Why would a former President want to be a US Senator? Why would the Democratic Governor of New York want to appoint a "caretaker"?
Reward a longtime party loyalist and put them in place to defend the seat. Anything less would be following a strategy that makes sense only to the Governor. A governor whose new tax plan appears to be more regressive than a Rockefeller's.
Burris is one of those people that always seemed like a good guy that was terrible at campaigning and has little to no charisma. There literally is no other way he would become a US Senator.
I would've voted for him back in the primary in 2002 if I'd have the chance where he was running against Blago. I think Burris came in 3rd.
Frankly the Senate could(and does) do a lot worse than Burris. The problem with this whole selection process is that most people thought Blago would be gone by this point so it wouldn't matter. The Illinois house and senate should pass some sort of vote of confidence in Burris and put it behind them. He won't run for re-election.
Democrats shouldn't be voting against cloture on any issue. If they have a problem with it, then they can go ahead and vote against it in an up or down vote, but becoming part of the filibuster minority is ridiculous. They should be peeling off Republican Senators for these cloture votes, not the other way around.
And if cloture fails, then by all means have the cranky old Republicans filibuster the damn thing until they lose their voices. Change is going to happen one way or another. If elected officials don't take notice then they might find themselves in a very uncomfortable situation.
Except what worked in Florida is unlikely to work in Minnesota. Minnesota has a secretary of state more invested in the integrity of the process than the outcome. Whatever happens I expect it to be transparent and fair.
So your point is that Obama would not have won had not the inevitable consequences of terrible Bush administration policies come to light?
Really? John McCain had a lot going for him on other issues?
Your analysis, as always, is proven in retrospect to be incorrect, but now that you are basing it on a counterfactual I guess you can have it whatever way you want.
As far as foreign policy goes, shouldn't you wait until he becomes President? I find the impatience and lack of equilibrium among bloggers especially to be both funny and aggravating. You have to remember that Obama is not Bush. Soliciting a wide spectrum of opinion regarding foreign affairs is not the same as agreeing and implementing whatever you hear last(a trait of Bush leadership).
I doubt that Obama is going to start knocking off guys like Chavez or Morales so that ExxonMobil or some American mineral concern can make a few extra bucks. It is hard to place US foreign policy on a spectrum but cautious and conservative is probably more likely to describe Obama than reckless and reformist.
And as for Iraq? We are leaving. The neo-cons' party is over. They failed.
Obama is not going to pursue a revolutionary foreign policy, but I believe it will be focused and concerted on key issues he wants accomplished, foremost among these, redeployment out of Iraq and the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
You are free to disagree or continue to play a concern troll on your own site, but wait until he actually is in the oval office to label what his actual foreign policy stances are.
It's hard to know how to respond to this. If working people don't have the ability to have someone to organize and lobby for their interests in government and when making a contract, who do you think will do it? The government making laws to protect people that have no voice? One person fighting gallantly against corporate America?
I am guessing you aren't a blue collar worker, and I can understand the frustration of office workers who are represented by no one and have little job protection. Organize. Nothing about working at a desk job disqualifies you from unionization.
I read the diary at DailyKos and I fail to see how it lacks validity. It was about the Employee Free Choice Act and the massive retailers lobbying against it. I am sick and tired of the whole "but unions can be corrupt too" schtick. Yeah some unions are corrupt so no one gets a union? Unions "are a thing of the past" because government is going to have our back? Really?
It matters because it means everytime a Washington reporter wants to run a hit piece on Obama they just have to go to Holy Joe. Joe's endorsement in the Democratic caucus means that the same reporter can run a "Dems in disarray" article whenever they want.
Say you want to withdraw from Iraq? Dems In Disarray! Holy Joe doesn't like it. The amount of hot air coming from DC will prevent actual debate on these issues. Joe basically get a 1 man veto, and as chairman of oversight he can order a witch hunt of Obama whenever he wants.
Obama is gambling here that with the country in dire straits that Holy Joe is going to sit down, shut up and become a reliable vote. It's a hell of a gamble, and one that Obama might lose.
Holy Joe is going to be a major obstacle for actual change. Obama will rue the day that he decided to let Joe off the hook.
The creep attended fundraisers for Republican Senators in contested seats for gods' sake! He might have given Norm the money he needed to win by 2 votes. Yet you allow him to assume a position of responsibility?
Ridiculous. The Democrats have no one to blame but themselves if their agenda goes down in flames. Ironic considering the party has an actual leader now.
Right wing hate radio will continue to doom Republicans' chances in the Latino community. And since Republicans will never be purged of their Tancredos and Sessenbrenners, Texas is going to keep shifting over to Democrats as white people amble off their mortal coil and Latino children turn 18.
If there is anything in this world that is hard to argue with, it's demographics.
If this is anything like Iowa's independent redistricting commission, it is also known as a "good idea". Having competitive districts is good for democracy. You do remember the old line that there was more turnover in the old Soviet Politburo than there was in US Congress. This thin veneer of accountability to the people is the only thing we base the credibility of this system on. If even that doesn't exist we are just another war-mongering, colonialist super state out to gobble up the world in the name of hypocrisy.