
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2
DK/NA 28

Here's the whole thing....

This poll was released in March. All results have been released and can be used at any time.
THIS IS NOT A CNN POLL!!!!!
See attached documents for the complete results. Here are a few highlights:
From March 19 – 23, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,056 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. The survey includes 423 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points.
1. (If registered Republican) If the 2010 Republican primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey, for whom would you vote?
Reg
Reps
Specter 27%
Toomey 41
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2
DK/NA 28
2. Is your opinion of - Arlen Specter favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Favorable 45% 29% 60% 41% 44% 46%
Unfavorable 31 47 16 35 36 25
Hvn't hrd enough 21 23 20 19 16 25
REFUSED 3 1 4 5 3 4
TREND: Is your opinion of - Arlen Specter favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
Mar 25 Nov 26 Aug 5
2009 2008 2008
Favorable 45% 56 55
Unfavorable 31 23 26
Hvn't hrd enough 21 19 16
REFUSED 3 3 3
3. Is your opinion of - Pat Toomey favorable, unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about him?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Favorable 14% 24% 4% 18% 20% 9%
Unfavorable 6 2 9 4 8 4
Hvn't hrd enough 78 73 85 76 70 85
REFUSED 2 1 2 2 2 2
11. If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today, do you think you would vote for Arlen Specter, the Republican candidate, or for the Democratic candidate?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Specter 31% 47% 24% 23% 32% 31%
Democrat 33 17 48 35 36 31
DK/NA 35 36 27 42 32 38
22. Senator Arlen Specter was one of only three Republican Senators to vote for President Obama's stimulus package. Do you approve or disapprove of Arlen Specter voting for President Obama's stimulus package?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom
Approve 59% 25% 87% 56% 60% 58%
Disapprove 36 70 6 38 38 33
DK/NA 6 5 7 6 2 9

[Don Corleone]

So once the Al Franken selective vote-counting is rubber stamped, how long before the Republican party is outlawed? :laugh4::laugh4:

[Spino]

Looks like it's time to get rid of Olympia Snowe (http://www.alternet.org/wire/12/snowegophasabandonedprinciplesspecterswitchdevastating) as well:


Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate, said Tuesday that Arlen Specter’s abandonment of the GOP is "devastating," both "personally and I think for the party."

"I’ve always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans," said Snowe, who has been approached, she said, by Democrats in the past about switching parties.

Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party "underscores the blunt reality" that the GOP is not a welcome place for moderates, she said.

So far, she said, she’s staying put. "I believe in the traditional tenets of the Republican Party: strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual opportunity. I haven’t abandoned those principles that have been the essence of the Republican Party. I think the Republican Party has abandoned those principles."

-edit-

While you're at it, give Lindsay Graham the heave-ho (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21802.html):


"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”

“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.

With Specter his indictment of the Republican party for moving away from its principles rings hollow and false because he's clearly looking to preserve his seat and remain attached to the teat which has fed him so well throughout his political career. I mean, if he was really upset about the Republican party moving away from his principles the last party he would join would be the Democratic party of the post-Vietnam era.

I need to know what the definition of a moderate entails, especially to these politicians. It seems to me that the trendy definition of a moderate being bandied is anyone who happen to throw their lot in with Obama during election year 2008. Talk about a mountainous pile of steaming bull excrement. I hardly think people who believe creating a mountain of debt by borrowing and printing more money and throwing it at bigger government vis a vis bureaucracy and enormous bailout bills of dubious distinction (bills that few politicians bothered to read) fall even remotely under the definition of a moderate politician. If I recall the bailout bills, even those passed prior to the market meltdown (anyone remember that lovely little $300B Farm Bill?), were rather unpopular. That's hardly a moderate, populist stance, is it?

The Republican party is definitely in trouble but the problem isn't with conservatives, it's with people who call themselves conservatives and support and/or run as conservative politicians who proceed to do decidedly unconservative things once in office (i.e. Neo-Con Republicans and RINOs). If the Bush administration had made more than a token gesture towards conservatism it would have left office with a much higher approval rating. Smaller government, lower taxes, limited spending, and not engaging in aggressive geopolitical shenanigans (i.e. nation building in the Middle East) would have gone over really well with the public.

[Don Corleone]

The Republicans have been opposing Specter for years, more and more each year. The Democratic party put up with Joe Lieberman for far longer than they should have because they seem to be more welcoming of opposing ideas. To me, the Democratic party is much more of a coalition of various smaller parties and minority groups that they have to learn to work together; the Republican party has become progressively (ironic word) more conservative and more homogenized. The recent faces of the Republican party seem to be an attempt to hide the fact that it seems to be a party of middle-aged white men and young evangelicals only.



I can always count on you for a tu quoque argument. And I can only imagine how Repubs would have responded if, say, Tom DeLay campaigned for Kerry and made a speech at the Dem convention. And then let's say DeLay lost his primary, and ran as an Indie. If anything, allowing Lieberman to hold his seniority and committees illustrates my points about the Dems (weak and resilient) rather than otherwise. (Still waiting to see a Dem run to the Daily Show to apologize for daring to criticize Jon Stewart, but really, he's just the same as Rush Limbaugh! No, really he is!)

While the two of you are busy patting each other on the back for being so open-minded and tolerant, I'd like to call your attention to a new powerful PAC that has sprung up... one that is dedicated to identifying Democrats who aren't Left enough in their views, recruiting primary opponents to run against them, then hammer them with Union and special interest money in their primary campaigns. They're known as Accountability Now (http://accountabilitynowpac.com/)They're going after the real scum of the Earth, guys like Ben Nelson and Walt Miinick. Their offense? These two dared question the 785 billiion stimulus bill and had the audacity to ask for details.....:whip:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good Riddance

[Askthepizzaguy]

While the two of you are busy patting each other on the back for being so open-minded and tolerant

Open minded and tolerant: dirty words?

The more shrill the voices from the Republican side, the less I listen.

[Spino]

Open minded and tolerant: dirty words?

The more shrill the voices from the Republican side, the less I listen.

$5 says you'll be one of them in four years' time. :yes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

$5 says you'll be one of them in four years' time. :yes:

Why is that? The Republicans were once a party I admired; they talked a good game about values and fiscal prudence. Now, the people who actually lived up to those values are gone.

Palin and Jindal and Steele and all the current Republican leaders are getting more and more shrill, absurd, and less and less in touch with reality. I can barely find a single Republican voice that represents small government values and protections regarding privacy. In fact, under the last administration, which the current leadership is more and more like, we saw government size exploding, spending exploding, and privacy disappearing.

The current Republican party is not a big tent. It's a series of tubes.

[Lemur]

The current Republican party is not a big tent. It's a series of tubes.
Any excuse is sufficient to re-link to Senator Ted Stevens' masterpiece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8).

[Askthepizzaguy]

To be honest; it's a funny reference but I feel bad hammering him about it. I get what he was saying; it was in the metaphorical sense. It didn't really deserve the constant rolling of the eyes.

Of more concern is the criminal complaints against him which got dismissed due to a technicality. I have no doubt in my mind that he was guilty. Yeah yeah yeah, err on the side of caution, let the criminal go free because his rights were barely trodden upon. Whatever, I support that. But seriously, that doesn't make him an innocent man in my eyes. It means the law can't touch him. Anyone who wants that man in office is a fool, in my opinion. But we can get into who thinks who is a fool because as soon as I say that, someone will be frothing at the mouth over some recent democratic scandal, as if that makes things all better.

Can't we just agree to toss the bums and extremists out on their arses?

[Don Corleone]

Open minded and tolerant: dirty words?

The more shrill the voices from the Republican side, the less I listen.

You misunderstood me, and I apologize for the offense you must have taken from that reading.

I'm not saying that open minded and tolerant are bad things, or that you and Lemur are somehow wrong for embracing those things. I think it's quite noble. My only point is that while YOUR intentions are noble, the party you're siding with is showing no such sign of magnamity. Taking a textbook play from the Republicans ala 2002, the Democrats are running a witch-hunt to purge those considered not ideologically suited to the current dominant role they now hold.

I was opposed to it when the Republicans did it, for practical reasons (no lead is ever enough cushion) as well as for fairness (talk about screwing those who've helped you get where you are) and philospophical grounds. And I'm opposed to it now that the Democrats are doing it. The only bright side is that it serves as its own term-limit... as the Democrats continue to shove people out the door, they'll find their majority shrink.

As somebody else said... rinse, lather, repeat.... :dizzy2:

[Askthepizzaguy]

You misunderstood me, and I apologize for the offense you must have taken from that reading.

I'm not saying that open minded and tolerant are bad things, or that you and Lemur are somehow wrong for embracing those things. I think it's quite noble. My only point is that while YOUR intentions are noble, the party you're siding with is showing no such sign of magnamity. Taking a textbook play from the Republicans ala 2002, the Democrats are running a witch-hunt to purge those considered not ideologically suited to the current dominant role they now hold.

I was opposed to it when the Republicans did it, for practical reasons (no lead is ever enough cushion) as well as for fairness (talk about screwing those who've helped you get where you are) and philospophical grounds. And I'm opposed to it now that the Democrats are doing it. The only bright side is that it serves as its own term-limit... as the Democrats continue to shove people out the door, they'll find their majority shrink.

As somebody else said... rinse, lather, repeat.... :dizzy2:

I'm not rooting for the Democrats, either. I think the political party system is offensive.

How about people go to congress with good intentions, do some bloody work, vote, and then go home without accepting a paycheck, like the original congress did?

Send me to washington. I won't leave my office except to vote or go to the bathroom and I'll work for free. I'm not married, I have no kids, and I have no love for either party. I'll also vote however the majority of my constituents want me to vote (unless it's something I just cannot do in good conscience), while using my bully pulpit to advocate for certain causes, but not injecting ideology into my job, which is simply to represent the people.

I'd do it but I don't do public speaking and I refuse to fundraise, so... there goes that idea.

[Lemur]

Taking a textbook play from the Republicans ala 2002, the Democrats are running a witch-hunt to purge those considered not ideologically suited to the current dominant role they now hold.
I seriously doubt that the Dems have the tenacity or the guts to conduct a proper purge. I also don't think they have the organizational mechanisms. So you found a PAC that wants to challenge Dems in primaries from the left, and from this you conclude ... what? Call me when the PAC actually has success, or gains any sort of tangible power. They can't all be AIPAC or the NRA, you know.

There are little PACs all over the place, including those that support farther-left Dems and farther-right Repubs. It's a question of money and influence.

The Club for Growth, for example, has been cited several times (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjNiMDFiZTNkYjM1YTQyOTcwZTc2ZDQ0YjY5ZTA0OTQ=) in the Specter aftermath. I believe the man who was going to be his primary challenger is the founder of that PAC/thinktank/whatever. Let me know when the PAC you're citing has fielded a primary challenger who looks like s/he can unseat a sitting congresscritter.

Remember, the DNC backed Lieberman fully until he lost his own primary. There was no move from within the Dem machinery to oust him; that was handled by the primary voters in his home state.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Fence-Sitters are the ones who sway with the breeze. They join parties when they are so popular that their voices will be drowned out, but at the perfect time when there is nowhere to go but down.

As it has been said, certain posters lambasting the GOP today will be the ones lambasting the Dems in 8 years.

It's as easy as it is pathetic to kick a dog lying down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There are very few Rocky Marcianos in politics. Mostly they're like Ali, or Charles, or Leonard, or Louis. They crave the political spotlight -- the power, the sense of DOING something that matters -- more than any methamphetimine addict craves their next dose. And just like the great boxers I mentioned, most of them hang on for "one more term" long after it makes sense, long after their "era" has passed, and mostly long past the peak of their abilities. Byrd should have been done 15 years ago. John Warner should have wrapped up a term...maybe two...earlier. Kennedy should have stopped before this last term. Churchill shouldn't have been booted in 1945, but should have opted out on his own by about 1950. Very few of them sense that the next few years will tarnish what they have done and end it at the right moment.

Specter has had a remarkable career. He's been in the Senate my entire adult life. He fought the good fight, followed his conscience even when he knew it would vex party colleagues. But now, retaining the Senate is more important than what he'll do when he retains it. Like Ali, he thinks he's got one more comeback in him.



The GOP is engaged in an inevitable tightening of the ranks. Virtually all of its critics assert that making moderates uncomfortable and marginalizing them is a sign of the end. That you cannot be a national party unless you are inclusive. This may be true. It is also true, however, that the GOP over the last 10 years did NOT cater effectively or consistently to its base. Which trend is the real harbinger of doom? I think inclusiveness does matter, but the way most critics define it is NOT the way I think it would work best for the GOP.

I would assert that neither is the real problem. Sen. Snowe knocked out the answer smoothly and at least 2 shots under par (though I add a 2 stroke penalty for using the now cliched "they left me" variant. The real problem is that the GOP has no central message that motivates all of its policies and efforts.

How can someone be a RINO when most of the red-dog GOPpers can't tell you what the party is really all about? Are we fiscal conservatives? Then maybe fighting for spending cuts and limiting taxes or reforming taxes would be a good idea. Are we social conservatives? If so, then an all out effort to abolish abortion and codify morality should be made. Are we constitutionalists? If so, we should be paring back the powers and role of the fed government; bringing the military back down to a large cadre size and pulling out of world policing as rapidly as possible?

In short, the GOP has no core. It will not have one until a person or persons come along who, though politicians, seek to teach others why the GOP way is best and make the tent bigger not by watering down the message but by demonstrating its broad appeal -- of course, knowing the message you believe in would help a bit in that endeavor.

You want to be a vague coalescence of fellow travelers and thus appeal to a broad swath of society by carefully juggling between/catering to the various little splinters of belief and opinion? Fine, go join the Democrats.

The GOP has been playing that game for the last 12 years or so, but its not their game and I find little surprise in the fact that the Dems do it better.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Any excuse is sufficient to re-link to Senator Ted Stevens' masterpiece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8).

I was enjoyed this one the best.

http://tinyurl.com/2j3rvz

[Askthepizzaguy]

Fence-Sitters are the ones who sway with the breeze. They join parties when they are so popular that their voices will be drowned out, but at the perfect time when there is nowhere to go but down.

As it has been said, certain posters lambasting the GOP today will be the ones lambasting the Dems in 8 years.

It's as easy as it is pathetic to kick a dog lying down.

I disagree. I sit on the fence so to speak because I don't want to confine myself to either partisan yard. I prefer to support my principles and/or vote out losers who turn my country into a :daisy: hole, no matter their political affiliation.

I may indeed want many of the Dems tossed out on their butts in less than 8 years, but I guarantee you, I've done nothing because it was hip or popular. I 'joined' with the democrats by voting Obama as a registered independent because I wanted no one who had anything to do with the Bush administration's policies or supporters of that philosophy to keep power. McCain wasn't different enough in my opinion, and most of the nation's. Obama was different. And if Obama had presented a plan I thought we didn't need, I'd have voted Republicans in congress to stonewall his ideas and plans and at least maintain the status quo. But the current status quo sucks the big fat wet one, and I'd particularly appreciate a change and some reform. Since the Republicans will only stonewall, they won't do anything that Obama wants to do, (as expected) I decided to also vote for the Democrats for congress and Senate. Maybe that way something will get done. I don't want deadlocks and filibusters right now, we need leadership and a change in leadership. Only Obama and the democrats offered that.

Now, in the 2010 elections, I'll see what my representatives did, and if I don't like it, I'll vote for whomever else is running.

Rant spoilered for your protection.
It's not the GOP I am bashing, but their leadership which doesn't know how to lead, their campaigning which is all negative and not constructive, and their failed ideas. Give me different leaders and new ideas, more moderate ones, and I'll vote for them in a heartbeat. I want a balanced budget and the Democrats won't give me one. Give me a balance budget candidate, one that doesn't harm education and healthcare in the process, and one that might end all these wars, and that would be a better candidate than Obama.

Until that person appears, and it's not McCain, Palin, Jindal, Steele, or any other current Republican leader, I will be opposing their efforts to toss a monkey wrench into the efforts of the Democrats. With a broken Republican party of no ideas, you'd better hope to your God that Obama succeeds in something. We don't need another 8 years of failure and corruption. I'll take success, thank you; even if it means running a deficit for a while. Especially if that money is mostly spent on helping the sick and those seeking education.

Honestly, the thing which got me to vote for Obama wasn't Obama. I was wary of his lofty promises and slick public speaking ability and charm. Seemed to be all flash and no substance. I liked McCain, a lot. I liked his appearances on the Daily Show, I liked his experience, his bipartisanship, and he seemed to be modest and also a war hero. What's not to like?

He flushed all that down the drain with his vicious, partisan, negative, Palin-filled campaign. As soon as he picked Palin I ran like hell. But what cinched it was the negativity and the failure in the debates. They had no ideas that they could express which gave me any confidence that they knew what they were doing. Even the ILLUSION of leadership is better than none. Confidence is important in government. It was all about confidence and trust.

McCain didn't make me confident anymore about halfway through his campaign. I didn't trust him anymore after his Palin pick which was just a nod to the evangelicals, nothing more; I didn't trust him after his constant negative campaign ads. I didn't trust him after his debates. Now McCain is gone and Palin, the whole reason he lost the election, is still around. Palin is a curse which will destroy the Republican party; she represents everything that is wrong with it. The rhetoric of a "real" and "fake" America, the blatant disingenuous sucking up to "regular ol' Joe Six-Pack", the childish debating tactics, the smears, the false piety and the nod to religion without actually practicing what she preaches, her blatantly hypocritical positions on socialism, all flash and no substance, painted-on smile, blaming everything on the Federal government while getting tons in bailout money, claiming to be against the bridge to nowhere (after being for it), the scandals (I honestly don't care about the scandals. After you're this far into my why-I-don't-like-you list, scandals don't even affect my opinion anymore)... Steele with his nearly heroic standing up to Limbaugh before he crumbled and apologized... what a wuss.

In short (too late) the Republicans are a leaderless bunch of hypocritical fakes who have no ideas and a lot of partisan demagoguery. They are a stonewall to progress and a damaging influence on the country at large, taking credit for our successes, blocking further progress, taking bailout money while criticizing it, not paying their fair share of the federal budget without getting a huge chunk of it right back in pork spending. They tore the budget to shreds and are now criticizing Obama on spending. They frankly piss me off at this point. They aren't even close to legitimate, loyal opposition anymore. They used to be; they used to stand for something. What do they stand for? What are their ideals, now? WHAT ARE THEY?

I can't tell you because I don't know. I thought we were supposed to support our president in a time of war, they said so. Now they say they hope he fails. I thought we were supposed to support the government in its efforts to save the country; but apparently not when it comes to paying your fair share in taxes or ensuring that we protect human rights and detainee rights, or providing economic stimulus or reforming healthcare, or getting more interested in alternative energies or restoring environmental protections. Balancing the budget? That's the goal but we are at war, and hopefully that will be over soon but even the Republicans say you can't just pack up and leave today. So the war will drain our economy to the tune of hundreds of billions. We have serious economic problems now due to greed and deregulation, and are we supposed to just sit by when millions go unemployed? Should we do nothing to solve our banking crisis or our automobile companies collapsing? Should we do nothing but "drill baby drill" when it comes to energy, aside from building more nuclear power plants?

Argh... nevermind. I could rant all day long and all night and I could barely scratch the surface of what's wrong with the Republican party, and since between the two parties I only see one of them giving an honest attempt to solve these problems, the fact that the Democrats aren't ideal and perfect doesn't even enter into my mind. Democrats could be banging interns and having sex with prostitutes and even embezzling money at this point; as long as the country gets back on track again, I couldn't care less what they do or how they do it. I just want things to improve on most fronts; the war coming to an end, the budget getting balanced, unemployment to turn around, the housing crisis to turn around, the credit crisis to turn around, the banking crisis to turn around, American industries to return, national debt being paid off, more funding for college or at least the same, more funding for healthcare or at least the same, and no major screwups like terrorist attacks or nuclear meltdowns or Katrina-style hurricanes going largely ignored. (PS- Ray Nagin and that former Louisiana Governor, Democrats both, don't deserve to ever serve in politics again... I don't care which party they are from).

Rant rant rant... Republicans need new leadership and new direction, less posturing and negativity and more ideas and cooperation, less absurd arguments, less partisan bickering, less wingnuts and more genuine values. Until that happens I will vote against them, plain and simple. Welcome, Arlen Specter, you were one of the Republicans I could count on to work in the best interest of the nation, not suck up to the Party. I want you in office and I don't care what you register as. Register as an independent, or as a Mouseketeer, I don't care. Continue serving, because you're a breath of fresh air in this mindlessly partisan congress.

[CountArach]

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/what-kind-of-democrat-will-arlen.html) uses data to show what type of Democrat Specter will be...

I've now had the chance to examine the data on party-switching in more detail. When Congressmen have changed parties in the past, this has generally been accompanied by relatively material changes in their voting patterns -- thus, Democrats have ample reason to be pleased. Nevertheless, odds are that Specter will line up squarely in the conservative half of the Democratic caucus and will probably leave room to his left for a primary challenge.
[...]
All of the party-switchers moved toward the direction of their (new) party caucus after making the change, although with somewhat varying degrees of magnitude. California's Matthew Martinez, for instance, who had not been an exceptionally moderate Democrat, turned all the way into a rather run-of-the-mill Republican. On the other end of the spectrum, you'd have had to look pretty hard to find issues on which Congressman Gene Atkinson of Pennsylvania was voting differently after becoming a Republican in 1981.
[...]
There are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances that may affect Specter's positioning. On the one hand, he seems to have made the switch more or less unabashedly for electoral reasons, even alluding to the polling in his statement today. This suggests that he'll be no more and no less Democratic than he can get away with. On the other hand, the parties are now more polarized than they once were, and so crossing the aisle may mean more than it once did. Prior to this party-switch, Specter's DW-NOMINATE scores had gradually been moving away from the center as it had become harder to stake out a position as a moderate Republican.

[Spino]

There are very few Rocky Marcianos in politics. Mostly they're like Ali, or Charles, or Leonard, or Louis. They crave the political spotlight -- the power, the sense of DOING something that matters -- more than any methamphetimine addict craves their next dose. And just like the great boxers I mentioned, most of them hang on for "one more term" long after it makes sense, long after their "era" has passed, and mostly long past the peak of their abilities. Byrd should have been done 15 years ago. John Warner should have wrapped up a term...maybe two...earlier. Kennedy should have stopped before this last term. Churchill shouldn't have been booted in 1945, but should have opted out on his own by about 1950. Very few of them sense that the next few years will tarnish what they have done and end it at the right moment.

Specter has had a remarkable career. He's been in the Senate my entire adult life. He fought the good fight, followed his conscience even when he knew it would vex party colleagues. But now, retaining the Senate is more important than what he'll do when he retains it. Like Ali, he thinks he's got one more comeback in him.



The GOP is engaged in an inevitable tightening of the ranks. Virtually all of its critics assert that making moderates uncomfortable and marginalizing them is a sign of the end. That you cannot be a national party unless you are inclusive. This may be true. It is also true, however, that the GOP over the last 10 years did NOT cater effectively or consistently to its base. Which trend is the real harbinger of doom? I think inclusiveness does matter, but the way most critics define it is NOT the way I think it would work best for the GOP.

I would assert that neither is the real problem. Sen. Snowe knocked out the answer smoothly and at least 2 shots under par (though I add a 2 stroke penalty for using the now cliched "they left me" variant. The real problem is that the GOP has no central message that motivates all of its policies and efforts.

How can someone be a RINO when most of the red-dog GOPpers can't tell you what the party is really all about? Are we fiscal conservatives? Then maybe fighting for spending cuts and limiting taxes or reforming taxes would be a good idea. Are we social conservatives? If so, then an all out effort to abolish abortion and codify morality should be made. Are we constitutionalists? If so, we should be paring back the powers and role of the fed government; bringing the military back down to a large cadre size and pulling out of world policing as rapidly as possible?

In short, the GOP has no core. It will not have one until a person or persons come along who, though politicians, seek to teach others why the GOP way is best and make the tent bigger not by watering down the message but by demonstrating its broad appeal -- of course, knowing the message you believe in would help a bit in that endeavor.

You want to be a vague coalescence of fellow travelers and thus appeal to a broad swath of society by carefully juggling between/catering to the various little splinters of belief and opinion? Fine, go join the Democrats.

The GOP has been playing that game for the last 12 years or so, but its not their game and I find little surprise in the fact that the Dems do it better.

Fiscal conservatism along with the curbing of government powers and size while maintaining a strong, effective military has always worked for the Republicans. Americans almost always vote with their wallets, no matter what their 'ideological slant'. It's been my experience that even the most rabidly liberal Americans bitch and moan about paying taxes and government waste even though they spew endlessly about the marvels of socialized healthcare and all that other nonsense. Basically the Republicans need to silence the social conservatives and put them in the back office where they were during Reagan.

As to the rabidly social conservatives, well where else are they going to go? They know if they stay at home and grumble about their lack of representation instead of voting the danger of having even more liberal, ACLU inspired whack jobs running the show increases with every election. If they push for an independent candidate they'll still lose and the result would be the same if they stayed at home and didn't vote at all. If you're forced to choose between partying with someone you're indifferent towards or someone you can barely tolerate and/or despise the answer is pretty obvious.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Fiscal conservatism along with the curbing of government powers and size while maintaining a strong, effective military has always worked for the Republicans. Americans almost always vote with their wallets, no matter what their 'ideological slant'. It's been my experience that even the most rabidly liberal Americans bitch and moan about paying taxes and government waste even though they spew endlessly about the marvels of socialized healthcare and all that other nonsense. Basically the Republicans need to silence the social conservatives and put them in the back office where they were during Reagan.

As to the rabidly social conservatives, well where else are they going to go? They know if they stay at home and grumble about their lack of representation instead of voting the danger of having even more liberal, ACLU inspired whack jobs running the show increases with every election. If they push for an independent candidate they'll still lose and the result would be the same if they stayed at home and didn't vote at all. If you're forced to choose between partying with someone you're indifferent towards or someone you can barely tolerate and/or despise the answer is pretty obvious.


Social Conservatives ARE the Republican party right now. What the GOP needs is for fiscal and foreign policy conservatives to rally all three and use the bulk of the GOP electorate that is socially conservatives (like it has traditionally done.)

Purely social conservatives nobody has any use for in executive office, just like nobody has any use for exclusivly militaristic dynamos. Social conservatism gives the GOP heart, Fiscal gives us brains and Military gives us brawn. The brain should be the core, but the others are just as important in their own way.

I like Romney because he gets this. He reminds me of a better spoken Bush Senior with more of an economic edge.

I hope that he is able to help re-prioritize the party. I can only hope for someone who is sympathetic to the pro-life cause - I wouldn't want to see someone like my mother in the oval.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Since the social and war conservatives' agendas are absolutely opposed to fiscal responsibility, I don't really see the point in rallying to them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe in the strongest military that we can have with as little expense as possible.

I support ideas like this:


Buy Ford, Not Ferrari
By Commander Henry J. Hendrix, U.S. Navy

If the Navy rethinks the role of Carrier Strike Groups (Ferrari) and deploys new, scaled-down Influence Squadrons (Ford), the result will be 320 hulls in the water for three-quarters the price

One of the strengths of the U.S. Navy is its traditions and adherence to form and structure. It is also one of its weaknesses, because in its dedication to what is known, it tends to overlook the possibility of other options, other futures. Whether it wishes to acknowledge the fact or not, today's Navy finds itself at a strategic inflexion point and must come to grips with the idea that every assumption it has depended on to get it where it is may not take the service to where it needs to go.

The problems that will have the most impact on the Navy's future force structure are large and can be categorized in two groups. The first is the growing expense of building new ships. The costs involved in research, development, and production of destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, each of which fields new, leading-edge technologies, have placed the price of the future force out of reach, even with four percent of the gross domestic product funding the Department of Defense.
Second is the growing mismatch between the Navy's strategic vision and its acquisition plan. The new maritime strategy, now just more than a year old, stated that the Navy would be an engagement force just as suited to preventing wars as winning them. The new strategy suggests a larger future force in terms of hulls in the water, and that this force would be more agile and better suited to support missions in the economy-of-force Phase 0-1 range of the engagement scale. Instead, the current long-term Navy shipbuilding plan continues to emphasize the Carrier Strike Group (CSG) construct.
The CSG has served as the centerpiece of naval force planning for much of the past 60 years. Comprised of an aircraft carrier accompanied by a complement of cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, and support ships, this basic element of the Navy embodies awe-inspiring offensive and defensive power. It has been an extremely effective tool in our nation's military and diplomatic arsenal. But in recent years the range of its capabilities has narrowed, and the Navy is in danger of falling into a situation where, when all you have is a hammer, everything invariably begins to look like a nail.
Currently the U.S. Navy has 11 CSGs (although it is temporarily seeking permission from Congress to dip below the legislatively mandated 11 carriers to decommission the long-serving USS Enterprise [CVN-65] prior to the USS George H. W. Bush's [CVN-77] entering full service). At a conservative estimated price tag of $30 billion to construct and a daily operating cost in excess of a million dollars, carrier strike groups are quickly becoming prohibitively expensive to both build and deploy. When these characteristics are considered alongside rising threats and increasingly challenging operational environments, even more questions arise.
New Environment

Submarines have become the international flavor-of-the-month with regard to nation-state security. Relatively inexpensive export diesel submarine variants from Europe and Australia now provide a credible defensive capability to any country with an ocean shoreline. Torpedoes launched from these boats, and shore- and ship-based missiles can sink outright most of the world's surface combatants and would, at least, significantly degrade the mission effectiveness of American super-carriers.
The rise of these threats over the past three decades has forced the Navy to emphasize the defensive capabilities of the carrier force, giving rise to the "anti" warfare commanders (antisubmarine, antisurface, and antiair). This emphasis on defensive capabilities occurred even as the effectiveness of the carrier's striking power has noticeably waned. The venerable deep-strike A-6 Intruder and the long-range F-14 interceptor have vanished into the boneyard with their spots on the flight deck taken by the F/A-18 Hornet variants, which were intended to be replacements for the A-4 and A-7 short- and medium-range light attack aircraft.
The decisions that led to the current strategic condition have left us with a force that must operate at increased range from our adversaries in order to be safe (and preserve our expensive platforms), even as our striking arm has decreased in its combat radius over time. Hence we find ourselves in a circular argument reminiscent of the late Admiral Hyman Rickover, that "I must defend my force, Sir, so that I can defend my force." The CSG is, remarkably, a construct that can operate effectively only in a permissive environment, or be committed to an anti-access environment only under the most extreme conditions when national interests compel leadership to risk what amounts to a significant percentage of the Navy's annual budget in a single engagement.
What is needed is a Navy cheap enough to be built in large numbers while remaining sufficiently effective to defend American interests on the high seas. We need Fords, not Ferraris. In keeping with the new maritime strategy, the force should be designed with enough inherent flexibility to respond across the expanse of engagement, from humanitarian assistance missions to long-range precision strike. The Navy's force structure should be organized to maximize the potential of its assets during peacetime, including steady state operations, while also providing a means for swift concentration of credible combat power to meet any emergent major combat operation. It's a pretty tall order, but there is a way.
Step one is to abandon the idea of a Navy built around 11 or 12 carrier strike groups. These have become too expensive to operate, and too vulnerable to be risked in anything other than an unhostile environment. This is not to say that the carrier strike groups must be done away with, however, but the discussion of how many and where they fit in a new strategy comes later. Suffice it to say, dollars and billets recouped from a lower number of carrier strike groups should be invested in ships that are well suited for low to medium engagement.
Steady-State Force

A key tenet of post-9/11 strategic thought is that extremist religious terrorism is avoidable. Societies with infrastructural resources such as electricity, clean water, public education, and some modicum of medical care do not generally incubate extremist groups in their midst. Naval forces that have basic abilities to police the sea lines of communication while also seizing port call opportunities to build the basic communal building blocks of productive life ought to be an important component of the future Navy.
The next step on the Navy's path to a new future should be the creation of "Influence Squadrons" composed of an amphibious mother ship (an LPD-17 or a cheaper commercial ship with similar capabilities), a destroyer to provide air, surface, and subsurface defensive capabilties, a Littoral Combat Ship to extend a squadron's reach into the green-water environment and provide some mine warfare capabilities, a Joint High Speed Vessel to increase lift, a Coastal Patrol ship to operate close in, and an M80 Stiletto to provide speed and versatility.
The Influence Squadron should also heavily employ unmanned technologies to further expand the squadron's reach. Unmanned air, surface, and subsurface platforms could be deployed and monitored by the various vessels, extending American awareness, if not American presence.
These forces, operating every day around the world, would represent the preponderance of visible U.S. naval power. Their understated capabilities would epitomize America's peaceful, non-aggressive intent, and would carry out the new maritime strategy's stated purpose of providing positive influence forward. However, the Influence Squadron, carrying credible firepower across a broad area of operations, could also serve to either dissuade or destroy pirate networks that might seek to prey upon increasingly vulnerable commercial sea lines of communication.
Creating 16 of these squadrons, ten in the Pacific, six in the Atlantic, would allow the Navy to forward deploy six to eight squadrons at any given time, expanding American influence around the world. Pacific-based squadrons would routinely deploy to the east coast of Africa, the Persian Gulf, the waters off Malaysia to include the Strait of Malacca, the archipelagic waters of Indonesia, the waters in and around the Philippines, and the regional waters near Japan and Korea.
Atlantic-based squadrons would visit the Caribbean, South America, the north and western coasts of Africa as well as pushing up into the Black Sea to visit Georgia, the Ukraine and other partners in the region. Sometimes, however, Influence Squadrons, no matter how well they are placed, will not have the necessary concentration of capabilities to meet the emergent challenges. It would be at this point that the next force along the scale of naval response would be dispatched.
Anti-Terrorism Force

For the past 30 years the Amphibious Ready Group-Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG-MEU) has served as the basic core unit of America's quick-reaction force in the littorals. In 2001, however, with the announcement of the Sea Power 21 construct, this force underwent an evolutionary change. With the addition of a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate, a fast-attack submarine, and a flag- or Marine general officer-led staff; the ARG-MEU quickly became an Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG).
The core characteristic of the ESG lies in the recognition that its Marines and their ability to wage a Four-Block War (from peacekeeping to full-scale house-to-house combat) represented the true strike asset of the formation. Hence, the main advantage of this strike group lies in its Marines and their ability to provide scalability of response across the spectrum of engagement. The scalability of this force and the credible nature of its combative power make the ESG the ideal force of the Department of the Navy in the war on terrorism.
The new maritime strategy recognizes explicitly that "preventing wars is at least as important as winning them." The prevention of wars can occur in small acts, like Marines and SeaBees building a school or digging a well to provide a village with clean water, or it could involve the medical staff of a hospital ship or a light amphibious squadron inoculating an entire community against polio, measles, mumps, and rubella.
These things may seem small to Americans—almost assumed aspects of day-to-day life in the United States. But such activities in many communities near the sea will ensure that an entire generation reaches maturity rather than just 50 to 60 percent. The ESG, with the tremendous vertical-lift capability of its embarked Air Combat Element, can also serve as a credible first responder to natural disasters such as tsunamis, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions (which are more than likely to occur concurrently in the Pacific). The movement of relief supplies and the evacuation of injured, the restriction of piracy, and the protection of American interests, can permanently affect the perception of the United States in regions at strategic crossroads.
The new maritime strategy also postulates that the U.S. Navy should field a force capable of winning "the long struggle against terrorist networks." Careful consideration of the range of operations to be undertaken within an anti-terrorism campaign leads to a conclusion that the Expeditionary Strike Group can provide theater commanders in the field with a full toolbox of options.
If it is accepted that the aircraft carrier, with its aviation strike packages, represents the sledgehammer of America's arsenal, then the ESG, with its Tomahawk-firing cruisers and destroyers, as well as its scalable squad-to-battalion Marine force, represent the wrenches, screwdrivers, and pliers within the nation's war on terrorism toolbox. When the introduction of the MV-22 Osprey and the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighter is factored into the strategic equation, the ESG represents a force that is ideally structured to counter terrorist actions anywhere from oceanic blue water to ground operations 150-200 miles inland. The flexibility of this unit makes it the ideal candidate to serve as a critical response force, capable of dealing with threats short of those large enough to justify a surge force deployment.
Surge Force

The proposed surge force is easily recognizable to the reader as it represents those capabilities currently embedded within the carrier strike force, but rather than taking a posture of regular deployments, the majority of the surge force will be maintained in a high state of readiness at home. To be sure, carrier strike group deployments will still occur, but they will be less frequent and more focused on emergent strategic requirements.
Instead, the aircraft carriers (nine or ten for the sake of this discussion) and their support ships and airwings will remain in home waters, exercising as required to maintain six CSGs in a high state of combat readiness. The assumption underlying this force is that one carrier will be involved in reactor upkeep, one will be coming home from either a regional deployment or a major international exercise, and another will be on her way out. This leaves roughly six carriers in standby, ready to surge at a moment's notice. Where they surge from is a critical question. A smaller carrier force needs to be redistributed to get the most out of a decreased number of ships.
Most of America's strategic interests in the decades to come will be in the Asian Pacific region, and that is where the majority of the nation's aircraft carriers should be as well. Of the force of nine or ten carrier strike groups, six should be home ported in the Pacific; two in Bremerton, two in San Diego, one in Japan, and one in another forward base to be determined. The remaining east coast carriers should be strategically dispersed between Norfolk and Mayport. This distribution scheme will both help ensure the survivability of the force against surprise attacks, and cut the transit time to crises around the globe. The bottom line is that the United States should always have six carrier strike groups ready to surge to a point of conflict within 15 to 30 days.
Another critical component of the surge force will be the Expeditionary Strike Groups and their light amphibious carriers. Long considered to be the central core of the amphibious force, these highly capable aircraft carriers can serve in new roles within surge operations. Assuming one is in dry-dock for maintenance, a force of ten LHAs can provide nine small flattops for surge operations. Five of them will go to sea with their embarked Marine Expeditionary Units serving as their primary strike assets (again, the assumption would be that two of the MEUs would either be deploying or returning from deployment at any given time) while the remaining available LHAs deploy with each of their decks and hangars populated by two squadrons of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters.
The four LPDs and four LSDs that would have normally deployed with the Joint Strike Fighter-configured LHAs can be allocated to provide such maritime lift as necessary to carry out the Marine Corps' mission. Such a configuration would provide the naval services with a wider, distributed, and more survivable strike capability and joint forcible entry options in an increasingly anti-access environment. The new LHA(R) America-class ships, lacking a well-deck, would seem particularly suited for this STOVL strike carrier role.
Undersea Warfare

Another area of focus for the future force should be in undersea warfare. Perhaps no place poses a greater threat to the current U.S. force structure or suggests the greatest potential for improvement in a future Navy than the underwater environment and the vessels that populate it. The first major proposed shift is the inclusion of diesel-powered submarines that incorporate air-independent propulsion (AIP) technologies. These submarines can be purchased for a fraction of the cost of a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine such as those of the Virginia class.
Diesel/AIP boats are very quiet, and can be equipped with effective torpedoes, antisurface missiles, and even antiair missiles. These relatively inexpensive yet highly capable subs should replace the Virginia-class boats in the shallow-water environment alongside the new Influence Squadron surface force, allowing the Virginias to concentrate on their antisubmarine warfare mission in the blue-water environment. The one significant drawback of the non-nuclear design is shorter patrol intervals because of limited fuel supply. But this can be offset by forward-basing them near their patrol areas. A number of nations may welcome permanent basing of diesel/AIP submarines but have rejected nuclear-powered submarines in their ports for political reasons.
Another proposed area of change is the permanent inclusion of guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) in the U.S. inventory. The advantages inherent in the deployment of these concentrated strike packages either in conjunction with a strike group, or by operating alone are only now being recognized. However, the U.S. Navy has made a mistake along the path to an SSGN force by tying the capability to a back-fit program for Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines. Future guided-missile submarines should be built new as adaptations of the Virginia class, perhaps offsetting the decreased buy of Virginias as the diesel/AIP boats come online.
The Answer

There are times, or so it has been said, when quantity has a quality all its own. In the current geostrategic setting, the U.S. Navy needs to be in more places than it has hulls in the water. It has stated that it needs to rise above the 270-odd ships currently in its inventory to meet its commitments.
The naval services have published a maritime strategy that enunciates what those commitments are, but the Navy's acquisition strategy has failed to align with its strategic goals. Instead of procuring a large number of ships with blunt, effective capabilities to meet the threats of today, the Navy has aligned with the shipbuilding industry to build an entire generation of ships with exquisite technologies that are the very best in the world, but are also so expensive that the Navy can only afford a limited number of hulls.
It needs ships capable enough to perform basic missions, yet inexpensive enough to buy in large numbers and operate cheaply. Naval planners also have to factor in unmanned technologies that will allow its ships to extend their awareness far beyond the reach of their own sensors. In addition, the Navy needs to dedicate these ships to the current threats of today, not the imagined boogey-men of tomorrow.
Rampant "next-war-itis" needs to stop, and the Navy needs to commit itself to fighting the very real, and very relevant conflict of today. To be sure, the Navy will need to retain its current, high-end capabilities in such numbers and at such readiness as to dissuade future competitors from entering into conflict with the United States. The data suggest that if the Navy were to pursue a future fleet as described here, with both high- and low-end capabilities in an appropriate ratio, it could have 320 hulls in the water within 12 years for three quarters of the acquisition budget it intends to spend. This represents a net savings of almost five billion dollars a year. Again, I say the Navy needs to buy Fords, not Ferraris.
CDR Hendrix is the author of "Theodore Roosevelt's Naval Diplomacy (http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1785&DEPARTMENT_ID=135)" which will be released by Naval Institute Press on May 1st. Hendrix holds a PhD from King's College London, and is a former member of the Institute's editorial board. He is former commanding officer of Tactical Air Control Squadron 11.


How are social conservatives opposed to fiscal conservatism? It is conservative to believe that Americans shouldn't suckle off the tit of the system, but rather work hard for what you've got. They could go either way, but I don't see why they are more inclined to blow their wallets all over the place.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

How are social conservatives opposed to fiscal conservatism? It is conservative to believe that Americans shouldn't suckle off the tit of the system, but rather work hard for what you've got. They could go either way, but I don't see why they are more inclined to blow their wallets all over the place.
"Compassionate conservatism" isn't well defined, but all its advocates spend like the Dems, so I don't really see the point.

Meanwhile, the neo-cons think we can invade people on the cheap, so...

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Compassionate conservatism" isn't well defined, but all its advocates spend like the Dems, so I don't really see the point.

Meanwhile, the neo-cons think we can invade people on the cheap, so...


Because Bush was an idiot, all social conservatives are spendthrifts?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Show me a social conservative who opposed Bush's spending, both on welfare programs and bloody foreign wars.

[Xiahou]

I dont think the social conservatives themselves are the problem, I think it was the GOP's over-reliance on them. They seemed to think that they could get by on pandering to them alone and could throw the small government conservatives overboard.

I think either side trying to drive a wedge between economic conservatives and social conservatives is making a mistake- I believe there is a fair amount of overlap for both groups. I would be case in point on that. :yes:

[Lemur]

Getting back to Senatorial news, there's a multi-layered web of weirdness enfolding David Vitter (R-LA). You may only know Vitter as the diaper-wearing patron of prostitutes, but there's so much more to know about our hero!

After the many-faceted failures surrounding hurricane Katrina, FEMA has been a bit of a sore point. The Obama administration chose to nominate one Craig Fugate as the new head. I'll let the newspapers (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/67350.html) take it from here:


A Louisiana senator is stalling Florida emergency management director Craig Fugate's nomination as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Fugate had sailed through his nomination hearing and Monday cleared the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by a unanimous voice vote. Republican Sen. David Vitter said, however, that he'd blocked Fugate because of concerns he has with FEMA.

"I have a hold on the FEMA nomination because I sent a list of hurricane recovery questions and projects to FEMA, many of which have not been adequately addressed," Vitter said in a statement. "I'm eager to get full responses and meet with the nominee immediately."

The hold -- which comes a month before the start of hurricane season -- was reported in CQ Today, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which noted that Vitter's home state "bore the brunt of the botched agency response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

At that time, FEMA was led by Michael Brown, who had little emergency management experience. Fugate, however, garnered widespread praise for deft handling of back-to-back hurricanes in Florida and won bipartisan support at his confirmation hearing and was expected to be confirmed swiftly.

So diaper-loving whoremonger Vitter wants FEMA to remain leaderless a month out from hurricane season so that he can get better answers from FEMA. Still with me?

This may be why famed porn star Stormy Daniels is launching a "listening tour" through Louisiana to see if she should contest Vitter in the Republican primary, as advocated by the Draft Stormy website (http://draftstormy.com/). For further details (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/02/porn-star-stormy-daniels-launches-senate-campaign-listening-tour/):


While she may seem to be a longshot now, imagine, if you will, the sight of eager throngs all over the state, waiting in anticipation for Stormy Daniels to come. When she gets there, the crowd erupts thunderously. In politics, perception is reality, and scenes like this will go a long way to establishing Stormy Daniels as a contender.

So far this story has hurricanes, diapers, FEMA, Michael Brown, porn, Stormy Daniels, the U.S. Senate, whores and David Vitter. There's nothing missing, except maybe a transsexual and the Office of Budget Management.

[Marshal Murat]

I think Specter switched parties because he is the member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary) and heard that Souter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter) is retiring. The Supreme Court Justice would want another liberal to take his place on the board, and while Specter and the Republicans won't be able to block the next appointment; Specter can get some great publicity from the new appointment process not appealing to his "traditional demographic" who doesn't care about him anymore, but by appealing to his new constituency.

[Don Corleone]

Purge Watch: Huffington Post Weighs In on "Not Just Democrat, Progressive Democrat: Sestack considering primary run against Arlen Specter: D-PA" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wanted-a-pennsylvania-ned_b_195465.html).

I for one happen to agree with the Huffington Post and Mr. Mogolescu. The Democratic Party should stop worrying about the Republican party and instead focus on getting so-called "Blue Dog Democrats" out of office. And I coudn't possibly agree more with the sentiment that the first Democrat that should receive an electoral atomic wedgie by a more progressive primary challenger is Sen. Arlen Spector-D Pennsylvania. After all, Specter didn't keep his word... he voted with the Republicans on the Bankruptcy Reform Act, preventing a measure that would have allowed courts to restructure mortgages in bankruptcy.

If Specter wouldn't vote Democrat on such a crucial bill, and refuses to declare that he won't vote to always block Republican filibusters, I don't think the Democrats are getting enough for the senate seat they're selling to him and they should offer it to somebody that will embolden "hope and change".

[drone]

Senate Democrats strip Specter of seniority in committees. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/senate_democrats_deny_specter.html?hpid=topnews)

The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.

In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.

But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.

"This is all going to be negotiated next Congress," Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), said tonight.

Without any assurance of seniority, Specter loses a major weapon in his campaign to win reelection in 2010: the ability to claim that his nearly 30 years of Senate service places him in key positions to benefit his constituents.
:laugh4: A true defector's welcome.



OT, but still worth a mention: RIP, Jack Kemp. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

Drone: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. He's junior to the freshmen senate Democrats like Jeanne Shaheen!

Sestak in 2010! (http://www.rollcall.com/news/34519-1.html)

[Don Corleone]

Purge Watch 2009: Carolyn McCarthy Issuing Primary Challenge to Kristen Gillibrand D-NY for recognizing a personal right to own firearms. (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/54343/)

McCarthy in 2010! :jumping:

[Lemur]

Sestak in 2010! (http://www.rollcall.com/news/34519-1.html)
I had to look at that three times to make sure you weren't saying "Sleestax." What with all of the votes for lizard people, I get confused.

[Xiahou]

I had to look at that three times to make sure you weren't saying "Sleestax." What with all of the votes for lizard people, I get confused.

With any luck the Sleestax will defeat Specter in the primaries. That might give Toomey an actual shot if he's facing off against the lizard men instead of Specter. More seriously, as Drone's article points out, losing his seniority takes away one of the biggest arguments Specter has had for reelection- good.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Purge Watch 2009: Carolyn McCarthy Issuing Primary Challenge to Kristen Gillibrand D-NY for recognizing a personal right to own firearms. (http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/54343/)

McCarthy in 2010! :jumping:

I loathe that woman's politics. Nothing but emotion - the opposite of what running a country should be.

CR

[Lemur]

Remember, if you want to kill a zombie, you have to destroy the head or remove the brain. With that said, the Minnesota Undead Election will not die. And some people are keen to keep it in its shuffling, stumbling half-life.

Should Coleman Concede? Steele Says, "Hell No" (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/05/should_coleman.php)

Embattled RNC Chair Michael Steele let his 100th day at the GOP helm slip by with little fanfare amid last weekend's White House Correspondents Dinner festivites. But in an interview after the gala, Steele said that if the state Supreme Court doesn't rule ex-Sen. Norm Coleman the winner, "then it's going to the federal courts."

Asked if Coleman should concede if entertainer Al Franken (D) is deemed the winner, Steele said, "No, hell no. Whatever the outcome, it's going to get bumped to the next level. This does not end until there's a final ruling that speaks to whether or not those votes that have not been counted should be counted. And Norm Coleman will not, will not jump out of this race before that."

[Lemur]

This might be a promising development in the Night of the Undead Minnesota Election.


Pawlenty: Once the Minnesota Supreme Court rules I will follow their direction in the law in that regard and there's lots of different scenarios of where it could go from there. For example, our Minnesota Supreme Court could rule that the case has to be remanded down to a lower court for ballot opening and further recounting, they still have a variety of theories. If they do that, again The state election certificate cannot be issued until the state court process is complete. That's what our law says and I will follow the law in that regard.

He seems to be saying that he will abide by the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision, which, if true, means this might end before my little lemur joins Kindergarten.

[CountArach]

Am I the only one who has the image of this going until the winner is up for re-election? Just think of the legal difficulties in that!

[Lemur]

It seems that the Sleestax (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/exclusive-sestak-intends-to-run-for-senate.php) will, in fact, battle the Mummy King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter) in the PA Dem primary.

[Lemur]

The Right Honorable Roland Burris can't get no respect (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/07/AR2009060702018.html):


Robert Blagojevich called Mr. Burris on Nov. 13 to talk about raising money for the governor. But it was Mr. Burris who started the conversation by saying, "I, I know you're calling telling me that you're gonna make me king of the world . . . ." Throughout the conversation, Mr. Burris was very concerned about the appearance of his raising money for Mr. Blagojevich's reelection while seeking to be considered for the Senate seat. Yet, that didn't stop him from trying to figure out ways to get around it.

Mr. Burris suggested hiding behind his lawyer: "I might be able to do this in the name of Tim Wright." He suggested obscuring his involvement by linking into one of 18 upcoming events. "Maybe I can join in on one of those events, too," he said. "What, what, do you have any going with the people that I know?" At the end of the call, Mr. Burris reassured Mr. Blagojevich: "I will personally do something, okay."

-edit-

It seems that Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has discovered the Twitter.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/grassley-tweets.jpg

Wonkette sums it up (http://wonkette.com/408998/grassley-tweets-belligerently-about-al-gore-barack-obama-whatever) nicely:


Remember back in 1780-something, when we had actual smart people writing our founding documents in beautiful longhand when they weren’t inventing new kinds of ploughs and bifocals and ****? Now our nation’s top legislators just type away like petulant teenage girls, with their thumbs, about how the president is so awful for spending the weekend in Paris. We are all stupider for having read this.

[Lemur]

The Rumble in Minnesota is over (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/49520987.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU). No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.


Republican Norm Coleman ended his bruising eight-month court fight over Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat this afternoon, conceding to Democrat Al Franken after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Franken's favor.

The justices ruled today that Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he is entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.

"Affirmed," wrote the Supreme Court, unanimously rejecting Coleman's claims that inconsistent practices by local elections officials and wrong decisions by a lower court had denied him victory.

Two hours after the decision was released, Coleman said he would "abide by the results."

Within minutes, Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office removed the last hurdle to Franken's being seated in the Senate, saying he would sign Franken's certificate of election.

"Further litigation damages the unity of our state," Coleman said during a news conference held at his St. Paul home. "The future today is that we have a new United States senator."

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wonkette sums it up (http://wonkette.com/408998/grassley-tweets-belligerently-about-al-gore-barack-obama-whatever) nicely:


Remember back in 1780-something, when we had actual smart people writing our founding documents in beautiful longhand when they weren’t inventing new kinds of ploughs and bifocals and ****? Now our nation’s top legislators just type away like petulant teenage girls, with their thumbs, about how the president is so awful for spending the weekend in Paris. We are all stupider for having read this.

Oh come on. Wonkette thrives on that very culture.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The Rumble in Minnesota is over (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/49520987.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU). No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.


Congratulations. The vast Democratic majority is now officially a joke.

[Xiahou]

The Rumble in Minnesota is over (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/49520987.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU). No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.Some might say it's just starting. :beam:

I look forward to seeing how the Democrats solve all the country's problems with their filibuster proof majority. :sweatdrop:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I still had my hopes up for the Lizard People and their reform-minded platform.

[Lemur]

I know, ATPG, I was rooting for the lizard people too. At least we still have Sleestax (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/exclusive-sestak-intends-to-run-for-senate.php) ...


I look forward to seeing how the Democrats solve all the country's problems with their filibuster proof majority.
If they can involve us in two wars and pass something as ineffective and expensive as Medicare D, I will be duly impressed.

[Xiahou]

If they can involve us in two wars and pass something as ineffective and expensive as Medicare D, I will be duly impressed.Well, just a few months in and we've got a $787bn+ stimulus (part D is estimated to cost less than than thru 2015) that was promised to keep unemployment under 8%, the house passed a cap and trade travesty that's reviled on both the left and right and we're looking at a healthcare reform package that's likely to call for huge new taxes in the midst of a recession. Not bad for just over 5 months- you've gotta give em time though. Franken isn't even sworn in yet.

[CountArach]

Well, just a few months in and we've got a $700bn+ stimulus that was promised to keep unemployment under 8%
Keeping in mind that most of it hasn't even hit the economy yet - I don't think you can blame rising unemployment on the stimulus package.

[Xiahou]

Keeping in mind that most of it hasn't even hit the economy yet - I don't think you can blame rising unemployment on the stimulus package.
So what are you arguing? That Obama didn't claim it would keep unemployment under 8%? You just seem to be confirming what the critics have said- that the spending is too slow to make a difference.

[CountArach]

So what are you arguing? That Obama didn't claim it would keep unemployment under 8%? You just seem to be confirming what the critics have said- that the spending is too slow to make a difference.
I think that Obama's promise was irresponsible and he shouldn't have made it. But to then draw that out into an attack on the Stimulus package as a whole is wrong. I think that it will bring unemployment back into check far faster than doing nothing or tax cuts and that is all I was saying.

[KukriKhan]

The Rumble in Minnesota is over. No, really, it's over. I can't decide if I'll miss the abusrdity, or if I'm glad that a no-longer-funny joke is at its end.

Whew. The people of Minnesota finally have the same level of representation as the rest of the States. I'd be plenty mad if I were them, being taxed without representation and all.

Meanwhile, they still haven't fixed the disparate way their precincts count votes, which led to this debacle in the first place. If they don't get to work on that soon, and there's another close election, they'll face the same problem again, and again.

[Lemur]

Although the Dems have a 60-seat supermajority in theory, the reality may be a bit more squishy (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2009&base_name=franken_may_have_won_but_senat):


First, even if Franken is seated, he will not make for a particularly crisp #60. Though no one wants to say it, it is not clear that Sen. Ted Kennedy will ever vote again in the Senate, given his medical condition. Massachusetts lawmakers are already quietly jockeying for his seat. A replacement senator in Massachusetts needs to be chosen by the electorate (the governor has no role), which could mean weeks, even months, for primary and general election campaigns to be conducted. Meanwhile, after a month in the hospital, Sen. Robert Byrd was released today to continue his recovery at home, but the 91-year-old remains in delicate health.

Even if senators always voted party-line, which they don’t, it takes 60 senators present and voting to vote cloture. Democrats aren’t there yet.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Although the Dems have a 60-seat supermajority in theory, the reality may be a bit more squishy (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2009&base_name=franken_may_have_won_but_senat):


First, even if Franken is seated, he will not make for a particularly crisp #60. Though no one wants to say it, it is not clear that Sen. Ted Kennedy will ever vote again in the Senate, given his medical condition. Massachusetts lawmakers are already quietly jockeying for his seat. A replacement senator in Massachusetts needs to be chosen by the electorate (the governor has no role), which could mean weeks, even months, for primary and general election campaigns to be conducted. Meanwhile, after a month in the hospital, Sen. Robert Byrd was released today to continue his recovery at home, but the 91-year-old remains in delicate health.

Even if senators always voted party-line, which they don’t, it takes 60 senators present and voting to vote cloture. Democrats aren’t there yet.


Good reminder. All due respect to both Senators Kennedy and Byrd, but it would be best for their respective constituencies if both gentlemen were to resign as of X date in the not-to-distant future so that their states might get the appropriate wheels turning. I do not say this for partisan purposes -- both would be replaced by fairly like-minded "noobs" in all likelihood -- but they are leaving their states as under-represented as was Minnesota until recently.

I think Franken's a putz, but he should have been seated in January -- the numbers were never on Coleman's side albeit by a thin margin -- Minnesotans deserve the representation they chose.

On the other hand, I think the direct election of Senators (17th ammendment) has had profoundly negative effects on the United States as a whole and that however well-intentioned, the unintended consequences are horrific and we should revert to the previous set-up. But what do I know....

[Don Corleone]

It seems that the Sleestax (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/exclusive-sestak-intends-to-run-for-senate.php) will, in fact, battle the Mummy King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter) in the PA Dem primary.

So, as I see this, one of two things is happening...

1) The Obama is going back on a promise to see to it that Specter would not be opposed in the PA Democratic primary. I consider this the most likely scenario.... get Specter crapping his pants and make CERTAIN that Specter always stands with the herd on cloture votes.

2) Sestak is going to run, even in light of Obama's opposition. Highly unlikely. Obama is the GOD of political pull right now. Him showing up for a single Specter "get out the vote" rally would guarantee Sestak's demise not only in the primary, but in Democratic political circles forever. He cannot be that stupid or blindly ambitious.

So, if Democrats don't keep promises to themselves, what can the rest of us expect?

[Lemur]

Obama is going back on a promise to see to it that Specter would not be opposed in the PA Democratic primary. I consider this the most likely scenario....
Pretty sure POTUS has no say in who can run in a state primary. Even a popular President does not have that power.

Also, don't forget one of the defining characteristics of the Democratic Party: anarchy. Thia ain't the GOP we're talking about, it's the Dems. If Sleestax wants to defy Obama and run against Specter, he'll do so. About the only thing Obama can do to oppose him is direct DNC funds toward the Mummy King.

Remember, Don, no matter how many magazine covers a politician graces, we're not talking about royalty here. We're still a Republic. If Obama promised Specter he would run unpposed (and I've never seen that documented, so I'd love a linkie), the the Obammesiah was writing checks he can't cash.

[drone]

What? Nothing on the Dems losing Teddy's seat? I'm appalled....
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html?hpid=topnews

Health care is probably toast. To the Dems with their inability to govern, Nelson Muntz has something to say...

[Xiahou]

Overall, I'm not sure how I feel about this. If it means the death of Obamacare, I guess it's a good thing. But, I don't think the GOP has spent enough time in the wilderness yet to have learned from the mistakes that got them out of power in the first place.....

Also, with 60 votes in the Senate, Democrats had noone to blame but themselves for their inability to accomplish anything besides pork and kickbacks. Now they'll have GOP filibusters to blame for not being able to pass their unpopular policies.

[drone]

Well, the GOP isn't out of the wilderness yet, and probably won't be in charge after the midterms, but this is a definite wakeup call to the Democrats. I'm just happy to have a speed bump in the sausage making process. Uncle Ted must be spinning pretty fast.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The irony being it was Teddy's political maneuvering designed to keep republicans out of office that led to this (Back in 04, he got the state to change the law so replacement Senators wouldn't be appointed by the governor, then Mitt Romney, and instead be elected).

:laugh4:

Also, respect for Jim Webb: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/On_to_Plan_C.html)


Sen. Jim Webb puts out a statement that puts the notion of a quick Senate vote out of reach and pretty much makes a certification fight moot:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

And good luck getting Lieberman to vote for cloture this week, anyway.

I do hope the GOP doesn't get to big headed about this.

CR

[CountArach]

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process.
Except that Massachusetts already has Universal Healthcare and thus would not be impacted all too heavily by this.

I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Except that Massachusetts already has Universal Healthcare and thus would not be impacted all too heavily by this.

I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

John Stewert said something about this last night, namely that the Republicans never had such as large majority when George W. Bush "did whatever the **** he wanted", and that you have to go back to the 1920's in order to find such a majority.

So, Democrats < Labour.

[Subotan]

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

[Centurion1]

are you kidding yourself........

have you ever been to massachusetts the democrats have a huge nummbers advantage oover republicans. plenty of democrats who voted for obama and ted kennedy went with brown instead.


shame on democrats for losing an election in a state that even Mcgovern could win in the 60's

[Crazed Rabbit]

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

Gee, considering the sinking opinion of their state healthcare in Massachusetts, maybe they didn't want it nationwide. And IIRC only a minority supports the healthcare bill now - so this result is a mandate of the nation on that issue.


I'm interested in what this will mean for the Senate tactics of the Dems. Hopefully less pandering to Liebermann because 60 is pretty much out of reach.

Does Lieberman really affect you? :inquisitive: Anyway, I found an amusing post on dailykos, which suggested they would dump Lieberman at the earliest opportunity. And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough? :laugh4:

CR

[Lemur]

And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough?
Indeed, a destructive urge to purge seems to be infecting both sides of the aisle. I'd prefer not to see Dems engage in the left-wing equivalent of a RINO hunt. (I guess it would be a DINO hunt?)

[drone]

Were I an American, I would be upset. Obama had a clear mandate to introduce Health Care reform, and it's not just that the Republicans (Since they turned out more than Dems or Inds) of Mass. (Which has healthcare) should be able to decide whether the rest of the America has affordable healthcare or not. Republican politicians, feel ashamed of yourselves.

No, Obama did not have a clear mandate to introduce health care. He had a clear mandate to not be George W. Bush.

[Subotan]

Then why did John McCain (Or Ron Paul hehe) not win?

[rvg]

Because Obama was able to successfully deliver the (untrue) message of McCain == Bush.

Sarah Palin didn't help either.

[Subotan]

So, regardless of what Obama's policies were, he would have got elected?

[rvg]

Pretty much. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that without President George W. Bush there would have been no President Barack Hussein Obama.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

People had had enough of the republicans and elected democrats instead is what you're saying?

[Lemur]

People had had enough of the republicans and elected democrats instead is what you're saying?
No, not what he's saying. Obviously George W. Bush was seen as a sub-prime President by a large majority of the United States. I believe the final polling of his administration had something like a 25% approval rating, and I'm pretty sure his admin holds the U.S. record for highest disapproval rating for the longest period of time. That's no small thing.

So it's not unfair to say that the '08 election was a very specific rejection of the Bush admin, not republicans in general.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't know that all the senators and representatives rode on obama's wings though. Some of them did for sure. Or that McCain lost because he was "just like bush", aka also republican. But then I missed the point of the argument in the first place, so...

You only have a clear mandate if it's the right thing to do, no matter if everyone who voted for you wants you to do it. Otherwise all the congressman have a clear mandate to hand out as much pork as they can, which is what was being complained about with the health care bill.

[CountArach]

Does Lieberman really affect you? :inquisitive: Anyway, I found an amusing post on dailykos, which suggested they would dump Lieberman at the earliest opportunity. And I thought wow, you just lost a seat in a state so blue their ketchup is purple, and your reaction is to start targeting other Democrats and those not ideologically pure enough? :laugh4:

CR
He doesn't affect me directly (well not on domestic issues at least), but in the interests of International solidarity, he does. He isn't a Democrat either, he ditched the party because he wasn't ideologically pure enough to win the primary.

[drone]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/15/bayh.retirement/index.html?hpt=T1
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) decides not to run for reelection, citing disgust with the Senate and Congress in general. Is he trying to get the stink off for a 2012 challenge to Obama? Now the Dems have to pay for another campaign to keep the seat.

[Lemur]

What's with everybody who's supposed to challenge Obama in 2012? Rush has been banging the drum that it's Hillary, now it's Bayh? As I've said before, I cannot think of an example of a sitting President being unseated in a primary. Why would savvy politicians stake their careers on such an unlikely outcome?

[Hosakawa Tito]

That Hillary rumor first came up last month when she mentioned that she only wanted to serve one term as Sec. of State. Many Dems that are looking for re-election this year fear they will lose, and some aren't even going to run, choosing to "retire" instead. All those lost jobs aren't coming back anytime soon, and anti-incumbency fervor is as high as I ever remember it. Compared to Obama's policies the Republicans look like the anti-big guvmint party and Hillary looks like a conservative. Perceptions are reality in politics.

It probably depends on who the Republican candidate is going to be, but if Democrats feel Hillary or whoever has a better chance to hold the presidency...it could happen. Especially if Obama can't turn things around.

The quad-trillion dollar question is who will the Republicans run for President? Palin, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, ????

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What's with everybody who's supposed to challenge Obama in 2012? Rush has been banging the drum that it's Hillary, now it's Bayh? As I've said before, I cannot think of an example of a sitting President being unseated in a primary. Why would savvy politicians stake their careers on such an unlikely outcome?

None was passed over during the primary era unless they opted out (Johnson 1968). The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856. We ended up with that most amazing of Presidents, Buchannan.

[Centurion1]

The only time a sitting President who was eligible was not nominated was Franklin Pierce in 1856.

I didnt even know he existed until last year in my ap us history class, most worthless president therefore in my book.

So why do you guys think this Bayh actually drop from the senate? Is it really "fear"

[Crazed Rabbit]

I didnt even know he existed until last year in my ap us history class, most worthless president therefore in my book.

So why do you guys think this Bayh actually drop from the senate? Is it really "fear"

I don't really think so. He had a pretty good chance at getting reelected.

I think any potential Democratic candidates for nominee are going to wait until very near when the primaries begin before they commit to running.

CR

[Centurion1]

cant argue with you there.

any takes on the multi show argument between biden and cheney.

i doo find it a little outrageous for obama-biden to claim any of the credit for iraq for themselves.