On the local election scene, Indiana Democrat Jill Long Thompson eeked out a victory over Jim Schellinger for the party's nomination for Governor. She will face the rather unpopular incumbent Mitch Daniels.
Otherwise it's a slow news morning due last night's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. Next up are the Clinton strongholds of West Virginia (5/13) and Kentucky (5/20), while a close race seems to be shaping up in Oregon (5/20).
On this day:
Journalist Tim Russert was born (1950).
Black supremacist Hulon Mitchell Jr. AKA Yahweh ben Yahweh , leader of the Nation of Yahweh, dies from cancer (2007).
A German U-boat sinks the RMS Lusitania (1915).
__________________________
I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Conventional Wisdom
said that Hillary was at the top of her game in the last few weeks. Her style was smooth, and she was hitting on all cylinders.
I am pleased to see that all this talk about Rev. Wright as Obama's cross to bear, the never ending smear e-mails, that Obama is either a) a radical muslim or b) a radical Christian are not working. I hope that sends a chill through Republican spines. For me that is the biggest victory of last night, the failure of swiftboating.
I will add that Clinton's speech last night was gracious, and for that I admire her. She has the power to continue her legacy as a great democratic politician and help heal the divisions in the party by supporting the democratic nominee and unite the party to win in November.
It is an interesting lesson that in life and politics, how someone loses will determine whether the winner can win.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
eh it worked well enough
on just Democrats. I thought it was funny how when someone brought up that Obama only won 35-40% of the white vote, his supporters said that it's the usual amount Dems get in those states... But that 35-40% is of all the voters, not just 35-40% of Democrats that he got.
Is he going to do ok in the GE? We'll see. But it's pretty much the end of the road for Hillary.
__________________________"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Either way,
Obama is very unlikely to win Indiana. It's a relatively safe GOP state. NC, while also being a reliable GOP state, is more likely to swing the other way...but I doubt it.
It's the same story in most of the states. The Dems try to get enough of a lead in the dense population centers and dominate the black vote in order to overcome the rest of the counties/population. It tends to work reliably in traditional Democratic states and gets progressively weaker as the states become less liberal.
NC simply can never seem to deliver for the Dems. The leads they get in Triangle area and the more black counties in the east simply have never been able to overcome the rest of the state. Wake/Orange/Durham counties are blue but not blue enough.
He'll do fine in the GE
For one thing he will have Hillary off his back. The country btw isn't just white people anymore. Odd how the elite tend to focus on the white vote incessantly.
The truth is that democrats historically were a more bigoted party. Woodrow Wilson and "Birth of a Nation", FDR, Jack Kennedy, Robert Byrd, etc. The democrats were horrible.
It was the Republicans that recognized that a man that had served his country in the line of duty, fighting in a war should be honored, and strove to integrate blacks and enforce their right to go to the polls.
When suddenly the blacks became a voting block, the parties began courting them for political gain.
It was Nixon who passed affirmative action, btw.
The Democrats got support of black voters after MLK pushed Lyndon Johnson's civil rights actions. The Democrats have taken the black voters for granted for far too long now. This election reminds us, that black voters are still a key voting bloc. The same with Hispanics as Bush reminded us by getting their support on the values argument.
So let's remember that this isn't a 'whites' only election even though the pundents and Hillary can't emphasize the whites enough.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Whites are 70%+ of the population
over 80% if you include hispanics. Whites are also registered at a higher rate (75% without hispanics, 74% with) than blacks (69%) or asians (52%). In 2004 14 million blacks voted. 100 million whites voted (*not* including hispanics).
Data from here (2004).
There's a reason why the white vote is focused on to a great degree- it is by far the largest contribution to the overall vote. The black vote is mostly important because of how lopsided it is, blacks vote overwhelmingly democratic. The irony is that monolithic voting means that the dems can take blacks for granted, and the reps don't give a %$#^ about them, whereas if they don't vote monolithically they just don't have enough numbers to make much difference.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
White working class
voters are not Hillary's problem. It's black voters who abandoned her. Her effort was to expand her base by getting more blue collar workers. I am not sure how well this message works West of the Mississippi, where a lot of white folks visit Starbucks regularly. Obama makes up the difference by attracting younger voters!
The significance of Obama's win (as in not a blowout for Hillary) in Indaina was that it followed on the heels Wright story and bittergate that Clinton supporters and the GOP were drooling over as their path to victory. That Obama is still standing is a testament to the strength and appeal of his message. No problem gets solved if you are off on a side road pointing to that vote values sign while you are stuck in the ditch listening to fake solutions to real problems.
That is why I say the biggest victory last night was that the Swiftboating campaign didn't work. Even Newt
agrees with me.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Hillary's narrow win in Indiana
and Obama's blow out in NC is going to make it a lot harder for her to argue the popular vote issue. I suspect her chances, which had seemed to be waxing a bit, have been pretty much crushed.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
President Bush sent four new nominees to the FEC.
Well, they aren't all new. in fact the only one who is different is he dropped Chairman David Mason (R) in favor of someone new.
TPM has a detailed look into this one
. Two "problems" exist with the FEC right now. Mason is one of only two currently seated FEC commissioners. The FEC needs a quorum of 4 to make any decisions. Mason apparently angered bush43 because he has insisted that McCain obey current election laws and McCain has done some questionable things as far as campaign money is concerned of late. Without a valid FEC vote, McCain won't be able to get matching Federal Election Funds.
The second problem is that Hans von Spakovsky is still one of the proposed committee members. Democrats have been very clear that Hans will never be seated at the FEC.
So...what do you all think of this maneuver?
Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!
I'm sorry, but "Hans von Spakovsky" reminds me of Dr. Strangelove, that is, the name does.
I wouldn't confirm him either. :-)
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
great bond villain name. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just one more example of the Democrats being obstructionist.
That's what I think.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
And...
You're right; they are. That's how politics works. The minority party obstructs anything the majority wants. In this case the "majority" is the President.
Republicans wouldn't give many of Clinton's judicial nominees so much as a committee hearing. Democrats filibustered (or at least attempted to) many of Bush's judicial nominees as well. Now Republicans have set a record in filibusters.
Wouldn't you want Republicans to do whatever it took to block any radical judges, cabinet officers, etc.?
Personally, I'd like to see us out of Iraq. As Democrats are fond of saying, "we don't have the votes". Actually, they do. You just don't pass a bill to fund the war. Even taking that option off the table, they can simply call a cloture vote every day until the Republicans agreed to allow the bill to come to a vote. You can bet your bottom dollar that if I was Majority Leader in the Senate, we'd still be debating whichever Senate bill was responsible for the withdraw of our troops from Iraq. I'd have continuous 24x7 sessions and have the Sergeant-at-Arms bring Senators to the floor. And I'd be happy to continue that for a full 2 years until the session expired.
Generally speaking, obstructionism only works if the majority doesn't have the will to stay strong in face of the minority.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Not as of the last time we visited this ...
Here is the last bit I recall:
Bogus McClatchy stats on filibusters?
I aparantly never bothered to revisit this as promised, but unless you have any updated data I stand by y previous statements. Please provide evidence to support your claim.
And this just supports the position posited by me in our previous discussion.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Either way...
I'm too lazy to look at the data. Lets just agree that there are quite a few filibusters coming out of the Senate. For instance a cloture vote for the Passenger's Bill of Rights failed today largely on party lines (49-42 was the vote).
Regarding your point, in the case when Democrats consistently bring up cloture votes and force Republicans to actually stand and speak, that would seem to be the Republicans obstructing, not the Democrats.
In the case of the FEC, the Democrats are indeed obstructing Bush's nominees. I'm just saying that this obstruction pales in comparison to the legislative obstruction coming from the Senate Republicans.
In short, everyone does it and obstructionism is what the minority is supposed to do in the Senate. Hell, even the veto is a tool of obstruction.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
obstruction*ism*
There's a difference between obstructing the ocassional bill your side seriously disagrees with, and a pattern of reflexively trying to stop anything you don't entirely approve of. The first is normal and healthy behavior. The latter is obstructionism, and is what the republicans are guilty of in the most recent congress.
The first provides a fallback when negotiation fails, the latter is what happens when negotiation isn't even considered.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Cloture is oppression of the minority.
By its very nature, cloture is an attempt on the part of the majority to silence the minority and grind them into the ground by ignoring their concerns.
Based on the data provided by the US Senate on this point, we find the following: *
So as we can plainly see, for the 100th through the 103rd Congresses, it was the Democrats who significantly raised the level of oppression of the minority party. For the 104th through the 109th Congresses the Republicans were obviously trying to reduce this abhorant practice, but now in the 110th Congress the Democrats are back with a vengence and up to their old partisan tricks.
Let us not forget that it was a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, who was instrumental in bringing us this club of oppression within the Senate
. Just another example of how the Democrat Party continually seeks to push their views and opinions onto the American public.
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Here is the raw data:
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Cloture
I suppose if granting 30 additional hours of debate to a subject is equivalent to "ignoring their concerns," then you have a point.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And what happens at the end of the 30 hours?
The majority ignores the concerns of the minority. The 30 hours is meaningless by the time cloture gets invoked. It's a drop in the bucket by then.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Drop in the bucket
I agree. It is a drop in the bucket by then, because they likely already have debated the issue for many many hours before cloture was invoked.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Correct.
So in the end they choose the ignore the concerns of the minority party as I said.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What's the alternative?
According to how you seem to be defining the word "ignore," then any time any legislation is voted on, unless it is unanimous, the minority has been ignored. So assuming you actually believe that this is a bad thing, the only solution would be to require all votes in Congress to be unanimous, or continue to be debated. Is that what you believe? If not, then what do you propose?
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The purpose of extended debate in the senate ...
is to allow the minority party the opportunity to continue to make their case in the hopes of changing people's minds. Cloture, in effect, prevents them from continuing to make their case and, therefore, constitutes ignoring their concerns.
My position here is not distorted or fringe in any way. By using Cloture the majority is, in effect, saying quite literally that we, the majority, aren't going to listen to you, the minority, anymore. To me, refusing to listen is the same as ignoring.
You are the original person (here at swordscrossed) to bring these Cloture stats into the conversation, are you not? Now that they have been placed in their proper perspective you don't like what they say?
Let me remind you of the following here:
Is the chart I prepared not based exactly on the "full totals as provided in the tables I've
linked to"?
So, let us get down to the bottom line here:
(1) Cloture is, by its very nature, an effort by the majority party to shut down the minority party on some point and, thereby, to have the majority party prevail in spite of the minority party's objections. Do you agree or disagree?
(2) It is the majority party, and not the minority party, that is in control of when Cloture votes are scheduled and taken. Do you agree or disagree?
(3) The raw data and the associated graph accurately, and in an unbiased manner, present the facts of this situation as reported to us by the Senate data that you linked to. Do you agree or disagree?
Beyond that we are just quibbling over interpretations thereof, but the facts are the facts.
This is a misunderstanding or a mischaracterization of my point, which is merely that (a) using Cloture constitutes ignoring the objections of the minority party on some point, and (b) that the data demonstrate that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who have significantly increased the use of this form of minority suppression.
The totals speak for themselves on this point, which is directly related to extended debate and NOT related in any way to vote totals.
Let the votes come down where they do. Heck, let the majority supress the minority using Cloture when they feel the need to do so. But don't try to whitewash the reality by losing sight of the fact that using Cloture IS supressing the minority concerns AND that the Democrats have a record of using this option more than Republicans do AND that the Democrats are the ones that escalated the use of the practice in the first place.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Cloture
Do you deny that without the option of cloture, than the minority (a minority of one, even) could prevent the legislature from voting on anything, ever?
Do you deny that in some cases, the invocation of cloture is a necessary tool to prevent such obstructionist tactics?
Unless you truly believe that cloture is in all instances a bad thing, your point is moot.
Edit and addendum: I think I was the first one to link to the actual stats for cloture votes, but I don't think I was the first one to bring up the topic, as it is not of any particular interest to me!
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I asked first.
You answer mine then I will answer yours.
I simply refer you to:
There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about my statement.
for clarification of my actual point. In any event it is not moot. It is true and accurate that the Democrats have been the ones to dramatically increase the use of Cloture as a means of stifling the minority party, not the Republicans. This does NOT imply that the Republicans have never and/or should never use that particular tool.
So acknowledged. I didn't intend to imply anything beyond your actual participation here.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: I asked first
OK, if you insist. To your questions:
1) Agree.
2) Partially agree. The minority party has a great degree of control over when cloture votes are necessary, in that they can filibuster. So an ornery minority party which filibusters or threatens to filibuster often is likely to elevate the number of cloture votes called.
3) Agree.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So were you against the nuclear option?
Whether I am for or against the nuclear option doesn't matter...
to the point I am making here, at least. Exercising the nuclear option would likewise constitute ignoring the concerns of the minority. In that specific sense it is no different from cloture.
I will say, however, that the nuclear option is, in fact, a legitimate option under the Constitution. It is not illegal or unconstitutional for it to be exercised.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That reply is disingenuous.
You were on record here as supporting Senator Frist's threat to use the "nuclear option" prior to the 2006 election. At that time you felt majority should rule regardless.
Now, you are whining about minority rights.
Pick a principled stand and stick with it. If you flail back & forth depending upon who is in the majority, it just implys that your stated stand isn't due to principles but partisan advantage.
You are better than that GR.
There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about my statement.
(1) I honestly believe that using the nuclear option would, for the purposes of my point about suppressing the views of the minority party, have exactly the same effect as invoking cloture.
(2) I freely admit that if McCain and the Gang of 14 hadn't derailed Frist, that his use of the nuclear option would, in fact, have counted against the Republicans in terms of THEIR attempts to suppress the minority party's concerns.
(3) I freely admit that I was, in fact, arguing at the time in favor of using that option along with a number of people on our side of the aisle.
So, just to put this into perspective here, had that incident come to fruition the total number of such cases in the 109th Congress would have gone from 68 to 69 based on this analysis, as compared to the 110th Congress current value of 103 (and counting). And the 103 IS a record BTW.
You're just upset that the data your side was throwing out there didn't actually mean what you wanted it to mean.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
He's just baiting
Going on another fishing expedition of poking sticks in liberals eyes for sport. :)
He doesn't even have a candidate, poor fella.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
You will be so much fun to read when President Obama
is the one issuing the orders.
Democrat Morons in High Places ...
Rush gets the last laugh when Ohio Democrat Attorney General Marc Dann, who had previously called Rush "stupid" for his part in Operation Chaos here in Ohio, is caught in an extramarital affair, committing sexual harassment, and engaging in other types of misconduct
.
What a moron? Shacks up with two of his aides and then harrasses them sexually. Democrat attorney's, you gotta love 'em. :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why Rush?
How does this have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh? And Operation Chaos isn't stupid, it's a felony (at least in Ohio). Read the law
. Voting insincerely in a party's primary is election falsification, a 4th degree felony.
Getting to Dann, I could care less if he's knocking boots with someone other than his wife, but if he was fostering an inappropriate attitude in his office, he needs to be impeached.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
3513.19(B) pretty much controls here.
For the purposes of this primary all of those Operation Chaos operatives could legitimately swear that they (a) wanted to be affiliated with the Democrat Party at that point in time, and (b) supports the principles of the political party (such as one person one vote, murder is bad, etc, etc, etc).
But even if you don't believe me, your party's choice for Attorney General doesn't seem to agree with you. In the words of Leo Jennings, a spokesman for Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann:
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
3513.19 Challenges at
3513.19 Challenges at primary elections.
3513.20 Effect of challenge to voter at primary.
I don't think one of the principles of the Democratic Party is to try to help the Grand Old Party win the Ohio Presidential election
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Note what it doesn't say ...
It does NOT say that the person has to
(a) support ALL of the party's principles (which would apply to many party members anyway), or
(b) have no principles of their own which may, or may not, conflict with some of the principles of the party in question.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Of course there is the theory behind the chaos theory
that this is all a clever way to help hide the large numbers who are defecting from the GOP.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Operation Chaos is just a way for Rush to feed his ego
The Republican voters basically told him to go jump in a lake by voting for the guy who he had spent the last eight years opposing. He' s just trying to make himself feel relevant. I don't really think it even has that much of an effect.
Plus he despises John McCain
and the whole 'show' makes for good radio ratings.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Based on exit polls
you're right. The effect has been negligible (a couple percent at best).
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Fact or fiction
no one knows.
If you are correct, that couple of a percent would have changed the outcome in Indiana to a win for Obama.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Just to revist the Limbaugh Effect for a minute ...
Nope, he's not having any effect ...
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
McCain was nominated primarily on the backs of ...
independents and cross-over democrats, not conservatives. McCain may be the nominee for the Republican party but he is NOT the nominee of conservatives.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Perhaps, but the effect is the same either way ...
chaos in the Democrat primary. (Rubs Hands) Muah ha ha ha! :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well done, sir
The fact that you can argue that with what I presume to be a straight face makes you a better man than I.
*golf clap*
And for the record I don't have a party. I voted a non-partisan/issues only ballot in the primary (because I don't support the principles of either major party) which makes me independent as far as the state is concerned. The library levy passed, if you wanted to know.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Isn't Dann's hypocrisy...
...kind of similar to Rush's hypocrisy regarding his illegal drug abuse?
Seems like Rush ought to be a little more humble nowadays regarding getting "last laughs".
Rush should
also be pretty humble and grateful to the ACLU who sprang to his defense despite his decades of lying about them.
But if Rush was concerned with what he should do he wouldn't have made a career out of being a radio douchebag.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Rush didn't need the ACLU for anything.
They played not part in his formal defense.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Please explain ...
how having an extramarital affair and committing sexual harassment is like having a drug addiction. *
----------------------------------------------------------
* Note that Rush plead "Not Guility" in court and the charges were ultimately dismissed. He obtained his drugs through valid prescriptions from legitimate physicians. As far as the prosecutors are concerned, and more importantly as far as the final court decisions are concerned, he was never convicted of anything so calling his addiction "illegal drug abuse" is wholly unfounded, unwarranted, and unjustified.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The prescriptions weren't valid. They were in other peoples
names. The fact that a Florida court felt they should drop the investigation doesn't mean Rush didn't break the law. It just means that Florida's legal system is a partisain joke.
Welcome to bush43 world.
I think that you are confusing the prescriptions ...
from his oxycotin addiction case with those that were related to the Dominican Republic incident that you like to bring up periodically.
The former (which ARE being discussed here) have nothing to do with the latter (which AREN'T). In fact, the latter happened AFTER the former case was already resolved, unless I am mistaken. If memory serves the former was resolved in April 2006 and the latter occurred around July 2006. I am sure that you will check me on this point, so I won't bother. :)
I will also point out that no charges were filed in the latter case, so again Rush has a clean record on that point as well.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Television worth watching....
The CSpan
David Addington
subpoenaed to testify before Congress.
For those of you who don't know, David Addington, is the lawyer that is Cheney's brain the paper pusher behind the thrust that has granted stronger power to the executive branch.
Dollars to donuts Addington will claim executive privelege under the perpetual war on terror clause and weasel out of testifying.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.