It think it was just an easier way to refer to the acronyms for the programs.
Mitt Romney said:
Kos said:
How.
The report they're basing this on was commissioned by Morgan Stanley. Not exactly confidence-inspiring stuff.
No thanks. If Congress had term limits, lobbyist power and influence would increase more than it already is. I don't get to vote for a lobbyist on K street, but I can vote for my representatives in Congress. In principal, there's nothing wrong with a representative being consistently voted in by their constituents. The problem with the system now is how hard it is for challengers to run against incumbents (due to gerrymandering, campaign financing disadvantages, etc). Work on those problems, not term limits.
What exactly would Obama be able to do on a federal level for gay marriage? Repealing dadt was logical but I don't think he could get a federal marriage amendment passed through congress, even if it was just limited to civil unions.
I find your position interesting as it contradicts the typical theoretical justifications for federalism. Federalism is intended to institutionally obviate conflict amongst heterogeneous populations. I fail to see how a more concentrated system would benefit large, multinational states-immature states, at least. If there are countries for which federalism is appropriate, it's larger, heterogeneous countries. Now, I'm amenable to the proposition federalism may be outmoded in the U.S. I'd say democracy has been sufficiently normalized that a unitary state would not risk fracturing. But I would not apply that to regimes that have not generated over 200 years of legitimacy.
I agree with most of your post. Term limits have unintended consequences which outweigh their purported benefits. And I agree that inequitable campaign financing diminishes competition. Notwithstanding, I disagree with gerrymandering contributing to the incumbency advantage. It's more incidental than causative. This 2006 article from the JOP is a useful introduction.
Not only are they obstructing the provision of public goods, they are attempting to sabotage an agency that actually works in promoting American economic interests. Not that it's perfect, but it is a net gain.
What disturbs me about this post is that it implies that, despite having paid attention for the last several months, you see voting for Mitt as a tenable proposition. I'd rather you did a ToxicAdam and didn't vote at all.
Beat me to it. Now he's getting leery?
I missed this. Obama may be forced to adopt it earlier. If that article I posted a few weeks ago is accurate, gay rights activists are agitating to include marriage equality in the Party's platform. If they maneuver it into the platform, the pressure on Obama will be tremendous.
Are we certain this thing is real?Well, the GOP knows they've got a problem with young voters. Their solution? The Conservative Teen magazine with such articles as:
"Why Abstinence Works. How It Can Work for You"
"Government Creates Poverty"
"The Hot Air & Cold Facts of Liberal Media Bias"
and best of all,
"Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?"
Good luck with that...
Edit: Awww, didn't see there was a whole thread on it
He could, certainly. As the head of the party, he easily possesses the most power. He'll have to calculate whether the backlash is worth the exclusion.
The article on Reagan is splendid. "But the past three years have made one thing clear: Ronald Regan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been." Maybe. Although, I know by one measurement that's erroneous.Well, the GOP knows they've got a problem with young voters. Their solution? The Conservative Teen magazine with such articles as:
"Why Abstinence Works. How It Can Work for You"
"Government Creates Poverty"
"The Hot Air & Cold Facts of Liberal Media Bias"
and best of all,
"Ronald Reagan: Our First Black President?"
Good luck with that...
Edit: Awww, didn't see there was a whole thread on it
Obama's playing Pokemon Yellow version, which in this analogy corresponds to the black community. He has to decide if it's worth it to trade over to Red/Blue versions and evolve it that way, and by that I mean if it's worth stronger LGBT turnout (who will vote for him anyway) over depressing black turnout somewhat (who will vote for him anyway).
Not objective at all. IHS CERA is the handmaiden of the oil industry. And Morgan Stanley paying for report makes it even worse.
Who cares what he thinks about gay marriage? It is not really a Federal issue, it is up to the states. He is already against DOMA.
I'll say that I think Romney is a competent executive. It's one of the few reasons I think he's superior to the Republican alternatives. I don't think he would fuck up the bureaucracy like Gingrich or Santorum would. And it's apparent he understands why a collective mechanism is essential for a properly functioning health care system. Yet it's now anathema to the GOP. And he's went along with them. If he were not presently appealing to the reactionary lowest common denominator, I wouldn't be as concerned about a Republican victory. But with the current state of the GOP, no.
Well . . . don't worry . . . just a few more delegates and he can push the reset button. Shake up that etch-a-sketch. He'll have a different campaign.