Tuesday Morning Open Thread

The House Ethics Committee has found that "[Charlie Rangel] used official Congressional resources to raise funds for an educational center in his name; he failed to report taxable income on a rental villa in the Dominican Republic; he filed inaccurate financial disclosure forms; and he used a rent-controlled apartment in Harlem as a campaign office." Cue the whiny Dems asking for Rangel to resign despite these facts, which do not in any way indicate corruption. having been known for more than a year and that Rangel won re-election with over 80% of the vote. But who cares what the voters think?

I'm with Charlie. Speaking for me only.

Open Thread.

< The Political Value Of The PPUS | Great Britain's Payout to Guantanamo Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Prosecution doesn't even think it's a crime (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, asked Mr. Chisam point blank: "Do you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption?"

    Mr. Chisam responded in measured tones:

    I see no evidence of corruption. It's hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. Do I believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in Congress? I don't.


    This is the equivalent of getting a speeding ticket while rushing to the hospital to assist your pregnant wife w/childbirth.  Dems need to step up and show some loyalty.

    Dems need to speak up and show (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    some (any) backbone.

    I like your analogy Vic... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    as far as congressional wrong-doing goes it seems ultra-minor...but Joe Blow's do get speeding tickets rushing pregnant women to the hospital in this day and age...it's an unforgiving police state jungle out there.

    Until the breaks trickle down to the little folks, the powerful shouldn't get them exclusively....equality under the law and equality in prosecution.  

    I'm more than fine with everybody getting cut some more slack...and simplifying the damn tax code so 3/4ths of the country isn't "technically" a tax cheat out of ignorance or honest mistake.


    Meant to let you know I resemble (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    your bedbug comment!

    Oh, believe me I know, I was Joe Blow myself (none / 0) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    I don't think he should get off either.  It's just all the hand-wringing as though he's some lout in the same class as previous congressional scvmbags seems ridiculous to me.  People should appreciate there are degrees of wrongdoing.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    there are congress critters who have broken no rule or law who are much more shady and crooked than Charlie could ever be...I was mainly po'd at Charlie over the rent control apartment usage, those are supposed to be for people in need...but even that pales in comparison to the standard dirty done every day on the Hill.

    It's much ado about very little...but Fox News has their posterboy for Brand D corruption, nuance or truth be damned.  


    So sad to see Charlie in this (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 08:08:57 PM EST
    situation, largely of his own making of course, but still...

    It puzzles me though, as a former staffer, that his staff didn't do a better job of protecting him and alerting him to the ethics issues they were themselves involved in on some of these undisputed charges.  It's not like this is rocket science or even news to staff who must take and retake these classes yearly (no politics on public time on public property by public employees with public money...period...since the early 90s or even before).

    Charlie needed better help, better advice and better judgment but he's no Adam Clayton Powell.  I hate to see him end up losing his chairmanship/ranking membership on Ways and Means.  That alone is cruel punishment for him.

    So who do the rules apply?? (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:07:01 PM EST

    As with all things (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    political...it generally depends on which side of the fence you're on and the fence sitter will usually makes the best judge.

    to you (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    of course

    I don't know (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    nathan Deal did the same thing and kept changing his tax returns and the people of Ga elected him governor. I guess it remains to be seen if he actually ends up in jail for money laundering with his kid's bankruptcy.

    Jim Jim Jim... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    how long we been conversing on the nets now?  It's called Different Rules Different Fools, I've taught you this:)...there are at least 2 sets of rules if not 3 or 4 depending on where you reside on the power/money scale, and of course your skin tone....alotta variables, so little equality.

    Re skin tone, here's a most sobering (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    column:  Bob Herbert

    That issue... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    has been a two-ton pink elephant ignored for some time.

    And we speculate about mid term (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    election turnout.  

    Modern Day Jim Crow... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    many of those black men with records can't vote.

    it also keeps (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    criminal justice reform from ever being a real political issue.

    The people with the largest stake (besides those who make money off it of course) have no say.


    Seems to me that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by itscookin on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    Bill Cosby has been speaking out about this for awhile, but it hasn't been very well received.

    Bill has spoken out at length... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    about the internal ills of the black community regarding fatherless homes and personal responsibility and such, and what the black community can/should do about it...haven't heard him rail on our inequal justice system too much at all, and how it does blacks dirtier than whites on average, plus the ever present inequal treatment based on bank balance regardless of race.

    If Charlie isn't guilty of ethical violations (none / 0) (#2)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    then what is he guilty of? Anything?

    And when the OP asks: (none / 0) (#26)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    Who cares what do voters think?  If he indeed should step down, I do not care who or how many people voted for him if he won his election before being charged with anything.

    He was charged (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    BEFORE the election.

    Try another one.


    So? Being charged is quite different (none / 0) (#57)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:55:03 PM EST
    from being convicted.

    I said charged in the earlier post and I (none / 0) (#58)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    meant convicted.

    The facts werenot in diispute (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:03:44 PM EST

    If you do not know what you are talking about, best say nothing.


    I know exactly what I am talking about. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    Voters (and anyone else) should not make decisions on being charged.  You say they were not in dispute, but I highly doubt voters followed it that carefully and it should not matter anyway.  Being convicted is different from being charged.  Any lawyer should know that.

    Should he step down?  I do not know or care.  But if I had an opinion on it, how he did in his election would not matter.


    Your doubt (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    is utterly misplaced.

    It was the key issue of the primary.

    I repeat, you do not know what in the hell you are talking about.


    Rangel winning his election has absolutely (none / 0) (#67)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    nothing to do with my opinion about whether he should stay on. If I were voting in congress and determined that what he was convicted of merited expulsion, I would not care if one district is okay to have a dirty politician representing them - even if every one who voted for him were not only aware of the charges but used the election to send a message they wanted him in Congress.  There is more at stake than one district (but that is only if I thought the charges rose to the level to merit expulsion).  

    If you care on the other hand, and would factor into your decision about whether or not he should stay on, that is fine with me.


    Here's what you wrote (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 06:33:41 PM EST
    "I do not care who or how many people voted for him if he won his election before being charged with anything."

    Of course, your revised view is what I was posting about - people who do not care what the voters think. No respect for that view from me.


    He should stick it out (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:12:46 PM EST

    The public needs to know who tolerates tax cheats.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    Daschle withdrew his nomination.  Geithner survived.

    Lets not minimize (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:21:09 PM EST

        * Count 1: Violating solicitation and gift ban: Soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Rangel Center from persons or entities with business before him or his Ways and Means Committee.

        * Count 2: Violating code of ethics for government service: Accepting benefits under circumstances that could be construed as influencing the performance of his governmental duties, with respect to soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

        * Counts 4 and 5, merged into one count: Violating postal service laws and franking commission regulations: Mr. Rangel was accused of using his franking privileges for the benefit of a charitable organization and for solicitation of funds.

        * Count 6: Violating House Office Building Commission regulations. Mr. Rangel and his staff drafted solicitation letters on House property.

        * Count 7: Violation of the Purpose Law and the Member's Congressional Handbook: Mr. Rangel used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the Rangel Center and used his Congress member's allowance to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center.

        * Count 8: Violation of letterhead rule: Mr. Rangel sent letters related to the Rangel Center on House letterhead.

        * Count 9: Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule 26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failed to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.

        * Count 10: Violating code of ethics for government service: Mr. Rangel leased a rent-stabilized apartment on Lenox Terrace in Harlem for residential use only, but was allowed by the landlord, a developer whom Mr. Rangel dealt with in his Congressional capacity, to use the apartment as office space for his campaign committee. The arrangement could be construed as influencing the performance of Mr. Rangel's official duties.

        * Count 11: Violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service: Mr. Rangel violated the code by failing to report rental income on his Dominican villa.

        * Count 12: Violating the letter and spirit of House Rules listed above.

        * Count 13: Conduct reflecting discreditably on the House: Mr. Rangel's improper solicitations and acceptance of donations for the Rangel Center; his misuse of House staff, letterhead and franking privilege for the Rangel Center solicitations; his failure to file full financial disclosure statement; his failure to report the rental income on his Dominican villa; and his use of his rent-controlled residential apartment for his campaign office all brought discredit to the House.

    I'm with Charlie (none / 0) (#78)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    He is not accused of actually enriching himself.

    He is not accused of providing official favors in exchange for any of the aforementioned considerations.

    He is accused of defects in reporting, in systems designed to make corrupt practice more difficult to conduct and easier to expose -- but at bottom, the investigation found no such corruption.

    Interesting that the committee report headlines his use of rent-controlled apartments -- because the investigation concluded no violation of the rent-control provisions governing these apartments.

    He did consume a few dollars worth of official stationary, and sat at the wrong desks while signing some letters -- but the committee counsel explicitly that the solicitations were proper and ethical except for these technical violations.

    These are molehills, not mountains, and on these grounds, I'm with Charlie.


    I am a bad person (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    we have several tools that contain an animated gif to tell us its doing "something".  but they are replaceable.  meaning you can insert any gig you want.  as you can imagine watching tools work can be quite a different experience from desk to desk.

    I am currently using this one everywhere.  I know its awful but it makes me want to laugh every time it cycles.

    Not bad (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    but I still prefer the penguin being knocked into the water

    What a sense of humor! (It's funny.) (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    I think its (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    the feet

    That is "awful" funny (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 01:51:41 PM EST
    or is it funnily awful. ;D

    Made me laugh too=I'm a bad person too lol (none / 0) (#15)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:01:52 PM EST
    It's as bad as that penguin vid (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    where people have altered it to a penguin slapping another one through thin ice and into the water or tripping another one in.  I laugh at both over and over again.

    A progressive plane for deficit reduction (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    Schakowsky Unveils Progressive Deficit Reduction Plan

    "Their proposal would have serious consequences for lower and middle class Americans, and that is why I cannot support it," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in a statement.
    It makes provision for another $200 billion worth of stimulus to take the form of unemployment insurance extensions and additional aid to states.
    On spending, the Schakowski plan calls for $8.55 billion in non-defense discretionary spending cuts in 2015, largely by ending overpayments by federal agencies for various programs, including Medicaid. She says her plan would save over $110 billion on the defense side, by reducing overseas troop deployments, and shrinking the nuclear arsenal, among numerous other options.

    By adding a robust public option to the health care law and requiring Medicare to bargain down drug prices, among other options, Schakowsky says she can save over $17 billion of mandatory spending in 2015. link

    More progressive goodies and her plan includes no cuts to Social Security but eliminates the Social Security payroll tax cap on the employer side.


    Above comment reminds me. Saw a poster (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    at Starbucks for free medical school.  Guess where?  Havana, Cuba.  So I told my 12-yr. old Spanish-speaking tutoree about it but also mentioned it might be difficult to leave Cuba.  He asked, why?  I sd., because it is a dictatorship.  He sd., can't we just go make the dictator let people leave?  I did mention the Bay of Pigs fiasco.  But, isn't his mind set interesting?  American exceptionalism.  Must revisit the subject w/him.

    It's hard for Cubans... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    to leave Cuba...foreign passport holders come and go easier than foreign visitors to the US do.

    True. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    U.S. dollars especially welcome. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    (as I once read it somewhere) medical school can be free in Cuba as long as you agree to practice for a specified period of time in an area of the world with a paucity of physicians.

    Here's a link: (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    Counting on it... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    Havana is right at the top of my to see list...I'm hoping a dub is still sufficient to avoid the stamp in my passport if I seize the day and go.

    Or maybe our government will get its head out its bum sometime soon and end the embargo totally so we can all go legally.


    Pretty odd (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    that it's about 100 miles south of me but I'd have to fly to Mexico or Canada first to get to Cuba, and then try and keep them from stamping the passport on arrival so I don't get robbed blind by the US government upon my return. Although I like to think with Bush gone those prosecutions have disappeared.

    Apparently, (not that I (none / 0) (#74)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 07:31:27 AM EST
    would know personally, necessarily), there's a different form for some US travellers, a Cuban sheet that's added to be stamped, so no Cuba stamp in the old passport...

    again, not that I would know...


    More Cowbell.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    err, more airport.

    The full body scans we've been promised would never be saved, archived, reproduced, or made available to the public?  Here's an early release of 100 leaked scans.  Careful, I guess this link could be considered nsfw soft-core pron:)

    So, you can have a stranger all up in your junk or end up being some freak on the internet's jollies...at least we got choices people!  

    Can we make up pron names like Chest Rockwell for our boarding passes?

    I just read a headline stating Israel (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    doesn't subject EU pilots to these procedures.

    I have recently seen female airport security (not in the U.S.) patting down male passengers, both at the gate and at regular security.  Including feeling between the legs in the groin area.


    As we were (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    mentioning gif's on this thread, somewhere I have a more cowbell gif

    I'd choose Buck Naked. (none / 0) (#32)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    Just returned from Germany (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:29:34 PM EST
    and France on business.  I got laughed at the Dusseldorf Airport when I automatically took off my shoes--not here I was told, only in the US.   However, I seemed to test his humor by asking if my underwear stayed or went.  But then it could have been my facility in Deutsch.

    I thought Big Brother... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    was a socialist?

    Though Orwell did clarify dystopia could happen just as easily in a capitalist society...we're well on our way to proving the prophet right.


    This is for all the "moderates" (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    out there.  Apparently you don't win elections.  At least not the last one.

    "Researchers who track American elections say Tuesday's was notable not because the country swung radically to the right, but rather because it accelerated a 30-year trend in American politics: the widening ideological gulf between Democrats and Republicans."

    This is fun:

    "The Democratic caucus will be decidedly more liberal -- of the 54 conservative "Blue Dog'' Democrats in the House, only half survived Election Day."

    I doubt any "serious people" will discuss the fact that the liberal members survived.  Or why...

    They'll (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    probably say it was because of districting and that they are in safe districts which is an argument completely not without merit. I mean I live in a deep red district and when the GOP took a beating in 2008 my rep survived.

    true (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    but it's hardly an endorsement of "compromise".

    I mean, if you're gonna be moderate and crucified anyway, might as well go all in :)

    Then at least they'd have served some purpose during their time in congress.

    Killing the public option didn't exactly save Blanche Lincoln.


    But moderate (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:35:21 PM EST
    Means exactly that sometimes you agree with people on the left on issues, and sometimes you agree with people on the right.  It also means you don't tend to have views that swing way out beyond the norm of what most people in the country want or believe.

    I thought it meant (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    that they didn't have any solid positions on anything.

    Interesting that "way out beyond the norm of what most people in the country want or believe" seemed to include a lot of things that more than 50% of the country supported.

    Like a public option, or an expansion of medicare, or financial regulation with teeth, or tax cuts for the middle class but not the rich, or getting rid of DADT.


    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:45:12 PM EST
    I take exception to that and think that's an ill-informed and snarky answer.  I consider myself a moderate and I believe a lot of stuff.  Most of it is on the liberal side (but not way far left like some on this and other blogs).  On other issues, I am a bit more conservative (and I don't mean that as "conservative" with a capital C - I mean that I am more prudent and think some liberal ideas go too far and they should be pared down).

    It's not just "50%" - most people in this country - in fact, a vast majority, are in the middle.  They like some things the left does and some things the right does - it just depends on degree.



    It seems that "moderate" (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    and "far left" have only the meaning that people chose to give them here in the U.S. They are much more defined in other countries especially in Europe.

    People in other countries laugh at the description of "far left" in this country and what MSM calls moderate would be considered far right.


    hah (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    "prudent" "far left"

    what position have I mentioned that is far left?

    These people didn't support basic Dem economic/social policy.

    "far left" wasn't even on the table.

    And I am not talking about voters, I'm talking about politicians, there is a huge difference.  As BTD would say - pols are pols - I think they make a lot of their decisions based on whether or not they think they will get re-elected, not whether or not it's good policy.  That's why I'm pointing out that this is not an effective way to get re-elected.


    It's a menaingless word (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:02:20 PM EST
    just as the phrase "wat6 far left" is.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    What the "very serious people" (and that article) don't really address is the fact that the more liberal Dems are in safe districts in urban areas, so they got re-elected (as with those arch-conservative Republicans).  Moderates tend to be in districts that have more evenly divided constituents. Think that most of the members of Congress from NYC or Nancy Pelosi's district are ever going to vote Republican? No - in fact, many times a Republican doesn't even run.

    Of course, a few of those liberal Dems are also going to lose their seat anyways, or have to duke it out with another liberal Dem, as soon as the Republican state legislatures and governors redistrict, especially in states that are losing congressional representation.  You don't think they'll eliminate a Republican seat, do you?


    For example (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    This illustrates exactly how Dennis Kucinich may lose his seat, as well as a way for one of the other Dems in Ohio.

    I think my greater point is (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    these people get elected or not elected in waves.

    That is when republicans in general are on the rise, they will elect republicans.  The only way moderate Dems win is when there is a Dem wave.

    So it would behoove them to make sure Dem policies actually work and are effective - rather than working to water them down.


    It's going to be a long time (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:47:27 PM EST
    A generation or more that the Dems are going to get much help from moderates.  The few liberal ones that get to hang on, especially after redistricting, aren't going to be in power.  Change happens incrementally - there will be no swath of very liberal ("very serious") elected officials in my lifetime.

    you have a lot more faith than i do (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    in the abililty of republicans to not screw everything up again so much so that people change their minds - again.

    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    that's what liberals thought 30 years ago about conservatives and they weren't right. You have to look at the underlying issues. On the issue questions, people are moving away from traditional republican ideas.

    So I clicked on TL Front Page link (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    under "Entries with Recent Comments" because I saw something that looked unfamiliar.

    I ended up in a 3 year old post and the new comments were the only ones the commenter had ever made.

    Does that seem weird to you?  It seemed weird to me.

    Heh, someone googling their past (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:40:06 AM EST
    and finding it here on Talkleft :)

    ah. That makes sense (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    starting to like Murkowski (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    Murkowski: When Obama does well, that means the country's doing well

    the reaction of the right is predictable:

    Is that right? Every last Obama legislative victory necessarily means that America's welfare improves? This is Rush's "I hope he fails" edict turned on its head, for which Murky will be roundly congratulated by liberals. I can't wait until the GOP is in control of government again and that gets turned around on them. Social Security and Medicare reform: Because when Republicans do well, that means America does well.

    It is interesting (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    Ed Shultz just called Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    Caribou Barbie, I'm dying laughing

    As soon as Vitter and Ensign (none / 0) (#72)
    by TomStewart on Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 06:36:35 PM EST
    resign, then maybe I'd consider Charlie resigning. But I doubt it.