So, if the SCOTUS was going to rule in favor of the IRS, there is absolutely NO REASON for the SCOTUS to take the case..The simple fact that the SCOTUS *DID* take the case, indicates at least FIVE Justices are prepared to rule against the Administration...

I just learned that it only takes FOUR Supreme Court Justices to decide in favour of taking a case, not five. And, so, it is quite possible - I would argue, very probable - that the Chief Justice wanted no part of this undertaking and will, in the end and once again, save Obamacare.

This should, at the very least, temper your bubbling certainty regarding the demise the Affordable Care Act.

So, there IS precedence to think that it might actually be GOOD for the country...

We should give it a try... :D

I would venture to say that, at the time of his election, Obama was thought to have that "greatness"....

Maybe if he had shown the integrity of Washington, we wouldn't be where we are at now, eh??

Food for thought...

Michale

What ya'all think???

that happened once already. the president's name was george washington, and historians consider him one of the top three presidents ever. however, there's no consensus on causality. maybe washington's greatness was further enabled by his refusal to affiliate with a political party, or maybe his refusal to affiliate with a party was only possible because of his already-epic greatness.

JL

Jordan said House Republicans have been sending each other a blizzard of e-mails and text messages this week, and he expects the interest in "bringing [Gruber] up here to talk" will gain traction as members return to Washington. House Republicans will gather Thursday evening for their first series of votes since the election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/12/hearings-floated-as-hill-republicans-seize-on-gruber-obamacare-comments/

Looks like Gruber's comments will be front and center very soon..

Give him a chance to explain why what he said then is diametrically opposed to what he is saying now...

Michale

There should be a law...

When a President is elected, he divorces himself from ANY political affiliation.. He doesn't campaign for his Party, he is not the leader of his Party, he gives up any and all Party affiliation. He (or she) is not a Democrat, is not a Republican, they are simply PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

PERIOD...

What ya'all think???

Michale

Gallup: Dems plunge to record low
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-democrats-favorability-low-112809.html

Ya'all wish!!! :D

Michale

Once again, proving that the Democrat Party is actually the Hypocrite Party...

It's rather ironic, eh??

Democrats won't approve the pipeline, even though it will mean over 50,000 new jobs for Americans..

But, when ONE job, just one measly job, is at stake, the job of a Dem Senator???

Well, THAT's different!! THAT's important!!!

Democrats... {{eyeroll}}

Michale

No surprise, the GOP took it...

I called that one.. :D

So, the election results sits as follows:

Democrats lost 8 seats and gained 0 seats.

Republicans lost 0 seats and gained 8 seats.

The 2015 Congress sits at 53 GOP 46 Dem & Ind.

LA is an interesting race.. Democrats in Congress are considering actually VOTING on and approving the Keystone Pipeline to help Landru defeat the Archons.. :D

Once again, proving that the Democrat Party is actually the Hypocrite Party...

It really won't matter. Landru is finished in Louisiana... Even if she manages to win (by hook or by crook), the GOP will still control the Senate...

"It's a great day to be alive, I know the sun's still shining when I close my eyes"
-Tim McGraw

:D

Michale

Gruber made a mistake saying that as well..

Doesn't mean that's not how he feels...

With regards to his claims on the subsidy, Gurber's mistake is not that he wasn't accurate. He was. The law is clearly worded..

Gruber's mistake is that he SAID it...

Because now his own words will doom TrainWreckCare..

Yer right. It was a mistake. A HUGE mistake...

Michale

What Gruber said doesn't make a lot of sense. And, in fact, he has recently said that he made a mistake by saying that only states that set up exchanges would have premium subsidies available.

OF COURSE he said he made a mistake!!

But it doesn't change the fact that intent is clearly established..

Clinton said "I made a mistake" when he got caught with Lewinksy...

That doesn't change the facts...

I guess we'll see next summer how the SCOTUS interprets the applicability of the subsidies within the context of the healthcare law as a whole and whether or not they will instruct Congress to change the language of the law to make it more explicit with respect to availability of subsidies in the federal exchange.

But you overlook the one damning fact that simply CANNOT be explained except by one explanation..

The SCOTUS took the case even though there was no lower court conflict..

That right there is a pretty good indicator on how the court is going to rule..

But yer right.. We'll know for sure in June.... I lay the odds at 20% that TrainWreckCare's subsidies will survive...

Michale

Don't tell me you didn't read your own link, again. :)

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

Mr. Gruber backed away from his comments on Friday. But the remarks embarrassed the White House and could help plaintiffs in court cases challenging the payment of subsidies in 36 states that rely on the federal exchange.

“I made a mistake in some 2012 speeches in describing the tax credits,” Mr. Gruber said in an email on Friday. “It is clear from all my writings and modeling that I did over this same time period that tax credits are assumed to be available in all states. This is the only sensible reading of the Affordable Care Act and is corroborated by every single person who helped craft the law.”

I guess we'll see next summer how the SCOTUS interprets the applicability of the subsidies within the context of the healthcare law as a whole and whether or not they will instruct Congress to change the language of the law to make it more explicit with respect to availability of subsidies in the federal exchange.

What Gruber said doesn't make a lot of sense. And, in fact, he has recently said that he made a mistake by saying that only states that set up exchanges would have premium subsidies available.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/us/politics/ex-obama-aides-statements-in-2012-clash-with-health-act-stance.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D

Once again... Obama and the Democrat policies and agenda result in the death of a child...

Michale

This is why TrainWreckCare is going to die an ignoble death...

Michale

What more do ya need???

Michale

Michale

Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare, was a key influence on the creation of the federal health law. He was widely quoted in the media. During the crafting of the law, the Obama administration brought him on for consultation because of his expertise. He was paid almost $400,000 to consult with the administration on the law. And he has claimed to have written part of the legislation, the section dealing with small business tax credits.

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this. [emphasis added]
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

They are not taking a phrase out of context.. It's plain english..

And the designer of the law is quoted AT THE TIME saying that the idea behind separating the subsidies and making them ONLY for states is to FORCE the states to set up their own exchanges..

It really does go without saying that this is the case. It just makes no sense at all that this law would provide for subsidies in a state exchange but not in a federal exchange. That would be called defeating the purpose and intent of the law.

It makes PERFECT sense if the idea is to force states to set up their own exchanges, which is EXACTLY what the intent was, as quoted by one of the architects of the law...

What plausible argument could possibly be made by the plaintiffs in this case? Quite simply, there is no plausible argument

The argument I just made above...

But you have to ask yourself..

If there is no case on behalf of the plaintiffs, WHY did the SCOTUS take the case, if there was no case??

The ONLY logical and rational explanation is that the SCOTUS feels the lower courts ruled wrong and they are going to make it right...

Michale

The plaintiff's completely spurious argument is that state subsidies are A-Okay but federal subsidies are not. They are taking a phrase out of context and extending meaning to it that was most decidedly NOT intended by the drafters and designers of the law.

There is a simple way to fix this, you know. Congress just has to amend the wording to make explicit their intent that Americans who qualify for subsidies can avail themselves of this support whether they are enrolled in a state exchange or a federal exchange.

It really does go without saying that this is the case. It just makes no sense at all that this law would provide for subsidies in a state exchange but not in a federal exchange. That would be called defeating the purpose and intent of the law.

What plausible argument could possibly be made by the plaintiffs in this case? Quite simply, there is no plausible argument.

The case ONLY has "lack of merit" if you ignore words, meanings, common sense and the stated intent of the designers of the law at the time i was implemented...

Like I said, the simple fact that the SCOTUS even took the case is a pretty solid indication as to how they are going to rule...

Michale

I meant ta ask ya...

How did your Father-In-Law like the elections??? :D

Michale

Or, maybe the Chief Justice feels so guilty about how he could have stopped the monstrosity the first time and failed to do so.. Seeing what an incompetent train wreck of a mess Obamacare is, he has had a change of heart on the viability...

That makes more sense considering the facts... :D

Michale

Why agree to hear the case to save the law when it doesn't need saving??

The **ONLY** reason to hear the case is to support the plaintiffs and rule against the administration.

There is absolutely NO OTHER REASON to hear the case. There wasn't any conflict in the lower court rulings...

So, the only logical conclusion is that the SCOTUS has 5 members who disagree with the lower court's rulings and they took the case to make it right...

Michale

I predict that the fifth vote in favour of the law will be that of the Chief Justice, himself. He has a record, you know. :)

I also think he's going to enjoy making the plaintiff's lawyer(s) squirm as they try to make their utterly frivolous case. Oh, to be a (cockeyed optimistic) fly on the wall ...

Why, thank you! :D Thank you very much..

Now, playing my own Devil's Advocate, there IS a chance that one of the 5 will have their minds changed by the arguments...

But considering that the administration hasn't had too much success of late in the SCOTUS, I would say it's 80-20 that TWC will not survive..

At least, the Federal Subsidies won't...

Michale

That's because you are not aware of the circumstances which prompted the SCOTUS to take the case...

There was absolutely NO REASON for the SCOTUS to take the case.. There wasn't a SINGLE rulings of all the full Federal Court rulings that were in conflict.. Each full Federal Court upheld the position of the IRS...

So, if the SCOTUS was going to rule in favor of the IRS, there is absolutely NO REASON for the SCOTUS to take the case..

The simple fact that the SCOTUS *DID* take the case, indicates at least FIVE Justices are prepared to rule against the Administration...

TrainWreckCare's days are numbered.. This much is certain...

Michale

Well, I seriously doubt that they'll get the chance.

Instead, I think it will be time for you to resign yourself to the fact that Obamacare is the law of the land, is helping millions of Americans and will help many more, and, to be sure, will be improved over time.

The problem with that scenario is that it's only a small minority of Americans who would think that such a ruling would be "stupid"... And THOSE would be the people who are profiting BIG $$$ from the abomination...

The vast majority of Americans would applaud such a ruling...

Michale

On a related note, do you understand the basics of how an insurance pool, in general, and a healthcare insurance system, in particular, works toward achieving an overall outcome where everyone benefits?

Ironicaly for you Michale, Chief Justice Roberts will find a way - legally and politically - to save Obamacare, once again ... because he understands, as well as anyone else, how a stupid SCOTUS decision can negatively impact his legacy for time immemorial.

There you have it.. Straight from the horse's mouth..

Low Information (a nice way to say "stupid") voters is what was needed to pass TrainWreckCare...

TrainWreckCare will not survive this final SCOTUS ruling..

Anyone wanna make any wagers?? :D

Michale

http://sjfm.us/temp/GB2.mp4

:D

Michale

"Yer not..... sleeping with it, are you??"
-Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Michale

I DON'T agree that it's what the American people are doing..

But I am more than willing to concede that you MIGHT be right...

It's just that the evidence is not sufficiently convincing yet..

Michale

I agree that THAT is what Democrats are doing..

I DON'T agree that it's what the American people are doing..

The American people aren't stoopid.. Well, usually they're not..

The American people won't vote politicians into office that would fight against the very agenda that you claim the American people support...

At worst, the American people will allow the status quo...

But the message the American people sent to the Democrat Party was clear, unambiguous and unequivocal...

"YOUR PRIORITIES ARE NOT OUR PRIORITIES.. CHANGE YOUR WAYS OR THE SHELLACKING WILL CONTINUE AND GET WORSE"

Michale

If this is true (which I am not convinced it is) then the solution is obvious...

Ya'all quit voting Democrat until the Party is willing to do your bidding..

I think me and David have gone round and round on this issue..

Michale

that's precisely what the clinton/obama strategy seems to be - placate the campaign donors, underwhelm the base and rev up the opposition. a second ago you were agreeing with me about this.

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the American people WANT the Democrat Party agenda, they just don't trust THIS Democrat Party to give it to them...

especially on issues of economic equality.

JL

This is why the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014 happened and THAT is why there will be an even BIGGER shellacking in 2016...

Because Obama and Democrat leaders insist on putting their own agenda before the will of the American people..

The American people by an overwhelming 78% majority want Obama to concentrate on JOBS and the ECONOMY...

But Obama and Democrats put their own agenda first..

TrainWreckCare
Global Warming (Yet There Ain't No Warming)
Amnesty For Immigrant Criminals

Those things and so much more, are way way WAY down on the American people's list of priorities...

But they are at the very top of Obama's and Democrat's priorities...

And THAT is why Democrats were decimated in 2014..

And THAT is why Democrats will be again, decimated in 2016...

You heard it here, first...

Michale

Where is that famed compassion that liberals are famous for???

What about the people who LIKED their insurance and lost it after it was promised they could keep their insurance???

Aren't they Americans too???

The problem is Democrats only care about those who think like they do.... Anyone else can go frak themselves..

That's not the America that I grew up in or fought and bled to defend...

If there is ONE sentiment that can express the Obama Era it's "MY WAY OR THE HIGH WAY"....

And ya'all STILL think that Democrat is better than Republican...

Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary...

Michale

OK.. YOU got health insurance that you don't have to pay an arm, a leg and your next born for...

What about the Americans who have health insurance so crappy that they can't afford to go to a doctor...

Where is that famed compassion that liberals are famous for???

Michale

I mean, seriously!

What a frakin' doofus!!

Michale

And yet, ya still keep voting for the same disappointment over and over again..

In short, you try the exact same thing over and over, hoping to get a different result...

The very definition of insanity...

Put another way...

You vote Democrat because they say the right thing but do the wrong thing...

You won't vote Republican because they say the wrong thing and MIGHT do the wrong thing...

So, it seems to me that the ONLY logical course of action is, if Democrats are screwing you over time and time and time again, maybe it's time to go with something new...

THAT is the entire problem... Ya'all think that DEMOCRAT way is the ONLY way and that, as long as ya'all vote Democrat, EVENTUALLY something good MIGHT come of it...

Is that logical???

Michale

Re Obama. Look at my choices. Old Man McCain (with a side of Loopy Lady) in 2008. Bigus Dickus Romney (and Eddy Munster) in 2010.

From Douglas Adams:

“On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”

“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”

“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”

“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”

“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”

“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”

“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”

“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”

“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in.”

I was afraid the wrong lizards would get in...and stand by my decision. At least I've got health insurance.

"How do you like your POTUS now??" The rant is about is about the Constitution and a system of political and economic power hoarding that derives from it. It's about a money pump that mostly serves 400 families in the US. But since you ask, B-. As I have said many times, to be interested in politics is to know disappointment.

"Yea, turning something over to government control.. WHAT could go wrong???. "Broadband" and Cable for two things. Monopolists have carved up the markets, leaving the consumer with high prices, mediocre service and no alternatives. Teddy R. got it right. Big government is the only effective check against big corporations. Were it not so, but it is.

"I have been saying that for almost a decade... Why start now??"

I've been saying this for better part of three decades now....and for some reason the slide continues.

Let's take your position that the majority of Americans actually support the Democrat agenda...

Yet, they overwhelmingly and unequivocally put into power, on a MASSIVE scale, leaders who actively fight AGAINST that agenda...

Thereby leading to the all-but death of the Democrat Party as a viable force...

Americans are many MANY things, but suicidal is not one of them.. Neither are they bat-shit crazy, as I pointed out before...

Now, consider another interpretation...

6 years ago MANY Americans (myself included) were fed up with the incompetence of the Republican party... Add to that frustration, a charismatic rising star who made his utter lack of qualification his best selling point... We elected this guy PRECISELY because he wasn't qualified...

"Aye, fer sure, you have to be lost to find a place that can't be found, elseways everyone would know where it was."
-Barbossa

We reasoned that, if a man is not qualified to be President, that makes him the PERFECT choice for President, because it was "qualified" people who got us into this mess...

Now, 6 years later, reality has set in... Every American has buyer's remorse...

So, now the vast majority of Americans are saying simply "The Democrats way is not working. Let's give the other guys a chance again. Maybe they have learned their lesson and will put Country before Party. Gods know, Democrats aren't doing that."

In other words, Americans were convinced 6 years ago that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Demcorat agenda will work..

Now, they know that it DOESN'T work...

So, now it's time to give the other guys a try...

On the one had, you have an interpretation that defies all logic and reason...

On the other hand, you have an interpretation that is logical, rational and, above all else, takes into account the fickle nature of the American people. Fickle... Not bat-shit crazy....

Employing Occam's Razor, it appears that the latter explanation is the simplest and, therefore, more likely to be accurate...

Irregardless of whether you accept Door #1 or Door #2, in the here and now, the Democrat Party agenda is dead...

Will it resurrect in 2016?? Probably not...

Because, the DP will make their agenda like Bernie and will parade it around as if nothing has changed...

But, like Bernie, eventually it will start stinking up the place...

What it all boils down to is that Democrats have to change their MESSAGE, not their messaging...

I said the exact same thing in 2010 and 2014 proved me right beyond all expectations I thought possible...

Democrats better learn this quick. Else all Republicans have to do is find someone who will run a disciplined campaign in 2016 and it will be lights out for the Democrat Party for at least 8 years...

Michale

yup, that's pretty much it. i would expand that point to say that the democratic party's economic agenda is much more popular than their social agenda. don't get me wrong, i'm all in favor of marriage equality and the right to abortion and contraception. but those are culturally divisive issues. in essence, dems have been winning on the issues that motivate their opponents and going directly against their purported goals on issues where their official stance is the most popular. mix that in a capital-shaped bowl, cook on high for six years, and voila, republican majority!

JL

I wrote a couple weeks ago on the "victory lap" entry that democratic victories on social equality have obscured their awful performance on economic equality. perhaps last week's election is evidence that my concerns were well-founded.

JL

products of the mercantile triangle dealing in molasses,slaves and rum,

"Why is the rum always gone?"
-Captain Jack Sparrow

:D

Yet, behind the scenes, under cover of smoke and mirrors, Obama is still pushing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. Which seems suspiciously NAFTA like to me. As in "Sucking Sound 2." Or maybe a Reverse Treaty of Nanking.

How do you like your POTUS now??

He's also suggesting that the Internet would be better regulated if it were classified as a utility...

Yea, turning something over to government control.. WHAT could go wrong???

What with recent reversals, maybe this is a good time for Democratic rank and file to ever so politely demand a bit more from their "representatives."

I have been saying that for almost a decade... Why start now??

I love your rant!! :D

Michale

Plutocrats and Replutocans:

That's the persistent trend line of the two party system in the United States. Always has been, with some changes in slope. The Constitution was devised by slave holders and slave traders... products of the mercantile triangle dealing in molasses,slaves and rum, if I remember 4th grade history accurately. It's in our political DNA.

CW highlights modest reforms that would significantly help the average citizen.

Yet, behind the scenes, under cover of smoke and mirrors, Obama is still pushing the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership. Which seems suspiciously NAFTA like to me. As in "Sucking Sound 2." Or maybe a Reverse Treaty of Nanking.

What with recent reversals, maybe this is a good time for Democratic rank and file to ever so politely demand a bit more from their "representatives." CW's 7 points seems a good start.

The Supreme Court's Dickinsonian reply to those seeking to moderate the institutionalized political bribery known as "campaign finance" in 11 seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrgxHvNNUc

What have always said??

For Obama and the Democrats "compromise" means "Do it our way or we'll do it anyways."

Some compromise...

Michale

The rest of the world, and China in particular, sees Mr Obama as a weak leader in the autumn of his presidency. China-watchers say Mr Xi’s ebullience since he took power has been spurred by the view that Mr Obama has only a limited window in office. After that, Hillary Clinton, or a Republican, will take over. Either would be tougher on the world stage than Mr Obama. Even if that is wrong, Mr Xi has shown Mr Obama little respect since their first summit in California last year. Mr Obama warned his Chinese counterpart to stop the cyber attacks on the Pentagon and other targets. China’s cyber-incursions increased. Earlier this year, the White House indicted five Chinese nationals for cyber-espionage, including a senior military officer. None are likely to be brought to trial. It was the kind of empty gesture Beijing has come to expect of Mr Obama.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eea501ba-6528-11e4-91b1-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3If9Dd3cU

A leader must be respected and a little bit feared to be effective...

Obama is laughed at...

2016 simply cannot come fast enough..

Michale

Apparently, I am because I haven't a clue what yer talking about.. :D

Michale

We wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if they were..

Democrats would not be in the mess they are now if they were...

Michale

Try as you may, Michale, I will never believe that you are that obtuse. :)

Ahhhh.. Now we have SCIENCE that explains Obama... :D

Michale

I was applauding Biden for being loyal to the American people against a President who is anything but...

Sheet, even when I single out a Democrat for an "atta boy!!" I am a bad guy! :D

The day that Joe Biden even hints of disloyalty to the president is the day that Biden resigns. Don't hold your breath.

The day that Bidens takes a stand against the moronicness and incompetence of President Obama (as he did there) is the day I buy him a beer... :D

Michale

Hardly.

But, you are doing wonders for your own credibility ... if you know what I mean and I truly believe that you do.

You accused Biden of being disloyal to the President of the United States when he is nothing of the sort.

The day that Joe Biden even hints of disloyalty to the president is the day that Biden resigns. Don't hold your breath.

I call that being derogatory.

Ya know... Usually when someone makes such a bold-faced proclamation like that, they back it up with... ya know... FACTS....

Say what!?

Now, you're not telling me that you didn't actually read past the headline of the article you cited and purported to comment on, are you???

Oh carp!!! Now I am gonna get slammed for being a racist!!! :D

Michale

Completely false.

Ya know... Usually when someone makes such a bold-faced proclamation like that, they back it up with... ya know... FACTS....

I have the reported testimony of "several" eyewitnesses who were present at the meeting and witnessed the exchange..

Now, if you have any facts to counter that.... By all means.. Go fer it... :D

And, just for the record, I don't read all of the comments anymore like I used to. I just responded to this one because that's what I do when Biden's name comes up in the usual, if tiresome, derogatory manner.

Derogatory???

"WhatchutalkinaboutWillis???"

It wasn't derogatory whatsoever... I was APPLAUDING Biden for having more than an ounce of common sense and actually APPEARING to put Country before Party...

That's almost UNHEARD of in... ya know... a DEMOCRAT!!

Here's what I don't get - why on earth are Democrats not talking about this and, more importantly, showing these charts?!

Because Democrats don't WANT to "scrap the cap"... They make too much $$$ by the status quo...

Of course, that presumes that there really is a difference between the policies prescribed by Democrats and those by their Republican colleagues.

Geeee... WHO, amongst us, has been saying that EXACT same thing for going on 10 years now??? :D

Michale

I remember when you wrote about the 'Scrap the cap on earnings' a few years ago and thinking how brilliant it was!

Here's what I don't get - why on earth are Democrats not talking about this and, more importantly, showing these charts?!

Okay, that's not really a serious question. But, still, that would be one sure fire way of demonstrating what distinguishes Democrats from Republicans and of providing a stark choice for voters which might improve voter turnout.

Of course, that presumes that there really is a difference between the policies prescribed by Democrats and those by their Republican colleagues.

And, there lies the rub ...

Completely false.

It is with no quantum of sadness, Michale, that I must point out, once again, that you have failed - purposefully, I hasten to add - to accurately comment on a news article you, yourself, cite.

This is precisely why the comments sections are becoming nothing more than the 'Michale Show' - which is really disappointing, considering that the American Thanksgiving is right around the corner.

Hopefully, this situation won't deter robust participation in the annual CW.com fund-raising drive. I, for one, have a new and very simple strategy for contributing to this premier blog site.

And, just for the record, I don't read all of the comments anymore like I used to. I just responded to this one because that's what I do when Biden's name comes up in the usual, if tiresome, derogatory manner. :)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/president-vp-may-differ-immigration-strategy-obama-angrily-cut-biden_818457.html

Looks like Biden is not on board with Obama's Amnesty For Criminals program...

Even within Obama's own Administration, people are thinking it's a bad idea...

Michale

We are in complete agreement..

Just to make sure we're clear..

I agree with you that this Democrat Party can't be trusted to follow thru with the agenda ya'all want...

I still disagree that the Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014 wasn't about the policies of President Obama.

It clearly was...

Obama himself even said so...

Michale

I have been thinking about what you have been saying...

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that the American people WANT the Democrat Party agenda, they just don't trust THIS Democrat Party to give it to them...

In other words, today's Democrat Party is NOT the Democrat Party that ya'all believe in...

Now, if THAT is indeed what you are saying, then I don't have a problem with that.

Mainly because that's what *I* have been saying since I voted for Obama and he was found wanting...

Today's Democrat Party is NOT what ya'all want in a Democrat Party...

We are in complete agreement..

Michale

Sound familiar?? :D

Wasserman Schultz said the new committee, whose membership will be announced in the coming weeks, will look at the party's tactics, messaging, get-out-the-vote operations and digital efforts in recent nonpresidential elections. The group plans to report back in February at the DNC's winter meeting.

You see the point??

"tactics" are the problem...

"Messaging" is the problem...

"get out the vote" is the problem...

NONE of those are the problem...

The problem for Democrats is that the American people just aren't buying anymore what the Democrats are selling..

In 2008, the Democrats promised the country a utopia where everyone is excellent to each other... The promised an economic paradise where no one wants for everything.. The promised a country at peace and no more war..

What did they deliver??

More wars.. Incompetent leadership... Racial strife even BIGGER that it was. Joe and Jane Sixpack's lives WORSE than before.. A Party in power that pits American against American for the benefit of non-American criminals..

THAT is the United States Of America under Democrat rule...

By all means, Democrats.. Ignore the REAL problem your Party has... Such concentration on the irrelevant will only insure a GOP POTUS and a larger GOP Congress in 2016....

So, have at it....

Michale

It seems to like the taste of URLs... If you had a URL in your comment, try replacing the long URL with a tinyURL..

I have found that it helps..

Michale

Sound familiar?? :D

I have a suggestion for Democrats..

Care more for Americans than you do for illegal immigrants...

Work harder for Americans than you do for immigrant criminals..

Care more for your country and less for your Party...

Democrats will find that things like that works wonders... It seems to work for Republicans...

Just a thought....

Michale

CW,

perhaps that is why the public didn't trust democrats, didn't get enthused, and didn't get to the polls. i recall mentioning this concern a few weeks ago, vis-a-vis your column proposing a victory lap for marriage equality. dems have been fighting and winning culture war issues, which is admirable. however, as thomas frank points out, those issues are much more motivating to the right, who are in a constant state of backlash over degrading what they see as traditional values. meanwhile, as you say, dems have been silent on the issues where the majority of the population actually support their views - namely, economic issues.

democrats claim to support the poor and middle class, and don't follow through (perhaps because that is not the source of most of their campaign funds). even obamacare, for all its fanfare, essentially nipped around the edges and left intact the explotative core of the health care industry. when democrats get out front and make a firm commitment to make the uber-rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us for social security, then maybe people will believe that they mean it and vote for them in an election without a new president on the ballot.

that not being the case, all the dems have left is social issues, where their greatest advantage lies among the young (and less likely to understand or vote in midterm elections). further, claiming to support the middle class economically and then doing a pro-corporate about-face on fiscal and labor issues erodes support among the "professional left," who generally do understand policy and get to the polls for midterms. as a democrat, i do wish the elections this week had gone differently. but given the duplicitous triangulation of the pro-corporate democrats and the unapologetic enthusiasm of the pro-corporate republicans, is it any wonder that people swung back to the group who showed commitment to their cause, however misguided it might be?

just askin'

JL

CW,

perhaps that is why the public didn't trust democrats, didn't get enthused, and didn't get to the polls. i recall mentioning this concern a few weeks ago, vis-a-vis your column proposing a victory lap for marriage equality. dems have been fighting and winning culture war issues, which is admirable. however, as thomas frank points out, those issues are much more motivating to the right, who are in a constant state of backlash over degrading what they see as traditional values. meanwhile, as you say, dems have been silent on the issues where the majority of the population actually support their views - namely, economic issues.

democrats claim to support the poor and middle class, and don't follow through (perhaps because that is not the source of most of their campaign funds). even obamacare, for all its fanfare, essentially nipped around the edges and left intact the explotative core of the health care industry. when democrats get out front and make a firm commitment to make the uber-rich pay the same percentage as the rest of us for social security, then maybe people will believe that they mean it and vote for them in an election without a new president on the ballot.

that not being the case, all the dems have left is social issues, where their greatest advantage lies among the young (and less likely to understand or vote in midterm elections). further, claiming to support the middle class economically and then doing a pro-corporate about-face on fiscal and labor issues erodes support among the "professional left," who generally do understand policy and get to the polls for midterms. as a democrat, i do wish the elections this week had gone differently. but given the duplicitous triangulation of the pro-corporate democrats and the unapologetic enthusiasm of the pro-corporate republicans, is it any wonder that people swung back to the group who showed commitment to their cause, however misguided it might be?

JL

Oh look... Democrats are going to do an "Election Autopsy"...

Sound familiar?? :D

I have a suggestion for Democrats..

Care more for Americans than you do for illegal immigrants...

Work harder for Americans than you do for immigrant criminals..

Care more for your country and less for your Party...

Democrats will find that things like that works wonders... It seems to work for Republicans...

Just a thought....

Michale

I'll grant you that Warner is deserving of a shame-down..

But I have (what I think is) a much more appropriate awardee of the MDDOTW award...

"I'll be very very honest with you. The South has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It's been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader. It's not always been a good place for women to present ourselves."
-Soon-To-Be FORMER Senator Mary Landrieu

For playing the race card and sexism card because she has nothing else to run on, I think Landru is deserving of the MDDOTW award...

REMEMBER THE ARCHONS!!! :D

Michale

Minimum wage jobs are NOT supposed to be living jobs... They are stepping stones jobs...

It's utterly ridiculous to think that a guy or girl flipping burgers should make as much as a first year police officer or make MORE than our service men and women..

Utterly.... Ridiculous..

Here's a thought... If people want a better paying job, let them WORK for it!!

What a concept, eh!!!????

Michale

Your wish is the American people's command, Mr President :D

Michale

Really???

Apparently, Republicans ran on the bleakness of the Democrat vision of the future and did a bang-up job, eh?? :D

Basically your entire FTP this week can be summed up in one way..

"Democrats, keep talking about what you have always been talking about and that will win in 2016."

To which I say, "RIGHT ON!!!" YES!!! Democrats keep doing the same ole same ole and it will guarantee a GOP government like the one Democrats had in 2009... :D

Michale

You have to ask yourselves...

WHY did Republicans win such a Nuclear Shellacking simply by blocking Obama's agenda??

Say it with me now...

Because the American people are overwhelmingly AGAINST Obama's agenda....

Immigration reform? They're against that, too. What would they do instead? Again, no bill from the House.

This is simply not factually accurate...

The House is fully supportive of the Senate Immigration reform legislation..

But they need assurances from Obama that he will faithfully execute the legislation AS IT IS WRITTEN...

To date, Obama has refused to give such assurances... Simply put, Obama CANNOT be trusted...

So, the onus is on the President, not House Republicans...

and a good way for the out party to get in the news is to strongly fight against what the in party is trying to do. This is going to include filibusters and vetoes galore, one assumes, and I am certainly not advocating that Democrats fail to make as much political hay out of these fights as they possibly can (hey, it just worked pretty well for Republicans, didn't it?).

So, you are advocating that Democrats be.... oh I can't say the "O" word!! Oh what the hell..

OBSTRUCTIONIST!!????

And there isn't any incongruity by advocating such action for Democrats when the Republicans were slammed unmercifully for the last 6 years for that very same action???

Michale

I see ya survived yer drinking binge.. :D

What with the Orangeman already waving red flags like a drunken fool and McConnell already poisoning the well, I just don't see how we can expect to see any bipartisan cooperation. I think they're pretending.

Ahhhhh A big steaming plate of fried crow, courtesy of Michale, with a side order of sour grapes..

Eat up, my friend. You've earned it... :D

Michale

I disagree...

Republicans have a HUGE motivation for getting things done...

It's called the 2016 Presidential Election..

Look at it this way...

We have had 6 years of nothing but acrimony and political agenda and bullshit with the country left in tatters...

Sweep the GOP into power up and down the board and suddenly this country is turned around and everything is going good...

No motivation to get things done?? Shirley you jest?? :D

Michale