US POLITICS: underrated supreme court decisions that i have read

On the consequences of Blanche Lincoln's primary win.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/putney%20swope/The_Playlist/more/swope.gif

man what in the hell

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/clyburn_alvin_greene_not_only_suspicious_candidate.php

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn has called for a U.S. Attorney investigation into the mysterious candidacy of Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene because he thinks the mischief goes far beyond one wacky race.

...

This morning Clyburn told radio host Bill Press he considers Greene a "plant" and he called for the U.S. Attorney to look into potential charges as to how an unemployed man paid $10,000 to be placed on the ballot and then came out of nowhere to win.

"All the Democrats I know were pushing for Victor Rawl," Clyburn said in our interview. "No Democrat I know ever heard of Alvin Greene."

x-post Man, it's a shame that when Ebert gets his second Pulitzer people will think it's a sympathy award when, damn, does the dude truly deserve it.

Oh sweet jesus i somehow had no idea how bad things got for him til now arrrrgh!

i don't find that greenwald piece very persuasive

he goes the whole length w/o mentioning derivatives = he's missed the point entirely

The outliers are the progressives. The reason the Obama White House did nothing when Lincoln sabotaged the public option isn't because they had no leverage to punish her if she was doing things they disliked. It was because she was doing exactly what the White House and the Party wanted.

I mean,

I read Greenwald every day, but seriously there are like a half dozen writers I'd rather read analyze the relationship between Blanche Lincoln and the White House than him (Nate Silver, George Packer, Tim Dickerson, even Matt Taibbi all come to mind). Like, I don't want him to dilute shit cause I love his fury (tho he's not as funny furiful as Taibbi), but whenever I read his 'policy' type pieces, I always feel like he's missing a ton of nuance + insight.

Greenwald has become so shrill that only dogs can hear him.

I don't even understand who his audience is. The people who still think Obama is a super progressive president? They are either a) Not paying enough attention to anything to pay attention to him, b) Actually believe he's as liberal as they think because they agree with his policies and that's as liberal as they want it, or c) Are right-wing and will believe Obama is super progressive no matter what Greenwald says.

here's how i break it down to an extent

1. i haven't seen much to show me that bill halter is really worth shit, just that he's better than blanche lincoln, who is really isn't worth shit. so it is somewhat relative, and we ought to treat it as such. in any other context greenwald would not be singing the praises of a bill halter.

2. halter's primary run did have the effect of making lincoln swerve to the left with a tough derivatives proposal, which is a good thing (or a good baseline for negotiations anyway) no matter who proposes it. so, out of the primary we got better leftier material, even though halter lost

3. (this is arguable of course, but) as a reward for a move to the left, the WH supports lincoln.

4. the outcome of the primary really is moot -- all signs point to boozman cleaning lincoln's clock just as surely as he would have cleaned halter's. so the legislation we got out of the mess is the only thing worth thinking too hard about imo.

5. leverage isn't always there to be had. nobody is running against ben nelson (plus his election isn't until '12). the president has absolutely no leverage over the GOP breakaway's, how does he stick them with a primary?

but greenwald doesn't talk about the work lincoln had do to in the senate to fight halter off, nor does he talk about who arkansas is going to elect.

he's addressing dem apologists. "the insufferable excuse we've been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders". four links given.

it's remarkable what the change in prez has done for his rep among dems.

"shrill"

i don't mind shrill, i just think his analysis is too focused on one thing

He's not focused on anything except winning an argument (which is exactly what you'd expect given his legal background.)

half the time i think legal thinking is a kind of learned sociopathy

Only half?

the other half i think it's a necessity! rule of law = rule by lawyers. :/

shrill is as shrill does, man. i generally feel where he's coming from but decaf might help him vary the dynamics a bit.

of all greenwald pieces for people to have a problem with - is he not saying the exact same stuff aerosmith and others say every day in this thread?

i mean it's not particularly insightful because what he's saying is so painfully self-evident

maybe he could also write some pieces about how abe foxman + alan dershowitz are knee-jerk supporters of israel

I mean sometimes "shrill" is the same kinda dogwhistle as "hysterical" was for women ("this person is coo coo due to their political/biological ~tendencies~" ie lefties/ladies be crazy) but I think actually sometimes gg does actually get a little too worked up

full throated opinionating is fine on a forum or w/e, but maybe columnists should try to effect some rhetorical composure since reactionary, fence sitting readers might miss the content for the hairpulling

Shrill is also a very toxic word when used on female-driven commentary. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE.

i would probably agree with greenwald if i read him more of the time but he's usually so tl;dr, shrill doesn't bother me

Shrill is also a very toxic word when used on female-driven commentary. TRUST ME ON THIS ONE.

I know! that's sorta why "hysterical" came to mind tbh

However my personal favourite is 'strident' - total ad feminem attack implied with that one, too.

On CSPAN today Gibbs took a question about Obama's birth certificate. I didn't notice who asked it, but I imagine it was the WorldNetDaily guy. You don't even have to be particularly cynical to figure the only reason someone would ever choose WND to ask a question of is because they don't want to answer more substantive questions. :/

http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/local/article/student_alleges_candidate_showed_pornography/145494/

When something like this happens, you know that the Democrat party isn't even bothering to vet candidates in South Carolina. I guess they figure they don't stand a chance, so why waste time finding someone at least half-way electable.

― Mordy, Thursday, 10 June 2010 13:49 (9 hours ago)

why would they "vet" some kook who wasn't their chosen candidate?

Greene is obviously mentally ill, and plant or not the whole thing is very sad.

I assumed you needed more than that to run in the Democrat primary. Like the approval of the party or something -- I mean, they have some say over letting you run in their primaries, don't they?

Nope, just a $10,000 check to cover the filing fee.

at least in SC

orly taitz managed to get on the ballot for secretary of state in California (as a Republican).

I think if you can manage the filing fees you can get on a primary ballot.

this alvin greene stuff is - how do you say - insane

his interview on olbermann a few minutes ago was like watching a hostage video, he seemed dazed and frightened and there was a guy off camera audibly feeding answers to him

what in the fucking fuck is going on in south carolina

I mean sometimes "shrill" is the same kinda dogwhistle as "hysterical" was for women ("this person is coo coo due to their political/biological ~tendencies~" ie lefties/ladies be crazy) but I think actually sometimes gg does actually get a little too worked up

full throated opinionating is fine on a forum or w/e, but maybe columnists should try to effect some rhetorical composure since reactionary, fence sitting readers might miss the content for the hairpulling

― gbx, Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:12 PM (2 hours ago)

oh i think you're totally right, gg could chill out a little every once in a while.

maybe i have to reread the latest column but i didn't get that vibe this time though. his basic point - democratic party is more interested in staying in power than actual progressive principles - is a pretty simple one, and pretty obvious to (almost) everyone here? idk basically of all the greenwald columns i thought this one was gonna be pretty uncontroversial when i read it this morning

It's just pretty too broad + obvious imo. I'd be much more interested if he characterized what this meant about the people who make up the Democratic Party. Like does he believe that Democratic politicians are way out of touch with Democratic voters? Or is he just complaining that the Democratic Party supports its own more right-wing/moderate elected officials? Because that seems obvious. I'm not positive about her political history, but I'm sure Blanche Lincoln didn't win in South Carolina on the strength of her super progressive politics. This is very similar to the Tea-Party demands on the Republican Party, that it eliminate all of their more moderate/RINO members. Like maybe you find the politics of the parties repugnant, but successful political parties skew to what they perceive as the American middle so that they can get elected. So I feel when Greenwald takes on a real issue, it's because he's just outraged as an ethical human being. But with somewhat insider-baseball, like who did Obama back, stump for, whatever, it's like: Yes, obvious. So why are you so infuriated?

Like I'm pretty sure the complaints that political parties try to appeal to the masses started a day after Democracy did.

Because he got so much reinforcement for his (admittedly often fantastic) HARD HITTING TAKE NO PRISONERS pieces that he gradually stopped writing anything else and became

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Angrydog.jpg

imo

yeah i think we all know each others' positions on big tent/compromise politics, i just didn't get the reaction to his piece being posted because imo it was pretty restrained considering the source and had very little to argue with

POLITICO devotes three fucking pages to Oh noes WH staffers have their shirts off on Saturday in a bar!

surprised i still have an ounce of outrage left for politico suddenly calling something... overexposed

jonathan bernstein responds to greenwald:

http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/06/presidency-is-weak-really.html

I don't know how to respond to this nicely: this is ignorant nonsense that betrays a deep lack of understanding of how the government of the United States works.

me-ow

oh snap

bernstein bringin it

democratic party is more interested in staying in power than actual progressive principles

And at what point do alleged progressives say 'enough' with having their concerns ignored, or being tossed the occasional bone? Almost never.

their concerns are ignored because there aren't very many of them.

BreakingNews Fla. Gov. Charlie Crist vetoes bill requiring women to get ultrasound before all abortions -- AP

I'm pretty sure most abortion doctors do ultrasounds before abortions anyway?? I mean, that seems like the smart thing to do, see what's up in the womb beforehand?

Ummmm....