Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 18:00:09

lethal wrote:How many Hillary Rosens are there?

The White House visiting records are searchable by first and last name. Hilary Rosen with one l brings you 36 results. The information is all public and easily searchable. I'm not sure what Carney thought he was gaining with that answer.

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 18:11:57

Smart of Romney to use his wife as a human shield when it comes to women's issues. It will cause situations just like this. It's hard to attack Ann Romney about not supporting women's issues because she's a woman.

Once again, he shows no courage. Why can't he defend his views on women's health and employment by himself? Instead, he defers to her and then sends her out to field the heat that he knows will be toned down because she's a woman and, like I said, it's hard to attack a woman about not caring about women's issues.

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 18:47:06

Bucky wrote:Hey Northeast peeps: My Phantasy Camp buddy is running for the state house.

VOTE FOR Ed Neilson !!!

BUMP KEEP WITH IT NOR'EASTERS YOU MAY SEE HIM AT THE ACAME

by **lethal** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 18:53:20

jerseyhoya wrote:
lethal wrote:How many Hillary Rosens are there?

The White House visiting records are searchable by first and last name. Hilary Rosen with one l brings you 36 results. The information is all public and easily searchable. I'm not sure what Carney thought he was gaining with that answer.

Thanks for the link to the DB, I never knew about it before.

I was only pulling your chain regarding your 33 Hilary Rosens in the U.S. comment and saying it was an "incredibly uncommon name" without also considering homophones (especially the more common spelling of the first name).

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 19:30:41

North Korean missile launch fails, entire nation's population sent to bed without supper

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 23:19:04

dajafi wrote:While the comment was pretty freakin' dumb, I have trouble believing that Ann Romney is very easy to identify with. maybe more to the point, I doubt that the sort of people--less educated working moms--who might accept wholesale the Republican take here, to the point where it might move their votes, are paying that-close attention right now anyway.

I agree this won't move votes and normal people aren't paying attention to it.

But I think you're off on the Ann Romney bit. She's really good as a speaker and as a surrogate, comes across as pretty genuine, and the surviving breast cancer/living with MS stuff goes a long way in making her seem like a regular person who has dealt with hard shit, not just some rich lady.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 00:06:27

Booker taken to hospital after helping to rescue a woman from a fire

I think he'd be a better governor even though everyone seems to think he'd prefer the Senate. I don't think he'd run against Christie, but if he did, that would be one hell of a campaign. A rarity for the state, two more high quality candidates than we're used to getting to choose between. I hope he runs in 2017 though. Although him going to the Senate would be interesting too.

Booker trying to beat some of the asshat Dems from the congressional delegation in a Senate primary would be a hell of a thing. Doubt he'd get much (any?) organizational support, but he might be the favorite anyway, especially if Lautenberg retires. And him with a 1 on 1 shot against Lautenberg would be an *amazing* race. Reminds me of this lunch I went to a few weeks ago at the NJ Political Science Association where Fmr. Gov. Brendan Byrne was the honored guest and he randomly asked "Is he really gonna run for reelection?" about Lautenberg. As if a bunch of college professors would have a better idea than Byrne himself. (may have mentioned that before but a quick search doesn't turn it up)

Cory Booker ‏ @CoryBooker
Thanks everyone, my injuries were relatively minor. Thanks to Det. Alex Rodriguez who helped get all of the people out of the house.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 00:24:00

The Umbrage Wars

I like the 2x2 here of Frivolous/Serious - Unimportant/Noteworthy

by **lethal** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 00:37:33

I was thinking about Booker's chances at the Supreme Court, but he has no real legal experience and isn't a legal scholar or anything. He's really more of a hands on kind of guy. Thinking of cabinet posts, he wouldn't be good for State or Justice or Treasury or Defense and I don't think he's want to take a lower cabinet position since his political career seems to be still rising.

So yeah, Governor or Senate. I think he could win the statehouse if he won the Dem primary and he has a lot better name recognition than anyone else in Jersey who could run against him aside from maybe Codey.

Going back to the Supreme Court, I wonder if Obama himself would be confirmed by the Senate in this era of hyper-partisanship. I doubt he'd even want a job that wasn't Chief Justice anyway, but hypothetically speaking if in 6 years Roberts suddenly left the court and a Democrat won in 2016 (I don't even know, Warner? Cuomo? Hillary?) and nominated Obama to be chief, could he get 60 votes in the Senate (assume around a 50/50 seat split), jh?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 00:51:17

Booker's problem is going to be winning the Dem primary in the statewide races. He will have trouble winning a majority in a statewide race because he won't have support from county organizations for the most part, but he could probably get to 40% easily enough so if the field is split he could be OK.

As for Obama, I don't think he could get confirmed to the Supreme Court. Honestly this flap over the SC overturning an act of Congress being unprecedented would be a pretty sizable nail in his coffin.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 07:30:19

jerseyhoya wrote:As for Obama, I don't think he could get confirmed to the Supreme Court. Honestly this flap over the SC overturning an act of Congress being unprecedented would be a pretty sizable nail in his coffin.

you've gotta shut off the hype machine. Anyone who actually paid attention to his remarks knows he never said or intended to imply the court's overturning "an" act of congress would be unprecedented. He was explicit, he addressed a specific class of cases, his opposition's commentary has been typically braindead.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 08:01:12

Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step.

He's not explicit about the class of cases and in his initial remarks seemed to imply overturning would be unprecedented and extraordinary in part due to reasons that have fuck all to do with how or why the court decides to uphold or overturn cases.

Statements like that, his attack on Citizens United in the SotU, and Obama himself voting against Roberts and Alito would give Republicans plenty of cover in voting down an Obama nomination to the court.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 08:04:51

jerseyhoya wrote:
Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step.

He's not explicit about the class of cases and in his initial remarks seemed to imply overturning would be unprecedented and extraordinary in part due to reasons that have fuck all to do with how or why the court decides to uphold or overturn cases.

Statements like that, his attack on Citizens United in the SotU, and Obama himself voting against Roberts and Alito would give Republicans plenty of cover in voting down an Obama nomination to the court.

What you've quoted is an excerpt from his remarks. You realize that, right?

by **GrizzledVeteran** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 08:54:21

drsmooth wrote:North Korean missile launch fails, entire nation's population sent to bed without supper

KimJongNumberUn on Twitter wrote:I'll try again in the morning.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 09:51:38

I wonder if the rescue doesn't go a long way to upending a pretty well despised Democratic machine in Jersey. I mean, other than themselves, who have they really helped? Jersey probably doesn't remember Brett Schundler, but that guy was a Republican who managed to become mayor of Jersey City of all places--because he wasn't a criminal. Later on, people found out he had some wacky political ideas, and he was trounced by McGreevey. The point is, under the right circumstances, an outsider can do reasonably well.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:14:20

I have absolutely no idea what you are saying with that post TV.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:14:44

jerseyhoya wrote:
Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this -- this court will recognize that and not take that step.

He's not explicit about the class of cases and in his initial remarks seemed to imply overturning would be unprecedented and extraordinary in part due to reasons that have fuck all to do with how or why the court decides to uphold or overturn cases.

Statements like that, his attack on Citizens United in the SotU, and Obama himself voting against Roberts and Alito would give Republicans plenty of cover in voting down an Obama nomination to the court.

I posted his full comments in the health care thread the day he made them. If you would like to highlight the words that show him being explicit and addressing a specific class of cases, I'd be impressed.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:58:10

In his press conference remarks, Obama referenced appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the case, which naturally engaged the commerce clause issues on which the matter turns. Obama did not specifically mention the Commerce clause in his "controversial" joint press conference remarks.

It could be that he anticipated people paying attention to the case already understood the con law context of his remarks. I know most people who follow health care made that very small jump. Sorry you and fox news and gloria borger did not.

What flabbergasts me is the gullibility - no, the willful philistinism - of people who insist this guy, who while human and flawed is incontrovertibly smart and specifically well-schooled in the field, would somehow not be aware of the supreme court's capacity to overturn legislation. This isn't Gerry Ford we're talking about.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:22:28

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I have absolutely no idea what you are saying with that post TV.

The NJ Dem machine is unpopular and ineffective. The only thing that keeps it going is patronage and the lack of a credible alternative. They aren't going to have Corzine's money anymore Booker's problem at taking on the Dem establishment, I suspect, was going to be the fact that he is an "urban" politician in a suburban state. But the hero angle may overcome a lot of that.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:23:42

drsmooth wrote:In his press conference remarks, Obama referenced appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the case, which naturally engaged the commerce clause issues on which the matter turns. Obama did not specifically mention the Commerce clause in his "controversial" joint press conference remarks.

It could be that he anticipated people paying attention to the case already understood the con law context of his remarks. I know most people who follow health care made that very small jump. Sorry you and fox news and gloria borger did not.

What flabbergasts me is the gullibility - no, the willful philistinism - of people who insist this guy, who while human and flawed is incontrovertibly smart and specifically well-schooled in the field, would somehow not be aware of the supreme court's capacity to overturn legislation. This isn't Gerry Ford we're talking about.

The point isn't that Obama is unaware of the concept of judicial review. He is disingenuously overselling the "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" nature of the court overturning part or all of a law passed by Congress to set the stage for running against the court. Because there's an awful lot of gullibility among the voting public, and Obama is trying to take advantage of it by misrepresenting the court's role in the governing process. If he wants to try and rev up his base and deflect blame from his biggest domestic policy achievement being questioned, framing it as the court doing extraordinary and unprecedented things in overturning laws passed by Congress with large majorities works a lot better than "we disagree with the court's constitutional interpretation, but hey they're just doing their job."

Archived

Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread

Re: Is It November Yet? Politics Thread