For John, BLUF: Which Republicans is Mr Charlie Baker talking to? Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at The Boston Globetoday we have an OpEd by Mr Charlie Baker, who is a candidate for the Republican Nomination for Governor. The title is "States Get It; Washington Doesn't".♠ Here is what Mr Baker says about the current imbroglio in DC:
But I also believe in democracy, and if the voters of this country wanted to defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act, they would have turned the White House and the Senate over to the Republicans. They didn’t do that.Makes one think of the famous Prince Talleyrand quip: "I wonder what he meant by that?"♥
If the reelection of President Obama and the return of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader means the voters want the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PP&ACA)♦ what does Republican control of the House of Representatives mean?♣
On the other hand, was the election of 2012 solely about PP&ACA or was it about other things (also)? If the election was all about PP&ACA, then can the Republicans in the Lower House trash the rest of the Obama Agenda without comment? I wouldn't think so.
I think Mr Baker owes us Republicans an expanded explanation of what he meant by that.
Regards — Cliff
♠ I wonder if he should get the nomination just for having the guts to use a semi-colon in public?
♥ Also attributed to Prince Metternich. However, it was in response to someone saying the Turkish Ambassador had died.
♦ I am avoiding use of the term "Obamacare" since when folks are polled they don't like "Obamacare" and like "Affordable Care Act".
♣ Well, there are those who argue that what with Gerrymandering the House of Representatives doesn't really represent the People of the US, like it ever did.
8 comments:
Seen Warren made her base happy today's, by inferring I'm backwards in my view on contraception. Sending her office a letter soon to invite her to an NFP intro class.
Seen Warren's office responded to my fatherless concerns positively, in a letter I sent earlier this year.
For the record, 450K more people voting for house seats voted for Democrats than Republicans, so that should be calculated in any 'mandate' or 'intent' calculation.
Or does that statement mean that Republicans won in more races that were competitive, thus better representing the diversity that is these United States?
Regards — Cliff
That's a misreading of gerrymandering. The point is to acknowledge that the other side gets more votes and the way to deal with it is to gerrymander the districts so *their* races are not competitive - so you can pack voters that will vote for the other guy into fewer districts and keep those voters from making other districts competitive.
That more Republicans win in competitive races is a bug of gerrymandering not a feature.
Related:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=230976609
Shack!
Maybe we should take redistricting out of the hands of legislators. Use software to create compact districts, even if it means not achieving other social goals.
Regards — Cliff
Perhaps. Or perhaps we should implement a Veil of Ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance
Post a Comment