All posts tagged politics.

squashed:

“A Republican win would cost Democrats the 60-vote majority they need to pass reform.”

—

Politico

No, Politico. Stop being bad at math. A Republican win would cost the Democrats the 60-vote supermajority needed for a cloture vote. The Democrats will still have a majority of the 100 senators.

To summarize: Scott Brown is bad for healthcare as Politico is bad at math.

Well Scott Brown isn’t that far off. The way the Senate currently is you legitimately do need 60 votes to get anything done. Filibuster has never in history been used to such an extent. There was an interesting article about the constitutionality of filibustering in its current state.

david:

DEMOCRATIC SUPER MAJORITY.  And Jon Stewart calls Chuck Schumer a “fucking idiot”.

The ineptitude of the Democrats is almost inconceivable. Obama needs to come in there with a big fucking stick and tell them how shit’s goin down in no quiet terms.

sds:

It seem there are three questions to answer, two are philosophical and one pragmatic.

1. Does the government have a moral obligation to provide healthcare and/or insurance to all Americans (or ensure that all have care and coverage)?

2. Does the Constitution allow for the federal government to provide healchare and/or insurance to all Americans (or ensure that all have care and coverage)?

3. Assuming #1 and #2 and true, would it even work?

I do not have solid answers to any of these questions, but I lean toward “no” for all three.

I most definitely believe it is the government’s responsibility to keep their citizens healthy. That includes making sure that the health care can be afforded. How often would you hear about bankruptcy from medical expenses 50 or more years ago. Our system is blatantly broken.

I’m not convinced that a single payer system is the best way for the government to ensure the health of its people but the government has to be involved. It’s clear to me though that regulation is required.

I will agree that some of the current problems with health care is due to government intervention. But given the nature of health issues a free-market will not create a reasonable solution. There is no economic incentive for any insurance company to provide insurance to someone with a chronic condition. People don’t plan for that huge surgery they don’t see coming and the insurance companies will screw them on coverage.

As to whether this is constitutional or not it is. There’s argument as to whether the Constitution would mandate it, and most would probably agree that there is no mandate in the wording of the constitution. That’s the beauty of the Constitution though, it’s a living document. What’s true in it today isn’t tomorrow.

Question #3 is the one I’m in most agreement with you on. The Congress has given no indication of competency and I’m not one to expect it right now. Current incompetency is no reason to say that it can’t work with quality writing.

soupsoup:

inothernews:

Things we never thought we’d see: Karl Rove, Obamafied.

When is this happening??

Charlie Rose is the name that catches my eye here.

squashed:

Could we put Cheney back in his undisclosed location so we don’t have to hear about this sort of thing? Cheney managed to persuade a lot of people that there was an imminent danger to the country through use of extensive gravitas. A lot of bad things happened because of this.

Not anymore. If there’s a serious enough threat that we need to torture people or incarcerate people without charges or representation, bring the evidence. Or is it that Cheney needs to believe that there was and is an imminent threat to the country that could only be prevented by his extreme actions in order to sleep at night?

Conservatives need to decide whether Obama is largely continuing the Bush security policies or putting the country at risk. They can’t have both.

Lessig explaining exactly why the Congress is seemingly incapable of addressing the biggest issues of our days. This has a lot to do with the fact that the reelection rate is currently at 95% despite the fact that their approval is at a dismal 9%.

paultough:

“Gloria Steinem said in an interview, ‘Secretary of state is far superior to vice president, because it’s involved in continuously solving problems and making policy and not being on standby.’

“Liz Kuoppala, a City Council member in Eveleth, Minn., said, ‘As a senator, you’re just 1 of 100, and she’s had to play quiet and polite.’

“’I think this will allow her to blossom,’ Ms. Kuoppala added. ‘It’s good for women everywhere.’”

At this point a female secretary of state is not a big deal at all. We’ve had one for at least 8 of the last 12 years.

(via soupsoup & aja)

I think the “that’s not true John” comments really helped Obama. I agree that Obama fumbled parts of the earmark system, he should have brought up his ethics bill right away. Oddly I thought McCain did a little better on the economy then on foreign policy, although Obama did get backed into a nasty corner when talking about meeting with hostile leaders. On this subject I think they were both, basically, arguing the same point.

On a lot of the other FP issues Obama really hammered McCain and I think that’s where he got his victory. I thought both were very weak on the economic questions, as Begala said: you would have no idea that we’re in the middle of a crisis. they’re saying the same things they would have said two months ago.

I am a bit surprised by the lopsided numbers coming out of the debate but I do agree with most analysts that nobody knocked this one out of the park in a general sense. The thing about debates is that one subject generally is enough to make someone believe that person won the whole thing.