home

Sunday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 07:10:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I hope everyone enjoyed Father's Day.

It's down to the wire for the gay marriage vote in New York. Reuters says the bill is one vote short in the senate. If passed, New York would join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage. 39 states ban it and 4 states recognize civil unions.

On TV: The season finale of AMC's The Killing. I liked the show a lot, even though I thought it got bogged down at times. It's been renewed for another season.

On the grill: Apricot-glazed scallops and corn on the cob.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Robert Gates Departs: Now Wary of "Wars of Choice" | Monday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night Open Thread | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When not working (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by loveed on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:06:45 PM EST
    I have a lot of time. My mom is 91. Being the youngest of 5 children, it's my responsibility and pleasure to take care of her. She is in no pain. She sleeps a lot.
     So I escape and watch the Kasey Anthony trial recap on the internet.
     I love techno-geekie type stuff. During the OJ trial, I was fascinated by DNA, the best expert explaining this new technique. The media was so bored. This trial it's the bug experts.

     I remember during the OJ trial,judge Ito advised the prosecution before Dr.H.Lee took the stand "if I was you, I'd thank Dr. Lee for coming and ask no further question". The prosecution should have taken this advice. Dr. Spitz destroyed the prosecution case. But the way he put down the prosecutor was unbelievable. He also reprimand the media about there coverage. Go see the testimony date:6-18-11 Dr Spitz. Also pay attention to the defense lawyer as they smirk in the background.

    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    I watch investigation discovery like most people watch american idol. I guess i'm just a wacko on that science geek stuff too.

    I think it's also the process that fascinates me. The process that the police go through and the process the defense uses to defend their client. Everything goes step by step and if they hit a brick wall they take another turn.

    Parent

    I use to rush home from work (none / 0) (#12)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:00:17 AM EST
    to watch the watergate hearings. America was different then,all the major network cover it gavel-gavel. iran-contra hearing ect..  I'm hooked?
      The OJ trial was the first big trial,that the media made tons of money. They also learn they could shape public opinion. Until that time,people were innocent until proven guilty. This is no longer true.
      Something is wrong when americans give up there rights. We judge life or death decision without the real facts.
      I watch the trials and the media spin. These so call lawyers and expert on these shows,are paid a lot of money. Would it hurt them to actually watch the trial.
      I thought Beretta was guilty, but i accepted the jury verdict and move on.
      I still feel great sadness about Scott Peterson. I truly feels he is innocent. I feel the jury was out for personal gain.
      I never felt that Mark Fuhrman motivation to lie was racially motivated. He wanted to be the next Joseph Wamberg (wrote police story). He hated being a policeman and he wanted fame. Well he got his wish.

    Parent
    I watched the Watergate hearings too, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    all that summer. I was 14 I think and we just had it on all day in the house. I was hooked too. By Iran-Contra time I was working and listened via walkman radio in my office.

    During OJ I was "lucky" enough to be working a night shift throughout much of it, so I could watch a great deal of it during the daytime, much of it in a hotel room in Oklahoma City.  I remember watching the closing arguments with my brother who happened to be in OKC too for a conference that week.

    So I know it is very easy to get hooked. Maybe I have not followed the Anthony trial very closely for just that reason. Don't want to get sucked in. Plus the subject matter is just so sad.

    Parent

    I hope I'm not the only one (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    here who thought the MSM's coverage of the OJ trial was incredibly overdone, over the top at times, and wildly disproportionate to its actual importance as a nationally significant crime case.  

    As in, the networks (or CNN) cutting into Bill Clinton's SOTU speech to double-screen the OJ car chase down the 405 freeway.

    A crazy time in media behavior, a turning point when they collectively decided not only what would be the most important story of the day, but what they would devote the bulk of their news time on for the next year.  It also prefigured their nonstop Clinton-Monica coverage of 4 yrs later.

    Parent

    Oh, absolutely over the top (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    No argument here.

    It prefigured so much of the coverage we have seen since, particularly the disproportionate coverage of missing/killed young white women.

    I probably should not have fed the beast.

    Parent

    Can't say I was entirely (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:16:02 PM EST
    innocent of feeding the beast, too.  Hard to avoid seeing some of the coverage if you watched any teevee back then, let alone cable, which I had, being normally a regular CNN viewer.  I also knew a couple of the attys involved in the case (one on each side) so would occasionally check in to see their contributions.

    Still, I would feel guilty later for having given CNN a few hits for what should have been, in a saner media world, an occasional, 2d tier story.

    Parent

    May I ask a question? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:24:13 AM EST
    Something is wrong when americans give up there rights

    What rights did all those people you mentioned "give up"?

    Parent

    presumption of innocence (none / 0) (#21)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:28:25 AM EST


    Parent
    They didn't give up that right (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    The presumption of innocence only extends as far through court proceedings and as a seated jury is concerned.

    All those people you mentioned had their day in court, where a jury heard evidence and made determinations.

    Again - how were their rights violated?

    Parent

    Have you watched these TV shows (none / 0) (#51)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    In the case of OJ found innocent. Case should have been closed. Even now if you watch tv or ask someone is he guilty the answer is yes. He was hounded for years by the media,until a bogus trial landed him in jail.
     Michael jackson another case Unanimous decision,hounded to the day he died.

    Parent
    I understand the point (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:42:05 PM EST
    you're trying to make.

    But, I thought we all pretty much understood that the "presumption of innocence" was a term meant for legal proceedings, for guaranteeing an accused person's rights. Its not for uninvolved people's natural 1'st opinions. (The Media is another thing)  

    Actually, this topic could go on and on, and probably could use a Thread of its own.

    Take something like the O.J. Trial & verdict, for instance. Was he innocent? Well, the jury said he was. Was he innocent, or did the Prosecution simply not prove its case? Was he innocent, or did the jury want to send a message to the police and D.A. That they were sick and tired of the daily abuse they incur out on the street, away from the cameras? Was he innocent, or did the defense just have a much better jury consultant? Or, was he innocent because he really was innocent?

    And, the thing is, we could say this, and many more things, about almost every trial ever held.

    There's Prosecution prejudicial motives, and there's jury nullification. There's good lawyers & prosecutors, and bad ones. Sometimes justice is done, and sometimes it just disappears.

    I only know one thing, our criminal justice system is a work in progress, but there's a long, long way to go.

    I believe the hosts of this site are among many good, dedicated people who understand this and are working daily to improve our system.

    For myself, its the main reason I vote....locally and nationally. The authority to appoint judges is about as important as it gets.  

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    A jury NEVER decides that a defendant is innocent.  They decide if a defendant is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which means the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (which is also different than "beyond any doubt".)

    VERY big difference.

    OJ was NEVER found innocent.

    Parent

    Aw Jeesh (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    As far as O.j. was concerned, you could call him not guilty, you could call him innocent, or you could call him Tutti Frutti in a Tu Tu.

    He walked out a free man, and dat's dat.


    Parent

    Sorry, but I just don't remember (none / 0) (#36)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:43:39 AM EST
    that golden era when

    Until that time, people were innocent until proven guilty. This is no longer true.

    Three names immediately pop to mind:  Oswald, Ray, Sirhan, the 3 most important and famous criminal defendants of the 1960s.  All assumed guilty by the MSM at least, virtually from the time they were arrested.  And 40-50 yrs later, all are still assumed guilty by the same corp media.

    Similarly, when Manson* was arrested in 1969, how many people either in the MSM or the public treated him as if he was innocent?  Not many iirc.

    I think people did give a proper assumption of innocence to Dr Richard Kimble -- the one clear exception I can think of.

    * Manson, just ftr, being the only one in my examples who truly turned out to be guilty

    Parent

    Go farther back in history, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    and you've got Bruno Hauptmann (the Lindbergh baby kidnapping), Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss.  All also assumed guilty by the media before trial.

    Parent
    Are you acually comparing the media then to now? (none / 0) (#48)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:02:11 PM EST


    Parent
    The "media" (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    are much more pervasive now, but people did read newspapers before the internet and 24-hour cable "news" (and I use the term loosely, at least in some cases) channels.

    Parent
    I remember when we had 2 newspapers (none / 0) (#56)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    Morning news from the Plain Dealer,after noon news from The Press. The city was shocked when the Press went out of business.
     We are a one newspaper town. The most important thing is the sale ads. The news is old. Little on foreign polices,or international news. It leans republican.
     I have not bought one in at least ten yrs.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    Most big cities had two newspapers "back in the day," if not more.  Print newspapers are a dying breed, with a very few exceptions.    

    Parent
    by the way (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    I love how you speak of caring for your mother.  Your responsibility and your privilege.

    I wish I could care for my mother.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#57)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:41:21 PM EST


    Parent
    I've gotten a lot of information from (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:17:39 PM EST
    your summaries. Having been so barraged with the thing around here for the last 2 years I have not had the energy for it anymore. Sounds like the defense is doing a good job raising doubt. We'll see what happens when the jury gets it. I would not be at all surprised by an acquittal.

    Parent
    The defense attorney (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:22:55 AM EST
    Is close to being slapped with sanctions by the judge for possible discovery violations and possibly for contempt of court.  The judge is reserving his ruling until today saying:

    "It appears to me that this was quite intentional," Perry noted. "This was not some inadvertent slip. The question is whether Ms. Anthony should be punished because of this."

    (Not a good idea for any attorney to tick the judge off - especially in the middle of trial).

    And while Dr. Spitz did a good job for the defense, there were many times on the stand where his answer was "I don't know," I can't recall," and could not give definitive answers, which makes sense, since he didn't actually do the autopsy.

    It will be interesting to see today how the judge rules on the discovery violation motion and if he actually holds the attorney in contempt (my guess is no).

    Link

    Parent

    Why is the prosecutor not (none / 0) (#20)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:27:04 AM EST
    taking deposition of the defense witnesses? There reading the reports.

     I think he was devastating to the prosecution.
      1. Tape applied after decomposition.
      2. police photos had been manipulated.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    Discovery should have been closed months ago.  The prosecution should not have to be taking depostions during the trial.  

    Here's more:

    Testimony had been scheduled to resume at 9 a.m., but shortly after Perry entered the courtroom, prosecutor Jeff Ashton asked the judge again to delay the testimony of a defense witness who had been ordered off the stand Saturday.

    Forensic anthropologist William Rodriguez had planned to testify Saturday about duct tape found near Caylee's skeletal remains and a controversial video that prosecutors say proves that a piece of duct tape could have been the murder weapon.

    But Rodriguez's opinions were not contained in his report filed with the court and weren't shared with prosecutors, a violation of a court order, the judge said.

    Perry called the omission "quite intentional" and said he would consider contempt proceedings against defense attorney Jose Baez at the conclusion of the trial.

    He renewed the threat Monday after Baez (defense attorney) complained to Perry that Ashton (prosecutor) deliberately refused to take a deposition from a witness, DNA expert Richard Eikelenboom, on Saturday.

    Ashton told the judge that Baez had sent Eikelenboom to his office with a half-page report that "indicated nothing, essentially," leaving him with little for questioning.

    Perry warned any further deliberate violations of his orders to reveal evidence and opinions to opposing attorneys could result in the exclusion of that evidence from the trial.

    That is an extreme step that has not yet been upheld in Florida courts, but Perry said he would be willing to take the action "at the cost of doing this all over again" should the violations continue.

    There's a lot of game playing going on throughout this whole case and I think the judge is on his last nerve.

    Parent

    It seem to be the strategy of the prosecutors (none / 0) (#47)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    to not depose any of the defense witnesses. This restrict question to just what's in the report.

    Parent
    A worthy New York Times Op Ed piece (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Erehwon on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:55:25 PM EST
    Thomas Geoghegan argues that we should be raising social security! Wonder who in the modern Democratic Party will act on it ...

    Buth that only helps (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 11:55:04 PM EST
    POOR PEOPLE...and they don't matter.
    /snark, for the snark amputated.

    Parent
    Yes, it was great to (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    learn that there is a train of thought remaining that values social security, really wants to strengthen and improve it, and offers realistic ways  to do so.  Moreover, he rejects the idea of "means testing" social security apparently recognizing the political vulnerabilities and, importantly, the merits of assuring a retirement that provides for more than catfood.

    Parent
    Bush White House Asks CIA to Spy on American (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    "New York Times Correspondent James Risen has been told by a retired former official of the Central Intelligence Agency that the Bush White House repeatedly asked the CIA to spy on [American middle east policy expert Juan Cole] with a view to discovering "damaging" information with which to discredit [Cole's] reputation. Glenn Carle says he was called into the office of his superior, David Low, in 2005 and was asked of [Cole], " `What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?'"

    http://tinyurl.com/3bt2xkt

    You are what you eat... No more food shortages! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 09:37:11 PM EST
    "It's being called the "poop burger". Japanese scientists have found a way to create artificial meat from sewage containing human feces. Initial tests have people saying it even tastes like beef."

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/japanes
    e-scientists-creates-meat-out-of-feces/

    Reminder (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:54:21 AM EST
    you have to put your links in html format or they skew the site. I had to delete two comments. Highlight the words you want to to the url, like "this article" or the source, and then paste in the link.

    Only a completely insane (none / 0) (#11)
    by Makarov on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:11:50 AM EST
    person could find the season finale of The Killing satisfying.

    If you haven't watched the show, don't. It took a long time for a someone to produce, and a network to air a worse finale than The Sopranos. Now, it's been done.

    You literally know less than you did when the show began. No, absolutely no plot lines were resolved in this horrible, horrible TV show.

    Seriously, don't watch it.

    Personally, I'm hoping the show's renewal was another red herring.

    I liked it (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:40:35 AM EST
    I thought they wrapped up all the loose ends and practically screamed who the killer was. That the partner turns out to be a dirty cop was a very satisfying ending. And the person he was meeting that they didn't show, is the person he mentioned he was going to be seeing, who would have total access to set up the candidate by directing the e-mails there, and access to the car, and who balked just last week at attending a party with underage girls -- when (if I remember correctly he had done it before.)  There would be no need to have the boring campaign story line in the show unless one of them were going to turn out to be the killer. It's not Gwen. And now it's probably not the candidate. Who's left?

    It was wrapped up enough for me tonight, but I'm tired of the Rosie Lawson story. I wish they'd come back next season with a new case to solve. It sounds like we're not done with Rosie yet.

    One loose end was Mitch leaving. She has to know Stan is only on bond and is going to get some major time for what he did to the teacher. One of them needs to be there for the younger boys.

    Parent

    One point (none / 0) (#17)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:17:41 AM EST
    I think that email account was Richards and that part is legit. I am pretty sure he was seeing women up to Rosie death and I have a feeling one of them was Rosie.
    (For the record, I liked the campaign storyline. I thought it was fairly interesting.)

    Parent
    That is really not true (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:14:36 AM EST
    The nature of the case has changed. What was thought to be a simple murder has turned into attempt to destroy the Richards. It was a frustrating finale because there is still unanswered questions but the case has moved in a solid direction .
    Also, it makes the mayor campaign, which honestly was very interesting, and makes it even more interesting.


    Parent
    Watch the republicans (none / 0) (#14)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:18:54 AM EST
     and if you watch carefully, you will see a changing of the guards. The Bill Crystal,Carl Rove's,Fox News,Newt,Sanatoriums limbaugh there days are over.
     I truly feel, were all americans. We want what's best for our country. There is great concern about the direction of the country.
     This is a change election. The Dems. could not change, there stuck with Obama. The repubs. can.
     The media will continue to push these radical right wing (Newt,Bachmann,Palin, Perry,Christie ect..) It helps Obama.
     There nominee will be Huntsman. He's different. Conservative records,pro-lifer,family values, experience in foreign affairs. This is the one they have been waiting for.
     The same way Obama distance himself away from  Sharpton and Jackson,Huntsman will distance himself from the crazies. There not his people. Obama did him a favor,by appointing him ambs to China. He shielded him from the ugly taint of the party. He's a fresh face to the repubs.
     He don't need them. He has his own record as governor of Utah,served 3 presidents, believes in civil unions. Money will not be a issue(probably have 100mill. already).

     He came in 2nd in a recent straw pol.
     His campaign starts tomorrow. Watch which repubs. attack him.  
     

    When his name first came up (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 07:05:38 AM EST
    at the beginning of the year, I had no idea who he was. Here's what I found about the billionaire:

    As governor of the reddest state in the Union, Huntsman championed unpopular gay-rights legislation, updated the state's culturally entrenched liquor laws, publicly endorsed cap-and-trade--and still left office with approval ratings above 80 percent. His supporters within the GOP hope he can do the same thing at the national level.


    Parent
    I don't know how to post links, (none / 0) (#22)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    There is a heart warming story about one of his gay aides.
     He resigned from his position, because the repub. were going use this against him. He did not accept his resignation. Later at a dinner his whole family embraced him with hugs.
     He is truly a different type of republican

    Parent
    How to link (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    by waldenpond on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:13:17 PM CST
    How to link:
    1.    Type a word 'link' (or any word/s)
    2.    Copy the url address that is at the very top of the screen.  (I have the article I am going to link to open on my tabbed browsing.)   
    3.    Highlight the word 'link'
    4.    Click chain link button above the comment box.
    a.     (Note: mine is blocked so I must press my shield, select unblock and press the link button a second time)
    5.    Paste in the url. (the letters http are already in the box so make sure you override them)
    6.    Press preview to make sure you see your word/s in blue

    7.    Press post 

Or you can try tiny url (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Rhouse on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM CST
    go HERE and read the instructions.  I use it to send links through the mail and at TL when I forget what to do for embedding links.


    Parent

    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    I love the internet. I can read about anything that interest me. But I have no computer skills.This is Greek to me.
     I read TL for years. Never posted, because of the lack of skills.


    Parent
    I'd say you're doing okay (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    Glad you're commenting now.  Next up: figure out the links.  Because I'd like to see what you're reading :)

    Parent
    George W. Bush was also supposed (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by observed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    to be a new kind of Republican. Also, like Huntsman, Bush personally is not anti-gay at all.
    Where does Huntsman stand on US foreign policy and wars, energy policy, global warming, raising taxes for the rich? These are things I want to know about.


    Parent
    More importantly, those (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 10:35:39 AM EST
    are some of the issues Repub primary voters will want to hear him talk about.

    It will be interesting to see what sort of traction with those voters Huntsman gets with a political profile that puts him slightly to the left of Romney (minus the "Obamneycare" albatross and history of jaw-dropping flip-flopping) against the backdrop of a party that's gone significantly rightward in the past 15 yrs.

    I just can't see Huntsman winning or getting close to winning the nom -- far too moderate on too many issues for the modern GOP, plus the secondary issues of religion and association with serving in the Obama admin, however remotely.  Nor, obviously, would he be in position to become VP if Romney manages to win out.

    Of course, he's a smart guy, smarter than Romney and probably all the rest.  But is he as slick?  He'll need to be, to be able to convince his party that he isn't just a moderate Dem in disguise, and that he would govern largely along the lines of Obama.

    Parent

    There seems to be (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:33:56 PM EST
    an element of slickness present, whether it will be enough to win the Tea Party Republican primary is another question--    certainly, being tagged "moderate" would do him in.   Huntsman, while a part of the Obama administration, was organizing for a run against Obama and responding to Axelrod's inquiry about same, as "overblown".  (NYT, June 20). From the White House perspective, it was an eye-opener, for as one strategist is quoted: "there's no loyalty in politics, especially when it comes to across-the-aisel alliances."

    Parent
    Never trust a Republican, (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    I could have advised the naive Obama back in early 2009, especially the current crop.  Even some of the old guard moderates of yesteryear were perfectly capable of acting deceptively to advance their own political interests.

    Thinking here of JFK's decision in 62/3 to name former MA Senator and political adversary Henry Cabot Lodge (Nixon's 1960 VP pick) to be ambassador to SVN.  Bobby tried vigorously to discourage JFK from this choice, thinking he would be disloyal and end up not only causing problems for Kennedy over there, but would then turn around in the next election ('64) and use them against Jack in a presidential run.

    This time Bobby had the keener instincts vs his brother's fixation on the "irresistible idea" of making his VN policy bipartisan with the Repub in Saigon.  Lodge did towards the end begin acting disloyally, especially wrt accurately relaying instructions from JFK to the oppressive SVN president Diem, and during the time when Diem's fate was being decided by our local CIA people apparently in league with Lodge, etc.  

    Kennedy by the time he left on his TX trip had instructed Lodge to meet him afterwards back at the WH -- there to be fired by JFK, according to Bobby -- but the events of Dallas intervened.  Lodge might well have been planning on resigning and running that year for the Repub nom against BG if not for Dallas ruining that plan, or so some of the speculation goes.    

    Parent

    Wish I could show you (none / 0) (#70)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    how I do it, but if I post an example, it shows up, not as an instruction, but as ... a link. Not much help then. ;)

    Parent
    Netroots (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    Another reminder that he isn't as hated by the left as many think:

    "MINNEAPOLIS -- Despite their grousing about the administration during the Netroots Nation conference, liberal activists and bloggers are relatively happy with President Barack Obama's performance.

    A straw poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research showed that 80 percent either approve or strongly approve of the president more than a year before voters head to the polls to decide whether he deserves a second term."

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/Netroots-Nation-Straw-Poll-Obama-206608-1.html

    "53 percent approving "somewhat." (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    of the 519 polled over 3 days. . . .

    Parent
    "Somewhat" (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    Here were the options:

    q 1 Strongly approve

    q 2 Somewhat approve

    q 3 Somewhat disapprove

    q 4 Strongly disapprove

    What I am highlighting is what a TL straw poll of commenters would look like.

    I think the majority would somewhat or strongly disapprove but I'd love to be proven wrong. There is a disconnect here.

    Parent

    You're right . . . (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:44:39 AM EST
    there is a disconnect (or 2) here . . . .

    Parent
    Where have you highlighted what a (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    TL straw poll would look like?

    While you ponder that, also ponder this, from a David Dayen post on a presentation on rebuilding the middle class:

    In a very telling moment in Jones' PowerPoint presentation, he described how the issue groups filtered up to the Obama meta-brand in 2008, and in one move, he wiped out Obama from the picture in favor of the American Dream Movement. In other words, an icon or a symbol of progress won't cut it anymore. The movement is sustained not based on an individual but on an idea. It's a movement that says "I support Democrats when they support me." It's the only way for a movement to endure, rather than become subservient to a personality. And we've seen proof of this just this year in places like Wisconsin and Ohio.

    Again, I don't think there were any answers at the conference, and certainly there was a good deal of frustration. But I also saw a lot of organizing, built around how to specifically rebuild a middle class and an economy that works. It may or may not be successful, but it's the only conversation worth having. Otherwise, these jobs, and this middle class, isn't coming back.

    My emphasis.

    If you took a straw poll here, I doubt you'd find too many who disagreed with this.

    As to the Netroots Nation poll, the fact that only 20% strongly approve is not something I would take too much comfort in.

    Parent

    I am highlighting it (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    right now.

    Parent
    Where? In your head? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    You have highlighted nothing here, unless you think the comments relating to your nanny-nanny-boo-boo "poll" reportage is the same as a straw poll.

    Yeah...you would think that.

    Nevermind.

    Parent

    Currently TL does not have the (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    White House Director of Progressive Media & Online Response Jesse Lee and a host of DNC/OFA staffers commenting on this blog. They were well represented at NN.

    It would be interesting to know what percentage of attendees were DNC/OFA staffers.

    Parent

    And, fundamentally, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    the poll was conducted at the Convention Center (via iPod)--a convention of, primarily, Democratic activists and bloggers. Still, these results (27 % strongly approve, 53% somewhat approve, 13% somewhat disapprove, and 7% strongly disapprove).  With such conventioneers, I would expect the strongly and somewhat approve numbers to be inverted.

    Parent
    Here is (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    Jeralyn's reminder about posting links.  Here are waldenpond's instructions on how to do so.

    Also available by read the comments on this page.

    Parent

    How many of you (none / 0) (#33)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    still read daily kos? I use to read it all the time. Until they became a mouth piece for Obama.
     Whats left is the die hard obama supporters. I would not take this pol seriously. More interesting is the 20% against.

    Parent
    DK used to be a must read for me (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    but in the last 3 years I've gone there maybe every six months or so.  I was a die-hard -- my uid is 1231 and would have been lower if I hadn't dithered about signing up.  

    Don't like their new website either.  Too much junk, I think.  What I prefer about TalkLeft:  quality of front page writing, ease-of-use of front page, and especially the quality of the commenters and comments.  I like that comments are monitored for language and insults.

    But agree that what is mostly left are die-hard Obama supporters.  Interesting that some criticism is now cropping up there without the subsequent smack down.  And yes, that 13% somewhat disapproving and 7% strongly disapproving in that particular group is surprising to me.

    Parent

    Last time I commented (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    over there was in April, 2010.  I joined the community in May, 2005 (I'm "Zorba the Greek" there- I shortened my user name when joining this and other sites).  I totally agree with all of your criticisms of Daily Kos.  (And don't even get me started on Huffington Post......yuck!)

    Parent
    I didn't know (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    until your comment, that the new site tells me when I joined.  October 2003.  Okay, that's one thing I like about the new site.  Pretty sure that's not enough to get me there with any regularity :)

    And definitely, yuck to the Huffington Post.

    Parent

    Blogging was a totally new (none / 0) (#63)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:37:28 PM EST
    experience to me in early 2008, when TalkLeft practically became my second home - and stayed that way all through the primaries. Ah, the things I learned - about almost everything during that time! It was wonderful ... and addictive.

    So when commenters here talked about "kos" or "KO" I never knew if they referenced to the website or to Keith Olbermann. Very confusing for a neophyte like myself. ;) But from the "reviews" of DK by TL commenters I soon knew that I wasn't missing much.

    Parent

    You are aware that the only (none / 0) (#65)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    TL contributor, BTD, not exactly an Obama kool aid drinker himself, is a regular legal commentary blogger at DK?

    It's a very large group over there, many diaries and FP pieces, and as a frequent-enough Obama skeptic I've found I haven't lacked for company.

    No site is perfect.  I think DK is a little too big in numbers of posters, while sites like this one could use a few more, especially those with differing views about Obama and related.

    Parent

    No, I wasn't aware (none / 0) (#68)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    And my comment wasn't a critic of the site as I've never been there - just reminiscing about my debut here at TalkLeft. Besides, I see several TL commenters reference to articles at DK, so I know there must be something worthwhile a visit. I just never went. Anyway, I think the site would be too big for me. I like the size of TL. ;)

    Parent
    This makes little sense (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    Are you saying that bloggers that attend netroots are die hard Obama supporters. Are you saying that the polling was rigged? Or are you just saying that you don't believe that most liberals generally approve of Obama.

    Parent
    no that not what I'm saying (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by loveed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    a large amount of the visitor to daily kos left or was driven away. The site was left with one voice,and if your not for Obama your not welcome.It became so juvenile.
     If the majority of the people left are 99% Obama.20% disapproval is a big thing.

    Parent
    I agree, loveed (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    I used to visit daily.  It has been a long, long time since I've done that- way too many "true believers" who do not tolerate dissent over there for my taste.  On the other hand, Markos has always made it clear that his interest is in electing Democrats, period, not necessarily (what I would call) liberals.

    Parent
    Precisely the problem (none / 0) (#72)
    by Towanda on Tue Jun 21, 2011 at 12:47:43 PM EST
    is the dictate for unthinking allegiance to party, not to principles.

    Lack of thinking is sufficiently easy to find all around us already.


    Parent

    What is the benchmark for (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 11:47:09 AM EST
    strong partisan support? 53 percent who only "somehwat approve" sounds very weak to me.
    And 20% disapprove? These are not healthy numbers.

    Parent
    Sounds like a lot of soft (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:05:05 PM EST
    support for Obama from the liberal roots at NN.  Which sounds about right.

    And not exactly something O should be high-fiving anyone about in the WH.  Soft supporters tend to also be softly enthusiastic, at best, about donating, volunteering, or showing up to vote or actually casting that vote for the incumbent P.

    Myself, I would have answered "very disappointed" in the poll in order to send O a signal that he needs to wake up.

    Parent

    If they're only offerring him soft (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 20, 2011 at 12:17:41 PM EST
    support, he might want to start thinking about what the rest of us are willing to offer. I think his approval ratings at large are because of his likability factor, not as much of a performance approval, which he's gonna need in the next year.

    Notice those who wanted Palin or MB as his opponent? Not much of confidence vote there either . . .  

    Parent

    Sunday Night Open Thread | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment