Sunday Night TV and Open Thread

The American Music Awards are on tonight. Some red carpet photos are here and here. Are there any performances you want to see or thought were good? Kid Rock is on now and Bon Jovi will be on in about 40 minutes.

There's also the finale of the Next Iron Chef and a new Boardwalk Empire.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Hillary Defends Federal Criminal Trials for Terror Suspects | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bon Jovi was awesome (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    as always. What a face. And the music was great too. The audience really loved it. So glad I taped it, I'll probably watch it a dozen times.

    Way way too many awards (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:15:01 AM EST
    shows.  Music, tv, movies, Broadway, various Halls of Fame award shows, ESPN annual confab, Anderson Cooper's Hero Awards Show, Kennedy Center Awards, Presidential Medal of Freedom Awards, Mark Twain Humor Award, on and on.

    I bother to check in on the Oscars®, maybe the Twain Award if it's someone I find funny (Steve Martin yes, Tina Fey not so much), and maybe the Espys® if they have a funny host.  Other than that, it's just too much to get excited about, and often the shows themselves are awful -- heavy editing, juiced up laugh/applause tracks, too many categories, too many people I've never heard of or care about, etc.


    I agree. I like the Tony Awards too. (none / 0) (#35)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    A little bit of the best of Broadway. Other than that..it's gotten a bit much with the award shows.

    You've got a spammer actively posting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:42:17 AM EST
    on numerous old threads - ravi101

    Why do these guys post on old threads that no one goes to?


    I think they get paid by the post (none / 0) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:48:28 AM EST
    so it doesn't matter to them. One of those internet get-rich-quick things.

    I saw them down here on the Gulf Coast when they did their show for the Save the Coast thing and it rocked.

    first Rock and Roll song (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    Didn't Elvis do a version of that song? (none / 0) (#15)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    several years later (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    I started watching (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:34:10 AM EST
    "The Walking Dead" a couple of weeks ago. There have been enough catch-up episodes to follow the plot, but the plot's fairly easy--post apocalyptic Georgia with zombies. I must say, the traffic is better around Atlanta in this series. Otherwise, meh. My alternative to pro football.

    AMC cancels Rubicon but promotes (none / 0) (#36)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    flesh eating zombies. AMC: Where story matters. Not so much.

    Joshua and the Mr. are deep into (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    it too.  I watched it with them last night, it's pretty good and I'm really not into that sort of stuff.  One of our friends also took part in some sort of contest to kick off the series too and she won one of those digital photo frames.

    everyone I know is telling me (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    to watch this.  but I missed the first one and I wont start in the middle.  and I keep waiting for them to show the first ones again.  it bugs me that they dont do what the other networks do and show them all week long.
    I am not watching it until I can start from the beginning.

    but I am fairly sure I will like it.  based on what I am hearing.


    I have watched a couple too (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:56:41 PM EST
    More interesting than I thought it would be.

    Krugman (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:34:18 AM EST
    Former Senator Alan Simpson is a Very Serious Person. He must be -- after all, President Obama appointed him as co-chairman of a special commission on deficit reduction.

    So here's what the very serious Mr. Simpson said on Friday: "I can't wait for the blood bath in April. ... When debt limit time comes, they're going to look around and say, `What in the hell do we do now? We've got guys who will not approve the debt limit extension unless we give 'em a piece of meat, real meat,' " meaning spending cuts. "And boy, the blood bath will be extraordinary," he continued.

    Think of Mr. Simpson's blood lust as one more piece of evidence that our nation is in much worse shape, much closer to a political breakdown, than most people realize.
    Now, you might think that the prospect of this kind of standoff, which might deny many Americans essential services, wreak havoc in financial markets and undermine America's role in the world, would worry all men of good will. But no, Mr. Simpson "can't wait." And he's what passes, these days, for a reasonable Republican.

    Isn't bipartisanship just great and aren't you thrilled that President Obama wants to continue to compromise with reasonable Republicans like Simpson.

    More Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    More and more, it's becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

    And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline ... he stayed with the myth. link

    Very Serious People (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:47:19 PM EST
    would take social security and Medicare off the deficit reduction table.   Even the Catfood Commission is, apparently, addressing social security finances in and of itself, in recognition that social security does not contribute to the deficit( so why are they discussing it at all?)  Indeed, general revenues are not, by law, to be used for social security.

    Reduced benefits, eligibility age, increased payroll taxes or removal of the $104,800 cap are not germane to the deficit.  HCR will wring about $500 billion out of Medicare over the next ten-years (actually seven, given the real starting date of 2013), and sets up pilot studies to assess different payment methods and achieve other economies.

    Perhaps, very serious people would await the results of these studies that they advocates just a few months ago.  And, we are told, by the CBO, that the HCR (which includes the Medicare 'reforms') will actually help to lower the deficit, reducing it in the second decade.  Hence, Prof. Krugman should skip his concerns of Republican demagoguing on Medicare and re-focus on deficit reduction by letting the Bush tax cuts expire now for the upper 2 percent and only a temporary extension for all the rest; agricultural subsidies and a major haircut for the Pentagon.


    Buffet on the tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    In an exclusive interview on "This Week," Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, told Christiane Amanpour that the rich should be paying more taxes and that the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be left to expire at the end of December.

    If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further," Buffett said. "But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."
    What about the line that Clinton-era rates for the wealthy would undermine the economy?

    "The rich are always going to say that, you know, 'Just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you.' But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.link

    Well, I just heard a memorable (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 08:55:20 PM EST
    concert by Los Angeles PhilharmonicN conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen. A U.S. premier of $agmus Lindberg's "Graffiti," with texts from Latin inacriptions @ Pompeii, followed by "Bluebeard's Castle," Bela Bartok's only opera.

    AMAs don't start on west coast (none / 0) (#2)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    for another hour...8:00 PM Pacific Time/11:00 PM Eastern/9:00 PM Mountain Time/10:00 PM Central Time.

    TMZ photos are kinda whack (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    one of the photogs either has the wrong lens and/or bad shooting angle. Many distorted celebs with big heads etc . . .

    ready or not (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    Sarah Palin has dropped another hint of her intention to run for the White House in 2012, dispatching aides to scope out office space in Iowa, the first stop in the presidential race.

    I'd be surprised if she (none / 0) (#29)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:04:21 AM EST
    didn't run.  She's no rocket scientist, but knows enough about politics to know you strike when the iron is hot -- and particularly when your opponent is stuck trying to dig out of an awful economy and otherwise has himself lost most of his mojo.

    And I also suspect she doesn't want to wait to go up against the Jebster in 2016 and probably lose to him for that nom.


    The Fox and Reality Show (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    gigs, though great for the Palin's finances, will doom any presidential aspirations.

    The only thing the American public likes better than making a star is breaking a star...she is overexposing herself all over the TV, by the time the primaries roll around even her fans will be sick of her.


    Mebbe, but Dems put up (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    with a solid year plus of Obama and Hillary in the primaries, a thousand debates and ten thousand hours of cable coverage, and still interest stayed strong.

    Plus, who among that pack would Rs either not get sick of after a year of the above process or not get bored by or not get inspired by?  Is the Slick Mittster going to rally the troops?  Home-spun Hucklebee?  Newtie the geek?  Bourbon-drenched Barbour?  Thin Thune?  Mike "Tup" Pence?

    Gotta have a go-to alternative.  I don't see one.


    Political coverage only... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    over-exposure is a slightly different animal than pop-culture over-exposure...for political junkies like us all the corporate hand-chosen are over-exposed, to your average American who pays infinite more attention to pop culture than to politics it will just be Sarah that is sooo 2010 old hat...not Huck or Newt.

    But your "average American" (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    isn't necessarily the one who's going to show up to vote in the primaries.  Those are more your politically-involved types.  THe low-political IQ, pop culture-attuned tend, at best, to show up just for the general, while the primary voters could well decide she's their best hope to rev up excitement and get back the WH.

    And if she gets the nom, all those non-political types who were too busy watching DWTS and NASCAR during the primaries are going to wake up around Sept 2012 and say, Gee isn't it kinda neat that that grizzly momma lady we've seen on the teevee might possibly become president.

    That's a possible scenario.  Meanwhile, this lifelong Dem is hoping Rs think and act basically as the above recommends.


    cant help remembering (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    Reagans 20 Mule Team Borax tv show.  or Bedtime for Bonzo.
    didnt really hurt him.

    Heh, a commercial made (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    before I was born does not two different recently made "reality" type television shows make :)

    20-Mule Team (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:10:34 PM EST
    was the sponsor for the weekly show Death Valley Days, iirc, and RR not only did some of the comm'ls but he hosted the intro to the show -- on camera appearance as Rod Serling did with TZ.

    According to wiki he presented (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    from 1965 to 1966.  I was born in 1965.  Being a presenter of a show is hardly the same thing in my book as being a member of a cast for reality TV or having your own reality TV show about how terrific you are.

    Not saying there's a precise (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:35:37 PM EST
    equivalency, but sometimes a brief appearance on camera can have a large impact.  As with Serling and TZ.  Of course, unlike Serling, Reagan was already a fairly well-known face and name before his tv hosting on Death Valley.

    Dunno what the ratings were for DVDays, but the show did stay on tv for years, and, remember back then pre-cable there were only the 3 networks (plus a few indy stations if you lived in a really big city), so tv choices were limited and even the 3d-place show for a time slot might have equalled in numbers or exceeded the numbers for Palin's TLC show.  


    You are right about name recognition (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:34:47 PM EST
    and face recognition at times.  It is a huge factor in politics and can sometimes make you or break you.  I think kdog is talking about when it breaks you.

    I will say this much about momma Palin.  I have not watched her reality television show, but it is enough to simply see the trailers and episode blurbs.  She has really begun to make herself ridiculous on all imaginable levels.  I love the outdoors and I adore cross country skiing. I love camping everywhere except Alabama because I just can't deal with being in the general vicinity of this many dangerous snakes.  I'm all for roughing it in colder climes though that experience a winter, they don't have the same cast of characters prolific in their woods.  Sarah Palin is obviously pretty uncomfortable in the wild.  I can even see it in the blurbs.

    In 2012 the difficulties that my nation will still be facing will be daunting.  Nobody put raging loons will have found her recent activities to be credible enough or deserving enough that they would allow her to govern the Barbie townhouse.  She is making a true idiot out of herself at this point IMO where politics and political futures are concerned.


    Hard to believe (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:34:12 PM EST
    that after 8 years of a prez who wasn't the most learned kid on the block and at least 4 years of a smart but inexperienced fellow, we'd get someone as lacking in knowledge as Palin.  That's my rap on her -- I don't even get into her policies or whatever, I just tell anyone who voices sincere support for her in my presence that I think she is far too lacking in knowledge to lead a country.

    I also think that the media has made her -- and the Dem bloggers who go on and on about her -- give her far more attention than she's worth.  I can't wait for the primaries, and Mitt-leaked stories reminding us of the ethical cloud under which she left the Gov'norship, all the $ she spent on her campaign wardrobe, etc.


    Yes, you had his (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    teevee hostings and occasional tv showings of Bonzo and the Gipper and that baseball bio-flick re Grover Cleveland Alexander, but before 1980 there were also his long, strong challenge to Ford for the nom in '76 that went all the way to the convention, then after that his regular radio commentaries broadcast nationally on major stations.

    24/7/365 media... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    internet, iphones, texting, email...70's overexposure can't hold a candle to overexposure in the information age...apples and oranges.

    Re overexposure in the (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    political context, I think the way, the white-hot way it's been shaping up for Palin, the larger risk is of trying to drag out all that attention and media overhype over a longer 3, 4 or 5 year period for 2016, at which point there undoubtedly would be an overexposure, sick-of-even-hearing-her-name feeling.

    That's why the Palin camp has to be thinking 2 years from now and no more is about the limit of people's political/cultural patience.


    Okay, I'm really, really (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    old.  I remember Death Valley Days (and 20 Mile Team Borax) from my childhood, before Reagan was host.  By the time Ronnie was hosting, I was in college, and never watched it any more.

    If very dim memory (none / 0) (#70)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    serves, DVDays aired Sat nights early, so it was a show geared to the older stay-at-home folks rather than the college-age emerging FSM/Long-Haired Love Generation of the Sixties who would have been preparing to party about that hour.

    I recall my mom back then actually buying a bar or two of Borax bar soap, the one with the gritty granules of borax that were nearly sharp enough to break skin.  Great soap if you'd been working all day on the car engine or roofing the house.


    Or... (none / 0) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:00:09 PM EST

    Frankly, I doubt anyone from the Guardian could even identify Iowa on a map.


    still (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    shes runnin



    either that or she'll milk it as long (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    as po$$ible :)

    Pat Buchanan is the role model (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    Run and win a primary or caucus or two.  

    Lose the nomination fight.  

    Big speech at the Republican convention excoriating the Left and modern American culture.  

    Big $$ forever....


    She could be Reagan or Buchanan (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    Your point, MKS, about Buchanan--and the career that flowed--could be copied with modification by Palin. My real concern is about my own memory of Reagan: My family laughed, didn't take him seriously, and my husband (the erstwhile poli-sci prof)didn't accept that he was the President until well into his second term (husband didn't work for the feds as moi, and didn't endure the daily attempt to diminish government's role in helping others.) Most people I knew could not engage in the Reagan run...until it was too late.

    While I have a concern about underestimating the half-term governor now, I am rooting on the circular firing squad aka would-be Repub contenders. When Gingrich isn't firing away to boost his ego or the one that whispers in their ears--Rove--doing the same, Huckabee is doing a smoother she-could-surprise-everyone-and-be-the-winner. I guess the latter maneuver is to draw in hiding Romney to challenge before too late and to draw in the others to do the take-down for him so that Huckabee is left standing. At least, the loud Republican split has moved beyond deniability. Murkowski's role could be downright amusing.


    Huckabee is their best candidate (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    And dang that Sarah Palin for messing it all up....

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    I disagree with you, but that would bring us to what the definition of "run" is.  I think she will stick a toe in the water and when the GOPers who really are in power in DC bite it off, I think she'll run for the cover of a new reality show :)

    She will stick it out through (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    South Carolina and Nevada, and probably Super Tuesday.

    The further she gets before getting beat, the greater her legend becomes....

    And, Huckabee said on t.v. today that he thought Palin could run away with the nomination fight.


    I agree (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    with Huck

    I don't think it will happen though (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    The big dogs won't allow it to go down.

    how do you (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    imagine they will stop her?  if you have ideas they would probably like to hear them too.

    IMO It all comes down to money (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    Will the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch bankroll her for president in 2012? If not, the powers that be in Republican Party can make sure the funds from big donors and corporations are funneled to candidates more of their choosing. Candidates don't really generate hundreds of million of dollars from $5 donations.

    All comes down to money, and (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    the big guys try to spend their money on sure things.  If the economy has recovered, or is evidently on the way to recovery, Palin would not be a good investment and the money would flow in a direction other than Alaska.

    However, if the economy is still  stalled or worse (and the Republican mission over the next two years is to make that happen to the best of their ability) Palin's demagogic shtick will be golden to the Koch Bros, Murdoch and their henchmen.


    The big dogs of the Republican party (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    such as Beck and Rush like her.

    Theirs is the ring that all Republicans must kiss.

    The big dogs like Rove could not stop O'Donnell in Delaware....



    Such issues aren't just decided (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    in the smoke filled back rooms of the Democratic party.  They are even more so decided and controlled in the smoke filled back rooms of the Republican party.

    And unlike the environmentally (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    sensitive Dems, with Repub backrooms you get actual smoke, particularly when Boehner is present.

    I agree to some extent about some of the power brokers in the party not being thrilled by her potential nom, but apparently Murdoch/Ailes/Faux are thrilled by her.  Add a few RW radio hosts like Limbaugh or Hannity, and they will overwhelm the Babs Bushes and Kathleen Spitzers and the like.


    I want them to (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    try to shut her out.  FIREWORKS!

    They need her...for awhile (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    A variation of the Tea Party thing: How to grow and keep the enthusiasm of a group that otherwise might not vote (or would scatter their votes), become identified with the object of the enthusiasm, and--when the time is right--pivot to where you really want to be. The Repubs "need" what Palin generates; but, in a manageable short term way. It may be that the pivot to the one the big R pols/the big money really wants could backfire. To avoid that, it would make sense for them to treat her like royalty in exchange for her later delivery--after prominent showcasing in all venues--of her constituency's votes. Hey, that is quite a gamble because...just like the underestimated actor before 1980, Palin could get too many strides ahead before the field recognizes what is happening. Worrisome. Evidently, Huckabee is openly saying it now.

    Romney/Palin in 2012 (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    Sister Sarah will do the VP thing again.  Why not?  It only lasts 60 days....

    And then she can retool for 2016:

    Hillary v. Palin....


    Well the Romney in the (none / 0) (#83)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:13:27 PM EST
    top spot part I think is possible.  But not Palin as #2.  Not again.

    Reasons:  Never been done before (afaik) that a losing ticket's #2 runs again next cycle for the same job.  Second, and more important, being merely #2 and having to be dictated to by the #1 and his staff began to rub her the wrong way as the campaign went along, up to and including Election Night when she was refused her wish to give a separate "concession" speech.

    With all her millions now and greater fame and even bigger ego and set of expectations, she's not about to play second fiddle to any other pol one more time.

    Romney/Huckster in 2012 is more likely.  I don't think Palin will be a factor in 2016 if she falls short this time.  2016, assuming Obama ekes out for re-elect, is shaping up to be the Jebster's time.


    Jeb or maybe (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:59:15 PM EST
    Jon Huntsman.  That guy is truly talented and very conservative.  It was not for nothing that Obama sent him to China.....

    Huntsman can garner some warm and fuzzies a la Huckabee....


    you heard it here first: 2016 (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    Hillary/Warner v. Huntsman/Pence

    Another 2012 duo:  Romney/Jindal....Jindal is running hard as shown by his book and MTP appearance....

    Romney will be the nominee in 2012--the question is how entertaining it gets before the issue is settled.


    I wouldn't vote for Warner for (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    dog catcher.

    Sen. Mark Warner CNN's State of the Union

    Listen, some of this stuff is not Democrat or Republican. Some of it's just math. For example, 50 years ago, eight retirees for every worker, now only two. Look, folks at 25 or 30 years old today aren't going to get Social Security at 65 or 67. We're going to have to raise the retirement age slowly, in a slow way that doesn't affect folks 50, 55. But this is just math. We've got to do some of these things. link

    Warner was also one of the Democratic senators who demanded creation of the  the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action the precursor of the Cat Food Commission. link


    Mark Warner and Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    are political twins, only their mothers can tell them apart.

    Warner and Bayh are perfect examples (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:35:51 PM EST
    of Ian Welsh's post to the effect that as soon as money allows people to avoid the negative consequence of political decisions, people with power will not care about what is happening to ordinary people anymore.

    This is true of general inequality as well.  Why don't the rich take the decline of the middle class seriously?  Why aren't they extending UI?  Why do they yawn about the current economic crisis?  Why did they do nothing to stop it from happening when any idiot could see it coming?

    Because it's not their experience.  For over 30 years they have gotten rich, rich, rich!  Everyone they know who matters to them -- their friends, their spouses, their mistresses and boy-toys, their children -- are doing not "just fine" but gangbusters!  And after the 2008 financial collapse, their wealth has rebounded and corporate profits are at near all-time highs.

    Life is good, baby!  There aren't any real problems.  Not for the rich.  And, as George Bush so memorably said, "who cares what you think?" link

    If all the safety net programs go away tomorrow, the Warners and the Bayhs of this world will be doing not "just fine" but gangbusters!


    Is Romney to run on "romneycare" (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    While he does have the issure of his sojourn in Massachusetts, I'm thinking (like you) that his people will have had plenty of time to re-market. Romney is, after all, comfortable & comforting to the more structured Repub moneybags. If one were betting, your suggestion of Romney/Jindal (Pence, some other midwestern type) could be a good bet. Tho, it is possible that the usual suspects might find themselves outmaneuvered by the made-over right...specifically, the charming Huckabee. (I seem to recall former President Clinton noting that he could be the real threat a few years back.)

    Markos has always said Huckabee (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 07:25:10 PM EST
    is the real threat.

    Palin will make the former Baptist minister look moderate....


    Tend to agree re (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    Huck.  He gave it a decent run last time, especially in the early going.  Smart, knows the issues, articulate, pleasant personality, even funny at times.  

    I.e., he'd almost be a normal likable human being -- the kind a feller might want to vote for even -- but for a few of his extremist political positions and eagerness to curry favor with the far right.

    Of course he has that worse-than Willie Hortonesque pardon of a convicted felon who later murdered to answer for again.

    And showing the saner and more humane side, as well as his apparent love of R&R, he also pardoned one Keith Richards, on some traffic or DUI infractions that I guess hadn't been fully resolved or something.


    I have also (none / 0) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 07:41:56 AM EST
    said for a long time that Huck was the real threat.
    did you see him on the view yesterday?  he is smooth.

    I thought because (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:26:13 PM EST
    the majority of registered Repubs represent the right wing of the party, it's almost impossible for someone like Romney to be nominated.

    she might think (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    Palin/Romney sounds better

    Could you imagine that? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    What a train wreck and oddity that ticket would be.

    personally (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    I recommend locking her in the attic until dec of 2012

    And I don't want you to do that (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    Jeb Bush is keeping himself locked away too in order to reinvent a Bushie.  It is happening very cleverly.  I would have thought he would have given up on such notions after what his brother has done to the family name, but he is afterall a Bush.....American aristocracy and the aristocracy always has a couple of idiots in it, he just has to be NOT his brother if he plays his cards right.  He came out speaking on immigration reform recently because it is a topic he is very well versed in and speaks so well about.  Now he will step back into the shadows for a bit....for more remakeup and carefully selective glorious serious persons speaking up.  I want Palin in my face all day everyday twittering away :) I wish he was too, but whoever has his back right now setting out to redesign a Bush (I've heard rumors that it is Rove) is too smart for that.

    You read too many novels. (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    Babs Bush thinks she should (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:20:24 PM EST
    stay in Alaska {grin}

    And that one is a huge RUB (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:40:02 PM EST
    right out of the gate when we haven't even finished up 2010 yet.  Momma Grizzly Babs starts gnawing on your Wasilla stubby tail this early in the game, the tea leaves in my cup say you are not welcome to the next party called "R".

    well (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    all I can say is I hope the republican powers are taking her more seriously than you guys are.

    cause she is comin.


    She's comin so fast (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    and so furious, pretty soon she'll be gone :)

    Try this: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    Based on the facts at hand right now, Mr. Obama is likely to win the 2012 election in a landslide. That, at least, is the prediction of Ray C. Fair, a Yale economist and an expert on econometrics and on the relationship of economics and politics.

    What's the basis of this forecast? In a nutshell: "It's the economy, stupid."

    I believe in a two party race Obama (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    will win reelection. I don't agree with the basis of Fair's assumptions on the economy. The 3 main assumptions are:

    1. The stock market has rebounded and all is well.
    2. Market rebound will create trickle down economics.
    3. Making all Bush tax cuts permanent is a highly stimulative fiscal policy

    While growth is relatively weak today, prices in financial markets -- even if not the housing market -- have already rebounded from their levels at the nadir of the financial crisis. Assuming relative stability over the next year or two, the effect of those rebounds -- which ought to induce consumers and businesses to spend and invest more -- should be feeding into the overall economy, he said.
    ...Republicans are pushing hard to extend all the Bush-era tax cuts, not just those for lower- and middle-income taxpayers. If they get their way, Professor Fair said, a result may be a short-term budget deficit well above $1 trillion.

    "That amounts to a highly stimulative fiscal policy," he said.

    In what world... (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    ... does that guy live?  Oh wait, it's all models and forecasting.  That is to say, not the real one.

    He lives in an affluent world (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    where his survival is not threatened, tax cuts for the wealthy and rising stock market prices means that all is well with the world where he resides.

    Peasants be d@mned. He is doing good.  


    Models and forecasts are only (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    as valuable as the assumptions on which they rest.

    yep (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 02:37:22 PM EST
    Mark Sanchez for President... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    cool under pressure, spreads the love around, inspires confidence, snatches victory from the jaws of defeat, humble, lucky...just what the country needs, and popular in NY & CA to lock up two big electoral vote states...with football-crazed Texas in play.

    Mark Sanchez for President.

    Texas would be in play if he ran as a R :) (none / 0) (#14)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    That team just keeps pulling them out. I like that they are having success, because I HATE the the Patriots.

    I knew I liked you r-crat... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    they are easy to hate aren't they?  From the always constipated-looking coach on down...but I can't help but like Woodhead.

    I can't believe I'm about to say this (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    Mark Sanchez is a hard man to hate.  And it's my job to hate him.

    What a weekend for football.  I dunno how much of that my heart can handle.  I did not feel good about that indy game, but at the same time, it's indy, and a win is a win.

    Looks like that game in two weeks is shaping up to be quite the thriller.  Not gonna lie, I'm feeling a bit nervous.

    You still think both teams won't make the playoffs?


    If I recall... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    I said likely but no lock...looking much more likely now barring a collapse by either team...NYJ/NE and B'more/Pitt runner-ups should get the wild cards.  Arguably the top 4, maybe 5, teams in the league are in the AFC...we should get 8 slots and the NFC 4.

    For the record I'm a Steelers fan (none / 0) (#21)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    Don't hold it against me.

    makes sense (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    honestly I don't know any fans that hate the patriots quite like steelers fans.  It's not really reciprocated hate though.  They've never gone through the pats on the way to their titles.

    The steelers are my #2 team.  But I lived in Pitt for a while.  It's hard not to have some of that to rub off.


    Strong contigent... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    of Steeler fans in NY too...hard not to respect the franchise, they're the anti-Cowboys...3 head coaches in freakin' 40 years?  Impressive.

    That's how I became a Steelers fan (none / 0) (#33)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:38:27 AM EST
    In the 70's when I was a kid all of my friends were Cowboys fans, lol. I collected football cards from that era, worth thousands.

    We have a huge Steeler contingent down here in NW Florida too, maybe because of the large military presence, not sure.


    Cowboys hate is bad for the soul (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:20:41 PM EST
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    Just indicates good taste and strength of character. ;-)

    He's making a Jets fan out of me. (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    The last, what, 30 seconds? of that game yesterday, wow, amazing football. Sanchez has turned out to be quite a good bet by the Jets.

    Yeah, my heart will always belong to the Bears, but, my goodness, the Jets are looking good these days.

    And if they can put the kibosh on the Pats' hopes for the post-season, well, icing on the cake.


    I feel for Indy and Manning (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    even though I'm not a fan of the team.  Lots of key injuries (Dallas Clark, that African RB, a couple others), and PM has far too much on his shoulders working with a talent-depleted offense.  Some teams seem to suffer more injuries than others -- Indy, except for their QB, often is in that category, while the Pats tend to largely avoid the injury bug.  

    Good coaching or luck?  I tend to think Bellichick better prepares his players for the grueling task at hand.  And with Brady, they make for an almost unbeatable combo.

    Sanchez and the Jets are the up and comers.  But maybe not this year if they face the Pats in the championship for the AFC.  

    My suspicion is only the Ravens can beat the Pats in the AFC this year.


    yea (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    although I think it has more to do with the fact that the pats stockpile draft picks, often trading away big name talent to get them.  So we have a lot of 2nd and 3rd round guys to fill holes when we do have them.  I think it's just the nature of the team.  Not a lot of stars, but a lot of depth.  So when someone goes down, there's a reasonable person to fill in.  We've had our share of injuries over the years, but with the exception of Brady, none of them have been catastrophic.  Someone is always there to step up.

    In the last 2 years we've had 8 more picks than the colts, and 17 more picks than the jets - a lot of those coming in the early rounds.  I think injuries is one area where you see that really paying off.

    These late game struggles worry me.  But they're not playing too bad for a 'rebuilding' year.  I'll take it.


    Thinks well on his feet also . . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:06:45 AM EST
    got my vote :)

    Watched Sanchez play in high school (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Best team in the state.  

    He looked very tall and big in high school. Now he looks more like Montana--physically....


    damn (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 11:16:33 AM EST

    Draught guidance: a kilt need underwear

    The time-honoured practice of wearing nothing beneath the kilt has been condemned - by an organisation dedicated to upholding Scottish traditions.