I was mainly pointing out that political parties aren't a necessary aspect of writing smart policy. There's no real reason to think a strong political party makes writing laws "better." I think that the existence and use of thinktanks suggests that significant contributions are made from outside the party apparatus. A politician who was uninformed about an issue would have plenty of outlets for information, and I think it's silly to think that independent or 3rd party politicians would be unable to write law as well, without an entrenched party apparatus.

Werthless wrote:I was mainly pointing out that political parties aren't a necessary aspect of writing smart policy. There's no real reason to think a strong political party makes writing laws "better." I think that the existence and use of thinktanks suggests that significant contributions are made from outside the party apparatus. A politician who was uninformed about an issue would have plenty of outlets for information, and I think it's silly to think that independent or 3rd party politicians would be unable to write law as well, without an entrenched party apparatus.

Not to be all milquetoast, but I think you both have solid arguments here. Probably this explains why I go back and forth about the value of parties.

(There's also the sad truth that no political party exists to "write smart policy." Their purpose is to win elections. We like to think that some relationship exists between the two, and over a long enough period of time I think there is; 2006 and 2008 suggest that you can't screw up in power for too long and retain it no matter how well you master the tactical blocking and tackling. But I seem to remember that when Steele came in a couple months ago, he quickly shut down the RNC's policy formulation arm; there's no way he, or any chairman of either side, would do the same to the money operation.)

My main thought about the place of people like Specter and Lieberman and Snowe and Bayh within the system is that, infuriating as they often are, their heterodoxy lubricates the process. And it's probably preferable to have a fairly equal number of "moderates"--defined simply as people who don't immediately jump to the expected position on every question of policy--on both sides.

So the more I think about it, the more I'm really less pleased that Specter switched.

Second time milky-toast has been used on this board. I've had to look it up both times.

The evaluation of parties is probably the largest difference between political science and the public at large. It in itself is something that bears investigation. Suffice it to say, my position here is pretty mainstream political science.

overheard today at a think tank briefing:

"The worst words in the English language are "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help.""

"I thought the worst words were "I'm from the American Enterprise Institute and I have a foreign policy idea.""

Laughs all around. Weird town.

New Hampshire legislature (narrowly) passes gay marriage measure

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 13 to 11 in favor of the bill, which was passed by the State House of Representatives last month, but only after a last-minute amendment strengthened language granting legal protections for religious groups and organizations that do not want to perform or otherwise help carry out same-sex marriages.

It is unclear whether Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, will veto the law or whether the new language will persuade him to endorse it. Mr. Lynch has consistently opposed same-sex marriage, but has never said whether he would veto the bill or let it be enacted without his signature, as state law would allow. He has said that the state’s civil-union law provides sufficient rights and protections for gay couples.

Close vote aside, I think the combination of the legislature doing it and the protections for faith groups is pretty much best of all worlds.

Matthews as a guest on Olbermann's show. He comes on halfway through the segment. The last bit where he savages Specter is delicious.

Obama has one badass web design team

Why does anyone allow Joe Biden to talk in public?

momadance wrote:Why does anyone allow Joe Biden to talk in public?

I can't quite bring myself to watch the clip, but I imagine I'll see it on the Daily Show tonight anyway...

Then again, it's arguable that he has a point:

His office quickly released a clarification. Biden, they said, did not say what he said, and if you heard him say the thing he didn't say, then that was incorrect. In related news, Biden and bank-run enthusiast Richard Burr will be having an old fashioned scare-the-hell-out-of-everyone contest at 3pm on the West Lawn. I hear Burr is bringing a mask.

But here's the thing: Biden may be right to induce a bit of panic. The United States Travel Association won't think so. It's their profit stream on the line, after all. But epidemiologists are probably quietly relieved by the Vice President's comments.

lolz!

dajafi wrote:

momadance wrote:Why does anyone allow Joe Biden to talk in public?

I can't quite bring myself to watch the clip, but I imagine I'll see it on the Daily Show tonight anyway...

Then again, it's arguable that he has a point:

His office quickly released a clarification. Biden, they said, did not say what he said, and if you heard him say the thing he didn't say, then that was incorrect. In related news, Biden and bank-run enthusiast Richard Burr will be having an old fashioned scare-the-hell-out-of-everyone contest at 3pm on the West Lawn. I hear Burr is bringing a mask.

But here's the thing: Biden may be right to induce a bit of panic. The United States Travel Association won't think so. It's their profit stream on the line, after all. But epidemiologists are probably quietly relieved by the Vice President's comments.

I'm not sure what's wrong with what he said. If you can avoid, it's probably best right now to avoid being in confined spaces for a long time. Most people who are flying can't avoid it, but there you go.

Yeah, I'd probably be fairly freaked out if I had to get on a plane this week.

Bunning Poised to Retire

YES!

Edit: A friend at the NRSC says it isn't quite done yet. Lol. If this is reported and not true, Bunning is going to go off the goddamn rails.

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Souter.html?showall

jerseyhoya wrote:

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Souter.html.showall

Wow. I guess Souter is considered a liberal judge, but Specter's switch looms ever more significant now.

I don't think Obama would have had a hard time at all confirming whoever he wanted to even before the Specter switch.

Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think Obama would have had a hard time at all confirming whoever he wanted to even before the Specter switch.

I don't know. Too liberal, and that gutless fucker Blanche Lincoln might cave.