CalvinBall wrote:you all probably want to check out the obama/stewart interview. it has been pretty good so far.

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with interest groups filling the role that parties used to fill is that interest groups bias the system towards interests that have resources, especially money. Interest group politics are inherently anti-democratic, and work against the public interest. Parties, by contrast, give interests that have nothing but numbers at least a fighting chance of being considered in policy debate.

Strengthen parties means just that--for instance, parties will have resources to run campaigns and individual candidates will not have the ability to go to interest groups to run independently of the party.

There is some hope, though Citizens United has diminished it, that real grass roots fund raising via the internet pioneered by Howard Dean and used effectively by Obama may reinvigorate democratic campaigns.

My position isn't so much that parties are good, but parties are far less an evil than interest groups.

jerseyhoya wrote:What a weird column from EJ Dionne on the Sestak Toomey race

His list of six races* where the GOP nominating a conservative candidate hasn't been helpful (Colorado, Wisconsin, Alaska, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Nevada) is true enough in some of the cases, but we're still favored to win all six races. Do you really want to plant your "conservatives will have trouble claiming this election as an ideological mandate" flag on this set of races? And two of them in particular, Alaska and Wisconsin, are dumb to bring up because they don't appear to fit his point at all. In Alaska, it looks like the two potential winners are Miller or, less likely, Murkowski. Not like that's costing the GOP a seat either way. As for Johnson, no one had Feingold at the top of the most endangered list at the start of the election cycle, nor is Wisconsin a great GOP state. He must not suck too badly as a candidate, EJ.

*Non Christine O'Donnell division

kruker wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:you all probably want to check out the obama/stewart interview. it has been pretty good so far.

President sounded awful. Really, terrible. At one point saying he got "90%" of what he wanted in the healthcare bill. Then, what I think I found most frustrating, was blaming the system for his results in 2 years. Wow.

And from watching that interview you can cite all the major problems facing the Democratic Party.

SK790 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with interest groups filling the role that parties used to fill is that interest groups bias the system towards interests that have resources, especially money. Interest group politics are inherently anti-democratic, and work against the public interest. Parties, by contrast, give interests that have nothing but numbers at least a fighting chance of being considered in policy debate.

Strengthen parties means just that--for instance, parties will have resources to run campaigns and individual candidates will not have the ability to go to interest groups to run independently of the party.

There is some hope, though Citizens United has diminished it, that real grass roots fund raising via the internet pioneered by Howard Dean and used effectively by Obama may reinvigorate democratic campaigns.

My position isn't so much that parties are good, but parties are far less an evil than interest groups.

I fail to see how having more than 2 parties would give interest groups more power, I guess.

CalvinBall wrote:

kruker wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:you all probably want to check out the obama/stewart interview. it has been pretty good so far.

President sounded awful. Really, terrible. At one point saying he got "90%" of what he wanted in the healthcare bill. Then, what I think I found most frustrating, was blaming the system for his results in 2 years. Wow.

And from watching that interview you can cite all the major problems facing the Democratic Party.

I disagree. I don't think he was blaming anything. He explained why filibusterering sucks. I really dont see anything wrong with what in said in regards to that especially because it is the truth.

Obama: — our basic attitude was, We've gotta get some things done, in some cases quickly, that are — in order to do that, basically worked with the process as opposed to transformed the process — and there's no doubt that that frustrated folks. It frustrates me. Look: I would love not to have a 60-vote requirement — which is not in the Constitution, but is in the Senate rules right now — that apply to everything we do, so I can't get a Deputy Secretary of Treasury in the middle of a financial crisis because somebody's holding it up and is filibustering the appointment. So there are all kinds of things that happened during the course of these two years in terms of process that I'd like to see changed. Keep in mind that those areas where we had control over process, we actually made changes, so, you know, we've got a whole bunch of rules about lobbyists interacting with the White House that are very different from any White House before. If somebody wants to come to visit the White House now, that list is given out to everybody. That's a change, but

Stewart: Welcome back to the show President Barack Obama. [audience cheers and applause] You expressed some frustration with those on the Left who are still feeling dissatisfied. Do you think in any way the expectation was something that maybe even you and your campaign created? Were people being naïve, in the sense of — I remember very clearly you said, "We can't expect different results with the same people."

Obama: Right.

Stewart: And I remember when you hired Larry Summers [laughter] — I remember thinking, "Well, that seems like the exact same person," and why would you — so, in some respects, I get your frustration with this idea that, "Well, geez, are you never satisfied?" but again, the expectation, I think, was Audacity, going in there and really rooting out a corrupt system. And so the sense is, has reality of what hit you in the face when you first stepped in, caused you to back down from some of the more visionary — like bringing in a guy like Larry Summers, like —

Obama: First of all, if you look at how we have handled this financial crisis —

Stewart: Right.

Obama: — if you had told me two years ago that we're gonna be able to stabilize the system, stabilize the stock market, stabilize the economy, and by the way at the end of this thing it'll cost less than 1% of GDP where the S&L crisis cost us 2½% of our entire economy for a much smaller crisis, I'd say, "We'll take that," because we saved taxpayers a whole lot of money. And, in fairness, Larry Summers did a heckuva job trying to figure out how to —

Stewart: You don't want to use that phrase, dude. [laughs]

Obama:.......You know, there are folks, I'm sure, who don't think that we've achieved the ideal. And so, I guess, on all these issues, my attitude is, if we're makin' progress, step by step, inch by inch, day by day, that we are being true to the spirit of that campaign —

Stewart: You wouldn't say you'd run this time as a pragmatist — it wouldn't be, "Yes, we can — given certain conditions..."?

Obama: No, I think what I would say is, "Yes, we can, but — [audience laughs] — it is not gonna happen overnight."

kruker wrote:

Barry wrote:And, in fairness, Larry Summers did a heckuva job trying to figure out how to —

Stewart: You don't want to use that phrase, dude. [laughs]

good one

Obama:.......You know, there are folks, I'm sure, who don't think that we've achieved the ideal. And so, I guess, on all these issues, my attitude is, if we're makin' progress, step by step, inch by inch, day by day, that we are being true to the spirit of that campaign —

Stewart: You wouldn't say you'd run this time as a pragmatist — it wouldn't be, "Yes, we can — given certain conditions..."?

Obama: No, I think what I would say is, "Yes, we can, but — [audience laughs] — it is not gonna happen overnight."

...[H]e, specifically, comes across as petulant when explaining his shortcomings.

pet·u·lant   [pech-uh-luhnt] –adjective
moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, esp. over some trifling annoyance

this guy wrote:When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.

Grotewold wrote:

this guy wrote:When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.

harsh

Fusilli Jerry wrote:I started reading this thread from the bottom up

Fusilli Jerry wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

this guy wrote:When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.

harsh

I started reading this thread from the bottom up, saw this post, and totally thought I was in the Pat Burrell thread.

lethal wrote:Some guy in Philly had a 1 night stand with Christine O'Donnell 3 years ago (but didn't have sex with her).

Grotewold wrote:

this guy wrote:When her underwear came off, I immediately noticed that the waxing trend had completely passed her by. Obviously, that was a big turnoff, and I quickly lost interest.

harsh