Late Night: Cheney's Got a Gun

With eyes on Wyoming -- Cheney country -- tomorrow, this seemed appropriate. Especially since "Unqualified support for the 2nd Amendment is the second item" of the Wyoming Democratic party's platform.

< Wyoming: Lots of Excitement for a Republican State | Our Absurd Nomination System >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Skunk in ceiling in WVa statehouse. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by liminal on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:16 AM EST
    West Virginia has a part-time legislature, usually in session for the first three months of the year.  They're in session now.  The last night of the session is this Saturday, so there's quite a bit of scrambling to get the Don Blankenship's preferred bills and amendments through.

    According to local news, the last minute rush was interrupted tonight by something smelly; turns out, there was a skunk in the ceiling of the House chamber, and he was angry!

    I can't find a link to the story online, so I'm trusting the crappy local reporters on the issue, but I found it hilarious.

    Cheney's got a gun (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Josey on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:32:52 AM EST
    Seems there is a press story to be told.... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:05:54 AM EST
    Reading Tucker's defense of Power and the Scotsman reporter's response, it seems that one or both campaigns frequently use derogatory words/names.

    In this regard, the last part of Power's comment sticks with me:

    "She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything," Power said in the interview.

    One of the blogosphere's most persistent memes is the Hillary stoop: 330,000 hits. This search excludes sites with a references to "monster," so they are presumably references to Hillary's "stooping" that are unrelated to Power's statement.

    It seems like the Obama campaign frequently and negatively attacks Clinton by suggesting that she "stoops to anything." It may be that Obama's campaign insiders routinely associate the act of "stooping" with the "monstrosity" of Hillary Clinton. Hence, it is not the first time a Obama campaign surrogate called Clinton a "monster."

    My questions are: Did Power slip because she speaks like this to Obama-friendly journalists and bloggers who normally keep her derogatory comments off the record (Russert's rules of journalism)? How often does the Obama campaign characterize Hillary as "stooping" to journalists? How often have other accusations that Clinton "stooped" been accompanied by dehumanizing slurs? How many journalists recorded this kind of attack by Obama's surrogates?

    there is a NY Times piece (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:00:39 AM EST
    that I read yesterday.  Can't find the link (sorry!--and it may have been on TL) that said, simply, that the Obama campaign has constantly said crap like this to reporters, and that reporters have let them get away with it.

    Speaking of 2nd amendment issues... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by miked on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:41:45 AM EST
    It seems to me that the party has kind of dropped this whole topic - probably wisely, as the preponderance of evidence indicates that gun control has been mostly damaging to our prospects on a national level, and the whole issue is frankly small potatoes compared to some of the other issues we need to be concerned with.

    My question is - what has been Obama's general orientation on the gun control issue? Has he done or said anything that can be used against us in the GE? I always assumed there wasn't much daylight between him and Clinton on this issue but it occurs to me now that I really have no idea.

    OTOH - My understanding is that the NRA is no fan of McCain's so the whole topic may not have much effect on the general anyway.

    SUSA polled FL Democrats (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:54:35 PM EST
    Details here:
    Q: If Florida holds another Democratic primary, will you vote in it?
    A: Yes 84% No 15%
    Q: Would you be more willing to vote at your normal polling place? Or by mail-in ballot?
    A: Normal Polling Place 62% Mail-in Ballot 33%

    Q: Did you vote in the Florida primary on January 29?
    A: Yes 73% No 27%

    Q: If you were to vote in another Democratic primary, would you vote for the same candidate you voted for in January? Or a different candidate?
    A: Same Candidate 81% Different Candidate 15%

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#8)
    by phat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:23:05 AM EST
    That makes me less likely to support a mail-in primary.

    It hadn't occurred to me that people would be that averse to the idea.


    This might be a very hard sell.


    Very odd (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:44:02 AM EST
    Someone will have to sell the idea.

    Why do you think so many (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    people would be averse to a mail-in?  Do people have less faith a mail-in vote will be counted?

    Seems counter-intuitive.  Everyone I know loves absentee balloting.


    Dunno (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    Seems to work in Oregon.

    Honestly!! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:57:59 AM EST
    He told her everything is on the record and that she cannot pick and choose.  We need some journalists.  These guys are embedded.  Remember in the Republican primary the one lone voice that spoke up in the Romney press conference about his lies?  This is sad.  

    Clinton Rules again (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:46:52 AM EST
    "People don't talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them..."

    Tucker's concern for hurting people's feelings doesn't apply to Hillary or Bill.


    Shorter Tucker (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:32:52 AM EST
    "If we get too critical of the politicians, our ability to disseminate their lies and half-truths to the general public would be seriously compromised."

    Cripes (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:21:20 AM EST
    Sometimes I think these new journalists get star struck when they talk to someone in power.  They don't get it their job is to question all people in power.  That is what happened with Iraq for god's sake.  

    Would Sen. Clinton actually sabotage (none / 0) (#10)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:01:33 AM EST
    an Obama candidacy in the fall to set herself up for 2012?

    I have to say, the linked post makes some valid points. She essentially has no chance at winning the nomination, so why not join the ticket or at least step aside in the interest of helping take out McCain?

    The math is fairly insurmountable at this point, and she is blatantly calling McCain a better choice for president than Sen. Obama. That is not cool.

    I know it's a popular "theory" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:44:52 AM EST
    that Hillary is only out for herself.  But it really isn't true.  In fact, one of the reasons she's been relatively soft on Obama until recently is that she really doesn't like attacking fellow Democrats.

    If Obama gets the nomination, she'll be a very strong advocate for him, and do everything she can to help him get elected in the fall.

    She's shown some of her fighter instinct in this race, but it's nothing compared to what she will unleash if she's up against a Republican.


    don't agree with you here (none / 0) (#12)
    by tree on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:15:29 AM EST
    Of course, the whole "sabotaging" smear is totally undefended. Seemingly, that entire argument rests solely on the fact that when Kleiman runs the numbers, he doesn't think there's any way she can win the nomination, so therefore, she must only be running in order to mess with Obama and his GE mo. A pretty big leap there. Sounds like more of the same CDS.

    But what's worse is that his numbers don't even prove that Clinton can't win. His hypothetical numbers scenario ends up with Clinton being 91 pledged delegates behind. Every discussion I've read says that IF she is less than 100 votes behind in the pledged delegates AND she's won Florida and Pennsylvania, she's got a good argument to go to the super delegates and say she's the more electable candidate. And if she's got the popular vote as well, she's got an even stronger argument. By Kleiman's numbers, she then needs to get 64% of the remaining super delegates to get the nomination. Under the conditions I described, its doable.

     Now, I'm not saying that Clinton's chances are great, or even necessarily good, to win the nomination. But such a win is not impossible. I just think she's a fighter, which will be a great attribute to have in the general. Much as I love Gore, he caved on the 2000 vote recount. And Kerry caved in 2004 too. I want a fighter.


    What about her clear statements (none / 0) (#24)
    by halstoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    in which she bolsters McCain's CiC cred while pretending Obama is just imminently unqualified. She can attack Obama, but no need to go around promoting McCain.

    If Rasmussen is right, the two of them are now tied in Michigan. The likelihood of her reaching 57% again is very very slim. If Obama beats her there, it will be over.

    Sen. Clinton did not get 60% of the vote in NY. In fact, she only eclipsed 60% in AR. Conversely, Sen. Obama eclipsed 60% in 5 primaries; Kleinman only gives him 55% in all his remaining victories on top of giving Sen. Clinton 60% in all hers to get to that 74 number.

    In other words, it is almost impossible. She knocked him around pretty good in OH, and only got up to 54%.

    I simply think it'd be better if she put her energy into fighting for Barack and the Democrats instead of certifying McCain as prepared to serve.


    What fantasy land does Tucker live in? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:31:39 AM EST
    The journalistic ethics in the UK are far superior to the ones here.  

    I loved the expression on Peev's face when Tucker said that.  Priceless.

    The Cheney Song ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:21:33 AM EST
    reminds me of happier times when Democrats were clearly united.

    Ah, well ... we'll be back there soon.

    I thought the same thing Joel (none / 0) (#19)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
    seems to me the most convenient choice.  Weird...