Skip to main content


Cake -- "I Will Survive"

Welcome to the weekly Tuesday open thread for policy discussions by DK Elections regulars. While the main Daily Kos Elections blog, an official subsite of Daily Kos, is strictly a policy free zone for discussions of politics and elections only, it can sometimes be hard not to bring up policy issues when talking about particular candidates or topics. In addition, some of us might like to have a thoughtful discussion with other regular commenters at DKE on issues of policy when most of what we usually talk about pertains to elections. Thus, this open thread and the new group blog Daily Kos Elections: Policy will provide a forum to talk about issues without derailing DKE Live Digests for those who just want election coverage and debate. Feel free to follow this group and if you would like to publish a diary to the group blog page, just PM me about becoming a contributor.

So what issues are you interested in talking about?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm going to bring over (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    octaviuz, Skaje, James Allen

    an idea I saw in the Live Digest yesterday.

    Someone (I think it was bjssp, but I'm not positive) said, and I completely agree, that we need a constitutional amendment about the functioning of the government.

    The amendment would do three things:
    1. Abolish the debt limit and prohibit any similar legislation from being implemented.
    2. Provide that, if Congress fails to pass a budget on time, then a continuing resolution (that keeps spending at current levels) would be automatically implemented, without a Congressional vote, until Congress can pass a budget.
    3. Specifically prohibit the government from ever shutting down, at any time, for any reason.

    I think this would be an amazing idea because it would get rid of these ridiculous manufactured crises that the Republicans keep creating.

    What do you guys think?

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 09:37:37 AM PDT

    •  This is how Belgium avoided chaos (0+ / 0-)

      In the absence of a budget (or even a government) for over a year, the bureaucracy continued to operate because all government functions are funded at the level of the previous appropriation.

      social democrat (with a small d) the point of politics is policy not power

      by octaviuz on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 12:21:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think that's a wonderful idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skaje

      honestly I'd love to have a constitutional convention that completely scraps our current constitution and starts anew. Obviously not every part of it needs to be gutted (like the 1st amendment), but our system of governing clearly is not working. Government by crisis is the terrible outcome we have and it really needs a major overhaul.

      At the very, very least we need to get rid of the debt limit. It's not a deficit limit that prevents us from authorizing more spending, it's like a deadbeat rule that says "okay, we're not going to pay our bills at this point." It's been utterly disgusting how the media lets Republicans get away with framing this as having anything to do with spending. If you don't want more debt, don't vote for the Iraq War and Bush tax cuts it's that simple.

      I think you could alleviate the shutdown nonsense by statute though until Republicans hold the trifecta and repeal it. You could just have Democrats pass as part of their next budget a measure that says this spending level will automatically carry forward unless changed in the future and avoid the current mess we're in. Getting a constitutional amendment to do this would be next to impossible given how gerrymandered some of the red state legislatures are.

      •  In these times (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stephen Wolf

        there really isn't any Constitutional Amendment I could think of that would win the approval of 38 state legislatures.  Even after wave elections, there should always be 13 states on each side that would kill anything.

        GOP: Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.

        Dem: Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Delaware.

        •  This is probably true (0+ / 0-)

          but if I could gerrymander each state, then it would be possible. On your list, I could draw Democratic majorities in Mississippi, Texas, and possibly Missouri.

          About that, I've got a new topic: Which states are the hardest to gerrymander? It's fairly easy to draw effective gerrymanders in politically polarized states such as North Carolina. But in some states, there will always be a large number of swing seats that determine who controls it. Maine is an excellent example; it's very hard to draw enough safe D or safe R seats in order to make the state legislature safe for one party.

          Though (sorry for the diary promoting), this weekend I'll have out my last diary about Maine, which tries to draw a Democratic gerrymander of the State Senate.

          (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

          by ProudNewEnglander on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 06:11:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Casino gambling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Skaje

    Dave posted a link to this article about initiatives in today's Live Digest. Here's the one that I have to vote on in New York:

    This fall, New Yorkers will consider a constitutional amendment that would allow lawmakers to “authorize and regulate” up to seven casinos. The amendment doesn’t specify whether the state will tax privately-run casinos or open its own. Either way, supporters say the new casinos would create jobs and generate tax revenue that could be used to boost school funding or lower property taxes.

    Business interests have lined up behind Cuomo, but people traditionally wary about expanded gaming are concerned. A statement from the New York State Catholic Conference raised familiar worries: “With their flashing lights, free-flowing alcoholic drinks, all-night hours and generally intoxicating atmosphere,” the statement said, “casinos are more likely than other gambling options to lead to bad decisions and catastrophic losses.”

    So, who's right? I'm unsure which way to vote on this. I don't patronize casinos, myself, but will it be a net benefit to New York State to keep more of the casino dollars here, so that they don't flee to Atlantic City and Foxwoods/Mohegan Sun in New Jersey and Connecticut? Or will casinos just lead to blight?

    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

    by MichaelNY on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:29:45 PM PDT

    •  I'm pretty much fine with gambling (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      seeing as how people seek it out elsewhere if it is banned where they live.  Yeah it's pretty much a dumb waste of money, but so are the video games I play.  I don't judge.

      •  I buy that, to a large degree (0+ / 0-)

        But I'm still interested in knowing whether casino gambling, in particular, might cause more harm than good. There are many other types of gambling, including lotteries and horseracing.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Fri Oct 04, 2013 at 02:53:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm ambivalent about it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Stephen Wolf, MichaelNY

      On the one hand I'm against prohibition, for the reason that Skaje mentioned. However, the revenue earned from gambling is regressive - it's disproportionately taking money from lower-income people, and having the temptation to gamble right in your back yard, rather than having to make a trip out-of-state, is probably going to increase the impact on that group.

  •  Republicans are (5+ / 0-)

    starting to sound okay with the idea of defaulting, arguing that the government is lying and we won't actually miss payments if the Oct. 17 deadline is breached.

    I'm starting to think they actually intend to make America default, to "prove" that nothing will actually happen.

    •  That's what they want you to believe... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DCCyclone, MichaelNY

      They did the same thing in 2011, and then those same people voted for the sequester deal.  It's part of their brinksmanship.

      GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

      by LordMike on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 04:05:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some of them sincerely believe it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LordMike, MichaelNY

        And there were plenty of teabaggers who voted "no" on the 2011 dead.

        But there are not enough of them to kill a bill.

        But cowardice among those who know better is enough to kill a bill.

        But ultimately a breach is widely-enough acknowledged to be a disaster that Rs will fold.

        45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 08:42:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The attitude increasingly seems to be... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, MichaelNY

      That next Thursday isn't actually a hard-and-fast deadline, despite the warnings of the Treasury Department. Personally, I would think they would want to get something done now before Mayor Booker is sworn into the Senate and they lose a bit of ground in the chamber.

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 07:04:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Serious question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DownstateDemocrat

    Would anyone have a problem with Congress stripping the Supreme Court's authority to hear cases that raise campaign finance questions? Because as of now, that seems like the best solution to the insult to majority rule that is the current Court's "money is speech" doctrine.

    •  Yes (5+ / 0-)

      I think Congress stripping courts of their authority is taking the country down a very dangerous path away from an empowered and independent judiciary.

      That being said, I lean toward the belief that the SCOTUS needs some sort of oversight; both Justices Kagan and Thomas should have had to recuse themselves from NFIB v. Sebelius, IMO, as there was just no possible expectation of objectivity from either of them in their rulings (Kagan was the Obama administration's top lawyer at the time the Affordable Care Act was crafted, and Thomas' wife is a Tea Party activist who organized protests against the law). I'm not sure how that would be done, but I'd be in favor of some sort of Supreme Court ombudsman, even if he or she didn't have authority to compel justices to do anything -- just someone who could call the SCOTUS on its crap without the opposing legislative caucus and the national news media reacting like he just unzipped his fly and loosed a stream onto them right there on the speaker's dais.

      Pragmatic progressive. Oregonian, Cascadian, and American. Keeper of the DKE glossary.

      by SaoMagnifico on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 07:02:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jurisdiction control seems like (0+ / 0-)

        appropriate oversight to me in this case, especially since this is an elections issue and the Court itself has long self-censored by treating closely related subjects as "political questions." Obviously, what I'm proposing would be a serious and unusual step, but legislation is voted on one bill at a time, and I think this would be considered a one-off. I can't foresee a situation where jurisdiction stripping ever becomes an "easy" vote.

        I agree it seems like a dangerous path to start down, but the status quo is unacceptable and it will take risks to change that. At least you can always repeal a law when Congress screws up, but allowing the Court's mistaken ideas to be "baked in" to First Amendment is truly dangerous, and could last, essentially, forever. To me, knowing what this Court is capable of ruling, it seems better to take the question out of their hands, risking temporary damage to the Court before permanent damage to the First Amendment. If you think I'm being over-dramatic about this, just think remember, Slaughterhouse—an avowedly political decision which people even back then thought would only be a stopgap—still today defines the Privileges and Immunities clause!

        I also don't think it's totally unhealthy for the Court to be put in its place from time to time. There is historical precedent, and strangely enough, each time the Court has taken a slapdown (e.g. Reconstruction, the "switch in time," post-Furman and Roe), it seems to have done the body good in the long term. The current Court has become unusually aggressive about striking down the people's laws (mostly because the swing voter seems to swing against every federal law that crosses his desk—for all the press Justice Scalia gets, it's clear that Anthony Kennedy is the true diva on this Court), so maybe the time is right for another show of force from our democratic branches.

      •  do you really have enough familiarity with the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        ethical obligations of judges to know that? I don't, and I'm taking a class on legal ethics right now.

        ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

        by James Allen on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 04:18:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      Because the Supreme Court has determined that's a free speech issue. A Constitutional amendment will be required, not just an Act of Congress.

      Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

      by MichaelNY on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 10:55:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ted Cruz (0+ / 0-)

    jumps off the fucking shark:

    WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) raised the ante in the battle over the Affordable Care Act on Sunday, telling CNN’s Candy Crowley that “destroying the entire planet is really the best and only way to stop Obamacare.”

    “Look, I’m in favor of shutting down the government and not raising the debt ceiling, but let’s not kid ourselves. Those are only half measures,” he told Crowley. “If we are really serious about stopping Obamacare, we’ll destroy the entire planet.”

    Explaining his proposal to a visibly alarmed Crowley, Senator Cruz said, “Obamacare is like a parasite that needs a host to feed on. If you want to kill the parasite you kill the host, and in this case that means killing this planet. As long as there’s a planet Earth, the nightmare of Obamacare could always come screaming back to life.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/...

    The Republican party is now an extreme right-wing party that is owned by their billionaire campaign contributors. - Bernie Sanders

    by ehstronghold on Mon Oct 07, 2013 at 09:17:28 PM PDT

  •  The latest stunt from Republicans (6+ / 0-)

    creation of yet another "super-committee" to deal with getting the government back open and raising the debt ceiling.  It seems to be the perfect deflection of blame from Boehner should America default, an attempt to make it bipartisan.  Needless to say, Obama is still refusing to negotiate until after the government is open and the debt ceiling is raised.

    I have been impressed by how seriously Democrats take this fight.  They seem to have finally understood that this is the only way to end the endless crises Republicans keep forcing to extract concessions.

    •  This is the first time... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, wadingo

      ...that I can say that I'm proud of the national Democratic establishment. I'm normally someone who criticizes the Democratic establishment at every opportunity, but they're taking a fight seriously for once.

      My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

      by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 10:20:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And in response to the "supercommittee part 2" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      Obama has threatened a veto, as he has done with every other dumb GOP trick.  He even said he would veto if Republicans join the supercommittee to the bill giving backpay to furloughed federal workers.  The president continues to insist the only things he will sign are a clean CR and clean debt ceiling hike (and presumably a clean bill giving backpay to the workers).  Damn this is impressive.  It's an absolute line in the sand and he is not budging (and Democrats in Congress are backing him up).

      Republicans seem to have realized as well that Obama intends to end this fight with the complete defeat of GOP extortion techniques, leading them to dig in even harder.  Basically, I don't see a way this ends.  The pattern is both sides moving further away as they realize they have so much to lose by compromising, and so much to gain by forcing the other side to give in.

      I think Republicans are going to make America default.

      •  Kyrsten Sinema opposes supercommittee (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        ...and she's been regarded as an untrustworthy vote on CR/debt ceiling-related matters.

        Link

        My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

        by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 06:03:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why has Kyrsten Sinema (0+ / 0-)

          been so bad on some of these issues this Congress?  I was under the impression that she was a flaming progressive, and she has turned out to be one of the most 15-20 conservative Ds in the Congress.

          Is she positioning herself for a Senate run?

          •  She is positioning herself (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MichaelNY, James Allen

            to hold down a 51% Obama district for the long-term, and not risk being a one-term wonder.

            It's no coincidence that the 15-20 most "conservative" Dems in Congress have a high percentage of freshmen, even in Lean and Likely Dem seats.  Maffei, Horsford, Maloney, DelBene, Bera, Ruiz, Murphy, Schneider, Bustos, Delaney, and Gallego...all have defected on some votes.  I'm sure their voting records will improve as they become entrenched (and as always, it is worth noting that they might be allowed to stray on non-essential votes, but they would surely be there for us on the critical ones).

      •  Love Obama's firmness here (4+ / 0-)

        but I disagree that this ends with default. I think it ends with Republican humiliation (brought on by themselves). They'll cave, and probably not even at the last minute. The market's already started to bleed. Further deterioration will create intense pressure on Republicans from business groups. I don't see how they can withstand it through the 10/16.

        Personally, I'm already regretting I didn't sell my stock funds and by back in after the downdraft.

        Obama, of course, will be somewhat magnanimous, and encourage whatever vehicle can be created (once the debt ceiling and CR have been resolved, either short or intermediate term) to look at debt and revenue. But he won't offer any serious concessions. I'm really impressed by him here.

        •  Boehner is incompetent enough that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itskevin

          ...he might decouple the debt limit hike and CR, to try to preserve for his caucus a "bargaining chip."

          That would be stupid since it just prolongs a shutdown that will increasingly destroy the GOP, and Boehner eventually is forced to fold anyway.

          Obama and Reid will stick with it that the debt limit hike is nice, but the GOP must still reopen the government before any negotiation will begin.  So Boehner eventually must cave on that anyway, better if he did both at once.

          But Boehner is stupid, he just keeps letting the tail wag the dog and hopes against hope that tomorrow miraculously drops a resolution in his lap like matta from the sky.

          The reality is that while the debt ceiling is more urgent, the shutdown is politically more disastrous over the long-haul to use as a bargaining chip.  The public "gets" it that shutting down the government to get what you want isn't OK.  They see the debt limit as a separate matter, but don't understand it and thinks we should "negotiate."  But it doesn't matter what they think because the urgency of it compels GOP surrender to hike it, or else a default destroys not just the economy but also the GOP with it as the public learns the hard way it was never negotiable.  So Boehner has to fold on the debt limit, and then the shutdown becomes a long-term albatross.

          I fear I'm going to stay on furlough perhaps through the month.

          45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

          by DCCyclone on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 09:01:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  the republicans' plan now seems to have devolved (4+ / 0-)

    into whining about how mean democrats are for not negotiating over the their hostage demands:

    Speaker John Boehner rallied his troops this morning at a closed-door conference meeting at the Capitol. Democrats are trying to “annihilate us,” he told his members. “We can get through this if we stick together.”

    [snip]

    Republicans’ spines stiffened yesterday when a top White House official said at an event that President Obama’s goal was to set a precedent against negotiating over the debt ceiling.

    “The president sent strong signals to us which we find offensive,” says Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, the chairman of the House Rules Committee. “He’s not a dictator. We have a constitution,” he adds. “It’s unreasonable and very selfish,” adds Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah about the Democrats’ reticence.

  •  Wisconsin Capitol permits (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gygaxian

    Scott Walker just got rid a legal requirement that required protestors to obtain permits in order to use the Wisconsin State Capitol.

    This decision came about as a result of a group of anti-Walker protestors known as the Solidarity Singers protesting inside the Rotunda of the Wisconsin State Capitol every weekday since a few months after Walker was sworn into office. They intimidated Walker into dropping the permit requirement!

    My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 11:43:06 AM PDT

  •  Obama will announce Janet Yellen as Fed chair (5+ / 0-)

    nominee, tomorrow according to WSJ.

    Saw this as a breaking news banner on Reuters.

  •  Move over Trillion dollar coin, there is a new.... (4+ / 0-)

    ... plan to get around the debt ceiling.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    In a nutshell, the idea is that the Treasury would issue 10-year or 30-year notes that yield higher rates than those in the market. Investors would have to pay up for the ability to hold these premium securities.
    I am far from an expert on high finance but in my layman's opinion this is actually an interesting idea.  

    A SSP guy in a DKE world.

    by Minnesota Mike on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 04:12:31 PM PDT

    •  Obama should shoot this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, MichaelNY

      and any other gimmicks down.  His best chance for getting an embarrassing cave from the Rs is to make it clear to the public, Wall Street, big business, and anyone else is that there are two options, the Rs passing a clean debt ceiling hike, or complete total default.

    •  On face this seems feasible (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minnesota Mike

      legally. The issue would be that I'm not sure that there would be sufficient demand for this relativley exotic security to do much more than offer a bandaid in the event of default (especially because it would be issued in the midst of a debt ceiling breach).

      It's probably something to consider, and could alleviate some harm in the event of a breach but it's not a complete workaround.

      27, originally OK-1, currently NY-10. Former swingnut.

      by okiedem on Wed Oct 09, 2013 at 04:33:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't believe how many trillion-dollar-coin (4+ / 0-)

    loons inhabit the front page now.  Is it really that hard to understand that an option that might theoretically be constitutional, may be bad politically or tactically in practical terms?

    •  Personally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea

      if there is any solution other than default or a debt ceiling hike, it would be the Lincoln solution.

      When Maryland was considering secession, Lincoln ordered the arrest of half the legislature for treason.  Obama could arrest all the teabagging Congresspeople for the same, organize a new House, and pass the debt ceiling increase.

      Is this a likely or wise possibility?  Hell no.  But neither is the trillion dollar coin, 14th Amendment, or any of the other cockamamie schemes discusses in the media.

      •  That is politically quite impossible (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bythesea, DCCyclone

        And in the alternate Universe in which it happened, the Supreme Court would reverse the decision and then the President would be impeached by the House. I'm quite unsure what even the Democrat-controlled Senate would do.

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 07:39:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is no "out" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bythesea, MichaelNY, itskevin

      The debt ceiling is raised or abolished by Congress, or we default.

      There are no other options, period.

      45, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

      by DCCyclone on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 08:55:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mary Burke's political philosophy (0+ / 0-)

    Since very little is known about Mary Burke's views on various political issues or her political philosophy, I watched part of this presentation (specifically, the part from 26:20 to 32:10) that Burke gave back in 2010 titled "Promoting Community Change Through Engaged Philanthropy", and, while Burke was talking in the context of running a business and not campaigning for public office, I tried to find some clues as to what kind of underlying political philosophy Burke has.

    What stuck out to me was when she said something along the lines of needing "evolving" strategies and not "static" strategies at about 26:20 into the presentation. Probably the biggest difference between me and Burke is not over any actual political issue, it's over philosophy. Burke would probably describe my political philosophy as being "static", since I'm the kind of person who is of the "here's where I stand on the issues, I'll work with people where I agree with them, and I'm more than willing to criticize people where I disagree with them". Burke is probably about as far from that mindset as one could be.

    My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 09:16:12 PM PDT

    •  oh lord (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin

      You are reading into her comments what you want to believe about her.  Nothing she said means remotely what you think it does.

    •  Does Mary Burke support marriage equality? (0+ / 0-)

      If so that by itself is a reason to support her.  Getting rid of Walker and electing a D as AG would probably bring marriage equality to Wisconsin using the California method.

      •  Most of her policy positions are unknown (0+ / 0-)

        The area of public policy where Burke's stances on the issues are known is on education-related issues, and Burke has a mixed record there (she supports charter schools and voted against a 1% pay raise for Madison teachers, although she opposes school vouchers and voted to ratify union contracts).

        What would be interesting is if Kathleen Vinehout were to attempt a primary challenge to Burke. While Burke is believed to be liberal on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues, Vinehout is known to be the other way around. EMILY's List would probably back Burke in a hypothetical primary against Vinehout since pro-choice groups despise Vinehout (specifically, Vinehout tried to sabotage a contraception rights bill in 2008) in the same way that teachers' unions despise Burke.

        My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

        by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Oct 08, 2013 at 11:27:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The moderate GOP efforts for a clean CR (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, James Allen

    are losing steam, with many of the original members now denying that they ever supported a clean CR.  It's also looking like the government shutdown goes all the way up to Oct. 17, as an aide puts it: "The CR ship has sailed, and we are getting so close to the debt ceiling,” the aide said. “There is a sense we might as well wait and see what we can get.”"

    Both sides are really digging in here.  8 days to the default.  Both sides seem to be getting ready to blame the other when it happens.

  •  breaking: house GOP to introduce 6-week clean (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY

    raise of debt ceiling. No end to shutdown, however.

    http://politicalwire.com/...

    •  hah (0+ / 0-)

      They still don't get it.  Obama absolutely will not negotiate over the debt ceiling as a matter of principle.  They think they are getting another 6 weeks to force concessions from the president...they are wrong.  They'll be right back in the same position then, left to whine about Obamacare and beg for Obama to listen to them.  They will be without any true leverage again in the future just as they are now, and they can keep passing short-term debt ceiling hikes to their hearts' content.  By all means, let them keep up this madness for as long as possible which has caused their approvals to sink to record lows.

      •  This is why I think it's okay for Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BennyToothpick

        to accept a six week debt ceiling raise.

        Are the GOP really going to be in a better position to threaten default in six weeks?

        I mean, what's the winning message going to be then? Obama wouldnt accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security so we are going to default?

  •  NY Times says Obama has rejected GOP plan (0+ / 0-)

    for a short term debt limit increase.

    Mark Knoller reported before this that House Republicans left their meeting at the WH without speaking to reporters.  Somewhat surprising, since I would think they would be quick to blame the president for being unreasonable.

  •  There was a little bit of an argument (0+ / 0-)

    in the Live Digest about Michael Bloomberg. I didn't want to voice my opinion there, since that wasn't the place, but this is.

    I agree with Bloomberg on social issues, environmental issues, and public health/public safety issues. He's a strong supporter of gay marriage and is strongly pro-choice. He has done a huge amount to clean up New York and its rivers, and I think that side of him is often ignored. And, since I am a big-government liberal through and through, I support his efforts to make people healthier and safer. I don't know for sure his views on drugs, but if he doesn't even think that large sodas should be legal, I don't see how he can think that drugs should be legal.

    That being said, I strongly disagree with him on economic issues. If you could take Bloomberg, and replace his economic views with those of Bernie Sanders, I think he would be almost the perfect politician.

    (-8.38, -4.72), CT-02 (home), ME-01 (college) "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." -Spock

    by ProudNewEnglander on Thu Oct 10, 2013 at 07:04:00 PM PDT

  •  what do y'all think will be the medium-term (0+ / 0-)

    impact of the government shutdown? I see three plausible scenarios:

    1) Establishment republicans re-assert themselves and tea party gets smacked down. GOP retains house in 2014. This might result in House passing immigration reform but also passing some sort of shitty grand bargain with Obama.

    2) Establishment republicans don't re-assert themselves, and nothing changes. Tea party remains in control of House. We lurch from crisis to crisis. Voters get so fed up with it that GOP loses house in 2014.

    3) Establishment republicans re-assert themselves, tea party doesn't back down, causing significant number of tea partiers to go third party in 2014. GOP loses house in 2014.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site