Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 15:43:23

Also, even if the polls show a close race, I'd still give Christie +5 over the last poll results. I think Corzine tends to over expose himself in the waning weeks of a campaign, and there will be a significant backlash from that. The problem of course is that the Corzine backlash may end up helping Daggett more than Christie.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 15:53:28

It's not the NJ GOP's fault that this entire region of the country has stopped electing Republicans. New Jersey compares pretty favorably to a lot of neighboring states with GOP success. We still have 5/13 congressional seats, 43% of the state senate. We're going to pick up assembly seats next Tuesday.

Look at New York, we're about to be down to 2! congressional seats in the whole delegation. Out of 29. There isn't a single Republican representative left in New England. Eastern PA, Gerlach is giving up his seat and Charlie Dent is getting a real race this cycle in a bad district for us. I guess we might pick up Sestak's seat, but there's a real chance Joe Pitts is the only Republican Rep in the 11 PA districts in the Eastern half of the state after 2010.

by **pacino** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 16:05:03

new cnn poll:

The Republican Party's favorable rating among Americans is at lowest level in at least a decade, according to a new national poll.
Thirty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, with 54 percent viewing the GOP negatively.

According to the poll, 53 percent have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, with 41 percent holding an unfavorable view. The survey indicates that favorable ratings for the Democrats have dropped 5 points since February, with the Republican number slipping 3 points.

pretty rough go of it out there for Republicans just generally in the US, let alone the Northeast. The Northeast is dead for Republicans, though, for at least a couple cycles. Still, get a couple appealing moderates in there running and things could change? The national party would have to relent on some things, I would imagine.

As far as the GOP in PA, PItts is in Lancaster, which is still a GOP stronghold. Outside of that, yeah, things look pretty bleak in the southeast looking forward, let alone all of eastern PA. Who is running for Gerlach's seat? I don't even know.

edit: I went on Pitts' website, and was interested to see what his issues were:
Budget and Spending
Conservation and Agriculture
Defense
Education
Energy and Environment
Foreign Affairs
Health Care
Human Rights
Jobs and Employment
Life and Bioethics
Tax Relief
Transportation
Veterans Issues

Really, that's the sweet spot there for Republicans nowadays, right? Focusing on social issues was all about creating wedges and nothing about accomplishing any goals or passing any real legislation on a national level, but the above are things they can talk about, try and do, and then say back 'hey look at what we did OVA HERE!'.

by **dajafi** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 16:12:12

I just find it kind of rich that the Republican purists venerate Reagan and charge that they've lost recently in part because the party has strayed from Reagan's message, but Reagan himself was both the ultimate big-tent guy ("the 11th Commandment") and a willing, sometimes eager participant in bipartisan compromises, including all the budget deals that included tax increases, that no Republican could make today without coming in for relentless attack. By current standards, he would have been the biggest RINO of all.

The conclusion I'm left with is that Reagan's success stemmed primarily from the fact that he was likable, not that he was this forthright super-conservative. (I seem to remember that poll after poll found a big gap between approval of Reagan the individual and agreement with his political philosophy--something Obama has going for him, to a lesser extent and at least for the time being.) After reading the Reeves and Wilentz books, I can buy that he had basic conservative notions in which he truly believed and that he'd worked out over many, many years in public life, but they were guiding principles, not dogma. I wonder if someone like Reagan--whose primary political virtues were optimism and coming across as relatable--could even rise in the Republican Party as it exists right now.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 16:25:21

Reagan did run a hard fought primary campaign against a sitting Republican president. He was for a big tent, but he was for improving the party from within as well. He just emphasized the time to do that was during primaries. The NY-23 race is unique because there wasn't a primary. A few folks sitting around a table picked the GOP nominee, and it's a person who it turns out is out of step with the GOP base on tons of issues. It goes beyond the abortion and gay marriage stuff. She favors card check (her husband is a union boss), she supported Obama's stimulus package, has said she might vote for the Dem health care bill. There are more areas of disagreement than agreement with the average GOP voter. There's a candidate in the race who is better funded than she is, has a realistic shot at winning, agrees with the GOP base on most issues, and would be winning the race if he had an R after his name.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 17:23:21

Dajafi, I really think you underestimate Reagan's conservatism, especially when set in the context of the 70s and late 80s. Reagan was largely seen as a way to move the Republican party away from the moderate and even liberal policies championed by Nixon. Rolling back much of the Great Society/War on Poverty programs were among the more important achievements of the Reagan era. Add to that his hostility to environmental regulation. I mean James Watt was his secretary of Interior, and Ann Gorsuch was head of the EPA. The elimination of the civil rights division of the Department of Agriculture, and on and on. Reagan fundamentally transformed things, both in the Republican party and in the nation as a whole.

The Critchlow book, The Conservative Ascendency, is an outstanding history of the subject.

by **dajafi** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 01:45:02

TenuredVulture wrote:Dajafi, I really think you underestimate Reagan's conservatism, especially when set in the context of the 70s and late 80s. Reagan was largely seen as a way to move the Republican party away from the moderate and even liberal policies championed by Nixon. Rolling back much of the Great Society/War on Poverty programs were among the more important achievements of the Reagan era. Add to that his hostility to environmental regulation. I mean James Watt was his secretary of Interior, and Ann Gorsuch was head of the EPA. The elimination of the civil rights division of the Department of Agriculture, and on and on. Reagan fundamentally transformed things, both in the Republican party and in the nation as a whole.

The Critchlow book, The Conservative Ascendency, is an outstanding history of the subject.

I'm not at all saying it wasn't real--I'm saying it wasn't the selling point. Reagan didn't win because of his conservatism; conservatism won because it had an extremely effective champion/front man in Reagan. My original point was that his supposedly most devoted followers now don't seem to understand why he succeeded.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the Great Society/War on Poverty stuff was done away with under Nixon/Ford, or at least neutered (Rumsfeld and Cheney began under Nixon in the Office of Economic Opportunity, and killed it from within). Of course, Reagan helped do away with the public's support or even tolerance for activist government, to the point where no subsequent Democratic candidate has ever explicitly campaigned to bring such things back again.

jh, I should have been clear that I wasn't referring to the New York race in particular--it was more like a political thread random thought. (Though my sense is that the opposition to the Republican nominee in that race has to do more with her relatively liberal positions than the fact that her position was conferred by appointment. To take a semi-similar case, I dislike Kirsten Gillibrand largely because I don't like the way she got her job, but the fact that she's basically Schumer's little shadow, and I agree with Schumer on almost everything not touching upon his Wall Street whoredom, renders me likely to vote unenthusiastically for Gillibrand even though she doesn't "impress" me at all.)

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 09:34:29

I'm not saying she's being opposed because she was appointed. I meant going to war with her in the general election is OK in the Reagan sense because there wasn't a chance to beat her in the primary.

by **allentown** » Sun Oct 25, 2009 17:11:37

dajafi wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Dajafi, I really think you underestimate Reagan's conservatism, especially when set in the context of the 70s and late 80s. Reagan was largely seen as a way to move the Republican party away from the moderate and even liberal policies championed by Nixon. Rolling back much of the Great Society/War on Poverty programs were among the more important achievements of the Reagan era. Add to that his hostility to environmental regulation. I mean James Watt was his secretary of Interior, and Ann Gorsuch was head of the EPA. The elimination of the civil rights division of the Department of Agriculture, and on and on. Reagan fundamentally transformed things, both in the Republican party and in the nation as a whole.

The Critchlow book, The Conservative Ascendency, is an outstanding history of the subject.

I'm not at all saying it wasn't real--I'm saying it wasn't the selling point. Reagan didn't win because of his conservatism; conservatism won because it had an extremely effective champion/front man in Reagan. My original point was that his supposedly most devoted followers now don't seem to understand why he succeeded.

Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the Great Society/War on Poverty stuff was done away with under Nixon/Ford, or at least neutered (Rumsfeld and Cheney began under Nixon in the Office of Economic Opportunity, and killed it from within). Of course, Reagan helped do away with the public's support or even tolerance for activist government, to the point where no subsequent Democratic candidate has ever explicitly campaigned to bring such things back again.

jh, I should have been clear that I wasn't referring to the New York race in particular--it was more like a political thread random thought. (Though my sense is that the opposition to the Republican nominee in that race has to do more with her relatively liberal positions than the fact that her position was conferred by appointment. To take a semi-similar case, I dislike Kirsten Gillibrand largely because I don't like the way she got her job, but the fact that she's basically Schumer's little shadow, and I agree with Schumer on almost everything not touching upon his Wall Street whoredom, renders me likely to vote unenthusiastically for Gillibrand even though she doesn't "impress" me at all.)

The Dem party just about died in the last years of LBJ. The Civil Rights Act, which was a correct and courageous thing to do, stripped away most of the south, while escalating the war and the Chicago convention stripped away all but the old left and labor. Doomed Humphrey and later gave the party to McGovern. Carter was pretty much a fluke reaction to the Watergate scandal. LBJ pretty much solely ushered in a prolonged period of Republican dominance and Dem confusion. It just coincidentally happened that the Republicans had a lot of pent up conservative theory and intellectual energy ready to unleash. Without LBJ that would have stayed bottled up in the think tanks for another generation.

by **lethal** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 00:15:30

New Jersey is the capital of corruption.

This was written by a law school classmate of mine. A little bit fluffy, but there's not much room to put in a bunch of evidence in an Op-ed piece. He got published in the Philly Inquirer, good for him.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 09:14:56

States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana (10/26 NYTimes)

I've not followed the quiet federal declaration to forego prosecution of medical users in legal states, or reaction to it.

I was confident 30+ years ago that some sort of legalization would take place in my lifetime, but did not at all imagine it would come in such ungainly form.

Of course, what other way do controversial ideas get their time on the conventional stage? Think of ownership experiments, like ESOPs; they've been used almost exclusively in situations least propitious for their success. I'm sure there are other, better examples; "abortion rights", maybe.

by **Werthless** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:29:18

CBS blows the whistleon the white house not allowing interviews with Fox News.

The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions. The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
...
"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

Pretty cool that the other media were willing to draw a line in the sand.

by **Werthless** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:38:04

drsmooth wrote:States Pressed Into New Role on Marijuana (10/26 NYTimes)

I've not followed the quiet federal declaration to forego prosecution of medical users in legal states, or reaction to it.

I was confident 30+ years ago that some sort of legalization would take place in my lifetime, but did not at all imagine it would come in such ungainly form.

Of course, what other way do controversial ideas get their time on the conventional stage? Think of ownership experiments, like ESOPs; they've been used almost exclusively in situations least propitious for their success. I'm sure there are other, better examples; "abortion rights", maybe.

nytimes wrote:In New Hampshire, for instance, where some state legislators are considering a medical marijuana law, there is concern that the state health department — already battered by budget cuts — could be hard-pressed to administer the system. In California, where there has been an explosion of medical marijuana suppliers, the authorities in Los Angeles and other jurisdictions are considering a requirement that all medical dispensaries operate as nonprofit organizations.

“The federal government says they’re not going to control it, so the only other option we have is to control it ourselves,” said Carrol Martin, a City Council member in this community north of Denver, where a ban on marijuana dispensaries was on the agenda at a Council meeting the day after the federal announcement.

Haha. They are basically saying "We don't have the manpower or will to monitor or enforce all the paperwork needed for this kind of program." This is pretty funny. We're willing to spend tons of money going after marijuana users, prosecuting them, and putting them in jail. But we're not sure if we can handle the enforcement of people that want to use the drug for medical reasons to bring about better quality of life for these people. Something is wrong here.

Some legal scholars said the federal government, by deciding not to enforce its own laws (possession and the sale of marijuana remain federal crimes), has introduced an unpredictable variable into the drug regulation system.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:10:48

Werthless wrote:CBS blows the whistleon the white house not allowing interviews with Fox News.

The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions. The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
...
"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

Pretty cool that the other media were willing to draw a line in the sand.

is there another source for a narrative on the way this went down?

the Des Moines Conservative Examiner and Fox News itself, I mean really

The boobs on the admin's team that "handled" this a la Chicago ward heelers are to be derided (from Emmanuel on down), but I can't say I'm disturbed by anyone's scorn for Rupert Murdoch's brand of yellow journalism - even the POTUS's.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:22:50

Werthless wrote:Haha. They are basically saying "We don't have the manpower or will to monitor or enforce all the paperwork needed for this kind of program." This is pretty funny. We're willing to spend tons of money going after marijuana users, prosecuting them, and putting them in jail. But we're not sure if we can handle the enforcement of people that want to use the drug for medical reasons to bring about better quality of life for these people. Something is wrong here.

"Wrong" seems kind of - well, certain, which is probably far from the attitude of the "we" who you say is "willing to spend tons of money...", but "not sure" about enforcement capabilities* . What's "wrong", exactly?

*I think on reflection you'd note that that may be two different sets of "we"s; one the general body politic, the other, a more specific population of enforcement executives

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:30:41

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:Haha. They are basically saying "We don't have the manpower or will to monitor or enforce all the paperwork needed for this kind of program." This is pretty funny. We're willing to spend tons of money going after marijuana users, prosecuting them, and putting them in jail. But we're not sure if we can handle the enforcement of people that want to use the drug for medical reasons to bring about better quality of life for these people. Something is wrong here.

"Wrong" seems kind of - well, certain, which is probably far from the attitude of the "we" who you say is "willing to spend tons of money...", but "not sure" about enforcement capabilities* . What's "wrong", exactly?

*I think on reflection you'd note that that may be two different sets of "we"s; one the general body politic, the other, a more specific population of enforcement executives

I don't know about New Hampshire, but I think there's a misconception about how much marijuana enforcement really costs a state. First of all, for simple possession, in Arkansas, you're unlikely to do any time. So, there's really not much of a jail cost. Other costs are hidden in the day to day business of law enforcement. That is, legalizing marijuana (unless you then tax it) won't save states much if any money. But starting up an entire program from scratch that isn't about law enforcement is an entirely different matter. Unless the FDA goes ahead and makes it available through a prescription like any other medication, states are likely to have trouble setting up a system to deal with this.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:34:54

drsmooth wrote:is there another source for a narrative on the way this went down?

the Des Moines Conservative Examiner and Fox News itself, I mean really

The boobs on the admin's team that "handled" this a la Chicago ward heelers are to be derided (from Emmanuel on down), but I can't say I'm disturbed by anyone's scorn for Rupert Murdoch's brand of yellow journalism - even the POTUS's.

Howard Kurtz: I looked into it, checked with other networks, and the consensus was that the Treasury did try to exclude Fox from the round of Ken Feinberg interviews. Plus, Fox says the White House apologized for the incident. The five networks pay for a pool camera, so they have an interest - financial as well as journalistic solidarity - for not wanting any member excluded.

by **Squire** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:44:34

Not really a political comment but wanted to note that Ken Feinberg was my evidence professor in law school. He also was the head of the federal government's 9/11 compensation fund which had to be a certifiably awful gig.

SQUIRE

by **drsmooth** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:49:04

jerseyhoya wrote:
Howard Kurtz: I looked into it, checked with other networks, and the consensus was that the Treasury did try to exclude Fox from the round of Ken Feinberg interviews. Plus, Fox says the White House apologized for the incident. The five networks pay for a pool camera, so they have an interest - financial as well as journalistic solidarity - for not wanting any member excluded.

thank you. How much room could Obama be expected to put between himself & whomever might be the 'genius' behind these maneuvers (*cough* Emmanuel *cough*)

by **Werthless** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 13:42:40

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:CBS blows the whistleon the white house not allowing interviews with Fox News.

is there another source for a narrative on the way this went down?

the Des Moines Conservative Examiner and Fox News itself, I mean really

The boobs on the admin's team that "handled" this a la Chicago ward heelers are to be derided (from Emmanuel on down), but I can't say I'm disturbed by anyone's scorn for Rupert Murdoch's brand of yellow journalism - even the POTUS's.

The examiner had an embedded cbs news report video. The Fox News source had the explanations of the pool of 5 media sources that I wanted to quote. I'm sure there's other stuff online, perhaps through cbs.

Archived

Full of Passionate Intensity: POLITICS THREAD