EckerNet.Com

It’s a message from his holiness again!

Kevin –

Bammy!!

Last Thursday’s first-of-its-kind summit capped off a debate that has lasted nearly a year.

You do realize not EVERYTHING you do is historic right?

Every idea has now been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable and gets more dire each day. Today, I want to state as clearly and forcefully as I know how: Now is the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America.

Er, hate to point this out, but you did forget one critical step. You forgot to consider the opinion of the American people, who have been trying to tell you in every way possible, be it polls, mid-term elections, whatever, that they hate this shit pile of a bill.

The final proposal I’ve put forward draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans at last week’s summit. It will put Americans in charge of their own health care, ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families need and deserve.

You realize that your bill is self-contradictory right? You can’t suddenly add a bunch of people to a failing government program and have it NOT dramatically increase in price AND introduce rationing AND reducing quality. Price caps have NEVER worked, they’ve only created shortages and lower quality. Which when we’re talking health care is a rather fatal mistake.

I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts.

Oh yeah, we owe the public an up or down vote on this bill the public hates.

One Republican vote is NOT bi-partisan, and even that one Republican has changed their mind. Actually more Democrats voted against this than Republican have voted for it. The only thing bi-partisan about this bill is the opposition to it.

And there is nothing routine about what you’re doing. If this had the support you’re trying to pretend it did, it would have passed before Thanksgiving of last year. You’re having to cram it through a method reserved for budgetary bills to get around the fact that you just don’t have the support for this bill.

Plus, it’s misleading to say this bill passed both the House and Senate, because it’s actually two very different bills that have passed each. And you’re now proposing yet a THIRD bill.

Earlier today, I asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And now, I’m asking you, the members of the Organizing for America community, to raise your voice and do the same.

Fair enough, but while you’re waiting for them, how about you listen to the vast majority of the public who has been raising their voice and letting you know what they think for months now. People that have never been involved in the political process have been showing up to rallies. Polls have consistently shown the public hates this bill. Nobody wants a massive government takeover of anything anymore.

The final march for reform has begun, and your participation is crucial. Please commit to join with me to take reform across the finish line.

Fair enough, if you want to lead a herd of lemmings, that’s your deal. And I’m certainly not going to stand in your way, but watch the first step off that cliff.

Essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Never again will the mother with breast cancer have her coverage revoked, see her premiums arbitrarily raised, or be forced to live in fear that a pre-existing condition will bar her from future coverage.

Is this another one of those tales of woe that turn out not to be true, just like every other one you’ve shared??

Second, my proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. And my proposal says that if you still can’t afford the insurance in this new marketplace, we will offer you tax credits based on your income — tax credits that add up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history.

Does that mean you’re going to agree to be covered under this plan as well??

Finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for everyone — families, businesses, and the federal government — and bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. These savings mean businesses small and large will finally be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. With costs currently skyrocketing, reform is vital to remaining economically strong in the years and decades to come.

You’ve made claims like this before, but they’ve always proven incorrect. In fact it usually means that people will be dropped from their employer’s insurance and be forced to join the government program, even if they were fine with their employer’s coverage.

In the few crucial weeks ahead, you can help make sure this proposal becomes law. Please sign up to join the Organizing for America campaign in the final march for reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/commit

Doesn’t it concern you that while you’re having to plead to get people to push for this, millions of every day voters are coming out without prompting to oppose this legislation??

When I talked about change on the campaign, this is what I was talking about: coming together to solve a huge problem that has been troubling America for 100 years and standing up to the special interests to deliver a brighter, smarter future for generations to come.

Seriously? THIS is what you were talking about?

Coming together? This has been the most partisan railroading we’ve seen in a long time. Standing up to special interests? They wrote most of the bills, and you’ve been having closed backroom meetings with them to craft these bills in secret.

I look forward to signing this historic reform into law. And when I do, it will be because your organizing played an essential role in making change possible.

Historic, you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

It was your pleasure I’m sure.

Hmmm, I imagine this exercise video actually works pretty well.  Although to be fair, at least half of the weight loss would be due to frequent vomiting.

[H/T : Lloyd]

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on McDonald vs Chicago, and while the transcript is 77 pages longs, it makes for an interesting read.  It seems all but certain that that court that SCOTUS will rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the initial pages of the transcript it appeared as if the Petitioners lawyer Alan Gura, was woefully unprepared, as he was arguing for incorporation via the Privileges and  Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which nobody on the court seemed even remotely interested in considering.  Not just because it essentially runs contrary to about 140 years of law, but also because justices were concerned about just how many other rights would come along with that sort of incorporation.  In retrospect though, I think Gura’s argument was more skillful framing than anything else, as it essentially made incorporation via due process seem like the measured and reasonable option.

Most of the debate seemed to center just how much jurisprudence comes with the Second Amendment in it’s incorporation, to which both Clement (NRA) and Gura argued, that’s of minimal concern because short of Heller, there really is no jurisprudence regarding the Second Amendment at the moment.  It’s difficult to gauge how much traction that argument got, because the argument generally seemed to focus on several other points.

On one hand Heller essentially related strictly to the use of a handgun in self-defense in ones home, so does incorporation just relate to that narrowly defined definition of the Second Amendment or a broader understanding of what it means to keep and bear arms.  To that end, it seemed pretty firmly established by even the liberal bloc of the court that the rights to keep and bear arms and of self defense preceded the Bill of Rights and would exist even absent a Second Amendment. Despite several Justices demonstrating some discomfort with incorporating a broad view of the Second Amendment, the point was made several times that it would be unwise, and contrary to court history, to establish a Federal understanding of the Second Amendment, and then a watered down version that applies to the States.

The lawyer, Feldman, representing the city of Chicago was worse than ineffective in the argument, with even the liberal bloc of the court, stopping just short of openly mocking his arguments.  It was clear that Feldman was never really able to argue his point because he was continuously interrupted by Justices pointing out flaws in the basis for his arguments.  In fact at several points, Feldman seemed to try to revist Heller and argue against it’s findings…a position that did not find any support amongst the Justices.  Even Justice Kennedy, whose support is critical to any pro-gun-control victory, seemed a little irritated by the suggestion that Heller might not say that the right to self-defense was not a fundamental right.

Eventually, Feldman’s arguments seemed to eventually boil down to “Sure I’m wrong, but guns are icky”.  A viewpoint which was roundly dismissed by Scalia who pointed out that this case shouldn’t be decided on the basis of statistics, but rather determining what the minimum constitutional right was and everything above that is up to the States.

To be quite honest, it was sort of hard to gauge the thoughts of the liberal bloc of the court, since the argument of Feldman was such a disaster that none of the more liberal Justices really had a chance to argue for their likely view of the issues.  Trying to navigate Feldman’s ramblings was futile and counter-productive to trying to make a statement for a gun-control approach to the issue.

In summary, it seems that incorporation is a slam dunk via the due process clause.  How much of the Second Amendment is codified by this ruling is probably the point of dispute at this point.  While it seems likely that SCOTUS will find a Second Amendment broader than that defined in Heller is incorporated, it remains to be seen how broad that is.  In fact, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to revel in the mystery  of that, pointing out several times that they’ve never said anything of the content of the Second Amendment beyond what is in Heller.

The issue of “reasonable regulation” was barely touched, and seems destined to not be addressed by this case.  It seems likely that the eventually finding will cite a very loose definition of the Second Amendment as it’s incorporated against the States, and leave it to lower courts to define what constitutes reasonable, as there is existing case law defining “reasonable regulation” for other rights.

I would expect this to be one of the last cases decided by SCOTUS, because while there was broad agreement on the overriding issue, the details seemed to be a source of a lot of speculation by the Justices.  Of course, I could be wrong on that last point, because like I pointed out, getting a read on the liberal bloc of the court was exceedingly difficult.

[Crossposted at True North]

I have been a BPOU chair since 2005, and a BPOU-level officer since 2001.  In that time, I have seen “slates” employed at BPOU conventions twice: in the hotly contested gubernatorial endorsement races of 2002 & 2010.

In 2002 both major candidates had slates at my convention.  I was on the “wrong” one for my BPOU, and, as a “new guy” in a re-districted BPOU, I was left as neither a delegate nor alternate for the marathon Pawlenty-Sullivan convention.  I went anyway to see some outstanding political theater- and had the benefit of being able to leave at a reasonable hour.

It struck me that despite there being slates, supporters of both sides got elected from my BPOU, beginning with the most recognized “names” such as elected officials and the top leadership.

Fast forward to 2010 and another contested race for governor.  This time, instead of being on the wrong slate, I was on no slate.  This is because 1) I was and remain undecided and 2) I wanted to be able to chair our convention without the appearance of favoritism.  Despite one candidate concluding his speech with an appeal for my support, I re-iterated my uncommitted status in my long, rambling, “vote for me as a delegate” pitch.  And, I was elected.

It seemed to me that just one of the major candidates organized a slate at our convention.    What occurred confirmed the some of the intuition I had in 2002.

We had 10 of our BPOU executive committee members run.  Nine were elected delegates and one is a high alternate.  Whether they were on a slate or not, these folks got elected.

So, if you are an individual seeking to be a state delegate, the surest route to success in our BPOU was to be active as a BPOU executive committee member. This entire group was elected delegate or a high alternate regardless of their “slating” status.  Almost all of these people ran unopposed for their positions at our convention last year.  Great foresight, and/or a reward for folks that had stepped forward as leaders.

We also had nine people run that I consider “core” folks at our BPOU conventions.  These are people that are at almost every BPOU convention and are names and faces recognizable to many of the local delegates. These include current & former elected officials, former BPOU officers, & “long-time activists”.   Seven were elected.  Again being on a slate would have appeared to have no real impact on whether this tier of folks got elected.

So, does this strategy work for a candidate?  If Minnesota Democrats Exposed’s count is to be believed the candidate whose supporters used the slate went from losing the caucus straw poll in our BPOU to winning the delegate count by a substantial margin.  While part of that was winning over some people who presumably would have been elected anyway, the ability to get the more anonymous candidates across the line was huge.  I think this makes sense since slating combines votes that might otherwise be scattered.

Is it unfair?  Looking down the list of who was not elected I am sure a handful of people might think so as their status might be a step below what it was before due to slating.

As a BPOU chair, I have no idea how I would prevent it.  You can’t stop people from discussing who they might want to vote for whatever the reason.  I guess we could have banned all paper on the floor during this process, and people would have to have the information written on their hands Sarah Palin-style.  Practically, I think there’s no way to prevent it.

I am certain that there are “slated” delegates that will go to the state convention and never show up for anything again.  However in past years we have had people elected without slates that went to the state convention and never showed up for anything again.  From an organizational perspective, I don’t see a big loss here.  The flip side is a “slated” delegate who might not otherwise participate may go to the convention, catch the bug, and decide to stick around and help.

Back to an earlier point- in my BPOU the delegates clearly respected the folks who have worked over time for the benefit of the BPOU- the executive committee.  Incrementally votes may have been gained or lost by being on a slate, but the work was rewarded.  Bottom line: if you want to have influence in the process, becoming active and staying active is the best way to gain it.

[Crossposted at True North]

For those of us who are passionate about the Second Amendment, Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010, is the day we’ve been waiting for since June 27th, 2008.   For years, the Second Amendment has been the forgotten and neglected step child of the Bill of Rights, until that day when the Supreme Court declared that, just like every other right detailed in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment referred to individuals, not the military.  And while, Heller vs DC alone was a great victory for the Second Amendment and US Citizens, it also had one noticeable shortcoming, which may very well have been intentional.  As I, and others, observed at the time…

My one major disagreement with the decision, and part of the focus of Breyer’s dissent, is that the majority doesn’t really indicate what degree of regulation states can use on the use of firearms. It would be nice to have some sort of guideline or I fear that we’ll be right back in this same spot in the future.

Turns out that that was a rather prophetic statement, as indeed we are right back where we were.  We have no idea what constitutes reasonable regulation and local governments have claimed the ruling didn’t apply.  So once again, we’re back to a similar question….does the Second Amendment, like every other right detailed in the Bill of Rights, apply to state and local governments via the 14th Amendment?  We’re about to get our answer in McDonald vs Chicago….whose oral arguments start today….actually by the time most of you read this, they will have already started.

So what’s going to happen?  Well, it seems incredibly likely that the court will rule that incorporation applies to the Second Amendment, as I noted five months ago…

Already the Brady campaign is openly accepting that the Second Amendment is likely to be incorporated.  Instead, the contention seems to be falling along the same lines as Heller did.  Both sides are conceding the fundamental question and are instead debating the details, basically what consists of reasonable regulations.

Essentially this case will take the two extremes of the debate out of the equation.  Outright bans and unrestricted ownership/possession will be out.  Even Scalia in Heller noted that while outright bans were certainly unlawful, reasonable regulation had to be allowed.  That same standard will likely apply.  It will come down to the question of what regulation is reasonable.  Essentially what is the Second Amendment equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre?

I don’t see anything that would significantly change any of that.  Heller pretty adamantly declared that outright bans were verboten, but then again, even Scalia conceded some regulation was okay.

It’s also quite possible, that the US Supreme Court will maintain an extremely focused view of this case, and only address the incorporation issue, and leave the definition of “reasonable regulation” completely untouched.  In fact, I increasingly believe that will be the case.  Throughout it’s history the US Supreme Court has abhorred the idea of sweeping changes and landmark decisions, preferring an incremental approach to interpreting the law.  That’s not together an unwise approach to things…in fact it’s the approach Republicans are advocating right now in relation to health care reform.

So arguments begin on Tuesday, and SCOTUS has already indicated they will not release the audio of the arguments, only written transcript at the end of the day, so look for that.  And expect a very narrow ruling on this issue, that likely will not define reasonable regulation, but instead will leave that for a future case, just as Heller did.

For those of you not involved in the Minnesota political scene, you probably didn’t realize this last weekend, was the local equivalent of Super Saturday.  Approximately 128% of the BPOUs across the state had their BPOU Conventions, where state level candidates were endorsed and delegates were selected to represent the BPOU at higher party levels.  Those selected delegates actually have a lot of duties, but several stand out.  They pick the higher level GOP candidates such as for US Congress or  Governor, they also amend the party’s platform and modify the constitution of those organization and other such duties.

So I naturally expected much analysis and punditry about what happened this last weekend.  What I didn’t expect is a lot of complaining about slates, especially from people who should be used to it by now.  To put it quite simply a slate is a group of people who are running for delegate positions who share a common goal, in this case it’s who people favor for the MN Governor slot.  You vote for the others on your slate, and they vote for you.  The idea being that you stack the deck with your own people, and try to prevent others from getting a seat at the table.

Quite honestly it’s one of the oldest and most simple of political strategies.  Sure it’s slightly distasteful, because even before you walk into the convention you know who you’re voting for, and it’s without regard to any other merit than their position on a single issue.  Is it ideal?  No, but it’s also been part of the world’s second oldest profession since it started bearing a resemblance to the world’s oldest profession.  And quite honestly I’m surprised people still get upset about it.  Especially when those same people show no problem with Get Out The Vote efforts, which anyone that’s being honest will admit that you absolutely do NOT want to get THE voters out, you want to get YOUR voters out.  Same concept.

Slates are a political reality, but they also reflect the organizational level of a candidate, and a good organization is absolutely critical for any election year.  As a result, slates make sense for more reasons than just getting “your people” to the convention.  It also gives the person with the best organization an advantage for endorsement.  And how does one get the best organization?? Volunteers and money.  And both come from having a platform and a set of principles that resonate within the base.

There is a reason that Herwig and Leslie didn’t have slates that dominated many of the BPOU Conventions this weekend.  They don’t have an existing organization willing to commit the time and effort to get the work done needed to generate slates.   If a candidate can’t get a smooth running campaign going in the endorsement process, who are they going to suffer slings and arrows of an election campaign?  Consider it a trial run, and the slate is a report card of sorts.

As to concerns that delegates have more duties than just selecting a candidate in an election year.  Yeah, that’s true.  What’s your point?? Are these delegates any less qualified to do that?  Are you implying that because they had the foresight to organize and the political awareness to gain the advantage, they will suddenly lack those abilities when it comes to fulfilling other duties?  No offense but that’s silly.

And as to protests that the state convention is still two months away, well that’s true, but again, what’s your point?  Nobody on those slates have sworn to anything.  They just stated it’s their current intention to vote for a particular candidate.  Whose to say that doesn’t change?  Most of the slates were secret, nobody has anything on the line.  It’s not like they lose face if they switch candidates.  If my current candidate gets caught sitting on a pile of blow next to a dead hooker, guess what?  I’m switching candidates…and not just because I didn’t get invited to that party.

Slates are slightly distasteful but they’ve been around forever, and politics isn’t a strawberry festival.  It’s dirty.  It’s cheap.  It’s long and arduous and as such if you don’t have a top notch organization behind you, you’re in trouble.  Slates don’t change that, if nothing else they just prove you can handle the most basic of concepts….organizing your supporters.

[Crossposted at True North]

Yeah, I know I’ve been slacking lately but heh, the customer is in town all week so I’m busy.  So instead of insightful commentary that leaves you breathless at it’s genius you get pithy snarky comments that leave you breathless at their brilliance….totally different.

If there ever comes a time that there is not a ready supply of delicious bacon, and therefore there is a need for “Tactical Bacon“, I don’t want to live in that world.

Finally we’re all in agreement, women are insane.

I’m not surprised, but further proof that Republicans just haven’t learned and are dooming themselves.  Even after all the Tea Parties and the criticizing Democrats for spending frivolously, Republicans still lead the earmarks list.  If you want Tea Party activists to take the Republican Party seriously, this is NOT the way to do it.  This is the way to virtually ensure a Third Party challenge from the Tea Party.

I bet the Department of Homeland Security has “lost” more guns in restrooms and the like, then have supposedly fallen into criminal hands via the mythical “gun show loophole”.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia…

At least they weren’t made “unpersons”…

Utah passes a gun regulation exemption bill, similar to Montana’s.  There are also several other states making serious attempts towards similar bills.  It’s not so much the effect these bills themselves will have, but that yet another state is moving forward with this type of legislation.

Tea Parties show the Democrats have a serious demographics problem….especially since the elderly tend to vote at a far higher rate than most other voting blocks.

At one point Obama ridiculed his critics for thinking he was going to be a tax-and-spend liberal….now he’s agnostic about raising taxes on the middle class.

A cost-benefit analysis between Palin’s speech aids and Obama’s

White House admits that unemployment will get even worse in 2010….aren’t they also claiming that the stimulus totally worked?? The same stimulus that they insisted if we passed would mean unemployment would stay below 8%

A new study has revealed the mathematical formula for when the best time to get married is….according to that formula I just reached that age.  Hmmm, I dunno, someone’s gonna have to get me pregnant first.

When Bush used executive power he was a tyrannical fascist dictator, when Obama does it, it’s a savvy political move in the name of “progress”.

Didn’t we pick Michael Steel as chairman because he was a media savvy spokesman that would make the GOP look good on the national stage?  Or at the very least he wouldn’t show insanely Bidenesque qualities?

Military lessons from Gulf War II….interesting read.

Why is it that the White House feels the need to pick a fight with all their critics….I can’t remember an administration being THIS thin-skinned.

Neat, Swiss prostitutes are now a full service provider…you can get your sex, and if you have a heart attack during it, they are prepared and trained to use defibrillators.

And the movie industry wonders why people pirate films…

According to Bill O’Reilly, opposing government confiscation of firearms is an “extreme” view….nevermind that it’s the LAW and has been firmly upheld by the courts over and over.  Just ask the City of New Orleans that got their legal pee pee slapped for trying that during Katrina.

But according to Bill O’Reilly the government is perfectly excused to confiscate firearms from citizens during emergencies.  Nevermind, that during emergencies, when public services like police and fire are breaking down and/or strained to the limit, is the time private citizens need their firearms the most!  And if it’s such an emergency how can a government possibly have the resources to be confiscating firearms anyway.

Whatever the reason, either Bill O’Reilly has completely flipped his lid or whomever prepped him for this show was on drugs.  Because O’Reilly comes off as the kook here, and his guest as rationale and intelligent, and thoroughly patient with O’Reilly’s idiocy.

Congrats Bill, you had a great run.  Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.