Senate The US Politics discussion

My impression is that the conservative base resents him far too much for his work on immigration reform for him to have a viable candidacy. This, ultimately, is the symbol of their token-ism. They praised him to the heavens for being a minority and having an informed focus on those issues, but in short order generated a tremendous backlash for daring to use that knowledge and perspective to do anything other than validate their xenophobia.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/the-gay-marriage-litmus-test-114616.html?hp=t1_r]Ah[/url], GOP, how well we know ye

 

It's remarkable how terrified many people are of things that have absolutely no impact on them.

 

Agreed. Think I've made this point before but Rubio is an empty suit. It stuns me that many in the supposed left leaning media haven't realized this. Middle of the road journalists seem to generally be pretty generous to him.

 

I was unaware that Scott Walker is considered to have a lack of personality: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120865/scott-walker-rights-biggest-threat-democrats-and-gop

That idea is nonsense. I'll probably say it many more times before his candidacy is over (hopefully well short of the White House)-- he is dangerous to the Democrats. He's no better than the rest of them with regard to actual policymaking, and in fact perhaps worse because he actually has been in a governing position, but he has an ability to charm voters. I hope Democratic candidates and strategists don't underestimate him. If I were one of the latter, particularly for Hillary Clinton, I would be almost completely ignoring the rest of the clown car and preparing to take on Walker. The rest don't need the same preparation, in part because the ads write themselves.

Walker has the ability to come off as being reasonable to moderate voters, even as his actions in office leave little to no daylight from those they would much more readily dismiss.

 

Walker is getting a huge push from Limbaugh as the top guy they need to run.

I cannot find the vid nor the article as I do not know the title of the hearing. Walker was not there but there was a hearing held briefly by Walker's team of players and union bosses. Walkers team got up and walked out...ILLEGALLY. That's something a Democratic candidate can show in a commercial. Also, he cut $300 million from public universities. Then proposed $220 million for a new sports stadium. Walker is a walk over anyone with a smirk sort and has done so publically. Cheney's "So?" remark? Yeah, that's Walker and much of it is on film.

 

VLM, I don't know anything about Walker except for brief stories regarding the union vote in Wisconsin, but what do you mean "Walkers team got up and walked out...ILLEGALLY."

How would it be illegal to walk out of a meeting? What law prevents anyone from exiting a meeting in progress? I hope whatever law was broken has an exception to allow people to go to the bathroom, because otherwise, there would be some unsanitary distractions once any meeting has started. I'm just not sure what you mean there.

 

I agree with KnightWriter. In spite of all the things he pushed through in WI, many very controversial, he wins.

If Reagan was the teflon president, Walker is the teflon governor.

 

So, not even a month in, and the thaw in US-Cuban relations is hitting a snag:

Raul Castro demands return of the base at Guantanamo Bay before relations between U.S. and Cuba can normalize - White House says we don't give into demands. Castro also demanded Obama lift the embargo and compensate his country for damages before the two nations reestablish normal ties

This is exactly why all the branches of government have to be involved in something like this. The US isn't going to close Gitmo simply because Raul Castro demands it to, and I don't expect Cuba to do anything about it. But Congress controls the embargo, and this is going to make it less likely that it will lift it. There is no way that the US is going to pay Cuba monetary damages either. Obviously, no one is taking Raul's demands seriously, as they are an inept attempt at some sort of negotiation, but then what is his ultimate goal with such rhetoric? If anything, it's a reminder that the back and forth between the US and Cuba isn't a one sided affair.

 

Gitmo absolutely should be closed-- the entire base. It's been there without Cuba's consent since the revolution, and the U.S.'s thin legal justification is that the Castro regime cashed ONE lease check in the initial aftermath of Batista's ouster. If the two governments can come to a deal regarding the base, fine (even though I still wouldn't like it), but as it stands the tiny colony should have been gone 55 years ago. Cuba has justifiably and repeatedly called for the closure of the base over the years, so this is pretty routine.

 

Raul is just being a shrewd negotiator. Public bluster to appear strong for the masses. Serious negotiations behind the scenes. Both sides will claim victory.

 

Sure, except such calls for it in the past haven't been tied to normalizing relations. When you're trying to show that you're on your best behavior when the new neighbors move in, you don't start off by demanding that they do all sorts of stuff that only benefits you. The US isn't going to comply with any of the demands anyway.

And Gitmo base should absolutely not be closed down, most of all because it's a strategic refueling and supply center. It was established back in the 1900's, well before Batista was overthrown. Cuba has protested it since Batista was ousted, but nothing much has come of it. I've heard the "Cuba cashed one check" rumor as well, but considering that Cuba has renegotiated the terms of the lease numerous times, I don't know how true it is

 

I don't care about its strategic importance. The U.S. can stick Gitmo's strategic importance up its ass (maybe the Joint Chiefs can split it). I care that a government that supposedly acts in my name puts sailors, marines, civilians-- oh, and an "extralegal" tortureplex on the soil of another country that doesn't want them there.

 

Well, maybe they can give it back to the Cubans on condition of normalized relations?

 

Oh, and Mr. Forty-Four, the whole reason the U.S. got Gitmo is because in 1898 it wrested the island from Spain and made it an American playground. But there's absolutely no problem with that!

 

Looks like the senate armed services committee was a bit lively today. Code Pink showed up and put some handcuffs in Henry Kissinger's face while shouting about his arrest for war crimes. Sen McCain then called the protestors "Low life scum' and had capitol police escort them out of the committee room.

They showed up later when Kissinger started talking, shouting about war crimes in Vietnam, until a 90 something George Schultz got up out of his seat, turned around and shouted back.

 

I don't understand why Kissinger in particular is targeted other than the fact that he served under likely our most hated President. He probably should be put up against a wall and shot, but how is that different than anyone else who served in his position in the 20th and 21st centuries? Yeah yeah, "secret" bombings of Cambodia and Laos and other lovely ****. But the Johnson administration did the same thing. And why be nitpicky? The whole ****ing war was a crime.

 

Well, it probably is because Kissinger is still around and many of Johnsons folks, McNamara, etc have passed.

 

I don't consider an "agreement" imposed by the U.S. upon a de facto vassal state to be all that legitimate, Western-favorable international law or not. I suppose Britain's seizure of Hong Kong was also a-ok because the Qing said, "Please, don't shoot at us anymore! We'll take all the opium!" I imagine a left-wing regime would (and did) have the same mindset. The revolution happened primarily because of U.S. imperialism on the island, so why should a government with that basis not demand land stolen from their country be given back unconditionally?

 

Doesn't matter, doesn't matter, doesn't matter. People don't care. That will not stick to him.

Clinton can beat Walker, but she'll need every last bit of ability, networking, and help from the President to do it. She'll crush anyone else she faces. The DNC should consider donating to various Republican candidates, for the purpose of undermining Walker. Far better to take him out early than have to deal with him later. If Obama is reasonably popular near the end of his term, he could give Clinton a boost with campaigning throughout the country for her. He's an excellent campaigner, and freed from the burden of having to campaign for himself, he could be better still. He and Bill did a lot for various Democratic candidates in 2006.