hmm

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:You do realize I was being facetious about the Logan act?

I dunno. I thought you might be serious. The top five results on Google for boehner netanyahu logan act are "Is Boehner's Netanyahu Invite Unconstitutional?" "Israeli Official: Boehner And Netanyahu Conspired 'To Defy and Humiliate President Obama'" "Time To Prosecute House Speaker John Boehner For Violating Federal Law" "Is John Boehner a Traitor?" and "Did John Boehner Violate the Law by Inviting Netanyahu to Address Congress?"

It had not occurred to me that the Speaker of the House might be breaking a law inviting an ally to speak before Congress because the idea is ludicrous on its face. So after reading the post I googled it to see if it was a thing being discussed on the Internet, and it seemed to be.

Didn't know tcc was now considered liberal. Guess it shows how far right the discussion has gone.

Anyway, please plug in the reaction had Nancy Pelosi done this move in a flipped roles universe.

TCC has always struck me as a guy with eclectic political views, not necessarily centrist ones though he's not really a party guy. Thought his opinion might be out there on this. It wasn't like the post was dripping with sarcasm. He seemed peeved by the invite occurring.

Also Nancy Pelosi went to #$!&@ Syria as Speaker of the House to meet with noted lover of freedom, Bashar al-Assad, against the Bush Administration's wishes. Boehner is inviting a longstanding American ally to speak before Congress. If you want to get a sense of the reaction if the roles were flipped, take what was said back in 2007 and divide it by some appropriate number since what Boehner's doing isn't nearly as offensive.

Multiple Republicans, including Darrell Issa, made a trip to Syria at the exact same time to promote peace to Assad and Syria. All of them (Pelosi even!) conveyed that he shouldn't back Hezbollah and Hamas. Congresspeople MAKE delegation trips all the time; they generally don't invite other nation's leaders to our legislative body without first getting a nod from the White House. That you don't see the difference between a congressperson (granted a high profile one) making a trip, and inviting a foreign leader at the end of an intense political race is your thing. It doesn't make them the same.

We could go back and forth on this if you want, but THIS doesn't usually happen. There's no reason for it. We should stay out of their election.

Get all your Democratic personal and political potshots in one post!

First, we must discuss our vice president, who was at it again yesterday. He started the day doing his overly familiar thing with women in public again. He has the right views on abortion, so he's not waging a war on women, but he sure is handsy.



Then later in the day at an event on countering violent extremism, Biden noted he has a great relationship with Somali-Americans because so many of them are cab drivers in Wilmington. "I might add if you come to the train station with me you'll notice I have great relationships with them because there's an awful lot driving cabs and are friends of mine. For real. I'm not being solicitous. I'm being serious." Because he's Joe Biden.

Finally we arrive at the more substantial story of the morning. The Wall Street Journal noticed (or was leaked!) that some foreign countries have been giving big chunks of change to the Clinton Foundation - Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise (link to Google click through around WSJ subscription barrier)

The Foundation had stopped taking money from foreign countries while Hillary was Secretary of State, but 2014 donors included Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman, and the Canadian agency promoting Keystone. Foreign entities are not allowed to donate to political campaigns, but they sure seem keen on finding access to a candidate somehow.

Stuff like this is going to dribble out in drips and drabs, and none of it is likely to be disqualifying on its own, but eventually she's going to have to answer questions about all sorts of different things. The longer she puts off running and hides from all sorts of press might add to her difficulties down the line. Also it might be helpful rather than harmful for Hillary for an actual challenger to emerge so some of this stuff gets litigated in the primary and can be called old news in the general. Matt Yglesias, who might have the highest range between points I find really worthwhile and completely inane, makes related arguments in a nice piece from Vox this morning - Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party

jerseyhoya wrote:Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party

not that Hilary running unopposed is a great thing for democracy and frankly I've found the Clintons' propensity for fierce political manuevering rather distasteful, but this part struck me as odd

Anything less leaves her dangerously unprepared as she heads into the ultimate contest with a Republican who will have emerged battle-tested from an unusually deep field of plausible contenders.

uh, really? of all of the presidential candidates currently involved on the GOP side, she is by far the most experienced when it comes to being in not only the national spotlight but also heavy involvement in many political campaigns including her own run in 2008, her senate run and her husband's runs (of which she had more involvement than any first lady before her)

Not just that, but the fact is that sometimes candidates emerge as their party's heir apparent and win (GWB) and sometimes candidates emerge from a deep competitive field and win (Jimmy Carter) and other times the opposite happens.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Hillary Clinton's uncontested nomination is dangerous for her and her party

not that Hilary running unopposed is a great thing for democracy and frankly I've found the Clintons' propensity for fierce political manuevering rather distasteful, but this part struck me as odd

Anything less leaves her dangerously unprepared as she heads into the ultimate contest with a Republican who will have emerged battle-tested from an unusually deep field of plausible contenders.

uh, really? of all of the presidential candidates currently involved on the GOP side, she is by far the most experienced when it comes to being in not only the national spotlight but also heavy involvement in many political campaigns including her own run in 2008, her senate run and her husband's runs (of which she had more involvement than any first lady before her)

In some ways she has more relevant campaign experience than the likely GOP candidates, but in a lot of ways she will be the least experienced candidate in the race. Running in the current media environment (Twitter was not a factor in 2008) will be something she has never done. Her book tour should have been a layup, and it devolved into self inflicted controversy amplified by how the news works today. The GOP nominee and his staff will have worked through rapid response and tested lines in a high stakes environment as she goes through a year long coronation. Her campaign staff is an unwieldy alliance of Democratic Party all stars with varying allegiances (with infighting and fraying already evident before even a tiny bit of adversity has emerged). If the campaign doesn't have to work through a difficult patch in the primary, its first experience with conflict in the general will be interesting. It will also be the first time she has had to appeal to any electorate in eight years, and if she wins the general election, it'll be the first contested thing she'd won in 16 years. She is not a natural politician like her husband. Getting some realistic reps in the current issue environment in the current media environment with her team for 2016 seems important. Finally, if there are any major skeletons in the closet, the Democratic Party would much prefer that to occur during the primary than the general. And I know she's one of the more vetted public figures, but there's always the potential for a bombshell.

Some of these problems (new media environment, hasn't faced electorate in long time) will be things Jeb has to confront in the GOP primaries, and it's why I've said I'm less bullish on his chances than some others. But at least he'll have conquered those hurdles if he does win the nomination.

point taken but really if there's any possible candidate that could run and get away with no primary, it's her

plus aren't there also pros that are being overlooked?


1) most of the money she raises can be reserved for the general election and the pressure to keep the campaign money machine flowing isn't there for a huge stretch

2) the amount of media "fatigue" held by the populace won't be nearly as great

3) she won't have to pander to the left to win a primary and then have to run back to the middle to win the general as most candidates have to do

4) instead of traveling to fit strategy designed to win primaries and the nomination she can travel to the purple states and really work on local grass roots in those places

Soren wrote:

probably my favorite

td11 wrote:

Soren wrote:

probably my favorite

two readable patches: TROLL and ORDAINED MINISTER.

Soren wrote:

no Leslie Knope?

he's the fucking best

Pelosi is leading a delegation to Cuba. I can taste Ted Cruz's tears.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:point taken but really if there's any possible candidate that could run and get away with no primary, it's her

plus aren't there also pros that are being overlooked?


1) most of the money she raises can be reserved for the general election and the pressure to keep the campaign money machine flowing isn't there for a huge stretch

2) the amount of media "fatigue" held by the populace won't be nearly as great

3) she won't have to pander to the left to win a primary and then have to run back to the middle to win the general as most candidates have to do

4) instead of traveling to fit strategy designed to win primaries and the nomination she can travel to the purple states and really work on local grass roots in those places

The money is the biggest plus, though Hillary will have enough money no matter what, and it is something with diminishing marginal returns. I'm not sure media fatigue is a thing that hurts candidates. She's going to have to pander to the left quite a bit anyway, I think, to maintain enthusiasm among segments of the Obama coalition (especially young people and African Americans) who are less inclined to be enthusiastic about her than him. She will avoid debates and other unscripted venues for some time where that pandering is more likely to lead to inartful phrasing if there's no real primary, so that could help, but it might just postpone the fuckup. And I guess she can focus more on building infrastructure in Ohio and PA and whatnot earlier, but four of the five earliest primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida) are general election targets (South Carolina is not).

Primaries aren't a risk free proposition, and it might be better for Hillary's chances of becoming president if she doesn't have a real primary. But I don't think the free pass helps the party's chances of retaining the White House. (Which is fine with me.)

A law school classmate was at a White House summit chaired by Biden earlier this week. I was really hoping he'd get a good selfie with Biden closetalking into his ear, but no dice. (My friend is an Egyptian Muslim, so the memes could've been amazing.)

Christie is down to a 37% approval. Pretty crazy, at this rate he may leave office as one of the most unpopular governors ever.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Christie is down to a 37% approval. Pretty crazy, at this rate he may leave office as one of the most unpopular governors ever.

The shitshow in AC has/will bury him. Unemployment in Atlantic County is over 11% and Cape May County is almost 13%. AC itself is almost 18%. It's a disaster here.

momadance wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Christie is down to a 37% approval. Pretty crazy, at this rate he may leave office as one of the most unpopular governors ever.

The shitshow in AC has/will bury him. Unemployment in Atlantic County is over 11% and Cape May County is almost 13%. AC itself is almost 18%. It's a disaster here.

A lot of people don't realize how desperately poor many beach communities are.

Christie really should have pulled a Romney and left after one term.

All of his "successes" were smoke and mirrors and bullshit accounting tricks on estimated investment returns.