Massachusetts special senate election

[kiryan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/us/po ... ts.html?hp

Basically in a state where D outnumber R 3 to 1, the Republican candidate is said to be gaining a lot of traction and making it a close race... The D hasn't been campaigning because she felt the election was in the bag, but the R apparently gained a lot of ground.

If the D doesn't win (I have no idea how it will go) it will be because of her arrogance and because she failed to understand even what she herself has stated.

“The only people who come out in an election like this,” Ms. Marsh said, “are the diehards.”

Conservatives, tea partiers are pissed and are going to be the "die hards" that young people were in the presidential election.

[Corth]

Massachussets republicans usually are not all that conservative...

[kiryan]

Supposedly Brown is up 50 to 46 now with 3% going to an independent with the last name Kennedy.

In a state where D outnumbers R 3 to 1.

I want to point out a few things I think are simply ridiculous with regards to Massachusests.

1. The democrats in power changed the laws in 2004 because they thought John Kerry was going to win the presidential election and they didn't want Mitt Romney (R) to appoint someone to fill the seat. So they took that power away from the governor and required a special election.

2. After Ted Kennedy died, they changed the law back to allowing the Democratic governor to appoint someone to the seat.

3. If Brown (R) wins, the secretary of state for Mass has basically promised to delay to certify the results as long as legally possible and the democrats in the senate will attempt to rush the legislation to vote / delay seating Brown as long as possible.

Really, where do they get off? How do the sleep at night? I mean this ranks right up there with liberals criticism of Bush and Cheney making up WMD intelligence... How much more dishonest can you get?

[Corth]

Contrary to popular belief, Republicans do often win statewide office in Massachussetts. In fact, 4 of the past 5 governors have been Republicans, which includes Mitt Romney, a conservative.

This is essentially a mid-term election, and the party of the incumbent president almost always gets hammered in the mid-term. Obama's political strength is lower now than would otherwise be expected, as none of his core policy proposals have been passed, and in particular his healthcare proposal is broadly unpopular. Also weighing in favor of the Republican in this race is that the democratic candidate seems to make a particularly bad impression. For example, the recent incident where one of her staffers knocked over a reporter who was asking some tough questions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Republican here won - though he was trailing in the polls the last time I checked a few days ago.

[Corth]

BTW, Kiryan, I think the bit about not certifying the results won't become an issue. It would be absolutely the worst strategic move the Democrats could make. We tolerate acrimonious debate in this country, but a move that undermines the democratic basis of our form of government would be harshly denounced by all reasonable people.

[kiryan]

The governorship is about the only statewide office Republicans have won as far as I understand...

Yea all that jazz with midterms ect... They're all factors, its easy to see what you want to. I want to see a referendum on Obama and Healthcare and Democrats in general so if Brown is even close that'll be saying a lot (and nothing at the same time lol). What I would love to see... is regardless of who wins this Obama go on at the state of the union and say you know what I'm listening. We're going to scrap this and start over, but we will get healthcare reform done.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the delay in swearing him in ect... If they ram it through, it still gets done even if they get slaughtered in 2010... Democrats been fighting for this for how long? Whats the fear mongering line these days, if we don't pass it now we may not get another chance for another 15 years? They may choose to fall on their sword to "win" this great battle. Harry Reid is widely expected to lose his seat... "nuclear option" falls into this category as well... they've been threatening to do it for years... one of these days someone is gonna go hey maybe there won't be as much fallout as we expected...

But... I think it is over for this healthcare bill. This election is way too close and the moderate Democats and people are looking at it as a referendum... the competitive district Democrats have got to be scared pantless and this is BEFORE the union carve out on the cadillac tax. Unless Coakely blows Brown away, I doubt they can pass the senate version in the house let alone repass a compromise in both with or without the union carve out. They have 0 margin for error which means they are going to be hard pressed to play the usual political games where they let some vote against party line to look good in their districts. Maybe they'll vote for cloture then let some peel off for the final vote anyways.

It'll be very interesting to see how 2010 plays out. I'm too partsian to really hold any confidence in my predictions.

[kiryan]

Both senators for Nebraska were apparently very well liked (> 60% approval ratings) until the healtchare vote. Now apparently Nelson who voted for it is down to 42% while the R who voted against it still enjoys a 63% approval rating. Nelson won the 2006 election with 64% of the vote and an approval rating of 73%.

I think this bill is dead without bipartsian support. I don't see how the Democrats or the president can look at the scenarios shaping up all across America and not lose their moderate Democrats. Then again, I'm not sure what they can do to win people back short of Obama scrapping the bill and starting over with a very prominent role.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... -nebraska/

Sen. Ben Nelson's popularity in Nebraska has plummeted in the course of the health care debate, with a new survey putting the Democratic senator's approval rating at 42 percent.

According to the latest poll from The Omaha World-Herald, 48 percent disapprove of Nelson. Forty-four percent said his support for health care reform would count against him if he runs for re-election in 2012.
...
But the poll suggests he's taken a big hit at home for the role he's played, particularly considering how popular he was before he waded deep into the health care negotiations. A SurveyUSA poll from April 2006 showed he was the most popular senator in Congress, with a 73 percent approval rating. He won re-election that year with 64 percent of the vote.

Meanwhile, Nelson's Republican Nebraska counterpart, Sen. Mike Johanns, had a 63 percent approval rating. Johanns voted against the health bill.

[Corth]

Ironically, Nelson did quite a bit to further Nebraska's interests. He sold his vote for quite a bit of porn going to that state.

[kiryan]

No doubt...

The only thing I can come up wtih is voters are reacting pretty strongly to how it transpired not the results. He originally framed it as being about abortion, then he sold his vote (even if it was in the best interests of Nebraskans). So he pissed off pro choicers... then pissed off pro lifers... and no one gave him any credit for getting a great deal for his state. I mean that translates into lower taxes forever for Nebraska... and the people hate him?

[Corth]

Rofl.. I just realized I wrote 'porn' when I meant 'pork'. Freudian slip?!!

[Ragorn]

Jon Stewart said it best. "It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess.. it's that the Republicans are playing chess, and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because they glued their balls to their thighs again."

It's so hard to support a political party when they're so utterly incapable of performing.

[Corth]

Same sort of frustration that the Republicans felt during the past administration. Politicians always dissapoint their constituencies.

[kiryan]

yea i feel that... how about the party that pays lip service to its values and half the members are out there having affairs?

[kiryan]

I think I'm having an evilgasm!

Browne up 53 to 46 with 60% of the vote counted and it looks like the large urban centers are mostly counted already.

[kiryan]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... php?ref=mp

Kennedy is no relation to Ted Kennedy, whose death last year created the vacancy that tomorrow's election exists to fill. But the robocall's script -- which affirms that "Joe Kennedy is the name you can trust" -- suggests it may be designed to use the coincidence of names to confuse low-information voters into thinking that Joe Kennedy is the candidate backed by the famed Kennedy clan.

And this is deplorable (although defendable since "a name you can trust" is a time honored political slogan on both sides of the spectrum). I'm actually laughing howver since Coakley supporters have resoted to unabashed name calling for the last 3-4 days and using Republican like its a dirty word. OMG here comes the tea baggers!

BTW Kennedy has a masive 1% of the vote so lets just clear things up, its not a factor even though its despicable. Not only that, if a Kennedy had chosen to run, I'm sure it would've been perfectly fine to the Democrat establishment if he/she rode in on the coat tails of their name.

I'm so giddy, I'm going to take the kids out for ice cream and celebrate a deep wound in the heart of the Democratic party.

[kiryan]

Gibbs said he would wait until tomorrow to discuss the results of the election, but said the president was "not pleased" with how much the Democratic candidate, attorney general Martha Coakley, is struggling.

He said the White House didn't need a special election to note the "tremendous amount of upset and anger" among voters about "where we are economically... In many ways we're here because of that upset and anger."

Now... lets see if Obama is a man I can respect. This IS A REFERENDUM on healthcare, on Democrats and on him. If he stops the healthcare bill and sends it back to the drawing boards, he'll get my vote in 2012 against a McCain level candidate.

[kiryan]

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., said it would "only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Brown is seated."

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a fierce advocate for health care reform, also said it might be time to take a time-out on health care reform and focus on jobs.

Wahoo!

"We could go to something called 'reconciliation', which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn't require 60 votes, only a majority," Durbin said. "So that is one possibility there."

And someone who still doesn't understand what has happened. They didn't lose just 1 vote in the senate... they lost the moderate democrats as the signaling above indicates. They may not have 51 votes given how lethal this is to any Democrat running for re-election. I'm glad he's not actually in charge of anything (he's the senate majority whip lol).

"Regardless of the size of their minority caucus, Senate Republicans have always had an obligation to join us in governing our nation through these difficult times. Today's election doesn't change that. In fact it is now more important than before for Republicans to work with us rather than against us if we are to find common ground that improves Americans' lives," Reid said.

I love it, you're holding closed door negotiations without even using the normal formal process, specifically to exclude republicans, and now you want to talk about their responsibility to help you govern. You wouldn't craft a bipartsian bill because you didn't have to, now you're blaming the Republicans? Oh and I think the next quote pretty much says all there is to be said what Reid thinks about working with the minority party.

But that's not too likely. Reid could possibly have pushed away the only Republican in that chamber, moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, open to working with the Democrats on health care. She told The New York Times that she had "no intention of ever working anything out," calling it "a waste of time dealing with her."

Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern said the vote should be a "wake-up call" for Democrats that "now is the time for bold action."

LOL now that they have their carve out and delayed the process single handidly for a couple of weeks?

"The reason Ted Kennedy's seat is no longer controlled by a Democrat is clear: Washington's inability to deliver the change voters demanded in November 2008. Make no mistake, political paralysis resulted in electoral failure," Stern said.

LOL seriously? The Mass polls said that people were against the healthcare bill. Browne's primary policy statement was I WILL BE THE 41st VOTE TO BLOCK THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL. but this is about political paralysis and a crappy candidate (who slaughtered her competition in the primary)? He won by 5 points in a race that the other candidate was supposed to slaughter him? In a state where they haven't had a Republican senator in 40 years?

[kiryan]

You know, I also want to point out a CRITICAL miscalculation that was made.

If the Democrats in Mass had NOT changed the laws so they could ram healthcare through, they would've had a more partisian bill or still be working on a bill which would've probably prevented a lot of the anger from occuring or having a focal point... They'd have their 60th senator today and probably the governerships in Virginia and New Jersey that they lost. Probably impossible to predict but this was probably the critical mistake and the height of arrogance.

Now they are facing outright slaughter in 2010 (assuming the economy, specifically jobs, doesn't turn around significantly). Republicans are mad as hell about healthcare and voting. Independents are ... hard to figure out but perhaps disallusioned, perhaps irritated about the "we own you" attitude exhibited in Mass and in the Senate/House. How Democrats rewrite these narratives in 10 months is going to be interesting... because if they don't it'll make 1994 look like a minor rash.

[avak]

Man, this is an extremely disturbing change of course.

I just can't help but wonder what it would be like today if she had run a real campaign. Would it still be a referendum on Obama and his agenda or would it just be 'business as usual' in Boston? On the other hand, jesus, where was the Dem leadership to ensure the campaign was run properly?? What an abysmal failure.

I am absolutely disgusted that this could be the turning point for the progressive agenda. We can disagree on the agenda all day long, but Obama never got a chance to make the change he campaigned on. I mean, shit, today is the one year anniversary of his inauguration. It is hard to see how, in light of this epic failure and the obstructionist tactics of the Repubs, this could be anything but the beginning of the end for this administration.

I sincerely struggle with determining whether this is a true referendum on the agenda (I don't believe it is), a failure of the administration and Democratic party in their ability to lead or a result of highly effective counter attacks on the part of the Republicans.

Barring a major shift in tactics (and therefore public sentiment) 2010 is going to be a fn bloodbath.

[Corth]

The 'progressive agenda' is a non-starter because it conflicts with the values of most Americans. Same as the far right agenda. Sure Coakley may have won if she ran a better campaign. But the fact that Brown could even make it close speaks volumes. The tide is clearly turning towards the right (and away from liberal causes like universal healthcare), and democrat politicians who want to keep their job are going to go with the flow.

It is a bit of a fluke that someone like Obama could even be elected in this country. People were just really sick of the Republicans after the failed GWB administration. I agree that this is the beginning of the end for the administration. Obama came into office with big ideas for change, and figured he had a mandate, but the devil was in the details, and the US public, which as a whole is center, center-right, is not going for it. The dems would have gotten a lot more accomplished, incrementally, if they had picked moderate Hillary in the primaries.

[kiryan]

The Dem leadership to ensure the campaign was run properly? That is the very attitude that got Coakley's ass kicked out of office. The very attitude that got the dems into trouble on healthcare. You guys are not the boss, the American people are. Its not Ted Kennedy's seat, its the people's seat. Dems spent all summer calling tea party activists tea baggers, spent all summer saying that town hall meetings where people were hopping mad about healthcare were astro turfing by healthcare lobbyists. Spent all year saying how evil everything is and that only democrats can bring us into the promise land. YOu were drunk on your own arrogance.

Obama had all the time in the world to be a great president, but he allowed the liberal left to destroy it in less than 1 year. The first mistake was the stimulus that didn't stimulate jobs and the second was trying to bully the republicans into going along with the far left agenda. If there was a less grand sweeping bill, with REAL compromise, Democrats wouldn't be vulnerable like they are. You gave the republicans every excuse to be obstructionist gave them all the political cover they needed and then engaged in wholesale buying of votes and union favortism to really put that last nails in the coffin.

"Mr. Obama told ABC News that lawmakers should "move quickly to coalesce around" parts of the health-care bill that both parties can agree on, "core elements" that include insurance reform. "

Why didn't he do that in the first place? Isn't that what he campaigned on? Bipartsianship? But Harry and Nancy were a bunch of power drunk fools... Imagine the political capital that has just been wasted... All that bullying all those tough votes that put their members at risk (legislators up for election don't take risky votes) what did they get out of it... nothing worse, they lost a lot of

but go ahead and blame Republicans for being better fear mongerers, political strategists or whatever... it couldn't possibly be the democrats fault, someone else sat on their hat and made their bed. Oh and i love how republicans are fear mongerers, but Democrat's chanting EVIL banks EVIL insurance companies EVIL profits EVIL republicans Global Warming is just the facts.

[Corth]

Hey, if they wanted bipartisan cooperation in a healthcare reform act they could have always introduced a healthy dose of tort reform. No republican would disagree with that. You don't suppose that enormous malpractice premiums and unnecessary "cover your ass" tests and procedures perhaps increase the net cost of healthcare, right? :)

But yeah, the dems are in the pocket of the trial lawyers. So much for change.

Great video of Howard Dean, quite truthfully, explaining why tort reform is not included in the democrat's proposed healthcare bill:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/27/v ... imidating/

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... itics%2529

Elaborating on something I said before... A LOT of political capital was used up trying to pass healthcare. Obama just threw everyone who took a risky vote under the bus. As long as Obama remains popular... he won't draw open fire from his party, but many of them are waiting for a chance to rip him a GWB style new asshole.

Obama took a lot of risks in year 1, and it looks like he failed. He needs sweeping healthcare reform... perhaps without the most liberal portions if he is going to salvage any political capital with his own party. Some republican said months ago, Healthcare will be Obama's waterloo.

[kiryan]

The best part of this is the part where she says when Republicans win its religious sheeple and fear mongering, when Democrats wins its hope and change.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583560,00.html

But, even the idea that it's all the result of some kind of anger, inchoate, unthinking, emotional about the bad times is absurd. This is not a free-floating anger out there. It's quite specific. What's remarkable about the campaign that we had in Massachusetts is how specific the Republican was. He said "I'm going to stop health care." He said "I'm not going to allow a terrorist to get a lawyer in jail and Miranda rights." He said "I'm going to cut taxes, not raise them." It was extremely specific and extremely Republican and conservative. This was a center-right country even in Massachusetts repudiating a left agenda. This is not rocket science. It's about substance. It's not about anger. Every time the Republicans succeed, it's all about anger and irrationality. When you had the Gingrich revolution 16 years ago, it was called the year of the angry white male and Peter Jennings declared on the evening news that the country had thrown a tantrum, as if when conservatives win it can only be an expression of irrationality and emotionalism. Of course if Obama wins in '08, it's hope and change and peace and light and all the goodness in the American soul. This was an election about substance and the Democrats lost on substance.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583492,00.html

And the president is running out of friends. He's alienated himself from almost everyone. He didn't reach out to anyone on the right. He said, "I welcome your ideas" and after they gave him ideas he shut them out of the process. So the right is out. In the midst of his radical agenda, regular Democrats were left in the dust.

Creigh Deeds was tossed under the bus after running for governor of Virginia

Joe Lieberman dared to oppose health care and all of a sudden he's the worst person ever.

Code Pink thinks he's a sellout too; Wednesday they were protesting Obama on his policies.

The radical progressives are starting to turn. The Progressive Change Campaign committee is pressuring Russ Feingold to make sure Obama "fulfills" his public option promise and progressive groups are actually running attack ads against him:

[kiryan]

39% voted for brown specifically because of his opposition to healthcare. but this isn't a referendum on healthcare.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/ ... 4003.shtml

Fifty-two percent of Bay State voters who were surveyed as the polls closed said they opposed the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing his chief domestic initiative.

"I’m not surprised it was the top issue, but I was surprised by how overwhelming an issue it was. It became a focal point for the frustration that has been brewing with voters, and it’s a very personal issue that affects everyone," said Tony Fabrizio of Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican firm that conducted the exit poll of 800 voters….According to Fabrizio’s findings, 48 percent of Massachusetts voters said that health care was the single issue driving their vote and 39 percent said they voted for Brown specifically because of his vocal opposition to the measure.

[kiryan]

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/01/21/lette ... -continue/

The first video has a hillarious jokes on Obama and Palin.

The rest of the vidoes were weak.

[kiryan]

That last poll that showed healthcare was the issue was a republican poll, heres a union poll stating that basically voters were picking the candidate best for Mass and want him to work with Democrats... (presumably on healthcare). The fox one actually felt a little flimsy to me... but I don't understand how 66% of voters want Brown to work with Democrats when he ran on a position of being the 41st vote to shut down healthcare...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

The AFL-CIO's pollster also said the election was more about the two specific candidates than about being a referendum on Mr. Obama or the national Democratic Party's agenda. By 61% to 33%, the voters polled said they were picking the best candidate for Massachusetts rather than sending a message to Washington. Nearly two-thirds of the voters who elected Mr. Brown said they wanted him to work with Democrats in Washington.

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01 ... latestnews

You know over the last 2 or 3 months I've noticed that the published photos of Obama and Hilary in particular have taken on a negative portrayal. Obama is often looking unhappily pensive and Clinton well the link above she looks like an absolute hag. Gone are the beacon of hope, presidential type photos of Obama. As far as I've noticed its across the board.

[kiryan]

Where'd all the liberals go?

got nothing to say?

Come on now, you all had plenty to say in 2008, no mea culpas? No wow we screwed up bad? Are you so disallusioned you can't even bring yourself to write one word in defense of the messiah?

[Corth]

I don't think they are ducking you Kiryan. The BBS has been pretty dead since the last recent long down time. Another brick in the wall so to speak.

[Sarvis]

I don't think they are ducking you Kiryan. The BBS has been pretty dead since the last recent long down time. Another brick in the wall so to speak.

More to the point, Kiryan's rants have gotten tiresome... nearly (or possibly more) tiresome than my whining about women...

[Corth]

That's absurd. If Kiryan wasn't here posting then the bbs would be completely dead. If he irriates you then ignore him. It's not like the bbs ground to a halt when others got ignored.

[Lorendel Ebonmist]

Im here always listening Kiryan...but I have have nothing to say except, Your enemies will continue to weaken in the light of the Truth you shine upon them!

Silence is Golden.

About time time they STFU.

[Sarvis]

That's absurd. If Kiryan wasn't here posting then the bbs would be completely dead. If he irriates you then ignore him. It's not like the bbs ground to a halt when others got ignored.

You're trying to figure out why we're not replying remember?

[avak]

I'm currently busy lining up dates with Sen Brown's daughters.

[avak]

Okay, while I am waiting for a response from Sen Brown's scheduler and agents, I thought I would ask...

So, Kiryan, you post like twelve links a day about the failings of the liberal machine. I am just wondering where the outrage is over the activist (conservative) Supreme Court decision to utterly gut any chance of campaign finance reform? The decision to extend rights _beyond_ personhood to corporations is so anti-American that it makes me nauseous.

So yeah, I'm going to wave a big flag that says 'MFN hypocrites.' While the evil Dems are trying to extend minimal health protection to the underpriviledged of the country and reign in a completely power-drunk Wall Street...things like the undermining of the main way to keep corruption out of politics doesn't even get mentioned?

Can we have more self-righteous talk about the Truth now?

[kiryan]

I was thinking about posting on the SCOTUS over turning of campaign finance limits... I acutally started a thread, but lost it and didn't feel like reposting.

The decision is definitely activist as it changes "settled law". On the other hand, if you look at some specifics of the decision its interesting that they specifically mentioned that they were deeply concerned that if govenrment regulated political speech that it would do so at the expense of democracy by one party making rules favorable to themselves and even in the situation of bipartsian support, the rules would benefit the establishment. Obama is having a f*king cow over it pledging to find bipartsian support to send a strong message to the supreme court... to find bipartsian support to craft regulations that are "constitutional" that restore the restrictions on "free speech" that the justices found unlawful.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ating.html

As far as settled law, just because laws have existed for 100 years on campaign finance limits, doesn't mean they were or still are right. People conveniently forget the decisions of the supreme court that over ruled laws favoring segregation and slavery which were on the books for many years before being overturned. Very activist decisions indeed. Also, I'll point out that liberals taught conservatives a very important lesson in Roe vs Wade. Stack the court. At least the conservative court didn't make up a new right of "privacy".

I'm somewhat concerned about the ruling. There could be a lot of money going into esesntially buying votes from our stupid masses. On the other hand, I am so disenchanted with the media bias that this might level the playing field. You've got liberal colleges, liberal media all lined up against conservatives. The fuckign white house tried to ban a news organization and the dems have been talking about trying to restore the "fairness" doctrine so they can put conservative radio out of business.

I hardly think this is a victory for Republicans though... unions have a lot of money and a strong political organization that is free to do whatever they want now. Also, I'd like to mention that Obama, fear mongering about how big banks and insurance companies and "other organizations" were going to buy elections after this ruling. I think he meant to say and unions. I've always wondered why we thought it was ok for a billionaire like bloomberg to buy an election, but not allow someone in opposition to contirbute more than $2500 to his opponent.

Hopefully, Americans will get better about paying attention to politics in the wake of this decision... or as Americans we'll figure out some way to address the underlying problem here. its not that unions and corporations should be limited on how much they can spend, its that the American people are so stupid they vote parties and commercials instead of on the issues and candidates. Thats the problem, not the money.

So yea, concerned about activism... although I do agree with removing the restrictions on free speech especially where politics are concerned. Finally there is hope again that our rights will be protected. Neither hte exec or the legisltaive branches seem to be concerned about them.

==
some of the questioning...

Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.

"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.

When the case was reargued before the Supreme Court in September, Stewart was replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan. Kagan, realizing that the court was shocked by Stewart's statements, said that pamphlets, not books, could be banned. When Chief Justice John Roberts asked her about pamphlets, here's what she said: "A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering." But Kagan's answer is hardly comforting. Is the government going to have a word limit that lets bureaucrats decide when something goes from being a "pamphlet" to a book? How long would that last?

Fox opinion commentary

Of course, those are not the only ways around corporate bans on political advertising. If you want to limit corporations’ influence on elections, what do you do about companies that own newspapers and television news broadcasts? Why is one company that owns a newspaper able to write editorials or publish "news" stories that help one candidate but another company isn’t even able to buy a political ad in that very same newspaper?

Right now, one television series after another somehow works into its story lines a sad tale highlighting the plight of those without health insurance. And these kinds of plot lines don’t just show up in medical dramas. Even crime shows, such as CBS's "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," have gotten into the act. Many would argue that TV dramas provide an inaccurate view of the medicine available to the poor and while other might argue that the shows do a good job, but that isn't the point. The shows are obviously trying to influence public policy. Do we need to assign Federal Election Commission's lawyers to watch hours of television programming just to ensure that no political candidates benefit from the message in these shows?

Campaign finance regulations that limit donations or campaign expenditures also have another downside: they entrench incumbents. It is a lot easier for incumbents, who have had years to determine who their actual and potential donors are, to raise small amounts from a lot of donors. It is also a lot more important for a relatively unknown challenger to spend money on his campaign than it is for the incumbent.

Take the obviously extreme example where campaign expenditures are banned. Clearly, the already well-known incumbent would be virtually assured of winning.

Some states allow corporate and union contributions to candidates. Other states follow what has been the federal law banning those donations. Out of all the different campaign finance laws that have the biggest impact on whether candidates choose to run unopposed are the restrictions on individual and corporate donations to political parties. Regulations governing donations by individuals to political parties and corporate and union to candidates produce the biggest benefit towards protecting incumbents from electoral competition and increasing the probability that they will win re-election. Restricting corporate donations to individual candidates also reduces the number of candidates running for office by the largest amount.

[Corth]

Changing settled law isn't necessarily 'activist' if the settled law was unconstitutional in the first place. I don't, for instance, consider Brown vs. Board of Education an activist decision. Seems pretty clear to me that the language of the 14th Amendment prohibits segregation. Shrug.

[kiryan]

I think anything that changes the long running course of law / society significantly is activist even if the original laws were unconstitutional in the first place. May not technically meet the definition of activist, but what else do you call over ruling 100 years of precedence?

--

The part I love is that the supreme court, charged with upholding the constitution which means to protect us and our rights from the government, rules that certain government laws are unconstitutional (meaning violating our rights) and Obama after a lot of research and deep thought on the decision (he announced it the same day), belligerently declares he is going to work to over rule them. He is going to over rule the branch of government whose sole daily function is to protect the rights of people and the limits of government power from the whims of the majority. Who the hell does he think he is? He is not a king.

--

You can tell by the questioning that the decision was heavily influenced by what the government said it could do. It said we can outlaw books, movies and regulate pretty much whatever we want if it has to do with "influencing" an election. Now, imagine your job is to uphold the "rights" of the people and a government official says under this law we can do whatever we want. How can you not strike it down?

[Pril]

I think anything that changes the long running course of law / society significantly is activist even if the original laws were unconstitutional in the first place. May not technically meet the definition of activist, but what else do you call over ruling 100 years of precedence?

--

The part I love is that the supreme court, charged with upholding the constitution which means to protect us and our rights from the government, rules that certain government laws are unconstitutional (meaning violating our rights) and Obama after a lot of research and deep thought on the decision (he announced it the same day), belligerently declares he is going to work to over rule them. He is going to over rule the branch of government whose sole daily function is to protect the rights of people and the limits of government power from the whims of the majority. Who the hell does he think he is? He is not a king.

--

You can tell by the questioning that the decision was heavily influenced by what the government said it could do. It said we can outlaw books, movies and regulate pretty much whatever we want if it has to do with "influencing" an election. Now, imagine your job is to uphold the "rights" of the people and a government official says under this law we can do whatever we want. How can you not strike it down?

A king no... but he's on his way to declaring him the Czar of the United States.

[teflor the ranger]

Unfortunately, I agree that overturning laws that are unconstitutional no matter how much prior court precedent lines up behind it is not activist, but merely self-correction.

[kiryan]

I guess it depends on how you define judicial activism. Judges creating something new is clearly activism as the are supposed to only interpret stuff brought to them. Thats why we consider roe vs wade so activist, it found a previously unknown and undocumented "right" in the constitution...

However, even under this definition, they essentially found that collections of individuals (organization / corporation) have at least some of the rights of an individual. How is that different than making up the right of privacy? I'm not sure I agree with that (assuming thats really what they did say, I haven't read the decision and if I did I doubt I would understand it).

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583823,00.html

Oh and this is hillarious. Obama criticizes the SCOTUS decision and this article points out that first he agreed to a campaign fund raising truce with the republican nominee, then promised to accept public financing if his opponent did, then was the first major presidential candidate to opt out of public financing... essentially buying the election with a large amount coming from unions.

So its fine for unions to buy elections, but not corporations. Its fine for MSNBC and CNN to be decidedly liberal, but Fox news isn't real news because its conservative. Its important for Americans to pay their taxes, but not Democrat nominees and unions. I think we already have more than enough hipocrisy to blast Obama out of 2012.

[teflor the ranger]

Obama's special interests: private campaign funds, abusive labor unions, and your money ;)

[Ragorn]

Its fine for MSNBC and CNN to be decidedly liberal, but Fox news isn't real news because its conservative. Its important for Americans to pay their taxes, but not Democrat nominees and unions. I think we already have more than enough hipocrisy to blast Obama out of 2012.

No, fox news isn't news because it's not news -- 85% of their programming is admittedly editorial. Fox's "news" programs from 4 to 6 are certainly news. Bill O'Reilly is not.

[Ragorn]

Also, I really have nothing to say about the Mass. election. The Democrats put up a jaw-droppingly horrible candidate... it's like they just assumed they would win and they put a warm-body voter on the podium to represent the district. They deserved to lose... it wasn't Obama's fault, or the DNC's fault for "failing to support the campaign." It wasn't a referendum on health care or Obama or national policy. The Democrats lobbed a goose egg, and she deservedly went down in flames.

I do like how Jon Stewart called the Republicans' presence in the Senate a "41-59 superminority."

[Corth]

The Democrats put up a jaw-droppingly horrible candidate... it's like they just assumed they would win and they put a warm-body voter on the podium to represent the district.

That's the point really. There is a reason they assumed any warm-body democrat candidate would win. In most years she would have.

[kiryan]

Perhaps a crappy campaign, but she had some strong credentials and as Corth said in most years, she probably would've won anyway. She could've easily ran on being tough on crime, against wall street, ect.

Another reason I don't prescribe to the crappy candidate theory is the exit polling and Brown's campaign. He ran on being the 41st vote to kill THIS healthcare bill. He ran against Obama's position on terrorism. He was unapologetic in his opposition to traditionally democrat items and Obama's agenda... and he won by a virtual landslide of 5% in one of the bluest of blue states?

You, Gibbs and the half of the Democrat party strategists that are lieing to themselves are trying to tell me that a candidate's policy positions don't matter and thats why Brown won? No, I don't think you can explain it away so easily, its not just or even a majority the result of a crappy candidate or campaign. Its the policies, its the mechanics of legislating, its the people fed up with all government (or at least leftist government).

[Todrael]

Scott Brown. That's the guy who drives a truck, right?

[avak]

This kind of anger?

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

And this position that he ran on?

"I voted for health care here.... we're past campaign mode and I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care. So to offer a basic plan for everyone I think is important... there are some very good things in the national health care plan that is being proposed"