Support NeoGAF

[Mr. Dobalina]

Clinton is not running again, she has already said this.

What else is she going to say?

 

[Diablos]

Brown has no shot. Clout maybe - shot no. Its up if Palin wants it.

He has no shot? Really? Would you like me to dig through ancient threads here where people say they'd love for Obama to be the next President, but has no chance?

LOOK AT SCOTT BROWN. He has all the makings of a successful Presidential candidate: Very good looking, charismatic, excellent communication, beautiful family, well-liked. Plus he has a military background, and that never hurts.

I'm telling you right now: If he remains popular in MA and throughout much of the Northeast, there is a very good chance he'll run for President, or at the very least be eyeballed for Vice President. The GOP, up until now, had no one else. Obama has to be freaking out over the possibility of facing off with Brown in a debate someday. He's having a lot of problems right now, but no one can touch his ability to inspire and articulate an idea when he's dead set on selling it. All of the sudden, here comes this Scott Brown guy. Obama was like a secret weapon to the Democrats, in that the Republicans could not touch this man's star power. Brown would pretty much negate that in a general election, I would think, if his campaigning is good.

Who else are they gonna run in 2012? Romey? Huckabee? Palin? Jindal? Come on. If they pick any of these people it's gonna basically boil down to what the bible belt wants, yet that bloc continues to shrink. Brown is the only one in the Republican party who can transcend that because he's so charismatic.

But yeah, Martha Coakley handed the GOP a golden opportunity and they aren't going to take it out of their playbook.

 

[mckmas8808]

Trying to compares unions and corporations is so fucking retarded. Corporations do immeasurably more damage to the American public than unions.

It's not a tough call to answer why people here might be more favorable to unions.

I know it's not a tough call. I like unions more than corporations. My parents both worked for the federal gov't. I know what unions can do and we benefitted from it.

And I wasn't the one to compare unions to corporations.

 

[mckmas8808]

What else is she going to say?

You actually think Hillary will backstab Obama like that? If so, why do you think people will actually vote for someone that would do that to somebody?

 

[RiskyChris]

NO ONE is running against Obama in 2012. Maybe a joke candidacy by a Kucinich or someone like that, but no one credible.

Haha, Kucinich is more credible than anyone else in politics are you crazy.

 

[empty vessel]

Your artificial separation between the "workers" and the "investor class" doesn't make much sense, though. People can not respect the work of investors, but being an investor is in fact a job, making them "workers," and they look after their own interests in their lobbying... much like unions.

Is this what they're teaching in political science these days? The separation between workers and investors is so fundamental that even Adam Smith drew the distinction sharply in Wealth of Nations.

The whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country, or what comes to the same thing, the whole price of that annual produce, naturally divides itself, it has already been observed,into three parts; the rent of land, the wages of labour, and the profits of stock; and constitutes a revenue to three different orders of people; to those who live by rent, to those who live by wages, and to those who live by profit. These are the three great, original and constituent orders of every civilized society, from whose revenue that of every other order is ultimately derived.

What does Smith have to say about the second order, "those who live by wages"?

The interest of the second order, that of those who live by wages, is as strictly connected with the interest of the society as that of the first. The wages of the labourer, it has already been shewn, are never so high as when the demand for labour is continually rising, or when the quantity employed is every year increasing considerably. When this real wealth of the society becomes stationary, his wages are soon reduced to what is barely enough to enable him to bring up a family, or to continue the race of labourers. When the society declines, they fall even below this. The order of proprietors may, perhaps, gain more by the prosperity of the society, than that of labourers: but there is no order that suffers so cruelly from its decline. But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connection with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but their own particular purposes.

Smith obviously had a rather disparaging view of those who work for a living. I disagree mostly, but there is little doubt, at least, that Smith here accurately describes at least a certain segment of people who work for a living: modern working class Republicans (ironically, mostly middle class suburbanites).

And what does Smith have to say about that third order, "those who live by profit"?

His [the second order's] employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operations of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Ask your professors just what in the hell you are paying tuition for since they aren't teaching you this stuff.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Haha, Kucinich is more credible than anyone else in politics are you crazy.

wat

 

[Byakuya769]

-snip-

Ask your professors just what in the hell you are paying tuition for since they aren't teaching you this stuff.

You mind reposting that in the "hooray for corporate donations" thread?

 

[RiskyChris]

wat

I almost posted this earlier, and I even had some stuff bolded. Kucinich is the best member in the house, and maybe tied for best congressman with Durbin.

Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change

By Sahil Kapur
Thursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 9:45 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

kucinich1 Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of changeSlams health bill 'madness'

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Wednesday said the Massachusetts election was a "wake up call" for Democrats and that his party had better change course or it could suffer devastating losses come November.

"People elected Democrats in 2008 to change the country's direction," he told Raw Story in a nearly hour-long interview.

"And the same entrenched interests that George Bush could not shake, this current White House is having great difficulty in shaking. One could suggest they might be more entrenched than ever."

Kucinich staunchly defended liberalism but alleged that Democrats are not behaving like liberals.
Story continues below...

"There's nothing liberal about the bailouts. There's nothing liberal about standing by and watching banks use public money to get their executive bonuses. There's nothing liberal about giving insurance companies carte blanche to charge anything they want for health care... Since when did that become liberal?"

"There's nothing liberal about letting coal and oil write climate change legislation," he added. "Are you kidding me?"

The 13-year congressman lamented the lack of change in economic policies, tying it to the major problems Democrats are facing.

"The minute the president appointed Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key policy positions, and the minute that [Ben] Bernanke was named to head the Fed again, we're looking at people who participated in the decline of the economy," he said. "This group has done us a disservice."

"Every area of the economy is still about taking wealth from the great mass of people and putting it into the hands of a few. If you don't have a economic democracy, you don't have a political democracy."

"We have to be more defined as being on the side of the people and not on the side of interest groups that are so entrenched," said Kucinich, who is widely regarded as a champion on progressive issues.

Dems 'jumped in bed with insurance companies'

Kucinich said he's deeply disillusioned with what health reform has become, suggesting Democrats should "slow down" and "take a step back."

"Health care became too complex and too riddled with concessions to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies," he said. "It's really time to take a new direction and that direction has to be back to the American people."

One idea Democrats are floating is to pass the Senate bill through the House, which would then allow the President to sign it into law.

healthcaremoney Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of change"I don't think that's going to happen," he said. "The senate bill is so totally flawed that I don't think it can get the votes in the House to pass. I certainly wouldn't vote for it."

"It hits very sharply at people who gave wage concessions to get health care benefits," he said, citing the excise tax on health care benefits. "We're going to ask Americans to take a wage cut? Why?"

"We lost the initiative the minute that our party jumped into bed with the insurance companies. And soon they were looking at increasing taxes as a way of subsidizing insurance companies. It's just madness."

"We're redistributing the wealth of the nation upwards by giving the insurance companies 30 million new customers, $50 billion a year more in revenue."

A number of progressives and Democrats disagree with Kucinich's conclusion, and say despite its flaws the health care bill is at least an important step toward expanding coverage and reducing costs.

"Well, which direction are we building in?" Kucinich responded. "If we give insurance companies a monopoly on health care, if we put no controls on premiums, if we give them antitrust exemptions... Is this the direction we build in to protect health care for people, or to protect insurance companies?"

He said part of America's distrust for the bill is the special deals the leadership cut with certain Senators, citing Sen. Ben Nelson's exemption for Medicaid expenses in Nebraska.

"People know when things get to that point, it's time to stay stop. Stop what you're doing. Don't make another move. Slow it down. That's the message from Massachusetts."

Kucinich voiced his long-held view that the best way to address health care is to achieve a "Medicare-for-all system." He said Democrats shouldn't abandon health reform, but need to signal they realize it's been mishandled.

Rips Obama admin on economy, giving Wall Street 'immunity'

wallst Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of changeKucinich said the Massachusetts election was also a referendum on the Obama administration's "inadequate" response to the economic crisis.

"We ought to focus on creating 15 million jobs, and if we do that, we'll regain the confidence of the American people on domestic issues," he said.

"With people losing their jobs, losing their homes, their investments, their savings, retirement security, losing opportunities for their children to go to college, we have to focus on economic issues."

The congressman from Ohio claimed these problems have arisen because the system is skewed against the interests of the people, and that Obama's economic team isn't helping to solve them.

He said the Obama administration was giving Wall Street banks "immunity and too big to fail protection," saying they "even pride themselves on that."

"People understand the precarious nature of the economy, and that's what they're responding to in Massachusetts."

"We're really at a moment here, a moment of pivot. We need to regain the confidence of the American people by rallying them on the economic issues. But if not, Massachusetts will just be a harbinger of what's to come."

Special interests 'more entrenched than ever'

Kucinich lamented Democrats' growing camaraderie with big moneyed interests, claiming it's hurting the party.

"You ask the banks to reform banking?" he said. "Put the insurance companies to reform insurance. Call in nuclear to reform energy policies? Are you kidding me?"

"These problems, lest we forget, did not start with Barack Obama," Kucinich said. "It was George Bush drove the economy over the cliff with a trillion dollar tax cut and a war based on lies, and an expanding trade deficit."

"And we can't do that by playing patty-cake with Wall Street, by caving into the demands of big banks, by playing footsie with insurance companies and by jumping in bed with the pharmaceutical industry.

"Americans are really skittish about the economy, and they have every right to be," he said. "This isn't a left-right argument; this isn't a liberal-conservative argument. This is about down or up."

"We have a really deep recession, and the only way to bring it back up is to have a massive jobs program," he said. "I don't see any evidence" that Obama's economic team is standing behind that.

"We have to listen to what the message is from Massachusetts. We better listen carefully."

Beyond left and right

pelosireid Exclusive: Kucinich shreds Democrats for betraying the promise of changeIn what may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, Kucinich declined to blame Republicans for what he believes have been economic policies gone awry.

"We have to be looking at ourselves," he claimed. "We have to be looking at what we need to do to govern... It's really simple: the people don't like what we're doing."

"Democrats have to look at our own responsibilities, not the Republicans' responsibilities," he said. "If we want to give the mantle of leadership to Republicans, they're the minority, they're willing to take it."

Kucinich said the Democratic strategy, as unveiled in a leaked internal memo obtained by Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, of urging Republicans to take more responsibility was "wrong."

"This isn't about the Republicans, this is about the Democrats."

"There's been a serious mislabeling of politics in America, where there's an attempt to confuse people about who stands for what, and in that it's the triumph of special interests."

'Still time to recover'

Kucinich said that despite the Democrats' turn in the wrong direction, they can still win back the people's trust.

"I'm not one who believes the sky is falling," he said. "We just need to listen to what people are saying. The people of Massachusetts sent the message that they're not willing to be taken for granted."

"Democrats need to take a more aggressive stance," Kucinich posited. "The only time I've ever voted against my party is when I thought we could do better, and be stronger."

"We can only keep our majority if this wake-up call is used in a constructive way, and we have our eyes open."

"We just had an alarm go off in Massachusetts, and we better wake up. Because if we shut the clock off and go back to sleep, when we wake up in November we could end up in the minority."

Despite his harrowing words, Kucinich said he "remains optimistic" that Democrats can "turn things around."

"We still have enough time to recover. A political eternity exists between now and November. Plenty of time. But we have to really reset the pointer of our political direction."

 

[ToxicAdam]

Listen, I respect Kucinich for remaining true to himself (and his ideals) for all of these years. He's not the kind of guy that sticks his finger in the air and decides his viewpoints. But he is not a national candidate of any sort. But, he's the type of "alternative" that pops up in the primaries when a sitting president is a little weak. Ala Buchanan in 92, Kennedy in 80.

But, even that is giving him too much credit. He would never match the success those two shared in their primary challenges.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Wonderful speech by Dennis

 

[RiskyChris]

Listen, I respect Kucinich for remaining true to himself (and his ideals) for all of these years. He's not the kind of guy that sticks his finger in the air and decides his viewpoints. But he is not a national candidate of any sort. But, he's the type of "alternative" that pops up in the primaries when a sitting president is a little weak. Ala Buchanan in 92, Kennedy in 80.

But, even that is giving him too much credit. He would never match the success those two shared in their primary challenges.

I didn't say he was a viable candiate, just a credible one. =D

Wonderful speech by Dennis

Word! Kucinich '12.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I really think this is the time for a new party to emerge. I think America is fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. Maybe because of this new ruling to allow corporations to finance elections, we'll see someone like Google push for a new kind of candidate/party?

 

[Diablos]

I really think this is the time for a new party to emerge. I think America is fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. Maybe because of this new ruling to allow corporations to finance elections, we'll see someone like Google push for a new kind of candidate/party?

Scott Brown 2012 / 2016 :\

 

[RiskyChris]

I really think this is the time for a new party to emerge. I think America is fed up with both Republicans and Democrats. Maybe because of this new ruling to allow corporations to finance elections, we'll see someone like Google push for a new kind of candidate/party?

More like because of this new ruling there's even less chance of a third party, but I appreciate the optimism. =)

 

[mckmas8808]

More like because of this new ruling there's even less chance of a third party, but I appreciate the optimism. =)

Oh you are right about that. The big corporations wouldn't allow a 3rd party person to actually succeed. They'll pour mega millions at the GOP and DEM noms, so that the 3rd party nom couldn't win.

 

[RustyNails]

1. Kennedy's seat goes to a republican
2. Health care bill is stalled
3. Corporations are free to finance political campaigns
4. Air America goes bankrupt

Good times.

 

[WickedAngel]

I couldn't really give a shit about #4 but it's definitely been a horrible weak for Progressives.

 

[RiskyChris]

I couldn't really give a shit about #4 but it's definitely been a horrible weak for Progressives.

It's been a great week for the-sky-is-falling progressives. (which should be every progressive but the left is so busy in-fighting it's embarrassing).

 

[WickedAngel]

It's been a great week for the-sky-is-falling progressives. (which should be every progressive but the left is so busy in-fighting it's embarrassing).

I'm not sure what those are. I imagine they're people who stand to profit from the threatened future of the Progressive movement (And as such I wouldn't consider them to be deserving of the label).

 

[NetMapel]

Just face it, the US leans right and this is reflected in all the election results. Democracy is working.

 

[slidewinder]

4. Air America goes bankrupt.

Ehhh, that part at least pretty much everybody was ok with.

Just face it, the US leans right and this is reflected in all the election results. Democracy is working.

 

[RiskyChris]

I'm not sure what those are. I imagine they're people who stand to profit from the threatened future of the Progressive movement (And as such I wouldn't consider them to be deserving of the label).

They're the progressives trying to get everyone else as upset as they are.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Just face it, the US leans right and this is reflected in all the election results. Democracy is working.

Exactly, that's why we have Obama

 

[mckmas8808]

Just face it, the US leans right and this is reflected in all the election results. Democracy is working.

Don't let a conservative hear you say this. They'll blow a gasket. :lol

 

[Nert]

Is this what they're teaching in political science these days?

Um... well, my political science classes tend to focus more on government systems. I took an International Political Economy course (which focused on what types of trading and migration policies governments pursue), but there aren't political science classes that I've seen offered that deal specifically with different ways of labeling socioeconomic classes or discussing unions. On occasion, different economic ideologies (like Marxism, Feudalism, Capitalism, etc.) are brought up insofar as they how they have influenced political outcomes, like elections and regime types.

In economics, we definitely learn about different types of labor, but I've sincerely never heard modern day use of this dichotomy of "workers" and "investors" before. I usually hear the distinction "low-skilled" (or low-wage) labor vs. "high-skilled" (or high-wage, or high-education) labor, with other distinctions made for the inputs required (production being capital intensive, or labor intensive, or heavily reliant on land). Anyone who does any work is considered a "worker," and unless it's an issue of direct family inheritance, even CEO's and the like technically do some kind of work for a living.

But once again, sure, I can drop these labels and take the ones you present as a given, because it really just feels like semantics to me. I'm more interested in discussion than nit-picking.

Quotes from The Wealth of Nations

I don't disagree with any of that, and I don't think it contradcitst what I'm saying at all. If I were saying that corporations were altruistic, and that their political lobbying took place for the benefit of society as a whole, I would be wrong, but I haven't said anything along those lines. I've simply said that unions also are self-interested *also* and seek benefits for themselves as opposed to society as a whole *also*.

Adam Smith describes the rise of real wages for what he refers to as the first and second orders as being beneficial for society; I agree. This doesn't mean that a certain group of those working for a living receiving extra benefits over other people in the same working for a living category benefits society as a whole. Unions, as they existed either in the Industrial Age or in more modern times, clearly weren't as prevalent then; Adam Smith, who you quoted, stressed that people in the second order weren't really politically involved or informed, so he wouldn't have seen any workers' groups as effective. The unions that developed during the industrial era, and later evolved into what we have today, are certainly much different and more prevalent.

Part of the danger of listening to corporate lobbyists is that they will generally push for legislation that reduces the amount of competition they face, allowing them to receive profit margins that are as close to those of a monopoly as possible. That's why regulation preventing monopolies is swell and agreeable.

For similar reasons, having legitimate competition in the labor force allows goods and services to be sold at a lower price because it brings down the cost of manufacturing when a company can hire a worker that will do the same amount of work as someone else for less money. If companies don't pass the benefits on to their consumers and decide to sit on the profit, other firms will eventually move in and compete away their margins... unless they've lobbied for unfair benefits and protections. Again, I'm not supporting corporate lobbying by saying that unions create economic inefficiency; I'm simply discussing unions more because we seem to already agree that corporations lobby for their self interest over society's net gain.

Ultimately, in order for unions and their lobbying to be beneficial for society, individual unions would have to be able to legitimately represent much, much wider swathes of the labor force, and only advocate for additional benefits for their industries without harming other industries or in any way increasing the prices of goods for consumers. Unfortunately, many of the things unions do demand (more comprehensive health plans from employers, greater restrictions on hiring practices to reduce labor competition, more vacation time) do, in fact, make it more expensive to produce goods. If goods cost more to make, they cost more for consumers to buy, and the real wages of consumers throughout the nation decrease. Which, according to Adam Smith, would certainly not be in the interest of society.

Ask your professors just what in the hell you are paying tuition for since they aren't teaching you this stuff.

Har har?

 

[slidewinder]

Har har?

He's just peeved that somebody's finally going to make him work a little.

 

[RiskyChris]

Again, comparing the damage a union does to society by asking for higher wages to anything a corporation does is laughable.

 

[NetMapel]

Exactly, that's why we have Obama

I think we all know that Obama isn't exactly left-leaning at all. At best, he's at centre. Plus, though he won a lot of electorates, he barely won over half of the total votes in 2008.

Don't let a conservative hear you say this. They'll blow a gasket. :lol

Why is that ? I thought they want a conservative country ?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Is there any way to avoid the various stalling tactics republicans could use against reconciliation? If they call points of order, dems will need 60 votes which puts us back at square one.

 

[slidewinder]

It's 60 votes to overturn the Chair's ruling on a point of order, right?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Just face it, the US leans right and this is reflected in all the election results. Democracy is working.

I forget, when did the Right grab the majority in congress? Did Obama step down?

 

[RiskyChris]

I forget, when did the Right grab the majority in congress? Did Obama step down?

What difference does it matter when at the end of the day we're practicing center-right politics at best?

 

[NetMapel]

What difference does it matter when at the end of the day we're practicing center-right politics at best?

Exactly. There are a couple of progressive in Dems, for sure, but they're the minority and are not the voice of the party. Remember, the Dems can't even get their own party members to agree with each others. Plus, Dems won these seats more because the Americans got sick of Bush than wanting some progressive policies.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Exactly. There are a couple of progressive in Dems, for sure, but they're the minority and are not the voice of the party. Remember, the Dems can't even get their own party members to agree with each others. Plus, Dems won these seats more because the Americans got sick of Bush than wanting some progressive policies.

That would make the country center-left not center right. If the Dems are in the majority and some are on the left..that's center left.

 

[xelios]

That would make the country center-left not center right. If the Dems are in the majority and some are on the left..that's center left.

Relative to much of the rest of the world, even the dems are more to the right.

 

[RiskyChris]

That would make the country center-left not center right. If the Dems are in the majority and some are on the left..that's center left.

No.

 

[Tamanon]

He has no shot? Really? Would you like me to dig through ancient threads here where people say they'd love for Obama to be the next President, but has no chance?

LOOK AT SCOTT BROWN. He has all the makings of a successful Presidential candidate: Very good looking, charismatic, excellent communication, beautiful family, well-liked. Plus he has a military background, and that never hurts.

I'm telling you right now: If he remains popular in MA and throughout much of the Northeast, there is a very good chance he'll run for President, or at the very least be eyeballed for Vice President. The GOP, up until now, had no one else. Obama has to be freaking out over the possibility of facing off with Brown in a debate someday. He's having a lot of problems right now, but no one can touch his ability to inspire and articulate an idea when he's dead set on selling it. All of the sudden, here comes this Scott Brown guy. Obama was like a secret weapon to the Democrats, in that the Republicans could not touch this man's star power. Brown would pretty much negate that in a general election, I would think, if his campaigning is good.

Who else are they gonna run in 2012? Romey? Huckabee? Palin? Jindal? Come on. If they pick any of these people it's gonna basically boil down to what the bible belt wants, yet that bloc continues to shrink. Brown is the only one in the Republican party who can transcend that because he's so charismatic.

But yeah, Martha Coakley handed the GOP a golden opportunity and they aren't going to take it out of their playbook.

Brown is pro-choice.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[SimpleDesign]

Elizabeth Warren: Obama Is Pushing Back Against Wall Street

"I feel better than I've felt in a long time. Because what I've heard the president saying on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is, 'It's not going down. I'm here, I'm not giving up on it. There is not going to be a compromise to cave in on it.' I heard him say that we're going to tax those large financial institutions, and we're going to make them pay back all of the money under TARP. And then today, I heard him say we're gonna break apart too-big-to-fail. And we're going to have an answer, so that every financial institution, if it makes big enough mistakes, if it takes big enough risks and loses, every one of them, can in the end, die.... And what I hear in that is that... the financial institutions have pushed him hard... [Obama] is pushing right back."

I doubt anyone wants to be seen siding with the banks, this seems like a sure thing. With that said...I can't wait to see how Democrats fuck this up, it'll be a treat to watch I tell you what.

 

[Averon]

Brown is pro-choice.

Game. Set. Match.

He'll do a Romney and flip-flop.

 

[cntr]

More Money, Less Disclosure

One of the results of today's Supreme Court ruling, according to campaign finance reform advocates, is that companies will be able to avoid disclosing their spending in support of specific candidates by funneling the contributions through entities like the Chamber of Commerce.

And now even the shitty "It'll be more transparent now!" defense is gone.

 

[Tamanon]

Also, is there a mechanism in place to prevent foreign money from being massively funneled in?

 

[cntr]

Tally Sheet: Where House Dems Stand On How To Move Health Care Reform Forward

As the post-Scott Brown phase of the health care debate unfolds, TPMDC is keeping score of where House members stand on the various proposals to move reform forward. Using reader emails as a starting point and confirming them with outside press accounts and our own reporting from Capitol Hill, we're keeping up with Democratic Representatives as they sort out how -- and if -- the reform process gets back on track after the loss of the Democratic supermajority in the House.

The choices facing Representatives break down like this so far: A member can choose to vote for the Senate bill as it exists today, vote for the Senate bill with the promise that the Senate will use reconciliation to make immediate changes to it, split up both bills into smaller single-reform bills and hope there's bipartisan support for them, scrap both bills and start over, or walk away from the process entirely.

Most of these options are new, and members are still making sense of them. Below is our confirmed list of where Representatives stand right now -- check back often for updates as we receive them.

Ready to vote for the senate bill: (1)

Walz, Tim (MN)

Ready to vote for the Senate bill with separate amending bill: (6)

Clyburn, James (SC), Frank, Barney (MA), Kennedy, Patrick (RI), Hoyer, Steny (MD), Pelosi, Nancy (CA), Van Hollen, Chris (MD)

Pass a bunch of small bills: (8)

Arcuri, Michael (NY), Blumenauer, Earl (OR), Delahunt, Bill (MA), Grijalva, Raul (AZ), McDermott, Jim (WA), Tanner, John (TN), Woolsey, Lynn (CA), Yarmuth, John (KY)

Start over: (1)

Weiner, Anthony (NY)

Noncommittal: (18)

Andrews, Robert E. (NJ), Becerra, Xavier (CA), Brady, Robert (PA), Davis, Susan (CA), DeGette, Diana (CO), Dingell, John (MI), Ellison, Keith (MN), Garamendi, John (CA), Grayson, Alan (FL), Hill, Baron (IN), Kind, Ron (WI), Lee, Barbara (CA), Maloney, Carolyn (NY), Neal, Richard (MA), Pomeroy, Earl (ND), Speier, Jackie (CA), Stark, Pete (CA), Waters, Maxine (CA)

Unknown:

Everyone else.

 

[Manmademan]

He'll do a Romney and flip-flop.

And how well did that work out for Romney? :lol :lol He was bounced out of the primaries thanks to the southern states' complete lack of enthusiasm for him.

If Scott Brown runs in 2012 (unlikely, imho, as every single "inexperienced" quote that came out of the mouths of the republican party re: obama in 2008 will come back to bite them in the ass) He'll be quickly clobbered in the primaries by Mike Huckabee 2: Electric boogaloo

 

[Diablos]

Brown is pro-choice.

Game. Set. Match.

Big deal. The GOP now has their shining star. Up until now they had NO ONE. They aren't stupid; they won't give up on him because he's pro-choice, they see how well he's doing in a liberal state, advocating Republican principals and all. This victory is huge. I don't think anyone sees that. Scott Brown has no problem falling in line with the GOP, hence being the reason why they call him "41." He'll sell out for their crazed agenda time and time again, and the party knows it.

And how well did that work out for Romney? :lol :lol He was bounced out of the primaries thanks to the southern states' complete lack of enthusiasm for him.

If Scott Brown runs in 2012 (unlikely, imho, as every single "inexperienced" quote that came out of the mouths of the republican party re: obama in 2008 will come back to bite them in the ass) He'll be quickly clobbered in the primaries by Mike Huckabee 2: Electric boogaloo

2008-2012 is a century in politics, this won't even matter if they attempt it. Remember, this is a party that has their own revisionist history. If he runs in the primary, voters will pick him; they will look beyond his pro-choice views (he's definitely toned them down since 2002, which was a long time ago), as they will be totally swept away by his charismatic campaign. This guy is way too good looking and charismatic to get the Romney treatment in a primary. The Republican party will be obsessing over this guy for YEARS. Just like a crazy pastor and ripping on guns and religion couldn't put a dent in Obama's armor, controversial views to conservatives which would otherwise isolate a candidate isn't going to do much of anything negative to Scott Brown. He's gonna be one of those god-like politicians who have a great deal of people under their spell for many years.

If this is the guy you need to beat the Obama machine, so be it -- that will be the attitude of most Republicans moving forward. You figure, they already view the President as some baby-killing socialist scumbag, so Scott Brown would be a move to the "center" for these nutcases, and a good amount of the US electorate.

Romney flip-flopped, but then again Romney comes off as being a rich old prude who's pretty detached from everyday people ("HEY I KNOW HOW TO RUN THIS HERE ECONOMY, DAMMIT, I'M RICH AND MY DAD KNEW LOTS ABOUT ECONOMICS TOO!!!! IN A BLUE STATE LOL!!"). Plus, he's Mormon; he might as well tell Republicans he's an atheist.

 

[worldrunover]

I think you're giving Brown too much credit and Massachusetts not enough. Brown ran a good campaign against a terribly inept candidate on the left (not to say she herself was inept, but her campaign was). Also, the majority party in Massachusetts is not Democrat, it's independent. They had 16 straight years of Republican governors recently. It is a blue state, but they do not always vote democrat en masse.

Brown needs some time to show what's he's made of. I can't possibly see the GOP throwing him out there a year and a half into his senatorial stint as a possible presidential candidate. Secondly, you're underestimating his pro-choice stance. Unless he flip-flops, he's in a political nightmare of a situation running on a national ticket.

 

[gcubed]

I think you're giving Brown too much credit and Massachusetts not enough. Brown ran a good campaign against a terribly inept candidate on the left (not to say she herself was inept, but her campaign was). Also, the majority party in Massachusetts is not Democrat, it's independent. They had 16 straight years of Republican governors recently. It is a blue state, but they do not always vote democrat en masse.

Brown needs some time to show what's he's made of. I can't possibly see the GOP throwing him out there a year and a half into his senatorial stint as a possible presidential candidate. Secondly, you're underestimating his pro-choice stance. Unless he flip-flops, he's in a political nightmare of a situation running on a national ticket.

and dont forget, his nude photo shoot wont go over well with the social conservative base and their "family values"

and anyway, i fucking hate fox and friends, brown has destroyed my 401k so far.

 

[mckmas8808]

Relative to much of the rest of the world, even the dems are more to the right.

I see people say this all the time but can't figure out why. We are a different nation than many in Europe. We have a different history, so why compare us to those "other" nations?

 

[Skiptastic]

1. Kennedy's seat goes to a republican
2. Health care bill is stalled
3. Corporations are free to finance political campaigns
4. Air America goes bankrupt

Good times.

The night is darkest just before the dawn.

 

[itsinmyveins]

The night is darkest just before the dawn.

Obama is the hero USA deserves, but not the one it needs right now?