home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Richard Cohen: White Man's Privilege | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not opposed to having a few Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    in the cabinet, but I think it's getting a little excessive at this point.

    Is there a true lefty in Obama's ... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    "team of rivals"?

    Parent
    You know, in Goodwin's book (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    The rivals were Lincoln's competition in the primaries of his own party. The phrase has been corrupted.

    Parent
    Bookworm :) (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    Def. Sec. Kucinich anyone? (none / 0) (#141)
    by magster on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    I could be all over that (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    that would be like getting a deployment stress vacation.

    Parent
    It gives him good cover if there is another attack (none / 0) (#15)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    And there will be one.  It is nearly impossible to stop someone if they are willing to die for it regardless of what policy is in place.  

    Parent
    I somehow doubt that Obama packed (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    his Military team with Republicans just to cover his a$$ in case of another attack.

    Parent
    I had that same feeling, along with (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    a little bit of "what's with putting Republicans in charge of the military?"  Makes me wonder about Obama's authoritarian tendencies.

    Parent
    Mkaes me wonder how much of the (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    righty propaganda of the last 40 years he has absorbed.

    Actually, I don't really wonder. Pretty sure about it.

    Parent

    He clearly thinks R's do military better (none / 0) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    Then, I also never believed the judgment meme.

    Parent
    Also, the McHugh nomination (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    does not appear to be a harbinger of change any time soon on DADT.  He holds a zero percent rating by the Human Rights Campaign, suggesting an anti-civil rights position. In addition to his votes on same sex marriage, he also voted to ban adoptions by gays in DC.  His ratings by NAACP are not so good on affirmative action (44 %), nor, on civil liberties, as indicated by ACLU(13%).   But, then, he probably has a lot of other Republican good ideas.

    Parent
    Errata, (none / 0) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:58:37 PM EST
    maybe.   Robert Gibbs said that Secretary of the Army nominee, McHugh, agrees with the president that DADT needs to be "changed".  Now, whether or not we have  fierce advocacy for 'repeal' is another question.

    Parent
    I don't think he thinks that at all (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:20:45 PM EST
    How could anyone with a D after their name really think that after the team of Clinton, Perry, Clark, Albright and Cohen doing Bosnia and Kosovo?  And that bunch didn't run around in lockstep, they did run into a few snags challenging each other's power plays at times and blowing each other's highs.  Nope, I don't think Obama thinks that R's do military better at all.  What I do think it most likely is is that the way he is convinced he wants to do Afghanistan.......the only people who are willing to do it that way are R's.....that's what I think.  And if a D in the cabinet is going to really get their claws out, it is for a war that avoids conscience or detours around the pissed off people everytime we have "collateral damage". And that doesn't leave me any less concerned about his choices.

    Parent
    Cheney on gay marriage..... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday he supports gays being able to marry but believes states, not the federal government, should make the decision.

    "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said in a speech at the National Press Club. "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."



    One of the best (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by CST on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:06:03 PM EST
    ways to predict (statistically) whether someone supports gay marriage is if they have gay friends/family members.  I think it's one of the reasons young people are so much more supportive.  Maybe younger gay people are more likely to come out (college age), than older, married, established gay people.

    Cheney has always been right on this issue.  Just like Bush was right on immigration.  If only they got it right on everything else...

    Parent

    To bad one of his kids isn't (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    Black or latino, asian, green, really any color would do.

    Parent
    True for me... (none / 0) (#11)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:20:10 PM EST
    after finding out my best friend is a lesbian.

    Parent
    It is true that an issue you don't think (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    is YOUR issue can quickly become YOUR issue when someone you care a whole lot about attempts to leave the planet by their own hand due to the fact that coming out of the closet can be hellacious.....and the real world for gays often sucks so bad that they hid their gayness from me so well that I didn't even know.  When we all went to prom they went with another gay person of the opposite sex so they could cover for each other.

    Parent
    This was, essentially, (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    the same position Cheney expressed during the vice presidential debate with Joe Lieberman in 2000.  Fellow winger, William Kristol, was almost apoplectic afterward.  Cheney and Kristol have similar track records on being wrong, but it is somewhat heartening to know that the former has one exception, whereas the later maintains a perfect record.

    Parent
    I missed that... (none / 0) (#12)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    I remember the "outrage" after Kerry hamhandedly brought up Cheney's daughter during the presidential debate.

    Parent
    Maybe he views marraige as a form of torture (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    Stole that line from Craig Ferguson. Made me laugh this morning.

    Parent
    have you met (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    Lynn?

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    They do deserve eachother.

    Parent
    Sorry, but that strikes me as (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    misogynistic.

    Parent
    fortunately (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    I think most people would not equate hating Lynn Cheney to hating women.

    Parent
    Still the emphasis (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    on states though.  What about when his daughter's marriage isn't recognized when she visits him in Wyoming or wherever he chooses to bunker down?

    Parent
    Heh, that would be D.C. (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    Somebody ought to ask him how he feels about Congress trying to cancel D.C.'s decision to recognize marriages from other states.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    The Cheneys live in Virginia.

    Parent
    So does (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:28:52 PM EST
    his daughter Mary and her partner, Heather.  

    Interestingly, Virginia has a law that bans any partnership that is akin to same-sex marriage (The Marriage Affirmation Act - Va. Code Ann. § 20-45.3) which says:

    A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

    So, not only is same-sex marriage prohibited, any private contract entered into between two people that LOOKS like a marriage - even if from another state -is illegal.

    Here's an interesting article from 2004 about this.


    Parent

    I wonder why` (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:19:06 PM EST
    Now that there are what, five states that have marriage equality and a few more with at least civil unions, why the heck would a gay family unit live in a place that not only doesn't have it but forbids it outright and doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon?  I sure wouldn't live in a place that forbade me from having any rights and made it impossible for my family to have the same rights as any other family if something happened to me or my partner.

    I know, I know, community, roots, family, job, etc.  But still.

    Parent

    Rationalizes commitment phobic? (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:26:48 PM EST
    Is he really (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:53:46 PM EST
    going to live in DC?  

    I really wish he would just go away...is there a way to arrest him if he accidentally stumbles into  non-US/international territory?  Party at Spain's embassy, say?

    Parent

    Red Faction Guerrilla (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    todays the day for a little shameless self promotion.  it has hit the stores.
    here are some excerpts from the press release:

    "Red Faction: Guerrilla delivers on its promise of destruction, and offers an experience unlike anything else out there." - 9 out of 10 - Game of the Month
    -    Game Informer (US)

    "Guerrilla is the best summer blockbuster of this generation, filled to the brim with gaming superlatives." - 93%
    -    Xbox World 360 (UK)

    "A true Gem" - 9 out of 10 - Editors Choice
    -    Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)

    I did the effects.  buy a copy and pump up my 401K.

    Cool (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    I'm neither a gamer nor an owner of a Windows PC, so it's probably not for me. But I'm glad to see other people's creative work get out there.

    Parent
    Congrats Capt... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    checked out the site, like the dystopian futuristic mining colony workers revolt theme...I hope ya sell a ton of them puppies.

    Parent
    thanks ya'll (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:10:42 PM EST
    its a pretty good story.  games have been made into movies with much less story.
    its the third (and gamers say the best) in the franchise.  
    dont know if I am allowed to tell you this but the next installment is going to be even cooler.
    its really amazing how fast the tools are evolving.
    very soon games will look like CG movies.

    Parent
    Leahy: Sotomayor would follow the law (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    From the AP, via Salon:

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Tuesday that federal judge Sonia Sotomayor told him she'd follow the law as a Supreme Court justice and not necessarily base her rulings on her life experiences.

    "Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," the Vermont Democrat quoted President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee in a private meeting the two had on Capitol Hill.

    Leahy had asked Sotomayor, 54, what she meant when she said in 2001 that her decisions as a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male. Prominent Republicans have cited the 2001 remark to call her a racist.

    Leahy said the judge told him: "Of course one's life experience shapes who you are, but ... as a judge, you follow the law."


    [snip]

    Leahy called the criticism against Sotomayor "among the most vicious attacks that have been received by anybody," and lamented that as a nominee she's unable to directly answer them.

    So he asked the judge whether he could repeat publicly what she told him privately about how her personal experiences -- she is the New York-born daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was reared in a Bronx housing project and went on to Princeton and Yale on her way to the highest echelons of the legal profession -- would shape her rulings.

    Leahy quoted Sotomayor as saying, "There's not one law for one race or another; there's not one law for one color or another; there's not one for rich and one for poor; there's only one law."

    I predict this still will not be enough for some of Sotomayor's detractors.

    Meanwhile, I will be interested if Feinstein is reassured by Sotomayor's views on the right to privacy, which Feinstein says she intends to ask about.

    and it shouldn't be enough (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:36:06 PM EST
     because it evinces a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court. Either Leahy needs to study a bit about what the Supreme Court does or he should stop trying to help her.

      A Supreme Court justice is often confronted with decisions that cannot be made simply by relying on "the law" because, of course, a huge part of the Supreme Court's role is to define the law.

    Parent

    From Salon (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    somehow Rick Santorum feels the need to offer Obama extensive dating advice...read it all...it's hilarious.

    I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the simpler the date, the more normal it is.

    So Santorum's idea of a good, romantic time is going down to the bar and binge drinking?  Good Lord.

    LOL - Mrs. Santorum needn't worry about (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:21:16 PM EST
    anyone trying to steal her man :)

    Parent
    All of you crack me up (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    You are some real charmers!!!

    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    Let me just say (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:51:37 PM EST
    that I am stunned...just stunned that anyone would be so ignorant as to think a shot and a beer at the local bar, or Colt 45 under the nearest bridge is the way to go, when anyone that knows anything about romance knows that a bottle of Boone's Farm at the beach will win you more points.

    Parent
    Help me! I just read Ricky's whole (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by byteb on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:09:51 PM EST
    patronizing load of bull including his Obama being a role model for poor inner city blacks who don't marry and have children out of wedlock rant and ending with doing shots with the wife at a bar 'cause it's being together that matters.

    Ricky is a dolt.

    Parent

    that (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    us unfair to dolts.  and the women who love them.

    Parent
    Ricky is a regular guest (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    on Greta van Susteren's once respectable show on Fox, at least once a week.  I can understand having Gingrich on a lot or Karl Rove, but Rick Santorum?  Since when has he been some kind of political savant whose opinion matters to anybody?

    Parent
    Rick (none / 0) (#123)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    always says "Yes" when Greta asks.
    That's why.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    "It's not where you go, it's who you're with" is what you tell your wife when she's angry with you for taking her on a really lame date!!

    Parent
    oh Rickey (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    I think he has to realize that flying to New York is self-indulgent. Go down to the dog pound and have a drink, a shot and a beer. It does not matter where you go with your wife, is that it's with your wife. That's really the point... I would make the argument, the more legs, the more normal it is.


    Parent
    Santorum (none / 0) (#35)
    by eric on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:30:59 PM EST
    is trying to appeal to the stereotypical working class Pennsylvanian and their affinity for the "beer and a shot".

    Parent
    damn commas! (none / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    I read that consecutively as in "Go down to the bar on a date, have one drink, one beer, one shot, possibly more..."

    Parent
    Sounds like a George Thoroughgood song (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    HA (none / 0) (#137)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    Nothing says date night like "I Drink Alone..."

    Parent
    I know this is bad (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    I know I'm not supposed say such things but, I always feel like I need to give Santorum a hug and tell him that it is okay....he can come out now, I'm not going to hate him for any of it.  He just has that closet Dobson thing going on to me.  His wife seems like the sort of gal who rarely drinks.  I can't help the picture in my head of Rick getting his wife easily tipsy on a couple of shots and then nobody who would really care after that notices how many guys he is compelled to talk and hang with all night.

    Parent
    I think he's got a point... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    though poorly worded...point being true romance don't cost a thing, it is not what ya do together, or where ya go together, but who you are together with that makes the romance.

    Parent
    Sure, but there's still a LOT to be said for (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    being swept off one's feet with a grande night out.

    Parent
    anyway (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    it was "a campaign promise".
    and we know he keeps all of those. right?


    Parent
    Nah... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    thats the cop-out version of romance, any fool with a couple bucks can do that...try sweeping a lover off their feet with a 40 of Old E and a garbage can fire under a bridge...pull that off and you're one romantic motherf*cker:)

    Parent
    I can truly say (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    that no man has EVER swept me off my feet with a bottle of cheap liquor under a bridge.

    But it's not really about money. It's about being able to show a little class. And imagination helps.

    Dressing up for a nice night out makes people feel good. Most people I know, anyway.

    Parent

    I bring the (none / 0) (#56)
    by eric on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    Colt 45, it works every time.

    Parent
    I know ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Be careful using Colt... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    brings up the inevitable Billy Dee Williams comparisons:)

    Parent
    'Scuse me, but when it comes to Billy Dee (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    there is no comparison.

    A class of hunk unto hisself.

    :-)

    Parent

    The most romantic dates (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    I ever had were camping.

    Parent
    You do not want to go for romantic (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:40:06 PM EST
    normal is the new romantic.  

    Parent
    Oh, I see!! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:34:25 PM EST
    Where have I been? :)

    Well, I'll always have my memories of all those romantic nights zipped in the same sleeping bag under the stars in the wilderness with the sound of the stream and the scent of the pines....

    Parent

    The outdoors is where the romance is at... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:03:02 AM EST
    no doubt Molly...nobody can paint a canvas on par with Mother Nature.

    Parent
    Uhuh (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CST on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:29:54 AM EST
    The great outdoors is where it's at.

    Especially if they can play a guitar or something.  Nothing quite like music and moonlight.

    Parent

    How to make healthCARE (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    affordable? Tax it.

    The hot target at the moment: levying a tax on health benefits provided through employers, which currently aren't subject to taxation.

    Why it looks likely: It's a cash cow. The deduction on health benefits is worth more than $200 billion annually. Baucus does not want to eliminate the deduction, but he has floated a cap that would tax plans worth more than a certain amount. Liberal and conservative academics support the change. And congressional Republicans have advocated eliminating the tax-free status of employer insurance, giving the idea bipartisan credibility (although the GOP would want to return all the money to individuals in the form of tax credits).

    ...As a candidate, Obama ran against the idea of taxing health benefits. It could also endanger his pledge not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 annuually. Still, White House aides have sent signals that Obama would not veto a bill that changed the tax treatment of health benefits.    Link

    Dems just can't stand being the majority.


    Heh, at least that would fix (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    the unfairness of making LGBT couples pay income taxes on health benefits employers offer them.


    Parent
    Fix the problem? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    Hardly. Rather than fixing the insanity of LGBT couples paying taxes on their health benefits, it would just spread the insanity to impact the entire population. Breaking the system for all rather than fixing anything IMO.

    Dems evidently don't need union or union worker support or the support of everyday people who gave up pay increases to get decent health coverage come election time.


    Parent

    Yup. My partner's (none / 0) (#31)
    by dk on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    health benefits (which are covered through my employment) are taxed.  

    I guess if Democrats refuse to fight for equal rights in one way, they might as well at least achieve them in another way.

    Parent

    I'm actually for that if it's for executives (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    making over say 250K a year.  This has always been a tax loop hole through which the rich get to right off what is essentially income.  Those benefits are out of this world.  They include things like cosmetic surgery and spa treatment, so I'm for it.  Actually, I'd like us all to be taxed for health care(not insurance) and then have our care paid for by the government, but I guess Baucus isn't with me on that one.

    Parent
    Agree - i would be for it (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    if they intended to take that money and use it to fund a government alternative that we could all switch over to if we wanted, after our companies stop offering insurance because they no longer get the write-off. At the very least they would pass the extra expense on to we employees. That, plus paying taxes on what they do provide ourselves, would make it a lot more expensive for everyone.

    So, if they do this, they better darn well offer medicare-for-all also, because there will be a lot more uninsured.

    Parent

    Taxing these benefits was McCain's idea (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    And it was bad when he proposed it.

    It could also endanger his pledge not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $200,000 annuually.

    Could endanger? It flat out breaks that pledge.

    I am not averse to tax increases, but there has to be a better way than this.

    Parent

    Still not enough details.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    as to how Uncle Sam is gonna force everybody to purchase coverage...and what the penalty is for non-compliance.

    I fear we end up with auto-insurance mandate redux...where you get fined if you don't have it, yet it is still unaffordable to some of the working poor.  What good is adding the threat of a fine to people already stressed from strectching their dollars as far as they can?  Plus I even question if the state even has the right to mandate the purchase of any type of insurance...I don't get how you can make someone buy something they may not want.  

    Parent

    Nevermind "want" (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    What if they can't pay their rent because of the insurance cost?

    I did think, though, there was a certain financial level where the insurance would be furnished at no cost.

    Parent

    the problem with that analogy (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:51:15 PM EST
     is the government can fine you only if it catches you driving without insurance and then can make it illegal for you to drive until you pay the fine (even if you subsequently get insurance.)

      I don't think the government is going to fine people for getting sick and it certainly can't make it illegal for them to get sick until they pay the fine.

      More likely, you'd be made to purchase coverage through a payroll deduction or if you are self-employed through a mechanism like the self-employment tax. If you don't work, your coverage would be purchased for you by the mandatory contributions  of others.

       I think that's a bad solution that will do as uch or more harm as good.

      No one seems to want to talk about actually reducing or reigning in the incomes of doctors and health provider executives, but unless that is done all of these ideas are just different ways of paying for the same problem.

      I'd advocate a single-payer program divorced from the insurance model entirely,  removing one huge layer of costs which not only must collect enough to administer the programs but to make large profits. A single-payer system still must collect enough to cover administration as well as care but it could eliminate a layer of profit taking.

       Then, doctors and clinic and hospital administrators, etc. must learn to make do with less money.

      Chances of that happening? Probably zero.

     

    Parent

    This is the point of an article (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    in the New Yorker this week that is really useful reading.

    Parent
    link? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    Google (none / 0) (#94)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    it.  Cream was having problems with links recently, she probably can't provide one.

    Parent
    i think i found it (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:20:31 PM EST
    link

      The story focuses on a county in Texas with the nation's highest per capita health care costs and "medical culture" there which is brazenly profit driven. The writer then infers that this "culture" is a leading cause of higher health care costs more generally. He points to areas of similar demographics with lower costs and no appreciable dimunition (at least statistically) of quality of care provided.

       It may be a less than objective piece of reporting and heavily reliant on anectdote and inference, but I think he is right (but, of course, I agrred with him before i read it.)

    Parent

    Yes, that's it -- and yours is a good critique (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    of the article's attempt to get this macro issue down to a micro level, but that also brings the issue down to a manageable and interesting level in a lot of ways that are fascinating.  

    For others here, basically this article tests -- by looking at the most costly county for health care in the country -- the premises of many approaches discussed today, suggesting why they may not be the solutions because they don't encompass the entirety of the problem, when the problem includes that the MBA approach to health care has replaced the M.D. approach.

    Parent

    Thanks, yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:28:43 PM EST
    -- computer cleanup hasn't quite solved that consistently.  Back it goes to the computer guy as soon as I can do without it for a day.  (These are the perils of having to open emails from lots of students.:-)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:06:53 PM EST
     Then, doctors and clinic and hospital administrators, etc. must learn to make do with less money.

      Chances of that happening? Probably zero.

    So could lawyers who sue, which in turn drives up malpractice insurance.

    Hey - I clerked at a small personal injury plaintiffs' firm - I saw what was out there.  Now, my bosses were cool and turned down cases that were questionable or would just be ambulance chasing - our clients were really hurt (I know - I wrote up the case evaluation summaries, which means I delved through thousands of pages of medical files). But not all lawyers and PI firms are that conscientious.  Oh sure, bad cases hopefully get thrown out of court, but not always.

    I'm not arguing with your premise, per se, it's just that everyone talks about doctor's huge salaries, and I just find it ironic coming from a lawyer (whenmany people think the same about lawyers - we all make huge bucks, right?)

    Parent

    Doctors (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by eric on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:28:19 PM EST
    committing malpractice is what drives up the cost of malpractice insurance.  Don't blame the lawyers for holding them accountable.

    Parent
    Ideally the state medical board (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    holds them accountable, but the financial accountability is the result of plaintiff medmal attorneys persuading juries.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#101)
    by eric on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    by being held accountable, I mean being held accountable for compensating people for their injuries.

    Parent
    I think it's Insurance company profits (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    ...that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance.  A doctor has no choice but to carry it.

    Parent
    malpractice insurance (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:06:18 PM EST
    is not that expensive relative to the revenues of doctors and the risks being underwritten.

      Even private practice  obstetricians who might pay $150K a year in premiums in some localities generally have net profits at least 3 times and often many times more than that.

      Rookie ob-gyns who work as employees and have coverage provided have salary ranges from $150-250K depending on locality.

       Doctors in lower risk specialties pay more along the lines of $25,000-50,000 in malpractice premiums and often have gross revenues dozens of times that.

     

    Parent

    Re: Insurance Company Profits (none / 0) (#115)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    yes, they are a business and want to provide ROI for the shareholders, but here's a breakdown of where the money actually goes

    Parent
    I'm not a personal injury lawyer (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:18:22 PM EST
     and don't make "big bucks" relatively speaking but, you have a good point. Even in a relatively low paying specialty such as criminal defense, a reasonably successful lawyer makes much more than most people. I make about as much a relatively poor doctor,  I guess. I could charge somewhat lower rates and survive but I don't because i want a certain standard of living.

      I could point to the fact that I serve on the CJA panel and accept the lower fees provided and that I accept state appointments that I don't bill at all and that I take some private cases pro bono, but the facts are that doctors do charity work too and I still make what many people would consider a lot of money.

       On the other hand, people who don't want to pay what I charge can hire a different lawyer who charges less. With health care there really isn't the same level of competition.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:34:38 PM EST
    But then you bring in the argument that doctors and lawyers accrue very high levels of student debt - to gain the special expertise  (Trust me - my law school loans are around $100,000 - I will never pay them off).

    I get it, and I agree - I think it's going to be cuts for many people across the board.  It's just easier when people talk about cutting other people's salaries.  People (and I'm just as guilty) complain about government workers' salaries, but they work just as hard as any schmo in private industry.  Some are good, diligent, hard workers, and some are not.  But I don't go into stores and complain about how they should lower their prices and pay their employees less because their employees are lazy and provide poor customer service.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Bemused on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:49:32 PM EST
      complain about government workers' salaries in general terms. I actually think that good government workers are most frequently underpaid for the work they do. The problems are government is burdened by patronage/buddy system hiring and the less than good workers get paid the same as the good and it's almost impossible to get rid of the bad.

      On a personal note, spend your first few years attacking the principal on those loans. Let your peers snicker at your department store suits,  used car and starter house and put as much as possible into paying down the principal.

       I do think the costs of education have a damaging impact on the professions because people feel compelled to take the highest paying job out the gate because of the debt and feel like they can't afford to do something more personally rewarding and socially valuable. I was lucky enough to go through school on scholarships and graduated with no debt which made it a lot easier to pass on biglaw and do my own thing.

    Parent

    It appears (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    It would be a tax penalty - so they get you both ways.  You get employer-sponsored insurance, they tax it.  You don't have employer-sponsored insurance and refuse to purchase some on your own - they will tax you.

    Parent
    They get ya both ways allright... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    and both ways twice on Sundays:)

    Parent
    this is a day old (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    but has anything ever been this funny?
    the word now of course is that it was staged.

    Im skeptical.  Slim and his caretakers just dont look like they were in on the joke and I doubt they have that much acting ability.  of course its better for everyone now to say it was staged.
    still, it was live tv and accidents are rare I know.
    but even if it was, I will prefer to believe it was not.  seeing that misogynistic homophobic twerp with Brunos cheeks in his face will make me smile for a long long time.

    I really hope it was staged. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    I am not a homophobe but if someone stuck their a$$ in my face (unless I gave them permission to do so), I would be furious.

    I honestly did not think it was funny at all, just typical frat boy humor.


    Parent

    You know, no one would laugh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:48:41 PM EST
    if SBC put on blackface.

    I don't think this particular character is in very good taste.

    Parent

    taste (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:50:39 PM EST
    has absolutely nothing to do with it.
    was Borat in good taste?

    Parent
    Depends on how many margaritas (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 09:26:11 PM EST
    you had during Borat.

    Parent
    I seem to recall that the Kazakhs were not (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:06:09 PM EST
    very amused. But I think the distinction is that he wasn't perpetuating an ugly stereotype about them.

    As much as I'm a PC cop, I admit that I'm occasionally inconsistent, as I think we all are. But there are shades of gray, and I think Bruno is probably over the line.

    Parent

    wasnt perpetuating (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    an ugly stereotype?
    have you seen the movie?

    and of course he is over the line.  thats the whole point.  


    Parent

    Yes, I've seen the movie (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    I think the difference is that most Americans wouldn't know a Kazakh from a hole in the wall.

    Bruno, however, is unmistakable as an archetype. Yes, I will probably still see that one too.

    Parent

    I have a vile sense of humor (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 07:13:55 AM EST
    There is crossing the line for me but I'm never quite sure where that is EVER when it comes to comedy.  I love Sarah Silverman but she is VILE, that song she sings about "Do you ever take drugs so you can have sex without crying?" is so horrible but there I am...rolling on the floor.  And you know you love Lisa Lampanelli andgarden, and she's BEASTLY VILE.  Even if I have to wear a big hat and giant JackieO sunglasses to not be recognized while sneaking in the door to see them.....I'm still going.

    Parent
    For what it's worth (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    The Kazakh president wasn't amused, but he's the president, it's his job to be p.c. and offended at stuff like that.

    My Kazakh friends in college thought it was hilarious.  I know, anecdotal evidence isn't actual evidence, but I think it depends on your sense of humor.  

    Personally, I thought the t.v. show was better than the movie.  There was nothing quite like watching a bar full of people singing and clapping along to "throw the jew down the well".  Quite the eye opener.

    For some reason, Michael Moore gets on my nerves for being an in your face jerk, but if it's in the name of comedy, somehow it doesn't bother me as much.  Even political comedy.  But we all have our own lines.

    Parent

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    I find Moore far more annoying.  

    "throw the jew down the well".

    ok, how many people think his intention there was to denigrate jews?

    anyone?

    Parent

    The intention was clear... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    to denigrate rednecks of course...and it worked like a charm!

    Parent
    precisely (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    and the point of his taking on the glamor of a pushing annoying gay man is to make people uncomfortable who are uncomfortable around gay men.

    and it also works like a charm.


    Parent

    one other thing (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    about people who complain about SBC doing a gay character.
    its even sillier than the person yesterday who was bent all out of shape that those "paternalistic" professional supreme court lawyers were going to get our rights for us.
    its ridiculous.
    Cohen has done more for gay rights than any straight person I can think of.
    the stunt he pulled with the wrestling was inspired.  and dangerous.
    he puts himself in real danger doing this stuff.
    all to make the point that homophobia is stupid.
     

    Parent
    SBC is out for SBC (none / 0) (#104)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    "noone would laugh at black face" (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:17:12 PM EST
    do you honestly believe he is doing this to make fun of gay people?

    I find that almost unbelievable.

    look, if was want to be part of the big picture we have to stop being so thin skinned.  I often agree with you but not this time.  or yesterday either for that matter when you were enabling that absurd commenter who was bashing Ted Olson for being "paternalistic".

    btw
    I also love South Park.


    Parent

    I find SP stupid (none / 0) (#116)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    And if you're referring to Prof. Hutchinson, I don't think he's absurd at all.

    I don't think of it as being thin skinned, I think of it as not putting up with people walking all over you. I guess it's a difference of philosophy and degree.

    Parent

    whatever (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:30:11 PM EST
    but rest assured no one walks on me.


    Parent
    Who, or what, is "noone"? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    do you know (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    who Eminem is?

    Parent
    Yes, I do know who Eminem is.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    as a matter of fact, I even know who Bush and Cheney are.... and as much as I loathe the two of them, had they been the targets, I still would not have found it funny.

    Parent
    well then (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:09:49 PM EST
    we have very different ideas of humor.
    probably not a surprise.


    Parent
    You posted this yesterday and didn't (2.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 09:17:13 PM EST
    get any takers. It really doesn't deserve the attention you're trying to give it. SBC appeals to some, but I'm thinking very, very few of them are reading and commenting at TalkLeft.

    Parent
    have you ever considered the possibility (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    that you just dont get it?


    Parent
    I think Cohen... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    is hysterical, but I like most "offensive" comics...but is all a question of taste, there is no right or wrong.

    Parent
    his point (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    as is the point with South Park and some others is to push the envelope.  the envelope needs to be pushed.  constantly.  or the PC police will close in on us.
    this is why legendary tv producer Norman Lear (who pushed the envelope in his own day) said Parker and Stone were the most influential people on TV an wanted to work with them.

    of course "everyone" wont get it.
    thats the point.  Cohen is a treasure BECAUSE he drives the pearl clutchers nuts.

    Parent

    Missouri, er Minnesota... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    Governor Pawlenty will not seek a third term in '10.  One imagines the reason is to focus on his '12 Presidential "campaign".  

    Possible implications as far certifying Franken:

    Pawlenty is under far less pressure to certify Democrat Al Franken as the winner in the Minnesota Senate race if the state Supreme Court rejects the election appeal of former Sen. Norm Coleman...

    ...Pawlenty can refuse to sign the election certificate for Franken -- if Coleman wants to take the legal fight federal -- and continue to raise his national profile by arguing (in his low key, inoffensive way) on a variety of televisions outlets that he is simply trying to ensure no legitimate votes are left uncounted, a GREAT issue for him in the eyes of GOP base voters.

    That remains just as true today. So, if Coleman decides he wants to take the case to the federal level if he were to lose at the state court level, there's now a significantly higher likelihood that Pawlenty would be receptive to such a move.



    No way (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by eric on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    the law is clear.  When this is finished in the state courts, it is over and the election certificate issues.  End of story.  In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue:
    Minnesota Statutes § 204C.40, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that a certificate of election cannot be issued until the state courts have finally decided an election contest pending under chapter 209, applies to an election for the United States Senate.
    LINK

    In my view, this whole story is overblown.  Governors do not have the ability to unilaterally refuse to acknowledge the results of an election.  The fact that people would even suggest that Pawlenty could so openly defy the law and democracy itself is absurd.  However, it does seem as if in the post-Bush era, we are willing to accept that almost anything can happen, I guess.

    Parent

    So, it is a done deal... (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 10:23:19 PM EST
    ...and there's nothing else he can do to stall the process?

    Is it possible that Pawlenty has already p.o.'d enough moderates in MN that he could potentially not even win his home state in the '12 primaries?  

    Seems like he may have squandered a lot of goodwill in his quest to do the GOP's bidding in keeping Franken from being seated.

    Parent

    That correspondes with what (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    Franken's lawyer told Bill Press this morning on AirAmerica. He said the Gov. and Sec of State's signature are largely ceremonial - they sign the nice calligraphy parchment that gets framed and put in the Senator's office. If the Court says 'sign', they have to.

    Parent
    yiiiippppeeee (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 10:40:00 PM EST
    So cool, I'm so glad!  I can go night night now with a smile on my face :)

    Parent
    Kim Jong Un (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    Schoolchildren in Pyongyang have already begun singing the praises of Kim Jong Un

    I can hardly wait to see Trey Parker and Matt Stones version.

    Heh, I figured that all the nuke testing (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    hoopla and missile launches were because ummm...the short dude with the bad hair had bit the dust :)

    Parent
    Hey, if I think that D.C. is a political mafia (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    these days I bet a vacation to North Korea would be eye opening.  But that would be like drinking paint thinner in order to be able to better enjoy a nice drink of Pine sol.

    Parent
    Cheney's on a roll today (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    Says no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11:

    But, not really.

    "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

    But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."




    Well (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    But Hussein was "somebody who provided sanctuary and safe harbor and resources to terrorists. ... [It] is, without question, a fact."

    So, apparently, is the state of Kansas, and wherever the heck McVeigh lived. What's his point?

    Parent

    He had that reporting ? (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    Yeah, inbetween gasping and gurgling and the spitting out of the water he had that reporting.

    Parent
    Feinstein to meet with Sotomayor today (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    Feinstein said she would ask Sotomayor about the "wise Latina" comment, which she said had been "made into something egregious." She said she also wants to discuss important constitutional topics including abortion, a hot-button issue on which Sotomayor's views are not known .

    "I'll ask her how she views the constitutional right to privacy," Feinstein said, adding that she "might" inquire about Sotomayor's position on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

    Link

    Notice how she (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by dk on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    "might" ask about Roe v. Wade.

    MIGHT?  Geez, we have really gotten to the point that Democratic politicians are so meek (or worse) that she just "might" ask whether a nominee to the supreme court will uphold the right of women to control their own bodies?

    And before people let loose on Feinstein (which, admittedly, is usually very easy to do), notice that no other Democratic senator, as far as I know, has publicly stated that they are even considering asking Sotomayor this very important question.  In other words, we have 1 (1!) Democratic senator saying they "might", and the other 58 saying nothing.  Shameful, IMO.

    Parent

    Gillibrand may (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    I can't remember if she said she would def ask (Sunday interview), but I do remember her saying she hoped she was pro choice like herself. She also said something to the effect that they could ask and Sotomayor could choose not to answer. Gillibrand and Schumer were scheduled to have lunch with her today. Gillibrand seemed pretty straight forward and positive about the whole possible conversation. And she's not really a mince words type, so if she does ask, I suspect it will be pretty direct and anything we hear back to be the same.

    All this not asking by the WH is a tad disturbing. Here's hoping more Sen find their spines.

    Parent

    I will be majorly pissed if (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    Obama's SCOTUS nominees are not all unabashedly committed to Roe v. Wade. No surprises Mr. President.

    Parent
    I'd be surprised if (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    Soto turned out to be a surprise on Roe.  

    I'd also be surprised if Obama and his team failed to adequately vet her on this threshold issue in the private talks.  It is, after all, a proper question to ask of a potential nominee, and a rather crucial one both on the substance and on the political implications for Obama in failing to inquire about it.

    Parent

    Did you not hear what they said last week? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    Iirc, they specifically said they didn't cover it, but were "comfortable" that she felt the same as Obama, or some load . . .  Of course, she may actually feel the same as Obama, and that does us no good.

    My Senators who promoted her right off the bat sure don't know. Hopefully they learned something at lunch.

    Parent

    Yes, I know what Gibby (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    said was supposedly not asked, in a certain way, during the WH interview.  

    I find it hard to believe though that a bunch of WH political pros, with so much at risk with her nomination and her one crucial vote on the Roe case if confirmed to the Court, would not have found a way to ask her the basic question, probably in a form slightly different from the way the press person put it to Gibbs in the presser (allowing Bobby G, on strict constructionist grounds, to answer the question in the negative).

    Of course, now that there's some question in the public mind about her stance, it makes a great deal of sense for Feinstein and others if necessary to publicly ask her about the right to privacy, and get as much nailed down as possible.  

    Parent

    In order for them to ask that question (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    It would have to be important to them.  So I hope you're right.

    Parent
    News flash (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    WH press secretaries, including Gibbs, don't always tell the truth.  Sometimes they aren't even given the truth.

    Count me as one who doesn't think it's likely they didn't probe on this.  If Roe v. Wade goes down because of an Obama-appointed judge's vote, there will be an uproar the likes of which we haven't seen in a while, and more importantly perhaps, he will be a figure of ridicule for having been stupid enough to appoint such a judge, much as Bush Sr. will forever be for appointing Souter.

    If you want to be real, real cynical about it, the ambiguities of the present situation suit Obama's "governing" style.  He doesn't have to commit himself much because the law is the law.  If the law ceases being the law because of the SC and suddenly a dozen states or more make abortion illegal again, he'll have to take a strong stand one way or the other.  Frankly, I don't think he really has a strong stand to take.

    Parent

    Hope this isn't the compromise he hopes (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:28:05 PM EST
    for.

    Parent
    It's the Harry Reid School of Democratic Politics (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:16:34 PM EST
    June 2, Native American Citizenship Anniversary (none / 0) (#23)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 proclaimed:

    "BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)"


    Financial Times on Government Motors (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    The administration took a tragic situation and turned it into an expensive mess to pay a political debt. It wasted billions of dollars over many months delaying GM's filing and then implicitly put itself on the hook for many billions more. The financial, political and social echoes of that decision will be with us for a long time. In short, they blew it.



    she knows how to pack (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 04:37:58 PM EST

    SANTIAGO, Chile --  Two suitcases carried by a woman who was about to fly to from Chile to Spain were virtually made of cocaine, police said.

    Detective Leandro Morales at the Santiago airport said the drug "was not hidden in the luggage. This time the suitcases were the drug."

    The suitcases were made of a substance combining cocaine with resin and glass fiber, Morales told The Associated Press.

    A "chemical process" could be used to separate out the drug, Morales said, adding that the suitcases were heavier than their contents.

    The 26-year-old Argentine woman was arrested.


    I think somebody stole that (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 05:10:04 PM EST
    from a movie plot.

    Parent
    Or (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    the movie plot stole it from reality....

    Parent
    Somewhere, some lucky folks are ... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 12:01:40 AM EST
    ... snorting fiberglass and resin.  Nice.

    Parent