What will be the effect of democracy if Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not upheld?

Pigotry "Why has the GOP been trying with the same old failed drivel on budget that was already defeated by the voters in November 2012?"

Perhaps the GOP House members try it because they WON the House elections in November 2012 on their promise to address the Deficits.

I congratulate you on being first with posting on so many occasions - you must have lots of free time on your hands - Do you perhaps 'feed at the public trough'?

PS - To answer your likely follow-up question, I'm retired.

Beverly in Chicago "What will be the effect of democracy if Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is not upheld?"

Nothing - people will still be able to vote. In fact, voters in the Southern States will likely have far more choices than in Chicago, where the Democratic 'Machine' determines who gets to run for office, and how many times a dead person is allowed to vote for their candidate.

Roy is you sole purpose in life to keep repeating the tea people republicans lies over and over? So you are getting that Social Security entitlement you want to get rid of. Oh your one of those tea people that say, "take it away from everyone else but leave mine alone".

Mo, Congress and their co-horts only want to take from you to help the future but for themselves they get a voted for pass the hell with future congressional posts. No changes for them as they always Granfather themselves in for any cuts or reduction in benefits making sure their money remains in their greedy big pockets.. They need a wake up call like voting them all the hell out and reversing their ability to vote for anything for themselves. Thieves the whole lot of them. Try comparing your retirement or health care to theirs it will make you sick.

The details of Ryan's budget ARE out! He wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Last year, when he was running with Mitt, he complained about Obama "cutting" $716 billion form Medicare. Now, his budget comes back with these same cuts. As Lou Christie once sang, "two faces have I"! Ryan is supposed to be some sort of budget wonk, some sort of conservative idea man. If he is, it's because he looks good by comparison. Sort've like being the tallest munchkin or the winner of the burqa competition at the Miss Iran beauty contest.

I'm not impressed with Paul Ryan. People keep saying how smart he is, how wonky... but I don't see it. His big idea for dealing with the aging baby boomer healthcare problem is to privatize Medicare - since when has the private insurance industry ever driven down costs? Ryan is just spinning ideas based on ideology, not on real life. My God, the man has never had a job outside of politics, and we all know how unreal that world is.

Amy, when has Medicare/Medicaid ever driven down costs?

Obama just spinning ideas based on ideology, not on real life. My God, the man has never had a job outside of academia, and we all know how unreal that world is.

There ya go. Fixed.

And yet, Barack Obama rose to be commander-in-chief, President of these United States, and Paul Ryan stayed a Representative during his whole career.

Like I said, I'm just not that impressed with Paul Ryan. What has he done? President Obama has governed during a recession, met with foreign leaders, hired and fired hundreds of executives, made decisions and seen them played out in the real world. Paul Ryan has stayed in the House, preforming like a gadfly on this administration. Like most Representatives, he never helped America create jobs after the crisis, he has just focused on his Ayn Rand dreams.

Amy, when has Medicare/Medicaid ever driven down costs?

Actually, some have argued that private insurance is the driver behind rising healthcare costs, because people with insurance don't actually see the price of that extra test or procedure, and insurance companies get a discount, so they don't quibble with providers. Uninsured people get socked with full amount, however.

The Affordable Care Act addresses rising costs, and has built in incentives for doctors to reduce duplicate services, and for prescription drug companies to get paid less. Democrats should get big points for addressing rising healthcare costs, as well as the reality of millions of uninsured, instead of sweeping the problem under the rug, as Republicans have done for decades. (Actually, Nixon was hoping to pass universal healthcare, so props to him, and to Romney for signing Romneycare in MA.)

Amy,

It takes a certain personality trait (and some may say idiocy with a twist of narcissism) to want the top job. Kind of like they are saying about the new pope coming up. In an interview last night one of the higher ups with knowledge of the proceedings stated that (paraphrased) "NO one is running around the room saying "choose me". They are all waiting for the wisdom from the 150+ to choose them based on merit. It is a turbulent time for them also.

Ryan is comfortable in his own skin and is staying where he feels he can do the most good. I don't think he even was really that into VP.

where he feels he can do the most good

most good for whom? Not the country as a whole, that's my problem with Republicans, and Paul Ryan in particular.

Amy, that would be wrong to suggest that Medicare and Medicaid drives costs DOWN. The government decides what to pay for certain procedures. I know that Medicare and Medicaid pay far less for certain procedures, and this actually drives costs UP as doctors and hospitals must charge people with regular insurance more to make up the lesser payments from Medicaid and Medicare.

Mikehataway, you just gave one of the most compiling reasons for single payer (medicare for all) healthcare.

Well, I could get behind a single-payer system. Basically Obamacare is going to end up being very close to that anyway. People making up to 140% of the poverty line will be eligible for subsidies to purchase insurance, and Medicaid is being greatly expanded. The only problem with all that is it is just insurance, and doesn't actually cut healthcare costs.

I propose that the government enter into contracts with doctors, promising to pay their med school loans off in exchange for 5-7 years of government service at a nice base salary. This will help provide enough doctors to handle the huge increase in patients. Open some closed military hospitals up as health centers, and then send every person not personally insured (in other words, every Medicare and Medicaid patient) to ONLY these govt. facilities. There would be no paperwork to fill out, as it is a govt. facility, and doctors wouldn't be required to carry malpractice insurance (you can't sue the govt. except in extreme cases).

Allow regular hospitals to refuse clients (except in life and death situations) without private insurance or the ability to self-pay. These hospitals would be more profitable when they don't have to treat flu symptons and tummy-aches in their E.R.'s..

So what you're saying mikehataway is you ought to have a higher priority than the elderly because you feel you're better than they are. Look to the future Mike, you will be one of those elderly someday that has to travel a good distance to find a hospital that will accept you since you've become a second class citizen.

Not at all. Work on your reading comprehension. I said NOTHING of the kind. I merely believe if that the government is going to pay for people's healthcare, it should cut out the middleman--in this case, insurance (which IS what Medicare/Medicaid are).

Doctors are ALREADY refusing to see Medicare and Medicaid patients in some parts of the country. With those Medicaid rolls being flooded with new patients, it will only get worse.

My plan allows people who already have insurance that they or their employer pay for to keep exactly what they have, and addresses the potential doctor shortage we will face when Obamacare goes into effect in full force. The elderly and poor will be taken care of also, just without the headache of a bunch of paperwork. Why not cut some overhead out of the Medicaid and Medicare programs? How much money wil be saved by not having to cut checks to doctors for services performed on those people?

Mike:

You gotta' read the TIME article by Steven Brill. Hospitals make tons of money and pay their executives exceedingly well - even the non-profits. I'm talking anywhere from $2 million to $6 million per year, even for the non-profits. Corresponding positions for other non-profits do not approach $1 million.

Medical lobbying spends 5 times that of the oil industry or any other group.

Brill talks about medicare versus insurance - who pays more and why. He also talks about doctors and nurses caught between insurance/medicare payments and the profit motives of highly paid executives who don't give a damn about anything except raising their salary and/or bonus's. Why should executives be paid more than the doctors?

Read the article, then come back here and present your ideas from a new perspective.

And what I wrote about eliminates overhead and puts doctors in charge of what treatment their patient's get. I believe that if the government is going to insist on being in the medical field that they actually get out of the insurance business and instead provide care to the very people thay want to help!

My way would greatly reduce fraud in Medicare/Medicaid since the doctors are going to be paid a flat salary whether they order 1 test or 20 tests. There would be no incentive to cheat the govt. because the govt. worker wouldn't benefit from the cheating like a doctor at a regular practice or hospital would.

There is no such prohibition.

Lyndon Johnson ran for his Senate seat at the same time as his run for the Vice President with John F. Kennedy.

Chris Matthews often allows his mouth to move faster than his brain - especially when he gets 'a tingling feeling up his leg'.

Joe Biden ran for both VP and Senate in 2008.

If not a legal problem, it may be a political problem for Rand Paul and Marco Rubio to run for President and Senate at the same time.

The question was about President … not VP

A person MAY run for both, but it would be political suicide to do so. Voters would tend to believe that the candidate didn't believe in their own ability to win the higher office, which would damage their campaign.

mike,

Could you provide a source (link) for that because I have searched and cannot fine a decisive answer to that question as it relates to running for President? I found a definitive answer for VP but not for President.

Sorry Dennis, I really don't know how to post a link. But all I did was type the question into Bing's searchbar and many times that question has been asked. Yahoo was the source I quoted.

There is nothing to prevent a candidate from running for both, but I believe either political party would strongly discourage a candidate from doing so. I do believe that a strong third-party candidate might actually be able to get away with it, knowing that he/she would almost certainly lose the Presidential election, but might have a shot at winning a state election.

mike,

I did the same and the answers were not definitive about running for President but they did reference current seat holders in both the House and Senate that ran on the ticket for VP and to be reelected to their current seat.

I asked this only because I could not find an answer knowing the “Boiler Room” has more resources and will be able to get the correct answer.

Dennis...

Looks like this varies by state. Here is a link to what is called the LBJ law in Texas.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/04/on_this_day_in_1959_texas_pass.html

From what I can see it applies to seeking the presidency or vice presidency. I also saw an article discussing Paul Ryan being the VP nominee and a House candidate and it mentioned that many states, including Delaware, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have adopted versions of it.

Couldn't really find a good source to show how it works for every state though.

Grimey,

Thanks !!

That is why I included "State Laws" in the comment because I had heard what you said but couldn't find a source.

I would still like an answer from the Boiler Room and if it is up to the States I would like to know which ones prohibit running for both seats.

When Matthew's guest named Rubio as another problem Matthews didn't respond but gave a look like he wasn't so sure of that comments. That is why I would agree with you … It may be a problem in KY but
maybe not in FL.

Thanks again !!

It's so odd how Olympia Snowe's popularity in Maine and New Hampshire rested on her success in saving the Portsmouth Navy Ship yard, yet I haven't heard anyone criticize Ayotte over her failure to save Portsmouth from the sequester cuts that will impact the local economy. Well, I suppose its early yet.

I didn't realize the GNOP would accep 2nd class citizens as their standard bearer....IMHO the GNOP thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant...

IMHO the Democrats want both male and female to be barefoot and government-dependent.

Amy's already getting her anti-Ayotte talking points from George Soros-central...a good sign for Sen Ayotte.

I'm flattered you think someone smart must be helping me make these points. Actually, they come out of my own little head.

Go Amy, Go Amy!!

Frank, I believe that there are a great many conservatives out there, as evidenced by the GOP winning the House again. The GOP hasn't put forth very good candidates for President the last 2 elections, as evidenced by their losses at that level. I believe that lower tier candidates will continue to be staunchly conservative and fare very well, but the GOP must have a more main-stream candidate for President. Just remember that President Obama's success at his own campaigns has not translated into Democratic wins at the state levels.

Mike...good answer and analysis.

You do realize mikehataway the GOP got less votes overall in house races and lost seats. The GOP only won the house by gerrymandering.

Mo, as I have tried to explain to Democrats MANY times, the votes for Congress-people are simply not counted the same way as for other elections.

Say a district in Cali has 500,000 voters, and vote 80% Democrat and 20% GOP.

Say a district in Oklahoma has 50,000 voters and votes 80% GOP and 20% Democrat.

Now, both states have duly elected ONE representative. Of course, the Dems got FAR more votes. Does that mean that Oklahoma citizens shouldn't be represented in Congress?

No matter how you spin it Mike, the house GOP lost the popular vote. In other words the majority of the country cant stand tea people republican house members. They realize the tea people republican house is a do nothing house of representatives.

Since when are facts considered spin, Mo?

What exactly was it that I wrote that wasn't actually true?

What is it that Mo said wasn't true? As Mo said, regardless of how you spin it, democrats won the election. I can tell you that the districts in my home state are gerrymandered so the republicans win the house, but could not win the senate in a state wide race.

Ahhh, Johntho, there is a big difference. I NEVER said Mo lied about anything. I never even said he "spun" anything.

As I stated before--both parties gerrymander when they can. Analysis shows that the GOP would have still won enough seats to control the House without gerrymandering.

Didn't a famous Democrat say "Eletions have consequences"?

Well, one of the consequences of the 2010 midterm elections were that more state legislatures were controlled by the GOP.

And now, since you want to jump into this conversation, as is your right, maybe YOU can answer the question:

What did I write that was not true?

If Democrats show up, Republicans will take a hit. Maybe not enough to control the House, but Republican numbers will decrease. Democrats didn't show up in 2010. They showed up in 2012 and the Republicans lost seats.

In 2012, the Dems ran a wildly popular incumbent President and he won rather easily. But that didn't translate into Democratic success at the state levels.

Why is it that low turnout (or high turnout) is ALWAYS the blame (or reason for success)?

Don't Democrats care about the other elections?

President Obama has "led" the GOP to it's two highest majorities in the House since 1948.

We could go into Republican gerrymandering.

We could do that, Auntie. Sure the GOP gerrymandered, exactly like the Democrats have done before them. "Elections have consequences" is a famous quote from a certain Democrat, right?

But analysis has shown that the Dems wouldn't have been able to take the House even without gerrymandering.

And to be perfectly honest, when the GOP administered their historic midterm win in 2010, the census of 2010 did NOT factor into that election, so the gerrymandering argument falls far short of a reasonable explanation. That one will be very hard to explain.

Mike:

Don't Democrats care about the other elections?

This liberal has asked that question many times. I hope and pray we remember 2010.

True enough, the GOP lost the Presidential election in a pretty big way. But they also won their second-largest majority in the House since 1948. I wouldn't be quite so quick to write the GOP off yet. Did the Dems disappear after GWB got reelected? Of course not, and neither will the GOP.

In President Obama, you have an extremely popular pick. But I believe it is his personality that wins people over--not necessarily his policies. Have you EVER heard a Presdient getting reelected with unemployment over 7%?

Yes we have mikehataway. President Obama 2012. Next dumb question. Again Mike, you do know the republicans also lost the popular vote in house elections. You seem to keep ignoring this fact.

I answered that (about the popular vote for Congress) in post 8.4.

Excuse me, I should have written "Have you ever heard of a President (other than Obama) getting reelected with unemployment over 7%?"

Feel better now?

A lot better. Says a lot about our current President doesn't it Mike.

No matter how you try to spin it Mike (post 8.4) the majority of voters voted against tea people house republicans.

And no matter how you try to spin it, Mo, the GOP was reelected to the majority in the House.

And no matter how you spin it, the two SMALLEST Democratic minorities in the House since 1948 have come in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

The term "charm offensive" is probably being used because it is such a drastic change in the President concerning the GOP. THAT certainly is news.

Amy,

For instance, I heard reporters on all three networks talk about how important it is for a President to socialize with Congress, like this is written in stone somewhere, but I didn't hear any reporter criticize House Republicans for not reaching out to Obama - surely it's a two-way street?

I think at this point they are pointing out the fact that Mr. Obama needs to socialize due to the fact he is supposed to be the leader and above anything else, find common ground to lead into. The way things are now, divisions and all, it is time for him to indeed take that higher ground to pull the two sides together and do the correct thing for the US. To this point, he hasn't done that on a great enough scale. He has been more of a "I am president and this is the way it needs to be" type of guy. With his falling approval numbers, I think (and hope) he has seen that standing that ground may have worked in his "cinderella" period of the first four years but, ALL people want some movement of some sort that truly shows that he can govern and not just campaign. Hopefully he is well on his way to that.

Oh and BTW, will you tell Feisty I actually had an original thought once again? She doesn't seem to think any of us on the other side can and do. I think she has me on ignore as I made sense a few times and made her uncomfortable in knowing of what I spoke. LOL : )

I know we aren't supposed to mention George Bush, but I don't recall Bush walking down his driveway to meet with Cindy Sheehan, much less reaching out to Democrats. And, hasn't President Obama been rebuffed by Republicans repeatedly since his first inauguration? I just think it's weird reporters on all three networks choose to report the stories in exactly the same way, especially since I tend to have a different viewpoint.

Considering I was right about Iraq and wmd's, I'm inclined to trust my own opinion over the mainstream media's.

I don't recall Bush walking down his driveway to meet with Cindy Sheehan, much less reaching out to Democrats.

Perhaps it wasn't "news" because Bush wasn't constantly on the "bash the Democrats" trail and rhetoric and therefore it wasn't a big "news item" with constant bickering.

Cindy Sheehan, now that is something I think she at least deserved. A handshake, a little compassion, and a listening ear for a few minutes. Even though she was quite extreme (called passionate by some) in her approach, she deserved at least eye to eye contact.

The latest Gallup poll has Congresses' approval rating at 13%. President Obama's approval is at 49%. But the political pundits keep telling us it's all up to Obama to charm Congress.

It just seems so out of whack, to me. I know Congress is never very popular, but how can 83% of voters disapprove of Congress and pundits tell us it's up to Obama to compromise with them, as if he hasn't been trying all along?

Amy is complaining the state run media isnt pro-Obama enough ...LOL.

Maybe it would help if Boehner communicated with fellow repubs. Why were the repubs at the dinner so surprized to hear about what Obama had put on the table in an effort to compromise? Why don't the repubs know what Obama and Boehner discussed?

Those are great questions, independent, but, sadly, I don't think political reporters are allowed to answer questions with actual facts, on the basis they may be accused of favoring the left.

Dont worry, Amy, George Steph, head of ABC News and leftist hack for the Clintons, wont ask any questions with actual facts to Obama....just the usual love fest, like with 60 Minutes ...

I knew softball season was coming soon, at least here in Virginia...we will get a look at the slow pitches right down the middle from the Dem partisan to his boss Obama.

Jeb's has already started the Romney flip flopping.

You were surprised Jeb Bush was sticking up for his brother? You are a leftist zealot, along with most in here.

GOP: Are you referring to the Texas tendency to alter their schools history books to cast a favorable light inside the bubble?