Random Thoughts and Open Thread

 

"Solsbury Hill" - Peter Gabriel

I strongly recommend the video for the sheer pleasure of the performance. Men having fun and not worrying about being cool. 

- Impending Signs of the Apocalypse Dept. - Maureen Dowd wrote the perfect column yesterday in response to the Village fainting couch set who criticized President Obama for pushing back at the Supreme Court.  As Dowd notes, the right wing of the Court continue to act like partisan hacks, with their intellectual leader and purported great legal mind sounding like a Fox anchor, invoking the "Cornhusker Kickback" in oral argument and complaining about the burden of having to read the law in its entirety.  Really, Dowd said pretty much all that I have to say on the subject.  Even if Obama were the biggest disappointment to liberalism who ever lived -- and he isn't -- he needs to be reelected solely to keep any more right wing ideologues from getting on the Court.  This is matter of profound, generational concern.

- Speaking of outrageous judicial behavior, I was just stunned by Judge Jerry Smith on the United States Court of Appeals confronting a Justice Department lawyer during oral argument about President Obama's criticism of the Court, using the term "Obamacare," and assigning her homework to get a three page single spaced letter specifically addressing whether the Attorney General and the Department of Justice "recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."  Now I've done quite a few oral arguments in my day, but I have to admit I would have been totally floored by such a question.  I would like to think that I would have responded by asking the judge to recuse himself from the case given the obviously inappropriate nature of his conduct, but you know those robes are pretty daunting some times.  If Judge Smith thinks he struck a mighty blow for the legitimacy of America's courts, he is sadly mistaken.  

- The always excellent Linda Greenhouse, truly one of the finest reporters of this or any other generation, lends some more light than heat to the goings on in the Supreme Court with respect to both the ACA and the recent strip search decision.  It's well worth reading.  Greenhouse seems to be implying that when the dust settles that the ACA is more likely to be upheld than not.   Let's hope so.

- Tim Noah, whose book on income inequality will be out in a couple of weeks, has a useful corrective to those who continue to suggest that low income people bear no tax burden. 

- And then there are things that just make me want to drink.  God fucking help us. 

What's on your minds? 

Comments

[Crissa]

I wonder if it's a misrepresentation or just a Politician caught being honest (Barrett). I really don't know. I wouldn't attack him this way unless there was something truly wrong with him, not just that I preferred one over the other.

This sorta stuff makes me wonder what we're not seeing.

[Don K]

I had the pleasure of seeing Gabriel live at the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor in what must have been '86 in support of the So album. The Michigan is a nice small (1700 seat) venue that was perfect for seeing Gabriel and the crew. One of the two best shows I've seen (the other was Springsteen in the fall of '74 at the State Theatre in New Brunswick - a similarly-sized theatre).

[nancy]

The video is 4 min 24 secs of adorable. Thanks Sir C.

And just when I'd pretty much given up on Dowd. I wish she'd write like this more often -- when she backs off on the cute, she's much more effective. That piece is not only devastating and harsh, but fair.

[big bad wolf]

abriel was great back in the day. springsteen still is. i i disagree with joe about that, but then i think we disagree about colin meloy's chipmunk voice too :)

dowd was always overrated, until she became a bete noir, at which point she was mostly confused by her status and became mostly absurd. throughout every once in awhile she has written something solid.

cog still hates firefox

[nancy]

bbw -- What about Chrome? And Sir C, if I'm reading the tech talk right, you could authorize the recognition of previously acceptable IPs and make the captcha a requirement for only new and unrecognized IPs. (She says like she knows what she's talking about.)

Captcha is taking me on average three configurations. I guess it's the aging vision. Or maybe it's the wine. :)

[Joe S]

bbw, I have to say Gabriel still is pretty amazing (with the New Blood Orchestra). I actually think Springsteen still is a great songwriter. He just really needs to edit some of the . I liked Ghost of Tom Joad quite a bit.

P.S. Alvin, Simon, and Theodore went pretty damn far with chipmunk voices.

[big bad wolf]

i agree, joe. gabriel seemed to me unsure for awhile but he's found his footing again.

[nancy]

Joe -- I was cast as Alvin in an elementary school play. I have a photo. My parents were so proud. But when the time came to pantomime, I got caught up in the role and shouted out the line. 'Alvin!'.

And with that I leave you all to guy matters. All best.

[KN]

SC -as an advogadro I should think that you are already very familiar with the fact that the concept of a neutral judiciary is a fairy tale of Peter Pan proportions.

It is really interesting to contemplate the consequences of life time appointments vis the effect that has on how the judge in question might be inclined to act. I think to put it simply, that the founders who devised that model were utterly naive with respect to the levels of corruption that are possible now.

So it is unsurprising that some third tier appelate judge would insult the office of the presidency because a president, who happens to be a constitutional scholar, is so audacious, nay, uppity, as to put the court on the spot in terms of an obvious and scorching contradiction.

The thing is though that what is being revealed in this little dust up is not anything to do with the actual issues. Just like in every other case where the administration has proposed policies that serve to accomplish some obviously needed result, the so called loyal opposition has consistently and blindly chosen to be obdurately obstructive of any progress at all.

In sum, they don't give a tinker's damn whether the economy, or 300 million people are flushed down the commode, all that matters to them is to humiliate and frustrate and kick that nigger our of office.

If you think about it for a minute or two you will realize it is absolutely true. The animus is based on the fact that these racists simply cannot accept the idea that a black man is a couple of orders of magnitude smarter than they are and can accomplish great things if anyone will cooperate with him. What is truly astounding to me, well not so much really, but enough to be disurbing, is that there are a handful of so called democrats who have the same racist tendencies and that alone created the massively inefficient first two years of Obama's administration.

I could go on for a while lecturing about how the first two years of this administration played out but it is pointless to do so because it would be preaching to the quior and the quior appears to be working on their pop tunes.

I'll just toss this into the mix without an attempts to link of otherwise because I am a big believer in the idea that it takes a little effort to really understand things. I saw some references and content from a study by MIT that is a kind of followup from the 1972 Limits of Growth study. It's kind of interesting because it more or less predicts that unless we make some major systemic changes to how we "do business", the world economy will collapse into chaos within 30 to 40 years.

I know, I should be able to provide a link or two that supports all this bur frankly I have not had the time to look and none of the sources that cited it did so either so the whole deal may be a fraud. But somehow I don't really think so.

Anybody here see the film Koyanisquatsi
I am sure I did not spell that right.

Also, just because I heard recently that the topic had gotten some exposure in the US you might want to google hunger in brazil to find out what a real nation does for itself.

bom noite,

[Tom Buckel]

What about the Barrett story drives you to drink- Barrett's comments or the union reaction to it? His comments as reported seemed to reflect a decent guy trying to govern decently, even if not in lockstep with the interests of all unions. What's the beef here?

[Sir Charles]

Tom,

I should have elaborated. It's the internecine warfare on our side when the goal of removing Walker should be paramount. My beef here actually is primarily with the unions. Getting rid of Walker should be their focus and they also have to respect the fact that though he may be their ally in many respects, Barrett is management. He's got a job to do for the taxpayers and sometimes that job is to say no. (By the way the right wing notion that Democrats just cave to public employee unions all the time is utter bunk -- it would make for some very unsuccessful politicians.)

So I think Barrett has not been as careful in some of his utterances as he should have been, but it is the unions with whom I am more upset.

As for the police and firefighters unions who have endorsed Walker, well, there is a special circle in hell reserved for such people.

KN,

My experience has been that judges are not just political actors and that they take their role as judges seriously. I have won many cases in front of conservative judges over the years.

So although I am not naive about this stuff, I do expect judges to behave like judges, and what Smith did on the bench here was actually quite shocking.

[Sir Charles]

Interestingly, I couldn't get my comment to post on IE and had no problem on Firefox.

Wierd.

[low-tech cyclist]

With respect to Judge Smith's homework assignment, I'm disappointed that Holder didn't come back with a polite but firm version of "the President's remarks fall outside of your jurisdiction and are none of your legal business, asshole," but the actual response was about as good as I could imagine, short of that.

And even if it's only MoDo, I'm glad to see someone point out that the emperors have no clothes:

[The Supreme Court] has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.

All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief.

All the more reason to re-elect Obama. Ginsburg, Scalia, and Kennedy will all be over 80 when the next Presidential term ends.

I've been thinking lately about Constitutional amendments I'd like to see in a more perfect world. Appointing Federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, for 25 year terms, is among them. There should be a limit to how far into the future a given Administration can get to determine the nature of the Federal judiciary.

I'm commenting on IE again because Captcha won't load on Firefox. (I don't have this problem anywhere else, FWIW. Just here.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: (btw, not really back 'all the way' since I still abandon 5 out of six of the comments I start -- here or elsewhere -- when I find myself ranting unstoppably. And I may be spending a fair amount of my writing time corresponding with Dave Trotter -- see below or a separate comment.)

The Barrett thing is one of those things that bothers me about unions. Not just their inability to distinguish between 'critical friends' and 'enemies' or to keep their eyes on the goal, but their 'one size fits all' rhetoric. When I see a union paper describing am Andrew Cuomo or a Mike Bloomberg in terms more suitable for a Walker or a LePage or a Kasich, I reach for the Bushmill's myself.

Part of the problem is the turning off of potential allies, part of it is the 'crying wolf' problem -- if every oppo0nent in a negotiation is called a 'union buster' who is going to be quik enough to re3spond to a real union destroyer like Walker.

And part of it has to do with the whole question of honesty in politics -- of where you draw the line between 'rhetorical exaggeration' and simple lying, how you differentiate between 'shaping an image' and 'creating a false image,' etc. -- that has been one of the 'rant-starters' for me. (The key to my 'period of silence' was the simultaneous appearance of a proposed new 'symbol' for Obama as Captain America -- I never did find out if this was serious or not -- with the revelation that -- as i had argued against a lot of people -- he was perfectly willing, even eager, for the Republicans to take his $4 trillion sellout during the hostage crisis, that it wasn't merely a 'political ploy' that he wanted to be rejected. Had he succeeded in the 'compromise' we would have been a lot closer to the Ryan budget than to anything resembling a Democratic one -- and with the added lead-weighted horse collar around it that it was the proposal of a Democratic President. The same Democratic President who has been a 'defecit hawk' who backed away from a stimulus the size we needed, and has been willing to accept cuts in even normal state aid for eductaion, medicaid and the like. The same Democratic President who has governed from -- and even campaigned going back to his earliest elections -- the point of view that he can gain Republican support for his positions where his opponents couldn't.)

See what I mean about ranting? I have to vote for him, but the more I look at him, the less I can believe the speeched will be followed by appropriate action any more than the speeched of 2008 were.

Anyway, that leads me to l-tc's point. "All the more reason to re-elect Obama." Not quite. yes, he has to be -- and obviously will be -- reelected. Even the Republicans are playing a '96 strategy' -- our version was 1984 -- of punting the Presidency, accepting they will lose it, and fighting like hell for Congress.

We have to do the same -- and I don't see us doing it. And -- as I've been yelling since 2009 -- the Supreme Court is the key reason why. Yes, vacancies are bound to occur, and we have to make sure that we have a chance of getting an Obama nomination through the Senate -- which means holding on to our lead, even increasing it -- and we can -- and scaring the others enough to turn them away from 'automatic opposition.'

(And, given our conflict-averse President, we have to make sure that he won't nominate a 'respectable conservative' that he thinks will get through. We might just have to be in a position to threaten our own filibuster if his pick is too bad.)

Enough on this. A couple of quick OTs in a comment, then a discussion on one of the more interesting series of political analyses I've seen, from someone who was a consultant for 22 years. But those are for later comments.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Two OT pieces:

On the "You Can Play" project -- see my last comment yesterday -- there is a new video featuring commentators from TSN -- the Canadian equivalent of ESPN, I believe -- with the key line "TSN's broadcasters also promise to cover LGBT athletes fairly and honestly, and not to treat sexual orientation as a story in and of itself." [Emphasis and one typo-correction mine.]

And, only slightly tangential to politics, but possibly of interest to some of you, I will be reading the fourth -- and, sadly, final -- Hilary Tamar book by Sarah Caudwell. The political part is that "Sarah Caudwell" is actually Sarah Cockburn, sister to the Cockburn journalists, and daughter of Claud Cockburn (and her mother was viewed as one of the inspirations for Sally Bowles).

But the reason why i think a number of you would find them worth seeking out -- along with the fact they are among the most hilariously witty books in the entire Detective canon -- and have no peer I can think of in the legal subsection -- is the delightful game Caudwell played with her readers.

The narrator-detective is Professor Hilary Tamar, the ex-teacher and mentor to a group of younger lawyers -- the books even manage to be funny about the English tax code -- and, from comments it is pbvious that the Professor is attracted equally to members of both sexes. What you never find out -- and what can still produce friendly fights among Caudwell fans -- is what gender the Professor is. Pulling that one off -- and yes, the political implications involved -- would be reason enough to read the four books.

Of course, I have to give at least a short 'money quote' where you meet Professor Tamar and the delightfully scatterbrained Julia Larwood, a tax attorney who is part of the group of lawyers though she works for the firm next door:

Julia's unhappy relationship with the Inland Revenue was due to her omission, during four moderately successful years at the Bar, to pay any income tax. The truth is, I think, that she did not, in her heart of hearts, really believe in income tax. It was a subject which she had studied for examinations and on which she had thereafter advised a number of clients: she naturally did not suppose, in these circumstances, that it had anything to do with real life.

From page 15 of THUS WAS ADONIS MURDERED -- we have already discovered that Julia was arrested for murder on the trip to Venice they have been discussing. Okay, one more:

"Julia?" I said, much astonished. "You haven't let Julia go off on her own to Venice, surely?

"Am I," asked Selena, "Julia's keeper?"

"Yes," I said, rather severely, for her attitude seemed to me to be irresponsible. She likes, I know, to pretend that Julia is a normal, grown-up woman, who can safely be sent round the corner to buy a loaf of bread: but, of course, it is quite absurd...)

Professor Tamar has 'modestly' but accurately taken credit for rescuing Julia -- but what we have not yet learned is that he had the slight difficulty that the corpse was found in Julia's bed, by her, upon waking up from a post-coital nap after a somewhat vigorous time between the two of them.

Great fun, and there are four of them.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I think the Holder letter was both firm and legally appropriate. I think the judge continues to come out of this looking quite bad.

Jim,

I think public employee unions have to be careful about lumping those politicians who don't capitulate to them in with those who vilify them and question their very legitimacy. Public employee unions should have a voice and a place at the table, but they cannot be allowed to dictate terms that are unreasonable to the tax payers.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oops, I called Professor Tamar 'he" and in fact, I lean towards the 'female' side of the discussion. It's old age, not memory going but simply growing up when 'he' was the default pronoun.

[Eric Wilde]

Tax Day for me.

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

[Sir Charles]

Eric,

Nice to hear from you -- hope all is well with you and yours.

[oddjob]

Another salvo has been fired in the GOP's war on women:

A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill....

Hat tip, The Plum Line (which also reports that the Obama campaign fully intends to talk about this repeal in a way that binds Romney to it).

[Sir Charles]

And Romney has called Walker "heroic" I believe.

Great call.

[oddjob]

Romney has horrible campaigning instincts. He was the same way when he ran for governor.

[Eric Wilde]

Thanks, Sir C. I still lurk around here; but, I'm working 80 hour weeks and dealing with two precocious 3 year olds. :^) Keep up the fine work.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Creative protest, indeed. Maybe we're starting to get it.

[kathy a.]

prup -- i've been in contact with some mom-bloggers over the years, some of whom are into knitting. this isn't a new protest idea, although there seems to be a lot of interest lately.

[jeanne marie]

this is a test to see if i can post from my kindle

[kathy a.]

anyway, nobody pays much attention to the liberal knitter faction, but they are in for the long haul. the link to the knitting instructions (which i do not understand, being more of an unskilled quilt person) is copyright 2004.

[KN]

SC - thanks for the perspective on judges, I avoid them for the most part so it is informative that one with a lot of direct experience would give them some credit. Moreover, we would like to think that impartiality would be a high bar for them to meet.

On the other hand, I think for example that the Citizens United decision was a textbook example of judicial bias. The case was presented in a very narrow constext. It was expanded by the court to be all inclusive. Moreover it was then decided on the extremely dubious premise that a corporation, which if I am not mistaken is a legal entity created for the specific purpose of indemnifying individuals from liability, is in fact the equivalent of an individual, except immune from all responsibility.

Regardless of the specific arguments, one has only to look at the crime/incarceration statistics for the US to realize how FUBAR our justice system has become. Private prisons? The PA juvenile crime case is proof positive that a private prison system is a recipe for graft and corruption and a new gestapo. Nobody seems to know about it.

I'd like to say one thing more, I acknowledge that the world you live in is a bit different from mine. I deal with things that have to be verifyably true over and over and over again. You deal with a world where what ultimately prevails is a preponderance of fact in favor of some vague criterion called reasonable doubt. So we are playing on different fields. We more or less have to argue differently because of the milieu in which we argue. But the question is raised, which paradigm will prevail? With all due respect to the profession of law, it is factually, inferior to nature. Law and science can cooperate productively, and in my view they should. But my view is irrelevant.

If the ideologs of the SCOTUS send more pollution into the judicial mind set by striking down part or all of the PPACA, it will just further the trend.

[Sir Charles]

KN,

Of course lower court judges -- I've never argued before the big court [but I'd love to] -- feel bound by precedent. The Supreme Court justices make precedent. And with the present "four horseman of reaction" -- a wonderful 1930s phrase -- no precedent seems fully safe.

With respect to science and law and politics I generally have a render unto Caesar point of view. The problem is that the Republicans have shown themselves to have no respect for science's realm, something that is deeply troubling.

[oddjob]

Their religious base feels attacked by science's wholesale embrace of evolutionary theory. Thus they play to the base's id by attacking science when it seems as though emerging scientific consensus might affect yet another aspect of the base's tribal view of itself and the US of A.

[low-tech cyclist]

A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill....

But there's no War on Women. We're just imagining things.

[low-tech cyclist]

Jim,
While I agree with the importance of holding the Senate (and going for whatever small chance we might have of increasing our majority there), the reality is that a Republican Senate isn't going to block Obama's Supreme Court nominees, unless it's 2016 and they think they can run out the clock. Supreme Court nomination fights are just too visible; the public can see their intransigence if they choose to block a Dem nominee.

Where the Senate matters far more is with lower court nominations. And there, unfortunately, it's 60 or bust, unless the Dems are willing to play hardball at least to some modest degree over changing the rules. Like making motions to proceed non-filibusterable, and drastically reducing the period for debate after a successful cloture vote. Unfortunately, I don't see the Dems having enough guts to force even those modest changes.

[Phil Perspective]

When I see a union paper describing am Andrew Cuomo or a Mike Bloomberg in terms more suitable for a Walker or a LePage or a Kasich, I reach for the Bushmill's myself.

Have you not been watching what Bloomberg and Cuomo have been doing? They really aren't much better than LaPage or Walker. Unless you think charter schools are a panacea, among other things. Barrett has hosted Rahmbo for a fundraiser. He made those remarks he's being roasted for on the Wisconsin equivalent of the Rusty Limpballs show. Even if they were taken out of context, the full context doesn't make him look much better. He's still not looking out for the 99%. And I have to disagree with Sir Charles. When did it become bad to stick up for the people. We already have politicians of both parties sticking up for the 1%. Why can't some stand up for the 99%?

[Sir Charles]

Phil,

You really can't just equate sticking up for public employees unions as totally synonymous with sticking up for the people. I take a back seat to no one in my support for unions generally, but sometimes public employee unions may be trying to pick the people's pockets. Check out for example the abuse of disability pensions by cops and firefighters -- again, spoken as the kid of a cop.

Similarly, I don't think that hosting a fund raiser for the Democratic mayor of Chicago can be construed as an act of perfidy.

I am not a huge charter school fan, but there are lots of folks in the Democratic constituency who support them.

Again, the notion that public employee unions equal the 99 percent is overly simplistic. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. An elected official has got to be able to say no to them because what they want is not always good for the public.

[Phil Perspective]

Sir Charles:
And why was Barrett saying no to them? He was taking money out of their pocket. And as you know, police unions are probably the most powerful unions right after the unions of the various Big Four(MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) sports leagues. And in public service, who are almost always the ones living high off the hog? Not the lowly workers at the DMV!! Usually the appointed cronies of elected officials, or the elected officials themselves. I know you know this, but a lot of other people don't. There is a reason people still remember someone like Fightin' Bob LaFollette eighty-five years after he passed away. Is anyone, besides his own family, going to remember Barrett in 20 years? Or why do people still glowingly speak of FDR? Hell, look at the pull Paul Wellstone has on people. It's because they either did, or seriously tried to, make people's lives better. Lets face it, Democrats are still looking for the next FDR. Someone who will talk smack to the 1% and back it up with action like he did.

[beckya57]

I have to disagree with you on one point, LTC. The Republicans have let Obama's nominees to the SC go through with only minimal objections so far, but that's been because they've been replacing Dem appointees. All bets are off if one of the 5 GOP justices dies while Obama is in office. I'm quite convinced that they will not let Obama appoint someone to that slot (unless Obama nominated a radical rightist, which of course he won't do). Those 5 justices have given the GOP and their monied supporters enormous power. I think they're quite prepared to take the PR hit that they'll get for endlessly filibustering whomever Obama nominates. I think Obama would probably nominate someone quite moderate for that slot (even a moderate Republican if he can find one, of course they're a vanishing species), but that won't matter. Faux News, Limbaugh etc. will bang the drums about how the nominee is a closet socialist gay baby-killer, and the mainstream media will stand by and wring their hands about how once again Obama is refusing to work with the Republicans, and we'll have a 4-4 SC for the rest of Obama's term. For all of you who are thinking "that'll never happen," think about all the things the modern GOP has done that we all thought they'd never do.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

becky:
I've been saying this over and over since early 2010. They let Sotomayor and Kagan through, both because they were replacing 'left-side' side judges and because the appointments happened before the Republican opposition became the solid concrete mass it became late in 2009. (I'll still insist that it was the backdown on end-of-life counseling that gave them the courage.)

I can easily see Republican Senators, en masse, signing a pledge that they will not vote for any justice who believes Roe was rightly decided, or even Griswold or several other decisions. (School prayer, creationism). Remember, whoever replaces them, we are losing Snowe and -- I'm sure -- Lugar, the last two potential buckers of the trend -- unless Susan Collins somehow gets courage that she's never displayed without big sis Olympia to back her.

We can hold the line on the Senate, or do better. Snowe will be replaced by King -- a possible Democratic caucys member. Lugar's residency problems will get him defeated in either the primary or the main. Kerrey can hold Nebraska, and Berkeley has a damn good chance of defeating Heller.

I think the Romney effect will open up a seat or two more if we have brains to take them -- but only if we scare a few 'sure winners' will we have a chance to avoid this gridlock and others.

[Sir Charles]

Phil,

Police and fire unions -- ironically the groups spared by Walker -- often obtain terms and conditions that I think are not completely fair to the taxpayer. Usually these lie in the area of overtime and disability pensions, the latter often abused at great cost.

But across the board it seems to me when tax revenues have eroded as severely as they did during this recession, it is not unreasonable to sometimes seek a bit of relief from the entire work force -- I think that concessions like this should have snap back provisions so that when conditions improve the benefits are restored.

The difficulty with never drawing the line with the public work force is that it gives a surprisingly effective line of attack to the GOP with taxpayers, one that has worked fairly well for them.

Jim and Becky,

I think you're right that replacing a Republican nominee on the SC will be a different kind of fight. Having said that, I think there are limits to how many times the Republicans can pull off a filibuster. There is a limit to the public's patience on this sort of thing. So you can knock down Haynsworth and Carswell, but by number three you have to yield -- or Bork and Ginzburg (a not completely apt analogy). I don't think that public opinion would tolerate years of a Court vacancy.

Jim,

It seems like Kerrey is going to get beaten pretty handily. I think breaking even is probably about as good as we will do, unless Obama really crushes Romney. I think the best case scenario for the Dems involves pick ups in Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada, but these would almost inevitably be accompanied by losses in Nebraska and North Dakota, and odd are that somewhere else we'll drop a close one -- Missouri, Wisconsin, Montana, New Mexico, and Virginia are all in play, although I think we will do better than many initially thought. It's a lot of vulnerable seats with which to deal.

[oddjob]

And while its being a presidential election year favors Elizabeth Warren the polling has been all over the place, mostly with clear indications that the voters haven't made up their minds yet about Warren. On the whole they clearly like Brown, but they don't know Warren well enough to yet decide how they're going to vote.

[oddjob]

It appears a big leap forwards in computer science is about to occur.

[kathy a.]

the country cannot tolerate very long a vacancy on the high court. when 5-4 goes to 4-4, nothing happens -- a tie cannot decide constitutional issues.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

First, on the Supreme Court, I hate to hint at ideas for Republicans, but if they got together and issued a joint statement -- perhaps joined in by one or two pregnancy forcers on our side -- that because 'abortion is murder' they will not support and will filibuster any candidate for SCOTUS who believes Roe was correctly decided -- or, for that matter, any candidate who did not accept Citizens United as the law of the land -- then the ball would be in Obama's court. If it happened in 2012, I can see Obama challenging them -- but once he's reelected, will his instinct for conflict avoidance and his damned postpartisan bullshit kick in?

Sometimes, I hate to say it, but our hopes for Obama seem a mirror image of the prominent gun nut, Wayne LaPierre's fears about him -- or the fears he claims to have to raise money. "Once Obama is safely re-elected he's gonna really attack the 2nd Amendment." Or he's gonna really stick it to Christianity, Or he's gonna fire all the heterosexuals and create a pro-gay oppression.

Ridiculous, sure, and several orders of magnitude more ridiculous than our own hopes that his re-election will 'unleash the true progressive.' But I still can't see that fierce, hidden, liberal core to him. And I can see him trying to find some way of, once again placating and working with Republicans. (That claim, that he could 'win support from the other side' has been the one constant in all his campaigns, even the one against Bobby Rush.)

And I wish I was sure that this was something 'the country wouldn't tolerate.' But the country's been tolerating a lot of stuff these past few years including the Hostage Crisis and the Ryan Budget, the Walker Assault on Unions and ALEC and 'Stand Your Ground' Laws.

Prove me wrong -- rather, prove me right that the country is far more progressive and united on these issues than the blimp riders (pundits and 'pros' alike)think. Let's see the candidates run on the things we all know, that the Republicans are running a 'war on women,' that they are trying to dismantle Social Security, that they are attacking public education, that they are trying to strip away Union rights, that they would turn back the clock to pre-Lawrence, hell, pre-Stonewall attitudes on gays. (We'll be saying it -- to each other -- and there will be groups saying it in ads, but let's see the candidates actually get out and say it -- candidates from Obama to the candidate running an apparently hopeless race against an entrenched Representative.

I'd like to see us use all these things -- and to get back on topic, especially the threat to the Supreme Court -- because we have a lot more support than the Republicans have tried to make us believe we have. I'd like to see us run a United Campaign from top to bottom, with the President and the down-ballot candidates working together on a unified message.

I guess, if I'm lucky, I'll have to settle for seeing a few Obama posters that bother to mention that he is running as a Democrat -- but even that would be a step up.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And now the other side of the war in my head, the optimistic side, and the Senate and Presidential races. Because there is simply no question that Obama will crush Romney. That has been obvious for months, and even now Republicans are openly talking about a '96 strategy' of knowing they will lose the Presidency and concentrating on saving Congress. (Now if only we'd think the same way...)

But everyone seems still to be underestimating exactly how bad a candidate Romney is. I can't even find a historical analogy, not unless I cobble together the worst features of a collection of losers -- and realize he has none of their strengths. He's got no record that can't be dismembered, nobody trusts him -- and the 'etch-a-sketch' line will force him to campaign even further right than I expected to keep any of his base around. There are still prominent pro-Republican figures like Bryan Fischer and Richard Land who are arguing that Christians can't vote for a Mormon, period. And if he 'tacks left' all the Republicans who stuck with even Little Rickey and Nasty Newt will simply see their worse fears realized and will stay home in even greater numbers.

The man is a gaffe machine. He has his "Dukakis in a tank" moment every day, his tin ear towards his own arrogance and how much he comes across as an exaggerated parody of the 'out of touch rich man' Thruston Howell to the fourth power, all are getting worse, not better. And has there ever been a candidate whose own surrogates have publicly disagreed with him as pften as Mitt's have?

We can use this up and down the ballot. We all know that, in general, Republicans -- Republican voters, not their leaders -- are less sophisticated, less intelligent, and less politically savvy than we are. And even we see the Presidential Race as the 'important' Main Event and pay too little attention to down ballot races.

Republicans are not going to be ticket-splitters, going to the polls, leaving the President slot blank, and just voting for Congress. They'll just stay home -- and if we can get a decent turn-out for the Progressive or anti-Republican groups in even lopsidedly red districts, we will scare a lot and defeat a few. (Unless, of course, we run crypto-Republicans.)

There will be some cases of reverse coattails, where popular Congressional Republicans can bring voters who will, grudgingly, vote for Romney, but give him seven more months of campaigning and they'll diminish. (Already I've read stats that 10-20% of Republicans would vote Obama over Romney -- and that was pre 'Etch-a-Sketch' and pre Obama's coming out swinging against the Ryan budget and for Social Security as we know it.)

So, in the Senate, I agree we'll lose North Dakota -- are we even running a candidate there this time? We didn't last time. Nebraska will be closer than you think, and I think we have a good shot at it. Of the close ones you list, the only one that worries me is Virginia, because Allen has a history of popularity and could make it close or even win. But I think there are more races in play than even I had hoped -- and a smart use of the platform the Republican Tea Psrtiers come up with will be a stronger weapon than we think, if we have the sense to use it. I thik we have a potential of as much as plus three -- but if we mess up as badly as in 2010, we still might break even.

[Phil Perspective]

The difficulty with never drawing the line with the public work force is that it gives a surprisingly effective line of attack to the GOP with taxpayers, one that has worked fairly well for them.

I am not saying for the unions to be given carte blanche. I am saying that I rarely, if ever, here any elected official stick up for unions. Say what good they do and why they are needed. OTOH, we hear all the time about the "job creators" and all the other corporate-speak bullcrap.

[Phil Perspective]

Prove me wrong -- rather, prove me right that the country is far more progressive and united on these issues than the blimp riders (pundits and 'pros' alike)think.

It's not going to happen because of the influence of corporate money. Just look at the spineless, corporate hacks that run the DCCC. And that's the one beef I have with Nancy Smash. Why does she let idiots like Steve Israel, DWS and Rahmbo run that organization?

[KN]

SC and Oddjob - quite true, they are reactionary, but what to my mind is much more dangerous is that they are utterly delusional. The mantra of "we make our own reality".

Even more deeply troubling is that to some extent that mind-set is actually true. They can skew the reality to a degree that works to their advantage in the short term. They can literally make things so bad that ultimately no amount of technological advancement nor useful knowledge of how nature works will be able to prevent nature from working as it is inclined to do, and they may, in the end, be able to avoid any dire consequences to themselves in all this. Not because a divine presence smiles upon their ignorance, avarice and priviledge, but because nature simply does not care.

Caring is a quality uniquely human. But not universally endowed. I am reminded of the Wallace Stevens poem, Snowman. I am reminded of so many things.

Hubris, is more than just a bad attitude, it is a prescription for catastrophe. Luckily for most of us, we will probably not have to endure the consequences of the folly that is today's insane obstinate denial of reality. Those precious children though, the ones the nut jobs are so adamant about deserving life, they will indeed see a kind of rapture, the transcendence of a nascent civilization into an apocalypse of horror and devastation. We may be remarkable in the history of life on earth for having comitted suicide. But I have the feeling that we are not at all unique in that respect in the vast universe.

[nancy]

Caring is a quality uniquely human. But not universally endowed. I am reminded of the Wallace Stevens poem, Snowman. I am reminded of so many things.

Me too, KN. Of course, all that is supposed to fall away these days. We no longer read nor think poetically. So useless.

[KN]

I don't think I understand what you meant here. Thanks for the correction to the proper title, but in a weird way, the words written a more compelling than spoken.

And I don't fathom your last two sentences. Perhaps you would elaborate?
And let's get it out in the open...

"One must have a mind of winter
To regard the frost and the boughs
Of the pine-trees crusted with snow;

And have been cold a long time
To behold the junipers shagged with ice,
The spruces rough in the distant glitter

Of the January sun; and not to think
Of any misery in the sound of the wind,
In the sound of a few leaves,

Which is the sound of the land
Full of the same wind
That is blowing in the same bare place

For the listener, who listens in the snow,
And, nothing himself, beholds
Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is."

[oddjob]

Why were comments to this thread closed earlier today?

[Paula B]

From Elizabeth Warren campaign:
our campaign raised $6.9 million from January through March. That's more than double the amount raised by our opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown.

Scott Brown still has $4 million more in the bank than we do, and there's a lot of work ahead to do to close the gap. But this proves we're building something special.

I want to share a few statistics that make me really proud:

Elizabeth outraised Scott Brown right here in Massachusetts.
More than 30,000 men and women from 350 cities and towns across Massachusetts have contributed to our campaign.
83% of our donations since January 1st have been $50 or less.

[oddjob]

I think I can. I think I can. I think I can...

:)

[Paula B]

It's not you, OJ, it's the captcha. It's taken me two days to get it to work.

FYI, this is disappointing but,then, what isn't?
http://bit.ly/HEl0zS

I must be really dense because I don't understand the logic of the church on this one, at all. Will they be insisting all RC women working anywhere should not be offered contraception as a health care benefit, because that offer impinges on their freedom of religion? Did anybody think to look the other way?
Remember when you could get a kosher, hallal or vegetarian meal on some planes? Did that choice impinge on any RC's freedom of religion?
Can somebody please explain this to me before I insult a RC friend by saying or doing the wrong thing?

[kathy a.]

oddjob, comments were "closed" for a while the other day, too. must be some weird glitch.

prup, on scotus nominees, roe, and threat of fillibuster -- yeah, it's possible since the fillibuster has been so badly misued of late. but roe v. wade has been swampland in proceedings re nominations for the high court ever since it was decided. democratic nominees almost universally decline to pre-judge an issue that is reasonably expected to come before the court. CJ roberts had written briefs defending the republican admin's efforts to narrow roe v. wade, and he said that he wrote those briefs as a staff lawyer -- he was doing what staff lawyers do, and he wasn't pre-judging.

it is problematic to require a litmus test for prospective SCOTUS justices that requires pre-judging an issue. we need the justices to consider each case on its own merits; that is the bipartisan counterweight to efforts to stack the court with ideologues.

paula, i just don't get the attention the RC church has been getting about contraception for employees. no, it makes no sense to claim *their* religious freedom is impinged because they don't get to boss their employees' bodies around. i'm all good with the bishops opting out of birth control themselves; isn't everyone?

[kathy a.]

for paula. i was imagining the duct tape used a different way, but this is pretty good.

[Paula B]

That's super, kathy! Exactly! Despite the media, some of us noticed how quickly the focus of attention on the church went from pedophile priests to fertile young women, who are always in the spotlight anyway. Sex sells whatever you're selling. We all know that.

The Trojan Elephant will not sneak in unnoticed:
http://www.politicususa.com/women-save-america/

[Sir Charles]

Hey guys.

I wish I had a clue about the capriciousness of captcha.

I hope you will all persevere despite the frustration. (And, again, I am having the opposite experience of many of you -- it works for me in Foxfire and not IE.)

And yes, I finally got off my ass and wrote something.

[nancy]

Here's Paula's link livened. Wish a pseudonym weren't used for this piece. Glad to start hearing more about men also on the receiving end of the birth control and GOP state governors and legislative games. Equal pay? Yikes.

Charles Pierce has been on an especial roll for the past week. Today's offering here. One wonders how David Brooks can keep his head off his chest. ('Moral Hazard' made a new appearance in the last few days.) Pierce, Ezra (!), P.M. Carpenter. He got deservedly skewered from a lot of directions for his latest.

Everyone here took a pass. Shooting fish. Barrels. If he skips out on Shields and Brooks this week, on vacation...well, that would be very fine.

[nancy]

Left off a tag. Pierce:

(Can we at least agree that the obviously idiotic parts of the Citizens United ruling consist of the fact that the ruling itself guarantees that events will make a farce out of the reasoning behind it, and that its view of how American politics actually function is evidence that Justice Kennedy arrived here as a youth from the planet Zontar?)