That stinks, no two ways about it. Very disappointing.

Guy I worked with on my last job is on Steele's transition team at the RNC. Just sent in my resume.

If I am lucky enough to get a job there, I think I'll have to avoid this thread, especially if I am drinking.

FTN wrote:whew, im very rich apparently.

guys like you and me and most on this board are probably better off than we would like to think

It really does take a special kind of nerd to get half drunk and then spend a half an hour reading about Israeli election results.

Kadima looks to have edged Likud by a seat, but in Israel's effed up parliamentary system that only means so much. Right leaning parties out did the center left by a bit, so there's a lot of uncertainty over who will get first crack at forming the new gov't.

For everyone who bitches about the two party system, this mess is assigned reading for tomorrow.

jerseyhoya wrote:
For everyone who bitches about the two party system, this mess is assigned reading for tomorrow.

It's called coalition politics, and many countries run just fine on it. Really.

Ahmadinejad says he's happy to talk to america.

The timing and location of Ahmadinejad's remarks could hardly have been more symbolic, marking the events - the overthrow of the US-backed shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic - which opened up a chasm of hostility between the two countries

He's up for election in May, which I figure is some kind of factor in all of this. either he wants to strengthen his position against those in the theocracy who have the ruling power, or he's being put under pressure to get cosier with america. Dunno. Anyway, it's good news, not least because it gives all negotiating parties some latitude on palestine and israel.

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:For everyone who bitches about the two party system, this mess is assigned reading for tomorrow.

It's called coalition politics, and many countries run just fine on it. Really.

I understand what it is, and I realize it works in many places. However, what they've got going on over there is a mess. On the one hand, it seems only right that the leader of the party that got the most votes and seats should be prime minister, but on the other, it seems pretty contrary to the will of the people when right leaning parties appear to have won 8 more seats.

I guess stuff like this often works itself out, but at the moment, an ideal solution doesn't seem apparent.

jerseyhoya wrote:I understand what it is, and I realize it works in many places. However, what they've got going on over there is a mess. On the one hand, it seems only right that the leader of the party that got the most votes and seats should be prime minister, but on the other, it seems pretty contrary to the will of the people when right leaning parties appear to have won 8 more seats.

What's messy? Nehanyatu can probably forge the links with the rightwing parties to get his coalition, and then he's in. No one has an overall majority. What's the problem with splitting the vote on the right? It's PR so it's as accurate a represtentation of the political will of the people as you're likely to get. those who have voted for the right have given Liberman's party the political weight to be a kingmaker. Are you going to blame all the people for voting for shas and Yisrael Beiteinu and say they should have voted for nehanyatu instead? They see their political interests better represented by the other two parties.

Werthless wrote:OBEY MY SIGN and RECOVER.

needs drop shadows

As I understand it, the president of Israel, I think Shimon Peres (who knows a little something about losing elections as well as serving in shaky, ultimately failing coalition governments), gets about a week to figure out whom to ask to form a government. What I'm not as clear on is how he chooses between, in this case, Livni and Netanyahu.

What's upsetting is that this quasi-fascist thug Lieberman is the kingmaker. But I'm trying to keep in mind that ten years ago I might have applied the exact same description to Sharon, and in his last couple years he was fairly prudent. And there's a theory that only the Israeli Right can really make peace; I'm not sure I agree, but some smart people seem to lean this way.

As for the differences between the parliamentary system and the American two-party setup... for most of our history, the two-party model worked fairly well because as political movements outside the mainstream of the Democrats or Republicans, or the Federalists/Whigs before them, emerged, one or both parties would absorb them. (I used to call this the Blob Theory of American politics.) From the Progressives at the start of the 20th century to the Perot reform movement at the end of it, this generally worked out.

I'm not sure it will work out as well going forward, though, because both parties are now pretty much ideologically "pure," and probably fixed in their views. The Republicans might be more likely to split in two, with a Buchanan/Huckabee/Palin faction that's socially reactionary and economically interventionist and a Norquist/Giuliani faction that's socially libertarian and economically free-market fundamentalist, than to reconcile those two strains or absorb a more centrist Bloomberg/Riordan/Whitman-type Republicanism. It's not hard to see the Democrats, whose internal tensions will be exacerbated now that they're in power, eventually fracturing along similar lines.

Well, the BBC article on it says this regarding Peres's role:

Once final results are in, President Shimon Peres will consult party leaders to determine who among them stands the best chance of forming a coalition government, but he does not have to nominate the leader of the largest party.

So I guess Netanyahu and Livni will do the legwork over the next couple of days to try and get a tentative coalition formed, and Peres is supposed to pick whoever looks more likely to form a majority coalition. But Peres and Livni are the same party, so is he more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt since she had the most votes even though it looks early on that she won't be able to form a coalition? It doesn't seem like there are hard and fast rules on who he has to pick.

Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Once final results are in, President Shimon Peres will consult party leaders to determine who among them stands the best chance of forming a coalition government, but he does not have to nominate the leader of the largest party.

Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

See all I'm getting at is that it's not a bizarre outcome. It's a really standard outcome. You were describing it like it's some twisted representation of voting patterns. As Dajafi pointed out, it's not like they haven't had coalitions before. Interesting piece here, which cites a need for electoral reform, but also notes the last time they had a unity right/left govt, it managed to govern for 6 years quite effectively.

jerseyhoya wrote:Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem to be serving them very well at this moment, in this situation. But it's also not impossible to imagine a situation in which they form a shaky coalition government in two weeks, and events proceed in a way that it's actually very helpful for Israel to have all the major players at the table.

I've always thought there's a lot to be said for the parliamentary system in general, maybe especially in times of crisis. On the level of political culture, I imagine it helps to be around people of different views on a daily basis, in a situation where you pretty much have to find common ground: at least you know where they're coming from and what their real takeaway is. Our Democrats and Republicans seem barely able to be in the same room with each other these days, and the old socializing function of federal politics--the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill could argue during the day and then meet for whiskey and bad jokes at 6pm--seems to have faded, though Obama evidently is trying to revive it with all those White House c0cktail parties.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem to be serving them very well at this moment, in this situation. But it's also not impossible to imagine a situation in which they form a shaky coalition government in two weeks, and events proceed in a way that it's actually very helpful for Israel to have all the major players at the table.

I've always thought there's a lot to be said for the parliamentary system in general, maybe especially in times of crisis. On the level of political culture, I imagine it helps to be around people of different views on a daily basis, in a situation where you pretty much have to find common ground: at least you know where they're coming from and what their real takeaway is. Our Democrats and Republicans seem barely able to be in the same room with each other these days, and the old socializing function of federal politics--the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill could argue during the day and then meet for whiskey and bad jokes at 6pm--seems to have faded, though Obama evidently is trying to revive it with all those White House c0cktail parties.

It seems that Kennedy/Hatch are the last holdovers of that era. And it isn't just a social thing--they've worked together on some important legislation.

Wizlah wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Once final results are in, President Shimon Peres will consult party leaders to determine who among them stands the best chance of forming a coalition government, but he does not have to nominate the leader of the largest party.

Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

See all I'm getting at is that it's not a bizarre outcome. It's a really standard outcome. You were describing it like it's some twisted representation of voting patterns. As Dajafi pointed out, it's not like they haven't had coalitions before. Interesting piece here, which cites a need for electoral reform, but also notes the last time they had a unity right/left govt, it managed to govern for 6 years quite effectively.

I wasn't going for bizarre as in unique, but more like that it is effed up at least to my non-parliamentary living self that the person who won the most seats is unlikely to be the next prime minister.* A national unity government is probably the best outcome in a lot of ways, but if I was betting on it, I'd guess that Netanyahu ends up cobbling together a nationalist, right wing coalition that gives him a majority.

*Yes, 2000. I know. That was bizarre too.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem to be serving them very well at this moment, in this situation. But it's also not impossible to imagine a situation in which they form a shaky coalition government in two weeks, and events proceed in a way that it's actually very helpful for Israel to have all the major players at the table.

I've always thought there's a lot to be said for the parliamentary system in general, maybe especially in times of crisis. On the level of political culture, I imagine it helps to be around people of different views on a daily basis, in a situation where you pretty much have to find common ground: at least you know where they're coming from and what their real takeaway is. Our Democrats and Republicans seem barely able to be in the same room with each other these days, and the old socializing function of federal politics--the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill could argue during the day and then meet for whiskey and bad jokes at 6pm--seems to have faded, though Obama evidently is trying to revive it with all those White House c0cktail parties.

I agree with you that it could work out for the best, but I'm not sure it's all that likely. Although I should probably stop pretending like I have a clue what's going on, since before last night, I had probably only read 3-4 articles on the whole election there.

I think a parliamentary system would be a hell of a lot more entertaining, but I don't think it would be better. Could you imagine the intrigue of no confidence votes, shifting coalitions, leaders getting pissy with each other, regional parties and single issue parties popping up and dying out? I think it would be a lot of fun.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Wiz, I don't think it's the end of the world or anything, but most of the articles I've read have been quoting a number of people a lot smarter and more aware of the situation than I am talking about how their political system is shattered and how Israel is the loser of this bizarre outcome.

Admittedly, it doesn't seem to be serving them very well at this moment, in this situation. But it's also not impossible to imagine a situation in which they form a shaky coalition government in two weeks, and events proceed in a way that it's actually very helpful for Israel to have all the major players at the table.

I've always thought there's a lot to be said for the parliamentary system in general, maybe especially in times of crisis. On the level of political culture, I imagine it helps to be around people of different views on a daily basis, in a situation where you pretty much have to find common ground: at least you know where they're coming from and what their real takeaway is. Our Democrats and Republicans seem barely able to be in the same room with each other these days, and the old socializing function of federal politics--the days when Reagan and Tip O'Neill could argue during the day and then meet for whiskey and bad jokes at 6pm--seems to have faded, though Obama evidently is trying to revive it with all those White House c0cktail parties.

I agree with you that it could work out for the best, but I'm not sure it's all that likely. Although I should probably stop pretending like I have a clue what's going on, since before last night, I had probably only read 3-4 articles on the whole election there.

I think a parliamentary system would be a hell of a lot more entertaining, but I don't think it would be better. Could you imagine the intrigue of no confidence votes, shifting coalitions, leaders getting pissy with each other, regional parties and single issue parties popping up and dying out? I think it would be a lot of fun.

Fun, probably. More dynamic, less stable. There are advantages to that. With no-confidence votes, you wouldn't have had the last three years of the Bush administration, or maybe the last six of the Clinton administration (though you know that as a parliamentary leader old Bill would have just kept coming back; by now he probably would have been PM for something like 9 of the last 16 years).

In the abstract, our system should be more able to make long-range plans and investments and push back against systemic problems. But we're not actually real good at that.

789.5 billion is the stimulus, or the top end. According to John Harewood on CNBC right now

FTN wrote:789.5 billion is the stimulus, or the top end. According to John Harewood on CNBC right now

Most important question: Does it still include the bits that would benefit me?

TenuredVulture wrote:

FTN wrote:789.5 billion is the stimulus, or the top end. According to John Harewood on CNBC right now

Most important question: Does it still include the bits that would benefit me?

I'm looking forward to see what money I can get.