Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?

by **traderdave** » Tue May 11, 2010 15:51:59

I thought Brown wasn't going to step down until September-ish? I guess the third-party sort of demanded it now?

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 11, 2010 15:56:17

He had to resign as prime minister when it was clear he couldn't command a majority of the new parliament, and that Cameron was the only one who could. The Queen invited Cameron to form a government. Different than Brown stepping down as Labour party leader, which he will do over the summer I guess when they have a new leadership election.

by **traderdave** » Tue May 11, 2010 15:59:36

jerseyhoya wrote:He had to resign as prime minister when it was clear he couldn't command a majority of the new parliament, and that Cameron was the only one who could. The Queen invited Cameron to form a government. Different than Brown stepping down as Labour party leader, which he will do over the summer I guess when they have a new leadership election.

Ahhh, I guess I thought it was sort of the same thing. As someone very wise once said, "Politics in the UK makes my brain hurt".

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 11, 2010 16:11:34

Er he resigned as leader of Labour too, so you were right that he changed on that, although the bigger story is him stepping down as PM.

by **Harpua** » Tue May 11, 2010 17:14:37

Beau Biden has a stroke, but will apparently be okay.

by **pacino** » Tue May 11, 2010 17:50:46

from that liberal rag the USA Today

Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

Perhaps the teabaggers should bone up, buck up, and then chip in if they really want to spend down this debt. Cutting taxes ain't the solution since nobody wants to cut programs (I certainly don't, other than unnecessary defense).

by **Wizlah** » Tue May 11, 2010 17:58:00

jerseyhoya wrote:He had to resign as prime minister when it was clear he couldn't command a majority of the new parliament, and that Cameron was the only one who could.

Brown actually quit before libdem/labour negotiations were finished. It was a public perception thing - acting all statesmanlike and forcing the issue in the interest of the country. Only after it was clear that labour were becoming all fractious.

by **pacino** » Tue May 11, 2010 18:11:27

how the heck does a tory/libdem coalition actually WORK?

by **pacino** » Tue May 11, 2010 18:33:50

someone i know from college wrote this for forbes, though i'm not a t boone pickens fan:

Rumaila is the fourth largest oil field with 17 billion barrels of oil. (See "The World's Biggest Oil Reserves.") As BP Capital Management Chairman T. Boone Pickens points out, that's the size of the largest oil field the U.S. has ever had--Alaska's Prudhoe Bay.

And with an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day flowing from the Deepwater Horizon spill that still hasn't been contained, the U.S. could use that Iraqi oil. (See "T. Boone's Not Playing The Blame Game.")

The U.S. consumed 19.5 million barrels of petroleum a day in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By comparison, China, whose China National Petroleum Corp., got the first oil contract in the post-Saddam Hussein era to redevelop Rumaila along with British Petroleum, consumed 7.9 million barrels of petroleum a day that year.

Pickens made pleas to both then President George Bush and President Barack Obama to make calls on the Iraqi oil field, but neither made a move.

When Pickens met with Bush, the response Pickens was given was, "If we made a call on the oil, it would look like that's why we went to Iraq." Pickens adds, "And the president [Bush] told me, he said the reason we went to Iraq was to free the people of Saddam Hussein and to develop a democracy in the Middle East. And I said, 'Well, I think those are all noble reasons, but now, you've been there for eight years; we get a call on the oil. We'd pay market price. I would think that the Iraqi government would more than willing to give us a call at market price."
Given the amount of money that the U.S. has spent on the war in Iraq, and even more importantly the number of U.S. soldiers injured and killed in Iraq--4,401 soldiers have been killed in Iraq as of May 11, according to the Department of Defense--Pickens says that we shouldn't have let Iraq's oil slip through our fingers.

"It's just been heartbreaking to me to let the oil go to the Chinese after what we paid," Pickens says. "I don't get it; I don't understand it. There's something totally unfair about it.

This is definitely a man who sees the US as superior to all other nations, and its citizens' lives as greater than those from other lands. Iraqis had far more deaths, and didn't really ask for us to liberate them. This was not a liberation, it was a government change which likely cost up to 200K+ Iraqi lives. We don't deserve anything more than any other nation they'd sell to.

by **Werthless** » Tue May 11, 2010 19:46:16

If we'd pay market price for the Iraqi oil, then what's the big deal about paying Iraq directly for the oil? We can buy it anywhere for market price.

by **Werthless** » Tue May 11, 2010 19:50:53

pacino wrote:from that liberal rag the USA Today
Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

Perhaps the teabaggers should bone up, buck up, and then chip in if they really want to spend down this debt. Cutting taxes ain't the solution since nobody wants to cut programs (I certainly don't, other than unnecessary defense).

Wait, I thought liberals (and most brands of conservatives) want to cut taxes and run a deficit in a recession. This is exactly what you'd expect, with income down (resulting in lower marginal brackets for people). This doesn't have much to do with tea partiers.

by **Werthless** » Tue May 11, 2010 19:57:01

jeff2sf wrote:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

How heavy the crown must be for Glenn... to know, with every fiber of his being, that he is right about everything, and that compromise, pragmatism, anything like that can never have any place in governance. Not to say he's ever completely wrong, but he is way too holier than though and lefty for me. Werthless, a committed economic conservative, embraces him, so i guess he has that going for him.

I don't think it's hypocritical of Kagan to 1) express a preference that Senators demand actual answers from Supreme Court nominees, and 2) understand the reasons that nominees give such vague answers. So I disagree with Greenwald here. But I'm sure this would make for a juicy Daily Show clip if there is footage of her 1995 statements.

PS. I haven't had much time to read much about her, but based on what little I have read, I wish she cared more about personal liberties.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 11, 2010 20:07:20

Every time the Bush/Specter commercial is on, I expect Specter to pull a Monty Burns and roll his fingers together saying "exxxxcellent" after he finishes saying "to be reelected"

by **pacino** » Tue May 11, 2010 20:44:43

pretty sure they changed his voice a little at the end of when he says that

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 11, 2010 21:23:11

Cory Booker's doing really well. A little shy of 2/3 of the vote with almost half the precincts reporting. Wonder how his team is doing in the council races. Hopefully crushing the last remnants of the Sharpe James machine.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue May 11, 2010 21:28:01

Corrupt incumbent Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) looks to be heading to defeat tonight in his primary.

(as much for his cap and trade vote as anything ethics related)

by **dajafi** » Tue May 11, 2010 22:07:16

jerseyhoya wrote:Corrupt incumbent Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) looks to be heading to defeat tonight in his primary.

(as much for his cap and trade vote as anything ethics related)

PoliticalWire called it already. Good riddance.

I didn't realize Booker was up again already. Wonder if he'll run against Christie in 2013.

by **Rococo4** » Tue May 11, 2010 23:25:19

jerseyhoya wrote:Corrupt incumbent Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) looks to be heading to defeat tonight in his primary.

(as much for his cap and trade vote as anything ethics related)

and health care

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed May 12, 2010 00:42:21

Specter even in the tracking poll and Quinnipiac! poll drops tomorrow morning

I'd make Sestak slightly more than 2 to 1 favorite right now. Two major events looming between now and next Tuesday are the Quinnipiac poll, which could flip conventional wisdom again, and Obama making a last ditch appearance for Specter, which I imagine would be worth enough to swing a close race.

Archived

Is There A BETTER Day to Start the New Politics Thread?