home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:07:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< The Big Progressive Project: Addressing Income Inequality | Pelosi Agrees: Health Bill Conservative >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The West... (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    ...lost a powerful voice the other day when Stewart Udall passed.  

    Udall was the patriarch of the Udall family, a Rocky Mountain dynasty of Democratic politicians, united in a deep appreciation of Western landscapes and values. He was known for his 50 missions as a B-24 tail gunner in World War II, his unflagging commitment to preserving America's wildest places, his zeal for outdoor life and his provocative support of American Indians sickened in uranium mines. His brother, son and nephew carried his vision onward.

    His brother, Morris Udall, served 30 years in Congress. His son, Tom, also a congressman, became a senator in 2008, the same year his nephew, Mark, became a U.S. senator for Colorado.

    "He told us to take the 'United States' in our titles very seriously," said Mark Udall. "United States senator, then your district and then your political party. His allegiance was in that order. 'Out of Many, One; E pluribus unum.' That really resonated with him."

    Godspeed, Stewart.  May your legacy on water rights and conservation and other Western issues be carried by your son, nephew and Ken Salazar.

    Interesting true story (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    about Int Sec'y Stew Udall:  As a Kennedy appointee to Interior, he was seen over the yrs as a Kennedy man and not at all a Johnson loyalist.  In the final days of the Johnson admin, Udall quietly arranged to have the new football stadium in D.C. named for the recently assassinated senator Robert Kennedy.

    Udall had the power to make it happen by his own signature, and he did so knowing it would royally tick off Johnson and as it would legally be a fait accompli.  Meanwhile, Udall had also in the final days set in motion for LBJ's signature some 7 million acres of fed land to be granted to several states, including a large chunk for his home state of AZ.

    Johnson decided to okay everything but the large grant to Arizona.  Udall always believed this was done in retaliation for the stadium named for Bobby, and that if he'd named it "LBJ Stadium", Arizona would have gotten the land.  

    Parent

    We need more Udalls (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    And I think the demand exists at this time :)

    Parent
    How much fun are we going to have (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:42:20 AM EST
    with these state AG suits against HCR?

    I haven't seen them argue that the state exchanges might violate the 10th Amendment. Beyond that, I don't think their claims could have any legal merit.

    Have Americans (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    ever been forced to buy a product from a private company?  (Car insurance doesn't work, as it is a state issue, and not everyone has to have a car)

    Would that be a novel argument you think? It seems most "experts" around the web and on TV don't think the suits will hold, but I do wonder about the precedent - can the federal government in the future require us to buy other products and services from private entities, do you think?

    Parent

    In a variety of ways, sure (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:55:57 AM EST
    Ever try walking down the street without clothes?

    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    but you can totally raise your own sheep, shear them, make wool and thread, sew them together, and wear those clothes instead :)

    Although some towns may have rules against raising sheep, I don't know.

    Parent

    Ok, well where did you get the sheep? (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    There is simply no way to exist in modern society without a private exchange of money for goods.

    Parent
    farmville? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    my whole post was meant to be snarky.

    Obviously people aren't out raising sheep for clothes.  Pretty sure that would be illegal in a lot of cities anyway.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    But this isn't merely about the private exchange of goods - it's about the government deeming what goods you must exchange.

    Yes, I have to be wearing something while on a public street, but technically, I could sew sheets and curtains together - the government does not require that I go to the mall and buy a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, or that I patronize only certain stores.

    And the technology exists to grow plants and make fiber from that to sew your own clothes.

    Parent

    Where did you get the sheets and curtains? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    How about the plants?

    You see where this goes.

    Parent

    Yes, I see (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    But nothing in there was purchased because the government made me.

    Parent
    you would be fined (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    by the government if you left your house without it.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:14:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Isn't the point that the federal government (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    is requiring insurance?  Prohibitions against nudity in public are imposed by state or local governments, not the feds.

    Parent
    There is nothing to the point (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    It's just a feeling masquerading as a point.

    Parent
    Ha. I didn't say it was a winning point. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    Wondering if the states have ever prevailed on the "unfunded mandate" argument, i.e., federal government mandates the states spend money but doesn't provide the money.

    Parent
    Unfunded mandate arguments (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    Those arguments reared up in various environmental legislation. See, esp., the Clean Air Act (1990). As I recall, the unfunded mandates position loses.

    Parent
    Interesting look at federal (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    legislatrion requiring examination of financial effects on states and/or private parties of "unfunded mandates":  Harvard Law

    Parent
    "Ever try walking down the street (none / 0) (#104)
    by ZtoA on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    without clothes?"

    Recently visited Venice Beach in CA and you don't have to wear clothes there. Just a couple of strings. And there is a beautiful swimming hole on the Yuba River where it seems illegal to wear clothes. Ah, to actually live in California....

    Parent

    Also, your alternative is to simply pay a tax (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    (i.e., the penalty).

    Parent
    And for some (3.25 / 4) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    that tax wipes out their yearly budget for "self-insured" healthcare.

    Simply pay the tax!  Spoken like someone who's never had money concerns.

    Parent

    You seem to have missed the point (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    The fact that you have an alternative to buying private insurance (namely, paying a tax to Uncle Sam) undercuts the whole song and dance about "never before. . .private corporation!"

    Parent
    Did you bother to follow (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    the argument?  It had zippo to do with whether it was affordable or not.  It's strictly a discussion about the basis of law.

    Sheesh.  Have some decaf, OK?

    Parent

    More than decaf... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:22:38 PM EST
    is needed 'round here...CST was right on another thread, we need a reefer summit at my place...if that doesn't work, a 'shroom summit:)

    Remember Doc Molly's bumper-sticker y'all..."I don't know and neither do you".  Words to live by.

    As for the topic at jhand, the history of government and/or civilization can be summed up with one phrase, a variation of "pay the tax" I like to call "f*ck you pay me"...and the bill just went up folks.  What else is new...just hope you have enough for some fun after all the vigs are paid.

    Parent

    I'd go with weed - much more mellowing effect. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    kdog - I often disagree with you, but you are most definitely the sweetest commenter on Talk Left. You must be doing something right.

    Parent
    That's sweet of you... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Doc, I do try my damndest not to be the arsehole, it's one of my main goals in life:)

    Parent
    Well, you're succeeding! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    Good role model.

    Parent
    Cool... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    always good to get a pat on the back:)

    Parent
    You need a vacation! (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:03:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Speaking of 'shroom summits (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    I've go another good book for you, kdog -- if you're not booked out..

    Food for Centaurs by Robert Graves (author of I, Claudius and too many others to enumerate)

    He has a very interesting and well-written discussion in the book on the mushroom origins of western religion -- plus, some great firsthand accounts of his experiences in the WWI trenches, some really interesting and accessible essays on the poetic tradition etc

    If you've got the inclination, it's a book worth tracking down  

    Parent

    It was well worth... (4.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:39:58 PM EST
    tracking down "You Just Can't Win"...so I'm sure this title is as well my friend, and a topic of most interest to me.  Thanks!

    I'm a firm believer in the theory that Moses was tripping his arse off on that mountain...I've seen my share of burning bushes, only I possessed the knowledge that the fungus can and will do that to ya, no need to attribute it to any powers higher than the powers of the fungus.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    dont underrate the powers of bushes either. Maybe they're another "immense world of delight enclosed by our senses five" (day tripper William Blake)

    That You Cant Win was rather intense, eh? Talk about the ultimate to hell and all points in between story. How about that bit about intentionally getting thrown into jail in order to make a key for the jail in order to have the perfect alibi..? I dont think you can make that stuff up.

    Parent

    Jack Black... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    rocketed up near the top of my heroes list...what a life he led...I've passed the book on to 2 buddies since who also loved it.

    What was the name of the madam in Salt Lake City who was a friend to all the hobos and thieves?  I liked her a lot too.

    Parent

    Are you talking (none / 0) (#99)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    about Salt Chunk Mary, the fence who lived in the big, ramshackle house near the train yard in Pocatello, Idaho -- who kept the money in a sugar bowel on the kitchen table? "No always meant no, and never meant yes"? That one?

    There was probably a madame in there somewhere, but I dont remember that part just now.


    Parent

    That's her... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    Mary...I thought she ran a brothel as well as being a fence and a friend to the underworld...I guess I mixed her up with the owner of the brothel he was collecting bills from when he got locked up for the first time.

    Parent
    Shrooms can hurt you (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:16:35 PM EST
    Kdog.  Be careful with that.  (Been there, done that, if ya know what I mean.)

    Parent
    They're not something (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    to frivolously trifle with, that's for sure.

    Whether 'shroom guru Terrence McKenna's early demise may have had anything to do with over indulgence, I'll leave for others to speculate on.

    Makes one wonder though.

    Parent

    Thanks for the low (1.66 / 3) (#55)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    rating, CST.  You've already admit you come from affluence.  I rest my case.

    Parent
    excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    you have no frikken clue what you're talking about or whether andgarden or I have ever had money problems.  I said my parents currently fall in a higher tax rate.  But you no JACK about my personal life or what they or I have had to deal with financially in the past.

    So cut it out with the personal cr@p.

    Parent

    If you never seek health care how would you (none / 0) (#35)
    by esmense on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    be forced to buy insurance or pay a fine? Who would know whether you have coverage or not (unless you were brought incapacitate and unaware to a medical facility by others)?

    I guess what I'm asking is how are they going to track who has insurance and who doesn't?

    It seems likely to me that there will be people who can't afford insurance and yet don't want to get involved in the welfare system (more people than I think affluent liberals realize).

    Every welfare program we offer is under-utilized (than is, many fewer people apply for benefits like food stamps, etc.,  than could actually qualify). Inevitably that will be true of health subsidies and expanded Medicare.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    There will be something like a line item on your taxes.  If you receive a subsidy, you'll have to enter it there, otherwise you'll have to include a proof of insurance.

    I could be wrong, though.

    Parent

    that's how it works (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    in MA, although I've heard it's not going to be like that in the Federal bill, which doesn't really make sense to me.

    Frankly, including it that way would be a good way to stop this nonsense.  Since essentially what it would be then is raising everyone's taxes by a certain amount and including a deduction for those that purchase insurance.  Of course they don't want to frame it that way, but that's what it is.

    Parent

    I have read that none of them (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:26:50 PM EST
    have much of a hope.  But I'm up for the debate about forcing people to pay for junk insurance.  Look, we can't do this and force people to just buy crap and deal with it and like it.  The exchanges are BS too, they will not control any of that. It is important in my opinion for our government leaders to have to come fully to grips with the reality that if you will not regulate the insurance companies the people will come bearing pitchforks and so mad you will wish you were anyplace else!

    Parent
    Memo to commenters (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    The open threads of the past few days have been inundated with blog-cloggers engaging in personal spats and insults. I've posted a warning to Captain Howdy in the Monday Afternoon Open Thread and am cleaning it. jbindc, Squeaky and Anne need to also restrain themselves.

    All points of view are welcome here. Insults and attacks are not tolerated, neither is blog-clogging, see the comment rules.

    I am not going to limit comments at this time, but whoever trashes the thread by making it personal will be put in time out, as will those who encourage them or respond in kind.

    The comments are for discussion of ideas, news and views. When you turn them into spats it turns other readers away from the site, it lowers the level of discourse and will not be tolerated.

    There is no reason to post 100 comments a day here. If you have that much to say, get your own blog.

    And "pfft" and one liners are not comments. Don't take up the bandwith with that nonsense.

    Squeaky and Captain Howdy are welcome here as are those of you with different points of view. But no one, them included, will be allowed to make the comments section a personal battleground, and neither will those who respond to such comments.

    thank you for the welcome (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    I have not posted much here for a while until the last few days.  intense days.   I am sorry if the comments piled up.  its hard not to respond when every comment is met with  dozens of dismissive responses. we are quite outnumbered it seems.
    I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to anyone offended by offhand remarks.  
    its a bad habit with me.

    I would love to be able to simply respond to what I think is bad or incorrect information with better information and be able to abide completely by the rules you state.

    FTR this will be my last comment today.  I have spent way to much time here the last few days and if I dont do some work they wont pay me.

    I compliment you on your management of this site. it is an important webspot.  I only wish it was as diverse as it once was.
    but maybe that was then and will never be again.

    and please, dont blame squeaky.  that person does a much better job of anger management than I do and many of their comments lately were defending me.

    cheers

    Parent

    thank you and (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    I'm not blaming Squeaky. I'm blaming all who responded to your comandeering of the threads. Hope you return. Your comments are valuable when they contain your views on issues and have substance.

    Parent
    Respectfully disagree (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    that Capt was commandeering the threads anywhere near as much as it's been characterized.

    There seem to be some (most), here who only notice the "commandeering" of those who aren't part of their particular amen corner, and seem to want to do what they can to subtly (or not so subtly) run them off the site.

    Parent

    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    really
    but she knows this.  she just did a good thing and I agree with it.
    but I appreciate it.

    sorry, last one today for sure.


    Parent

    Legal challenge to HCR legislation? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    Thirteen AGs filing suit today (led by Fla's McCollum, wasn't he one of the idiot House impeachment managers?).  I'd like to hear what the lawyers think about SCOTUS revieiwng this law, specifically the mandate/tax penalty.

    I am a non-practicing lawyer and understand Congress's commerce clause powers are broad, but you have to believe at least 4 justices will be looking for any reason to overturn this law (maybe Kennedy too).  And if the GOP has by the time of Scotus review strengthened their position in the House and Senate such that no remedial steps would be taken by Congress, Roberts, Scalia and Co. will really get to work.  As BTD & others here have noted, this a a very activist &  conservative Court.

    I'd feel better if the mandate/tax penalty had been  crafted as a tax credit for those who have insurance rather than a penalty for failing to buy insurance.  Given the proliferation of tax credits for things like energy efficiency, education etc., it would to me seem harder for the SCOTUS to strike a bill crafted in that way down.

     

    The states are making a nearly-meritless (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    10th amendment claim. Here's where they dig their own grave IMO:

    Should a state not wish to participate in the exchanges, it can opt out only if it provides coverage for uninsured individuals with incomes between 133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, a higher income level than that which would be applied for participating states under the Act. The only other way for a state to avoid the Act's requirements is to drop out of the Medicaid program, leaving millions of persons uninsured.

    Sorry Charlie, but we're stuck with the Solomon amendment, and they're stuck running the exchanges.

    Parent

    What will IMO be more productive (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    from a Republican POV are state initiatives to put constitutional amendments on the ballot to ask voters to exempt the state from the federal law's requirements.

    They win by getting people out to the polls to vote for Republicans even if they can not win legally.

    Parent

    The argument that concerns me is (none / 0) (#53)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    that the government cannot direct/coerce individuals to purchase a product or face penalty.  I am only concerned given the makeup of today's court, not that I find the argument persuasive on the merits.

    Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito strike me as justicies very much of the pre-Lochner mode.  They beleive their particular (peculiar?) understanding of economics, the economic theories to which they subscribe, are a natural law embedded in the Constitution (or in Scalia's case, the environment or beliefs of the Founders and therefore the original intent).

    Parent

    The argument that concerns you (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    has less than no merit, as discussed above. This is going nowhere.

    Parent
    Sounds like you should seek Rule 11 sanctions (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    against the state AGs.

    I am not so sanguine.  I think the activist 4 will move Heaven and Earth to screw HCR & Dems (& the public) if they can do so without too many practical impacts on other laws/situations.

    I can think of numerous examples of being taxed for buying certain products (liquor, gasoline, cigarettes and on and on).  I have already provided examples of being provided tax credits for purchasing certain things.  

    I cannot think of too many, if any, examples of being taxed by Uncle Sam for not buying something.  If that is the case then I think the activist 4, perhaps Kennedy as well, will have no problem creating whatever law they need to in order to provide merit to the argument.

    During the Civil War men in the North anyway could "buy" the services of another to avoid the "tax" of conscription (Lincoln was a Republican after all).  If the mandate/tax penalty is as novel as it appears to me, it may not be, then I think it is ripe for all sorts of creative analyses by the activist 4.

    As many have noted, if prior to the events of Nov 2000 you had argued Bush's position in Bush v. Gore you would have been laughed at too.

    Parent

    I was just gonna (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    bring up Dec 12, 2000.

    After that, anything is possible from this still highly politicized and biased ultraconservative Court.

    And especially given the recent somewhat ominous remarks from CJ Roberts, responding to Obama's SOTU statements about Citizens United.  I think Roberts (& Co) is thinking payback, and what better opportunity than to undo a major portion of Obama's signature piece of legislation?

    Parent

    If you start from the premise that the Court (none / 0) (#105)
    by nrglaw on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    is waiting to overturn the new law, it makes it hard to focus on the arguments pro and con: there is a slant that results toward all the arguments in favor of repeal. Not every decision from the court since 2000 has been Bush v Gore or Citizens United.

    That being said, I think the Civil War conscription argument and the auto insurance requirement arguments both have merit. As another example, we have quite a number of neighbors who are retired and have no children, yet they are all required to buy "education insurance" (in the form of guaranteed public school education for other people's kids) by paying their property taxes. If they don't buy it, they are fined by penalties.

    In the final analysis, the government is actually offering "consriptees" a choice, as Lincoln did. You can buy insurance (which may cost thousands of dollars) or you can pay a rather piddling amount to help defray the cost of your absence from the health insurance field of battle.

    Parent

    Idiot impeachment manager, now (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    idiot gubernatorial candidate. Just trying to get attention with this. What a waste of money - like FL and the other dates can afford it.

    Parent
    Just seeing his name (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    or anybody else with the same last name, for that matter, makes me flinch and then shudder.

    Parent
    oh yeah, me too (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    Imagine my horror when I moved here and he was attorney general. Now his mug is on my tv more and more.

    Parent
    To clarify my favored tax credit approach (none / 0) (#51)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    I would have preferred raising the top marginal rate AND providing for a set tax credit of $X,XXX (whatever the current penalty is set at) for all taxpayers regardless of their marginal rate.  I think even Scalia et all would find it impossible to strike down that type of mandate.

    I am less certain of the current bill's prospects before the activist bunch of justices on the court today.  As Justice Brennan famously noted, five votes can do anything there (see Bush, George W., Presidency of).

    Parent

    What it does do (none / 0) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    and what I applaud, is that it puts on the front page of newspapers the fact that the Democrats are mandating that people buy insurance without any cost controls.

    That fact, that lede, is buried down in paragraph 27 most of the time.

    And NO, contrary to some ridiculous arguments, requiring that people buy junk insurance is not the same as requiring that people put clothes on their back.  My very poor mother never spent a dime on clothes for me.  It was always giveaway, tradeaway, handmedown.  You can control these costs, you can't control the cost of insurance that the government is extorting your purchase of, and letting the insurance companies self-regulate the cost of.  If this extortion isn't unconstitutional, then it should be.  Maybe it will be within 20 years.  Overthrowing the current government with one that could enact a constitutional amendment against requiring us to buy from corrupt unregulated industries may be the best option.

    Parent

    Well I usually agree with you Teresa but not (none / 0) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    on this one.

    I made my peace with the mandate a week ago, here were my thoughts then and now:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/16/846922/-The-HCR-Mandate,-not-a-reason-to-oppose-the-bill

    I do agree the Dems are spineless, corporatist hacks  who could have and should have gotten a much much better HCR bill.  I am through supporting them (I will support proven liberal primary challengers).  But the bill, in my view, does improve upon the status quo (see also http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-you-get-when-hcr-passes).  

    Parent

    Clothing analogy (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    The clothing analogy doesn't really work, although I get the point behind it. Yes, you aren't allowed to walk around naked in public, but you can, as someone said upthread, wear a sheet with a rope tied around your waist if you want. You can also wear hand-me-downs, clothes you bought at a thrift store, or duds you fished out of a dumpster.

    The insurance mandate is like the government telling you you can no longer do any of that; now, you have to buy a pair of jeans and a tee shirt at Ambercrombie & Fitch. Too bad if you don't like that brand, too bad if you find their prices too high or their advertising offends you or they indulge in practices that shock your moral conscience, or the only branch of the store is a 50-mile drive from your home. Too bad. Do it and wear those specific clothes, spend your money at that specific retailer--or pay a fine.

    It's really unprecedented in our history, and all these people pretending that it's no big deal are really starting to disturb me. This is entirely aside from the dubious merits of the bill itself. It's the government forcing you to buy a particular product from a particular, for-profit, private corporation (or industry). It's quite a coup--and I use that term in its full implication--for the insurance cartel.

    Or you can live in a nudist colony (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    or just stay home, order in, and embarrass your children by running around nekkid as a jaybird.

    But you have to cover yourself with health insurance coverage now.

    (I'm for a lot in this bill, but I see the problems, including in the fabrication, as it were, of the analogy to clothing.  So the arguments of the Republican AGs -- and I am a state with one -- will be interesting to see, as long as they are well-wardrobed when they appear before us all.)

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    angarden's point (if I may speak for him) was that by giving people the choice - buy insurance or pay a fine - it can then be classified as a "tax", which Congress certainly does have the power to do.  From what I've been reading, I think that's the argument they'll use - under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has "the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."

    At least, I think so.

    Parent

    I'm with you... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    this is a brave new world as I see it, and a very big deal.

    Now I'm dreading the law that says you have to have a bank account...don't think for a second the banks don't want in on some of this mandated action.

     

    Parent

    Bill Clinton: Funniest president ever? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by bridget on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:42:24 PM EST

    http://theweek.com/article/index/201074/Bill_Clinton_Funniest_president_ever

    I wonder who will run in 2016... (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:17:03 AM EST
    What do we have, probably four years until we start seeing signs from potential candidates.  I hope the Obama wing of the Party gets put out to pasture.  We really need some more liberal governance next time around.  I would hate to see Democrats encourage anymore from the Bill Bradley set.

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:20:56 AM EST
    Andrew Cuomo (assuming he wins the governor's seat)?  Anthony Weiner?  Nancy Pelosi? Christine Gregoire?

    Parent
    Well, if Hillary is too old... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    as they like to say, Nancy is waaaay to old.  Andrew?  Eh, he's not his father.  Gregoire?  I hope not.  Weiner, not from the House, no.  

    Parent
    Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    I thought you were against the moderate wing- what other wing would you have meant?

    Parent
    Ohh, but thanks for playing. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    Kind of fun to think about.

    Parent
    I actually think (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    We're going back to the pattern of having governors in the WH.  There's something to be said for executive experience and dealing with a legislature and budgets.  I think 2008 was a fluke because there were no strong governors who were candidates (maybe Romney, but the right freaked out about his Mormonism).

    Parent
    Well, that means the field is pretty open because (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    we don't know who will win governorships between now and then.  Rendell maybe?  Heck, if he signed that PA single payer into law, he'd have my vote, but otherwise I don't think we are looking at liberal governance there.  

    Agree with you about the fluke.

    Parent

    Rendell is going to retire (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    And I don't really see how he could run for President with his wife as a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Parent
    Hmmm, ok. (none / 0) (#17)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:37:33 AM EST


    Parent
    How 'bout... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    some former New Mexico Gov. Johnson...prohibition repeal is in his vocab, and thats enough for my vote.  Maybe in 2012 as a 3rd party guy...I hope.

    Parent
    How about Mark Warner? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    Once Governor and now Senator. Relatively young and ambitious.

    Parent
    No thank you... (none / 0) (#69)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    I am hoping for more LIBERAL governance, not more of the same.

    Parent
    Well, the governor/ (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    exec experience argument as necessary training ground for a president was heard a lot a while back, and particularly from Republicans.  I don't buy it.

    The track record is mixed in any case.  From a Dem perspective, ex-gov FDR governed very well as did ex-senator and congressman JFK.  Ex gov Jimmy Carter had some fundamental problems working with a Dem (!) Congress ferchrissakes.  Ex gov Clinton did okay in the more conservative context of his times.

    Ex gov Shrub was a miserable failure, especially as he ran up the public debt to historic proportions.  Ex gov Reagan held the previous record for running up the debt in his time.

    I think the Dems in 2016 will have a field of whoever has the hot hand, or a big ego, regardless of whether they've held the position of governor or mayor.  And the important things should be overall experience and track record, political philosophy and positions, personality/mindset, and ability to connect with voters.

     

    Parent

    The problem with Senators (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:45:52 PM EST
    however, is that they (usually) have a long record of voting on things.  We saw that most recently with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" because of the wording of bills, the riders and the amendments attached to bills. A Senator can vote for 95% of the bill he or she agrees with, but there may be something in there that could be politically damaging. Probably why JFK was the only seated Senator elected in the last 80 or so years before Obama.  Obama was novel in that he didn't have much of a voting record to get "trapped" on and almost everyone running was a Senator. Why do you think House members never run, let alone get elected?

    If anything, I think the fact that Pelosi, according to all accounts, had to go to Obama in the last couple of weeks to tell him to get out and talk about the HIR bill, proves even more that good executive experience is vital. Someone who had been a governor would not have to be told to go out and fight for a bill.

    As for the examples you gave - like anything, there are good and there are bad.  Carter was too nice, Clinton was good, and Bush II came from a position where the governor position is actually a weak position (with a legislature that only meets every other year).  But while you have to admit that while Reagan's ideas were horrible, he was very effective.  LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I all were VP's, and while that job didn't have much "executive" experience (especially back then), they were involved to some degree in the running of the country.  Eisenhower led troops and operations, and while not the same, has some of the same experience.  

    Truman is as about as close to a sitting Senator (other than Kennedy) that you can get, as he was only VP for a month, and FDR didn't really keep him informed of much. Truman got the benefit, of course, of ending the war, and presiding over an economy which had started to build up industry and made the US the leader in production during peacetime.

    Parent

    I cannot accept the premise Pres. Obama (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    was oblivious to the fact his arm-twisting and advocating for HCR was needed to get the bill passed.  IMO, he preferred Congress do the job and take the credit/blame.

    Parent
    oculus, I must have missed (none / 0) (#80)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    that particular story involving Pelosi and Obama.  The one I caught was when, in the aftermath of the MA senate debacle, she went to the WH to argue forcefully against Rahm's new idea of playing small-ball incremental HCR.  

    What I understand is that Rahm was apparently making inroads with his strategy with Obama.  This was confirmed by a similar story from Lawr O'Donnell, who said Sen Franken told him that he went to the WH about this time to tell Obama, in no uncertain terms, that he'd been elected by a sizable margin by the people to get big things done.

    All this tells me that we need to make sure that a steady stream of solid no-nonsense liberals make their way to the WH to consult with this president, at least until our guy gets some better advisers.  He seems to have not always benefitted from Rahm's dubious counsel of caution and compromise, and further seems to have a tendency to take the advice of the last forceful person he's heard from.

    Parent

    Senators? Well how clumsy (none / 0) (#78)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    a pol did we have who actually said the stupid words, "I actually voted for it before I voted against it."  And who said he'd vote the same way again on going into Iraq (Shrub applauded that one ...), and who was too stupid to know not to accept federal campaign funding, thus forcing his team to go black for weeks in tv ads while the other side unleashed its SwiftBoatLiars.  Don't get me started about a guy who, arguably, but for some Repub shenanigans in OH with the voting machinery, could have and should have won against a weak and disrespected Repub incumbent.

    As for Carter, you've got him all wrong.  Nice?  No.  The guy had quite a well-known mean streak, and treated Speaker Tip and Ted Kennedy like they were his servants and he their intellectual superior.  Carter was very stubborn and proud -- he was going to show Tip and Ted that they were just there to carry out his orders, rather than working together in partnership.  Here we have character not experience issues.

    Reagan?  I did say he was "effective" -- in running up the nation's debt to historic levels.  

    LBJ got almost no meaningful experience in an exec capacity as VP -- Kennedy didn't care for his overbearing style, and so carefully arranged to send the guy out of the country or out into the country and out of the WH as often as possible.  But again, the problems Johnson ran into as prez weren't experience related so much as involving character.

    Ditto Nixon (a guy who, rather famously, didn't have a single major idea in 8 yrs as VP that Ike could remember implementing).  Tricky and Lyndon both were highly intelligent men with diverse experience who failed as president because they were not made of the right character stuff, including temperament and mental stability (paranoia), to be entrusted with the most important job in the world.

    Truman had some lesser personality problems (didn't like complexity or mulling too long on a problem, and rather too quick to defer to certain authority types), and those would have been the determining factors whether he'd been governor or senator.

    Parent

    Well, I would say (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:29:46 PM EST
    The voting population has historically disagreed with you and has not preferred Senators.  I don't see it getting any easier for Senators now with C-Span, 24 hour news, the internet, phone cameras, etc. where every single word and vote is now recorded for posterity.  I see it becoming even easier for an opponent to say "X voted for Y" when what X did was vote on Z, but Y was one line item out of a 2000 page bill.

    Senators, generally, aren't very good speakers also, as they tend to bloviate and speak in "Senate-speak" so, I think that also hurts them.

    Parent

    Historically, yes (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    I agree.  But a competent pol can overcome all those cong'l votes in various ways -- don't speak carelessly about them, and have something positive to offer voters about some of them.  

    E.g., if Hillary had only voted smarter or more courageously on Iraq in 2002, Obama probably either wouldn't have entered, or would have been in only as VP material.

    Second point:  things have opened up in recent times as to what is considered proper or sufficient prior experience to become prez (or only a heartbeat away).  I mean, look at Sarah Palin.  Or the Shrub situation -- a man who held a constitutionally weak statewide job who was well-known for his lack of intellectual depth and inexperience in foreign travel.  Obama being only halfway into his first term in major political office.

    As to speaking style, again agree generally about senators and pontificating longwindedness.  But they have speech coaches out there.  JFK hired one and got better, much better in the 50s, and kept working at it.  Too bad Hillary didn't improve her somewhat flat delivery, but the opportunity to do so is there for anyone with ambition and the good sense enough to know it's important.

    Parent

    But even Hillary (none / 0) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    is an exception to most Senators who could run- her public voting record was only 8 years long- its not fair to compare that to Kerry's nearly 3 decades.

    Parent
    8 years for HRC or 20 (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    for Kerry, not the numbers of years that was the biggest factor for them.

    For all their experience, it was the one Iraq issue -- and not all their hundreds/1000s of other votes -- that made the difference, that they paid a political price for.  Hillary's single vote, and Kerry's political stumbling involving several Iraq-related votes.

    But, for sure, 20 years for Kerry in the senate by the time of the election probably took him over the line from the politically helpful "experienced senator", like Hillary or JFK, to shopworn D.C. pol territory, with all the bad habits that entailed.

    Parent

    The VP (none / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    for LBJ is almost an afterthought- he was basically the most powerful congressional Dem for a decade and a half- the only parallel I can think of in modern times would be if Ted Kennedy had won in 1980.

    Parent
    Al Franken? Length of experience doesn't (none / 0) (#24)
    by esmense on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    matter much in presidential politics nowadays. Name recognition and a gimmick (something that makes you newsworthy to the freak show crowd).

    Al Franken vs. Liz Cheney. Now that would be the perfect freak show contest.

    Parent

    For what it's worth (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    at least one of them has a great sense of humor -- which would be an absolute requisite for that face off.

    Plus, he's good enough, he's smart enough and..doggone it, people like him!

    Parent

    Kdog would scratch his head (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    Former inmate gets 15 years for trying to break into jail

    You ain't kidding... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    you're an easy target for retaliation in prison, if those who seek retaliation know somebody inside anyways...he shoulda hoped in a raft and headed to Cuba or something...weird.

    Parent
    You got to love it (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    Does the punishment fit the crime?

    Parent
    Musta (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    messed with the wrong family.

    But, not he's got "3 squares and a cot" - oh, and a health plan.

    Parent

    "now" (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I'll take.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    a park bench and dinner outta dumpster over satin sheets, filet mignon, and cadillac healthcare in a cage...I guess I'm the opposite of this winner:)

    Parent
    Well, I guess the guy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    Got what he wanted- to be back in jail.  Very strange (and if he had good reason to fear retaliation from the family, maybe he was desperate.)

    Parent
    I love this (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    "The disgraced golfer explains the significance of what he's wearing on his wrist"

    From a yahoo headline.  How did he become "disgraced"???

    How about this "Golfer whose personal life means nothing to us yet we sell gobbs of advertising around lapses in morality, wears bracelet, click here for gory details of someone else's sex life."

    I wonder if there was a media outlet, say the Journalist Enquirer, that reported the immorality of Journalists and their employers, would that change the coverage at all?  Being that we love hypocrisy stories more than simple adultery, i bet someone could make some change running that biz.....

    JimmyKimmel (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    and the bracelet

    Parent
    I'd pay real money to subscribe to that (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:01:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Fighting goalies (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    Love this highlight from last night's Penguins-Red Wings game.  Anytime Sidney Crosby loses his cool and gets his due, is a good game.  

    Almost as good as the time in 1996 when, in retaliation for a cheap hit the previous year on Darren McCarty, Claude Lemieux went all "turtle" like a little girl in a mid-ice fight, and even the goalie for the Wings, Mike Vernon, put the beat-down on Patrick Waaaaahhhhhh of the Avalanche.

    Ronald Goldfarb with a different (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    view on Polanski:  The Hill

    Note:  Goldfarb neglects to mention Polanski pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.  

    anyone see 'Nurse Jackie' last night? (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 03:19:53 PM EST
    Loved her on the phone with the insurance company. We all need her on our side. The whole show was even better written than I remember it from last year, and just fantastic performances from everybody. Looks like a good season ahead.

    Damages is picking up too. I think I'm beginning to figure some things out.

    China vs Google (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:18:34 PM EST
    round 3.

    Google now redirecting users in China to it's uncensored Hong Kong website.

    I'm surprised this hasn't been bigger news.  It's really quite the fascinating game of chicken.  And it could potentially have huge ramifications for companies doing business in China - as well as information censorship there.  China might win this round with google, indeed I think they will, but in the long run, I'm gaining confidence that they will lose the war.

    Very impressed with google though.  They are going out on a limb here on purely moral ground, they are doing it all on their own - and they will probably lose a lot of business because of it.

    Ah, the good old 90s .... the Bill Clinton days (none / 0) (#103)
    by bridget on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    I'd like them back ...

    here are a couple of his jokes ;-)

    "On his protégé, Rahm Emanuel: "I found Rahm. I created him. I made him what he is today. I am so sorry."

    clip

     and a fav:
    "On his economic record: "My only regret in creating 23 million new jobs is that 2 million of those jobs were for right-wing pundits."

    Tuesday Morning Open Thread | 107 comments (107 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment