(The Atlantic): “Newt Gingrich to conservatives: ‘What would you have done?’”
(CNN International): “Lenin statue toppled in Ukraine protest”
(The Atlantic): “Newt Gingrich to conservatives: ‘What would you have done?’” (Los Angeles Times): “Filibuster rule’s end should help Obama reshape a key court” (Roll Call): “Capitol Hill feels pains [...]
(The Atlantic): “Newt Gingrich to conservatives: ‘What would you have done?’”
By Frank Moraes Sigh. I like Jonathan Bernstein a whole lot. He’s a very smart guy and I’ve learned so much from him. But sometimes, he is such an idiot. [...]
By Frank Moraes
Sigh. I like Jonathan Bernstein a whole lot. He’s a very smart guy and I’ve learned so much from him. But sometimes, he is such an idiot. This week he wrote, Still Hoping to Save the Filibuster. His argument is that with lifetime appointments, there really should be some kind of legislative check against the majority. So he offers up some ideas for how we could maintain something along the lines ofFilibuster Lite. One idea is that the majority would have to get unanimous agreement. He has other similar ideas.
The problem with all of them is the problem with the filibuster itself. And Bernstein himself has written repeatedly and at length that the problem was not the filibuster but the Republican Party. What would Bernstein’s proposal mean with a big tent party like the Democrats and a tiny tent party like the Republicans? When the Republicans were in control, the most extreme judges would be put on the bench for life. But when the Democrats were in control, the Blue Dogs would insist on “moderate” judges; no more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs. (And note: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hardly an extremist.)
Martin Longman takes on all of Bernstein’s proposals, Don’t Revive the Filibuster. But even it doesn’t get at the most important aspect of all of this. Namely that the Republicans wanted to kill the filibuster and they would have killed it the first chance they got, regardless of whether the Senate came up with some kind of deal or not.
There are two ways to deal with an adversary. One is to try to woo them and find common ground. That is usually the way to go. But when the adversary is a revolutionary group like the Republican Party, there really is no option but complete defeat. So it amazes me that Jonathan Bernstein can be so clear-headed about what has happened to the parties but then pine for some kind of comity that just won’t happen.
There is a conservative party and a liberal party in the United States. And those two parties are inside the Democratic Party. The Republican Party only makes sense in a parliamentary system, where minor extremist parties can thrive. But in our system, we need two reasonable—big tent—parties. There is no indication that the Republicans are capable of moving away from their extremist positions. And the biggest example of this is their approach to the filibuster. They are happy to see it go because they know the Democrats will not make any major changes to the government, and they look forward to one day having complete control of the government when they will try to radically change the nation. God help us if we citizens allow that to happen.
(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)
(Politico): “E.W. Jackson launching PAC” (Washington Examiner): “Mike Huckabee eyes 2016 presidential bid; pastors press him to run” (Milwaukee Wisconsin Sentinel): “For Scott Walker, immediate goal is winning re-election in [...]
(Politico): “E.W. Jackson launching PAC”
(Milwaukee Wisconsin Sentinel): “For Scott Walker, immediate goal is winning re-election in 2014″
By Richard K. Barry At Esquire, Alan Goldfarb writes this interesting bit on the prohibition in certain states on drinking alcohol on Election Day before the polls are closed: I [...]
At Esquire, Alan Goldfarb writes this interesting bit on the prohibition in certain states on drinking alcohol on Election Day before the polls are closed:
I don’t know about you, but on a typical Election Day I like to wake up, hit my local saloon, drink til the ballot looks blurry, and then head to my district’s polling center. I’ve found there’s no easier way to go from undecided voter to deciding I want to vote for: a slice of pizza. Luckily, I live in New York where tippling on Election Day is legal, but if I lived in Alaska, Kentucky, or South Carolina, I wouldn’t be allowed to imbibe whatsoever because alcohol cannot be served on Election Day until the polls close. (This is still a relic of a century ago when bars actually served as polling centers.) Looking at the list of men and women running those states, I have to wonder if perhaps they’d be faring better if a drunk electorate had done the voting instead.
I supposed it’s fair to ask if, for example, the voters of Alaska chose someone as stupid as Sarah Palin as their governor because they were too drunk or too sober. And I say that as a resident of Toronto where the daily sobriety of our mayor is the more pressing issue. I won’t even try to tackle how he got the top job in the first place, though we can drink on Election Day before the polls close in Ontario, for whatever that’s worth.
(Spero News): “Colin Powell wants US to adopt universal health care” (Politico): “Nevada’s Republican governor is ‘all in’” (The Guardian): “Barack Obama defends nuclear deal as best way to stop [...]
(Spero News): “Colin Powell wants US to adopt universal health care”
(Politico): “Nevada’s Republican governor is ‘all in’”
(The Hill): “GOP touts campaign to blunt Obama’s executive powers”
By Michael J.W. StickingsWhat can I say? I like Imagine Dragons. They’re really good. (And my kids love them.) Here they are performing “Radioactive” at L.A.’s Wilshire Ebell Theatre for [...]
By Michael J.W. Stickings
What can I say? I like Imagine Dragons. They’re really good. (And my kids love them.) Here they are performing “Radioactive” at L.A.’s Wilshire Ebell Theatre for Live from the Artists Den. (It seemed to be a great show, and certainly was on TV.)
(Chicago Tribune): “Pearl Harbor veterans mark ‘day of infamy’” (Politico): “When Barry Met Kathy: Almost never, it turns out” (The Hill): “Immigration advocates bank on budget deal to rescue overhaul” [...]
(Chicago Tribune): “Pearl Harbor veterans mark ‘day of infamy’”
By Michael J.W. Stickings What a difference a few years can make. Back in 2009, when then-New York Gov. David Paterson named then-Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary’s vacated spot [...]
What a difference a few years can make.
Back in 2009, when then-New York Gov. David Paterson named then-Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary’s vacated spot in the Senate, I said it was “a horrible, horrible pick“:
Earlier, I suggested that Gillibrand, who represents a pro-Bush district, is “almost a Republican.” Almost? I’d say she pretty much is, what with a 100% approval rating from the NRA, support for the Iraq War, and, as she herself put it, “one of the most conservative” voting records in the state, including voting for the FISA bill that included telecom immunity and to lift the ban on the possession of semi-automatic weapons in D.C. Her father was close to former Republican Governor George Pataki. She even once interned for former Senator Al D’Amato, a conservative and hyper-partisan Republican.
Was that wrong? No. But has Senator Gillibrand emerged as something altogether different? Yes.
The fact is, Gillibrand represented a fairly conservative district in upstate New York. (Obama won it decisively in 2008 and 2012, but Bush won it by fairly large margins in 2000 and 2004.) And so her views very much lined up with what she had to do to succeed there. That’s not to say she was lying about herself. While she was strong on civil liberties and a proponent of same-sex marriage (and gays in the military), there is no doubt that she was genuinely a conservative Democrat, and that’s why many of us were concerned when she was appointed to the Senate.
But give her credit. She’s adapted to her role as New York’s junior senator and broadened her views, or at least her positions, to reflect a significantly more progressive outlook.
And she’s not just sitting around following the party line or otherwise keeping her mouth shut, as this profile in yesterday’s New York Times makes clear:
If there were a chutzpah caucus in the United States Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York would be its natural leader.On a fund-raising swing through Chicago this fall, she told donors to pressure their hometown senator — Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful men in the Senate — because he had yet to sign on to her bill to address sexual assault in the military. Mr. Durbin fumed when he heard about the move, an unusual breach in the protocol-conscious Senate.She defies her party in smaller ways: After a bipartisan farm bill was cobbled together with great effort by her colleague Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Ms. Gillibrand tried to block cuts to food stamps that other Democrats said were needed to retain Republican support and brought in high-profile foodies from New York, including the celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, to fight it.Her other tactics include cornering colleagues on the Senate floor and refusing to stop talking, and popping out a news release picking apart a senator’s competing legislation as it is being announced.If her colleagues grumble about her ambition in a body where freshman members are applauded for keeping their heads down, so be it. “I’m trying to fight for men and women who shouldn’t be raped in the military,” she said of her work on the sexual assault legislation. If her approach “makes a colleague uncomfortable,” she said, “that’s a price worth paying.”
In the interview, Ms. Gillibrand began to lay out her agenda for the coming year: pushing her sexual assault amendment, even if it fails, raising the minimum wage, trying to restore cuts in food stamps, even as she fights, once again, with her own party. “All of these issues are about speaking truth to power,” she said.
(ABC News): “Rand Paul says wife is against a 2016 run” (The Hill): “Poll: Millennials turning against ObamaCare” (Roll Call): “Club for Growth stands with Cochran challenger” (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel): “Gov. [...]
(ABC News): “Rand Paul says wife is against a 2016 run”
(Roll Call): “Club for Growth stands with Cochran challenger”
(Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel): “Gov. Scott Walker gaining support for plan to sidestep Obamacare”
(Real Clear Politics): “Hickenlooper, Udall hold small leads in Colo.”
By Michael J.W. Stickings The Raw Story: If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, Sarah Palin said, he would probably go on Fox News to complain about the war on Christmas. [...]
If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, Sarah Palin said, he would probably go on Fox News to complain about the war on Christmas.
The former half-term governor of Alaska and failed vice presidential candidate appeared Thursday at Liberty University to promote her new book Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas.
She told the audience of students that the U.S. Constitution was written by and for moral and religious people, and that nonreligious people probably were incapable of appreciating its principles.
Palin said Jefferson would likely agree that secularists had set their sights on destroying the religious themes in Christmas celebrations.
“He would recognize those who would want to try to ignore that Jesus is the reason for the season, those who would want to try to abort Christ from Christmas,” she said. “He would recognize that, for the most part, these are angry atheists armed with an attorney. They are not the majority of Americans.”
Palin said there was a double standard that protected atheists at the expense of the religious.
I was going to go through her incorrect statements one by one, but, really, everything she said is wrong. The woman has zero understanding of America, its Founders, and its Constitution, and it’s simply ludicrous that she opens her mouth to suggest otherwise.
[Keep reading to see how Woody Allen fits into all this.]
If only this could be like that scene in Annie Hall where Alvy (Woody Allen) and Annie (Diane Keaton) are waiting in line to see a movie and there’s a pretentious academic blowhard behind them talking about Marshall McLuhan (the famous Canadian communications theorist). (You can watch it below.)
[Yes, I just used a shit reference in a post about Sarah Palin. Of course I don't have an MSNBC show, but, regardless, it fits.]
The guy then challenges him: “Wait a minute. Why can’t I give my opinion? It’s a free country.”
To which Alvy responds, “Do you have to give it so loud? I mean, aren’t you ashamed to pontificate like that? And the funny part of it is… Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan’s work.”
“Really, really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called ‘TV, Media, and Culture.’ So I think that my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity.”
“Oh, do you? Well, that’s funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so…”
Whereupon the real Marshall McLuhan, playing himself, proceeds to tell the blowhard he knows nothing of his work. “How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.”
“Boy, if life were only like this,” says Alvy.
Wouldn’t it be nice to pull out Jefferson just like that? I suspect that Sarah Palin would make him despair even more profoundly over the state of American democracy and media. Not that she would listen to him, let alone learn anything from him, but he could teach her a thing or two about religion (and the need for the separation of church and state), the Constitution, and what America is supposed to be all about.
If he even bothered with her. He might just want to move back to France.
(CBS News): “Obama lights the national Christmas tree”(CBS News): “Washington welcomes release of detained American”(Huffington Post): “”Third Way op-ed writer says Elizabeth Warren’s backing of Social Security plan was the [...]
(CBS News): “Obama lights the national Christmas tree”
(CBS News): “Washington welcomes release of detained American”
(Huffington Post): “”Third Way op-ed writer says Elizabeth Warren’s backing of Social Security plan was the ‘final moment’”
(Charlie Cook): “Can Democrats recover from the Obamacare catastrophe?”
Author URL http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/
The Roundtable Commons is a community of independent bloggers and writers. The comments and ideas expressed are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of the moderators or the larger Commons community.
This is really an interesting article thanks for your post. SEO Manchester
Good day! I could have sworn I've visited this website before but after browsing through some of the posts I ...
I was wondering if you ever considered changing the page layout of your site? Its very well written; I love ...
Magnificent goods from you, man. I've understand your stuff previous to and you are just too great. I actually like what ...
Vraiment plaisant : mon petit doigt me dit que ce post devrait intéresser ma gonzesse