GOP Primary Megathread!

[stjaba]

"Transvaginal ultrasound" gets funnier every time I hear it.

The funny part about it is that the very same people who sue to prove the gubmint can 'regulate inactivity" and force someone to buy insurance whether they want it or not argue that the gubmint can, indeed, "regulate inactivity" and force other people to get an ultrasound whether they want it or not.

And those morons don't even see how funny it is.  They are completely unable to see hypocrisy when they are the ones engaged in it.  That's some funny shit.

There is a big distinction there. The health care litigation is over whether the federal government can force people to purchase health insurance. In other words, it's about the federal government's power under the constitution. I think everyone agrees that state governments(e.g. Massachusetts) can force people to purchase health insurance (or ultrasounds for that matter).  Under the constitution, states have the broad powers(power to regulate health, safety, morals, welfare) that would clearly encompass encompass mandated purchase of health insurance or mandated. The only limitation on state governments is that they can't violate constitutional rights(e.g. right to speech).

[MadImmortalMan]

Romney on iPad, Hillary on Blackberry.   

[CountDeMoney]

Romney on iPad, Hillary on Blackberry.   

Article in the WaPost this week on how Blackberry is completely entrenched in DC.

BlackBerry remains official Washington's smartphone even as its maker's fortunes decline

Outside Washington, the world is moving at warp speed away from the BlackBerry. At its maker, profits are declining and executives are leaving, and the BlackBerry has even conceded its perch as the top smartphone in its native Canada.

Inside the Beltway, time stands still. A half million federal workers — President Obama and his staff among them — are still thumbing little black keyboards on little black devices. And that number hasn't dipped over the past few years while Research in Motion, BlackBerry's maker, has recorded plummeting sales everywhere else.

The slow-moving federal bureaucracy is keeping the BlackBerry around. But RIM's intensifying troubles and thriving rivals are confronting Washington with a question: Should it break its "crackberry" addiction?

Some agencies are already loosening their policies to let their workers choose other smartphones. Lawmakers and aides can now bring iPhones into the halls of Congress.

But, for the most part, the federal government hasn't joined the smartphone revolution.

"We appreciate RIM's focus on security, which is paramount for government use," said Casey Coleman, the chief information officer at the General Services Administration. The agency has issued some iPhones and Android-based phones for staffers, but the vast majority of its 12,000 agency-issued smartphones are BlackBerrys.

But Coleman added that other platforms are proving equally secure. The GSA, she said, places "a priority on adoption where appropriate of innovative new technologies,"

Agencies and big contractors note that the BlackBerry is cheaper than the iPhone and many Android devices. IT departments across the government have years-long contracts with RIM and the wireless carriers that promote the device. And tech staffers at federal agencies are trained to fix BlackBerry products, which makes it harder to switch to new technologies, analysts say.

Plus, newer devices aren't as secure as the BlackBerry, some agency officials said.

The slow pace of change has made the BlackBerry as much a part of federal culture as short-sleeve, white-collared shirts were among NASA engineers or lapel pins are among politicians on Capitol Hill. Some analysts even expect Washington to become the last bastion for RIM's devices.

That would leave many Washingtonians with smartphone envy.

Paul Silder, a government contractor, says he feels stuck with the BlackBerry that the Department of Homeland Security gave him.

So the 44-year-old father of two is left longing for an iPhone or an Android that he can proudly tuck into the holster on his left hip.

"I want a bigger screen. I only really use it for work, but it would be nice to surf the Web more easily," Silder sighs.

RIM said it is making a full-court press among government agencies, touting the security of its no-nonsense devices.

"The federal government is a very important market to us and will continue to be. It is our core strength," said Scott Totzke, a RIM senior vice president.

Just look at how hackers breached the accounts of Google's mail service in the past year, other RIM executives have noted. And do you really want workers distracted by the temptation of claiming daily coupons or posting pictures on Facebook on their smartphones when they should be writing policy papers or legislation?

It's not so bad being the smartphone version of a boring briefcase if agencies order more, the firm says.

"BlackBerry cannot succeed if we try to be everybody's darling and all things to all people," said newly appointed chief executive Thorsten Heins in a conference call last week.

Overall, BlackBerry's dominance has quickly faded. Today, phones based on Google's Android software account for 48 percent of the market, while Apple's iPhone has 32 percent and BlackBerrys have dropped to a distant third place with 12 percent.

Last week, RIM reported quarterly earnings that missed analysts' expectations. Its profit dropped to $418 million in the last three months of 2011, compared with the $934 million it earned during the same period in 2010. Several senior executives resigned their posts, including former co-chief executive Jim Balsillie. On Monday, RIM's stock fell about 9.5 percent in regular trading.

And RIM's focus on the government is hardly exclusive. Each agency chooses its technology providers independently. So competition remains fierce for their business.

That's helped Apple and other device makers gain access to the State Department, NASA and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski and Education Secretary Arne Duncan last week promoted the use of Apple's iPad tablets to improve learning in public schools.

The competition has left workers in a kind of device limbo, in which some have resorted to carrying two devices — one for work and one for play.

Christina Cox, a Washington events planner, plans to switch to an iPhone when her contract with Verizon Wireless is up next month. She's willing to pick up the cost for the iPhone, even though she can get reimbursed for her BlackBerry bills.

"Everyone used to have a BlackBerry in town, but I need more than just e-mail," Cox said about her BlackBerry.

Yet for some locals, the fancier and faster phones that have been quickly rolled out carry little appeal.

Lindsey Bowen, a 29-year-old program director at the Junior Statesmen Foundation, often has to defend her BlackBerry as iPhone- and Android-obsessed friends mock her device. Seen as outdated and uncool, it's become the Washington worker's fashion equivalent of a hard-shell Samsonite briefcase.

"Tell us again, how many apps do you have on that thing?" they tease.

But Bowen recoils at the thoughts of a touch-screen smartphone. The embarrassing spelling errors with the iPhone's auto-correct feature. The insecure thumbing away at letters and numbers on a flat screen compared with the satisfying touch of a raised keyboard.

"I love the keyboard. I just can't get used to anything else," Bowen said.

[Zoupa]

Her PR coup?

Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.

This just in: what your friends think does not make a "PR coup".

It's not like she said to a photographer "ok, this is what we'll do" and then leaked the photo.

Plus, "social media" doesn't matter to grown ups.

In short, better luck next time. 

[grumbler]

The worry is your last point.  That's effectively a Parliamentary system, but Congress isn't Parliamentary.  There's too much protection and power for the minority group.  So you've got the ideological rigidity and partisanship of a Parliamentary system, but the institutional requirement for cooperation of your system.  In practice it just means nothing gets done.

Got it in one.

This didn't used to be the case.  But the quest for reliable primary voters has led to the path of rigid orthodoxy, and the demonization of opponents.  It's happened before, but seldom (if ever) with so much at stake.

[grumbler]

There is a big distinction there. The health care litigation is over whether the federal government can force people to purchase health insurance. In other words, it's about the federal government's power under the constitution. I think everyone agrees that state governments(e.g. Massachusetts) can force people to purchase health insurance (or ultrasounds for that matter).

It's a distinction without a difference, though.  For the individual, "the gubmint" is "the gubmint."  While I understand the constitutional issues raised by the health care mandate, and don't really have strong feelings about whether the challenge should stand or fall, I find it hilarious that the very people who cry "big government" when government does something they find intrusive enthusiastically endorse "big government" intrusion when it supports their own agendas.  Virginia's "conservative" Attorney General is the poster child for this.

Mark the name:  Kenneth Cuccinelli.  He will be the darling of the Religious Reich before the decade is out.

[CountDeMoney]

I wish zombie Tip O'Neill would rise from the grave and knock some fucking heads together.

[garbon]

Her PR coup?

Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.

This just in: what your friends think does not make a "PR coup".

It's not like she said to a photographer "ok, this is what we'll do" and then leaked the photo.

Plus, "social media" doesn't matter to grown ups.

In short, better luck next time. 

Maybe you should try harder. That might work.

[derspiess]

It's a distinction without a difference, though.  For the individual, "the gubmint" is "the gubmint."  While I understand the constitutional issues raised by the health care mandate, and don't really have strong feelings about whether the challenge should stand or fall, I find it hilarious that the very people who cry "big government" when government does something they find intrusive enthusiastically endorse "big government" intrusion when it supports their own agendas.  Virginia's "conservative" Attorney General is the poster child for this.

Mark the name:  Kenneth Cuccinelli.  He will be the darling of the Religious Reich before the decade is out.

Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level.  And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels.  I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.

[derspiess]

Her PR coup?

Sure. All my pro-Obama friends saw that and swooned. /on the social media front, she's had lots of positive chatter from her recent photos. More than any recent Sec State that I can think of.

What other photos are there?  I don't get the PR coup thing based on the one I've seen.  She's just wearing sunglasses and checking something on her Blackberry

[Viking]

Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level.  And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels.  I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.

Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want. The constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.

- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.

[derspiess]

Sigh, the states don't get to do whatever they want.

Did I say that? 

The constitution does protect the citizens from the states the same way as it protects them from the federal government.

Depends on what you're talking about, but we do have a 10th Amendment, which is supposed to grant powers to the states that are not defined as being federal powers.

- this ultrasound "thing" that Virginia wanted to do was to force women seeking a legal medical procedure to suffer an medically unnecissary vaginal probe for certain kinds of pregnancies.

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

[Berkut]

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?

Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?

The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.

[grumbler]

Well, some conservatives favor a decentralization of power, from the federal level to the state level.  And some favor less power at both the federal and state levels.  I would probably tend toward the latter, but if Virginia wants to do some ultrasound thing, or Massachusetts wants to require health insurance, or California wants to regulate everything, they can all have at it.

Agreed, and, in fact, that's pretty much how I feel about the insurance mandate:  if the US wants to do something, and the Supreme Court doesn't say it's unconstitutional, they can have at it.  If some conservatives don't like it, their moans are music to my ears (ditto with some statists if it is overturned).

I would note that "Virginia" doesn't want to do things.  It is a legal fiction.  Some Virginians want to force everyone to undergo (and pay for) ultrasounds for no reason that the proponents will admit.  Those are not conservatives, in my opinion.

[derspiess]

I don't have a big opinion on the issue one way or another, but you neglected to mention that the legal medical procedure is an abortion, which is a hell of a lot more invasive than an ultrasound.

How is the size of the medical procedure relevant?

Are you really suggesting that as long as procedure B is "smaller" in some fashion than procedure A, then nobody should have an objection to the state forcing B on you if you want A, even if it is absolutely certain that it is not necessary?

The lengths you are willing to go to justify your "conservative" values is pretty amusing.

You're spoiling to go crusading today, aren't you?  I said I don't care that much about the issue, and I was only addressing Viking's objection, which used vague/misleading language.