Since it's so early, I still consider this largely a function of name ID but Newsom has done a good job through his statewide townhalls at upping his profile and jumping into 2nd with a bullet. His announcement this week that he's officially jumped in was timed to coincide with this weekend's Dem convention in Sacramento, which Jerry Brown will also have a conspicuous presence at. Villaraigosa has dropped out of the convention citing LA budget deliberations.
The most maddening thing about Harman's reaction to this is her self-righteous indignation at having been wiretapped herself. The woe is me act is simply a cheap -- and cynical -- attempt at tapping into the grassroots outrage over the government illegally wiretapping Americans, a program she enabled and protected.
The funniest thing about your diary is that TODAY we would have lost the NY20 race. That was less than a month ago. So, what exactly happened between then and today? The tea parties, really? Give me a break.
I'm not buying your second point. If the partisan divide between Democratic and Republican support for the president is greater than it's ever been, isn't that the definition of a polarized electorate vis a vis the president?
Also, are you suggesting that partisan fights are by definition bad and coming together in the middle is by some definition good? I wish we had more partisan fighting early in Bush's first term, maybe we wouldn't have had half the crap that Barack is cleaning up right now.
I'm a proud partisan and for me partisanship is not a dirty word.
also, I do tend to have minimal problems with presidential quotations of the Bible because it has transcended being a religious document and really is a popular cultural text. of course, anything Bush said usually made me cringe, Biblical quotations included.
This "legislating from the bench" frame is straight out of the rightwing playbook. it's amazing to me that you would take away the judicial role of ruling on laws' constitutionality. certainly both judges and laws are fallible but you place laws on a higher plane of purity than you do the judgment of justices. why is that?
why is same sex marriage by judicial ruling "the wrong way"? Personally I see it as the first way. the same sex marriage debate was always going to be played out in the courts before it was played out in the legislatures. but we wouldn't even have what you call "the right way" without the courts having forced states into compliance with their constitutions.
I agree on some level that legislative ratification is ideal if only because it makes it more difficult for the right to argue against it, but I really don't see any basis for the claim that it's the inherently better way than court rulings. this is the way the system is set up to work. without the initial court rulings striking down the bans in the first place, it would have taken way longer for the Vermont legislature to become emboldened to do what it did.
I'm leaving this diary up because most of the pushback has been constructive but be assured that Yellowdem will no longer be visiting us. And I've also removed any shame recs and am looking into anyone who gave this piece of crap a rec.