I agree with this 100%. That's sort of where the "politics as sport" stuff comes from with me. The fact Romney is going to be the GOP nominee and is campaigning on a platform of repealing Obamacare which he invented himself is laughable. Just like the left that hated all the wars and lack of regulation when the Republicans were in power and did nothing to change it when they won big a few years back. It's just filled with extremists and hypocrites.

Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History - NYTimes.com

FWIW, the Court observers whose opinion I respect the most seem to have no idea how the ACA case will come out.

I think this is the thing htat is missing from American politics - something like a proportional representation system. It gives an appropriately sized voice to groups like the Green Party, the Tea Party, the LIbertarians, whoever else. And it provides more "competition" among political parties. For a country which believes in the free market, we have a political monopoly system. Who thinks both of these parties as they exist now would still be in power if it was easy for the American people to replace them? We would have a stronger, more diverse set of parties that better reflect people instead of two parties which don't really reflect anyone at all.

That's one of the key points of the Senate. The House is/was the popularly elected side, with representation based off population, the Senate keeps every state on equal footing.

Of course, they fucked the whole idea all up when they went to direct election of Senators and greatly expanded federal powers, but hey.

The problem is that no party tries to start at the grassroots level. Everyone tries to go for the big prize off the bat and it doesn't work. That said, we've gone one of the longest spans in our history without a strong 3rd party candidate (last being Perot in 92).

I agree, Warhammer, but the system is also a winner takes all system, and there's never going to be a particularly viable 3rd option, never mind a 4th, 5th or 10th option.

I think an impactful 3rd party candidate is coming this year. I don't think they will be included in the debates (weird that the committee that decides this is made up of Dems and Repubs) but I predict 5%+. I will entertain friendly wagers with people on this board who think I am out of my mind.

I agree with Warhammer that the focus should be on local elections with state elections secondary and national elections on the back burner but I do think there could be a debate with a 3rd or 4th voice that would show what a sham the two parties we have now are. (And for anyone who says what about the 5th or 6th I want to see if you are consistant in the college playoff threads with this line of thinking) Look at the amount of votes Perot got and I wouldn't even call his platform all that solid. Like I said in my previous post its insane that we let the Republicans and Democrats decide whether there should be other voices in the debates for the President of the country.

Just from a practical sense, who else would make the decision?

As for a third party, it isn't going to happen. It would take an enormous amount of time and money to build a party from the grassroots and before it managed any size one of the two major parties would co-opt it's agenda. The GOP has enough libertarian ideas to keep a libertarian party from growing.

A third party has little chance though because in order to distinguish itself from the genero-parties it has to take on very strong stances of one sort or another. And in a winner-takes-all election system, not enough people are going to be willing to back such an extreme change in our president, or for the most part our legislators. This is why proportional representation works - plenty of people would be willing to give that 5% stake to a new party, they're just not willing to hand over 100% to a newcomer, especially one with very different views.

Its easy to say that - but it 'can' happen, people have quoted England as an example of a multiple party system - this is true, but it ignores the fact that it wasn't always that way.

The Lib-Dem's in the UK were founded in 1988 as a merger between the Liberal Party (founded 1859) and Social Democrats (founded 1981) ... its taken a while but they're now in a position of power, although it can easily be argued that because of how they've handled it (ie. bending over and letting the Conservatives roger them at whim) they won't be in a similar position again for quite a while ;)

In the US if two strong groups merged or co-operated with another group in a similar way I could see a similar force emerging over time, although unfortunately the two groups most likely to that I could think of would make a horribly negative effect on policy (them being the libertarians combined with the christian pressure groups).

5%+. Bookmark this post and come back in November.

5% or more from the previous general election?

What would a merger of those two groups offer people that they couldn't get from the GOP? If they did manage to develop a popular platform the GOP would take over enough of their ideas to make them largely indistinguishable. At that point do you vote for the purity and no power or enough purity and half or more of the power?

That's what happened to Perot's movement. The popular parts got co-opted by the two parties and all that was left was a paranoid guy with a lot of charts.

The guy could draw a mean chart though. One heck of a mean chart.

I'm hard pressed to think of two groups (outside of diametrically opposed ones obviously) that would have less in common to work with as a unified force.

A significant number of, let's say religious/social conservatives, are also extremely strong "law & order" folks, pretty much the anti-thesis of the libertarians. And vice versa for that matter.

Not a coalition I can see happening under virtually any circumstance really, each holds the other in pretty considerable contempt when you get right down to it (and you'd have to get down to it, rather than squint to avoid the differences as happens at times now under the broader GOP banner).

And 20% of the vote.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing when I saw that post. Those factions of the party may agree on economics (such as cutting out a lot of the federal welfare state) but even then one wants to spend money on social causes while the other doesn't want to spend money on anything. And they certainly don't see eye to eye on just about everything else.

5% or more in the November 2012 Presidential Election

But isn't what Marc described essentially a large portion of the Republican party today? Libertarians & Social Conservatives?

To me, the most logical 3rd party would be made up of the libertarian wing of the Republican party with the more fiscally conscious Democrats. I think those 2 factions tend to meet in the middle more since they both tend to put social issues on the backburner of importance unless it is something fundamental. The key here is that this type of group MUST adopt agendas that each of the established parties simply cannot adopt holistically. Such as...Repubs could not reasonably adopt anything which says to leave your religion at the door, just as Dems could never adopt a pure socially-agnostic agenda which doesn't seek to reward those who don't succeed in society as much as others.

I could actually see where this could become a populous movement.

If we sit here and say it can't be done, it will never get done. Are there roadblocks? Sure.

1) This election is too important to throw away your vote!
- It will continue to be so until enough people choose to do this. Each time we keep putting our votes behind the same parties that are in power, all it does is keep them in power.

2) They just co-opt all the best points of the third party platform.
- Hold their feet to the fire on this. Why did they only move to the left or right when another party entered the mix? Why don't they stand on their core principles? Why do they only change when threatened?

3) A Third Party is not viable in America. There's too many different factions!
- There is no reason why there cannot be a Right, Left, Center-Right, and Center-Left party as a start. Sure, there is more to the spectrum than that, but there is no reason why you couldn't have more groups. Heck, you could even have regional parties. A democrat from Texas shares little with a democrat in Massachusettes as is.

And zero electoral votes.

Even in some country like Brazil that has umpteen political parties, they still align about 70% of the elected representatives under the same left leaning coalition. I don't know about any other multiparty states, but we pretty much function as 50 different state-level republican and democrat parties in this country.

I'm confused. Are you talking about qualifications for a debate or is this a prediction not connected to the question of debates?

The problem is not necessarily the lack of will but the problem with the structure. Autumn is completely right- I'm not expert but one of my electives in college was a political parties class. Because of the winner-take-all system, it basically forces you down to two avenues of power. You can have a third party, but it will basically either die out or replace one of the other two. And we've seen that throughout history. But, basically, without any guarantee of power which a proportional system grants, you usually only have 2 parties. It's very hard to have 3 existing.

SI

OK, obviously this judge is a whiny bitch and he's just taking his frustrations out on some poor DOJ attorney during another case's oral argument this week, but why is Obama waging war on the judiciary through the media? What does he have to gain? Is he trying to intimidate the supreme court justices? 99% of cases where the U.S. is a party are not political super-drams like Obamacare. It's a lot of regular old stuff where even conservative justices tend to side with the government. Obama came off like Pat Buchanan yelling about unelected justices and judicial activism, and even going further, seemingly questioning the role of judicial review generally (he did try to clarify yesterday after the shitstorm started up). I think there's some rhetoric out there clearly overreacting to it, but it reminds me of something Bush would say that might be taken out of context a little and become a liberal rallying cry about how we were turning into a dictatorship or something. But Obama usually doesn't give his opponents as much ammo because he doesn't say as much stupid stuff as Bush did. But this was pretty stupid.

Fifth Circuit to DOJ: Prove You Support Judicial Review - Law Blog - WSJ

Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.

That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

The fact that the "Judge" in this case uses the term "Obamacare" tells me what his agenda is.

How about we call the damn thing by it's legal name? Oh no...we can't do that, because if we call it the "AFFORDABLE CARE ACT" it sounds too positive, right?

I think most federal judges have agendas, you probably have to have an agenda for a president to want to appoint you, but that's just reality. I just don't see how it helps a president with them as a group, including the moderates, to question the concept of judicial review. Appellate judges are pretty touchy about that. I guess he's probably trying trying to sell the public on something - but he's using "judicial activism" as the right would, as a dirty word, which is contrary to other positions he's had and will advocate for down the road. A better argument/public statement would be that Obamacare IS constitutional.

Really, 'waging war on the judiciary'? His comments fall far short of the ones Tom DeLay used, such as "The men responsible for Terri Schiavo's death will have to answer to their behavior.", in response to a question about threats of violence against judges.

It's a figure of speech, I didn't mean to suggest that he's literally moving tanks into the courthouses.

Well sure, the comments fall short of what a lot of Republicans say all the time, it was just surprising to hear it form a sitting Democratic president, whose agencies will represent the United States in these courts hundreds or thousands of times before he's done.

That was the point he was making. The Republicans over use the term "judicial activism", and he felt this would be an example of just that if the ACA were overturned.

"He adds that it would be an example of “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”"

The federal judges are always unelected, and the laws they consider all almost always "duly constituted and passed".

The next day, he broke it down more, talking about Lochner and this case specifically, but clearly, the Monday comments were meant to be inflammatory, and were meant to piss regular people off about "unelected" Supreme Court justices "somehow overturning a duly constituted and passed law." That's right-wing crazy talk, is it not? I get that it's election season, I just question what the gain with the public is v. the harm of antagonizing the federal appellate courts.

Here's the full quote he used:

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said.

We can keep expanding it:

"Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step."

It's not an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" for a Supreme Court to overturn a law "that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He did clarify that the next day but that's what got people's attention, and it's clear what the intent was in being more vague at first. He's struggling with how to complain about "judicial activisim" when in most cases of course, he would a prefer a more liberal, policy-based approach from appellate courts.

No one comes off well in this one. President Obama shouldn't have said what he said, especially given the grief people on the left--myself included--have aimed at those on the right making similar claims. Judge Smith embarrassed himself with his petty show of judicial grandstanding--listening to the oral argument makes him seem even worse than the stories about his comments did.

I haven't listened to the audio yet and I was horrified by the transcript alone. If a judge assigned me homework over his political butt-hurt I'd have a hard time not reacting less than professionally.

Edit: Of course, you really just have to say, "Yes, your honor, I'll have that at noon Thursday your honor", because you have to appear in front of these people, which is part of my issue with what Obama said in the first place....but Smith's conduct was worse, with Obama I just don't get the motive.

Obviously it was a political, rather than a legal, statement. I guess Obama figures it'll play to people better.

The Fifth Circuit is completely off the reservation as far as circuit courts go. Not just the hard right politics. They are also, almost entirely, a bunch of asses personally.

It was a stupid thing for the President to say. It didn't make legal sense, and it wasn't good politics. I'm sure he wishes that he had a do-over.

Judge Smith trying to make a (pardon the horrible pun) federal case out of it makes that court look even sillier than it already appeared. In my experience, I've never seen anything like that--a court demanding a letter that has a minimum length that has to reference a statement made in a non-official proceeding by a politician.

I am sure that DOJ will comply and write a milquetoast letter in order to have this all sort of die out as non-newsworthy.

But, if DOJ wanted to fight it, it raises an interesting question--can the judicial branch demand that the executive branch explain a statement that the chief executive makes outside of the context of a specific litigation. Or does separation of powers/executive immunity preclude that?

I guess it could just be considered "supplemental briefing" ordered by the court, and they have a lot of discretion to do that. And the words he used were carefully chosen, he wants to know the DOJ's position on an issue that's at least somewhat related to the case. "Why" he wants to know that probably isn't reviewable or worth fighting over. Easier just to have an intern write it and let the judge take the heat for ordering it.

This part of the story cracks me up. It's like: "DOJ, write a 2 page paper about what you did or else you have to go to detention!"

SI

I like that he specified single-spaced.

WTF

But he didn't specify font size!!

Very true. They should totally fuck with him IMO.

Would be petty, but so was the request.

Maybe some ASCII art of the President giving the finger?

If they don't comply, can they be held in contempt? I mean, what is the legal ability of a judge to do something like this. Are we going to have judges forcing litigators to defend the statements of anyone? What if a senator says something on the floor? What if a gay marriage ban is overturned and some tea party congressman rails on "activist judges"? Can the judge force the lawyer defending the ban to write an essay on the role of the judiciary? Obama was a fool for what he said, this judge seems off his rocker.

It's a great (if very theoretical) question. On the one hand, courts can order supplemental briefing and can sanction parties if they do not comply. That seems to be well-established as an inherent power of the courts.

On the other hand, the President is a special constitutional actor. And it may be that the President is allowed to make a statement without having to "defend" it in court.

What makes it interesting to me is the specific mention of the President's comments by name. If a judge asks for supplemental briefing from a party on a legal point in the abstract, that's fine. It's the idea of the President having to defend/explain, in a judicial proceeding, a statement that he made outside of that proceeding that seems a bit . . . off to me. But I'm really not sure, which is why I find the question interesting.

I think his statement was purely political. Meant to play to those in the middle. Points out the hypocrisy of those on the far right but at the same time says something that those on the left don't want to hear.

I think he knows the mandate is going to get tossed and he's positioning himself for that scenario. His position is looking like the same one those on the right have used in regards to Supreme Court rulings. It's worked for them so why not steal it.

I think it'd be hilarious if the DOJ wrote a 2 page paper on the controversy following Marbury v. Madison as to whether the court had the authority to strike down a law passed by Congress and if that was really the original intent of the Constitutional Congress.

Sounds like a paper written for high school government class

SI

Might have been his point but it was an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

If what Obama said was this bad, what are we going to do with the legions of Republicans that have said far worse about the legitimacy of the courts?

As for the substance, this is what happens when the court becomes obviously politicized. Scalia was embarrassing using terms like broccoli mandate and Cornhusker Kickback. He sounded like a B list AM radio host. Thomas hid his wife's GOP lobbying income for years. Scalia has spoken at right wing fund raisers. And at least four of the five GOP appointees were members of the Federalist Society, which has been quite open about how they would like to radically change the way the court works.

The court isn't separate from politics, and likely never was. If we've survived decades of, OMG liberal judges, we'll get through this, too.

We're not going "to do" anything except realize that Obama is essentially the same as those "legions of Republicans". (I mean, if that's the measuring stick for Obama now, damn, we're in a very different place than we were 4 years ago).

But even if we're content to just say, "it's politics" and go no further, I still wonder what "politics" this helps exactly, especially when it comes to all the cases now and in the future the U.S. has in front of the appellate courts. Will any justices be scared and vote the way Obama wants now? Will anyone who was inclined to blame Obama for the plan's potential failure, and was going to change their vote this November now change course, blame the Supreme Court, and vote for Obama anyway (I'd like to meet that voter.) Is that number of voters worth the bad will with the judges, annoyance from moderates, and puzzlement from a lot of liberals (there was at least one negative opinion from a liberal in the NYT yesterday over the silliness of this), and even the backhanded defense from the most loyal liberals ("hey, the worst republicans are still worse"). Not a huge deal, but the negatives outweigh the positives I think, and I'd be beyond annoyed if I was an assistant U.S. attorney (most of that job actually isn't political, like I said earlier 99% of U.S. legal representation doesn't have the political drama of Obamacare, but all of those jobs just got a lot more political.)

It's just a broad strategy designed to tarnish the whole brand of the GOP. I'm not thrilled that we've gotten to this point, but after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United and maybe this, it's hard to see the court as anything other than devoted to implementing a conservative agenda.

It may fire up the base, but it may not. I don't think these comments by themselves matter one way or the other in terms of the election. The low information swing voter likely hasn't heard anything about it.

Letter is posted.

Only 2.5 pages. Judge Smith ran into the classic teacher trap. His student just started page three. He should have specified 3 FULL pages. Rookie mistake.

I saved the letter as a pdf, but I don't think that I can attach it here. It will be posted on the legal blogs soon enough, however.

dola:

And looking at it some more, the first half of the first page is all letterhead and salutation.

I can see how Eric Holder got to where he his. That's a guy who can work the system.

http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads...r-response.pdf

I thought they would just go through the motions but they did take the opportunity to talk about how appellate courts should be reluctant to strike down acts of congress. (i.e, they should be reluctant to strike down ONE PARTICULAR act of Congress, but more often, they should apply that living constitution liberally) And I think the last sentence is incorrect, but whatever, maybe everyone can move on now and do regular court stuff in court.

I wonder if you would ever complain about the Court "implementing a liberal agenda". I don't think it's the "agenda" part you have a problem with, it's just the "conservative" part. That's what was off-putting about Obama's comments, and this whackjob judge's actions. If we just want to go full on acknowledging agendas and then have the legal debates over that, it's an honest discussion. For now, everyone just demonizes agendas while having agendas.

Edit: I don't see why it can't be enough to support a policy, support or draft legislation to carry out that policy in a manner one believes is constitutional, and then subsequently defend the case in Court and stand up for its constitutionality. Instead its judicial activism this and agenda that and unelected justice this, which is just so hollow when you see they make the opposite argument most of the time (i.e if anyone disagrees with me it must be an "agenda" and if a court disagrees with me it must be "judicial activism"). Which is fine for commentators and people selling books and radio talk show hosts but it's unfortunate when it's from the people in power, presidents and judges.

I cited those two cases specifically because the court did a lot more than issue a decision I don't agree with. In Bush v. Gore they determined the election and then said that the decision isn't a precedent for any other future decision. They knew the decision opened a huge can of worms, so they bent their decision to achieve their goals.

In Citizens United they went so far as to rule on questions that weren't specifically a part of the case. A ruling for the plaintiff in that case would have had much narrower application, but they saw an opportunity to erase decades of established law and they ran with it.

The court makes decisions I disagree with all the time, but I'm generally willing to say the interpretation of the law has merit. Over the past decade or so, his court, though, has made very questionable decisions to allow their decisions to stand outside of the normal channels of the law. That's what makes them political activists.

Gallup says Obama's approval at 50% and disapproval at 43%. Not sure why other than economy seems to be slowly, trending up and the drama is with the GOP royal rumble.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Ga...-Approval.aspx

Looking at the alternatives we will be presented with probably has a lot to do with it.

No real details yet and not sure what to think of it. If I got a sense that Karzai (or his successor) is the/our guy I would be all for it. My sense is he isn't.
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ithdrawal?lite

Health care stuff:

President Obama’s Medicare slush fund—Benjamin E. Sasse & Charles Hurt - NYPOST.com

An $8 billion trick?

Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.
Postponing the pain: The administration is temporarily restoring funds to Medicare Advantage so seniors don’t lose coverage before the election.
Getty
Postponing the pain: The administration is temporarily restoring funds to Medicare Advantage so seniors don’t lose coverage before the election.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.

The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.

That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years.

Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests.

Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs.

A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project.

Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them.

If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Now that is some serious audacity.

Benjamin E. Sasse, a former US assistant secretary of health, is president of Midland University. Charles Hurt covers politics in DC.

With such a balanced and neutral take how can we be anything but stunned?

Written by a Bush appointee (who was also Chief of Staff for a Republican congress member) and a Drudge Report writer for a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch... Sounds like red meat for conservatives.

I appreciate the effort to discredit the author, but any chance either of you could discredit the actual material rather than just saying, "he's a Conservative". I'm not saying he's correct. Just help me understand why this is a legitimate move and not a cover-up as the author suggests.

It has nothing to do with he's a conservative. It's lines like,


and


that make this a clear hit piece, not to mention writing an article on a study that hadn't been released at the time of publication.

Here's a much more neutral account:

Other than some inflammatory words in the first piece, there's not much difference. The neutral article as you cited it says basically the same thing. The worst part is probably the defense of it from the Administration where it says that it 'could' improve treatment. If they're not using the word 'will' instead of 'could', it's a pretty big sign that they're not very confident in the deal.

Mitt is so screwed.

I think that this actually gives Mitt a way forward. Not an easy way, but a way.

People like the President personally. I know that the GOP base does not. But that's not enough. The President's personal popularity exceeds his job approval, and has done so on a consistent basis.

So I would not try and make Mitt more likable than the President. That's a fool's game. What I would try and do is run on the idea that Mitt is the adult. Mitt can fix the economy. Mitt is boring, but what we need right now is boring.

Yes, the President is charismatic, and in a better time, we could afford that luxury. But just because you like him does not mean that you want him to be your President. It does not mean that he is qualified to do the job.

Look, unemployment is still dangerously high. The debt is still growing. He's had four years, and he's tried his best. And his best was not good enough. It's time to get someone in with a track record of success.


Of course--you can't say all that overtly. But I think that the general theme of "he's a good guy who's in over his head" has a nice judo effect of turning one of the President's strengths against him.

The problem is that the more likable candidate has won every presidential election at least as far back as FDR. The low information swing voters that actually decide elections don't know or care about policy and tend to vote on an emotional connection.

I know its getting almost cliche & the type of thing everybody says every election...but I really think we're in a different time. I honestly think voters want an "adult". A stuffy, boring, detail-oriented adult that they might not want to have a beer with...but like that uncle who always seems to be doing well no matter what the economy is doing...he is the guy you listen to when it comes to money.

I'm not sure Mitt has convinced the general public of this just yet (and perhaps never will) but I do agree with albion that its likely his best strategy.

Honestly, I think if not for the Palin debacle...we're talking President McCain vs some Democrat right now. I honestly think a lot of independents really wanted to vote McCain over Obama but just couldn't bring themselves to do it because of Palin.

Except this is an uncle who is doing well and reminds everyone else how well they are not doing.

Palin hurt McCain with independents, but Republicans in the states are going to hurt Romney with independents. Gay (non)rights issues and women's (non)rights issues will play well in the Bible Belt, but other areas are scratching their heads and wondering why Republicans are championing those issues.

On a separate note, what do people think about all of the back-room dealing that Ron Paul is doing? He seems to not be winning anywhere, but he is collecting delegates. Does he have a chance to come out on top? If so, what does that mean for the Presidential race?

So what exactly is the story here?

Cheapest, easiest graphic I could find:
Republican Delegate Count - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

Looks like Mitt only has 200 to go, right? So unless Paul somehow wins Texas and California and everything inbetween, it doesn't matter, right?

SI

McCain had zero chance of winning that election. He was as likable as a double starched pair of underwear and his own party wasn't fully behind him.

The Reps need to stop sucking the bible belt and start talking up the middle ground. Otherwise this election is over before it starts.

The sad part is in election years appearance really is everything. Sure you're core voters are going to be educated, but the voters that make the difference are generally clueless sheep like individuals who listen to their neighbors gossip and vote on emotional reactions to sound bytes.

Obama is making far better sound bytes across the middle ground. The Reps and Romney are pissing off the middle ground by clinging to women's issues that are going to cost them 2/3 of the women's vote. If not more.

How does any party expect to honestly win an election when their most basic platform tells more than HALF the nation (women in this case) that they're not really people, they're just drones to be told how they will live their lives?

The entire Republican thought process escapes me. Its fucking retarded.

Which the GOP, at every chance they have had, has tried to stop every single one of his attempts to fix all of that. If Obama said the sky was blue, the GOP would come right back with an argument as to why it isn't blue. Their scorched earth policy of 'Get Rid of Obama at All Costs' is a huge contributor and should not be discounted as, "Obama just couldn't do it because he's not good enough or qualified". He has been weak at times, but, the blame is at least equally shared by the GOP these last 4 years.

And you think going back to the people that created every one of those issues is the answer?

After the 8 years of GOP guttering the economy entirely I think I'd much rather stick with anyone else for at least one more term.

Its a sick joke that people are trying to say he's just not good enough. the GOP has stepped in between every single effort the administration has made with no more reasoning that "We don't like you so we're gonna fuck over everyone to get you gone"

its pathetic.

DOH, Jedi and I are doing that Mind trick thing again it seems.....

Haha! It does happen from time to time.

On a serious note: Had the GOP actually really been concerned with the economy and jobs, they should have spent less time trying to pass bills against restricting the reproductive rights of women and actually concentrated on...the economy.

What's the old saying? Actions speak louder than words.

I'm a pretty big fan of the President. And I think that he's done a great job. And I think that it is not at all surprising that he's had much bigger success in foreign policy than domestic--i.e. the area where he has not had to fight a GOP Congress.

I was laying that out as the template of a Romney attack.

That's fair in a vacuum but less so when you remember that he got the Democratic nomination by promising the impossible. To then defend him by saying it was impossible all along (or that Obama couldn't possibly have foreseen that the other party would continue to exist in some form and challenge him), well, I guess that just shows the campaign strategy was a good one. He will have to employ a different one this time though.

And while I personally think his foreign policies have been awesome, that's where he's broken the most promises to his base (GITMO, Patriot Act, domestic prosecutions of terrorists), even though that's the area where there's less Republican legislative resistance.

Yes, I agree his foreign policy has been one of his better areas these last almost 4 years. I actually think he's done great at some things (just not enough), but, has been an absolute nightmare on others. Overall, I'd give his term a D+, maybe a C-. This is my opinion though. :)

I hear you on that. I personally just don't think that strategy will work on anyone that is not already a Romney supporter. As an non party member, the GOP has showed me zilch that they actually cared about fixing the economy and getting people back to work. Oh they said they would, but, barely even tried, if at all.

I believe it's fair in any medium, when plenty of members of the GOP have been quoted as saying that their number one priority is to get rid of Obama. His promises prior to winning the election were valid up until he ran into the wall of GOP resistance after he was sworn in. However, there are certain things that he promised which he could have been successful at, but, completely went in the opposite direction. He definitely will have to change is campaign strategy or he's going to get eaten alive if he rehashes his previous one.

Quite frankly, I feel he lied to all of us about the Patriot Act, the war on drugs, more government transparency, closing down Guantanamo, and illegal detainments. Given his background, every time he looks in the mirror, he should be ashamed of himself. Honestly, if there was another choice where a candidate would actually do something about those things, I'd vote for that person and not Obama. Unfortunately right now, it's getting harder and harder for me to vote for anyone anymore.

The level of obstruction by the GOP in the Senate really is unprecedented. We've never had a four year period where 60 votes was required to do almost anything and one party is almost totally united in opposition. If this is the way the Senate is going to work from now on every president is going to be a failure.

But thats where he needs to have truly BIG plans for the country. He can't win without a plan that tells people how he will create millions of jobs & spur investment in the US again. And cutting taxes aint going to do it.

I won't argue that he's not likely to be very convincing but its the only strategy I think has a shot. Still a lot of time between now & the election so plenty of time for everybody to alter their message (or screw it up).

Romney also needs (and I believe will as the nomination concludes) to distance himself from the social conservative base. They may not like Romney but they aren't voting Obama either. And I think his campaign will (or maybe should) see that every social conservative that votes FOR him, means at least 2 independents that will NOT vote for him. So depressing the social conservative base turnout isn't nearly as negative for him as making sure he gains independents (while maintaining non-social conservative votes).

I can't honestly see any other strategy for him.

If I'm struggling in the middle class and struggling to pay off my student loans I don't know if they guy I want to listen to is the uncle who tell me how tough it was when he was in my shoes because he had to sell off some of the stock his dad gave him to make it through college.

Outside of GOTV operations I don't think strategy matters much. If the economy continues to trend negative Obama will lose and if the past few weeks are a blip on an otherwise slow upward trend Obama wins. All the strategy sessions in thw world won't alter that basic dynamic.

Karl Rove got my memo:

http://youtu.be/lhXGkeMdOJs

You of course realize that Obama was also far, far from poor growing up.

Are you suggesting that you'd rather somebody who made bad decisions and struggled because of those bad decisions? Thats how you'd be certain he'd be able to lead the country out of a recession? If the worst thing you can say about somebody is that they don't know what its like to fail or struggle...I'd say there is a lot to learn from that person regardless of what their financial starting position was.

I have always agreed that Romney is not an easy person to find engaging or identify with but if I were the struggling middle class person with student loan debts & worried about my job (which I'm sure is not far from being most people give or take on the type of debt & level of income a little), I'd be listening & open to the idea that Obama may not fully understand how to enable my prosperity as well as a guy like Romney would. But if you don't even consider it, then I don't think you're the target independent he's going for anyway.

Yes, though the issue isn't just that they are well off. What is an issue is either not realizing and conveying that you realize what the issues facing people who aren't so well off are. That's something Romeny isn't doing so well at and why I don't think he's quite that uncle you would go to for financial advice.

I guess the issue is that I'm not sure how the GOP plans to increase the jobs or housing market (or reduce the price of gas). So far, all I seem to hear in the debates is to cut taxes on the "job creators", relax regulations (because the free market will police itself) and make business pay no corporate taxes to encourage them to hire. Oh, and drastically increase unemployment by firing 25-30% of government workers.

I'm not really sure what Obama plans to do either, but at least I agree with him on most other issues.

The problem I have is that Romney is the person to back to ensure HIS prosperity and the prosperity of other people already multi-millionaires .... not entirely sure he's truly bothered about normal people, nor does he understand them.

I don't think I'd disagree with him being out of touch but do you think his only reason for running (and spending his own money doing so) is so that he can enact policy that will enable him to make a lot more money in 4-8 years from now?

Maddow: ‘I think Ron Paul just won Iowa’ | The Raw Story

This is what I am referring to. I do understand the source so I'm not sure how much value to put into this, but it goes along with what Paul has been saying in interviews for a while. He said that Romney and Santorum were going after the voters and he was going after the delegates...hence the back-room deals. This may not turn out to be anything, but he still seems to think that he has a shot.

I've been following this for the past week, too.

I still don't quite understand what the plan is or how it is working, but it is pretty interesting to keep an eye on. I wonder if Paul will run third-party if he can't pull it off. I don't think he can win the general election, but I can see him pulling together enough disgruntled members of the two parties, along with his usual following and Libertarians and get 10%+ if he runs his campaign well.

My initial thought would be that he would do more harm to Romney, but from my unscientific Facebook observations, it seems like a lot of folks that voted for Obama would consider him (I guess they don't want to vote for Obama again, but think Romney is a jackass and won't' vote for him either).

Paul has to have a plurality in five states to have his name presented for nomination at the convention. What he and his supporters aren't considering is that the GOP will create whatever rule necessary to keep the nominating process as clean as possible. There is no path for Paul to even cause waves at the convention. If the rules allow him to, they'll change the rules.

Dola...

I feel like I need someone like Nate Silver to explain what Paul's plan is here. :)

I think its likely that he truly does believe the rhetoric which he spouts, a lot of the GOP do ... whether it matches reality doesn't come into it.

(the fact that it happens to be advantageous to himself, the corporations backing him and his rich colleagues is part of the reason why it seems sensible to him I'm sure - its unlikely he frequently comes into contact with 'normal' people)