I don't think it's necessarily voting against, just voting without the clear knowledge of what the interests of the state are. Should they do polling before every vote and then always side with the majority? That's basically direct democracy, and very different than our government was intended.

I'm not ridiculing anyone in LA. My point is that nobody is going to be persuaded to vote D because of a meaningless symbolic vote on an issue that already has a clear champion in the Republican candidate. Is there a single voter that cares enough about Keystone that they'll switch their vote or vote when they were planning not to because of symbolic support for pipeline approval?

So it won't help in LA, but will put markers on the rest of the Dem senate that can be used later, and contradicts the position of the leader of the party. Brilliant.

True incompetence. If there was a plan to it, presumably we'd have seen some return on Harry Reid's hopelessness over the past years.

As I said before, Democrats have a problem (and yes, I speak as a Democrat) where we tend to run candidates who are wonks, activists or "third way" charisma-less types. Oh, and I guess DINOs like Manchin, too.

I think Keystone in Louisiana is just an example. It would obviously benefit them (jobs, etc), I believe, but they are not allowed to be a proponent because it conflicts with party politics and other state's desires? I agree that it is not settled but it seems at times that it comes down to the issues - ie, some should bend to the will of the majority while others should not.

The bill stopping NSA metadata collection was killed yesterday. Noted freedom lover and civil libertarian Rand Paul voted against passage.

So how should we know whether it's cool to vote with your party or your majority constituents or your personal beliefs? Seems like no matter which you chose, someone will be critical of such and will show up in attack ads.

In other news, Keystone XL failed to pass the Senate. I wonder how Mary Landrieu feels now?

Apparently the project, if it's ever given the green light, will create "massive" amounts of jobs, according to the GOP. By which they mean 42,000 very temporary construction jobs and less than 50 new permanent jobs.

Unless I've missed something, Keystone XL doesn't touch Louisiana at all, per the current plan.

You mean like all those temporary construction jobs that were created in that massive stimulus package of 2009?

aren't all construction jobs, by their very nature, temporary?

In this case Paul has made so many public statements about NSA data collection that it's striking that he voted against a compromise bill that would curtail that data collection.

I don't understand why the pipeline is such a hot issue. We're talking about using eminent domain to seize a lot of land so that a pipeline full of foreign oil can be shipped out of the Gulf of Mexico. I get the benefit for the money people behind it, but how would this benefit the country?

This has always been my question too - I get the benefits to the pipeline companies and such, but how do all the "rah rah energy" ordinary voters and such not realize that it's just going to help drive down the cost of oil and make American energy production less economically viable.

It's somewhat of a moot point now anyways, as that tar sands oil is all being sent by rail across Canada.

But sure...let's build a giant pipeline across America. Those things never you know...leak or are targets for terrorists or anything.

Libertarian Champion Rand Paul Helped Kill NSA Reform Bill

I dunno: let's pretend that politics isn't all theater, removing from the option, the ability for him to say "hey, I voted against it because it wasn't good enough" when he knows that "good enough" will never see the light of day for a vote.

What's better:
* Codifying phone surveillance but putting a surveillance court (FISA, right?) order on any requests. However, you basically tell the phone companies they have to keep the records.
* Allowing the NSA to basically do this unchecked with the hope of killing it some other day?

Either way, someone is collecting the records and keeping them forever. The one has some checks but the onus is still on making sure they exist while the other is basically a wink-wink deal to let it keep happening as is. Both suck, near as I can tell.

SI

Pretty much, yeah. Pick your poison. Furthermore, Paul is deluding himself if he thinks the Republicans are going to gut the Patriot Act when they gain control of the Senate. Neither party has any interest in removing it.

That said, I almost think the former is WORSE, for a simple reason - I about promise you that the phone companies will happily pass on this 'mandated cost of storing all call data' to the customer, as a nice little surcharge. Neither option is good, nor will it change anything. We'll just probably wind up paying more with it in the hands of the phone companies.

Fixed that for ya ;)

Oh, cool.

Jonathan Gruber quotes contradict Obama promise - CNN.com

So, how is this going to shake out. I just looked at our company health plan and it's right on the cusp of being "Cadillac".

Yes, because if we've learned anything it's that tax cuts will only get passed if they don't impact the deficit. Maybe the plan was for the tax to hit more people, but if it starts hitting middle-class workers it will get changed. Lowering taxes is never difficult.

It's amazing how quickly conservatives went from thinking Gruber knows nothing to thinking Gruber knows everything.

The cost is the problem you have with this? Not the actual data?

SI

I have a MASSIVE problem with the collection of data. I also know that it's not going to stop.

Quite the buzz around here regarding Obama's speech tonight. Certainly going to create a lot of angst among the xenophobes but it's much overdue IMO.

On another note, I was at a banquet last night and one of our local village board trustees had had a few too many drinks and he got talking to me about race relations. I could've sworn I'd walked into a KKK meeting. Normally I'd just brush it off as some old drunk spouting off but this guy is actually in a position of power in our town. If I really wanted to, I could completely sink and discredit that man by recording some of the nonsense that comes out his mouth, including only referring to Obama as the 'Nigger Communist President'. He keeps getting re-elected on name recognition but I wonder if my town (that always votes D) would reelect him if they knew what he was really all about.

Sounds like he'd like the new Speaker of the Nevada House.

I don't even know what Rand Paul stands for anymore.

It's a terrible bill and I'm not going to blame Rand for not voting for it.

Even on areas where I could agree with Rand, he pisses me off. Instead of doing the hard work to shape the bill more in his liking, he'll vote against and then be content to grandstand when there's no chance of passing anything.

I would love to see a law passed where they do not include party affiliations on ballots or in titles. It would be interesting how, or if, that would change people's attitudes towards many politicians.

Robert Costa ‏@costareports 36m36 minutes ago
What you always hear in righty circles: whispers that shutdown actually "worked," help Rs make '14 gains. Informs their thinking on immig.

If they think the shutdown "worked", guess what folks, it's gonna be a long two reality denying years on the right of the right.

If they don't impeach the miserable sonofabitch after this ... pitchforks & torches would be a marvelous second choice.

He's definitely giving me reason to rethink the whole "nah, Carter was even worse" argument I've made in the past.

Just like the miserable sonofabitch Reagan, right? Obama wishes he could do amnesty like Reagan did amnesty.

How cute, he is trying to be a political troll.

Obviously I can't rise to yours or JIMG's level :p.

I can just drink your delicious tears like Eric Cartman drank Scott Tenorman's.

Damn, now Obama will never be able to work with congressional Republicans after this speech.

/sarcasm

I've advocated this for a long time.

You know you'd be a lot more interesting if you actually took the time to educate yourself instead of just spouting off.

But I suppose that's asking for too much.

I'm just having a hard time finding a reason to get angry over this. So basically the priority for deporting will be the least desirable which only leaves about 6 million we're concerned about as well as anyone new who enters the country illegally. Considering we'll never come even close to getting those 6 million out, what has really changed with his order?

And the legality question is just stupid. It's prioritizing who will be focused on, as provided in US Code

The immigration debate is interesting to me, because the roles of the two parties should be reversed.

Immigrants mean cheap labor. The party of business should be in favor of more immigrants so they can keep wages down, which means more profits.

The party of the masses, should not want to encourage more immigrants for the same reasons. They should be looking to improve the plight of their constituents by eliminating the flow, so the labor pool is smaller and wages go up.

What hacks me off about this, is we are not solving the underlying issue. Whoever is President can manipulate this issue, or just not enforce the laws. The problem as I see it, is by allowing a large underclass in the country you introduce a breeding ground for resentment, which is a potential avenue for terrorists or others to funnel into the country.

So you have a solution for poverty?

Maybe I'm naive, but most of the South American illegals are coming here to do jobs that Americans (no matter what class) are unwilling to do.

They do these jobs because it is a better opportunity than where they are, because most of their governments are corrupt or there is no opportunity for their unskilled labor (lack of education, lack of health, lack of safety). Not to get off tangent, but the war on drugs and the war on communist aggression have really undermined goodwill in Central and South America with the U.S. (Mexico is in shambles due to corruption but also due to the drug cartels whose major market is the U.S.)

So they flee North and work in kitchens, fields, sweatshops...

In regards to terrorists, I have yet to see a Mexican terrorist.

Personally, a comprehensive immigration policy that gets these individuals naturalized and paying taxes is vital because it is growth to our population that we have to pay for benefits-wise.

If we can also perhaps adjust our war on drugs to a point where profitability is a zero-sum game for cartels, then perhaps, just perhaps there can be a better dialogue with those nations where the bulk of illegals come from.

The U.S. is still a place many aspire to live because of opportunity and safety, illegals shouldn't be penalized for wanting the same thing our ancestors did generations before, the system needs to be installed/improved upon rather than a can kicked down the road until elections, and then only be a "promise"

Obama is calling on Congress to act...seriously I'm tired of the inertia. Let the Tea Partiers, and GOP and Demo's do something, instead of talking points.

Maybe I am getting soft in my old age, but why should we spend resources going after people who at the end of the day are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their children? Isn't that what we are all trying to do in the end? I deal with a decent amount of people from Latin America and they all seem like good people just making their way in life, no different from you or me.

I agree with Obama that we should go after the violent ones, and spend resources on getting the others to pay taxes, etc...That way they contribute. I think the perception they are a drain is overblown, the drug addict from Florida with 5 kids is a much bigger drain on the system then a Mexican who may have a kid that is a US citizen. Again, just my opinion, I'm sure someone will pull some number from somewhere to disprove that.

Now the thing that does annoy me about immigrants is when they live here, for years, and make no effort to assimilate themselves, learn the language, etc...I think if you are going to live here you need to have the ability to communicate, etc...

Hispanic immigrants are no different than previous waves. The first generation is largely unassimilated, the second generation is mostly assimilated, and the third generation is completely assimilated. Learning a new language as an adult is difficult whether you're an immigrant or not.

It's right there in the Constitution, "high crimes, misdemeanors, and delaying prosecution on some people if certain conditions are met."

Hell, the job creators will be creating so many jobs after Obama leaves office that we will be begging for people to come to this country.

Impeach was a kinder gentler option than dragging his sorry ass out in the street with tar & feathers.

My "immigration reform" policy is no secret, never has been: 30 days notice of policy change & then federally funded bounties for every illegal that's brought in dead or alive.

What happens when somebody brings in a dead but legal Mexican?

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants : NPR


That miserable sonofabitch!

Reasonable collateral damage...'MURICA!

That's not the point. Cute way to try to redirect though.

He can only be impeached for things that are ILLEGAL.

Nothing that he did is illegal - hell nothing that he did is anything more than Reagan did back in the 80s.

So you can rant all you want about your "immigration reform policy" wet dream (which sure sounds a lot like the old "slave catcher bounty gangs" although I'm sure that's just a coincidence) where you get to go out in the street and shoot everyone who doesn't look like you and get paid for it, but that's not the point.

Also - what happens in your wet dream when someone come down to GA and shoots you and says "oh I thought he was an illegal Canadian immigrant?" I assume there'll be no repercussions right?

Or are you going to have individual citizens stopping each other asking for papers? And in that case, what's to stop people from either (a) carrying falsified papers, or (b) shooting someone anyways and either taking their papers or saying that they seemed like false papers, or (c) "standing their ground."

You really don't give practical thought to any of the bullshit you spout and it's really ridiculous to try to engage in any kind of conversation with you because virtually everything isn't based in logic or rational thought, but is just based on some fantasy world you'd like to live in.

I get all that, the problem is many don't seem to want to make the effort, and we make it easy for them to not have to. Driving test in spanish, etc...

I know that if for some strange reason I had to move to Peru, I would make the effort to learn the language. It would drive me mad to not be able to communicate.