Rex Kickass

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 06:51 PM) If a majority is required to bring a bill to the floor, it would make sense if that majority would oppose discussing any other bill. Trying to filibuster would effectively shut down the Senate. Makes the person filibustering look really bad. I think its sort of the point. It makes using what is essentially a nuclear option in itself much more an option of last resort. When the filibuster is used as intended, its essentially a game of legislative chicken. Who can hold out longer, the senator or senators bringing the nation's business to a stop, or the majority leader and his party refusing to move on to other business until the opposition senator or senators shut up and let the bill come to a vote. There are risks on both sides to essentially an in-house shutdown.

I just think that a procedural filibuster should have a lower threshhold to break - say 55 votes or so. If you wanna keep it for 60 for actual non-stop bloviating, I'm all for it. I just don't think someone should be able to shout FILIBUSTER and we have to move on

Initial Unemployment numbers drop sharply to 466,000 this week, down from last weeks, 501,000. http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/25/news/econo...laims/index.htm What's the number here that signals job growth, I've heard 400k but I don't know. Nice to see us starting to get close at least.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 25, 2009 -> 09:08 AM) That's such an intellectually dishonest and cheap way to score political points. Then again that's the only thing the Bush Administration can actually claim credit for. And it sort of ignores 9/11. Read the quote again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) And I highly doubt we accomplish those objectives. You can't just make an entire nation want a democracy. This is a land of tribes and sects that have lived that way for millennia. Brute force won't change that. Democracy for Afghanistan stopped being an objective when Democracy in Iraq became an objective. A functioning democracy in Afghanistan does not constitute a US victory. A relatively stable state where it is difficult for trans global terror organizations to strengthen and grow does. Since we took our eye off the ball in 2002, there has been no difference between the core of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. I've been hearing a lot about how the Taliban got its resurgence, and it basically did so because Al-Qaeda fighters sought to rejuvenate the movement in tribal areas of Pakistan. Focusing on Afghanistan and ignoring Pakistan pushes the issue into the tribal areas of Pakistan. Focusing on Pakistan and ignoring Afghanistan pushes the issue back into Pakistan. Right now, Pakistan is focusing on fixing its mess in the tribal areas, since it suddenly got too bloody to use the Taliban/AQ existence as a bargaining chip for them. We can't walk away from Afghanistan now, when there is the first real chance in seven plus years to squeeze, constrict and severely dampen the flames of this trans global terror concern.

Is it time to end the Wilsonian practice of the procedural filibuster? Cloture votes only date back to 1917, which essentially allowed bills to be killed by cloture votes. Prior to 1975, 67 votes were required for cloture. Currently, 60 is required. Some people are proposing moving the goalposts further back to just 55 senators required for cloture. I'm all for filibusters. I think they can provide a necessary safety valve to delay and kill bills that a minority party may find irresponsible. But I don't think it should be as simple as a vote for cloture. I think the filibuster should actually happen. If we take away the threat to fake a filibuster, as we've done increasingly over the last 20 years, I think we can still see the principled stands that we've seen in the past, without the "principled" stands of moderate senators who are only moderate because it pads the paycheck. (i.e. Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln). What do you think?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) Congress is essentially one big bribe fest, even for things that don't matter. It doesn't surprise me at all that they see zero problem with taking advantage of something that Obama has made his centerpiece. They know it HAS to be passed, so it is going to be LOADED with pork. The worst thing about it is that for many of the "moderate" holdouts, it has very little to do with principles, it has to do with money. Yet they protest in the name of the deficit. For Lieberman its the chance to succeed Dodd as being the Senator from the state of Aetna and guarantee a flow of campaign donations he won't see in 2012 as an independent. For Landrieu its 300 million dollars in added benefits for Louisiana. I'm sure there's a price tag for Lincoln and Nelson as well. Frankly, it makes me a little sick to see. I hope they see primaries in their next elections and get replaced by other Dems with a bit more sense of principle.

Trying really hard to maintain my Sarah Palin commentary blackout... But I gotta love the fact that she agreed to sign 1000 fans' books in Noblesville, IN this week (you got a wristband, if you were one of the lucky fans.) Apparently after 850 fans got their face time, Palin decided it was time once again to "pass the ball to victory." She left early, again.

http://lafayettecountyrepublicans.blogspot...aces-famed.html Sign reads: "A Citizens Guide to Revolution of a corrupt government. 1. Starve the Beast. 2. Vote out incumbents. 3. If steps, 1 & 2 fail? PREPARE FOR WAR--LIVE FREE OR DIE!"

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 20, 2009 -> 12:10 AM) The cost of Democrat Mary Landrieu's vote on health care? $100 million dollars. And 2 pages to say what could be said in one word. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/t...-care-vote.html Wouldn't Florida also qualify? MS too maybe...

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) Wont really know for sure for another year, if some of these Republicans catering to the Tea Party win elections the base might not be so untouchable. For everyone's sake - I hope I'm right.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) It's kind of irrelevant though now. The real issue is how something like this can affect elections, judging by the past it really wont. I think it absolutely can swing elections, it moves people away from a party so to speak. The core of the GOP seems to be absolutely toxic these days.

I think Daily Kos commissions more polling than anyone else out there. They just polled the FL senate race where Governor Charlie Crist is up against teabagger Marco Rubio. The poll isn't good for Crist, now only leading by 10 points. But this was the result that shocked me the most. They asked people if they thought Barack Obama was born in the US. Of the Republicans who said Yes, only 16% of them were voting for Rubio. Of the Republicans who said Kenyan, 54% of them were voting for Rubio. Basically, the closer to tin foil you get, the more likely Rubio is going to get your vote. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/...mbshell-results

Political Science is often referred to as a soft science as opposed to a "hard science" like geology, biology, etc. There are plenty of quantitative studies in it that tend to try to stiffen up the soft science.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) And I'm pretty sure close to that number of Democrats thought Bush didn't legitimately win in 2000. That didn't stop Bush from winning a 2nd term IIRC. It's a bit more understandable when the margin of victory was literally less than 600 votes out of 100+million cast.

Very yes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 19, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) Again, two kinds of Republicans, as we've been seeing for a while. The crazy wingnuts who would rather base their opinions on emails with subjects beginning with FW: FW: RE: FW: FW:, and the ones who are actually sane. I believe most of those people refer to themselves as independents these days.

From Public Policy Polling http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/11/acorn.html Obama won by a wider margin of votes (9.5 million) than in any Presidential election since 1984 when Reagan won by 16.5 million votes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) Congrats, you are a small part of keeping her relevant by giving her attention. I hate her and the TMZification we're really starting to see in politics these days. My roommate watches Morning Joe on MSNBC (the other shows are no better, frankly) and within five minutes I found myself getting visibly angry. The stories aren't about what the issues are, the stories are about how popular the issues are or what Sarah Palin wrote on her facebook page. Her facebook page, for christsakes! When did the media become seventh grade homeroom? I find myself listening to NPR, occasionally reading a couple blogs and that's about it anymore. I'm actively trying to stay disengaged because I don't want any part of campaign 2012 when its only 2009. It makes me sad.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) I don't know, but I'm in a prediction market and shorted 125- a few weeks ago. Probably a good chance I close and make some money on that today. Current count: 120. There were 5 last week, 9 the week before. Two so far - Orion Bank of Naples and Century Bank of Sarasota

Catholic Church in D.C. - Allow gay marriage - no more care for the homeless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009042801406 I can't decide who is worse at this point. The Catholic Church or the Mormons. The Catholics are threatening to discontinue charities to help underprivileged people in D.C. because it means that they can't fire or discriminate against gay people. The Mormons on the other hand are supporting anti discrimination legislation in Salt Lake City, because it specifically keeps them exempt - meaning they're against discrimination, as long as they still get to practice it.

Exactly, this "rejection" rumor doesn't mean we're pulling out of Afghanistan anytime soon. It also doesn't mean that we are pouring tons of troops in either. It's nice to see such a deliberative process with this - I get the sense that they are really trying to find a strategy that both works on the ground and for our soldiers out in the fight.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 10:35 AM) I´m very encouraged that Obama rejected all the options for afghanistan last night. I realize there will be bloodshed and women will be in terrible shape, but I really don´t think there´s anything we can do. That country is run by a drug kingpin, and that´s our best option? An afghan woman just met with the president to tell him that women´s rights are still being trampled on now. I don´t think he´ll have the balls to say we are withdrawing. BUt I don´t think a huge troop increase is going to happen. It probably means adding 30,000 troops instead of 40,000. It doesn't mean we're leaving anytime soon.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 09:15 PM) Of course they do. If they could get him on their business channel it might make more than 1000 people watch it. Otherwise, he fits the rest of their lineup perfectly. It's also possible, based on how he sounded tonight, he could run for office somewhere. Palin/Dobbs 2012

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 08:40 PM) Lou Dobbs out at CNN Now who will hate mexicans at CNN?