That does it. I'm voting straight Tea Party from now on. I'm tired of dragging out the inevitable, let's just get it over with and burn it all down already.
That does it. I'm voting straight Tea Party from now on. I'm tired of dragging out the inevitable, let's just get it over with and burn it all down already.
"We didn't start the fire -- it was always burning since the world's been turning..."
“We have a number of competing issues there,” Reid told reporters after Senate Democrats’ weekly caucus lunch. “One wants to extend them forever. One wants to extend them for three years. One wants to extend them until December. And now there’s efforts being made to extend them for a shorter period of time.”
I like how not one of his competing issues is not extending the patriot act.
Here are your no votes:
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-NM)
Well, this was IIRC one of Tester's main campaign issues back in the day, good to see he stood by it. Maria Cantwell and I are going to have to have a long talk, though.
I called Cantwell's office. I feel bad for the poor intern answering the phone, he probably is having a bad day, but I let them know that this vote was super lame. I specifically was like "Patty voted the right way, what's wrong with Cantwell?" So on their tally of "how are people responding to this?", there's at least one more "Patriot Act sucks". I also called Patty's office and just quickly said thank you. I figure it's something. Maria should really be better than this.
What the hell is IN the Patriot Act these days anyway?
I remember there being alot of actual good stuff along with the complete bullshit and I'd always heard it had been modified slightly back during the first re-approval like 4 years back or whenever.
Was there any good stuff? There was some harmless but annoying stuff, some time-consuming and money-wasting stuff (mostly having to do with banks; I had to help implement some of that crap), and then there was the sinister warrantless wiretap stuff and the ability to do an end-run around the rubberstamp FISA courts. It was Ashcroft's pre-9/11 security wish-list rammed down the throat of a surprised (but enthusiastic) Congress.
Most of the 'good stuff' that revolved around banging the intelligence community's collective heads together was passed over Bush's objections a few years later after the commission's report, I believe. Even if it turned out to be a bueraucratic kludge.
Perhaps I'm bad at this, but what exactly does the Republicans in Congress want to do other than burn Washington to the ground (except for the Pentagon), unseat Obama, and express their scathing contempt for anyone that makes less than $1 million/year?
Seriously, what is the Republican end-game? Have all non-Christians executed, then institute a neo-feudal system of merchants (the new nobility) and peasants where only the former can afford anything other than food/rent?
I don't like to be hyperbolic, but I really can't see any shared Republican objectives other than these.
Perhaps I'm bad at this, but what exactly does the Republicans in Congress want to do other than burn Washington to the ground (except for the Pentagon), unseat Obama, and express their scathing contempt for anyone that makes less than $1 million/year?
Seriously, what is the Republican end-game? Have all non-Christians executed, then institute a neo-feudal system of merchants (the new nobility) and peasants where only the former can afford anything other than food/rent?
I don't like to be hyperbolic, but I really can't see any shared Republican objectives other than these.
Really it's just raging and scapegoating. There can be no end-game when you need to perpetually demonize something to maintain your own group's cohesion.
"Now he's so angry, moments of levity actually cause him pain."
From the Economy thread, it's The Economists's take on Obama's budget thingy:
EZRA KLEIN describes the game President Obama seems to be playing these days:
The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion...
But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later.
The Obama administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushed—investment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line.
On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out.
But I doubt this is a stable equilibrium. The GOP's reflexive anti-Obama streak is motivated, one presumes, by a desire to win elections. One supposes that they feel they must deny him legislative victories in order to be successful at the ballot box. So for a while, presidential abdication of leadership may create political space for something like honest legislative negotiations over policy. But a grand bargain that takes place under Mr Obama's watch is a political victory for Mr Obama, whether or not he led the charge. And the GOP is unlikely to let the president have such a win.
What is the equilibrium here? The latest journalistic thinking is that super secret talks are underway between Republicans and Democrats, and a "handshake agreement" may or may not already be in place. But what, in previous iterations of the Obama-GOP game, has put in place the conditions for a grand bargain outcome?
I would expect neither Obama administration Jedi mind tricks or secret deals to yield real budget solutions. Explicit outside pressure, from bond markets, will yield deals. And that pressure is not yet forthcoming.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
You're talking about the patriot act right? If so I just want to point out that you have absolutely no reason to be surprised by Cantwell's vote.
Sadly I can't find the 2010 extension. Probably because it was part of a bill with a title that has nothing to do with the patriot act. Basically, vote someone new in as your Senator because this person does not respect your freedoms.
I'm completely unsurprised that Webb and Warner were worthless on this.
Warner raises an eyebrow for me, but this has always been my biggest source of disappointment with Webb. A couple years back when FISA last came up, I put him in touch with a retired counter-intelligence official who had a long and distinguished career capturing spies who were then prosecuted successfully under Federal law and had never, not even once in his life, found himself in a position where he wasn't able to continue an investigation immediately for lack of a sealed warrant under pre-9/11 FISA. The only people who benefit from everything that's happened post-9/11 in terms of expanded laws are Federal agents who don't understand the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and shouldn't be Federal agents to begin with.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
I do not know that a single bill is enough to qualify someone as authoritarian.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
I do not know that a single bill is enough to qualify someone as authoritarian.
I think it does when it stomps all over the 4th amendment. That's pretty fucking bold.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
I do not know that a single bill is enough to qualify someone as authoritarian.
I think it does when it stomps all over the 4th amendment. That's pretty fucking bold.
Yeah, stomping all over the 4th amendment is the Supreme Court's job.
From the Economy thread, it's The Economists's take on Obama's budget thingy:
EZRA KLEIN describes the game President Obama seems to be playing these days:
The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion...
But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later.
The Obama administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushed—investment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line.
On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out.
But I doubt this is a stable equilibrium. The GOP's reflexive anti-Obama streak is motivated, one presumes, by a desire to win elections. One supposes that they feel they must deny him legislative victories in order to be successful at the ballot box. So for a while, presidential abdication of leadership may create political space for something like honest legislative negotiations over policy. But a grand bargain that takes place under Mr Obama's watch is a political victory for Mr Obama, whether or not he led the charge. And the GOP is unlikely to let the president have such a win.
What is the equilibrium here? The latest journalistic thinking is that super secret talks are underway between Republicans and Democrats, and a "handshake agreement" may or may not already be in place. But what, in previous iterations of the Obama-GOP game, has put in place the conditions for a grand bargain outcome?
I would expect neither Obama administration Jedi mind tricks or secret deals to yield real budget solutions. Explicit outside pressure, from bond markets, will yield deals. And that pressure is not yet forthcoming.
Well that is certainly an interesting take on it but I doubt that Obama avoiding meaningful budget cuts is going to some how trick the GOP controlled house into cutting entitlements or defense.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
From the Economy thread, it's The Economists's take on Obama's budget thingy:
EZRA KLEIN describes the game President Obama seems to be playing these days:
The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion...
But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've "poisoned the well," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later.
The Obama administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushed—investment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line.
On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out.
But I doubt this is a stable equilibrium. The GOP's reflexive anti-Obama streak is motivated, one presumes, by a desire to win elections. One supposes that they feel they must deny him legislative victories in order to be successful at the ballot box. So for a while, presidential abdication of leadership may create political space for something like honest legislative negotiations over policy. But a grand bargain that takes place under Mr Obama's watch is a political victory for Mr Obama, whether or not he led the charge. And the GOP is unlikely to let the president have such a win.
What is the equilibrium here? The latest journalistic thinking is that super secret talks are underway between Republicans and Democrats, and a "handshake agreement" may or may not already be in place. But what, in previous iterations of the Obama-GOP game, has put in place the conditions for a grand bargain outcome?
I would expect neither Obama administration Jedi mind tricks or secret deals to yield real budget solutions. Explicit outside pressure, from bond markets, will yield deals. And that pressure is not yet forthcoming.
Well that is certainly an interesting take on it but I doubt that Obama avoiding meaningful budget cuts is going to some how trick the GOP controlled house into cutting entitlements or defense.
Well, they are apparently drafting a new budget proposal or the like that will touch on entitlements.
I'm not sure on the whole idea either, but I think he does have a good point in that at by now, Obama et all may have learned that him supporting anything too much is dooming it to become a point the GOP will do anything to not concede.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stomp on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stop on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
This is kinda funny because no matter what Civil Liberties you can pull out that the Democrats are against, the GOP are also against and then more on top.
Obama should have started this thing demanding we eliminate all social programs or something, just to troll, get republicans to say they support more education funding, etc
override367 on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
That was an amendment sponsored by a republican to a bill that had nothing to do with guns and had no chance to fail. Why do people insist on blaming the president or giving the president credit for something the Congress does in the first place?
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stop on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
The drug war disagrees with you.
I think most of the rollback on civil liberties in the drug war comes from the courts. Granted, since the government made drug policing a stupidly high priority, we have a lot of drug arrests, and the courts generally try and twist the various amendments to ratify whatever the police have done. Unless it is fairly egregious or falls into some weird loophole.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stop on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
The drug war disagrees with you.
I think most of the rollback on civil liberties in the drug war comes from the courts. Granted, since the government made drug policing a stupidly high priority, we have a lot of drug arrests, and the courts generally try and twist the various amendments to ratify whatever the police have done. Unless it is fairly egregious or falls into some weird loophole.
Also, pretty sure there was some big thing Obama did about making Crack and Coke sentencing much closer than they were before hand.
I'm happy about Merkley. I'm a little pissed about Wyden.
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stop on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
The drug war disagrees with you.
I think most of the rollback on civil liberties in the drug war comes from the courts. Granted, since the government made drug policing a stupidly high priority, we have a lot of drug arrests, and the courts generally try and twist the various amendments to ratify whatever the police have done. Unless it is fairly egregious or falls into some weird loophole.
Also, pretty sure there was some big thing Obama did about making Crack and Coke sentencing much closer than they were before hand.
He also said we were going to stop pursuing convictions on medical marijuana before his DOJ decided otherwise.
Not sure where that whole thing falls on this spectrum.
So I was listening to NPR as I woke up this morning, and they were discussing the new CA budget proposals. I was half asleep, so I don't remember exactly what was said, but the republicans were going after Brown's proposal. And then when asked if they were going to present their own budget, they said something to the effect of, "No, because the media will just attack it."
I was kind of sad. Then chambliss came on and started lying about something else.
As the House explores ways this week to trim federal spending beyond the $61 billion in cuts that Republicans have already proposed, Speaker John A. Boehner has said all ideas are welcome.
A free-for-all can have surprising results, and one of the biggest Wednesday was a victory for President Obama and a defeat for a Boehner-backed initiative.
Many tea-party-backed freshmen broke ranks with their GOP leaders and joined liberal Democrats in voting to cut funding for an alternative engine for a fighter jet. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine project has long been a frequent but elusive target, as well as one that provided jobs in Boehner's home state of Ohio.
That because birth control makes sense for controlling out of control population growth, but when human use it it is EVIL.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
Posts
"We didn't start the fire -- it was always burning since the world's been turning..."
I called Cantwell's office. I feel bad for the poor intern answering the phone, he probably is having a bad day, but I let them know that this vote was super lame. I specifically was like "Patty voted the right way, what's wrong with Cantwell?" So on their tally of "how are people responding to this?", there's at least one more "Patriot Act sucks". I also called Patty's office and just quickly said thank you. I figure it's something. Maria should really be better than this.
I remember there being alot of actual good stuff along with the complete bullshit and I'd always heard it had been modified slightly back during the first re-approval like 4 years back or whenever.
Most of the 'good stuff' that revolved around banging the intelligence community's collective heads together was passed over Bush's objections a few years later after the commission's report, I believe. Even if it turned out to be a bueraucratic kludge.
Seriously, what is the Republican end-game? Have all non-Christians executed, then institute a neo-feudal system of merchants (the new nobility) and peasants where only the former can afford anything other than food/rent?
I don't like to be hyperbolic, but I really can't see any shared Republican objectives other than these.
Really it's just raging and scapegoating. There can be no end-game when you need to perpetually demonize something to maintain your own group's cohesion.
"Now he's so angry, moments of levity actually cause him pain."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/game_theory
I too was really surprised by Wyden.
Cantwell was the surprise for me. She's been super lefty on plenty of issues before - she took more than a pound of flesh of lefty goodness for her vote on FinReg. What's up with this?
You're talking about the patriot act right? If so I just want to point out that you have absolutely no reason to be surprised by Cantwell's vote.
2001 patriot act Cantwell voted yes http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313
2005 extension Passed by Unanimous Consenthttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2167
2006 extension Cantwell voted yes http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-25
Sadly I can't find the 2010 extension. Probably because it was part of a bill with a title that has nothing to do with the patriot act. Basically, vote someone new in as your Senator because this person does not respect your freedoms.
Warner raises an eyebrow for me, but this has always been my biggest source of disappointment with Webb. A couple years back when FISA last came up, I put him in touch with a retired counter-intelligence official who had a long and distinguished career capturing spies who were then prosecuted successfully under Federal law and had never, not even once in his life, found himself in a position where he wasn't able to continue an investigation immediately for lack of a sealed warrant under pre-9/11 FISA. The only people who benefit from everything that's happened post-9/11 in terms of expanded laws are Federal agents who don't understand the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and shouldn't be Federal agents to begin with.
Because lefty does not mean civil liberties loving. Especially in this country. Dems are just as authoritarian as the GOP.
OK fine they did better than the GOP 9-2 in the no votes. But still, most of them are authoritarians both in terms of economic and personal freedom.
I do not know that a single bill is enough to qualify someone as authoritarian.
I think it does when it stomps all over the 4th amendment. That's pretty fucking bold.
Yeah, stomping all over the 4th amendment is the Supreme Court's job.
Well that is certainly an interesting take on it but I doubt that Obama avoiding meaningful budget cuts is going to some how trick the GOP controlled house into cutting entitlements or defense.
Well, they are apparently drafting a new budget proposal or the like that will touch on entitlements.
I'm not sure on the whole idea either, but I think he does have a good point in that at by now, Obama et all may have learned that him supporting anything too much is dooming it to become a point the GOP will do anything to not concede.
Yeah, but only one side wants to stomp on your civil liberties when it comes to social issues.
The drug war disagrees with you.
Except Obama has increased gun rights, so that would be wrong.
I would like to know more.
I think most of the rollback on civil liberties in the drug war comes from the courts. Granted, since the government made drug policing a stupidly high priority, we have a lot of drug arrests, and the courts generally try and twist the various amendments to ratify whatever the police have done. Unless it is fairly egregious or falls into some weird loophole.
A bit earlier than that actually. I've seen people seriously suggest that we should return to only land-owners being allowed to vote.
Also, pretty sure there was some big thing Obama did about making Crack and Coke sentencing much closer than they were before hand.
Not sure where that whole thing falls on this spectrum.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I was kind of sad. Then chambliss came on and started lying about something else.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That because birth control makes sense for controlling out of control population growth, but when human use it it is EVIL.