This is, yet again, I have to say DAMN YOU, SPITZER:
Nah, McCain would tell a few reporters his position had been misrepresented, and they'd all pile onto Edwards.
Did anyone notice that the national regulation for insurors, superseding state regulations, has apparently been sneaked into the financial-industry "reform" plan?
Posted by: paul | April 1, 2008 4:32 PM
---------
The NY State Dept. of Insurance is most likely the most powerful regulator of insurance companies in the country, and it was what Spitzer was able to use to force AIG and the other colluding insurers and brokers to heel. Now, because he thought he could indulge in the pastimes of his enemies, he left it open for dismantling, because no one with that same authority, either as AG or Governor, will be there to stop it.
You wanna know who will stop insurance companies from ignoring claims, packing up and leaving after a catastrophic event? NO ONE. Will they get Brownie to run the new agency? Why not?
um, *why* I have to say....
I'm all het up about this....
Insurors in TX have so far been able to shrug off the state agency's attempts to regulate them so far, so I am inclined to think that Fed'l regulation would be an improvement, but only under a viable administration, iow, not GoPervians.
and thanks for the link, Avedon.
This is not I repeat not work safe.
We are so going down in flames this November.
The GOP may be screwing with the Dem primaries, but the Dem are much better at that. What we were watching in the alleged Dem primaries was non democratic, absurd, baffling and downright disgusting.
Washington state - caucuses then primaries, but only the first count
Texas - primaries a 1/3 of which is ignored and substituted by caucuses
Nevada - delegate allocation not proportional to the voting totals
Caucuses - a system that is rigged towards fascistic candidates with mobs making the day
MI and FL? just ignore them
Who needs an enemy?
The thing I really find disheartening as a former Edwards supporter is how so-called liberals and progressives find it very easy to jettison their commitment to small-d democracy if it suits the chances of their preferred candidates. Obama's opposition to the revotes is on the record, as are several suggestions by the Clinton campaign that they'd ask pledged delegates based on the popular vote to recant their allegiances. At the end of the day, each candidate is strong in his or her way, but I don't find either of them so mind-blowingly transcendent that it makes sense to abandon our principles for them. And the tone of a lot of the commenters and even the blogs on related issues is really gutter level. Sometimes I feel like going up to some of the real partisan nuts and shaking them and asking, "WTF does any of this have to do with the ongoing slaughter in Iraq that we started? Or the foreclosure crisis that our love affair with the unregulated market began?" Whatever, just a thought.
Oh, I forgot. I love Elizabeth Edwards, and I think our wonderful chucklehead candidates would be well-advised to make their bones doing what she's doing - kicking John McCain's ass. That is all.
I've noticed that Randy Rhodes has gone insane with Hillary hatred over the last few weeks. It's rather frightening - and it did step up more than a notch after the Ferraro thing. Which is particularly annoying, since, aside from the fact that Ferraro isn't Hillary, she didn't say anything all that outrageous to begin with. We all know that the History angle is working even better for Obama than it is for Hillary, and it's not surprising that a woman on her campaign got all resentful and annoyed about it.
The New York Pravda is still controlled by the world's largest private equity group.
They have a heavy investment in keeping the Endless War endless, even if they'd like their own faction instead of Cheney's managing the foruth branch of government.
And yes, I'm learning more than I imagined was possible about how fucked up primary politics is, especially on the Dem side - and the willingness of Dems to throw democracy under a bus in favor of their candidate.
And my god don't caucuses suck? I nearly linked a post a week or so ago from someone who was really depressed after going to her first caucus, and now I wish I had.
TX: Obama gets more delegates than Clinton, who won the vote. No, caucuses are not a good idea.
Liked your comment at WaPo, Avedon. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...3_Comments.html
Elizabeth Edwards is a far more impressive speaker than any of the candidates, including her husband.
Is Ben Walle-Wells related to Ben Fong-Torres?
Avedon, caucuses not only don't suck, they're wonderful. I've never had so much satisfaction at the polls as I had in Iowa's caucuses while I lived in the state. There's nothing to compare with talking with your neighbors about who you support and them doing the same, and everyone then standing up for their preference. It's more like a good old-fashioned town-hall meeting in that regard, and while it's certainly more work the payoff comes in terms of building local party connections. Which is not a small thing.
scottreades, I was an Edwards supporter (I voted for him in the 2004 Wisconsin primary, FWIW) but let's not get carried away here. Edwards, Obama and Clinton were not that far apart politically, with the exception of health care where Edwards was more progressive/liberal/whatever. I was disappointed Edwards didn't do better, but both Clinton and Obama are reasonable alternatives who are far better than McCain is.
koshembos, I'll pass on the sour grapes. I have sympathy for Florida's voters, as it wasn't that state's Democrats who pushed the primary date before Feb. 5th. I still think seating 1/2 FL's delegates is a reasonable compromise (and one that mirrors the GOP doing the same thing) now that a re-vote has been rejected by FL's Democrats. Michigan on the other hand was under the control of state Democrats who willfully flaunted party rules to put their date so far up into January that it only served to make the process even longer. There can't be a fair re-vote in MI either and it wouldn't be fair to Obama to even seat half the delegation now. I feel sorry for MI voters, some who are friends of mine, but they should be angry at their own state's Democrats for leading them into such a mess.
David W:
Don't mistake me. I'm not gonna run for the exits whoever the nominee is, and I'll pull the lever for that person. I'm just really frustrated with the pie-fight, fever-swamp, name-calling aspects of the exchanges between the two candidates, especially their supporters/claques. Lots of things get lost in exchanges like that, including our larger commitments to liberal goals and principles. Sigh.
Caucuses may feel like democracy. But they don't smell like democracy.
Not with the gazillion people who are disenfranchised because they don't have the opportunity to attend and the peer pressure that the secret ballot protects you from.
koshembos, I'll pass on the sour grapes. I have sympathy for Florida's voters, as it wasn't that state's Democrats who pushed the primary date before Feb. 5th. I still think seating 1/2 FL's delegates is a reasonable compromise (and one that mirrors the GOP doing the same thing)
You mean because it makes no difference?
I mean, really, cutting the delgate votes in half is the same as seating none of them as far as the voters in Florida are concerned.
The fact is that no fact and no argument that doesn't amount to a win for Obama will ever be "acceptable" to people who've decided to support Obama. What's "fair" is finding a formula by which Barack wins and Hillary loses, right?
Let's be clear, here: Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan because he knew he would lose and wanted to delegitimize Clinton's expected win. Then a myth was created that they'd all agreed to do that - when, in fact, they hadn't. But that makes Clinton a bad person because she left her name on the ballot and won the vote.
Obama made a national ad buy right before the Florida primary, and so was the only one who can be said to have campaigned there at all, but he still lost.
Everyone said beforehand that in the end the delegates would be seated so it was no big deal - except that Hillary won those states decisively, and Obama's coronation is not assured if we start counting how people actually voted, so now we have a call for the Superdelegates to support his coronation and get it over with.
And Clinton won Texas but still lost the delegate count? How'd that happen?
Oh, yeah, and we even have Obama supporters (or alleged Obama supporters, I can never tell which) threatening violence at the convention if Obama isn't annointed. (Christ, does this sound like November-December 2000, or what?)
And from what I understand, the caucuses feel a lot more exhilirating to the people who manage to overwhelm the opposition than they do to people who feel hammered down. No, I'd rather let people walk into the voting both and cast their ballot so it's just between them and their own conscience and judgment.
BTW, how do you think caucuses feel to people who can't go to them because they have to work? Oh, that's right, they don't matter, they're probably just those stupid old racist boomer women anyway, right?
Nice to know Axelrod managed to play the whole fucking blogosphere like a fiddle.
vastleft, while it's true that caucuses do demand people show up at a specific time and place, it's not like people can't plan ahead either. So I don't buy the argument that it systematically disenfranchises anyone. As for the coercion argument, well, let's just say that I think that's vastly overstated.
You mean because it makes no difference?
Avedon, of course it makes a difference as the DNC made clear when it said that leapfrogging Feb. 5th would have consequences for those states who did so.
I mean, really, cutting the delgate votes in half is the same as seating none of them as far as the voters in Florida are concerned.
Since when is half a loaf the same as none? The Republicans are cutting their FL delegation in half but those delegates who do show up in St. Paul will be counted the same as those from other states.
The fact is that no fact and no argument that doesn't amount to a win for Obama will ever be "acceptable" to people who've decided to support Obama. What's "fair" is finding a formula by which Barack wins and Hillary loses, right?
This has nothing to do with who wins or loses. It has to do with the national party deciding what the consequences are for those states who leapfrog the primary process.
Let's be clear, here: Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan because he knew he would lose and wanted to delegitimize Clinton's expected win. Then a myth was created that they'd all agreed to do that - when, in fact, they hadn't. But that makes Clinton a bad person because she left her name on the ballot and won the vote.
Edwards, Richardson, and other candidates pulled their names off the ballot along with Obama though, not because they thought they'd lose (otherwise, why wouldn't Edwards have pulled his name off the ballot in New Hampshire?), but because they agreed not to support Michigan's decision to go with a Jan. 15th primary, weeks before Feb. 5th. I think you're engaging in some dubious hypotheticals when the reasons why other candidates dropped out are plain to see.
Obama made a national ad buy right before the Florida primary, and so was the only one who can be said to have campaigned there at all, but he still lost.
Again, the question isn't who won or lost Florida, but rather what the consequences should be for them jumping the Feb. 5th date. Halving the delegation (which again is what the GOP is also doing) seems fair enough to me under the circumstances.
Everyone said beforehand that in the end the delegates would be seated
No, they didn't. And in any case, that call belongs to the DNC, and Howard Dean.
And Clinton won Texas but still lost the delegate count? How'd that happen?
Because Texas went with it's own hybrid primary/caucus method of delegate selection.
And from what I understand, the caucuses feel a lot more exhilirating to the people who manage to overwhelm the opposition than they do to people who feel hammered down. No, I'd rather let people walk into the voting both and cast their ballot so it's just between them and their own conscience and judgment.
That hasn't been my experience at all. If anything, trying to intimidate anyone is guaranteed to turn them off. What I
con't.
And from what I understand, the caucuses feel a lot more exhilirating to the people who manage to overwhelm the opposition than they do to people who feel hammered down. No, I'd rather let people walk into the voting both and cast their ballot so it's just between them and their own conscience and judgment.
That hasn't been my experience at all. If anything, trying to intimidate anyone is guaranteed to turn them off. What I've found is that people want to share their enthusiasm about their candidate and be positive. I really liked the Paul Simon supporters in my precinct caucus back in 1988, and if Babbitt had come up short I would have gladly walked over to join them. The Gephardt people, eh, not so much.
BTW, how do you think caucuses feel to people who can't go to them because they have to work? Oh, that's right, they don't matter, they're probably just those stupid old racist boomer women anyway, right?
See my response to vastleft about caucuses being somehow unfair. The reason states have them is to try and build local party numbers and connections, and that's a legitimate goal for a political party to have, and the fact that there may be a tradeoff in terms of numbers of participants is something that does need to also be considered. That's why caucuses tend to be in states with smaller populations, although Texas Democrats did try that hybrid caucus/primary which seems to have worked well enough for them.
Commenting by HaloScan
