MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Mark Pryor and Chris Coons stab party in the back. Let's return the favor
By jollyroger on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 8:48pm |For want of two senate votes the nominee to head the Dept of Justice Civil Rights Division was denied confirmation.
Two of those voting against him were Democrats up for re-election this year.
If it's too late to primary them, they need to go down to defeat in the general election.
Not one dime should be spent, not one door knocked on.
In fact, send the Repugnant a donation. It's for the greater good.
URL:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/05/senate-rejects-obama-appointment-of-debo-adegbile-to-top-civil-rights-post/
- Add new comment
- 2102 reads
Comments
Not to say that the rest of the back-stabbin' seven shouldn't be primaried at the first opportunity. Enough with the blue dogs.
by jollyroger on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 10:53pm
On a pure political basis, the question is to elect the Pryor who is with Democrats 30-50% of the time or elect Ted Cruz style Republican Tom Cotton.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/05/2014 - 11:05pm
I hear Blanche Lincoln callin' from beyond the grave...fuck Pryor, we have some seats to spare, he's a dead man walking anyway, why not use his demise to some purpose for party discipline?
by jollyroger on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 1:25am
John Adams was the lawyer defending the British soldier's who fired on the colonists in Boston. Chief Justice John Roberts did pro bono work for a serial killer. Lawyers defend people. The court found that the judicial error noted by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (founded by Thurgood Marshall) was correct. The LDF won the case. The nomination should not have been controversial.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 8:34am
Well, of course, as far as I'm concerned the man who saved Mumia's life deserves a statue and a law school named after him.
That said, it is odious that so many Dems ran scared when, as you point out, there is a long tradition of affording counsel to all and sundry.
See, for examples, the Leopold/Loeb defense by Clarence Darrow and Ramsey Clark's vigorous (if ultimately futile) representation of Saddam Hussein.
by jollyroger on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 8:44am
"Adegbile's defeat sparked loud grumbling from some lawmakers. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said that obstruction of Adegbile showed a double standard.
"'Here is the message we sent today: if you’re a young white person and you go to work for a law firm, you’re a lawyer sworn into the bar … and a law firm assigns you to defend a person who killed eight people in cold blood … you might wind up to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,' Harkin said after the vote according to The Hill." ~ TPM
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 11:08am
Even Landrieu voted in favor of Adegbile.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 11:24am
Although I'm all for primarying them, I'm afraid you might be mistaken that "we have some seats to spare".
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 9:17am
I agree that we don't have seats to spare.
But I'm also not sure that primarying is a strategy that works for Democrats.
The first (only?) time we tried it was against Joe Lieberman, and it was disastrous.
More generally, it only works, I think, when the general election electorate will go for a more "extreme" candidate of your stripe. The right seems to succeed with it mostly in very red states or House districts especially that are gerrymandered into homogeneity.
When they used it in states that were even slightly a toss-up, even in reddish states like IND, it basically gifted the election to the Democrat. See DE for a really good example of that. The Republican there was a shoe-in until the witch came along.
Also see IND. The old-time Republican there, Lugar, could've held that seat until he died, but they went for the nut. There is, I admit, that added philip. Those defeated candidates weren't just more to the right, they were nutty and said dumb things-- though maybe not so dumb for the primary-hungry wing of their party.
These challengers also seem to be political neophytes, at least relatively, sometimes absolutely. That's part of their appeal. They aren't bought and paid for. They are impatient with playing political games. They stand for principle. They want to clean house and get things done.
Emotionally, I'm sympathetic with this view. But also, I sometimes think that we think these "compromised politicians" are sort of rotten to the core, inherently compromised. What we fail to recognize is that politics is the art of the compromise. These guys become compromisers because that's the only way to get things done. If you don't care about getting things done, then vote for the Democratic Ted Cruz. He'll bark a lot and make you feel good and get nothing done. Or he'll compromise in ways you can't see.
If Pryor is forced leftward in ARK, he's moving away from the people he needs to vote for him. Of course, we'd have to dig into the numbers and details to refine this, but this is what I believe with very little detail in front of me. We Democratics look at what the primarying the TP has done with envy--but overall, it's been bad for them. Its energy pulled the GOP out of the pit of oblivion in 2007-8, I admit, and gave them the ability to slow down Obama and throw a wrench into things. But Democrats or progressives aren't really wrench throwers. We want to do things.
That's another reason why primarying sort of works for the GOP, but probably wouldn't for us. Edit to add: IMHO.
by Anonymous PS (not verified) on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 10:05am
I think we have, what 54 now? Ergo, give up Coons and Pryor, and there's still 52.
I don't think we can hold Arkansas for Pryor, ayway (Coons, granted, is a different story.)
I kinda thinkin' of the leviticus thing, where one kid talks back, gets stoned to death, the other kids straighten right up.
Suppose the uppity kid had a terminal illness anyway...why not make lemonade outta that lemon?
by jollyroger on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 11:55pm
Look at Larry Sabato's crystal ball. If all 4 of those D-to-R states become Republican, then that's a net loss of 8. The current make-up is 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans, and 2 independents (both of whom caucus with the Democrats). So, if we lose those 4 (which includes Pryor), then that puts us at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 independents. Now, Bernie Sanders would never caucus with the Republicans, but I don't know anything about Angus King (the other independent). That's Sabato's expected outcome, if I understand it correctly. Not great, but could be worse, which brings us to the uncertainty he puts in his crystal ball. He has 3 toss-ups: Alaska (Begich-D), Louisiana (Landrieu-D), and North Carolina (Hagan-D). He has 3 states as "leans Democrat" (that are currently Democrat) and 1 state as "leans Republican" (that is currently Republican). There are an additional 3 states that are marked as "likely Democrat" (that are currently Democrat), and no similar Republican states. So, there are 3 additional states that Republicans could pick up, 3 more that wouldn't be at all surprising if Republicans picked them up, and 3 more that are conceivable Republican pick-ups. And only 1 state that wouldn't be at all surprising if Democrats picked it up. I don't like these odds. Coons, from Delaware, is one of the "safe" Democrats. So, primary him by all means, but don't vote for the Republican out of spite.
As for Pryor, should he lose his seat (as Sabato is predicting), what happens if there is a concerted effort by the left to replace him with a more liberal candidate, or worse to vote for a Republican out of spite? My prediction is that he still loses, of course, but the "crazy Left" (as they would get painted, not my view) gets blamed for it. Of course, part of that narrative would indeed be as you suggest: the Left will hold you responsible if you do egregious things, which wouldn't be a bad thing. Except… if he is successfully primaried, then it won't be Pryor who loses but his more liberal replacement. What message would that send? (I waffled on my view of this as I was writing this a couple times, so, just take this as my 1-cent opinion, if that much.)
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:47am
OK, I have a third scenario that may thread the needle.
1. I'm pretty sure it's toolate to primary him.
2. I'm pretty sure he's dead meat, no matter what he does.
3. Run a green or working families alternative. Hopefully, it brings out the number of disgusted and alienated who, if they would vote for Pryor (they won't) exceed the margin by which the repugnant wins, thus demonstrating efficacy.
NB: Without peradventure, the route to efficacy for a third party runs through spoiler city--that said, exit polls in this scenario show that the third party voters would not have voted for Pryor OR the Pug, thus motivating future good Dem behaviour as a "freebie" since Pryor is a stone cold loser.
by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 1:08pm
Solid thread. 50-weight, even.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 1:10pm
We have no seats to spare this election cycle. This is not the year to abandon conservative dems. We'll be lucky to keep control of the senate. 2016 well likely be a good year for democrats. We can be picky then and try to push out the conservative dems.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 1:34pm
But what would be the point of that?
As I read it, those conservative Democrats come from relatively conservative states.
If you push them out, they're replaced with even more conservative Republicans.
No?
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 3:08pm
That is the big problem. You have to deal with the voters in the districts where they originate. Blanche Lincoln was too conservative for Arkansas. Joyce Elliott vied to replace Liberal Arkansan Vic Synder but was beaten by a wingnut Tim Griffin.
The Arkansas state legislature had to meet for days to vote not to overturn Obamacare. Note that one Republican state legislator was a quadriplegic involved in an ethanol related motor vehicle accident where he can't remember who was driving. He got his bills taken care of by the government but is worried that Obamacare could let "lazy people" abuse the system. That's what voters put into office.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 3:25pm
I'm concerned with who controls not the degree of control. In many ways its better to have a republican than a conservative democrat, imo. I'd rather see a 51-49 senate than add 3 conservative dems for a larger majority even if they were less conservative than the republicans they replaced.
Conservative dems dilute the message and make it harder to sell democratic policy to the public. Moderate and liberal dems have to make larger concessions to conservative dems than to republicans. They can push legislation farther to the right than republicans.
I think the public is farther to the left than the so called "center." There's lots of polling to support that opinion, as my recent "in the news" posts shows.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/03/06/why-most-c...
I think we'd do better with a clearer and somewhat more left democratic message, even in the red states. For example I think health care reform could have been better without Baucus pushing it to the right. Even more I think a more left health care reform would have sold better with the public, and been better, than the republican designed ACA we got. Maybe not the most extreme liberal policy but something like an expansion of medicare with subsidies for the less well off and a buy in for others. I think it could have been passed, the public would have supported it, it would have worked better, and helped democrats even in the red states.
If we were to primary conservative dems, win or lose, it would push the democratic party to the left. That's worth losing a senate or house seat, so long as we're not so pure we lose control.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 3:37pm
I see your point, but would you rather see a 49-51 Senate (i.e., with 51 Republicans) than to see conservative Democrats dilute the message? Given Larry Sabato's prognostications that is indeed a possibility.
by Verified Atheist on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 4:11pm
I agree, not this year, as I said in my original post in this sub-thread. We don't have any seats to spare this year. No matter how much the stink we have to hold our nose and support and vote for the conservative democrat this year.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 4:26pm
The article makes an interesting point.
The trick would seem to be to pursue liberal policies, but align them with, or sheath them in, conservative symbology.
Somewhat hard to do because the conservative symbol keepers are quick to label and often mislabel Democratic proposals, no matter what they are.
ACA is a perfect example. It was birthed at Heritage, embraced by Dole, Gingrich, even DeMint, implemented by the Republican presidential candidate, and yet still it became widely known as a government takeover of health care--not to mention all sorts of other even more nefarious things.
I agree with you 100% on Medicare. I didn't at the time, and while the public would have loved it, I'm sure, it would have had to get through the Republican gatekeepers and conservative Democrats in Congress. Not entirely sure it could have done that. This may be a bit of 20/20 hindsight.
But yes, it's a universally well loved program by everyone. Everyone understands it and how it works (well enough). Everyone's parents and grandparents have been on it. It would have been much less complex and dead easy to explain. I would have renamed it AmeriCare...America cares.
Just because something polls well doesn't mean you can get the votes for it. In Off Center, the authors show how the GOP strategists have moved the official party much further to the right than its rank and file--and certainly than the great mass of Americans--without suffering electoral consequences. They play to a gallery of well- heeled extremists and a smallish fired up base.
by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 8:51pm
NPR has a segment this morning where the finger points at the Police Union (or whatever they call the national cop bund) who have a hard on for Mumia on account of the deceased was a cop.
Fact remains, a lawyer is not the perp--in this case all he did wrong was win an appeal on incorrect jury instructions--if the cops have a problem, they should beef the judge who fucked up the instructions!
by jollyroger on Thu, 03/06/2014 - 7:09am
All John Kerry did was serve in combat in Vietnam, and they swift boated him to defeat for a draft dodging GWB who had also added to his resume 9/11, Pet Goat book reading, CIPRO pill popping before the first anthrax letter was even mailed, and lying the nation into a war.
I am an American proud to say that I would not make up my mind who to vote for until I got the facts from pre-election last minute political TeeVee commercials funded in secret by billionaires.
If those ads swift boated a guy like Pryor, 'Pryor was in bed with a sleazy lawyer who tried to put a cop killer back on the streets'.....I am proud to say I could not vote for him, and I am also proud to say it is voters like me who make this nation what it is today.
by NCD on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 11:47am
Ok, ok, everything you say is true, and worse.
Plan B--prune the electorate
by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 1:42pm
This would work especially well in Arkansas--you might be left with ten voters, all Democrats...
by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 1:48pm
I could still vote if you stick a prune in my voter roll.
I don't believe in the the theory of gravity (I believe in invisible aliens pushing stuff down), I know evolution is a rock band on the internet.
No matter what libruls say I still will vote for the polititians the billionaires TeeVee ads tell me is the best one to save our freedoms.
by Anonymous ncd (not verified) on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 4:38pm
Oh yeah? Yeah? Well, Verified Atheist believes that cats can be alive and dead at the same time, and they let HIM vote, how 'bout that? And he thinks there some kinda invisible soup that drags on everything and THAT's why stuff pulls other stuff and so there's gravity, sorta...So HE's crazier than YOU, and they let HIM vote...
Edit to add: The guy who owns the cat, however, is definitely dead, if that helps...
by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 5:37pm
Urban myth, actually: Schrödinger had a dog. Not even a nice dog, but still... "Schrödinger's dog" has no pizazz to it, a marketing disaster - & how can you hold an erudite discussion on quantum mechanics when the subject is rolling around pissing himself? Thus the pussy. I'll leave it to you as class exercise to continue this thread.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 6:03pm
Urban myth, actually: Schrödinger had a dog.
You motherfucker, you've broken my heart!
by jollyroger on Fri, 03/07/2014 - 6:21pm
Now you've let the cat out of the bag...er...box.
by Lurker on Sat, 03/08/2014 - 5:16am