Friday Open Thread
Consumer spending up as inflation eases - sounds decent.
U.S. to allow key detainees to request lawyers
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Fri, 2007-09-28 08:15
Tags:
Consumer spending up as inflation eases - sounds decent.
U.S. to allow key detainees to request lawyers
This is an Open Thread.
Comments :
more new articles on Newt Gingrich
Gloomy GOP can benefit Gingrich
from Newsweek:
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
11 Candidates!?
Ender, do you realize that if Newt jumps in, that would mean the (R)s would have 11 "mainstream" candidates running for office? You started with 10 I think. You would think that the further you get into the debate season, the smaller the field would become. At this rate you guys will have 15 candidates going into Iowa.
I also think its time to start slimming the field down on both sides. Grandpa Gravel should perhaps drop out--especially after his "I-ran-up-90,000-in-credit-because-they-deserved-it" tirade at their last debate. I say there should be five on each side.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Running a campaign must be lucrative
since no one seems willing to drop out of the field.
Newt for President......... hahhahahahaha! He was having an affair, and cheating on his wife, while he was leading the charge to prosecute Clinton for having an affair and cheating on his wife.
Isn't Newt the one that brought divorce papers to his wife's bedside in the hospital, while she was undergoing cancer treatment.
It is the economy, stupid.
well
mainstream does not necessarily equate to "top" and it's only top candidates that will eventually matter. I think after Iowa/NH a bunch of people will drop out and everything will be fine. Of course the debates are pretty messy in the mean time.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It is kind of interesting
One advantage republicans have had in presidential races as long as I've been alive is that they have had pretty much a designated nominee. Their primaries have mostly been about exploring issues rather than actually picking someone because everyone knows who has been picked by the party and that's just that.
This is the first time in my memory that there's really been a question. And it's kind of interesting to see some of the dynamics of that novelty play out.
For one thing a number of republicans are opening their dirty little playbooks of campaign tricks a mite bit early and using them on other republicans. The righteous indignation this causes is pretty funny, seeing as these same people are mum when it isn't their candidate being slandered.
Just interesting.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
was Reagan a done deal
in '79? Was Dole in 96? Bush had a fight on his hands from McCain. It wasn't always certain even in recent times. But yes, it is wide open now and is definitely more fun.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Reagan and dole
Reagan? Yeah he was pretty much a shoo-in in 79. Consider that his only rival to speak of was Bush. When the votes were counted Reagan had almost 2000. Bush had 13.
I think a 150:1 advantage is pretty much a done deal :)
Here's the wiki on Dole:
here
Compare those results to say the dems in 1984 where the tally was
obviously a much closer contest. Hell in 1980 the dems had a sitting president who still faced a prety serious primary opponent (Ted Kennedy). Granted it was Carter whose presidency was less than spectacular, but clearly the dem primaries are traditionally more of a contest and the rep primaries are more of a, I guess the best term would be "show and dance."
This time it's almost reversed. Hillary looks to be pretty much a shoo in (note "looks to be") where as the reps are having a knock-down-drag-em-out.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
An Interesting Fact
Your post reminded me of this rather interesting fact:
Since 1976 there has been either a Bush or Dole on the Republican ticket. See:
76: Ford/Dole
80: Reagan/Bush
84: Reagan/Bush
88: Bush/Quayle
92: Bush/Quayle
96: Dole/Kemp
00: Bush/Cheney
04: Bush/Cheney
That really smacks of legacy to me. I'm wondering if Jeb Bush will be the dark horse choice for VP. The thing is that with Hillary Clinton being the presumptive Democrat, we could possibly see:
Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush/Clinton
Which would make me even more ill.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Gravel
The thing about Gravel is that the cure is worse than the disease. If you start excluding him from debates, then people starting thinking he's being unfairly silenced. It's best to just let him sit up there and make a fool of himself.
I honestly cringe when I hear them say his name, because I know the response will be out of left field.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
So why is it that Hillary and the other misfits ...
running on the Democrat side won't commit to having troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term? Aren't these the leaders of the party calling for a definite timeline to pull out?
What are they afraid of?
Or have they just been lying to the American people (again) all along on the whole withdrawal thing? Aren't they serious about getting out? Is this just a political game to them?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't get it either
it seemed like an easy enough question with an easy enough answer considering the mood of the Democratic Party and the country as a whole.
What do they know that we don't?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Thank you Ender & GoRight. We liberals embrace you
when you come out as you both just have and say you think that America should withdraw from Iraq and that the war was a stupid move by our current (Vice) President.
Could you please have a word with your political leaders so that they too can spread the good news?
I think you need to go back and read that again ...
what we (or at least I) said was that the Democrats say that the American People want us to withdraw and that they won the 2006 election because of this issue.
Given this, I just think that it is sort of curious why the Democrat Presidential candidates are running away from making a commitment to do something so in line with what the Democrat leadership claims the will of the people is.
Can you please explain why they would (from their rhetorical and policy perspectives) throw the country under the bus like that?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That is what Democrats do
As I hinted downthread, the Democrats make a living out of throwing their base under a bus. I get that you don't understand this since the Republicans keep their base happy at nearly all costs.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
It's is always stupid to let goppers
define the battlezone.
Which is exactly what you are doing.
The goppers lost the election because of Iraq, yes but part of that has been the constant lies the President put forth as the reason we diverted our military front from Afganistan to Iraq. The constant lies.
That and rampant uncheck GOP corruption starting with Jack Abramoff and sweet little Jesus lovin' Jack Reed who, lied to the Indians, and stole their money and used to to fund the GOP campaign by filtering the money through the Dept of theh Interior.
Plus the flagrant abuse of earmarks and pork barrel spending that allowed Duke Cunningham to steal tax payers money to buy some stuff and give special favors to military contracters.
Plus the abuse of the public trust by NOT honoring the residents of New Orleans.
Plus the ugly expensive medicare program.
Plus no child left behind that is underfunded and a ridiculous crony contract to rewrite school books and give a special contract to the 'right' kind of bookrighters.
Plus the enormous waste of billions and billions of tax payer dollars to private contracters in New Orleans and IRaq.
Plus the erosion of civil liberties, habeous corpus.
So it is about Iraq, yes......... but in the larger context of rampant bullying and exortion of the public trust by members of Congress who say the are Republicans.
Plus the GOP inflated housing market, cause the GOP just doesn't do regulation and now the world markets see a decline in the dollar and a credit crunch.
The biggest failure for democrats, is that no one democratic leader has taken the initiative to explain that once we are in this godawful mess in IRaq, fighting a war for the children of Israel, that is nearly impossible to get out, especially after the we have used billions of tax payer dollars to turn a killers residence into the US Embassy in Iraq, the largest in the world, plus the 14 military bases.
Al Queda in Iraq......... it is so cool to say that now, if you are in the military.
So the question now becomes would you rather have a reasonable democrat who believes in consultation with the world to help solve problems like we see in Iran and Pakistan.
Or would you rather have a neanderthal Republican who says my bombs are twice as big as yours, and I will triple the size of Gitmo.
It is the economy, stupid.
This explains why Democrats throw people under the bus?
Sorry, but I can't see how this applies to my topic.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
oh well
It is the economy, stupid.
americans aren't strongly enough in favor of withdrawl
it's just that simple.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
WTF?
Aren't the Democrats running around saying that they have a mandate to get the troops out based on their 2006 electoral victory? I seem to be hearing a lot of that from Reid and Pelosi. Is it just a lie and political gaming?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well
why don't you post the quotes of them saying that.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Here's a smattering, no more time to waste on it ...
anyone who denies that the Democrats have been claiming that the main reason they were elected in 2006 was the Iraq War and getting us out is sadly mistaken.
ELECTION 2006
America's referendum on war
Pelosi's countdown: She ticks off a list of changes, including a new Iraq strategy
Reid, Pelosi Call On President To Listen To The Will Of The American People On Iraq
:
Reid And Pelosi Renew Call For President To Work With Congress On Changing Course In Iraq
Congress Puts Its Marker on Iraq War, but How Big?
Here's one from Biden:
Statement on Rumsfeld's Resignation, President's Press Conference and Iraq
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Naturally you miss the point
I was trying to guide you to something-
notice how the latest of your quotes is from june of this year? The PR offensive for the petraeus report really started this summer.
The question you missed was when they made those claims.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
And the fact that we are in Sept, 2007
changes the fact that by their own account they were elected primarily on the issue of getting the troops out of Iraq how? So if that was their mandate and they disavow that now, how is that not throwing America under the bus?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Go back to my original statement. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The one that doesn't address the point of the question?
Trying to run us back through this loop won't change that, you know.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I've pointed you in the direction
not my fault if you won't or can't actually go.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What benefit is there to covering the same ground again?
The result will be the same: you whining and trying to avoid anwsering the questions. Why are you afraid to give an honest and direct answer?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The Strategy of Least-Worst
The Democrats are using the least-worst strategy again that lost them the last two presidential elections. After they successfully pinned 2000 on Nader, they know that there is no way in hell any liberal Democrats are going to jump ship and vote for a Green or liberal independent. They continue to stake out a "moderate" (read: cowardly) position on troop withdraw because they know they've got the anti-war vote already sewn up. They had it in 2004 when Kerry was arguably to the right of Bush on Iraq.
Democrats also like to talk about Bush attempting to run out the clock. What they don't mention is that being fully invested in Iraq is paramount for them to make gains in congress. Notice how the Democratic senators cry about needing 67 votes to end the war when they really only need 41 (filibuster spending bills). They're trying to say that the voters need to kick out their Republican congressmen so they can finally end the war. Of course, by 2008 we'll have a new President, so this line of reasoning is pretty faulty.
So in answer to your last question, yes this is a political game to them. It's also a political game to the Republicans, who are essentially setting up the Democrats to be the fall guys when our troops are inevitably pulled out. People are dying for partisan dick-waving. It's truly the most horrific thing I've seen.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You know, I think that this is pretty accurate.
Interstingly enough, I keep trying to push them (the Democrats) to make good on their promises to keep them from moving right (to the center). Good analysis in my opinion.
On the 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, I keep remembering in the back of my mind that there is a Senate rule against filibustering Appropriations Bills, but I can't ever figure out of these supplemental spending bills are considered Appropriations Bills or not. If not then you are correct. An excellent point!
The also have the vaunted "Nucelar Option" if they were serious enough because they only need 51 votes to change the filibuster rules ... and since they are the majority they already have that many votes.
In the end, though, they would need to be able to over-ride the inevitable Bush veto which they most likely could not sustain.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
51 votes?
No they don't. There are 49 Democrats in the Senate. And the one "Independent Democrat" is farther to the right than several Republicans, so you can't count on his vote.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes thank you
The biggest mistake the dems make in a debate is letting the R's frame it.
It is the economy, stupid.
I stand corrected.
I forgot about the 2 independents ... but they caucus with the Democrats so they must have at least some affinity for their perspective, right?
Besides, you're discounting the RINO votes...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There was an article in today's SF Chronicle that
spoke of the need to have 41 Senators in order to filibuster legislation. I can't find the link, but it went on to say that because the Senate has 2 seats for every state, with the current population statistics, that it could take Senators representing only 11% of the total population to stop popular bills from being enacted.
Think about it. What if 88% of the population supported something and the 41 Senators from the smallest populations states vote against it, or rather refuse to call an end to debate on a bill, thus killing it.......How is that representative in any way?
Now, right now the 41 Senators that have successfully killed numerous bills over the last couple of weeks, don't represent only the smallest states. You have Texas, half of Florida and a couple of other medium states in there.
But....Take a look. Right now we have probably 25 to maybe 30% of the population running what get's enacted and what doesn't. That's a Super Minority telling the majority to go suck eggs.
It was an interesting thought.
Same as it was with the Democrats in the Minority ...
There is a reason that they created the Senate AND the House in Congress. The House is intended to be the guardian of the people's rights and the Senate is the guardian of the state's rights. The senate was created the way it was precisely to prevent mob rule over the minority. It worked for the Democrats so don't complain that it is working for us.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
which ignores the rampant abuse
of the filibuster by the GOP who have treated it as the norm instead of the extreme reaction.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Just like the Democrats did when they were the minority.
Unless I am mistaken, they STILL hold the record for having used it the most, correct? Future projections being beside the point since that's kind of like counting chickens before they're hatched.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Uhhh. no you are wrong AGAIN.
This session of Congress. Republicans have used the threat of a filibuster (as of 7/18/07 as per this McClatchy News article
) 42 times and were on track to use it 153 times by the end of the session. The highest previous total was 58 times.
Damn you can lie. You should:
A) run for political office as a Republican.
B) write copy for Phaux News
C) blog whatever dumb and misquoted thing that comes into your head.
Which is it gonna be?
Can you not read?
So, if we examine the number of filibusters ACTUALLY USED at this point in time (actually July 18) the number was at 42. The record being 58 which was set by the Democrats.
In fact, if we look at the record for the Democrats during their time in the minority under Bush we see that they used more filibusters EVERY YEAR than any Congress used in ANY years previous to Bush. A distinction that THIS Congress has/had yet to attain, I might add.
Why do you think that I put that second sentence in there? Because I had already seen this information and I knew that some one of you would want to try and make a point of it, falsely claiming that this somehow demonstrates that we have already surpassed the Democrat record, which we have not as far as I know.
If you want to show that we have you have to come up with a more current reference that lists actual filibusters not imaginary ones.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
History lesson
The two highest congresses are the 106th and 107th. The democrats controlled the senate during one of those (the 107th).
Wow? Everyone hear that? Goright just foreswore ever making a prediction about the future ever again. Sweet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actually, I foreswore Democrats ever making predictions.
:)
So, just so I understand correctly, you are saying that the Democrats SET the record of 58 in the 106th Congress and the Republicans tied that record in the 107th?
Having you around is like having my own research staff. Thanks!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't know why I bother with GR.
You are a Freeper more than you are interesting or fun.
The stat I used was from 7/18/07. It's now 9/28/07. Repubs clearly have exceeded the 58 laid down by previous generations (although honestly I don't have the current stat).
And what is it Repubs have tried to accomplish? Do they think that the bills brought forth are bad? NO! All they really intend to show is that a Democratic controlled Senate and House wasn't able to accomplish much at all. And who's fault is that? Democrats? That's like blaming black people for slavery in the United States!
Added later - to the management....Thanks for editing my reply. it was in poor taste and I appreciate what you did by wiping my comments.
How convenient for you ...
Get back to me when you do, ok? Imaginery filibusters still don't count.
Exactly what the Democrats did in the minority.
Gee, sorry I missed it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm not. It was ugly.
I'm sorry to say that I can see from my actions that it wasn't beneath me. That dissapoints me in my own eyes.
I guess we all have our crosses to bear.
In actuality ...
I really am sorry that my views and positions get under your skin so much. But unfortunately I believe what I believe and I am not going to change it just to make you or your friends more comfortable.
Please accept that my discontent is not with you personally.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Actual number of cloture votes
Sorry GR, but the record has been broken
. We're up to 61 now. But heck, with only 15 months left to go, they're not going to break it by that much, eh?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
different counts
using that source the last congress had 68 cloture motions (my guess is that the discrepency with the McClatchy story come because of multiple motions to end a single filibuster).
I'm sure GR will cling to the technicality like a life preserver.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Hey if we break the record, we break the record.
It's just politics and the need to check the Democrat madness.
But I see no reason to concede that we broke the record before we ACTUALLY broke the record. You sure as he** wouldn't.
But thanks for keeping things honest! Good research staff. Have a cookie.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Actually
*I* don't have a problem with projections based on current trends and rates. In fact a hell of a lot of my work is based on just that. It's one thing to add a caveat that the rate or trend might change due to unforeseen circumstances.
Quite another to just deny it has any meaning at all.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
The meanings of rates of change are fine for
predictable phenomena. Are you really contending that the rate of filibusters is contant? Are you really contending that we can predict the number of issues which will be introduced over the next 3/4 of the term is that predicatable?
I don't think you can say so with any credibility. I mean, come on. There's no justification to say that the rate of filibusters will remain contant for a year and a half. If you really feel that you can provide a credible rationale for why such a prediction should be viewed as credible I would really like to hear it.
EDIT:
I assume that you will agree that we haven't actually broken the record until, well, we have actually filibustered more bills that the Democrats have, right? Making a prediction doesn't make it true, right?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Rationale
How's this for rationale? If we look back at the cloture stats for past congresses
, there is never any huge disparity between the number of votes during the first year and the number during the second year, based on a cursory glance at the tables on those pages. I looked back about 20 years, then got bored. In most cases, it appeared that there were more during the second year, but rarely by much. So, using the documented behavior of past congresses as a rationale, it is not at all unreasonable to project that the current congress will end up with approximately twice the number of filibusters as they will have at the end of their first year. Since we are not done with the first year yet, we can with confidence say that it is likely that they will end up with at least double their current total. That blows past totals out of the water already, and is a conservative estimate, based on no more filibusters for the remainder of this year (which I am sure you will admit is pretty unlikely).
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, as Tlaloc keeps pointing out ...
Cloture votes are not filibusters, so cloture vote trends say nothing about filibuster trends. As we have seen, there are 16 unaccounted for filibusters beyond what we have seen in the cloture votes.
This is all moot, though. If they pass the record as your predict then you can legitimately claim that they have set the record. Until they actually set the record why should I have to concede that they have? With all due respect to you and Tlaloc, that's kind of a "duh" thing to have to ask.
Stop saying that they have done more filibusters than the Democrats until they have ACTUALLY done more filibusters than the Democrats and then I won't be able to call you liars.
You're both being like the little kids on a car ride, "Are we there yet?" :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Unique bill from SL's reference.
I extracted the unique measure identifiers from SL's reference. The total was 26. That's a far cry from 42, maybe I should double check the data in your
graph? :)
[ Yes, I know that there may be bills that are being filibustered
which have never had a cloture vote and thus wouldn't appear here. ]
Here are the results:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Once again different counts. -nt
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Agreed.
But it IS a far cry for 42, so why should I just accept that there are 16 measures in the Senate just sitting around because of the threat of a filibuster? If they are not important enough to even get a cloture vote, what does that say? If they have never even had a cloture vote, how can you say that they are truly being filibustered?
There's a lot of wiggle room left even in the 42 number it seems.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Discrepancies