Saturday Open Thread [1.25.14]
Go Joe Go.
I agree that all most women heard was Huckabee calling them sluts, but I am pretty sure that that wasn’t his intended message. He was trying to say that Democrats think that women are sluts, but I can’t really understand why he was making that argument. Yes, I get that women are not supposed to want to have sex, but that wasn’t quite what Huckabee was saying, either.
The bottom line is that Huckabee said a bunch of words that didn’t really mean anything and the takeaway was that he is eager to have a national debate over whether a woman who uses birth control is only doing it because she can’t overcome her desire to have sex. Since 99% of women use birth control at some point in their lives, Huckabee came pretty close to insulting every women in the country.
So the RNC has voted to shorten its primary season in order to make it easier for an establishment candidate to win quickly and easily without being tarnished by the crazies that he or she must debate. Further, it would make it easier for the candidate with the most money to swamp his or her lesser funded tea party upstarts and underdogs. Unfortunately for the Republicans, I don’t think they thought this through. The plan is obviously meant to benefit Christie. But think about this. The first two contests are still the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary.
Does anyone really think Chris Christie is going to win the Iowa Caucuses against Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, or even Rick Santorum. Lets assume Rand Paul wins. That sets him up for another quick victory in New Hampshire (remember, his father came in second there in 2012). And then after that he is a run away freight train. The same logic applies for Cruz, though I don’t necessarily see him winning New Hampshire. And now with a tighter and shorter primary calendar, there is less time for the establishment candidate to smash these upstart underdogs down in a debate, for there are going to be fewer debates.
Rick Moran at the American Thinker agrees:
These changes will also have unintended consequences – like conservatives may coalesce around one candidate early. That will be difficult but if successful, it could be curtains for the establishment candidate. The last two election cycles, McCain and Romney were successful because it took months for candidate attrition to lead to a one on one match up with a conservative. While the right was fighting it out among themselves, McCain and Romney kept piling up the delegates until they had a prohibitive lead. Imagine if the right were to choose one candidate to support before the primaries even begin?
Further, Cruz and Paul will not be starved for cash like Santorum was. I see these changes as almost guaranteeing a tea party nominee in 2016, especially now that the aura of invulnerability is gone from Christie.
If, as has been widely reported, President Obama devotes much of his State of the Union address to inequality, everyone should be cheering him on. They won’t, of course. Instead, he will face two kinds of sniping. The usual suspects on the right will, as always when questions of income distribution come up, shriek “Class warfare!” But there will also be seemingly more sober voices arguing that he has picked the wrong target, that jobs, not inequality, should be at the top of his agenda.
Here’s why they’re wrong.
First of all, jobs and inequality are closely linked if not identical issues. There’s a pretty good although not ironclad case that soaring inequality helped set the stage for our economic crisis, and that the highly unequal distribution of income since the crisis has perpetuated the slump, especially by making it hard for families in debt to work their way out.
Moreover, there’s an even stronger case to be made that high unemployment — by destroying workers’ bargaining power — has become a major source of rising inequality and stagnating incomes even for those lucky enough to have jobs.
With inequality and economic populism expected to be central to Obama’s State of the Union speech and Dem campaigns in the midterms, expect Republicans to argue Dems are wielding a familiar “class warfare” weapon to distract from the failure of the ”Obummer economy.”
But a new Pew poll digs into public opinion on inequality in a way I haven’t seen before, and it suggests Dems are on solid political ground with this focus. Large majorities think the gap between the rich and ”everyone else” has grown (65 percent) and that government should act to reduce that gap (69 percent). This is crucial.
POLLING:
NATIONAL–PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL–CBS: 46% approve of President Obama’s job performance, up from 42% in December and 37% in November.
NATIONAL–PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL–Associated Press: 45% approve of job performance, but the President’s favorability rating has improved nine points since October, up to 58%.
KENTUCKY–MEDICAID EXPANSION UNDER OBAMACARE–Healthy Kentucky: 79% of Kentuckians, and 60% of Kentucky Republicans, approve of Democratic Governor Steve Beshear’s decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare.
“So the RNC has voted to shorten its primary season…” Have they explicitly said that there would be fewer “debates” ? It seemed to me it was the debates that did them in.
“Rep. John Carney, D-Del., said that, “given the gridlock in Congress,” Obama should continue to do whatever he can on climate change.”….The News Journal
So, what’s the point of even having a Congress? Doesn’t Carney realize how many people are disenfranchised when the will of the Congress is circumvented.
People voted for the members of this Congress, and if people don’t agree with them, then they will vote them out. That’s the way it works.
Just because one side doesn’t agree with the other side on an issue doesn’t mean that the President has to overstep the boundaries of his office.
FBH, there is such a thing as executive action. The Administration, through its agencies like the EPA, can issue regulations that can fight climate change.
And if the people don’t like it, they can vote him out. But they reelected him. If they don’t like what he is doing now, they can vote for a Republican in 2016.
“FBH, there is such a thing as executive action.”
Right, and over the past twenty years or so The Executive Branch has been overreaching in it’s authority.
like I said. What’s the point of even having a Congress these days?
Hmm. you just convinced me that we might finally have enough clout to make Delaware’s Primary the first in the nation. It should be. Between Sussex county and downtown Wilmington, WE, and only WE, represent America in omni admiratione… (Latin for: in all its wonder)…
Open thread so here goes : was just over in Columbia for a brief interlude with friends for training for Howard County Police. We went to the Mall to shop…..so this hits close to home, too close.
1: I pray for the families of those lost in the shooting in the Columbia mall, I lived and worked minutes away from here , still have Many family members and good friends that live and work minutes away- have not heard from any of them and am worried sick…
2. When is this going to stop? How do we get it to stop. There is NO WAY that someone’s constitutional right to own a gun and use it can impose on the God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
3 . maybe if we label these shooting ” late term birth control” the GOP would be all over it trying to make sure it’s outlawed. The pro-life people are not pro- life, they are pro- birth only, coz after the baby is born, they could care less if they are murdered in a mass shooting like we have today or in some other gun violence incident.
And no, arming our society is not the answer at all- a well regulated militia should be just that…….WELL- REGULATED!
The changes to the primary calendar aren’t cast in concrete yet, right? I think that it is up to states to set primary dates and I can’t see some states just adopting the GOP calendar because the GOP wants it. The Dems might want a shorter season too, for all I know, but I think this calendar business is not over until the States weigh in. Then again, it is pretty remarkable to me that the people with the talking point of Obama not being vetted would create an opportunity for their own candidate to be exactly that.
And Aoine, I’ve spent part of the afternoon touching base with family friends in the area of the Columbia Mall too. Nerve-wracking.
Ironically–as I am anything but a Krugman fan–I completely agree that the economic issue must be fought out over income inequality rather than jobs.
Focusing on “jobs” for Democrats at the national and state levels essentially turns into their version of “trickle-down economics” and always ALWAYS ends up benefitting the existing corporate structure more than it does people in need. More to the point, it makes the corporate structure the semi-official disbursement branch of the Government, and makes “jobs” essentially something that we must have big construction, road-building, financial corporations etc. (with all their government ties) in order to develop.
Focusing on income inequality opens the door to considering the structural ways in which the game is rigged against hard-working individuals from poor to middle class, and opens up the door to realizing that the corporate “middle men” should be considered a “bug” rather than a “feature” of our political economy.
(And, yes, I can make a strong Libertarian as well as Progressive case for that; thanks for asking.)
I sorta get your point, but as an unapologetic Keynesian I’d say that the difference is Keynes is about circulating money and trickle down is about sucking money out of the economy.
This is a remarkable story and this is the first I’d read of it: How Silicon Valley’s most celebrated CEOs conspired to drive down 100,000 tech engineers’ wages
So that meritocracy thing is something of a farce. Or at least quite secondary to the collusion over wages and employment engaged in by Apple, Adobe, Google and Intel. There are other cases discussed here too.
It’s also the same motive for the GOP’s push to triple the number of high-tech immigrants (H1-B visas).
That would sure gut tech engineers’ wages, and guess who wins???
Folks who are cheerleading for “comprehensive immigration reform” should be aware that any bill will include another bulge in new high-tech immigrants replacing Americans in some very good jobs. Your support for the downtrodden will bring along this new misery for American workers. This is part of the engine that is hollowing out the middle class.
“It’s also the same motive for the GOP’s push to triple the number of high-tech immigrants (H1-B visas).”
It’s really worse than that. Most people think that H1-B visas are for people like software engineers, data technicians, information systems folks. In reality the program/law allows H1-B visas to be used for specialty occupations including biotechnology, chemistry, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts. So pretty much any professional field, with the possible exception of auto mechanic.
The problem is, there is no empirical evidence of a labor shortage in these specialty occupations AND when foreign workers are used for these positions, Americans are left with non-specialty occupations (the aforementioned auto mechanic). Thus, in some small part contributing to income inequality.
While applications have to attest that they will pay the prevailing wage, the program itself drives down the prevailing wage over time, so that it becomes easier to pay less while still meeting the prevailing wage requirement, in a long slow downward spiral.
The nation certainly can and should use foreign workers when the talent edge is clear and the occupation is highly specialized, but it has gone far beyond what Congress may have envisioned (if one believes Congress has any vision whatsoever). And since the legislative branch has abdicated it’s position, there is no likelihood of any significant changes in the H1-B program.
I wouldn’t expect H1b visa reform from anyone with the types of business concerns represented by our congressional delegation.
@jason You may be a Keynesian; Governor Markell is not.
Have you guys seen this:
http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have-started-a-revolution-last-night-1451318185
Intense ten minutes of wow from Russel Brand on not accepting the status quo.
Paula – Thank you so much for that clip. I’m now a huge Russel Brand fan.