Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Last Call For The Nadering Nabobs Of Negativity

Ralph Nader can't quit trying to win it for the GOP.

“I’m going to find at least ten enlightened billionaires or multibillionaires and I’m going to have a criteria. Have they spoken out about where they think the country is going? And are they worried about it? And have they done things reflecting some sort of civic enlightenment and courage? And are they able to communicate? Obviously, they have the money. And I’m going to encourage them to run.”

His target is to make sure Hillary doesn't get into the White House.

“We really need a dynasty now? We’ve had twelve years of the Bushes, what — do you want eight more years of the Clintons? Do we really want a redux here or do we want fresh energy and refresh redirection?” Of his specific criticisms of Clinton, Nader says the former Secretary of State “never saw a weapons system she didn’t like, never challenged the Pentagon when she was on the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

Nader would like to see Sen. Barbara Boxer run, but assumes “she’s not willing to take the next step.”

“They’re all deferring to Hillary and, let me tell you, anyone who thinks Hillary will have cakewalk three and a half years from the next presidential election better look back at 2008 and see if that was a cakewalk. She’s going to have competitors.”

Barbara Boxer?  Sure, she's pretty anti-Pentagon, but there needs to be more.  Which is why Nader keeps screwing things up.  He ran against Al Gore and we got Dubya as a result, remember?  And he sure prevented useless, bloody, expensive wars, didn't he?

Nope.  I'll never forgive the guy for Florida 2000.  Ever.  Show yourself out, Ralph.  Don't come back.

Prefacing A Pre-Failure

WIN THE MORNING decided last night that President Obama's climate change initiative being announced today has already failed and won't get any support from anyone, so he might as well quit now.

President Barack Obama’s new climate change agenda may be ambitious, but experts warn it won’t be enough to avoid the worst effects of a warming planet.

The climate threat is so severe, they say, that the administration must quickly pivot from the steps it’s announcing Tuesday — including greenhouse gas regulations for power plants — to tackle other parts of the economy.

Le sigh, le groan.

Even the most unprecedented strides toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions pale next to the scope of the problem facing the planet. Still, environmental activists say Tuesday’s announcements will be a big deal. They’re thrilled Obama is finally refocusing on climate change in his second term.

“Really, this is a moment that has been 20 years in the making, and most of the last 20 years unfortunately has not been well spent,” said David Hawkins, director of climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

While climate change activists and long-time observers of the ebbs and flows of environmental policy are elated, they are also quietly reminding the president that more work needs to be done.

Yes, so quietly that Politico is shooting down the initiative in advance, along with Coal State Dems.

You can’t do something that is unattainable,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who famously fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill in a 2010 campaign ad. “It’s unreasonable. What they’re doing has never been done.”

So yes, if this seems familiar, where the President is being dumped on by the purist left for an insufficient effort and attacked by moderates in his own party before he's actually made the announcement, welcome to the last four years of this administration.

When President Obama chooses to user the executive branch to get things done, it's either "not enough" or "unprecedented tyranny".  When he doesn't, it's "failure to act" and "another broken promise".

The guy can't win, and not a single person it seems is grateful for the effort.  Ever.

The Day The Voting Died

As expected, the Roberts Court has struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act by cleverly striking down Section FOUR instead, saying that the formula that Congress uses to determine which states are under Section 5 pre-clearance is no longer Constitutional.  And of course is was a 5-4 vote to throw out 49 years of voting protections for minorities.

A deeply divided Supreme Court has limited use of a key provision in the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, in effect invalidating federal enforcement over all or parts of 15 states with past history of voter discrimination.

The court said it is now up to congressional lawmakers to revise the law to meet constitutional scrutiny.

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to the current conditions," said Chief Justice John Roberts for the 5-4 conservative majority.

Section 4 of the law was struck down, the coverage formula used by the federal government to determine which states and counties are subject to continued oversight. Roberts said that formula from 1972 was outdated and unworkable.

Sure.  Republicans will get right on that new formula thing.  Count out the South from here on out, folks.  It's open season on massive gerrymandering because now, no states, districts, or localities are subject to Section 5 rules.  Chief Justice Roberts' opinion is here:

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

Justice Ginsburg's epic dissent should be in America's history books:

In the Court’s view, the very success of §5 of the Voting
Rights Act demands its dormancy. Congress was of
another mind. Recognizing that large progress has been
made, Congress determined, based on a voluminous rec­
ord, that the scourge of discrimination was not yet extir­
pated. The question this case presents is who decides
whether, as currently operative, §5 remains justifiable,
this Court, or a Congress charged with the obligation to
enforce the post-Civil War Amendments “by appropriate
legislation.” With overwhelming support in both Houses,
Congress concluded that, for two prime reasons, §5 should
continue in force, unabated. First, continuance would
facilitate completion of the impressive gains thus far
made; and second, continuance would guard against back­
sliding. Those assessments were well within Congress’
province to make and should elicit this Court’s unstinting

The only thing that's history now?  The rights of millions of Americans to vote.


Related Posts with Thumbnails