American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

Yep

I mean, what is Feinstein worried about? She lives in a state whose legislature boasts Democraic supermajorities. She faces no primary challenges from her right.

i'm trying to figure out how hillary clinton might benefit from this? bill clinton pushes it, presumably to try to help hillary somehow, and then people like feinstein with no other plausible motive support it in order to secure a nice position in the clinton mach II administration?

Hm yeah that sort of makes sense.

please no more talk about those vile people.

The law finagling seems dubious, but then, some hunk of the ACA support stemmed from the promise of keeping you current plan, if you liked it. If you have a plan you like that you get kicked off of because it does not meet ACA requirements, which in turn forces you to pay more for a plan you didn't want ... in the end it'll work itself out, but in the short term, I can see why some people would be pissed. Once again, single payer would have cut this mess off at the pass. But of course, same weak willed politicians caving to cries of constituents did not or would not support single payer, which brings us full circle.

Sorry, one more thing. Inside the beltway columnist Millbank is pouncing on polling that the poor rollout is hurting North Carolina Dem Hagan and others, while throwing in a token sentence that the Congressional election is still a year away

But Hagan’s reversal of fortune — and similar troubles for other vulnerable Senate Democrats such as Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) — should make it clearer than ever to the White House that the administration must put everything it has into salvaging the health-care rollout before it undoes congressional Democrats and the Obama presidency. If the administration can get its top priority so wrong, Republicans will say that the president’s party doesn’t deserve to govern, and they will have a point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-a-call-for-help-from-democrats-after-obamacare/2013/11/12/29083742-4be3-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html?hpid=z2

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-keep-your-health-plan-act

Obama does not like to socialize. He seems nearly antisocial.

Five years into their tenure, the couple has a social reputation few would have envisioned when they came to town: more standoffish than the Bushes, and ruder than the Clintons.

...

Obama has no relationship with any foreign leader that is remotely akin to Ronald Reagan’s with Margaret Thatcher, or Bill Clinton and George W. Bush’s with Tony Blair. The scandalous phone-tapping imbroglio—even if the fault of the Bush administration—now makes it unlikely that he ever will.

...

Obama told his 2008 campaign political director, Patrick Gaspard, now his ambassador to South Africa. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Such a statement suggests that Obama has least some level of self-awareness about this tendency. There is less evidence that he has done anything to really curb it.

...

He has quietly purged from his inner circle those most likely to stand up to him, and barely suffered the manful efforts of his latest chief of staff, McDonough, to encourage him to reach out to the remaining slivers of the Republican sanity caucus in Congress.

how ironic since he's a socialist.

"the manful efforts"? seriously?

Obama has no relationship with any foreign leader that is remotely akin to Ronald Reagan’s with Margaret Thatcher, or Bill Clinton and George W. Bush’s with Tony Blair. The scandalous phone-tapping imbroglio—even if the fault of the Bush administration—now makes it unlikely that he ever will.

man Cokie Roberts sure is upset.

i think that aspect of his character was evident from the very beginning.

In 2009, in Obama’s first year in office, my wife and I found ourselves trapped in the Blue Room, next to one of the president’s most important early boosters and major fund-raisers, when Obama’s disembodied amplified voice suddenly rang out and the crowd rushed through a doorway to the mansion’s entry hall, blocking our view. The president had paused with his wife, Michelle, on the bottom steps of the Grand Staircase behind a velvet rope to make brief remarks and shake the few hands that could reach him, before retreating back upstairs. “Can you see him?” the graybeard asked as we craned our necks over the crowd. The answer was no.

see why would Obama waste time with a hackneyed reporter of received wisdom like Purdum and his wife?

he wrote that hatchet job of bill's post-presidency that people seemed to like at the time

trapped in the blue room

..."the time" being during the 08 primary campaign

re: obama tho, "the politician who doesn't like politics" was p much his brand all along

i'm not sticking up for him; insularity is a bad trait. the problem isn't not shmoozing but not listening

OTM goole. You will never find reporting saying how friendly Obama is. Purdum's reporting on Obama's personality is similar to everyone else's.

A good friend of mine went to a fundraising dinner last year ($35,000 per plate) and Obama was in the room for like 15 minutes.

To his credit, Obama hates Washington bullshit and Washington doesn't like him much for it.

But you're right, it's the listening thing.

Although it never seemed like W. Bush listened to anyone. Or if he did, he wasn't paying attention.

here's some good writin' from Rick Perlstein.

Obama has no relationship with any foreign leader that is remotely akin to Ronald Reagan’s with Margaret Thatcher, or Bill Clinton and George W. Bush’s with Tony Blair.

and those ended well for everybody.

hasn't this vanity fair story already been disregarded?

Although it never seemed like W. Bush listened to anyone. Or if he did, he wasn't paying attention.

― Deuteronomy 23:1 (dandydonweiner), Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:13 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he could look into your soul through your eyes, no need for talkin'

lol @ the idea of Obama reaching out to "sane" republicans in Congress. Masochists have their limits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/14/wonkbook-a-new-low-for-the-obama-administration/

He's got two kids that I assume he's trying ard to not let Washington and the White House ruin. He seems like he has a particularly close relationship with his wife. If he's not listening, that might be a problem but I don't give a shit if Washington doesn't like him.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/enjoying_themselves_a_bit_too047786.php

Republicans gloating over all of this

If you can’t take some joy, some modicum of relief and mirth, in the unprecedentedly spectacular beclowning of the president, his administration, its enablers, and, to no small degree, liberalism itself, then you need to ask yourself why you’re following politics in the first place. Because, frankly, this has been one of the most enjoyable political moments of my lifetime. I wake up in the morning and rush to find my just-delivered newspaper with a joyful expectation of worsening news so intense, I feel like Morgan Freeman should be narrating my trek to the front lawn. Indeed, not since Dan Rather handcuffed himself to a fraudulent typewriter, hurled it into the abyss, and saw his career plummet like Ted Kennedy was behind the wheel have I enjoyed a story more.

- bob marley

Indeed, not since Dan Rather handcuffed himself to a fraudulent typewriter, hurled it into the abyss, and saw his career plummet like Ted Kennedy was behind the wheel have I enjoyed a story more.

boy he must have rung up K-Lo, Nordlinger, and said, "Guys! Wait tll you read what I came up to describe the Obamacare debacle!"

it must feel weird to take so much joy in rooting for the failure of programs designed to help dying people.

They know its obvious that dying people can only be helped by malpractice reform and selling the most bare basics health plans to hard-working Americans

four decades on and still nothing gives right-wing columnists that naughty tingle like a chappaquiddick joke

at least the Kennedy dynasty has been exposed for what it was

with Kennedy gone there's one less chiseler using the health care system.

lol stop it

Marl Halperin, horrible writer and wretch.

Yes, and we seem to be stuck with him as long as mainstream media ignores his ugly past and mediocre writing and insight.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/11/what_are_republicans_thinking047779.php#

Republicans blockading three vacant seats on the DC Circuit Court.

We could have posted the link and comment four months ago.

From the comments:

you noticed grassley's taunt the other day that there would be lots more scalias if the filibuster went away? at least some of them are clearly thinking that the dems wouldn't dare end the filibuster.

Why is that a threat? Does anyone think for a moment if the Republicans get a Republican Senate and President they won't get rid of the filibuster on Day 1?

The big issue has stayed the same, but their have been variations re certain votes. They just voted this week for 2 seats and the nominees got filibustered. 3 months ago the Republicans backed down from their filibuster and allowed some votes for other positions to go forward

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115606/obamacare-fiasco-hurts-democrats-undercuts-faith-government

and this is coming from john judis

could someone explain to me how Scalia and vote margins are related since he was confirmed 98-0?

I guess Republican Grassly was somehow just suggesting that the type of Supreme Court justice Dems currently are most afraid of would more easily be appointed and not filibustered. Grassley was of course not referring to actual judicial nomination history where other than Bork and maybe a few others, Dems usually roll over for any nominee no matter how extreme they are, and do not filibuster

Lots more scalias? The fact that there is already one scalia proves that the Republicans can nominate as many as they like and they'd get voted in. Now, if the threat had been a boatload of Borks, I'd flinch.

Alito is a Scalia. Roberts is a Scalia. Thomas is a Thomas.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/11/15/house-passes-republican-keep-your-health-plan-act/

With 39 Democratic votes. 153 Dems votes No; and 8 did not vote.

so cool!

• *90 percent of the Republican leadership in both House and Senate deny climate change
• *17 out of 22 Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, or 77 percent, are climate deniers
• *22 out of 30 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, or 73 percent deny the reality of climate change
• *100 percent of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans have said climate change is not happening or that humans do not cause it

-

• *The 30 climate deniers in the Senate have taken $21,463,400 in dirty energy contributions while the 70 Senators who haven’t denied the science have only taken $12,637,284 in career contributions. On average, Senate deniers took $715,447 from dirty energy while other Senators took $180,532.
• *The 131 climate deniers in the House have taken $32,637,372 in dirty energy contributions while the 302 members who haven’t denied the science have only taken $21,657,259 in career contributions. On average, House deniers took $249,140 from dirty energy while other members took $71,712.
• *In total, climate deniers, or 161 members, have taken $54,100,772 in dirty energy contributions while other members, or 372, have taken $34,294,543 in career contributions. On average, deniers took $336,029 from dirty energy while other members and Senators took $92,190.

Washington Post editorial board that supports chained cpi cuts to Social Security, explains why they oppose Senator Harkin and representative Sanchez plan to instead raise the payroll tax cap for Social Security. I don't buy their argument:

With respect to Social Security specifically, the percentage of wage and salary earnings subject to the tax has shrunk in recent years, and there’s an argument for correcting that.

Yet even the rich have finite resources; government can only go to that well so many times. Why spend this gob of revenue on the elderly, who are already heavily protected by the federal government? The bill’s authors warn of a looming “retirement crisis” because of low savings rates and disappearing private-sector pensions. In fact, the poverty rate among the elderly is 9.1 percent, lower than the national rate of 15 percent — and much lower than the 21.8 percent rate among children.

This suggests that Social Security is doing a good job of fighting poverty as is and that those gains could be preserved in any attempt to trim the program. But if anyone has a claim on a greater share of federal resources, it would seem to be the young — and especially the poor young. Unchecked entitlement spending for the elderly crowds out spending on programs that might help them, as well as defense, research, infrastructure and law enforcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/social-security-proposals-are-wrongheaded/2013/11/17/38ebb486-4bde-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

Yet even the rich have finite resources; government can only go to that well so many times