Tuesday Open Thread

What's on your mind today? Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wikipedia to Go Dark Tomorrow in SOPA Protest | The Long Game >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    recent study (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    on gay parenting finds:

    "Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.""

    That's not to say that there aren't phenomenal heterosexual parents.  But the study found that the average gay parent is equal to the most committed heterosexual parent, because the level of effort required to have kids means that this is something they really have to want and work for, and so they tend to place a very high value that role.

    Other findings: "research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)"

    Clearly they are ruining the country :)

    if only (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    facts mattered

    Oh Snap (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    You mean there is a downside to being an oversexed self centered self important hetro?

    Very interesting. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    I would have thought that childrasing would favor, to some extent anyway, households with both male and female parental influences vs. households with only one sex parental influence, ie, same sex parents or single parent.

    But I guess it stands to reason that a loving, caring household, ragardless of makeup, is the main foundation.

    I wonder what effect household income has on the parameters studied, and how the household incomes of the families in the study compare to average. I may be mistaken but my observation has been that same sex households are often likely to be higher income than average.


    part of the study (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    talks about gender influences and it notes that gay parents tend to comply less with typical gender stereotypes - so what you are referring to with the "male and female parental influences" I think what you are probably thinking of is less about actual gender (whether they have male or female parts) and more about the typical gender roles in society (ie. one parent that "acts" more female and one parent that "acts" more male) as you then have a more balanced view of things.  But since gay people in particular are less aligned with those traditional gender roles, you still get that balance a lot of the time it's just presented differently.  That can apply to straight couples too where the roles are reversed, but it happens more often in gay couples.

    Regarding household income it doesn't mention it, but I think it stands to reason that they would have higher incomes, especially if they are not biological parents they can wait until they are ready to have children and there is more preperation in general to go into it, which I assume includes financial preperation.


    anecdotal, but . . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    among my friends, there are a couple of dozen same-sex couples who have young or young adult children

    almost without exception, these same-sex couples have arranged for someone of the child's opposite sex to take on a quasi-parental role

    in the case of a union between two men who have a daughter, sometimes that person is the biological mother - often she is a friend (in one case, an ex-wife) who agreed to give birth - if the men have adopted a daughter (from China, for example), the biological mother is not available, but another woman is asked to take on the quasi-parental role

    in the case of a union between two women who have a son, the quasi-parent is rarely the biological father (both because the father may have been a sperm donor & because the women don't trust the biological father not to muscle his way into their relationship &/or exert his "parental rights" in the courts at some point) - in two cases, a male couple serves as a quasi-parent pair for a female couple's son

    as for income, & again this is anecdotal, the same-sex male unions have above-average income & the same-sex female unions are average or struggling economically, as women in general often do by comparison with men


    that too (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    my neighbors are a lesbian couple who have adopted the max number of foster kids (all of whom had severe disabilities).

    The brother of one of the women (who was also disabled) lived with them as well and acted as a quasi-parental figure.

    I think the bottom line is that "it takes a village" and gay couples are probably more aware of that - because they need the village just to have kids - and likely to tap into that network.


    Wow, what an amazing family (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    Many disabled children become abandoned.  It was a heartbreaking discovery we made when Josh was wondering one day if he could adopt a child with problems similar to his.  We decided to find out together but then had to stop before we both got really depressed.  There are many disabled children looking for someone....anyone to care.  After walking this road with my child and fighting for his insurance to cover certain things at different times, I have to wonder if someone who is working poor would not eventually come to the conclusion that their child would have a better chance at healthcare and a better standard of living if they abandoned them.

    they are (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:22:06 AM EST
    but it's a different kind of disabled from Josh.  Mental rather than physical.  Although the brother that lived with them had a physical disability and was in a chair.

    Most of them were born with fetal-alchohol syndrome and/or addicted to heroin and other things like that.  It's really sad actually, now that they are all grown up.  I mean a few of them still can't read and never will and all were struggling in the job/life market long before the recession.  Their parents are amazing, and they are amazing but they can't function mentally on a level where they can really work.  It's one thing when you are a kid and have someone taking care of you, but now that they are more or less adults it's harder.  And unfortunately between the lack of options and the neighborhood we grew up in not all of them are exactly on the straight and narrow.  One of the girls who was a heroin baby herself just gave birth to another heroin baby.  And the viscious cycle continues.  At least her parents were there to take the kid, because she couldn't.

    On the other hand a few of them are doing just fine.  So I guess that's progress.


    A progress, a gentle progress (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:29:45 AM EST
    The world would be a lesser and vile place without the efforts of such people.  And they are so often overlooked in our culture.  Imagine what our culture could be like if it was habit to notice such people and value them instead of gems and Ferraris?  Imagine the difference if becoming more like them were a status symbol?

    and instead (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:09:45 AM EST
    they are vilified in a lot of circles for their "lifestyle"

    Stands to reason as well, nicely done. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:21:07 PM EST
    A ton and a half of recall petitions (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    are on their way to the state capital in Wisconsin right now, carried by horn-tooting caravans coming from all across the state.  Not by "outside agitators," as Walker claims -- and who is outside the state today, fundraising in New York City at $500 per person?  Walker.

    And already filed are more than 20,000 petitions -- well more than the number needed by law, but we'll see what Walker's legal team does in its challenges to prolong this -- against the other Scotty, the Fitzgerald who is state senate majority leader.  A real grassroots campaign came in that district, although watch the stupid state Dem party try to take credit, despite refusing to undertake that effort.  And it also tried to discourage the Walker recall now, wanting to wait longer for the sake of the national party -- the national Dems who could not find the promised footwear to walk with millions of citizens who occupied the Capitol, who walked door to door, who did the work in other districts as well that are filing recalls on other legislators today, too.

    This is what democracy looks like, with historical context by John Nichols, if you want a look at what he may say on Ed Schultz's show.

    fabulous! (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    thanks for the update - makes my day!

    "Biggest recall in American history" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    according to yet another update, in part because the minimum requirement for recall signatures in Wisconsin is set so high.

    Tweeting the turning in of petitions (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    is giving us great fun, lots of photos -- including the famed Walker puppet from the protests.  It's back at the Capitol! and so are the inflatable palm trees a la Faux Nooz and other icons of the last, marvelous eleven months.  Many long months are ahead, but today is a day to party on down and up State Street.

    I expect the firefighters' bagpipers soon, too, from one of my favorite moments of many in Occupying the Capitol.


    More photo goodies posted (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:03:52 PM EST
    by the minute at this site and more by the minute there -- as well as even more plus videos and other fun on many recall websites, Facebook pages, etc.  And the big parties across the state don't start for an hour, so lots of visuals are ahead as well.

    So many family members, friends, acquaintances, and others have stood in the cold for so many months, then have battled the heat and humidity for other months along the way to this day -- and will do so again in the long months ahead, as we wait to see what is next from Walker's lawyers and his bought-and-paid-for judiciary.  It will take too many years to recover, but it has to start sometime, and the time is now.


    It's on Wisconsin days like this (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    that I miss the terrific former TL commenter "Cream City," a radical historian from Milwaukee.

    not that Towanda (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    isn't almost as terrific as CC . . . ;)

    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    I kind of assumed they were the same person and CC just changed her handle.

    I don't think they've ever been in a thread at the same time...  just saying.


    sshhhhh! (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:54:47 PM EST
    Another update re numbers (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    from a media leak, although no one really knows until the turn-in of petitions at 3 p.m. (or not until the celebration rallies around the state at the close of state business at 5 p.m.).  

    Fyi, the recall election by law is to occur in less than three months, but that will not happen, because of all of the delays already won in the courts by the Republicans.  


    Outside Agitators (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    Paging Governor Normal Fell, paging Governor Fell.  "The Graduate?"  Anyone?  Beuller, Ferris?)

    Keep it going, all you caravaning Cheese-heads!  


    Yeh, it's a classic line (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:30:00 PM EST
    as I recall from the '60s there, when urban riots there were blamed on "outside agitators."  Pressed to name names, a mayor there named Stokely Carmichael.  Well, after all, Stokely had stopped at the local airport for a few minutes to change planes, and only several months before the riots.

    And from the GAB press conference (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:08:11 PM EST
    (GAB is the state elections oversight board) comes word that was expected, in part because its boss quakes at word from Walker:  The office has hired only half of the staff needed to vet millions of signatures to get that stage underway tomorrow.

    In part, there is the problem that staffers hired to vet signatures have to have not signed a recall petition.  Seems it's difficult to find folks in Wisconsin who haven't done so.  Hahahahaha.


    Previous reports on the demographics (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 05:09:10 PM EST
    as petition signers were so interesting, and I look forward to more in final reports.  Walker kept hammering on only Milwaukee and Madison being mad at him, until early reports showed that those areas -- Milwaukee, especially -- were difficult to canvass, while the huge immediate response came from rural areas and small towns.  

    It made sense that rural areas and small towns  were feeling the hurt first from Walker's slashing and burning of the budget and his big breaks to corporate donors.  When you have only twenty teachers in a school district and have to lay off four, or you have only six staffers in a small town's village hall and have to lay off two, the impact is very visible -- and those laid off are likely to be a relative or neighbor.

    This will be interesting, too, in terms of the impact of the many months of delays ahead, with court rulings already won and more to come by Republicans (because they keep filing their cases in Waukesha County, infamous for illegal acts by its clerk of court in the state Supreme Court race, instead of Dane County, home of Madison).  

    With the expectation that the election will not be held until midsummer (it's supposed to be two and a half months from today, at most), the effect of Walker's budget cuts may be even more evident.  Next week is the deadline for nonrenewal letters to lay off more teachers, and many towns not yet hit hard by the budget cuts have said that's because they managed to defer them to next year, with those budget decisions coming in a couple of months.

    I wonder if this may mean a reversal by the Republicans on their delaying tactics.  Nah.


    From the "Are You Kidding Me?!" dept: (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    Scientists find 'lost' Darwin fossils in gloomy corner of British Geological Survey

    By Cassandra Vinograd, Associated Press / January 17, 2012

    Using a flashlight to peer into drawers at the British Geological Survey, a paleontologist saw one of the first specimens he had picked up was labeled 'C. Darwin Esq.'

    Always ... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    ... in the last place you look.

    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    Ain't it the truth?  Although usually, we don't have to wait 150 years.   ;-)

    Unorchestrated opera by Prokofiev (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:36:26 PM EST
    was recently discovered, orchestrated, and performed by LA Phil w/Salonen conducting.  Unfortunately, I missed it.  

    it's like finding (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    that $20 bill in your winter jacket.

    Times 1000


    When the media took over the country. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:24:52 PM EST
     Two event that gave the media the power to take over the country.
     I have always loved history and politics. In elementary school, I learn about the constitution. I was confused because the constitution said one thing, the country was doing the opposite.
     The civil rights movement restored my faith in the constitution and the country. Americans fought together and won. The media was a part of the fight.
     I don't want to talk about the civil rights movement.
     The first event was the OJ trial. I don't care if you thought he was innocent ( I thought he was innocent)or guilty, not the point I'm trying to make.
     Until the OJ trial, you were innocent until proven guilty. Now not guilty, means not proven innocent. The media changed after this trial. The media learn they can make a lot of money on high profile cases. Dam the facts. Or the constitution.
     The ugliest part of racism was displayed and it was ok. It took the jury 15 mins to find him not guilty.
     The jury was vilified. They became the all black jury. Uneducated unable to understand complicated science. When in fact 3 were not black.
     The jury was sequester, oblivious to the media steady drumbeat of his guilt. And all the false information coming from the media.
     The media so busy with there racist vilification of OJ, they miss the real story, of how corrupt the justice system is, from the beat cop all the way to the FBI.
     There would be no  Innocent Project without the OJ trial. How many people have they found innocent since the trial?
     Now it's part of our culture for the media to tell us, the outcome of a trial, before a jury has been seated, and any evidence has been presented.
     If it not a high profile trial, the media will make it one. And the defendant is always guilty.
     There is one case that still haunts me, Scott Peterson.
     This is a long post. The second event,next post.

    I think (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    this was happening before OJ but OJ just made it obvious. I can't remember a time in this country when the defendant wasn't assumed to be guilty because the prosecutor said they were. I think the Innocence Project has done a lot in the way of changing minds on this. You see people on the news all the time that were judged guilty by a jury and later the DNA evidence showed that they were not. There are many terrible things that have been happening in our country over the last few decades. Everybody thinks it's okay until it happens to them and then it changes their minds.

    What do you think about what Ron Paul said about the war on drugs? I thought he had a good answer to that question in one of the debates.


    I agree with RP on this issue (none / 0) (#50)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:51:14 PM EST
     The worse drugs alcohol and cigarettes.

    Heads up, kdog! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    It's the Nu Puritanism again.

    Appreciate the... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    support on the drug war front...but lets not take my sacrament out from under the bus only to throw alcohol and tobacco under.

    All in moderation! ;)


    Hey K Dog I am on your side (none / 0) (#136)
    by loveed on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:17:01 PM EST
     I quit smoking, after being hospitalize with pneumonia. The worse feeling in the world is not being able to breath. I had to drag a huge oxygen controller to my mom funeral. It kept blowing the fuse in my car.
     But I love smoking reefer. But due to random drug testing, I can't enjoy a good joint every now and then. I would lose my nursing license.
     Tobacco and alcohol used responsibly is fine. But when abused these two are the worse. They might not kill you right away, but long term affect is  very costly.

    New study (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:33:25 PM EST
    Media takeover part 2 (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:46:49 PM EST
     The second event, the 2000 election.
     The media called the election for Gore then change to Bush.
     Bush was ahead by about 800 votes. With thousands of votes not counted. Florida Gov. was Bush brother Jeb.
     All day there was problem with the vote. The butterfly ballot, hanging chads, missing ballots ect...
     Anyone whose knows anything about election, know it should have never been called for either candidate. But Fox News called it for Bush. The rest of media follow.
     The wimpy democrat allow the repub to dictate the outcome.
     It went all the way to the supreme court.You heard democrat say the supreme court gave it to Bush. This is wrong.
     The media lead the charge with phrases such as " Sore Loserman". They blame the lost on Ralph Nader. They were wrong.
     Clinton wanted to send in the National Guard to count the ballots, the dems. would not support him. I could not believe we were not counting votes.
     Who gave Bush the Election? Congress. Congress had the power to refused to accept the Florida delegates. And pick the president and vice president. A just congress who put country above party, would have picked Gore. He won the popular vote, and Florida.
     But the media kept pushing Bush victory. They never educated the public, about the constitution.
    The repubs. knowing how wimpy the dems are, took the election.
     Americans should have taken to the streets and demand  the votes counted. But the media kept telling the public Bush won.
     Ralph Nader is vilified for giving the country Bush. Americans had the right to vote for Nader if they wanted to.
     Bill Clinton understood. He refused to release the money to Bush until the very end.
     So here we are in 2012. Two wars, a wasted surplus, on the brink of a depression, because we did not follow the constitution.
     Obama picked by the media. Neither Obama or Hillary had enough delegate to win the primary. Hillary won the popular vote and all the big states except Illinois. She won a majority of the big states by double digit. Eleven of the last 13 primaries.
     Florida & Michigan votes not included.When they decided to included these two states they gave Obama delegates he did not win. Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. All with the encouragement of the media.
     Now here we are 2012. And the media is picking another president.

    Interesting, loveed. (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 08:58:22 PM EST
    And, there is a lot of reality in your perspective about the press' approach and their need to name victors, determine outcomes, etc. Actually, that attitude of the "kingmaker" press can be seen in the 1900s...the scandals, the yellow-journalism, etc.  In the 2000 election, especially in the setting of the outcome, the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore to enter the "political thicket" and effectively abnegate the State's interpretation of its own election procedures DID define the outcome. The role of the Supreme Court in the determination of that election cannot be overstated...it was the whole ballgame!

    The founding father (none / 0) (#53)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    gave us a remedy for bad calls by the supreme court. It's called congress.

    How would you apply that statement (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    to Bush v. Gore? I ask that question in view of said decision's effect in effectively giving the Florida electors to Bush. Without something approaching a government overthrow, then, how do you square this assertion with the decision handed down by the Court?

    Frankly, most interesting of all here is the minimizing of the powerful role that the Court exercised. Y'see, while I don't pooh-pooh the press' antics at various times--as they seek to play the key role in certain controversies--I really think that you ought to take a look at what the Republican appointees wrought in that decision, that 5 to 4 decision.  Yes, the press can urge, can shade fadts, can shape opinion and all that...but, they didn't pull the levers (or the chads) in the voting booths. The Supreme Court, however, made that call.

    Back to the press: As my husband would tell you, there are days when I can't shut up about how "unjournalistic" journalism can be. Then, I run up against my polar opposite Repubs in their coffee klatch nearby...and, they carry on more than me about how unfair, how wrong, how (get this) "liberal" the press is. At that point, I remember that the right gets angrier at the press--what they keep calling the liberal press--than I ever do.  What a dilemma....


    Good work on bringing balance (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:02:44 AM EST
    back into this discussion.  To absolve the Court is to ignore the balance of powers as well.  And to blame the media is to suggest that the Court was driven to its decision by the media, which also hardly would absolve the Court.

    As for your reading of the media, you are correct on the majority of editorial boards supporting  conservative candidates and issues, and for decades now; this has been studied and quantified.  Editorial board members are, compared to reporters, much older and wealthier and picked by publishers, who are much more conservative.  The confusion can come from their differences from reporters, who tend to be younger and more liberal -- not that such things ought to affect reporting, nooooooooo.


    I have to go to work (none / 0) (#58)
    by loveed on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:19:05 AM EST
     I will make this fast.
      The supreme court ruled in favor of bush. A onetime ruling. Only to apply to this one case.
     But it did not matter what the court ruled. Congress had the power to refuse the Florida delegates.

    The congressional decision (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:27:05 AM EST
    To which you refer might have been: the Congress then was Republic in the potential deciding House.  I do not believe that a credible argument would suggest anything other than that House would vote for their Republican man Bush II.  But, even before getting to such a pragmatic (if theoretical) place, the matter of the electors from each state would have been dispositive...because many states bind the electors and, more practically, because those named as electors typically are known supporters of ther own party.

    Bottom line: No matter how much you might want to move the resolution by the SCt in the Bush cas, it flies in the face of reality.  The Court did it; they went into the "political thicket."


    My argument is congress (none / 0) (#139)
    by loveed on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    following the constitution for  the good of the country. Not the party.

     The senate was Dem., the house repub.

     In the past the two party have worked together for the good of the country. Nixon.
     The congress would have impeached him, if he did not resign. The repub. lead the charge.


    The House has the authority in the (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    presidential electors situation.  Article  II (Executive Branch) provides that the House shall choose if one person does not have a majority of electors.   Art. iI, Sec. 1, para 3.  The Constitution directs how the decision shall be made...it is not a matter of House & Senate displays of bipartisanship or other mutually beneficial negotiation.  

    I think that I get your inclination to get back to the basics of legislation , decent journalism, etc.  Yet, it cannot be said too often that the Supreme Court exercised it's authority that determined the 2000 election outcome...and because of the structure of the constitutional electoral system, the lack of a concession would not have made a difference practically, politically, or in any way.

    (P.S.  The example of Dems & Repubs working together during the Watergate area wasn''t all bipartisan by any means. It took awhile--and the famous "smoking gun" of the "missing 18 minutes" of Woods' tape-- before Dems & Repubs were seen to be working together.  it took a good two years, some  strong arms--as from Judge Sirica--a President who grew reclusive as to his own party, & the Democratic Sam Ervin who actually led the charge with his adept committee chairmanship.  Nope, it wasn't the nice sit-down working together that distance might suggest.)


    You are wrong (none / 0) (#158)
    by loveed on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    When the states send there slate of delegates to the congress, they can decide whether to except them or not.
     You want to make this about the political atmosphere at this time.
     My point is about fairness and putting the country first.
     There were so many flaws in the 2000 vote in Florida. So many conflict of interest. In a just world ,congress should have refused to accepted the Florida delegates.
     If congress truly represented the interest of the people,and the country. Florida delegates would not have been accepted. And the supreme court could do nothing about it.
     Watergate took a while. But the end justified the means.

    Maybe we are both a bit set in our ways (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:24:25 PM EST
    We all have our issues that we care about.  One of mine is the determination of the 2000 election  I am not wrong. Your need to focus that issue on the more than longshot maybes of  something practically precluded by the Supreme Court is fascinating.  

    You are wrong in asserting that my focus on the 2000 election is premised on my focus today. In fact, your comments indicate your own desire to rewrite the reality of the effects of Bush v. Gore in order to construct an emphasis on bipartisanship in the Congress today

    Loved...I'd like to see a better atmosphere in the Congress too.  I 've often supported steps & approaches that tend toward bipartisan interaction.  But, this "if Congress had done it's job in the 2000 electoral determination" kind of thinking does not reflect the reality of what happened.  It doesn't't make it so just to say so.  

    Finally, and venturing into the land of what-if, who is to say that--if the SCt had not intervened--the House, as Constitutional decision maker, would not have accepted the Electors as in the best interests of the country?  what you may not want to see  is that we all think we know what is best.  We all confuse our own interests & politics with that thing called common sense.  More often than not--and especially in political debates--what I think is correct may differ from what you think & vice-versatile.  So...while your wish for Congress acting in the broader, best interests is commendable, the reality is that they will usually act in their own best interests...especially when the biggest election of all is at stake, a Presidential election.


    and did you know (none / 0) (#56)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    that when Fox called the election for Bush, the person who called it for Fox was George W. Bush's cousin, John Ellis, then working as an election "analyist" <cough> for Fox

    it was an outrage


    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by loveed on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:24:43 AM EST
     When the media called the race for Gore. Jeb left Texas to return to Florida.
     The rest is history.
     No one asked Jeb to recuse himself. What a conflict of interest.

    Oddly enough, as I clearly remember (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:14:37 PM EST
    during that night, as I was skipping from channel to channel of the election coverage, I saw Dan Rather, one of the biggest honchos in TV reporting/analysis, sit, woefully, downcast, looking at his map of the US with its states colored blue and red, say something along the lines of "I just don't see how Gore can win."

    I wasn't really outraged, just felt it was pretty telling...


    I'm guessing the "woefully" and ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:35:16 PM EST
    ... "downcast" characterizations were a matter of interpretation.

    ...but maybe not if your agenda overrides common sense.

    Ohhhhh ... his DEMEANOR (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:40:09 AM EST
    Why didn't you say so?

    No interpretation at all, then.



    To Capt Howdy (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:26:08 AM EST
    I was too busy enjoying 'Justified' to get back in the fray..

    In answer to your last question, I do believe that a House leader back then would give an equivocal response if asked if he thought the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. Gingrich said back then that you'd be crazy to believe the official story. (I am looking for the exact quote - could only find a description of it.)

    Anyway, I know we are on the same side...and yes, the GOP now has had 20 years to get even crazier, and they have in many ways. But their willingness to just make stuff up has always been there.

    I can't get into Justified (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    It just doesn't do anything for me.

    Really? I love the dialogue (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    here was more snappy patter int he first five minutes of last night's episode than in most whole shows.

    and then T Olyphant took off his shirt....what's not to like?


    He's too skinny in this :) (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:45:00 PM EST
    I guess there aren't any gyms around there.  I did watch last night and I'm thinking to myself, "What happened to his butt?  It has disappeared."

    I did like his skinny self in Deadwood (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    Even though I used to live close to Deadwood so wasn't as fascinated by the series as most.  It shocked me that the rest of America thought that our great grandmothers out there started out as anything but whores.  It's the great plains, it's the uncivilized frontier and a girl's gotta eat :)  But he was such a good boy in that series and I always loved trying to make a good boy go wrong :)

    I like his skinny self anytime (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:36:32 PM EST
    I adored Deadwood. I'm still in mourning. I have the DVD set- may have to start over now that the details have faded.

    I think he looks very buff.  He can bring psycho killers to my cheap hotel room anytime.


    I did get a strange connection to (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    that episode though.  About four years ago my husband bought a jar of moonshine from someone he worked with.  It is the most sinful thing he has ever done.  What do you do with moonshine though other than strip floors?

    It sat in the freezer for four years, taking up space and being annoying.  At Thanksgiving my SIL's dad was talking about "applepie" though.  A drink made out of moonshine.  He said he wanted to try making some and I couldn't wait to volunteer my moonshine.  He made the "applepie" and it is pretty good.  "Applepie" was used for the suicide drink.


    Buttist! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:58:30 PM EST
    I am a butt girl (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:58:36 PM EST
    Can't help it, I was born that way

    There is... (none / 0) (#156)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:27:33 PM EST
    a song in there somewhere.

    Happy 90th bday Betty White (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:13:46 AM EST
    and she get a card from the president

    "Dear Betty. You look so fantastic and full of energy, I can't believe you're 90 years old. In fact, I don't believe it. That's why I'm writing to ask if you will be willing to produce a copy of your long-form birth certificate."

    "Thanks, and happy birthday - no matter how old you are."

    Hmmm...where was she when Vince Foster died? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:30:05 AM EST
    HA (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:42:36 AM EST
    thanks I needed that

    Facebook gave Politico access to your (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    Facebook posts, comments, etc.  They are using the data to mine political sentiments. So if you say 'I love Ron Paul' they will use it to track Ron Paul support. This is done through looking at the FB database - your privacy settings mean nothing. Supposedly human eyes will not look to match up your name with your sentiments, but who really believes that?  Not me.

    For now I just messed with them by saying I think Rick Perry is the savior of the nation.


    And that is an example of why (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    I never comment on sites that use your Facebook identity.

    Wall Street has high frequency trading to (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    try to prey upon the prevailing winds of change, and Politico has Facebook :)

    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:33:47 AM EST
    I'm tempted to go over to Facebook and say that I'm writing in Lyndon LaRouche.   ;-)

    Do it! The sooner we show how invalid their (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    methods are, the better!

    Maybe that's a way (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    to get Bernie Sanders more write-in votes.

    Shhhh...don't tell Jim (it's crushing) (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:09:21 AM EST
    But the country is still certain that what happened to our economy and how difficult it has been to recover is all George W. Bush's fault and Republicans in general too :)  And It Is!

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    to wonder if W. will conveniently have "other commitments" when the GOP convention rolls around.

    And the GOP is mad at Romney for not "embracing the Reagan legacy"? I hate to tell them but all their yammering about how W. was "the heir to Reagan" pretty much destroyed what was left of that.


    We got new phones a few days ago (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    At least my new phone works more like a computer now.  I think I have some hope with this phone.  They are not iPhones (too pricey for my blood), they are Droids.

    My husband forgot his phone though this morning and it keeps talking which is kind of unsettling when you think you are here all alone.  He put the Droid faux Siri on his phone.  I call her Skeevy :)

    Get an app called "find my droid" (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    At least I think that's what it's called, in case you misplace one of them. My best friend bought a new one for his wife and she left it in the bathroom at a concert the 2nd day, gone. Again, I'm not sure on the name, but I know there is an app for that.

    Thanks for the tip on the app (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    Skeevy LOL (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    I've named my GPS Kitt.

    I went from an iPhone to a Droid and I'm sorry about it. I wanted the front facing camera (which I have used exactly once.  sigh).  But I really miss the visual voice mail.  I hate that envelope information is not readily available.

    Other that that One Big Thing, it's a great phone.


    You obviously use yours like my (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    husband uses his.  I have no idea what you are talking about :), perhaps in my future though.  He did connect my email to my phone.  I find that I'm better able to use my apps on this phone, when I get acclimated to what I have I think I'll get myself some Skeevy.  My old phone had apps ability but the screen was smaller and the whole thing just had the essence of pain in the a$$.  I could never get it to connect easily with our home network either.  This one seems much easier to use and did it in a snap.  And they had the gorilla glass phone that my husband got, soldiers are snatching it up since they put it on sale for a month.  I still insisted that my husband get the protective cover too though, but having a phone built tough as well is going to spare us all some heartache and headache around here.  We even sprang for a Stratosphere for Josh because they had such a nice price on it, he was so thrilled, mostly to have something of his own to play Angry Birds on.

    Obama is killing Keystone (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:25:47 AM EST

    Anne? Edger?

    onward! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    to the next faux outrage

    Howdy, I beg of you (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    Take some time out for lunch.  You're reading like I sound when my blood sugar is all out of whack.  TL will still be here.

    actually I was just leaving. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:17:59 PM EST

    btw (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    just so you know I do not "sit" in  front of my computer.  spent to many years doing that.  it is at standing height and in a place that when I am at home I walk past it about 1000 times a day at least.

    so its not like I have not been doing lots of other things while discussing SOPA.  just sayin.

    bye for real.


    Okay (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    See you later.

    Don't leave Howdy (none / 0) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    We need you on that wall.

    Hope so. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    He better start somewhere if he wants to be re-elected.

    Any news yet on what he's going to trade for it? The Arctic and the Gulf, maybe? Your mothers and your grandmothers social security and medicare maybe? Zero wall street regulation and prosecutions? Guantanamo? Habeas Corpus? The Constitution? Syria? Iran? Or maybe a long list of things I haven't listed yet?


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    he could lift all regulations on coal fired and nuke plants?

    Or find some other states to run the pipeline through instead?

    The administration will let TransCanada submit a new application for an alternate pipeline route, said a person familiar with the administration's plans.

    heh (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    see comment #101

    What for? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37:24 PM EST
    You're outraged that he's killing it?

    I wouldn't worry too much. It's called smoke and mirrors, something no republican could ever hope to approach Obama's skill at.

    Letting Trans Canada submit a new application for an alternate route through someone else's backyard will probably take the rest of this year or more to process, so the next republican president can approve it.

    And whether Obama wins or loses in November, he won't have to worry about approving it hurting his re-election chances.


    This is how you kill initiatives (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    Nothing dies for ever.  If Obama came out and said "I kill thee forever" you'd call him a liar.

    You didn't want him to approve the pipeline.

    He didn't approve the pipeline.

    Now you are saying he didn't do it with enough style or something.

    Just say you weren't going to give him credit for it regardless so we can all move on to the next Most Evil Thing Ever Obama Is Doing.


    Give him some credit for a change, abg. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:10:05 PM EST
    Sheesh. The guy has more "style" than anybody I've ever seen, I think. Christ, I bet Obama could probably tap dance without breaking an ankle falling in the sink.

    Look, he's a politician. And not just your average run of the mill pol, but maybe the best and the slickest at politician-ing the world has ever seen. Trying to pin him down to a position on something is like trying to hold on to a greased pig or grab a mirage, for gawdsakes.

    Although, I will admit, he has yet to approach the masterful glibness of his party's last president who said with only a hint of a smile and meant it while he said it while he looked the camera and the world straight in the eye and blew his interviewer away with, "Well... I meant it when I said it!".

    But give him time. He's learning. He's only been in office for three years, and he's getting better and better at it with each passing day. He's got you sold, right?


    If I didn't know better, edger (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    I would have thought your words were being said by Repubs...about Clinton.  Envy is something isn't it; but, then it''s good to recognize political genius when you see it.  

    Well, he fooled you (none / 0) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    didn't he?

    But, then, that would be calling you a genius.

    You're pretty smart, but, a Genius? :)


    onward! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    thats the spirit!

    Yep (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    He's movin' forward, always leaving his supporters wondering what the hell hit them. Heh. This guy is good. He probably cut his teeth as a kid dealing three card monte late at night in Chicago alleys. His nickname could have been Zoomer B. ;-)

    damn the recently debunked faux outrage (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:08:42 PM EST

    I knew you were just pulling my leg (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Nobody could be outraged at Obama pretending to kill Keystone only to slide it back in under another name when it can't impact his re-election hopes... except maybe ABG.

    Denying the permit is good; leaving (none / 0) (#125)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    the door open to an alternative plan is not.

    Further, I would suggest you read the report of the President's Jobs Council (warning: pdf format), and consider the reaction to it from Republicans:

    Republicans, who accuse Obama of pursuing "job-killing" policies, were quick to praise the panel's work, pointing out that their "job-creating" proposals echoed longtime Republican themes on taxes, energy and government regulations.

    But given the level of dysfunction in Washington, that seemed unlikely to translate into swift legislative action, especially on an issue as thorny as tax reform.

    "With this report, President Obama's own panel of experts has endorsed the approach to job creation House Republicans have been pursuing for more than a year," Republican House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

    And, when you're through reading that, here's a rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan's stirring defense of Obama's performance - given how interested you are in all sides of the issues, you really can't afford to pass it by.

    Happy reading!


    Two Time Loser Sunday (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    First the Texans.
    Sorry but they played toe to toe with the Ravens, and that game could have went either way.  I called for them to win, their D was ranked better and they can put up some points, not many but enough to stick with the Ravens.
    But they lost, it's hard, I have been in Houston pre-Texans, so I love them and they played a damn good game.

    My home state team, and I bleed green and gold.  Behind the SB against Denver, that was the toughest lose I can remember and Farve gave us some doozies.  They beat themselves in every way possible.  I like the Gmen, but they got away with an easy one, those people on the field were not the Pack.  But even though I would never admit it, the Pack never seemed right after KC.  

    "Momentum is a state of Mind" - I think Lou Holtz

    And the Giants have it.  Even if we had lost, I wished the Pack would have... I don't even know what to call it.  I love them and no point in dishing, they will have me even if they are dead last.  

    But Congrats to Baltimore and New York for solid wins, all the non-sense aside, a win is a win is a win.

    I think to week 13, I had 3 loses between my two teams, very hard to be out...  can't take nothin' for granted in the NFL.

    I'm hoping for a (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    Ravens-49ers Super Bowl match-up.  Mainly because I favor the Ravens and my son is a die-hard, longtime 49ers fan (yes, if this is the match-up, we might have to exchange some unpleasant words during the game!).  But also because the Ravens and the 49ers coaches are brothers, and this would be a first in Super Bowl history.  It would make for a terrific human interest story.
    On the other hand, a Giants-Patriots game would generate a huge amount of interest because of the Giants win over the Pats four years ago.  Grudge match!  Revenge! And so on.
    With either match-up, the headlines almost write themselves.  I'm sure that the sports writers are composing possible columns in their heads, even as we sit here.

    Brothers (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    No better story.  Thickness of blood relative to water.  One a better player in their younger days.  Dad a coach.  SF all the way!  ;-)

    And Ravens! n/t (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#16)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    Both Ravens and 49ers!  To the Super Bowl, mon frère!

    I think Jim is an A#1 A-hole. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    However, it is clear he is very talented at what he does and the players on his team would gladly take a bullet for him.

    90% of coaches are twisted phucks (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    Dictators without real kingdoms.  Some, though, "inspire" their subjects better than others, are more beloved.  The Fraternal Order of the Facemask.  Harbaugh is pure cult leader, baby.

    True dat. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    Wade standing even taller (none / 0) (#21)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    after the Ravens game. Impressive defense -- several tough stands including one at the goal line. Sacked Flacco five times (season-high). Limited Flacco to under 200 yds passing and held Rice to some 60 yds rushing. In Baltimore no less. The game turned on several critical rookie mistakes by a third string QB. And you can't be critical of him because his play got them that far. Personally, I think the Ravens dodged a bullet.

    I think... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    the Texans lost the game when their punt returner inexplicably tried to field that bouncing punt inside his own ten yard line, fumbled, and the Ravens went in to go up 7-3.

    Hard to recover from that kinda backbreaker mental error.  Never a good idea to try and field a bouncing punt under any circumstances, never mind with the coverage team within 2 yards of you.


    Agreed. And Yates picked twice in the (none / 0) (#29)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    4th quarter didn't help either. Even with all those mistakes, Texans still had a shot, to perhaps tie, on the last play.

    They Had a Security Detail Assigned to Him... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    ...when he returned, nothing happened.  Rumors of death threats, but nothing more, no actual threats.

    And to me, it happens, he didn't do it with a minute left.  A good football team should be able to recover from a an early error, be it an IT, fumble, or duffing the ball on the 2.

    Like my dad used to say, we lost by one play... well he really said, about the 80's packers, we lost by three plays, aka 21 points.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    No death threats against Jeremiah Finley, as your Packer folk don't do such nonsense.  But a lot of FB posts and the like that make clear that his dropping the ball will not be forgotten, either.

    But by that point, the Pack had blown it so many times, what's one more?


    What?! (none / 0) (#36)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    Third string quarterback, rookie, first start in early December, helped take them to second round of the playoffs. He sure as he** didn't deserve that nonsense. Come on, Man.

    I Should Have Stated (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    Jacobi Jones.

    But it was all non-sense, they cam e back to a heros welcome at the stadium that night.

    No threats were made, but the media reported rumors of threats.  


    Capt. Shettino indeed. (none / 0) (#43)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 06:27:10 PM EST

    Right you are, I missed the "C"... (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    ... despite having an "sch" in my very own surname...

    Newt is now (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 17, 2012 at 07:15:26 PM EST
    burning his bridges with Santorum and Perry telling them to get out of the race. I have to agree with Santorum on this one that it's pretty arrogant of somebody who hasn't won a single primary so far to tell people who have done better, namely Santorum, to get out of the race.

    Newt keeps this up and Perry and Santorum are going to be endorsing Romney. I have to laugh though. The GOP created this monster and now they are going to have to live with what they created.

    Yes indeed (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    The fact that Newt is such a loose cannon is exactly the reason he has not been taken seriously as a possible nominee.

    Fun to watch!


    Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:58:08 AM EST
    is saying that the base is going to hate his budget that he is proposing. Maybe it includes his "grand bargain". Things like this make it seem that he's not really interested in getting reelected.

    That just sent (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    a chill up my spine.  I hope it's unwarranted.

    For those (ahem) who like polls (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:21:00 AM EST
    Electorate sharply split over Obama.

    Some good news for the president, and some not so good news

    In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 9 percent of Americans see a strong economic recovery -- a number that has hardly budged in more than two years. Twice as many say they are worse off financially since Obama became president than say their situations have improved.

    Slightly more than half the respondents -- 52 percent -- say Obama has accomplished "not much" or "little or nothing" as president, while 47 percent offer a positive assessment of his record. Those findings are identical to public attitudes two years ago.

    The president's ratings on a series of domestic and economic issues paint a portrait of an incumbent facing a difficult reelection campaign. Yet Obama has begun to recover from career lows in several important areas, including job creation, which is expected to be at the center of the debate in the general-election contest.

    Also, Democrats are starting to feel better about the country and the economy, and they are showing renewed confidence that the president will prevail in his bid for a second term.

    Obama's political advisers have long been preparing for a more competitive campaign this year than his race against Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008. That is borne out in a hypothetical matchup against Republican front-runner Mitt Romney. In that test, 47 percent support the former Massachusetts governor, and 46 percent back the president.

    That nearly even split shows up repeatedly in the new poll. Obama's job ratings are 48 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval. On questions of whether he is a strong leader, or empathetic or in sync with respondents on values, the country is closely divided.


    Obama and the Republicans in Congress run neck and neck when it comes to whom the public trusts on the economy, taxes and the deficit. Most of those who see few accomplishments during Obama's three years in office blame the president, not the Republicans in Congress, for the lack of progress.

    Obama maintains an advantage over congressional Republicans on the issue of who is trusted to protect the middle class. But for the first time, he is tied with Republicans among independents on this question. But neither side should take comfort in that. A record-high 20 percent of independents say they trust neither side when it comes to the interests of the middle class.

    Obama has a narrow edge over congressional Republicans on job creation overall, but that again turns into a near-tie among independents. Three times as many independents say they are in worse shape since Obama took office; that's slightly more negative than it was for former president George H.W. Bush in January 1992, the year he sought reelection. (At 35 percent among independents, Obama's approval rating on the economy tops Bush's 24 percent.)

    This is an opportnity:

    Obama trails Romney among independent voters, but he is not without strong pushback. By a ratio of greater than 2 to 1, independents fault former president George W. Bush more than Obama for the current economic problems.

    Gonna be a very long 10 months until election day.

    missed a spot (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 08:15:01 AM EST
    Obama begins the year with a good boost from the Democratic base, whose enthusiasm is critical to his reelection prospects. Most Democrats, 53 percent, say the country is heading in the right direction, a 21-point increase since September. Two in three say they see a rejuvenated economy, up 19 points from November.

    like I said yesterday
    I think those numbers, considering where we are, are not bad at all.


    Duh (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 09:30:11 AM EST
    Of course most people who identify as Democrats are going to say that in an election year poll.

    What's telling is the number of independents who aren't feeling as optimitic about the economy and future.


    Yes, and more important (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    than a national overview is what is happening in the swing states.

    Forty of the states won't matter, but that's because they've made themselves foregone conclusions.

    And the popular vote won't matter, no matter how much we want to pretend.  It's that pesky Electoral College thing.


    Don't forget the Senate races (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    There may be some reverse coattail effects in some of those states (where Dems are defending 24 seats).

    The R's only need to flip 4 of them to control the Senate (3if Romney wins).

    That's pretty good odds, especially seeing as how everyone hates Congress.


    5 if Warren wins (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    just sayin

    Still great odds (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 10:54:41 AM EST
    When you have Senators in conservative states up for re-election or there are open seats.

    Nebraska, South Dakota, Virginia, Montana, Missouri, for starters.

    Michigan is also a toss up, and Romney automatically gets folks out to vote just for being a native.

    It would be very easy to get to 5 (or 4).

    Just sayin'.


    You think Romney will help (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    in Michigan?


    I think it's entirely possible we lose the senate.  I don't think it's easy though.

    I also think it's entirely possible we win back the house (also not easy).

    If I had to choose between keeping the senate or winning back the house I'd choose the house in a heartbeat.  We aren't gonna go below 40 in the senate.


    Yes, I think it's quite possible (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    While I know you love to bring out that same old piece to "prove" that Michigan would never vote for Romney, you obviously don't know much about Michigan politics.  The Detroit area, for the most part, is different than most of the rest of the state.  The western part of the state is home to many conservative evangelicals.  The northern part of the Lower Peninsula, and especially the Upper Peninsula are rural and pretty conservative (Bart Stupak, anyone?).  Also, Romney beat McCain, the eventual nominee, here in the 2008 primary by a wide margin - something he didn't do in many other states.

    Let's also not forget Macomb County, the third largest county in the state, and part of metro Detroit - the epicenter of the Reagan Democrats.  While they voted for Obama in 2008 by a margin of 53 - 45, they also voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004 by a margin of something like 89-9.

    That deep economic anxiety -- the undercurrent of every conversation with voters here -- existed before the 2008 election, when the economy was sliding into recession.

    At that time, Republican candidates, including current hopeful Mitt Romney, referred to Michigan's malaise as a "one-state recession." But ultimately voters directed their anger about it at the outgoing Republican administration, which doomed GOP nominee John McCain.

    Now, the angst that led people like the Wittmers to vote for Obama is driving them toward the Republican candidates, who met Wednesday night for a debate in neighboring Oakland County.

    "Things were pretty awful before President Obama was even sworn in, but by this point you own the economy," said nonpartisan political analyst Charlie Cook. "There's just not a state in the union where he's better off today than he was a year ago, and in some states" -- particularly industrial Midwestern states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- "the erosion has been greater than others."

    National polling shows that Obama's position has weakened most among white, non-college-educated, working- and middle-class voters -- just the sort of people who are the dominant force in Macomb County.

    Those voters made it onto the national political map in 1984 after reelecting President Reagan with 66% of the vote two decades after Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, won the county with 75% of the vote. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg studied the Reagan Democrats of Macomb and found they were voting Republican in large part because of their concerns about programs such as affirmative action and the perception that black voters were getting preferred treatment as white middle-class voters lost ground.

    In focus groups during the 2008 race, Greenberg found those issues had faded, replaced by fears about the effect of free trade agreements, the outsourcing of jobs and rising prices on everything from gas to healthcare.

    Though he has not polled in Macomb recently, Greenberg noted that the concerns of the county's voters have long dovetailed with those of white, blue-collar voters across the country, who abandoned Democrats in droves in the 2010 election. (The Republican candidate for governor swept Macomb County by nearly 25 points).

    "They rebelled against Bush in 2006 and 2008 -- against the lagging living standards and the economy -- and then rebelled in 2010 against a lack of progress on the economy," Greenberg said. "They're still in rebellion. There's no evidence that the president or Democrats have won them back at all since 2010."

    Even today, nationally Obama is down to an approval rating of 46.1%.  That obviously will fluctuate, but it isn't good for an incumbent at this stage of the game.

    And finally, there's always the "native son" factor that, while maybe won't be a huge impact, does have some.

    So yeah - I don't think one editorial by Romney is the magic bullet the Obama camp is going to win with.


    I think (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    that if Romney wins Michigan it will be for the reasons you listed and not because he happened to live there at some point.

    That's all I'm getting at.  And I don't think having Romney as the nominee vs. another candidate is going to help the Republicans win Michigan - because he's made enemies as well as friends there.

    I bring up the other article because I find it convenient to remind whomever might be reading what an @sshole he is and that voters in Michigan SHOULD be p*ssed.  And I think it might hurt him in exactly the area you are talking about - Macomb county.  So yea, I'm gonna keep bringing it up, sorry if that annoys you.

    One thing I'm not gonna do is sit here and cheerlead for Republicans.  That's never gonna happen.


    Facing reality (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    Is not cheerleading, in any realm of the universe.

    I just think you don't like Romney and are looking through the prism that assumes nobody will like him.

    Sure, autoworkers and the folks in Michigan should be pi$$ed at him for that article.  But there are tons of them that are pi$$ed at Obama more.  Mitt wrote an editorial.  Barack has been in charge of policy - good, bad, or otherwise. Who do you think people are going to hold more culpable?


    I think I despise Romney (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    and will do anything in my power to make sure nobody likes him.

    speaking of reality (none / 0) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    seen this?

    Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the Iowa Caucuses on January 3 by a historically small margin in the single digits. However, on Tuesday, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad suggested that the unofficial results may be overturned when the Hawkeye State certifies their official caucus results - former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum may be declared the official winner of the nation's first primary contest.

    so much for, what was it, third party hearsay?


    Shrug (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:07:56 AM EST
    No one still knows who won the Iowa Caucuses:

    Rick Santorum - Final total: 29,839 Change: -168
    Mitt Romney - Final total: 29,805 Change: -210

    It's a tie for the ages.

    There are too many holes in the certified totals from the Iowa caucuses to know for certain who won, but Rick Santorum wound up with a 34-vote advantage.

    Results from eight precincts are missing -- any of which could hold an advantage for Mitt Romney -- and will never be recovered and certified, Republican Party of Iowa officials told The Des Moines Register on Wednesday.

    GOP officials discovered inaccuracies in 131 precincts, although not all the changes affected the two leaders. Changes in one precinct alone shifted the vote by 50 -- a margin greater than the certified tally.

    The certified numbers: 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney. The turnout: 121,503.


    Expect the Santorum campaign to try to leverage today's news into extra momentum, strategists said.

    "It will be a story and Santorum will seize upon it, but it won't change the current political narrative," said John Stineman, an Iowa Republican operative.

    Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator, is still battling Newt Gingrich, and to a lesser degree Rick Perry, for the conservative base, Stineman said.

    Even if Santorum had been the big headline on Jan. 4 as the Iowa winner, "it certainly wouldn't have changed how New Hampshire came out, nor (Romney's) status as the national front-runner," Stineman said.

    This really doesn't change anything.  Romney got the momentum out of it.  It will be talked about for the next couple of days, and then it will be dead.


    You're right; I'm thinking of (none / 0) (#137)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    some Senate races in some states I know where the Dems seem to be in disarray, have not done well in Congressional races even when Obama did well in 2008 -- and will not do as well in 2012, owing to the terrible economies in those states -- so those could be very vulnerable seats.

    For example, there's Wisconsin, with Feingold's seat lost already.  I don't know who is running for Kohl's seat other than Baldwin, and Dane County is as different as can be from many other counties there for her to be the first woman ever elected to the Senate there.  Not there.


    Jon Corzine's ex employees throw a party (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    With a pinata also showing up.  And who isn't telling the truth?  Is it Jon or is it Edith?  Did Edith O'Brien single handedly decide to dip into the client funds attempting to save Jon Corzine from experiencing the consequences of his own actions or did she do what she was told?  Did she even have anything to do with the transaction in question?  I have savvy businessman questions.

    For fans of Geoffrey Rush: (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    watched DVD of "Tailor of Panama.'  John le Carre wrote the book, produced the film and co-authored the script.  (2001.)  Rush is the tailor/local operative and Pierce Brosnan is the guy from MI6 who has been banished to Panama.  Really funny.  And the actors look quite a bit younger.  

    Yes, that is a good one! (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    Daniel Radcliffe played the (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    the part of the tailor's son  his indb info ad when was cast as Harry Potter he had only read part of the first book. Just couldn't get through it.

    Christie calls on Romney (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    James Dobson hits Callista Gingrich, ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    ... calls her a "mistress for 8 years."

    I want to tell you that I've gotten to know Karen [Santorum] and she is just lovely. She set aside two professional careers to raise these seven children. She would make a fabulous first lady role model. And Newt Gingrich's wife, she was a mistress for eight years.


    James Dobson (none / 0) (#118)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    would think someone who "set aside two professional careers to raise these seven children" is the only model.

    I wonder if Dobson knows ... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    ... that Karen Santorum spent much of her twenties living with a boyfriend who was an abortion provider - the same guy who actually delivered her.

    Ewwww. Forty years older (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 05:22:37 PM EST
    and now 92?  And he delivered her.  That's just weird.

    Dobson's choice. (none / 0) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:17:20 PM EST
    Unsurprising that the disgusting  political reverend James Dobson,  Mr. "Focus on the Family", choses to focus on just a part of the family--Callista.   After all, Callista was a single woman, Newt was a married man--she may have been the mistress, but he was the mister.  

    Gotta love Newt Gingrich (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    opening up old political scars

    from 1933


    "Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is calling for the United States to think about returning to the gold standard."

    And trying to open a line to those (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 02:53:20 PM EST
    Gold standard-loving Paulites.

    Anybody, (none / 0) (#134)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    like Gingrich and Ron Paul, who thinks we should return to the gold standard is a total idiot and doesn't understand modern economics.  Gold is just a "marker."  It has no intrinsic value in and of itself except what people think it does.  If we were to decide to go back to the gold standard, we could do nothing but deflate, leading to massive pay cuts for most people and years and years of continuing recession- worse than what we're facing now, which is plenty bad enough.

    Well, I'm not the only one that thinks sexism (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:41:06 PM EST
    among the evangelicals had a lot to do with Michelle Bachmann's demise. A Santorum staffer pushed things that way, as did others. Bachmann's staff [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/17/402438/santorum-staffer-says-women-shouldnt-be-president -because-its-against-gods-will/ ] thinks it played a role.

    Really, given their belief structure, how could it not? At least they are consistent on their sexism, if not their family values.

    These (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    people are the worst examples of Christianity there is. I'll be glad when they drop out of the political process for good.

    it almost sounds like (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    you actually expect that to happen

    Actually (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:25:11 PM EST
    I do. It's happened before. This is not the first time evangelicals have wanted to run the government. Prohibition is most recent example I can think of. They rose and then they just disappeared into the political woodwork. It looks like it's getting ready to happen again. When they can't agree amongst themselves on who to endorse because of their hatred of Romney's religion and are actually thinking of endorsing Newt says a lot as to who bankrupt their "movement" actually is.

    lordy (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:26:55 PM EST
    it is getting fugly in SC

    Republican Woman Thanks Newt For Putting Juan Williams In His "Place"

    no doubt we will get to uppity before saturday.

    and the scary part is they say its working and that Newt in on fire and Romney is scared.  with Santorum about to be declared the winner in Iowa Newt doesnt have to win to do well enough to go to FL where not long ago he had a large lead.

    and Newt is workin the race card to do it.

    for those who did not see it (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:29:57 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    if it makes you feel any better I talked to friend of mine in SC who thinks that Newt is a lunatic. So at least not everybody in SC is that crazy and awful. The question is how many lunatics are there that will come out and vote for Newt.