Politics As Usual

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


Don't get me wrong --- I really don't mind hearing Kerry take a position on this. But remember this thread started with a condemnation of Kerry for skipping the vote, as a sign he dodges "responsibility." Now you're saying his vote would have been merely a useful way to "have him take a position." You're not even seriously defending the notion that anything more than political gain was at stake. Sounds to me like skipping the vote was exactly the right thing to do.

Someone else castigated him. I said he was abdicating responsibility.

If a sufficient number of senators on the relevant committee and on the floor want to bring a Tina Fey, Hot or Not vote to the floor, they should be able to.

When did you become Atticus, the uber-senator who decides what's appropriate for Senate business. And why is the FMA not at least appropriate for consideration? It's not as if there's a consensus that gay marriage is an unimportant issue for politicians to be dealing with.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
And why is the FMA not at least appropriate for consideration? It's not as if there's a consensus that gay marriage is an unimportant issue for politicians to be dealing with.

At the end of the session, not everything makes it to the floor. Frist pulled the plug on class-action reform, which had a real chance of passage, so he could waste everyone's time on the FMA. Do you agree with that decision?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If a sufficient number of senators on the relevant committee and on the floor want to bring a Tina Fey, Hot or Not vote to the floor, they should be able to.

Um, this is a politics board, not a constitutional convention. They're "able" to. My opinion is that litmus votes are a stupid waste of time, and we should not judge individual senators who refuse to participate in that kind of bullshit. If anything, we should praise them.* I make this point so we don't take it as gospel that what the Senate has the power to do, it has the power to do without the ridicule or judgment of the public it serves.

When did you become Atticus, the uber-senator who decides what's appropriate for Senate business.

I don't like the policies of the present Senate majority. I'm more likely to note when they're engaging in masturbatory acts than a person who thinks we're all on the right track. The business of the Senate is appropriately criticized in every diner and barbershop in the nation. Why am I out of bounds here?

It's scary how easily people who profess to think government is broken nevertheless tend to suspend judgment about the governments whose policies they like.

And why is the FMA not at least appropriate for consideration? It's not as if there's a consensus that gay marriage is an unimportant issue for politicians to be dealing with.

How did this somehow become a noble effort? Karl Rove is some kind of chivalric figure? The GOP thought they would motivate a hell of a lot more people than they did. Ooops. Now they have to go forward with this to save face with the Jesus vote. I guess it's "appropriate for consideration" in the sense that this is an election year and now GOP shock troops like Club can post on Internet chat boards that Kerry missed a procedural vote on a constitutional amendment that needs 60 and won't even get 50 because the principled members of the GOP agree with Kerry and think it's bullshit. (That's a vote on whether or not it comes to a vote --- the GOP can't get 50.)

*In this instance, I don't think what Kerry is doing is praiseworthy, but I also don't think it's indicative of any character flaw disqualifying him from the presidency.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When did you become Atticus, the uber-senator who decides what's appropriate for Senate business.

Close, but the proper term is "Shadow Senator."

To which we can only reply, duhhhhh. Atticus is in San Francisco. After DC, I can think of no other locale so strongly desirous of its own statehood. Sometimes Boxer and Feinstein just don't bring home the bacon, you know what I'm sayin'?

Sure, Atticus is plowing some new ground with the prospect of representing a geographic area that's already represented in Congress, but then again they said Newsom couldn't issue gay marriage permits either. In the City By The Bay, almost everything falls within the art of the possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's scary how easily people who profess to think government is broken nevertheless tend to suspend judgment about the governments whose policies they like.

I'm guessing that Burger would vote against the FMA if he could, and is playing the contrarian here because, well, someone has to.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
a pattern of not showing suggests a dereliction of duty.

avoiding votes on controversial issues, regardless of expected outcome, shows an unwillingness to take responsibility.

The alleged dereliction of duty by Senators Kerry and Edwards is as much a non-issue as it has been in EVERY SINGLE RACE EVER where the challenger holds another office.

It always is brought up by supporters of the incumbent (or like in 2000, the pseudo-incumbent). And it never matters. It didn't matter with Bush in 2000, despite the fact that Democrats kept trying to bring it up (stupidly, one might add, as Bush's resignation would only have brought about Perry as Gov earlier - look how well that's worked out). And he had actual day to day governing to do.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do they disguise his voice?

Gotta say -- some of my favorite books have been by Anonymous, but the subject matter was pretty different.

They didn't disguise his voice, and he was apparently outed by the Boston Phoenix. He asked NPR to just call him "Mike."

Related story in Salon.com

ETA: interview with the author in Salon.com

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
They didn't disguise his voice, and he was apparently outed by the Boston Phoenix. He asked NPR to just call him "Mike."

Related story in Salon.com

Says that Phoenix article:

• A Phoenix investigation has discovered that Anonymous does not, in fact, want to be anonymous at all — and that his anonymity is neither enforced nor voluntarily assumed out of fear for his safety, but rather compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience. In the Phoenix’s view, continued deference by the press to a bogus and unwanted standard of secrecy essentially amounts to colluding with the CIA in muzzling a civil servant — a standard made more ridiculous by the ubiquity of Anonymous’s name in both intelligence and journalistic circles.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm guessing that Burger would vote against the FMA if he could, and is playing the contrarian here because, well, someone has to.

Sorry, Burg. I didn't mean to imply that you liked the FMA --- I meant that you were more willing than I to rationalize the Senate vote because you liked the impact it would have on the various races.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Sorry, Burg. I didn't mean to imply that you liked the FMA --- I meant that you were more willing than I to rationalize the Senate vote because you liked the impact it would have on the various races.

To answer you and Ty -- no such implication taken. I'm an old skool GOPer, so I do think (like Kerry, who is also old skool on this one) that the issue should be left to the states.

I also don't believe that bringing a bill, or an amendment to the floor, even with a slim chance of passage, is a frivolous activity. First off, vote counting is imperfect--I don't want to see only bills that will pass brought to the floor. And as a citizen we shouldn't see only the dead-bang winners. Second, it is important for everyone to see exactly how much (or how little) support the FMA really has. I want a straight up-or-down vote to show both the right wing of hte republican party and its supporters that they're out of the mainstream on this one. And having chickenshit abstentions doesn't help.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I also don't believe that bringing a bill, or an amendment to the floor, even with a slim chance of passage, is a frivolous activity.

Sure, but what about the opportunity costs? Although if you're old skool, presumably you don't mind missing the chance to federalize class actions.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure, but what about the opportunity costs? Although if you're old skool, presumably you don't mind missing the chance to federalize class actions.

Sure, but I thought Frist pulled it because (depending on whom you believe) there was risk of larding it up even further with a) democrats' amendments b) republican amendments, and allowing all of them was unacceptable. That's sucky procedure, but that's what it is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but I thought Frist pulled it because (depending on whom you believe) there was risk of larding it up even further with a) democrats' amendments b) republican amendments, and allowing all of them was unacceptable. That's sucky procedure, but that's what it is.

Um, what? That doesn't make any sense at all. Better to have a vote on the FMA, which everyone knows won't pass, then votes on the class-action bill, and amendments thereto, which might pass? I don't think so.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Um, what? That doesn't make any sense at all. Better to have a vote on the FMA, which everyone knows won't pass, then votes on the class-action bill, and amendments thereto, which might pass? I don't think so.

I was answering the question as to why Frist pulled the CARA, not the opportunity cost question.

At least the FMA will get a vote. CARA would have been bogged down in procedural BS and not have gotten anywhere. Also ridiculous, but that's another story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I was answering the question as to why Frist pulled the CARA, not the opportunity cost question.

I could ask a third time, but why make you duck the question again? I think I have your answer.