dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

much like the crazies, if you can find it on the right it has probably happened on the left and vice versa. welcome to our american political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... ge_W._Bush

Which the Democratic leadership didn't even consider pursuing. The difference is why I wrote "Republican House" rather than a few really out-there Representatives.

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that, even if only to appease their base and the 30-40 new Congresspeople who could be said to owe their election to people who think Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in this country or whatever, they'll have hearings on impeachment, and there's a chance it will come to a floor vote. The balance of influence within a Republican majority caucus at this point would be with "the crazies."

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

much like the crazies, if you can find it on the right it has probably happened on the left and vice versa. welcome to our american political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... ge_W._Bush

Which the Democratic leadership didn't even consider pursuing. The difference is why I wrote "Republican House" rather than a few really out-there Representatives.

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that, even if only to appease their base and the 30-40 new Congresspeople who could be said to owe their election to people who think Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in this country or whatever, they'll have hearings on impeachment, and there's a chance it will come to a floor vote. The balance of influence within a Republican majority caucus at this point would be with "the crazies."

honestly i hope they do... and the dems should've went after bush. i kinda like the crazies on both sides, not only do they offer great entertainment value, they are the ones who will really show how broken our political system is. once people stop looking at government through red or blue colored glasses and truly look at the problems of special interests, big business, corruption, and corporate welfare that is rampant on both sides and how they control the politicians and their sheep, maybe then we might have a chance of a government by the people for the people.

TenuredVulture wrote:

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

much like the crazies, if you can find it on the right it has probably happened on the left and vice versa. welcome to our american political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... ge_W._Bush

Which the Democratic leadership didn't even consider pursuing. The difference is why I wrote "Republican House" rather than a few really out-there Representatives.

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that, even if only to appease their base and the 30-40 new Congresspeople who could be said to owe their election to people who think Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in this country or whatever, they'll have hearings on impeachment, and there's a chance it will come to a floor vote. The balance of influence within a Republican majority caucus at this point would be with "the crazies."

honestly i hope they do... and the dems should've went after bush. i kinda like the crazies on both sides, not only do they offer great entertainment value, they are the ones who will really show how broken our political system is. once people stop looking at government through red or blue colored glasses and truly look at the problems of special interests, big business, corruption, and corporate welfare that is rampant on both sides and how they control the politicians and their sheep, maybe then we might have a chance of a government by the people for the people.

How does a circus of dumb distractions do that? Substanceless impeachments and other grandstanding tactics make it much easier to obscure the influence of big money.

It's not like there aren't real problems that need to be addressed.

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:

azrider wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

much like the crazies, if you can find it on the right it has probably happened on the left and vice versa. welcome to our american political system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to ... ge_W._Bush

Which the Democratic leadership didn't even consider pursuing. The difference is why I wrote "Republican House" rather than a few really out-there Representatives.

I hope I'm wrong, but I honestly believe that, even if only to appease their base and the 30-40 new Congresspeople who could be said to owe their election to people who think Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born in this country or whatever, they'll have hearings on impeachment, and there's a chance it will come to a floor vote. The balance of influence within a Republican majority caucus at this point would be with "the crazies."

honestly i hope they do... and the dems should've went after bush. i kinda like the crazies on both sides, not only do they offer great entertainment value, they are the ones who will really show how broken our political system is. once people stop looking at government through red or blue colored glasses and truly look at the problems of special interests, big business, corruption, and corporate welfare that is rampant on both sides and how they control the politicians and their sheep, maybe then we might have a chance of a government by the people for the people.

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

Rococo4 wrote:Democrats need to focus on their Senate Majority firewall states of CT, WA, WI, and CA. Other than IL, they are probably going to lose them if they are contested.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41506.html

“How acrimonious things get really depend on how willing the administration is in accepting our findings [and] responding to our questions,” adds [Issa bagman Kurt] Bardella, who refers to his boss as “questioner-in-chief.’

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:I wonder how (not if) the Republican House will try to impeach Obama.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41506.html

One GOP aide described the bailouts as a “huge pool” from which to make document and e-mail requests — and issue subpoenas. The prospect of a massive and popular fishing expedition at the West Wing’s expense would delight the Republican base and create a political headache for the president’s team.

Those of us who advocate federalism, and want states to give as much control as possible to locals, aren't just cranks who worry that tyranny is going to sweep the land if a marginally looser construction of constitutional law prevails. Our insight is that self-government works best when important matters inspire civic participation at a level where it can actually matter.

On Wednesday nights, a ten minute car ride is sufficient to arrive at city hall in time for the weekly meeting, where you can stand up at a podium, speak your mind directly to actual decision-makers, and respond if you still don't get your way by talking with people afterward -- the ones who cheered when you spoke up, and might even be willing to back your own run at local elective office. These kinds of encounters inspire confidence that regular people can make a difference.

And we'd be far better off if our politicians started out as folks with particular passion for grassroots civic efforts, rather than coming from a power hungry class drawn by the prospect of a remunerative career in elective office.

Everything about national politics is awful. The candidates, the disingenuous talking heads, the artificially binary separation into Team Red and Team Blue, and especially the lack of weirdness, which is another way of saying that American communities and people are a quirky sort. Their diverse approaches to the pursuit of happiness are given short shrift if they're always forced to make consequential decisions in concurrence with everyone else.

dajafi wrote:I mostly don't share this guy's (essentially libertarian) politics, but I think he makes a pretty powerful argument here--one I believe Paul among others has voiced in these parts, and that traderdave is living with his schoolboard run.

One case for localism

Those of us who advocate federalism, and want states to give as much control as possible to locals, aren't just cranks who worry that tyranny is going to sweep the land if a marginally looser construction of constitutional law prevails. Our insight is that self-government works best when important matters inspire civic participation at a level where it can actually matter.

On Wednesday nights, a ten minute car ride is sufficient to arrive at city hall in time for the weekly meeting, where you can stand up at a podium, speak your mind directly to actual decision-makers, and respond if you still don't get your way by talking with people afterward -- the ones who cheered when you spoke up, and might even be willing to back your own run at local elective office. These kinds of encounters inspire confidence that regular people can make a difference.

And we'd be far better off if our politicians started out as folks with particular passion for grassroots civic efforts, rather than coming from a power hungry class drawn by the prospect of a remunerative career in elective office.

Everything about national politics is awful. The candidates, the disingenuous talking heads, the artificially binary separation into Team Red and Team Blue, and especially the lack of weirdness, which is another way of saying that American communities and people are a quirky sort. Their diverse approaches to the pursuit of happiness are given short shrift if they're always forced to make consequential decisions in concurrence with everyone else.

TenuredVulture wrote:There are lots of good reasons for localism. Laboratories of democracy and all that. There are also lots of problems.

One thing that has changed in the last 40 years or so is the capacity of state governments. State governments used to be citadels of cronyism and corruption, few people in state executive branches were qualified to do much of anything.

These days, however, state governments have lots of talented people both in elected office and in their bureaucracies. States tend to be less partisan (though there are some severely dysfunctional counter examples like New York and California) with government focused on pragmatic problem solving.

One thing though is that turning power over to the states can be business unfriendly. Ask anyone who runs a trucking firm--would they rather deal with one set of federal guidelines, or 50 sets of state guidelines?

This [Burkean] strand of conservatism, which would deny citizens the freedom to make their own decisions regarding pornography (or drugs or prostitution), obviously runs counter to libertarianism, the doctrine that the government should keep out of as much as it possibly can. In theory it is possible to be an economic libertarian and a social conservative; in practice the two are irreconcilable. To take a simple example, imagine a social conservative who thinks women should dress modestly in order to encourage men to treat them with dignity, endorsing the ancient adage that “with the laying-aside of her clothes, a woman lays aside the respect that is hers.” Can he really believe that the way we dress is unaffected by marketing?....Companies like the bikini manufacturer Sinful Clothing, whose ads recently graced New York taxis, are only taking matters to their logical conclusion: sin is good. Just as an industry based on the creation of desires is essentially hostile to restraint, so economic libertarianism is naturally opposed to social conservatism....So why are there libertarian conservatives? This is a fairly recent phenomenon....