Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

The election is over, what else is going on in the world? I'm busy at work this afternoon, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Aspen: Landslide Win for Progressive DiSalvo in Sheriff's Race | Ken Buck Concedes and Congratulates Bennet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    read a post at the big orange about turn out but no mention of the problems with women voters. Wonder why?

    Have a slice of pie (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    from the women's studies set, DKos sweeties!

    Yeah (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    I wanted to scream how's that Nu Dem party working out for you!

    Oh my. Careful. You are providing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    gristle for the HC-guerilla meme.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:42:45 PM EST
    one guy responded to me f**k them. So i guess maybe women were right to abandon the Dems.

    something tells me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    he was not talking about ALL women.

    Who knows? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    He certainly isn't doing Obama any favors with that type of remark. Remember this is the "exclusive Nu Dem Party" where we only want "certain" people and don't want it "polluted" with "those" voters.

    It was pretty clear to me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    that he basically was

    I actually have no idea (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    but I would assume that they assumed some logical assumption . . . if you know what I mean.

    Ga6thDem pointed out that (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    the Dems suffered a 20 pt loss in the female vote, and the guy replied f*ck them.  I don't think that orange gets it that you can't f*ck the women over without them telling you to go f*ck yourself.  They already told all of us they were going to do it all without us years ago, and many many of us have now invited them to it :)

    if thats the context (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    he is an idiot.  there is a reason I dont generally read orange.

    that assumption being (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    lots of Obama criticism comes from a specific group with axes to grind.

    They've got the flaky crust down. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    I've heard the word "brilliant" used (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    in the past. So, today's speech falls outside that description for me.

    Obama said Tuesday's results confirmed what he's heard from voters across the country: people are frustrated.

    I thought the message on HCR was pretty darn loud when Scott Brown trounced Coakley in January's special election, and a few other glaring events that screamed THE PEOPLE ARE ANGRY. Was he just too busy polishing his Peace Prize to care? I wonder if today's humility is even sincere.

    We'll know the real reaction when we find out in the months ahead if Presidenting just got easier.

    One of the areas that Obama feels (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    he can work with the Republicans is the recommendations of the Cat Food Commission. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

    That doesn't worry me (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    The Catfood Commission will need 60 Senate votes for any major change....

    This whole idea died under Bush II....Even if Obama were to support it, there would be more than enough Senators to block it....

    Sh*tcan this talk of filibuster reform....Just run the Republican Senatorial playbook and Social Security remains protected....


    The Dems stood united to kill the (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    idea under Bush II. Don't think this that is the case now. Not sure that once the new Congress is sworn in that there will be enough Dem Senators willing to filibuster any changes to Social Security that Obama approves.

    Do not need 60 votes. (none / 0) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:56:17 PM EST
    The Cat Food Commission recommendations will be voted on without amendments or any opportunity to filibuster. All they will need is 51 Senate votes.

    Screwed yet again by Obama and the Dem leadership.


    And they will be voted on as a (none / 0) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    package. Up or down for the whole thing that comes out of the commission. No chance to vote yes on, say, Defense spending cuts, and then no on cuts to Social Security.

    This whole debacle is tailor-made for Obama's PPUS, bipartisan, compromise that screws the American people cr@p.


    Wikipedia sez: (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:56 PM EST

    The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January of 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 53-46, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.[3] Thereafter, Obama established the Commission by executive order 13531.[4]



    Thanks, that's what I thought too (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    Only good thing the Republicans did last year was make sure those rules did not pass.

    I agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Let the Dems filibuster any change to social security or medicare.  Eff the Republicans.  Let them run on on cutting those programs....

    Won't much help the poor and (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:20:26 AM EST
    the lower middle class survive with much reduced benefits.

    Might want to consider exactly who demanded that this commission be established after it didn't reach cloture. Might also want to look at how many Dems voted in the Senate to set up the commision. Also, I wouldn't count on all the Dems filibustering the cuts. They want a piece of that Wall St. money just like the Republicans.


    I thought the commission idea (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    that had that up-or-down feature like the base closings was defeated and this pale version was put in place.

    Must Google now....


    He doesn't get it. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    Obama is just not the right person for these times. He can't speak to the people and explain what is going on like Clinton could. He's basically a motivational speaker likes that big crowds and not a policy wonk which is needed right now.

    Nope, he doesn't get it (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    "frustrated" means they will send emails and letters and make phone calls and vent. The people are openly ANGRY. But, he can't face that fact because it would be way too hard for him to figure out what leaders do at this stage of the game.

    It just seems like he still sees everything as being about HIM.


    It is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    all about him. It's like MT said, he's going through therapy and he's taking everybody with him.

    Yes, the public (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    is angry, scared, confused, etc. but most of all they feel betrayed. People will put up with all sorts of hardship & sacrifice IF it's shared by all. And while the Oligarchy has been growing for years, Obama's election, and the subsequent revelation of Obama's membership in, and loyalty to,  "the Elites," hit them like a kick in the stomach. Suddenly the veneer was washed away, the optimism and hope for the future was just so short lived, so near and yet so far, far away. And, besides the feeling of anger, the feeling of sadness was so profound it was like the whole country just wanted to have a good long cry.

    While Obama inherited this great, Republican spawned debacle, a real Leader could have gotten us through it and turn the tide towards a better tomorrow. In my corporate management career, it was well known that I would only accept a pay increase if my entire group also received one. Just knowing that fact my people performed with an esprit de corps unmatched in the Company. The success and productivity we all enjoyed was simply a joy to behold.

    Had Obama seized the moment, proclaimed that "we're all in this together," and vowed that after "sharing the hardship as one, we will share the inevitable success as one also," there is no doubt in my mind we`d be in a different, and better, place today.


    I agree with 98% of what you say (none / 0) (#165)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    Except, the betrayal part was felt when the party threw so many people out. There was no doubt in my mind, as well as many others, that this was going to be a President who did not relate to, or care about anyone who couldn't lead him to greater places.

    Obama never betrayed us. He was never on our side. The mess the country was in was well known during the entire campaign. He signed on because he wanted the office, not because he had a vision for how to lead us back to some level of prosperity and revival of the American dream. He had no leadership qualities, and no accomplishments to boast as the proof he could take this challenge on. The excuses started immediately, and haven't slowed down for why this is so hard for him, and why progress isn't even on the horizon.

    I'm angry, but not at Obama. He was just the pied piper who showed up after the opening act/concert to speak to the tens of thousands who came for the music. It was gifted to him by some very determined puppeteers. And, if he chooses to run again, he will win again unless the Republicans find someone to put on the ballot who is at least as easy to manipulate.

    Bi-partisanship isn't just naive, it's contrary to how our two party system works.


    Right. Bill lost 54 seats with 6% unemployment. (none / 0) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    That must have been some great explaining he was doing.

    6% (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:44:18 PM EST
    unemployment sounds like a dream right now.

    Obama has 10% and has a historic loss of seats in the house. Is that better?


    You know, now that the (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 11:41:01 PM EST
    Democrats are now longer in power we no longer have the luxury of caviling about Obama.

    I would suggest pressuring the Dems in the Senate.....  


    "Leave him ... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:13:31 AM EST
    ... aloooooooooooone"!!!

    Haven't heard this one for the past two years...

    ... although the loss of the House as a new rationalization is a nice touch.


    "Cavil" was used on purpose (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    Policy issues matter.

    What constructive things can be done should be done.


    Of course, no one would disagree ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    What constructive things can be done should be done.

    ... with that.  My point is that: 1)  Certain people try to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Obama by pretending to understand the "hidden motives" of the critics, or by labeling them (i.e. "whining", "caviling", etc.) and 2) We have to pressure the Dems in the Senate and Obama, particularly when it comes to standing up and fighting.


    excellent (none / 0) (#187)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 01:10:00 PM EST
    love learning new words

    That should have been the actions (none / 0) (#175)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:49:33 AM EST
    for two years now. But, when the country experiences a day like Tuesday, a day of venting is expected and understood.

    Yes, they are angry, but the anger isn't (none / 0) (#86)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:45:14 PM EST
    based in ideology, it is based in fear and confusion. People are afraid because they don't know what has happened to the economy. And, because it is dawning on them that our political and business leaders may not know either -- and, that even what they do know is no more than what it takes to protect their own interest and feather their nests, no matter that at the same time it may further destroy the economy and damn the better interest of the country as a whole.

    The only sane thing about the economy I've heard said in public recently was David Stockman's comment on 60 minutes that we've been living in a "false economy" for 30 years. He's right.


    Was Stockman blaming Reaganism? (none / 0) (#91)
    by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    Yes. And everything that's come (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by esmense on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:18:40 PM EST
    after it.

    I'm in complete agreement. In my view, based on what I observed in the marketplace, our economy was fundamentally changed by the recession of the early 80s and never "recovered." That was the beginning of the end of broad based prosperity, our mass consumer market and the middle class. We've been using massive debt and financial games to hide that fact ever since.

    Most Americans don't realize this. But why would they? They've been deluded by the deluded.


    ftr (none / 0) (#180)
    by CST on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    Coakley - Brown was somewhat about hcr - but not in the most obvious way.

    We basically already have the national plan in this state - so no one here was afraid of a government takeover of health care.

    People were VERY pissed off about the planned excise tax on union plans (that had just come out).  And the union voters either didn't turn out, or voted for Scott Brown.

    But it was a much more specific problem.


    Simple statement about policy and (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    political failure from Atrios:

    The policy failure was about the economy and the foreclosure crisis, and the politics was the failure to recognize how deeply this mattered.
    I don't know how politicians lacked the self-preservation skills to recognize that if they failed to deliver on the economy they would fail, but that's what happened.

    Yet, the failure to recognize the real (none / 0) (#17)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    problems facing the country seemed so obvious to so many two years ago. Atrios didn't just see this flaw, right?

    Atrios says (none / 0) (#23)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    I didn't pay too much attention to campaign and election related program activities over the past cycle. My take was we took care of that, we put these people in power, so let's see how they govern. I wanted to pay attention to policy for a change.

    Yeah well, good luck with that.


    Obama's comments (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    after the elections reveal a man who is just as clueless as he was before he got elected. He takes responsibility for not working hard enough to compromise with the Right... and he vows to work harder with them in the future. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell know how to play hardball and they will have him for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

    And, the saddest part of that (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:36:14 PM EST
    (being very true) is that all Democrats pay the price. Not just those in office, but those who want a more liberal government, as well.

    He is an extraordinarily gifted (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    politician--isn't he?

    But he may be right in terms of his (none / 0) (#77)
    by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:25:38 PM EST
    own re-election chances---which are all he cares about, obviously.

    if we could pause the Obama bashing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:40:47 PM EST
    for a moment, some great news:

    Democrats performed worse with whites on Tuesday than in any other congressional election since the Second World War.

    sorry if I dont believe its all about policy.

    with whites who showed up (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    Turnout matters....

    course it does (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    but I dont believe many of the ones who "showed up" showed up because of policy.

    dont misunderstand, I think O and the democrats botched this big time.  thats not what Im talking about.


    I agree with what I think you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    Make sense?

    Most of the Republicans are motivated by issues other than the economy.  Mainly cultural/religious issues.  The economy is just a proxy.  They don't really care about a health care bill that Rommey would love.  It is not, and never has been, about the deficit for them.

    It is a huge cultural chip on their shoulder (most of the Republicans I am talking about now.)

    With 9.6% unemployment, the independents go to the other side, and many Democrats stay home.

    Break the Republican base of religious values voters, and the Ayn Rand leftovers will routinely lose elections--just as they did in the aftermath of WWII.

    How to break the grip of religious conservatives?  I had thought it would be more books like the Da Vinci Code.  And I still think that is true in the sense of the culture just passing them by.  Michael Moore said on radio today that liberals have a huge advantage in the popular culture and I could hear all the religious conservatives just grimace, knowing it was true and unavoidable.

    The other thing that makes the religious conservtives go away?  Losing.  Gay marriage will ruin them.  Getting close.


    Here's my plan (none / 0) (#106)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    Somehow, encourage the Rapture ASAP so that all the religious conservatives will get their @sses Raptured out of here, and the rest of us can go about living in a saner country.  I can get along with fiscal conservatives who are socially progressive.  I cannot abide the religious conservatives, who want us all to live by "their" Biblical beliefs.

    I like this plan (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:12:53 PM EST
    Got any suggestions (none / 0) (#126)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    on how to bring this about, Cap?  Alternatively, we could move them all to Texas and build a very high wall around the whole thing, with a moat filled with alligators outside the wall.   ;-)

    the stunning stats (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    Republicans won whites in Tuesday's national House vote by a 22-percentage point margin (60 to 38 percent) according to exit polls. In 2006, Republicans won whites by a mere 4 points. Whites shifted at three-fold the rate of Hispanics between the two midterms, while the black vote remained steady. Democrats faired even worse than in 1994, when Republicans won whites by 16 points (58 to 42 percent) and with them, a landslide.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    all about turnout in the midterms and Obama didn't do well with turnout.

    Interestingly, turns out re turnout (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    that it was quite high in Wisconsin, for one.  It will take more subtle looking at the data to pinpoint this; where was the turnout the same, where was it higher than in 2008, etc. -- and I think it will be more complex from group to group, too.  But here is a lot of still-emerging assessments (i.e., not as interpretive yet as needed) of info from exit polls in Wisconsin.

    Since the next sentence is (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    "Democrats' white problems stretch back nearly a half-century," what do you believe it to be about, then?

    fear (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    of a president that is "other".  

    Could it also be...? (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:54:12 PM EST
    Those pesky independents (who actually voted for Obama in 2008)?  Were they not racist then but are racist now?

    Meanwhile independent voters - those who are not registered supporters of either party - voted Republican by 55 per cent to 40 per cent Democrat this time, according to exit polls.

    Mr Obama won independents by 52 per cent to 44 in 2008, and in 2006, when they retook both houses of Congress, his party triumphed among them by 57 to 39.

    You really toe the conservative line quite well (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    Sure those independents who showed up went against the Dems.

    But the core base of Republicans has a thing with Obama being different.


    correct (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    and in a singularly unmotivating election cycle they were motivated.

    I do not believe this is necessarily an indication of any larger realignment.  its simply a matter of the wrong people being motivated.


    it's a joke (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    to suggest that the independents of 2010 are the same independents who voted for Obama in 2008..

    What % of the Tea Party is composed of people who voted Democrat in 08?


    I have heard (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    they make sure to invite at least one to each gathering.

    More (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:48:49 PM EST

    *Independents nationwide supported Republicans by a 15 percentage-points margin, according to the exit polls. Four years earlier, they had backed congressional Democrats by 18 points -- a swing of a stunning 33 points.

    "The angry independents" went to the polls, says GOP pollster Ed Goeas, calling their votes "a rejection of the Obama solutions" on the economy.

    *Women, traditionally a mainstay for Democrats, were equally likely to vote for GOP candidates for the first time in at least three decades. Four years ago, they had backed Democrats by 12 points.

    "Men are angry, rebellious; women are more disappointed" by economic policies pursued by the White House and Congress, said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "Women feel the policies helped the banks and Wall Street more than they helped families at their kitchen table."

    *Seniors, the age group most skeptical of the health care law, moved to the GOP. Those 65 and older split between the two parties in 2008 but backed Republicans by 19 points this time.

    Older voters also turned out, boosting their clout in a year in which turnout was down. Two years ago, 16% of the electorate was 65 and older. This year, the age group made up about 25% of voters.

    *Middle-class Americans turned toward Republicans. Those with family incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 a year had supported congressional Democrats by 5 points in 2008; now they backed Republicans by 6.

    Voters with only a high school education did the same. In 2008, they supported Democrats by 12 points. Tuesday, they backed the GOP by 6.

    The biggest group of people who didn't show up to vote was the 18-29 year olds, who have shown up in midterms at around 20%. This year it was less.  But interestingly, young people came out in greater numbers in red and purple states - they didn't show up in blue state elections.


    and how exactly (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    does this not support what I have been saying?

    You assume (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    That white people didn't vote because they are racists and don't like Obama? Isn't that what you've been saying?

    actually (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    what I have been saying is that Obamas supporters were not motivated to show up and race played a part in the motivation of many who did show up.



    Lord love a duck, one would think it is clear (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    But not to some I guess.

    No, not even close.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    Funny (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    Since I'm not a conservative.  

    Just Devil's advocate on every post? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:10:23 PM EST

    you sure spend (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    a lot of time carrying water

    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    I just don't buy into the echo-chamber mentality that takes over this blog sometimes.

    Kinda like being around Rush's ditto-heads sometimes.


    interesting way of putting it (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    since my main reason for posting that comment was to bang on the echo chamber.

    From the inside , apparently (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    yeah (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    this thread is just sloppin over with Obama love aint it.

    funny (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    I keep picturing bacchae tearing him limb from limb to appease Dionysus..

    Could it be that there (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    are a lot of new "Independents", NOW, in 2010, who are people too ashamed (in a Tea Party kinda way), to be identified as people who, in former times, voted twice for a President who left office with a 30% approval rating.

    So yeah, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to speculate that there could be a few more racist Independents now than there were in 2008..


    yeah (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:56:30 PM EST
    and Palin had a great night.

    Shrug (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    She certainly had a better one than Chuck Schumer or Tim Kaine didn't she?

    Do you think it enhances (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    or diminishes her run for the Presidency?

    Her high profile creations lost badly.....Regardless of all the house races she correctly predicted....

    But I hope you are right and she plows on ahead (her favorite metaphor)....It would make 2012 easier for Dems....Just multiply Colorado, Nevada and Connecticut ten-fold.


    Obama was not on the ballot. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by the capstan on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:52:42 PM EST
    This Angry White (quite elderly) Woman was labeled a racist Appalachian back when I exercised my independence from the DNC by not voting for Obama.  Guess what--I did not vote for him again!  I said originally: he's not a liberal, and I am.  That's still the story, but now the story runs: the Democrats are not liberals, and I am.

    I voted for 3 people yesterday--two dems and one green.  Give me a black liberal (not A. Green) and I would happily vote for him.  What ruined the dems yesterday was simple: the republicans have succeeded in making a LOT of citizens dump fact for fancy.  And that feat was made easier by dems who preferred weasel-talk to straight talk and hoped-for republican (fake) applause to actual action that would improve life for Americans.

    Legislate FOR gays, For women, For children, For disappearing freedoms, For the unemployed.  Then look at voting blocs, not the color of the candidates.  Even us'uns in Appalachia are not stupid.  But the dems have given us nothing to cheer about lately--not very much at all since civil rights and medicare and medicaid and a (gasp) budget surplus.  (Did ABG omit civil rights from his pick of social/political advances since the election of FDR a few days after I was born?)


    You know what (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:14:09 PM EST
    the Obamacrats are saying today? That they don't like the party being sullied by the likes of you or I. Maybe after losing in '10 and '12 they'll realize that. They are playing right into the GOP's hands with this elitism crap. Why don't vote for who your minister says to vote for since neither party is offering you any economic relief. And then they wonder why people vote against their own economic interests. It's not that they're voting against them so much as no one is talking to them.

    All those others have been "other" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    for half a century?  You just can't make the data say what you want them to say.

    I'm Happy Today (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    Despite the blood bath for the democrats, I am home from Afghanistan (forever), slightly injured (but will be okay), I watched my senator make a victory speech under a beautiful CO blue sky, with majestic mountains as a backdrop (and no bad guys lurking above) and I am so glad to be able to read and post on TL again.

    Alive, breathing clean air and happy to be in my home country again despite the lunatics that were elected last night.

    That is what I will take from the day. I could be in a lot worse place and I will worry about finding a new job next week:) Glad to see you all.

    Happy for your good news!! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    I'm glad you made it back safely. I hope more do the same.

    welcome back (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    glad you are ok

    Welcome home. (none / 0) (#117)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:20:28 PM EST
    I hope you're able to find a job soon.

    Welcome home (none / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:22:05 PM EST
    and back to TL. Hope injuries are slight and will heal quickly. Also, good luck on the job front in the weeks to come.

    Welcome (none / 0) (#163)
    by the capstan on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    home!  Heal quickly and enjoy life under American skies.

    Welcome home (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    And thanks for the perspective. Good luck in your job search! What field are you in?

    Welcome Home! (none / 0) (#188)
    by Amiss on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    I hope that you recover in record time from your physical injuries and pray that you or your family never have to endure such pain again.

    FWIW, it's being reported that (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Farmboy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:13:20 PM EST
    59% of yesterday's voters are disappointed with the job the new GOP congress is doing.

    And I think to myself, what a wonderful world...

    Hahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    I guess they have the attention span (and perhaps the intelligence of) a three-week-old kitten.  (Not to insult kittens.)

    3wo kittens more intelligent (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:40:30 PM EST
    i have told the 3 in the next room not to be offended :) of course, they are now 4 wks old and look like geniuses . . . .

    Awww (none / 0) (#158)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    Apologies to your little furry guys.

    That's (none / 0) (#120)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    hilarious. I'm already disappointed too.

    Jeralyn, thought you might be interested (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    I am about half way through "Shanataram."  Excellent read for extremely long time in coach to and from Delhi!  Could use some judicious editing of philosophical musings, IMO.

    Okay... (none / 0) (#123)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    reviews say poorly written (but with some high points), too long, needs editing... so I ordered it from Amazon.com... for the high points.

    best book I've read (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    in years. Now if only Johnny Depp would put the film back on his schedule.

    Glad you liked it and I agree about the editing and philosophical musings, but given how great the rest of it is, I didn't mind.

    Welcome back, did you have visit any ayurvedic spas while there?


    Hmm. Not thinking Johnny Depp. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:28:10 PM EST
    Someone taller, blonder, and much more muscular.

    Had two massages.  One Swedish and one Thai.  Both excellent.  Plus:  Ibsen in Manipuri, Macbeth in Hindi, and two sitar/tabla concerts, one with a marvelous Hindustani vocalist who conducted himself with his hands and was a marvelous improvisor on a raga.  


    Have you seen any of the trailers (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:48:50 PM EST
    for HBOs Mildred Pierce this spring?  It looks divine.

    No. Baseball season is over and that's (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    the extent of my TV schedule.

    Veda is an opera star (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:43:07 AM EST
    When I saw the first trailer I immediately thought of you.  

    Dexter (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    may I just say.  poor Deb.  the poor girls ability to pick the right guy sucks more than mine.  she is getting involved with Quinn just as he is getting involved with the new Peter Weller character (who looks like a great one) to close in on Dexter.  OMG.
    another train wreck.

    this will not end well.  even if he did not admit it when she asked him.

    Im obsessed.


    She has unplanned sex under stress too (none / 0) (#181)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    I love that about her character.  She is a workaholic trying to manage her womanhood in there someplace.  It is funny, but dysfunctional and gritty and real for some of us who have been workaholics :)  I love the Laguerta character too.  Her husband is punching some guy out for saying what a great piece she is, but she is beyond being labeled a slut even if he isn't :)  Women get to have sex on Dexter and it is okay, I love that part.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    great female characters.  and Lumen is the best so far. she is violated and set gets even.  she shot a guy!  and when she botches it and Dexter snaps his neck her body language and reaction is what we call acting. its amazing

    you should rewatch this weeks episode.  it really gets better with every viewing.  she is stupendous.  if they kill her off I am going to be as pissed as the Rita groupies were when they killed her off.  


    Laguerta and sex life (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:58:37 AM EST
    remember she was the one clandestinely having an affair with her rivals boyfriend to drive her off the deep end and get her job back.

    I LOVED that.  that was such a "male" reaction with a female twist.


    Is it a wonder though that (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    Deb picks horrible men to attempt to find love with?  She grew up motherless (I relate), surrounded by men (I relate), and the men in her family love her (but she gets pushed to the side all the time) and they are a serial killer and his full time enabler who becomes his father out of guilt :)  That is a therapy trainwreck :)

    a friends response to last night (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    is to suggest investing in watermelon futures and points us to this golden oldie from 10 years ago that reminds us that the more things "change" the more they stay the same:

    By Bill Press/CNN

    March 31, 2000
    Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EST (1626 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I know you're not going to believe it, but one day this week I heard a little kid in my neighborhood singing this refrain:

    Watermelon Dan, Watermelon Dan,
    Out to get the Clinton man,
    Hell will freeze before he can,
    But he'll keep trying,
    Watermelon Dan.

    And so it goes every spring in Washington: the right-wing posse rides again, all three members, each loonier than the last.

    Their leader is Watermelon Dan Burton, who of course got his nickname by inviting reporters to his back yard and shooting a watermelon

    It's right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:10:32 PM EST
    that they get crazier every year. and now we have someone who wants to work with them instead of defeat them. Sigh.

    you think (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    Bubba didnt work with them?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    he did but more on his terms than theirs. Can you imagine if the GOP shuts down the government? Obama will beg them to please stop in the name of bipartisanship.

    Actually I think Bubba quite enjoyed the crazies to a point. You have to admit they are a great foil for someone like him who could drive them absolutely bonkers. He relished the fight and kicking their butts time and again I think.


    thats all true (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    but he also worked with them.  far too much for many lefties.

    What (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    I don't understand is if they were mad at Clinton for working with them on occasion why aren't they raving mad at Obama for letting them run all over him? It just doesn't make any sense to me other than soft racism.

    soft racism (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    you answered you own question.  see my comment below on the white vote.

    So the ones who voted for him in 08 (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    voted against him now because they finally figured out he was black?  Grasp at straws, shall we?  

    no (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    most of them didnt vote

    ftr (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    how would you explain the worst performance with whites since WWII.  corporate bailouts?  pfft.

    Health insurance, unemployment, (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    foreclosures, banks not lending, credit card companies still allowed to raise rates to loan shark levels as long as they tell you ahead of time, etc., etc., etc. These two years brought us to the brink of collapse and not even a suggestion that there is a plan....just warnings, "it could take 10 years to see some recovery!"

    I think that makes people really angry...so angry the only color they see is red.


    I explain it this way: (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    Nice Piece! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:09:57 PM EST
    All Obama's fault.... lol... inexperienced blacks should leave the real work to white men (or women)....  

    A devastated economy. Two wars, neither being fought with clear goals. Housing markets that resembled war zones. A health system crippled with costs. An auto industry cratering.

    But surely, in a time of crisis, the country could pull together to fix this mess, right?

    Can you help a brother on health care? No.

    The economy? No.

    Financial regulatory reform? No.

    National security? No....

    But, I have been told that there was no racism and there is no racism.

    .....Race was always a tough one for white people to deal with, but now the backflips some people are doing over it requires a scorecard.

    Some of it might have to do with (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    white union members going against union recommendations and voting Republican. No card check , lose of health care benefits due to excise tax in health insurance legislation, Rahm Emanuel wandering around during the auto bailout saying "f@ck the UAW and the wholesale firing of teachers as part of Race to Top are just a few thing that might just turn them off of Dems.

    There are many other options to pick (none / 0) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:47:40 PM EST
    from besides race.

    You think the Republicans are interested in allowing a Democrat who broke a historical boundary to also enjoy great success? Just the fact O has a D behind his name is enough to get them working hard to sabotage any success he may try to achieve. He had his team in place, and he ignored the opportunity to pass good legislation.


    I am not (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:51:06 PM EST
    apologizing for the crappy job Obama and the democrats did.  it was no doubt responsible for many would be supporters not showing up.  that doesnt change the fact that I believe many who showed up had other problems with this government than policy.

    Maybe it was too many cocktail parties, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    sport team gatherings at the WH, exotic vacations, and not enough attention to the problems of the people. Those are problems people would react to, I would think.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    I frankly think that was a bigger issue than race perhaps outside of the south.

    right (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    no other president has ever had such things.  Im sure.

    Okay. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    Then if race is the issue, the party did a great disservice to the country with Obama because apparently they weren't ready for a black president is what you're saying? I'm sure there are some people who are not comfortable with that but do you think that his numbers going down 20pts with women was based soley on his race? Do you think independents changed parties strictly because of his race?

    it would help (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:18:57 PM EST
    if you read my comments.  I believe I have addressed the things you mention.

    and no, I do not think the party did a "disservice" to the country by not harking to the racism of the old white people.


    By d--n! (none / 0) (#167)
    by the capstan on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:11:05 PM EST
    I am old, and I am white, and I live in Appalachia.  But I personally advocated and worked for integrated schools and churches and movie theaters and camps and restaurants and friendships.  And I live in a community full of integrated families where many of the kids are some shade of brown and speak no Ebonics.  (Maybe some Spanish?) But that seems to count for nothing today on TL.  I'm old and white.  That's it?  Oh, forgot--I'm the 'wrong' sex too.

    revealing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    and ridiculous.  as usual.

    Some may have a problem (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    with the inexperience, the tone deafness, and/or other issues besides policy (or lack of policy as the case may be) ;)

    what exactly were they supposed to show up FOR?


    Are you suggesting experience matters? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    oops! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    Only in regular jobs - like the ones bitter clingy people apply to.

    careful (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    the bitterness is showing

    Yep (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 07:51:55 AM EST
    I had conversations about this very situation 2 years ago with those smitten with Obama, especially my mother. I predicted then that we would have HUGE losses in the Congress.  Sucks that I was right and don't see things getting any better for a while now.

    So if that makes me bitter - I'm ok with that.


    I wonder how many years this will (none / 0) (#189)
    by Amiss on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    set back other African-Americans who do fine jobs and have worked so hard to overcome so much? It literally breaks my heart that he fell right into the trap that was set and much of the time went gladly.

    you know (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    if the repooplicans want to investigate something I would love to know exactly how this happened.  to me it seems the most sad and cruel episode of a sad and cruel election cycle.

    Democratic candidate for Senate Alvin Greene saw his longshot campaign come to a close Tuesday night.

    the most interesting thing to me is that he got almost 360,000 votes.  what does that say about DeMinted.

    Did all 360,000 get a bobblehead? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    those things (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    are going to be showing up on antiques roadshow one of these days.

    Democrats I know (none / 0) (#168)
    by the capstan on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    voted for the green candidate, not the Greene one.

    When you have the depth of a saucer (none / 0) (#21)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    And your so full of yourself there is no way for Obama to actually get what's really happening in the country.

    Bad timing on this: (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:44:39 PM EST
    US to spend 500 mil to beef up embassy in Afghan

    But, but, but--I thought our embassy in Iraq was the bisgest evah.

    Dipping your toe in that meme? (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    What does that mean? Seems if we (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    are concerned about growing fed. deficit this might not express that concern.

    The Right will applaud (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    Because deficits for foreign adventures are just peachy....

    I assume your comment was targeted to those on the left who do not like Obama's foreign policy.

    My comment about "meme" was a reference to your reference to "meme" in another post....


    Heh, at least David Petraeus will (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    argue about needing money to simply create jobs......in Afghanistan......and he will get it too.

    Not sure, but I think Obama goes Left (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    on Afghanistan.  I am not sure I would agree with that--and am currently in the BTD camp on this.

    But he seems to have signalled a pull out.....starting in 6 months (or so.)


    It is hard to know where Obama is (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:21:56 PM EST
    on Afghanistan from the outside.  I would say he has always tried to drive the whole operation left but you can't tell this from the surface of the pool, he had no chance of getting anything that he wanted accomplished without a larger footprint at the start.  Based on getting rid of Jones, and putting someone in there who knows little about national security, I think he will pressure hard for winding down in 2011 now and that is why a know nothing is in that cabinet position.

    We have positioned ourselves in Afghanistan though decisively and hardened in.  We can withdraw forces now, and the CIA and Special Forces will continue to do what they do from their positions there and I suspect it will be that way for the rest of my life. If you have an intelligence background now, that is where all the big money is jobwise too.  If you can be trusted and have the security clearances you will not be unemployed.


    Hooray! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    Only 500 mil for a beefier mortar and suicide bomber target!  I too have said to hell with rational behavior today too and I stole one of Joshua's Grape Crush softdrinks and floated a gob of vanilla ice cream in it.  The flavors and colors that produced don't even exist in the real food world but who gives a $hit today :)?  Anything goes, everything can be defended.  I'm healing my mental/spiritual chakras with food color :)

    Blasphemy! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:06:58 PM EST
    You can't put vanilla ice cream in grape soda!  It has to be root beer!   ;-)

    stay away from red dye #2 (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:09:31 PM EST
    I watched this weeks Dexter again last night.  they really are already acting like a couple

    He gave away the recipe for (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    luminol too....hydrogen peroxide and sodium something.  Made me want a chemistry set.

    that was great (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    "why do you have that in your purse?"

    "its not a purse and I use it everyday."


    Good thing you don't live in city and (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    county of San Francisco!  No more Happy Meals.

    My skinny little Joshua would disappear (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    there.  He eats fast food 5 times a week.  Usually he has a happy meal of some chain with a medium french fry thrown on top...and Dr. Pepper.  I still have a very hard time keeping pounds on him.  He doesn't have much of a sweet tooth though other than a soda now and then.  He drinks juice at home mostly, and that does have some sugar and calories. I will end up throwing out most of his Halloween candy if Zoey doesn't find it when he is at school and clean it up.

    I thought it was no more toys (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    in the happy meals that are unhealthier? the 600+ calorie ones vs the 300+ calorie ones . . .

    I think Mickey D's et al (none / 0) (#190)
    by Amiss on Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    will find a way around that, just like the apple "fries"

    Does anyone know if anything... (none / 0) (#46)
    by EL seattle on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    ... will happen in the lame duck session to strengthen those parts of Obama's insurance/health program that might be to most vulnerable to attack by the incoming House members?  

    For instance, as I understand it, there is the possiblity that the funding mechanism that's not a tax or is a tax or isn't a tax might be rejected by the Roberts Court.  The program would stay, but the mandate wouldn't be there to pay for it.  

    Would it be possible by the end of the year for the Ds to vote on a clarification (or a fall-back funding system that's called a tax from the get-go)?  Because if there's a legal hang-up that causes the program to get sent back for any sort of adjustment, I don't know where they'll get the votes to pass it in 2011.

    I admit that I really don't understand how these things work, but I've sometimes found that it's not a bad idea to be uber-paranoid about big games falling apart in the last innings.

    finally got up the nerve (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    to read Evans OpEd.  excuse my while I wretch.  good gawd.  

    check this:

    And we were too deferential to our most zealous supporters. During election season, Congress sought to placate those on the extreme left and motivate the base -- but that meant that our final efforts before the election focused on trying to allow gays in the military, change our immigration system and repeal the George W. Bush-era tax cuts.

    and then in practically the next paragraph:
    Second, don't blame the voters. They aren't stupid or addled by fear. They are skeptical about government efficacy, worried about the deficit and angry that Democrats placed other priorities above their main concern: economic growth.  

    but but Evie, didnt you just say we screwed up by reaching out to those damn poor people and gay people and brown people.

    there is a special place in hell waiting for this guy.

    IN-GOV '12: Bayh v. Pence? (none / 0) (#127)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    Can you just feel the excitement?

    No matter what happened yesterday, (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:42:10 PM EST
    real 'mericans should feel safer today. Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to ban Sharia law yesterday. Nearly 70 percent of voters there approved ballot initiative. I can't wait for MO to jump on this loony tunes bandwagon.

    I will be able to sleep much better tonight.

    you really (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    cant make this stuff up.  do you think any of the people who voted on this and even the dimmest clue what Sharia Law is.

    No, they don't (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    All they know is that it's some Muslim thing, and the Tea Party inveighs against it, so that's good enough for them.

    Well, it's a good thing... (none / 0) (#133)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    because this was really necessary in Oklahoma... where people like Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn can be elected senators. Nothing they do surprises me.

    Sharia law is competition to their (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    preferred Christianist law. Obviously it must be formally banned.

    Republicans are going to "investigate" (none / 0) (#85)
    by observed on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    scientists who promote the global warming myth.

    My new Senator Sunspots (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:51:36 PM EST
    is just the one to chair that committee!  Pop the popcorn and get ready to pass it, peeps; you will have such fun with this guy. . . .

    How did the nic Sen Sunspots (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:58:12 PM EST
    come about?

    <blush> (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    It's mine.  But please, please spread it far and wide.

    Or, wait -- are you among the many, I fear, who were so distracted by the media to look over there! at Christine O'Donnell or over there! to other wackos that you didn't know about the interview of Feingold's opponent by the ed board of the major paper in the state, in which his views on climate change were revealed?  

    There is more, so much more about this guy that got under the national radar.    


    Media didn't distract me (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    rough summer/fall with family did, and so i mostly paid attention to CA races in depth. saw palin with some winner last night and had no clue as to who it was. i knew Feingold was in trouble, but not a lot about opponent. to me that wasn't that important (who he was), losing Feingold was :(

    Then for a sad reason (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    -- sorry to hear it, and I empathize, as it has been up and down in our family as well (and will be down again in a week, with word just heard) -- you have been given the gift of not having to hear the idiocies of soon-to-be Senator Ron Johnson.

    And we will hope to make him unimportant soon . . . even if, also sadly, Senate terms are for six years.  But the other Senate seat here opens up in two years -- so perhaps Feingold's next campaign starts tomorrow!


    Do you think Kohl will retire? (none / 0) (#157)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:36:51 PM EST
    Russ wouldn't primary Kohl would he? And I wonder if Russ will still want a Senate seat after 2 years of relative sanity.

    Kohl has said he would retire (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 08:08:51 PM EST
    but then, many a pol has said so and pulled a Favre.

    So, no, Feingold would not primary Kohl; no way.

    I do agree, though, that substantial time away could woo away a smart person from politics.  

    On the other hand, if the seat is to be open, the campaign started today.  You can bet that it's underway in the state GOP.


    Ron Johnson said that (none / 0) (#153)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:03:41 PM EST
    the source of climate change is "sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time."

    Seriously... he's a Tea Partier... and Wisconsin made him a Senator over Russ Feingold.


    thanks (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    sad, sad loss :(

    Jim Inhofe (none / 0) (#137)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    will no doubt be in that choir if not the choirmaster.

    Russ Feingold, (none / 0) (#140)
    by weltec2 on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    one of my favorite senators, is out. After 18 years in the Senate, he lost is re-election bid.

    I Know, Very Sad (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    But maybe ending the war could be his new project. It would galvanize the dem base, bring over independents and some republicans. The pressure could put an end to this exercise in mass death and broken lives. It would be more noble than anything he can do in the Senate we have today.

    I don't consider "the war" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:27:41 PM EST
    ended when the CIA and Special Forces are going to be there for years and years.  The footprint will grow smaller, but it has been obvious for about six months that 2011 would be the beginning of a withdrawal of sorts.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    But I suspect outside of the spooks and a handful of SF we will be forced out soon anyway. Faster than most imagine. Events on the ground, the new "elected" parliament, Karzai and his new friends in the region will make it very appetizing for him.

    It isn't rationale, but neither is he and therein lies the heart of it all. He is the only one that doesn't think he will hanging from a lamp post 3 hours after we leave. Everyone is itchy to start the civil war. Karazi's new friends, his new parliament and the security ban will light the fuse.

    There is a lot we can't control. Most of it in fact.


    I think our numbers there will (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    be much more than a handful.

    Agree to Disagree (none / 0) (#151)
    by dissenter on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 06:50:27 PM EST
    Our drones are doing a lot of that kind of work right now and their use will only expand. Obama supports the expansion of that tactic. Less death on the front pages of American newspapers and for once, I agree with him. It is also big business as you know.

    That's a no brainer :) (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    According to a person sitting next to me, in this type of war bodies constantly on the field isn't even desired so unmanned aircraft fill a need and have a purpose, but they will never fully replace the bodies that will be retained for times when needed on that field.