News Stories

[Solace]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Stop defending the Democrats then.

I'm not defending the entire party. I'm stating my opinion that in this particular group of Democrats, in this particular situation, I agree with their actions and I support the recall efforts. The rest of my views should be clear from that post.

To be clear, I'm not a Democrat or Republican. I'm a Humanist. I'm concerned with the happiness, peace, and prosperity of ALL humans. Not just certain groups. If you really feel so inclined to put a political label on me, I'd be a deep Progressive Democrat....I guess.

Public Unions, and Unions in general, get a lot of flak, but they aren't the problem. They're a symptom of the system, a system which has been built around haves and have nots for thousands of years. That we've even progressed this far as a species is a remarkable achievement in itself, but in the vast majority of our progress it has been in spite of self perpetuating systems of money (and by extension) power. We've paid a hard price for every lapse in vigilance.

This system is decrepit. It is rotting. It is corrupt. It is gasping for its last breath. It is the ultimate end of an era stretching back to the first Empires. It won't end cleanly. I do not know what will replace it. All I can do is work toward and hope for something better than what came before, so that my children, and their children, and so on, won't look back at a dying species and planet in shame.

I want the future of humanity to be one in which all people have food, clothes, shelter, education, health care...all in great quality and abundance, provided simply because they are human. The future I want looks at words like social stratification, poverty, hunger, war, greed, etc., as relics of a time of barbarism and savagery, from a period of humanity when we considered ourselves civil when we were really just foolish and stupid.

I want them to know what the planet looked like when it was beautiful, and not from video or pictures, but because they can see it themselves. I want "what do you want to do when you grow up" to be a more important question than "what do you want to be when you grow up". I want people to spend more time doing what makes them happy instead of doing what they have to because it pays the bills.

I'm an idealist. A dreamer. I want a world where how we define prosperity, or success, or ourselves, isn't simply how much money we have or what we own, flaunting silly status symbols as if they somehow matter. Every time I see people focusing on trying to fix the cracks on a collapsing building, yelling at the other guy for fixing the wrong cracks, and neither of them can be bothered to step back and think that maybe the building itself is the problem....I feel a little sadder.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Jinto

The question is, what costs more lifes on the long run... up armed gangs, or a riot once in a while.

i'd be glad to have these "gangs" protect my business and show an example to would-be hordes of looters & vandals




i feel kinda bad for mom 'n pop shops/stores in london for not having the option like these brave los angelinos store owners had in one of the most destructive and expensive riots of all time http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-...1_1_police-car

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

We did have that at one point early in our history...it led to a war in the 1860s and the gradual increase in the power of the Federal government.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

if you go back to immediately after the American Revolution and before the Constitutions was vote on. That was how the US was govern and it didn't work. It was try again with Confederate States by the South during the Civil War. And that didn't work either, you had southern governor sitting on supplies and refuse to give it to anyone but militia form their own state. The Southern Governor routinely ignore the Confederate Government and that was in midst of a War.

it was coined i Death by Theory because of how strongly some of the governors held onto the states right while the South was losing the war.


It was proven twice a decentralize government doesn't work and these small govenment type still go for a 3rd try.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Plus, the states are woefully disparate in what they can do... we've effectively been sending much of the domestic costs down to the state level since the year 2000 while much of the funding is siphoned off into a few pockets. Many of the states are going broke trying to provide a minimum of public infrastructure (since the robber barons scoot away when it comes time to support the community they're making so much money from).

Example: the Bush "No Child Left Behind" program was mostly a boondoggle that enriched the private testing companies and private education companies at the expense of sufficient funding for public schools. It cost the states dearly but was unfunded at the federal level, so the poorer states were hit harder. Schools began "teaching to the test" and as a result we have even fewer people who can think critically.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Also one of the main reason the Federal government have grown so much is because the state government has been dragging their feet and dodging their responsibility.

Civil Rights Act
Brown Vs Board of Education
Interracial Marriage

it took the federal government to make these changes. if it was upto the states, some of them would still have a ban on interracial marriage.

I disagree, federalism allows government to be more responsive to the electorate. The fact is that the United States is such a huge country, it will always be very difficult to solve any issues in a way satisfactory to everyone. In the end you only get a solution that meets everyone's minimum expectations, and satisfies no one. Smaller governments (and I mean literally smaller, IE ruling over less) can be more dynamic and responsive. A large centralized government should only be involved in "big" matters, like war. It shouldn't directly legislate on our matters that affect your daily life. Instead individual states should legislate as they see fit.

So let's say you're a liberal in Massachussetts, and you think it would be a great idea for there to be a universal healthcare system. Such a thing will never get the universal support accross the continent to legalise it, but in a liberal state like Massachussetts it's extremely popular. So the state legislates it and the citizens of Massachussetts now have universal healthcare. Furthermore, because Massachussetts is so much smaller, an individual citizen can take the initiative and start a campaign and have a meaningful chance of making a difference. In the US as a whole your campaign would be just a drop in the ocean and feel futile.

Meanwhile in South Carolina they want to pass scale back welfare, and that measure has popular support there. Again, such a thing would be extremely difficult if done nationally. But for a state, popular support can exist.

Meanwhile both state governments are responsible for paying for it, and balancing their budget. And citizens in both states will feel happier as they can have the government that suits their beliefs.

Furthermore this allows states to experiment. For instance, a nationwide commercial premises smoking ban would be impossible to implement, but individual states have implemented it, and found the effects beneficial. So as other states who are more risk averse see the benefits of the measure, and more importantly the residents of other states see the positive effects of the measure, it's support grew. If individual states were unable to implement the smoking legislation, this would have been a non-starter, would never have gotten through congress, senate and the presidency. Instead 80% of the population now lives under a smoking ban of some kind, to the level that they like. So in some jurisdictions it's all premises, and in others they exempt cigar bars and tobacconists. Everyone gets a law that suits them, and everyone is happier.

Now obviously for really BIG stuff (like, ahem, Slavery) there should be universal laws at the federal level. But for things that are more related to economic activity, that are dividing so much of the electorate at the moment, stuff like Healthcare and welfare, I think it would quite right that each individual state take care of it, and that the federal government should stick to weightier matters, like National security, and pass whatever measures they like through the state system rather then over riding it.

Americans are chronically apathetic towards politics because they have so little influence, and yet they seem to ignore the institution they have real power over, and that can be truly responsive to their interests, their state and local governments.

An example of what different levels of government should handle:
Local government: Cleaning the trash up from your street
Municipal government: Organising trash cans to be placed in proper locations
State government: Pass laws to prevent companies from polluting, dumping trash.
Federal Government: Coordinating and liaising with state government to ensure large companies can't "divide and conquer" on the matter of waste. Seeking a broad consensus so that a "minimum" standard can be reached on pollution regulation, that other states can exceed if they wish.

I advocate a decent sized government, but a divided one. The USA could solve a lot of it's problems if matters of welfare was decided by individual states, otherwise we get tyranny of the majority, where a small majority of states dictate how the slightly smaller half should live.

I live in a small country, and because of that almost everyone knows someone in government, even if only distantly. Our government may make bad mistakes, but I don't think I could ever really accuse it of not being in tune with the will of the people on most issues.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Solace

Remind me again how gaining two more seats for Democrats and demonstrating that even in deep red districts Democratic candidates stood a chance and put up a strong fight is a failure?

Oh I know, everyone was hoping for the best case scenario - flipping majorities. But let's not pretend that this was a total defeat for the recall movement.

the way is see it is GOP hold off dems..... at the expense of dems

why?

i think dem supporters in Wisconsin are just... spent, and the money & energy/passion seen in that campaign by the dem side won't be around in the next cycle

and let's not forget 2 dem state senators are facing recalls next week... both could go GOP

[kaizerknight01]

in my opinion both parties republican and democrats are engaged in too much vitriol and politicking ......... as usual ....... both sides are too extreme on theirs views ( well the next election cycle is coming up i expect more grandstanding and more political drama which the US or any democratically elected republic country does not need .......... just my opinion

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by flying ^

the way is see it is GOP hold off dems..... at the expense of dems

why?

i think dem supporters in Wisconsin are just... spent, and the money & energy/passion seen in that campaign by the dem side won't be around in the next cycle

and let's not forget 2 dem state senators are facing recalls next week... both could go GOP

Given the almost exactly 50/50 split in the US, its a serious mistake to ignore half the population in ramming through extremist "solutions" from either end of the spectrum.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

Of course they're going to say that. Was it realistic? Clearly not, but that morale and energy did net them two more seats.

Clearly they shouldn't have said it to begin with.
It was presumptuous on their part and now they have political egg on their face.

They ran because they couldn't fight it in the Senate. The entire reason they fled the state, and not just the town or region, is because the Republicans were going to push the measure through with no input from Democrats, as fast as they could. Because it was a budget bill, the law required that both sides be physically present.

Once the collective bargaining parts where taken out of the budget bill, they could be voted on without the Democrats there, which they did, in one of the most disgusting displays of "democracy" I've seen. Keep in mind the entire debate was that collective bargaining was a budget issue.

I already understood that.
However, in politics perception is 9/10ths of reality.
The perception right now is that the Democrats are weak, spineless, and a bunch of whiners who are using the recall measure to circumvent the consequences of the 2010 election results.
That's not what the recall procedure is supposed to be used for, and the Dems know this.
Case in point, if this were a pro-Union bill that a Democrat controlled Win state government had pushed through and the Republicans had used the same method to try and take back control the Dems would be calling foul.
And rightfully so, however, that cuts both ways and the Democrats should have known better than to take this course of action.

That's just it though, they couldn't fight it by simply staying. The Republicans had the ability to push it through (thanks to their majority), and they were going to do it regardless of protests from Democrats. The only thing the Democrats could do to put a temporary halt to the vote and let people know what the legislature was attempting to do was to leave the state.

But that's the consequence of elections in a democratic system.
The Democrats ought to know that.
They were the ones shoving it in the nation's face when they rammed the Health Care Law down the throats of this nation.
Americans still want that law repealed.
What the hell were the Democrats thinking?

Being so against something that you are willing to risk losing your job by leaving the state just to halt a vote is more than I could ever say for many political figures. You call things like that spoiled and cry babies. I call it Democracy when people fight for what they believe in, and are willing to take great risk in doing so. There's a chance the Dems could have lost the recall efforts entirely, in fact that possibility still exists (two Dems are up for recall). But people are making their voices heard, even if the political process has the taint of interests and money.

You can't say a month of civil protests and an unprecedented number of recalls in one state isn't Democracy.

There was no risk of them losing their jobs.
They're union workers, their jobs are protected.
The fact is the Democratic party in Wisconsin gambled on that state being mostly a "Blue" state and they lost the gamble.
The national repercussions will be felt in 2012 to the detriment of the Dems.

I can agree with your first comment about Walker, but the rest....we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well at least we agree on some things right?
That's a positive start.

Then maybe the GOP should stop acting like bullies and maybe the Dems should learn to stand up for something more often.

Agreed, the GOP is way out of control.
Their corporatist agenda is very troublesome to me.
However, the Democrats [have] Fall[en] Short in [the] Wisconsin Recall Effort and thus no claim of any sort of victory can be considered as legitimate.

I can understand the sentiment, but let's not kid ourselves - the GOP is equally at fault for the unhappiness of Americans too.

Oh absolutely both parties are to blame.
Look at the unholy alliance of Clinton/Gingrich in the 1990s.
Those two are responsible for the jobs going over seas, the end of Glass Steagal, NAFTA, and massive bank deregulation.
Both of the major parties are up to their eyeballs in responsibility for this mess.
Let us not forget:

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

Yes, I actually used a socialist website as a source...that might be a first here.

Originally Posted by monir

Memory is fleeting. Let's go refresh our memory as to why the Democrats chose to flee. Really, your bullies in Wisconsin are GOP while your thuggish role is being played by Mr. Walker. The disturbing part here is that the bully and the thug aren't even trying to hide.

My GOP???
Dear, I'm a Classical Liberal who's currently registered Libertarian.
Don't lump me in with the Rockerfeller Republicans and their corporatist henchmen.

The only reason I can think of as to why the Democrats don't have more seat is because the idiots lost the real reason for the recall election in the midst of this hoola-hoopla. The state was in uproar at one point when the news broke what Walker was upto. Instead of using that to inspire people why the recall election was taking place they were more busy at pushing through all of their other agendas as issues for why people need to vote Democrats. It pretty much gave the public the option of choosing idiots over bullies. Anyway, we will see if Walker can survive also come next as he is up for a recall too.

Agreed, they did stray from their original message, and that's why they're losing this fight.
Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but the Dems now have two black eyes (the Judicial election was lost, and now control of the Senate is lost).
That should have them changing course and preparing for 2012 instead of adding insult to injury and pursuing Walker.
If they push for a recall of the governor at this point in the game, and they lose, then the repercussions in 2012 may be even worse.
This is the problem with ideological crusades based on emotion, the tact and strategy gets muddied by an overwhelming desire to undo what has been done to quickly.
Patience is required in the Wisconcin issue, and a firm plan for 2012.
That's not happening.

I can tell that you never were a Socialist. I however agree Democrats do like to cry the "victim" a lot more these days.

There I corrected that for you.
When I was a Democrat (in the late 80s early 90s), they didn't run from a political fight.
They stood their ground and made a case against the GOP.
They actually used strategy and political tactics based on fact rather than emotion.
That's how the Clintons won the WH in 1992, and how Bill won again in 96.
He didn't whine about his failures or set backs, he pushed forward even when he lost and thus people respected him for it and rewarded him with a second term.
What the Dems did in Wisconcin isn't going to win them the political clout they think it will.

[andyjay729]

"I disagree, federalism allows government to be more responsive to the electorate. The fact is that the United States is such a huge country, it will always be very difficult to solve any issues in a way satisfactory to everyone. In the end you only get a solution that meets everyone's minimum expectations, and satisfies no one. Smaller governments (and I mean literally smaller, IE ruling over less) can be more dynamic and responsive. A large centralized government should only be involved in "big" matters, like war. It shouldn't directly legislate on our matters that affect your daily life. Instead individual states should legislate as they see fit."

I support your ideas in theory, especially vis a vis drug laws and other social laws. If California wants to legalize not just marijuana but also cocaine and heroine and Texas wants to make possession of an ounce of pot a capital offense, so be it.

Unfortunately, as Vexx would say, there's just too many special interests sunk into the current organization of things. The growing private prison industry (private prisons-now there's a deal with the devil if you asked me) is quite happy with America's astronomical prison population, largely there due to drug offenses.

Plus there's also federal drug smuggling laws and the Commerce Clause, which drug-warrior conservatives often cite, which brings up the Constitutional arguments your proposal would bring up in Congress. Southern neo-Confederates (I had no idea there were still so many of them until recently) say the Constitution was on their side and they had the right to secede, while others say the Constitution demanded an unbreakable Union, and that the Confederates were traitors.

In short, I'm not a civics major, but there's so much special interest and HUGE money in just leaving things as they are that, well, I don't even know if there's ever going to be even another Constitutional amendment for a long, long time. (When was the last one?) Hell, some of the Tea Party types even want to annul the amendment for direct election of senators! Talk about more freedom--this will just put control of the process back in the hands of smoky backrooms like in the days before a Wisconsin Republican introduced the bill. (Of course, like the magnetic poles, the two parties have almost completely exchanged positions in the past century. The Republican Party of 2011 is more like the Democratic Party of 1861 and vice versa. Amazing.) And as Michigan's current governor is demonstrating with their "emergency" financial takeovers, the Pubbies aren't afraid to use big government when it suits their purposes.

I'm not one to defend Democrats to the death, though. Like with Bill Bulger of Massachusetts--if there is some reason to believe he protected his mob boss brother Whitey for 17 years (you may remember he was caught just a couple months ago), there damn well should be an investigation.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by andyjay729

"I disagree, federalism allows government to be more responsive to the electorate. The fact is that the United States is such a huge country, it will always be very difficult to solve any issues in a way satisfactory to everyone. In the end you only get a solution that meets everyone's minimum expectations, and satisfies no one. Smaller governments (and I mean literally smaller, IE ruling over less) can be more dynamic and responsive. A large centralized government should only be involved in "big" matters, like war. It shouldn't directly legislate on our matters that affect your daily life. Instead individual states should legislate as they see fit."

I support your ideas in theory, especially vis a vis drug laws and other social laws. If California wants to legalize not just marijuana but also cocaine and heroine and Texas wants to make possession of an ounce of pot a capital offense, so be it.

Unfortunately, as Vexx would say, there's just too many special interests sunk into the current organization of things. The growing private prison industry (private prisons-now there's a deal with the devil if you asked me) is quite happy with America's astronomical prison population, largely there due to drug offenses.

Plus there's also federal drug smuggling laws and the Commerce Clause, which drug-warrior conservatives often cite, which brings up the Constitutional arguments your proposal would bring up in Congress. Southern neo-Confederates (I had no idea there were still so many of them until recently) say the Constitution was on their side and they had the right to secede, while others say the Constitution demanded an unbreakable Union, and that the Confederates were traitors.

In short, I'm not a civics major, but there's so much special interest and HUGE money in just leaving things as they are that, well, I don't even know if there's ever going to be even another Constitutional amendment for a long, long time. (When was the last one?) Hell, some of the Tea Party types even want to annul the amendment for direct election of senators! Talk about more freedom--this will just put control of the process back in the hands of smoky backrooms like in the days before a Wisconsin Republican introduced the bill. (Of course, like the magnetic poles, the two parties have almost completely exchanged positions in the past century. The Republican Party of 2011 is more like the Democratic Party of 1861 and vice versa. Amazing.) And as Michigan's current governor is demonstrating with their "emergency" financial takeovers, the Pubbies aren't afraid to use big government when it suits their purposes.

I'm not one to defend Democrats to the death, though. Like with Bill Bulger of Massachusetts--if there is some reason to believe he protected his mob boss brother Whitey for 17 years (you may remember he was caught just a couple months ago), there damn well should be an investigation.

I'll reply with a picture...because it paints a thousand words about the GOP:



And, it's now time for a "Black" moment:

My man Lewis sums up my feelings about both parties quite nicely.

[GDB]

Lewis Black really does sum things up quite well there.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Almost every advanced country in the world has had its manufacturing job sector decimated by corporate exploitation of labor elsewhere. No jobs have appeared to replace them. The corporations have steadfastly avoided any responsibility for the workforce, the infrastructure, or the communities they used (and dropped). We're running out of working peasants to tax and provide safety net support for the unemployed peasants. The countries with strong social infrastructure have been able to slow or mitigate this... but they're still wounded by this tactic.

speaking of the manufacturing sector...

looks like it's getting harder and harder for the likes of Honda/Nissan/Toyota to keep production in japan because of chronic hi-yen/lo-dollar
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44071217/ns/business-autos/

[Ithekro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendme..._United_States

Most recently added amendment was the 27th which deals with Congressional salaries. It wa proposed in 1789 and enacted in 1992. The 26th on voting age was proposed and enacted much faster (all in 1971).

[andyjay729]

Let's see...between when my mom was born in November 1951 and when she turned my age (29), four amendments were added to the Constitution. In my lifetime, a grand total of one amendment has been added.

I don't believe in change just for the sake of change, and I don't entirely agree with Thomas Jefferson's statement that a revolution once in a while is a good thing, but I think this goes hand in hand with my previous statement that a lot of the powers that be are just fine and dandy with the way things are, and have been at least since the '80s.

[ganbaru]

Soul searching lies ahead as riots cool in Britain
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7760G820110811

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Clearly they shouldn't have said it to begin with.
It was presumptuous on their part and now they have political egg on their face.

Sorry I have to disagree. Generally in normal elections, the parties tend to focus on "swing" areas, because they know that one, they don't have to campaign too hard in their own territory, and two, it's too risky to push hard into the other guys territory.

In this election, things are a little different. The Democrats pushed into deep conservative territory and managed to snag two seats. In addition to that, they showed just how little security those conservative strongholds provide for their elected officials. Sure, the Republicans won, but it wasn't a cakewalk.

What does this mean? In 2012, and in the Walker recall (you know it'll happen), Democrats have now shown they can force their way into Republican territory and put severe pressure on the running candidates.

This may sound like me cheerleading Dems but it's more like observational punditry. What I saw is obviously different than what you saw, and ultimately we're going to have to wait for the 2012 elections to see what the state, and country, decide they (think) they want.

I already understood that.
However, in politics perception is 9/10ths of reality.
The perception right now is that the Democrats are weak, spineless, and a bunch of whiners who are using the recall measure to circumvent the consequences of the 2010 election results.
That's not what the recall procedure is supposed to be used for, and the Dems know this.
Case in point, if this were a pro-Union bill that a Democrat controlled Win state government had pushed through and the Republicans had used the same method to try and take back control the Dems would be calling foul.
And rightfully so, however, that cuts both ways and the Democrats should have known better than to take this course of action.

The Dems pushed for a recall but they couldn't get it done unless there was support. If no one cared, or supported them, they wouldn't have gotten the signatures needed and they couldn't have gained two more seats.

You say that recalls aren't supposed to be used like this. What are they for then, if not to give the people a chance to remove the people who have disappointed them and put in people they have faith in? Why should people have to suck it up and take it in the rear for years waiting for the next election when there is enough of them unhappy enough to do what is legally their right and get the people they are unhappy with out now?

Perception does matter, but look at the numbers. Dems aren't faring too well. Neither are Republicans. Neither is Walker. Across the board all government is doing extremely poorly in the polls. I simply cannot look at the next official cycle of elections and make a prediction. It's a long time between then and now.

But that's the consequence of elections in a democratic system.
The Democrats ought to know that.
They were the ones shoving it in the nation's face when they rammed the Health Care Law down the throats of this nation.
Americans still want that law repealed.
What the hell were the Democrats thinking?

A lot of the Democrats were thinking they should have told the Republicans to go to hell, and passed the original version of the bill (Public Option and all) like they wanted to. Now it's just a watered down bill that does a few token nice things for the public in exchange for making insurance and medical companies much much richer.

Americans overwhelmingly supported the more progressive version of the HC bill. They hated that it was so watered down and they hated seeing the breakdown in government when both should have been working to get it done. Why did HC take over a year to get done? Because Republicans dragged their feet the entire way, refusing to do anything that would endanger big business and lying to the public about nonsense like "Death panels" and "rationing" and "socialism".

There was no risk of them losing their jobs.
They're union workers, their jobs are protected.
The fact is the Democratic party in Wisconsin gambled on that state being mostly a "Blue" state and they lost the gamble.
The national repercussions will be felt in 2012 to the detriment of the Dems.

Protected unless the public fires them.

The fact is that the Democratic Party fought on "enemy" territory and won two seats. The Republicans lost two. These battles weren't fought in blue areas, just red.

2012 will be a detriment? We'll see. One can never predict the future.

Well at least we agree on some things right?
That's a positive start.

Indeed.

Agreed, the GOP is way out of control.
Their corporatist agenda is very troublesome to me.
However, the Democrats [have] Fall[en] Short in [the] Wisconsin Recall Effort and thus no claim of any sort of victory can be considered as legitimate.

Corporations and Finance have been in bed with Government (all sides) since the founding of the nation. Sometimes people wise up enough and they're beaten back, often not. We're in that "often not" period of time.

Anyway, you're painting the recall elections as all or nothing. People set a high goal to push as far as they can. The majority was the goal. They're one seat short. I just do not see how gaining two seats in an election is a failure....but maybe I'm the strange one?

Oh absolutely both parties are to blame.
Look at the unholy alliance of Clinton/Gingrich in the 1990s.
Those two are responsible for the jobs going over seas, the end of Glass Steagal, NAFTA, and massive bank deregulation.
Both of the major parties are up to their eyeballs in responsibility for this mess.

I'll just leave this here:

[Ithekro]

Wisconsin has been majority Democrat for a while now. While the parties roughly balanced in terms of populations, the Democrats have held the majority for over two decades. The semi-balance was shifted even more towards the Democrats in the 2008 Presidencial election as more sided with Obama than they usually do. However in 2010 the shift went the other way and gained the Republicans a unexpected majority. This is why the 2 seat gain seems hollow. It is technically a Democractic majority state and has been for almost a generation. Now it shifted and even with a major push that shift hasn't been reversed. Yet at least.

At least in presidential and federal level items...news on state level is harder.

[synaesthetic]

re: that video.

Political campaigns should be paid for with public funds only.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

Sorry I have to disagree. Generally in normal elections, the parties tend to focus on "swing" areas, because they know that one, they don't have to campaign too hard in their own territory, and two, it's too risky to push hard into the other guys territory.

Don't be sorry.
I'm an adult, I can handle it!

Wisconsin is/was a "blue" state up until the last election AFAIK.
I would think that the GOP is the one that was fighting in "enemy" territory.
Unless the state is swinging towards the GOP, then I guess the Dems would have an uphill battle.

In this election, things are a little different. The Democrats pushed into deep conservative territory and managed to snag two seats. In addition to that, they showed just how little security those conservative strongholds provide for their elected officials. Sure, the Republicans won, but it wasn't a cakewalk.

Actually they didn't.
One of the Republicans that lost was in a firm blue district while the other loss was due to that candidate being an adulterer and his wife (soon to be ex-wife) actually leading the recall campaign against him.

MSNBC puts it in perspective.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44075969...more_politics/

What does this mean? In 2012, and in the Walker recall (you know it'll happen), Democrats have now shown they can force their way into Republican territory and put severe pressure on the running candidates.

This may sound like me cheerleading Dems but it's more like observational punditry. What I saw is obviously different than what you saw, and ultimately we're going to have to wait for the 2012 elections to see what the state, and country, decide they (think) they want.

That's okay.
If you like the Dems you can cheer them on.
I cheer for Ron Paul and Rand Paul, so there's no shame in being a cheerleader for the political team you like.

No we don't know what will happen in 2012, but pushing this recall agenda forward doesn't look like a good idea.
If Walker wins his recall, the Dems in Wisconsin are finished.

You say that recalls aren't supposed to be used like this. What are they for then, if not to give the people a chance to remove the people who have disappointed them and put in people they have faith in? Why should people have to suck it up and take it in the rear for years waiting for the next election when there is enough of them unhappy enough to do what is legally their right and get the people they are unhappy with out now?

I'm not saying that legally they can't be used for political reasons.
I'm saying that it looks bad on the party doing the recall...especially if they lose.
Here's the info on recalls:

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16581

Perception does matter, but look at the numbers. Dems aren't faring too well. Neither are Republicans. Neither is Walker. Across the board all government is doing extremely poorly in the polls. I simply cannot look at the next official cycle of elections and make a prediction. It's a long time between then and now.

See, now that's a good case to vote Libertarian.

A lot of the Democrats were thinking they should have told the Republicans to go to hell, and passed the original version of the bill (Public Option and all) like they wanted to. Now it's just a watered down bill that does a few token nice things for the public in exchange for making insurance and medical companies much much richer.

Yeah, but civil war wasn't something they wanted to start.
The public option was loved by the people in support of the Health Care Bill, but not by those opposed to it.

Gallup analysis.

Americans overwhelmingly supported the more progressive version of the HC bill. They hated that it was so watered down and they hated seeing the breakdown in government when both should have been working to get it done. Why did HC take over a year to get done? Because Republicans dragged their feet the entire way, refusing to do anything that would endanger big business and lying to the public about nonsense like "Death panels" and "rationing" and "socialism".

If the HC bill is Progressive, then it is socialistic (though not dyed-in-the-wool socialist).
The Progressive Magazine, makes very clear what Progressivism stands for.
Basically a mix of socialism and capitalism that isn't fascist.
Marxists.org has a good piece on Progressivism.
Progressives aren't traditionally liked by Marxists, they're more akin to Fabians, but they're still pseudo-socialist in my view, and yes their policies reflect that.
So please don't try to tell me that a progressive HC bill isn't/wasn't socialistic, because it was.
Though I agree it was not Marxist, or hard-core socialist.
As you can see, I try to be fair and honest (not balanced ).

Protected unless the public fires them.

They're public servants, the public has the right to fire them.
They knew that when they took the job.

Corporations and Finance have been in bed with Government (all sides) since the founding of the nation. Sometimes people wise up enough and they're beaten back, often not. We're in that "often not" period of time.

Yep, and we can thank good ol Alexander Hamilton for that...mercantilist that he was.

Anyway, you're painting the recall elections as all or nothing. People set a high goal to push as far as they can. The majority was the goal. They're one seat short. I just do not see how gaining two seats in an election is a failure....but maybe I'm the strange one?

No, I was trying to point out that the Dems were trying to say that they were going to win and that it would be a "mandate" against the GOP.
They did say that.
Now they lost, and they have to eat their defeat.
There are two Dems up for recall next week (two of the senators that ran), one looks like they might get unseated.
If that happens then this will look really bad on the Dems.
Although, only time will tell what the fallout from this will be, if any.

I'll just leave this here:

Ratigan has his moments, and I couldn't agree with him more!
Thanks for that video Solace.

[killer3000ad]

$30 toy can jam FBI, Homeland Sec and Secret Service digital radios

Expensive high-tech digital radios used by the FBI, Secret Service, and Homeland Security are designed so poorly that they can be jammed by a $30 children's toy, CNET has learned.

A GirlTech IMME, Mattel's pink instant-messaging device with a miniature keyboard that's marketed to pre-teen girls, can be used to disrupt sensitive radio communications used by every major federal law enforcement agency, a team of security researchers from the University of Pennsylvania is planning to announce tomorrow.

>

[FDW]

I think this article sums my current views about politics:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gman&seid=auto

The Cult That Is Destroying America

Watching our system deal with the debt ceiling crisis — a wholly self-inflicted crisis, which may nonetheless have disastrous consequences — it’s increasingly obvious that what we’re looking at is the destructive influence of a cult that has really poisoned our political system.

And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.

No, the cult that I see as reflecting a true moral failure is the cult of balance, of centrism.

Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.

So what do most news reports say? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.

The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.

What all this means is that there is no penalty for extremism; no way for most voters, who get their information on the fly rather than doing careful study of the issues, to understand what’s really going on.

You have to ask, what would it take for these news organizations and pundits to actually break with the convention that both sides are equally at fault? This is the clearest, starkest situation one can imagine short of civil war. If this won’t do it, nothing will.

And yes, I think this is a moral issue. The “both sides are at fault” people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it’s out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray.

It’s a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price.

Tl;dr: The so-called "center" is just as crazy as the right and there's nothing wrong with being partisan.