Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

The DNC's 2016 strategy: Ready for Hillary

 

[BertramCooper]

It really all depends on what the DNC strategy will be at the national level. 2016 needs to be about securing Obama's signature achievements (ACA, climate change, Iran) and an indictment on GOP obstructionism. Every D challenger needs to promise fight for the ACA and call out his opponent for trying to kill it. This needs to be the message at the national level, no holds barred. Opinion polls be damned, you're talking about potentially 20M+ Americans across party lines who will be driven to the polls by that message.

I think Democrats can make a pretty compelling, coherent case that the Republicans (by 2016) have been in control of the House for six years and in control of both houses for two years and have virtually nothing to show for it. It's a party whose primary goal is to make the federal government unstable and dysfunctional, with absolutely no interest in actual governance.

Democrats have to establish an aggressive message and put the GOP on the ropes. Even if the ACA isn't massively popular by 2016 (which it still probably won't be), at least it shows that Congressional Democrats actually want to fucking do something.

Even if Republicans argue back "...but Obama!" it's still putting them in a vulnerable, defensive position. Democrats may be running on Obama's record, but Republicans have to be forced to run on their record, which is nonexistent.

 

[Link]

I think Democrats can make a pretty compelling, coherent case that the Republicans (by 2016) have been in control of the House for six years and in control of both houses for two years and have virtually nothing to show for it. It's a party whose primary goal is to make the federal government unstable and dysfunctional, with absolutely no interest in actual governance.

Democrats have to establish an aggressive message and put the GOP on the ropes. Even if the ACA isn't massively popular by 2016 (which it still probably won't be), at least it shows that Congressional Democrats actually want to fucking do something.

Even if Republicans argue back "...but Obama!" it's still putting them in a vulnerable, defensive position. Democrats may be running on Obama's record, but Republicans have to be forced to run on their record, which is nonexistent.

Completely agree. And make sure to point to Republican-run states like Kansas and Indiana to show exactly what Republicans accomplish.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think Democrats can make a pretty compelling, coherent case that the Republicans (by 2016) have been in control of the House for six years and in control of both houses for two years and have virtually nothing to show for it. It's a party whose primary goal is to make the federal government unstable and dysfunctional, with absolutely no interest in actual governance.

Democrats have to establish an aggressive message and put the GOP on the ropes. Even if the ACA isn't massively popular by 2016 (which it still probably won't be), at least it shows that Congressional Democrats actually want to fucking do something.

Even if Republicans argue back "...but Obama!" it's still putting them in a vulnerable, defensive position. Democrats may be running on Obama's record, but Republicans have to be forced to run on their record, which is nonexistent.

and that worked out so well for the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 oh wait........

 

[Touchdown]

and that worked out so well for the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 oh wait........

Cases don't matter in midterms since only old people vote in them.

 

[benjipwns]

Rand Paul Taps House GOP’s Troublemakers to Boost 2016 Campaign

Paul will officially launch his campaign Tuesday in Louisville, before embarking on a four-day tour through the first four states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada—on the GOP nominating calendar. During the launch, or soon after, the senator is expected to announce endorsements from a host of House Republicans who will help his campaign in some capacity. Among them: Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Raul Labrador of Idaho, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

...

Two of these early endorsements—from Amash and Massie—will come as little surprise. They are the most outspoken libertarians in the House; Amash endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2012. Labrador and Sanford have compiled staunchly conservative voting records in recent years, but both are more closely associated with the tea party than with Paul's "Liberty" movement.

Yet all are united in their common status as thorn-in-the-establishment's-side Republicans: These four, among others, are the conservatives who have made life miserable for Speaker John Boehner and his House leadership team over the past several years. They have voted reliably against the leadership's wishes—and, in several cases, against Boehner himself as he sought election as speaker. Amash was kicked off the House Budget Committee for his rebellious antics; Labrador unsuccessfully challenged Kevin McCarthy for the position of House majority leader in last summer's special election. In this Congress, they formed the House Freedom Caucus to organize their intra-party opposition.

...

Paul will lean heavily on his soon-to-be congressional surrogates, but he won't be looking for just anyone to help his campaign. The senator's allies say his recruiting pitch has been narrowly aimed at Congress's most conservative and tea-party-friendly lawmakers. This lack of broad outreach seems to be par for the course thus far in the 2016 presidential race. Overall, Republican lawmakers say overtures from the presidential campaigns to Capitol Hill have heretofore been slow—and sometimes nonexistent.

"They're all running against Washington," Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas said of the GOP presidential candidates. Smiling, he added: "They probably don't think we'd be much of an asset."

This conservative group is tired of being accused of climate denial — and is fighting back

Facing a loss of high-profile corporate sponsors, a conservative state-level policy group — the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) — threatened action in recent weeks against activist groups that accuse it of denying climate change.

Attorneys for ALEC sent letters to Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters asking them to immediately “cease making false statements” and “remove all false or misleading material” suggesting that ALEC does not believe in global warming.

The activist groups refused the request, saying ALEC’s advocacy of legislation on climate issues and its public discussion of the topic support their claims.

The legal demands from ALEC follow an exodus of some of its best known corporate members, including Google, British Petroleum, Facebook, Yahoo and Northrop Grumman. Activist groups had pressured these corporate sponsors in recent years to abandon their support for organizations that they believe oppose action to stem climate change. Google publicly connected its decision to stop funding ALEC to the climate change issue.

...

Lobbyists for the industry say they no longer focus on questioning scientific consensus.

“The science issue just isn’t as salient as it once was,” said Scott Segal, who represents energy interests at Bracewell & Giuliani. Debate over climate science was “all the rage” in the past, he said. “But today, the key issue is whether proposed regulations cost too much, weaken reliability or are illegal.”

ALEC officials insist that their nonprofit state-level policy organization does not deny climate change and that they have been overhauling their organization to be more transparent and more welcoming to divergent views. ALEC’s attorneys cite the organization’s model legislation, distributed to state lawmakers, acknowledging that “human activity has and will continue to alter the atmosphere of the planet,” which “may lead to demonstrable changes in climate.”

...

At ALEC’s December meeting in Washington, for example, two speakers led a seminar emphasizing the ways in which carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere provide benefits to the environment and the economy over time. One of the speakers, Craig Idso, said he does not deny climate change but disagrees with the dire consensus view of international scientists convened by the United Nations.

“We all think carbon dioxide has an impact on climate, it’s a question of how much of an impact,” said Idso, former director of environmental science at Peabody Energy, the coal company. He currently chairs a small climate science think tank.

ALEC officials don’t dispute that skeptical presentations have occurred at meetings in the past, sometimes under sponsorship from energy interests. But they insist that ALEC, under new leadership, welcomes debate, including new members who support renewable energy, a carbon tax and other measures to curb global warming.

Democrats Rethink Social Security Strategy

For years, liberal Democrats have fought against proposals to cut Social Security benefits. Now, they’re pushing the party not just to defend benefits but to increase them, and that could present a problem for Hillary Clinton.
The call for higher benefits is a marked difference from recent years in which the White House and Republicans were negotiating deficit-cutting deals, leaving liberals to argue merely for staving off benefit cutbacks. Separately, many experts in both parties have long argued that extending the solvency of the program would require a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases.

The liberals’ argument is that Social Security benefits are meager and that people in retirement need more, not less, money. Some also contend that concerns about the program’s solvency are exaggerated. And inside the Democratic Party, that argument is gaining traction. Legislation increasing benefits, and boosting payroll taxes to cover the cost, now has 58 co-sponsors in the House.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who is considering a Democratic presidential bid, told Iowa voters that the nation must expand benefits to help more people realize the American dream. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) won 42 Democratic votes—with just two Democrats voting no—for a nonbinding resolution calling for a “sustainable expansion of benefits.”

But there could be a conflict between this sentiment and the heavy favorite for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination. When Mrs. Clinton last weighed in on Social Security, she supported a bipartisan commission to tackle the program’s long-term financial imbalance. The widespread view was that such a commission would lead to a compromise in which Democrats support benefit cuts in return for Republican support for a tax increase, all to extend the life of the program.

...

“The last time we had a crisis was 1983. President [Ronald] Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill came up with a commission,” she said [in 2008]. “That was the best and smartest way, because you’ve got to get Republicans and Democrats together.”

...

The program’s trustees project that, without changes, reserves will run out by 2033, at which point the program would be able to pay only about 77% of promised benefits.

During budget talks in his first term, President Barack Obama offered to cut benefits by trimming the cost-of-living adjustment, part of what he hoped would be a “grand bargain” on the budget with Republicans. He wanted Republicans to agree to increase taxes in return.

His move was opposed by many Democrats. Some objected to cutting benefits as part of a deficit-reduction agreement, rather than in the context of a plan to extend the solvency of Social Security. Others objected to a benefit cut in any form. In any case, Republicans didn’t take up the offer, and Mr. Obama later dropped the idea.

Meanwhile, liberal strategists say they got tired of fighting to stave off cuts and decided to change the debate to more favorable terms.

“The best defense is a good offense,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which helps lead the effort.

Now, liberals are pushing the message into the 2016 campaign cycle. Mr. Green’s group is collecting signatures in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire on a letter asking that Democratic presidential candidates get behind “big, bold ideas,” such as expanding benefits. And he said it would be a “great litmus test” for any Democrat on the ballot.

The movement appears to be having an impact in at least one Senate race. In recent weeks, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat who is running for an open seat in Maryland, signed onto the House bill expanding benefits. In the past, he had spoken favorably about a deficit-reduction plan that included trims to Social Security.

...

Centrist Democrats generally see the effort as ill-advised and impractical. The Center for American Progress, a Democratic-leaning think tank, supports a benefit increase only for the poorest seniors. AARP, the senior lobby group, says it recognizes that any long-term deal to extend solvency would include a mix of changes, “including some elements that AARP might oppose.”

In an opinion essay in The Wall Street Journal in 2013, analysts from the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way called plans to increase benefits “reckless” and “irresponsible,” prompting liberal activists to protest outside their Washington office building.

Third Way’s Jim Kessler, one of the authors, said in an interview that it is a bad idea both to boost benefits for the wealthy and to raise taxes on low-income workers, as the House Democratic plan does.

“A commission is how it was solved before and it’s how it will be solved in the future,” he said, “and everyone knows it.”

 

[benjipwns]

From another article, since there was some mild discussion on it a while back:

One reason Cruz, Paul and Rubio are the first to announce is that, as federal office-holders, election laws prohibit them from strategizing with their would-be super PACs. No such restrictions exist for governors or others until they become federal candidates, providing an incentive for hopefuls like Bush and Walker to delay officially entering the race.

 

[Touchdown]

Has anybody of worth endorsed Ted Cruz yet?

 

[BertramCooper]

and that worked out so well for the Democrats in 2010 and 2014 oh wait........

There will be a stronger case to be made since Republicans are now in control of both houses. They've now been given the opportunity to control Congress and they've accomplished nothing.

And Republicans are going to struggle to come up with a suitable boogeyman replacement for Obama. He'll still be loathed by Republicans, obviously, but Obama's time in Washington is over regardless of who wins the presidency, making it harder to use him as a looming existential threat in the election.

 

[Link]

Democrats Rethink Social Security Strategy

Good. We need people like Warren to start pushing Democrats to the left instead of letting them drift to the center while Republicans go further and further right.

 

[benjipwns]

And Republicans are going to struggle to come up with a suitable boogeyman replacement for Obama.

The RNC's 2016 strategy: Ready for Hillary

Has anybody of worth endorsed Ted Cruz yet?

Well, Jerry Brown anti-endorsed him.

This is comparing him to Reagan, but shows his lack of endorsement:

According to data from “The Party Decides,” Reagan had 51 endorsements from party actors through March 1979. This included five senators, 23 House members, two state party chairs and one governor. Weighting for the position of the endorser (i.e., senators count for more than representatives), Reagan had an astounding 90 percent of endorsements by party officials at that point.

Cruz has nowhere near that level of support. He couldn’t even earn the endorsement of his fellow Texas senator, John Cornyn, or fellow tea partyer Sen. Mike Lee. Reagan, who had honed his “common touch” as an actor and TV pitchman, was also a respected two-term governor of California, which at that time was a swing state. He gracefully bowed out of the 1976 Republican convention. In other words, Reagan gave Republican officials a number of reasons to like him. Cruz … hasn’t.

It’s the same story with GOP rank and file. Cruz has about 5 percent of the vote, both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire, according to recent polls. That’s good for seventh or eighth place. Polls in early 1979, by contrast, clearly placed Reagan in the top tier of candidates. When surveys included Gerald Ford as an option, Reagan and Ford each garnered around 30 percent support. Without Ford, Reagan was polling in first place with 40 percent.

Pollsters thought so highly of Reagan’s chances in early 1979 that, according to the polling database kept by the Roper Center (paywall), they didn’t even bother testing President Jimmy Carter against any other Republican candidates. Reagan was neck and neck with Carter in general election polls conducted during the first half of 1979. Cruz trails Hillary Clinton by a mile (an average of about 16 percentage points).

The Cruz campaign has been spinning it as he's got real grassroots support against the establishment.

 

[BertramCooper]

From a purely political standpoint, Democrats need to be about a thousand times more aggressive pressing Republicans on Social Security and Medicare issues. It's the GOP's biggest vulnerability with seniors and Dems need to exploit the fuck out of it.

The RNC's 2016 strategy: Ready for Hillary

Using that as a message in 2016 is admitting to their base that they're going to lose the presidency again. Can't see that working out well.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Good. We need people like Warren to start pushing Democrats to the left instead of letting them drift to the center while Republicans go further and further right.

This is why I feel Warren would be more effective as a senator than a president. In a perfect world she (or someone like her) would be president, but there would also be 60 Senator Warrens and 218 Rep. Warrens.

I would love if the next Democratic president went for an overall expansion of the safety net - expand SS benefits, extend Medicare to ages 55 and up, introduce a fix for the Medicaid expansion, set up a public option for PPACA...

 

[NeoXChaos]

There will be a stronger case to be made since Republicans are now in control of both houses. They've now been given the opportunity to control Congress and they've accomplished nothing.

And Republicans are going to struggle to come up with a suitable boogeyman replacement for Obama. He'll still be loathed by Republicans, obviously, but Obama's time in Washington is over regardless of who wins the presidency, making it harder to use him as a looming existential threat in the election.

Sadly voters dont know or care about Congress. The midterms clearly shows us this. They think the President has all this power when he has but shared power hence higher turnout in presidential years.

If trends continue, 2018 will be bring about even more changes.

 

[Abinash117]

There will be a stronger case to be made since Republicans are now in control of both houses. They've now been given the opportunity to control Congress and they've accomplished nothing.

And Republicans are going to struggle to come up with a suitable boogeyman replacement for Obama. He'll still be loathed by Republicans, obviously, but Obama's time in Washington is over regardless of who wins the presidency, making it harder to use him as a looming existential threat in the election.

I thought at least in 2014's case dems didn't have a central message, tried to be republican-lite, some ran from Obama, used messages that really didn't matter at the time, and midterms in most cases, being bad for the party in power.

If democrats actually had a message and is aggressive with it it would make a difference.

 

[Link]

Dems have a golden opportunity in 2016 that they cannot afford to squander. Barring any disasters, they have a strong presidential candidate following her party's incumbent leaving the country in good shape, while a good number of vulnerable Republican Senate seats will be up for grabs.

 

[BertramCooper]

Sadly voters dont know or care about Congress. The midterms clearly shows us this. They think the President has all this power when he has but shared power hence higher turnout in presidential years.

If trends continue, 2018 will be bring about even more changes.

Well, voters care about Congress when they share a ballot with a presidential election.

One step at a time. We can start worrying about 2018 when 2016 is over.

 

[Yellowtail]

Using that as a message in 2016 is admitting to their base that they're going to lose the presidency again. Can't see that working out well.

It's officially their strategy:

On Thursday the RNC announced that it would launch a "Stop Hillary” campaign to begin attacking Clinton the moment she announces her all-but-certain presidential run, reassuring supporters and party leaders that the committee will be in a strong position to take on the presumptive Democratic candidate and her impressive network of allies.

As part of its efforts, the RNC will run a "war room" based in its Washington headquarters to coordinate with field staff in key states. That staff will begin identifying and recruiting supporters on the ground in anticipation of Clinton's potential general election campaign.

As part of the campaign, “The committee plans an aggressive social media push as part of its effort to diminish the political standing of the ex-New York senator and wife of former President Bill Clinton,”

"This is the earliest, most comprehensive effort that the party has ever engaged in, in terms of having all our efforts singularly pointed at one goal," said RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer, emphasizing "the size and the scope of what we’re doing."

It's hilarious how much she terrifies them.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's officially their strategy:



It's hilarious how much she terrifies them.

They should be terrified. Not only are their candidates weak but Hilary not only has the historic nature of her election on her side, she's also got nostalgia. So long as she can play a clean game they're screwed.

 

[BertramCooper]

It's officially their strategy:

It's hilarious how much she terrifies them.

It's a logical strategy in the presidential election, but it's trickier to use it in the context of a House or Senate election.

If you're a Republican House or Senate candidate in 2016, you can't use a hypothetical President Clinton against your opponent as effectively as you could use an actual President Obama against them in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Not unless you admit that she's going to win.

 

[NeoXChaos]

The only way they can counter her history making campaign is to put up someone who can also be history making. Putting up another white male aint gonna cut it. Putting up another Bush will be a disaster.

 

[benjipwns]

If you're a Republican House or Senate candidate in 2016, you can't use a hypothetical President Clinton against your opponent as effectively as you could use an actual President Obama against them in 2010, 2012 and 2014. Not unless you admit that she's going to win.

It's not that hard.

I need to be elected to support President Cruz's taking back of America and repealing Obamacare, and if things go bad, god forbid, I need to be in Washington to stop the Communist Clinton Agenda!

The only way they can counter her history making campaign is to put up someone who can also be history making. Putting up another white male aint gonna cut it. Putting up another Bush will be a disaster.

Voting for someone because they're "history making" is stupid, every President will be "history making" a lack of women in the Presidential log isn't reason to elect the Palin/Bachmann ticket. Walker/Martinez is going to handle Hillary well enough.

 

[RustyNails]

I think Democrats can make a pretty compelling, coherent case that the Republicans (by 2016) have been in control of the House for six years and in control of both houses for two years and have virtually nothing to show for it. It's a party whose primary goal is to make the federal government unstable and dysfunctional, with absolutely no interest in actual governance.

Democrats have to establish an aggressive message and put the GOP on the ropes. Even if the ACA isn't massively popular by 2016 (which it still probably won't be), at least it shows that Congressional Democrats actually want to fucking do something.

Even if Republicans argue back "...but Obama!" it's still putting them in a vulnerable, defensive position. Democrats may be running on Obama's record, but Republicans have to be forced to run on their record, which is nonexistent.

I think you give Americans too much credit. The recession is already a thing of history for most of them and Iraq war is ancient history. They have memory of goldfish. They will be focused on the issue of the day and thats where GOP wants media to be focused too.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Voting for someone because they're "history making" is stupid, every President will be "history making" a lack of women in the Presidential log isn't reason to elect the Palin/Bachmann ticket. Walker/Martinez is going to handle Hillary well enough.

I think Martinez is going to end up being another Palin if she's put on a national ticket, judging from gossip about her.

 

[BertramCooper]

I think you give Americans too much credit. The recession is already a thing of history for most of them and Iraq war is ancient history. They have memory of goldfish. They will be focused on the issue of the day and thats where GOP wants media to be focused too.

Well, if Jeb and Hillary end up being the nominees, inevitably the electorate will be forced to dig into the recesses of their goldfish brains to recall the presidencies of the nominees' brother and husband, respectively.

And that does not bode well for the GOP.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The only way they can counter her history making campaign is to put up someone who can also be history making. Putting up another white male aint gonna cut it. Putting up another Bush will be a disaster.

They don't need to counter identity with identity politics. Women have been voting for men for decades, I'm going to assume most of them will weigh both candidates and determine who best fits their needs/views, like like any other responsible person who votes; Hillary is not going to win simply because she's a woman. "Another" white man candidate will be fine, as long as he's a good candidate. The problem is that I'm not sure they have a good candidate out there. I don't think Hillary is a particularly good candidate either but the current political/social climate benefits her. That can change, obviously.

It sounds like a bunch of rich white republicans think Rubio is the best shot because he's young and Hispanic. While I do think he has a better shot than most, I can't see him winning the Hispanic vote while championing policies that hurt Hispanics, and while dismissing their concerns. Even though I think electing a republican president in 2016 is the only way to get immigration reform passed within the next 5-6 years if not longer.

 

[benjipwns]

Polls are all over the board on issues. I blame every single one of you.

In ABC/WaPo:
59% think the economy is not good or poor, 38% think it's good. 49% approve of Obama's economy handling, 46% disapprove.

In Marist:
45-50 Obama on economy
38-56 Obama on foreign policy
35-56 Obama on ISIS

In Fox
45-52 Obama on economy
42-54 Obama on health care
40-54 Obama on terrorism
37-58 Obama on immigration
36-55 Obama on foreign policy
33-58 Obama on Iran

In CBS
47-46 Obama on economy
42-50 Obama on terrorism
38-51 Obama on foreign policy
38-47 Obama on Iran
36-53 Obama on ISIS

29-27-33 US gives too much - too little - right amount of support to Israel (was 31-17-38 in 2011 lol)

In National Journal:
25% economy excellent/good, 44% economy fair, 29% economy poor
next twelve months: 32% improve, 38% same, 25% worse

Because it's interesting:

Overall, when you think about the biggest economic and social challenges facing America, do you think new ideas
and solutions are more likely to come from…

State and Local institutions like government, businesses, and volunteer or community
organizations because they are closer to the problems, are more adaptable, and have
more at stake in finding solutions.
69%
National institutions like the federal government, national businesses, and major nonprofit
organizations because they have more financial resources, experience, and
long-term stability.
22%

Who Would Do A Better Job At…
(Among Total Sample)
State & Local
Institutions

National
Institutions

Don’t know /
refused

25. Making neighborhoods more attractive places
to live 89% 9% 2%
21. Improving the way we educate young people 66% 29% 5%
24. Finding new ways to provide more opportunity
to poor people 63% 32% 6%
20. Developing new products and services that
create new jobs 63% 30% 7%
26. Improving wages and living standards for
average families 57% 39% 5%
23. Ensuring that businesses are regulated fairly
and consistently 51% 43% 6%
22. Finding new ways to save energy and improve
the environment 43% 51% 6%

 

[NeoXChaos]

They don't need to counter identity with identity politics. Women have been voting for men for decades, I'm going to assume most of them will weigh both candidates and determine who best fits their needs/views, like like any other responsible person who votes; Hillary is not going to win simply because she's a woman. "Another" white man candidate will be fine, as long as he's a good candidate. The problem is that I'm not sure they have a good candidate out there. I don't think Hillary is a particularly good candidate either but the current political/social climate benefits her. That can change, obviously.

It sounds like a bunch of rich white republicans think Rubio is the best shot because he's young and Hispanic. While I do think he has a better shot than most, I can't see him winning the Hispanic vote while championing policies that hurt Hispanics, and while dismissing their concerns. Even though I think electing a republican president in 2016 is the only way to get immigration reform passed within the next 5-6 years if not longer.

your gonna keep pushing this arent you? Come on PD.

 

[Wilsongt]

Rick Perry in South Carolina tipping his toe into the presidential pool again.

Oh my God. *popcorn*

 

[PhoenixDark]

your gonna keep pushing this arent you? Come on PD.

Yes. A bill already passed the senate; the politics are unlikely to change too much there. In the House a bill would have passed if Boehner had put it on the floor. I'm going to assume a republican president would have less trouble getting Boehner to put a bill on the floor than Hillary will.

 

[benjipwns]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...sues-memo-barring-gay-discrimination-30123501

North Dakota's Republican governor sent a memo to 17 government departments on Monday saying discrimination against anyone is unacceptable, just two hours before every Democrat in the Legislature delivered a letter calling on him to go further and issue an executive order prohibiting bias against gays and lesbians.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple's chief of staff sent the letter to all agency directors appointed by the governor.

"This administration expects all cabinet agencies to hire employees and to maintain agency staff based on ability and performance," Chief of Staff Ron Rauschenberger wrote. "Ours remains a policy of non-discrimination, including no discrimination based on sexual orientation."

All 38 Democrats from the House and Senate delivered a letter to Dalrymple later in the day asking him to issue an executive order to require state agencies to ban discrimination in hiring and employment based on sexual orientation. Democrats are the minority in the Legislature, where Republicans hold two-thirds majorities.

Dalrymple's staff late Monday said such an executive order already exists because the governor last year "reaffirmed and ratified" an order signed by former GOP Gov. Allen Olson in 1981 that mandates all state employees be provided "fair, equitable, and uniform treatment."

Dalrymple spokesman Jeff Zent said "all means all. It doesn't say some."

But Senate Democratic Leader Mac Schneider said he'd be "astonished" if Olson was "thinking about sexual orientation" when the order was signed 34 years ago.

"I think it lacks candor about what the order actually says," said Schneider, who practices employee law in Grand Forks.

Olson, who now lives in Minneapolis, did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

lol at calling the former governor for clarification of "all"

Amid that national uproar, North Dakota's House voted Thursday to kill a proposed law that would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, government, public services and the workplace. Unlike the other states, the North Dakota proposal did not deal with religion.

After the Legislature killed the measure, Dalrymple issued a statement chiding lawmakers for missing an opportunity protect gays and lesbians in the state from discrimination, the third time in six years the measure had failed to pass.

"Discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation is not acceptable," said Dalrymple's statement.

It caused some friction within the Republican-controlled Legislature. House Majority Leader Al Carlson said Dalrymple was mum before the vote and that party leaders were "very disappointed that he came out with an opinion on a bill that was never going to reach his desk."

 

[HylianTom]

Very funny. Republicans not running for president seem to be growing very weary of the hot gay stove. Are they weary of what the electorate will look like, even without Obama on the ticket?

 

[benjipwns]

Very funny. Republicans not running for president seem to be growing very weary of the hot gay stove. Are they weary of what the electorate will look like, even without Obama on the ticket?

There will be a lesbian though.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yes. A bill already passed the senate; the politics are unlikely to change too much there. In the House a bill would have passed if Boehner had put it on the floor. I'm going to assume a republican president would have less trouble getting Boehner to put a bill on the floor than Hillary will.

I am confident that immigration reform will pass with Hillary as President. They cant hold it hostage for 4-8 more years. That would doom their party chances even further.

 

[Link]

It caused some friction within the Republican-controlled Legislature. House Majority Leader Al Carlson said Dalrymple was mum before the vote and that party leaders were "very disappointed that he came out with an opinion on a bill that was never going to reach his desk."

If I'm reading this right - and I believe that I am - holy shit, that is disrespectful on multiple levels.

 

[Coriolanus]

I am confident that immigration reform will pass with Hillary as President. They cant hold it hostage for 4-8 more years. That would doom their party chances even further.

Oh, to be young again.

 

[benjipwns]

Hillary will be too busy bringing down Wall Street and energy companies and freeing up the internet and killing diplomats in CIA annexes to do anything about immigration.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't think it matters the intent of Olson's order if Dalrymple's administration explicitly interprets it to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, as he does. Though having codified protections in the public and private sector would obviously be ideal.

 

[benjipwns]

It's a real life on display version of the trope that Democrats only care about intentions. "Well, clearly the Governor 34 years ago wasn't thinking about gays when he wrote 'all' so it doesn't count! Issue another one!"

 

[ivysaur12]

It's a real life on display version of the trope that Democrats only care about intentions. "Well, clearly the Governor 34 years ago wasn't thinking about gays when he wrote 'all' so it doesn't count! Issue another one!"

I sort of get why, but again, if Dalrymple's (what a name!) administration interprets the order that way, in practice, that seems to be the most controlling interpretation of said order.

We need to wait for Senate Legend Heidi Heitkamp to chime in tho.

 

[BertramCooper]

Yes. A bill already passed the senate; the politics are unlikely to change too much there. In the House a bill would have passed if Boehner had put it on the floor. I'm going to assume a republican president would have less trouble getting Boehner to put a bill on the floor than Hillary will.

Republican primary voters are going to hold every GOP candidate's feet to the fire on immigration next year.

Whoever gets through the Republican primaries will have been pulled so far to the right that if he somehow wins the presidency, there's not a chance in hell he'll touch immigration reform in his first term.

Plus, said Republican president will have just won the presidency despite doing horribly with Hispanic voters, so he'll be all, "Fuck it! We don't need Hispanics. We won without them!"

 

[benjipwns]

Plus, said Republican president will have just won the presidency despite doing horribly with Hispanic voters, so he'll be all, "Fuck it! We don't need Hispanics. We won without them!"

Naw, they're addicted to that shit. Especially if it's a Jeb or Rubio type. Pass some kind of immigration bill = 1158% of hispanic vote forever (because of all the illegal immigrants voting illegally)

 

[Avon Barksdale]

George W. Bush couldn't get immigration reform passed with a GOP House and Senate but somehow another Republican (who will probably be to right of W) will? Okay.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I am confident that immigration reform will pass with Hillary as President. They cant hold it hostage for 4-8 more years. That would doom their party chances even further.

Nah they will. The only chance of getting an immigration bill passed is if Democrats take the House as well. Even if they had a few defectors they would probably get enough GOP votes.

 

[Wilsongt]

Someone can make a thread if they want. We know how these go by now.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

In 2013, Fox News proudly broadcast an interview with a young food stamp recipient who claimed to be using the government benefit to purchase lobster and sushi.

"This is the way I want to live and I don't really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate, a surfer and rocker, explained to Fox. "It's free food; it's awesome."

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."

"The intention of the bill is to get the food stamp program back to it's original intent, which is nutrition assistance," said Rick Brattin, the representative who is sponsoring the proposed legislation.

Curbing food stamp purchases of cookies, chips, energy drinks and soft drinks at least falls in line with the food stamp program's mission to provide nutrition. Nutrition experts are already discussing whether to remove unhealthy items from the list of foods participants can buy.

But seafood and steak? Seafood has been shown, time and again, to be a healthy part of any diet. And steak is such a broad category that it's essentially banning people from buying any flat cuts of beef, from porterhouse to flank.

 

[Trouble]

Someone can make a thread if they want. We know how these go by now.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ri-republican-food-stamps-20150405-story.html

Incoming shitstorm from multiple food industry trade groups for that guy.

 

[xnipx]

Will they also ban those items from the allowed purchases using government credit cards or for reimbursed meals used by that state's politicians???

 

[Link]

Milk's getting pretty pricey. Why don't we ban them from buying that, too.

 

[Amir0x]

according to Carly Fiorina, environmentalists are somehow to blame for California's water disaster.

What a goddamn freak show this person is.

But I love the rebuttal in the one article:

"For a science denier to opine that Democrats caused the drought in California is about as irrational as believing someone who failed at running a business in California and then failed as a candidate for office in California has any cause to be running for the highest office in the land," Bobby Whithorne, the group's spokesman, said in a statement.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm fine with the idea of limiting certain "foods" from being bought with welfare. The problem is the limited options many people on welfare have when it comes to grocery stores or the lack thereof. If you're in an inner city like Detroit your food options are pretty limited, and not nutritional at all. Nor do you have access to decent a transportation system, making it hard to find decent stores.

That being said sure, get rid of cookies and many sweets. I would view an action like that as preventative. If I was a state I'd rather limit those types of foods and thus lower my dental Medicaid or diabetes treatment obligations. The dental office I worked at accepted child Medicaid after the dental portions of Obamacare went into effect in Michigan and we saw a lot of kids with horrible dental hygiene. And working with section 8 mothers further opened my eyes to the fact that a lot of them never had any parental guidance as kids, now they have kids and don't understand much about nutritional/healthy diets.

But the bigger issue is the amount of sugar in foods in general. If I had a magic wand I'd shitcan the high fructose corn syrup industry.