For everything political not involving a cliff or a President.

Now this is great potential news because...umm...ehh...*drinks from water bottle*...umm...

Will Herman Cain primary challenge Chambliss for his Georgia Senate seat?

http://www.nationalmemo.com/could-he...to-the-senate/

~White Georgians voting for a black guy? Times a-changin!

That is still painful to watch. You can feel his discomfort with everything "twirling" in his head. I'm not sure what my favorite moment was. I like the line that he would have assessed the situation differently, but still might end up with the same result. But at the end he admits that while he would have assessed it differently than the President, he has no idea as to how the President assessed it.

I guess Cain would have assessed it by finding Libya on a map first. It was a good thing he had Rick Perry in the race at the time, so he didn't seem as moronic as he was.

Whether it's boldly predicting (and incredibly wrongly) that your network's candidate will win a landslide, or throwing a temper temper tantrum on live TV against your networks' own vote-counters, you can't humiliate the channel.

Fox News banning Karl Rove and Dick Morris (Temporarily)

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/12/fox-news-puts-karl-rove-on-the-bench.html

Ok, I admit, I didn't know what the article was referring to until I read the article. I can understand why they would.

However, my first thought was "yea, they're gonna get rid of all the lunatics in congress."



TIS

The House today passed a bill where Ex-Presidents and their spouses will get lifetime Secret Service protection detail. Originally that was a perk of office, but in '94 Congress passed a law giving them protection for only 10 years after leaving office in part to save money. The bill supporters claim the War on Terror, and Dubya/Obama are relatively young when they left or will leave office, demanded this reform.

Did it really? Ex-Presidents have lucrative post-office careers from book deals to speaking fees to investments. Surely they can afford their own bodyguards?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congres...150.html?hp=l24

Is this our first Election '16 ad? "Tribute" video aired at a foreign summit that the departing Secretary of State addressed.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint is quitting to run the Heritage Foundation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501404578161613763222762.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

You can see already where it's going, when he starts: "OK....., Libya."

The times are changing. Thatcher would be rolling in her grave that a Tory PM said this. Wait, she's still alive?

UK Prime Minister backs Gay Marriage



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07..._ref=gay-voices

The US Supreme Court has decided to hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, and a challenge to California's ban on same sex marriage through Proposition 8.

While I expect the Supreme Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (I'll predict a 7-2 vote), it will be interesting to see the standard of review and whether they decide the matter narrowly or render an opinion as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment precludes states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The California challenge is an appeal from the Circuit Court's finding that California's ban of same sex marriage is unconstitutional in that it violated the CA Supreme Court's earlier decision allowing same sex marriage. It is possible that the US Supreme Court may decide this matter on the same narrow issue of whether a voter referendum can invalidate a state supreme court decision. Then again, the Court, if it desires, may issue a broader ruling on whether states have the constitutional right even to preclude same sex marriages.

I believe that it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court decides that the Equal Protection Clause precludes states from barring same sex marriage. If they use the pending California case to render such a decision, it will be very ironic that Proposition 8, designed to prevent gay marriage, will have been the launching pad for invalidating all statutory and constitutional bans on gay marriage throughout the country.

Kly, I think the Court could base it's DOMA decision on Article IV: Full faith and credit. What do you think?

I'd be a little disappointed if the Court limited its analysis to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Certainly there are unresolved issues of the application of Article IV to the issue of gay marriage, which need to be addressed. While it certainly applies to man/woman marriages without equivocation, courts have not required states that oppose gay marriage to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

Limiting the decision on Article IV grounds would allow the Court to avoid making a sweeping determination on Fourteenth Amendment grounds, and would let the thirty-something states that passed state constitutional amendments and legislation forbidding gay marriage keep their provisions intact.

One of the pending matters involves a woman, who married her female companion legally before the companion died. As a result, under DOMA she was not recognized as a spouse and had to pay inheritance tax of more than $300,000 in estate taxes where, had her companion been a husband, she would not have had to pay any tax at all. This scenario, I believe, calls for equal protection analysis.

Another reason the Court might decide the case narrowly on Article IV, I think, is that it might be unwilling to define a standard of review for gay rights cases. Some feel that strict scrutiny, which is used for reviewing cases that involve racial issues or fundamental rights should apply while others might feel that intermediate scrutiny, which is applied in gender cases, should apply.

The Court historically doesn't like to take leaps, so if these cases result in a constitutional right for same sex marriage at this time, it would represent an event similar to Brown.

How do you see these cases playing out, oli?

We must remember it's not all of DOMA being scrutinized but merely Section 3.

I just don't believe SCOTUS will go full judgment on SSM generally, or even DOMA as a whole maybe, sweeping as many want to believe or mistakenly interpret. Nevermind that the issue is in fluid, with the American mainstream progressively in support. (3 state referendums favoring it last month, and another rejecting a ban on it.) The recently re-elected President, and leader of 1 of the two major political parties, has endorsed it. Over 50% popular support in the last Gallup poll, but still a divisive issue.

(A good example was in Maryland, where it was passed by a squeaker. Numerous counties that went heavily for Romney supported the measure, so even on the local level Republican voters in a blue state (if not their elected officials from their party) support it now.)

If DOMA is struck down, at least from my interpretation of this story, Gay Marriage will stay and continue being a state's rights issue, except a license issued in say New York would be honored in rest of the nation. If DOMA is confirmed, then the status quo continues unless a Congressional bill (or Constitutional Amendment) is passed.

I despise DOMA. If you've read my political rants, you'll probably realize that I do support Equal Rights fully. But besides that, DOMA just rapes and shits upon the whole damn concept of Federalism, when it comes to states respecting each other's laws. No it was a discriminating bill, establishing a "Morality Quarantine" across America. Passed by totaltarian religious fundamentalist bigots, signed into law by a cowardly President Clinton afraid of losing re-election, and unfortunately supported by the public.

I do wonder if Hillary runs for President again in 4 years, will Bubba be forced to give a public mea culpa on DOMA to help Hillary in the primaries?

Charlie Crist, Democrat. You can't make this shit up. I guess another of his houseboys is about to out him. Only in Florida, man. Only in Florida .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/charlie-crist-democrat_n_2260975.html

I know Skinny Vinny (whenever he comes back from his post-election day self-exile) will intensely disagree with what I'll say, but Rick Scott is a crook. If Crist and his interesting political history (to say the least) can beat him, then I'm all for it.

I just find it strange that in a state with higher than national average unemployment rate, Republicans keep getting re-elected to the Governor's mansion. Last 16 years so far.

Of course it could be worse. Republicans haven't won the Washington governorship since 1980.

A master of reading the tea leaves. This interestingly (conveniently?) comes out after both Washington and Colorado legalized pot, and the Obama administration reportedly possibly going to crack down on those states.

Bill Clinton: War on Drugs “Hasn’t Worked”

http://gawker.com/5966825/bill-clinton-says-war-against-drugs-hasnt-worked

Protests in Michigan: 'Americans for Prosperity' group trapped inside tent as it is torn down by violent union mob in right-to-work protests today.

Hey Lilo,

What the heck is going on in Michigan? Fill us in when you can. Are you in Lansing?




TIS

How the FUCK does Michigan, a Democratic stronghold, become a right-to-work state?

Republican majority assholes. Plain and simple. And I'm not being partisan. I'm not even really a Democrat anymore. I'm more like a jaded Independent.

But I was a Teamster: a driver, a steward, and finally a business agent, for a total of 25 years. And this just hits me right where I live .

http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-march-michigan-capitol-over-vote-054656984.html

pb, its times and situations like this that you can't be just a "jaded independent."

As far as ideology goes, you know where my heart is, Ronnie. I'm just a lot older than you and out of patience with these assholes. You'll get there too one day, believe it or not .

Well being born/raised in MI, I am definitely interested. As I understand it, this Governor also designated "city managers (I think that's what they were called) and booted out elected officials to put these people in charge of Benton Harbor & I think Detroit.


Seriously Lilo, keep us (or me) posted on the on-the ground activity there as you see it.

I want to call my siblings but in recent years my brother and I are opposite politically which surprises the hell out of me. I don't want to argue with him Yet, in this case, with all of us former school employees and IN unions, I am curious as to his opinion.



TIS

Not very familiar with this subject but what exactly is the problem with having the right to work bill?

Already ahead of the curb on you, Grandpa.

I do find it odd if the unions are able to bring that measure into a ballot initiative since that's what the anti-gay marriage peoples have done whenever SSM bills are passed by state legislatures and gay rights groups moan at the idea of civil rights being up for vote on the ballot.

Just odd, nothing more.

Right to work means the individual has the right to apply for work, at any legal wage, without any preconditions of Union membership. And if Democrats don't have the Union support in elections, they probably don't have a chance at winning an election ever again.

Most Democrats and Progressives are in politics to promote their own financial self interests, just like everyone else.

Thus you can file me in that jaded Independent category, too.

People fell asleep.

See pictures of protests here and here

It sounds good. Right to work yes? Increase choice and all that.
The issue is that in the first place it's an intrusion of the government into an employer/employee relationship. Usually conservatives oppose this. That they often support right to work laws should tell us who such laws are likely to assist. Hint..not workers.

It is already illegal to be forced or coerced to join a union.
U.S. private sector union membership is at all time lows.
Even in Michigan which is ground zero for the modern industrial labor movement total private and public sector union membership is around 17-18%.

What right to work laws do is attempt to use individual incentive and interest to defund the union. See, when a union wins the right to represent workers it can not legally restrict benefits, wages and working conditions to dues paying union members. That's against the law. Companies normally pass on whatever they give to union workers to non-union workers in an attempt to limit or prevent union growth.

So there is an incipient "free rider" problem. If you can get the benefits without paying the costs, why wouldn't you?
So unions not only collect dues from members but are also legally allowed to get "fair share" of costs of representation from non-members on the job.

Right-to work laws indicate that these fair share/union dues may no longer be automatically collected. If you don't want to pay your union dues or your fair share, you don't have to do so.

This means worker A who hates unions but enjoys a union standard of living doesn't have to pay for it any more. Worker B is a union man thru and thru but is also nobody's sucker. So he may tire of paying for his cost and worker A's as well. So eventually he stops paying. New workers see no benefit to joining the union and so don't. Over time the union loses the financial ability to do ANYTHING. And just as importantly as fewer people are actually IN the union, the union loses the political and legal ability to represent workers at the workplace. So goodbye union. And then the company is free to show a different side of its personality to its workers.

Unions are not nation states of course but imagine if the US had similar laws around taxes. If people could decide that they didn't want to pay taxes for national defense but also didn't want to leave the US, eventually the national defense system and finally the US would crumble. This is classic free rider economics.

The states who have adopted "right to work" laws tend to be states with worse outcomes for workers.