Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Plausible Deniability | Congress Bans Guantanamo Detainee Transfers to the U.S. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    baby goats (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    are very cute.  

    I think I want one.

    I love baby goats! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    And baby goats love me...

    You need more than one (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    ... if you want that much cuteness.  I watched it with no sound whatsoever.  Still terminally cute.

    it has sound (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 08:33:19 AM EST

    That's what I was thinking (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    when I watched it.

    Too cute, Captain! (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:52:22 PM EST
    Baby goats are cute (I like the adults, too), but be careful because goats are escape artists- they can climb and jump on anything!  Baby cows, baby horses, baby sheep- they're cute too (herd animals need to "hit the ground running," so they tend to be more developed than other mammals at birth).  Most baby mammals are pretty cute, in fact, if not right at birth, then in a few days.  My husband has always maintained that babies have to be cute or else their parents would kill them- but then, he's always been a bit of a cynic.  ;-)

    Barney Frank eviscerates (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    conservative reporter.

    Do they really think he will not have an answer to questions like that?

    wonderful (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:16:47 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:55:36 PM EST
    Good for Barney!

    If anybody thinks (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    that anything good is going to come from the "deal" they need to look no further than Tom Coburn getting what he wants from the 9/11 bill- cuts in aid to the people who put their lives on the line during 9/11. If they (not sure if it was Obama or the senate) will cave to the GOP on that, what do you think they'll do when it comes to everything else? Coburn could vote for millionaire welfare but dickered about helping the 9/11 responders. That says it all about what's going on in Washington right now.

    Substantial (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    I thought the bill was substantial.  I actually agreed that sleep apnea was not a related injury.  The bad part to me is it sunsets in 5 years, but 5 years is a lot of financial and personal stress reduction.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    while not the 7.4 billion over 8 years, $4.3 billion over 5 years is still substantial and way more than nothing, and far superior to pinning it on the state of Mew York as some suggested should be done.

    did they have SA before 911? (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    Obama Presser. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    "Striking the balance...ideal versus practical..."

    Me, my. My administration did more and better and made whites whiter without using bleach.

    Shut up, Mr. President. You are not eloquent, and you are not particularly good at speaking in a press conference. Your "ME, MY, MY ADMIN" pathetic statements do not serve.

    Better to say nothing and let folks think you're an idiot than to open your mouth in a press conference and demonstrate you are.

    What a waste of oxygen.

    Quit telling me how good you are. Do something.

    Not to be too critical... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    New Start and DADT are substantial.

    True, but... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    ...none of them will put a chicken in anyone's pot. On economic issues he is a disASSter.

    Good one (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    DisASSter with a capital A*S



    It is important to acknowledge (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    his successes, which DADT repeal and START are.  

    Otherwise this place loses some cred, and becomes just a predictable, depressing Johnny One Note board with the same 20 or so regular posters endlessly bashing O and conveniently ignoring the positives.


    The personal ad hominem (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    against Obama here is well noted.  

    Almost as irrational as the wingers calling him a Kenyan Socialist.

    It does harm credibility.  About 70% of the country personally likes Obama.  Not many here do.

    Rather than give Obama his due on the good things, it is constant animus against him personally.

    The Press Conference was fine.  Gone was the anger at the professional left.



    Which part was ad hominem? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    The "me, my, etc.," or the petulance? As I said, two substantial pieces of legislation. The presser wasn't good. He whined.

    In other words, he needs to work on not being a whiner. More decent policy, less petulance.


    I didn't hear any whining (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:41:21 PM EST
    And I haven't seen that take elsewhere....

    When one is predisposed against Obama, then even giving him credit on the good things must necessarly carry with it a take-back or a jab here or there.....because Obama can never be given real credit for anything....

    I heard him lay down the foundation for dealing with Republicans next year.  Not petulant but pretty matter of fact.  His statement of priorities.  That is what was new....not much else was.....

    He was most animated about the loss of the Dream Act.....which I thought was interesting....His comments there were pretty good....not too theoretical but very concrete--showing the empathty that many here say he lacks....


    Really (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    he's a poor speaker and that's a lot of his problem. You can see it as whining or whatever else but all I know is that I'm never quite sure where he stands on anything after he talks. He seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth constantly.

    To each his own (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    I thought he did well at the presser.  Most observers seem to agree.

    I thought his comments on the Dream Act were exceptional.


    I only heard his response to the last (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:07:18 PM EST
    two questions.  Excellent re children brought into U.S. by their undocumented parents.  Gitmo closure--kind of around and around.

    As to giving credit, Obama's way (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    worked on DADT and START.  The cajoling with Republicans, taking time, addressing their concerns....the no red states, no blues states strategy.

    It worked to perfection.  Not only did he win, he looked Presidential and centrist.....

    I will grant you that this approach did not work on health care, taxes or to a certain extent on the Stimulus.....

    The difference is not better execution in one instance over another.  No, it was the nature of what was being fought over.  With START and DADT there was no middle ground.  It was black or white. Pass or No Pass.  All or nothing.  So, there was no opportunity to pre-negotiate away favorable items and still "win."  To win on START and DADT, Obama had to win the on the whole thing.  So, he could play footsies with the Republicans, wear them out, and win the whole enchilada.

    Not so on taxes and spending and health care.  No all or nothing bright line (for most people.)  So, the giveaways could proceeed.

    Next year, there are few black or white issues.  And, liberals would do well to try and cast as many issues in that light as possible....so that the Obama way does not compromise them--so that they are taken off the table as soon as possible.


    I think (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    the advantage Obama had this time was a deadline. He or someone (Lieberman maybe) knew that it would never be passed once the GOP takes over. Have you ever noticed how Obama dawdles and sits on the sidelines? That's what he did on healthcare etc and there was no deadline on those things.

    Deadline--maybe (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:15:31 PM EST
    But there was a deadline on the taxes too--and that didn't help.

    The "dawdling" on DADT made it possible....There was a need to have a "study" to win over Republicans. That took time....

    Obama was not on the sidelines on DADT.  He had his Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense out front and center.  There are numerous accounts of his working the phones, etc.

    You have a template and are trying too hard to fit everything into it.


    I believe that (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:24:44 PM EST
    the main reason DADT repeal passed, and that Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and SecDef were out in front on this, was because if this repeal hadn't passed in Congress, with the caveats and delays that it entails, they were afraid that the over-turn by the lower courts might well have been upheld by the Supremes.  That would have meant an immediate implementation.

    Should the Pres. have repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:08:27 PM EST
    used the term "lame duck"?  I don't think so.

    I agree (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 11:24:49 PM EST
    I found myself flinching every time he said it after the first time or two.

    Did he really? Ugh. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 08:06:22 AM EST
    Reminds me of a meeting I was in last week where one of my co-workers kept saying to our superiors that we had been granted 'a reprieve' in a schedule slip by another group.  I kept flinching everytime he said it. The bosses don't want to hear that you think you have 'a reprieve' in your schedule.

    Sometimes calling it like it is just sounds the wrong note.


    No (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    he just seemed to me to dawdle over a lot of things. DADT could have been repealed way earlier than it was and he didn't have to wait for a "study" to hide behind. He could have made those phone calls for two years now couldn't he? The tax policy did have a deadline but it certainly did not work in his favor or maybe it did since he seems to really be a supply sider when it comes to economics.

    The Republicans (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    who voted for repeal cited the study.  

    The study wasn't to give cover to Obama--he was already on record for repeal--but to give cover to the Republicans.....


    He didn't need (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    the GOP. This constant skirt chasing of the GOP is nonsense. The ones who were waiting for the "study" like McCain still didn't vote for it did they?

    I'm to the point where Obama should just go over to the GOP since he loves them so much.


    From all accounts I've red (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    he didn't start "working the phones" on DADT until the last few days.  I'm glad he did, but I suspect it had more to do with the urgency coming from the military brass about getting it done before the courts do it than from any particular personal commitment.

    Hanging back to see how (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 07:18:30 AM EST
    something is going to shake out, and then running to the head of the crowd and acting as if he'd been there the whole time, leading people to the right decision, is classic Obama.

    Sometimes, it seems he is energized by the fear that he might get the blame for something more than he is by taking up the fight for the policies that are right.

    And, as Marcy Wheeler said in one of her posts yesterday:

    As we celebrate President Obama signing into law the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'd like to congratulate the activists who made it happen. This is the progressive high point of Obama's presidency so far, and it came because of the hard work of a lot of people who relentlessly fought to win civil rights.

    May this civil rights victory lead to full equality for gay men and women.

    But I wanted to also note what this moment says about Obama's system of governance: that the only thing he responds to is hostage-taking.

    FDL has written a lot about Obama's serial capitulation to those -- whether the Republican caucus or people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus -- who hold legislation hostage.

    But this victory, the biggest progressive victory under Obama, is largely due to the fact that a number of men and women chained themselves -- took themselves hostages, effectively -- to the gates of the White House.

    And while I doubt the optics of environmentalists or housing activists chaining themselves to the White House (with their consequent arrest) will be so toxic to the White House, the lesson does seem to be that the only thing Obama (who bills himself a pragmatist and loves to claim he listens to all sides) listens to is hostage-taking.

    It's a feature, not a bug!


    START was always going to pass. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    There were just too many Republican foreign policy types appalled at the idea the Repubs would hold up the treaty. McConnell and co. were just jerking Obama's chain on that one.

    On the 9/11 health fund- well, the credit for that should go to Jon Stewart for his merciless skewering of the Republicans for obstructing it. Also, having Guiliani and Fox News supporting it didn't hurt.

    As for DADT, well, props when due, this win goes to Joe Lieberman. Now it is up to Obama and his defense secretary to get this implemented. The devil, as always, is in the details.

    While Obama, who never misses a chance to claim credit, toots his own horn, let's remember, given the above,  the big story would have been if he had failed to get these things passed.


    Lieberman deserves credit on DADT (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:06:35 PM EST
    but aside from Lieberman's personal arm-twisting, the Republicans were won over by Gates and Mullin taking a public position on this.....and as his appointees, that had to come from Obama.

    ....and the favorable study was very important in getting votes....That was Obama's doing....

    Obama set the strategy on this and executed it.....

    Obama made a lot of calls....and apparently sent political operatives to Maine to raise a ruckus about DADT publicly to put pressure on the Maine sisters.....

    Give the man his due.


    Yeah, oh, Maine (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 11:36:22 PM EST
    that great bastion of forward thinking on Teh Gays.

    I believe he "sent operatives" to Maine.  The idea that overwhelming pressure from the Maine voters would rise up on this issue and persuade the Maine ladies to vote for it is, however, absolutely ludicrous.

    Do you know anything about Maine's history on these issues?


    But do you trust Lieberman on Social Security? (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    Last time around in 2005, Josh Marshall was watching Leiberman like a hawk, pressuring him to oppose Bush's privatization scheme....Lieberman was a charter member of the faint hearted faction, if memory serves....

    The battle will now be to get Lieberman lined up to protect Social Security and Medicare.  If you get Lieberman and the other Dems, you win on those issues.....



    Trust lieberman? F#ck no. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 10:01:37 PM EST
    I wouldn't trust Joe about anything. He did a good thing with DADT. I appreciate that, but that just might fall into the blind squirrel-acorn area.

    I don't trust him on SS or Medicare or deficit reduction or anything. He is hardly the only danger zone for SS and Medicare, though. Dick Durbin of all people signed onto the Catfood Commission report. And our fearless president seems bound and determined to "reform" SS into the ground.

    Since "reform" will be an Obama priority this time around it will be interesting to see how Josh Marshall approaches things. One hopes he will be just as ferocious in defending SS this time as he was with Bush. Time will tell.


    I want to celebrate good, (none / 0) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:49:39 PM EST
    but criticize bad, and also criticize lack of action, and whining.

    Presidents don't whine.


    Oh, if he's a whiner, (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:05:03 PM EST
    he's only barely a minor leaguer in that category compared to Johnson, Nixon, Shrub and probably Carter.

    He's got his own style of referring to the admin, and technically it is his admin, he's responsible for most of the players being there and for their actions, no one else.  Doesn't matter much to me if he says My or This admin, what does matter is the outcome, where I've had my share of problems with O and this/his admin.  

    Except for the last few days, where he's finally put the ball in the end zone on a few matters, it's been a disappointing series of 30-yd field goals where he never really seemed to try hard for the touchdown.  I'll credit him today for the scores and skip the carping about lack of style points.  Tomorrow, it appears, there will be an opportunity to properly castigate for what he seems poised to do about SS and Medicare.  I think I'll hold my fire on this guy for the big items.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:23:25 PM EST
    with you on those former Presidents except for LBJ. Though I wasn't old enough to remember him, the historical footage of him was anything but a whiner. He came off tough as nails in the footage I saw.

    LBJ was a little more careful (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    and politically calculating and savvy in re not letting his inner darker side, which included considerable self-pitying and whining, from coming forth in his public appearances, and so most of my take on him comes from later accounts of his whiney, and actually almost clinically disturbed private behavior (as top aides Moyers and Richard Goodwin later attested).  And to go through all of the instances, starting at least with his vice presidency under JFK where he whined and complained all the time in private, would take many paragraphs here, and that's just on the stuff that would come immediately to mind.

    The real LBJ was happening behind the scenes outside of the carefully choreographed public appearances and stage-managed set pieces like his pressers, and much of it, as of 1965, was not a pretty picture.


    LBJ publicly agonized over Vietnam (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:54:44 PM EST
    It was quite tragic.  But he kept sending troops.  I remember his announcement that hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops would be going over.  Still can see the stick figure chart that was used to represent the added troops.

    He had the Marines carve out the base at Khe Sanh in the middle of nowhere--for a reason no one can figure out even today--defend it at great cost just because, and then abandon it after the Tet offensive.  MSOC's dad was KIA at Khe Sanh.  Max Cleland lost his arm and both legs there.

    LBJ was thoroughly hated by the Left....even more than many here hate Obama.

    LBJ never seemed to have confidence that he was doing the right thing in Vietnam....Totally different than Shrub in that regard.

    Today, the Left is quite happy to praise LBJ for the Great Society--but that overlooks just how hated he was back in the day....Hey, hey, LBJ, how many babies have you killed today....

    Of course, the LBJ nostalgia really got a big boost with Hillary holding him up on Civil Rights.....during the Primaries....


    I was on (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    the front-lines of the Vietnam War protests (and it was "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today," by the way).  And, yes, I can recognize that he did a great thing for Civil Rights and Voting Rights, for which I am eternally glad.  But I will never, ever forgive him for Viet Nam.  Just go to the Viet Nam Memorial in DC- many of my friends' names are on that wall.  And that doesn't even include the Vietnamese who were killed.  So, your point is......what?  That people can do both good things and bad things?  I recognize that people are complicated, warts and all.  Do you?

    Sure, I do (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:41:59 PM EST
    A little perspective would be nice.  

    Oppose Obama on his tax policy.  But recognize the good he does....

    On the LBJ chant, I guess I misremembered it....but do remember the killing of babies being an issue....(This was before Roe)....as part of the argument that VC put grenades in babies' diapers and that that was why civilians were often killed in self defense in Vietnam.  Part of the Right's disgusting support of Lt. Calley and Capt. Medina.  

    And the napalming of Vietnamese kids--the iconic photo of the little girl running naked in horror....

    The point being discussed here was how LBJ was being held up as not being a whiner--in contrast with Obama the great whiner....how LBJ was so much better than Obama....  


    MKS, the subject of VN (none / 0) (#88)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:19:16 PM EST
    might be the only area -- it was certainly the dominant one of his presidency post-1965 -- where Johnson might have let slip some of his frustration that the people were failing to "fully appreciate" all that was at stake over there, as he probably put it, and where a certain whinyness would have crept into his remarks.  Ca 1966, for instance, he gave a speech or two on college campuses, trying to explain the rationale for the war, where his negative whiny side might have come through.  If you happen to find one of them on YT, pls let me know.

    Re his hatred by the left back then, check and double check as to the comparison with O today, who however disappointed some of us libs are with him often, still he isn't sending back hundreds of American boys dead -- each week! -- in order to fight some crazy war in a tiny unimportant country half a world away.

    (btw, I wasn't aware of the siting controversy re Khe Sahn ... interesting.  The VN War sure did handsomely repay some of Lyndon's political benefactors, like TX contractors Brown & Root ...)


    Been looking at YouTube for LBJ stuff (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    Not too much....

    Found stuff on a Bill Moyers website....that includes video of the July 1965 Press Conference with LBJ announcing a major troop escalation....

    Remember the body counts?  At the end of the week Walter Cronkite would announce how many U.S. troops had been killed.  One particularly bad week I recall was more than 360 of our guys.  And always the absurdly high number of NVA and VC killed--5,000 or more.....So we were winning, right?  Right?

    Everyone trying to avoid the draft....


    I'll check the Moyers (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    site later (from his PBS show, Now?)  I also look forward to reading his memoirs some day, which he's now in the process of writing.  He was one of the truly decent guys around Lyndon, though at times I'm afraid that in service to his master he probably did things that he later regretted, particularly as he helped to sell -- media manage -- Lyndon's War by, in part, arranging various public discrediting campaigns with friendly media types against sincere and law-abiding war critics.  Moyers -- not quite the squeaky-clean moral Boy Scout he was perceived as later.

    And the weekly body counts -- what a tragic joke of a way to evaluate winning/losing a war.  Sen Mike Mansfield (majority leader for Dems) tried to warn LBJ early on about how the war would proceed if escalated, and noted that comparisons of combat deaths were useless-- the other side would always be able to adequately replenish personnel, well into the millions, for many years.  LBJ hated it when Mansfield would try to talk him down from his growing war, and so stopped seeking his advice, and instead listened to one-track thinkers like the attritionist advocate Gen Westmoreland and hawkish loyalists like Rusk and Rostow.


    But you know what? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    He did some good like the civil rights act but there are a lot of people that still have that Viet Nam mindset hence Obama's being able to present himself as a chi chi anti war candidate and they bought it. Obama really doesn't have any good legislation to his name except the repeal of DADT right now. His two major bills were crap.

    Vietnam mindset (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:59:02 PM EST
    It was a searing experience....Everyone knew someone who was affected......So unlike today's wars....

    And it was trusted Walter Cronkite bringing news of all that mayhem and death into our livingrooms....

    I sense you blame the nomination of Obama on that Vietnam mindset.  And I thought it was the younger, creative class who was to blame....  

    It is interesting how LBJ has become such a revered figure among the anti-Obama left.  


    I don't revere LBJ (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    I look at the totality of the President---all of them.

    LBJ had some good things but Viet Nam was certainly not a good thing. It's also a long time ago so a lot of people don't consider it a defining factor for them. I was 14 when Viet Nam ended so really too young for it to have an effect on me but some of the things that LBJ did like Medicare and civil rights have had a long lasting positive effect on the country.


    You seem remarkably cavalier about Vietnam (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    For liberals, it was THE defining factor of the 1968 election.  It was the same mistake that was made in Iraq.

    It is not just a distant memory for the families of the more than 50,000 U.S. troops killed there.  Or for those and the families of those who did come back.   Just bupkis now.

    For all those here who are up in arms about Obama on everything on Iraq or Afghanistan, why the dismissal of Vietnam?  Just a huge double standard.  

    You know, the LBJ nostalgia here stems from two sources:  Liberals opposition to the Iraq war in the Primaries hurt Hillary, so Vietnam must be diminished here; and Hillary praised LBJ in the Primaries (in comparison to MLK, no less), so LBJ must be elevated.

    So, in order to bash Obama--and that is always the pre-ordained goal here--you have to completely diminish any positive role he had in DADT repeal and ratification of START; and LBJ is airbrushed so Hillary's elevation of LBJ as the ideal can stand in contrast to Obama.

    Talk about a jaundiced, tendentious, Orwellian re-writing of history....


    You (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 07:46:28 AM EST
    are exactly proving my point that people are still obsessed with it.

    I'm not up in arms at Obama over Afghanistan. I was indifferent to what he was doing there but when he starts talking "austerity" for everybody else that's when Iraq/Afghanistan really, really become a problem for me and I say this as a mother who has a son who will probably be joining the military next year and a nephew who is currently going to Afghanistan and another nephew who served in Iraq. So save your condescending lectures for someone else.

    People admire LBJ because he was tough even though he was very flawed. Obama is weak and has made NO good policy decisions except maybe DADT. People don't respect wimps. For 8 years we had Bush taking hostages and getting what he wanted and now the GOP has come back to take YET more hostages and Obama completely caves. Now he's doing even more preemptive caving with social security. He's been even worse than I ever expected which is pretty amazing even to me.


    Let (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 07:51:55 AM EST
    me put it to you this way: Obama has Iraq/Afghanistan and LBJ had Viet Nam but Obama has what accomplishments? High unemployment, massive extensions of Bush policy, and a piece of crap HCR legislation that probably won't last two more years. When Obama actually does something like Medicare legislation or civil rights legislation then get back to me.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    plenty of the creative class types were single issue anti war voters were they not? Boy, did they get played.

    LBJ revered? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 11:33:40 PM EST
    Honestly, I'm baffled by some of the things you say.  To the extent that LBJ is admired (note the verb) in today's context it is because he knew how to use his power and didn't hesitate to twist the arms of his allies hard, hard, to get them to do what he wanted them to do.  He did not bow and scrape before the Republicans, nor to the recalcitrant conservatives in his own party.  He mowed them down ruthlessly.

    Have you ever listened to some of the LBJ tapes?  They're absolutely fascinating.


    Shrub was whiney, yes... (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    but all the others you mentioned actually fought for more in the first two years of their first, sometimes only, terms.

    If Obama has turned into a 'closer,' instead of a pedant, let me know. We see a completely different president, brodie.


    The subject was whining (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:42:38 PM EST
    presidents and I weighed in making a fair point as these things are considered historically.  Don't let me get started about some of his predecessors, please ...

    As for the substance, go back and re-read my last para in the post above, where I note my general strong disappointment, tempered by some recent achievements.  I don't recall concluding that he's now in the Closer category -- just that in the closing minutes of the 2d qtr, he and his team finally went for the end zone and it paid off.  

    We'll see how he comes out for the 2d half -- willing to be bold on behalf of the people in the area of budget cuts and drawing the line in the sand against chipping away at SS or Medicare, or reverting to previous form where he paid too much deferential attention to the oppo and the big corps, permitting them to largely set the agenda, as he settled for one safe field goal after another.


    He does have that (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    incredibly bad habit of saying things like it's "his" government, "his" White House, etc.

    Loop current broken (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    Britain is having it's coldest winter in 100 years.  Here's why.....  loop current broken.  While realizing this is the long-term eventuality, let's hope this is a temporary event caused by one time catastrophe.


    If you don't fund it, passing it doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:48:56 PM EST
    Obamacare nullification.  Repubs said they would defund, and it happened without even a whimper

    From over at Hullabaloo:

    Continuing resolution....

    EK: The Senate passed the Continuing Resolution 79-16 this afternoon. Another way of saying that: The Senate voted to defund the implementation of both health-care reform and financial-regulation reform....

    Republicans had been talking about attacking the health-reform law by defunding it, but few thought they'd succeed without a fight. The assumption was that Democrats would shut down the government before they let Republicans take that money. But as it happened, there was no fight at all. The omnibus spending bill collapsed, and the continuing resolution compromise was reached within a few days. Most senators probably don't even know the implications their vote had for the implementation of bills passed over the past year

    Jennifer Rubin: I don't see how Democrats could have missed the implications of the defeat of the omnibus for ObamaCare. The aide, with obvious relish, dismissed the idea that Democrats in effect missed this one. He told me, "I think senators knew there was funding in the omni. That makes it all the sweeter: [Senate Democrats] would have had to force a fight to spend more and fund a bill that half the country not only hates, but wants to defund."

    If this was all a secret, it was a poorly kept one. Republican leadership offices blasted out e-mails and press releases to activists and members of Congress warning that the omnibus included a billion dollars to fund ObamaCare. Republicans talked about it on the floor. I don't see how anyone voting, on either side of the aisle, could have missed this. Liberals might not have wanted to highlight it, but that's different than being unaware.

    How did Democrats wind up in this fix? A GOP operative and former Senate staffer e-mails me that "after the omnibus collapsed, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid didn't have an alternative. If conservatives are feeling bad about START, they should be really happy about this. With the new Congress in January, the GOP will be in a strong position on fighting ObamaCare."

    So the score keeping doesn't involve whether the middle class lost, it's merely a matter of how much.  Hoping for gridlock in the new year.

    Congress just adjourned Sine Die (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    I find myself scrolling through Speaker Pelosi's photo stream. In a short time she's going to be replaced by that orange jerk from Ohio. That upsets me a little more than I expected. But as Pelosi herself says:

    [W]hen it comes to politics -- no, I don't cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that's always a possibility, and if you're professional, then you deal with it professionally.

      If I were to cry for anything, I would cry for [the American people] and the policies that they're about to face.

    She's right (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:58:31 PM EST
    about the policies and considering Obama's poor negotiating skills we might as well have Boehner as president.

    Damn that's depressing. (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 09:33:34 PM EST
    A digital Christmas (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    Just got sent this very funny video. Enjoy!

    repost (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    Morning? (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    Are you off on a foreign exotic vacation with Cokie Roberts?

    no vacation with (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    Cokie Roberts could possibly be exotic

    actifed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    ever take these?  allergy meds.  they dont actually make them any more because of meth but places like Wallgreens makes their own brand now because they were very popular and contain a formulation only available in that pill.  so says my pharmacist.
    anyway I buy them because when I have an attack it is the only thing that works for me.  they are powerful medicine.  two knock me right out.
    yesterday I stupidly left an almost full card, they come in those cards with push-throughs with I think 24 pills, sitting on the bathroom counter and Daisy found it an apparently ate a whole card.  I was briefly freaked.  I had no idea what it would do to her but it did not seem to hurt her.  
    I am sure she was not congested last night.

    Glad Daisy is OK! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    I guess we can knock that off the list of potential Doggy Downers.

    Heh. One of the reasons (none / 0) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    I was in the hospital for 30 hours... well, not actifed. I even took the blood-pressure friendly stuff my local pharmacy compounds.

    Sinuses will be full during this season, and my ADHD will present. Worse than usual, I should say. Oh, a flock of geese flying by...


    Had the same kind of thing (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    A few years ago after taking a Nyquil.  I don't know if that really triggered the blood pressure spike (to 170 over 142), which required a trip to the emergency room, but the doc told me to lay off all those cold medicines.  I'm only allowed to take Claritin and Coricidin now, which help a little, but since I'm on the blood pressure medicine (since that day), all that stuff is a no-no.

    I wonder if I took a (none / 0) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    claritin D instead of a claritin. Took 30 hours to get released.

    Just chill (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    It's the holidays and let people wait on you.

    Take it easy.


    But they told me not to have (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    any beer. They DID however refill my xanax.

    Ah, no beer. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    Well, you can still tell people you're "delicate" and can't possibly do things like help with the dishes. :)

    thank god (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:53:27 PM EST
    for that

    big difference (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:52:50 PM EST
    D sort of works for me.  the other not at all.

    Neti pot (none / 0) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    I stopped taking all medicines of that genre (yep, the high blood pressure), and switched to, of all things, a neti pot. It works great.

    It took a few tries to master the whole "pour into one nostril and let it drain out the other" technique. Once I had that down, though, it was smooth sailing.

    My sinuses have never been better.


    It is a little weird feeling (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:00:30 PM EST
    Like you are deliberately trying to drown yourself

    Yow! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    That's a bit high!  But, yes, certain cold medicines and decongestants may raise your blood pressure, so people have to be very careful.

    I hope, for your sake,... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:44:38 PM EST
    Tanya Treadway doesn't get wind of the incident.

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    how I was going to explain it to wallgreens since you have to give your DL number and sign something everytime I buy them.

    Heh. My dog at my pills, dude. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    Ought to work really well.

    lol... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    Yeah, free handcuffs with that story & order:)

    Did the dog lose weight? (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:11:16 PM EST
    no (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    but she has been scratching and chain smoking for two days

    you know what's weird (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    i had terrible allergy problems from the time i was a child, had all the terrible tests, got pricked with more needles than i care to remember. grass and dust were diagnosed at my deadly attackers, and for two decades-plus after that i was an allergy attack away from misery all the time. i also suffered, more acutely, from back pain and issues that debilitated me for weeks at a time, as well as other joint paints, intense headaches, stomach problems, you name it. but my back was the biggest problem.  

    then i found the work of dr. john sarno of nyu medical center regarding psychosomatic medicine (mind-body medicine, for those who find psychsomatic too associated with the idea of faking it or imaginary ailments). when i read his work and came to understand the nature of my very real and very physical pain (the subconscious brain also controls EVERY vital physical system in the body, after all), my symptoms receded very quickly. my back stopped hurting, my legs stopped burning, allergies went away, all of it, for the most part gone. yes, i get flareups, but when they happen i sort of meditate, talk to my brain, and the symptoms recede. sounds hokey to most people, but if you really think about how powerful the sub-cortex is -- that caveman part of our brains that controls our vital systems AND is the repository, almost assuredly, of subconscious emotion and memory (the source of dreams, for example) -- then it really does make sense. And it works. Dr. Sarno isn't some new age kook, he's an elderly M.D. with a track record of treating chronic pain and other conditions that is really unmatched. He is like the nurse at Johns Hopkins who for decades kept alive the Ketogenic Diet as a treatment for epileptic children, after big pharma essentially killed it in favor of pills, pills, pills.

    As far as my allergies these days, please, I used to pop pills like crazy, now, it's very rare I have any issue, and those are almost always related to hot dry, Santa Ana days here in SoCal. But nothing like I faced before.  

    Anyway, check out the good doctor.

    Dr. John Sarno, THE DIVIDED MIND (his latest and most up to date book, really an important read)

    Dr. John Sarno, HEALING BACK PAIN (now a quarter of a century old, but still insightful, it was the book that really saved me.)



    Paging Anne! (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    The WSJ is reporting that in January, Obama will nominate Virginia Seitz for head of the Office of Legal Counsel:

    The nomination of Ms. Seitz, a lawyer with Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, could provide one of the first tests of how Mr. Obama and Republicans get along in the next Congress. Partisan battles have prevented many of Mr. Obama's nominees from being confirmed, including the Justice Department's No. 2 official and several nominees to the federal appeals court bench.

    The Sidley Austin firm is regarded as Republican-leaning, though Ms. Seitz has liberal credentials, having written a legal brief that proved influential in a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that upheld some affirmative-action policies in university admissions.


    Ms. Seitz, 54 years old, was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.

    Carter Phillips, a managing partner at Sidley Austin, cited Ms. Seitz's work in the 2003 case that upheld the University of Michigan's law school affirmative-action policy. She wrote the brief on behalf of 29 high-ranking former military officials, arguing that military academies employed similar affirmative-action procedures that helped military cohesiveness.

    While some affirmative-action foes could object to Ms. Seitz's work, Mr. Phillips, a conservative, noted: "We were representing retired military officers, not the long-haired radicals."

    [Of course, Sidley Austin is also the law firm where Barack worked as a summer associate, and where he met Michelle, who was an associate.

    And another fun fact, Mary Todd Lincoln was one of the firm's first clients.]

    Well, if they helped (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:09:40 PM EST
    MTL get out of the insane asylum where her son had put her (unfairly), then I'm all for.

    Interesting alumni (wiki) includes not only Barack O., but Newton Minow (liberal guy, FCC Chair under JFK, famously said tv was becoming a "vast wasteland"), and Bernardine Dohrn, ex leader of the Weathermen radical 70s group.


    Should be a lively confirmation hrg, what with (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    Barack Obama's non-friendship w/Ayers and all.

    If I were them (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    I wouldn't brag about someone who pled guilty to charges of aggravated battery and bail jumping.  Dorhn was not a lawyer at Sidley, as she never passed the Character & Fitness portion of the Illinois Bar.

    Well, I don't know if S-A (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    actually brags about her (I only read about it at wiki, not the firm's website), but, otoh, this society does have a pretty good tendency to give people a second chance.  

    Not sure what the state bar character board people have in mind, if anything specific, for past deeds which absolutely disqualify someone from practicing law, but just from a layperson's perspective, I would think a conviction for crimes in the distant past that didn't involve murder or rape or treason and which resulted in no jail time at all once she turned herself in shouldn't have barred her from bar entry.  Almost certain, imo, that politics was at play here with the bar board.

    (note:  I don't condone violent actions she or her org were involved in -- even if only intended against property and not people.  But as to her views of today for instance, she seems not much more "radical" than, say, Dr MLK of 1967 ...)


    They probably weren't (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    "in the distant past" when she applied, and were actually probably recent at the time.

    This society does have a pretty good tendency to give people a second chance

    Only some people get a second chance.  From the Wiki page:

    She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time, who knew Thomas G. Ayers, the father of Dohrn's husband. "We often hire friends," Trienens told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

    It's all about who you know, rather than what you can bring to the table.


    That overstates hiring policy at big firms (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    Sometimes, yes, who you know matters.  For younger lawyers, it generally does not matter.

    And the who-you-know way of doing things generally goes back to which lawyer can bring in clients and business.  And, bringing in business will often trump who can write the best brief.


    Good Lord, Sidley is a very big (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:08:51 PM EST

    You have at least one of everything there.....


    Must be the bulletproof tinfoil helmets... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    Spy vs. Spy...

    The US Central Intelligence Agency has launched a panel dubbed the WikiLeaks Task Force, or "WTF", to investigate the impact of diplomatic cables and military documents released by secrets outlet WikiLeaks.

    The task force, which is being led by the CIA's Counterintelligence Center, will examine how the release of these classified documents could affect diplomatic relationships, according to the Washington Post.

    "The director asked the task force to examine whether the latest release of WikiLeaks documents might affect the agency's foreign relationships or operations," CIA spokesman George Little told the paper.

    The President is in the process (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    of reversing his position on Marriage Equality before the national media. He says he's going to "wrestle with" the issue going forward.


    his previous position (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:33:56 PM EST
    was against it - right?

    So this is a good thing possibly...?


    He basically echoed what he said (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:37:54 PM EST
    in his meeting a couple of months ago with gay bloggers. He's clearly building towards the position he held in the mid-90s. . .

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:39:45 PM EST
    He is doing the best he can to turn himself into a punchline it seems.

    Oh, geez. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:35:12 PM EST
    I guess he's going to be debating with himself once again.

    He's halfway through his second flop (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:38:20 PM EST
    on this issue.

    He hasn't invoked his trademark, (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:51:18 PM EST
    "as I have always said" line yet, has he?

    That's always a signal that he wants the next thing you hear to be the only position you think he's had on the subject.

    In all seriousness, I am happy for people to evolve away from repressive and discriminatory positions; we'll see how much Obama waffles about on this one before I can trust that he's evolving as opposed to equivocating.


    Are you interested in him adopting (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    a position in favor of gay marriage, or just looking for an opportunity to blast him as a flip-flopper?

    I would think any change of position in favor of gay marriage would be welcome by liberals, whether you believe it is sincere or not.

    If you are a devotee of BTD's theory of pols will be pols, then politicians are not very often sincere, and sincerity does not matter.

    And, Anne, I assume you will also note Romney's greater proclivity for flip-flopping as we get closer to the Iowa and New Hampshire, or does your fire only go in one direction?


    Why should Anne spend any time (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    noting Romney's flip flops? He's a Republican.

    So true, or so I would like to think (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    That would mean they are rational.....

    The true believers scare me even more....

    I read a Republican critique of Romney on Hugh Hewitt's site--when he used to allow comments--that I thought was very insightful.  He said that Romney appeared to be 100% faithful and dedicated to his church and wife and family--everything else was negotiable.

    This time around the crazies will have the most influence on Republicans, so Mitt will bow to them....


    Romney (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:41:29 PM EST
    is the GOP equivalent of Obama. He'll pander to anybody to get out of the primaries and then promptly put them in a closet or roll them under the bus once the general election rolls around.

    What part of (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    I am happy for people to evolve away from repressive and discriminatory positions;

    suggests that I would NOT welcome Obama's support of same-sex marriage?

    I think it's absolutely the right position, and it pains me that in 2010, Obama is still "struggling" with what I see as a basic civil rights issue.

    And, for what it's worth, I didn't start this thread, just chimed in in response to andgarden, who seems less than enthused about Obama's latest remarks.

    As a human being, I feel like I certainly have an interest in the expansion of rights to all people, but as a heterosexual whose choices in life have never been limited (well, there's the gender thing, but one issue at a time), I have to cede ground to those who have faced years of being treated as if their choices were immoral or unworthy of recognition.

    And, I'm sorry, but Obama has a history of saying things that his actions do not support.

    For what it's worth, I won't be making electoral decisions based on who has flip-flopped more or less, but on whether the candidate has demonstrated a commitment to the positions I believe are the right ones.  Here's a news flash: I won't be voting Republican in any event, and unless Obama becomes someone he has demonstrated no interest in being, I will probably be sitting out the 2012 presidential election just as I sat out 2010.  I'm simply not voting for someone who doesn't deserve my vote.



    Sitting out 2010 (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    does not strike me as all that helpful.  So, the Democrat running for the House was unacceptable?  No local races mattered?

    This makes no sense to me.


    My mistake - I meant to say that I (none / 0) (#129)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    sat out the 2008 presidential election - meaning that I did not cast a vote for president in 2008.  Not that it's any of your business, but I voted all the local races, as well as the House and Senate races, the local and state referendum and bond questions.

    And I absolutely did vote in 2010 - we had a gubernatorial election in MD in which I felt the incumbent Democrat deserved to be re-elected.

    Hope that makes more sense now.


    What an unnecessarily nasty comment (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 11:18:36 PM EST
    And has it really totally escaped your attention that Obama has quite a record now of being publicly strongly supportive of, never mind "struggling with," this or that and then turned out to be working actively against it behind the scenes?

    I mean, really, pardon me if I don't take his public musings on this particularly seriously.  At this point, I honestly don't give a &&&& what he says he's going to do or wants to do or thinks should be done, only what he actually does.


    I welcome it completely (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    He's flipping about as quickly as he can without being totally transparent to the media. Basically, he wants it to take more than one news cycle.

    Standing for a "strong (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    civil union", as O put it, has almost a quaint ring to it today.  Fine, if you're commenting ca 1999 or even 2004, but a bit dated today.

    Quaint, or a bit of a dodge, as pols will do.

    That said, does his prior pro-gay marriage stance as a young state legislator actually count much in the current political calculation?  I tend to give him only partial discredit for reversing that early stance, given the low-level, backburner office involved.  Not quite in the flip-flop category of a pol sitting as gov or senator who's flipping and flopping his stance on an issue w/n the span of a few years, in order to position himself better to win a party nomination for president.  That's when you see the real flip-floppery.  Mitt Romney on abortion rights; John McCain on DADT.


    In France (none / 0) (#130)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 24, 2010 at 11:12:36 PM EST
    marriages are themselves become a little dated or are increasingly having a quaint ring to it. link

    I'm furious...absolutely furious (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    I just got called from who covers our homeowners insurance.  The servicer was to have paid our homeowners insurance for the yeart on December 1st and they have yet to pay it.  She told me what the bill was too and our servicer had upped how much they were charging us and putting in escrow this past year but who insures us does not reflect the increase that was literally doubled....they were collecting double what the insurance bill is.  So they will owe us a refund!  If they ever pay though.  I'm awaiting a phone call back and I'm mad as hell givin how insolvent the system is.  Where is my God Damned money and where is my God Damned insurance!

    Always (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    try and argue to pay any homeowners and mortgage insurance on your own rather than through the bank. They always hold more in escrow than you owe. I believe once you have 20% equity you can drop mortgage insurance completely. By paying them on your own, you'll have more in your pocket each month and you can budget on your own for that one big yearly payment.

    Just what you needed, right? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    I think my insurance got paid a little late either last year or the year before. My phone call got the basic 'check is in the mail' answer, and it seemed to have been true.  Hope that is the same for you. But definitely keep up with the rate issue and make sure they refund. Good thing you found out that little tidbit of info. Really, you can't rtust any of them these days - insurance companies or mortgage servicers: hard to tall which is more likely to rip you off.

    Two years ago we got the check is in the mail (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 03:49:08 PM EST
    thing too...simple mix up or something and it didn't get paid until the end of December.  My husband asked me if we had the money to just pay it, and yes I do.  But what do we have to do to the servicer then to get our money back.  I suppose I'd have to hire a lawyer.  By God I'm so mad I could spit.

    Oh, I'm so sorry, Tracy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    You need this like you need another hole in the head, especially at this time of the year.  I hope you can get it all straightened out soon.  May you have a very good Christmas, despite the annoyances.  Take care, sister.

    It is being overnighted (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 08:23:46 AM EST
    When I was phoned back they said that they had not received a bill from the insurance company but magically the overnighted payment is in the exact amount needed and when I called the insurance company back they had not been called by our servicer.  And they said that the excuse is always that they did not receive a bill.  With everything that the servicers are pulling these days, I will be pulling our insurance and taxes from their responsibility.  We are at 20% now.

    John Aravosis explains (none / 0) (#79)
    by observed on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    that DADT is NOT repealed yet...interesting

    People mean it's a done deal (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    The military said they were going to institute in 60 days.  I imagine it will take that long to write up non-discriminatory language and consequences.  Gates will want to get on this quickly as anyone terminated will use repeal.

    Actually (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 04:08:44 AM EST
    It has to be certified (which has no timetable), and then 60 days after certification takes place, DADT will officially be dead.

    Just got back... (none / 0) (#116)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 01:18:45 AM EST
    from seeing the Coen Bros' True Grit. Great flick. Bridges is amazing, as is the young Hailee Steinfeld. I highly recommend seeing it. The weakest link in the movie is Matt Damon who slips in and out of speaking with what is supposed to be a severe tongue injury (not giving anything away).

    Uh-oh (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 23, 2010 at 04:07:26 AM EST
    Is Matt Damon playing an Ellen Jamesian?