I'm really glad this finally got passed. Liberals have given Lieberman all kinds of shit for his antics in recent years but no doubt he stood tall and pushed this one through, even in a lame duck session with other bills to consider. Glad to see eight Republicans voting with the Dems, also.

That's "decrease the surplus population", Flasch! Geez, get your Christmas quotes right ;)

SI

Are you comparing the notion of one committing mass homicide to one being a homosexual?

If we are all free, how is homosexuality still "wrong"? How is loving another person "wrong"?

Why do people continue to take Jon seriously? This is a guy who thinks the South was right in the Civil War for god's sake. He's perfectly useful talking about advertising (where he knows a heck of a lot) - politics, its like talking to your racist, 175 year old great-grandpa. :D

It makes them feel good about being liberal, they can paint any opposition to Democrats as JiMGA and feel good about themselves. "Who could possibly think like him? Republicans! Har har har"

Aah, irony.

Just like being libertarian allows one to point to any decision and go "hey, my guys didn't do something that stupid" because you have, well, nobody on the field?

Again, I always equate it to indie band fans: "I hate U2 because Bono sells out. The Lace Disco Bears (Alcides Escobar anagram) are where it's at!" It's easy to say everyone else sucks when you don't have to defend your picks.

SI

Not true. I just choose not to engage Jon and his ridiculous viewpoints. When he basically says nuke em as the solution to the Arab problem (or quite frequently anyone with a different viewpoint) why does the conversation need to go any farther? Come on, I like to think that I take the conversation a little deeper than that. You may not agree with me, I don't agree with a lot of the liberal crowd on here but they have thought out viewpoints. He is just a bigot. But I don't think a lot of people on here engage him looking for any sort of debate, they just like to laugh and think he is the typical conservative. That's what my comment meant. Never said you or even JPhillips (who is quick to pile on me for some reason). But there are people who continue to take his bait and allow him to spew his venomous garbage. And like someone said above he seems to be quite knowledgeable about marketing among many other things. His persona is political threads are a bit over the top.

Just to be clear, I'm quick to pile on anyone who goes down the road of, "Look how stupid all of those X are for stereotyping."

Not that I'm under the impression that he cares or even reads it or whatever, but I'm just sick of letting him spew his bigoted venomous garbage without offering the counterpoint.

If one doesn't confront a bigot and point out his bigotry to him then one is complicit in allowing it to a degree.

He needs to be called on his hateful bullshit every so often (not all the time, that'd be just tiresome), but he needs to be called on it.

That's fine I was just explaining what I saw to be the reason why some people respond to him in a serious way. Some people make fun of him, some ignore him, some actually try to debate him. Can't imagine any reason one would debate someone who often calls for the extermination of his rivals. It must make people feel good about themselves was what I came up with. ("Maybe I can change him?" being the other option, but nobody is that foolish are they?)

I agree that it's pointless to engage Jon. However, framing it as proof of liberal elitism is just garbage IMO. I'd imagine people engage others in this thread for a variety of reasons and trying to find generalizations about all Dems or GOPers or Libertarians based on a few posts is a fool's errand.

edit: rereading that it came off harsher than I intended. I'd just encourage everyone to resist the easy stereotyping of those we disagree with.

Fuckers. From the Washington Post.

Census apportionment data for the next decade.

Texas +4, FL +2, AZ, GA, NV, SC, UT, WA +1

NY -2, OH -2, IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MS, NJ, PA -1.

DC increases it's population for the first time since Truman was President. We are up to 601,000.

Our Congressional representation remains the same.

To be fair, if you'd been decreasing in population, then increased for the first time in a while, you wouldn't expect Congressional representation to increase, unless it fell during that population decline -- and I don't think that happened. :p

I think he's referring to the fact that D.C. Congressmen are non-voting.

Me too. I guess I can't find an emoticon with tongue-in-cheek, so I chose tongue sticking out.

By my count that's seven free electoral votes for the GOP in the next three presidential elections.

I'd put the GOP up 6 (TX+4, GA+1, SC+1, UT+1, MS-1) and the Dems down 2 (WA+1, NY-2, NJ-1).

Yes, just me stepping on to my soapbox. :) (and I understood that Pass "got it")

How would the allocation of % of votes/seats turn out any different with any other number?

This made me LOL (from John Cole):

I know this topic has been beaten to death, but Barbour’s comment still stuns me:

In interviews Barbour doesn’t have much to say about growing up in the midst of the civil rights revolution. “I just don’t remember it as being that bad,” he said.

Everyone seems to be focusing on the Citizen Council and the other race hate groups of the day, but for me, but when I hear him say it wasn’t that bad, I just can’t get past wanting to scream “BECAUSE YOU’RE FUCKING WHITE, ASSHOLE.”

Sweet jeebus. The Holocaust wasn’t that bad for Hitler, either. Until the very end.

Yep. I just found Cole's response particularly LOL-worthy.

Just for the record, I think you've got it kind of backwards re: persona. The political threads are the closest "real me" you get.

When it comes to, say, marketing, it's much easier to be dispassionate because it's largely straight out of the book or even more typically just passing along some useful resource I've found or whatever. I mean, I could easily enough answer someone's question about the number of Senators in Congress as that's simple fact requiring no interpretation nor. Ask me who those Senators should be & you get to something that involves me rather than a simple number.

Congress added seats and votes when it admitted new states. We're not doing that now.

The House and votes would still be apportioned based on each state's share of the country's population.

You are right and wrong. I think it takes about 710K headcount per rep. So D.C., if they were a state would still be in the less than or equal to one rep., similar to Wyoming. Every state is guaranteed one rep. minimum. I guess that means it would take about 1,420,000 to get two reps.

So even if you were an actual state that got voting reps., your number of reps still would not have changed.

For now, you still get your shadow rep. and the wasted cost it takes in upkeep.

Sure, but you would have something like one rep. per 35K people. Just think of how that would reduce the level of corruption in lobbying. You would have to buy off about 20 times more poeple. That is pretty cost prohibitive. Not to mention time prohibitive, etc.

Don't be too sure about those extra seats in Texas being GOP locks.

At least one of them will be in the Central Texas area, which is routinely an oasis of blue in a sea of red on electoral maps by party. Also, much of the population growth in Texas has also been in the traditionally Democrat-voting Hispanic and African-American sectors.

That being said, the supermajority-holding GOP will be drawing the new district lines in 2011, and if history is any guide, there will be some funkily-carved out districts.

I think you are underestimating lobbyists.

Don't kid yourself, we have 0 reps. The shadow rep means nothing. Based on DC's population, we should have 1 member of the House and 2 members of the Senate.

What we do have is 1 individual that goes to the house, hangs out, and is a non-voting delegate to Congress. She can vote in the three committees (and six subcommittees) she is a member of, but not on the floor of Congress. Congress can also strip that ability anytime it so pleases.

You should consider it an honor to be one of the few Americans not officially represented by some douchebag.

The Onion, with their coverage of the repeal of DADT (contains some NSFW images and text):

Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Yeah, that'll make me feel better. I'm sure most people would rather have no representation.

If I was a D.C. resident I'd be a billion times more concerned with self-governance (congressional control over local affairs, appointment of prosecutors, etc) than representation.

The myth of congressional "representation" is just that. Most Americans couldn't name their representatives, and very few (if any) representatives have any noticeable impact on day-to-day life in the area they represent.

If I could permantly assign my representative to you (maybe in exchange for a more competent governor) I'd do it in a second. It'd be a net gain.

Edit: "In theory" one D.C. representative could help promote more D.C. autonomy (if that's the goal), but in reality, it wouldn't be that simple. I think there's more pratical ways to improve the city.

You could always just move across the river out of D.C. if it's that upsetting?

D.C. residents should not be paying federal income tax when they have no representation in the House or Senate that gets to vote on the rate of those taxes. It's as simple as that.

As for the population changes, bigdawg made a good point about population growth. For instance, that +1 in GA certainly isn't coming from Valdosta or Statesboro. The red states are getting bluer and bluer as their urban areas grow.

re: #1 - good point. I hadn't considered that angle of it right now, for whatever reason.

re: #2 - which is a GREAT thing!

Why should he have to move to obtain a right so fundamental that it was one of the major themes of the very revolution that started the country?

Oh, don't worry, that's my soapbox as well. :) It just wasn't directly relevant to the conversation.


So that's our solution to equal rights in this country now? If you don't like that you aren't treated equally, then move? If your schools are segregated, why don't you just move to the northeast (sorry to pull such hyperbole, but I feel it is a valid comparison)? Don't like taxation without representation? Go back to England.


+1

No no...I wasn't saying that was the long-term solution to equal rights...just stating in your particular case if it's something that's causing you an amount of irritation that makes it so that you can't really enjoy your life...

You are greatly overestimating my level of irritation. I love life and I am a very happy and content individual. That doesn't mean I don't think it is a travesty that DC residents don't have voting representation in Congress or the ability to fully control their own city.

fair enough

FWIW - i agree it's ridiculous and makes no sense.

That's because you're a dirty liberal. :p

Nah, with the red states getting more representation in the just-finished census, he just wants a government bailout of government ;)

How timely..


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/...ity_to_vo.html

Color me unsurprised. Douchey Republicans.

Shouldn't DC be free of taxation if it does not have representation? I recall revolutions beginning on such premises.

They're a bit miffed about that, to this day. I always chuckled at these license plates when I was in DC. It's such a great protest: "Yes, our government issues license plates have a protest message on them".

SI

I've always thought that if they want to be treated like a state, let 'em be a state. The federal buidings and monuments can be the "district" and the rest can be the 51st state of Columbia. That's closer to the intention of the original setup.

Of course then, someone would start to reside in a Congressional utility closet and demand representation, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Or just give the city back to Maryland, minus the federal area.

They don't want it.

If I lived in DC, I wouldn't want to be part of that side of Maryland, either ;)

SI

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was passed in 1978. However, the freedom-loving all-men-are-created equal states failed to ratify the amendment. Only 16 states chose to ratify the amendment.

The slight at the end is fairly laughable, so I don't even know why I'm addressing it. 600,000 people is not like someone living in a Congressional utility closet. That's akin to "We can't let gays get married, next people will want to marry dogs."

Would you be in favor of statehood, or being absorbed into Maryland? Or is there some advantage to retaining the current status?

The closet thing wasn't about size, more about my amusement of people demanding a congressman, so I don't quite get the thing about the dogs.

That's what I was asking, I don't know if statehood would be preferable to merging or not. Assuming it is, that'd be cool. I'm all for self-determination for people of D.C. to be their own state, part of another state, or retain their current status. I'm just not as sympthetic when they seem to just want the best parts of all of the above.

The difference would be those two states actualy became states in the appropriate manner. The District of Columbia was not created to be a state. It makes sense to assign the residential areas to Maryland and Virgina as appropriate. Or don't have residential areas in D.C.

This appears to be a little more involved than just a political issue. It screams fraud and jail time for "advisors".

If given the choice of secession to Maryland, statehood, or maintaining the status quo I would choose statehood. Given the choice of secession or status quo, I would choose secession. You don't realize how much it matters until you don't have it. :) In particular, as DT mentioned, it's not just representation. The fact is that Congress has ultimate control over our budget, laws, etc. On top of that, there is not a single member of Congress that represents DC. Other compromises I would perhaps accept are not paying federal taxes or autonomy from Congress without representation.

I believe the measures that have been attempted in recent years (bills to give DC one congressperson while giving Utah one to balance it, for instance) have been measures in expediency and practicality. As proven in '78-'85, an amendment doesn't seem to work. There is just no incentive for other states to care if 600,000 people somewhere else in the country are disenfranchised.

Ultimately the problem is that DC is overwhelmingly Democrat. This is, not surprisingly, about politics, not about equal rights.

As mentioned the problem is politics.

1. Statehood -- big favor to Democrats
2. Seccession -- big favor to Republicans
3. Status Quo -- no benefit to either

Can representation happen where it's not a political coup by one side or the other?

What? :confused:

I am sure it had nothing to do with economics, Indian wars/affairs, and the local people.

The comments from the story are pure classic ignorant Glenn Beck gold.

CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

The non-partisan CBO reiterated today that repealing the new Health Care Law would add $230 billion to the deficit.

Here's the part in the story that gets me upset.

The House Rules Committee meets Thursday on the health repeal legislation with a procedural vote scheduled for Friday and a floor vote next Wednesday. The new Republican rules will say that no bills can pass if they add to the deficit, but Republicans are making an exception to their own rules for the repeal bill.

Glad to see the Republican Party is showing from day 1 they won't govern as promised, but instead show the nation that once again, they are lying hypocrites. Glad to see it come from Day 1.

No need, the article does it:

I don't believe there was any greater mandate given to the GOP majority than to at least make an effort to repeal this abomination. Failure to do so would be ballot box suicide for many, if not most.

I know it's talking in to a deaf ear, but it can't be overturned. It will not get through the senate or a presidential veto. I wished they used their "mandate" to balance the budget. If they want to keep taxes lower, find some meaningful cuts in Medicare/Social Security. But we know that won't happen, so maybe there's 2 more years of gridlock.

And the problem with that is what? If it means no more "incentive" or "stimulus" legislations, no more good intentions/bad implementations programs and no more punitive bills (all on top of growing the bureaucracy), then it's worth it.

Why does the repeal have to be all or nothing? Why can't they just get rid of the stupid/unconstitutional parts initially?

Which is why I said effort. If the Senate and/or the abomination in the Oval Office won't cooperate, that's on them. But the House damned well better make an effort or be tarred with the same brush, their choice. If that effort is unsuccessful, which I'm virtually certain it will be, then move quickly to other means of preventing as much of it as possible, most likely with moves aimed at defunding it.


Something that I genuinely doubt is actually a top 5 priority* for most of those who voted for this House majority.
*in & of itself, rather than as a by-product of other actions


I could live with that, beats the blue hell out of recent developments.

If there's a better thread for this then someone let me know & I'll repost/delete/etc but for now ...

Herman Cain inches closer to presidential run *| ajc.com

I'm sorry, 'cause I find Herman generally likable & more tolerable to listen to than most talk radio guys (he's on WSB-AM at night, fills in for Boortz occasionally) but ... who is he kidding? I would hope that he's smart enough to be doing this just to get some input in conversations that he wouldn't otherwise be a part of (or to get some mid-level cabinet post down the road a ways) but I'd put his chances of winning the nomination at being slightly better than mine & that ain't saying a whole lot. I have to think his name recognition outside of Georgia is incredibly low versus the likely field.

He's actually been doing well in some straw polls. I had never heard of the guy until he finished second in a couple of conservative only polls.

Who?

edit: Looked him up.... yeah, no way in hell

So they raised state income tax 67% here in Illinois across the board. Remarkable.

66% tax increase in Illinois - Front Office Football Central

Eh, I hadn't heard much of Bill Clinton before 1991 or so.

They have to pay for that seat Blagovich was trying to sell somehow.

Pretty cool story.

Presidents Do Actually Leave Each Other Sweet, Secret Notes | Story | BLTWY

There was a guy on NPR talking about presidential letters that were left from one president to the next and how he was trying to track them down after writing a fiction book about the practice

SI

That's exactly what the linked article is about :D.

This seem to come out of nowhere and unsure as to the reason? I actually support moving towards more of this with Cuba. Fidel isn't around anymore and Cuba really isn't a threat.

Obama to ease travel restrictions to Cuba, allow more U.S. cash to island - Cuba - MiamiHerald.com

They relaxed restrictions some already last year, too. It's just a continuation of that

SI

From what I've read this returns things to where they were before Bush2.

Disappointed that Lieberman isn't going to allow me the opportunity to vote his ass out. :(

The vitriol against Lieberman reminds me so much of the anti-RINO sentiment of the far right.

I think there are many non-partisan reasons to hate this guy. He is a typical war mongering hawk who ducked out of actually going to war (like Bush Jr. and Clinton ahead of him) I don't care much for war but at least Bush Sr. or McCain could bring some experience to the table. What is more hypocritical than avoiding the draft and then calling for other people to go fight? Another reason (and it this conversation rarely happens because it is so "taboo") is his apparent lobbying influence from Israeli interests. And this isn't because he is Jewish. My guess is there are at least 50 Jewish senators but he is the one that really sticks out. And the huge one (however anyone wants to spin it) he is a huge proponent of the internet kill switch. Sorry but I have trouble accepting any one person being given the ability to shut down the internet during what they deem to be a “crisis”.

How many people dislike Lieberman and would love to vote him out of office because he didn't serve and was for the Iraq War, is very pro-Israel, and wants an internet kill switch?

C'mon. Most of the people saying so are liberal Dems who want to get him for turning on the party. No different than conservative Reps who wanted to get Arlen Specter.

Don't know how anyone could be more hypocritical on any other issue than being a war hawk who was too big of a pussy to fight himself when he had the chance. Someone else's kids? Sure, nobody is making them join the military! It would be like the secretary of the treasury having tax issues with the IRS. Oh wait... :)

Please. Most people really don't care that politicians who may advocate for a war didn't fight in one if they are from the same party (or are for the war). Especially, as in Lieberman's case, he got a deferment because he was in school and then because he was married and had a kid - rather than outright dodging.

Meh, maybe you are familiar with Lieberman and feel that way and maybe you just read his pr on a site like wikipedia. I am very interested and read a lot of stuff about the war propaganda and politicians and am sickened by people like him, W Bush, Ashcroft, and Cheney who are warmongers who all could have served themselves but found a way out of it. His studies were really more important than the imminent threat of Communism taking over the world?

Sorry. There are people like President Obama who voted for the war as a senator and is continuing the war as the President. I definitely do not agree at all with him but he didn't get out of serving in a major conflict. These guys all basically say (by their actions) that they needed school more than possibly dying so they could go into public careers and then decide where other peoples children can possibly die.

13, 11 D's & 2 I's.
Meet Jewish Senators 14, 15 — and 16? Plus: the House GOP's Jewish Mormon – J.J. Goldberg – Forward.com

So, basically, you don't agree with civilian control of the military?

And you know who else didn't fight in a war and then decided other peoples children could go die? That bastard Franklin Roosevelt! He decided to be Assistant Secretary of War rather than go out to the trenches of Europe and then said kids could die fighting the Nazis and Emperor of Japan! That horrible man! :mad:

I can understand being against the wars, but it's a bit much to require personal and professional experience in anything congress deals in. Most congresspeople don't have professional experience in anything. (including trying to run a budget).

I am talking about people that wish to start (or started) preemptive war. I already used Obama as a much clearer example of somebody who (IMO) is making bad decisions on wars but at least doesn't the past to prove that he was too chicken shit to serve. (ala Lieberman, Bush Jr, Cheney, Ashcroft...) Seems like FDR fits in there unless I missed his refusing to serve in the Spanish-American war or something?

I understand. Again I don't really wish to require everyone to have served just think someone is a piece of shit if they are gung ho about agressive wars as an older man but when they were called on fight made up excuses or got deployed out of harm's way.

(And to your other point about untrained leaders trying to run the budget or understand business, I would agree completely that seems to be part of the bigger problems that occur every 5-10 years. Who knew our legislation would have this unintended consequence?!?)

16? Wow, that's higher than I thought. My original post actually should have said Congress. Obviously half the senate isn't Jewish. (1/3 of the Supreme Court is, but not half)

Lieberman is different than your typical DINO or RINO case. He actively campaigned for the Republican presidential candidate and made comments suggesting the Democratic candidate was not patriotic. You can't say the same thing for someone like Specter. Hell, Specter was out there telling everyone how great Sarah Palin would be if she had to be Commander in Chief.

I'll give Lieberman credit for being an advocate of the DADT repeal and being instrumental in getting it passed. At least he went out on a good note, unlike his buddy McCain who is a complete disgraceful joke at this point. But even the DADT repeal doesn't make up for Lieberman's attacks on anti-war Democrats or his dismantling of the health care bill.

Every day it gets more and more likely that there won't be any serious alternative option to Obama in 2012. He won't really have to defend his record (which might explain his performance thus far). I though the Sarah Palin thing was kind of a big joke I wasn't in on - but I'm starting to think she actually might be the nominee. And if not her, Huckabee? Gingrich? Really? Romney could have some momentum support as a moderate alternative, but I really don't think the Republicans are going to be going for "moderate alternative" in 2012 (and Romney, realizing this, has been moving further and further right all the time). Maybe someone else could step up, but - I think they're actually going to nominate one of the crazies. It doesn't matter what Obama does, or what he had promised, or where he has fallen short. And he and his people probably knew that back in '08.

It can become a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If President Obama looks beatable, then more electable candidates will enter the race to try and beat him, and the GOP will have a stronger nominee, making the President even more beatable. If, however, he looks unbeatable, then the more electable candidates will wait until 2016, and the GOP will have a weaker nominee--making the President even more unbeatable.

Of course, an "unbeatable" post-Gulf-War-I President George H. Bush led to some of the Democratic heavyweights sitting out the 1992 election and led to relative unknown Bill Clinton winning the nomination. So these things could play out strangely.

Personally, I think that President Obama is in decent shape for re-election, but unemployment staying around 10% will make his re-election anything but assured. And, considering that the economy has been humming along without any real increase in employment make me nervous (both as a fan of the President and as a fan of America) that 10%+ unemployment will be with us for a long time barring the kind of structural economic change that we seem unwilling or unable to make.

I think the opposite will happen. in 92 the incumbent was hurt by a 3rd party, Perot. in 2012 i can see the republican vote being split also by a 3rd party candidate, tea partyer. just a 2-3% split i think can put obama over.

One guy who scares me is Rick Perry.