home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

It's a busy work day for me, here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

< New York Times To Charge for Online Access | Justice Dept Issues Report on New Orleans Police Misconduct >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Inquiring minds want to know (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    As one of the most common phobias, do true arachnophobics attend the University of Richmond?

    When Dems act stupid (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:23:27 PM EST
    Two top Oakland County (Michigan) Dems charged in ballot scheme to run fake Tea Party candidates in hoping to split the Republican vote

    On Wednesday morning he unsealed indictments charging Michael McGuinness, the former chairman of the Oakland County Democratic Party, and Jason Bauer, the party's former operations director, with forgery and perjury. Bauer faces three additional counts of notary fraud because he notarized the candidates' petitions. The men could receive a maximum of 14 years in prison if convicted on the most serious charge of forgery.

    The indictment alleges that the pair attempted to place two county commission candidates, Aaron W. Tyler and Ruth Ann Spearman, and a state senate candidate, Johnathan M. Young, on the ballot without the candidates' knowledge. The two men forged the signatures on the affidavit of identity and falsely swore under oath to qualify them to run, the indictment says.

    A Free Press investigation last summer found that Bauer notarized petitions for a dozen tea party candidates statewide but Bouchard and Cooper couldn't say if any additional charges would be brought in connection with other races.

    Besides prompting a criminal investigation, the plot backfired politically when the Michigan Supreme Court blocked the candidates from appearing on the ballot. Republicans insist that the entire slate of Tea Party candidates was designed to split the Republican vote and throw close elections to the Democrats.

    I know the judge hearing the case.  He's a good man and they will get fair hearings.

    classic (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    stupid

    Parent
    Yeah - don't try to copy something Rove (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:26:12 PM EST
    might do. It takes a real master.

    Parent
    Yep - leave it to the experts (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    The GOP and FOX (none / 0) (#114)
    by weltec2 on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    are just going to love this to death.

    Parent
    its 68 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    outside.  and here I sit in the dark.

    Gorgeous day in NYC (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    Tomorrow looks to be even better.

    Time to restart my antihistamine rotation. . .

    indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    wheezing already

    Parent
    continued from previous thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    the Donald and his comb over are definitely running:

    Speaking about the president, Trump - in line with "birthers" who question the president's citizenship - said he, too, had his doubts that Obama was born in the U.S.

    "Everybody that even gives a hint of being a birther ... even a little bit of a hint, like, gee, you know, maybe, just maybe this much of a chance, they label them as an idiot. Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy," he said.

    just a suggestion for the D.  if you have to TELL people you are a smart guy there is a problem.

    Did you read the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    interview with the D? I saw excerpts on another blog and he told the GOP to basically get over their Dubya love because there would be no Obama without Dubya. I don't know that that's the whole truth but that really has to fry a lot of evangelicals hair.

    I'm wondering what the "aging evangelicals" are going to do in '12? I wonder if James Dobson is going to threaten to pull support from the nominee since people like Romney are smart enough to realize that the GOP's social stances have to be downplayed.

    Parent

    I did (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    I seriously think there will be a schism.  a third party run by some one like, but not necessarily, Bachman.
    its already developing in the House.

    Parent
    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    that the D isn't going independent. He's a candidate that a lot of frustrated voters could park a vote at. He's certainly way more credible that Ross Perot ever was.

    Parent
    I'm certainly no expert on H.R. Perot, (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    and he did come across as somewhat, umm....off balanced, but, beyond the visuals:

    He was an extremely successful businessman. he also seemed to be honestly "patriotic' in a good way. And you can't deny his "woooshing sound" description of NAFTA'S downside was right-on.

    Out the many truly crazy (and I don't use the term lightly....Bachman, Angel come to mind) possibilities, Perot comes across as a real Statesman.

    Parent

    I've said it before and I'll keep saying it (none / 0) (#19)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    Any serious third party run locks Obama in for a second term. It will take away votes from the R's. The D's either won't vote or will vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils.

    Parent
    I haven't said it before (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    but I'll say it now

    Any serious third party run locks Obama in for a second term. It will take away votes from the R's.

    A serious third party run throws everything up in the air. Disgruntled members of either party could make it a game changer.

    The D's either won't vote or will vote for the lesser of two (or three) evils.

    And I submit that said third party candidate could actually be the lesser of three evils.  It wouldn't work for me because I've pretty much decided not to vote for either greater or lesser evil, but it might appeal to the desperate members of either party.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    any third party run will almost surely be in response to the republicans not nominating a maniac.

    in that case its a lock for Obama.

    its really hard to imagine any serious third party run to the left of Obama.  (Kucinich is not serious)

    Parent

    How interesting would it be if (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    there were two "third" parties in the mix - one, the Tea Party to run their preferred crazy candidate because the GOP decided to nominate someone reasonably sane, and the other, a Kick Ass party to run a liberal/left candidate to oppose the Dem party machine's candidate?

    Then what? Same result?

    Parent

    I would say (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    that could very possibly throw the whole thing into a cocked hat.  as they say.

    Parent
    That's a very interesting scenario (none / 0) (#44)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    That could really be something to see.

    Parent
    Now THAT would be interesting..... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:26:11 PM EST
    it just all depends on the identity of the three individuals who are not Obama.

    Parent
    it would be (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:29:43 PM EST
    and very frightening.  at least to me.  we have a system where the president wins with a plurality.  the more candidates the more possible it is for the wing nuts to turn out in force and put Bachman in the white house with 30% of the vote or something.

    Parent
    Interesting indeed (none / 0) (#55)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    It would likely guarantee I get to the polls.  And that, once there, I would vote top of the ticket.  Your hypothesis made me laugh in a most delicious way.

    Which is why it probably won't happen (sigh).

    Parent

    Anne, care to mention (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:38:07 PM EST
    any names to lead your lib-left Kick A$$ party?  Pols or political types you like and respect, with a solid track record of achievement or advocacy.  

    I can't see any actually throwing their hats into the ring.  2012 will not be 1968 with a huge unwinnable war and very unlikable incumbent, and there is no personal animosity issue out there among any of them sufficient to go after Obama, as with Teddy and Jimmuh in 1980.

    Bernie Sanders is very unlikely to run.  Ditto Michael Moore.  

    Parent

    Brodie, I'm still pondering that one, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    to be honest; other than Sanders, I'm struggling - which is kind of sad, in itself.  In our current system, we've been reduced to candidates who are personally wealthy, or who are completely in the pockets of the corporations - there's just no room for a true grassroots candidate.

    Parent
    We need a "Hubert Humphrey" type n/t (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    Hubert? (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    He was always a party loyalist mostly and team player.  Not really my idea of a 3d party or independent-minded type.

    Parent
    Until "THE LORD" (of your choosing) (none / 0) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:24:37 PM EST
    enters Presidential politics as a candidate you're going to have less than perfect nominees. But, stripping away those actions that any candidate must respect (if he actually wants to be elected) we can get a pretty good idea what his/her core values are.

    And, in my opinion, Hubert was a basically decent, down to earth, uncomplicated, good guy.

    Read his biography (if you haven't yet) and I believe you'll come away with a respect that may surprise you.

    I did, and I did.

    Parent

    and, p.s. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:34:06 PM EST
    the Democratic party of Humphrey's day wasn't the Party these "pretenders" of today pawn themselves off as.

    being a Party "loyalist" in the 50's andf 60's wasn't such a bad thing.

    Think of the legislation passed in that era and i'm sure you'd accept an encore today.

    Parent

    Yes I know a fair amount (none / 0) (#113)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    about Hubert -- indeed a fair, decent guy with often good liberal instincts.  But I thought we were discussing possible strong candidates who could challenge the status quo.  And Hubert was anything but a strong candidate when he made his most famous (of 3) presidential run as our nominee in 1968.  

    Too weak of character and too frightened of his bully boss Lyndon to distance himself adequately from LBJ's War, which Hubert himself (in his finest moment of public service) tried to dissuade Johnson from undertaking in early '65 (not revealed, iirc, until many yrs later).

    Then ran a lousy, establishment-backed 1972 campaign against McGovern because, well, he deserved another chance after '68, etc.

    Haven't read the bio, but yes, I know Hubert pretty well.  Like  Gore, a good guy who probably would have made a fine president, and he certainly would have stopped the VN War earlier than Nixon did.  Never would have gone in, as LBJ did.

    But like Gore, he made for a lousy candidate.  Just couldn't bring himself to toughen up sufficiently to do what was necessary when it mattered to stand on principle and take it to the opponent.

    Parent

    chuckle - yes the maniacs will have their day (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    and their candidate, one way or another.

    You're right, the scenario I describe is probably the less likely.

    Parent

    Does (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:23:54 PM EST
    Sarah come to mind?

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    know. The third party might get Nader level of votes. If the wingers decide that getting rid of Obama is their main priority they will vote for the GOP candidate.

    Parent
    You could be right (none / 0) (#42)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    I just don't see any third party run, serious or not, pulling many or any votes from Democrats. And I certainly don't see a third party run from the Left side of the isle. I could see Independents and a fair number of Republicans open to the idea of something different, but again I think that just splits the Republican vote and gives it to Obama.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    if you look at Ross Perot, he took equally from the Dems and the GOP and if Obama isn't in a position to pull over 50% of the general electorate without a third party, then the GOP will probably win.

    A third party doesn't necessarily always pull from Republicans.

    Parent

    And John (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:33:08 PM EST
    Anderson who was supposed to hurt the GOP ended up hurting Jimmy Carter more. So there's really no way to predict how a third party will play out in the end.

    Parent
    Yeah, but what if (none / 0) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:14:42 PM EST
    a "Bill Gates" kind of guy ran?

    You know, rich enough to be uncorruptible, and grounded enough to actually want to leave a worthy legacy?

    Just because no names pop out in today's discussion doesn't mean our "White Knight" isn't out there, somewhere.

    Parent

    How about Warren Buffet? (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:12:54 PM EST
    defended goldman sachs (none / 0) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 10:39:46 PM EST
    a little too strenuously for my taste.

    Giving money to a foundation is good; conceiving, running, and devoting the rest of your life to the causes the foundation champions is a "calling."

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    It the 3P is a center or center-right, sure. (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    If the 3P is left of Obama, and the Repubs nominate a non-lunatic (I know, low odds there)I can easily see the non-lunatic Repub winning as the disaffected liberal Dems see a way to make a political point without putting a lunatic in office.

    Parent
    If there is (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    a 3rd party it will be on an extreme, not towards the center. The majority of screams for a third party come from the fringes.

    Parent
    Obama is almost already locked for (none / 0) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    a second term. His opposition is very, very weak. Far weaker then Dole in 96 or Kerry in 04. They are a bunch of losers, literally. Newt freaking Gingrich!

    Parent
    Newt (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:22:11 PM EST
    isn't getting out of the primaries. Even the GOP doesn't want him. You would be right if he was the opposition. I wouldn't rule out Huckabee as a threat because he is a populist but, again, he has the Club for Growthers who hate him and on the social issues he is a radical.

    I think Dems underestimate the GOP at their own risk.

    Parent

    I don't think Huck is running, (none / 0) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:30:15 PM EST
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044329-503544.html

    But he didn't exactly set the world on fire in 07-08 and I doubt he's much stronger now.

    Parent

    I still thik he could be (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    the most serious possible threat to Obama in a general.  one thing I learned from having him as a governor is that you should never NEVER underestimate him.

    Parent
    Where is Grayson ? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    That's a guy I could get behind.

    For R's Palin and Newt are equally out, what's his name in Alabama, Barbour ?  Mittens can't hide his liberal past or his religion, the Huckster just has too many really bad gaffs over at Fox, haven't heard from Pawlenty, and Giuliani can't resist the spotlight.

    I suspect some governor will come out like Christie, tea party friendly, but not Bachmann nuts.  But who knows, the tea party may come out swinging once they realize the R's they backed didn't do much for their cause.  But then again, if Rush issues a proclamation, there will be no party splitting.

    For us, Grayson would be my man, but that's unrealistic, Edwards who I loved, is damaged, Tim Kaine, maybe.  The problem is no one is standing out, they are all cowered in the corner, we have no stars.

    I would be surprised if Hillary doesn't take a shot.  She has her base and there are a lot of disenfranchised Obama supporters she could get without much effort.  She is the only person IMO that could make a decent run at Obama.  Plus she is now privy to the inter workings of the Obama machine.

    I also wouldn't be surprised if Biden calls it a day or is asked to step aside for some young blood.

    I don't want to vote for Obama, but once I see who the R toss out there, I will probably be first in line.

    Parent

    Tim Kaine is almost certainly (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    running for Webb's Senate seat, I read the other day, according to anonymous sources, FWIW.

    Parent
    Most boring presidential race ever-- (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:41:27 PM EST
    Tim Kaine vs.Tim Pawlenty.

    Please, don't let it ever come to that.

    Parent

    from that same interview (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    "I have much more than that," Trump, a Republican, told ABC News' Ashleigh Banfield in an interview that aired today on "Good Morning America." "That's one of the nice things. I mean, part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich. So if I need $600 million, I can put $600 million myself. That's a huge advantage. I must tell you, that's a huge advantage over the other candidates."

    to paraphrase George Sanders, 'he has a point.  an idiotic one, but a point'

    Parent

    What a dumb@ss (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    I see he's been paying close attention to politics the last two years as well.  cough Meg Whitman cough

    Parent
    and Carly Fiorina (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    and Linda McMahon.

    still his response would probably be they are women.  come on!

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:11:36 PM EST
    Make that smart and rich.

    Or rich and smart.

    Wouldn't Donald make a fun Prez?

    We could have him firing instead  of hiring. And we could have a pool on when he did the hair transplant thing!

    Besides, I'd love to see him call up the King of SA and say, "Hey King Baby! You want to be safe? Just drop the price of crude to $50 a barrel and we'll think about putting some troops in there.

    Parent

    Heh-heh (none / 0) (#112)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:14:22 AM EST
    That he even leads a modicum of credulity to the Birther movement makes him the Silly party candidate for 2012.

    Click or Monty Python Me

    Parent

    International travelers (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    contaminated with radiation from Japan.

    I would have no objection to allowing the entire population of Japan resettle in the United States.

    they might (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    OH, HILL NO (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:40:52 PM EST

    Fed up with a president "who can't make his mind up" as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

    At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces, Clinton announced that she's done with Obama after 2012 -- even if he wins again.

    "Obviously, she's not happy with dealing with a president who can't decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can't make his mind up," a Clinton insider told The Daily. "She's exhausted, tired."

    He went on, "If you take a look at what's on her plate as compared with what's on the plates of previous Secretaries of State -- there's more going on now at this particular moment, and it's like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn't have any power. She's trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding."



    Wouldn't surprise me (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    It's like the varsity team having to play the JV team, but being told to go easy on them.

    Parent
    Is that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:51:56 PM EST
    a reliable source?

    If it is, I can imagine her being fed up with Obama's inability to make a decision. Heck, I get fed up with Obama's indecision about everything.

    Parent

    honestly no idea (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    but it sound pretty credible to me.

    Parent
    Timing (none / 0) (#18)
    by star on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    Is suspect. Didnt Bill Clinton say we need a No fly over Libiya recently? That along with Crowley firing and Hillary's tour of Tahrir Square , It looks Credible to me.


    Parent
    I think what might be just as exhausting (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    is being the vessel by which countless others try to make their political statements by imagining what she must "obviously" be thinking or feeling.

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    I have no idea it that is true or not.  like I said.
    it just sounds possible to me.

    Parent
    It does...I'm just down on anonymous sources (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    and I note they never say 'she told me'. Instead it is always "Obviously" she feels this and that and thinks this and that.

    Parent
    ...where what she "obviously" thinks is (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    just what they think.

    Parent
    Meanwhile, Obama cracks jokes at (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    her expense...

    From your linked article:

    Obama himself made light of her strong feelings for supporting the opposition in a speech last week at the Gridiron Club Dinner, an annual gathering that traditionally features a stand-up comedy act by the president.

    "I've dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders -- though, I've got to be honest, she's gotten a little passionate about the subject," Obama said to laughter from the audience.

    "These past few weeks it's been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window."

    Ugh.

    Parent

    ugh, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    That's Obama (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    for you.

    Parent
    No wit (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by star on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    Obama should quit attempting jokes. He has no sense of humor and his attempts always seem forced and at someone elses expence...UGHHHH indeed

    Parent
    Who is writing his jokes, Bruce Vilanch? (none / 0) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:20:18 PM EST
    Young Mr. Faveau? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    in between making appalling (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    unforgivable assaults on cardboard facsimiles..

    Parent
    {head desk} (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    In the department of the clueless: (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    Obama acknowledged the challenge last week in Boston. "Somebody asked me, how do we reinvigorate the population, the voter, after two very tough years?" he told Democratic donors. "How do we recapture that magic that got so many young people involved for the very first time in 2008?"One answer, the president said, is to persuade hardcore liberals to swallow their anger over political compromises the administration reached with Republicans, even when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

    [...] Some Democrats say they may need luck to replicate the passionate turnout of Obama's first campaign. The often-stated claim that voters would embrace the health care law once it began taking effect has proven mostly untrue. But another year may change that, these Democrats say.

    For now, the Obama team is unveiling few new ideas specifically keyed to firing up core constituencies. A recent White House conference call urged young voters to hold roundtables, which administration officials may attend, to discuss priorities and offer feedback.
    Beyond that, Obama eventually plans large rallies similar to those in 2008. They create showy spectacles that excite young voters, but they also serve a fundraising role. People who enter the stadiums or buy Obama T-shirts are asked to provide their names and contact information, which are used later to request donations and volunteer activities. [...]



    quelle surprise (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    persuade hardcore liberals to swallow their anger

    Of course.  The base must suck it up.  Why didn't I think of that.  And then, and then we can have roundtables!  Where administration officials do all the talking!  And rallies!  Rallies where we take their money!

    Yeah... that's the ticket.

    Parent

    It's good that you're not bitter (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    True (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    Just think of how much more I could have said, if I were.  :)

    Parent
    And you'd have to take up knitting (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    Oh my gosh, you're right (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    I would.  hmmm....

    How about if just pretend and stash a couple of knitting needles next to my guns and prayer books.  Would that work?

    Parent

    And move to Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:19:00 PM EST
    What ? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    "One answer, the president said, is to persuade hardcore liberals to swallow their anger over political compromises the administration reached with Republicans, even when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress."

    So he knows we are angry, and instead of fighting for the people who put him there and the principles he claimed to have, he rolls out with suck-it-up and vote for me.

    This is the C that that gonna keep a lot of folks home on election day.

    He speaks to his own party like we are stupid, yet bends over for the very people who hate him, what is his fricken problem.

    Angry, yes in deed, swallowing it, not likely.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    that's why I say the article massively annoyed me and you know what? I'm probably more of a moderate than a lot of people here and it still makes me mad.

    Parent
    Get over it. Seems like I've heard that before. (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    This whole (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    article more than annoyed me. It's not only annoying, it's the same thing that was done in '08 and it's silly to think that's going to work again. Obama has shown where he stands time and again and frankly, he has no credibility. I guess he really thinks that it's going to work again?

    This sounds like the same thing that came out of his mouth regarding the mid-terms when asked about '94 and he said this time "you have me" somehow implying that he's so special the party couldn't lose the house. Clueless, clueless, clueless.

    Parent

    The philosophy (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    of Clayton Williams

    "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."


    Parent
    I thought that was (none / 0) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    Queen Liz.  lying back and thinking of england.

    Parent
    please don't (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    reprint news articles here, there's copyright issues, we can only do a paragraph or two at most. Thanks.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    I thought that it was three paragraphs. Delete then if you need to.

    Parent
    PPP (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:35:25 PM EST
    A new Public Policy Polling survey finds Sarah Palin trails Charlie Sheen by five points among independent voters in a highly unlikely match up for president, 41% to 36%.

    Charlie is obviously closer to the middle than Sarah

    Meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by star on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    What a meaningless survey. Sheen and Palin exist in different plants pretty much. I cant believe who will take the time out to pick one among these loosers and for what purpose ?

    Parent
    a poll is a poll (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    if more independents say they would vote for Sheen than her why is that hard to understand?  and why is it not relevant?  we have her shoved down our throats constantly.  IMO nothing at all wrong with a nice reality check.

    that is exactly what that is.

    Parent

    I so hope you are wrong on this. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    clearly they are not going to actually VOTE for Sheen.  he will not run.  the point, I believe, of the poll was putting her "threat" in perspective.

    and it did so quite well IMO.

    Parent

    I just put that in the previous (none / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    Sheen/Trump 2012!

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    Charlie would take Trump along for the ride (not enough Adonis DNA), but I think Trump would take one of Charlie's girlfriends if he could.

    Parent
    Methinks the persons being polled (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    are the ones off the beam.

    Parent
    I would totally (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:43:02 PM EST
    vote for him over her.  off beam or not.

    Parent
    I would vote (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    for one of his house bimbos over her.

    Parent
    they are goddesses, my friend (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    goddesses, I tell you.

    Parent
    This is why (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    I'm absolutely sure the GOP will find a way to keep her from getting the nomination. They are already rearranging the primary states.

    Parent
    I'm sure you are right (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    and the RNC has many levers to pull to swing things into an 'acceptable' result. Party nomination processes are not really very little-d democratic.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:38:10 PM EST
    would Obama do against Sheen I wonder.

    Parent
    Funny you should ask (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    from PPP

    "We also tested Barack Obama against Sheen and the President leads 57-24"

    Parent

    Very (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    encouraging.

    The President gets a little more than twice as many votes as someone universally portrayed as a crazy degenerate.

    Parent

    Winning! (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    the Future." (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:14:26 PM EST
    Probably (none / 0) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    the same 24% that claim tea party status?

    Parent
    But that's before the debates! (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:16:18 PM EST
    I see Charley closing the gap..

    ;-)

    Parent

    Charlie needs to talk a little crazier (none / 0) (#111)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 08:10:39 AM EST
    and then he can run on the Tea Party platform  :-)

    Parent
    Radiation (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 05:36:05 PM EST
    detectors went off after planes flying from Japan and landed in Chicago's O'Hare and Dallas-Fort Worth Airports.

    The radiation has been reported to be "way below anything harmful."

    The detectors went off - but the radiation that caused them to go off is not harmful. Uh huh.

    What gets me is the the Japanese have been ridiculed for downplaying the seriousness of the situation there. It has been characterized as being a national trait. Pure racism, imo.

    We do the same thing. And we are doing it now.

    Just before NPR report on House bill (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    and budget cuts, a female NPR reporter in Japan, who has been less than 50 miles from the reactors, got tested for radiation by a guy in a white suit.  She was "ok."

    Parent
    "a guy in a white suit" (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    John Travolta?

    Parent
    "Stayin' alive, stayin' alive... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    unh, unh, unh, unh, stayin' aliiiiiive..."

    Sorry, it's just what immediately came to mind.

    Parent

    Gallows Humor (none / 0) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 17, 2011 at 09:22:14 PM EST
    is always welcome :)

    Parent