Saturday Night Open Thread

I'm told there's a football game on, so I guess that's what BTD is up to.

The TL kid is coming over for dinner. He asked me to make one of my mother's recipes he loved as a kid: chicken in a pot, with mashed potatoes. He doesn't know it but all you do is saute some onions and garlic in olive oil, add some chicken breasts, salt, pepper and paprika, and then after they are brown on both sides, add some chicken broth and 1/2 cup sweet vermouth.

If you're not watching football, ABC is replaying the opening episode of The Bachelor. It's already been leaked who wins (I won't tell here), so now watching it is all about the edit and the melt-downs along the way.

And in the election department, Public Policy Polling has the Martha Coakley senate race at a toss-up: Republican Scott Brown leads her by one point. Good.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Explosive New Details in John Edwards Saga | Sunday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "Good"? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    Shame on you, Jeralyn.

    Although Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by itscookin on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:08:44 PM EST
    can be counted on to be against most people who have been prosecuters, on this I one I agree. Coakley took a lot of money from women based on her pledge to vote against the health insurance reform bill. I live in MA, get to vote, and would like my money back. At this point I don't see me voting for the Republican, but there is no pleasure in voting for Martha either. The only plus is that MA would have its first female senator ever. The shenanagins planned by the Democrats to keep Brown from casting a vote on HCR should he win might make me change my mind. There's still a week to go.

    I'm with itscookin. (none / 0) (#26)
    by dk on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:10:52 PM EST
    I live in MA, and may sit out this election.  If Democrats can't stand up for economic fairness and women's equality, I don't see much reason in standing up for Democrats.

    Your call (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    but legislative bodies are zero-sum. And IMO, if you don't vote, you can't complain.

    I really hope you'll decide otherwise.


    I'm aware that legislative bodies (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by dk on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:18:51 PM EST
    are zero-sum.  If that's all I cared about, I'd vote for Brown, since I oppose the health care bill and would hope he'd get there to help vote it down.  But I don't support him on the issues either so have no reason to vote for him.

    And saying I have no right to complain no matter what I do is just silly.  Or are they not teaching the first amenmdment at your law school?  They taught it in mine.


    I don't mean "right" in any legal sense (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:24:07 PM EST
    But like I said, it's your call.

    Well then what did you mean? (none / 0) (#32)
    by dk on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:29:59 PM EST
    No one needs to vote in an election in order to win some magical "right" to complain that the Democratic party has moved to the right on economic issues and women's rights.  

    But hey, Coakley has another week or so to assure the liberal Democrats of Massachusetts that she will vote like a liberal on the issues as a senator.  Really, it's her call.


    I.e., whether (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:31:46 PM EST
    others will take your political objections seriously.

    Meh, I think one of the times politicians (none / 0) (#37)
    by dk on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:34:06 PM EST
    take people's objections seriously (at least people who aren't executives of banks or healthcare insurance companies) is when they lose.  But again, I hope the Democrat tells me they won't participate in the rightward movement of the party.  I'll be listening.

    Coakley has already told the people who (none / 0) (#40)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:41:16 PM EST
    she is. They are trying to pretend they didn't hear her.

    It's back to a sorry "say anything to win" strategy now. We can't keep sending Democrats to this congress in hopes that one of them will finally show some spine. She already waffled on a really important bill. Who was she trying to win over with that?


    Well, I think now she's doing (none / 0) (#42)
    by dk on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:46:11 PM EST
    what the Democratic leadership is telling her to do.  They love this lousy healthcare bill, and don't mind moving to the right on economic fairness and women's equality.  I think the explicit announcement that she would vote for the bill arose out of an order from the top of the party hierarchy.

    'Can't complain'? Vote or STFU aren't the choices (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:59:56 AM EST
    The voters have been virtually locked out of this (small-d) democratic process, regardless of turnout or otherwise doing their due.

    I've seen dismally few examples of anyone in public office obeying his or her first duty: to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    I'm all for respecting one's franchise to the fullest (especially now that it's shrinking as an inviolable right), at the ballot box, but I wouldn't eliminate NOT voting as a protest measure.

    Me, I'd probably still find something to complain about until we all have global human rights and a saner, cleaner, more peaceful planet.

    (But I get what you're saying about engagement.)


    Bull (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:44:14 AM EST
    There was a fair and open primary, followed by a general election. It's hard to imagine how the process could have been better.

    I don't get where you're coming from (none / 0) (#57)
    by mjames on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:48:07 AM EST
    I've been a diehard Dem for 40+ years. I'm not voting again until there is someone to vote FOR. It's quite simple really. And, yes, I'll complain loud and long - about all candidates and all who get elected. There is no Dem Party that I can find. Give me a Dem and then I'll reconsider. So we get a Republican elected? Big deal. That's what we have in the WH now. No, I'll stay home. There is no lesser of two evils; they're both evil.

    Fair point (none / 0) (#70)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    I mean it worked for the Nader voters in 2000 after all Bush was basically a continuation of Clinton right.

    I have no representation in government today (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    ... and the Dems eliminated women from equal health care by letting Nelson, Stupak and Pitts CHOOSE our medical and moral options for us under ObamaCare.

    If that weren't bad enough, they've fallen down on every core value that matters (to me, anyway). As I've said before, I now have no dog in this fight, and no fight in this dog.

    IF I voted, it would be a protest vote.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:43:44 PM EST
    It's not good, and it's almost, just barely (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:54:07 PM EST

    But I'm somewhat reminded of their 2008 PA primary poll.


    Rasmussen is not credible (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    There's another poll out, a Public Policy robo-call poll, that actually has Brown ahead by a couple of points.

    And then there's the Globe poll just out, conducted by the Univ. of NH Survey Center, which has Coakley up by a very comfortable 15.

    The Globe poll was the only one, apparently, that included the libertarian candidate, who got 5 percent.  (Name 'o Joe Kennedy, btw)

    I don't think there's too much to worry about here, unless there's a major weather event on the 19th that keeps a lot of people away.


    Coakley is not going to lose. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:02:40 PM EST

    Promise? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:07:36 PM EST
    I would have absolutely agreed (none / 0) (#7)
    by itscookin on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    with you a week ago, but now I'm not as sure. Brown's name recognition is going up quickly and it's seems to be positive. I'll grant you that a lot of the money and the GOTV efforts are coming from out of state, but no one seems to resent the interference. I think Coakley's chances are better than even, but I don't think she's a sure thing. MA has had a Republican senator in my lifetime, and I think we'll have another Republican governor in 2012. We may "bleed blue", but the R's do occcasionally win.

    I wonder if (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:31:38 PM EST
    Scott Brown's posing nude (well, with a discretely-placed hand) for Cosmo is going to hurt him with Republicans?  If this were a Democratic candidate, I can imagine the screams and the foaming at the mouth from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al.  

    Made me click (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:52:02 PM EST
    Can't say I'm sorry....hellooo Mr. Senator

    This suggested slogan: (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    Vote for Brown. He Has One Hell of a Stimulus Package.

    made me laugh...


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:30:02 PM EST
    Good one.

    Only women get (none / 0) (#12)
    by itscookin on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    slammed for taking their clothes off. Even the old gray haired guys are labeling it just a youthful indiscretion. Hannity gave Scott a very positive interview.

    Yes, this is all too true (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    Women don't get the advantage of having any little bobble in their past labeled as "youthful indiscretions."  It's still an Old Boyz Club, in far too many ways.  Although I still think that the right-wing bloviators would have made hay out of a Dem male with nude pics.

    Oh, BTW it will help him with (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:53:06 PM EST
    Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. Trust me on that one.

    Don't forget Chris (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:09:36 AM EST
    "tingle up my leg" Matthews. He must be quite um, well, let's just say "excited" about Brown.

    If GWB and Fred Thompson get Tweety drooling ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:16:46 AM EST
    ... they'll have to strap him into his chair to keep him from dry humping the furniture and howling at the moon over this hoochie.

    But why, why, why go with the standard issue snap-on Repug hair? I hate it when bad hair happens to otherwise nice looking guys.


    "Big Love" (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:14:20 PM EST
    starts tomorrow. The HBO show, not the dramatization of the John Edwards saga.  Finally, my Sunday nights regain a purpose. It's been a long month since "Dexter" ended.

    Thank you! I almost forgot (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:28:12 PM EST
    it was this week -- after so long a wait, but also so complicated a Christmas season.  My internal calendar is so far off. . . .

    In return, I give you a musical "Happy New Year" from the Juniper Creek compound.  Enjoy! and may the Prophet keep you. :-)


    Why thank you (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:38:59 PM EST
    and "Prophet Bless You" also. ;-)  Very good.  I forgot to check the dates too, just happened upon an article on Salon about it.

    Good article about the show (none / 0) (#31)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    Thanks - that was a good refresher (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:44:40 PM EST
    on what was going on last season. Caught me right up.

    Here's a funny commentary on (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:45:37 PM EST
    the Leno debacle, my own favorite crash and burn story. I don't know why I care, but it seemed like such an obviously horrible mistake that I have been morbidly interested in seeing how it turned out.  

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    Personally, I've stumbled onto Craig Ferguson. Talk about a guy with a magnetic personality! He's clearly got the best show on late night these days.

    I like him, too (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:36:30 PM EST
    He showed up for work the night his dad died. He gave the most incredible tribute to him. You could see he was devastated, but needed to be there. Awesome person.

    I think I read about that somewhere, but (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:52:21 PM EST
    it was before I started watching.

    The predictable Conan/Jay trainwreck ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:08:32 AM EST
    ... didn't affect my viewing since I don't watch plugola, but I noticed, on jumping to the link, a mention of NBC's plan to remake The Rockford Files. [/groan]

    I loved that show; it was uniquely ... itself in that the star (the fabulous James Garner) and title character were so perfectly matched. (Magnum PI (Tom Selleck) and The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohan) also come to mind for having just the right chemistry with the role, which is why I stayed away from the remake.)

    Being a big fan of ITV/Thames PIs, I was gifted with a bunch of righteous DVDs for The Sweeney and The Persuaders; I'm praying the hacks leave those the hell alone. (Better audio on the John Barry-composition for the latter is here)

    Did you ever love certain shows so much, (a) you'd sit through the opening and closing credits even when doing a couch spud marathon and (b) just hearing the theme song got you drooling like a cat hearing the can opener?

    I caught most of the above on reruns (except MagnumPI which I watched or recorded realtime), before DVD releases of TV fare were plentiful, and would actually schedule around them.


    Loved Rockford too (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    You're right - it was the perfect match of the star to the material. same with 'Columbo', another old favorite of mine.

    It is hard to describe those  pre-VCR days to young folks, when you did have to plan your schedule around a favorite show.  The MASH, Mary Tyler Moore Show,  and  All in the Family theme songs were alarms in our house - getting us all in the same room.

    But I love it now that I can rent DVDs and do marathons of shows. Current obsession is the BBC show 'Hustle' about a team of con artists. Great stuff! I will check out those spy series also.


    Caught MTM and Columbo on Retro/Cable TV ... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 02:17:01 PM EST
    ... and by that time, VCRs were in wide use, but missed out on MASH-TV and All in the Family. It's great to have the DVD-marathon option, because the series were cumbersome to own on purchased video, and by then movie rentals became an option too.

    The Magnum PI/ Murder She Wrote tandem and Cheers / Hill St. Blues got recorded or, if everyone was home, running to the TV! Also, ER during the Clooney years.

    My personal realtime obsession was Crime Story.


    No one will be surprised to hear that (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 03:18:50 PM EST
    my favorite show was... Get Smart. Now on DVD!!

    Any recipe that begins: (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:38:19 PM EST
    "Saute some garlic and onions in olive oil," is ok with me.  There is no better smell to have wafting around the house from the kitchen than that.  The only thing that could make that simple recipe better, Jerri, is a few mushrooms sauteed in butter.

    Katrina VandenHeuvel for NY Senator? Sheesh. (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:31:32 PM EST
    I've come to view her as rather ridiculous in the past two years, but someone please tell me she isn't that ridiculous.

    Apparently, she sent a tweet suggesting she is seriously considering getting into the race.

    Half a heart beat here. (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    How fast could I mark my ballot?

    hah (2.00 / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:32:16 PM EST
    Hey, any left of center voice in the primary (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    process helps a little. At least she will get some air time for alternative viewpoints. I hope she does it.

    Actually (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:33:10 PM EST
    I was working.

    Now I am tired.

    I am going to rest.

    But can you at least give us a (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    J. E. T. S . . . .  before you fade  ;)

    How 'bout... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    ...my man Shonn Greene?!  

    Dude freakin' rocked! (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:59:30 PM EST
    My league is trying the NFL playoff thing this year. I was regretting not picking him. Then TJ scored :)

    But O.M.G., the Jets move on!  :) {happydance}


    Oh man.... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 06:03:58 AM EST
    that kid can hit the hole...and the Sanchize had a great game as well, woulda been a stupendous game if Edwards didn't have hands like feet.  The rooks came through clutch.

    And how 'bout Jay Feely steppin' in and handling punting duties?  Did a helluva job.

    Playoff wins are cool:)


    LOL... (none / 0) (#58)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:57:56 AM EST
    ...Braylon "FeetHands" Edwards.  Never met a pass he couldn't boot...

    To his credit, Sanchize played a near flawless game.  Can he do it another 3 games?

    I'm telling ya'--if Shonn had stayed at Iowa, we probably would have won a National Championship this year.  


    And Sanchize, the SoCal guy (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    did it in single digit wind chills :)

    So is mind numbing entertainment (none / 0) (#6)
    by SOS on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    (TeeVee) the Attorneys choice for escaping the rigors of work?  We have attorneys in our family but I've never asked them that.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:33:54 PM EST
    Does Obama even have a f$#^ing clue???


    "Last month, however, we slipped back, losing more jobs than we gained, though the overall trend of job loss is still pointing in the right direction."

    Right- tell that to one of those 85,000 that lost their jobs (and the overall real rate of unemployment being around 17% - tell those people that too).

    So a reduction (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 08:40:18 PM EST
    in the rate of job loss is entirely meaningless?  Look up, please, how many jobs we were losing a month a year ago and then come back and fulminate about who has a $%%#@# clue.

    No, it's still in the wrong direction (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    when it's still job loss.

    He needed his teleprompter again.  Or better speechwriters again.  Honestly, he or they are making such a muddle in several statements.  He just gets a bye because he's not as bad as Bush.


    Sure, the number of jobs lost each month (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 12:18:42 AM EST
    seems to be slowing, but that could just mean that we're running out of jobs to lose.

    Let's not forget that the 10% unemployment number being bandied about only counts people who have actively looked for work during the last four weeks. If we factor in people who are trying to subsist on part time jobs when they need full time, and people who have been out of work so long they have simply given up, then the number we need to be talking about is closer to 27%.

    Take a look at that number. More than a quarter of the people in our country who want and need a full time job don't have one and can't find one. That is a bit too close to Great Depression numbers for anyone to be talking about green shoots or good signs.

    That is the problem Obama needs to solve. Sadly, he won't even talk about it.


    KINDS of jobs (sustain a family? longterm?) too (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Ellie on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:27:09 AM EST
    Increasingly, jobs that are available to the longterm unemployed almost "cost" more to the individual applicant once transportation to/from, child care &c factor into the equation.

    I'm only going anecdotally here, and thinking of my own circle of family, friends and colleagues, many of whom have taken lower-skilled (or working multiple) McJobs while one partner stays home to keep the household running.


    Over a year ago??? (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:17:42 AM EST
    I'm over "blaming Bush" - he's gone.  Obama is here and now, and as I said - tell that to the people who've lost their jobs this year - "the rate of job loss is slowing down" - see how well that goes over.



    No. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by robert72 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 01:03:25 AM EST
    Down is the right direction?

    this fits..... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 09:12:36 PM EST
    the "rebound president".

    Health Insurance Reform... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Addison on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 04:19:59 AM EST
    ...indeed, even Obama recognizes this is not health care reform anymore:

    "In short, once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions and insurance company bureaucrats will have less," Obama said.

    sure, Coakley is definitely FAR from ideal (none / 0) (#53)
    by tworivers on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 07:09:45 AM EST
    I'm no huge fan of Coakley by any means (I was a Capuano supporter), but the Republican in the race, Scott Brown, is against gay marriage, is pro-waterboarding, and has expressed doubts as to whether climate change is caused by humans.

    Plus, I've seen Brown on local tv and he comes off as a slick Romney-esque phony/smoothy.

    So I probably will hold my nose and vote for Coakley.

    Now, if a 3rd party candidate with intelligent views, a spine, and a snowball's chance in hell of winning were in the race, I'd consider voting for them.

    Sadly, the only other candidate running (Kennedy, from the Libertarian party) doesn't meet any of these criteria

    Thanks, tworivers, for the reality check (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    Open Thread (none / 0) (#56)
    by Pat Johnson on Sun Jan 10, 2010 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    If we could just convince ourselves that these pols will say and do anything, lying, manipulating, fudging, pretending, and falsifying their records to gain whatever they hope to achieve, we would be better served.

    Buying into the "narratives" and refusing to make them answer the questions is just the expectation they desire when seeking our votes.   If we could just keep that in mind from the outset that they are more than likely lying their assess off we would not be as surprised when the truth finally emerges.

    Refusing to hold feet to the fire and satisfying ourselves that the pol mirrors our views because they say so would be a start in holding them accountable.

    We keep electing losers over and over again on the simple precept that they mean what they say.  Unfortunately, no they do not.