Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by dtb
What is a chit, anyway?

What some people call chips?

You?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What some people call chips?

You?

Are you available to follow me around and settle bets? We could clean up, you know.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap I've been critical of Rove's strategy of campaigning to and governing for the base (instead of the center) since GWB did it so plainly 2004, largely because I (among others) worried that it inevitably created a more corrosive, nastier political environment than was necessary. I hadn't figured, though, that Rove's master plan for a Generational Majority would tumble into infighting over succession in just a couple of years. Go figure.

"The base" is a misnomer, as applied to R's. We're a loose coalition of incredibly disparate, even contradictory, groups, who have realized that it's only by subsuming some (most?) desires can we, at least, pull power to our general side of the dance floor. It's better to bicker from strength than to scream from impotence - a realization that I fear the D's will arrive at someday. On the day that Kos quietly avoids comment on a Lieberman proposal, I will sigh and take a back seat once again.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And the LA Times isn't really helping.

Board. Motto.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
"The base" is a misnomer, as applied to R's.

I don't really disagree, but stop to observe that by this measure, it's a misnomer as applied to D's as well.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
"The base" is a misnomer, as applied to R's. We're a loose coalition of incredibly disparate, even contradictory, groups, who have realized that it's only by subsuming some (most?) desires can we, at least, pull power to our general side of the dance floor.

Lots of truth to this, but by "the base" I think they mean the mobilized core of party activists and primary voters -- who do tend disproportionately towards the hard social conservatives.

Part of what Ignatius is saying is that the cooperation may be breaking down.

Originally posted by bilmore
It's better to bicker from strength than to scream from impotence - a realization that I fear the D's will arrive at someday. On the day that Kos quietly avoids comment on a Lieberman proposal, I will sigh and take a back seat once again.

That is true. The problem is realizing when/if one is approaching the tipping point from one to the other. It may yet take another term or two for the Dems to learn this principle.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Lots of truth to this, but by "the base" I think they mean the mobilized core of party activists and primary voters -- who do tend disproportionately towards the hard social conservatives.

The interesting thing is, a new "base" is forming. There has been widespread dissatisfaction with Bush's spending and lack of vetoing, his lack of border controls or concern, and, in essence, his deviation from what econ-conservatives truly are. The Miers controversy seems to be a straw breaking a back. All of a sudden, people who were mostly along for the ride, but waiting for the ONE TRUE DUTY of Bush's that would finally give THEM a payoff, have seen him perform that duty and leave them cold. That's been a galvanizing event for them, and, when everybody started bitching, and they saw everbody ELSE start bitching, they realized that they were legion, and could well lay claim to the "base" mantle.

In any event, I think it's now almost guaranteed that Bush won't be our next prez.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
The interesting thing is, a new "base" is forming. There has been widespread dissatisfaction with Bush's spending and lack of vetoing, his lack of border controls or concern, and, in essence, his deviation from what econ-conservatives truly are. The Miers controversy seems to be a straw breaking a back. All of a sudden, people who were mostly along for the ride, but waiting for the ONE TRUE DUTY of Bush's that would finally give THEM a payoff, have seen him perform that duty and leave them cold. That's been a galvanizing event for them, and, when everybody started bitching, and they saw everbody ELSE start bitching, they realized that they were legion, and could well lay claim to the "base" mantle.

In any event, I think it's now almost guaranteed that Bush won't be our next prez.

If so, I'll probably like the new GOP base better than the old -- easier to talk to if nothing else. Still, I'm pretty sure that Bush wasn't going to be the next President anyhow.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Still, I'm pretty sure that Bush wasn't going to be the next President anyhow.

C'mon, I was waiting for someone else to make some snarky comment on this. You're blowing my setup lines.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If so, I'll probably like the new GOP base better than the old -- easier to talk to if nothing else. Still, I'm pretty sure that Bush wasn't going to be the next President anyhow.

S_A_M

I can't figure out what is going on in Jeb's camp. They are putting out a lot of signals that he ain't going to run. I just can't figure out why. Maybe they think Hillary is unbeatable.

btw. The only issue is whether the Republicans can beat Hillary. I don't think there is any question she is going to be the nominee. I have seen focus groups. She is similar to W (or at least W. before Miers) in that the base loves her, the opposition loathes her and the middle does not mind her. The fact the far right hates her is a problem because it will motivate the base. However, the Dem base loves her which will motivate them and the middle America is willing to vote for her. In addition, she can move to the center without angering the base too much because their loyalty is not based on her position on the issue. A very strong asset. That is a winning combination.

I think McCain, Giuliani and Condi are the only ones that can give her a run for her money.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
The interesting thing is, a new "base" is forming. There has been widespread dissatisfaction with Bush's spending and lack of vetoing, his lack of border controls or concern, and, in essence, his deviation from what econ-conservatives truly are. The Miers controversy seems to be a straw breaking a back. All of a sudden, people who were mostly along for the ride, but waiting for the ONE TRUE DUTY of Bush's that would finally give THEM a payoff, have seen him perform that duty and leave them cold. That's been a galvanizing event for them, and, when everybody started bitching, and they saw everbody ELSE start bitching, they realized that they were legion, and could well lay claim to the "base" mantle.

In any event, I think it's now almost guaranteed that Bush won't be our next prez.

This is basically right. But to expand, the left leaning court has been one of the prime motivating factors of the conservative revolution for the last 40 years. Since Nixon, the revolution has slowly been chipping away at the liberal establishment. It really accelerated in 1994 with the takeover of Congress and has been on a steady march since, including, taking the Senate, controlling all 3 branches, and breaking up the left leaning (to be kind) media monopoly, first through talk radio, and now through the internet and Fox news.

A solidified conservative court was going to be the crowning achievement for 40 plus years of struggle. The right wanted someone who was part of that fight, who stood on principle, and was not afraid to voice his or her beliefs in writing - a Scalia type person. This was to the coming out party - loud and proud. Instead, what they got was someone who, the president apparently believes, needs to cover up her beliefs. Instead of the proud acclamation, they are getting something more seemingly sheepish, as if those beliefs are something to be embarassed about.

And that is why the they are PISSED.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by bilmore
C'mon, I was waiting for someone else to make some snarky comment on this. You're blowing my setup lines.

Jeb's not running???

What the fuck am I gonna do with 10,000 "Lick Bush in '08" bumperstickers now?

aV

[Spanky]

Its too bad people don't care about newspaper endorsements anymore.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE CHRONICLE RECOMMENDS: PROP. 77
A fairer way to draw lines
-
Wednesday, October 12, 2005

A SYSTEM THAT allows politicians to draw their own legislative and congressional districts is worse than absurd.

It's undemocratic.

The notion of allowing elected officials to artfully design their district boundaries was unfair back in 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed off on a redistricting plan that was so skewed to keep his party in power that one of the districts resembled the shape of a salamander.

Today, computer programs that can use party registration and a slew of other data to show voters' predisposition with stunning precision -- even within city blocks -- have elevated "gerrymandering" from an art to a science.

California politicians used data from the 2000 census to protect their respective flanks in impressive fashion. In November 2004, 153 legislative and congressional seats were on the ballot. Not a single one changed party hands.

The system is a godsend for the legislators in power. It is not so helpful for candidates who want to break into the club, or voters who want to have a real choice in an election.

One of the many outrageous contortions of the 2001 remap was the creation of a headphone-shaped congressional district to divide the San Fernando Valley's growing Latino population -- thus sparing two-decade incumbent Rep. Howard Berman the annoyance of a strong Latino challenger in the Democratic primary. Berman's brother, Michael, had been hired by the Legislature to help craft the lines.

Similar acts of shameless self-interest occurred up and down the state. A ribbon-thin district created to provide a safe Democratic seat for Rep. Lois Capps stretches 200 miles from the Monterey County line to south of Oxnard in Ventura County.

Rest assured, your elected "representatives" in Sacramento are not about to change a system that allows them to select their pool of voters, especially with one party in firm control of the state Senate and Assembly. It is no surprise that Democratic leaders in Sacramento and Washington are raising vast sums to defeat Proposition 77 in the Nov. 8 special election.

In recent months, we have expressed numerous concerns with Proposition 77, which would hand control of legislative and congressional redistricting to a panel of three retired judges. Despite its flaws, the system outlined in Proposition 77 is superior to the status quo.

Here's how it would work:

-- The independent Judicial Council would select a pool of 24 retired state and federal judges.

-- Four leaders of the state Senate and Assembly (two Democrats, two Republicans) would each nominate three judges from the pool. A leader could not select a judge from his or her own party. Each leader could then veto one of the other's nominees, reducing the pool to eight -- three of whom would be selected by random drawing.

-- The three judges would then assemble a staff and oversee the drawing of congressional and legislative boundaries. Their marching orders would be to keep the districts as compact as practicable and to follow city and county boundaries as much as possible -- as opposed to the find-your-voters games that produced the bizarre lines of 2001. The new map would take effect in the June 2006 primary, but would be subject to voter approval in November. If the voters reject the plan, the process would begin anew for the 2008 elections.

One of our concerns with 77 is its overly ambitious time line. Many local election officials are skeptical about whether the process could be completed in time to give would-be candidates a fair shot at knowing where they should be campaigning. Election officials also worry about whether they would have enough notice to get voter guides and absentee ballots to the electorate in a timely manner.

Supporters of 77 note that the initiative does not necessarily require the new boundaries for the 2006 primary election -- though that is their intention.

"If they can't get it done for 2006, they can't get it done," said Steve Poizner, the chairman of the Yes on 77 campaign, who saw the effects of redistricting when he ran as a Republican for a Democrat-tailored Assembly seat in 2004. "The only deadlines in there are for when the special masters are appointed, which will give them a fighting chance to get it done for 2006."

Our preference would have been for a redistricting plan that took effect after the 2010 census, when the lines could have been drawn with fresh demographic data. But we don't buy the argument that this mid-decade redistricting is some sort of Republican power grab, as some Democratic politicians suggest. One of the measure's strong points is the extent of its checks and balances against partisan meddling. A telling measure of its nonpartisan approach is the nervousness it has created at the Republican National Committee and among some Republicans in the state's congressional delegation, who are convinced their 20-member bloc could be imperiled under boundaries drawn without regard to incumbent protection.

Proposition 77 is not a referendum on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, though it is a component of his reform agenda. This is a vote about whether Californians have faith in their legislators to put aside their own self-interest to develop a new and fairer system of drawing district boundaries.

We don't have such faith.

The Legislature's most recent redistricting "reform" proposals amounted to laughably transparent attempts to assure they could hand-select their shills to control the process.

Both Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez have suggested that voters are not particularly interested in arcane redistricting issues. If Proposition 77 is rejected, legislators will interpret it as an affirmation of the status quo.

Incumbents, understandably, dread competitive elections and party leaders fear loss of control. Sorry, this is a democracy -- a democracy that is being subverted when politicians select their voters.

Vote "yes'' on Proposition 77.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A solidified conservative court was going to be the crowning achievement for 40 plus years of struggle. The right wanted someone who was part of that fight, who stood on principle, and was not afraid to voice his or her beliefs in writing - a Scalia type person. This was to the coming out party - loud and proud. Instead, what they got was someone who, the president apparently believes, needs to cover up her beliefs. Instead of the proud acclamation, they are getting something more seemingly sheepish, as if those beliefs are something to be embarassed about.

Agree with the underlying thought, but we spent an awful lot of time explaining why Roberts was supposed to cover up his underlying beliefs, and so this one is a hard political sell. I hate being on this side of these form-over-substance debates.

Face it - we want to be able to know the answers to all of these questions before a nomination, and, in fact, we acknowledge that it's these answers that define for us a proper nominee, but then we persist in claiming that someone else not knowing these answers is not a proper basis for them blocking the nomination.

We should be allowing any and all questioning of nominees by anyone. It's relevant and important, and denying this is form over substance. We'd be in a more defensible position vis-a-vis Miers had we done so earlier.

[soup sandwich]

Originally posted by sgtclub
A solidified conservative court was going to be the crowning achievement for 40 plus years of struggle. The right wanted someone who was part of that fight, who stood on principle, and was not afraid to voice his or her beliefs in writing - a Scalia type person. This was to the coming out party - loud and proud. Instead, what they got was someone who, the president apparently believes, needs to cover up her beliefs. Instead of the proud acclamation, they are getting something more seemingly sheepish, as if those beliefs are something to be embarassed about.

And that is why the they are PISSED.

I think I am finally starting to see what all the anger is about. It's not just that the right wants a conservative, rather, the right wants a conservative and a fight. The right wants to not just get their person on the SCOTUS, they want to nominate a person the left can't stand and shove it down the left's throat. Is this accurate?