Monday Night Open Thread

Another Republican debate? Is anyone here watching?

We've got snow tonight. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Zappos Hacked, 24 Million Account Holders Info Taken | Hearing Underway At Guantanamo for Al Nashiri >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No, I won't watch the Republican debate (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    Meanwhile, we have freezing rain up here (I'd rather have snow, frankly) and my sciatica is acting up a whole lot, so I just don't have any patience left for much of anything.

    Nope, why spoil my perfect 'no debate' record? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:50:12 PM EST
    No funny host, and they aren't even wearing pretty dresses.

    Oh honey (none / 0) (#6)
    by sj on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:36:33 PM EST
    I can't stomach Republican debates when I feel good, much less when I don't.  

    You just made me look out the window, though.  It looks like we have freezing rain here, too. Cr@p.  I hope it clears up by tomorrow.  I have big plans for tomorrow.


    I watched (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:39:39 AM EST
    one a week or so ago. What new do they have to add? I guess since the field has narrowed maybe the rest are getting more face time? That's the only reason I could see to have yet another debate.

    Today on public radio (can't remember which (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    program) a female author whose last name is "Carpenter" discussed statistics re AA incarceration and post-incarceration and effect on employment prospects, housing, family, etc.  She sd. post-incarceration for felony conviction a person is barred from public housing and food stamps.  Also, that if African American were convicted of non-violent crimes at the same rate as Caucasians, prison population would be reduced 75%, which of course, would adversely affect people whose livelihoods depend on higher nos. of incarcerated persons.  Quite persuasive.  

    Michelle Alexander (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:32:39 PM EST
    The New Jim Crow, published by The New Press. Interviewed on "Fresh Air with Terry Gross" (from Philadelphia's WHYY).

    I heard most of that interview too (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    She made the case well.  Some places even being charged with a crime makes people ineligible for assistance. After prison, even staying with family in public housing would get THEM  kicked out in some states. Right out of prison, where do you even sleep?

    She said statistically everything comes back to employment. Areas with highest unemployment have the most violent crime, regardless of race. And slapping felony convictions for non-violent drug crimes on such a high percentage of AA men makes them virtually unemployable.


    When she used the word "caged," I (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:07:37 PM EST
    flinched as she spoke in such detail and so persuasively.  I thought, if kdog finds out I was silently agreeing w/this woman, what then!

    Why I'd be so proud! (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:09:26 AM EST
    If MLK Jr were still with us, I think incarceration nation might well be his #1 issue.  

    I think Dr. King would like (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    Our discussion hear. We have no clue what we look like. What our social status. But here we are sharing opinion and views. Americans sharing problem ( I will always be grateful for the support during my moms illness.I couldn't have made it without you).Where sharing different life experiences. And supporting each other.
     I have learn things from this site, that changed my views about a lot of things.
     We are united in so many ways. Are we perfect as a country? No, but what country is.

    Set your DVRs: Justified starts tomorrow night! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:53:23 PM EST
    Very excited about my my weekly Raylon fix. The NPR reviewer gave the season very high marks.

    Thanks, I had no idea (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    and I love that show. Timothy  O. is great.

    Me neither - it was a nice little surprise (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    while was listening to NPR.

    Had to have something distract me from the sadness of the interview about the incarceration rates.


    The reviewer said that this year they are going (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    with more of a series of good guest stars, more like the first season, rather than something like the season long story with Margo Martindale they did last year. That would be a really tough act to follow.

    Pitchers and catchers report to Cubs spring (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    training camp in a month, Feb. 18 to be exact. I am so ready for baseball.

    I just know this'll be the year for the Cubs.

    Have they been mathematically eliminated (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:51:02 AM EST
    from the playoffs yet?

    LOL Kidding.


    LOL, c'mon, let us dream at elast until May 1! (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    at which point they may very well be done.

    No, ruffian, you gotta believe, sister. (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:09:40 AM EST
    This is the Cubs' year. I just know it.

    Wait a minute...is this linked to the Mayans (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:27:01 AM EST
    somehow? Are the cubs going to win, and then the world ends?

    Who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    As long as the Cubs win, it's all good.

    Just want to know so I can cash (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    out my 401k and go to some games!

    Ruffian sips kool-aid.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    YES! Go Cubbies!!

    We may catch the Cubs vs. Padres in (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:34:04 AM EST
    kSpring training game.  

    amen sister! (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:36:54 AM EST
    I have to wait until Feb 22 (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    for the Marlins pitchers and catchers. Four long slow extra days....Oh, the Humanity.

    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:59:21 PM EST
    Have nothing else to say about this story:

    A 12-year-old girl who was abducted and beaten by men trying to force her into a marriage was found being guarded by three lions who apparently had chased off her captors, a policeman said Tuesday.
    She was beaten repeatedly before she was found June 9 by police and relatives on the outskirts of Bita Genet, Wondimu said. She had been guarded by the lions for about half a day, he said.

    "They stood guard until we found her and then they just left her like a gift and went back into the forest," Wondimu said.

    Those femaile lions know about men (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:08:40 AM EST
    Their own males, sheesh, gotta be the biggest and laziest assh*les in the animal kingdom.  Lay around all day, let the ladies raise the kids and kill the food, butt in for the best cuts of dinner meat, get all the ladies knocked up.  The most effort dude puts out is to fight it out with other dicks looking to take his place.  I know, he has to nose off with a hyena now and then.  But still, come on, make breakfast now and then, something.

    Wow (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:56:40 AM EST
    Stuff (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:42:54 AM EST
    Obama Supporters Say, youtube: 2 minutes and 44 seconds out of your life that, like the past three years, you will never ever be able to recover. Even incrementally recover... ;-)

    but Edger . . . (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:31:01 AM EST
    why are you being so divisive?

    seriously, though (& this is not only about a particular type of Obama supporter), the male actors in that video absolutely nailed the rage that simmers just under the thin skin of the passive-aggressive, intolerant "creative class"


    And (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    don't forget the puppy...

    THAT one is pretty funny (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    ... in a dispiriting sort of way.

    yeah... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    Heh. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:36:58 AM EST
    I'm just being divisive in hopes of bring everyone together to see reality, that's all.

    What if they had an election and nobody came? ;-)


    Rick (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:43:00 AM EST
    Perry is just a trained monkey who flings poo at the wall to see what sticks it seems.

    But I'm with you, what the heck is wrong with Texas that they would actually elect an idiot like this guy?

    I could speculate on what makes a state (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    want to be governed by a moron, but I've been told such elitist ideas are what turn people off from progressives.

    And three times, no less (none / 0) (#48)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:29:51 AM EST
    That's it (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    Perry just says what he memorizes and has been told to say.

    I get the impression that he is at bottom a pretty nice guy....and it comes out in his vaccine and immigration posiitions, which were mistakes.

    But he is from Texas and Texanas have to be conservative, so he mouths the words.....hideous, vicious words......but Perry seems only vaguely aware of what he is saying.....

    Perry is a total puppet for the Right Wing.


    One of my girlfriends put up (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:48:06 AM EST
    the cover of Italian Elle on facebook, where an Italian activist is nursing her baby while being exquisitely dressed, and military wife girlfriend world melts.  I suppose this is what happens when you live in a rule driven world.  One person said that this photo was inappropriate for children to see because you could see the model's nipple.  She doesn't even need the motion picture movie rating system to tell her what to think anymore :)

    We are all supposed to unshockingly be able to look at nipples, we were supposed to be born staring at them only inches away for a couple of years at least.....maybe longer given the life circumstances.  I get so tired sometimes of how phucked up Americans are about sex and their sexualities.

    Wow, who knew that in New York (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    I could fire one school janitor making a living wage and hire 30 of the students to do the job.  If they clean toilets as well as our teenage daughter did though, I think we have problem already.  When you fire them for being teenagers or sixth graders do they still get to go to school?

    How do you decide which kid cleans up the barf?  Who then cleans up that kids barf?  If you find one kid who can clean up the barf without barfing are they forever going to have to clean up all the barf?

    the scary part is (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    if Newt were president these are all questions to which we would find the answer.

    he is not just talking about teenagers.  as young as 9 as I understand it.  I guess one of those charts "you have to be this tall to work in a sweat shop"


    Y (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:58:20 AM EST
    If the kids have to clean up their own messes. The benefit could be that through peer pressure, there won't be as many messes.



    I know it's kind of like (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    kicking someone when they're down, but this is the best article I've read on the whole Tebow thing.  It was written before the playoffs.

    Some key quotes:

    "That was his best moment. Through a combination of athleticism and intelligence, he avoided a safety and he avoided a penalty. Otherwise, his team might have lost 43-23. Nevertheless, it was the most exciting play for no gain that I've ever seen."

    "Tim Tebow became "compelling" because he became a character in the great national dumbshow that is our culture war. And we should be very clear about one thing -- he wasn't dragooned into this. Nobody drafted him. He walked into this role with his eyes open. Before he ever took a snap in the NFL, he appeared in an anti-choice television ad with his mother that was sponsored by Focus on the Family, an influential anti-choice, anti-gay-rights organization founded by the Rev. James Dobson. He knew what he was doing."

    There is also some interesting stuff in there about his "work" in the Phillipines.  I wonder what the resident catholics think of this.

    "It is the goal of the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association to preach the gospel to every person who has never had an opportunity to hear the good news of eternal life in Jesus Christ."

    "It so happens that 95 percent of the population of the Philippines is Roman Catholic. Catholic doctrine just happens to be in conflict with what Bob Tebow and his son preach in regard to personal salvation."

    This kind of reminds me of something my sister put on her online dating profile.  When asked about religion preference she put "Athiest.  To be clear, I don't need you to be an athiest, but I need you to accept the fact that I am and not try to change me".

    Great night for Newt (none / 0) (#7)
    by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:45:33 PM EST
    If this were a two-man race, he'd be crushing Romney. The crowd is eating up almost everything Newt says.

    thats what I keep seeing and hearing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:56:43 AM EST
    wish I had watched

    He's a rabble rouser (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    No doubt about that. Does not make him electable.

    the standing ovation (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:41:33 AM EST
    on the food stamp thing on MKL day was a little scary

    As was the part I heard on the radio (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    with them all trying to outdo eachother in denying ex-convicts the right to vote.

    We are not to the mountaintop yet, MLK.


    it was quite the rowdy crowd (none / 0) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    I watched most of it this morning.  it makes me thing Newt really has a chance in SC

    That would be great (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    Ignore the religious right
    Ignore the GOP establishment

    Vote Newt, all ye south Carolinians!


    And, in 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:13:25 PM EST
    Ignore Iowa, NH, and SC, all ye media hacks!

    he is only (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    4 or 5 points behind with several days and another debate to go.

    rasmussen (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:43:30 PM EST
    South Carolina Primary: Romney 28%, Gingrich 21%

    May get -40 tonight/tomorrow (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:49:52 PM EST
    All the Americans are quite excited.

    Gees. What happens to the wild dogs? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:51:36 PM EST
    They are very shaggy. (none / 0) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:33:38 PM EST
    I don't think they have  a problem with the cold.

    Well, the Turkish gentleman I work with will be (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    surprised to hear that. As will his host company, a major defense contractor. I will be sure to pass that along.

    Watching probably out of habit (none / 0) (#14)
    by loveed on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    The audience is booing everyone.

     Something I find interesting. I did not give this a lot of thought until now. Friday Huntsman attended a fundraiser at Lady Rothschild (this might not be the correct spelling,she was big supporter of Hillary) Manhattan apartment. The guest list included a lot of dems.
    This group is trying to start a third party, and have about 52mil, and is on the ballot in I think approx 20 states.
      When Huntsman spoke this morning you could feel the disdain he has for the repub. party. He endorse Romney as the best of the lot. He encourage them to talk about issue. He pointed out how nasty the race has become.
      I don't understand why he quit today. The debate did not cost money. He was endorsed by the largest newspaper in the state sunday. The few event he had was standing room only.
     It seems he could not stomach the nastiness of repub. party primary.
     After this fundraiser, there was no further campaigning in SC.
     This might not mean anything,just something I find interesting.

    Intersting, I wonder of it is the same group (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 10:06:40 PM EST
    tthe former mayor of Salt Lake, Rocky Anderson (I think that is his last name) is with.  Seemed like a good 3rd party choice when I saw him on The Young Turks.

    Once more, if anyone  gets Current TV on your cable  network, iI I highly reccommend The Young Turks show. It is  so much better than the same old stale political talk shows we are used to. You will hear actual things you have not heard 100 times before. Much more reflective of the views we have around here.


    Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:30:50 PM EST
    She first, foremost, and last and always hates, hates, hates Obama.

    She was on NOW with Alex Wagner and praised all things Clinton and basically called Obama a socialist.....

    She campaigned for Sarah Palin and said she was qualified to be President....

    She wanted to be U.S. Ambassador to England under a Hillary Administration.....that will never happen....

    Lady Rothschild, and she loves the title and, yes, it is "The" Rothschilds, is one of the most despicable people in politics.


    That is an awesome story (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing it.  I love your stories, btw.  That's real living history.

    The SC audience is frightening... (none / 0) (#19)
    by byteb on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:04:12 PM EST
    the nastiest audience of any of the previous Republican debates...and that's saying a lot.

    He quit because (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 11:25:23 PM EST
    campaigns are not about tonight and tomorrow, for heaven's sake.  Campaigns are planned weeks out, months out -- meaning that commitments have to be made tomorrow for months from now.  

    And his campaign was going nowhere.


    Romney in 2012 (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:55 AM EST
    Because those Green Party votes have to go to good use.

    We continually talk about how ridiculous the GOP nominee will be, but some seem excited to give him power.

    That's the real world bottom line effect of the Green conscious vote.

    Romney voters... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:00:07 AM EST
    wanna give Romney power, Obama voters wanna give Obama power, none of the above voters wanna give none of the above power.  

    "Real world bottom line" is whoever gets the most electoral votes wins...simple really.  Anything less is playing Machevellian games with your vote, which I find kinda unsavory.


    I couldn't disagree more KDog (none / 0) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    If we are talking primaries, then by all means, vote the greenest, meanest candidate you'd want.  But in a general? No.

    We have a binary choice and game theory says that voting a third party there only makes sense if (a) the third party has a legitimate chance of winning or (b) the two candidates are identical.

    If you are arguing that the two candidates are identical, I'd strongly disagree, but OK. I understand your logic. If you are arguing that the green candidate can win then I would call you a little crazy but more power to you.

    If you don't think the green candidate can win and you believe Romney is much worse for the country than Obama, then a vote for the green vote just makes no sense. There is no logical justification for it.  It might make you feel better or empowered in a way that provides you personal benefit, but in terms of voting in a way that generates the best outcome for the country (using your own metrics, which show Romney to be worse) then no.  The green vote is not what you should do.

    I don't really see any other logical argument in support of that position.


    What is best for the country... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    long term, imo, is breaking the two-party duopoly.

    Yes, Romney is worse...but not so much worse as to justify a vote for the more benevolent tyranny party.

    A third option, be it Gary Johnson or a liberty lover of the left, won't win...this is true.  But that does not mean they can't win.  Whoever wins the most states wins...so anybody on enough ballots can win.  The sooner a third option wins one state, the sooner they win two, the sooner they win enough to end the two-party duopoly on the office of the president.

    If the goal of Democratic party members and Democratic supporters is to gain more support, I think a better sales pitch is a better platform...aka more reasons for people like me to get back on board, as opposed to the uninspiring sales pitch of "yeah, we suck, but look at them!".


    yeah (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    that worked out so well when the Naderites gave us 8 years of W.  and all that came with it.

    Bullsh*t Cap... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    Those who voted for George W. gave us 4 years of George W....those that voted for Nader voted for at least 4 years of Nader.  We came up short, same as all you Gore voters.

    If only Al Gore hadn't stolen all of Ralph Nader's votes!  Silly thing to say right?  Just as silly to say Nader "stole" Gore votes.  


    Nader voter have been saying that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    since it happened.  in spite of it being absolutely proven to be the case.  without Nader Gore would have won FL.  and W would never have been president.
    and if there had EVER on ANY planet been the SLIGHTEST possibility that Nader could have won you might possibly have a leg to stand on but it wasnt and you dont.

    Gary, or Rocky (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    or whoever else will never be president.  
    its really that simple.  structurally it is very close to impossible.
    if you would like to throw away your vote and increase the likely hood of a republican president its a free country.

    We all waste time voting... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    at least mine feels good....yours?

    felt good did it? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    and how did the rape of the economy and two illegal wars feel?

    Yes it did... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    I don't think our boat would look all that different if Gore had won...we'd have the same systemic problems, we'd be occupying Afghanistan, and if Vice President Libermnan held enough sway maybe even have invaded Iraq.  

    if you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    actually believe that Al Gore would have used 9/11 as a pretense to invade Iraq I think this conversation is over.

    His old boss... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:53:44 AM EST
    was fond of ordering up the occasional Iraq bombing run...is it really that much of a leap?

    You cannot compare anything (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    that Clinton did to what Bush Jr did.  Clinton was part of containing Saddam....as he obviously was when we invaded.  I just don't get you at all right now.  We have no real figure on how many Iraqis died because nobody really wants history to know it and write it down.  Maybe something around 250,000.

    What Clinton & Co. did to Brooksley Born... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    ...was as destructive to the national (and global) economy as anything done by any president in recent memory.  For that alone, he will forever earn my scorn.  Militarily, in all honesty, it is folly to ponder the differences in reaction to 9/11 between, say, Clinton, Bush, Gore, Obama, etc.  They way our system operates right now, anyone at the top will pretty much act as any other person at the top, with obvious, though not significant ENOUGH, differences.  Just IMO.

    Hey Tracy, I would really love to write something about your family.  When we are old and decrepit maybe, I hear you thinking. ;-)


    What Clinton did to the economy? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:16:28 AM EST
    Sure, he was his own one man weapon of mass destruction there.  He needs to be held accountable for that.

    Tracy, what Dadler was (none / 0) (#162)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    talking about was not the economy under Clinton, but what happened later (like, just a few years ago).  Read this.  As Chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, she proposed regulations of the derivatives market.  
    The "big boys" -- Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Arthur Levitt, chairman of the SEC -- held hands and decided to quell this disturbance from someone who "didn't know what she was doing."
     These "big boys" succeeded in getting Congress to write a resolution that forbade "the CFTC from issuing any rules governing the derivative market."  Born resigned.
    Think how much of a difference it would have made if the derivatives market had been closely monitored and controlled, instead of being allowed to run amok.  
    On March 25, 2009, Brooksley Born was awarded the John F. Kennedy "Profiles in Courage" award. Almost everyone involved in the 1996 clash with Born has since said she was, in fact, correct. Arthur Levitt, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, publicly apologized.
    (Emphasis mine.)

    Yeah, I knew what he was talking (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:43:45 PM EST
    about Zorba.  But Clinton listening to Larry Summers and just buying into it like he did, he was the only one who could have changed what happened but like Obama he went with the magic man Larry Summers.  Larry Summers threatened that if derivatives were regulated it would destroy several fatcats and blow up the whole world....and then they blew up whole world.

    Larry Summers, (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    as well as a whole he!! of a lot of financial advisors, have a lot to answer for.  My main problem with both Clinton and Obama is the advisors they chose from the financial sector.  Not one of them has any frigging idea what it's like for the middle and lower class in this country.  
    I'm leaving Bush II out of this, because he's a Republican and never had a clue to begin with.  I expect better out of Democrats.  Call me naive, but I used to think that Democrats at least had some concern for those not in the "upper echelons."  I guess I was wrong.   :-(    

    From February 2007... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    The number of Iraqi refugees now total 3.7 million - 2.0 million outside Iraq and 1.7 million inside Iraq - and UNHCR predicts that there will be up to 2.3 million internally displaced people within Iraq by the end of this year. (see: 7). Excess deaths in Iraq during the Sanctions War totalled 1.7 million (from UN Population Division data: 6 ). The carnage in Iraq constitutes a US-driven Iraqi Genocide (Genocide as clearly defined by Article II subsections (a) -(d) of the Internationally-agreed UN Genocide Convention: 8).

    After 4 years of illegal, violent Occupation the post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq total ONE MILLION (UN Population Division and medical literature data). Taken together with 1.7 million excess deaths in the 1990-2003 Sanctions War (UN Population Division) and 3.7 million Iraqi refugees (UNHCR), this constitutes an Iraqi Genocide (as defined by the UN Genocide Convention) and an Iraqi Holocaust in comparison with the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million victims). The Iraqi under-5 infant deaths (1990-2007) now total 1.8 million, 90% having been avoidable and due to Western war crimes. Total Iraqi excess deaths (1990-2007) total 2.7 million. The post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Afghanistan now total 2.2 million (see MWC News: 5 ).


    The whole country was torn apart in protests (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:01:44 AM EST

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:09:28 AM EST
    a big stretch, but it is fathomable.

    Before Al grew a beard and went all peace-nik I considered him a hawkish Dem.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:15:03 AM EST
    Al Gore would have gone to Afghanistan.  He would not have gone to Iraq.  Nor would he have ever stood up in front of everyone and told them that all their soldiers are deployed and dying and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda (the guys behind 9/11) don't matter anymore :)

    or have had the SOS (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    lie to the UN and practically every other member of his cabinet lie to the public.

    and on and on.

    to fantasize that Gore would have taken the same insane neocon path Bush took is nothing short of delusional.


    We'll never really know... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    lets just not kid ourselves that Democrats are unwilling/unable to to start unnecessary wars of choice...especially Democrats who would pick Joe F*ckin' Lieberman as a running mate.

    the vp (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    has two duties.  go to state funerals and inquire daily as to the health of the president.  there is no reason at all to think LIEberman would have had any say in policy.

    and besides that it would seem to me that simply looking at what Gore has done since he left politics would be all a sane person would need to see we would be living in a different world if if he had been elected president in 2000


    Gimme a break,,, (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    all Dems seem to suddenly get much more sane and reasonable and cool after they leave office, when they are no longer in the position to accomplish, ya know....some good.

    President Gore would never have grown a beard and gone peace-nik...you know this man.  He'd have been be the same safe stale establishment motherf*cker that barely got more popular votes than G-Dub.

    The Al Gore we've known for the past 11 years would not exist.


    Well this part is probably true (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:40:21 PM EST
    But Al Gore does care about what he stamps on history so he would not have gone into Iraq, and I feel that going to Afghanistan was the responsible thing that any President other than Ron Paul would have done :)

    As far as Al Gore shaving Presidentially or not, I fail to comprehend how that changes his decision making processes :)


    Yes, I'm afraid it is kdog (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    Can't make that leap with you. I will never believe it.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    I think it's more complicated sometimes.

    What if you live in a state where it doesn't really matter who you vote for in a pres. election?

    My Dad voted for Nader in 2000, from Massachusetts, because why not?  He figured the more votes they got the more legitimate a third party they might become, and people would pay more attention to that block.  Obviously what happened in Florida is a bit different since we ended up with GWB.  But for those of us who don't live in purple states, the equation changes.

    I agree with the "pragmatic" voters over the "idealogical" ones in this argument, but sometimes what you do has no affect on the pragmatic, so you might as well go with idealogical.


    I agree with this (none / 0) (#143)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    Feels great. (none / 0) (#155)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    If it feels great (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    to vote your conscience (as it should) then why do you discourage others from doing the same?

    why blame Nader for Bush's selection (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    unless you assume that Nader's votes somehow "belonged" to Al Gore?

    why not blame the elderly Jews of Palm Beach who couldn't figure out the butterfly ballot?

    their votes for Pat Buchanan actually were intended for Al Gore, & those 2,000+ miscast votes account for nearly four times George W. Bush's margin of "victory" in Florida

    i did not & would not vote for Nader, because i think he would be a terrible president, but if other people did & would -- as you keep saying, it's a free country


    Nader and Gore (none / 0) (#157)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    were very close in their beliefs on a host of issues and Gore was much closer to Nader than Bush on almost everything.

    Any decision is made on a basic formula:

    Probability of success * Preferred Outcome

    The Nader/Green formula looks like this:

    Probability of success (Presidency) 0 * Preferred Outcome (Progressive Utopia Factor) 100 = 0 Progressive Utopias

    Gore/Obama formula looks like this:

    Probability of success (Presidency) 51% * Preferred Outcome (Progressive Utopia Factor) 53 = 27.03 Progressive Utopias

    0 Progressive Utopia < 27.03 Progressive Utopias

    Therefore: Vote Obama

    Now I am sure that people vote for reasons other than the real world outcome.  Principle. Making a personal stand. Trying to amass third party support to fight the binary system. Etc. If you argue that you are supporting the destruction of the binary system, I think we would need to see evidence that the Green party vote, for example, was going to be big enough to force such an idea forward.  There is a threshold under which it becomes pointless (which has generally always been the case).

    I would love for people who believe that to present their thresholds and why they think we will hit it now.  Then we can analyze their thinking analytically to see whether their vote is having the impact that they claim it will.

    Or they can just say they are voting that way because they feel like it.  Which is legitimate too. But those folks can't assert that they are interested in the real world impacts of elections.

    You have to choose one or the other.  They are free to choose either, but you can't legitimately argue both simultaneously.


    um, ok (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    you've laid out the reasons to vote for Gore in 2000 (which i did, by the way, if not in Florida)

    but your comment has nothing to do with what i said

    i asked Capt Howdy why he doesn't hate the Jews instead of the Nader voters


    Because (none / 0) (#165)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    it wasn't their fault? They voted the best they could and their votes weren't counted.

    Meanwhile, Naderites affirmatively voted against Gore.


    agree, it wasn't their fault (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    as for the rest of your comment, i'll refer you to Capt Howdy's own refrain: it's a free country

    No No No... (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    I voted for Nader because I did not want to vote against anything, I wanted to vote for something.

    From my seat it is those who vote for Democrats and Republicans that are voting against something...Republicans and Democrats respectively.


    I am voting for the Dem (none / 0) (#173)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    for what it is worth. But I understand your point.

    All good dude... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    it is our right to exercise or not exercise as we wish.

    I won't tell you "you're really voting against Mitt Romney!!!", if you won't tell me "you're really voting for Mitt Romney!!!".  


    Grow Up (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    that worked out so well when the Naderites gave us 8 years of W.  and all that came with it.

    Maybe if your counterparts on the other side would have voted for who they wanted, rather than Bush, he might not get elected either.  But they listed to the drum beaters, like yourself, and voted to win.

    This rational is like a child, "Don't you dare vote for who you want, because if you do, we will blame you because our candidate wasn't strong enough to win on their own merits."

    Give me a candidate worth voting for and you get my vote, don't blame me because your shiney turd wasn't/isn't worth voting for.

    Looking at republican candidates, Obama will be the only one to blame if he loses, not me, not a third party candidate, not anyone or anything but Obama.  He got my vote last time, but not this time, and that Captain is not my fault, he didn't earn it.


    yeah (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    keep telling yourself that

    to be fair (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    Perot voters also gave us 8 years of Clinton and all that came with it.

    one other thing about that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    I fully expect and have been saying for a long time that, particularly if Romney is the nominee, a third party will help Obama keep the white house.

    and ABG I honeslty do not think any leftist third party will hurt Obama much.  most people can remember what happened in FL in 2000.  wont happen again.


    You're rellay gonna hate me now... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    I was a FLA voter in 2000...and if Doc Brown pulled up in the Delorean I'd vote for Nader again.

    not at all (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    surprised actually

    Oy (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    My husband was a Florida voter and he didn't vote in 2000, he got his ass chewed and then Iraq happened and he felt like a FOOL among other things.  He voted in 2004 and 2008.  He was a nonvoting soldier before Bush though, many people were and considered it some kind of volunteer extension of keeping the military apolitcal.  That's over now :)  Probably forever

    kdog (none / 0) (#164)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    No man no.

    I am on a mission to convince you that if you can get it to 88, you'd go Gore for the love of all that is good and holy.


    Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#159)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:29:35 PM EST
    I used to believe that people remembered Florida, Bush and all that the Nader vote gave us.

    Then I became a TL commenter.

    Now I don't think people remember anything.


    please oh please (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    do not judge the broader democratic electorate by the commenters on this blog.

    exactly (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    this cycle it is far more likely the third party will hurt the republican

    Gary Johnson... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    much preferred...all the good of Ron Paul without the blind adherence to libertarian dogma.

    if you actually believe that (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    I encourage you to read a bit more about what Johnson really thinks.  he is a lot more that legalizing drugs.

    While your comments make me very sad, (none / 0) (#114)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:44:05 AM EST
    kdog, your perspective has been consistent. And, while your understandable dedication to liberty as a first principle sometimes can be used/abused by the likes of the Me, Mine, & More of Mine Ron & Rand Paul Libertarians to further keeping those at the top that are already there and to disregard the others in favor of private property, my read of so many thoughtful pieces that you have submitted here prevent me from railing at you or even push too much to dissuade you from potentially adding a vote to Romney via the Third Party Backdoor.

    The political reason why I would choose to make nice with you (other than that you appear to be genuinely nice & you don't appear to be budge-able at this time) is that an alternative in the person of the GOP former New Mexico Gary Johnson should take more votes away from the Repubs overall (the Paulian-related & Western frontier theory cowboys) than would have ever have gone to the Dems.  The tea-leaves (heh, heh) this time round may well see the classic anger/alienation theme now more compatible with the focus as anti-1^. (E.g., the Denver Post is carrying a cartoon today from the SLC paper wherein a sadness overshadows Martin Luther King as he looks on the 995er toddlers being programmed in a large line at day school to drink from the fountain markded for 99%ers, as the 1% toddlers on the other side are waited on hand & foot by butlers bearing food & drink.  A Salt Lake Paper no less!  Nope, ole' Romney ought to hear from the readers real soon that the class distinction portrayed in the SLC paper is not one showing enby or anything close.)

    So, kdog, I'll just be sad a bit about not being able--yet--to discover any fact(s) to persuade you otherwise.  Riddle me this meanwhile: Are there any domestic instances about how people are treated/will be treated in terms of economics (esp jobs, health care, security in old age) that could help you see your way toward favoring one major party's candidate over the other???


    It is how... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    American citizens are treated by Dems and Repubs domestically that prevents me from voting for Dems and Repubs Christine, first and foremost...namely the senseless criminalization of millions of Americans.

    If the Dems were committed to surrendering the drug war and ceasing to rely so heavily on the torture that is incarceration, I might be able to hold my nose and accept "lesser evil" on foreign policy and economic issues.  But when it comes to individual liberty, inalienable rights being alienated, the big business of harassing, chaining, & caging human beings...I won't compromise.  



    An aside, kdog (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    It may be that I missed earlier comments you may have made about the extent of your antipathy toward incarceration, but can I ask what circumstances would justify incarceration? In general, that is. And, if there is a justification under some limited circumstances, what should the nature/manner of that incarceration be?

    Although I have allowed myself to be somewhat removed from the significant issue of incarceration for most of my career & adulthood, my start as an attorney in a US Circ.Ct entailed responding to/recommendations regarding federal habeas corpus petitions. During that time (& later when teaching a course or two on prisoner remedies) my eyes were opened a bit. One thing: As a society, I think, we tend to follow the out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach (aks prison as a resolution for too many types of violations.) So often, we are reminded over & over that "amnesty" is heard as a dirty word by large segments of the populace. Why do you think that is...why do some resent & resist formal forgiveness?  Don't mean to wax philosophical, but the notions of what constitutes punishment & the pound-of-flesh responses still surprise me.


    I owe such a thoughtful... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    question a thoughful answer...manana or maybe later on tonight pal, got busy and Mr. Slate is about to blow the whistle;)

    domestic instances (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:48:51 AM EST
    against my better judgment I was about to ask the same thing.
    for example, do you think Gore would have destroyed the economy by, among other things, giving a 4 trillion dollar tax cut to the superrich?

    Serious third parties will never happen (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:18:26 AM EST
    Besides thevtwo parties being so entrenched and powerful, people will naturally align themselves basically along two parties.  If you disbanded the Republican and Democratic parties today, there would be two major groups that would form again under deifferent names.  Even in political systems where there are multiple parties, nothing can get done without some if them getting together, creating a de facto large party.

    The reality that we are not parliamentary (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    in government nor form also supports your statement, jbindc. Where the term is set and standardized, the shifting affiliations & groupings promoted by a system that rises or falls on confidence/no confidence readings would not add much nor make as much political sense.

    I've been saying for a long time that (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:30:44 AM EST
    we are never going to improve the quality of the candidates we get to choose from if the metric continues to be "the lesser of two evils" - that's a bar-lowering metric, not a bar-raising one.

    I am, frankly, tired of people telling me that if I vote third party - something I have actually never done - I am wasting my vote, or that if I don't choose one of the candidates at all, that I am helping the more evil candidate win.  My vote is my voice, and if I choose to vote for a third-party candidate, it will be because I have assessed that candidate and deemed him or her deserving of my vote.  If I choose not to vote the presidential ticket, as I did for the first time in 2008, it will be because I have assessed the candidates and deemed none of them worthy of my vote.

    I don't play 11-dimensional chess, using my vote to strategically help or hinder someone's electoral chances; I don't protest vote, because there's nowhere on the ballot to express the reason why I would do that: a vote is a vote is a vote.  

    I don't vote for someone because I think he or she can win - I do that at the race track, not in the voting booth - I vote for a candidate because I think he or she is the best person for the job - quaint, I know, but call me old-fashioned, I really don't care.

    I don't disagree that [insert name of GOP candidate here] will be bad for the country, but I am also of the opinion that that doesn't make Obama good for the country.  He's talking the populist talk, but he did that in 2008, and then proceeded to govern from the right, and adopted and extended some truly hideous Bush policies, and established a few of his own on that foundation.  If Obama has an eight-year plan, I don't believe it includes doing an abrupt 180 at the four-year mark and starting to govern from the left - in my opinion, his rightward move will only pick up speed, and we will be, essentially in the same place the GOP wants to go.  Except it will be identified as Democratic policy and Democratic governance - and we can say goodbye, perhaps for a long, long time, to anything resembling liberal/progressive/left-oriented influence on our lives.

    I can't vote for that.  And I will not be guilted, shamed, intimidated, ridiculed and belittled by the likes of the 2% less evil crowd into using my one and only vote on someone who will gladly take it, and then act against my interests and the best interests of the country as a whole.

    That's my perspective - I get that it isn't shared by everyone, including you.  That's fine - we each have to do what we believe is best, even if we don't agree on what that is.  No one's telling you - I'm not telling you - that you're wrong to vote for Obama, because if it's right for you, it's right for you.  Period.  Just as what I, or kdog or sj or anyone else is right to do what they think is best for them.


    admit I didnt read all that but (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:36:19 AM EST
    if you would like to throw away your vote and increase the likely hood of a republican president its a free country.

    That makes it quite clear (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    that you didn't read Ann's comment.

    Why do you hate democracy?


    I read one once (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    its 20 minutes of my life I will never get back.

    I've rarely before (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by sj on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    encountered someone who admits so forthrightly that he is talking out of his a$$.  Usually s/he pretends that s/he is actually responding to the attached comment instead of merely chanting.  Or compulsively typing.  So congratulations for the honesty, I guess.

    My heart understands Anne's words (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    ...but, my head & the reality of our system of government parts company. One of the two major parties is going to win...that is about as near a guarantee as one gets with politics.  The mathematical aspect has to do with the sheer numbers of votes.

    Numbers of votes now call to mind Florida & 2000. However we might talk around it, there were consequences. We always mention the horrific wars, of course. Yet, think too about a subject so on our minds in the past year or so: The explosion of $$$ in politics...follow that to Citizens United...follow that to CJ Roberts & J Alito...follow that to Bush II...and back to Florida, and all the etcs.  

    What we don't see too often is that "Florida" can happen again & again. Even in the early days of my political involvement, I witnessed a Senator (Birch Bayh) win by one-vote-per-county in Indiana. We all see local elections, every few years, decided by a coin toss. In that very real world of numbers, there is Voting for Someone, Voting against Someone, and the Back Door Vote.  The Back Door Vote is the result of vote-withholding and/or putting that vote outside the Someone #1 or Someone #2 (one of which will win on a national level under our system of government.) Essentially, counting the numbers would show that the Back Door Vote deprives one candidate of 1/2 vote & thereby rewards the other with that same 1/2.


    Your opinion is your right (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    just as is your vote for the lesser of two evils, and just as are Anne's opinion and Anne's vote.

    You get that, as at least you do not attack her for it but do discuss differences of opinion and perhaps differences in voting.  And you discuss in complete sentences and thoughts, not soundbytes.

    You also get that every attack here only persuades some of us that some of the Democrats' "frieds" are their own worst enemies with this behavior, showing that they are no different, after all.


    who attacked her? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    and as for "persuading" many here, I think it became clear long ago that was a fools errand.

    Im sorry.  was that a complete sentence?


    "A fool's errand." (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    So funny for being so true.

    oh my goodness me (none / 0) (#193)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    I have been attacked (clutching pearls)

    by the way (none / 0) (#194)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:55:52 PM EST
    funny that you assume my comments are an effort to persuade anyone.

    not about you.


    I was thinking the same about you (none / 0) (#200)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    as nowhere did I say that this was about you.

    Yet you presume it.

    Interesting.  Why do you feel guilty?


    as opposed to the nameless nobody non-existent (none / 0) (#147)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    person who; unless he/she's acting from the 5th dimension, will act on your behalf.

    And I will not be guilted, shamed, intimidated, ridiculed and belittled by the likes of the 2% less evil crowd into using my one and only vote on someone who will gladly take it, and then act against my interests and the best interests of the country as a whole

    this part has to be the killer - you worried about:

    the best interests of the country as a whole

    Here's a shorter version of your post: youtube.

    Not that there's anything wrong w/that.


    Speaking for Myself (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    ABG, you can make the same GD stupid argument another 1000000 times, but it still stupid.

    If people like yourself would stop telling everyone to vote the lesser of two evils rather than the best person for the job, a third party might have a chance.  But the nitwit squads on both sides keep beating this drum, vote for us or suffer the wrath of the other.  Too stupid to realize just how similar they are; mirror images.  Both hell bent on winning at all costs, to hell with non-sense like integrity and principles, win then worry about the pesky details, or not.

    Who cares about actual leadership, better to have your clown then a clown of the opposing party seems to be your "logical justification".  And you spend hours rationalizing this non-sense by popping in every time you come across some article that even remotely comes close to supporting your nonsensical justifications.  When anyone with a lick of sense knows Obama is not the best person for the job, unless of course you make millions leaching off the rest of the population, then he's been a wet dream.

    If the goal is winning, then play your Rovian game theories, but to me it's more then that, it's about voting for the person I want leading the country, someone great. It's why Obama got my last vote.  I don't give a damn if they don't have a chance because I will sleep at night knowing I did my part to promote the best.

    Call me naive, but if we could remove the problem, people like yourself who vigorously strive for mediocrity on both sides, we could get politicians at all levels who are what we as kids envisioned a politician should be.  Not these sorry sacks that can't be bothered with solving the problems of the people when corporations are calling.

    Voting to keep someone out of office is beyond illogical, it's frighting.  And the fact that your brain has been so mismanaged to not only believe, but to publicly declare that's what a vote is for, is just plain sad.  Without your types holding these clowns in power, in one election cycle and each and every one of them could be replaced.  

    For a Democracy to be effective, the people have be above your mentality and strive for greatness, not wins.  We won't always get it, but if we never strive for it, we certainly will never experience it.  So stop holding us back, with game theories and logical justification because it ain't working.


    Yes, I was struck the other day (none / 0) (#139)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    by an interview with Reince Preibus, in which he said some of the same things that ABG had said here that day.  

    Neither is persuasive; both just strengthen my resolve.


    Towanda (none / 0) (#154)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:13:42 PM EST
    Resolve to do what.  Can someone explain to me what a vote for a third party does? What is it to accomplish? Here in the real world.

    Then we can have a discussion about what vote maximizes benefits amongst the options.

    I have simply never heard a convincing argument for voting green or a third party that didn't come down to the voter's individual feelings of vindication, which had little actual impact on what actually happens in the real world.

    Someone make the argument. I am open to discussing it.


    i think the idea is that if enough people (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    vote third party that platform or agenda will receive more notice and attention and may eventually be adopted by a major party.

    And in fairness I think we've seen that happen throughout history.  Particularly when you think about politics during the 1800s.


    My resolve to vote my conscience (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    based on my principles, among the sorts of things that you have stated here that ought not matter.

    I used to vote based on the principles of the parties as stated in their platforms, but the Dems despise their own platform, their own principles.  So voting straight Dem works for you.  It doesn't for me, because Dems don't even know who they are, anymore.


    Stop (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    From what I posted, you took away vindication ??

    Since you seem to have issues projecting your shallow view of voting onto me, I will make it so simple even you can understand.

    I will not vote for Obama because he does not deserve to be President.

    Let me also make this crystal clear, if Obama loses it will be is his fault alone, not mine, not some other party, not the mean republicans, not the finicky base, not the media, not any of the garbage you come up with.  

    If he loses it because he didn't do the job he was elected to do, nothing more, nothing less.

    And for the love of god, quit calling your view, 'The Real World'.  I don't know what the real world is, but I know the guy who's views are regularly and spectacularly different that just about everyone's, doesn't get to define it.


    you run outta O talking points? (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    Sorry sweetie, a Green vote is not a Romney vote. It's a vote for a set of ideas/values. I realize that might be hard for you to grasp, but it is what it is. I really haven't heard O asking for my (Green) vote . . . .

    the demon du jour must be the Greens (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    Obama needs better evangelists

    Wonder if ABG even knows anything (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    about the party . . . seems like he is also lacking skills on how to win hearts and influence people . . .  :~P

    iirc, ABG said recently (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    that he has never registered as a Democrat

    by contrast, longtime Democrats like christinep, & formerly Democratic, newly independent commenters like sj & Anne, have given decades of service to ground-level Democratic politics


    Funny Thing (none / 0) (#152)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    Whether being a registered democrat is a plus or a minus depends a lot on whether the person supporting Obama in something is registered.

    Whether you are on the Bash Obama Train seems to be the key.


    sure (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:29:30 PM EST
    Whether being a registered democrat is a plus or a minus depends a lot on whether the person supporting Obama in something is registered.

    that must be why my comment mentioned christinep - as we all know, she's practically collecting tickets on the "Bash Obama Train"

    RIF, ABG

    the contrast i drew is between people who have long experience in grassroots Democratic politics & people who don't have such a record but do have a tendency to lecture longtime Democrats when it comes to the fortunes of a single Democratic politician


    That's not my job (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    Similarly, if those here are trying to convince people that lefties are reasonable, we need to call the consultants.

    I am here to speak my mind and discuss.  That's about it.


    I always love it when you reveal (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    your antipathy for "lefties."

    But you're a liberal, right?



    actually (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    I think the "greens" were Gores demon.  ironic when you think about the fact that if he had won he most likely would have put into place policies that advanced their concerns based only on his climate change work

    I dont see an Omama demon yet.  Rocky?  I dont think so. Gary.  um, no.

    this year all the demons are lining up for Obama and against whatever republican gets the nod.

    so what goes around comes around.  democracy is a wonderful thing isnt it?


    i'm suggesting (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    that perhaps the Greens are the OFA/OFB demon du jour, as channeled through the unique stylings of our very own ABG . . .

    its also (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    not a vote for anyone who will ever be president.  but like I said. its a free country.

    and on the contrary I grasp it quite well.  as we all had to during 8 years of Bush


    You miss a lot when you (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    discredit the vote that way. Voting is about more than the current election. It's about beliefs and the future. I don't happen to believe voting for one of the 2 cho$en ones like a sheep is really true democracy, for starters . . . . or voting against my interests is really in my best interst or the country's. You're milage obviously varies.

    And again, I don't seem to think O is really interested in my vote/beliefs.


    No (none / 0) (#153)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:09:41 PM EST
    Actually in the real world, progressives can vote green or they can vote dem.  No green candidate is going to win so a green vote is a vote withheld from  Obama by someone who basically agrees with Obama on 60-70% of the issues.

    I understand that people tell themselves they are voting on principle, but principle won't help us when Romney slashes domestic spending the way he says he wants to.

    There is a difference between Romney and Obama and that difference is material enough for everyone here  who is a progressive to want Romney to lose.


    In the real world, people can choose (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    to vote however they want, or have you forgotten that?  And, while I understand you are talking about a presidential ballot, you should know that Green candidates have run for and actually been elected to office at state and local levels.  Your assumption that someone voting Green is, at heart, in sync with Obama on the issues is quite a leap, even for you.  

    I don't think you actually do understand that it is the principles that people believe in that cause them to cast principled votes; apparently, you just can't be bothered with the burden of principles, and just vote to be on the winning side, which says a lot about you, and not much of it particularly appealing.

    As for the differences between Romney and Obama - here's a little experiment for you...

                  is calling for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms, a set of proposals unlikely to provide a quick fix for high unemployment or gain much traction in an election year.

    A panel of business leaders advising         [...] will offer its latest job-creation prescriptions at a meeting with         on Tuesday. A draft of its report was obtained by Reuters [...]

    The panel calls for lowering corporate tax rates to "internationally competitive levels" while broadening the corporate tax base by eliminating deductions and loopholes.

    "             recommends expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels - including allowing more access to oil, gas, and coal opportunities on federal lands - while ensuring safe and responsible development of those sites," the report said.

    In addition, the report called for a series of reforms to streamline government rules and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses, which it said would enhance U.S. competitiveness.

    Whose ideas are these?

    No, not Romney.  Or Newt.   Paul Ryan?  Nope.

    These are the ideas of the President's Jobs Council.  President Barack Obama's Jobs Council - which is, in ideology and philosophy, indistinguishable from the Heritage Foundation.  You remember them, don't you?  You should - they're the group whose health reform ideas were almost wholly incorporated into Obama's ACA.

    Romney?  Obama?  Two peas in a pod, and not a principle to be found there.


    When O runs on the Green ticket (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    and I withold my vote, then what you say about my vote will
    be true. Otherwise, if that's all you've got . . . . I'll keep my principles, TYVM.

    BTW, O doesn't inspire confidence on the domestic front. "Grand Bargin" pops to mind . . . . for starters.


    What (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    happens when Obama slashes spending? Obama has offered up social security cuts in his desire to have some sort of "grand bargain". Obama has a sincere dislike for the New Deal apparently and has bought completely into this austerity crap. We all know Obama is a supply sider and so is Romney. On the economy I fail to see much of a difference.

    I don't know that O is a supply-sider (none / 0) (#174)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    Nor do most Democrats. What we do know, Ga6th, is that spending in the programs involving Social Security & Medicare will surely be slashed. Not maybe. Not possibly. The proposed slash/mash of this program & most other domestic social programs (as well as funding for EPA & Energy, as in alternative energy) will absolutely be the target of a slash. You must know that...surely you know that we will not be talking about conjecture, negotiation puffery, or even trimming. Nah, we will be talking a monster mash that we could call The Romney Mash.

    But, then, you and I see things quite differently.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:36:39 PM EST
    wants to slash them too. He has said so. The only thing that has stopped him from slashing them so far is ironically the GOP or at least the leadership of the GOP. It's truly a bizarre world of politics right now.

    I don't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:49:13 AM EST
    think anyone here outside of Kdog is considering voting for the Green Party. The Green Party is not going to be Obama's problem but the enthusiasm gap is.

    I didnt watch (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:50:41 AM EST
    the the post game coverage is starting to make me think that we maybe should be careful what we wish for when it comes to Newt.

    I honestly think he could be a bigger problem than Romney to run against. running against Romney seems less daunting by the day and Newt could conceivable get the base whipped up in ways Romney never could.

    best to not underestimate Newt IMO.  he is smarter, more resourceful and at least as  craven than Romney.  and doenst start with the problem of the base hating him.

    I see this on Morning Joe too (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    And Joe said that Romney's B rating was a Harvard B.  He got a B just for showing up.

    have that DVRed (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:57:27 AM EST
    havent got there yet

    Watching for political news (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    But can't help noticing Mika bolting off camera at the end because she is standing fully viewed in a really awful red and white striped scarf and she saw how it looked on camera :)

    btw (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    I suggest doing this if possible.  it allows me to watch the 10-15% I care about and zap the rest.

    little Ricky (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:59:50 AM EST
    seemed to be on his game too

    As of now Rick Santorum just destroyed Romney. A ad said Santorum likes felons to vote. He replied to Romney so do you think felons who have served their term should be able to vote. Romney replied No. Then Rick slams the fact that when Romney was Governor his state let felons vote even earlier than what Santorum was accused of.

    Just saw that clip too (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:04:39 AM EST
    Perry got Newt too

    this is not going to get it (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:07:39 AM EST
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney says he's "happy" to release his tax records and suggested he would do so in April if he becomes the Republican nominee for president.

    I cant believe they will let him get away with this.

    if he becomes the Republican nominee

    excuse me? dude if they allow you to become the nominee without releasing them they are even more stupid than I think they are


    Republicans calling each other out (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:06:36 AM EST
    for not showing their tax returns.....what the hell?  Let us have them debate every weekend all year this year, they'll be bluedogs soon :)

    jinx (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    Perry blows the crazy curve. again. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:13:24 AM EST
    In a Republican debate in South Carolina Monday night, the Texas governor said the state "is at war with this federal government and this administration."

    He criticized the Obama administration for slapping down South Carolina's voter identification law, which would require voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot

    The Texas governor said the most egregious example of federal government overreach was the National Labor Relations Board

    keep the crazy comin Gov Goodhair


    All politics is local (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    to bad about the whole "nationally televised/internet" thing

    Sighhhhhhh (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    SC's primary is for SC.

    admit it (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    you are a comedy troll arent you?

    because if you arent that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  
    there is this newfangled thing called "video", and another called the "internets".  all the kids are watching it.  it might catch on.  and they say on the internets nothing ever dies.


    Capt (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    take your snark and shove it....


    And then read what I told Donald.

    Cutting any wood lately??


    Aw come on (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:32:38 PM EST
    You never heard "All politics is local," before?

    Double sigh........ (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    My point was simple.

    The primary they are engaged in is in South Carolina.

    And being politicians they are likely to say things that they think will sound good in South Carolina.

    And I watched most of the debate but I missed the race baiting part.

    Perhaps you can provide some proof rather than wild claims?


    Now Donald (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:35:03 PM EST
    You and I both know that when you make a claim and run away then a reasonable person will assume that you can't support the claim.

    And you, not I am changing the subject.

    Tell me the race baiting comment made in the debate.


    Good to know, Jim (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    You and I both know that when you make a claim and run away then a reasonable person will assume that you can't support the claim.

    ... but you're probably not the best person to be making that argument.


    Which one? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    There were several.

    Until it isn't (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    Morgan Stanley will only give you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:57:17 AM EST
    $125,000 cash bonus up front for the year now.  Awwww, poor Morgan Stanley....when will the slaughtered goose lay another golden egg?  Being a fatcat is being deferred now?  How long will that hold?  What if it's a new normal :)?

    Blown away... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:06:35 AM EST
    by the musical stylings of a cat by the name of Gary Clark Jr.

    Check this dude out, by the end of the clip you will know his name.

    Good One kdog! (none / 0) (#62)
    by WillieB on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    Good Stuff! Reminded me of Robin Trower a little.

    No joke, right? (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    And so good to see another young bluesman carrying the torch...Gary is on my "do not miss if he comes through town" list.

    Sh*t might have to find a way to swing Jazzfest this year just to see him.


    So Paula Deen is cashing in (none / 0) (#54)
    by observed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    on becoming a diabetic.
    There's something Gingrichian about this, IMO.

    After eating some of her chocolate pecan pie (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    and her artichoke spinach dip, I can't imagine how she became a diabetic :)  My husband keeps asking for more dip but he has tests to pass, and if he weighs too much then they tape test him for body fat.  He's always passed so far, but Paula Deen will make all that even harder honey.

    this was very funny (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    In a feat of truly bad timing, The State -- South Carolina's largest newspaper -- endorsed Jon Huntsman for president on the same day news broke that he was withdrawing from the race. And in an interview with The Guardian, one of the editors had just the simile for the occasion:

    Cindi Scoppe, associate editor of The State, said Huntsman's decision has left the newspaper feeling like a spurned lover.

    Scoppe, who penned the endorsement piece on the former Utah governor that was published a day before he dropped out, said: "It is rather like having gone through a courtship for some period of time and finally making love with a man, for him to suddenly turn around and say, 'you know what, I think I'm gay.'"

    Typical Portland snow event today. (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    Where I live, close-in eastside of the city, the pavement is wet from rain, no snow. If I want snow all I have to do is drive my car across the Willamette River to the westside of the city, and in about 20 minutes I'll have to put chains on my tires if I want to continue to drive through the snow. And I'll still be close-in to the city center.

    Over the weekend everybody was at the stores stocking up on food and snow shovels and snow melt. Two years ago we were caught by surprise when what we thought was going to be a typical Portland snow event resulted in nearly two feet of snow across the entire city. It was a week before the snow had melted enough that I could drive out of the neighborhood. Now at the mere hit that snow might be coming we run to the stores.

    What % of your income do you pay in taxes? (none / 0) (#134)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    (that's a rhetorical question)

    Mitt Romney pays 15%

    Clearly he needs a break on that so he can create more jobs.

    Right Bain?