Nate Silver, Markos, and other Democrats co-sign letter with Grover Norquist

[ohiodemocratic]

Asking for our Congressmen and President Obama to continue debating their differences in televised appearances.

link:

"America could use more of this — an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives. So we call on President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner to hold these sessions regularly — and allow them to be broadcast and webcast live and without commercial interruption, sponsorship or intermediaries. We also urge the President and the Republican Senate caucus to follow suit. And we ask the President and the House and Senate caucuses of his own party to consider mounting similar direct question-and-answer sessions. We will ask future Presidents and Congresses to do the same."

Nate Silver says, "This is truly a bipartisan endeavor, with everyone from Markos Moulitsas to Grover Norquist on board." http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/few-questions-about-questiontime.html

Glenn Greenwald: "these campaigns should be judged on their merit, not based on who co-signs" http://twitter.com/ggreenwald

[rucky]

1. I don't think we'd get the same results.

Now that the spontenaity is gone, Republicans will just use this as another venue to push their talking points. At least they wouldn't go unanswered this way.

[polichick]

2. I agree with you - it could backfire badly. Stop while you're ahead. nt

[glinda]

7. I agree. Not a good idea at all to do it frequently or with much notice either.

And why is Obama the only one out there in front?

[monmouth]

9. Actually, he's the only one I trust. Very few Dems that could handle

this other than POTUS. Axelrod and Gibbs don't think and articulate fast enough on their feet. Cornyn doesn't want this, I can see why.

[glinda]

18. then they need to find some people that are smart enough and we need to elect them

[sandnsea]

5. One a quarter would work

That's just enough to gain an audience but not enough for them to use it as stump the president. Too much happens too quick these days.

I want Obama, Stupack, Capps, Pelosi, Reid, and whoever else is important, to discuss the details of the abortion section. Live on CNN. Hammer it out.

And then another one with the unions on the premium section.

Do the 5 most contentious issues and we'd have health care done in 3 months.

[Schema Thing]

3. I heard this on NPR last evening....

...couldn't believe I was agreeing with Grover Norquist.


I'm trying to figure out what *his* angle on this is.


Looks like the Senate has already decide not to televise their meeting with the Pres.

[butterfly77]

4. What irritates me now is..

that when Assholes Bush and Cheney were in office no one dare to ask for this or anything else now they want so much from this President even though if he did he would kick ass. I would have loved to see this with bush..

[OHdem10]

6. Scheduled Meetings will become very strategized look staged.

[frazzled]

12. Agreed, plus I don't think this is something that can be legislated

If the President (any president) wants to do this, and the opposition party wants to do it, fine. But we certainly can't compel either one to do it. At least, without a Constitutional amendment. We can't even require the president to give a state of the union address before both chambers of Congress. The Constitution requires that he or she provide a message on the state of the union to the two branches "from time to time," but this could be a written document (and indeed was for many years). It is only by tradition that the once-yearly speech before a joint session has become the norm.

This is not England, where the prime minister is a member of Parliament. We have separation of powers. So if Congress doesn't want to ask questions of the president, or a president doesn't want to enter into a question session with Congress, it can't be required. Now, public sentiment could compel both parties, by convention, to agree to do this from time to time. But as a political strategy, we should be careful of what we ask for: I think the president will always have the bully pulpit in these sessions. Some (Obama) will be better at it than others. But you are right: both sides would quickly learn how to turn them into dog-and-pony shows for political purposes.

It might be a great new tradition that Obama started. But I doubt that Grover Norquist and Nate Silver together really have a lot of clout here.

[ohiodemocratic]

8. I remember when Jane Hamsher was said to be evil for agreeing with Norquist on something

Much of the criticism came not because of the content of the letter, in which Hamsher and Norquist asked for an inspector general's investigation into Emanuel's 2000-2001 tenure on the board of Freddie Mac, but simply because Norquist is a right-winger and therefore any co-signer who joined hands with Norquist would automatically become some kind of traitor.

[Major Hogwash]

11. On muh gawd! You even spoke her name, she who must never be spoken of ever again!!

Oh muh gawd, the witches and warlocks will be here for you tonight!
With pitchforks and torches, they will torment you tonight!
You haven't a chance, quick, sell me your soul, before you are damned!!!

[Major Hogwash]

10. Throw Markos under the bus!!

Because you-know-who agreed with Grover Norquist last month!!

"And then after they were finished banning everyone that didn't agree with them, the mods and the admins were just as happy as 5 larks could ever be."

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. I'm one of 'those' who won't touch Norquist with a brazillion foot pole.

If other people want to sign on with him, that's on them. He has been behind a lot of the conservative causes that have helped make the mess we are in now. Whatever he is doing isn't out of the goodness of his heart or in a spirit of bipartisanship.

Norquist's idea of bipartisanship is really bye-partisanship. He will wave bye when he is through and gets what he needed.

He is Jim DeMint's guru. If I didn't like him before, that would be enough for me. This also isn't a whim on my part. I've watched him and his minions since Reagan.

Every Dem known to man along with every progressive on Earth and beyond can sign the letter. IMHO it doesn't elevate the discussion to have Norquist in it. It brings everything down to his level.

So you can still count me out and throw me under the bus now. I'd rather be there than riding in it with Norquist.

[ohiodemocratic]

15. Do you think it's a good idea to have politicians debate on TV more often?

Or is it a bad idea?

[Are_grits_groceries]

16. I think it's a good idea.

However, I still won't knowingly put my name down by Norquist's in any 'attempt' to show an agreement with him on anything. I don't want ANYTHING to do with him.

Call me rigid or whatever. I don't care. He's one of those people I have a real 'line in the granite' about.

[KonaKane]

14. Grover....Norquist??

The same guy wanted to "drown government in the bathtub, beat it with a baseball bat and then dump the mutilated carcass over a cliff" Grover Norquist?

Honestly, what is going through the Congressional Democrats' heads these days? Obviously not a whole lot.

[slipslidingaway]

17. knr - under the bus they all go. n/t