The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

What I wonder is if Obama was delusional too, or if he was knowingly tapping into that delusion for votes. (Certainly the timing for that kind of strategy was more then perfect, coming off the Bush years people were more than ready for that).

No he wasn't. All he had to do was run a good campaign and change away from the Bush years would happen. It's a long told story in American politics that sometimes gets hyped into something that it was not. Change, not into something that was transformational, but away from something was what a majority wanted.

(I was going to add something about the Chicago political machine but I lost my train of thought.)

[sterlingice]

All this hand wringing about McCain is fun but, really, as soon as the economy tanked in September and October, whoever was running as a Republican had lost.

SI

[sterlingice]

The Sweep: Vikings, voters and the charge of the Militant Middle - CNN.com

Ok, so the article is not that interesting or that good, frankly. But the question remains: after whatever happens this year and in 2012, do things start to gradually head back to the middle? Or is this polarization systemic due to jerrymandering, national pursestrings, etc? And if that's the case- what finally changes that? You can't just expect wild polarizing swings every 2 years. Eventually someone is going to figure out that controlling the middle ground has always been the best way to win elections.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The Sweep: Vikings, voters and the charge of the Militant Middle - CNN.com

Ok, so the article is not that interesting or that good, frankly. But the question remains: after whatever happens this year and in 2012, do things start to gradually head back to the middle? Or is this polarization systemic due to jerrymandering, national pursestrings, etc? And if that's the case- what finally changes that? You can't just expect wild polarizing swings every 2 years. Eventually someone is going to figure out that controlling the middle ground has always been the best way to win elections.

SI

I'm not sure that's true, at least in off-year elections. Turnout is going to be key in Nov. I've seen a few polls recently that put the generic ballot at even or even favoring the Dems a bit, but once a likely voter screen is attached the numbers go to +3 or +4 GOP.

So many people don't vote that getting your people to show up at the polls may be more important than broad appeal.

[larrymcg421]

Guess which party this ad belongs to?



This is Jim Marshall, the Bluest of Dogs, fighting for his life once again in the GA 8th district, one of the most conservative districts in the country that is held by a Democrat (it has a PVI of R+10). He's survived very close races in the past and this will probably be another close one so I doubt this will be the worst we see from him.

[JediKooter]

Wow!! Politicians actually doing something useful:

Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials - Yahoo! News

[Greyroofoo]

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel officially resigns

[flere-imsaho]

Meg Whitman has now passed Michael Bloomberg's record for the most money spent out-of-pocket to finance one's campaign. In her case, $119 million. And she's still tied with Jerry Brown in the polls. It probably hasn't helped that after she said corporations who hire illegal immigrants should be fined, someone found out that she had an illegal Mexican housekeeper for 9 years.

"Do as I say...."

[JPhillips]

I think Gloria Allred is a twat, but she really punked Whitman. After Whitman denied she knew the woman was illegal and offered to take a lie detector, Allred produced a letter from the SS Admin with Whitman's husband's writing. Now Whitman is backing down from her lie detector comment.

[lungs]

Libertarianism at work?

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
Originally printed at http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local...104052668.html

By Reporter - Jason Hibbs
By Photojournalist - Mark Owen
September 30, 2010
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.

"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.

Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.

They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.

The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.

"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.

It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.

We asked him why.

He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.

"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.

Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.

"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."

To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.

[Greyroofoo]

Not sure how this is Libertarian...

[panerd]

Yeah that is exactly what will happen if the government cuts back on spending even just a little bit. That is about as silly as people claiming that Obama and the Democrats are communists.

[JPhillips]

It's all about the economy. Sometimes I think the entire campaign apparatus and all the millions spent is just one big scam.

But the NEWSWEEK Poll's most revealing finding is that despite months of media coverage insisting that voters are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," anger is unlikely to decide this year's elections. For starters, self-described angry voters constitute only 23 percent of the electorate, and there's no reason to believe that they're more likely to cast ballots in November than their calmer peers. Why? Because the percentage of angry voters who say they will definitely vote in the midterms is statistically indistinguishable from the overall percentage of voters who say the same thing (84 percent vs. 81 percent). In fact, majorities of voters say they would not be more likely to vote for candidates who express anger at Washington incumbents (60 percent), Wall Street bankers (52 percent), the illegal-immigration problem (53 percent), the Gulf of Mexico oil spill (65 percent), or health-care reform (55 percent). Fifty-three percent of voters see Obama's unemotional approach to politics—his "coolness"—as a positive, versus only 39 percent who don't...

So if not anger, the president, or the issues, what will be the deciding factor in the 2010 midterm elections? According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, the condition of the economy, and the inability of anyone in Washington to improve it, is by far the most important force at play in this year's congressional campaigns.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Not sure how this is Libertarian...

Doesn't this amount to private fire protection? Being a former libertarian, I knew a few that were for private fire/police protection.

That kind of attitude kind of turned me off. Libertarianism at the federal level, sure. But at the local level? Maybe if we want to follow the Somalian model.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's all about the economy. Sometimes I think the entire campaign apparatus and all the millions spent is just one big scam.

It's not totally a scam. It allows companies and individuals to buy candidates in the future. To use an example, the campaign season allows health care companies to funnel nearly $4M into Max Baucus's campaign in the last decade so that he can royally screw "we the people" over in health care reform.

SI

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's not totally a scam. It allows companies and individuals to buy candidates in the future. To use an example, the campaign season allows health care companies to funnel nearly $4M into Max Baucus's campaign in the last decade so that he can royally screw "we the people" over in health care reform.

SI

Ultimately I have to blame the voters. We say we hate it when corporations throw cash at candidates but yet we still reward the behavior with our votes.

[sterlingice]

To a point, but at what point do you have to make the decision of "the lesser of two evils" versus "making a protest vote"? I think that's an important distinction that the libertarian crowd fails to take into account. It would be easy to always make a protest vote if I strongly felt that each side were just as bad.

But, (un?)fortunately, it's on a continuum, not a binary "yes" or "no". Let's throw out that, in a particular race, I agree with the Democrat on 60%, the Republican 30%, the Libertarian 50%, and the Green party candidate 90%. The simple answer should be "vote for the Green party candidate", right? Well, not so fast. What if leading up to the election, the results are D 45%, R 45%, L 5%, G 5%?

Honest question- who should I vote for? If it's close enough that my vote might matter- is it better to stand on principle or vote for someone you agree with twice as much even if it's still a substantial margin less than your favorite candidate. If you look at the best example I can think of, which is Florida and Nader in 2000, there's a bit of disagreement.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To a point, but at what point do you have to make the decision of "the lesser of two evils" versus "making a protest vote"? I think that's an important distinction that the libertarian crowd fails to take into account. It would be easy to always make a protest vote if I strongly felt that each side were just as bad.

But, (un?)fortunately, it's on a continuum, not a binary "yes" or "no". Let's throw out that, in a particular race, I agree with the Democrat on 60%, the Republican 30%, the Libertarian 50%, and the Green party candidate 90%. The simple answer should be "vote for the Green party candidate", right? Well, not so fast. What if leading up to the election, the results are D 45%, R 45%, L 5%, G 5%?

Honest question- who should I vote for? If it's close enough that my vote might matter- is it better to stand on principle or vote for someone you agree with twice as much even if it's still a substantial margin less than your favorite candidate. If you look at the best example I can think of, which is Florida and Nader in 2000, there's a bit of disagreement.

SI

Vote your conscience or else have this same discussion every single election about how neither the Republicans or Democrats care about your vote but you still have to vote for them because of what other voters might do.

To me it's not even the "lesser of two evils" that has thrown me to vote for Libertarians the past few elections. It is the fact that on the issues that I actually side with Republicans or Democrats on they very rarely follow through on anything. Case in point... Obama was a "peace" candidate. How long did that last? Continued war in the middle East, possible war with Iran/Pakistan, continued assault on civil liberties with war on terror, and now to top it all off this weekend after years of having my Democrat friends laugh with me at the moronic color coded terror diagram this administration rolls out their own version of it. Don’t travel to the 4 million square mile Europe, bad things might happen. Nobody can take this seriously, can they?

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Vote your conscience or else have this same discussion every single election about how neither the Republicans or Democrats care about your vote but you still have to vote for them because of what other voters might do.

Agreed. Voting strategically doesn't make sense because this isn't the supreme court - you individual vote is NOT going to turn the tide of the election.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Well, in a sane world, we'd have something IRV, single-transferable vote, proportional representation, approval rating, or basically something other than the most anti-democratic voting system in the world, First Past The Post.

Yeah, I took a fun little course in college on political parties and, yeah, it seems as if the plurality system systemically pretty much gave rise to political parties and limited it to 2. Not entirely true, but you're almost locked into that long term number.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed. Voting strategically doesn't make sense because this isn't the supreme court - you individual vote is NOT going to turn the tide of the election.

Is your one vote "for voting your conscience" going to matter any more than you individual vote to "turn the tide of the election"?

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Agreed. Voting strategically doesn't make sense because this isn't the supreme court - you individual vote is NOT going to turn the tide of the election.

Under that same criteria, my individual vote isn't going to do much for the Greens or Libertarians or whoever. I'm sure alot of people in Florida 2000 didn't think their individual vote mattered.

Was the cause of the Greens better served for those extra votes going to Nader? Are the environmental groups, for example, happy to argue in the Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito on the bench vs. whoever Gore would've appointed?

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Is your one vote "for voting your conscience" going to matter any more than you individual vote to "turn the tide of the election"?

SI

I think so, because it's your conscious, it's what you believe in, voting for that is an important part of participating in democracy. I think that's important no matter what state you live in (I'm not a fan of people saying their vote for president "doesn't count" because they're in a strong red/blue state). But ya, the practical impact of your vote doesn't matter either way - so why not let what you believe in win out over implementing some "strategy" that won't impact anything?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Under that same criteria, my individual vote isn't going to do much for the Greens or Libertarians or whoever. I'm sure alot of people in Florida 2000 didn't think their individual vote mattered.

Was the cause of the Greens better served for those extra votes going to Nader? Are the environmental groups, for example, happy to argue in the Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito on the bench vs. whoever Gore would've appointed?

Not true actually. The Libertarians, Greens, Reform, etc are kept out of the debates because of rules that the Republicans and Democrats helped write that requires a certain percentage in public opinion polls to be allowed in the debate. I think everyone will agree that Ross Perot sure did change those debates (whether you agree with the end result or not)

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Under that same criteria, my individual vote isn't going to do much for the Greens or Libertarians or whoever. I'm sure alot of people in Florida 2000 didn't think their individual vote mattered.

Was the cause of the Greens better served for those extra votes going to Nader? Are the environmental groups, for example, happy to argue in the Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito on the bench vs. whoever Gore would've appointed?

I guess if the Greens got together and chose to vote as a bloc strategically, that might make some sense.

But ya, your individual vote isn't got to have any practical value no matter how you vote. I think its a part of your soul and your personal history though (when someone says, "I voted for X in 2000 and X in 2004", I find those comments very relevant to someone's political views, moreso to just someone spouting off randomly.

[larrymcg421]

Okay, as much as I'd like to see more people involved in the debates, there has to be some kind of limit, right? I mean, let's say the Libertarians and Greens both got in. Are they gonna support every single person getting into the debate? We'll have a debate of 30 people?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, as much as I'd like to see more people involved in the debates, there has to be some kind of limit, right? I mean, let's say the Libertarians and Greens both got in. Are they gonna support every single person getting into the debate? We'll have a debate of 30 people?

There has to be some quantifiable minimum standard of relevance, but I think almost everyone (except those really vested in the big two parties), think that standard should be lower.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Okay, as much as I'd like to see more people involved in the debates, there has to be some kind of limit, right? I mean, let's say the Libertarians and Greens both got in. Are they gonna support every single person getting into the debate? We'll have a debate of 30 people?

I sort of agree but as a Libertarian supporter it would be pretty two-faced of me to want 3-4 people in the debate but to keep the Reform or Communist party out of the debate. I don't know though maybe it would be a huge step forward if we did include 5-6 different viewpoints. I think people who read this thread are familiar with the Libertarians, Greens, Reform, Constitution, etc but since the mass media gives them basically zero coverage maybe the general public isn't familiar with their views. If a couple of the smaller parties gave some solid reasons for ending the wars, ending corporate favortism, changing the drug laws, saving the environment, etc then the GOP and Democrats can either explain why these ideas don't work or risk losing voters. Last election's debates would have been much more interesting watching Obama and McCain explain a central bank or how the drug laws work than watching both of them explain how they care about "Main Street" and Joe the plumber. I don't agree with Ralph Nader on a lot of issues but it would have been a lot of fun watching him hold McCain and Obama's feet to the fire on foreign policy.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Nader on this very issue

Nader/Gonzalez supports the opening up of the Presidential debates.

Right now, they are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.

The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.

The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf — the former head of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Kirk — the former head of Democratic National Committee.

Fahrenkopf is a lobbyist for gambling interests, Kirk for pharmaceutical companies.

Debate sponsors have included Anheuser-Busch, Phillip Morris, Ford Motor Co., Yahoo Inc., 3Com, among other companies who gave soft money to the two parties’ national committees.

In 2000, some in the press dubbed the debates as the “Anheuser-Bush-Gore” debates.

In a memo by the CPD, the avowed goal for forming the commission was to "strengthen the two parties."

In 1988, the Commission seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters.

The League had a history of allowing third party candidates to participate in the debates. In 1980 the League invited Congressman John Anderson to join Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in the debates.

Anderson was given a boost from the public debates. At one point the polls had him at 21%. He won 7% of the vote.

When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor in Minnesota he was polling at 10 percent in the polls before the debates. After ten statewide debates he rose to 38 percent and won a 3-way race.

The Commission on Presidential Debates took a different tack from the League of Women Voters.

This Commission/corporation has excluded Ross Perot, Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan from the debates.

In 1996 Ross Perot was excluded from the debates. Even with all his money and after having won nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992 it was determined that he did not have "a chance to win," despite the fact that he even led in the polls at one point in 1992.

Walter Cronkite called the presidential debates under the CPD an "unconscionable fraud" because the CPD format "defies meaningful discourse."

In early years the CPD determined who could be in a debate by vague criteria including interviews with columnists, pollsters and consultants who determined whether a candidate could win.

In the year 2000, the CPD changed their criteria for third party and independent candidates — a candidate now needed 15 percent or more support as measured by the average of five private polling organizations — which just happen to be owned by several major newspaper and television conglomerates.

In 2000, Ralph Nader was excluded from the debates because the parent corporations that conduct these polls were giving him scant attention.

Without the mainstream media attention there is no moving up, and without moving up, candidates like Nader do not get into the debates and reach tens of millions of people.

In 2000, a Fox poll revealed that 64% of likely voters wanted to see ‘other candidates’ including Ralph Nader in the debates.

Other polls in 2004 showed similar results.

But it didn’t happen, thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Independents voices and third party candidates, including the Abolitionist, Women’s Suffrage Movement, Worker Protection, and Farmer Populace Party, have brought about many of the major changes in this country.

When Abraham Lincoln ran for office, the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.

As a Republican, Lincoln was elected as a third party candidate — even after being left off the ballot in the 11 states that seceded from the Union.

In 2004, 17 national civic leaders from the left, center and right of political spectrum - including Paul Weyrich, Chellie Pingree of Common Cause, Alan Keyes, Tom Gerety of the Brennan Center for Justice, Bay Buchanan, Randall Robinson, former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and Jehmu Green of Rock the Vote - created the Citizens’ Debate Commission.

Bolstered by an advisory board comprised of 60 diverse civic groups, the Citizens’ Debate Commission goal is to sponsor presidential debates that serves the American people, not political parties, first.
.

.

[larrymcg421]

And then that brings in another problem with our voting system. Let's say the Greens, Libertarians, and the Tea Party all become relevant parties. They get into the debates and now the voters are now split. Let's say it's now 30-30-15-15-10. With our first past the post system, we'll have people winning all of California's electoral votes with 30% of the vote. The presidential winner could theoretically be in the 20s for the popular vote.

i'm not opposed to a more parliamentary style system, but it would absolutely not be workable under out current electoral format.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And then that brings in another problem with our voting system. Let's say the Greens, Libertarians, and the Tea Party all become relevant parties. They get into the debates and now the voters are now split. Let's say it's now 30-30-15-15-10. With our first past the post system, we'll have people winning all of California's electoral votes with 30% of the vote. The presidential winner could theoretically be in the 20s for the popular vote.

i'm not opposed to a more parliamentary style system, but it would absolutely not be workable under out current electoral format.

I think that is a problem that most (outside of the JIMGa's and SteveBolleas) would welcome.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think that is a problem that most (outside of the JIMGa's and SteveBolleas) would welcome.

I'll let Steve speak for himself, but I think you have him pegged wrong if you don't think he'd support a revamped system.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I'll let Steve speak for himself, but I think you have him pegged wrong if you don't think he'd support a revamped system.

You may be right but he seems to side with Obama 99.9% of the time and even when upset with something Obama does he makes sure to rationalize (i.e. make excuses) why it is still better than the GOP. If that isn't a two party statist I don't know what is.

[RainMaker]

Third parties will never do anything. You have two parties who control all the power and want to keep it that way. Especially when they agree on most of the issues. It's a two-party dictatorship no matter what people pretend to believe about democracy.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Third parties will never do anything. You have two parties who control all the power and want to keep it that way. Especially when they agree on most of the issues. It's a two-party dictatorship no matter what people pretend to believe about democracy.

I would argue that it IS possible for this to change but it takes a fair amount of time - England was a two party system for the longest time, but through patience the Liberal Democrats have managed to get to the stage where they're influential within the country.

Something which I think is potentially a VERY good thing as if we continue with coalition governments then it takes the edge off the 'swing' when the government changes between the two main parties .....

[JPhillips]

Dana Milbank looked at American Conservative Union ratings for GOP congressmen over the past four decades and looked at who would be vulnerable in today's climate. Murkowski scored a 77% and Bennett scored an 83% and both lost primaries as too liberal.

Among those past senators who would be vulnerable to a purge in today's Republican Party: Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas (56 percent), Al D'Amato of New York (57 percent), Slade Gorton of Washington (70 percent), Mike DeWine of Ohio (79.8 percent), Gordon Smith of Oregon (68.8 percent), John Warner of Virginia (79.2 percent), Pete Domenici of New Mexico (74.1 percent), Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado (55 percent), John Heinz of Pennsylvania (48 percent) and Bill Cohen of Maine (48 percent).

Past Senate Republican conference chairmen who would fail the purity test include John Chafee of Rhode Island (30 percent lifetime), Bob Packwood of Oregon (42 percent lifetime) and Margaret Chase Smith of Maine (33 percent in her last year). And that's not counting the real liberal Republicans, an extinct species that included giants such as Jacob Javits (zero percent).

All but the most conservative Republicans in the Senate are on the run. George Voinovich of Ohio (69.8 percent), Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (78.7 percent) and Kit Bond of Missouri (81.9 percent) are all retiring. Arlen Specter (43.6) was forced from the party. Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe (47.9) and Susan Collins (49.4) are prime targets for future primary challenges.

That leaves, in addition to the still-unrated Scott Brown of Massachusetts, a couple of old bulls (Indiana's Dick Lugar at 77.3 percent and Iowa's Chuck Grassley at 83.5 percent) and a couple of Tennesseans who should be very nervous (Lamar Alexander at 79 percent and Bob Corker at 83.3 percent).

[SirFozzie]

Interesting: First legal test of the Health Care law goes to the Justice Dept (and the Prez)

Federal judge upholds key provisions of health care law | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

[larrymcg421]

I'm amused by the challenge to the mandate, because conservatives always seem to love to tell the story about the law passed in Kennesaw that required homeowners to own a gun and how that's why Kennesaw had such a low crime rate.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I would argue that it IS possible for this to change but it takes a fair amount of time - England was a two party system for the longest time, but through patience the Liberal Democrats have managed to get to the stage where they're influential within the country.

Something which I think is potentially a VERY good thing as if we continue with coalition governments then it takes the edge off the 'swing' when the government changes between the two main parties .....

In a more Democratic system I'd agree, but at this point we're essentially a Plutocracy. It would take major events to change the current structure.

[molson]

The health care reform is way, way within the commerce clause powers that the federal courts have identified in the last few decades, but I still wonder if that power has any limit whatsoever. I really don't think it does. I'd feel better if we could just amend it to the "everything clause". That certainly would have made law school easier.

[molson]

And if we can't have relevant 3rd parties, I'd definitely settle for angry factions within existing parties. The tea party, whatever the hell it is, is definitely relevant. I'd love to see a green party-esque angry sub-party within the Democratic party. We're not going to get beneficial reform unless there's more than two political voices out there.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

And if we can't have relevant 3rd parties, I'd definitely settle for angry factions within existing parties. The tea party, whatever the hell it is, is definitely relevant. I'd love to see a green party-esque angry sub-party within the Democratic party. We're not going to get beneficial reform unless there's more than two political voices out there.

Tea Party would have been more relevent in the 1950's...

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Interesting: First legal test of the Health Care law goes to the Justice Dept (and the Prez)

Federal judge upholds key provisions of health care law | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Interesting part is it looks like companies and even unions are seeking waivers and making changes in respone to the health care bill:

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/t...KLwbYtp6Nam7LK

Microsoft Stops Covering All Healthcare Costs For Employees

[Buccaneer]

My company's plan (which is excellent, comparatively) has been grandfathered in.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Interesting part is it looks like companies and even unions are seeking waivers and making changes in respone to the health care bill:

McDonald's, 29 other firms get health care coverage waivers - USATODAY.com

New York City's United Federation of Teachers union granted one-year waiver from complying with ObamaCare - NYPOST.com

Microsoft Stops Covering All Healthcare Costs For Employees

I guess I'll have to go to a dirty right-wing blog to get some kind of table regarding which organizations are getting these waivers, and how much those organizations contributed to the Obama campaign.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

Your opinion of the merit of their stance doesn't change the fact that they are a major influence on the Republican and Libertarian landscape at the moment. The Tea Party is pretty much the definition of relevant as pertains to political discussion.

I didn't say they weren't.

Doesn't change the fact that they're bigoted hate & fear-mongers though.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

All of them? Really? Way to paint with a broad brush. I happen to lean Libertarian myself and can say the initial Tea Party groups were just Libertarians who had defaulted to voting Republican for a while and finally realized that the big government motif applies to both parties. Then you get morons like Palin trying to latch on and the prominence that gives has all the whackos come running down the mountain to join in.

But you're right, it's a fact that anyone who identifies with the Tea Party is bigoted and a fear-monger...even the black, Asian and Middle-Eastern folks that are involved.

All 3 of them??

Of course it was a broad brush. I don't claim to know all of them.

But given the public pronouncements of the candidates that they have put forward (which I suppose is a fairly logical way of examining them), I'm not sure what other conclusion one could draw.

I'm not making any statements about the initial Tea Party groups (although I don't think they were all Libertarians or anything - there aren't that many true Libertarians in this country...particularly not that many senior citizens who just happen to be Caucasian who were Libertarians). I'm saying what they are now.

[Swaggs]

I'm curious to know if folks think that this is an effective ad:



I think the ad for actors that can play "hicky" was by the RNSC, rather than the candidate himself. I had been waiting to see when Manchin would raise the issue that Raese does not primarily live in West Virginia and I think this is a really powerful ad. Particularly since West Virginians have more of an "us against the world" attitude (and you can almost call it a fiesty inferiority complex) than most other states.