Sunday Open Thread

Nearly 400 arrests yesterday at Occupy Oakland.

More of the same stories about Republican primary candidates. I'm back to "Who cares?"

An op-ed in the New York Times highlights Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion in the warrantless GPS case of U.S. v. Jones, decided last week. (Opinion here) [More...]

[O]nly Sonia Sotomayor insisted that fundamental rights not be hostage to technological change....She suggested reconsidering the rule that the police can, without a warrant, get the vast amounts of information about ourselves that we give to third parties. To her, sharing our secrets — including e-mail and banking histories — with someone else does not necessarily mean the government gets access, too. It is too bad her separate opinion mustered no other votes.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Who's Watching Out for Your Privacy? | Anti-Drug War Film Wins Sundance Best Documentary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Sotomayor seems to be a precious treasure (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:48:11 PM EST
    in this age.  Before she is fully appreciated, some "Republican" will probably have to be excessively violated and abused and then get some press coverage.

    I am so glad President McCain (2.33 / 3) (#4)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:11:55 PM EST
    appointed Sotomayor.

    I thought (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 03:29:49 PM EST
    that was an excellent comment. Of course one needs to read between the lines at the subtle backhand you delivered.

    About as subtle as a screeching baby maybe... (3.67 / 3) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    There was nothing at all worth (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 04:47:08 PM EST
    giving that comment a troll rating.

    It was a substantive comment.

    You obviously cannot stand an actual conversation about the Supreme Court.



    au contraire (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    it was a troll comment

    Well, aside from directly (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    contradicting me, you give no reasons or support for that view.

    My comment was directed 100% to the Supreme Court.

    It is truly astonshing that to too many here it is verboten to say that Obama matters to the Supreme Court.  Not that you disagree--but that taking the opposite view is being trollish.

    How truly astonishing that applying a standard metric for judging a President--Supreme Court picks--on a legal site, to boot, is viewed as engaging in trollery.

    It shows how intollerant and rigid (let alone wrong) the conventional "wisdom" has become around here.


    it was a troll comment (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    because it specifically invoked the specter of "President McCain" (the GOP candidate in 2008), not the specter of a President Romney (or a President Gingrich) who, if successful in the 2012 election (the only one that matters), can be expected to make a disastrous SC appointment

    & your comment, in its invocation of the specter of "President McCain," embodies & enacts your fixation on the election of 2008, which in turn embodies & enacts your fixation on the 2008 primaries & your obsession with the P^MAs, whom you imagine as having backed if not actually voted for John McCain in the 2008 general election

    thus your comment was not, imo, "directed 100% to the Supreme Court"

    it was trolling for dead red meat from 2008, & that is why Dr. Molly gave it a well-earned  troll rating


    wow (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    you got all that from just that little comment?

    throwing down the innocence card? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:58:47 PM EST

    I have no idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:09:24 PM EST
    and I regret that you have been given the impression that I care.

    indeed i did (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    i knew that my postgraduate work in deconstruction would come in handy one day

    you should be careful (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:36:30 PM EST
    someone might deconstruct one of yours one of these days

    And, so deconstruction can work the other (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:45:01 PM EST
    way too?

    I can import all kinds of past comments and bring them to bear on current comments, and fill in the gaps as I choose.

    What I have learned is that "President McCain" hits too close to home for too many here....You could call that an admission in another business.  


    of course i also considered (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:21:45 PM EST
    the commenter's long history of previous 2008-themed troll comments

    I am sure you did (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:25:30 PM EST
    lots of "history" festering in these threads.

    The point was that a Republican (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    would have made a different pick.  I chose McCain because the Sotomayor and Kagan picks have already occurred.

    In addition, many doubted Obama would pick progressive nominees.  And said McCain was a moderate.  That reasoning has proven false.

      It is important to note that because it has been said here that Romney would be no different than Obama on Supreme Court picks.  

    Even on this very thread, the view has been expressed that Obama only picked Sotomayor by mistake.  Talk about a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose Catch 22: If Obama does something that is not Progressive, he is critized; if he does something Progressive, it was a mistake.  Talk about a biased view.


    With (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:26:15 PM EST
    unemployment so high I don't think most voters are going to care about the supreme court.

    Never important with most voters (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:38:54 PM EST
    This is a legal blog.

    really (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    it has been said here that Romney would be no different than Obama on Supreme Court picks.

    did you laugh out loud?  I did.

    A Supreme Court Justice appointed after 2012, at say 45 years old, would be expected to serve a 35 year term at current expected lifetimes, of just over 80.  If current trends hold up, even the conservative US Census Bureau estimates lifespans might increase 10 to 15 years in the next half century, taking the next presidents Supreme and other court nominee past 2050 to 2065.  By comparision, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts was born in 1955, so if he "only" serves until he is 80, we will have another chance at freshing up the court in 2037.

    No, the point is (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:20:59 AM EST
    That is a completely strawman argument -"McCain wouldn't have chosen Sotomayor or Kagan"  

    Once again, you assume McCain would have had, like Obama, one or two picks to begin with.  Plus McCain would have had an opposition Senate.

    Please get some new material.


    What a convoluted rartionale (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    for opposing Obama.....

    Since this is a law blog (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    I can't believe you really think it is verboten here to mention that Obama matters to the make up the Supreme Court.  Obama has sold women's rights down the rivier several times now, so when someone tells me that Obama is the only way I preserve my right to choose and I must swallow every rightwing policy he enacts because of that "fact", it gives me pause....because everything that Obama has done where a woman's right to choose is concerned up until very recently was whittling away my rights.  Is it verboten with you to bring up his history, and question how "trustworthy" he is on specific issues where he has not been trustworthy?

    Sotomayor and Kagan are not whittling (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    away women's rights.

    A Republican wouldn't whittle away rights, he would finish them off quite quickly.

    RE: Obama' other actions on abortion rights, no, not verboten with me--but very greatly overstated imo.  

    The whole point here is that Obama is vastly different than a Republican with respect to the Supreme Court, and that includes abortion rights....

    What has happened is that anti-Obama people here have twisted a couple of issues into Obama is a Republican and is the same as a Republican.  Totally wrong.....


    Anti-Obama my a$$ (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:57:51 AM EST
    Try accountable Obama.  And if you want to give Obama a pass for destroying your rights, that's your business. I am not required to do the same though.  I am not afraid to hold my leaders accountable and discuss their successes and failings openly.  Obama's record on defending a woman's right to her own body and thereby her own health, well being, and destiny is abysmal. Why would I magically wake up tomorrow to find that suddenly it was a major priority he would defend to the end.

    Tracy, I believe that position is vastly (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:09:28 PM EST

    Idiots are the people who drive slower (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    than me and a$$holes are the ones who drive faster.

    must be the same for "trolls"



    George Carlin (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    Maniacs drive faster and morons drive slower than you.

    Struck a nerve....Shows that some know the weakness of their position here.

    Of all comments to get a troll rating....Just one sentence draws such a reaction.....do not strive for pithy.....

    The lesson:  Clothe your position in winding dependent clause after winding dependent clause, all sounding good but covered by a patina of reasonableness and a couple paragraphs of words......

    A one sentence comment that communicates succintly is just too painful to read....Got it.


    the dogs bark (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:49:44 PM EST
    the caravan passes

    A substantive comment would add (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by observed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:48:15 PM EST
    something to the discussion. Yours did not.

    Sure, it did (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    The point is that it matters who is President.

    Some here take offense (perhaps on behalf of others) because some here have tried to assert that Obama is no different than a Republican.

    That some here cannot read such a comment without freaking out is pathetic.


    No, nothing at all. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:26:17 PM EST
    Completely substantive comment.

    Quite obviously, yes indeed I cannot stand it.


    True, on both counts (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:36:43 PM EST
    I completely agree.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    A hypothetical President McCain (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    would appoint someone different.

    Romney has already said he would appoint someone like Scalia and Thomas.


    Most likely (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    I can't see McCain appointing Sotomayor

    I'm always happy to cheer on (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    good moves by the Dems, and getting Sonia Sotomayor onto the Supreme Court happened because Obama beat McCain. MT's comment is right on, as was MKS's sarcastic shot at the Obama haters.

    Haters? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    How very Palin of you . . . . ;)

    I have no idea where you're coming from (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    but if you have issues with Justice Sotomayor why not just say it. If not, where's the beef?

    Why would any Obama hater (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    have any reason to desire a Sotomayor.  An Obama hater would have been pissed if Sotomayor made the court.  You act like they (Obama haters) all wanted Sotomayor but not Obama.

    That's kind of my point (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:22:36 PM EST
    why is it people snap at each other when they appear to be in agreement. You made a great post. MKS agreed with you**, but in a way that offended others that also were in agreement with you.

    **Note: I don't think MKS was in anyway taking a shot at your post, so if I'm wrong I read it entirely wrong.

    And thus a war breaks out on a topic that nearly everyone agrees on. Justice Sotomayor was a great pick.


    this is a nice, succinct summary (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    of the back & forth here:

    MKS agreed with you, but in a way that offended others that also were in agreement with you.

    i would add that the giving of offense was MKS's primary aim, & that his pseudoresponse to MT's original comment was the means of delivery

    & now he has a little subthread of some 50 comments (i.e., lots of attention) to show for it



    now more than 60 comments (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:18:58 PM EST
    about half of which are his

    Just responding to the other half (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:21:27 PM EST
    You guys want to jump in and make it personal, and I respond.....

    I just warned MKS about blog-clogging (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:40:33 AM EST
    there is no need for anyone to post 30 or 60 comments in a single thread.

    I will follow suit (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:06:26 PM EST
    and compliment your succinct summary, and agree with you, if you add that those that took offense also did so as their primary aim.

    <shrug> (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:27:20 PM EST
    MKS expressed what appeared to be sincere bafflement regarding why Dr Molly had given him a troll diagnosis

    by the time i happened along, Dr Molly was off playing golf, so i took it upon myself to clarify her diagnostic criteria

    when Dr Molly returned to the office, she endorsed my explanation

    & that sums up my involvement in this fascinating case


    Nope, not to offend (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    To make a point.....on an important point.

    some just don't like the point.  If I had bashed Obama,  there would have been cheers....


    MKS (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:39:33 AM EST
    You are blog-clogging the open threads. Please stop. You've made your point. There's no need to respond to every comment saying basically the same thing.

    True, not a shot at MT (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    at all.  

    My perception is that her comments are largely substantive.


    If you will all pardon me, (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    I think that the discourse on this blog is getting very heated and at times, ugly.  I must say, this is not the only blog that this is happening to- the election season seems to be bringing out the worst in people, and I admit that I am not innocent in this regard.  If I have offended anyone, I apologize.  I would ask that we all respect each other and keep our disagreements reasonable and polite.  I leave you all with some quotes, because I think I need to take a break for a few days for my own peace of mind.  Namaste, my friends.

    Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances.
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Well, the approach of the 2012 (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by observed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    PResidential election has returend the OFB to its roots: sneering disdain and incredulous umbrage taken at anyone who doesn't love Obama.
    I'm tired already.

    Dumb question (none / 0) (#61)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    What is OFB?

    Beat me to asking it... (none / 0) (#62)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    unless it's Obama Fan Boy? but that doesn't make any sense...

    Or if it does make sense, (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    I'm showing my ignorance of acronyms again.

    Jeff, please check your email. (none / 0) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:17:50 PM EST

    Reply coming in the AM, thought i had replied last (none / 0) (#70)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    week... don't know what happened to it... Sorry!

    Okay. Just wasn't sure if (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:24:26 PM EST
    you'd seen my message.

    Thanks for the answer/clarification (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    Well now I know.  Definitely rules me out.  ;-)

    let's stop the insults (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:23:58 PM EST
    I've deleted some of them. Try not to make your comments personal as opposed to about the topic. Disagreement is fine, attacks are not. Either are "1" ratings for comments you disagree with. And this is directed to everyone, not MSK in particular.

    Went to bed early and now awake very early (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 03:42:13 AM EST
    Would like to thank my husband though for his work two weekends in a row now on replacing the insulation, spraying foam into all the cracks to seal them, then he put up plywood (there was no plywood up and huge holes in the Celotex that was exposing the whole house to the humidity outside), new Celotex properly installed this time with the proper fasteners and also sealed.  We will put the siding back on in the evenings this week.

    We spent about $20,000 on a new heating and cooling system that also dealt with allergens but we could never get the house humidity reliably under 50%.  Because of my allergy to mold and the abundance of it here I have developed  asthma like I have never had before.  I had some very mild problems in Colorado, mostly when I was a kid in the summertime and my family was haying.  It is a constant bother now, but my doctor said that sleeping in a home under 50% humidity would be a huge benefit.

    We fought our new AC system constantly though, the installers were here numerous times trying to figure out why it had such a hard time keeping the humidity down considering the power and quality of the unit.

    The front of our house was fully sealed this morning, and the humidity has been 30% since.  I keep trying to develop a sinus infection too, if I slack off on either one of the prescription sprays my doctor has given me.  It is as if the humidity grows horrible things in my nose.

    I woke up early and I'm shocked to discover that my house is still 30%, it isn't an anomaly and I won't have to tinker with the temperature all day trying to suck the humidity out of the air all the time.  I guess with the big holes in the front of the house, the inside of the house couldn't help but wick in moisture constantly.

    The one concern about Sotomayor (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    during the confirmation process from a Progressive standpoint was her views on crime.  She had been a prosecutor and so could have come with a traditional tough-on-crime mindset.

    Very good to see this from--dare I say it, lest I be troll rated--one of Obama's appointees.

    If, however, one labors under the burden of believing in the increasingingly elaborate and convoluted rationalizations that Obama would be the same with respect to Supreme Court nominees  as a Republican, then this concurring opinion by Sotomayour must be bad news that punctures the "reasons" for rooting for Obama's defeat.

    You want it, you got it. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by observed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    Many people here are capable of speaking about Obama's numerous policies without taking shots at people like you.
    The difference, IMO, is that YOU feel defensive.
    There's a good reason for that feeling.

    Gee, I get a troll rating for making one (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    comment.....No wonder there is a problem.....

    And you decide to jump in--and not on policy.  

    The problem is that all of you try to enforce a conventioanl wisdom here, and if aynone challenges it, you guys go nuts.....

    As I recall, you were the one who said Obama was just like Brezhnev.  And many agreed with you.  Totally absured.


    I wonder how she feels about the (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    FBI's new quest to mine data from social networking sites...that's something the president who nominated her apparently is on board with.

    And these are the kinds of things that make me fear that if the president gets another chance to nominate someone to the Court, he won't make that mistake again...

    He's 2 for 2 so far--agree? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:11:50 PM EST
    Can't agree.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    Kentucky v. King (0 fer 2).

    His appointments have been a mixed bag on civil liberties.  Better than Brand R appointments, yeah...but not good enough, imo.  Appoint Ron Kuby for the next opening and we're in business baby.


    I think we're certainly getting more (none / 0) (#114)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    from Sotomayor and Kagan than perhaps the president who nominated them might be happy with - and that's fine by me; if they ultimately end up ruling from a more liberal legal perspective, that can only be a good thing.

    What I'm not sure about, quite honestly, is whether Obama, in looking at the decisions of his current nominees, will - if he has the chance - skew the nomination of his next appointee more to the right.  We won't know unless he (1) gets another 4 years and (2) there's a vacancy.

    That feeling, by the way, is based on Obama's actions and policies thus far, which signal a less-than-liberal place on the spectrum on a host of issues.


    Edgar Allen Poe re copyrighting: (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    It looks like Portugal is joining Greece (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    in the no place to go but fail zone.  My new word right now to study and understand is Re-hypothecation.

    It is a very, very valid point (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    That some want to ignore it is extraordinarily foolish.

    You think the Supreme Court is not (none / 0) (#15)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    at all at stake?

    You doubt that Sotomayor and Kagan have been good choices?

    Down boy! (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:41:56 PM EST
    When have I ever said any such thing? Nor do I believe MT has ether. You seem to be bringing your battle to the wrong conversation.

    the point is being made about the two (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:44:56 PM EST
    parties being equal. they are not.

    I realize it doesnt fit with the meme but she is absolutely right.  McCain would not have appointed her.


    Who said the two parties were equal? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    Huh? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    Trying to have it both ways?

    MT was having a reasonable discussion.....the rest of you?  

    It shows that President McCain is a powerful image.  Good for future use.


    Deja Vu (none / 0) (#33)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:10:27 PM EST
     This election season reminds me of 2004. The dems. had a better choice to consider, Wesley Clark. Americans drafted him, and encourage him to run.
     I worked with the draft movement. It became a grassroot movement. In Cleveland we had numerous chapters, with meetups all over.
     I met Wesley Clark at a fundraiser at Burks Lakefront Airport. He was surprised at the large gathering.
     We were growing larger at every meeting. A friend of mine printed T-shirts for us at no charge, I brought the T-shirts and the sweatshirts from Walgreens. My husband and I still wear them. We sold them and had bumper stickers printed. This movement restored my faith in Americans. Repubs. & dems. working together to bring froth a candidate that we felt would be a great president. I met so many people of all backgrounds, with the same worries about the direction of the country.
     When he agreed to run,he choose the dem.party. The party stifle the movement in favor of Kerry. The rest is history.
     We barely survived Bush 2nd term. Three yrs later we are still suffering.
     I often wonder if Clark had ran as a independent would things have turn out different.
     Watching the repub. primaries reminds me of 2004. Americans sick of GWB. Dems. thinking anyone can beat Bush. So the leadership pick there candidate Kerry. Bad choice, he lost to the worst president ever.
     The dems. leadership picked Obama, another bad choice.
     Obama was given a mandate,and a veto proof congress to fix the economy, create jobs,and stabilize the housing market. He wasted his chance, to satisfy his campaign donors.
     The repubs. also think that anyone can beat Obama. So instead of country first, it's business as usual.
     This primary season is not over. There has been unrest in this country since 2000. The media dismiss the tea party and labeled them as racist, the wall street protester, and the independents.  
     My question is, will there be a strong 3rd party candidate. A patriot who will put country first. A Hillary Clinton, Jon Huntsman, Colin Powell, Wesley Clark(there are others). Someone needs to step forward.

    Im thinkin (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:30:14 PM EST
    if the republicans dont stop hammering Newt he mights just decide to run against them.

    probably not what you had in mind but it would be a third party!


    definitely not what I had in mind (none / 0) (#67)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    Not Donald Trump either.

    Actually (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:32:11 PM EST
    if you wanted to say who the party quashed it was not Clark it was Dean. Of course, Dean did a good number on himself just like Newt has been doing. I don't think that the GOP thinks that anybody can beat Obama or they wouldn't be fighting so hard against Newt and I certainly don't remember anybody back in 2004 thinking that any candidate could beat Bush.

    I think a lot of people are hoping like you that there's somebody else to vote for besides Obama and whoever the GOP serves up.


    There's are always people (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    that want what's not on the menu.

    True (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:37:42 PM EST
    but there seems to be more of them this year than usual.

    It's the 99% (none / 0) (#79)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    isn't that the truth (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:42:24 PM EST
    especially at those chain restaurants along desolate stretches of the interstate highway system - heck, they'll put sh!t on a shingle on the menu because they know people have nowhere else to go

    Menu's change. There always specials (none / 0) (#75)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    The media ended Dean's run (none / 0) (#74)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    The old guard of the repub. party will settle for Romney, but the repub. voters won't.
     The leadership hate Newt for good reasons.

    The media (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:42:38 PM EST
    doesn't end anyone's run. That's a fall back response for "my guy lost". People drop out on their own. Dean won one state (his home state) and lost sixteen. That's why "he" ended his run for the nomination.

    The media magnified the scream (none / 0) (#82)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:54:08 PM EST
     I was watching when Dean gave the famous scream speech. The media made him seem like a madman. When he was just consoling and encouraging his supporters.

    He finished third (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:11:04 PM EST
    in a field of 4. People didn't want to vote for him. That's all it was.

    You can't ignore the treatment of Dean (none / 0) (#93)
    by observed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    by the Media.
    The so-called "scream", which was a doctored audio tape, was played more than 800 times in one week by the major media.
    Not coincidentally, Dean had been making the problem of media conglomeration a campaign theme.
    To say he didn't win -__AFTER he was smeared---really elides the point.

    This is not to mention the treatment which the media did NOT give a  manifestly incompetent George Bush in 1999-2000.
    He was ALMOST as stupid as Perry, but his faults were hid.


    Newt numbers is based on his attacks of the media (none / 0) (#100)
    by loveed on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:15:11 PM EST
     A lot of Americans is sick of the media.

    On a panel on MSNBC yesterday (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 07:28:45 AM EST
    A woman made the point that Newt is strengthening Romney because before Romney was just drifting along and now he's had to clarify his positions (still needs to on some), and Newt has brought to light zome issues the Dems will try to bring up, but will now be old news by October.

    Isn't That What all Primaries Do ? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    Is why I think the Democratic Party did a huge disservice by not letting us have a primary contender to solidify Obama's stances ?

    Now all he has to do is get on the left of Romney which is where he already is.  Right now us liberals what more then being left of the right. But the Democratic Party just refuses to give us anything, from Obama to the lowliest Representative, "You get what we want you to have and be happy with it..."

    I am not.


    Sure (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    But there are those in the camp of  "keeping Newt in the race only hurts Romney" because it airs the dirty laundry.  I believe that if you air the dirty laundry now, it doesn't smell bad by the time the Dems want to use it, thereby making it worthless.  I said a few weeks ago, that Mitt is probably glad this stuff is coming out now because by the fall, if this is all the Obama team has, people will shrug their shoulders and say, "Eh - what else you got?"

    Plus of Course (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    A lot of the 'dirt' seems to be republican hot button stuff that will never get anything more them small skirmishes on red sites during the election.  I mean really, Romney is a a Massachusetts moderate/liberal, oh no, not that...

    And the whole Bain stuff seemed silly, sure the people who really dislike it aren't going to vote for a republican anyway, and it's not the stuff elections are decided over.

    But it helps Obama I would think.

    Romney's biggest barrier is his personality.  Seems like this race is helping him not be a whinny out of touch rich guy, but it still needs work, too much IMO.  The guy is incapable of relating to people the way he needs to.  And we found out in years past, if there is one thing a good republican wants, it's a guy they think they could sit down and have a brewski with.


    It was a deserved comment (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    People here and on this very thread have questioned whether Obama would be different than a  Republican in making Supreme Court picks.

    Who has suggested that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    Supreme court picks would be the same?

    At least two here (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    and maybe more....

    Obama's record was discussed (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 02:46:03 AM EST
    And also the fact that Republican Presidents didn't always nominate the devil, just usually.  I like how nobody can question Obama's possible Supreme Court picks based on his horrid policy actions record.  It's right up there with how nobody should talk about the Florida Republican primary, because Captain Howdy called it already man and that's that.

    So your response WAS a jerk/troll response.  You just hid it when someone stepped  back for second and made inquiries?  Where my choice is concerned and my rights to my body and my life, I will never toe your line for your.....toe your own line because it is a war out there and this President has been NO LEADER we've been able to trust on that battlefield.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    on the troll responses....

    But Obama has created quit a stir with the requirement that insurance plans must have coverage for birth control.

    The Catholic Church has had a letter read over the pulpit condemning this.  And, nothing here about that.

    The problem is that listening to this blog will give you a jaundiced view.....


    OFB = Obama Fan Base (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:34:03 PM EST
    not a complimentary term

    Lets not use that acronym (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 09:26:56 PM EST
    it's as bad as those used by both sides during the primaries. There are plenty of sites where you can express hate and derision, let's not go there here.

    The discussion of Supreme Court (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    appointments, as critical as they are, seems to be off the mark in this case.  As I commented (TL January 23) the decision in Jones was a very good one in that affirmation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals was unanimous.  The reasoning and analysis are the appropriate topics. Scalia, delivered the opinion of the Court (joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Sotomayor).  However, Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. As I mentioned, Sotomayor "sharpens this reasoning of the Court for the future", but she felt, based on the facts, that a search occurred and that was enough to decide the case.

    Alito (with Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan) filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but with different reasoning and, moreover, found that the Court's reasoning was unwise.  The two sides traded barbs, along the way.  Professor Friedman is a distinguished legal scholar and feels that the Court (Scalia) has the edge for the future, and agrees with Sotomayor's addition, which does make sense.   In my opinion, The Concurrence has the better reasoning for future technological impacts on law.

    This thread has been (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 01:42:14 AM EST
    hijacked and is closing.