Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I was on Kagro in the Morning for Daily Kos Radio today. You can listen here.

Big Dog on Mitt Romney:

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RIP Mango. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:27:28 PM EST
    Former Iowa football great (Heisman runner-up and Outland trophy winner), Detroit Lion Pro-Bowl defensive lineman and actor Alex Karras died today at the age of 77.  

    RIP Mongo... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    "Mongo only pawn...in game of life."

    That man (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:29:42 PM EST

    That man certainly had a unique way to light a cigar.

    Oh dear God (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    Obama on the debate debacle:

    "Well, two things. I mean, you know, the debate, I think it's fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, it's hard to sometimes just keep on saying and what you're saying isn't true," Obama said on the Tom Joyner Morning Show on Wednesday. "It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is that's just the first one. Governor Romney put forward a whole bunch of stuff that either involved him running away from positions that he had taken, or doubling down on things like Medicare vouchers that are going to hurt him long term.... And, you know, I think it's fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one."

    Good Lord, man, wake up!  Sounds like the perfesser hasn't learned a g*d damn thing.

    Read Charlie Pierce today and weep.


    I'm seeing wiriting on the wall... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    and it's not pretty.

    I read the Charlie (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:04:58 PM EST
    Pierce article and he's really on point. Obama seems to think, once again, who he is is enough. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Obama does not want another term?

    No, it probably hasn't, because ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    ... that makes no sense whatsoever. If one doesn't want another term in office, then one doesn't run for re-election.

    You would (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    think but I guess I should have said want to win bad enough? Bad enough to change a lot of things? Part of the problem in all this is inherently Obama and a lot of Democrats have this problem not just him. The problem basically is that he's not a "fighing dem" and it's just not in his nature. Another thing I think that has kind of thrown him off kilter--he's never had a tough Republican opponent. Now two weeks ago if someone had said that i would have laughed.

    That's the logical (none / 0) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    perspective, to be sure.  But then "someone who really wants to win" wasn't obvious at the debate.  He's the one who needs to prove it.

    What can I say?  He'll either win or he won't.


    Obama's major mistake in the debate ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:57:25 PM EST
    ... was being far too polite when debating a man who will say anything, no matter how false or outlandish, if it's what he thinks that people want to hear.

    I don't see the president making the same mistake twice.


    That's the spin anyway (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    That he was too "polite." What most people saw is that he was too g*ddam passive. He didn't show up to win. Boy, am I getting tired of the spin.

    Passive, polite, same thing. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    The bottom line was that Obama needed to confront and call out Romney's bull$H!+, and should not have relied on the media to do it for him ex post facto.

    After all, if we've learned anything about the mainstream U.S. media these past two decades, it's that at key moments in their political coverage, they become the functional equivalent of those hapless NFL replacement refs who were calling the Seahawks-Packers game two weeks ago.


    To briefly take the (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    conversation sideways, polite and passive are NOT the same thing.  Someone who is polite displays courtesy and good manners.  Someone who is passive displays lack of enthusiasm or vested interest in the here-and-now.

    My niece watched the whole debate (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:20:51 PM EST
    as she's trying to decide who to vote for. Her take was Mitt was smirky and bullish, Obama was humble and polite. And I don't think her opinion had anything to do with any other sources/influence other than her own.

    It did to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    But that was a year ago and the thought was way premature.  I go back and forth on the subject now.

    Of course he wants a second term (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    Sure he does (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by sj on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:26:10 PM EST
    But sometimes I think I see more than a little ambivalence.  It doesn't matter in the end how wrong or right that thought is.  It's all up to him now to prove he wants it.

    Agree. (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    I think he needs to stop talking about (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    the dang debate. There is nothing more to say and joking about it is not even funny. Move on. And do better next time.

    From Charlie- exactly (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 07:45:26 PM EST
    'The situation does not require that you personally reinforce that feeling, especially nearly a week after the fact.'

    Why is it I had never heard of this? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    Inspiration for the new Ben Affleck movie "Argo".

    I saw a clip this morning with Alan Arkin and John Goodman.  I think I want to see this movie.

    Me too- looks good to me. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    It's in my Netflix queue but if it's as successful (none / 0) (#73)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:55:22 PM EST
    at the box office as I think it will be then it will be quite a while before we see it.

    Why? (none / 0) (#92)
    by heidelja on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 08:28:56 AM EST
    First, how old are you? Every adult aware of the hostage taking at the time knew some escaped to the Canadian embassy. Second, as for the means of escape from Iranian, I suppose no one really knew how, other than through "diplomatic channels."

    Never overlook Hollywood's ability for making something more dramatic than it ever was. There are true stories and then there are stories based on true events and then there are the movie actors who may or may not know much more than what they are told! Just think how much the actors of the recent Moslem "hate film" claim to now know about what they did.


    Well, there you go (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by sj on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 09:32:12 AM EST
    Every adult aware of the hostage taking at the time knew some escaped to the Canadian embassy.
    So, even  though I wasn't an "adult", I knew about the hostages that were kept for over a year because, you know, how could you not.  But nope, if I ever heard about the Canadian embassy assistance that memory has long since gone down the rabbit hole.

    Moreover, ... (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    ... even if someone was aware of the fact that some Americans had escaped to the Canadian embassy, the details of that escape and the subsequent escape from Iran sound incredibly interesting.  Even if the makers of the film take some dramatic license with the actual events (as they often do), it sounds like a great movie.

    I'm going to see it (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    And anybody who is above going to see it, well don't go with me :)  Stay home :)  I don't want to hear the high brow complaining, thanks all the same.

    I was 21 at the time and do not remember (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    hearing about the Canadian Embassy. Maybe I knew at the time and have lost those brain cells.

    Ben Affleck says he has talked to some of the real people,and while I'm sure the movie will not be 100% accurate I can still enjoy it if it is well done.


    RAHOOL!! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by desertswine on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:24:19 AM EST

    Wow, looks like the A's pulled one out also! (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 01:12:27 AM EST
    I had to get things done after the Giants and Yankees games and the A's were down at last check.

    Who knew I would have 3 teams making life fun right now :) But I will be torn if it comes down to Giants/Yanks :P Although, I'm still more Yanks . . . kinda hard to shake them.


    Ugh...Yankees. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 06:27:53 AM EST
    Orioles have nothing to be ashamed of - they're not getting blown out in games, they haven't lost a 2-game advantage; all in all, they've just had the sweetest season in years - and it would be all that much sweeter if they could end the Yanks' post-season.

    It's do-or-die tonight.


    But, look, Anne (none / 0) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    You'll be telling your granchildren, and their children, that the only way the Yanks could win was by sitting A-Rod down, and putting in a 40 year old pinch hitter for him, a guy by the name of "Raul Ibanez."

    I'll bet Raul didn't earn, total, as much in his 20 year career as A-rod did in his worst year.

    It's the year of the underdog....All hail, "O's" and "Ibanez."


    Don't make that bet (none / 0) (#116)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:23:27 PM EST
    Ibanez made 11.5 million in 2010 and another 11.5 million in 2011. I believe the first year for Alex in Seattle was 1.3 million.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 05:22:52 AM EST
    Look, Ma, I'm a Republican.

    The Lie gets front page, and makes its point. The discovery and rebuttal....page 14.


    The film, Seven Psychopaths, anybody? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    No idea if it will be any good but I am attracted to the premise.

    Rotten Tomatoes sez it may be ok.

    Good thoughts to Josh (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    Who is taking his first ever Algebra test right now.  He studied last night twice and once this morning.  He is learning things that I did not learn until two years older.

    I have so many education questions now.  Do children of other countries do better because their parents have more time to be involved in their study time?  Because they have more resources?

    Josh has everything he needs. What are the other kids doing?  We are tech saturated, great printer, professional paper cutter for projects, three devices to get on the internet with.  He has so far done two Powerpoints, he has done three projects requiring poster board and proper citation, he is doing things I never dreamed of doing at his age.  His grades are great.  What are his other less fortunate classmates doing?  How do they crank this stuff out when your mom is single and working two jobs and you have one computer and you steal internet access in the apartment building, and who could afford printer ink in their house?  I see another giant class gap looming before me.

    I was helping him with his Powerpoint cites but I don't know how to use Powerpoint.  Whenever I would hit the right buttom he'd say, " Very good padawan."

    I have to tell you (4.67 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    I have been having a great time with "moderate Mitt" on facebook. All my tea party friends that put up Mitt won the debate I basically agree with them but tell them it was because Moderate Mitt showed up and rolled the buss over the tea party crazies. Actually  I think "Moderate Mitt" comes off better than "tea party Mitt" because you could tell he did not believe all that stuff because he seemed so uncomfortable saying it. Of course, that's not to say that Mitt won't govern like a tea partier if elected. He'll be in quite a quandary should he win the election.

    Personally, I don't trust any politician ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    ... who's clearly uncomfortable in his own political skin. If Mitt Romney can't really be who he says he is when he's running for public office, then exactly who the hell is he?

    I'd offer that Mittens' quest for the presidency as a "severely conservative" wingbat has been the political equivalent of Julie Andrews' faux drag queen persona in "Victor / Victoria." (RIP, Alex Karras.)


    Same thing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    I think. Moderate Mitt showed up and Moderate Mitt is comfortable in his own skin.

    And just like most reptiles, he'll shed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    that skin, too; the surprise will be finding out his new markings - although he'll be just as scaly and slippery.

    All this talk about skin reminds me: he makes mine crawl.


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    he's not named Multiple Choice Mitt for nothing.

    Comparing mitt to reptiles... (none / 0) (#82)
    by desertswine on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:16:32 AM EST
    is really insulting to the reptiles.

    Reptiles are honest. (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:48:11 AM EST
    That's fine. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:59:02 PM EST
    But why wait until now before finally doing so?

    If Romney's not comfortable as a "severely conservative" GOP candidate, which is exactly how he's heretofore been presenting himself on the campaign trail, then I believe it's quite fair to suggest that he's been completely disingenuous with American voters for the better part of six years running.

    This guy is Joe Isuzu, a guy who'll say anything he thinks that people want to hear in order to make the sale.


    Not only is it fair to suggest (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    he's been disingenous, it's imperative to point it out, again and again. Hmm. I wonder if Obama will see fit to do that in the upcoming debates? Because waiting until after the debates are over to put up TV ads saying that just isn't going to cut it.

    Well... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    ....one has to be on the R side, no way you get the bid without pandering to the far right.

    But more importantly, which one is going to rule ?  Seems like he's packing his far right foreign policy team, so at some point it really doesn't matter where he is comfortable, it matter what hat he will be wearing when signing legislation.  I can't imagine any legislation too extreme for him to sign.  Ditto for SCUTUS appointments.


    Because (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    like Bill Clinton said the ship Romney was turning into the titanic and heading towards an iceberg. Also I read that his son Tagg (who the heck names their child Tagg??? but that's another story I guess) had an "intervention" with Mitt and told him that this was not working.

    "Tagg" is a nickname for ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:32:28 PM EST
    ... "Taggart," which was a given name that was more common in mid- to late-19th century America.

    All of which makes perfect sense, of course, given that Mittens is proposing and promoting policies fresh from that particular era.


    I enjoyed last week's New Girl... (none / 0) (#56)
    by magster on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    ... where Schmidt claimed to be "Tug" Romney in order to pick up a girl at a bar.

    If Moderate Mitt should become (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    the WH occupant...his longer-than-four-year lease there will be largely dependent upon the makeup of the Republican Party. See the Repub primary this year, e.g. So, in keeping with Clinton's hilarious & deft conclusion, we would see another disappearing act early on by Moderate Mitt and the re-emergence of Severe Conservative Mitt. Why? Because the controls in that party will still be where they are today and Mitt-Mitt will want a second term.  The better name? Avaricious Ambitious Mitt.

    I'm actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    not so sure about that. Mitt is smart enough to know that elections are won in the center but it would not matter if they are because the tea party would primary him. The truth of the matter is if he wins and governs like a tea party crazy, he will not be reelected by the voting public. If he governs in the middle, he might not make it out of the primary. Hence that's why I said if he's elected, he's going to be in quite a quandary.

    Whether or not he is "smart enough" (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    The old & new Mitt appears to have responded--always--to the controlling power around him at the time. In the case of Massachuseets, that was the Democratic legislature; in the case of getting the nomination, he more than tacked right. And, in order to get another nomination (no matter who he thinks he is or has become), certain obligations & tribute must be rendered to the controlling very conservative Repub party--those same Repubs who slice their very own who stray from allegiance.  For starters: Look at all the so-called social issues...and look directly at the coveted Supreme Court nominations may well be involved.

    Wishful thinking for another new & improved Mitt seems to be driving your observation in this regard, Ga6th.  That combined with a longtime demonstrated antipathy toward Obama might be factors in your analysis.  Don't ya think?


    Christine (4.67 / 3) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    Obama is his own worst enemy. I really wish I had been proven wrong about him, I really do. I had his number four years ago and he has failed to disappoint on that account for the most part. It's kind of like this year you go into the election with the candidate you have whether that's the best candidate for the party or not.

    I'm not advocating for Mitt but really can you really say what someone is going to do when in office? I've seen a lot of predictions about a lot of candidates and a lot of them turned out to be wrong. And in the end, it really doesn't matter what I think but whether Mitt is able to convince those swing voters to vote for him.

    Supreme court nominations are important but what if the GOP filibusters a nominee from Obama? We've seen him cave time and again to what the GOP wants.


    He's already had two SCOTUS nominations. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:02:29 PM EST
    Ga6thDem: "Supreme court nominations are important but what if the GOP filibusters a nominee from Obama? We've seen him cave time and again to what the GOP wants."

    Did the GOP filibuster either of those? You're making an assumption that's not backed up in any way by the record, as far as SCOTUS nominations are concerned.


    Some of the justices are getting pretty old too... (none / 0) (#58)
    by magster on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    there could likely be at least 2 vacancies next term, maybe even Scalia (he's getting more unhinged and I wonder if he's getting dementia (completely unsubstantiated internet non-medical blogger diagnosis)).

    You know for someone (none / 0) (#100)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    who is always pedaling hagiographies to Clinton you sure seem to dislike triangulation when Obama does it.  Seriously, there is no way to look at Obama's first four years and not see them as better than the first term of any democrat since LBJ and yet you continue to assume he'll cave on everything, he got a ton of stuff through and you essentially give him no credit for it because what he's not a white southern democrat?

    If he's the best (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 11:40:30 AM EST
    the Dems have to offer, then I'll stick to my status as an Independent.

    Hahahahahahaha .... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    Seriously, there is no way to look at Obama's first four years and not see them as better than the first term of any democrat since LBJ

    That is beyond funny.


    Name a better Democratic first term (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    Carter?, Clinton? Its slim pickings admittedly, but getting ACA through alone puts him ahead of those two.

    So passing (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    Bob Dole's HCR is a great accomplishment? I think i'll pass on that. You could say getting OBL was a good accomplishment. Foreign policy has been where his strengths are. Domestically he's been kind of a dud.

    I think if more people would be complimentary of HCR if Obama had done something simple like open up Medicare to more people. As it is, we have a policy that designed to fail.


    Passing the ACA (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    is neutral, imo, not really a triumph.  Bob Dole wasn't completely heartless.  He wanted some benefit to go the citizens.  He was just more concerned about business rather than people.  

    ACA has some got some good stuff, but does that that one accomplishment alone it offset the assault on whistleblowers and on civil liberties?  Does it offset the massive pass given to bankers?  The creation and regular reanimation of the Catfood Commission?  A good deed doesn't stand alone when measuring performance.


    ... to ensure at the ballot box that Mittens will never have to face such a terribly debilitating political quandary.

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    there's not much I can do about that since I live in GA.

    You can vote, can't you? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    Pay no attention to the horse race scenario offered by the media, and vote according to your conscience. After all, we're choosing a president, not betting on the ponies at Pimlico.

    Of course (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    but my meaning is that GA is not a swing state so it is going to not be picking the next president.

    God (4.50 / 2) (#20)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    I love Bill Clinton.

    Me too. 'Been saying that all day. (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    The use of the practiced Ah Shucks Arkansas or Matlock humor with the sharpness of a top-notch brief....

    A wonderful way to discombobble the opposition with a smile and infectious common sense that is public persuasion at its best.

    The iron fist in the velvet glove.


    Would have been (none / 0) (#101)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    nice if any of that had helped him get anything lasting done while he occupied the White House.

    Let me also say (none / 0) (#104)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:54:04 PM EST
    Presidents Obama & Clinton are two different personality types with different leadership styles.  For me, it is not either-or.  I admire the persuasive abilities of former President Clinton--the effervescent yet logical and expressive extrovert; I respect the determined, strategic "long game" approach & obvious results of the "incrementalist" President Obama.

    As we have come to see, the two supplement each other quite well, thank you very much.  In my eyes:   'Love them both!


    Heh (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    Yeah ... probably why he had the highest approval ratings of any POTUS, ever.

    OTOH - if you consider the Republican healthcare plan of '94 to be a legacy, I guess you could try to make that claim about Obama.

    Assuming it lasts ...


    It is important to have a plan...that passed (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 04:15:45 PM EST
    After all the years, I came to feel (and still do) that the ACA represents and is the means for healthcare sustenance.  We did not need another 70-plus years of losing healthcare battles in the non-attainable quest for reform that we had experienced prior tp ObamaCare.  We needed a start...until the start that ObamaCare provided we were mostly seeming to talk fine cuisine with one who was hungry.  Satisy the most basic needs; then continue to refine.  See, e.g., the pathways of Social Security and Medicare.

    What we needed ... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 05:46:18 PM EST
    ... was someone who would actually fight for what he promised, rather than make backroom deals and break a half-dozen campaign promises to get the Republican plan of '94.

    The Obamacare meal isn't "satisfying the most basic needs".  It's handing out breadcrumbs after promising people a chicken in every pot.


    It takes deals in DC to get legislation (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    Yea, I wanted more too, but this is an advancement from where we had been stuck for so long...and wishes aren't fishes. It does usually take a deal.

    More platitudes (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 03:34:54 PM EST
    You can make "deals" without violating fundamental promises on an issue (i.e. public HCR hearings on C-SPAN, no backroom deals, allow cheaper/imported drugs, "must contain a public option", etc.).  Obama was either utterly clueless about how the process worked or he made those promises knowing he would throw them (and us) under the bus.

    Talk about using platitudes (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    And slogans even!  Hey, I thought the "under the bus" talking-point went out with...just about any other old talker theme.

    Look...it really is  a matter of perceptual screen & the half-full or half-empty water glass.  To me, the accomplishments of this administration have to be judged by the circumstances confronting it at the outset ( as is the case with all administrations, of course.).  And, most observers with whom I spoke at said outset considered the inherited conditions so daunting as to undo any newcomer.   In retrospect, there seems to be support for that speculation.

    Again:  I  remain optimistic about the progress being made under the ACA.  And, I am aware that your outlook as to that aspect and others differs from mine.   (BTW, when I read Romney's remark to the Columbus Dispatch that he wasn't aware that anyone died for not being able to afford medical care.... Well, it says it all; & it most definitely tells us how the $$$$resisting any change in 2009/10 was stacked .)


    There's a reason ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    ... the phrase "under the bus" became a theme.

    The conditions under which Obama took office have absolutely nothing to do with his flip-flopping and the numerous broken promises he made re: HCR.

    Of course you remain optimistic about the ACA and think Obama has accomplished a great deal.

    That's the biggest advantage of setting the bar so low...


    Hoo hah (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    I set the bar high...not for philosophy, for results.  As for the ACA accomplishment:  We know that substantial reform  resulted.  While you surely know about the gains as well-- e.g., removal of the cap once a major concern/dread for individuals with chronic or overwhelming acute conditions, removing the pre-existing conditions zinger so often employed by insurance companies, strong limitations on the insurers' widespread earlier use of rescission, incentives to reduce/keep down prices to the consumer via the mandate's sustainably large pool & via the rebate requirement if 85 per cent of costs are not directly attributable to medical costs & via the open market called the exchange which was modeled successfully in the federal employees area, allowing for interim economic easing with the provision that youth under 26 can be covered under parents plan, covering the donut hole so troubling to those with costly prescriptions, shoring up Medicare by reallocating $$$ from certain private supplementals to the operation of the program itself, substantially increased Medicaid coverage, etc.--and that these gains cannot but be applauded as moving forward.

    Granted yman, the gains might not match the complete package that we should all aim for, but it would not be exactly forthright to discount them...whether in the course of argument or otherwise:). Recall again the growth THRU TIME of Social Security & Medicare.  As we all know so well now, the expansion of those solid programs came over time, not overnight.


    Speaking of talking points (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    Read them already ... not impressed.

    Obama promised a serious treatment for a healthcare system that's bleeding the country/families dry.  He delivered the Republican plan of '94.  When your leg is severed, a bandaid with a hopeful promise of real reform years or decades down the road is little solace.

    The ACA and Social Security or Medicare?

    More like the Metric Conversion Act of 1975.


    C'mon, you can do better than that.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 13, 2012 at 09:11:34 PM EST
    If you are just jousting, fine.  But, I thought you cared about the real gains for real people.  If I was mistaken, sorry.

    Did you mean (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 04:50:51 AM EST

    I thought "jousting" is what Knights did with spears on horseback. From your tone maybe "jousting" is what you felt like doing to Yman.

    But, I warn you, Yman is pretty good with backing up his claims. (His/Hers, I hate it not knowing the genders. I don't know, maybe it's best that way)

    Anyway, since both of you are marvels of encyclopedic knowledge, I'd love to hear a live debate on this topic between the both of you.

    (I would have said "hear" and "see," but the thought of even a tiny droplet of the crimson makes my stomach queasy)



    Definitely...I meant "jousting" (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    As in ritual back & forth...where an inch cannot be given (in the view of the alleged joust-er.).  

    You CAN'T do better than that? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    I do care about real gains for real people, ...

    ... which is why I don't judge Obamacare with rose-colored glasses.


    I'm surprised that you don't know (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    People who have been helped by ACA.  I do; and, about everyone with whom I've spoken seems to say that a friend or family member was relieved/thankful for immediate ACA benefits that they would not have had otherwise.  

    Since I'm not in the one- percent, it isn't hard to find lots of examples of real people helped by the ACA.  What's the phrase?  Let those who have ears hear....


    It has helped me and Military Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    I'm happy for her (none / 0) (#135)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    I'm unhappy for the many millions more who would have been helped had Obama actually fought for and delivered what he promised, rather than make backroom deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies.

    Before the last word (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    It occurs to me that --and just my personal opinion only--the course of any further "debate" between us on this matter will likely have a circular destiny.  For that reason solely, you may have the closing statement.

    Personally, it seems that it may be extremely difficult for you to move from your position that little if any good will come from the ACA...it may be that you are dug in.  While you repeat the generalized claim that many still won't have the insurance they deserve ( and, I agree that the universe should truly be universal), you fail to see or acknowledge the many millions of people who now have the access to healthcare they did not have before.  Somehow, anecdotes and well-publicized testimony of real people seem to be grudgingly accepted... Ala "oh yeah, there is a bit of that.  So here we are with the half-glass of water again:  Those "anecdotes" that are hard to miss (unless one doesn't want to see them) matter very much to the people who are living them.

    I sincerely wish you well in your striving for a more complete health care system in our country.  It would be better...just like there is every historical reason to think that the evolving ACA will grow better over time.  Fir now, I repeat:  it is good that we have finally come this far to a fair start.

    Thanks, yman.  I have enjoyed the discussion.


    Thanks, ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    It occurs to me that --and just my personal opinion only--the course of any further "debate" between us on this matter will likely have a circular destiny.  For that reason solely, you may have the closing statement.

    ... but I don't need your permission.

    BTW - It's not just a "generalized claim" that people won't have the insurance they deserve.  It's the fact that Obamacare does virtually nothing to contain skyrocketing healthcare costs, with (to some degree) the exception of government costs and the costs to the poor.  It's a fact that Obama made backroom deals with the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies in order to get something passed ... something that's virtually identical to the Republican Plan of '94.  Finally, it's a fact - one that you keep ignoring - that Obama backtracked on numerous promises on this issue, resulting in a healthcare bill that is faaaaarrrr less than what it should have been ...

    ... and what he promised.


    I don't know anyone personally (none / 0) (#129)
    by shoephone on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    who's gained from the ACA. And it sure as he[[ hasn't helped Jeffinalabama.

    Yes, Jeffinalabama has suffered immensely (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    And, shoephone, the only response to your comment that I would make that might have some relevance is: Please take a look at the NYTimes column today by Nicholas Kristof.  The column concerns a friend of his, one with prostate cancer and our insurance system.  Very sad, and very instructive.

    Back to your usual anecdotal... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    ... evidence?

    I actually do know 2 people who have been helped by the ACA (a misnomer, if there ever was one).  OTOH, there are millions more who lost their health insurance on the way to record-setting levels of uninsured while Obama wasted his majorities in order to pass the Republican Plan of '94.  There are millions more who cannot afford their prescription drugs because Obama made a backroom deal with big Pharma to prevent his promised importation of cheaper drugs.  There are millions more who can't afford the insurance they must now buy because of the wasteful private insurer system Obama decided to prop up.  There are millions more who will remain without insurance (31 million at last count?) because a public plan was not opened for them, as Obama promised.

    What's the other phrase?  La Vie en Rose?

    BTW - A couple of retired senior level federal employees?  Perhaps not the 1%, but probably top 2-3% ...


    Take whatever shots you want (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Sun Oct 14, 2012 at 10:24:37 PM EST
    In any event, our responses both speak "anecdotal" evidence...in matters like these, that may be the only kind.  

    A correction: The so-called back-room deal (aside: I've never heard of a "front-room" deal) regarding prescription drugs really seems to stem from the pre-ACA land of Bush & the then misguided AARP in an agreement leading to the infamous donut-hole.  The latter situation, of course, was corrected by the ACA, resulting in a noticeable amelioration of costs to many seniors and others with chronic illness who require multiple/expensive prescriptions.

    The expansion of the coverage universe is an essential first step...and it was a significant accomplishment in the ACA.  As you note, the costs to the insured are still too high, but the mechanisms mentioned in an earlier screed as to the 85% proviso & the exchange competition should begin to bring the costs down.  Also: the Medicaid coverage is significantly expanded to cover those who cannot meet the mandate $$$.  

    Yep, it's complex.  With 300 million citizens, one would expect that would be the case.  But, again, the start is so so so so much more than lamenting what had never been nor what we didn't have.  So much better than throwing up one's hands.


    If wishes were horses (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:49:58 AM EST
    Actually, my answers bespeak far more than anecdotal evidence.

    As far as your "correction", try again.  The backroom deal to deny importation of cheaper drugs was well-publicized ... as was the backroom deal with the health insurance companies to throw the public option under the bus.  Not to mention his promises to allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper drug prices and prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs.

    (Aside - No one has inventd a perjorative label for "front-room deals", as there is no need.  They're simply deals made in public - say, ... televised on C-SPAN even ... as candidate Obama had promised back when he needed your vote):

    To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."
    - Politifact  

    Despite your efforts to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse (or predict that it will do so at some point in the future), I find the opinion of Dr. Marcia Angell, past editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, more persuasive:

       "First, health costs will continue to skyrocket, even faster than they are now, as taxpayer dollars are pumped into the private sector. The response of payers - government and employers - will be to shrink benefits and increase deductibles and co-payments...people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."

    Oh lordy . . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 01:49:36 PM EST
    after the election, my new rep will be a Blue Dog. Losing G Miller to redistricting :( Funny thing is, he's now going to my Mom's new district, who would prob be happier with the BD, lol!~

    OTOH (none / 0) (#5)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    Due to redistricting in Maryland, Roscoe Bartlett will no longer be our representative.  It will be Chris Van Hollen, who is expected to win handily.  
    Of course, most of my neighbors are not happy about losing Roscoe the Fossil's representation, but we're certainly not.

    Diplomatic Security in Libya (none / 0) (#2)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:24:51 PM EST
    is anyone watching the hearings on C-SPAN?

    Why would anyone ever want to go into public service if they have to run the risk of appearing before Congressional Republicans such as these?

    Why (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    would anyone want to work with these nuts on policy?

    What I Never Understood (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    Republicans are always on CSPAN grandstanding, but it's a channel for serious wonks.  Your average republican voter doesn't fall anywhere near that category, they pretty much stick to Fox if they need news.

    So why the grandstanding, do they just really love confrontation, what purpose does it serve ?


    GOP = Grand Old Pontificators (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    The average republican (none / 0) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    there may be wonks watching, but you need to listen to these people calling.

    Surely ain't no wonks.


    Republicans wanted to cut (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:12:23 PM EST
    the funds for embassy security.  

    Chaffetz looked foolish on CNN trying to justify that position while bashing the State Dept for not providing greater secuity.


    11 reasons Lance Armstrong backed down (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    Dude doped (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    Never doubted it personally.

    But hell, I think they all do, including my guy Conta.

    Waste of resources (but that's what we pay USADA to do.)


    yup (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    Many More Than Eleven (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    The CEO of the anti-doping agency, Travis T. Tygart:

    The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants' doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.

    Together these different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy. All of the material will be made available later this afternoon on the USADA website at www.usada.org.

    This article also states this from the report:

    "The path he chose to pursue that goal ran far outside the rules. His goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own. The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. ... It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced."

    The release of the report came hours after the agency issued a statement alleging that Armstrong participated in "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

    This is truly shocking.


    If anyone is interested (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 11:02:11 PM EST
    In the end... (none / 0) (#93)
    by heidelja on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    ...it was largely ONLY because of coerced snitches that did him in?  Not by 100s of pages of empirical test results? So does beating the system prove he was doped? Isn't this the forum of peeps that should be seriously questioning this?

    Rick Scott's Hot Sex Number Screw-Up (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    Scott was at a Florida Cabinet meeting on Tuesday when he publicly announced a toll-free hotline's 866 number, but mixed up the numbers, according to WUSF News.

    A spokesperson for Scott said he inadvertently released the wrong number, and the correct number for the Florida Fungal Meningitis Hotline is 866-523-7339.

    All those numbers, how is one person suppose to keep them straight ?  I wonder how many times he called the Meningitis Hotline to relieve some stress ?

    He is such (none / 0) (#23)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:10:52 PM EST
    a despicable person in every sense of the word. He truly disgusts me and has brought Florida to a new low.

    And now (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    Florida has outside money coming in to advertise against retention of three supreme court judges. Never has Florida voted against retention of a supreme court judge. And never has a political party taken a stance on judge retention, until now.

    Why the push this time? The three up for retention were nominated by Dem Governors and getting rid of them would help the Republicans stack the court.


    Ah, you're getting Sconnied. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:51:21 PM EST
    See the script that will be followed.  See Wisconsin.

    My advice, had I known what I know now?



    I'm only one vote somewhere else (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 11:12:26 PM EST
    I've maintained enough goodwill with some young voters that used to work under me, knowing I always looked out for their welfare, that they'll vote way down this ballot right thru judge retention after they understand what's happening.

    Finding extra votes in a swing state is always extra pleasurable on election day, and all it costs me is a phone call and throwing a little extra gas in my car.


    Callers to the wrong number were greeted ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by heidelja on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    ...with the recording of a woman's voice saying: "Hello boys, thank you for calling me on my anniversary."


    I say it was first complained about by the college (USF) radio station because it was heterosexist site, and nothing more!


    Actually, as Republican Rick Scott gaffes go... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by heidelja on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 10:23:16 AM EST
    ... this still ranks second. #1 is when he first addressed the Florida black legislative delgation in early 2011 shortly after taking office. He stated he understood them because he too had a father with only an eighth grade education!

    Radio station was WUSF. (none / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    More Mitt vs Mitt (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Next up to bat: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    Which Paul Ryan will Vice President Biden be debating?  The  Paul Ryan behind door number 1, the deficit proliferate (Bush tax cuts, off-budget wars, Medicare Part D), the Paul Ryan behind door number 2  the deficit hawk of hawks (the unchallenged, but brilliant by all right wing accounts Nobel laureate economics baccalaureate  with the cruel but necessary Ryan budget); or the Paul Ryan behind door number 3  the newly minted Romney moderate numbers guy who has no time to give the numbers to peasants.

    Biden will need to prepare for all three with the overarching Paul Ryan of door number 4: his Tampa Convention speech that earned him the well-derserved, "lyn' Ryan."


    Quotes of the Day: (none / 0) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    Barbara Doherty, mother of U.S. Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was killed in the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, upbraids Mitt Romney for invoking her son's memory and good name as a campaign prop:

    "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama."

    And Glen Doherty's best friend of two decades, Elf Elefsen, recalls his buddy's account of his introduction to the GOP presidential nominee:

    "He said it was very comical. Mitt Romney approached him ultimately four times, using this private gathering as a political venture to further his image. He kept introducing himself as Mitt Romney, a political figure. The same introduction, the same opening line. Glen believed it to be very insincere and stale. [...] He said it was pathetic and comical to have the same person come up to you within only a half hour, have this person reintroduce himself to you, having absolutely no idea whatsoever that he just did this 20 minutes ago, and did not even recognize Glen's face."

    Suffice to say that Romney certainly didn't win any political converts amongst Glen Doherty's family and friends with his cheap stunt.

    I said it before and I'll say it again (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    Romney is truly a con-man, slickster who can BS w/such apparent ease he need not be anywhere near the presidency.

    Yeah, that makes him so much different... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:39:36 AM EST
    ... from our guy.  (pulling covers back over my head)

    Not politics, but MLB play-offs (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    Cards destroyed the Nats, 8-0!
    Go Cards!  

    5-2 Giants, bottom 5th (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    still have 3 teams in :P

    They won 8-3 (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:20:19 PM EST
    And son Zorba, a huge San Francisco fan, is happy.   ;-)

    Top 9th: Giants 8, Reds 3. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    Looks like it's going to Game 5.

    It would be one helluvan accomplishment for San Francisco to come to Cincinnati and take three straight from the Reds in their own ballpark, especially after looking so pathetic in dropping the first two at home by The Bay.


    I was at the game today. Terrible!! :( (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    Terrible for the Nats (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    But not for the Cards!  Thank goodness!

    LOL. Now, where's your Natitude?? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    If I were intending to root for (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    Any local teams, it would be the Orioles, not the Nats.  But I am a life-long Cardinals fan.         ;-)

    From our "Earth Girls Are Easy" file: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    Sometimes, it's best to not further expound upon controversial and / or embarrassing remarks which you claimed were taken out of context:

    Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel | October 10, 2012
    State legislator criticized for comments on rape - "A state representative is drawing heat for saying that his father had told him when he was young that "some girls rape easy" as a way to warn him that a woman could agree to sex but then later claim that it wasn't consensual. Freshman Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake) in December discussed a case with the Chetek Alert newspaper in which a 17-year-old high school senior was charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl in the school's band room. The newspaper quoted him as saying his father warned him, 'Some girls rape easy' - meaning after the fact they can change what they say about whether sex was consensual. On Wednesday, Rivard told the Journal Sentinel the article did not provide full context of his comments and that his father's exact words had been slightly different from how they appeared in the Chetek Alert."

    For the record, what Rep. Rivard actually said was as follows:

    "He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry.' Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.' What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.' So it's been kind of taken out of context."

    Rep. Rivard -- who's locked in a tight race for re-election against Democrat Stephen Smith -- then issued even more clarification about three hours later:

    "Sexual assault is a crime that unfortunately is misunderstood and my comments have the potential to be misunderstood as well. Rape is a horrible act of violence. Sexual assault unfortunately often goes unreported to police. I have four daughters and three granddaughters and I understand the importance of making sure that awareness of this crime is taken very seriously."

    Whew! I'm glad we finally got that cleared up!

    That's a terrible story Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    I know. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    What's even more terrible is that this clown could be re-elected. You can chalk it up to the Akinization of the GOP.

    How wonderful it must be to live in the Midwest Republicans' fantasy world in which everyone's a pious Protestant Christian, good girls and boys don't think about sex until they are married (and even then ...), wives refuse to work outside the home because they have to ensure that dinner's ready when their husbands get home from the office, and minority members of society know their place and promise to stay there.


    The GOPer creeps are coming out of the woodwork (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 12:17:25 AM EST
    This one and Akin both have only daughters. And how would they react if one of their own underage daughters and said she'd been raped?

    American conservatives: our very own Taliban.


    Uh, the Taliban are less hypocritical. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:41:53 AM EST
    DD-L live streaming on Yahoo (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    This is really good (none / 0) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    DD-L and Steven speaking about Lincoln and the film...thanx

    POLLLLLLLS! (none / 0) (#81)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 11:45:07 PM EST
    the NBC/WSJ Marist Polls people have been waiting for (I would've said "everyone" but I think it's probably 377 people):  NBC.  These polls were conducted Oct 7 through Oct 9.  Post-debate and post-debate bounce (or most of it, anyway).  Takeaway:

    Romney and Obama remain in a virtual tie in Virginia and Florida, and the Democratic incumbent maintains a slight advantage in Ohio.

    Romney saw his largest gain in Virginia, where he now edges the president 48 percent to 47 percent, a 3-point reversal from last week's poll, released the day of the first presidential debate. The spread is within the poll's margin of error.

    Florida went from O 47 R 46 to O 48 R 47.  And Ohio is O 51 R 45.  When early voters are taken out of the equation (the article provides explanation of this) Obama leads 48-46.

    Not terrible, IMO.  I'm sure expert (and non-expert) analysis awaits us on the flipside, as usual.

    Marist polls? At first I read that as 'Marxist' (none / 0) (#91)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:49:21 AM EST
    I've been reading too many moronic right wing posts (elsewhere).

    FINAL: San Francisco 6, Cincinnati 4. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 06:29:42 PM EST
    The Giants take out the Reds three straight on the road, and now move on to play the winner of the St. Louis-Washington division series in the NLCS.

    Can the Oakland A's, following yet another walk-off win last night, emulate their cross-Bay rivals's accomplishment and dropkick Detroit from the playoffs? We'll find out soon.