How can we expect the "ungovernable House" to govern the US?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-gop-speaker-struggle-clintons-trade-deal-dismissal/

Maybe you guys have been following the brouhaha, but basically Boehner stepped down as Speaker, Majority Leader (and heir apparent) McCarthy withdrew his candidacy, and now no one (who is capable of getting the 200+ votes to pass) wants to step up. The GOP is asking Paul Ryan to step up to the plate, but he hasn't committed yet.

Speaker is "2 bullets" away from the presidency; you'd think that our most promising legislators would be lining up to apply! But the problem is that the House is GOP majority, and a contingent of ~40 Teabaggers (the "Freedom" Caucus, or "anarchists" as Brooks called them) are basically impossible to work with unless you totally embrace the ~Norquist/Palin/Koch agenda. As Brooks said on PBS, only a "moron" would want the Speaker job now. So how did the 3rd most powerful position in US gov't become a third-rail job?

• There really isn't much benefit for a party to have a majority in the House when the other party has 40+ in the Senate and/or the White House. And it's hard to be confident that we'll have a GOP president in 2017.

• We don't live in a dictatorship where the Tea Party are the dictators, so can they espouse more reasonable and civilized goals instead? No group is ever going to get all they want, but is it so terrible to make deals to advance some of your agenda, but allow other interests to do the same (if what you have to give up is not so harmful)?

• So the GOP Speaker is caught between a rock and a hard place: he/she is expected to use the majority to advance conservatism (or at least keep the country running - pass a budget, etc.), but also find a way to get the Teabaggers to not derail the whole process (which is their stated goal if they don't get 100% of what they want, which we established is impossible).
• I don't know why the Teabaggers are so "needed"; is it because the GOP still need those 40 votes? Why not reach out to the Dems instead - can't you get 40 from them Blue Dogs? Is it just intractable polarization?

• The TP's excuse is that they are merely doing what the voters expect (obstructionism/anarchy/holding the country hostage). Well, there is no district in the US where 100% of the votes support the TP agenda. So it is wrong for them to ignore potentially 49% of their constituents (likely the % is much smaller due to gerrymandering).
• Also, this is a false pretext because polling suggest that the majority of Americans do not want gov't shutdowns and do not approve of an unproductive Congress. So why don't they just cut the crap and admit that they are serving the narrow interests of the 1% Norquist/Koch agenda?

• Should we amend job descriptions for Congress and the oath that they swear to, in order to make sure that our legislators will actually legislate in the country's interests? There are other explicit or implicit criteria like age, residency, religion, and funding - why not this? Don't we want to make sure they are qualified and able to carry out the duties of the position?
• It's like Kim Davis - she can have her beliefs, but if they're not compatible with the demands of her job, then she needs to be replaced and find a different job, right?

IMO, a dysfunctional Congress is a bigger threat to our country than ISIS. I am serious about that. Who affects our daily lives more?

Why it's so hard to get out of poverty

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract?CMP=fb_gu

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/07/14/330434597/this-is-your-stressed-out-brain-on-scarcity

The situations and constraints that the poor find themselves in often lead to short-term thinking and counter-productive behaviors. They don't do it because they're irrational and/or like being poor. Even the "self-made Masters of the Universe" (conservatives like Romney, Ryan, Hannity, Trump, etc. who blame the poor for being poor) would likely do no better in their shoes.

Also, the ludicrous propaganda that the poor somehow live large off the rest of us and strategically exploit social programs when they could be working is really backed by no statistical evidence (but of course anecdotes exist). But stereotypes like that make it easier for society to ignore/dismiss/hate the poor, against our compassionate tendencies and the teachings of virtually every religious/moral code known to man.

Obama comments about race and the Zimmerman Martin case

"I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws," - POTUS (I said it first :)

Obama said it would be useful ‘‘to examine some state and local laws to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of confrontation’’ that led to Martin’s death. He questioned whether a law that sends the message that someone who is armed ‘‘has the right to use those firearms even if there is a way for them to exit from a situation’’ really promotes peace and security. -boston.com

THERE YOU GO! THAT'S THE OBAMA WE KNOW HE CAN BE! Use the bully pulpit and tell the country what it needs to hear (and what it isn't getting from other leaders and the media). He doesn't have to be tough or shocking, because truth and decency are on his side (unlike the drones-PRISM issues). Now if only he could do this with Congress and the Pentagon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/has-president-obama-done-enough-for-black-americans/274699/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2013/07/19/obama-says-martin-could-have-been-years-ago/8ZsgQWShtvkRA8ZC7NbnTK/singlepage.html

I was about to call out No-Drama Obama for cowardice for being the first minority president who seemed to be avoiding comment on the Zimmerman case (though he is conscientious, and probably wanted to let things simmer down a week after the verdict before commenting). He didn't event spend 24 hrs in Africa during his first term (and that was for the Cairo speech with a predominantly Arab audience), despite a massive outpouring of love (and need) from that continent. For how much Obama discussed his identity in his books, now he tends to duck race, unless he has to diffuse controversy over Rev. Wright or Prof. Gates. And in those situations, he shone - so why not talk about race more (within reason)? I think America wants it and needs it, and he is the right messenger for it. With so much political hostility and economic uncertainty, maybe race is the best medium for Obama to fulfill his promise to bring America together - and part of that involves letting go of bitterness, misinformation, and defensiveness, to start replacing pain with understanding. Only the most douchebag conservatives would cry "race baiting," which is ironic because I think they are some of the biggest bigots in politics and the most opposed to reconciliation.

Obama hasn't really done much that particularly benefits minorities during his time in office, apart from the Dream Act mostly meant for Latinos. Since blacks already vote overwhelmingly Democrat, could they be taken for granted, even by Obama? Martin is the biggest racial crisis of his presidency, so I was glad to hear his presidential and candid comments today. The goal was clear and necessary: provide context and explain to mainstream America why the black community is so upset over the case (they're not just hotheaded rioters, but this is the latest preventable tragedy in a long sad history of highly targeted prejudice). Show them what it's like to be a young black man, feared and under suspicion (and maybe harassed/attacked) even though you're doing nothing wrong. Life is a lot harder and crappier when many signs around you are telling you that you are inferior, scary, and even evil. Though it's sad that we need Obama and the gravitas of his person/office to communicate this to America. This should not be breaking news, unless you have your head in the sand. But that is the first step towards reconciliation and harmony, empathy/acknowledgement for others, even if it's hard to do - freaking obvious but sadly lacking in much of society. We can't keep using our racist past as a crutch/excuse/cop-out, but we can't sweep it under the rug either. So we can't worsen matters, and increase the risk of another ugly incident to set us back, with stupid policies and false beliefs.

On Real Time, Maher mentioned some stats that in the history of SYG in all the states that have it, a white defendant is >300% more likely to be found not guilty for shooting a black person vs. a white person (I know the context of each case could be different). A Tampa study of 200 SYG trials in Florida found that the defense worked 73% of the time when the victim was black. His guest said that 70% of the US prisons and 90% of NYC stop-and-frisk targets are non-white, yet the overall US population is 72% white. So that touches on the profiling and equal justice for all issues.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maher-battles-gopers-on-obamas-speech-unless-people-see-burning-crosses-they-think-racisms-over/

---

Also, I heard about half of the rebroadcast Commonwealth Club program below with Jon Alter about his book on Obama's first term and the Obama-Romney election, The Center Holds. I'd like to hear the whole thing later, but he brought up a good point for progressives to remember when we are disappointed with Obama. We have every right to be disappointed, but imagine if Romney won (kind of a false choice I know, since we would hope for and deserve better selection). Like with Carter and Reagan, Romney could have taken credit for the economic recovery started under Obama. Regardless of who sat in the White House in 2013, the deficit was going to shrink (by hundreds of billions), the markets were going to rise, and unemployment/housing numbers were going to improve. It is likely that Romney-Ryan would have repealed Obamacare, rolled back a lot of regulations, gave huge tax breaks to the rich, and implemented many parts of the draconian Ryan budget early in their term. In typical fashion, they would have taken credit for the positive economic signals, attributing them to their pro-business, anti-socialist "reforms". Of course in the fact-based world, that narrative is a joke. But those ultra-libertarian, 1% skewed policies could have gained national traction and a foothold in DC. In Alter's words, "Progressive ideas would have been set back for a generation." Not progressive ideas actually, but the commonly-accepted (by the 99% at least) beliefs that it is good for America that we care for the old/needy, have a fair playing field, and keep the US a nation of, by, and for the people - not the plutocrats.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-06-18/jonathan-alter-obama-presidency


Jonathan Alter: The Obama Presidency


Bloomberg View columnist and author Jonathan Alter uses his unmatched access and deep knowledge of politics and history to produce an unparalleled account of America at the crossroads. Peering behind the curtain at the White House and the presidential campaigns with exclusive reporting and rare historical insight, Alter reveals the twists, turns and high-stake political decisions of the Obama presidency. Alter also examines Obama's adversaries, providing fresh details about the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Roger Ailes and the "online haters" who suffer from what Alter calls "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Alter goes inside what he calls the GOP "clown car" primaries as well as Obama's disastrous preparation for the first debate. The program also meets Obama's analytics geeks working out of "The Cave," and the man who secretly videotaped Mitt Romney's infamous comments on the "47 percent." The conversation is moderated by Joe Tuman, professor of legal and political communications at San Francisco State University, and political analyst for CBS 5 Television.

 
Fri, Jul 19, 2013 -- 8:00pm

Election comments

First of all, weed in WA and CO!!! http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pn-marijuana-votes-20121106,0,3992024.story?track=rss

I'll just comment on the election and politics here, not necessarily on the merits of each party's philosophies and policy agendas.

I can't remember the last time I felt so proud of the American people. Personally, I think this is bigger than 2008 considering the current political environment. Voters rejected the GOP's schizophrenic candidate, as well as their policies of exclusion, obstruction, wealth/power inequality, obsolete beliefs, and scapegoating the wrong people for America's problems.

And ironically, the electoral college is now working in the Dem's favor! Romney almost won the popular vote but got wiped out in electoral votes. But now there are "structural" advantages for the Dems in terms of electoral vote distributions, similar to what the GOP enjoyed from Nixon to Bush Sr.

We worried that Cit. Utd. would change politics forever, and I do believe it had a noticeable effect. But Obama's campaign is the most sophisticated and effective grassroots, micro-donation, new media machine we've ever seen (and it's a platform that they can hopefully transfer to future candidates and continue to have an advantage vs. the GOP on). In the end, that beat out the Adelson, Koch, Trump, and Rove led money and misinformation blitz. Outside groups have to pay a higher fee for TV ads than campaigns, so $1 of money raised by Obama2012 equaled about $1.50-2.00 of Super PAC money. So once again, the GOP miscalculated. Everyone (but Nate Silver) predicted that the young people, poor, and minorities (who turned out in record numbers for Obama in 2008) are now disillusioned and unlikely to show up for Obama like that again. Well they did, and even more so for Latinos. 

But still, about as many people voted for Romney as Obama. A lot of white males, older folks, and the wealthy. Maybe the GOP will realize that America is not like "Leave it to Beaver" anymore and those groups are not enough to guarantee a win each time, but I doubt it. They chose Ryan over Rubio or a woman (and he didn't even deliver WI). Well, the Ryan pick was kind of forced by the nomination of Romney - clearly not the GOP's first choice. I guess Christie wanted to wait until Obama was termed out to give it a shot, probably a smart move. 

So did the "core strengths" of the GOP actually cause them to lose here? It gained them money but cost them votes, and fortunately votes still determine our leaders. The Tea Party, ties to big business, and pro-Israel lobby became liabilities. Most Americans do not feel directly threatened by Iran, do not believe that Israel will be attacked any time soon, and care more about domestic issues. Our foreign policy is far from comfortable, but Osama is dead, America is tired of war, and the focus on these narrow issues to placate their big donors and the hawks didn't persuade many voters who weren't already sure votes for Romney.

How about big business? A private equity mega-millionaire who outsourced jobs to China and didn't support the auto bailout may not be the most convincing messenger for the conservative solution to economic growth. Despite the latent displeasure with Obama over the economy, the "supply side" argument didn't gain traction among non-core GOP voters. And it's not really a great strategy to persuade disillusioned independents and liberals to vote for you when you accuse half the country of being lazy bozos with their hands out (the veterans, elderly, marginalized?), and when you accuse a key growth demographic (Latinos) of stealing jobs and undermining our recovery. 

And then there's the Tea Party. They energized the GOP and thumped the Dems in 2010, but became a liability now. The are too regressive, intolerant, exclusive, and hateful - just not very pleasant people you want to associate with. A lot of presidential elections is about getting casual or infrequent voters out for you. These folks have more centrist, timid views - which is of course anathema to the TP. They aren't winning friends and turning off a lot of key voters with stuff like:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?ref=opinion&_r=0