Saturday Evening Open Thread

Super filly Rachel Alexandra won the Woodward Stakes this afternoon at Saratoga.

Spartacus (Fabian Cancellara) won the time trial Stage 7 of the Vuelta de Espana.

The USA national soccer team plays El Salvador tonight in a World Cup qualifying match.

And in a man bites dog story, Michigan won a football game today.

This is an Open Thread.

< Obama Announces Plans to Spur Retirement Savings | Checking In With Your Own Labor History >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    CNN reports White House health care (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    plan on the way:  "The White House is quietly talking about drafting formal health care legislation after allowing Congress to work on its own for months.  Multiple sources close to the process told CNN Friday that while the plan is uncertain, they are preparing for the possibility they could deliver their own legislation to Capitol Hill sometime after the President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress Wednesday. . . ."

    So after all these months of watching and waiting to see what won't get through Congress, what's left -- for the left?

    Buwhahahahaha (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    The irrelevant, powerless, impotent President is now going to deliver his own legislation to Capital Hill when he can't herd anyone gently into a soft configuration of his liking? :)  I don't know what to say.  It could be delivered up and be something decent.  He could sell us out too.  How is he becoming powerful enough to deliver to Capitol Hill though the legislation that they will in turn deliver to him?  It's all so fubar.....P.S. I think he'll sell us out and I hope I'm a 1000% wrong headed and just evil minded about him.

    What might be in store per CNN article (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    Multiple sources told CNN earlier in the day the thinking among administration officials was that the president will lay out a path to reform in his speech next week that the White House hopes can bridge the various differences in the competing proposals. Sources expect the president to emphasize the message: If Congress passes something now, it will serve as a foundation to pass further reform in the future.
    A source close to the White House says the administration is leaning toward dropping the public option, and continues to zero in on trying to convince Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe - who has long pushed for a trigger option -- to come on board.

    The source says the bill that would be presented to Snowe would leave out a public option but include a trigger provision that could lead to the introduction of a new government-run insurance plan under certain circumstances. The legislation would cover most, though not all, of the 46 million uninsured Americans. It would also include popular insurance reforms, such as ending the insurance industry practice of using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage.
    The bottom line, said the source, is that the president would have to "move to the center" on the issue eventually, "and it's not a bad thing to have liberals screaming at him" -- that development will help sell the deal to Americans, "convince them it's a good, moderate deal, if liberals are mad." CNN

    Only good news in the article is that Rep. Lynne Woolsey states that would not satisfy the Progressive caucus.


    Kick the can down the road (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    It's Washington's favorite game. Woohoo!

    Since I think that the (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    so called "trigger" will not ever happen, I think this is more than kicking the can down the road. It will leave us with legislation that mandates people purchase private insurance coverage, uses federal dollars to purchase private insurance and has no cost controls. IOW it will be nothing more than a massive give away to the insurance industry.

    I'm gonna wait (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    to hear it first. My first impression was Obama was not keen on a mandate(since it was the first distinction he drew with Clinton). What is not completely clear to me is whether he opposed it to be politically contrary when Hillary proposed it or if he really did have twinges of conscience about the idea of having families that are already on the brink paying for a product that frankly they can't even afford the co pays or deductibles on.

    I know it's probably naive of me but I am going to hope there is a glimmer of a decent person in him.


    He did oppose the mandate (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:29:21 PM EST
    but he said it was because it interfered with Americans' freedom, not because it would be hard on the lower earners.

    I remember distinctly (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:31:39 PM EST
    the talking point that a mandate would mean making the poor choose between rent and health care. I remember it specifically because it totally pissed me off because both the other candidates were very clear that their plans provided subsidies for the poor.

    Ah, ok. Maybe a senior moment for me... (none / 0) (#90)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    or maybe different comments at different times. I was pissed off about the "limiting Americans' freedom" comment because it sounded so Republican/Libertarian. That was one of the major things that made me semi-apoplectic.

    I have no doubt he said what you indicated. :)


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    I read a lot about doing away with the public option. I read about them lowering the subsidies. Can't say I've read anything about doing away with the mandates for everyone to purchase insurance.

    Unless I'm mistaken it goes like this. No mandates - no coverage for pre-existing conditions.


    even when he talked about mandates (none / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    he said he wanted "exceptions" written in. Of course, he has never defined what he means by exceptions. He's always appears vague and I think he is very deliberate about that.

    I have to wonder if he was as deliberately vague when dealing with the insurance industry on who he would guarantee a delivery into the system?

    I think he is still trying to maximize his return and figure out a way to get both constituencies or at the very least figure out which block alienation will cost him the most politically.

    It's just my impression but I haven't been too wrong about him thus far.

    We'll see.


    I agree. He wants to remain a Rorschach (none / 0) (#91)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    ink blot so everyone thinks he supports their agenda, and it leaves him promising nothing. I don't think he really made the promises that people attributed to him. He made statements and speeches that sounded like real progressive views and that people inferred as promises. But I think he has always kept deliberately vague.

    It's not working now, because he has to commit to concrete things; if he stays vague, he will have to deal with the consequences of that just as he would if he had stood up for what people thought/hoped he stood for.

    I can't figure him out....why he doesn't do what is clearly what the public wants. The majority still wants a public plan. They even said that on Geo.Stephanopoulos this morning....so it must be true <snark>.


    No mention of the mandates (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    bothers the H*ll out of me. I feel like they are going to sell a "we couldn't get the PO done but we have given you this . . . " and not mention the mandate that is going to screw us all. Sad that I get excited when a politician mentions it/the give away to insurance companies when we have a "dem" prez.

    Thus far (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:52:54 PM EST
    he's been vague and floated lots of trial baloons where he drops the option which he then walks back to say he still supports it and then says well maybe a co op or a trigger. I still think he's trying to determine if he can get some of the progressive block to cave and what type of cost he'd pay if he outright ignored them.

    He's been pretty content to let others toss out ideas and float them up. I don't think he's sold on any idea yet except the idea of maximizing his return on any plan(including his chances for re election).

    If I thought it was predetermined and I didn't think the block could make a difference on this particular policy I wouldn't waste valuable energy on it. I honestly think this could come down to who blinks first.


    That's right (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Spamlet on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    I don't think he's sold on any idea yet except the idea of maximizing his return on any plan(including his chances for re election).

    As BTD likes to say, "Pols are pols, and do what they do."

    As FDR said, "I agree with you. Now make me do it."

    Obama is no FDR, and he may or may not agree with us. But he didn't even want to hear from single-payer advocates, despite his own advocacy of a single-payer system when he was still a senator in the Illinois State Combine. \

    So we have to make him give us single payer's poor cousin, the "robust" public option. For now, we do that as a bloc by maintaining our support of and pressure on the House Progressive Bloc.


    Interesting diary at Orange (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    by someone who worked very hard for Obama.  As much as some people still feel animosity about the primaries, I don't.  I think it's stupid to allow such things to continue on once the contest is over and that contest is over and I dealt with my emotion about it.  I expressed, I got over it.  I was always tepid about Obama because I didn't like his stance on certain things.  If worrying about losing his true believers would cause him to make the right decision for this country about health care reform though then read and worry away dude.  This one was a true believer of the First Order and you are on notice.

    Powerful read! (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    That was one powerful diary.

    In particular this observation interested me:

    That is what the fight over the public option is all about - it is not about policy. It's a proxy for the implied contract we entered into when we helped get Obama elected. We expected Change, we expected to be respected, empowered and included, we expected him to fight, and we expected to join him in that fight."

    It isn't about policy, it's about them.  


    Policy is about them though (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:52:21 PM EST
    I think that one thing many liberals didn't like about Hillary in the primary was that she carries the Clinton brand and smells like third way...and welfare reform and lets face it....stiffled healthcare reform.  This person obviously wanted someone who was going to come out fighting for the campaign promises and they planned on continuing to fight with him even after he was elected.  I can't fault any of them for that.

    I think they seriously misread (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    the candidates.  But that's water under the bridge and now they need to come to terms with the person they elected.  

    Very well said! nt (none / 0) (#83)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    Ah, legislation written by Republicans, (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President smells twice as sweet.

    But push him when he's wrong. n/t (none / 0) (#93)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    You know what (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:21:34 AM EST
    though? Obama has never fought for any policy in his entire career. This person is just another one who projected her desires onto a blank slate.

    And that part about closing your eyes and visualizing Obama as president sounds every bit as creepy and cultist and fundies around here talking about W. as the son of God, a new Jesus for our times.


    You said it (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:18:10 AM EST
    Totally creeped me out.

    Oh yeah! I couldn't believe it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sallywally on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    when they talked about this during the campaign.... but there it is. And the part mentioned in the campaign about telling their stories about "how they came to Obama."

    Incredibly creepy. Yecch.


    It will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:24:32 PM EST
    how many of those now expressing betrayal will in the end find ways to justify Obama's actions when all is said and done.

    After reading some of the comments, I see that attacking someone as a "purity troll" is still used in the place of addressing the issue.  


    He does sort of get one thing, though (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    It's a proxy for the implied contract we entered into when we helped get Obama elected.

    Actually, it's a test of our progressive strength, as (tentatively) embodied in the Progressive Caucus, whether we voted for Obama or not (I did not). That's one reason why so many of us on the left/liberal/progressive end of the spectrum are finding all these health care machinations so compelling. It's also why there's been so much "I told you so" lately from some of the PUMAs.

    This diarist and others of his ilk were starstruck and naive about what Obama could be expected to do. Had they wanted to open their eyes, all it would have taken was honest scrutiny of candidate Obama's corporate funding. But their Obama love was blind. Many of them were also hateful and downright vile toward Hillary Clinton and women in general.

    But I hope we can all make common cause, not in spite of outrage about the 2008 primaries, which I share with the PUMAs, but precisely because of it. "Country before party" should apply to the "unparty" too, imo. Even if feeling jilted and crying in their beer is all that some in the Obama fan base can focus on.


    Corporate funding (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:20:02 AM EST
    is, unfortunately, no indication of anything.  They all get great gobs of corporate money, one way or another.  Some of them bow to it, some of them don't.

    About THEM? No, it's about HIM! (none / 0) (#29)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:28:53 PM EST
    THAT's the problem.  

    But don't you see, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:42:29 PM EST
    they have fused into One.

    Don't you mean, THE ONE? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:16:57 PM EST
    They ridiculed the one who (none / 0) (#35)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    promised to fight, though.....

    He is the same politician (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:17:40 PM EST
    Obama's political philosphy is much closer to the Reagan Democrat's (or Blue Dogs) than the progressives.
    I posted this comment on a previous thread, I think this is the reality that many on the progressive blogs are faced with.

    He earned his stripes with the progressive's solely on his anti Iraq War rhetoric during the primaries. This was done in spite of the fact that when he actually had a vote to cast, he backed every single war fundung bill Bush pushed through.

    So for people to sit around now and wonder where their candidate went astray, amazes me. He's the same politician today as he was a year ago. The real change is that people are seeing the man for who he is, rather than the man they hoped he would be.


    True, BUT (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    Obama also broke promises. He earned his stripes with some progressives on the strength of those promises.

    All politicians break their campaign promises, of course. But if the candidate is disingenuous and the voters are naive and/or luvstruck, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the same candidate today that he was a year ago.

    From those voters' point of view, Obama is not the same candidate today that he was a year ago. A year ago, Obama was still the man behind the curtain, pulling the levers in the Emerald City.


    As he said of himself, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sallywally on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    he was, and presumably still thinks he is, an inkblot on whom voters can cast their own ideals - and agenda. It seemed odd that he'd just say this right out in the open - I think in one of his autobiographies.

    Now, though, he is becoming responsible for an ever longer series of concrete actions that have concrete consequences, for the nation, its people, the broader world, the Democrats, and finally for him and his administration.


    YES, exactly! (none / 0) (#32)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:38:45 PM EST
    "The man that they hoped he would be".  Sad, but so true.  

    Now what?  We elected him based on his being anti war and now he's ignoring Iraq and expanding the war in Afghanistan.   He's even increasing the length of deployments!  I hated when Bush did that.  Obama did too!  Now he's doing the same thing, without a word about it.  It totally stinks.  

    Will we ever again have a democrat President who really cares about our kids in uniform, a President who really is anti war?  


    When (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:48:58 PM EST
    We'll get the president we want when we learn to use the primaries to their fullest.

    By demanding firm committments from candidates that ask for our vote.

    By dismissing all candidates that refuse to commit to any actual principle.

    By not accepting canned slogans for real answers.

    By letting them know that if they don't adhere to the party platform they may as well not even try to run for reelction.


    Agreed, what do we do now? (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    I feel like I've spent most of my life protesting wars.  I thought Obama was the anti war candidate but it doesn't appear that he is.  He never even mentions the wars!  

    I thought he cared about universal health care for everyone.  Now it doesn't seem to be such a big deal to him.  

    I had hoped that he would do something about unemployment, no such luck.  It's now the highest that it's been in 25 years!   My kids worked hard to finish college and now there are no jobs for them, or their friends.  

    I thought he supported gay rights in the military.  Haven't heard boo about that either.  Ditto gay marriage.  

    This is very discouraging, to say the least.  


    To be fair (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:35:21 AM EST
    he's moving -- slowly and without enthusiasm, but moving -- on DADT and DOMA, both of which I expect to be gone by the end of his first term. And he is, also slowly, scaling back the Iraq engagement.

    And this giant recession/depression isn't something any president can just wave a wand and make go away, not even FDR, so it's a little silly to blame him for "not doing anything" about unemployment.  Even a stimulus bill twice the size of what was done -- which would not have gone through Congress in any case -- wouldn't have massively reduced unemployment overnight.

    So let's not blame Obama for the fact that the sun is still rising in the east, OK?

    There are enough actual things he's done/not done to be horrified by, first and foremost the flat-out betrayal on health care.


    The first step... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    is getting somebody, anybody, elected without a D or an R after their name...ya gotta shut the machine down before you can fix it.

    What a self-centered idjit (4.57 / 7) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    that diarist is.  Health care reform is not about public policy -- y'know, something that could change the lives of all of us -- but instead, it's about the Obamans' emotional returns on their investment blah blah blah . . . that is, it's about whether they still feel all warm and fuzzy and loved.

    Blecchh.  That diary encapsulates what was so wrong with the campaign -- and what still is so wrong about the result for the Dem party debacle at present and, apparently, for its future.


    I know they are very different (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    from most of us who championed Hillary.  They are much more emotional and idealistic.  I'm sort of scratchy and already know that the reality is that we are going to have to fight, the invested powers aren't going to just give us what we want. I find myself taking up for them though.  They're getting shafted man.  They were more idealistic than I was, it isn't a crime.....yet.  Look at how idealistic I am about our pre 9/11 media being recently downgraded and fouled by a lack of honesty and standards :)

    Emotional and idealist are not (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    the same thing.  They can coexist, of course.

    But they confused having ideals with achieving them -- and how best to accomplish that, with which leadership, based on that leader's ideals and record of achieving them.  No wonder they still are confused -- and uncomfortable; they still are dealing with cognitive dissonance and not facing how to resolve it.


    It was a faith based initiative (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:41:18 PM EST
    Snort. :-) (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    Don't know how old (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:24:28 AM EST
    that diarist is, but what really gets me is how many people old enough to know better fell into that trap.  We had stars in our eyes like that about Bobby Kennedy or Gene McCarthy back when we were 20, but I can't get my mind around people in their 40s and 50s and 60s with that mindset.

    Too true. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:31:42 AM EST
    I may have to head down the street to see if there still is a note on the door of a couple we know -- in their '60s, both Ph.D.s in philosophy and much published, supposed to be deep thinkers . . . but with this gushy note on their door the last time we were there.  The note was about Obama as some sort of demigod and welcomed all who entered as fellow worshipers.  Very weird.  So was the conversation.

    We haven't gone back. . . .


    True (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    First love. They are young and (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:38:14 PM EST
    self-centered and it's all about them.  An emotional firestorm for which they are totally unprepared.  Painful to watch.

    I hope they learn in time to salvage the country.


    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    If they can refocus all that energy they used to propel Obama into the WH unto policy though, they can come out of this better, smarter and stronger for the experience.

    We all make mistakes. It's often whether you learn from them that matters.

    Here's to hoping the learning curve is quick and they don't spend too much time wringing their hands over the promised pony because otherwise we are careening towards disaster.


    Feelings, nothing more than feelings.............. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    To many of us care too much about feelings, emoting, deep felt crushes, emotional projections, without the thinking that needs to be behind it.  We become like starry eyed teenage girls, in love with our latest crush who we don't even know, but we love him anyway.  Of course the object of our affection will be a disappointment because we didn't even know him!  

    I treasure this (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:06:24 AM EST
    So on Wednesday night, the only thing I'm going to be watching for is the narrative our Story-Teller-In-Chief brings to the American people. I will be watching for the emotional truth.

    Uh, the emotional truth?

    That only works on believers. Everyone else requires reasons and facts.


    Jim got two 5 ratings (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    Jimbo, that has to be a first for you here, my man.  

    Mizzou Tigers really looked good against Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mogal on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    Speaking for me only.

    Illinois' play was dismal. (none / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:34:58 PM EST
    On the upside, Notre Dame won against Nevada. Next week the Irish head to the Big House. Can they beat Michigan? Will they beat Michigan?

    Go, Irish!


    Michigan (none / 0) (#55)
    by Natal on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:57:50 PM EST
    looked mighty good today.  Next week's game with ND will decide which team is for real.

    Hail to the Victors (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:08:54 AM EST

    And you can talk all the smack you (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    want about Auburn, but everyone knows they have the best looking cheerleaders

    She finally has long enough hair that we made a tiny ponytail today.  And because I know nothing about college football my borrowed from my son enthusiasm about Auburn knows no bounds.  Her outfit is still a little big though.  It was on the sale rack.  I wonder why?

    What a cutie (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    No need for the blue contact lenses . . .

    She does have some blue ones (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:47:34 PM EST
    She's a pistol

    Cute! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    Love the big blues :)

    I ordered my great-nephew-to-be some Yankee gear today {evil grin} I may have to balance it with some SF Giants gear down the road, lol!~ Since I'll be putting in some daycare time and will have a cable baseball package, I'm planning early corruption. What are the chances of him saying Yankee before Dada?


    No, not the Giants. (none / 0) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:31:37 PM EST
    Please, let me provide Cubs gear. It is important that a child learn at an early age how to deal with disappointment and heartbreak and still keep hope alive.

    SF Giants are pretty good at heartbreak! (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:58:20 PM EST
    In my lifetime that is ;) I'll never forget the Bay series . . . um, I mean earthquake!

    I'll take some Cubs gear though! Kid's Great Grandparents (my parents) are both from Il, so it might buy me some goodwill {grin} I may supply some Jets gear also for that "still keep hope alive" thang!, lol!~


    There is one true love (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:48:48 PM EST
    of her grandfather's and that's the Red Wings.  We need some Red Wings gear so we can send some photos to him while he's gone.

    Beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:11:03 PM EST
    No wonder you are proud of Auburn's cheerleaders.

    Already a heartbreaker! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oldpro on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:39:25 PM EST
    Where's the photo of her mom?

    Here is a picture of her mom from yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:02:42 PM EST
    Josh and I are still sick.  I seem to be just about done with the flu tonight, but Joshua has developed a secondary infection (conjunctivitis) and started antibiotics today.  Zoey and mom though were already done with the flu so they visited a private zoo yesterday someplace close to here that I had not heard of.  The West Point guy found it though and they all went yesterday. According to my daughter the gentleman who owns it is from Australia and he has a lot of big cats and even a grizzly.  They promise to take us when we feel better.  But my daughter doesn't like snakes any better than I do and the zoo proprietor kept trying to get her to hold this one.  It's a cute picture of her.

    Very cute....does she look like her (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:41:16 AM EST
    mom, grandma?

    Zoe looks a lot like both of us (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:28:42 AM EST
    but my chin is weaker than my daughters and it looks like it skips a generation because Zoe has the weak chin :)  We all three got the same mousey brown hair (my daughter and I plump our color up), Josh has mouse brown too, and the eyes have stuck around the family for a really really long time from my father and grandfather and beyond.  We get a few blondes in the family too, about one to every three brunettes so we are due a blonde :)

    Well, a family photo would be (none / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    welcomed!  I'd like to get a look at the whole tribe!

    We are going to take one (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    without my spouse after the new addition comes, which is soon.  First week of November at the latest.  In that photo of my daughter she is 32 weeks pregnant.  For some reason that particular top doesn't make her look very pregnant either.  This pregnancy is different though than Zoe.  She is only packing around herself and baby, she doesn't even get puffy....nothing

    It's just a little snake! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 04:20:44 AM EST
    I wonder if it is illegal to trap and release snakes.  I could use a good sized corn snake or black snake to whup on the rodents around here.  Have to ask the rels today.

    My silly neighbors trap and release chipmunks.  Futile.  If you have prey, you need predators.  


    You're a snake girl? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:32:55 AM EST
    I don't know if you can get a transplanted snake, but the zooman has alligators that he has removed from local lakes and ponds verses people killing them.  And my daughter said he has many snakes (don't know where all of them have come from or if he has anything local) that she did not go to visit because it creeps her too badly.

    My youngest grandson has a snake (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    It is black and white and as far as snakes go it is kinda pretty. I'm O.K. with holding it but I draw the line when it comes to feeding it. The agreement is that if I am dog/snake/house sitting while they go on vacation that snake better have already been feed (eats every 2 wks) or it goes somewhere else.

    Saw snakes on the farm (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:45:47 AM EST
    when I was growing up.  Even saw a rare snake - a Massasauga rattler, a small, shy rattlesnake.  Not at all like the big western rattlesnakes.

    They don't creep me out at all.  Besides, we were taught that snakes are good, eat mice and will leave us alone if we leave them alone.  Black snakes are so well liked by country folk that some people consider their resident black snake almost to be their pets.  Plus they don't dig and poo in your garden!  


    Bull snakes are favorite pet yard (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    snake in CO if you live any place where there are rattlers.  I still can't stand them.  I don't try to harm them, but I'm never the same playing outdoors when I know one lives nearby :)  I killed a six foot eastern diamondback the first year we were here.  I still shudder at the thought.  My cousin just told me a few weeks ago though that diamondbacks are becoming rare in CO and that you aren't supposed to kill them anymore.  They are being considered endangered.

    And I haven't seen a pigmy rattler yet (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    here even though this is supposed to be their hangout.  For some reason bumping into one doesn't seem to scare me so much and I guess it isn't a smart attitude because I'm told they are aggressive.

    Aw, bummer. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:13:59 AM EST
    My rural rels tell me they haven't seen any snakes in years.  I could get a pet corn snake, but they are captive born and bred - good for pets, but exactly the wrong thing for releasing into the wild.

    Gorgeous! Those eyes!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    jeepers creepers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    where'd she get those peepers?

    Beautiful, MT!!!!  


    Beautiful baby! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    So cute!! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    She's adorable, MT. OMG, those eyes. Are you ever able to say "no" to her?

    I can tell that I'm going to be (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    sore from the gym. Now it's just a question of how sore. . .

    No pain, no.... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:38:20 AM EST
    I don't do gyms because I've got enough strenuous physical work to do, but I find it almost an ecstatic experience the way a day or two after working new muscles to the point of (slight) soreness, they're literally itching to be worked again.  It's flat-out amazing how quickly you can feel the increased strength in them.

    Van Jones, green jobs advisor, quits (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:13:28 AM EST
    Van Jones, Obama's green jobs advisor, has resigned his WH position following demands from the rightwing, Mike Pence and Glenn Beck among them, that he be fired.

    His offense? Well, a couple of years ago Jones called Republicans a**holes in a speech. He also signed some pretty stupid petition that he apparently did not read carefully first.

    Jones is a longtime AA activist who has done excellent work to expand the green jobs sector. He was an asset to the WH. Obama completely folded. IMO, this is worse than Clinton caving on Lani Guanier because Jones did not need Senate confirmation. And he was already at work.

    I would think the fact that Beck hates him would be a good reason to keep Jones.

    Is there nothing Obama is willing to fight the right on?

    An assest? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:16:07 AM EST
    Are there no people that haven't called Repubs vulgar names, signed a petition that said Bush caused 9/11 and announced they are communists.....who can do the job?

    Maybe the Republicans who (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:44:59 AM EST
    have joined with those demanding to see Obama's birth certificate and those who have said publicly that he is going to pull the plug on grandma need to resign also.

    I didn't know they had been appointed (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    to any position within the administration.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    I though Grassley was President Snowe's VP. :-)

    I think he said (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Spamlet on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    he was a Marxist. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) For once, though, I agree with you, on the grounds of realpolitik, Teh Right-Wing Crazee being what it is. Van Jones's resignation statement also acknowledges that reality.

    It's not about that. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 07:46:15 AM EST
    It's the first White House "scandal", if you can call it that, and it appears that Obama just folded.  Just cut him loose.  No fight, no support, no nothing.

    Maybe Obama cut some kind of back room deal where he'll appoint a GOP Green Jobs Czar (my brain hurts just imagining such a creature) and the GOP will give Obama some bipartisan votes for a Public Option (as if!).  

    Can you imagine how this move creates political capital for Obama in any way?


    The Repubs didn't give up a thing (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    they would have loved for Jones to remain in the administration.

    He should have never been appointed. Look at what he has said and done.


    I care about the job he does. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:08:02 AM EST
    So far, no one has accused him of being a Heckuvajob Jones who has no qualifications and abysmal job performance.

    Controversial?  Deal with it!  The good Reverend got tossed more reluctantly under the bus than Jones did, and this was when Obama had an election looming large.  Is it possible that winning an election has made Obama even squishier than he was?


    Deal with what? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    That he couldn't keep his mouth shut and placed himself in position that meant he could not serve?

    There are plenty of qualified people who haven't done the things he has.


    Larry Summers? Joe Biden? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:31:57 AM EST
    There are plenty of people with foot-in-mouth disease in this administration.  

    No argument on that from me. (2.00 / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    China is still a (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    GO BLUE (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jade Jordan on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 06:57:21 PM EST
     From the looks of the game today, the dog is likely to bite man a lot this year.

    Mad Men (none / 0) (#22)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    Tom Watson had an interesting piece up the other day. And here I thought everybody loved Mad Men, like me. Not Tom.

    But he does seem to espouse (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    Obama's personal economic philosophies.

    Well, he is a communist (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 12:50:26 PM EST

    Who worked for Reagan (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    He also loves his dogs and (2.00 / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    treats his cats well.

    (sarcasm alert)