Samantha
Samantha's JournalThe way Obama is chipping away at Romney is politically masterful
Despite opposition criticism regarding the campaign from even those in his party, Obama set a strategic course and has stayed with it. It is impossible for me to see how anyone could at this point criticize his progressively decimating attack on his opponent. Muhammad Ali would rate it "Rope-a-Dope" plus!
Sam
I am not arguing with you but I see things a bit differently
It is not just the written letters in the words of the law that matter, it is also the intent. One of the biggest horrors in that Supreme Court ruling was that the Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to become involved in state elections; it delegates that right to conduct Presidential elections to the states themselves, provided each outlines the rules in their state constitutions prior to the election. This Florida had done.
Two years prior to election 2000, there was a contest of a mayoral election by a candidate who disputed his loss. The "winner" of that election was in office a good amount of time before the lawsuit was resolved. It turned out the candidate actually occupying that seat did not literally win, and the plaintiff in the suit was declared the victor. Resolving this kind of debacle would not happen again, the Florida legislature amended its state constitution to modify the procedures for contesting/protesting an election. The revised rules were the ones Gore went by, and the Republicans, who were using the old rules, ridiculed him saying he was a sore loser.
The last word in that 2000 election properly belonged to the Florida Supreme Court. In that opinion, that Court said "the right to vote is paramount", which to me is indisputable. That Court ordered the resumption of the recount, which the Supreme Court using that equal weight rule and also falling back on the Safe Harbor provision blocked. It had absolutely no legal justification to interfere. The Florida Supreme Court should have had the last word.
But the threats you mention the Florida legislature having made previously to still send a Republican slate to the Electoral College even if Gore prevailed in the recount was also an unconstitutional move. One cannot change the rules of the election (Constitutionally) after the popular vote but before the counting of the electoral college votes for that particular election. In order to be valid, if rules are changed after an election, they cannot go into effect until the next election. This is to prevent the "fixing" of election results, which of course was what the Florida legislature was attempting to do, but had they actually done this, the Electoral College could have not counted that slate from Florida (and there was precedent (yes, rare, but existing) for doing so. This latter information is discussed by David Bois in his book Courting Justice but unfortunately, this argument was not publicly presented during the recount controversy to offset Republican threats.
In hiding behind that equal weight argument and the Safe Harbor provision, the Supreme Court discounted 51 million votes nationwide. I ask you, how can one argue a failure to apply the equal weight argument is less than fair to those who voted the first time in a state election and more fair to those whose votes were not counted as a legal means to justify what happened in one state as a weapon to punish the voters nationwide? It can't be logically justified.
And speaking of logic, that Safe Harbor provision was written by the authors to ensure that the pony express riders left on horseback on time, carrying the slate of electors vote to the Electoral College in time to be included in its official count. In the days of electronic submission, Federal Express, UPS and other alternatives, exactly why would one observe the literal words of the Constitution rather than the intent. The intent of those words was states needed to get their results to the Electoral College in order for them to be counted, an intent totally disregarded by Scalia, et. al.
On so many levels, that Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision should have never happened. On another level, I continue to be appalled at Scalia's distortions on these issues and his chronic appearances on cable totally misrepresenting the facts to the public. And no one contradicts him. The last appearance he made when he referred to the Bush v. Gore decision, he said the Supreme Court decided the case because that was what Gore wanted. That was always Jim Baker's goal from the inception of the controversy, to get the issue to the Supreme Court, which he knew would rule in Bush's favor. Gore was always opposed at that point to the courts deciding the issue because the knew at least half the Country would never recognize the winner of a lawsuit as the legitimate winner of the election. And so right he was about that.
I apologize for this long post, but this is one issue that always sets me off.
Sam
That is such a horrendous lie I cannot believe he said that
It was ALWAYS Baker's intention to get the matter decided by the Supreme Court, and that was from the early moments when the recount dispute broke. They (meaning the Republicans) knew if they could just get it there, Bush* would prevail. Notice I avoided the use of the word "win."
That is exactly why so many taunts were issued to Al Gore, hoping they could goad him into suing. But Al Gore knew half the Country would never accept the one who won a lawsuit as "legitimate." And he was so right about that. So the Republicans filed the first lawsuit, although one reads to the contrary sometimes, because Gore did not budge.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court had absolutely no authority to undo the Florida Supreme's Court decision. The Constitution clearly delegates the authority to run elections to the states, provided each outlines their election laws clearly in their state constitutions. Florida did have its rules outlined, unfortunately both its old ones and its new ones, in its Constitution. Bush played by the old rules, and Gore followed the ones enacted two years before the Presidential election -- contesting the election results and the steps outlining exactly the procedures to be followed.
Once the Florida Supreme Court ruled with its famous words, "The right to vote is paramount" (and that is so true), the matter should have ended with its ruling. For the Supreme Court to intervene based on that Safe Harbor provision (a provision enacted during the days the Pony Express carried the electoral college votes to Washington for the official count and was intended to set a deadline on when the horse and the rider had to be dispatched!) and that frivolous equal weight bomb which didn't even apply to the situation IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OUTRAGE AND MANY WILL NEVER GET OVER. WE JUST LIVE AND LEARN FROM IT ON A CONTINUAL DAILY BASIS.
And your legacy, Scalia, will be that history will regard you as one of the enablers that selected Bush* to be President, a man not qualified in the least to do so and not the winner of the popular vote or the legitimate winner of the electoral college vote since that Florida slate should not have been counted since it violated the state's own constitutional provisions, and in so doing, Scalia you put a man in the Oval Office who TANKED this Country, cost people their jobs, their lives and their trust in their Government. THAT WILL BE YOUR LEGACY.
And YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GET OVER THAT.
Sam
He is a one of a kind
Someone at Current made that remark everyone is replaceable but that is not literally true. It is true that any one warm body can replace another but as for as quality of performance, Keith Olbermann is in a league of his own. No one can replace him. There have been several times I have missed his commentary so much. One of those was during the Wisconsin recall.
Another thing I wonder about is that lawsuit. Suddenly, everything went quiet. I am wondering if a settlement was reached or if a trial is in the making.
Everyone talks about Keith's mistakes and his ego, but he was correct about the technical glitches. I watched his show religiously and some I saw some for myself. They were worse than the usual ones you see on other networks. And not paying for the electric bill -- there is no excuse for that. Keith Olbermann is such a perfectionist who demands so much for himself I think he had zero ability to tolerate underperformance in those around him.
It is simply a shame that for the benefit of everyone, Current could not have seen fit to try and reach some approachable solution to the problems. Keith had several stellar "friends" and guests on his show, and those people were hurt as well. They were innocent bystanders.
As far as ego is concerned, I don't think anyone could strive to be a top-notch commentator in the big leagues without a super supply of confidence. Those are tremendously big jobs with horrendous schedules and stresses. It is also true networks are run with personnel of equally large egos. It is a pretty tricky terrain for all.
I certainly hope to see and hear Keith Olbermann again soon, but I don't even hear any rumors any more. Maybe he is not even trying too hard because he feels he needs a rest. He has suffered some big losses in recent years besides changing jobs. All of these are in the top ten stressors. I guess he needs some time. It happens to us all from time to time.
Sam
Let me ask you a volatile question
Hypothetically speaking, you find out a candidate for President over the last nine years made a gazillion million dollars but paid no taxes on it. You think about the fact that you are formerly a middle-class tax-paying American now tottering on the brink of poverty. Your blood pressure starts to rise when you remember this candidate endorsed the Ryan Plan. That is the Republican-endorsed plan which cuts taxes for the super wealthy but increases them on middle class and poverty stricken Americans while gutting the social safety net.
How could this possibly -- hypothetically speaking, of course -- happen?
It could possibly happen if that candidate declared to the IRS he or she made a nominal amount of income for a person in the wealthiest one-percent of Americans. That amount might be possibly $100,000. The balance of funds this individual realized during the current calendar tax year is in the millions of dollars. When added to the previous eight tax years, the total is a gazillion million dollars. In each of those tax years, the untaxed portion was investment income. The investment profit was sheltered using the carried-over interest provision in the tax code. There are clues which suggest this is a pattern of conduct habitually practiced.
It has been publicly reported that a number of extremely well-to-do individuals have millions of dollars in off-shore tax shelters, such as the Cayman Islands, Swiss banks, perhaps even Bermuda. These individuals have proposed bringing the millions home if the U.S. Government will agree to tax the monies at a rate not to exceed five percent.
Piece by piece, a picture starts to form. The clearer it becomes, the more outrage you feel. This candidate has the audacity to run for President of the United States after exhibiting a pattern of tax avoidance during a time of recession -- some argue a depression -- while publicly advocating that the middle class and impoverished persons pick up the slack tax evaders have created. Cut unemployment benefits, eradicate unions, cut food stamps but let them eat cake (as long as they bake it themselves).
Let me ask you a volatile question. Would the collective outrage of millions of voters realizing this ugly truth result in a tsunami of revulsion that would wash this individual's candidacy out of the political waters? Would this type of selfish, arrogant conduct be so repulsive to the collective voting public the revelation of this behavior would become the Bain of this candidate’s political life and Presidential quest?
What is your answer?
Sam
Opt out from the the Medicaid portion or the entire Act?
It has always been true that a state could opt out from the entire Act if it created legislation similar enough to the Act that the same consumer protections were in place. If they did, they could get funding for their individual program. Approximately 9 states have begun doing this (or are seriously studying it), and I am envious of those people who live in those states. The programs being implemented, such as in Vermont, are the same as single payer.
But states can also decline the Medicaid portion of this Act. What the Federal Government cannot do is cut off the current aid it is giving to those states which do this, but should a state refuse to accept the funds for the Medicaid portion of the Federal law, they will not receive the increased funding provided under that law. At its inception, the Federal Government will fund Medicaid at the state level I believe at 100 percent for 3 years; then it starts to gradually drop down to like 95, then 90 percentages (approximately). I am not sure quite where it levels off. It seems to me this is so generous that any state that declined it would probably be one with a Republican Governor who did so for political reasons, not economic ones.
Regarding all the discussion on this thread about labeling the penalty a tax, the Dems always knew it was the equivalent of a tax but thought for PR reasons it would be better to call it a penalty. As time progressed in the negotiations of enacting the Federal legislation, the Dems did whittle away at the amount of the penalty (and/or tax) clauses, stripping the IRS of the ability to for instance attach a person's wages for non-payment or taking assets. They did so (whittled away) because the Dems from the beginning were always against a mandate -- it was the Republicans who insisted on it. The penalty is waived for those making small salaries, and kicks it at a certain level of I think about $40,000 yearly. At that point, if one does not buy coverage, he or she will be penalized/taxed about $100. No pay - no problem.
Attorneys defending the Act, said even if it were found to be not Constitutional to enforce the mandate because those judging read the Commerce differently, the fact of the matter was that that penalty was indeed a tax, just not labeled as such in the wording of the legislation. And the Federal Government is empowered to levy taxes. Roberts agreed with that argument.
Those judges in fact reading the Commerce Clause differently bought the plaintiffs' assertions that people not now covered were not participating in commerce, and thus they could not be fined.
See -- pretty simple right?
Sam
There are so many myths about this election it is difficult to address them all in a single thread
The Republicans' threat to still submit a Republican slate of electors to the electoral college regardless if the recount continued and Gore prevailed, was an unconstitutional move which if truly carried out would have enabled the Electoral College to not count Florida's slate. Of course, we do know who presided over that vote, but that still would have not changed the unalterable facts. It is unconstitutional to change the way a state government selects its slate of electors after an election has been held but before the electoral college meets. Florida's state constitution outlined how that slate would be decided, and even the state legislature could not constitutionally change the state constitution and changed that process after the vote but before the electoral college met. This is irrefutable. That of course did not stop the Republicans from threatening it and many people believing they would do exactly this.
Three counties in Florida NEVER submitted its final tallies for consideration in any of the re-examination of the ballots conducted by the papers at a later time. They refused and even though pressure was applied until the last minute, these three counties still held out. It would have been impossible to have a truly accurate assessment by the papers without all counties' ballots being considered. This is a little known fact.
Yes one can disagree with the ruling by simply saying the Supreme Court had no constitutional authority to even challenge the Florida Supreme Court's decision. The clear reading of the U.S. Constitution turns the running of the Presidential election over to the states, and each state is to have in its State Constitution a specific outline for how the election will be handled. The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to challenge the results of a Presidential election conducted by any state as long as the state constitution is in place and is followed. None. Well, actually it has no authority to challenge a state's slate that should do that; that is the responsibility of the Electoral College, and there is precedent it has happened.
And beyond that using a law that was enacted during the days of the Pony Express delivering the slate of electors to the Electoral College, the Safe Harbor provision which deadline was enacted so that the horses would leave the states on time in order to arrive before the votes were counted is no excuse in the 21st Century to discount 51 million votes nationwide. None.
That is it for this evening. Hope I didn't make any silly mistakes because of the lateness of the hour, but this is one issue that always merits a comment regardless of the lateness of the evening.
Sam
I want to tell you a story
I was inspired by Sheepshank's thread to tell you a story. Here goes.
Some time ago, I relocated to a small rural area in the panhandle of West Virginia. Having grown up for the most part and having been educated in the DC metropolitan area, I lived in a state of culture shock for the first five years. I could tell you many incidents that would surprise you, but the one that came to mind as I read Sheepshank's thread was the one that involved a visit with my former husband's friend in rural Pennsylvania.
He and his wife were very friendly and talked of life events in the area in which they lived. His wife in particular focused on a couple down the road where the husband habitually beat his wife to keep her in line. To my shock and horror, the husband said many men in that area thought the Bible taught that a man should discipline his wife in the same manner he would his children if she sinned against God or failed to submit to her husband, the head of the household.
"But he really hurts her when he beats her, and it happens all the time," his wife weakly objected. Perhaps she did not want to risk appearing to question a husband's authority....
One day we returned for another visit, and the wife volunteered another installment of the ongoing problems down the road. It turned out one night when the husband went to bed and fell asleep, his wife tied him up with the bedsheets. She picked up his baseball bat and then proceeded to beat the -- shall I say the Bejesus -- out of him. Things had quietened down considerably since that incident.
I rode home that evening for a short while in stone silence, not being able to believe some of the things I was learning about cultural beliefs held by some in the midst of where I now lived. I quietly looked over at my companion behind the wheel, and said, "Always remember, regardless of what happens, YOU GOTTA SLEEP SOME TIME. He looked shocked momentarily, but then broke into laughter and said he would keep that in mind.
For the remaining duration of my life in West Virginia, when things would happen that seemed headed towards a disagreement between the two of us, take a wild guess at the line that was always my opening response. Good natured that he was, those simple words always diffused whatever tension had arisen.
As all good stories end, that couple in question lived happily ever after with a newly-found sense of parity of their relationship.
Sam
There is both the Big Lie and the Unknown Truth that should be under our political microscope
We discuss the Big Lie often but what about the unknown truth? What is the unknown truth?
One of the reasons several pension funds in many states do not have enough money is because during previous years some state governors did not deposit the required contributions at the time required. In New Jersey, for instance, one governor took a "tax holiday" and skipped some payments some years. I know this also happened in Pennsylvania because I have heard Ed Rendell say when he became Governor of Pennsylvania one of things he had to work on was the underfunding of the pension plans. He mentioned payments due in the past into the plan had not been made, and that was a problem. I have also seen stories over the years where this has happened in other states but cannot remember exactly which states those were. I believe California might have been one.
So when it is said what a "burden" these plans present to states, part of that "burden" is the inside information that the state has in some years not paid that which it was legally required to contribute. To change the laws in some cases to lessen or alleviate pension benefits would help offset those past missed donations and relieve the state of the burden to restore that which it should have contributed in past years.
Basically, it is the same principle being applied to Social Security. The U.S. Government has accrued 2.6 Trillion in a Social Security Trust Fund (and there is a Medicare Trust Fund as well that we never hear about) backed by U.S. Treasury Bonds. Those funds have been spent, and Geithner himself has spoken publicly about the difficulty in selling bonds during this time when so many countries have depressed economies.
Guess what? The time has come to pay the pipers (that would be the babyboomers) and the till is empty. Therefore, "Social Security is broke" and must be reformed. Medicare as well. Translation: the U.S. Government needs to relieve itself of part of this debt it cannot repay. It just must reframe the situation to one it can sell to its citizens, and that reframing does not include the literal truth but a different version of the truth that sounds plausible. We have heard several versions by different politicians, have we not?
Additionally, during a crisis situation, the U.S. Government has the legal authority to "borrow" from funds accrued in government employee pension plans. One of the times it did so was right after 911, immediately following the terrorists' attacks. There was a public statement to assure the citizens that we would still be able to run our government despite the fact Wall Street had been shut down, and this was how we could partially accomplish that. The money would be paid back.
During the government shutdown engineered by the Republicans (of course), another public statement was made that during this time the U.S. Government would "borrow" funds from the government employees' pension plans. There is a law which enables the government to do this. In all honesty, during these difficult economic times, should I believe those funds have now been restored? When I hear what a -- here is that word again -- "burden" these plans are putting on government revenue and there must be "reform", cynic that I am I start pondering is the problem the fact the U.S. Government has in that arena borrowed money it cannot repay.
So we have the Big Lie and the Unknown Truth and the Spin to sort through. Personally, my view is that when one borrows money from another, there is a legal and a moral obligation to pay back that debt. Don't float trial balloons to mask the problem and ask for "sacrifice." We the people are just not that gullible.
At least we are aware of the Big Lie. The Unknown Truth is just what is the extent of the underfunding and borrowing from citizens' monies and how will that debt be relieved? Stay tuned.
Sam
If you know anything about catbirds swooping down on people and dogs, please stop here
I am almost a prisoner in my house because I have these two catbirds outside which swoop down on me when I go out the front door. Once the bird actually clipped my shoulder. I have taken to acting like a crazy lady about this situation because it has gone on for three days now and I am clueless how to handle it. I am scared to death of these birds. I went out this morning, and one of them chronically hovered around me trying to dive onto my body (or something!).
I do know they have a nest two bushes over from my front door. The baby birds have hatched, and these two birds take care of them. I am sure they are swooping down on me to discourage me from approaching the nest, but believe me, I make it a point to steer away from that bush. Additionally, the next bush over some robins have a nest. The catbirds are constantly going after the robins tending their young. There are a lot of scuffles and screeching all over the place. I also saw one of the catbirds go after a squirrel walking down my driveway, it was small and I thought the catbird was going to get the better of it. Thankfully, the squirrel managed to get away.
But the bottom line here is I feel ready to break down over this situation. I of course need to go out and water my flowers and lawn, wash my car and take my dog Cheyenne out several times a day.
If you have any experience with catbirds and know how I can deflect them from swooping down on me (and/or my dog) when I exit my house, please, please, please volunteer that information now.
Thank you in advance for any advice you might have to offer.
Cheyenne thanks you as well.
Sam
PS I can't move the bird's nest. That is the only suggestion I have received from my neighbors, but I just can't do it. I want to leave that nest alone.
Profile Information
Member since: 2001Number of posts: 9,314
