Monday Morning Open Thread

I'll be back today flying solo on Daily Kos Radio from 11 to noon Eastern today. Discussing THE WEEK of the campaign.

Also this and this article on Obama and Clinton. Tune in today. I think you'll like it.

How to Listen to Daily Kos Radio:

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Open Thread.

< Lead Shrinks: Don't Let Amendment 64 Go Up in Smoke | O'Mara's Latest Motions: The State Has Some Explaining to Do >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The "six studies" Romney/Ryan keep (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:58:31 AM EST
    referring to:

    a blog post from the American Enterprise Institute

    another blog post from the American Enterprise Institute

    an op-ed by Martin Feldstein (which Romney contradicted in an interview)

    a blog post from Martin Feldstein responding to criticisms of his op-ed

    an actual paper from the Heritage Foundation

    a working paper from Prof. Harvey Rosen of Princeton, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the first Bush Administration and the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bush II (and even he qualified it later)

    From DDay.

    I wonder if it's conceivable that Obama will find a way to expose this in the debate tomorrow night.

    These six studies (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    will likely morph into another set of studies, misrepresentations and flat-out lies by tomorrow---the referenced studies being so yesterday.   Hopefully, the president's debate coaches are preparing him for (a) not being surprised at the most outlandish statements and claims  and  (b) that  the assumptions and the purported facts need to be challenged right off the bat.  

    The Romney style should be recognized as that of a reverse mortgage salesman hawking his product to vulnerable older Americans, and, always remember that it is the end that justifies the means for these guys--Ayn Rand's "noble lie." gauge is set at full steam ahead.


    Surprisingly, Chris Wallace broached ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    ... the very same subject on Fox News, indirectly questioning the integrity of such "studies."

    By all rights, throwing these "studies" back in the proponent's face during a debate should create an awkward moment for the person invoking them, especially if they're being used in an effort to counter or dismiss reality-based arguments offered in CBO reports.

    That said, I can't speak as to what ultimate effect it might have on a GOP presidential campaign whose candidates have decided to untether themselves from fact and truth, and make repeated appeals to the lowest common denominators of the American electorate.


    Okay, I found a link ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    ... to the video of Chris Wallace confronting Romney campaign spokesperson Ed Gillespie on Fox News Sunday about the six "studies":

    WALLACE: "But you're not explaining - because there are a lot of question from independent people - how do you pay for it [the $5 trillion tax cut]? And you refuse say how you're going to pay for it."

    GILLESPIE: "What we have said is that we are going to pay for it with these, by limiting deductions and loopholes - and, by the way, making sure for the middle class, that protecting the home mortgage deduction and other important deductions for them, but at the high end you would eliminate deductions and, you know, a lot of special interest loopholes that would allow you to bring down the rate 20%. Six different studies have said this is entirely doable."

    WALLACE: "Those are questionable, some of them are blogs, some of them are from the AEI, which is hardly an independent group."

    GILLESPIE: "These are very credible sources ..."

    WALLACE: (Interrupting) "One of them is from a guy who is - from a blog from a guy who was a top adviser to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies."

    Honestly, I didn't know ol' Chris had it in him. Or perhaps he was channeling the spirit of his father, after spending a restless night before, getting kicked in the a$$ repeatedly by his ghost.


    Back to the Bush years would (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    indeed be a great theme for Obama to hit hard tomorrow night. Bush's Third term.

    Also agree that it is fine for Obama not to directly call Romney a liar - there are plenty of better ways to say it with examples.

    Hey, works for me! (1.50 / 2) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    When the Demos took over both houses 2/2007 gasoline was under/around $2.00 and unemployment was under/around 5%.

    I wish Obama's plan had worked and we were back to that. Just think of all the pain and agony and in some cases hunger and missed medical care that can be directly laid at the feet of the failure and Obama.


    I forgot- in your world gasoline (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    prices are the key to everything.

    It's always fun when Jim pops in (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    and he always tries the gas approach, while failing to mention that under Bush the price of gas reached an all time high. A dubious record Bush still holds.

    If nothing else Jim is stays predictable is a gaseous sort of way.


    And in August of 2008 Bush issued an (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:33:23 PM EST
     EO and the bubble popped and on the day Obama took office it was $1.81. It has never been that low again. (Last week it was near $6.00 in CA.)

    Here's why.




    Do you know WHY it was so high in CA? (none / 0) (#63)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:48:20 PM EST
    Do you even know how to read a f*cking newspaper??? Cuz I'll bet everyone else here knows that it was due to a power failure at the Exxon refinery in Torrance.

    Now explain to us how Obama is responsible for the power failure of an oil refinery, Mr. Genius.


    What I know is that if Obama's deal had (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    established a base price of $1.81 then the price spike would be to maybe $3.00.

    That's what I f*ucking know. Too bad you're too f*ucking dense to know it.


    Learn to read a newspaper (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    other than the fascist Washington Times.

    The whole country knows that the power failure of the Exxon plant -- a power failure due to the 100+ degree heat wave -- led to the under supply and over demand of gas WHICH LED TO PRICE GOUGING BY STATION OWNERS.

    Get a brain, Mr. Confederate. The real world is quickly leaving you behind.


    Also, Richmond refinery fire (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:18:43 AM EST
    and iirc, there was one other event.

    The "bubble popped" ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:59:54 PM EST
    ... because your boy GW Bush had driven the economy into the toilet and demand for oil had plummeted.  It had nothing to do with Bush's EO, and there isn't a single oil expert who claims otherwise.  As converse held true while the economy has recovered from the crash - demand increased and the price went up, while the number of oil rigs has hit record highs.

    It's called "causation", Jim.  Just because the rooster crows doesn't mean he's causing the sun to rise.


    Dude, closer to 5 bucks. (none / 0) (#98)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:21:51 AM EST
    I'm in the all expensive BA and it's mostly on the high side of 4.50, but not breaking $4.75.  

    Leave us out of your gas rants please :)


    It's one of the keys... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    to the size of my all important leisure budget.

    The problem is speculators...I don't see Obama tackling it from that end.  And I really really really don't see Mitt Romney taking on speculators, they are his peeps.

    So bend over oil & gasoline consumers...until oil speculators start gambling on horses, cards, and sports like normal people.


    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    Romney's buds are more into manufacturing and service industries than oil and high oil prices are death to manufacturing and service.

    You're buggin pal.... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    Romney and his buddies are into shell games, griftin', "high finance"...they ain't about manufacturing sh*t unless it's in China.  And in their personal lives...4 bucks a gallon may as well be 40 bucks a gallon, it makes no difference.  

    You must be confusing Mitt with his more liberal and principled father, who did actually manufacture things, in the USA no less.


    If not all at least 95% (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    BION there are huge stretches out here that people can only travel by car.

    No subways, no bus lines... Just miles and miles of highways, MacDonals and Exon stations,


    Guess they should have ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:02:00 PM EST
    ... figured that out before they moved there.  Or, they could trade in those pickups for something more fuel efficient.

    As annoying as jim is (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    and as wrongheaded as he is about most things, he's right about that.

    Surprisingly, I'm more bothered by the cavalier attitude in this response:

    Guess they should have ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:02:00 PM EST

    ... figured that out before they moved there.

    I'm sure my ancestors would have done just that in the 17th century if they knew how much the price of fossil fuels would go up.  If they even knew what fossil fuels were.

    Instead they opted to stay on a plot of land that they thought could suupport and feed their families.


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    Jim's worried about the "pain and agony" caused by increased gas prices, but not the thousands of deaths caused by a war manufactured by GW and his armchair warrior supporters.

    Classic Jim ...


    I guess then (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by sj on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    that gasoline for those tanks the Repos took into Iraq was practically free.  Except, of course, for the damage to the members of the armed forces.  And their families.  And civil liberties.  And the economy.  And world stability.

    Except for that kind of stuff.  


    But weren't cheap gas prices ... (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    ... supposed to be a significant ancillary benefit of our conquest and occupation of Iraq, which has the second largest known reserves of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia?

    We were told by Republicans back in 2003-04 that securing those reserves under U.S. and British control would stabilize the world petroleum market, and eventually even allow for the war to pay for itself.



    Always (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    trying to make excuses for Bush aren't you. The policies that brought you all that misery were George W. Bush's policy. Take responsibility will you  for what you supported. I know conservatives always blame someone else but that needs to end.

    PS the collapse started in the summer of 2006 and that's why the house flipped from D to R and do you not realize that whatever was done in 2007 was the work of the previous congress????


    I love how Republicans NUKE (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    Our economy and one guy who has been blocked from doing almost everything was supposed to have turned all that around in less than half the time it took BushCo to NUKE everything.  What a freakshow you are Jim.

    MT. baby! Wanna freakshow? (1.33 / 3) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:48:27 PM EST
    Look in a mirror.

    Obama had his chance. He had a huge majority in Congress, a huge electoral majority and was well liked... He blew it. Time for new approach. If Romney fails we can try something else.

    GA, still making things up aren't you.

    Donald, good point. We should have pulled an Antony and secured the wheat supply. But we didn't. And that is still no reason for what has happened under Obama.

    SJ, also a good point. Of course we're now paying $6 and up and today is today and what wasn't done yesterday doesn't help the working poor put gasoline in their 10 year old 15 mpg car.


    AAA says the average price today (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    is 3.78 for regular unleaded. That's a far cry from your $6 and up suggestion, and well below the peak of $4.12 that Bush achieved.

    I've still never seen proof of the claim (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    it was above $6 to begin with. Above $5, yes, for about two days. It is back down into $4 territory in CA. And I just paid $3.83 last week in Western WA (where it has gone down another 3 cents in the last two days).

    Our gas prices are $4.25 / gal. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 06:05:54 PM EST
    I don't understand why our prices just jacked up in response to the refinery closure in California, since we we get our oil directly from Indonesia and Brunei, we have two huge refineries here in west Oahu, and we aren't dependent upon the U.S. mainland for our gasoline. As a matter of fact, our refineries export gasoline and jet fuel to the Pacific Northwest.

    I tend to believe that we're being gouged out here. Two weeks ago, our prices were 15 cents cheaper than the western U.S. There's no apparent rational explanation.


    But BP's Cherry Point refinery (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:05:02 PM EST
    in Whatcom County caught fire in February, which started the supply and price hike problem for the entire west coast. We're just climbing out of that in WA.

    Nasty on so many (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by the capstan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 08:11:00 PM EST

    Sorry, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    Your crocodile tears for the "working poor" ain't gonna fly.  Guess you'll just have to cut back on the poker games or send the grandkids to public school ...

    I hadn't realized until yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    How pleasant things had been here the last couple of weeks.

    Seems fair, so obviously (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    If we can use the bottomed out price of gas due to economic depression as the baseline to decry Obama, when can also use the bottomed out stock markets to praise him right Jim?

    Barack Obama took office with the Dow at: 8279 and the NASDAQ at: 1440.89 they now stand at: 13547 and 3097 respectively--  a 160%+ and 200%+ increase respectively, so Jim I have to ask you is Obama an economic genius or was this just a reversion to the norm- because he can't be responsible for the spike in gas prices but get no credit for this recovery.


    Wait you really want to add medical care (none / 0) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    to the list because the Ryan plan combined with repealing the ACA would result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually due to lack of access to medical care, that's just statistical fact.

    From the First World Problems file.... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    I learned this weekend that newer DVDs and Blu-Ray disks sold to rental companies like Netflix and Blockbuster are 'rental versions', which lack the 'extras', like commentary, deleted scenes, etc.

    This is because the studios want me to buy the disks to get this material.

    I guess this is fair...but I still call foul! Are they really going to sell more disks? As devoted a consumer of commentaries as I am, even I am not willing to buy a movie I would not ordinarily buy just to get the commentaries. All they are doing is making me mad.

    Same with DVDs sold to public libraries. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    I have noticed recently that newer DVDs borrowed from the library lack the extras.

    If nearly all the movies I see are borrowed from the library, it seems misguided to think I will now purchase DVDs just to hear the director chit-chat over the dialog.


    Funny part was I was looking foe deleted scenes (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    in a movie I did not even like that much-  "One Day" - in hopes that the deleted scenes would make it make more sense. Oh well, I will never know, since there is no way in he!! I am going to buy that movie!

    I saw "The Master" yesterday. I (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    would like to know which scenes were considered for deletion but left in.  That is one loooooong movie.

    Yes. Not only was "The Master" long, ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:59:20 PM EST
    ... I found it to be one of the most tedious movies I've ever seen, even if it was well-acted. Naturally, it will probably be nominated for numerous Golden Globes and Oscars.

    I'd recommend that people wait for the video, rather than spend $12 or more to see it in the theatre.

    But if you're already in the octoplex, I urge you to see "Argo" instead. We went to se it on a hot and muggy Saturday afternoon, and it's very good.

    And I couldn't believe it, but I noticed that "Atlas Shrugged, Part II" was in the local theatres, too. Geez, talk about throwing good money after bad!


    When the Laura Dern character asked (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    the Philip Seymour Hoffmann character about a change in the second book from the regimen of the first book, his response reminded me a great deal of Barack Obama in the '08 primaries.  You are the change you've been waiting for.  

    Or perhaps, we are the people ... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:57:24 PM EST
    ... our parents warned us about.

    There's never a bad time (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:05:03 PM EST
    for a Jimmy Buffett reference

    ... when the sun crosses over the yardarm, and signals that it's time to waste away once again in Margaritaville.

    I saw Argo too over the weekend (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    Very good! My friends and I were all so tensed up through the whole thing that it was hard to relax afterward. I highly recommend it. Loved the great jobs by character actors. Bryan Cranston is excellent as well. Affleck is good enough as the leading man, but I think his future is definitely in directing.

    I like The Master a lot in a different way. It was a tad too long, I agree with that, but it did hold my interest. I had some dabbles in scientology in my distant youth, so maybe it was interesting to me where it would not have been to others.


    Do agree "The Master" (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    was not about Scientology?

    Awww! Do we have to? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST

    Dang..that's a big reason to rent them! (none / 0) (#86)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:12:11 PM EST
    BTD tells us what he really thinks about (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:16:15 AM EST
    Candy Crowley. Hint - not much.

    BTD..listened in this am..re your comments (none / 0) (#5)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    about Radditz' question about Catholic faith and abortion:

    I was very offended that a religious test was put into the debate...very um-american and unconstitutional.

    However, you missed mentioning that VP Biden got off an almost parenthetical reply about hoe his RC faith informs him to care for the poor, downtrodden. etc. I did like that.

    It wasn't just the religious framing that (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    bothered me, it was that it left women out of the picture altogether.

    On the other hand, it just typified the real problem - that somehow, just because these two men are competing for the second-highest office in the land, it matters most what these two Catholic men think about the issue of abortion; we women are just meant to be baby-incubating  machines who have to depend on men to tell us what we should do and when.

    Biden was right to essentially say that it doesn't matter what he thinks or believes: as a public official, it is not his place or his right to impose his beliefs on private citizens.

    Is it inconsistent of Biden to step away from imposing his faith on others when it comes to abortion, and at the same time have a political philosophy that shares his faith's belief in lifting up the lives of the least among us?  It doesn't seem so to me, but I'm sure there are those who would deem it to be.  When you use the power of government to help create the conditions for improving the quality of people's lives, you also make it possible for people to choose to have children, not abortions.

    Romney/Ryan, on the other hand - particularly Ryan - stop worrying about life or the quality of it at the delivery room door; I'd like to see that pointed out and highlighted more.  All this talk about the preciousness of life on the one hand, and the cutting of programs that help feed, clothe, house and educate the poor on the other, reduces their entire argument to one of control: they want it, and they don't want you to have it.

    They are the worst kind of fraud and I wish that could be exposed.


    Anne, that's a rather standard (2.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    defense of abortion.

    Romney/Ryan, on the other hand - particularly Ryan - stop worrying about life or the quality of it at the delivery room door;

    Can you provide any proof that your claim has any validity?


    Honestly, Jim, I believe that ... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    ... Republicans stopped worrying about the quality of life for the masses, the day the Reagan administration attempted to have ketchup declared a vegetable for the expressed purpose of meeting stated nutrition requirements in school lunch programs.

    If that wasn't a true indicator of the contempt Republicans feel toward the least among us, I don't know what is.


    Think so Donald? (1.00 / 2) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    Do you also think the Gollywooders and Limousine
    liberals actually cared???

    "Gollywooders"? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    That's both weak and juvenile, Jim. That said, the answer to your question is yes, I do think so.

    With the exception of those at the very pinnacle of the Hollywood food chain, i.e., the senior studio executives and megastars, the overwhelming majority of people who comprise the entertainment industry's rank and file are working stiffs who don't pull down six- and seven-figure paychecks -- just like the rest of us.

    Further, the relative handful of actors, directors and screenwriters who've made it big in Hollywood tend to remember their working class roots more often than not, and they know what it's like to have to live from paycheck to paycheck. That's why a clear majority of them are professed Democrats.

    As President Harry Truman once quipped, "If you want to live like a Republican, then vote for the Democrat."



    Donald (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:44:36 PM EST
    the constant assignment of all things good to Democrats and all things evil to Republicans is tiresome and inaccurate.

    Worse, it further divides the country and blocks discussions on the problems.

    And yes, both sides do it.


    Bujt when you engage in vice versa, ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    ... then it's perfectly okay and the natural order of things, huh?

    Call us when you've re-enervated your brain cells after your vacation.


    Liberals care far more ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:06:14 PM EST
    ... than the Tea Partiers who only care when their own Medicare or SS benefits are threatened.

    Think so Donald? (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    Do you also think the Gollywooders and Limousine
    liberals actually cared???

    How they treated my son after he was born (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    I've lived it Jim.  They were fine killing my son so that insurance companies could "show more profit".  Do not jack with me on this, even though you will and you will somehow attempt to make it all MY FAULT. I lived it though....he almost didn't.  They are pigs, they are social locusts, they are bottom feeders, they are a plague on our current civilization.

    MT I'll jack with you anytime I think (1.00 / 3) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:03:54 PM EST
    you need it. Using your son as an example proves nothing.

    And this has nothing to do with you. Please quit assigning more importance to yourself than what there is.

    This is what I wrote:

    Anne, that's a rather standard defense of abortion.

    Romney/Ryan, on the other hand - particularly Ryan - stop worrying about life or the quality of it at the delivery room door;

    Can you provide any proof that your claim has any validity?

    Please try and answer that instead of changing the subject.


    You have understood many times exactly (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:20:22 PM EST
    What happened to my son via his health insurance coverage before Obamacare rules and regs kicked in.  He was denied his PT/OT/Speech constantly from the time he was born until Obama became President.  He was denied a surgery that Medicaid children were receiving twice because Tricare got to keep all of the "overage" they received, so they created overages that but those who would cost them the most money at risk.  It was actually beneficial to kill these expensive kids off as early as possible if they could swing it.

    Families got insurance money back this year because their insurers did not spend enough money providing services, that's right...people received rebates.  And the death panel that you freaks are always yammering about is the same panel that has made it illegal for my son's insurer to deny him a surgery that he needs ever again or cap his coverage.

    Because you defend and champion the filthy death dealing scumbags though, I hope you know what that makes you.


    MT your son has nothing to do with (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    what I commented.

    That you chose to make it personal is your decision and not mine.

    And your insults only defines you.


    Dude (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    it is personal, I realize its a lot easier to slash protections and benefits when its just abstract statistics but in reality its a choice- you subsidize Mitt's car elevators by stripping healthcare from Tracy's son, it is what it is admit it.

    Yes he does (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 10:33:39 PM EST
    After he was born, Republicans rubber stamped killing him for more profits.  He is only 13 years old.  When George W Bush was President the healthcare insurance industry felt so protected and was so protected that they were killing Americans through denial of service for profit.  Many of those people were severely disabled and dying children Jim.  This was all fine and okay with right to life Conservatives to obviously include you.

    Current Conservatives are in love with fetuses but hate the children of this country and their geniune after birth needs.


    MT, in 2005 (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    Bush introduced Medicare D, RX insurance.

    The Democrats opposed it.

    I guess the Demnos wanted to kill people.


    Just trying to pass legislation (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:08:35 AM EST
    That enables deeper bilking of people is not providing healthcare.  My son is being provided healthcare NOW that was being denied him under Republican rule, and nobody had to pay anymore money.  People are paying enough money NOW, in fact the insurance oligarchy have been overpaid under Republican rule.  And they became overlords who killed people for profit and Republicans allowed it and called it fair and just.

    For example: (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    United made more money (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    Because Tricare West lost the military contract and United got it.  They may have won other contracts too, I don't know.

    Tricare West attempted to rally the troops to fight for them, claiming that United provided horrible services.  I don't understand what the big difference could be though, the same doctors work for them, the same people providing the actual services, the only thing that changed is who is shuffling the paperwork.

    One of my friends did complain that a computer glitch was jacking up United and was preventing some of the services her daughter needed provided from taking place.  They are in Colorado again.  So United may be pulling shenanigans.

    Tricare West was who tried to kill Josh though, so I was very happy to go to their ralllying website and remind them and other military families of who they were and are.


    That's not a defense of abortion at all, jim, (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    but why am I not surprised that you've framed it that way?  

    My comments reflected a desire for the utter hypocrisy of the Republican candidates in particular and the GOP and conservatives in general, to be exposed.  Please do not even ask for "proof" that the reverence for life ends at the delivery room door; there is hardly a social policy, program, or benefit that the GOP hasn't tried to cut, slash and/or eliminate.  They want to throw thousands of people off Medicaid, make it harder to qualify.  Remember the S-CHIP debacle?  Google that, why don't you?  They don't want women to have abortions, but they don't want to help them feed or house their precious babies, they don't want to pay for their medical care, and they don't want to pay for early childhood educational programs.  They don't want women to have abortions, but they don't want birth control to be readily and cheaply available, they don't want young people to be educated about their bodies.

    So, it's about control, it's about the imposition of religious beliefs, it's about not wanting to create the conditions for people to succeed, but for them to find it impossible to overcome the barriers in their way.  

    I don't defend abortion, jim, I defend each woman's right to make her own choices.

    Romney/Ryan and much of the conservative cohort is not defensible; I'd have some respect for their beliefs if they had even an iota of respect for anyone else's, and hadn't turned "family values" and "respect for life" into meaningless drivel designed to camouflage that their hearts are cold and dead and their teeny-tiny minds incapable of opening far enough to let in even a sliver of light.

    I say, rip their masks off once and for all.


    Well, anyway you cut it (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    that statement has been made in defense of abortion time and again. If you didn't mean it that way, so be it.

    (Remember I support a woman's right to choose.)

    You close with:

    I say, rip their masks off once and for all.

    That's a political position not supported by facts.


    "That statement" - that the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    stops caring about the sanctity of life at the delivery room door - is not a defense of abortion, jim, it's an indictment of conservative policy and agenda.  And if the Republican agenda that favors the cutting of Medicaid, children's health and nutrition programs, early childhood education programs, cutting of sex education, making birth control harder to get, is bad, that's on them, jim - they own that.  Romney and Ryan own that.  And if the contrast with Democrats makes Dems look better, well, there's a reason for that: they are better - at least if you believe that a stated reverence for life must extend beyond the instant of birth.

    For some reason, jim, your "I support a woman's right to choose" reminds me of "some of my best friends are black."  It's talk, and it's cheap, and in the totality of what seems to be your overall worldview, meaningless.


    I have made that statement time and again. (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 10:38:22 AM EST
    Your statement reminds me of someone just wanting to rant....

    BTW - As I reminded MT, Bush passed Medicare D over the objections of the Demos...

    Also as I have posted in the past, one of the few hopes I had for Obama was that he would pass a single payer health care insurance using Medicare as a model.

    He had all the resources yet he did not and all the Democrats supported him.

    So please don't tell me how much the Demos care.

    They don't.


    Dems objected to the Part D legislation (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    because it wasn't good enough, not because they didn't want seniors to have prescription drug coverage.

    And you make it sound like the GOP was all gung-ho to provide this benefit - but they weren't.

    Here, read this if you have any interest in understanding what really went on in the world of Medicare and drug coverage:

    A Political History of Medicare and Prescription Drug Coverage

    Maybe that will keep you occupied for a while.


    ::shrug:: (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    Maybe that will keep you occupied for a while.
    It might if he decides to read it.  He told me himself that he feels no obligation to read links that are provided to him.

    No doubt my mention of his honesty at that time, will now result in him making the laughable accusation that I am stalking him.  Because, apparently, having a memory = stalking someone.


    Oh yes (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by sj on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    You support all sorts of "social liberal" issues.  But not enough to, you know, support it with a vote or representation in the legislature.  

    I guess I shouldn't be so cynical.  Probably your financial support of all those social liberal causes makes up for the funds and support that are cut by your tea-party-loving candidates and office holders.

    Unless that (your financial contribution) is  substantial please don't tell me how much you care, because you really don't.


    So when he didn't pass single payer, (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    THAT was when he became a secret Marxist-jihadist out to embolden the terrorists and undermine our way of life..

    Or had you known that about Obama right along?


    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    Cutting Medicaid.  No health insurance.  
    Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
    Screaming about welfare queens.  Shall I go on?

    How about the fact (none / 0) (#38)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    that they favor repealing a law that expanded healthcare to the vast majority of Americans who previously had none, with absolutely no serious or viable alternative proposal.

    Been lack that for years (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    and doesn't relate to the claim beyond a nebulous "Repubs bad Demos good."

    One of the greatest examples of ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    ... domestic political statesmanship can be found in Hawaii Gov. John A. Burns' public statement of March 11, 1970, in which he explained why he was allowing House Bill No. 61 to become Act 1, Session Laws of Hawaii 1970. This was the landmark legislation that made Hawaii the very first state in the nation to formally codify a woman's right to safe and legal abortion.

    To provide a bit of background, Gov. Burns (1909-1975) was a staunchly devout Roman Catholic who attended mass daily, and who personally disagreed with the idea of abortion. In fact, his wife Bea -- an equally devout Catholic who had contracted polio as an adult while pregnant with third child, and was crippled by it -- had chosen to carry her fourth child to term while confined to a wheelchair, despite the serious risk to her health and her physician's strong recommendation that she abort her pregnancy.

    As could be expected, Gov. Burns found himself under considerable pressure from the Diocese of Honolulu and Archdiocese of San Francisco to veto House Bill 61. Instead, on March 11, 1970 he issued the following statement:

    "House Bill 61, relating to Hawaii's century-old abortion law is now Act 1 of 1970. The measure became law without my signature.

    "I have declined to sign this bill after much study and soul-searching; after receiving competent advice from island and national specialists ion law, medicine, theology, human rights and public affairs, and after sincere prayer to the Creator named in our Nation's Declaration of Independence as the Source of our unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.


    "In the recent debates and public controversy over proposed abortion law changes in our State, I have been subjected to pleadings, warnings, even threats from many sources, including clergymen and lay members of my own Roman Catholic Church, and members of other churches and nonreligious groups. I have received all of these with what I hope has been reasonable equanimity, listening to all, judging each argument, and coming to my decision calmly after weighing with the utmost care the sentiments expressed by our distinguished legislators who have borne the brunt of the heated public debate.


    "To summarize, I could not in good conscience condone what the House Bill permits by signing it into law. On the other hand, I do consider the abortion question as a matter involving individual conscience and proper subject for legislative policy setting and scientific or judicial interpretation. I appreciate the considerable thought and energies that went into the final development of House Bill 61. Many people -- all sincere in their desire to better the quality of life in Hawaii -- spoke both for and against enactment of this bill.

    "Let us now rejoin all our forces and continue to work for a better Hawaii for all our people."

    I've provided excerpts, because his original statement is 14 pages long in its entirety. In it, Gov. Burns offered constituents and posterity a public glimpse into the complicated inner mindset of a very private man, as he recounted how he engaged in no small amount of soul searching on the issue of abortion.

    The governor included a discussion of his time as a detective and captain in the Honolulu Police Department, noting that he witnessed firsthand the pain and carnage wrought by back-alley abortion providers. He noted "ample evidence that the traffic in illegal abortions is considerable in Hawaii, as well as in other jurisdictions," and he reasoned that our law should be changed to reflect changed community standards "rather than continue violating an outmoded law."

    Gov. Burns' son-in-law, Univ. of Hawaii Prof. Dan Boylan, told me that he believes his father-in-law's personal experience in the HPD ultimately weighed very heavily in his final decision to not veto House Bill 61:

    "I have made my decision. I stand by it. It is the decision of the Governor of Hawaii, not the private and personal whim of John A. Burns. It reflects my best judgment as Governor, made after consultation with the best minds in the State, in regard to what is in the best interest of all the people of Hawaii."

    (DISCLOSURE: That aforementioned fourth child of John and Bea Burns, retired Chief Appellate Court Judge James Burns, and his wife, broadcast journalist Emme Tomimbang, are friends of ours.)



    I did mention that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    thanks (none / 0) (#9)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    I guessed I stepped away.

    Aren't you incensed by the religious test of that question? Made me wanna puke.

    So what do you REALLY think of Ms Crawford?

    ps so sorry about Jeter....his defensive skills at short...phenomenal!


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    Unlike most, I did not think Raddatz did a good job overall.

    But when compared to Jim Lehrer, she ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:18:32 PM EST
    ... was great, simply by virtue of being graded on the curve.

    Why can't he call him a liar? (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    One of Obama's shortcomings is his overwhelming need to not offend, even as his opponents are taking a public whiz on his person, with utmost zeal and effectiveness.

    I think it's time for Barry to give Mitt a few Chicago bitch slaps...in prime time.

    If Obama really wanted to have some fun he should come out on stage carrying a notebook, And, in that notebook would be all those hundreds of "in your face," and "up your azz" zingers his fellow Republicans hurled at him in the Primaries. All Obama would have to do is start reading those quotes, and believe me, some of the things Gingrich and Perry, et al slammed him with would curl your toes.

    The place would be rocking with laughter, and soon ole Mitt would be just a diseased memory.

    I truly believe the Mittster would pass out right there on stage.

    Instead of just calling (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    Romney a liar, Obama should look at the camera and say X is what Romney is saying but the TRUTH is Y. I don't know if Obama is capable of doing that but I think it would work.

    And then Romney looks into the camera and (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    says, that Obama is wrong.. and the moderator intervenes..

    And it becomes about style and spin and what we're told we're suppose to believe.

    Sigh... I would love some Lincoln Douglas type of debates.

    That would he fun.


    well if Mitt looked into the camera in a (none / 0) (#85)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    Lincoln-Douglas type debate.,..he would have to hold that pose for awhile, and not move his face/mouth muscles and maybe put his head/neck in a stand!

    I think that once you call someone a liar (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    you open it up to parsing and interpreting various statements. Better to give the examples of the duplicity and let people put whatever label on it they want.

    It seems like whenever reporters ask the 'are you calling him a liar?' question, the respondent naturally tries to come up with the most agreed upon example which is usually some minor thing that misses the point entirely.


    The problem is this (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    Perry and Gingrich aren't running.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    but you know what? The stuff that newt and Perry were slinging actually made mitt look sane against those idiots. Not sure if using what they said is much use other than vulture capitalism.

    Mitt (none / 0) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    cancels his scheduled appearance this Thursday morning on The View after calling it "high risk". Instead he sends his wife.

    Well I never expected (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    to be the center of a debate on The View. Thanks to all that came to my defense, although all the love is a little embarrassing. Honestly I thought it was a funny story and not really worthy of a link.

    I actually think the likely reason Romney canceled is the Karl Rove PAC has a commercial running that has a clip of Obama on The View while the background speaker says something about Obama never working.

    Rove probably gave Romney a call and said... dude, you're gonna screw up my commercial. And no I have no link to verify my theory the Rove PAC is in cahoots with Romney. And rather than accuse Romney of illegally coordinating with a PAC, I'll just take his word for it that he was scared of an intelligent group of women.


    link? (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    Here's one (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    The View is high risk! Some spontaneity might break out!

    Maybe, the Romneys (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    could send Rafalca.  We have a better chance of getting a straight answer--no prancing around, just one hoof for yes, two for no.

    Or copious amounts of horse sh!t, (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    which really, when you think about it, is exactly what they'd get from Mitt anyway, just without all the weird grinning and efforts to seem normal.

    If you can't trust coral gables, . . . (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    I don't anyone should (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:57:00 PM EST
    expect to just be trusted.  Nothing personal.

    Huh?... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    I've never met CG in real life, but I trust him and take him at his word.  If he says Mitt is scared of Joy Behar, Mitt is scared of Joy Behar;)

    Actually, it's not so much a matter... (none / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    of trust, really.

    It's that that I think if someone throws something out there it's because s/he just read about it.  How hard is it to copy the link and make it part of message?  I have enough tabs with work research.  Adding another tab with another search that may spark another couple of tabs gets to be ... well not a burden exactly, but annoying.

    Especially something like this where the reason it was high-risk would have been a nice detail [because only one of the women is conservative, btw.  Apparently he knows he can't take on several outspoken women who would have likely made an effort to be polite].

    Anyway, right now I have 2 TL tabs, a tab with the link that ruffian provided, 2 tabs searching for an IRS publication, and 6 tabs into the MSDN or other technical websites and one tab with the search engine.  I've closed about 12-15 tabs that met the search criteria but didn't have useful technical information.

    I'm actually lucky that I it's not permitted to read personal email at my job.  (Also lucky that TL isn't blocked).  If I had the gumption to make that doctor's appt that would be one more tab.

    But enough whining.  I'm just a little overwhelmed today.


    That was the way I took it - not a matter of trust (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    Sometimes I just don't have the time or energy to look it up, and appreciate a link being provided.

    I had just happened to read the article on talkingpointsmemo and still had the tab open.


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    a cure for cancer comment needs a link imo, I think it fairly obvious why Mitt would fear an appearance on The View...he can't relate to human beings very well, especially in a loose setting, and Liz Hasselbeck can only lob so many softballs with Joy Behar around.  

    See, that's a difference (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    ... between you and me.  You can immediately see the issue and think it's obvious.  Not so obvious to me.

    Probably because I have so much high-falutin', elitist, technical junk in my brain.  Yeah, that's probably why.


    Could be... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    Like my poker game, I play by feel and wing it.

    Which is why you should always demand a link from me, if not CG;)


    I understand. andgarden used to (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    comment "air quote" (I think.)

    Why? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    Personally, I tend to take people at their word until they've proven themselves untrustworthy, and not vice versa. CG has generally shown himself as someone of pretty reliable judgment, and I've no cause to question it.

    The Good News, (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    Fox News recognizes for its viewers, the concept of science. The bad news is that the Fox Medical A Team (consisting of an apparent psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow) presents the "science behind" Vice President Biden's responses to Paul Ryan--as needing to put "dementia on the differential diagnosis."  Or maybe just old-fashioned old fashions. Command of details, of course, is immaterial according to Dr. Ablow.  

    The despicable news is the cavalier inferences about the disease of dementia, be that Alzheimers, vascular, Lewy or any of the horrors of mental  and physical degeneration for those once healthy.   But then, Dr. Ablow is the same Fox science expert who back in January of this year claimed that Newt Gingrich's 3 marriages and 2 divorces made him more qualified to be president.

    You know (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    what's hysterical about this? Biden reamed Ryan's butt and if Biden was senile it makes Ryan look even THAT MUCH worse.

    That Ablow character... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    is such a quack-whore...I've caught him on the Fox & Friends morning comedy show a few times,  diagnosing mental disorders based on three sentence emails from viewers.  As my old man used to say, a real winner.

    Some wag has (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    opined that Dr. Ablow has D*ck Head Syndrome, which can be diagnosed by the shape of the head, behavior and speech.

    Funny thing (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:20:45 PM EST
    went to college with Ablow.

    Was he as big a jackass back then ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    ... as he appears to be today?

    Funny thing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    Was kind of a snob.

    Gee, who woulda known? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    My experience is that people who were jerks in college tend to remain so throughout their lives, unless or until there's some life-altering event that causes them to reconsider their behavior and change.

    Keep that down bro... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    for the sake of your alma mater's reputation;)

    As long as Yale and Harvard (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 15, 2012 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    have W, we'll survive.

    He sounds like that "Doctor Death" (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 03:13:49 PM EST
    from The Thin Blue Line docu.