Through Luck or Skill, Democrats Are Winning Tactical Advantages in 2012

[babylonsister]

http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/09/lucky-or-good-a-2012-democratic-scorecard-so-far/?iid=sl-main-lede

Through Luck or Skill, Democrats Are Winning Tactical Advantages in 2012
By Massimo Calabresi | March 9, 2012 | +

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

President Barack Obama smiles during remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual policy conference in Washington, March 4, 2012.


Facing the potentially insurmountable challenge of a slow economic recovery in an election year, Democrats have looked for little ways to gain political advantage over Republicans in 2012. Some of their efforts have bombed, like their rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline just as gas prices spiked. Others have gone nowhere, like their efforts to shame Republicans in Congress into supporting further stimulus. But a few bunts have turned into extra base hits. Here are some of their more successful gambits, along with one that has yet to play out.

Voting Rights: Attorney General Eric Holder’s big roll-out on voting rights hasn’t done much to change the conversation nationally, but a by-product of the Administration’s efforts yielded fruit. In Texas, which reliably votes Republican in the presidential election, Democrats fought a post-2010 census redistricting plan that would have resulted in a gain of 2-4 seats for Republicans in the House. By chance, the ensuing legal mess ended up pushing the Texas primary from Super Tuesday all the way back to May, possibly further. The upshot, as luck would have it for the Dems, was to prolong the GOP primary season by dragging out the contest between Santorum and Gingrich to be the South’s favorite non-Romney.

Housing: After the 2010 robo-signing scandal, a brief surge of public outrage united all 50 state attorneys general in an investigation of big banks’ handling of mortgages. The investigation turned into negotiations over a multi-billion dollar settlement that would protect the banks from state and federal prosecution on some issues in exchange for a big payout to homeowners, but the negotiations stalled as liberal and conservative attorneys general bolted when things didn’t go their way. Realizing late last summer that the entire project could die, the Obama Administration stepped in and through a combination of deal making and flattery reunited nearly all of the AGs behind a deal. In the process, the Administration delivered the biggest settlement for aggrieved homeowners–$1,500 to $2,000 for anyone evicted who claims their foreclosure was mishandled—and a large infusion of money for state programs aimed at easing the consequences of the housing crisis. Although the deal is unlikely to do much for homeowners in the grand scheme of things, it got the banks to cough up billions for an Administration-run program, allowing Obama to claim he fought the banks and delivered for homeowners.

Women’s Issues: Democrats’ biggest win so far started out as a defensive maneuver. The GOP has, of course, been looking for its own winning issues this year and had spent months planning their move against what they called Obama’s war on religion. At first it looked like a winner for the GOP. When Obama announced that religious institutions would have to cover contraception for employees, the GOP pushed back amid an outcry from the Catholic church. But then the GOP overplayed its hand. The Administration backed down, shifting the payments for contraception to the insurance companies, the GOP charged ahead with hearings, and the Democrats started looking for witnesses to make their case. That’s how they found Sandra Fluke. With a little help from Rush Limbaugh—well, a lot of help—the Dems managed to turn a losing war-on-religion issue into a winning war-on-women one.

The Administration has some other moves planned. The most visible is on ObamaCare. Last year they made the decision to push for a ruling by the Supreme Court on Obama’s signature health care reform bill before the election, rather than waiting until afterward. The Administration thinks it has a base-motivating winner no matter what the outcome, but Obama has good reason to think he may win—several powerful conservative judges have ruled the law constitutional.

On the other hand, the record shows so far that for both sides this year, big wins and big losses have come as much by chance as by planning.

[Vincardog]

1. Would you rather have $1,500 to $2,000 or your house? would you rather have $2000 or see the

Banksters in JAIL?

[theshadowknows]

2. The latter

,but what's really wrong with this is the bank dishes out 2k and still gets the house if I read that right. These loans were fraudulent so the contract is void, furthermore the reason why in some cases you have multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same home is because no one really knows in a lot of cases who holds the deed to the property. I watched a video of someone who has been helping people argue in court pro tem (on their own) that very fact. If they can't produce the paperwork that shows they even have the authority to take the property then that stops it right there, or at the very least it will delay the courts. I've also heard that in some cases homes that were fully paid have been taken, so I wouldn't really call that solution a victory, but another bailout 2k is a joke compared to the equity lost in a lot of situations not to mention the fact that these loans were an act of fraud from the top down makes its a deal breaker to begin with.

[Vincardog]

3. fraud from the top down makes its a deal breaker to begin with. EGGGGZACTLY

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. What an idiotic question. Of course people would rather have their homes.

What would "the banksters" going to jail accomplish? I'm not against it, but are there laws broken here? Are they immoral assholes? You betcha. But was it against the law?

[Vincardog]

5. Every time they did not file the paperwork it was a fraud. Fraud is a crime.

What would "the banksters" going to jail accomplish?
It would served as a DETERRENT to prevent other financial criminals from defrauding the public.
After the S&L crisis hounders of banksters went to jail.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. If an actual crime was committed, then they should be prosecuted. But isn't that up to the AG's....

in the states where the "crimes" were committed?

[Vincardog]

7. The administration pushed them into the deal to look past it. Just as they looked past

the war crimes of the previous administration.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. "pushed them"? Is there any "credible" proof of that?

My limited understanding of the law is that prosecuting someone criminally is much harder than a civil proceeding as the threshold of "proof" is quite different. Did you want a show trial? Would that have helped you psychologically?

And by "proof", I mean respected legal authorities and/or journalists who thought there was sufficient evidence for a criminal case. Like I said, not everything "immoral" is "illegal". When you begin to legislate morality, I get kinda nervous.

[Vincardog]

11. Are you suggesting that unless their is prosecution or the Corporate owned news reports it

there is no crime? The fact that the regulators have been co-opted is one of the major causes of our social problems.

[Tarheel_Dem]

13. I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm asking if you have any legal expertise to know what is....

prosecutable? I'm not saying that I disagree with the sentiment, but not everything's a conspiracy.

"regulators have been co-opted is one of the major causes of our social problems."

Slogans might be catchy, but I fear they may be insufficient in a criminal court case.

[Vincardog]

14. The only thing lacking in this case is the political will to prosecute. The criminals have admitted

to their illegal activities.
Robo-signing is a crime.
Manufacturing more derivatives than there are assets to back them up is a crime.
Colluding with the rating agencies to inflate the ratings on those derivatives is a crime.

While we are listing crimes that are going unpunished.

Torturer is a crime.
Intercepting our communication without a warrant is a crime.

Lying us into war is a crime.

Those are just the crimes they have admitted to on national TV.

[Vincardog]

9. Have you been in a coma for the last few months? try this link;

Do you really expect any corporate owned journalist to tell the truth? When they are jsut stenographers for shills such as
Brightbart?

[link:http://www.msfraud.org/|

[Drunken Irishman]

10. I'd rather have a super model to sex me up.

[pacificman]

12. we're not lucky

but the republicans are stupid.