Calitics - Recent Comments

NO isn't safe. Nor is it smart

mbayrob — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:14:14 GMT

Any "smart" politician who thinks that things will go easier in a base election by copping out on the vote tomorrow is not "smart" by any definition I know of.

There's a lot to dislike in the bill that's emerged from the sausage making process. But no bill is worse.

In a low turn-out election (which is what you would normally expect in a midterm election), it's not going to make a whit of difference to GOP voters how Sanchez votes tomorrow.

But in a low turn-out election, it's going to make one hell of a lot of difference whether unions and activists on our side turn out for Sanchez. And here, her vote is going to determine whether they turn out, or whether they concentrate on other races where the Democrat actually behaves like a Democrat.

If she wants those base voters, YES is the only position that will save her sorry ass in a bad year.

Yes on health care

DavidT — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:06:48 GMT

I strongly agree with Robert. If Loretta Sanchez stabs her constituents, her party leaders, and this administration in the back by voting no on health care, she can dream on about assistance in the fall. Hopefully this is one of those reports that is mistaken or overblown. It makes no sense, politically or as policy, for her to oppose this.

Effects of a NO vote on HCR

Navigator — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:27:23 GMT

The NO vote is the safe, as well as intelligent, place to be for Ms. Sanchez or any House member.

If HCR pases the right will bludgeon the Democratic party with all the bad features and gifts to Big Insurance and Pharma in the bill.

So will Progressives.

That's why almost everyone see big losses for Dems in November. Obama made a big mistake by screwing his base by not getting them single payer or at least a broad public option.

The smart politicians are not going to want to be defending the YES side of this disaster all summer.

You planning to amend the Constitution?

Robert Cruickshank — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:50:16 GMT

Birthright citizenship is conferred explicitly in the 14th Amendment. I'd rather not go fucking around with that, even if one could get a 2/3rds vote in Congress and 3/4ths of the states to approve it, which I doubt.

Win-Win idea?

mmunson — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:35:37 GMT

Revise the process of birthright citizenship to say 1 parent must be an american citizen, and then pass amnesty and the pernament partners bill at the same time.

We prevent the abuse of american generosity, we allow people who have set up roots (some illegally) with amnesty and we allow partners who are not entitled to marriage to stay in the country.

wait:

generic — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:17:41 GMT

But isn't that classic win-lose? The tactic wins in the primary, only to backfire in the general?

It seems like a plausible underdog strategy in a primary. Better to get past the primary and cross that next bridge when you come to it. Even with a loss, he's earns political capital among the hard right. (Which I guess would be lose-win.)

Pass the popcorn

generic — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:06:14 GMT

Here's to hoping we score some blatantly Lou-Dobbsian sound bites. "I supported Prop. 187" doesn't have quite the same zing as "They keep coming"

Which is probably why they have Murphy doling out the bad cop language, yes?