Is The Ship Sinking?

Gallup generic ballot:

Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress.[. . .] Republicans are now twice as likely as Democrats to be "very" enthusiastic about voting, and now hold -- by one point -- the largest such advantage of the year.

Blind Obama loyalists are jumping ship:

Rather than looking helpless, the administration should just start making the argument that we have a choice between prolonged high unemployment or another big stimulus package. Make the election a referendum on that choice. Setting aside that [Obama's] delivery was uncharacteristically terrible, the president's statement on the economy today was pretty pathetic. This ain't getting it done on any level.

This is an interesting critique, but not to the point. The problem was in February 2009 when an inadequate stimulus was sold as a great progressive victory. It's late in the day now for finger pointing.

Speaking for me only

< Roger Clemens Pleads Not Guilty | Monday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    but their inability to criticize Obama is has been part of the problem much like the Bushies were with Bush II.

    At least you had enough insight along with some others to see that the 2009 stimulus wasn't that great but in the end I'm sure it's cold comfort just like my knowledge that Obama would be a poor leader. In the end there are still millions of people unemployed, my husband included, that need jobs.

    I have to give some of the liberal bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    credit, they put stuff criticizing Obama policy up on DK often and it splits right down the middle over there right now.  Not that I was hanging out at RedState or anything at the end of the Bush administration, but I did read a few Conservative blogger writeups and they drank the kool aid big time and died writhing.  I'd pick cats to herding lemmings any day of the week :)

    Obama's Fortunes (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by norris morris on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    Yes, the bots kept botting when they should have signaled D.C. that Obama was not connecting with his base, or anyone else.  Except of course the fanatical devotion which isn't helpful at all.

    It is considered heretic to criticise Obama's tin ear, late response [Gulf], doublespeak on BP and gays,etc.

    Obama hasn't shown the energy or force necessary to control the debate, and he's allowed the GOP to run off with the messaging. The White House is on the defensive, and today I listened to one of his economists on MSNBC talking failure because, well, uh, he inherited a big hole, and the small business sector did not improve which it always does, but gee...this time it didn't happen, and gosh it's likely to continue. Ya know this is really a terrible situation, but we will have to try something else.      Really?

    This was pathetic.  Obama's people aren't offering criticism re: strategy change, as they're either too busy kissing his ass, or they are totally inexperienced and inept.

    Obama is a tepid and indecisive leader unable to put up a real fight and his timing on just about every issue has shown ambivalence, doublespeak,
    and a lack of the kind of fierce focus and change he promised.

    Unfortunately for all of us the Democrats will be hard hit in the midterms.  They're hiding and cowering instead of coming out slugging.  They apparently haven't done this as Obama isn't leading them.

    So beyond the glaring narcissism there is a pitiful lack of connection to reality and the politics of real leadership. Knowing what is imperative, how to act and effect change in the daylight.

    I started wanting my vote back when Obama dealt with BigPharma lobbyists from the get go and buried the possibility of really lowering drug costs by closing the Senior's Donut Hole in MedicareRX.
     The Donut Hole is a total ripoff and needed fixing ASAP. No importation of drugs, and slowing the deliverance of generics to come to market was also another crapout.

    This was compounded with the backroom deals made with the Insurance Cartel that will deliver 30 million people to private insurance. In essence delivering the largest transfer of wealth from the people to private corporations.

    Unless a firecracker is lit under the administration and Obama becomes bold and clear, the elections this November will be a GOP rout.


    Get rid of the spineless Dems (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by mexboy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:23:43 PM EST
      I don't care if they go down in flames next election. They've been pursuing Republican ideals anyway.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:39:00 AM EST
    Current Democratic policies offer the general public death by a thousand cuts, the GOP simply wants to execute the general public.

    What a choice!


    Well then (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    Since you have an extensive list of everything that is wrong with Obama and the Democrats, you will have plenty of time to consider what you would expect or want from a Republican House.

    "But ... but the GOP (5.00 / 12) (#43)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:59:27 PM EST
    is worse" is a failed argument. Take it back to dailykos.

    Hate to tell you (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    but it really is a legitimate question. Just curious?

    You actually didn't (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    ask a question.  You just tried to change the subject.  

    Question: Will you vote (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    in this year's mid-term elections? (As indicated in another area of this thread, I push this question out of sincerity. I hope you can accept that. Yet, it is early...best that the question be asked in mid to later October.)

    Oh, I believe you (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    are sincere.  But I also believe you are changing the subject.

    IMO you seem to think too much about election results and not enough about policy.  BTD's post points out the failure of the current national Democratic party on issues of policy.  I think that commenters here wanted to discuss that, but you want to change the subject to elections.  Why don't you want to talk about the policies?  Is it because you agree with what the commenters here are saying?  Or is that you disagree but don't want to spend the time to defend the policies?


    Good points, dk (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    There is a difference, often, between policy & politics. A general edginess and impatience seems to be influencing all of us. There are those who are very impatient with outcomes from the Democrats. BTW, I do not disagree with some of that. Definitely, getting the action promised or proposed during a previous election cycle goes to the matter of a party's credibility.

    And, you are accurate in your understanding that I am looking at election results in the elections forthcoming in 2 months. My focus has definitely shifted from the ins & outs of internal policy debates (which I enjoy, btw) to the bare bones of campaigning. I'm a Democrat (no secret); and, as one who generally aligns with the policy of my preferred party, I believe that all the policy discussion in the world at this point will yield only that for a loyalist like myself. While the discussion is very important in convincing undecided voters (and must be encouraged), for a campaigner like myself the focus has shifted to getting my candidates elected so that the policies most Democrats endorse or favor at least have a chance of being enacted (a better chance than with the other party.)
    My edginess in moving on--and returning to the complicated debates after the election--can lead me to say something like "Okay, okay, I see your point--may or may not agree--but, in getting down to brass tacks, how do you plan to resolve it?" And, I know, it sounds and feels pushy.


    Here, I think, is part of the problem: (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    You write:

    the focus has shifted to getting my candidates elected so that the policies most Democrats endorse or favor at least have a chance of being enacted

    IMO, most Democrats didn't want to give away trillions to bankers.  Most didn't want to escalate in Afghanistan.  Most want the President to take more immediate action on DADT.  Most don't want the President's health care bill which futher enshrines second class citizenship and reinforces a failed for-profit insurance model that makes real reform less, not more, likely.  And yet, those are the policies that the current federal Democratic party leadership have promoted and furthered.  

    So, again, it really does come back to policy.  I don't (and I think those of us you are posing the question to you) necessarily believe that getting "your" candidates elected makes it any more likely that the policy views of most Democrats will be represented.  

    If all you care about is getting elected, I guess I'd just recommend spinning and prevaricating.  That often works in elections.  But if you're interested in policy outcomes, I think you're on the wrong track, personally.


    It is broader than my policies (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    One of the concerns that has been voiced about the current Democratic leadership is that they pander (or something like that) to polls, to the "center," etc. If that is the case, then they actually are responsive to the bigger constituency. Look, those on the right are not going to vote Democratic; and, those near the opposite or left side of the continuum are presently engaging in a debate about whether to vote Democratic, whether to vote for a third party candidate, whether to vote at all. Yep, this argument is not unusual in our Democratic Party (see, for example, 1980.) In sheer numbers, the larger number of votes is in the center combined with as many to the left or right as the campaigner can obtain. We all know that. The dilemma, of course, usually involves staying closer to the center and the estimated majority...without losing the ardent, informed voters on the left.

    Oops (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    I should address comments about "prevaricating" and "spinning." Hardly. I believe in my party's candidates...that, in the medium and long run, it is better POLICY for the country.

    And, seeking the majority of votes in a republic is not shameful nor wrong. If I believed that my view ultimately trumps the majority.... That would create a philosophical dilemma in a republic. John Stuart Mill wrote about the challenge of a democracy wherein the majority may not always agree with the intelligentsia, and the ramifications of resolving those situations. Clearly, we set up the Courts to balance & check any "tyranny of the majority" and to preserve minority rights. That Supreme Court check has been shown to have real consequence; and, that is another reason for my loyalty to the Democratic Party. So--please--I am about a lot more than spin; my belief system is as real as yours.


    Actually (none / 0) (#108)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    those on the right do vote democratic (at least did). Otherwise, how did we get so many Bluedogs? And wasn't that Rahm's plan anyway?

    Do you believe in accountability? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:21:27 PM EST
     Why would the democratic party even begin to take us seriously if we continually vote for them no matter what they do? Seriously. . . they haven't. And the Obama Administration insults us, and proceeds as if we don't exist. They don't listen, and they don't respond. If they did, I doubt we would be in this mess.
      So how does continued voting for them get them to be more representative/responsive to your wishes?
      Heck, I'll go further and state voting for them after they've jettisoned basic principles, and sneered at you (thanks, Rahm, Gibbs) will actually lead to a greater similarity to/faster pace towards the "crazy" you say you despise. Where the Republicans are now, the Dems will soon be.
      Voting for them now, will kill off any realistic chance for a return to prioritizing what used to be Democratic principles, for many,many voting cycles. You'll be enshrining Republican frameworks and ideas upon the Democratic party and voting for your own irrelevance.
      Sure, you'll be irrelevant with Republicans in charge. But you'll at least preserve the chance that Dems after getting kicked in the teeth will cut the crap and be responsive to the majority that at present have no representation. If not, then the Democratic party deserves going the way of the Dodo, and we, the people need to organize something else.

    Yes, hookfan, I believe in accountability (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    I also believe strongly in compromise. And, for many people, a half-a-loaf is truly better than none.
    Without restarting the debate, let me just reaffirm that I agree with many statements of concern about what are today's Democratic Party principles. Sometimes I think that we get lost or--out of habit from years in the political wilderness (sans having the WH)--try to play the other guy's game. YET, I also believe that there are many, many positive differences in the Democratic Party when compared to its competitor. Consolidating incremental gains--in health care and in financial reform--from the longtime status quo is important to a lot of people in this country. So--incremental progress (not as much as I personally would have liked, but a lot more than heretofore) counts in the accountability measure for me.

    yes (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    we've made so much "incremental" progress on women's reproductive choices, haven't we? And so much "incremental" progress on Governmental transparency. And so much "incremental" progress on reducing unemployment. and so much "incremental" progress on expanding our civil liberties. And so much "incremental" progress on reducing the disparity on income between the upper 2% and the rest of us.
      If there is so much "incremental" progress, why is it that the country is continuously moving in the rightward direction? And why is the Obama Administration openly bragging to Republicans that they are using their ideas? And you call that "progress".
      It is progress of a sort-- continuously in a rightward direction. But any crumb you think is half a loaf. . .

    Tough Argument (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    But incremental is better then going in the other direction, imo...

    GOP agenda: Gut SS, Medicare, Privatize Education, Appoint Right wing Judges, Increase Corporate Power while decreasing their taxes, Cut taxes on the rich (trickle down) increase taxes on the poor and middle class, Eliminate Woman's right to choose, Christian Nation, perpetual war Iran, Syria, N Korea, Increase police state, subpoena power and ability to shut down the government...

    And yes, some of these "programs" are a weaker version with Dems in control, but a relatively smaller portion of them.

    It is hard to imagine that we would not be much worse off today if BushCo continued to reign...


    That's the point (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    We are going in the other direction. heck, corporations have greater control through our government than ever before,imo. The corruption goes deep. And Democratic refusal ("off the table") to pursue rooting out what BushCo. left, nay even supporting it (cf HAMP and AIG bailout), has only made it worse. Do you feel we've made progress in lessening corporate control?
       We're not making progress on social security either. There is no reason for Obama to have appointed that commission and defend Simpson's place on it, if we were.
      Increase police state? Yeah, sure, Lieberman is on such a short leash, and let's pretend the FBI has been reigned in from exercising their new found powers. And what about Obama's justice dept arguing just like BushCo. for state secret rights, and pursuing the war on drugs? Rightwing, rightwing, rightwing. . .
      Where is substantial progress in the other direction?

    Incremental progress (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    You begin by referring to whether there is "incremental progress" on women: Yes, definitely. I don't even know where to begin except to point out that I had to threaten a lawsuit to get my first job---based upon discrimination against me as a woman. (I won the pr and job battle, btw.) Listen, I've lived it. From appointments to positions previously only held by males (with the resentment from the boys that occasionally followed) to the self-discovery of the need to let go of my own negative reactions to the eventual witnessing of today's generation of women having careers in any area they want. Specifics about Democratic presidents: President Clinton was the first to break through the token-like appointments of women to high-level positions in the federal government and President Obama has increased not just the numbers but markedly expanded the power positions to which he has appointed women.  In fact, we have come so far (even tho there is a long, long way to travel) that it wan't just a non-happening when the President named his second SCt woman nominee...it was assumed.   Add to that: In the Congress, we have a powerful woman Speaker in Pelosi who has teamed with other Congresspeople like my Congresswoman Diana DeGette & the WH to realize advancement in the stem cell research arena. In HCR, jettisoning the pre-existing conditions malarky from the insurers armory when used against children has a very direct result for the mothers who care for those children. (And, recognizing that there was stalemate on the Hyde Amendment during the final days of the HCR debate, Democratic women congresspeople acquitted themselves well under the circumstances of the debate.)

    More later.  It is, tho, all in the eye of the beholder.


    Well, but there (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    we are back to policy.  Again, your last few sentences are your opinions, but based on fact many disagree with them.

    Again, if you think the Democrats inscribing second-class citizenship for women into law, for example, is incremental progress in the direction you approve of, then by all means you should get out there and campaign for the people who voted for the law.  Personally, I view that as incremental progress in the wrong direction.


    If there are 10 issues (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    and, I don't agree with one of them, that does not refute incremental progress. We are at the back & forth opinion stage; good for long, long discussions and all that. But, opinions nonetheless. Factually, President Obama will have been said (even at this early date) to have moved the marker ahead for women overall. My opinion; and, your opinion appears to be otherwise.

    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    with you on the "Factually" sentence.  Sorry.

    Don't give me the party line (none / 0) (#118)
    by hookfan on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 04:04:02 PM EST
     And Sandra D. O'Conner was a Republican, as is E. Dole, and S. Palin (even if she is corrupt and stupid). And Palin is promoting women, and republican women are running for congressional office (no matter if they are batspittle crazy). I believe it's women making that change, not any one political party.
      Nevertheless, how has Obama "progressed" on women's access to abortion? And since when, with all your democratic staunchness for women, is it now okay to place women's choice on the trading bloc? Why does Obama's need for a "win" trump women's medical needs? I could be nasty and add "Sweety", but that would make me seem like Obama, who surely is not a Chauvinist.

    The "party line" here (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    is accurate. As for abortion: It is an important issue. The Hyde Amendment in terms of HCR is not the sole determinor of an Administration's progress on issues related to women. (While, understandably, it continues to concern those supporting full, supplemented access through insurance companies to abortion, I believe that "the jury is out" on how this all plays out. That is my belief; others believe otherwise.) Again, the key matter of women's advancement to equality contains many aspects. For example: We could talk about how the Obama administration and this Democratic Congress effectively nullified the conservative Supreme Court majority's Lilly Ledbetter results?  

    I'd love for everything to be the way I'd like it to be (which might be surprisingly similar to what the most progressive here have called for.) My approach to getting there differs.


    Your approach (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by dk on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 05:41:48 PM EST
    seems to be supporting incremental steps in the wrong direction.  Good luck with that approach.

    The Enthusiasm Chasm (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Vokey on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:08:39 AM EST
    Should the Professional Left turn out for an election to persuade voters about the virtues of a lukewarm Healthcare Law that may or not benefit them in 2014, tepid Financial Regulations which consolidate the power of too big to fail banks,a pay czar who endorses crony capitalism with taxpayer dollars, and the HAMP rescue helicopter which picks up the bankers and leaves the homeowner stranded with their underwater homes?  If that isn't persuasive then maybe appointing a commission to cut Social Security benefits to pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq might be a winner on front door steps.
      In addition to those issues, I get the distinct impression from Gibbs, Obama, Rahm, Baucus, and Liz Fowler that everyone who worked for Democrats in 06 and 08 didn't understand what was at stake in those elections.  It's about bigger offices, big contributions, committee chairmanships, golden parachutes and earning the praise of the Washington Post.  Maybe Gibbs, Larry Summers and Tim Geithner can find time to knock on doors to tell voters how their present jobs will boost their salaries at their next job and why that's good for voters.

    Somewhere along the line (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    at least as far back as the Iraq emergency supplemental funding bill in spring 2007 and ever since, it appears that most democrats in general concluded that a lack of "more and better" lies was their main problem, and that voters are dumb enough to roll over and beg for belly scratches when they are treated like they're dumb enough.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    Certainly has worked for the GOP.... lol

    I guess that's why (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    the democrats use the same tactics.

    Not Quite The Same (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    The Democrats lie less brazenly...  and equivocate when they are called out. The GOP lies outrageously and when called on it, send the police.

    The Dems are lousy liars. (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:38:40 PM EST
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    And their constituents less gullible..

    Bad combination, and big political problem, imo..


    I don't know about that (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    Every so often this picture screams "Hope and change" and shoots fire out of its mouth.... and tens of millions of people fall all over themselves to oooh and aaah and believe it. ;-)

    Well, it wasn't just me, then (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:39:25 PM EST
    who watched Obama's speech and waited, waited, waited for passion, something to take the edge off the bummer start to the day -- Krugman's prediction that with Obama, we are headed to catastrophe.

    "Pathetic" is a good word for what I heard today.

    So I just signed up for another extra job, anything to be able to help my progeny and perhaps put something aside to make up for the continuing pay cut, in hope that they won't have to worry about helping me.

    And the only way the Republicans (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:56:32 PM EST
    can be on top is that nobody was for accountability in 2009 either.  We were going to move forward and not live in the past, but the Republican past is what got us here.  I'm very upset with this President and his ginormous miscalculations and bipartisanship from hell.  He took over on the brink of collapse and believed all the scumbags and the brilliant businessmen and easily dismissed anyone who said anything "extreme" and here we are.  Nothing has improved, some things are worse, and he has a track record of selling us all out to the very people who got us here.

    He's not incompetent. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    He has a track record of setting big goals and achieving them. He made it to President, after all.

    If he keeps on getting the results he keeps on getting, it's probably it's because those are the results he was aiming for...


    I analyze him the same way (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    on all this too Edger, and then I get furious.  I'm stuck determining that he must change his mind about what his goals are and what he thinks are appropriate policies or we will have to be stuck praying to survive him like we did the last President.

    By that argument George W Bush (none / 0) (#45)
    by me only on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:57:23 PM EST
    is twice as competent because he won 2 elections.

    Not buying it.

    They might promote you to the bigs, but to stay you have to perform.


    George (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10:40 PM EST
    was aiming for the same results, too. And getting them. And he's an idiot. Obama is much smarter and more competent. He also managed to coopt the antiwar movement. Now they are good wars.

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:17:33 PM EST
    I think he's an incompetent.  He had a chance to restore and transform the economy, which was certainly the most pressing issue before him, and he prenegotiated himself into a corner.  In my view, managerially speaking, that's gross incompetence.  He blew it.

    But his top campaign (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by dk on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:22:03 PM EST
    donors and golfing buddies are actually doing quite well.  I think he's accomplished what was important to him.

    Incompetent? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:23:33 PM EST
    His campaign contributors from wall street, the oil companies and 'defense' industry are richer than ever, and the neocons love his foreign policies.

    So, you think his objective was to (none / 0) (#52)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:07:36 PM EST
    celebrate "recovery summer" without a recovery?

    I think he thinks (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 07:45:38 AM EST
    'recovery' has already happened due to his great economic policies. His real constituents, his contributors and backers, are rolling in money... they've obviously 'recovered', and that recovery will trickle down.

    Anyone who can't see the recovery needs drug testing, according to his Press Secretary.


    not incompetent (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:18:45 PM EST

    who still believes experience doesn't matter?


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    and you know we will pay for not holding anyone accountable for Bush's war crimes in particular.  Pantano's possible election being a choice example.

    And I deeply fear what (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    the final cost will be of that tab.  War crimes and the legacy of war crimes don't go away, they live on IMO in the psyche of the population condoning them and the people who preformed them.  We must atone or we can preform them again at the drop of a hat or the drop of any old thing.

    Already are... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    GITMO force-feedings observant of Ramadan

    Now what about that, all you progressive critics of Obama? He only force-feeds those held for years in indefinite captivity after the sun goes down during Ramadan. What exquisite tact, what a remarkable sensitivity to human rights, eh? Why, they ought to give this guy a Nobel Peace Prize or something!

    And it doesn't stop there. Obama is now force-feeding his Gitmo captives -- those that have been so maddened by years of captivity without charges that they have adopted this desperate and self-destructive method of protest, the only act of individual volition that's been left to them by their captors -- with some really tasty flavors of liquid pumped into their stomachs by force:

    To demystify it a bit, Navy prison camp hospital workers some years back created a display of different flavored supplements and let visiting reporters handle a sample yellow rubber feeding tube. By last summer, staff were pointing to Butter Pecan flavored Ensure as popular with the chair-shackled captives. Flavor made no difference going down, one nurse explained, but a captive could taste it if he burped later.

    Of course, "Well, I didn't mean CLOSE Guantanamo!"

    "I mean, I meant it when I said it. You know?"

    "But... heh. That was a campaigning thing, you know? And it worked, too! Right? Right."

    "You don't really expect me to go all bipartisany on you and do what Lindsay Graham wants me to do, do you? DO YOU? He's a republican! WTF do you want from me?"

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:47:17 PM EST
    Reminds me of Titicut Follies...  20 minute mark...

    Sigh. . . (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:24:00 PM EST
    I get no pleasure from this. Absolutely positively none.

    BTW, (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:30:14 PM EST
    If the Republicans win a 10pt House victory, Democrats will lose seats north, west, east and south.

    I doubt they could win by that much, but it's not impossible.


    How depressing (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:01:14 PM EST
    I do want to see the skewing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    effect of regionalism isolated before thowing in the towel entirely.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    I am sure Booman is not ENTIRELY jumping ship but when one of your biggest fans criticize you, you oughta know you're headed in the wrong direction.  And I appreciate that Booman is making this criticism.  

    I found a business card on the hood of my car this weekend.  It was from an Obama staffer - so either they are forming a support group or their ground team is still in action.  I am interested in helping and curious as to what the message will be.  I will let you all know when I find out...

    I really think they may need to ditch (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    the freakin' OFA logo on everything. Not a good reminder, imo, when organizing and canvasing for other Dems. Good that they are organizing, but . . . ye ol' tin ear . . . .

    OFA rang my doorbell this weekend (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:27:17 PM EST
    don't know how they got my name - i am an independent voter not a registered dem - voted downticket dems in 2008 - maybe they got me on their list b/c of some Dem candidates i made donations to

    anyway i said (when they asked) that indeed i did mind if they asked me if i was voting Democratic this November - but did say i might have some enthusiasm for Dems if Dems had shown some enthusiasm for sufficient stimulus & HOLC & real financial reform & real HCR w/out shout out to odious Hyde amendment

    OFA rep gave me a pitying look & clucked reprovingly while crossing my name off OFA list


    Good (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 04:01:06 AM EST
    for you.

    Let 'em cluck.


    Here I go again (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    But, you appear to know what you are talking about. So, permit me to open that door to that dreadful question: What approach do you have today toward your vote in November?
    I do not mean to be toying with my question, because the strong sentiment about any reference to "the other guy (party) being worse" is fairly well known here. While it may be a pragmatic question that is best reserved for the down-to-the-wire time of later October, my intent is to broach it now. It could be asked of a number of people on this thread, but--scrolling down--and seeing your sensible comment, the question keeps popping up in my mind....
    Please know that at different times (most notably the Carter and Kennedy tiff in 1980) I have found myself in similar "off with their heads" sentiment. As a matter of fact, one of my dad's favorite admonitions to me about my earlier certainties was "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face." So, I ask again because my concern is genuine: Where does a potential Democrat-leaning-Independent or loosely affiliated Democrat go when it comes time to vote? And, how does one regard the consequences of that vote and responsibility other than to say something like "its not my reality" or "its only the difference between muck & s***."  At one time--when faced with that dilemma--I opted for the muck (hoping something would grow in nearby soil.) Who knows?

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    the only thing my vote ever got me was jury duty

    Are today's Dems delivering that much better a (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    product for you?

    Obama's swept Iraq under the rug leaving 50k troops there in harm;s way.  Obama has worsened Afghanistan.  Obama has ratified the worst of Bush's civil liberties abuses (see Greenwald on this, no need ot recite it all).  All the "reforms" have been watered down and pre-approved by corporations in the industries that were supposedly reformed.

    Seems to me like muck you've (& myself as well to be fair) been sold is increasingly the same old sh!t.  I am at the point where my view of today's Dems is that they provide the illusion of a moderate, hardly liberal, opposition but are in fact serving Corporate America every bit as much as the GOP.

    Let the illusion die and hopefully in its place will arise, by popular demand and necessity of the times, a much needed progressive/liberal political force.  Not much hope but when you can count on your fingers the number of worthwhile progressives in the Democratic Congress, it's the best I can do.


    To BobTinky: I respect your position (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    Where we party ways: If we lieve in an illusion about the Dems now, I consider it an even greater fantasy to think that something will rise up in the way of a new progressive force. Deus ex machina is a wonderful device...in theatre. For me, I do not believe that there is a real alternative to slogging through that muck and (as they say) working from within (and, probably, getting muddy/dirty in the process.) That is just me.

    Addressing just one of your examples: Again, for me, the movement from the @150,000 troops when W left to the 50,000 today is a real drawdown. It isn't perfect; but, it is acceptable to me. As an example, only.


    Almost. (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:57:57 AM EST
    The problem was in February 2009 when an inadequate stimulus was sold as a great progressive victory.

    I would rather say that the problem was in 2008 when an inadequate candidate was sold as a great progressive rock star.

    The sinking of the Democratic ship will be (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:48:37 AM EST
    the best thing that ever happened for progressives.

    It's going to get horrendously ugly with a GOP Congress, and Obama, like Clinton before him, will still try to  "co-opt" their issues.

    The jig is up.  The GOP will investigate, harass, intimidate but Republicans will not offer a single thing to alleviate the economic catastrophe we now face.  By 2012 the country will be demanding REAL CHANGE, transformation of the political debate.  There is simply nothing our current politics can produce that will address today's problems.  

    We are not far away from the time when a new New Deal will be the only alternative to street mobs wielding pitchforks.

    I used to think that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    it had to get really bad to get worse...for a long time I thought that way. My experience in my lifetime: A number of us backed away from Carter because he wasn't good enought (we thought then) and because we didn't count on a Reagan actually being elected or doing any damage. Ha...look at the the time between 1980 and 1992 (include in there the fundamentals for BP as a result of reorgs & redefs in a number of Depts such as Interior.) Hmmm. And, then--after Clinton--a number of Democrats waltzed through the election process and we got another clown that we thought we do no harm. Good ole' W. Now, what are we talking about tonight?...Iraq? Etc. Etc.

    I don't know. Perhaps, you are accurate; and, perhaps, those at the truly lower rung of the economic scale won't go wanting for shelter, basic amenities. Even if the economic bottom fell out, there really is no Versailles equivalent in this country. (And, of course, the French Revolution turned on itself and became the Reign of Terror.) The biggest uprising in this country seems to have been based on the perception and reality of unfair taxation. Where does that take us? To the Tea Partiers & Koch Bros? My point: What does American history reveal about the trajectory after a political loss?


    I agree with your point on tax uprisings (none / 0) (#97)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    but the New Deal is an exception, a very important one , to this.

    Our problems today are not the result of high taxes.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:32:47 AM EST
    Jeralyn has stated that she wants TL to be broadly accessible particularly to Law School libraries and Law Firms.

    Many of those groups flag and block sites for obscene language.

    Jeralyn has had to spend hours fighting to unblock TL because of problems linked to use of curse words.

    Here is a post by Jeralyn explaining the issue.

    Joan Walsh (3.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:12:50 PM EST

    That Democrats are in trouble across the country as the midterm showdown nears is bad enough, for those of us who think the party has the best solutions to the global economic mess. What's worse is that, at the national level at least, they seem to be going down without much of a fight over their core principles. The New Republic's John Judis contrasted Obama and the Democrats' woes in 2010 with Ronald Reagan and the GOP's struggles in 1982, when a stubborn recession was depressing Reagan's approval ratings and portending midterm doom for his party. Did Reagan begin to parrot the concerns of his critics in the other party, the way Obama is now bleating about "debt and deficits"? Quite the opposite: As Judis explains, Reagan and his team called for voters to "stay the course" and blamed the nation's problems  on Democratic overspending. "We are clearing away the economic wreckage that was dumped in our laps," Reagan boldly declared. And while Republicans were expected to lose up to 50 House seats, they lost only 26 and broke even in the Senate. Equally important, Reagan's strong messaging kept voters optimistic he could eventually prevail. Just before the election, Judis notes, with unemployment still soaring, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 60 percent of likely voters believed Reagan's economic program would eventually turn things around.


    There is another thread relating to Reagan (none / 0) (#37)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:23:44 PM EST

    You are correct, if one believes in their course of action, one must stand behind it and defend it.

    From the other side of the aisle, Obama seems to be a bit wishy washy on the strengths of his beliefs.


    I know. (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    I found this an interesting complement to the other discussion, esp. in terms of what Obama seems to be giving people to run on.

    Oh yes, pleassseeee make this the election slogan (none / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 05:34:52 PM EST
    the administration should just start making the argument that we have a choice between prolonged high unemployment or another big stimulus package

    The R ads would practically write themselves.

    Why is Reid blocking any amendments? (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:43:21 PM EST
    Everyone knows that this small business lending bill is so small bore it doesn't even rate BB caliber status.  Even if passed unanimously, it will have zero impact on the bigger issues of jobs, the economy much less small business.

    It is a pure Nov "look at the shiny bauble" bit of legislation, yet can't have those evil Republicans offering amendments.


    Any answers here? (none / 0) (#27)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    The bill is, as you say, small bore and will have little if any impact.  It's a purely political bill.

    As for why Reid wants to block amendments, surely you jest.  You know perfectly well what kinds of amendments the GOPers would try to put through, and the Congressional Dems. are such pantywaists, enough of them would go along that some of them would pass.

    Look, let's not pretend that the GOP wants to pass anything remotely useful at this point, OK?


    Thye Repubs are holding out for (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    an extension of the Bush tax cuts.

    So What? (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 06:56:40 PM EST
    The Republicans are not going to vote for any Democrats anyway. Your comment seems stranger than usual, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point.

    Try thinking (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    If the tax cut is in limbo prior to the election...

    Huh? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:30:59 PM EST
    If Obama extends the tax cuts all the Republicans are going to vote for Democrats?  Bwhahahahhahaha

    Most rich people I know are for eliminating the tax cuts, but they are Democrats and Independents...


    The democrats won't be voting democrat either (none / 0) (#56)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:17:18 AM EST
    High unemployment (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:23:04 PM EST
    could save the democrats this year.

    If unemployed people will band together en mass as a voting block they could save the democrats from themselves.

    All they need do is take a cue from wall street, and demand to be bailed out in return for their support of the Democrats.

    No bailout before November? No votes. Period. That should be clear enough for even the Dems and Obama to grasp, shouldn't it? Let them see what the threat of being fired feels like.

    Real unemployment is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent or more. That should be enough voters to tip the elections in favor of the Dems, if they are smart enough to smarten up and produce before November.

    That has already been attempted (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:25:51 PM EST
    I don't see (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:29:37 PM EST
    a bailout demand or a clear threat to the democrats backed with a support promise in return for a bailout on that site, though. Maybe they need to work on their messaging?

    bad link (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    Sorry, bad Ctl-C (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    Link does not work for me (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 07:28:53 PM EST
    Well then (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    from your perspective at this point, it shouldn't matter who controls the House?

    See comment #43 (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 09:53:03 PM EST

    You are correct, CC (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    It is too early now. It is a question best reserved for mid-October or later. Seriously. Death, taxes, and--for people like you who do care--voting.

    It not (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:59:52 AM EST
    that it shouldn't matter if the Dems control the house, it is that it hasn't mattered.

    Well if Dems cannot pass progressive bills (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    & OBama can veto what insanity the GOP dreams up, then for the period 2011-2013 it doesn't matter who controls the House.

    Oh sure, a GOP House will do everything to impeach Obama making even more of a joke out of system of government.   But that is mostly OBama's problem, and he more than anyone has made this scenario possible.

    The Blue Dogs are going down first and most heavily.  I am confident someone on the left will, as a result of the failure of Obama's conciliatory attitude toward the right wing nuts. will realize a strong, unapologetic progressive voice is what the Democratic Party needs.


    false choice (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:05:19 AM EST
    ...the administration should just start making the argument that we have a choice between prolonged high unemployment or another big stimulus package.

    The administration has been promoting policies that restrict economic activity, with more regulations, murky regulations, higher tax rates, and threats of even more higher tax rates.  

    The real choice is between high unemployment and regulatory reform combined with tax rate reductions.  Hoover and Carter showed how to restrict the economy, while JFK and Reagan showed how to get it cooking.

    I see you conveniently (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CST on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    left Bill Clinton and GWB off your list of prez's who "got things cooking" or "restricted the economy"

    I guess they don't fit into your nicely cherry-picked tax-cut narrative.


    Obviously tax rates are not everything (none / 0) (#113)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:22:49 PM EST

    Clinton had the Dot-Com bubble going for him, and GWB saw the end of the housing bubble.  Neither of which had much to do with tax rates.

    and there were no (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CST on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    auxillary factors to these other situations?

    It's only about tax cuts when it fits your narrative.  The rest of the time the tax rates had nothing to do with it.


    Sure there were (none / 0) (#124)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 01, 2010 at 12:26:26 PM EST

    Cutting taxes when the economy is down has more positive impact than raising rates has negative impact while the economy is booming.

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#65)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:49:59 AM EST
    go sell your income tax cuts to the 15% (and growing) who have no income.

    Right you are (none / 0) (#91)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:14:20 PM EST

    That 15% don't need tax rate cuts, they need the increases in employment that have historically followed tax rate cuts.

    You mean when Kennedy ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    The real choice is between high unemployment and regulatory reform combined with tax rate reductions.  Hoover and Carter showed how to restrict the economy, while JFK and Reagan showed how to get it cooking.

    ... called for setting the top marginal income tax rate at 70%?

    Or do you mean when Reagan (after cutting taxes) negated a large portion of those tax cuts one year later with the largest tax increase since WWII, then raised gas taxes, then raised taxes again by $50 billion over 3 years, followed by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which included the largest corporate income tax increase in history?

    You may be on to something ...


    91% to 70% (none / 0) (#90)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10:16 PM EST

    The Kennedy tax cut reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%.  That rate reduction resulted in more tax revenue at the 70% rate than in the previous 70% and 91% rates combined.

    Great, hurrah, wonderful (none / 0) (#98)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 01:42:40 PM EST
    and completely in apposite to the problems we face today.

    Its the very same problem (none / 0) (#101)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    The lower tax rate spurred more economic activity and generated more tax revenue even at a lower tax rate.  

    The problem of the moment is that we are short on both economic activity and tax revenue.


    Thank you Arthur Laffer (none / 0) (#102)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    No kidding (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    My point was that the reduction in taxes still left the top marginal rate at 70%.  Beyond that, lower tax rates can sometimes stimulate more economic activity (depending on other circumstances), but at some point you still have to address having adequate tax revenues and where that money will come from.

    As noted above (none / 0) (#111)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:19:05 PM EST

    After JFK's elimination of the 91% top bracket, more tax revenue came in at the now top 70% rate than the combined 70% and 91% brackets previously.  

    Again, no kidding (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    1.  You're assuming causation, in that you assume that the reduction in the top marginal rate caused the economic growth.

    2.  Even supply siders who love Laffer acknowledge that, at some point, reducing taxes will reduce tax revenues.  In short, reducing taxes does not always lead to increased revenues.

    3.  There's a heeee-YOOOGE difference between reducing marginal rates for the wealthiest taxpayers from 91% to 70%, and reducing them below 35%.

    4.  We could try the same marginal rates that existed during the boom period of the 1950s (91%).  We could also use the rates in place after Kennedy's tax cuts (70-77%) or we could try increasing taxes (like Reagan), neither of which were as effective at increasing revenue/reducing the deficit/stimulating economic growth as Clinton's tax increases/government spending.

    5.  Tax cuts are not the economic panacea that you neocons think they are, no matter how many times you repeat it.

    The president 's policy proposals are one piece (none / 0) (#66)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 08:54:44 AM EST
    of the puzzle.  Perpetuating the myth that he has control over all the moving parts is preposterous.

    I submit we are in the midst of a transition to a new global economy where the US is not the manufacturing powerhouse it once was.  Unless our electric cars become widly popular, we come up w/some new doo-hickey before some other country or confidence in goods made in China, Mexico, or some other low-wage country falls, we are in for a tough ride regardless of who's in the White House.  

    There is no short-term fix unless we want to inflate some new bubble.

    Nice to hear from you Barack (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    FDR said, in a time of similar economic catastrophe, we will try one thing and stick with it if it works, discard it & try something else if it doesn't.  

    Our problems are the result of 30 years unfettered, indeed encouraged, greed and misplaced government priorities.  To say there is no fix is absurd.

    And, at the end of the day, 15-20% unemployed is an unsustainable situation.  We have no choice but to eventually fix it.


    Glad to be of service Mr. Morgenthau (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    However I must correct you, I did not say no fix, I said no short-term fix.

    Of course there are fixes.  However, how many would've produced gains needed in time for this years election - which the post was lamenting?

    Long term fixes require patience - something folks today seem to have very little of.

    To be clear, I'm no blind supporter of our president (I voted for Hillary,) but I also don't want to see a repeat of Clinton's second term.  Mortgage lenders are coming back, as pointed out in another thread, savings are up also.  We need to encourage smart debate about the economy so that we can "try something else."


    You may be new to this blog (none / 0) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    Cuss words are not allowed due to filters on some legal systems. Ideas are welcome - swear words are not.

    It's not a question of "authority", ... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    ... and I don't think MO Blue was "lecturing" you, merely trying to help you out by pointing out that this sites creator doesn't want profanity posted in the comments because it can cause her site to be blocked by certain filtering softwares used in some law firms and schools.  I don't know whether "b@st@rds" is acceptable or not, but if you do post profanity 9whether this post is deleted or not) your posts will be deleted and you could be banned from commenting.

    Your choice.


    Dear KansasLiberal (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    Your reply is comment #77 since you evidently missed it. Rest assured that if you commit any other offense that will ban you from the site, I will remain silent.

    BTW, you can use a$$.


    This is not my blog or my rules (none / 0) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    I could not ban you from the site even if I wanted to. You interpreted a lecture where none existed. I am not responsible for what you chose to read into what I write. Help for both you and Jeralyn, not malice, was the original intent. You chose to go into attack mode rather than check the "Comment Policy" of the site. As far, as I'm concerned the subject is now closed. You may continue to pursue the issue if you chose on your own now and in the future.

    "Thinly veiled threat"? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    Of what?  Ignoring you?  "Lecturing"?

    Maybe try decaf ...


    I have absolutely no authority (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    I was trying to be helpful (evidently a mistake on my part). Didn't want you to be banned from the site because you were unaware of the policy. Squeaky has provided you with a link to TL's policy. Here is the part that fully explains Jeralyn's policy and the reason for it.

    Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Censor software employed by law firms and businesses has blocked TalkLeft in the past for these types of violations. It is far easier for us to ban an offending commenter than to get reinstated by the software censors.

    this works also (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:41:43 AM EST
    a$$ b*stard etc

    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 31, 2010 at 10:41:48 AM EST
    Sh*t, F*ck, B@st@rd, etc, work too.... but for emphasis @!#$%^&*  is strong and sort of hilarious....