• comment on a post MyDD Civic Literacy Test over 4 years ago

    1. Vermont seems right

    2, 44 though I now know better

    3. My guess would be Nixon...wild guess

    4, Wilson in 1919 after the Palmer Raids...but it could actually have been signed by Harding in 1921..yes Harding

    5, Van Buren

    6. New Hampshire

    7. French and Indian War

    8. Boston Massacre

    9. Hamilton, Madison and John Jay

    reason to adopt the new Constitution

    10, Taft

    11. Tyler, Johnson, Arthur, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman and LBJ

    To succeed due to death of the president

    12.I would have said Virginia but NY does seem right

    13. Andrew Jackson as all those prior were either Mass or Va

    14. Rhode Island was being difficult

    15.  Don't know....way back when....Harrison maybe

    16. Judicial review

    17. Philadelphia, NY , Albany, Trenton, Richmond

    18. Battle of Yorktown, though it was too vague a question and Ticonderoga is also a good answer

    19. Articles of Confederation

    20. Whoever wrote the preamble...Hamilton or Madison or Gouverneur Morris

    21. Roger Sherman offered the Conn. compromise which created the Seante as an elite chamber and the House as a popular chamber.

    22. Gerry was a farmer who fought at Lexingotn and Concord??

    23. Hamilton and Madison though I don't know which is which

    24.  3 branches of govt

    25.  It is a Republic...don't know what you mean by electoral system....winner takes all, no proportional voting?

  • comment on a post Another Chance for Obama to Shape the Judiciary over 4 years ago

    younger jurists have grown up under right wing hegemony...not sure if they would have a very progressive viewpoint

    It is important to rebalance the court with an assertive liberal vision.  

    So for a moment on the question of age I, who haven't been giving Obama, much lack is willing to do so for a while here.

  • comment on a post An Alternative Proposal to the EFCA Emerges over 5 years ago

    70% of workers have to vote yes via card check in order to have a union. A majority of course is 51%.

    You never get 70% in anything excspt North Korean elections.  It's just a ploy.

    And then the employer can put off the actual contract forever.  This is a bad deal and no union should be expected to agree to it in any way.

  • comment on a post Undoing Bush: HHS Conscience Rule Edition over 5 years ago

    Please note that at the end of the Washington Post article, the Obama people say they could "compromise" by limiting it to abortion.

    What chutzpah! On both the administration's side and the side of anti choice fanatics.

    The original purpose was to throw a huge monkey wrench into the ability of clinics that perform abortions to function at all.  By broadening the reach of the rule into birth control it they have now turned their initial aim into the compromise.  

    All that anti choice groups wopuld have to do is send anti choice nurses, doctors, even clerical staff into, say,  Planned Parenthood Clinics, get a job and then refuse to perform them.. It could quickly cripple a clinic either in terms of an abilty to proivde actual services, ie , abortions to women or financially cripple it.  

  • comment on a post Republican Media Bias over 5 years ago

    and studied film history (taught a few courses as well) I can attest to how important presentation is to conveying a message.

    Framing and camera angles subliminally convey status and importance.

    Low angles make you look up to people...literally and figuratively.  High angles make you look down on people, literally and figuratively.

    The left side of the screen has more psychic weight than the right side of the screen.  Hannity was always on the left side and he took up at least 60-65% with colmes squeezed into the rest.

    And of course in interview or the older style crossfire shows the right wing host often talked over the Democratic guest....and often let the right winger interrupt the Democrat.  Even the liberal hosts tended to do that in order to project "fairness"

  • 1. Padavan only won by 500 vores.

    2. Dollinger -the state party didn't have enough money so they withdrew, the only help he got was from NARAL/NY and he still  almost won

    3. The Kristen McElroy race was close- no help
       Joe Mesi could have been won with more moeny and volunteers
       David Nachbar also had a shot with more money and volunteers.

    They were all closer than expected but there just wasn't enough people or funds/

    In Queens,  Addabbo won because he was the one the city politicians could help.  There was lots of manpower but in one way or another it was dragooned to the presidential race.

  • the state.  In both Clinton campaigns theee were  coordinated campaigns focussed on the atate.

    Indeed NY was ordered to provide money and manpower for other states to elect Barack Obama. There were tons of phone banks for that and very few for the local races.

    We had some really important races here for the State Senate.  There were winnable races in Queens, Long Isalnd and upstate that we could have won with more money, 500K to 1 million and there were 3 other races we could have had.

    And those races were starved of volunteers as well as money.  Sure we have won the State Senate but it hangs by a thread.  There were 3 Dems elected who hold the balance of power.  Any day they can walk out (and they threaten)  and the Republicans regain the chamber.

    With a few hundred more volunteers and some money (it was very clear that the Obama campaign would end up with more money that they could spend, 13 million), lots of other states besides mine would have benefitted.

    There are lots of good bills that won't get passed.

  • I said so at the time. It was clear from the Texas primary on in which there were other races on the ballot....that his coattails were limited.  In the districts Hillary won the down ticker races did better.  Those voters also cared about the party as well as her.

    Obama's coattails were limited for 2 reasons.  the kind of people he attracted and the fact that his campaigns focussed on him and not down ticket races.

    This is the problem when you make an election about just a person, not a party.

  • to vote for the Stimulus bill...I don't think so.

  • is the ONLY reason to appoint Gregg.  No Democrat..then no appointnment to Commerce for GRegg.  There should be no vacancy then at all.  It only accomplishes putting in a man who will undemrine your agenda in exchange now for absolutely nothing.

    It's laughable.

  • We have 60 votes NOW....

    We also enhance the ability to won in 2010...While it's not a guarentee, putting in a Dem now makes it highly likely a Democrat wins in 2010..

    We win now and th eAmerician people benefit from having good bill enacted that makes their lives bette, we win in 2010 as well.

  • we'd get a progressive Democrat.

  • You think it's magmanimity. Wonderbar!!! You know the phrase...give an inch, take a mile?

    Republicans think he's a fool...and it t emboldens them to even more outrageous demands.

    At this point the only power Republicans have is the power Obama is giving them.  They don't have any other.  Of course they will start to parlay this perhaps into actual power....

    Hazlitt, early 18th century liberal esayist on how conservatives and liberal behave....all these words hold true today.

    "They never give an inch of ground that they can keep; they keep all that they can get; they make no concessions that can redound to their own discredit; they assume all that makes for them; if they pause it is to gain time; if they offer terms it is to break them: they keep no faith with enemies:

    snip

    While they give no quarter, you stand upon mere ceremony. While they are cutting your throat, or putting the gag in your mouth, you talk of nothing but liberality, freedom of inquiry, and douce humanité. Their object is to destroy you, your object is to spare them---to treat them according to your own fancied dignity"

    They may not win an election tomorrow but they will undermine the ability of this adminstration to do a good enough job to get reelected in the future as they try to destroy the Democratic. agenda.

  • if Lynch doesn't appoint a Democrat  or we don't get to 60 votes in the Senate.

    All this does is to now cast into doubt any other time there is a vacancy and the governor doesn't appoint a republican...The RNC would howl, the NRSC would howl, the media would get on its high horse and shout you're not being bi partisan.  But of course only if it's a Democrat.

    It wouldn't be the same howl if a Democratic senator left office and was to be replaced by a Republican governor...then the rules would go back.  Of course it would go back to it's okay to appoint a Republican to take a Democratic seat.

    Why is Gregg so needed at Commerce that once again Obama is signalling that he can be rolled?
    What do you need someone who doesn't believe in your agenda?

Diaries

Advertise Blogads