home

Monday Morning Open Thread

Susie Madrak finds the Pete Peterson hacks at it again.

From the pols are pols file -- NYTimes Editorial:

Anyone who doubts the degree of executive branch pliability [. . .] needs to consider this: The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims’ appeal because the illegality of torture was not “clearly established” was the Obama Justice Department.

The shot of the college hoops season so far:

This is an Open Thread.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Coming Soon? The Ping Pong Nuclear Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Brit Hume... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    ...thinks you need to give up your Gator worshiping heathen ways.

    Weird right... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    Was Brit hittin' the sauce hard over the holidays?  This christian sh*t seemingly came out of leftfield...he never struck me as a holy-roller.

    Parent
    I've been reading... (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    ...that he hit the holy-roller redemption stuff pretty hard after his son committed suicide.  

    Parent
    Whatever gets you through the night... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:41:23 AM EST
    is allright...but to play like you need an organized religion to redeem yourself is lame...there are many paths to redemption Brit.

    Parent
    And pretty lame... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    ...to be telling Tiger what he needs to do.  Don't think it is his choice in sky-fairies that he needs to worry about.  

    Parent
    Tim Tebow (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    would not agree

    Parent
    How bout them Broncos? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:04:35 AM EST
    How about those Giants? n/t (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    Ugh... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    heads must roll at Giants headquarters...Its been awhile since I've seen a team roll over and play dead like that...utterly embarassing.

    Parent
    New coach, new GM... (none / 0) (#24)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    ...or both?  I see the Skins cut the Zornmeister loose this morning--wonder if Shanny will be silly enough to work for Dannyboy.

    Parent
    Snyder... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    must be the dumbest gazillionaire in the world...keep installing a new coaching staff and system every year or two they're never gonna be any good.  Hello?

    Shanny would be wise to look elsewhere for his next gig.

    Parent

    Utterly. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    Ah well, with them gone it makes the playoffs easier to watch for me.

    Parent
    My sympathies... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    the Giants late-season collapse was most Jet-like...maybe the franchises are switching m.o.'s:)

    Right or wrong I think Coughlin is done...the Giants have too much talent to stink that badly.

    Parent

    Im starting to think (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    it was more wishful thinking inspired hype than talent. Especially on the defensive side.

    I wouldnt be surprised if they kept him around for another couple of years. A Super Bowl win carries alot of cache.

    Parent

    His resume speaks for itself... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:50:58 PM EST
    success in Jax and the Super Bowl win in NY...a very good coach, even if too disciplinarian "No Fun League" for my taste.  Probably deserves the chance to turn it around, but ya can't cut the whole team, so the coach goes.

    Good point, maybe the talent wasn't there on the defense...but the offense, with the other Steve Smith's emergence, definitely has its share...even considering Eli over-rated.

    Parent

    Touche (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    No conference committee, apparently (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    via Booman, Cohn:

    According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are "almost certain" to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

    And this interests me too:

    Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they're being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it's not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.

    If this is the case (and Republicans will raise holy hell regardless of the way Dems pass a law), then someone needs to explain why reconciliation was "too risky" and ping-ponging the legislation is not.  At least in the political sense, I understand that regulatory laws could not be passed through reconciliation.

    Also, I wrote a diary yesterday.  It's rather convoluted but the point is - what vision do Obama fans (Booman, Cole, Ezra Klein) actually have for the Presidency?  

    That's no "hope" for "change" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    really, since the giveaways in a conference of only Dems still will be Dems conceding important aspects of our health care to Dems -- and conceding more costs for us, too.  So let's guess at which other states now wangle for Nebraska's deal.  

    I think we can guess that Nebraska's Nelson will get to keep the Dems' wholesale concession of women's rights.  As for that aspect, we might do better with Snowe still in the room.    

    Parent

    As soon as the Republicans (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    objected to going to conference, it was clear that there would be an informal conference.

    Parent
    Not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    Are you saying McConnell would NOT have named conferees? I seriously doubt that.

    Parent
    They were going to demand 3 cloture votes... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magster on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    ...just for the formality of naming conferees, which would have delayed the conference by another 90 hours of debate.

    Parent
    They'll demand (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    amendments if you open up the amendment process.

    Parent
    They were not going to allow (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    a vote before the SOTU.

    Parent
    Not sure there will be one (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    by avoiding conference.

    The amendment process seems in play.

    In any event, I think you get to the same place at pretty much the same time.

    The optics argument is  more my point.

    Look, if Obama wants the bill passed before the SOTU, all he has to do is reschedule the State of the Union to mid February.

    Parent

    The Dems have 60 votes, so they can (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    shut down the amendment process.

    Parent
    After 3 days (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    So you save 6 days with this.

    Not worth it.

    Obama can delay his speech for a week.

    Parent

    I don't really see the value of a formal (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    conference over just doing this.

    Parent
    In nothing else (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    It is better politics.

    Parent
    So what we finally end (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    up with will be utterly from Dem hands?

    Parent
    Utterly (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    and it will be the Senate bill, with a few minor tweaks.

    Thank heavens for our large congressional majority.

    Parent

    Obama names transgendered appointee (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    to Commerce Department

    From Jake Tapper

    President Obama recently named Amanda Simpson to be a Senior Technical Advisor to the Commerce Department.

    In a statement, Simpson, a member of the National Center for Transgender Equality's board of directors, said that "as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others."

    While Simpson is clearly one of the first transgender presidential appointees, Democratic officials say they're unsure if she is the very first one.

    The White House had no comment on her appointment.

    A 2004 YWCA "Woman on the Move," Simpson recently served as Deputy Director in Advanced Technology Development at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, Arizona.

    At Raytheon, Simpson -- a former test pilot who had worked for the company for more than a generation -- transitioned from male to female and was instrumental in convincing the military contractor to add gender identity and expression to its equal employment opportunity policy.

    She later ran unsuccessfully for the Arizona House of Representatives and was a delegate for then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.



    Wow! (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 09:36:17 AM EST
    That was an amazing shot.

    Two US Marshals shot (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    at a Vegas courtroom.

    The gunman has been killed.

    One officer (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    just died.

    Parent
    CIA officers killed last week (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    by a double agent, with al-Qaeda sympathies

    Shades of Vietnam (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    and the "one week they were on our side, and the next they were back to killing Americans" refrain heard so often from participants in that cluster eff.

    One wonders what the next step from here is. Another Operation Phoenix?

    Parent

    NYT book review of bio of Scalia. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    Review if by Rosen.  Interesting.  How did Scalia make it onto SCOTUS?  NYT