dajafi wrote:The party not in the White House almost never has a clear, undisputed "leader."

I guess Newt Gingrich was that person for the Republicans between about 1994-98, but there was no one Republican at the beginning or end of the Clinton years until Bush won the 2000 nomination. If Al Gore had been a bit more intransigent after the disputed 2000 election, he probably could have been the Democrats' leader and presumptive nominee for '04, but he decided instead to binge-eat, grow a beard and make a movie. Other than Kerry for the months in '04 between when he was nominated and when he lost the general election, there was no one Democratic leader in the Bush years.

We could argue that this isn't really ideal, that it's yet another reflection of the Cult of the Presidency which I think most of us believe has been harmful. But it's the reality, and thus sort of a dumb argument as to whether the Republican "leader" is Rush, Beck, Steele, Joe the Plumber or John Boehner.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:We're going to pay seniors for not getting COLA adjustments? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here.

President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year. The Social Security Administration is scheduled to announce Thursday that there will be no cost of living increase next year. By law, increases are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year.
...
"I think it would be inappropriate," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living."

Social Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in January, the largest increase since 1982. The big increase was largely because of a spike in energy costs in 2008.

Inflation has been negative this year largely because energy prices have fallen. Gasoline prices have dropped 30 percent over the past year while overall energy costs have dropped 23 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Social Security payments, however, cannot go down. The average monthly Social Security payment for retirees is $1,160.

They should be happy their wages aren't falling

It's not as convoluted as the typical c-suite occupant's comp plans - which also tend to incorporate features that guard against reductions - so I can see how you'd not get it

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:The party not in the White House almost never has a clear, undisputed "leader."

I guess Newt Gingrich was that person for the Republicans between about 1994-98, but there was no one Republican at the beginning or end of the Clinton years until Bush won the 2000 nomination. If Al Gore had been a bit more intransigent after the disputed 2000 election, he probably could have been the Democrats' leader and presumptive nominee for '04, but he decided instead to binge-eat, grow a beard and make a movie. Other than Kerry for the months in '04 between when he was nominated and when he lost the general election, there was no one Democratic leader in the Bush years.

We could argue that this isn't really ideal, that it's yet another reflection of the Cult of the Presidency which I think most of us believe has been harmful. But it's the reality, and thus sort of a dumb argument as to whether the Republican "leader" is Rush, Beck, Steele, Joe the Plumber or John Boehner.

I don't think we have a leader at the moment, and agree trying to argue over which person is the leader of the party would be stupid because there is no answer. There are a number of people who are influential within the party. If I was to come up with a list of ten, off the top of my head I would say Rush, Beck, Steele, and Boehner from your list plus McConnell, Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty, McCain and Palin. Rush and Beck are more influential than McConnell or Boehner at getting people to show up angry at town hall meetings or march on the Capitol. McConnell, McCain and Boehner are sure as hell going to have more of a say though in what type of a stance the GOP caucuses take on the health care bill and on the Afghanistan debate, and those things matter a lot too. And the presidential contenders have a special place in the party leadership discussion because all of their internal ideological jockeying will become the most important down the line when one of them is picked as the nominee.

In closing, a party that had John McCain as its presidential nominee eleven months ago is not de facto led by Rush Limbaugh. Period.

Werthless wrote:I'm disappointed. I expected a better zinger from you. You're slipping.

Certainly, you can see where the Corzine campaign is hoping to go with this one. Let your mind run wild with the not-so-subtle implications: Christie is a fat slob who is underprepared for the pressures of office, a fat cat who will sell out to the special interests, etc. Undoubtedly, their crack research staff uncovered some evidence that Christie's weight is a vulnerability, or at least could be associated with other negatives about him.

But it's one thing for your opponent's weight to be a vulnerability, and another thing to point that out to the voters without looking like an a-hole.

There have been many, many campaigns waged over the years that deftly (or not-so-deftly) implied that the opponent was a closet homosexual, Muslim, communist, or atheist. But being fat isn't like those other things: it's something that everyone can see for themselves. There is no plus-sized closet for fat people, so to speak. And our nation's relationship with obesity and obese people is complicated. Although fat people are perhaps by default objects of disdain, it doesn't take very much to turn them into everyman-ish Bubbas -- objects of sympathy.

Corzine remains in a much better position than he was a month ago. But if this is his campaign's idea of an endgame, he's liable to send Christie's big, fat ass to Trenton.

jeff2sf wrote:I've listened to the argument that seniors should get a $250 payment to compensate for there being no COLA raise even though there hasn't been a raise in the cost of living because healthcare costs are rising.


I'm unconvinced. For shame.

TenuredVulture wrote:Rush Limbaugh, the MOST IMPORTANT MAN IN THE UNIVERSE or COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT is not going to be able to buy a share of an NFL team, and some people have gone completely unhinged. Unbelievable.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Rush Limbaugh, the MOST IMPORTANT MAN IN THE UNIVERSE or COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT is not going to be able to buy a share of an NFL team, and some people have gone completely unhinged. Unbelievable.

George Soros is also a part of the group. If he's allowed to buy a piece of the team, and Limbaugh camp, RedState should burn down Roger Goodell's hosue.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/15/report-george-soros-part-of-checketts-group-too/

Meh, I dunno

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/15/report-george-soros-part-of-checketts-group-too/

Meh, I dunno

That's fine by me. I get annoyed whenever I see Olbermann on SNF, and I probably agree with that guy 95 percent of the time. No need for any of that $#@! when it comes to sports.

jeff2sf wrote:If that's the case, then they've probably benefitted all the OTHER times where the COLA did go up. Look, this last year hasn't been a party for anyone, but the bottom line is that prices really HAVEN'T gone up much. So deal with it like the rest of us and don't the Democrats dare give out a 250 dollar "elect me please" fee.