Why would the census be under commerce in the first place? Seems like because it's a catch-all position usually used to stick somebody somewhere that doesn't fit anywhere else. We can move the census to another area and it will work better. Put it under HUD or put it under NHS. Either would be more suited to conduct such matters. Commerce should be about businesses.
I think Gregg himself might vote for cloture if it's needed. He said he wouldn't vote on the package and I doubt he will, but voting to put it to a direct vote is a different matter, particularly in an emergency, time-sensitive situation like we have right now.
We'd all do well to remember that we don't need 60 votes FOR the bill, we need 51 votes FOR the bill. We need 60 votes that are willing to let it pass. I think we can get that.
Democrats should start just lying about their intentions when it comes to the media.
But a lot of it is Democrats own fault. We lack a lot of people that are just entertaining. Once Al Franken hits the Senate, maybe he can start making some media tours as an entertaining voice of the party. But we need some more rock stars, people that can bring the ratings all by themselves.
The energy independence bill adn healthcare bill are still on the way. I gotta say that I do appreciate how steadily Obama is moving without hesitation. Democrats haven't been winning the message war (and this is suddenly new and Obama's fault? Maybe it has more to do with our shitty congressional leadership), but Obama has been clear with a consistent message the entire time, and I think it will ultimately break through public opinion even stronger than before. Particularly once people get the message that Obama wants to get rid of spending that seems wasteful or just isn't right for this bill.
The federal government SHOULD be buying American. It's the fucking federal government! Nobody's forcing the private sector to use American-made goods. Hell, nobody's even pressuring them anymore. This clause is good. You certainly wouldn't see this sort of uproar if there was a provision to make sure that service jobs weren't outsourced.
Obviously, there are exceptions. If you founded the company and it's your vision, your pay is well-earned, even if you ARE crooked. If you have taken the company to profitability by streamlining operations and finding ways to avoid massive layoffs while improving productivity, then you earned your money. But most executives these days aren't like that. Shit, that's one of the entire problems with this economy. Too many executives making decisions they have no experience, no insight and no desire to understand.
I'm happy with it. Unlike some, I happen to think that executive jobs are extraordinarily simple and are rarely, if ever, based on merit. At any given company, there is probably at least 5% of the workforce that would be qualified to run the company, and at least 1% that would be more qualified to run it than the person that is currently running it.
So if this legislation means that professional CEOs without any loyalty to or experience with any one company are discouraged from working at these firms or just quit, I just have to say, "Good." Give it to one of the guys who have to answer to you every single day knowing they could do your job better.
Hey, if I got my news from the tv, I wouldn't be here. Even Rachel Maddow gets most of her television exclusives from the blogs. I agree, I watch for the entertainment value.
After the Blago scandal broke, I remember they had on Dan Walker, the governor of Illinois in the 1970s who tried to clean up politics but was convicted for S&L scandals later. And they gently mentioned that fact before he called in, and once he did, all he talked about was how he did NOT get arrested in office, he got arrested for something ELSE! And after this went on for a really awkward few minutes, they cut him loose. And Joe and Mike Barnacle just laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed. You just don't see that kind of gleeful, honest cynicism elsewhere in the news.
She knows how to run a campaign and win. She is a master of mudslinging while keeping her own shirt perfectly clean.
But that's the extent of it. She could probably learn a lot of this stuff, but she has no discipline for it. Winning is her only objective, not governing. You can tell by what her priorities are right now. It's four years away from the next presidential election, and yet look how much she's trying to do to stay in the public eye and how little she is trying to govern Alaska.
No patience means no discipline. No discipline means no desire to learn. No desire to learn in a politician means a narcissistic impulse is driving them. That explains it all.
Mika has had some good insights in the past. She's not an airhead. But she's always had that sycophantic aspect to her and she's gotten especially bad lately. I think part of it must be just being used to being pushed around intellectually by a strong, outspoken figure.