The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

There is nothing that the news media loves to swarm on than hypocrisy, so we shouldn't be surprised that O'Reilly is getting hammered.

[JPhillips]

And unlike Williams who admitted and apologized fairly quickly, O'Reilly has taken a very combative approach to his defense. I'm sure it also doesn't help that O'Reilly has a decades long reputation as an egocentric jerk.

[Dutch]

An openly egocentric jerk...that is.

[JPhillips]

Sure, but people seem to genuinely like Williams and loath O'Reilly, and the stories about their work habits make it clear why those opinions are generally held. You can go all the way back to O'Reilly's first TV job and seemingly everyone else at the station had a negative opinion of him.

I'd be very surprised if anything happens to O'Reilly. His employer doesn't seem to care and he obviously isn't going to step down due to personal regrets. In a few days we'll all move on to talking about DHS funding.

[SirFozzie]

The FCC Net Neutrality (and pre-empting state laws that restrict municipalities ability to offer their own service) hearing is now live on C-Span 3 and Live | FCC.gov

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So broad-brushing is still alive and well?

When there's this level of stupid with no one calling it out on their side, yes.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure, but people seem to genuinely like Williams and loath O'Reilly, and the stories about their work habits make it clear why those opinions are generally held. You can go all the way back to O'Reilly's first TV job and seemingly everyone else at the station had a negative opinion of him.

I remember the famous video of O'Reilly losing it on his staffers when he was hosting "Inside Edition".

Bill O'Reilly has an emotional meltdown on Inside Edition. - YouTube

[molson]

This time of year, the media loves to jump on wacky shit proposed and said by state legislators and attribute that stuff to whatever party they think is the evil one. An Idaho legislator proposed last week that congress impeach judges that overturn same sex marriage bans. Another guy who isn't even a legislator proposed through a county party committee that Christianity be declared the official religion of Idaho. Any individual can propose anything, both proposals were shot down immediately by other Republicans. Still, they made big headlines, the news articles read, "Republicans propose Christianity be declared the official religion of the state", and "Republicans propose to impeach judges."

It's reality of rural states that you're going to have some uneducated representatives. A lot of these counties only have a few thousand people in them. The legislator who proposed impeachment for judges isn't a lawyer, he went to a junior college and runs a sawmill. If that's the guy people in a small community trust and do business with and know for decades, they're going to get elected.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

When there's this level of stupid with no one calling it out on their side, yes.

There's a huge dynamic of tension in the Idaho legislature between the urban lawyers and the country farmers. It'd be nice if either party openly disagreed with each other more, but in this era of team politics, that's considered disloyal and you don't see it much out of primary season. That's my favorite time of year in Idaho politics, when the more moderate Republicans take of the gloves to some degree and fight with the tea party Republicans.

[Edward64]

I don't get why fight this one, not a good move at this time with the current world mess (and perceived threats).

Stopgap DHS funding bill fails in House | Fox News

A stopgap bill to keep money flowing to the Homeland Security Department past a midnight deadline failed in the House late Friday, in a surprise turn of events that again raises the possibility of a partial agency shutdown.

The vote was 224-203 against the measure, as 52 Republicans defected and joined Democrats in opposing the leadership-backed legislation.

The first group was upset because the legislation had been stripped of changes to President Obama's immigration policy, and the second because it lacked full-year funding for the sprawling department.

"You have made a mess," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said to Republicans as debate neared an end on the measure.

But conservative Republicans are vowing to keep fighting, using the budget bill as leverage to try and undo Obama's immigration executive actions.

"I am not going to vote under any circumstances to fund illegal conduct," said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. "It does not make any difference whether the funding is for three weeks, three months or a full fiscal year. If it's illegal, it's illegal."

[Galaxy]

Terrible move by the Republicans. Really nothing to gain from it politically, and everything to lose. You just back into power, and you use this bill to tie to another legislation battle?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Terrible move by the Republicans. Really nothing to gain from it politically, and everything to lose. You just back into power, and you use this bill to tie to another legislation battle?

You have to remember that Cantor got ousted last year in part because he was viewed as being too accomodating to the Administration (and in part because he basically never went home to his district).

The only Republicans who have anything to lose by picking fights are Republicans in districts where Democrats have a reasonable chance of winning.

The rest? Tea Party Republicans and Republicans elected to represent heavily-red districts? What they have to lose is NOT picking legislative fights. If they're perceived as compromising with President Obama or "surrendering" to him, they're going to get primaried in 2016.

[SirFozzie]

Send in the clown car!

House Republican leaders scrap education vote - Nation - The Boston Globe

[flere-imsaho]

Democrats are being given a golden opportunity to troll the GOP straight out of the 2016 election with a push here a nudge there so they keep infighting right down the drain.

[Dutch]

Slow down, the Boston Globe only said a vote was being postponed, not that the 2-party system in America was about to end in a bloodless coup.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You have to remember that Cantor got ousted last year in part because he was viewed as being too accomodating to the Administration (and in part because he basically never went home to his district).

The only Republicans who have anything to lose by picking fights are Republicans in districts where Democrats have a reasonable chance of winning.

The rest? Tea Party Republicans and Republicans elected to represent heavily-red districts? What they have to lose is NOT picking legislative fights. If they're perceived as compromising with President Obama or "surrendering" to him, they're going to get primaried in 2016.

I guess you're right, but still impacts the party as a whole. Interesting that 12 Dems voted against it as well.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Democrats are being given a golden opportunity to troll the GOP straight out of the 2016 election with a push here a nudge there so they keep infighting right down the drain.

Did you read the article?

It sounds like the Dems, some Republicans, and the White House didn't like the bill, or at least parts of it; and that it was delayed due the DHS funding bill.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Slow down, the Boston Globe only said a vote was being postponed, not that the 2-party system in America was about to end in a bloodless coup.

Well good, I hope not. I was really going for a bloody internal GOP coup.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well good, I hope not. I was really going for a bloody internal GOP coup.

We should elect Putin next. He could arrange that.

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, at least he could legitimately claim to see Russia from his home.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Hey, at least he could legitimately claim to see Russia from his home.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I guess you're right, but still impacts the party as a whole. Interesting that 12 Dems voted against it as well.

Against it? Are we talking about the same bill? Fifty-two Republicans joined with like 170+ Democrats in voting against it because it was a three-month measure and they didn't want to re-fight the immigration battle again with shutdown looming in three months.

Did 12 Democrats vote FOR the bill?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Against it? Are we talking about the same bill? Fifty-two Republicans joined with like 170+ Democrats in voting against it because it was a three-month measure and they didn't want to re-fight the immigration battle again with shutdown looming in three months.

Did 12 Democrats vote FOR the bill?

Blah, you're correct. Not sure why I typed it that way.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This would certainly explain the breakdown of agreement with Israel of late. Report cites that Obama threatened to shoot down IAF jets if they attacked Iran.......

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/wa...=0&item=191966

[cartman]

So a Palestinian news source is quoted by a Kuwaiti paper regarding high level US-Israel discussions. Sounds legit

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I don't believe any of it.

If, though, it's true, it's a whole shit show on both sides. Israel attacking during negotiations and while the U.S. is currently engaged in operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and who knows where else? The U.S. making an obviously bullshit threat? Israel backing down without ever discussing the issue where it would be made public?

But of course it's obvious this is a total fabrication or a leak designed to alter the perception of the upcoming address to Congress.

[rowech]

How does anyone keep this stuff straight anymore? I could not possibly tell you who we are working with or against. I can't tell you where there are real threats and just whispers. It's just become one massive clusterfuck and I'm really starting to wonder if the only way out is the end of days.

[albionmoonlight]

Netanyahu's speech appears to be going poorly for the President: http://www.theonion.com/articles/net...owerpoi,38137/

[ISiddiqui]

[Galaxy]

Is the Clinton's use of a private email account in her job at Sect. of State a rather big concern? She never had a government account?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/02/politi...ate/index.html

[NobodyHere]

Part of the issue is transparency. Such as you can't really file a FOIA request on a private email account.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think it's a particularly huge deal. Colin Powell basically did the same thing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think it's a particularly huge deal. Colin Powell basically did the same thing.

Powell used personal email "before the current regulations went into effect", and I'm not sure whether there were no efforts made to retain any of those emails like with Clinton.

Log In - The New York Times

I'm looking forward to the Clinton v. Christie dirt competition we'll see over the next few months. I'd say Christie is the favorite to have more and worse dirt at about -190 or so, but Clinton might be a solid value play.

[bhlloy]

Is Christie even going to get far enough to need dirt digging up on him? I thought his shot at getting the nomination was pretty much done.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Is Christie even going to get far enough to need dirt digging up on him? I thought his shot at getting the nomination was pretty much done.

He'll be the last person to realize that. I think he's in through getting smoked in New Hampshire.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Powell used personal email "before the current regulations went into effect", and I'm not sure whether there were no efforts made to retain any of those emails like with Clinton.

The current regulations about retention of records are kept in varying differences based on the agency (there is considerable debate about what the retention of records regs actually require for one). I think that providing those emails after the fact (as the Times article states) may fall under the requirements.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The current regulations about retention of records are kept in varying differences based on the agency (there is considerable debate about what the retention of records regs actually require for one). I think that providing those emails after the fact (as the Times article states) may fall under the requirements.

I think the difference would be that when you have a government email account, the agency can retain all emails, where in Clinton's case, her "advisers" poured through emails after the fact and selectively decided which ones to allow the agency to retain. I guess they were filtering out whatever they deemed to be "personal", but that's kind of the point of having separate accounts. "Personal" emails sent on government email accounts are still government records.

[Buccaneer]

and are subjected to open records act just like any files, postings, etc from govt computers are also subjected. If a public employee does not emails et al made public, then you delete or circumnavigate the rules (e.g., destroy evidence).

[JPhillips]

I don't think she broke and laws, but this is why Clinton isn't a slam dunk. She's just not very good at the game.

[albionmoonlight]

I have the feeling that I will think about Clinton in 2016 like Republicans thought about Romney in 2012. I will line up and vote for her because she will be way better than whatever alternative the other party puts up. But I will do it in a joyless way.

[Buccaneer]

Quite incongruence if you already think she would be "way better" when she could easily be just as bad (in a different way).

[flere-imsaho]

It's quite possible that government email sucks, and so using a personal email service is much better and more efficient. But I really don't like the idea of any government official deciding to conduct all business over personal email. Besides the question of records retention, there's also the question of security and, heck, even the general look of the thing.

[stevew]

Hey, if she wants to conduct business as [email protected], more power to her.

[SirFozzie]

From the ACA arguments from the Wall Street Journal, pretty confident in saying at least a 5-4 win to the Government:

Live Blog: Supreme Court Hears King v. Burwell Health-Law Case - Washington Wire - WSJ

And a funny moment from today's discussion:
Justice Scalia was thinking along similar lines. If the court’s ruling turned out to be so disastrous, he said, “you really think Congress is just going to sit there?”

“This Congress?” Mr. Verrilli replied incredulously. The courtroom erupted in laughter

[flere-imsaho]

I think it's 6-3. According to those who really follow this, it sounds like Kennedy is likely to go with the government, and most people expect Roberts to want to be on the winning side of such a historic judgment.

[JPhillips]

Anybody excited for a special election?

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

[flere-imsaho]

Bob, you're a Democrat. IOKIYAR only works for the GOP.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think it's 6-3. According to those who really follow this, it sounds like Kennedy is likely to go with the government, and most people expect Roberts to want to be on the winning side of such a historic judgment.

Kennedy's point was interesting considering the politics of all this. The plaintiffs found some ambiguous statutory language and wanted the Court to interpret it in a way that would take federal subsidies away from the citizens of states that did not set up their own exchanges.

As a practical matter, such a reading would mean that the ACA would die in those states and (the plaintiffs hoped) would start a death spiral that would take down the whole law.

Justice Kennedy agreed that the plantiffs's reading would kill the ACA in the states that did not set up their own exchanges. However, Justice Kennedy then seemed to imply that this reading would be too coercive to the states because it would force them to set up exchanges to get the benefit of the law.

Basically, the political part of this that the plaintiffs saw as the feature (we can interpret the ACA in a way that will allow GOP-controlled state legislatures to choke off federal funding and kill the ACA) seems to be the part that Justice Kennedy sees as a bug (this would interpret the ACA in a way that forces state legislatures to set up an exchange in order to get the federal funding of the ACA.)

[JPhillips]

I was reading a piece earlier that said Sotomayor started with questions that pointed out the coercion and then Kennedy picked that up.

Weird that the decision has already been made, but we'll have to wait until June.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think she broke and laws, but this is why Clinton isn't a slam dunk. She's just not very good at the game.

Does Clinton carry a lot in terms of appealing to the moderate and independent base? She doesn't seem to have the charm or that fresh pedigree that might work in the swing states.