McCain is in Pemberton this morning.

Having tried charts, speeches and even all-nighters to protest what he sees as Republican obstructionism in the Senate, New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer took to quoting British songstress Amy Winehouse Thursday, hoping to drive home his message.

“It’s sort of like that song,” said Schumer speaking to reporters Tuesday afternoon, "Democrats say, 'Let’s legislate,' and [Republicans] just say, 'No, no no.'”

:roll:

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain is in Pemberton this morning.

What a silly waste of resources, unless he's just here for money (or to aid fundrasing for local no-chance candidates).

It's like what Bush did down the stretch in 2004. They come to South Jersey so it gets picked up by Philly media, but they also make Jersey feel like they're getting some attention. That one of the ten most competitive House races in the country is taking place in the district helps, I'm sure. Plus the Senate race.

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:McCain is in Pemberton this morning.

What a silly waste of resources, unless he's just here for money (or to aid fundrasing for local no-chance candidates).

I don't know--you'll get coverage in Penn and NJ, so it's kind of a twofer. Second, there's hope among you people that Zimmer might have a chance.

However, right now, I'd think both candidates would be in the midwest, filling sandbags and doing other photo op type stuff.

If I were running a campaign, I'd pull a stunt like, "we're suspending campaign activities for the next several days to help with recovery efforts."

Brooks: is Obama an education reformer?

It's a question I've asked too. In the primary, he was on the reform side by default: Hillary got the support of the teachers' union and clearly wasn't going to rock the boat. Obama has sent signals in both directions; ultimately I think he's going to come down on the right side, but it's not clear yet. He did tell the AFT last year that he wanted to implement merit pay for teachers--an act of political bravery the Clintons probably couldn't even imagine--but wanted to do that "with you, not to you."

I think I wrote a couple months back in whatever political thread was then going that McCain had a great opportunity here to get out in front on the education issue by embracing professionalization of the field and rigorous accountability (which is really what this is about). But even the McCain-loving Brooks writes that the Republican's campaign "hasn’t even reported for duty on education."

dajafi wrote:Brooks: is Obama an education reformer?

It's a question I've asked too. In the primary, he was on the reform side by default: Hillary got the support of the teachers' union and clearly wasn't going to rock the boat. Obama has sent signals in both directions; ultimately I think he's going to come down on the right side, but it's not clear yet. He did tell the AFT last year that he wanted to implement merit pay for teachers--an act of political bravery the Clintons probably couldn't even imagine--but wanted to do that "with you, not to you."

I think I wrote a couple months back in whatever political thread was then going that McCain had a great opportunity here to get out in front on the education issue by embracing professionalization of the field and rigorous accountability (which is really what this is about). But even the McCain-loving Brooks writes that the Republican's campaign "hasn’t even reported for duty on education."

Politically, the problem with education is much like the problem with Congress--people recognize there's something wrong with the way things are done, but they also tend to be very satisfied with their own school district.

There's also some self interest going on here--people who pay a premium to live in a district with top flight public schools have no interest in paying more for some inner city kid to have school choice.

I cannot imagine an elected Dem who will not be the handmaiden of the unions, especially the teachers unions.

some good discussion on impeach and prosecute W?

Seems like a hopeless cause and sort of bad timing, but I'd like to see Bugliosi and Kucinich getting more press than alternative media. This is a serious topic needing some serious talk. W is a criminal. He's also manipulated extensively working around the courts or congress as he's seen fit. (Under Cheyney's direction etc...)

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:Brooks: is Obama an education reformer?

It's a question I've asked too. In the primary, he was on the reform side by default: Hillary got the support of the teachers' union and clearly wasn't going to rock the boat. Obama has sent signals in both directions; ultimately I think he's going to come down on the right side, but it's not clear yet. He did tell the AFT last year that he wanted to implement merit pay for teachers--an act of political bravery the Clintons probably couldn't even imagine--but wanted to do that "with you, not to you."

I think I wrote a couple months back in whatever political thread was then going that McCain had a great opportunity here to get out in front on the education issue by embracing professionalization of the field and rigorous accountability (which is really what this is about). But even the McCain-loving Brooks writes that the Republican's campaign "hasn’t even reported for duty on education."

Politically, the problem with education is much like the problem with Congress--people recognize there's something wrong with the way things are done, but they also tend to be very satisfied with their own school district.

There's also some self interest going on here--people who pay a premium to live in a district with top flight public schools have no interest in paying more for some inner city kid to have school choice.

Count me as somewhat happy / somewhat concerned about my school district. As it turns out, our elementary schools are far better than the advanced education in town. We are very fortunate that my daughter's school (she'll finish K next week) is considered the best in town and is among the best in the state (it has received various awards, etc.).

Our high school is a different story. The school has an average reputation, at best, and a history of altercations and problems. Within the last five years, for example, one student was expelled when he was discovered to have been developing a hit list. I believe that the school is not nearly as bad as it seems and a lot of the problems seem to stem from students that we are required to take on from neighboring towns.

I consider myself to being paying a premium to live in my town (my taxes may be in the $9,300 range this next go round) and I don't mind if I'm getting services totaling that much. However, if in seven and ten years I'm going to have to send my daughter and son to Paul VI, Gloucester Catholic or Bishop Eustace, I'll be pissed.

Holy crap those floods are nuts in Iowa. George Bush hates boring white people.

Philly the Kid wrote:some good discussion on impeach and prosecute W?

Seems like a hopeless cause and sort of bad timing, but I'd like to see Bugliosi and Kucinich getting more press than alternative media. This is a serious topic needing some serious talk. W is a criminal. He's also manipulated extensively working around the courts or congress as he's seen fit. (Under Cheyney's direction etc...)

I never thought I'd write this, but Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi make sense. The American public didn't elect them to get even. They elected them to fix the problems. Considering how badly the economy has gone since the Dems took control of Congress they need more focus on that, not less. It's highly unlikely impeachment hearings and a senate trial could be completed before January 20 and if they are will America really think that spending time and money to get Bush out a month early is worthwhile?

When the Republicans impeached Clinton the American public saw it as vindictive and irrelevant to running America. That was stupid. To not learn from that would be idiotic. I think Kucinich is a closet Republican if this is what he's proposing. I thought the Democrats had thought of all the ways to lose elections, but this would be a new one.

Whether President Bush has committed crimes is certainly worthy of debate. I doubt it could be proven in a court of law. If Mr. Kucinich believes that strongly that President Bush is a criminal he should resign January 21 and charge President Bush in a Federal criminal court.

Laexile wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:some good discussion on impeach and prosecute W?

Seems like a hopeless cause and sort of bad timing, but I'd like to see Bugliosi and Kucinich getting more press than alternative media. This is a serious topic needing some serious talk. W is a criminal. He's also manipulated extensively working around the courts or congress as he's seen fit. (Under Cheyney's direction etc...)

I never thought I'd write this, but Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi make sense. The American public didn't elect them to get even. They elected them to fix the problems. Considering how badly the economy has gone since the Dems took control of Congress they need more focus on that, not less. It's highly unlikely impeachment hearings and a senate trial could be completed before January 20 and if they are will America really think that spending time and money to get Bush out a month early is worthwhile?

When the Republicans impeached Clinton the American public saw it as vindictive and irrelevant to running America. That was stupid. To not learn from that would be idiotic. I think Kucinich is a closet Republican if this is what he's proposing. I thought the Democrats had thought of all the ways to lose elections, but this would be a new one.

Whether President Bush has committed crimes is certainly worthy of debate. I doubt it could be proven in a court of law. If Mr. Kucinich believes that strongly that President Bush is a criminal he should resign January 21 and charge President Bush in a Federal criminal court.

My point was more that it should be receiving more coverage. Regarding Kucinich -- not sure why he chose this time now, or what the pwoer struggle is with Pelois and Dean? I agree it seems a bit late in the game. I suspect Kucinich waited til his prez chances were over. Perhaps he's been so marginalized by the Dems this is an f u to them? I don't know... I'm not really interested in impeaching now, should have been done back when he cheated his way in against Gore.

But this other guy Bugliosi, claims he can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the cirminality of Bush. And I'd like to see more discussion in the mainstream media around that. This has nothing to do with Dems vs. Rep and distraction to the election. It would be a big step in reigning in the abuse of power expressed by Bush-Cheyney be it using congress to get around the courts, or executive orders to get around congress. The man is a bozo and a criminal and I know that no president of hte USA will ever serve a day of time while they are alive -- but I'd like to hear this guy get some attention. His interview this morning on DemNow was very interesting. Hyperbolic perhaps to some -- but he claims he has the law and the facts to make the case.

Why should it receive more coverage? It's a stupid stunt. Kucinich voted against having debate on his own bill, instead sending it to the Judiciary committee on a mostly party line vote, where it will be buried.

It's retarded. It's never going to happen. Why should media spend a lot of time and energy covering it?

jerseyhoya wrote:Why should it receive more coverage? It's a stupid stunt. Kucinich voted against having debate on his own bill, instead sending it to the Judiciary committee on a mostly party line vote, where it will be buried.

It's retarded. It's never going to happen. Why should media spend a lot of time and energy covering it?

Read teh transcript of Bugliosi's comments on DemNow -- I think that's worthy of coverage.

35 articles of impeachment

'bout time someone calls this out. i feel like i've been living in some banana republic or goolag redux.

Ultimately, most public officials focus on the pragmatic and everyday stuff over the somewhat removed and easy-to-misinterpret highfalutin' principles stuff. As someone who sincerely believes that Bush's crimes probably violate the Constitution and deserve a full airing before the public and history, I am sorry that impeachment proceedings won't happen. As someone who lives in the reality-based community and understands that the impeachment process would carry a very heavy political cost as well as opportunity cost in terms of conducting the country's business, I understand why it's not to be.

Unfortunately, whether or not one views the country's (or its leadership's) reluctance to do the impractical but arguably principled thing as sensible or evidence of societal decline probably depends on which party is considering impeaching the other guy. This is yet another consequence of the political polarization that's taken hold over the last 30 years; Nixon's impeachment eventually had a veneer of bipartisanship, and that's probably the biggest difference between then and now.

dajafi wrote:Ultimately, most public officials focus on the pragmatic and everyday stuff over the somewhat removed and easy-to-misinterpret highfalutin' principles stuff. As someone who sincerely believes that Bush's crimes probably violate the Constitution and deserve a full airing before the public and history, I am sorry that impeachment proceedings won't happen. As someone who lives in the reality-based community and understands that the impeachment process would carry a very heavy political cost as well as opportunity cost in terms of conducting the country's business, I understand why it's not to be.

Unfortunately, whether or not one views the country's (or its leadership's) reluctance to do the impractical but arguably principled thing as sensible or evidence of societal decline probably depends on which party is considering impeaching the other guy. This is yet another consequence of the political polarization that's taken hold over the last 30 years; Nixon's impeachment eventually had a veneer of bipartisanship, and that's probably the biggest difference between then and now.

Nixon's crimes paled in comparison to the Bush dynasty...

I agree, impeachment is too little too late. But would like the American public to become versed in the actual articles, because the mere mention of them -- is important in this land of non-reflection.

Philly the Kid wrote:35 articles of impeachment

'bout time someone calls this out. i feel like i've been living in some banana republic or goolag redux.

Gotta say that this list of 35 reads like it was written by two aggrieved College Democrats, and a third person who actually knows something about the Constitution. Maybe six of these are even arguable. Failures of judgment do not equal crimes against the Constitution... as the points touching on the 4th and 8th Amendments and Article I arguably do.

Philly the Kid wrote:I agree, impeachment is too little too late. But would like the American public to become versed in the actual articles, because the mere mention of them -- is important in this land of non-reflection.

Yes, to you and me and maybe another ten percent of the population. Everyone else could care less either way. That's 21st century democracy: the prerogatives of a small group (or a lot of small groups) versus the general inertia.

This isn't even a value judgment. Who are we to say what's important to people? Why is my ideal of good citizenship relevant to someone of totally different life circumstances and background?

The genius of our system is that there's some capacity to shift the inertia over time (women's rights, civil rights, the New Deal, etc). Pretty damn hard though.