Sharron Angle raised $14 mil this quarter. That's so far beyond insane (much like her) that I don't even know what to say. The wingnuts might have stuck us with a bad nominee, but at least they're footing the bill. Jesus.

dajafi wrote:Our well informed and temperate electorate:

“These guys in Washington are creating an environment that is having a chilling effect on small businesses and medium and big businesses, as well, and that’s a big part of why we don’t have the job growth that we badly need,” Mr. Toomey said in his visit to the ironworks shop.

“They are creating a staggering amount of debt, debt that is eventually going to have much higher interest rates, probably lead to very high inflation,” he continued. “It’s a very worrisome combination, and we have got to get on a new track.”

What that new track would be was harder to explain.

Mr. Toomey says he favors making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for all Americans — which would add $700 billion more to the deficit over 10 years than the plan advocated by President Obama to let the lower rates expire for the rich. But he also expresses a desire to reduce the deficit.

At the ironworks shop, Mr. Toomey brushed aside a question from a local reporter who pointed out that real income for American workers dropped after the Bush tax cuts, saying he did not believe the data.

Mr. Toomey’s own prescription for the economy includes repealing laws approved by the Democrats, blocking other Democratic goals and, of course, extending the tax cuts. “We need to eliminate all these threats of downside uncertainty,” he said.

He also said that Washington should cut spending, though he offered no specifics.
...
During the question-and-answer session at the Rotary speech, Scott Wanger, the owner of a local waste management company, stood up with a printout of the entire health care law and offered it to Mr. Sestak. “Sir, I don’t need it,” Mr. Sestak shot back. “I’ve read every word.”

But Mr. Wanger, who raises money for Republican candidates, was not done. “You see this?” he said. “This is not good for business.”

In an interview, Mr. Wanger expressed deep anger at the government. “We’re being regulated to death,” he said. But when asked for examples, he offered only I.R.S. Form 2290, which is used to file the “heavy use vehicle tax” — a tax enacted in 1982 — and the I-9 immigration form to prove an employee is legally allowed to work in the United States, which has been required since 1986.

Mr. Wanger said there was no doubt about how he would vote. “I’m supporting Pat Toomey,” he said. “We’re on the Titanic,” Mr. Wanger added. “The Titanic is going down and the music is playing fast.”

"And I should know--I'm basically the iceberg!"

At least he didn't cite the National Endowement for the Arts, like Armey.

dajafi wrote:Our well informed and temperate electorate:

“These guys in Washington are creating an environment that is having a chilling effect on small businesses and medium and big businesses, as well, and that’s a big part of why we don’t have the job growth that we badly need,” Mr. Toomey said in his visit to the ironworks shop.

“They are creating a staggering amount of debt, debt that is eventually going to have much higher interest rates, probably lead to very high inflation,” he continued. “It’s a very worrisome combination, and we have got to get on a new track.”

What that new track would be was harder to explain.

Mr. Toomey says he favors making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for all Americans — which would add $700 billion more to the deficit over 10 years than the plan advocated by President Obama to let the lower rates expire for the rich. But he also expresses a desire to reduce the deficit.

At the ironworks shop, Mr. Toomey brushed aside a question from a local reporter who pointed out that real income for American workers dropped after the Bush tax cuts, saying he did not believe the data.

Mr. Toomey’s own prescription for the economy includes repealing laws approved by the Democrats, blocking other Democratic goals and, of course, extending the tax cuts. “We need to eliminate all these threats of downside uncertainty,” he said.

He also said that Washington should cut spending, though he offered no specifics.
...
During the question-and-answer session at the Rotary speech, Scott Wanger, the owner of a local waste management company, stood up with a printout of the entire health care law and offered it to Mr. Sestak. “Sir, I don’t need it,” Mr. Sestak shot back. “I’ve read every word.”

But Mr. Wanger, who raises money for Republican candidates, was not done. “You see this?” he said. “This is not good for business.”

In an interview, Mr. Wanger expressed deep anger at the government. “We’re being regulated to death,” he said. But when asked for examples, he offered only I.R.S. Form 2290, which is used to file the “heavy use vehicle tax” — a tax enacted in 1982 — and the I-9 immigration form to prove an employee is legally allowed to work in the United States, which has been required since 1986.

Mr. Wanger said there was no doubt about how he would vote. “I’m supporting Pat Toomey,” he said. “We’re on the Titanic,” Mr. Wanger added. “The Titanic is going down and the music is playing fast.”

"And I should know--I'm basically the iceberg!"

Somehow I don't think we're going to get a raft of Republicans speaking out against the I-9.

jerseyhoya wrote:Sharron Angle raised $14 mil this quarter. That's so far beyond insane (much like her) that I don't even know what to say. The wingnuts might have stuck us with a bad nominee, but at least they're footing the bill. Jesus.

I become more and more concerned about the direction of the country with each passing day. I mean, Harry Reid is no great shakes but Sharron Angle is a raving lunatic. I am no fan of Jim DeMint but Alvin Greene? Seriously?

Except the I-9 and many attempts to "enforce" immigration law really do hurt small business. Felony to hire illegals=a lot of contractors doing time.

jerseyhoya wrote:Sharron Angle raised $14 mil this quarter. That's so far beyond insane (much like her) that I don't even know what to say. The wingnuts might have stuck us with a bad nominee, but at least they're footing the bill. Jesus.

Budgets like that attract attention to the machinery behind her. Because you know damn well no one's letting her have much say about how it's spent.

So who's pulling her strings? Armey? Rove? Some cabal of ethanol-fueled,border-patrolling, abstinence-crazed holy rollers?

The one thing I'm pretty sure ofregarding this election is that some normally temperate states--Wisconsin, I'm especially looking in your direction--are about to make some electoral decisions they're going to spend the next four to six years really, really regretting.

Maybe more to the point, the Senate is structured in such a way that any individual can basically shut it down--as DeMint is doing now and Bunning did earlier this year. With scat-throwing nutjobs like Angle in office (and I do think she'll win; at this point, I'd bet on the Republicans getting 51-52 seats, plus Lieberman), this will get much, much worse.

dajafi wrote:The one thing I'm pretty sure ofregarding this election is that some normally temperate states--Wisconsin, I'm especially looking in your direction--are about to make some electoral decisions they're going to spend the next four to six years really, really regretting.

Maybe more to the point, the Senate is structured in such a way that any individual can basically shut it down--as DeMint is doing now and Bunning did earlier this year. With scat-throwing nutjobs like Angle in office (and I do think she'll win; at this point, I'd bet on the Republicans getting 51-52 seats, plus Lieberman), this will get much, much worse.

It's probably my defense mechanism, but I'm fully prepared to take a perveted joy in watching vitally important legislation(i.e. climate change) get defeated again and again because the public's memory is so short regarding the people and the party that really screwed this country in the past decade.

Worldwide Don't Ask, Don't Tell Injunction from Federal District Court in CA

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/12/federal-judge-orders-halt-dont-ask-dont-tell-enforcement/

dajafi wrote:The one thing I'm pretty sure ofregarding this election is that some normally temperate states--Wisconsin, I'm especially looking in your direction--are about to make some electoral decisions they're going to spend the next four to six years really, really regretting.

Maybe more to the point, the Senate is structured in such a way that any individual can basically shut it down--as DeMint is doing now and Bunning did earlier this year. With scat-throwing nutjobs like Angle in office (and I do think she'll win; at this point, I'd bet on the Republicans getting 51-52 seats, plus Lieberman), this will get much, much worse.

That Johnson guy might be too conservative for Wisconsin, but he's not that bad. I mean, not in the same hemisphere as Angle/Paul or in the same universe as O'Donnell.

Semirelated point. Rambling, incoherent thought from me...

The GOP has nominated some utter buffoons this cycle, some of whom appear set to win election to the World's Greatest Deliberative Body. These antiestablishment candidates do pose a serious threat to basically all Senate action based on the dumb rules for how individuals can snarl traffic. To some extent I'm not that worked up by this, but depending on how they go about their business it might be bad. The fact that these candidates appear beyond the reach of establishment control comes from some of the conservative movement losing faith in Bush starting in 06 on spending and immigration stuff (yes he was a big spender before that, and was always for a guest worker program, but it seemed like it started to take a toll at the ballot box starting in 2006). Then TARP and all that stuff happened, and a lot of the conservative base started loving Palin and the constitution and Glenn Beck and all hell broke loose in GOP primaries this year.

So I guess what I'm rambling towards is I think this is going to happen to the Democrats in 2012, not targeting Obama from the left in a primary (although I wouldn't be shocked if someone somewhat famous tried, I can't imagine it would get much traction), but going after sitting senators (Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, maybe Herb Kohl I dunno) from the left but more specifically for being elite, establishment, Republican coddling, corporate so and sos. Lots of anti-Washington stuff, somewhat misplaced anger about what has been a pretty productive Congress for liberals. But I think there's a somewhat legitimate beef about more not getting done when they had full control with the super majority in the Senate, and if there's a somewhat legitimate beef, god knows activists will blow it completely out of proportion. You started to see the same things that the GOP did in 2006 with the Dems this cycle in Lincoln getting primaried by the online left/unions. Way different than Lieberman in 2006...this is Arkansas! for pete's sake. Yeah she sucked, yeah she was probably going to lose anyway, but it reminded me a lot of the Chaffee challenge in RI. It's Rhode Island, who cares if he only votes for you 1/3 of the time, that's a freaking miracle all by itself. Maybe 2012 is more like 2008 for Dems and 2014 is when all hell breaks loose, I dunno, but I think it's happening unless the economy really turns around and things are very good again for the national Dem Party.

So anyway, think Alan Grayson taking on Bill Nelson and getting Dailykos behind him. And things like that. And then maybe depending on how Obama's reelect is going, there can be Demtards in the Senate battling with the Angle's of the world to make sure nothing really gets done.

I think all this might lead to some changes in the Senate's rules. Filibuster has been challenged before, and was almost killed (by the right) during Bush's Presidency over judicial nominees. The same right that is now leveraging the filibuster excoriated the moderates in the "gang of 14" over the compromise that kept the filibuster alive. In fact, I see this most likely happening if the Republicans do take the Senate--the wingnuts will get all pissed off about Dems filibustering their stuff (forget the fact that Obama will veto it anyway) and they'll challenge it.

OK, I haven't thought this all the way through, but I think the filibuster as we know it is on borrowed time.

You can tell how well I've thought this through by how well structured my post above yours is. You might be onto something. Maybe I should write a paper about this.

kristi noem is hot

weird hair but yea

The Paralysis of the State

Brooks throws a partisan hand grenade of sorts. Almost.

Love him throwing a solid right hook back at pacino though.

TenuredVulture wrote:Except the I-9 and many attempts to "enforce" immigration law really do hurt small business. Felony to hire illegals=a lot of contractors doing time.

If this is in response to me, I think you understand my point, though. If you're a Republican you can blast the I-9, I guess, as an example of the paperwork burden dumped on the small business owner by government-although in truth it takes far less than a minute for the employer to fill out.But you can't really blast it's purpose-those speeches are saved for making it clear that "illegal" only applies to the immigrant, not to those who take advantage of them, in both senses of the word.

There's a part of me that would love to see the very simple procedure of the I-9 universally used and enforced for a period of time. True, it would be total chaos, but it might actually force the issue to be seen as it is rather allowing both sides to pick out whatever bits and pieces they want to highlight for their constituents.

jerseyhoya wrote:So anyway, think Alan Grayson taking on Bill Nelson and getting Dailykos behind him. And things like that. And then maybe depending on how Obama's reelect is going, there can be Demtards in the Senate battling with the Angle's of the world to make sure nothing really gets done.

You're basically describing the California legislature. Which should terrify anyone interested in non-paralyzed, sane government.

Oh indeed:

Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.

Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.

It is safe to say that Issa’s threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense is not terribly high. As it happens, should Republicans win control of the House, Issa would bring his hair-trigger finger to the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Sestak pseudo-scandal disappeared because there was no process to drive the story forward. Had Issa been running the Oversight Committee, it would have been the subject of hearings and subpoenas.

And it is not as if Issa’s interest in the Sestak case springs from some idiosyncratic obsession with the generally common practice of using executive-branch jobs to lure candidates out of the Senate. His taste in Obama-related scandal is catholic. In addition to the Sestak allegations, Issa has called for the investigation or disclosure of matters weighty and not-so-weighty, including the so-called Climategate e-mail controversy, congressional recipients of friendly loans from Countrywide, the methodology behind the government’s statistics on jobs “created or saved,” the Treasury’s prior knowledge of the AIG bonuses, the leaking of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud suit against Goldman Sachs, the District of Columbia school vouchers program, all taxpayer-funded White House trips on behalf of Democratic candidates, the administration’s response to the BP oil spill and its drilling moratorium, National Labor Relations Board nominee Craig Becker’s possible conflict of interest, the “executive branch’s approach to food safety,” potential collusion between General Motors and the Treasury, and the firing of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, plus many, many others.
...
The Clinton impeachment does not offer a useful guide to the Obama presidency if you think of it solely as a punishment for Clinton’s crime. But it’s more accurate to think about the Clinton impeachment as political warfare by other means against a president conservatives deemed illegitimate.

Completely agree. They're about to elect a bunch of people there to win a political argument rather than actually try to solve problems; to the extent they do try to do anything, Obama very likely will veto. That frustration at "thwarting the will of the people's elected representatives" (I know, I know) will overcome any hesitation.

I think this might happen sooner than later, as they'll also conclude that facing an impeachment--which the press will have to take seriously and spend time talking about--will impair Obama's re-election efforts.

dajafi wrote: They're about to elect a bunch of people there to win a political argument rather than actually try to solve problems; to the extent they do try to do anything, Obama very likely will veto. That frustration at "thwarting the will of the people's elected representatives" (I know, I know) will overcome any hesitation.

I think this might happen sooner than later, as they'll also conclude that facing an impeachment--which the press will have to take seriously and spend time talking about--will impair Obama's re-election efforts.

I would think any such shenanigans would cause "true" teabaggers, if they have any fuel left, to burst into flames.

Impeaching a President worked out really well for the Republicans last time they tried it.