Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Morning Plum

* Dems on defense everywhere as we come down to the wire: Follow the money: National Dems trying to hold the House have plunked down another $20 million for ads in the final days, and crucially, much of that cash is going to shore up Dem incumbents who were once thought safe.

Also: The Dem buy conspicuously didn't include cash for a number of incumbents who are trailing, suggesting they are getting cut loose.

* Undisclosed spending is a problem, no matter who is doing it: Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam report that some groups on the left are now trying to play catch-up by spending money raised by undisclosed donors.

It seems doubtful that the undisclosed lefty cash comes anywhere near what the right has spent -- unions are far more transparent than many of these groups -- so I don't know if there's any equivalence here to speak of. But even so, whatever undisclosed money the left is spending is problematic, too: Voters deserve to know who's funding ads no matter which side is running them.

* Republicans prepare to take power: Now that everyone has decided the GOP will take back the House, that loud sucking-up sound you hear is lobbyists lining up to get in good with the new masters of the Hill.

* White House says "I told ya so": Comm director Dan Pfeiffer says the sound of lobbyists ingratiating themselves with Republicans proves the Dems' point:

Last week, as special interest billionaires continued to pour secret donations of millions of dollars each into front groups supporting Republicans, we asked the obvious question: "What do they expect in return?" Today we found out they're already drawing up the plans. Washington lobbyists are lining up cash to help Republicans in Congress repeal Wall Street reform, repeal health care reform and go back to the same policies that led to this mess.

* Meanwhile: House Republicans are busily recruting legislative hands to staff their new majority.

* And this will prove reassuring to Dems: John Boehner, in an interesting interview/profile, tells Paul Kane he'll be nothing like Newt Gingrich when he becomes Speaker. He promises to let Dems have their say on the House floor and even to let them bring their proposals up to a vote!

* Republicans plan to play nice? Of course, all the happy talk becomes tougher to believe when you recall that Darrell Issa, who is set to be the House GOP's investigative enforcer, once called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times."

* Beltway prognosticators salivating over GOP victory: At this point, the only thing D.C.'s professional election forcasters are debating is whether the GOP's victory will rival the Dems' historic 71-seat loss in 1938 or whether it will be a mere 50 seats.

* Ad of the year? This new spot from Dem Rep. Earl Pomeroy -- in which he assures voters that "I'm not Nancy Pelosi; I'm not Barack Obama," before practically begging folks to understand that Republican rule will be far worse -- really captures the entire cycle in a nutshell.

* Concession of the day: Politico acknowledges in passing that conservative outside groups spending undisclosed money are outgunning those on the left, in a story bashing Dems who have made precisely that point.

* Meanwhile, the ads keep on coming: Media Matters says undisclosed funding on the right has bankrolled 100,000 ads and counting.

* And the stomper steps up to defend himself: He now says he stepped on Lauren Valle's head because he has a bad back.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 27, 2010; 8:33 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Campaign finance, House Dems, House GOPers, Labor, Morning Plum  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy Hour Roundup
Next: Dems rip Mitch McConnell's "one term" remark, but will voters care?

Comments

At least you finally typed the words "no matter who is doing it".

As for Lauren Valle, I'm glad she's okay (her words last night on Olbermann) and had no intent to make contact with Rand Paul. I take the "stomper's" words at face value too, so I hope that the Kentucky jury will understand a legitimate concern for the candidate's safety however. I'm not in a position to render judgment on that case, but she could have had a gun under her disguise.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The Rand Paul thugs did Lauren Valle a big favor. She was an unknown, professional, political agitator, probably jobless and broke and now she's a leftist pop star.

Barack and his Obamatons have allied themselves with several foreign nations to wage an all-out, political war on the American state of Arizona. This is an outrage to all, patriotic Americans and will help seal the fate of the America hating ObamaNation.

Never in the annals of history has the leader of a nation declared war on his own country. This will go down as a low point in American history, that is certain.

Obama seems to think he and his Obamacrats will reap a bonanza of latino votes for pandering to their border bandido bretheren. Actually, Democrats already get most of the latino votes so the illegal AMNESTY ploy is a bust.

But, for every latino that falls for the AMNESTY, carrot & stick trick, there are ten, true-blue, American citizens who will vote against Obama from pure outrage.

We all know that rewarding lawbreakers just produces more lawbreakers. The bizarro world ObamaNation seems to prefer them over law abiding Americans.

Disgusting!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 27, 2010 8:44 AM | Report abuse

"Never in the annals of history has the leader of a nation declared war on his own country."

What about Abraham Lincoln?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"And the stomper steps up to defend himself: He now says he stepped on Lauren Valle's head because he has a bad back."

And if you watch the video closely, you'll see that the woman on the curb is trying to move her shoulders aggressively upwards so as to further aggravate the back problem the victim suffers from.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

clawrence, I hate to disappoint you, but I've made that point repeatedly. Sorry!

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 27, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

"sound of lobbyists ingratiating themselves with Republicans"

I don't see what's so surprising about this. Two years ago all the law firms and lobby shops were couldn't hire Democrats fast enough. Now they are hiring Republicans. They don't care who is in power -- they just want to back winners and ranking members. It will switch back soon enough.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 27, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Not as to Obama's undisclosed money in 2008.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Let's see; a week to go till the election:

50K troops still in Iraq, escalation of pointless war in Afghan, wholesale adoption of Bush/Cheney security state, etc., HCR that forces millions to send billions to Karen Ignagni and health care industrial complex, no drug reimportation, no expanded medicare or public option, etc., defense of DADT and DOMA in court while pretending Congress will actually do something, etc., endless strings-free bailouts of billionaire bankster buddies, weak reregs, etc., and a 99.99999999% chance of passing in the lame duck a 1)extension of billionaire tax cuts paid for by 2) cutting my social security.

Yes, I am fired up to vote for Dems.

The only difference between the parties is the fact the Democrats still have to pretend to care about average Americans to get votes.

Enthusiasm gap indeed...

Posted by: unymark | October 27, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

From Matt Yglesias...

"FA Hayek, Statist

Karl Smith observes that, somewhat amusingly, in The Road to Serfdom Hayek ends up committing himself to a view of environmental regulations that’s well tot he left of where today’s center-left politicians are:

'Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.'

Of course the correct free market riposte to this proposal is that we can create a price mechanism. So instead of having the guys in the EPA building try to tinker with everyone’s factories, we could establish a legislative ceiling on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions we’re willing to tolerate and then allocate permits to do it. That way the price mechanism—à la “the use of knowledge in society”—will be able to uncover the most economically efficient way of undertaking the reductions. But I guess Big Government Hayek doesn’t think that will work.

At any rate, I do think this is the issue that’s been underplayed in a lot of recent discussions of the institutional right’s funding sources. We’ve reached a point in the history of the world when the regulation of air pollution has become a first-tier political issues. And it’s naturally a controversial one since a lot of money is at stake. But there’s simply no support anywhere in the classical liberal tradition for the idea that an unrestricted right to pollute the air is part of “free markets” or any coherent conception of liberty or property rights. And yet opposition to carbon pricing and emissions regulations has become an article of faith across the American right. Some of that is political opportunism, some of it is ignorance, but a lot of it is the impact of corporate cash, especially from the extractive industries."
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Honest Abe, the greatest American president ever and the Republican that freed the slaves and saved America declared war on "The Confederate States of America".

Obama has declared war on an all-American state that is threatened by foreign invasion. Obama has allied himself with the foreign agressors.

Am I the only one that finds this objectionable??

I think not.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 27, 2010 8:56 AM | Report abuse

This morning, Charles Murray saw the news and cried.
http://www.nascar.com/2010/news/business/10/18/tv-ratings-chase-drop/index.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

""Never in the annals of history has the leader of a nation declared war on his own country."

What about Abraham Lincoln?

Posted by: clawrence12

and greg responded too.

You all might try the facts.
THe South fired first..

You do know that , right?

Posted by: newagent99 | October 27, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941 happened BEFORE we declared war on Japan too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

If the stomper would have kept his foot to himself, he probably would not be facing a criminal investigation, provided that he had not laid a hand on her, either. Incredibly dumb move on his part.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 27, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

The Great Pretender, the GOP/Tea Party's, "mission" is to sell to the American people the idea that we Need less government, after all, government will only get in the way of their fraudulent schemes and try to hold them accountable to people and not to corporations!

Then, they pretend that they want to lower taxes for the American people knowing full well that the loopholes they created for the wealthy means that Corporations and wealthy Americans pay very little taxes or No taxes at all, so that every-day Average Americans have to carry and Shoulder all the tax burden.

Then they pretend they want to Create Jobs in America, but to Create Jobs, you must Invest in America. Yet the Party of No always vote Nay to any spending for America's crumbling and decaying roads, streets, sewer system, infra-structure, high-speed rails, and public education (to further "dumb-down" Americans)! They vote No to any Investment in America's water, air, clean energy and her people. They know that Investing in America means TO CREATE JOBS!

On the otherhand, they don't mind rewarding companies who create jobs overseas or to spend and invest millions of dollars on Wall Street stocks and bonds, phony ponzi schemes and real-estate deals. This, they do while watching America further decline and decay into a third-world country, because the Simple and Awful truth, is that Republicans do not want, and they Fear, a government for the people and by the people. Their desire and Wish is for America to go back to the times when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer! That's what they are fighting for, not for average Americans, but for their greedy way of life and for power.

How long before Americans wake up and realize that the Republican Party is a party for the wealthy, and that they will do anything and say anything to keep their power over the people. One of their most agrecious acts is that they pretend to be Christains, but everything they say and do is un-Christ like. On the otherhand, the Democratic Party has always been inclusive and a party for the people. When the Democrats try to Invest in America to heal America, they always come up against filibusters, lies, swiftboating, pretense and dishonesty. Now, the Pretenders are trying to "convince" Americans that this depression and loss of jobs began when President Obama took office and that he is to blame for all of America's problems.

For America to turn to her former ways of prosperity and generosity, we must say No to the Pretenders, professional liars without a conscience. We must finally get off this "yellow-brick" road to nowhere but down! We must stop being fooled by the Wizards behind a curtain of deceit! We can vote No to the Pretenders on November 2nd and begin to take our country back from greed, dishonesty and deceit.

Posted by: wdsoulplane | October 27, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

And the stomper steps up to defend himself: He now says he stepped on Lauren Valle's head because he has a bad back.

******

Yes, that makes sense. When a wingnut's back hurts the only thing that makes it better is stomping a woman's head into the curb.

These zany teabaggers with their wacky home remedies. It is a good thing this guy didn't have a hangnail; he would have had to club a baby seal while yodeling to get rid of it.

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

@newagent99

"You all might try the facts."

That's a hoot. People on the right responding to FACTS? You're kidding right?
Have you seen the posts from looney tunes like Clawrence, Joke, and STRF and his daily dozen sock puppets?

FACTS? You mean like their endless ranting against the stimulus...40% of the stimulus was tax cuts...almost half of the stimulus was the largest middle class tax cut in our history...do you suppose Clawrence,Joke, or STRF et al can deal with this fact? Do they even know it? Not likely they get their info from Faux...we distort..you decide..do you suppose Faux has ever reported that close to half of the stimulus was TAX CUTS?

A significant portion of the stimulus went to the states who used it to preserve many of their jobs for teachers, firemen, policemen etc...meaning that the Unemployment numbers would have been demonstrably worse without the stimulus.
In fact it is unemployment in the "public sector" that is now keeping our U.E. numbers high.

Do you suppose the ignorant like Clawrence,Battleground,Brigade, and STRF et al are aware of the fact that during the first ten months of this year there were more jobs created in the private sector than during THE ENTIRE 8 YEARS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/10/08/its-official-more-private-sector-jobs-created-in-2010-than-during-entire-bush-years/

Not like that these know nothings would be aware of that because they don't deal in FACTS...and if Faux didn't report it they don't know it.

One of the most disgusting things to happen this election cycle is the FACT FREE debate...and so newagent99..they are not about to embrace FACTS...because FACTS show the improvement...FACTS show what the abysmal failure of the Bush Administration.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

@battleground51: "Never in the annals of history has the leader of a nation declared war on his own country."

No example comes to mind, but I'm pretty sure there have been previous cases where the executive has used a variety of tools to assert authority (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) over certain states. It's infrequent, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it has happened.

@clawrence: "At least you finally typed the words 'no matter who is doing it'."

While there are plenty of commenters here who sincerely assert that all Republicans are brownshirts, lynchers, murderers, etc (as a violent nature and a penchant to brutally assault people is the natural and unavoidable outgrowth of a belief in smaller government and lower taxes and a strong national defense) . . . Mr. Sargent is not one of those people. The story, once it broke, was huge with lefty bloggers (naturally) and he covered it with as much neutrality as any rational person could expect from a liberal opinion blogger.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:22 AM | Report abuse

@unymark

I accept your post and agree with all the points you make...except for one.

I am still enthusiastic and ironically it's because of the R's. Since the Lee Atwater days the R's have always used FEAR as their main campaign technique...and this year it has worked especially well on me. I am freaking afraid of what will happen if the R's actually get to return us to the legislation that has wrecked this nation's economy.

I agree with your points unymark..I think they are spot on...however..if you look at the genisis of all of those problems it alls starts with the R's. And so while I wish I could vote wholeheartedly for candidate I admire...candidates who I believe represent ALL of the American people not just the wealthy...you may not call it enthusiasm...but I feel an even greater sense of urgency to get to the polls this year. A return to R governance is just frightening beyond my imagination.
I already have to work three more years than planned thanks to the R recession of 07-08. I'm already at the edge of financial ruin thanks to health care costs that weren't addressed during the 8 years of Bush rule...even when he had R majorities in BOTH sides of Congress.

No health care, the economy, were not important to G.W. and his wealthy cronies....crony capitalism was his forte and so those losers took us into two neverending wars one of which was begun under fraudulent circumstances and made people like Erik Prince, Donald Rumsfeld, DICK Cheney et al fabulously wealthy on my freaking tax dollars.

Perhaps it's not enthusiasm...but I SHALL be voting with a genuine sense of urgency.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "This morning, Charles Murray saw the news and cried."

Fine. I avoided the story conflation of Hayek's recommendations re: actual pollution and carbon dioxide (otherwise known as oxygen for plants), although I am not unsympathetic with with the modern environmental movement's concerns regarding the effect of excessive carbon dioxide on both our bodily humours and the planetary ether. A lot of future money at stake there, as well.

But I have to ask: why is Charles Murray crying because of a drop in Nascar ratings following it's move to ESPN (a channel, btw, for full disclosure, I despise)?


Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

BTW, I love this: "And the stomper steps up to defend himself: He now says he stepped on Lauren Valle's head because he has a bad back."

That's great. Should Rand Paul really have a quasi-disabled guy protecting him from potential wigged assassins? Apparently, he's not as big a believer in objectivism as we've been led to believe.

"Yeah, it hurts when I bend over so, naturally, after we pushed her on the ground, it was better for my back pain to step on her. You know, if you don't have your health, you don't have anything. Am I right?"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Rs winning the House without the Senate is a symbolic victory. By courting the extremes of the TP and by allowing bogus candidates like Rossi and Fiorina out West, they blew an historic opportunity. On to 2012.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"I am still enthusiastic and ironically it's because of the R's. Since the Lee Atwater days the R's have always used FEAR as their main campaign technique...and this year it has worked especially well on me"

This actually used to work on me too but not anymore. I quit the Democratic Party a few months ago and I don't see me going back in my lifetime.

They really aren't any better than the ReThugs and I've had it. And they just keep moving further and further right.

I can only speak for myself and as for me I'm not moving any further with them.

Posted by: unymark | October 27, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Perhaps it's not enthusiasm...but I SHALL be voting with a genuine sense of urgency."

And I shall be voting to counteract your vote! En garde!

Only Cohen (D) (who I will be voting against; I'm not in Blackburn's district anymore, alas, which makes no sense to me, but that's what the congressional website says) will probably win, because he has forever, and Lamar Alexander (R), who I will vote for, will also win. I may go ahead and vote a straight ticket and vote for Bill Haslam, but I might vote for McWherter. I voted 2nd time around for Bredesen, or Democratic governor, but he'd be considered a conservadem by Plumline standards. I expect McWherter would be in the Bredesen mold, and Don Sundquist--our previous Republican governor--was not particularly competent, and to the left of Bredesen. Doesn't always work to vote a straight party ticket, in other words. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"While there are plenty of commenters here who sincerely assert that all Republicans are brownshirts, lynchers, murderers, etc"

I don't really need to "assert" anything.
Just read the threads yesterday in defense of the moron stomping on the woman's head.
She "deserved" it. Again Kevin...just read the vitriol..the VIOLENT vitriol..again one poster here talks about Tea Partiers coming into "liberal" areas only if they want their knobs polished and their boots licked. Another talks about a Republican TAKEOVER..not an election victory. Taking over and forcing people to lick your boots pretty much describes "brownshirts," to me...pretty much describes what that loon did to the poor woman...as for murder..not unless you count Scott Roeder who MURDERED Dr. George Tiller in cold blood in a freaking church where Tiller was serving as an usher. Not unless you count right winger James Brunn's murder of a security guard at the Holocaust museum...or the attempted murder of the rightie who flew his plane into the IRS headquarters...or perhaps the man in SoCal who said he was inspired by Beck to kill the head of the ACLU and the leader of another group...or the Michigan Militia group who had targeted police officers..were these leftists?

Well this list could go on and on..now couldnt' it...but again Kevin...forget all these horrible misdeeds by righties...

Do you suppose it's not antisocial to go to a rally with a weapon locked and loaded and proclaiming your right to water the tree of liberty...follow a Senatorial Candidate's advice to use your 2nd Amendment solutions..a House Candidate's remark that violence is not off the table if elections don't work...which party do these candidates represent.

Ethan, Liam, and I and a few others get exercised...we have NEVER...NEVER..talked about violence...forcing someone to lick our boots...any of this stuff...calling someone an idiot or arsehole is admittedly rude, crude and juvenile...guilty as charged...but the REAL hate demonstrated by a variety of the posters yesterday is simply UNAMERICAN. It's much closer to the "brownshirts" of Germany than America.

As for Profitt's lame excuse...his back hurt and that was the only way he could restrain here...REALLY? There were two other grown men holding a 110lb woman on the ground...did he suppose they weren't up to the task. What kind of he-men join the Tea Party that it takes THREE of them to hold down a 110lbs woman who is not even resisting. Maybe they should get their lard butts off the couch, put down the six pack...mix in a salad..and get to the gym.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Tim Profitt -- the former Rand Paul volunteer who stomped on the head of a MoveOn activist -- told local CBS station WKYT that he wants an apology from the woman he stomped and that she started the whole thing.

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomper-wants-an-apology-from-woman-he-assaulted.php?ref=fpa

*****

Why should she apologize? Didn't she help cure the guy of his back pain by letting him stomp her head?

Ah yes, it is because wingnuts are victims! Always victims! That woman attacked this poor doofus' foot with her head, she should apologize!

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Politico is a joke.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | October 27, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Further to your point Bernie, the so-called Free Market concocted by the Radical Right is just Plutocratic blather. Under the Radical Right's view, profits are privatized while costs and risk are socialized which means, of course, that Big Business' profits are enhanced while the risk and the the externalities' costs are borne by American citizens. What does it really mean when the Radical RIght demands that oil drilling and greenhouse gases be unregulated? It means that those costs to the common environment are incurred by the American people. These are costs of production -- extraction and disposal -- and according to Free Market theory they should be included in the capitalists' expenses and reflected in the product price so the market functions efficiently. Instead, the costs are socialized so Big Business' profits are higher. So much for the Radical Right Wing's devotion to the Free Market.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

@unymark "I can only speak for myself and as for me I'm not moving any further with them."

Then where will you move?

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

IMO, the slush of cash will prove to be a long term problem - because both parties will bend toward it like flowers toward the sun.

During the 90s, we saw how Wall Street cash influenced Ds every bit as much as Rs to step-by-step deregulation. Previously, Wall Street was safely R territory for funds, but Goldman et al were smart enough to buy into both parties.

TR's fear in 1905 was the selling of all american politics to the highest bidder. He fought for our first campaign finance laws for two years until they were finally legislated.

It is my fear, too, and while I favor disclosure laws I do not think they will resolve the inevitable bending of both parties and all American government to the will of relatively few with big purses.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 27, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, I think you missed a critical aspect here:

"No example comes to mind, but I'm pretty sure there have been previous cases where the executive has used a variety of tools to assert authority (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) over certain states. It's infrequent, to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it has happened."

That aspect is that Obama is not merely asserting national authority over a state but is contesting its right to resist illegal entry. The reality is thus closer to his asserting international or foreign "authority" over Arizona. He is in court, along with governments of Latin American countries, seeking to prevent Arizona from protecting itself against invasion by foreigners. Not quite the same thing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@ruk: "I don't really need to 'assert' anything."

I think your interpretation of comments in this area is selective, and I'll leave it at that. I was not accusing anybody on the left side of the aisle of being brownshirts, either, in case you misunderstood.

I may have missed the comment where someone said she deserved it? No doubt, they must have, but who said it?

Anyhoo, my point was (and remains) that, at no point, was Greg stoking the "Republicans are brownshirts/only Republicans do it/Republicans are Evil/Etc" fires. Clawrences "and finally you added", like Greg was tacitly endorsing violence against conservatives by liberals, was completely inconsistent with the easily observable facts, in my opinion.

Liam-still was also exemplary in noting that the best solution to violent behavior by objectivist thugs at a Rand Paul rally was not to start threatening/fantasizing about doing violence to them, etc., etc.

I ended up awfully sick (in addition to my gouty foot) yesterday, so I missed some of the conversation. So I may have missed something important. What I saw, I think, was enough for me. Indeed, you're saying that Republicans and conservatives are, for the most part, objectively brownshirts--which was all I was saying. Essentially, we agree. ;)

And that Greg is not doing that. And hasn't. All I was saying.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Kevin, my point about "no matter who is doing it" was regarding Obama's undisclosed spending, not the alleged assault. I've been reading The Plum Line since the start, and Greg Sargent has never before criticized Obama for spending money raised by undisclosed donors.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "That aspect is that Obama is not merely asserting national authority over a state but is contesting its right to resist illegal entry. The reality is thus closer to his asserting international or foreign 'authority' over Arizona. He is in court, along with governments of Latin American countries, seeking to prevent Arizona from protecting itself against invasion by foreigners. Not quite the same thing."

That's an excellent point. I can't think of an example in the past where that has been true. So, that is novel.

I stand corrected.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

It is my fear, too, and while I favor disclosure laws I do not think they will resolve the inevitable bending of both parties and all American government to the will of relatively few with big purses.

Posted by: mark_in_austin

A very valid fear and cogent post Mark.
The relatively few with the big purses DO hedge their bets.

A great example..Lockheed Martin....
Their gross 45.189 billion (2009)

45 BILLION $$$ IN ONE YEAR!
They split their campaign contributions 60/40 weighted to the R's favor...but still 40% of their HUGE influence still gets directed to the Dems.

Do we wonder why our nation responded to 19 Criminal co-conspirators...19....19...
with two off budget, endless wars that make us no safer today than we were the day before or the day after 9/11. There is no demonstrable proof that these wars have made us safer...they have cost way NORTH of a trillion dollars and coincidentally our economy is in shambles and our infrastructure falling apart. But Lockheed Marietta...Haliburton and others are achieving record profit.

Do we suppose the last great Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower may have known what he was talking about when he warned of the Military Industrial Complex.

We can worry about this Mark or we can really be honest...currently the American government ALREADY is bent to the will of the relatively few with the big purses.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Kevin, my point about 'no matter who is doing it' was regarding Obama's undisclosed spending, not the alleged assault. I've been reading The Plum Line since the start, and Greg Sargent has never before criticized Obama for spending money raised by undisclosed donors."

Yikes! Is my face red. I'm clearly not firing all cylinders this morning (unlike poor Tim Proffit, I can't claim a bad back, but I have a gouty foot and still am recovering from a nasty bout of food poisoning, so I throw myself on the mercy of the court).

Very, very sloppy of me. My apologies for being wrong about what you meant, and for being so off this morning. Yikes.

I'll see you guys later when my brain's working better.

Have fun!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 27, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne, Republican voters can not understand what you wrote. Whether one lays this argument out in person or in writing, no one ever, e v e r responds to the point without changing the subject to free lunch libs, government can't create jobs etc. rhetoric. You see, if you accept the fact that there is no such thing as a free market (except of course in places like Somalia), the whole government bad, greed good edifice comes crashing down.

Then you only have who regulates the markets, toward what ends, where the balance points for the trade-offs are set and so on. You know, the pro-social reality Republicans(and I do too)call socialism.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

"and according to Free Market theory they should be included in the capitalists' expenses and reflected in the product price so the market functions efficiently. Instead, the costs are socialized so Big Business' profits are higher. So much for the Radical Right Wing's devotion to the Free Market."

This is right. No reason to give subsidies for energy production, be it natural gas and crude oil or renewable technologies. It's not a free market.

Posted by: NoVAHockey | October 27, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

I do not understand the federal position [AZase] to be as suggested by clawrence.

States can absolutely enforce federal immigration law to the extent that the feds have authorized them to, and that means that Texas Rangers and DPS and sheriffs can pick up illegal entrants, and do.
Travis County turned over 11000 of them to ICE last year.

What states cannot do is have a parallel set of immigration laws. States are not nations in international law.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

1957 - The Eisenhower administration was finally compelled to federalize the National Guard and escort the nine black students into the school.

1961 - Attorney General Robert Kennedy turned his attention to voting rights, initiating five times the number of suits brought during the previous administration.

1961 - Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent 400 federal marshals to protect the freedom riders and urged the Interstate Commerce Commission to order the desegregation of interstate travel (which became effective in September.)

1962 - JFK mobilized the National Guard and sent federal marshals to the campus. After a riot in which two died and dozens were injured, Meredith registered and segregation ended at the University of Mississippi.

1963 - Backed by the state's new segregationist governor George Wallace, the Birmingham police used dogs and high-pressure fire hoses to put down the demonstrations. King was arrested along with nearly a thousand children. Kennedy, as a demonstration of federal authority, sent several thousand troops to an Alabama air base.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"But I have to ask: why is Charles Murray crying because of a drop in Nascar ratings following it's move to ESPN (a channel, btw, for full disclosure, I despise)?"

Apparently you didn't read Murray's piece in the Post this weekend:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102202873.html

Apparently if you don't watch NASCAR or read Harlequin romance novels then you're an elitist.

The thing is, I don't do either of those things, but I have heard of Branson, MO., and my parents owned an RV while I was growing up so I guess that makes me half an elitist? He needs to make a chart or something.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

This "She could have been trying to assassinate him" argument is obsurd. ANYONE could have a gun. Should we just have the brute-squad just tackling people at random whenver someone is within 100 feet of a public figure? How about 200 feet?

Posted by: cao091402 | October 27, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

@Kevin "but I have a gouty foot"

Thanks heavens you are one of the rational ones Kevin. Imagine the pain if you had been the dude stepping on the lady's head.
Ohhh the pain...and not to her. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who still smells the military industrialist complex as the elephant in the room has failed to appreciate the leviathan, the health care industry.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

@S'sCat....You are busted! I've read you espouse "progessive" causes on this blog before. THAT makes you an elitest!

You seem to have a fine education as well.
THAT makes you an elitest!

And to top it all off...I'm not sure you even live in Sarah Palin's "real" American and then of course THAT would make you an elitest.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Team Obama on ads with undisclosed funding "then" versus "now."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250970/disclosing-white-house-double-standard-allison-hayward

It was good when it was for Obama, and disclosure of funding would only have detracted from evaluating the message. Not so much any more.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

No one is saying that we should have a "brute-squad just tackling people at random whenver someone is within 100 feet of a public figure". Ms. Valle was tackled and restrain for a valid reason. She rushed toward Mr. Paul in a disguise with some unidentified object in her hand, going so far when blocked as to run around the car and approach Mr. Paul from behind. Those of you claiming that she should not have been tackled and restrained, given her own actions, are simply blind partisans.

Lynette Alice "Squeaky" Fromme was dressed as a nun, but still TACKLED by a Secret Service agent and sentenced to life imprisonment for attempting to assassinate U.S. President Gerald Ford in 1975. Seventeen days after Fromme's arrest, Sara Jane Moore attempted to assassinate Ford outside the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco. Moore was quickly restrained by NON-Secret Service bystander named Oliver Sipple, a decorated veteran, and the single shot fired from her gun slightly injured a taxi driver named John Ludwig who happened to be standing inside the hotel at the time. Are you people saying that neither of these ladies should have been restrained either?! If Ford had been a DEMOCRAT, would that make it better?

Grow up, people!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

but I have a gouty foot and still am recovering from a nasty bout of food poisoning

****

According to the Wingnut Home Remedy Manual the proper cure for a gouty foot is to punch a girl scout in the face.

The food poisoning is a little trickier though. For that you'll need a chain saw, a lifted 4X4 with Dick Cepeck Monster Mudders and 4 puppies. The cure isn't pretty, but it doesn't rely on that nasty "science" thingy, so it is worth a try. snark/

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1:

Great link!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

I would be happy to be proven wrong re: GOP willingness to "cooperate" with Democrats but, I aint holding my breath.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 27, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Oh, goody, I'm getting called a blind partisan by Joke. Hey kettle, you're black.

Posted by: cao091402 | October 27, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"States can absolutely enforce federal immigration law to the extent that the feds have authorized them to, and that means that Texas Rangers and DPS and sheriffs can pick up illegal entrants, and do.
Travis County turned over 11000 of them to ICE last year.

What states cannot do is have a parallel set of immigration laws. States are not nations in international law."

This is not quite accurate. States generally don't need explicit authorization to enforce federal law, so long as their policies do not conflict with federal law. And they generally would not be barred from having "parallel" laws, so long as federal law has not "occupied the field) (field preemption) or prohibited it. What they can't do, again, is enact conflicting laws in an area of Congress' delegated powers.

Moreover, Arizona didn't enact any set of parallel laws. It only passed a law requiring its own law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law, under a system established by federal law for that very purpose.

I believe O will ending up losing and with egg all over his face. The liberals on the Court will do anything necessary to save him from such shame, but I think he has an uphill battle.

What will be interesting to see is how his DOJ squares this with his admin's generally anti-preemption position. Believe me, big business would love to see O take this approach to preemption generally. But O of course hasn't done that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

s'cat:

"Apparently if you don't watch NASCAR or read Harlequin romance novels then you're an elitist."

I don't recall Murray mentioning NASCAR, but regardless, that was not the argument he made. The implication of his argument was that the New Elite (in his formulation) does not read Harlequin romance novels (or watch NASCAR?), not that anyone who does not do so is therefore a member of the New Elite. Your conflation of the two arguments is a logical fallacy.

Just because all dogs are four-legged animals does not mean that all four-legged animals are dogs.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2 "Anyone who still smells the military industrialist complex as the elephant in the room has failed to appreciate the leviathan, the health care industry."

I appreciate that the health care industry is a leviathan. I think your premise is flawed. There is more than one elephant in the room...certainly health care is one...the M.I.C. is one...currently by the way in term of real $ (remember these two wars have been fought largely off budget through supplementals) estimates are that 50 cents of every tax dollar is going to defense.

BTW I don't limit the elephants, leviathans to just M.I.C. and health care...certainly big oil...Wall Street...there are more than just a few elephants in our Zoo.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

MAYBE SHE SMUDGED HIS SHOE?.... After Ginni Thomas left that creepy voicemail for Anita Hill, it's made for some amusing mockery online. In the jokes, victims are supposed to be the ones apologizing -- Muslims should tell Juan Williams they're sorry; underage pages should apologize to Mark Foley, etc.

Brian Beuter, who's had more than a few of these, joked yesterday, "Hey, MoveOn activist? It's that Rand Paul fan here. The one with the size 13s? I'm just calling to see if perhaps you're ready to apologize."

Let's not forget how exceedingly difficult it is to take satirical shots at conservatives, given how farcical real-life is.

Tim Profitt -- the former Rand Paul volunteer who stomped on the head of a MoveOn activist -- told local CBS station WKYT that he wants an apology from the woman he stomped and that she started the whole thing.

"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."

Just so we're absolutely clear, the guy who stomped on a defenseless woman's head wants her to apologize to him.

Maybe she smudged his shoe or something.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026332.php

Posted by: nisleib | October 27, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

"Barack and his Obamatons"

Sounds like the good Transformers. That would make possible future speaker Boehner and Fox the decepticons.

How appropriate.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | October 27, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

States can do some pretty wacky things, like the MO Executive Order 44...

"the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace"

Fortunately, it was rescinded in 1976.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Does the right think that the Federal Courts that already have a shortage of judges due to GOP obstruction should devote all of their resources to deportation cases resulting from traffic stops and housing code violations?

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

For those of you who think that the Lexington police cleared Ms. Valle as "not a threat", keep in mind that the civilians didn't know that at the time. Sara Jane Moore had also been evaluated by the Secret Service earlier in 1975, before she attempted to kill Ford, but they had decided that she presented no danger to the President. She had even been picked up by local police on an illegal handgun charge the day before the Ford incident, but was released from that arrest too. The police confiscated her .44 caliber pistol and 113 rounds of ammunition. So, it is possible that the Lexington police are mistaken too.

Another interesting fact: Moore was not rushing forward but simply standing about 40 feet away from President Ford when she fired a single shot at him with a different pistol, a .38 caliber revolver

She was using a gun she bought in haste that same morning and (fortunately) did not know the sight was off by six inches -- when she fired at Ford, her bullet missed his head by six inches -- FBI case agent Richard Vitamanti measured the location the next day.

Moore pled guilty to attempted assassination and was sentenced to life in prison. At her sentencing hearing Moore stated: "Am I sorry I tried? Yes and no. Yes, because it accomplished little except to throw away the rest of my life. And, no, I'm not sorry I tried, because at the time it seemed a correct expression of my anger."

In 1979, Moore escaped from the Alderson Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, but was recaptured only hours later. After her return, she was transferred to a more secure facility, and she served the remainder of her term at the federal women’s prison in Dublin, California.

Both women were eventually released on parole.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

I've got a solution to the problem of $ in elections, no matter the Party or candidate: equal free advertising on TV, in newspapers and no donations or stupid yard signs. Period.

Two debates and each get a full page spread in a local paper.

No one's regulating *what* is said in those forums. Anyone who wants to know what the candidates stand for can read that info or the damb Congressional Record.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

ruk7 understood, was just trying to be sly; most people think our ever larger (as a proportion of gdp) health care industry is benign, as if, sure, it is grossly inefficient but may be worth it in the end. It isn't, it is growing and spreading like a cancer.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"I don't recall Murray mentioning NASCAR, "

You're right - my bad - he used MMA, not NASCAR.

"Your conflation of the two arguments is a logical fallacy."

Of course it is. It's also snark - which is more than his ridiculous hypothesis deserves.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 10:43 AM | Report abuse

@b51:

We all know that rewarding lawbreakers just produces more lawbreakers.

A great argument for not allowing the republicans back into power and actually holding those responsible for the crashing the global economy and not rewarding them with multimillion dollar bonuses.

A great argument for arresting Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney as well for war crimes and violating the US constitution.

Posted by: srw3 | October 27, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

All, Dems hammer away at McConnell in a new ad over his desire for Obama one term presidency:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/dems_rip_mitch_mcconnells_one.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 27, 2010 10:57 AM | Report abuse

pragmaticstill will be unable to name a SINGLE federal judge nominated by Obama that the GOP have prevented from taking the bench (unlike the following GWB nominees all blocked by the Dems):

William E. Smith, Loretta A. Preska, Shalom D. Stone, Claude Allen, Rod J. Rosenstein, Terrence Boyle, Robert J. Conrad, Steve A. Matthews, William J. Haynes, II, E. Duncan Getchell, Glen E. Conrad, Charles W. Pickering, Henry Saad, Philip P. Simon, Carolyn Kuhl, William Gerry Myers III, James H. Payne, William H. Steele, Miguel Estrada, Brett Kavanaugh, Peter Keisler, Lincoln D. Almond, Mary Donohue, Thomas Marcelle, Carolyn P. Short, Gene E. K. Pratter, Paul S. Diamond, Carolyn P. Short, Paul S. Diamond, Colm F. Connolly, Thomas Alvin Farr, David J. Novak, William J. Powell, David R. Dugas, J. Richard Barry, Daniel P. Ryan, Gustavus Adolphus Puryear, John J. Tharp, J. Mac Davis, James Edward Rogan, Frederick W. Rohlfing III, Gregory E. Goldberg, Richard H. Honaker, William F. Jung, Jeffrey Adam Rosen, and Michael E. O'Neill.

Susan Bieke Neilson was only confirmed three months prior to her death, after a four-year battle over her nomination. Eventually, Bush declined to make nominations for 23 other current or future federal district judgeships in the 110th Congress rather than incur further Democratic obstruction.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Too bad OBAMA never arrested Bush, Rumsfeld, or Cheney for such alleged war crimes and (other?) violations the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

shorter jdw2, qb, etc:

WAAHHHHHH!!! Obama was more popular than mc cain and raised more from small <$250 donations. WAAAHHHH!!

Call the wambulance!!!!

Now they can address the travesty of citizens united and the huge unprecendented funds that corporations are putting into these off year elections, the most expensive off year elections in history with probably the highest % of undisclosed money used ever in an off year election.

Corporations are not people. They do not have the same rights as people. Someday the country will come to its senses and legislate this.

Posted by: srw3 | October 27, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

@shrink2 "it is growing and spreading like a cancer."

I am in 100% agreement. And there doesn't seem to be a cure for the cancer you describe because we can't really address the issue honestly. We currently ration based on wealth...and insurance company profit margins...but we shrink from a genuine debate about how to ration..rationally. Right now we certainly don't pull the plug on granny but we pull it on younger folks who end up with terminal illnesses because a lack of health care prevents any routine exams that could identify things like cancer before it's too late...but by all means spend $$$ on another procedure for 94 year old granny like a colonoscopy or paps smear. Our society can't even DISCUSS the fact that some young people in our life who could have possibly enjoyed another 50 years with good quality of life are doomed while granny gets heroic efforts to keep her alive...as John Mellancamp once said...the thrill of living has gone.
I make no pronouncements, offer no solutions but I would enjoy seeing an actual debate not based on one party or the other's "Waterloo".

Our political system right now doesn't really seem up to solving genuinely thorny problems....partisan rancor is the order of the day..not actual governance.,

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 11:09 AM | Report abuse

If anyone else wants to discuss (which means answering my questions in a civil manner BTW) why I do not consider the Citizens United decision to be a "travesty", please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Included in that total: conservative groups have spent $169 million on ads attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates, compared to $80 million by liberal-leaning groups, based on figures as of Tuesday morning.

Of course, plenty more will be spent in this final week of the campaign.

The GOP-leaning outside groups have vowed to invest about $325 million this cycle, a sum that could be difficult to achieve with just seven days to go to Election Day. Liberal groups and unions also have pledged tens of millions of dollars more in spending.

But the David-and-Goliath tone of some Democratic messaging hardly reflects the party’s own financial strength and ability to defend itself, at least tactically."

Read more at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44216.html#ixzz13ZbUZqzC

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"...how to ration..rationally..."

That is called socialism and so long as any discussion of centrally planned and administered social balance is anathema, socialism will turn out to be our nemesis, just not in the way the slack jowled, watery eyed old cold warriors fear.

Health care is so big, it is in position to grow itself in a way the MIC or Big Oil never could. Health care is the industry that has to be socialized, just for this one reason: it already is...in so many irrational ways.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

BTW: Ms. Valle's violent background is just now emerging. She has worked as an activist for several groups, including Greenpeace, and was arrested with 6 others on felony charges in May 2010 in Louisiana for defacing a drilling boat. Like I said yesterday, I prefer to let the facts get sorted out first. Then we can all determine whether she was a "threat" or not : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 27, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"We currently ration based on wealth...and insurance company profit margins"

False. When A lacks money to pay B for X, it is unfortunate but not rationing.

Stop trying to corrupt discourse by corrupting language.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 12:06 PM | Report abuse

QB - see

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/complaint-filed-version.pdf

The feds are complaining about a parallel immigration framework that permits AZ to criminalize IAs under state law.

I agree with the distinction you drew that states can usually enforce federal law - I overstated when I suggested that a grant of authority was required.

I agree that states can have parallel laws in so many areas if they do not conflict with federal law - this is true in my field, employment and labor law, and as you suggest, preemption is a continuing issue.

But the field in international law is a federal one, except that state police authorities may enforce the federal law.

Thus it cannot be a crime against AZ to be a MX national in AZ failing to carry documentation. Thus the status issue, which is subject to adjustment by the State Department [p.7 of the pleading] cannot be statutorily presumed by a state.

I think the fed pleading does not go where you think it does.

But we could argue its points and the counterpoints of AZ's reply!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 27, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Corporations are not people. They do not have the same rights as people. Someday the country will come to its senses and legislate this."

They have to have at least some of the same rights, or else they would serve no purpose. If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled that corporations have no 1st Am rights, no due process rights, no just compensation rights, etc., the economy would collapse in its entirety over night.

I've asked these hard questions before, and no lefty ever has courage to answer them. If corporations are nonpersons and have no rights:

How can they make contracts and enforce them or have them enforced against them?

How would they have the ability to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

How could they even be sued in the first place?

How could they be prosecuted for crimes?

What would prevent the government from simply expropriating their property without compensation?

Why couldn't we just steal their property or defraud them, as private citizens?

This is just another case of knee-jerk liberalism and expediency run amok. The left doesn't bother to think through the full implications of their rash assertions.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

QB1, corporations are legal fictions designed to protect passive investors from third party liability. They are a very important legal construct for the economy and they have rights, all the rights you listed and sometimes more, in order to operate within the economy.

On the other hand, they are not "persons", and you do not require my listing of the rights not granted to corporations.

The focus of the "free speech" issue should have been on "time, place, and manner" reasonable restrictions. Much as the town square is open to speakers of all persuasions, but not open to all of them at the same time, the serious discussion should have been whether or not first bidder can buy all the air space. As your town would not allow the same speaker to claim the town square all the time, it could be appropriate to limit funding of political campaigns based on monopolization potential of the broadcast medium, and that restriction would not be a violation of the First Amendment, were it "reasonable".

I recognize that "time, place, and manner" restrictions will have to be revisited again and again. Just as they have been in the past.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 27, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

I understand that O claims that the AZ law conflicts with federal law, but that claim is ridiculous. It amounts to, "We have a practice of lax enforcement, because we 'prioritize' resources and can't do everything. For AZ to take up the slack 'interferes' with our lax enforcement."

The complaint says, regarding "adjustment" and discretionary nonenforcement cases: "Additionally, Section 6 will result in the arrest of aliens whose out-of-state crimes would not give rise to removal proceedings at all."

This is a ridiculous argument. The feds' decision not to remove someone for discretionary reasons in no way means it "interferes" with or conflicts with federal law or policy for AZ to refer illegals to the feds for disposition. It's ludicrous.

Nepalitano herself supported AZ's right to enforce as its governor. I just heard her this morning deflecting questions by saying we need a process to legalize illegals. That's what this admin's interest is: not enforcing but legalizing the illegal.

And I think this is a political disaster of long-term significance for Obama and Dems. It will get to SCOTUS before 2012, and Obama will pay further for it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Corporations are not persons. They must and they do enjoy certain prerogatives which you may call human rights, but I don't. They also have responsibilities, freedoms, restrictions and so on that have nothing to do with being a person and vice versa. Do you think corporations should be able to adopt (create?) and raise children? Should a family's children have collective bargaining rights? Creating straw man arguments isn't interesting.

It isn't that leftists can't argue with you, it is that they choose not to. It has something to do with your *style*. Even Jake2 politely asks if someone is willing to debate this question.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"We currently ration based on wealth...and insurance company profit margins"

False. When A lacks money to pay B for X, it is unfortunate but not rationing."

Also false, we all pay B for the X that A gets whether or not A pays. There is rationing, but it is arcane, practically speaking, it is irrational.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

It's not me making a universal statement about corporations' rights versus human being's rights. It is folks on the left who are declaring -- and it has been going on for months here -- that they have no rights.

I don't see how C.U. could have or should have focused on "time, place, and manner" when the law was a categorical prohibition. I also don't see how such a speech-rationing approach would have any application, either to expenditures broadly or expenditures for broadcast ads or media distribution. There are plenty of broadcast and related outlets. TV and radio are flooded with Democrat ads.

The "drowning out" rationale has always been antithetical to the true free speech, and there is no "drowning out" in evidence. Obama utterly swamped McCain in hundreds of millions of dollars of ads, and Democrats didn't see any threat to anyone's speech or to "democracy" then. On the contrary, they treated it is the very opposite.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

"Corporations are not persons. They must and they do enjoy certain prerogatives which you may call human rights, but I don't."

Legally, they are treated as persons all the time. That's not an opinion but a fact.

You deny that they have rights. So you deny that they have the right to due process. You believe the instead have something called a "prerogative" of due process? That's not something a court would recognize. They either have rights like due process and just compensation, or they don't. And if they don't, then they have, for example, no right to defend themselves if sued (setting aside how they can be sued as a nonperson anyway).

If this is so, they serve no purpose, and our economy is based on lies. We should all get our money out of the stock market and other investments before this is discovered more broadly, and all corporations cease to have value.

Liberals howled in outrage over C.U., claiming shock that corporations could have free speech rights. But if they don't, then you need to have some coherent explanation for why they don't but nevertheless have any of the other "prerogatives" you acknowledge that are necessary for them even to be viable.

"Creating straw man arguments isn't interesting."

I didn't create one. The argument was made above, as it consistently has been by liberals, that corporations are not persons and have no rights. You haven't been around here much, but some of your fellows like wb or mikefromarlington might come along and take issue with your lack of purity on the subject.

"It isn't that leftists can't argue with you, it is that they choose not to. It has something to do with your *style*. Even Jake2 politely asks if someone is willing to debate this question."

As I said, you haven't been around here much. I asked these questions and made these points as courteously as you could want and was met, as is usual, with vitriol. I'm used to it. Most liberals -- and especially the screamers on PL -- just don't tolerate having their claims challenged, or anyone who does so. The "style" they don't like is anyone who challenges their claims without apology.

"Also false, we all pay B for the X that A gets whether or not A pays. There is rationing, but it is arcane, practically speaking, it is irrational."

What you just claimed is the opposite of rationing and the opposite of what was claimed above.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Rationing is happening all over the health care landscape, all day every day. I do it, I know. But it isn't about "ability to pay" or corporate profits. I never think of either. Earlier points, false and false. Rationing is happening, but is irrational, what I do makes no sense and I get paid a lot of money to do it, a lot of money.

I have to work all day now (rationing access to hospital services, believe it or not), but I will take up CU with you some other time. It is very important.

And it is true, I can't stand going to sites where people are shouted down by purity denizens, modern day thought police. Talk to you later.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 27, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The Cartoon Constitution brought to you by Koch Bros Con Lawyers.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"The argument was made above, as it consistently has been by liberals, that corporations are not persons and have no rights"

No one argues that. Everyone knows that as business entities corporations must have certain property rights in order to perform their business function. Those rights, however, do not include funneling secret money through the Chamber of Commerce to rig American elections. You just invented that canard in order to attack a straw man because that is what you do: play sophist games all day long and hope to drag everyone down into the mire with you. Get off the COC Propaganda Payroll and get a real job. You are pathetic.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2 It seems you're new here but you are welcome indeed because you discuss things without the need to engage in ad hominem attacks or shouting others down.
In other words there are many of us on this blog who enjoy disagreeing agreeably. Other's not so much. You'll soon learn who you can engage and which posters are simply ideologues or as you call them purity denizens.

I've enjoyed your thoughts on "socialism" although I beg to disagree...sorta...

Rationing as well. If you believe our society...that is to say specifically the United States is an every man for himself place...pure capitalism...and expression of Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" then indeed I would accept your definition of "rationing".

If you believe our country is a place with a social covenant with "some" shared responsibilities then we are "rationing"
In round figures there are 300 million of us...some of us get health care...some do not...literally rationing...whether done by the pocketbook, (a form of means testing) or by what the insurance companies will pay. Again I'm not talking about "theory"...anybody can have what they pay for...but reality...who gets health care and who doesn't..some get it...some don't and have no realistic way to get it...hence rationing.

As for "socialism" I tend to take a more literal approach...in health care for example that would mean the Gov't hire the providers..docs,nurses,etc, plan build and manage the the hospitals. We currently have that now in the form of the V.A. which btw is currently outperforming our current private system in both cost and outcomes. There is a single payers model similar to Canada..but in our country limited to our seniors called Medicare. It is not socialized health care..merely socialized insurance. Then of course we have the traditional fee for service models with private insurance or people simply paying out of their pockets.

I realize you know all this but I wish to be clear for sake of discussion. We have had too many knee jerk descriptions of "Obamacare" as a Gov't takeover, socialism, yadda yadda when in reality it is merely insurance reform.

You said, "Health care is the industry that has to be socialized, just for this one reason: it already is...in so many irrational ways." All of my research points in the direction you suggest. IMHO I don't believe we need "true" socialism but a single payer system (Medicare for all) so that we can set a budget like every other nation in the world and then provide whatever care that budget can afford. Of course the wealthy would still be able to pay for "heroic" extra care if they wish as is their right. I'm talking about the "reality" of the 98% of the rest of us. Enjoy sharing ideas with you...and I can't tell if you are conservative, liberal, or simply pragmatic...but then it doesn't matter does it...it's the idea sharing that counts not the label.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

@shrink2

Not to engage in a tit for tat about which is going to doom us quicker...health care costs or defense...at the present moment our defense posture is having dire consequences!

Assuming Obama or Ron Paul in 2012 brings our nation to it's sense and ends these two wasteful and non productive wars...health care will definitely emerge as 800lb gorilla.

But PRESENTLY it is defense and the wars that are really wreaking havoc.

Here is an interesting read for you...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/?cid=topic:featured2

Already, we've spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq, not counting the $700 billion consumed each year by the Pentagon budget. And spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than 3 billion weekly, making the wars a major reason for record-level budget deficits.

Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published The Three Trillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion.

Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion."

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 27, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"No one argues that. Everyone knows that as business entities corporations must have certain property rights in order to perform their business function."

You are some funny guy. Where is the part of the Constitution that lists which rights they do and do not have? Or is that just something that liberals "know"?

"Those rights, however, do not include funneling secret money through the Chamber of Commerce to rig American elections. You just invented that canard in order to attack a straw man because that is what you do: play sophist games all day long and hope to drag everyone down into the mire with you."

Speaking of canards and straw men? Brilliant self parody.

I've noticed all the liberals ignored my link to the column showing how WH Counsel Bab Bauer -- Obama's campaign legal hatchet man -- defended anonymous ads supporting Obama, way back in 2007 when it served Obama's interests.

Not surprised.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent and the Washington Post: "Get off the COC Propaganda Payroll and get a real job. You are pathetic."

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company