BS. We can peel off one moderate, reasonable Republican on almost any issue we'd need to overcome a fillibuster for. Pretty much any R still representing the Northeast, including Snowe and Collins. We don't actually need 60. Lieberman's holding this party hostage has to stop.
"When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator or United States representative, the governor shall, by proclamation, call a special election to be held on a date not less than 60, nor more than 90, days after the date the vacancy occurs." Alaska Statutes 15.40.140.
"Vacancy" is not defined anywhere in the statute. Arguably, Stevens's seat would not be "vacant" in the sense that there's no one there to fill it - he is the duly elected senator from AK, alive and well and willing to serve - the problem would be the Senate refusing to seat him.
Wonder if there's precedent from another jurisdiction on whether being expelled from the Senate is a "vacancy"?
Do you know if the special election law is triggered if Stevens is expelled from Congress, but does not resign? I.e., does being expelled from the Senate (not allowed to be seated) "create a vacancy" within the meaning of the AK law? I'm wondering if this could be a weird case, where Stevens is alive, willing to serve, and defiantly refusing to resign - does the statute provide a way to replace him in such a case?
A lot of this crisis right now is a mind crisis. It's a perception that this country is circling the drain. It's feeding into stock market drops.
The times call for a bold, innovative move that shocks us out of the rut. Something to inspire people to hope. Something like Kennedy's challenge to go to the moon. Coupled with fiscal stimulus, like the New Deal era public works projects. Tentative, cautious half-measures are not going to do it.
Is a good first step, and already thoroughly envisioned. Let everyone have access to the Congressional health plan. Broader coverage. Lower costs than obtaining health insurance on your own, cheaper than most employers. No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Means-based tax credits to help people pay the premiums. Insurance independent of your job.
Seriously, even, say, $15-20k for each household earning under $250k a year would float most people's mortgage payments for a year, or at least help them to pay mortgage plus food and gas bills. For anyone without a mortgage, it's money to pay down debt, etc.
The thing is, the economy runs on a "Tinkerbell theory." It exists so long as we believe in it. There's value only if we all agree something has that value. Just suggesting the idea of a bailout has prompted a partial market recovery. It's a mind problem, not really an asset problem. Some infusion of money somewhere is going to help with this mind problem.
Rather than buying worthless mortgages, why not help people pay them? It actually accomplishes something better than the bailout would - the mortgages are real assets again, because people can pay them. Stops the free fall, home prices could begin to rebound. It's a better idea than saddling us all with a bunch of defaulting mortgages.
Well, I think the point above is this - had Obama chosen Hillary as VP, we would have had the "dream ticket," a thoroughly unified party, and a historic campaign that simply embodies "change." Sure, he can choose whomever he wants for VP. But the subtext of his choice is that his personal animosity or discomfort with Hillary overcame his political sense. Does he want to be elected as much as he wants to be in charge? Didn't Hillary bring with her not only roughly the same number of Dem voters as he had in the primary, but also inroads with rural voters, high-school educated blue collar workers, Appalachia, parts of the deep south, Florida, and the largest voting bloc in America - women.
When he chose not to put a woman on the ticket, he said "now is not the time for a woman VP." You may not see it if you're a man, but imagine the converse - Hillary prevailed in the primary, and told the African American base of our party "wait your turn." Not picking Hillary absolutely opened the door for McCain to say "unlike the Dems, we DO think it's high time for a woman VP." The whole game-changing nature of the Palin pick, the celebrity of Palin, it was all made possible because the Republicans very cagily saw an opportunity to pick up the baton of "change" and a historic ticket, and make it their own. They completely changed the narrative. The idea that the Dem ticket is historic is now torpedoed. Each ticket now = one historic candidate + one old white guy. It deflated part of the idealism of the Democratic campaign and the message of change.
Honestly, this was a legitimate threat from the outset of our campaign - we had the most diverse slate of candidates, and that sparked a lot of hopes, dreams, and ultimately frustrations, a kind of backlash at hopes being dashed after coming so close. If you're not a woman, maybe you don't understand the frustration of being told "not now, wait your turn," while a younger, less experienced man takes your place. Particularly a man who promised that he would not run for the presidency in his first term in the Senate. One of the big problems with our party is that we don't have much of a bench or a pipeline, we don't have obvious future successors. Hillary made her intentions known a decade ago, and here comes this young guy not willing to pay his dues.
At any rate, the Palin celebrity, the Palin problem, it was created by Obama, made possible only by his choice of Biden as VP. It was a politically very tone-deaf move, and it created an opening that allowed a brilliant checkmate by McCain.
Moreover, Hillary putting herself out there visibly probably just stirs up the resentment many still feel when they see her and think we nominated the wrong candidate. Don't be so sure that a more visible role for her would help.
Disagree. The fundie base was probably just not going to vote. They were not going to turn out in big numbers for McCain. Now, probably they will. Will it matter? Is this a big enough voting block to swing the election? Well, they made it close enough to steal for Bush. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I'd hope there are fewer of them and more science-based indies these days, but who knows? The Repub party has a neat trick - through their malfeasant governance, they create their own base. The worse the economy, the more people turn to god.
I will vote for Obama, if only because the worldview expressed by evangelical Christians scares the crap out of me. I literally felt my skin crawl reading those comments. They want to drive us back to a time BEFORE the middle ages. I need a shower after just reading that misogynistic crap. Something has gone horribly awry in America if these people are flourishing in the 21st century.
I don't want to get involved in what is obviously some sort of long-standing ratings war here. But, this is a point, which should not be overlooked by virtue of whatever is the issue people have with the poster.
Hillary was not nominated by our party for president. She was not selected for VP. The idea that she owes the people who shut her out of this process some extraordinary, heroic effort to counteract the obvious effect that follows from her exclusion (the Repubs' naked pander to women) is, frankly, horsehit. This is not her mess to clean up. Not a problem that she created. Why does Hillary have to come out forcefully against Palin? Why does she have to agree to be used by a Dem party that found no use for her as a presidential candidate, in what is, in fact, another pander? Agree to be the token female who speaks up against another female candidate? Bullshit.
If the all-male Dem ticket wants to counter the effect of "game changing" Palin, they need to do it without making a gendered plea from Hillary. She is not a symbol to be manipulated to pander right back at McCain. No other defeated candidate has been called on to be the frontline warrior for the victor this way, denounced by the victor for playing the gender card and then expected to use that gender as a weapon against the Repubs.
Well, more info on this is that the ex brother-in-law is alleged a drunk who beat Palin's sister. So, yes, it was an abuse of power. Is it the type of "scandal" that is likely to resonate with voters? I personally don't think so. It kinda sounds like she was trying to protect her sister, and even the public, from a bad man. There are other reasons to oppose her, this "scandal" is probably not exactly political gold.
Okay, here's the thing about this "scandal." One way to frame it is that she abused the power of her office to try to get her drunk, abusive ex brother-in-law cop fired. She was both trying to protect her battered sister, and get a bad cop off the force.
True or not, this doesn't play like a "scandal." I think it would be a mistake to jump all over this one. This actually sounds pretty sympathetic to many people. And it reinforces the whole "she's a younger, female McCain," a maverick who leads with her "values," who may cross the line, but who does so on strong beliefs.
It's BS, but I just don't think this is the thing to hit her over. And I don't want to get into faux, stretch "scandals," because Obama and Biden both have issues that can be spun as "scandals" that are probably less sympathetic than the Palin thing.