But they're the party of freedom!

fixed

Voting rights bill, including an amendment to repeal DC's post-Heller gun laws, has passed in the Senate 61-37.

Sigh. Let's see how stupid Hatch looks for co-sponsoring when by some magic trick he doesn't get the extra seat he's obviously counting on.

And when the fine feathered folks at SCOTUS are the best chance we've got of avoiding a mistake like this one, well, let's just say I'm not optimistic.

Literally turns my fucking stomach to see this one but it's neither the first time I've felt that way about something coming out of Congress & it won't be the last, it's just the next.

A good day for democracy if it goes through in the end. I wonder if the Democrats will be cheeky enough to try and get DC two senators down the road.

Also tacked on to the DC bill yesterday was another item that's been getting some attention lately. Gotta love the misleading headline on the blurb though.

from Tom Taylor's morning newsletter from radio-info.com
The Senate votes 87-11 against a revived Fairness Doctrine.

South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint wanted to push this issue here at the beginning of the 111th Congress and so he tacked it onto the D.C. voting-rights bill that’s a priority of the Democratic leadership. He was probably as surprised as anyone when it racked up 87 “yes” votes yesterday. Now the bill heads to the House, which will probably also vote to instruct the FCC not to ever resuscitate the Fairness Doctrine. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky says a new Fairness Doctrine would be “government control over political speech.” No doubt talk radio will consider this a “win” for them – and they’re right. It’s also a win for the NAB, which doesn’t want the government involved in speech-content issues. But the FCC's still mulling over its confused-sounding "Localism" rulemaking. And Congressional Dems signaled through a 57-41 vote yesterday that they're going to push harder for ownership diversity.

Bucc, can you sleep well at night now knowing that the fairness doctrine that never had any chance of passing nor should have will never see the light of day?

But what stupid red herring will Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al, have to talk about now?

SI

My thoughts on Obama's budget:

I know it isnt perfect BUT since this is the start of a negotiation with the Congress Im hopeful that they will go through it and push back against some of the dumber things I've seen in it.

I AM glad that the initial budget is aspirational and includes a lot of things that have long since been hidden of the balance sheet, so to speak. That being said I am hopeful that the more moderate democrats get to push back against some of the things I disagree with in there although Im only one person so my judgment of whats good or bad can be wrong.

To be honest, I'm not too sure why you included O'Reilly in that list. O'Reilly for months has been very consistant in saying that he wasn't really interested in even discussing the Fairness doctrine on his show because he said it didn't have a prayer of passing. He'd often hang up on callers that mentioned it because he believed they were just wasting his time.

Rush would use it to stir up the liberals, but he didn't give it any chance of passing either. Anyone who thought that O'Reilly or Rush actually was legitimately concerned about this simply wasn't paying attention.

I sincerely doubt that. There have never been a budget submitted to Congress that wasn't added on to. We have seen their atrocious track record this record and the evidence in just the past months shows an acceleration of adding on dumb things. There is no difference between the federal govt expansion of expenditures and powers during the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror and now, the War on Recession. It all looks the same regardless of how you wrap it.

Re: I, of course, do not listened to talk radio but I do pay attention to George Will. He indicated that this would be brought up (I don't think he said it would be passed) and sure enough, within 30 days of the new regime, it was. I can rest easy but there are many more federal govt intrusions to tackle.

Aside from the obvious current political advantages (for Democrats), I guess I still don't understand why there's a problem with giving the people of DC representation. It's always seemed a little ironic that a country founded in a large part on a principle of fair representation did not extend that right to citizens of its capitol district. Now, I know the historical realities that made this the case, but still.... Are people against this solely because it means Democrats pick up seats, or is there another, better, rationale?


OK, I'm confused. Did this vote mean the Fairness Doctrine is coming back, or it's even more dead and buried than before?

If this was 2002 I'd probably want the Fairness Doctrine back, if only because right-wing demagogues have so much visibility on television. However, it's a different world now, with the wide variety of stuff available on the internet and the fact that the left-wing has been far, far more successful building up communities via the blogosphere. Which has, basically, propelled folks like Olbermann and Maddow back into the spotlight on TV.

It seems to me that arguing to bring back the Fairness Doctrine now would be like arguing over who gets to use the swords when everyone else has moved on to machine guns.


Somewhat tangential, but I continue to be amused by the GOPers trotting out to lambaste the budget. There's no intellectual honesty there. These are the same guys who voted for almost the same amount of money for Iraq and Afghanistan, and now they're complaining about spending money in the United States. Basically, they're un-American. Heh - I've waited 8 years to say that.

And for every bullshit pork project in the budget, there's a similar bullshit expenditure that went into Iraq reconstruction (or simply disappeared once it was offloaded from the plane in Iraq).

Boggles the mind.

It's not a state. Period. End of sentence.

Want to give 'em congressional votes, fine, amend the Constitution & have at it.



The intent of the amendment to the bill was to kill it dead. Whether it'll stay dead remains to be seen of course.


I've never been a big supporter of excess spending there outside of what goes toward military operations, outside of the p.r. crowd & a few true believers who bought into the whole silly "spreading democracy" routine I don't think there was any real support for that sort of spending among the GOP voters.

Ah, OK. I can actually get on board with that. For some reason, though, I think we have a real mental block at 50 states.

In general I'm not talking about GOP voters, but GOP politicians, though. I can just about give regular GOP voters the benefit of the doubt for having the wool pulled over their eyes about the eventual cost of rebuilding Iraq, but I won't do the same for their politicians. These guys voted and kept voting for billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq, the Surge, etc... and then immediately turn around and raise a bloody stink about spending the same money on the U.S. Utter hypocrisy for each and every one of them to now claim they're a fiscal conservative simply because there's a Democrat in the White House.

I don't think they'd do that without a Constitutional amendment, and I'm not even sure if they would do it then. However, I think it would be the right thing to do, personally. We should have the same representation as Wyoming, particularly since Congress is the one that controls our budget.


This is far and away the justification that Republicans use. I'm not saying it is an incorrect one (although, plenty of Constitutional scholars would disagree with the argument), but it is what people use. They skirt the issue of how anti-American it is by claiming the Constitution stipulates that residents of the District do not get any representation in Congress. And, as I have spouted off about many times, an amendment is the right and most conclusive thing to do, but there is just absolutely no incentive for states to ratify the amendment. Whether .01% of the population, that will never be residents of their state (well, if they become residents, they don't have the voting problem anymore), have voting rights is just something that is never going to concern state legislatures. Particularly when the majority of their constituents don't even realize that District residents do not have a voting member in Congress.

Next up, admit Puerto Rico as a free state. The more marginalized the slave states become in Congress, the better.

Off hand, how many pols from either party who voted for any spending bill related to Iraq do you actually believe had the slightest idea how they money would be spent beyond some vague notion that it was related to the war in some way? If you say anything more than about 20% then you have a great deal more confidence in them than I do.

Which I maintain is precisely why it shouldn't happen. It should be up to the states collectively to determine whether a change is made.

Let's go in a different direction though, rather than an amendment for changing the voting member issues, how about just putting a statehood amendment up instead? That would solve the problem & surely we can generate more interest in a bigger question like that than in one isolated element. I'll take my chances with that one and if it passes, I'll disagree with it & rail about that outcome but wouldn't have a leg to stand on concerning the voting representation so it becomes a moot point.

Maybe in 2002 or 2003, Jon, but by 2005, 2006 and 2007 I'd hope they'd have a pretty good idea on what it was being spent, and the amount that was being wasted.

So it's OK for the country to disenfranchise a minority?


Statehood, however, is entirely different. That, while as an amendment is Constitutional, completely flies in the face of the framers' intent. I don't believe that disenfranchising DC residents was the intent of the framers, but maintaining a federal district under congressional control was certainly their intent. By giving DC residents true members of Congress, we merely have a say regarding federal functions/spending/whatever and gain about .02% power over our own budget, instead of 0%. I think a proposition of statehood would be denied, rather than ignored. I think a question of giving DC residents members of Congress is more likely to just sit in the states without a vote.

I am always quite amazed at how people can justify to themselves that people are 100% American Citizens, paying the same taxes as you, and do not have full representation in Congress. People can make all the jokes they want about crack smoking mayors and inefficient government, but obviously that happens throughout the country -- citizens of the District of Columbia have every right to representation in Congress as the rest of the country.

[quote=flere-imsaho;1955539]Maybe in 2002 or 2003, Jon, but by 2005, 2006 and 2007 I'd hope they'd have a pretty good idea on what it was being spent, and the amount that was being wasted.[/QUOTE

No more wasteful than what we're seeing now IMO. Doesn't make any of the waste much more bearable, but I have about as much confidence in the current things on the table accomplishing anything except the redistribution of wealth as I did on democracy building in Iraq. And I believe you could accurately gauge what I think of that.

Absolutely, positively, without any doubt in my mind or hesitation in answering the question. Contrary to popular belief, surely the rights of the majority do have at least some value.


And so does giving congressional representation to non-states but that sure as hell doesn't seem to be stopping anybody.

Oh please. The Dems blast deficit spending when the Republicans are in power and then turn around and pass massive spending. Don't pretend anyone in Congress in either party has intellectual honesty on spending and deficits.

Though this is also the reason I like divided government. The opposition will always push back.

Well, sure, but that wasn't my point. Your viewpoint is consistent in a way that Congressional Republicans' are not.


Fair enough, but has the turnaround ever been so stark as the past 2 years? Even as late as early 2008 Congressional Republicans were telling us how we had to plunge even more money into Iraq, damn the deficit spending, but somehow now it's not OK to do the same thing for the U.S.?

I hate to be inflammatory, but no wonder everyone* thinks you're nuts. It's OK if people, who have no criminal convictions or other such disqualification, are not afforded the same rights as the rest of the country based solely on the fact that they live in a specific city? Give me a break. The majority doesn't give a shit about how the DC infrastructure is run, but they control the purse strings.

* exaggeration


That is certainly an interpretation -- there are other portions of the Constitution that apply to the "several states" but people are more than happy to apply to the District. You can't have your cake and eat it too, my friend.

They're as disenfranchised as residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa ... who have equal or similar claims to residents of DC. But what the hell, why not just let everybody on the planet have a voting Congressional representative. Since statehood obviously doesn't matter, wouldn't want to leave anybody out.

but PR, Guam, VI, and American Samoan residents also do not pay taxes and are not residents of the mainland United States. You're trying to compare apples to oranges to make your point.

They do not have equal or similar claims. Most notably:

1) They are not within the boundaries of the continental Unites States
2) They do no pay federal income taxes (but they do pay social security and FICA)
3) Their budget, etc are not managed by the United States Congress


Right.

I agree with Jon to an extent here. The constitution does state clearly what the rule of law is. I do believe it's wrong though and that it should be immediately ammended to include D.C. There is no reason those people shouldn't have representation.

The feined outrage is amusing though as we all know Republicans wouldn't be saying a word if D.C. was filled with bible-thumping rednecks.

truth

very true

Again, it is arguable as to how clear it is in the Constitution. The interpretation of "the several states" changes based on what part of the Constitution conservatives are looking at.

Look at the converse of that statement. Even as late as early 2008, Congressional Democrats were telling us how we shouldn't be plunging even more money into Iraq because it was too expensive, but now spend, spend, spend away on pet projects and pork?

IT'S FRIDAY and...

Obama's approval rating is at 67% or 8 points higher than Tuesday's numbers.

Instead of arguing semantics with the constitution, why not just amend it and make it up to date. Clearly our founding fathers didn't foresee this situation.

That is what I would like to happen. I will let my congressional representatives know that is what I would like.. oh, wait a minute...

I'll concede that maybe it's a matter of context. The GOP seems fine with dumping billions of dollars into a foreign endeavor of dubious ROI, even as the home economy tanks, and then does an about face when asked to dump the same money into the U.S. economy, citing a desire to not deficit spend.

The Democrats, on the other hand, increasingly rail about the money being dumped into Iraq on the basis of a) dubious ROI and b) ridiculous deficit spending and then turn around and endorse deficit spending to dump money into the U.S. economy.

I think the key difference is that throughout the Iraq endeavor, Democrats have argued (usually when arguing against the emergency appropriation bills) that said money would be better spend in the United States. Now that they have a Democratic White House, this is what they're doing. The whole deficit spending argument was really a rhetorical blow against a party that's supposed to be full of people who are fiscally conservative or at least fiscally prudent.

When taken in context with the amount of money they fought for, for Iraq reconstruction, the GOP doesn't really have a coherent argument against spending the money on U.S. reconstruction except for "OMG, No More Deficit Spending" and "These Projects are all BS!" I think the hypocrisy is further amplified by these pious mutterings of "we have to be fiscal conservatives now" when none of them seemed to be concerned about fiscal conservatism even a year ago.

I mean let's be honest, the Democratic party as a whole has never claimed to be fiscally conservative. They've just argued that we shouldn't keep spending money on reconstructing Iraq.

Hey J, that doesnt matter....Rolling averages do/nt matter today.

In fairness, there's a big difference in spending your money fighting a meaningless war and building up a country that completely hates us, and spending money within the United States on things that create jobs or enhance our country. I'd much rather see our money go into pet projects and pork within our country than the blackhole which is Iraq.

One can argue that spending on containing terrorism may be considered vital importance. Even if the argument is that Iraq wasn't a problem and was contained (though Republicans can say plenty of Dems didn't think so at the time either), you can easily say that after taking out Saddam Hussein, a power vacuum developed, which was filled with terrorists, and thus more spending had to be pumped in to continue that fight. Or else you just leave replacing Hussein with a terrorist state.

Furthermore, they may strongly believe in a War on Terrorism to protect outside forces from killing Americans and think that in order to better pay for it, we can't be spending like drunken sailors at home. And spending more domestically will imperil spending on fighting terror abroad.

After all, the Dems voted in good numbers to invade Iraq. To decide to not fund and pull out after we've gone in and made a mess would have really, really, really been bad for the country and the world.


Let's be even more honest, the Democratic party implied they were fiscally conservative during the Bush Administration as Clinton "balanced the budget" and "gave us surpluses".

President Clinton, after 1995, basically did govern as a moderate right leaning politician with respect to the economy.

Personally, at this moment, I'd rather see the dumb earmarks and pork removed and used to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are at this moment (though they may not have in 2003) fighting Al Queda terrorists and and nationalist Iraqis.

Regardless of who they are fighting now, my point was that Iraq was a mistake and it's fair to say that the money that went into that war would have been better spent in our own country, even on pork.

I don't think Clinton was fiscally conservative. There is a difference in being fiscally conservative and fiscally responsible. Clinton spent money but also made sure it didn't go above what we brought in. I consider someone fiscally conservative if they are for shrinking the government and cutting spending by a lot. I never thought that was Clinton's objective.

As for calling his way of governing "right leaning", when does that stereotype end? The last 3 Republican presidents (20 years worth) have put up massive deficits. Isn't it a bit outdated to be calling fiscally responsible activities an issue of the "right"?

My main issue with the Fairness Doctrine is the blatant un-constitutionality of it - being proposed by those with apparently no regards for the First Amendent (you know, the one that begins "Congress shall make no law..."). Why would anyone elected to office even think that the government should dictate would should be said and how much should be said?

I am completely against the fairness doctrine. But those who are against it should also be against the FCC and anti-porn legislation. I guess it bothers me to see those "family" groups lobbying against the Fairness Doctrine but pushing legislation against violent video games or pornography. To me they don't care about free speech, just their own speech.

I agree. Governmental entities, however, do have the right to make and enforce laws against things that are illegal (or to declare things to be illegal). And we, as citizens, do have the power (moreso locally than federal) to overturn such laws, as well as the courts. But in no cases, can they go against the explicit intent of the First Amendment, the most fundamental law of all.

And if that happens, you'll get no quarrel from me about them being seated. You'll hear plenty from me during the process railing against them being worthy of statehood, but if they get it through the correct process then so be it.


Nor would there be a push to seat them currently if they hadn't proven themselves to be determined to elect worthless liberal vermin if given the slightest opportunity.

I think the amendment would give them a special exemption. It wouldn't consider them a state but simply amend so that every state + D.C. gets representation. I don't know if it would warrant a Senator, but I imagine their population is right up there with a few smaller states.

Another solution would be to give the land back to Maryland and Virginia. Gives the voters representation and doesn't add any new people to Congress.



Outside of the childish liberal/conservative rant, the push for representation has been going on for over a century. As the city has grown and been neglected, it's become a bigger issue. Odd to see you push the constitutional argument as many of your comments have shown a disdain for it and America in general.

Going by population alone DC (~600k) is more deserving of two Senators than Wyoming (50th state by population) and is quite close to Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska.

fwiw Puerto Rico (~4m) would be the nation's 27th largest state if that ever happened.

South Carolina needs another representative, more people live here than in Louisiana and they have seven reps :mad:

Wikipedia - US states by population

I'm no fan of the Fairness Doctrine, but you're leaving out the critical component that it would apply only to broadcast outlets due to the public ownership of the airwaves. People could still whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted to, but the airwaves would have to provde equal time.

It hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on for more than a century, but like other impotent figureheads & empty symbols, it can occasionally serve some useful purpose. Neither side in the battle for America can or should overlook its usefulness, that'd be downright stupid.

Everything's been going down hill since 1861.

One could say these things, sure, but they amount to a very weak argument.

Let's forget about the money purely on military operations. What about the money squandered in failed or vanished reconstruction projects? What about money shipped over to pay miscellaneous expenses of the Iraqi government that just vanished? What about money for projects later destroyed by Iraqis? What about money that ended up siphoned off to Swiss Bank accounts?

Where were the GOP objections over all of this waste? A waste of money, in the midst of profligate deficit spending, that could have worked wonders at home? Heck, money that, if re-directed to tax relief, could have really brought down some tax rates?


That's not the point. The GOP felt it was A-OK to continue to shovel money into Iraq in an unaccounted-for fashion in some nebulous hope that it would make things all better. Then they turn around and vote against a rigidly defined and accounted-for plan to shovel money into their own country. How, exactly, is this anything but a complete about-face on principles?

But maybe you're right. Maybe the GOP feel/felt that the reconstruction of Iraq was the greatest challenge to face the United States in its history, and required the suspension of any fiscal reality to make it a success, or else the consequences would just be so dire. Judging by their later actions, then, one has to conclude that they feel the reconstruction of the United States is nowhere near as important as that of Iraq.

I think plenty of people (especially JIMG) could have told you that they were there. I live in Georgia and the venom that started to develop around the administration for its bumbling in Iraq was pretty damned big.


They think confronting terrorism or rebuilding a state to prevent a terrorist state from developing, and shoveling money in to make that happen, is more important than wasteful domestic spending, which has the end result to increase the size of government (and make more socialistic) in a country they live in.

After all, if they fuck up spending in Iraq, well, it's Iraq. If their government isn't ideal as a result, well, at least it isn't the US they messed up. If they fuck up spending in the US... they just messed up their own country. So, the conclusion can be reached that Democrats think that it may be ok to mess up the US with expansionist government spending but not Iraq ;).

To be serious... the US economy will comeback. Some of these super dire projections I think are a bit over the top. It's a very, very tough situation, and the government needs to get involved, but we aren't talking dark ages here. If Al Queda takes over (or took over) Iraq, the world would be in a world of trouble. Wasteful spending sucks and is horrible regardless, but an aggressive terrorist government in a state the size of Iraq... Holy shit.

I know a ton of lefties who basically consider Clinton a "center-right" Democratic President. They also spoke in derisive terms of the DLC, so take that for what its worth. Progressives who backed Obama early on were not so enamored of the DLC-types, of which President Clinton is the most prominent member.

I think people tend to forget that Clinton passed welfare reform and NAFTA (over Dem objections) in his term of office and also declared "the era of big government to be over". He'd be considered on the right wing of the Dem caucus in the Senate right now.

Imran, you don't know how close I came in making a snarky comment that could have offended you. But out of our long time friendship, I resisted. :)

Something about Pakistan? ;)

If you were a liberal, I thought you may have made a crack about Texas or something :D.

Damn, wish I had thought of that one ;)

SI

I think the issue is that Al-Qaeda and terrorists were not a threat to take over Iraq before we got there. They hated Saddam as much as we did. Iraq was no threat to us.

Don't you think the fiscal conservative flavor had more to do with the Gingritch congress? As far as NAFTA, all of the ex presidents wanted it, even Carter. I think the best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton was having an opposition party congress.

That is probably a good deal of truth. But Clinton was a good politician and saw the writing.

Then again, the whole "triangulation" and "third way" were, to a lot of old leftists, selling out to become GOP Lite (or in Britain, "Tory lite").

Talking about after. Once we were in and Hussein was taken out, there was a huge power vacuum.

As the Dems voted for the initial war and spending, they were in no position to go on the offensive on that.

I wouldn't go that far. About half the Democratic Senators did vote against the war. A majority of Democratic Representatives voted against it. The ones who voted for it certainly can't complain, but this was a Republican idea.

I still would rather pay pork domestically than throw money into a war against a country that was of no threat to us and that we didn't gain anything from.

I assume you also mean that for once we are already in and us pulling out would almost certainly lead to a bloody Civil War that would have either Al Queda or Iran in charge?

Once you've screwed things up, you have to fix it. I don't think we were left with much of a choice after making that huge mistake of getting into this war.

On a lighter note ... in domestic policy. I support this but I am sure there will be some unintended circumstances that will make me change my mind!

DEA to end medical marijuana raids - More health news- msnbc.com

In other words, if it can keep people from voting whose rights you don't agree with, the Constitution is still OK. Who the hell cares if it's right or fair, as long as those crazy liberals don't get a vote.

Like I said, it hasn't been worth the paper it takes to reprint a copy for a very long time now. It's a useful tool at times & that's about it. Undo decades of mistakes in its interpretation & application then maybe it's something else, but I don't see a lot of reason to hope that's going to happen so I just have to deal with the practical reality that's left.


There's nothing "right" about allowing people who clearly lack the good sense to govern themselves or anyone else to be involved in the decision making process. That falls somewhere between suicide & plain ol' stupid.

Again this argument falls under the "do you know you're talking to JIMGA" rules ;)

SI

Take a look at most of the jurisdictions in the United States and you could make the same argument -- particularly if they're on the opposite side of the political spectrum of the person making the argument. It's a tired argument, let's get to something that's actually substantive.


Oh, I'm quite aware. :) He is just my only sounding board for views that annoy the hell out of me on this situation, so he is the person I am stuck with arguing the point with. :)

Lets leave the decision making up to people who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Better that (although you're talking about an awfully small group) than those who think it's perfectly acceptable to take money out of the pockets of people who earn their living and give it to those unwilling to do so, never mind their moral bankruptcy of the left. Hell, better anything than leaving them in charge of anything, they're not even capable of administering their own lives much less anyone else's.

Hold on there Skippy. You drop a charming little line about "bible-thumping rednecks" but want to complain when I respond remotely in kind? And people wonder why I'm convinced that our biggest war is at home?

I've long thought that about 100,000 liberals at the bottom of the ocean would be the proverbial good start but damned if I wouldn't like to see you be part of the first batch.

It's a very self-righteous thing -- When it comes down to it JIMGA shows the true colors of the argument. It's not that he doesn't think people in the District should be allowed to vote, it's that he's happy the Constitution (may) keep them from having a member of Congress because he would not be happy with the way they would vote. Such a person should never rant and rave about patriotism or rights or anything else "American."

Odd how the rich and educated vote went Democrat this past year considering they can't administer their own lives. Or how the majority of the welfare states in this country are red.

And last I checked, Republicans had no problem handing out money to failing banks, investment firms, and insurance companies over the past few years. They had no problem dumping money into countries filled with people that wish we were all dead. Welfare is welfare, whether it goes to a single mother or a corporation.

I'm not complaining, just think the whole liberal/conservative bashing is stupid. It's for people who are desperate to be "part of a club". Pick your team and bash the other for everything you can. Doesn't matter if your views are hypocritical or wrong. It's about winning, not what's best for yourself or your country. It comes across like the brainwashed people who join cults.

But yes, the war is at home. It's those heathens who *GASP* have a differing opinion from you. Certainly the problem isn't people who wish genocide on their own citizens.

Not sure if this is an appropriate thread but something caught my eye from the CPAC thing this week. As much as think Rush is an arrogant, condescending, unlistenable blowhard, he is right about one thing. You win in politics by nominating the right candidate. And in these times, it's about nominating someone with charisma, or at least having more than your opponent. It is that simple because a majority of voters base their votes on things that are simple. Gifted and charismatic politicians come by every so often, of all political stripes, and it is just a matter of having the courage to run for president.

That's spot on. It's why I was really surprised the Republicans went with Jindal after the Obama speech. I think they should have used someone like Romney who has some charisma and can speak about economics and know what he's talking about.

Jindal can be charismatic under the right circumstances, he just blew the response. It doesn't help that he was embellishing his primary anecdote. I'm one, though, that doesn't think he's seriously damaged his presidential hopes. It's still very early and if Obama looks vulnerable in 2012 Jindal could compete well with Palin, Romney, Huckabee, or whomever else runs.

Well, there have been all sorts of whispers that Jindal's one of the early candidates for 2012. So, think of this as an exercise in getting experience for your bench- get some national exposure and build depth on the team.

SI

I think most people view Jinal as young and charismatic. As others have said, he will likely go through a series of trials to see if enough people see him as a charismatic leader.

charisma wasn't on display the other night however he followed up a tough speech to compete against when it comes to charisma.

Again, I was talking about politicians, specifically GOP politicians in the U.S. House and Senate.

Looks like their giving some negotiation room on the budget...good to see

Key Democrats oppose Obama's tax deduction plan

One thing I don't get.

"Obama's budget calls for setting aside $634 billion over the next 10 years as a down payment on health care reform. Half the money would come from tax increases on upper-income earners; the other half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid."

How does cutting Medicare and Medicaid improve health care access, health care quality, and the cost of it?

I think because theyre finding a ton of waste in the two, ie. the no bid prescription meds, etc.

I notice the limiting deductions thing has gone under the radar a little. That's something I can get behind- closing more tax loopholes = good.

SI

In the Medicare prescription bill was a provision to offer private coverage under some circumstances. That private coverage turned out to be no better, but far costlier than Medicare. Obama wants to kill the private coverage option which will save a lot of mone.

So he's just cutting out the private coverage of Medicare/Medicaid, which will make it a single-payer, government-run program? I wasn't sure if he was cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.

More accurately, return it to a government run program. I don't think there's any major program that would cut payments to providers at this point.

just saw this now :lol:

you know at this point, there should actually probably be a board advisory to this effect

Don't forget that Bill Clinton's first national speech was also a disaster. Jindal can certainly recover, especially since I don't think he'll run until 2016.

Yup. I think that this could actually help Jindal in the long term. Being the front-runner for "future leader of the party" means that lots of people from both within and without your party are trying to take you down.

Now, he can stay under the radar and under the fray for a while. Especially if he reiterates that he does not plan to run in 2012.

He can just watch as Palin, Romney, and Huckabee et al. shoot at each other and position himself well for 2016 or beyond.

Oh, and low expectations never hurt anyone. If his next major national speech is average, then people will say that "Jindal is back and needs to be taken seriously." You don't want to peak too early and then let everyone down when it starts to matter.

true. lowered expectations is generally a good thing for the person in the eye of it.

Not sure what the current numbers are, but I must confess, this somewhat surprised me.

Obama Less Popular Than Bush After First Month in Office

I want my check.

Yeah public opinion didn't really turn on Bush until after he had proven himself to be a terrible president.

So comparing two different polls with totals that are within the margin of error is significant how?

btw- As I mentioned to MBBF, if that 59 number is so significant how do explain Obama's approval in the mid to high sixties this week?

Similar to Obama, I had very high hopes for Bush in early 2001. There wasn't much to base any dissatisfaction on, to be honest. My opinion started to turn with the stem cell decision in mid-2001.

I think Jindal is a smart guy and just hope the GOP doesn't rush him into something he isn't prepared for. He's not a polished speaker and doesn't appear comfortable in front of the camera. That'll take some time to work on. The problem is that the GOP seems set on turning him into their Obama and fast.

Not to mention that I think it's best if he stays low key. The Republican Party isn't doing too well in the public eye and tying himself to it this early just doesn't seem smart. He'd be better off keeping a low profile within the party and then coming on strong perhaps in 2010-2011 if he wants to run for President.