Tuesday Night Open Thread

It's been a busy work day and now I'm headed out to dinner.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< 2012: Analyst Says 7 States Will Decide Presidency | John Edwards Seeks Dismissal of Indictment, Alleges Prosecutorial Vindictiveness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    First day of middle school for my son (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    He seems exhausted.  I know I am.  I think I was more nervous than he was this morning before he left.  Oh the anxiety of a daddy with issues!  My wife made some refried beans last night (amazed how good she gets them without an overnight soak) and we're going to have a little burrito/taco/tostada fiesta tonight in celebration.  Peace, y'all.

    Josh starts middle school next year (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    and I've already been having the frets.  Sometime this year his neck will be surgically fused, it is partially fused right now on its own.  If anyone hit him really hard in the head or the face though it could kill him, he doesn't have the ability to absorb the shock.  And boys fight and rough house, it just happens, so I've spoken with him often about how that isn't an option for him and I suppose we will request to address the whole school about it.

    He has to grow up though too, and he deserves to have as "normal" a childhood as we can give him. I relate



    At the least, the school... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:00:46 PM EST
    ...should be better than any of the ones we attended back in the day, at least when it comes to bullying, teasing, tormenting, etc.  Any day that didn't happen was very anomalous.  Eli's school seems so tame by comparison.  Mostly I think it's the fact that the school is about 60% Chinese, and those kids are all terrified of their parents, of letting them down, the family is such a force in the culture.  As a result, the school is pretty mellow.  Fine by me.  

    All the best with Josh.  You're right, he deserves a normal childhood, and I think he's got a mother more suited than any other at helping him have that.  


    Early exit (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    Something to consider would be to avoid the bell transition.  When my son had a broken shoulder, he had early exit.  He was simply packed up a couple minutes before the bell and headed to his next class.  There were a couple dozen who used this for various reasons.

    Excellent idea (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:57:20 PM EST
    AutismKid is doing well in class (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:30:12 AM EST
    that's because his teacher is One Smart Cookie.  

    The bus driver, OTOH, is currently the worst bus driver we've had.  I think his age/gender may not be helping as the three people who are trying to give him (consistent, proven) advice are ALL women who are younger than he is.

    Imagine being a man of a certain age, a certain culture and certain generation being told that you could do your job better by a bunch of women, one of which is young enough to be your daughter.  

    Last year's driver was awesome...and also an older man.  Hmmmm...why am I making excuses for this driver?


    Zappa-ism (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    "I think if I were to run, I would have a chance of winning the presidency," Giuliani said during remarks at the National Press Club.
    "If I think we're truly desperate, I may run. Which is the way I got elected mayor of New York City. Do you know what my slogan was? 'You can't do any worse.'"

    "You just said you could not be nominated," National Press Club President Mark Hamrick told the former mayor. "What is it about the Republican Party these days that would prevent that from happening?"

    "I didn't say I couldn't be. I said it would be difficult," Giuliani replied. "We would have to be truly desperate."

    Video at RawStory of Rudy actually saying this if you have some time to waste.

    Tammy Baldwin is running for Senate (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    which is great news. It'll be a tough race, but I expect her to have the resources she needs to win.

    I'm sorry we don't have Ben Masel with us anymore to give us an on-the-ground report.

    I miss him a lot (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    I planted a grafted rose tree in memory of him, just my memory.  It is my first try at roses here, I've heard many horror stories.  It is doing very well though, it is a combo of red roses and yellow roses and is blooming again since the intense heat is subsiding.

    Good luck to Tammy Baldwin, WI needs her and so do we.


    Lovely idea. Sorry to ignore the part of the post (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    about Ben.  I really do miss him too.

    He understood fundamentals (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:32:26 PM EST
    so well, argued so calmly and reasoned.  I wish he could have given classes in activism or cloned himself a bunch.  The world feels like less to me without him in it, which isn't very Buddhist of me :)  But I love that the rose tree prospers, it comforts me.

    Is that in Illinois? I'm rusty. (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:53:04 PM EST
    WI (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    I get my Tammys mixed up (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:32:08 AM EST
    Duckworth or Baldwin

    I do too, how funny (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    Stop complaining about the President and work for (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kgoudy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    this criticism needs to become constructive, less whiny, of the President, who undertook a broken economy with an antagonistic opposing party which refuses to accept responsibiity for their major role in breaking this country's systems.  The carping begins to sound like clients and relatives dissing public defenders who "aren't doing anything to help" where the client murdered, confessed on tape, and picks up new charges.

    As if the President cared (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:36:32 AM EST
    that criticism is constructive.  From what I've seen, he doesn't like any kind of criticism.  And the country and it's current state belong to O now.  Because he's done little or nothing to fix those broken systems.  Or even to indicate that those broken systems even need fixing.

    And if you want to "do something to help" you go right ahead.  Been there, spent years doing that and O undid it all in 3 years.  Completely broke the local political party.

    So I suggest you stop complaining about us and get to work.


    This (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    must be another OFA assignee. Since we all were laughing at light with his/her talking points now we are getting one to give us the "strict father" lecture about how we had been quit "whining" and "eat our peas" or the world is going to come to an end.

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    I wish I could recommend this a hundred times.  The President doesn't give a rip what I do as long as my husband shows up for duty and I pay my taxes to offset the deficit.  He doesn't even care if I send him money, he cares about other people and the money he wants THEM to give him and I think he would prefer that I not get in the way and just STFU.  Me, I can go pound sand or I can go pound sand...those are my options.

    The only two constructive suggestions (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:46:15 AM EST
    1. Obama chooses not to run for re-election.

    You don't give "constructive criticism" to a defective tool---you throw it away.
    Obama is the worst thing that's happened to the Democratic Party in more than 100 years.
    We see that. What's your problem.. do you need glasses?

    So, who is your candidate to Primary Obama? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    You're asking for the answer to part B (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    Part A is, should obama be primaried?

    I would answer, Yes.


    Anybody (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:44:54 AM EST
    Anybody at all.  No doubt I would find some candidates more palatable than others.  But it's the challenge itself that is important right now.

    All we need is one serious candidate (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    to start the process. I think Democrats would be overjoyed to have another option for 2012.

    Also, President Obama strongly (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:38:18 AM EST
    disagrees that the opposition party is to blame for our problems.
    He blames Congress, and liberal interest groups.
    Of course, if you consider the very small Progressive bloc an antagonistic opposition group, you might have a very small point.

    Start (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:52:38 AM EST
    trying to be persuasive.  Where is your constructive criticism?

    And stop your complaining, your carping, about commenters.  They didn't run for president, they didn't promise hope and change.

    I can only hope that you weren't paid for this.


    The ones getting their money's worth (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    out of these comments is the GOP.

    More time is spent bashing Obama than bashing them.


    When Obama starts bashing them (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    we'll be overjoyed to join in.

    Um, you'll see a LOT more GOP (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    bashing from commenters here than from your idol.

    Peter Daou (none / 0) (#132)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    It was a given the right would try to destroy Obama's presidency. It was a given Republicans would be obstructionists. It was a given the media would run with sensationalist stories. It was a given there would be a natural dip from the euphoric highs of the inauguration. Obama's team was prepared to ride out the trough(s). But they were not prepared for a determined segment of the left to ignore party and focus on principle, to ignore happy talk and demand accountability.

    As president, Obama has done much good and has achieved a number of impressive legislative victories. He is a smart, thoughtful and disciplined man. He has a wonderful family. His staff . . . are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. But that doesn't mean progressives should set aside the things they've fought for their entire lives. It doesn't mean they should stay silent if they think the White House is undermining the progressive cause.

    go read


    Stocks Soar as Italy and Greece Act on Austerity (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    is the headline on CNBC.

    In the story you get this:

    "On Tuesday, Silvio Berlusconi's government unveiled how it plans to make up the recent concessions on austerity spending it had promised a number of special interest groups.

    Italy's value added tax (VAT) will be raised by 1 percentage point to 21 percent. Those earning over 500,000 euros (US$705,000) will be subject to at 3 percent levy, which Reuters reports will raise 35 million euros (US$49 million) next year and 88 million euros (US$123.4 million) a year from 2013."

    Perhaps a more appropriate headline would be:

    Stocks Soar as Italy raises taxes.

    One of my very old friends (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    took all of her Facebook stuff down, but you can still message her.  I noticed last night and I became concerned that something was wrong so I messaged her.  She said she is sick of Facebook, nobody really talks to anyone meaningfully, it is a fashion contest or drama and she's sick of it.  I wonder, is this the beginning of a sort of end for Facebook?  I have liked it for keeping up with my family that is far away.  I love that everyone puts photos up, I feel more current with them.  But I think she's right about what she said too.  Anyhow, if you want to know what she's up to you will actually need to take the time to call her or email her now she says.

    It's getting old (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    Your news streams get clogged with junk. Three years ago or more like two years ago I used to spend a lot of time on facebook. Now i spend maybe 5 minutes a day on it. I just go to check in and see birthdays and post a happy birthday on somebody's wall. I do love the family pictures and as my husband's nephew and his wife just had a baby, you get all the news much quicker.

    I agree. I don't use it nearly as much anymore (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    It does seem to have a newer model as a host for group things like fan clubs and businesses. I'm betting that use will outpace the individuals keeping in touch in the long run.

    facebook is not changing (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    you've just been using it longer.

    Same thing happened about 6 or 7 years ago among the younger set.  Use to be a constant thing, now it's just a thing.  But I have a feeling it's still gonna remain a "thing" that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.


    I never used Facebook much (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    I do like it for photo sharing and for events, but I do not care what so-and-so is cooking for dinner (really) or who did what in farmville.  I've always read more than I posted and I only read it once or twice a week.

    facebook (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    is oftentimes the middle school water fountain for less than grownups.

    Question (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    I can't remember any president having as many addresses to the nation in front of congress about issues since I have been alive within such a short period.

    I worry that Obama is using the tactic too much but at the same time we are demanding that he use his bully pulpit.  So he's doing what I think we can all agree should be done, but I don't have any historical sense for how unusual it is over the past 30 or so years.

    Seems like he's on the air a lot.  Is that right?

    "....on the air a lot." (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    You would be correct. Unfortunately, as the NYT mused today, the public has been inured to think of it as "hot" air.

    A little action to go with the "speech" might change that.  


    Example (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:05:16 PM EST
    Instead of, "Obama, after difficult, even sometimes bitter negotiations, manages to save some elements of clean air initiative."

    Headline....."Obama caves on clean air."

    Everything is now framed accenting weakness.


    There's other (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:13:22 PM EST
    more effective ways of using the bully pulpit. I remember Clinton during the years that he used press conferences and other occasions with press to push points with the electorate.

    The problem with Obama's speeches is they just end up being word salads. He doesn't do a very good job of explaining what he means So many times I have heard him try to explain a policy and I get confused as to what he's trying to say.


    Thank you. (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:15:43 PM EST
    He's not a good speechwriter, despite his reputation for oratory.
    On the other hand, he may be intentionally trying to obscure his meanings.

    Pattern (none / 0) (#9)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:26:50 PM EST

    me: Hey guys do we think Serena is going to win the open this year?

    Answer:  "well she has a chance given that the high seeds are out but Obama is not being effective leader and he is trying to line his own pockets with . . .

    Me: ugh mm yeah but I was thinking about how great a story it would be if she came back from that foot injury to wi . . .

    Answer:  yes, yes. She may have a shot . . . Or she may have had one if Obama had the spine of Clinton and had the ability to stand his ground on tax cuts for the rich and fight back against . . .

    Me: (speechless)


    Answer (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:40:35 PM EST
    No jobs were created in August, gasoline remains sky high and unemployment remains at 9.1%

    Now THAT might have a bit to do with what people are talking about.


    Gasoline prices have come down (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:22:30 PM EST
    significantly since their high.......Much of the rise was due to the mess in Libya.

    Gas prices are not the current driver of the economic woes.....They may have halted what small gains existed.....but the prices have come down again.....

    The brinksmanship over the debt ceiling caused such uncertainty.....And to think all the conservatives were saying uncertainty over taxes was causing all the problems....

    Wow, the uncertainty hawks sure changed their minds when it came to the debt ceiling brinksmanship.


    Gasoline (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    is up almost $2.00.... double what it was when Obama took office.

    We use about 375 million gallons a day. $2.00 a gallon is $750 millions, almost 3/4 of a billion, sucked out of the pockets of consumers each day.

    When you factor in the higher prices of diesel, food and farm chemicals driven by the price of oil then a billion dollars a day taken out of the economy is realistic.

    That's $365 billion a year, almost half of the stimulus package.

    Now do you see why it didn't work?


    Why didn't (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:53:30 AM EST
    we have great job gains when it was low then? Facts actually don't support that gas prices are the driving problem of economic woes in this country.

    We keep drilling and the price doesn't decrease and a lot of the new drilling is going overseas to other countries and not staying here.


    Me: is there ANY intelligent (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:28:34 PM EST
    life in the OFB?

    comment #11, with its disingenuous (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    concern-troll question, is the calculated dénouement of comments #2 and #9

    talk about a pattern - why do people continue to feed?


    that is, comment #2 has (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    the disingenuous concern-troll question, whose calculated dénouement is comment #11, via comment #9

    repeat my question w/r/t feeding


    I disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    I believe comment #2 was sincere.

    You guys all piled on at the drop of a hat.....It seemed to me an attempt to enforce the orthodoxy of this site.


    His question was not answerable except... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    ...by giving a numerical chart of presidential speeches in front of Congress.  If that was the answer he sought, which seems clear from the query, he could have looked it up himself.  Instead, when someone offered him a decent answer of the non-speech-chart variety, he replied with a comment that made no rational sense.  ABG did not originally ask a question anything like "Hey, do you think Serena is going to win the US Open this year."  He asked a math question combined with a psychology question, the math part again which he could've answered himself, but since he put it up on this thread, it is logical people will respond to it in a manner other than a chart of speeches and how close they were to each other, that is they will respond to the psychological aspect of the query.

    If that's how it seemed to you (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    than you don't know orthodoxy when you see it.  

    Right, why do you engage? (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    You guys appear to need each other.....

    If you are serious about a Primary challenge, make the case.....and which candidate?

    Otherwise, it is just another bitter bit*h session.   Fine, knock yourselves out.....but it does become repetitive.


    As someone recently said, ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:50:00 PM EST
    "Well, if you would like to participate do, if not, then don't."

    Tip (1.00 / 5) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:31:17 PM EST
    Observed hates Obama . . . Infinity.



    I wouldn't hate him if he weren't (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:33:22 PM EST
    President. I'd think of him as just one more useless striver that I can ignore.

    You don't (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    get the election strategy from Obama central:
    1. You're a hater.
    2. You never liked him.
    3. You have a problem with the color of his skin.
    4. Do you want President Bachmann or Perry?

    All this is basically conceding the fact that Obama has messed up royally as President except for getting Bin Laden.

    I guess he could repeat Bush's Bin Laden stuff from 2004 or Bush Sr.'s strategy and just repeat Sadaam! Sadaam! Sadaam!! Bin Laden!! Bin Laden!! Bin Laden!! over and over. But hey, it worked for Bush so maybe it will work for Obama. Yo never know.


    #2, 4 and 5 have merit (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    SCOTUS is important:  But one can write that off, and then everyone here can agree that it does not matter......

    It just becomes accepted fact that voting based on the Supreme Court makes no sense.  The next step is that concern about SCOTUS gets ridiculed.....

    And now the same dynamic with Perry.....

    The accepted common wisdom that worrying about a President Perry is foolish, when challenged, now draws ridicule...

    They are valid reasons--regardless of how they may be denigrated as such here.....

    There definitely is accepted dogma and doctrine here, when challenged, draws ridicule.....

    The very things that you criticize about Big Orange occcurs here.....It just another tribe here with its own rules about accepted doctrine.  


    You're (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    missing the larger problem. There is nothing to vote FOR. Winning for the sake of winning has been worth very little as far as I've seen. We shouldn't even being having to threaten people with a Perry or Bachmann Presidency. If Obama had done the job right then who the GOP nominates wouldn't even come up in a discussion.

    This is just another repeat of DFARVW from 2008.


    The repetition is on both sides (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    Many of you have written the same post for more than three years......

    Lots of (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:26:40 AM EST
    us never believed what Obama was saying. He seemed to be promising everybody everything and then started dumping on those promises pretty much immediately after getting the party's nomination. I was never impressed much with Obama simply looking at his legislative record which was pretty empty.

    In the end, if Obama had been able to at least produce some economic success or done a few things outside of getting OBL right, we might be having a different conversation.

    Right now this all reminds of the 2004 election when the GOP was pushing Bush. Yeah, Bush sucks, he lied us into a war etc. etc. but we have to make sure he wins because of the supreme court or we can't let Kerry win the presidency. It's the mindset that leads to no good.


    And the wingers were right (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    They got Roberts and Alito in the Second Term....

    and they got the continuation of the Iraq War.....


    And Obama (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    who promised to end the war still has it going on.

    And what if Obama gets a likely GOP senate? All we are going to hear is how he couldn't appoint a good judge because he couldn't get it past the senate? I mean all the Obama is impotent arguments that so many people have been putting forward could be applied to the Supreme Court too.

    Reelecting Bush also pretty much destroyed the GOP until Obama came along and decided to resurrect them.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:45:11 AM EST

    Motto: "Those guys over at Kos are all folks who refuse to see anyone else's perspective, but over here the commenters treat everyone who agrees that Obama is a republican with complete respect!"

    The fact that people here are calling folks members of the OFA, implying that they are paid shills for disagreeing, etc., is the type of behavior that represents everything many supposedly hate about "Obamabots".

    People know I am a big Obama fan, but I am not trying to argue that he's perfect. I am just trying to inject some level of counter balance to the monotonous drone of every single thing Obama does being evil, regardless of what it is.


    It's not clear that Obama would be better (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:42:45 PM EST
    than Romney,who strikes me as ineffectual---an Obama with an (R) after his name.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:46:25 PM EST
    that's why Obama is hoping for Perry or Bachmann. It's always easier to run against crazy than ineffectual especially when you've been ineffectual yourself.

    Please (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:50:56 PM EST
    stop the insulting predictable drivel mr. guy.

    A valid point (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:12:08 AM EST
    Most here were and are biased against Obama.....Bias is a valid point.

    Frankly, it would be more interesting and honest to hear what you guys would like to do.  Instead, it is round after round of junior high insults that are leveled against Obama, e.g., Yeah, I hate him too; and, yeah, he is a Republican.

    The policy discussions are intersting but they're really are few of those....BTD's diaries do focus on policy.....

    So, what do you propose?  If you really want to have a Primary Challenger, just advocate that.  That would be interesting and different.  Is now the time for Hillary?  Let's see you argue that.  She is not going to run but arguing the point would be interesting.

    Same with a third party candidate.....Whom do you support?  Nader?  Kucinich?

    What will you guys do if you don't have ABG to kick around anymore?


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    what is really kind of demoralizing? All the arguments that are against primarying Obama have to do not with his record but are based on identity politics.

    The storyline seems to be that we're stuck with Obama for whatever reason you choose to believe I guess. A lot of people myself included just write to vent frustration. Obama doesn't listen to me certainly but what's even worse is he doesn't listen to the people who canvassed and really worked hard for him back in 2008. He hasn't kept a lot of the promises he made those people back in 2008 and unfortunately those people chose to believe what he was saying.


    Tossing out snide one liners (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    suggests a lack of confidence in one's arguments.....

    Make the case for a Primary challenger.....And who is the candidate....

    I tend to agree with BTD that a Primary challenge is not a good thing:   1968.  1980.  And it probably won't happen.

    But it would be interesting to see an argument about the need for Primary challenge.....A real argument--one that takes into account 1968 and 1980.  Not just a slam on ABG.  


    There's (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    plenty of reasons to HAVE a primary challenger simply because Obama's has pretty much been a failure. But as far as I can see NO ONE is willing to step up to the plate. Hence the "we're stuck with Obama" line.

    This is silly. (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    You have set up a straw man.

    Nobody is biased against Obama.

    What I feel, and what I read from others, is that there is a bias against stupidity and a continuation of the worst of the Bush era.

    I am against the Patriot Act.
    Obama is for it. He thinks we need it, "more than ever".

    I was against sending ever more troops into the abyss of Afghanistan. Obama and McCain are and were both for it.

    I am against rendition.
    Obama is for it.

    I am for intensifying regulations against smog.
    Obama is against it.

    I am for a total withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The voters gave a mandate to the democratic party in 2006 to withdraw our troops. The new democratic majorities went along with an increase of troops instead. Obama thought that this had "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams". I don't know about his dreams, but I see it as a lingering nightmare.

    You are still hung up on Hillary?
    Is it still Hillary Clinton v/s Obama for you?
    Can't you see that both are in agreement at this time, so anyone who is issue oriented could not find refuge in a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

    As for "kicking around the "guy", I am for ignoring his posts.
    I do not need him or her to give me the latest poll data showing how great Obama is doing and so on.

    And I find it objectionable that you would call thoughtful and caring people on a leftist blog "sophomoric".

    Lastly, just because there is no one on the horizon with guts enough to challenge Obama, that is no reason for us to shut our eyes, ears and noses to the crap that is flowing out of Washington DC these days.


    No one is biased against Obama?? (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    Come now....too many examples.....

    I do not raise Hillary in gest....She would be and could be again a serious contender....I have said she would be a good choice for 2016....and yesm, there still appear a random comment or two about how she would have been better......

    I didn't call anyone "sophomoric."  I did say that some of the drive-by cmments were not much more than junior high insults.

    And, I said nothing about shuttinbg anyon'es eyes etc.--that is your straw man.

    And, I would like to have a discussion about a Primary.....


    Have a ball. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    Enjoy speculating about Hillary Clinton's political future.
    As for whether she would have been a better president than Obama, who knows. I think a turtle would have been a better president.

    But, I repeat: I have no interest in her candidacy.
    She identifies with the very policies that I despise, as does her boss.

    As I said, there is no bias against Obama.
    Bias would imply that no matter what Obama did or said, people would still condemn him. To infer that to any of the people posting here is stupid. People here are issue oriented. And the wars, Gitmo, Patriot Act, "deals", the abandonment of strong environmental regulations... all are issues which sickened thoughtful people when Bush initiated them, and sicken people when they see that they are still with us.

    There is a general exhaustion with Bush's policies, many of the most loathsome of which Obama has refurbished and continued.

    But you don't want to discuss those policies.

    So have an enjoyable time mulling over punditry and casting insults at people who are serious about their future. But don't expect in depth discussions about whether Hillary Clinton should run in 2016. Take it up with your bartender, if she has the patience to pursue it.

    I wish you and the "guy" the best of luck.


    The discussion that would be interesting (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    is not about 2016 but about a current primary challenger....

    And, yes, I think there are those who would oppose Obama no matter what.....It is not just Republicans who can act that way.

    As to insults, I have seen a lot of those hurled at those who do not toe the ideological line here....That is what got my attention.

    This conversation has been interesting.....I ask for a discussion about a primary (now, in 2012) and no one seems particularly interested.....

    It would seem to me that you first need a candidate, else all is just speculation.  The only viable candidates I can think of would be Feingold or Howard Dean.....

    Get them to run, and you have a different discussion....  


    You write that you believe no one will (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:52:38 PM EST
    make a primary challenge against Obama because those in power would have that person murdered.

    You cite no evidence but that this is just how you "feel."

    This a right winger authoritarian response that reminds of the theory that Hillary had Vince Foster killed.

    You are so completely biased if your "feelings" run this way.......  


    MKS (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    Exactly.  I like to get into a shouting match that can never be resolved as much as anyone (in other words, not that much), but it seems like it would get boring to basically make the same exact comment each day.  I'd be happy to talk about something Obama has done wrong (climate change legislation for example) just to show that I can have an objective view of the guy. And just to talk about something different politically.

    Really? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:33:09 PM EST
    That is just like one of Obama's speeches. I'm left thinking WTF???? (win the future guys)

    Where's Light? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by observed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:34:04 PM EST
    We need the pair together.

    How often do you ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 10:19:25 PM EST
    ... carry on these little conversations with yourself?

    Seems to be turning into a bit of a habit ...


    Well, if you would like to participate (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:13:48 AM EST
    do, if not, then don't.

    My comment was "participation" (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    But thanks anyway.

    It's probably because (none / 0) (#92)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    How often do you ... carry on these little conversations with yourself?

    It's probably because we keep missing our cues and not responding as he expects us to so that he can then make the rejoinder he wants.  He's just giving himself his own cue.



    Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:42:53 PM EST
    missed his calling. He should have been a motivational speaker much like Tony Robbins. He could have made a fortune doing that and maybe things would be different. Who knows?

    At (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:49:29 PM EST
    this point, who could he motivate?

    I don't believe a word he says.

    I don't even believe he believes a word he says.

    And four days ago,

    The White House announced Friday that it is shelving a major planned EPA regulation that would have tightened smog standards, dealing a huge blow to environmentalists that had pushed the Obama administration to resist industry pressure to abandon the regulation.

    Actually, that motivates me to continue to look for someone to vote for other than the twisted freaks on the right, or the bumbling automaton in the White House.


    There are other (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:31:49 PM EST
    ways besides using the "bully pulpit" to advance your agenda, too.  Lyndon Johnson used a lot of back room dealing, arm-twisting, threats, cajoling, flattery, whatever he had to do, to get enough votes for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights act of 1965, and Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.  And this included bullying members of his own party.  On the other hand, Johnson had long experience in the Senate, including as Senate Majority Leader, and he knew where the bodies were buried.  He was also willing to get down in the mud if he had to.  I'm not saying that Johnson was anywhere near my ideal as president (the Gulf of Tonkin lies and the escalation of the Vietnam War will forever be black marks against him), but he could get things done.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    Obama does do that sometimes like with HCR but the results usually are a net negative for the average American.

    Yes, well, that's true (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    I long ago came to the conclusion that he's no Democrat in the sense that I mean "Democrat."  He's way more centrist, even rightist, than I used to believe the Democratic Party stood for.  A neo-liberal economically and a neo-conservative in foreign policy.  And if that's what the Democratic Party is nowadays, then so be it, I'm no longer a Democrat.    

    Sigh. The usual misleading mythmaking (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    about Johnson which I've tried to point out here about a thousand times.  Hint:  even LBJ himself conceded that the stories of his power and clout with Congress were much exaggerated and that anyone in his position could get things done given the size of the Dem majority.  Not to mention the willingness of a non trivial moderate wing of the GOP who could be counted on to constitute a working liberal majority, something not remotely true of today's GOP.

    Liberals puzzle over the ridiculous mythmaking re Ronnie Reagan but our side is just as capable of erecting undeserved marble statues for our pols.


    The Rockefeller Republicans (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    were alive and well and big supporters of Civil Rights.....

    Good grief, Bush, Sr. used to support Planned Parenthood and abortion rights...


    Right, mks. Example on the CR front: (none / 0) (#116)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    In early 1965, Gov George Romney of Michigan, thought to be a contenda for the 1968 GOP nom, led a public rally in his state in support of a voting rights bill.  This was during a period when LBJ was seen by CR leaders as dragging his feet on whether to support same.

    And on the landmark CR bill of 1964, even the GOP's senate leader, Ev Dirksen, eventually came around (after months of cajoling and flattering by Sens Humphrey and Mansfield) to support an end to the southern Dem filibuster and to vote Aye on the bill itself.  Without his backing, that bill would have died that year.


    LBJ sent the Green Berets into Guatemala (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:57:35 AM EST
    to put down a student led rebellion.....In 1965-66.

    Atrocities and all kinds of death.....

    Just a precursor of things to come....


    There was also the bizarre decision by LBJ (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    to send tens of thousands of Marines and soldiers into the Dominican Republic, supposedly to protect civilians during the political uprising there.  Most likely it was to prop up the military (pro-US big business) rulers who had earlier toppled the democratically elected liberal-left leader Bosch.

    Johnson didn't just make a mistake and go overboard in VN -- Guatemala, the DR and other episodes (such as his naming a RW Tx businessman as the head of Latin American affairs at State) --indicate the guy had the usual dangerous reactionary attitudes about the cold war and indigenous self-determination that we would expect if a conservative Republican were in office.


    I don't think he is on too much (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:39:48 PM EST
    Of course, I don't watch TV news, so what do I know?

    Caveat - i don't know why it has to be (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    an address to Congress. Seems like Bush and Cheney used to get more mileage out of speeches to friendly groups.

    Bush got (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:43:55 PM EST
    a ton of mileage out of his press conferences. Granted they annoyed me but I guess they worked well enough for long enough and all he did was sit there and spout talking points over and over.

    It does help to believe in something (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    even if it is something inane. Much easier to be convincing that way.

    It (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    could help him pass a lie detector test if he could make himself believe in what he doesn't believe in or care about.

    It may come in handy some day when he is questioned about what he knew about the crimes of Bush and Cheney, when he knew it, and why he did nothing about it.


    I think he does have (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    a different prime-time/press-conference ratio than I can remember.  But it's a time of crisis.  I thought he utilized the press conference format quite well at the beginning of the debt ceiling crisis (that moment where I and many others thought he might get a clean debt ceiling bill, after the 3rd press conference I think).  All the anti-bully pulpit folk should think back to that and how it rallied liberals and excited people.  Even them!  After the press conference things went downhill (IMO) but I don't think that was a product of the conferences at all.  That was the most interesting moment of his Presidency this year IMO (except for bin Laden).

    If addresses to the nation on TV qualify him (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:52:29 PM EST
    It seems like he's on the air almost as much as Glen Beck. Is that right?

    You're Just Noticing... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    ... must be those hearts in your eyes.

    I don't know about historically, but he is on the TV way too much for my tastes, but then again so was Bush.  I can't remember the last time I made a point of watching him, which is odd because I rarely missed a Bush speech.  I just can't stand to hear anything he has to say.  If he could lead half as well as he speaks, we would be in great shape.

    What's all this 'we' business ?  I think his presidency is beyond repair.  The Bully pulpit only works if you don't cave on every GD thing on your plate or get turned down to make a grand speech to Congress.  Jobs ??  This speech is two years too late IMO.  

    Republicans don't want unemployment to improve before the election. So the House will be pushing for delay, delay, delay, and the Senate filibustering everything, it might 8 months before anything is signed by Obama.   There just isn't time for Obama to save his own A.

    I'm calling it right now, his job program will be his largest failure.  Unemployment will be over 9% on election day.  Corporations will be the only ones to benefit from the 'program'.  And Obama loses the election, and rightfully so.


    Anyone watching the BBC America show (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:48:09 PM EST
    'The Hour'? It is a period piece about the beginnings of  BBC TV News. Stars Dominic West from 'The Wire' as the telegenic host of the news show.  It has some intrigue also as one of the writers not he show is trying to solve a murder/spy case, and also a love story with the writer, newscaster, and the female producer of the show.

    Good stuff! And Dominic West has the hottest lovesick puppydog routine going.

    Normally I would go there (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    and experience this but it sounds a tad cerebral, and I'm tired and brain dead right now.

    Not on till Wednedays - and I might have (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:03:23 PM EST
    made it sound too cerebral! More soap-operish than that, and funny and fast moving. Hardest thing is to concentrate to understand the accents sometimes.

    Here is the link (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    with some videos. You can get a taste!

    I can do it tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    I will be applying a sleep aid tonight :)  I have bouts of insomnia at times and one is visiting me now or at least was last night.  I hate watching the sun come up having been awake for hours, it feels like defeat.

    Sweet dreams MT! You need some good sleep (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:29:24 PM EST
    I feel sure!

    Eddie Murphy to host the Oscars (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    [ http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/oscars/index.html?story=/ent/tv/feature/2011/09/06/eddie_m urphy_2012_oscar_host This could be good].

    Also, Coach and Ozzie return to Survivor, which starts next week.

    Sorry I have only pop culture stuff on offer tonight. How about that Romney jobs plan? Deregulation and tax cuts, much like Huntsman's.

    On the upside (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    if we cutback on all those regulations for clean air and clean water there are quite a few businesses that through expansion could reap an economic benefit, therefore providing a boost to the economy. e.g. construction (more hospitals) and funeral homes (more burials)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 11:30:23 PM EST
    but our government is in "save the COBRA experts" mode....and any kind  of recovery would hurt that segment.

    That is unwelcome news about Eddie Murphy (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    hosting the Oscars.  I don't find him funny, at all.

    Bring back Colbert and Stewart or Steve Martin or pair Kathy Griffen with someone.  Chris Rock is funny.  Eddie M just makes me uncomfortable.


    funny that you mentioned that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    I've never cared for Murphy's brand of "humor" either. I've always felt his entry into SNL, with his tough, thuggish persona helped trigger the slide that never ended.

    Eddie Murphy (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    was funny.  The Beverly Hills Cops movies define his career perfectly.  The first one was brilliant.  The second one was pretty funny.  The third one was just terrible.

    And that's pretty much his career arc right there.

    Although - how can you not like his early stuff?  Coming to America!


    I Would Add (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    Golden Child, Trading Places, and Raw.

    But he's neither funny or relevant as of late.

    Now Charlie Murphy, Eddie's brother... that is a funny MFer.
    Check It.


    yes! (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    they should have Charlie Murphy host.

    That was one of the funniest Chapelle episodes of all time.  I think only the black white supremicist beats it.


    Clayton Bigsby (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:47:09 PM EST
    The blind black white supremacist.

    Agreed, best Chappel skit ever made.

    CM wasn't in that one.  

    There is another one with Charlie where they play basketball with Prince and the Revolution and get smoked.  Very Funny.


    And Gumby (none / 0) (#109)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    And Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    I thought his SNL stuff was flat out brilliant, and the writer in my link said.

    His movies....mixed bag.


    re: SNL (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    I tend to agree.  When he was "on" (which was most of the time) he was really "on".

    O.k. I will amend my critique, (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    Some of Murphy's work was pretty good

    Who is (none / 0) (#101)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    Eddie Murphy? ;)

    I think Eddie Murphy (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    can do a good job at the Academy Awards.  Not sure just how much the host has to do with the success of the show as compared with the writers and production.  The real show is the Hollywood glamour on display.  In any event, it would be hard for Eddie to do worse than the wooden James Franco and the plastic Anne Hathaway.

    Well, compared to Franco-Hathaway (none / 0) (#119)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    (were those their names?), I'd be hilariously entertaining, and I don't consider myself to have very much talent in the comedy area.  They did set a very low bar.

    But talented, gifted comedians who are good on their feet -- ie can respond creatively and humorously in the moment -- can overcome bad written material.  Thus my suggestion of people who can just wing it if necessary -- S Martin, Kathy Griffin, Colbert/Stewart -- and often the winging it, the unscripted moments, are what can make that telecast either memorable or not.

    Eddie Murphy ... gah ... I'm already squirming in my seat and it's only September.


    Well if he does that (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    kind of nasal-ly inhaling "eh eh eh" fake laugh then it can clobber a perfectly good bit provided by writers and production.

    I will be watching the debate (none / 0) (#56)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:56:36 AM EST
    will you?
     There's really only 2 credible candidates. Huntsman and Romney. Perry will be favored, but his ship will sinking fast.
     This  article compares their records, for job creation. I did not care for the snippy comments at the end. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-08-30/A-look-at-Huntsman-Perry-Romney-jobs-records/ 50196626/1?csp=obnetwork&plckOnPage=2


    Nope. i could script it myself (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    Can you? (none / 0) (#128)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:18:09 PM EST
     It is possible that the next president might be on that stage.
      I would like to hear a strong debate by Romney and Huntsman about there jobs plan.
      Personally I think it between these two. I like Huntsman. I think he's the most qualified candidate. He has more experience than Obama.
      I cannot vote for Obama (unless Perry gets the nod). The country cannot afford another 4yrs.
      Huntsman's is the closest we will get to an independent candidate. The right wing of the republican party hates him, along with the far left.
      We should be getting informed about the issues. Listen to both sides. And vote for who's best for America.

    The entertainment is over (none / 0) (#59)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:00:00 AM EST
     loved the summer election soap opera. It's over starting today.
     I love politics and history. I remember reading the constitution in the fifth grade. It had a profound affect on me. I became an American in 1962.
     I had already learn the history of how this great document was formed.
     It was a time when the whole country was going through a revolution. To fight to uphold the constitution.
     I was a northerner. In a all black poor community in Ohio. I did not know about the treatment of blacks in the south.
     When I saw the hoses,the dogs, the killings,it was un american. Not a black white issue, but an American issue.
     We fought together side by side,as Americans. The peoples rose up.Our leader stepped up. Laws were changed.
     We have to stop being divided. We have to start holding these so called leaders feet to the fire.
     Every since 2000, we have not followed the constitution. We have eroded our basic civil rights.
     Misinformation that becomes truth.
     example: Everyone thinks the supreme court gave GWB the election. It was congress. Congress did not have to accept the Florida delegates.

    The biggest (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    thing that came out of the 2000 election is the glaring reason why we need to get rid of the electoral college. There would have been zero chance of the disastrous Bush presidency without the electoral college. It's an antiquated remnant of slavery.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    and its why only 7 states will decide the next President.

    While we're at it, the 2 Senators from each state has proven to be disastrous.......and undemocratic.


    The constitution gave us remedies (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    for what happen in 2000. The media decided that the president will be GWB. With a poorly informed public, they went along with the media.
     GWB thought he was going to win the popular vote,but not the college. He already had lawyer waiting to contest the election.
     The wimpy democrat allow the republicans to run all over them. Bill Clinton was furious. He told the dems to fight, they refused. He would not release the transition money until it was settled.
     The election was stolen. Every since the republican got away with it, they have been beating up the dems.
     The dems then put Kerry up (I was for Clark), the repubs knocked him down (even I knew Kerry could not win). They rig the 2008 primaries, for an inexperience 1/2 term senator. Who drove the party in the ground. I don't think the party will survive.
     The dems will never fight for anything, but their own self interest

    What we need to know (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    h/t Atrios, I don't think we can understand current politics without understanding this.

    Unfortunately, I don't think Dems, or at least the WH, understand it, or, worse yet, care.

    the repubs is just taking what's being (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    given to them.
     The repubs. do not have a opposition party to fight against. Their opposition are enablers. The dems. are so weak, even with a veto proof majority.
     Those of us( this is terrible grammar) who did not support Obama knew this would happen. We saw what they did to Bill (Obama is no Bill). Hillary tried to tell you. But you wouldn't listen.
     The repubs. is the same group of people who impeached a president over sex. The same group that stole the 2000 election. Why did anyone think they would play nice?
     You thew a lamb to be slaughtered. It's getting so bad it hard to watch.
     Also look closely at who was backing Obama
     1. Kerry (loser) they used his war record against him. He thought he was going to be SOS.
     2.Tom Daschle (loser) lobbyist. he thought he was going to be over health care.
     3. Nancy Pelosi she lost her speaker position.
     4. Harry Reid almost lost.
     5. Richardson thought he would be VP. low life.
     6. John Edwards thought he would be VP- going to jail.
     7.Clayborne race baiter.
     All of these people thought they would rule Obama, they new he had no experience. But he thew them under the bus.

    Stimulus money left unspent (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two years after the economic stimulus plan, a new government audit finds that about one-third of the money authorized for an energy efficiency program has not been spent.

    The Energy Department's inspector general says that state and local governments have left as much $879 million unspent from a $2.7 billion program intended to boost energy efficiency and create jobs.
    The Energy Department acknowledged a slow start, but said aggressive outreach to state and local governments has boosted spending from $270 million last year to about $1.4 billion as of last month. The program has helped pay for more than 5,400 jobs. link

    I think one of the failures of the (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    stimulus was relying on state and local governments to spread it around. More of it should have come directly from the feds.