I think he's running because he's egotistical, as are all presidential candidates, and because he sees a Mormon in the White House as a pivotal moment in the history of his religion. I think he's willing to take whatever policy positions he needs to so as to get the job.

I think the Paul campaign is well aware that they won't win the Republican nomination but his supporters are tired of the "small government" Republican party policing the world and trying to run peoples personal lives. I think the goal is to try to influence the party's platform, maybe shore up a cabinet spot or primetime convention speaking slots, and send a warning that he could easily go third party and hurt Romney much worse than Obama. (Though I agree with your earlier post that a lot of anti-war/anti-police state liberals aren't very impressed with Obama's first term either)

Like JPhillips said the Republican party treats him like a red-headed step child and will do anything possible to bend the rules so he can't use the delegate approach but I really do think Paul has a following that could "tea party" the election to Obama. And given the two choices at least a lame duck Obama might actually try to scale down the endless wars and police state here in America where Romney will just make it worse. (I see no difference ecomonically between the two candidates)

No doubt. Trying to accomplish what his father could not.

I see the opposite. I don't think there's a ton of difference foreign policy wise, with the great exception of a possible Iran war, but the difference between a negotiated budget and the Ryan plan is huge.

The great exception being the Iran war might be the difference between Middle East war and possible WWIII with China and Russia? I really think Obama might do something if re-elected about the wars but maybe they will be so set on Hilary '16 that they will be just as bad as Romney would be.

As far as the Ryan budget goes... to me its all rhetoric. So they supposedly were about to shut the government down over the debt ceiling last year and where are we now? Same out of control spending/pointless laws from both parties.

EDIT: But given the choice of a Republican house battling Obama or Romney with a Repubican house I will gladly take an Obama election win.

This is an interesting deilemma (and test) for Obama. Wonder how this will play out.

Escaped Chinese activist in U.S. embassy, friend says - CNN.com

Nice to ratchet up our presence there and seeing cooperation from our allies.

US deploys F-22s to base near Iran | Fox News

How it came out was awkward and not sure if Obama really would have publically stated it without the Biden incident but glad its out and there is a clear distinction on this matter between Romney and Obama ... how times have changed.

Poll: Majority approves of Obama’s marriage decision – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Iraq is no longer in the news and its all Afghanistan now. I like how he is committed to winding down the war but frankly, am not sure its the right way. Like Bush, Obama's legacy will be written around 2 wars, war on terror, OBL and the great recession. It'll be interesting to read the history books in 20 years.

Obama predicts 'hard days ahead' in Afghanistan at NATO summit opening | Fox News

9th Circuit denies en banc request in Prop 8 case. SCOTUS here we come! Or, more accurately, Anthony Kennedy here we come.

Ninth Circuit Declines to Rehear Prop 8 Case | Backstory Blog | Human Rights Campaign

Anyone in Vegas throwing down odds on if the Supreme Court will decide to hear it or not?

There is a DOMA case and Prop 8 case both coming up to SCOTUS... my, won't this be an interesting upcoming term.

If things hold up as they should, Scott Walker will survive the recall challenge. This will be a black eye for the Democrats IMO. They needed a better challenger. Democrats haven't groomed any new blood in Wisconsin and the old Farmer (Rural)-Labor coalition is no longer.

There are four Republican senators up for recall, so if they can get one of those seats, that'll give them a majority at least. As it stands right now, a RINO (I use the term endearingly) holds the power in the Senate.

Turnout in Wisconsin is reportedly extremely high. Despite the spending, that doesn't bode well for Walker and the GOP. We'll see what the exit polling looks like when polls close in a few minutes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/e...CTION=POLITICS

Big turnout in Madison is a good sign.

Amy at WTDY ‏@AmyBarrilleaux

Madison City Clerk tells me turnout is on pace to hit 119% in Madison, adding "That would be unprecedented."

A virtual dead heat across the board.

Those who went out on Tuesday to cast ballots were nearly evenly divided along party affiliation, the exit polls showed, with 35% of those voting being Democrats, 33% Republicans, and 32% independent voters.

Neither party had an edge among voter's favorability: Republicans and Democrats alike were seen as unfavorable to 50% of those who cast ballots on Tuesday, and 47% saw each party as favorable.

The electorate was also divided along their opinions of the collective bargaining limitations, with 48% disapproving and 50% approving.

Exit polls show close Wisconsin recall race – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Among the more interesting numbers I've seen is that hardly anyone made up their minds recently, the enormous advertising push may have influenced turnout to some extent but had little room to impact how people voted (somewhere in the 80's percent had made up their minds as far back as April).

LOL.

Those are like Chicago kinda numbers ;)

They have same-day voter registration so that muddles things.

NBC News calling it for Walker.

Ohhhhhhhh, okay.

(I really thought that was a funny quote, either intentionally or unintentionally)

RT @chucktodd: Our models indicate that once all the votes are counted, Walker's final margin will be somewhere in the 4-6 point range

Wouldn't that be equal to or slightly better than what he won by in 2010? Meaning that all of the hooha actually changed pretty much nothing as far as the electorate goes?

The whole thing was a total waste of time and money. Made even more of a waste by running the same guy who lost the first time.

The various media outlets appreciate the $60m in extra revenue however.

Yeah. He won by about 5.7% the first time (Which I didn't realize until I googled was also against Barrett. Oops.)

Apparently 60% of exit voters polled this year said that they thought that recalls should only be used for criminal malfeasance, not because you didn't like what they decided to do when elected.

19% of Walker voters said they voted for Obama in 2008.

Seems silly to run the same guy against the guy you didn't like and expect a better result.

This blog notes something I mentioned elsewhere earlier: that there were quite a few Obama/Walker votes in this one.

There were some Walker-Obama voters on Tuesday - JSOnline

And I'm sure the Republicans will take this as "a mandate" and will extend their hand too far and then everything will swing back to the Democrats as the pendulum swings again.

I'm sick of every vote result being "a mandate."

Why in the world do you make it sound like it's a bad thing?? If we had a Rep president and Dem Senate, I would expect and hope for the exact same results. The worse scenario in WashDC would be the same party in both executive and legislative.

Sounds like another Democrat-induced stimulus package to me.

All the hoopla that went with this doesn't change much. Everything Walker passed in his first few months was with a clear majority in the State Senate but after the recalls last year, the Republican edge went to 17-16 with my own Republican Senator pretty much blocking anything controversial that Walker tried to put through after the first batch of recalls.

Senate and Assembly elections will be crucial this fall. Don't think the Dems can swing the assembly but the Senate might be possible. Tonights Senate recalls were terrible for the Democrats too, but it doesn't matter as the legislature won't be in session until after the election.

Overall, as a Wisconsin liberal, I think the Democratic Party here sucks. Tom Barrett was honestly the best they could come up with. That doesn't bode well.

Those are folks who might find themselves on the wrong side of things when all is said & done.

I'm trying to interpret this one. Wrong side of some authoritarian conservative government that will send their secret police to eliminate him? You've really got to get out of your fantasy world once in a while. (Apologies if I'm misinterpreting)

A brief recall effort was staged by Republicans around here but never got off the ground. Electorally, he's safe.

Yeah, you're waaaaaaay off here.


This is what I was referring to. We tend to beat people like that in primaries, screw the recall mess. Wasn't really thinking about where he/you/everybody is in the election calendar / cycle though.

Got to admit, it's hard to tell sometimes with you :) I also have to admit your writing reminds me of Jake Featherston at times (I know you'll get that one)




I don't see him losing a primary. He has gone along with things like voter ID and concealed carry but blocked a big mining bill. It's just too moderate or even liberal of a district for the Republicans to jeopardize losing the seats to the Democrats.

That's great, but not everyone agrees with you. Why are you acting surprised that someone would want the side that represents their beliefs to have more power?

There's one huge race left in Wisconsin. With 1 precint remaining, Lehman (D) leads Wanggaard (R) by 800 votes. If that holds, then the Dems have retaken the state senate.

Indeed I do :)

I personally think there is a huge difference between disagreeing on ideological grounds and being an obstructionist. When I hear that the Republicans vote against the President because they think a bill is "big government", then I understand and can sympathize. When I hear that Republicans vote against the President because he is a Democrat, and they want to obstruct progress as much as possible to prevent him from being re-elected, then I think that is wrong and damn close to treason. This isn't a Rep/Dem thing, I think the same thing when the roles are reversed.

Dear Mr. Congressman, I didn't send you to Washington to get re-elected and to bash the President. I sent you there to get something done.

With 60/60 reporting, looks like ~800 ended up being the final margin for Lehman.

More and more I think the best bet for the country is just to make sure we ALWAYS have opposing parties in the different branches. If you like one side for the executive branch, that's fine but make sure to vote the opposite side for the congress.

That way we only get stuff that is truly beneficial for the majority.

I went to bed thinking the Senate wouldn't flip... Glad Lehman pulled it off. Not that it matters before November, but it's one less seat the Dems have to win or protect.

If this holds after November, the Wisconsin GOP will get a dose of the National GOPs obstruction tactics in the legislature.

This is exactly what I have been saying to people. I don't like everything that Walker has done, or the way that he has done it. He did get fairly elected, though, and I think the time to act for those that want him out is the next election. The recall is expensive, and you end up with one of two results. 1. You win and guarantee that every elected official faces a recall attempt going forward. 2. You lose and and give the other party a "mandate" for what they are doing.


This is the result I was hoping for on the recall election. Giving one party total control seems to lead to trouble. It also doesn't help that Republicans tend to take that total control and run with passing everything they can, while Democrats don't seem to be willing to do the same thing. Without a split government, we don't actually have checks and balances.

And there's nothing more important my Congressman can "get done" than discomfit the left every time they're off base.

"Getting something done" is just giving too much credit to a group of people who proven time and time again that all they want to do is live off the teat of the public that is stupid enough to keep re-electing them.

I forgot about the gerrymandering Republicans did when redrawing districts in WI. Senate will probably flip back Republican after November.

"Getting something done" is also what has led to 90% of the bullshit laws we're now stuck with. We're far more concerned with Doing Something than actually solving problems.

and the monstrous legislations (and federal programs) that result in so many dollars benefiting the fewest possible.

I still wish Mitch Daniels was running for President.

Most intelligent Republican I've heard in a long time.

Which of course means he's absolutely unpalateable to the base.

Yeah, he says that part of the message has to be "hope". That slogan didn't go over too well with Rs in 2008.

Spending as a % of GDP looks screwy as a result of the recession though...best to overlay a line of "total govt. spending" on top of that to show its rate of actual $-change too.

Sure, I just thought it was worth noting that spending as a % of GDP has actually gone down under Obama.

So the Republicans in Congress aren't actually spending wildly like we were all led to believe? NOTE: I think they have been horrible at the fiscal responsibility they preach.

Where is 2011 on that chart?

The biggest thing I take away from the last couple of years is the $3.8 trillion budget submitted by Obama on $2.2 trillion in revenue. 42% deficit!

You'd rather "austerity" cutbacks? Talk to the Europeans before you get so giddy about that idea...it doesn't work and only makes things worse.

Not trying to say that that's the ONLY reason we deficit-spent (I'm not stupid, it's a problem exacerbated by both parties), but it's a contributor. Might/would have been less deficit-spending without the recession.

Until tax revenues go up somehow, the deficit is going to be really high. Unless the public is willing to cut SS, Medicare, and the Defense budget.

The longer we wait, the worse it's going to get when things finally do happen. Either the government we'll live within its means, or we'll go bankrupt. And the longer we wait, the harder the fall.

And yes, the public's insistence on Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement programs and the sanctity of the defense budget (although curiously the one thing in all this the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to provide) is a huge factor here.

Not about the presidency per se, but darned does the First Lady campaign via TV shows. iCarly, Biggest Loser, now Restaurant Impossible (though Cory Booker's been on that one too).

Old people and wars are destroying this country.

I'm a bit surprised that Obama did this. It's obviously well within his rights to do so, but given his comments in the past related to Bush doing the same thing and his campaign of 'change', this seems to be more of the same old thing that Obama promised wouldn't happen during his campaign.

Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Saw this a little earlier and was reading through some of the comments at the bottom. And the basic reaction seems to be "Well Bush did it more" yeah well "Clinton did it also". I hope the resident liberals here on FOFC (who I really believe are far more educated than the idiots on yahoo comments) will give me a better explanation on this than "Obama is better than Bush."

Not familiar with the particulars of the situation, but unless there really is some sort of reason I'm doubting you'll find us resident liberals knee-jerk defending it.

I'm not surprised at all. This is from the man that promised that his presidency would be the most transparent in history and, well, has basically gone the complete opposite of it from the very beginning. And it's election season, don't want too many ugly things rising to the surface that may hurt his chances of re-election.

Generally speaking, most of the feedback from the liberal side has been disappointment or no comment at all from what I've seen.

Following in the steps of Citizen's United, the Supremes reached beyond the questions of a case and found a way to rewrite the law in favor of current conservative thinking. On the question of whether or not unions needed a clear opt-out clause, they decided that unions must have an opt-in clause, and they made a clear threat that they're willing to make right to work the national standard.

If employees have the choice to opt out within the same group, that will be the death knell of the modern labor union. Especially ones of which I belong.

This fucking court is a sick fucking joke. Of course the joke is on the 99%.

Why shouldn't an employee be able to decide whether they want to be part of a union or not?

I didn't think it was opting out of the unions. In the case, didn't the union assess members and nonmembers $25M so they could lobby? With very little notice to opt out of the ridiculous cost?

Although not really what this case was about, it's actually a difficult problem. If people can get the same benefits from not being in a union that they can from being in a union, obviously, not many people will join the union. That will eventually lead to the union falling apart and now no one will enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining.

There isn't an obvious answer, IMO.

Indeed. That's why its a Free Speech issue. Because they were, without much notice, assigning increased dues on members and non-members alike for lobbying purposes.

Well that's not necessarily cool.

I take back the REASON for my outrage (but not the substance of it I have a feeling).

I'd like to thank my state senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for voting down the bill that would have granted equal pay to women.

What an embarrassment to have these two women represent the state of Maine.

Would it lessen it even more to realize it was a 7-2 decision, with Sotomayor and Ginsburg concurring with the majority?

It still doesn't excuse the overreach from an opt-out to an opt-in.

edit: That part of the decision was 5-4.

This is hilarious, in a really really depressing way.

There shouldn't be a woman in the state of Maine that ever votes Republican again.

That was dicta. Alito said it approaches, if not crosses, First Amendment rights, but didn't specifically strike down prior decisions on the matter.

Basically:



Opt-in for the special assessment here. For regular dues the opt-out still stands, though Alito isn't a fan.

Overreach? To make it easier for people to NOT get fucked out of more money by their union? Yeah, no.

Hell, I'd prefer it if the ability for unions to collect special assessments for political purposes be banned entirely. (Technically, I'd prefer it if unions were utterly destroyed, but that's a different discussion.)

What's the matter - you don't like your 40hr work week? You'd rather work 60 for less pay?

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.
2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: The relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.
3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.
4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”
5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

Thankfully what we learned from Wisconsin's state senators when they killed the states equal pay act is that there isn't actually a wage gap between men and women, and even if there was it would be a good thing due to men needing to make more money as family bread winners.

So in other words what you're trying to say is that unions destroyed America?

I will not discount the fact that unions were both necessary and did some good at one point in our history.

However, I do believe they are now relics who benefit neither employee nor business. Most have become far too interested in building and maintaining power & wealth for themselves, not for their members.

Not really trying to get into a pro-con union debate, but, the problem with the unions of today is, they cater to the crappy workers. In other words, instead just admitting that union employee X, doesn't show up on time, takes more breaks than he should, or just does a shitty job overall, they will protect that employee to the bitter end.

Quite frankly, the union should be setting much higher standards for its members and let the dead weight go. By not severing ties with that dead weight and protecting people like that, it only perpetuates the myth that unions are no good.

However, I do feel unions still serve a purpose, especially in this day where salaries have stagnated while the CEOs continue to make more and more money and refuse to award their workers. Though, there are a couple of industries where I think unions should not be allowed and that is government jobs or jobs that deal with national security and that's because of the unions protecting the worst of the employees.

And that's my opinion on unions, this day, June 22nd, two thousand and twelve.

Something that's been largely true during the lifetime's of the large majority of their current members (unless the average age is a lot older than I can imagine)

So as long as you agree it's okay for the Supremes to go beyond the questions of the case to determine the law?

And do you really think that if unions were completely destroyed, companies wouldn't try to roll back some of the rights that the unions fought for in the past?

Dicta happens ALL the time from Marbury v. Madison and prior!

Maybe I have that part wrong, but what I have read has the opt-in part of the decision, specifically as it relates to these contributions, as decided 5-4 and binding. Is that not correct?

How many industries / professions are there right now (in the US) that are not unionized? Are they suffering in squalor, working 80 hours a week alongside children, being paid pennies?

You really think companies are going to ban together and somehow manage to overturn federal labor laws (that apply to EVERYONE, not just union workers)?

From the LA Times article on it:


Supreme Court rules against union on nonmember fees for politics - latimes.com

"might" is never binding.

Dicta however can be persuasive, so Sotomayor and Kagan wrote that the SEIU was wrong in not issuing a seperate special assessment notice, but wasn't a fan of Alito's opt-in dictum language.

Without the threat of union political activity, then I would expect federal labor laws to be weakened. Furthermore, I think you're crazy if you don't think companies would try to take advantage of the lack of a union workforce to try and maximize their profits. That doesn't mean we're going to go back to the 1800's as in your ridiculous strawman example, but I'd expect certain things like overtime regulations, safety regulations, etc to be seriously curtailed if unions completely vanished.

From SCOTUS blog on the case:


What is in bold is the holding. The rest is dictum.

A lot more companies would treat their employees like WalMart.

I'm still confused. What's the precedent going forward, an opt-out or an opt-in?

I would imagine that without unions (and we are already starting to see this more and more, in my experience), you will see a lot fewer full-time (40-hour/week) workers that receive benefits and more part-time workers without company-provided healthcare, pensions, matching 401K, etc. Probably more contract workers that have to pay their own taxes (as opposed to payroll taxes) without benefits.

This. It'd be the thing that the companies would do on Day 1.

Fuck - I'm not unionized. Nobody in family is unionized. Nobody in my family has ever been unionized.

But I've got huge respect for what unions have done, and continue to do.

That being said, I agree with what Jedi says about unions not setting high enough standards for their workers and for protecting lazy/crappy employees. That's the single biggest issue that I think people have with them - if you fix that I imagine the % of people with a positive impression of unions would be in the like...80% range.

I don't like a few things about corporations, therefore, all corporations should be destroyed.

A slippery slope to counter a strawman. Delicious.

Ive spent almost my entire career working non-union. Its amazing to me just how differently some non-union shops can treat you. Ive had places where we worked minimum of 60 hour weeks and usually more for no OT and most people were getting paid VERY little. Heck, my first job was usually 70 - 80 hour work weeks and even one 100 hour week that almost got me fired since I complained.

I worked one job for 2 weeks that got flipped union after I left, the union saw my time cards and flipped out over what they termed abuse but my employer just saw as "the way things are". I think I got more money in retroactive pay than I had on my original paychecks

Im working my first union job right now and I work my 50 hours and then im expected to go home. If I work a 6th day I not only get paid for it, which is a luxury in non-union shops, but I get paid extra. On top of that Ive earned enough hours that I will be receiving a fantastic healthcare plan which would be unaffordable for me otherwise and a pension plan. I get the issues some people have with the union, employers especially arent too happy about it, but man its great for me as a worker.

Should probably answer the obvious question: I work in post production for reality TV shows and a large majority are still not covered by the various entertainment guilds and unions though that is slowly changing.

+1

I will also add that the union leaders are out for power. That means having more union members, which means you protect those that are your own.

I sell to the construction industry and it is crazy how many people are not trained properly, or do not care about their performance. They don't worry about it because the next day, they'll be at another jobsite pulling down some cash.

Heck, even some of the things we say the big bad evil corporations would take away (like safety equipment) if unions went away, would not be used by the workers anyway. Many things are only used on jobsites due to union regulations. It's nuts.