Thursday Election Ads and Open Thread

This one played twice here last night.

Even if you don't care about the Presidential race, please vote yes on Amendment 64

October 30 is the last day to register to vote here by mail. Find out how to request a mail ballot, how to mail them in or drop them off, and just about any other information you might need at JustVoteColorado.org.[ more...]

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sound Familiar? | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Latest Zimmerman news. Sorry if this in the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Tamta on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:42:10 AM EST
    If you fell asleep (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    before Leno last night, (thinking of you nycstray & Roxy!) here are two short clips

    On Donald Trump

    And on Richard Mourdock

    or if you have the time,

    The Entire Episode

    Thanks, and good on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    for his learning curve.  I notice that the previous line that women considering abortion ought to consult with their husbands and ministers as well as their doctors now has become consulting with their partners and doctors.

    I had missed the Leno show stint, not because I was asleep, and had read about these conversations so had meant to look up the clips today.  Thanks for making it easy to do!


    Of (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    course, I would say that a woman need not consult with anybody but herself.

    Of course you would. But (none / 0) (#53)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    there are reasons to include medical advice.  Any woman would be wise to do so, consulting a doctor or, I would add, a midwife or other relevant medical practitioner.  But pols must speak in soundbytes.

    And for the political aspect of the argument, I can see the wisdom of talking of consultation with a medical practitioner, because the argument (now, anyway) is that this is a medical procedure -- an effective argument with some conservatives, I find, who abhor meddling in medical decisions.  I.e., the word "medical" or "doctor" seems to have more impact than to talk about "privacy" of decisions.

    Now, I also would say that for a woman's sake, I hope that she has someone else to help her in preparing for and recovering from a medical procedure.  You might prefer the term "friend" or "companion," but can you at least begrudgingly see the progress from "husband" to "partner"?

    I mean, I often admire your absolutism and perfectionism in politics, lentinel, but do you ever admit to the reality of the incrementalism of progress?


    I agree. (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    with your statement that there are reasons to seek medical advice. I would also concur with your statement that a woman should feel free to consult a loved one, a friend or anybody else that she feels could enlighten or comfort her.

    What I resent is politicians implying that this is a mandatory part of the process.

    I think that if a man got pregnant, and knew right away that this pregnancy was unwanted or stood in the way of his plans for the future or the present, he'd be at the clinic door without feeling any social or political pressure to consult with anyfkingbody.

    As for incrementalism - you are right that when it comes to civil and human rights, I don't believe in it.

    Something that increments a little this way, can just as easily increment the other way when the political climate changes.

    I can scarcely conceal my contempt for these s.o.b.s who try to tell us the correct way to run our lives.

    Just balance the budget, stop making stupid wars, and leave personal decisions to the individuals concerned.


    And here I thought doing away with DIY (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    was a good thing. I guess it's not just Romney that wants to go backwards.

    Women considering abortion should (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by observed on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    consult with their senators, favorite bloggers or Laura Ingraham.

    I'm sooo old-fashioned. Why the h#ll (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    need the woman in question consult w/anyone?

    Clearly, they need to (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    consult with Mourdock and Akin.  And the Family Life Council.

    lol. I heard his name as "Moredork." (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:50:35 AM EST
    Thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    Got Roxy! settled before it started, so I was able to watch :)

    Really deft handling of The Donald, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    and a well-stated expression on women and their health care decisions.

    Romney seems to be having (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    trouble coming up with a good response to Indiana senate candidate Mourdock.  I suggest that he rebounds by taking a page from his nimble retort to Todd Akin's( in the case of illegitimate rape, the whole thing shuts down) comment.  Mittens chastised Akin by saying it was a "poor choice of words."    For Mourdock,  Mittens could revise Mourdocks remarks from "god's gift" to god's present.  That should do it.

    What would be really great is if (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:12:10 AM EST
    Mourdock's opponent, Joe Donnelly, was pro-choice, but he's not; he also signed onto the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2011, the one that made the distinction of "forcible" rape (the "forcible" was later deleted).

    On the issue of abortion, the only real difference, it seems, between Mourdock and Donnelly is that Donnelly hasn't said anything overtly ignorant about God's gifts and God's plans and the magical properties of women's ladyparts.

    Full disclosure - I don't know where Donnelly stands on other issues, but he is a Blue Dog and he is anti-choice.


    Agreed, (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    Joe Donnelly is anti-choice and a Blue Dog.  And, maybe not that less ignorant than the tea party guy on this issue save for  his silence on the god's gift part.   However,  the larger issue, is not Mourdock as bad as he is, but Romney, as bad as he is.  Romney may be more like Donnelly on this than Mourdock--keeping god or the angel Moroni out of it, but he will be the guy making nominations to the Supreme Court.

    It can't be easy (none / 0) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:27:33 PM EST
    In certain parts of the country, especially in bible thumping land, where many (most) voters are single-issue minded. I don't know where Donnelly stands on other issues either, but one thing he does know is, if he's not anti choice, he doesn't stand a chance.

    It really sucks where otherwise decent candidates have to prostitute themselves on certain issues just to stand a chance.

    (Not saying that's Donnelly, but you know what I mean.) Just look at Romney (definitely Not one of the decent candidates) he's got three positions on every issue and it doesn't seem to have hurt him any.

    What a country.


    Homeless guy saves cop (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:05:47 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#104)
    by Amiss on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    That former gang leader of the Crips sure seems to be turning his life around.

    McCain all tantrum-y about Powell's (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    endorsement of Obama this morning, wondering how Powell could endorse Obama's "feckless foreign policy". What's funny is Romney agreed with everything Obama said about foreign policy at the last debate.

    As (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    I have said before, the fact that Romney is in agreement with Obama's foreign policy suggests the unpleasant inverse to me:
    namely - that Obama is doing the same thing a right wing republican sap like Romney would do.

    And an endorsement from Colin Powell, while I'm sure it will be helpful in same quarters for Obama, is not something that I find particularly appealing.

    I will never forgive Powell for deciding to be a team player at the expense of a phony invasion and the devastation of thousands upon thousands of innocent lives.

    To be redundant, if I said that there is no difference between Romney and Obama on foreign policy, I would be pilloried by some as a naive fool. But if I say that Romney agrees with everything Obama says, that's just fine.

    Can't wait 'til November 7 when all this will be over and we can concentrate on trying to reverse the trend towards economic hardship and social repression.


    Romney's not dumb (none / 0) (#175)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    He knows running on a neoconservative foreign policy platform is political suicide as it would be akin to running as W. v2.0. So he lies about it. Just like everything else that comes out of his mouth. Not that hard to understand.

    Quick morbid thought.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:03:31 PM EST
    ... With McCain still whining strongly 4 years later, our fears about a President Palin would not have come to pass had things turned out differently, assuming that a Dem would have defeated President McCain this time around....

    Not true... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    ... McCain has survived because he hasn't spent the last four years in the pressure cooker which is the presidency.

    Some nice polls coming out today. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    O +5 in VA.
    O +2 in IA.
    O +3 in CO.
    O +2 in FL.
    O +6 in WI.
    O tied in NC.

    And Rasmussagop even says O + 5 in PA. (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    And then there's this poll, which ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    ... according to the Associated Press confirms that more and more women indeed want to cede to men almost total control over their vaginas, even though at the same time, a lot of men are apparently having second thoughts about the hypermasculine GOP ticket and now believe that women should have the right to make such decisions for themselves.

    I know, I know -- given the other poll results, this one doesn't make any sense to me either. Go figure.


    Cunning, very manipulative meme (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    the Right, particularly women of the Right, have been publicly pushing on this issue, ie, "women are concerned about more than 'below-the-belt" issues".

    The implication being that women who are concerned about being able to have a say about whats done with their lives and bodies, are  overly self-involved and preoccupied with something sordid and of a 'lower order' than issues like the economy etc.



    Nonsense, Donald, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 07:56:39 AM EST
    Read the article cited and you'll see much more concern over the economy, minimal attention to this blog's favorite wedge issue, abortion.

    Yes, lots of blue in my poll tracker (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    today...keeping me mellow.

    In an election with a strong ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:58:58 PM EST
    trend in one direction the person on the wrong side of the trend needs to be significantly outside the margin of error to feel comfortable.

    That makes only the VA and WI polls of any comfort to Dems.  And small comfort at best.  A rising tide could easily swamp those boats.

    But the thing that has Dems freaking big time is that for the first time this year, Romney has a plausible road to victory WITHOUT Ohio.


    I'd sure like to know (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    your trusted source for info. You might want to take them off your bookmark list. Romney needs to thread a needle without Ohio and there is no polling that suggests he owns a needle or can win Ohio.

    He's got the wind at his back ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    and he's ahead in Florida and inside the margin in enough states to win without Ohio.  He can do it several ways.

    But he's also inside the margin in Ohio.

    Now no election exactly follows conventional wisdom.  But in general if you have a waning candidate you will probably lose almost everywhere you're inside the margin.  In fact, you often lose big.

    The Obama campaign knows this.  It is the conventional wisdom.  And that's why they're panicking.  And they ARE panicking.

    This doesn't mean Romney will win. There's still a few weeks.  There may be some lagging indicators.  Trends could shift.  Numbers could just be wrong. And there are other factors, e.g. weather, GOTV, etc..

    But all year, Obama had multiple pathways to victory.  Romney really had less than one.  Or one very shaky one.  Now, for the first time, Romney has multiple credible paths to victory. Including several without Ohio.


    I think you live on the mountain (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:17:57 PM EST
    that Jon Stewart is always talking about.

    I'd like (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    evidence for any of your claims much less all of them-- polling seems to indicate it's Romney not Obama who is waning (slightly-- honestly the last two weeks have largely shown a static race) and I see absolutely no evidence of panic whatsoever.

    There are not a FEW weeks. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:54:54 AM EST
    There is a week and a half.

    The poll tracker rolling average has (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:54:14 AM EST
    Obama ahead in Florida now. Close, but ahead. How does Romney win without either Ohio OR Florida?

    Nate Silver this morning has Willard up (none / 0) (#155)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    1.4 in Florida, Obama up 2.1 Ohio, Obama up 0.2 in Virginia, Obama up 0.6 Colorado, Obama up 2.7 Nevada, Willard up 3.2 In North Carolina. Obama up 2.1 in New Hampshire, Obama up 3.9 in Wisconsin, and Obama up 1.9 in Iowa.

    Mr. Angel has a good friend and colleague  who used to work with Axelrod and he told Mr. Angel yesterday that Obama has pulled everything from Florida.


    Wasserman of course denies this morning (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:30:10 AM EST
    That they have given up on Florida and claims they have a ferocious ground game :)

    I know who I believe. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    I just had a call from the OFA office (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:57:19 AM EST
    to help with the start of early voting tomorrow in Florida. I can only assume that doesn't translate to a complete pull out.

    Very cool (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    Thanks for putting Nates numbers up (none / 0) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    I saw them somewhere else and they didn't clarify where the numbers came from and I wanted to know.

    If Nate's numbers hold that way (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    Obama wins the Electoral Vote 303-235

    It is peanut harvest here (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    I am sick this year but nowhere near as sick as I was in the past, the allergy shots really are working.  I have a hard time in the mornings though.  Several mornings a week my husband plays ultimate frisbee and he does not get home in time to help get Josh out the door in any way.  So he leaves Morning Joe on in the bedroom knowing that Morning Joe always wakes me up out of a dead sleep.

    This morning I was just beginning to become conscious and Morning Joe is talking about how Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral college vote.  Some tool who was on says, "Yeah, that's never happened before."

    I sat bolt right up in bed....Muthaf***er, the guy who said it immediately walks it back as everyone at the "round table" stares wide eyed blinking at him, "well, that one time with George W Bush"....he couldn't even say the name Gore.  Didn't even finish the thought out loud.  F#@king hacks!

    My husband gets home and I'm stomping in the kitchen....don't ever leave that damned Morning Joe on again until after the election.  I saw him smirking though, and I knew what he was thinking, "But honey, no matter how sick you are they sure get your butt out of bed in a hurry"


    Bush vs. Gore was not the first time (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    the winner of the popular vote did not get to the White House and the resulting attempts to declare a winner were filled with scandal. The election of 1876, Samual Tilden (D) vs. Rutherford B. Hayes (R), was the first such occurrence.

    If you want convoluted, fraught with political maneuvering, swimming with politicized Supreme Court justices, well, I've got your election right here.

    Tilden won the popular vote, and in the immediate aftermath of voting was declared the winner by several newspapers the next day. The New York Times, however, said that win was in dispute and on Thursday declared Hayes the winner. Tilden, it was determined, was one vote short of EC victory. Of course, Hayes did not have the EC votes either.

    A 15 person commission, 5 Democrat and 5 Republican members of Congress and 5 Supreme Court justices were appointed to the special commission to decide the winner.  The election had been fraught with shenanigans in the various states, and the shenanigans continued.

    Finally, in March 1877, just days before the inauguration, Hayes was declared the winner. He was sworn-in in short order.

    I am always astounded when people, especially people who really should know better, act like Bush vs. Gore was a new and shocking occurrence in American politics.  


    The Democrats (none / 0) (#168)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    and Republicans both made deals with the devil by the Dems agreeing to acquiesce to the election of Hayes, in return for Hayes' and the Republicans' promise to end Reconstruction, remove federal troops from the South, and, basically scr*w and disenfranchise the black citizens in the South.  Mr. Hayes was the one who was most deeply in bed with the demons.  
    Yes, Bush-Gore was nothing new, unfortunately.  :-(

    I know you're a very smart person, Casey (none / 0) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:03:37 AM EST
    So, were you really astounded???  that most of us didn't know that those two politicians, with household names, Samual Tilden & Rutherford B. Hayes preceded Gore V Bush?  


    (p.s. you do know I'm just kidding with you, right?)


    Perhaps i should know better, but, yes, the (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by caseyOR on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:20:54 AM EST
    ignorance astounds me, especially our woefully ill-informed journalists. If the people charged with keeping us informed are so ignorant what chance does the average person have?

    The Tilden-Hayes election is not some obscure little blip in history. It was a major event in presidential politics.

    I do know you are kidding, sort of, but the ignorance about our history and our political system is, well, it is so sad and so crippling to our country.


    Don't the people who are the face of (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 05:46:17 AM EST
    Morning Joe have researchers working in the wee hours researching their morning talking points?  Maybe not, they do seem to often be only interested in dealing in some pseudo serious discussion usually arriving at a pseudo middle ground that exists between the current Republican party and the Democratic base.

    Speaking as a card-carrying Democrat ... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    ... and local party official, I'm certainly not "freaking out."

    As a matter of fact, I'm cautiously-to-quite optimistic about the president's odds for re-election at this juncture of the campaign. With only a dozen days to go, we're continuing to work hard to turn out our voters in what's obviously a base election.

    I don't know where you're getting your information, but suffice to say that whoever it is, he or she apparently doesn't know very many Democrats.


    I don't have a horse ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    in this race.  But I too think Obama will pull it off.  But for reasons unrelated to these numbers.

    These numbers are nothing but bad news.


    Not really. For all the bluster that's ... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    ... being offered on the cable gasbag shows, the race is static and has really not shifted all that much.

    And as Nate Silver at 538 noted tonight, if Mitt Romney did have momentum after the first debate, it's since evaporated. He hasn't necessarily lost all of whatever gains he made initially, but he's not at all where he needs to be right now, and he simply can't afford the race to remain static.

    It's therefore becoming harder to see how Romney pulls this out, given his mediocre performance at Monday night's debate and the fact that there are few undecided voters remaining in play. Absent a tremendous gaffe by the president in these remaining dozen days, there aren't really any more opportunities for Romney to create a game-changing moment.

    And further, I'd imagine that the kerfuffle over Richard Mourdock's insensitive remarks about rape, pregnancy and "God's will" in last Tuesday night's Indiana Senate debate didn't really help matters any, from the Romney camp's standpoint. That's the random sort of "loose cannon" stuff which is clearly out of their immediate control, and all they can do is try to distance themselves as best they can from the splatter zone.



    Nate's update tonight (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    gives Obama a 72% chance of winning. The two closest states in his projections right now, and most likely to flip, are Florida and Virginia.

    Right now his state by state projection has Obama winning the electoral college 290-248.

    If Florida and Virginia both flip, Obama wins 332-206.


    Possible correction (none / 0) (#144)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:46:29 PM EST
    Nate is updating his numbers again. He may flip Virginia tonight. Before this new update for Virginia he has Romney with a 51% chance of winning the Commonwealth.

    What Does 72% Mean Anyways ? (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    That if this race were run 10 times, Obama would come out the winner of ~7 of those races, not real comforting.  But if it means that he will take 72% of the EC, then it's comforting.

    Is there a Vegas line on the game ?  That would be extremely accurate considering it would be driven by people with incentive to get it right, not cable station airbags and their never ending polls.


    Powell endorses Obama's re-election, ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    Couldn't wait to put that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    on my facebook this morning, at least the Colin Powell part.  One of my facebook winger associates put this link up this morning and was very upset about it.  Said that it was misleading or something when you get to your answer.  Said the questions were faulty or something.  He was super tweaky about it.  I can only imagine that he answered the questions honestly and then adjusted and adjusted and adjusted and adjusted his answers and still couldn't get to Mitt Romney :)

    Maybe this Powell endorsement will (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    make some difference for Obama. For me though, an endorsement from Powell is hardly worth the time it takes to make it public. Powell permanently disgraced himself with his cowardly behavior during the run-up to the Iraq War and his weaseling remarks at the UN.

    IMO, Powell should spend the remainder of his time here on earth atoning for his Iraq sins by devoting himself to whatever duties the 21st century equivalent of ministering to the lepers requires.


    And he has the sins of My Lai (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:31:27 PM EST
    and the coverup on his head, as well.

    A complex man.


    My Lai, yes, and let's not forget (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    Powell's joining with the distasteful former senator Sam Nunn to stick the shiv into Bill Clinton's efforts to let gays serve in the military.

    Who can forget Nunn's guided tour of a submarine's cramped quarters, including the showers (where the gays would surely make passes at the straight sailors), as he, aided and abetted by then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, pursued a vicious campaign against allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

    Thanks to the work of Powell and Nunn we got the disgraceful "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

    Colin Powell has many things for which he must atone.


    I don't think such an endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:55:09 AM EST
    excites many liberals, but it does matter on the independent and conservative fronts.

    Jill Stein is my soulmate apparently (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:45:54 PM EST
    Might even get my vote here in Cali, though I may vote Obama since I really don't want Mitt to be close in any of the votes, popular, electoral, dog catcher, nuthin'.

    She was just on Current (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by brodie on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    in the Elliott Spitzer slot subbed by host Jon Fugelsang, who ended by asking her What if a vote for her and the Green Pty in a swing state ends up electing Romney?

    She answered:  I was in MA when he was gov, and it was hard to distinguish him from other progressive governors.

    A few obvious problems there, such as MA had a solidly Dem lege, US Congress is split.  Romney ran as a moderate pro health reform job creator, but now he's anti Obamacare/MACare.  He is clearly now anti abortion and would be nominating anti-Roe types to lifetime SupCt positions.  Massive cuts and changes for the worse to Medicare.  No FP as gov but neocon FP as president, possibly including extending our stay in Afghan and starting a
    war with Iran.  Etc.

    She's good on the issues overall, but that was a terrible answer.  A very naive and stupid Bush=Gore false equivalency.


    Sure, not her best moment (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    But I could hand you a thousand stupid answers or non-answers by every party hack from Obama on down. Better people like us, ahem, should run. ;-)

    You could succeed. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:04:47 PM EST

    I most always do. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    And when I don't, I simply do what most everyone else does in that circumstance. I pout.



    This is what it looks like (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:37:39 PM EST
    Graph proof (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    I'd say the comment and link are (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by observed on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    proof that there is no lower bound for stupidity, gullibility and lack of critical thinking ability.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    Global warming is more about averages than singular data points

    But try to get those idiots at "Watts Up" to understand that.

    I was a climate skeptic until about 2005. But even then, I never believed in a massive world-wide conspiracy, nor did I believe all climatologists were fools.


    Funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    You were going for funny, right?

    Here's a link that says you're wrong (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:55:00 AM EST

    My biggest takeaway...

    Since 1880, temperatures have risen by around 0.75 degrees

    Global Warming is a luxury rich governments have to obtain more power.

    Fortunately there aren't anymore of those and the scam that is global warming has been regulated to it's proper place.


    He was snarking (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    But, yes, it is a link to a skeptic blog.  Just ignore the actual scientists and numerous studies that have firmly established the reality of (man-made) climate change.

    BTW - Dr. Curry - the scientist interviewed in your link, is far from a skeptic.  She's just better at tolerating them.


    Just ignore that the country (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    bursts into flames every summer now for several years.

    Reminds me of that Jay Morh bit... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:26:05 PM EST
    ...from a few years back, when he was railing against people from Cleveland trying to claim they weren't respected as a big city: "Hey, Cleveland, you can never live down the fact that they had to call the fire department...because your phucking RIVER was on fire!!"

    MT... (none / 0) (#44)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    bursts into flames every summer

    Succinct indeed.

    Just ignore the U.S. drought (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    And the beginning of dust bowl type winds storms.

    Oh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    yeah it's all just a "scam" so that the governments of the world can squash you out like cockroaches. nonbinding resolutions from the UN are going to rule the world. It's funny how conservatives have the same story line over and over again over the decades but just change the names to make it new. I have never seen a more gullible bunch of people ready to believe anything spoon fed to them than conservatives.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    the Right is still hot on the trail of the Ark on Ararat and those sea monsters that live at the edge of the world.

    97% of the scientists on the planet are wrong, dead-wrong for even talking about the longterm dangers of climate change. The Good Lord and Milton Friedman have given man dominion over the earth -- they won't let us down.

    I'm with you, Rush.


    Calling James Inhofe... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    ....AAA has "Graph proof of global warming."  Which I think should read that there isn't Global warming.  The proof of course it all time high temperatures, not mean or average temps throughout the history of recorded temps.

    And like everything AAA posts, the actual link to the article is mysteriously not there, just a pretty graph that is proof.

    Nope, it's the Inhofe early snow is proof we aren't warming, damn your own sense, the guy who gets paid to tell you industry is grand, says they are ok-dokay.  End of story I guess.

    I know that chart to be wrong, here in Houston while we didn't hit the hottest ever, we went the most days above 100, back to back years.

    So maybe another idiot figured out how to make a pretty chart and manipulate numbers, but at this point, is it really worth arguing about.  No one cares at any level that can actually make a difference.  We paid more attention to global warming under Bush and that is fricken sad.

    And as I have said many times, we have already passed the point of no return.  Meaning that we can't change the events even if we wanted to.

    Once the methane melts, the earth will heat to far faster than any of the predictions.  I don't really care anymore, I have no kids and climate change is slow enough that it will never effect me.

    I am tired of the industry nitwits over at Fox acting like they are oblivious to what every human in American with functioning sense knows, it's getting warmer.  But hey, if you want to prop up the Koch brothers at the expense of your offspring, you have that right.  But you should remember that when you are whining about the deficit.

    And for a group that keeps saying "What if you are wrong" regarding god, they sure don't mind taking their chances with their offspring on something far more easily viewed, with their own senses.  And for what, to benefit the heavy polluters of the world, awesome.


    How do Conservatives (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    discount the fact that the U.S. Military considers Global warming as one of the top national Security issues facing this country. They are ordering billions of dollars of equipment designed to deal with this issue, such as self cooling receptacles for housing computers and such, and hundreds of programmers are working on re-mapping the world for when sea levels start changing.  Certain sea lanes and channels, now navigable, may not be later on.

    Just another case of Wingers "making your own reality."


    Voter registration (none / 0) (#11)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    How many other states (besides MN) allow voter registration on election day, at the polling place?

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    I think this is the complete list (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    that permits election day registration.

    New Hampshire
    North Carolina


    thanks (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by DFLer on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    That's the only way to go, as address changes, name changes etc. require new registrations.

    This sometimes causes a little chaos for election judges, especially in student precincts, but we're well-trained here in Minny.


    The Salt Lake Tribune (none / 0) (#13)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    If this has been previously posted, I apologize.

    In considering which candidate to endorse, The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had hoped that Romney would exhibit the same talents for organization, pragmatic problem solving and inspired leadership that he displayed here more than a decade ago. Instead, we have watched him morph into a friend of the far right, then tack toward the center with breathtaking aplomb. Through a pair of presidential debates, Romney's domestic agenda remains bereft of detail and worthy of mistrust.

    Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.


    That piece is the very ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:41:14 PM EST
    definition of "damning with faint praise".

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#176)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    Damning with faint praise would be saying "they are both terrible but Obama is less so." Saying that Obama's policies have earned him a second term is certainly not what I call damning with faint praise.
    Also, I'm still completely incredulous as to how you think Romney as to how you think Romney has any possible path to victory without Ohio; spending five minutes on 270towin easily disproves you. Obama can lose FL, NC, NH, IA, and CO and end up with 271 EV's. Hell, he could even lose those states plus ME-2 and have 270. OH is a must-win for Romney, there's really no arguing that point (there's zero possibility of Romney losing OH but taking WI, NV; if Obama loses either of those states than it means he's lost in OH as well as they are even more Obama-friendly than OH).

    I dunno (none / 0) (#177)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    about what you say about Wisconsin.  That's so 2008.  Compared to his numbers then, Obama has lost more support in Wisconsin than in any other state.  It could return to being the closest state in the country, and with worrisome complications.

    Since 2010, Wisconsin has become as corrupt or more so than Ohio.  Walker has put in place some of the most draconian voter suppression laws, and the lawsuits on them have caused much confusion among local voting officials as well as voters.  Plus, voting machines that are illegal by state law also have been put in place by the thousands in the state -- and, of course, the election commission is appointed by Walker, the commission's staff answers to Walker, so nothing has been done (abetted by the state's major media monopoly, which is far right).

    I'm reassured by some polls but not others, and I'm reassured somewhat by the hard work of the Baldwin campaign for turnout -- because until a few days ago, there has been little sign of the vaunted OFA ground game.  And, of course, the state Dem party has been demoralized by the recall results (see above re corruption, illegal voting machines, etc.), as have now nigh-nonexistent labor organizations in the state.

    It's not the Wisconsin that we knew, and we don't really know what it will do (or will have done to it) this time around.  Republicans are acting too d*mn smug, despite their terrible candidates.


    And I am sure that (none / 0) (#178)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 01:21:19 PM EST
    "Fighting Bob" La Follette is spinning in his grave.  Although, Wisconsin has always been of two minds, it seems to me.  After all, your state gave us Senator Joe McCarthy, as well as The Progressive Movement.  

    Exactly -- and (none / 0) (#179)
    by Towanda on Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    as the home of the birthplace of the Republican Party, Wisconsin actually has been more red than blue for most of the century and a half since of its history.  (You know, of course, that Fighting Bob and Tailgunner Joe both were Republicans.)

    Only half a century ago or so, really, with the surge of the "young bloods" in the state Dem party of the '50s did the state start to get a rep for going blue -- in part, because it used to be watched closely as the first state with a presidential primary, particularly the historic primary of 1960 that took JFK to the White House.

    (Outsiders may not know that many in the state were happy to see the parties yield that first-state status of their primaries to others, because a lot did not like the intrusive media folderol, even then; it simply is not Midwestern nice to shove cameras and microphones at us and, gasp, ask about our political preferences!  Nor do we appreciate politicians interrupting us at our donut stops and diners; morning coffee and pastry is a sacred ritual.  Nor do many  appreciate traffic jams created by politicians; we only tolerate those if caused by orange-triangled SMV's aka tractors or Amish buggies.  So, do they enjoy swing-state status that brings back so much of this media folderol, plus phone calls when at the dinner table?  No, they do not.  But they'll the money from the media and count down the days 'til the outsiders go away again.)

    Even since, Wisconsin bemuses many elsewhere, we know, with its traditional splitting of tickets to go one way in gubernatorial and/or legislative races and another way in Congressional and/or presidential races.  But remember, it's not a purple state.  It's a massively red state, on the maps, with but a few blue outposts of sanity in a few cities, which have more than a third of the population . . . but only about a third of the population.  A

    nd most of the cities have lost population since the Dem heyday, while the mostly red suburbs have grown, many of them such as the infamous Waukesha, mainl a dairy famr county until the '70s, when it became the fastest-growing county in the country, in part owing to the start of an influx from the little-discussed but significant-elsewhere-in-the-Midwest-as well Southern migration, which has increased since.  

    That's the Southern white migration.  Before they arrived, the only "evangelicals" in Wisconsin were ELCA -- and Evangelical Lutherans are far different from the fundamentalists in Waukesha County, which now can influence elections more than Milwaukee and Madison together.  Thus, the importance to Dems of the other occasionally blue outposts of La Crosse and Green Bay, and thus Obama will be in the latter city this week.  Too late? when there really are no undecideds left, but they just don't want to be asked about their political preferences?  We will see.


    Obama finds a more 'colorful' word for (none / 0) (#15)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    Romnesia.  "Well, that's a bull$hitter, I can tell.". Part of an interview coming out in Rolling Stone magazine.

    Gotta (none / 0) (#34)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    love it.

    We're forbidden to say "bullsh-tter" or even print it unexpurgated.

    There is absolutely no substitute for that word when describing the antics of the current crop of pols trying to get us to vote for them.

    Telling untruths?
    Zigging and zagging?

    There is no substitute for saying that they are bullsh:tting us.
    And we are not allowed by our government to say that in public.


    I like "steaming pile of bullsh*t"... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    ...as a response to much Republican absurdity. Just my poopy preference.

    I'm not sure anyone as cold and (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    dead inside as Mitt Romney could produce anything that "steams;" if, in fact, it is possible for anything to make its way past the stick that is permanently lodged in his rectum, I picture something more along the lines of frozen rabbit-like pellets.

    [you realize, of course, that you have opened the door to most men's favorite subject: toilet talk; as a woman, though, 32 years of marriage have given me some facility and familiarity with the topic.]


    As a dutch oven husband for the last 20 years.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by magster on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    .... no comment. My poor wife still allegedly loves me.

    You need to come out here (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    to the country and raise some cattle.  While I have been married 42 years, and thus have the type of familiarity that you do with said topic, there's nothing like dealing with the real thing to breed actual familiarity.  I've dealt with a whole lot of cow and bull manure in my time.
    It makes excellent fertilizer, BTW, when aged properly.     ;-)

    I already live in the country - have for (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    30 years, and I probably spent about 10 of them in a horse barn, so...there's that.

    I think the stuff that made our garden grow like it was on steroids this year was the sheep manure...

    I'd take the equine and bovine versions any day of the week over the human, feline and canine varieties.  No "hands-on" experience with porcine, but I've been to the state fair, and that ain't no picnic!


    Horses do produce (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:21:28 PM EST
    an impressive amount of end-product (not that cattle don't).  But pound for pound, I think horses produce more, because they are rear-gut fermenters, and cattle are ruminants, which means that cattle are a bit more efficient at using up what they take in.    
    And really, as lentinel says below, the conversation has taken a definite "excrementory" turn, so to speak.  Perhaps inevitable when discussing, not just censorship of certain terms, but government in general.

    Most deserving of a "5" me thinks (none / 0) (#59)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    pile? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    what they've served up to us is more like a moldering, smoldering Cheops of monkey dung.

    Oh, I don't know (none / 0) (#50)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:55:27 PM EST
    Maybe we should say "pig sh*t" instead .  It smells worse than bull effluvium.   ;-)

    My HS track coach use to say: whale pucky! (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    Might have been a phrase peculiar to him, though, as were a bunch of other things he said and did...

    Maybe, although (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    I have heard "horse pucky"- never "whale pucky."    

    PS. Whales are huge animals.  I would imagine that they produce an impressive amount of pucky.       ;-)


    FYI (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 09:13:46 AM EST
    If you ever run into whale puke, save it, it's worth $50,000 a pound.  
    Helps perfume keep it's scent.

    You (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    can't really say that so and so is pigsh:tting us. Not yet, anyway.

    In the language of the people, there is no substitute for saying that the utterance of a particular candidate is booolsh!t.

    No substitute.


    Upon (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:12:19 PM EST
    reflection, I think that "horsesh!t" has also entered the arena as an accepted synonym for "bullsh!t".

    But "pigsh!t" has not, at least to my knowledge.

    But there is not, as yet, a verb, "to horsesh!t", as in "he is horsesh!tting us".

    So, for the present at least, the bull appears to me to reign supreme.


    LOL! (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    Yes, I have heard the horse version used a lot, as you said.  But I still think that the pig end product smells worse than either the bull or horse versions.  Perhaps we can start a new phrase.
    OTOH, have you ever smelled a big poultry farm (chicken or turkey, either one)?  Eeeeeewwwww!  But I do think that "chicken sh*t" has another meaning, usually having to do with cowardice.      

    I (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    forgot about "chicken sh*t".

    Another expression for which there is no substitute.
    Thank you for bringing it to my attention. :-)

    My experience is not such that I am able to compare the intensity of the olfactory emissions of these animals.

    What I now would say is that these politicians are bullsh!tting us, laying a bunch of horsesh!t upon it, and are too chickensh't to let us say so to their faces.


    as a city boy (none / 0) (#127)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:49:32 PM EST
    I think I'm qualified to state categorically, nothing, but nothing, makes your head kick back, and has you running for a spot to empty the torrent about to blast forth from your intestines than.......chicken sh*t!

    (I spent many a summer on farms, and in barns, so I know from whence I speak)


    Yep (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    Poultry farms are vile.  They have probably caused more complaints from the neighbors out this way than any other animal operation.

    Funny... (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    I was trying to make a point about how the government represses us by forbidding use of certain words - words that are essential to convey meaning.

    And the conversation turned into one of the comparative qualities of different kinds of excrement.


    The makings of a Carl Hiassen (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    novel and/or a worthy Republican successor to Florida governor Rick Scott.   The Florida Ethics Commission found probable cause that US. Congressman David Rivera committed ll violations of ethics laws while he was a state legislator. Accusations against the South Florida Republican (and former room-mate of Marco Rubio, and defender of Rivera) include filing fraudulent financial disclosure statements, misusing campaign funds and concealing a $l million consulting contract with a gambling business while serving in the state House.

    Rivera can seek a hearing to dispute further the charges or enter into a settlement. And, the ethics commission found no probable cause of a voting conflict--- due to a five-year statute of limitations.

    The Miami Herald has also reported that Rivera  ran a puppet candidate in the Democratic primary against Democratic challenger , Joe Garcia.  The candidate, Justin Sternad, a hotel worker told the FBI that Rivera was secretly behind the race,  giving $43,000 in cash to Sternad.  One witness in the case who describes herself as a "Republican Political Guru and Conservative Bad Girl" disappeared hours before she was scheduled to talk to prosecutors.  This bad girl has not yet surfaced.

    Mr. Rivera, according to the NYT, was named this year as the most corrupt member of Congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics---a real distinction given the competition.    Rivera is in a tight race with Democrat Joe Garcia for representative of Florida's 25th Congressional district.

    Yes, I saw that... (none / 0) (#69)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    guess we don't have to worry about helping Joe Garcia much with the election.  But then this is Florida where strange election shenanigans happen.  BTW we're getting some 35-40 mph wind and rain from hurricane Sandy.  This is as wild as I like to see it.

    From the frying pan into.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    Just a little rain and some wind,  but i am scheduled to fly to NYC this weekend.  Should be no problem getting out, but doesn't look good for a return the middle of next week.  

    Just checked and (none / 0) (#75)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    the closest this storm should get to us is 315 miles on Friday afternoon.  MIA should be ok, wet but ok.  Good luck.

    weather here in Jax (none / 0) (#117)
    by Amiss on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    for Fl/Ga game is we will be.under tropical storm warnings til around noon Saturday Wish you the best of luck.

    Never thought I would say this (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    but that kind of weather now favors the Gators style of play.

    Islamorada is now (none / 0) (#128)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:54:39 PM EST
    lined up with the exact latitude of hurricane Sandy.  It's @ 75.5 W longitude  and we're 80.5 so it's about 300 miles off shore, I think.  We're getting whomped with some big wind and rain but nothing like the eye which is 105 mph.  

    It's (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:51:17 AM EST
    almost appropriate for the world's largest cocktail party isn't it?

    You may want to postpone that NY trip (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    as Tropical Storm Sandy is expected to land there early next week with high winds, rain, and snow.

    that's a fake weather report, according to Rush, (none / 0) (#161)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    to keep Keydans from traveling ;o0)

    See, that's where I go wrong (none / 0) (#162)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    I read what the mayor of New York is saying to NYC residents rather than listening to Rush. I should know better :)

    Thank you all. (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    Have re-scheduled the NYC trip.   The prospects of travel, including forced residence at La Guardia was unattractive.  Hope that it is a false alarm for the mid-Atlantic, or at least, not as bad as projected at this point.

    Ok, this is both disgusting and disturbing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 12:50:15 PM EST
     If true, and I hope this guy gets a fair trial because he's already convicted in the media:

    Yummy Yummy I got human in my tummy

    Poll trends for WA not looking good for (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    R-74 passage (marriage equality) or for a Jay Inslee gubernatorial win. The latest Elway poll is the bad sign.

    Sad on R-74, because up until the last two weeks the polls had all been moving steadily in the direction of approval. Now the anti-gay zealots from everywhere else are pouring last-ditch million$ into the state, and it seems to be having an effect. Never doubt the power of fear.

    As for the governor's race, I cannot abide the thought of living in a Rob Mckenna-run WA. Women will have less access to birth control (yes, this is vintage McKenna: say you believe in the right of women to have birth control, but then promote policies that will deny them access to it), corporations will continue to enjoy all their unnecesary state tax breaks, and kids and the poor will see their health care safety net disappear. On top of that, the charter schools initiative may actually pull out a win, which means this state will be lost for a long time. It's going to be very, very, bad.

    I have friends that are probably moving to Mexico next spring...maybe I'd better bone up on my Espanol...

    ... conducted by the University of Washington Center for Survey Research, with a 3.9% margin for error, public opinion favors passage of R-74 by a 54%-38% margin. The Survey USA results show a similar two-digit margin in favor. The Elway Poll pegs the margin favoring approval at 6 points, but it also has a 4.9% margin for error.

    A recent poll conducted by Strategies 360 for the Seattle Times show that Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna are tied in the WA gubernatorial race, 46-46 with 8% undecided. That same poll has R-74 passing by a 54-38 margin.

    Washington Democrats should not be discouraged. Rather, they should use the polls as proof that they should never take anything for granted, and that they should continue working hard until Election Day.


    See my comments below (none / 0) (#63)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    I just found this and thought you'd enjoy (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:00:47 PM EST
    Women for McKenna rally, at the Space Needle today. Hilarity from The Stranger. (And, if I may say so, I think Goldy looks better with a wig than wihtout.)

    McKenna and Inslee have been tied (none / 0) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    for months. And the Elway polls seem to be a lot more accurate than others, regarding trends in WA over the last few election cycles.

    As for the intiatives and referenda, those can't even be considered Dem or Rep issues anymore. Lots of Reps have come out in favor of R-74, R-502 (legalizing marijuana) and some former Dem public school proponents and very serious money is now backing 1240 (charter schools). You already know this, Donald, but while WA may be a Dem blue state when it comes to certain candidates, it's also heavily independent and libertarian, and continual passage of Tim Eyman's stupid and unconstitutional anti-tax initiatives proves that. It's not longer a Cascade curtain divide. This year is looking very different from other years. Add to that the big corporate money from Bill Gates and Steve Balmer (not real liberals) backing charter schools, more outside money pouring in, and more general disaffection and distaste for the same old-same old Dems (which is why McKenna may win a governor's seat that has not gone GOP since the early 1980's).

    I'm not feeling confident about what may happen here in two weeks.

    This in reply to Donald (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    One added note: I wouldn't trust any poll commmissioned by the owners of Seattle Times, who has recently proven how corrupt and unbiased they really are. Did you know that the Blethen boys have been funding McKenna ads in their own paper? That the "business side" of the operation has decided it's a good idea to inject themsleves -- in a blatantly partisan way -- into political campaigns? That they have been running articles against Suzan Del Bene with misleading, if not totally false, headlines? Their so called fact-checking only extends to the the tip of their Pinnochio noses.

    Big scandal at the Times. Nothing they touch can be trusted.


    The Blethen boys sound like ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:31:43 PM EST
    ... they're close relatives of Douglas Manchester, chairman and publisher of the San Diego U-T. Too bad. Newspapers should stick to reporting the news, and resist the temptation to inject themselves into current events and risk becoming an active part of the storyline.

    Especially when it's a one-newspaper town (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    You're talking to someone ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    ... who lives in the realm of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the sole mutant offspring of the Star-Bulletin's purchase last year of the larger Advertiser from the Gannett Corp. and subsequent layoff of 90% of Advertiser journalists.

    Consolidation seems to be the prevailing trend for newspapers in most large cities around the country. Look what's become of former 4th Estate stalwarts in our own adult lifetimes, as the San Francisco Examiner, the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, the Chicago Daily News, Denver's Rocky Mountain News and your city's Post-Intelligencer.


    And not to mention... (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    The Seattle Times' role in destroying the Joint Operating Agrement between them and the P.I...



    That's exactly what the Advertiser did ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    ... to the Star-Bulletin out here, renege on the joint operating agreement.

    However, things did not work out nearly so well for the Honolulu Advertiser as it did for the Seattle Times.

    Because rather than simply fold up shop as Gannett had hoped they would, the feisty Star-Bulletin imported its own presses from the U.S. mainland, then went toe-to-toe with the Advertiser by shifting its publication from afternoon to morning and aggressively marketing itself to new subscribers.

    The competition devolved into a war of attrition, which eventually compelled Gannett Corp. to throw in the towel and sell the larger Advertiser to its smaller competitor, which then triumphantly absorbed the Advertiser's more useful assets (which included the name) while chucking the rest overboard.


    ... of Congressman Jim McDermott (who I think the world of), I've always considered Washington Democrats to be a rather feckless lot who would greatly benefit from a collective spinal translant and transfusion of grey matter. As a former resident of Washington, I have fond memories of my time as a UW student in Seattle, and still follow events and politics up there rather closely.

    From my experience as someone who worked as a senior policy analyst in a state legislature, I think Washington state has a terribly regressive and obsolete tax structure that's in dire need of serious top-to-bottom overhaul, if you're ever to meet the demands of a 21st century society and environment.

    And in that regard, I find it inexplicable that WA Dems are so afraid of their own shadows that not only will they not touch the issue of comprehensive tax reform, they continue to cede the reins of tax policy to well-oiled right-wing crackpots like Tim Eyman, which of course only exacerbates the state's outstanding fiscal problems.

    Good luck. Aloha.


    Ditto on all that! (none / 0) (#72)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    Passive-aggressiveness permeates the Democratic party here.

    Texas AG says no to UN Poll Watchers (none / 0) (#64)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    Really scary are the purported remarks left on a local Houston radio station's Facebook Page regarding these poll watchers. For instance:

    "We do not need the UN interfereing with Texas.Maybe it is time to succeed."

    Hmm. Alrighty then.


    ha! I wish them all the success in the world (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 04:53:35 PM EST
    It is indeed time for them to succeed.

    succession success... (none / 0) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    Because nothing succeeds ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    ... like success, right?

    I'm all for selling Texas back to Mexico at a loss, but I seriously doubt that the Mexican government would want the institutional headache that millions of Texas white-wingers would bring to the table.


    Well at least we'd be finally rid (none / 0) (#107)
    by brodie on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    of Dallas -- the Cowboys, its many RWers, the dishonest monument to gubmit propaganda aka The Sixth Floor Museum, Exxon/Mobil, Conoco/Phillips and other greedy non-taxpaying oil cos, and the loose-seat bankrupt airline American.  But I'm pretty sure the Mexicans could do a more honest job with the SFM, and probably could do a better job of bolting down airline seats properly.

    Of course we'd also lose the Space Center in Houston, San Antonio's RiverWalk and Mayor Julian Castro, and probably the cutest, perkiest cheerleaders in the land, according to author Chuck Thompson.  Lots of military installations too --which isn't such a bad thing.


    Some Texans have been trying to succeed (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:14:26 PM EST
    Since I was old enough to vote.  Hasn't there been some sort of politically active succession group operating since the 80s?

    Are they trying to succeed (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Peter G on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 10:32:19 PM EST
    at seceding?

    One would hope so :) (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    oops hahahaha (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 07:40:06 AM EST
    I guess I personally want them to succeed instead of secede.

    Obama Campaign is acting like losers! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    I have to agree with the recent Douthat column:

    I think the Romney campaign's guarantee of victory has mattered much less than the Obama campaign's recent aura of defeat.

    Losing campaigns have a certain feel to them: They go negative hard, try out new messaging very late in the game, hype issues that only their core supporters are focused on, and try to turn non-gaffes and minor slip-ups by their opponents into massive, election-turning scandals. ... ever since the first debate cost Obama his air of inevitability, he and his surrogates have sounded more like McCain did with Joe the Plumber than like a typical incumbent president on his way to re-election. A winning presidential campaign would not normally be hyping non-issues like Big Bird and "binders full of women" in its quest for a closing argument, or rolling out a new spin on its second-term agenda with just two weeks left in the race, or pushing so many advertising chips into dishonest attacks on its rival's position on abortion. A winning presidential campaign would typically be talking about the issues that voters cite as most important -- jobs, the economy, the deficit -- rather than trying to bring up Planned Parenthood and PBS at every opportunity. A winning presidential campaign would not typically have coined the term "Romnesia," let alone worked it into their candidate's speeches.

    Especially disturbing is a lot of this is coming not from surrogates but from the President himself.

    The argument is this is base-energizing activity.  Maybe.  But that's not how it plays to a mainstream audience.

    We have all played sports.  We know what a losing team looks like.

    This doesn't mean I think they're going to lose.  But they are acting that way.

    With all due respect, Ross Douthat is ... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    ... hardly a neutral observer without a dog in the hunt. He is, after all, the co-author -- with conservative writer Reihan Salam -- of the 2008 book "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream."

    That's not to say that what Douthat is contending is necessarily groundless. I'm just urging you to please consider the source whenever evaluating what's being said.

    That bit of advice also applies whatever I write as well, since I'm a local Democratic Party official out here in the islands. The only difference is that I've made no attempts to obscure my political sympathies or affiliations behind the guise of "professional journalism."


    I agree (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:26:13 PM EST
    about considering the sources - but what do you think of the content?

    Trump made a big deal about China during his moment in the political sun. We know his agenda.

    But now he is being echoed by both Obama and Romney.
    They must feel that the content of his ravings has merit - even though at least one of them, Obama, has obvious contempt for the source.


    Well, you know what they say about ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:31:27 PM EST
    ... broken clocks.

    So (none / 0) (#139)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    you think Trump is right on this?


    Trump, Obama and Romney.
    Quite a trio.

    Just what we need.

    A confrontation with a gigantic nuclear power to whom we are in hock up to our eyeballs.


    Who cares? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    I agree with his point.  And I'm to the left of Stalin.

    I could have just made the same point in my own words.  But I liked the way he arranged the argument.


    good of you to be so "concerned". (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    i believe you're what's called, on blogs, a "concern troll", seeming to be really, really, really worried that, oh gosh, you really, really, really like (insert item/person here), but oh my goodness, look at what they are doing!

    yeah, ok. move along, your "concern" is duly noted, and laughed at.


    I am not concerned ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:25:48 PM EST
    at all.  I have said repeatedly for more than a year that I won't be voting for Obama or the Republican.  But I will be voting.

    And I honestly don't care at all who wins.

    But I still have opinions.  My family has been involved in electoral politics since before the civil war, including holding seats in the house and Senate and working in multiple Presidential administrations.  I've worked on Dem campaigns since before I could vote.  

    I chose to work in the arts rather than politics.  But I still consider it my "second profession". ;)

    So, sorry, no, I wasn't "concern trolling".


    The (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    electoral college map linked to above shows Obama with a lead of 294 to Romney's 244.

    The Huffpo electoral college map shows Obama with a lead of 277 to Romney's 191.

    It would seem that the information provided depends on who you ask and to whom you rely upon as sources.

    I suppose we won't know the truth until the 7th of November.

    At last, a pen for the ladies. (none / 0) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    BIC has finally heeded the cries of women everywhere and created the BIC Crystal Pen for Women.

    Designed specifically to meet the writing needs of ladies, the BIC Crystal comes in soothing pink and purple. And it has a slender shape sized for the delicate female hand.

    No longer must women contend with bulky, heavy pens in masculine shades of grey and blue.

    At last, our long national pen nightmare has passed.

    Ellen DeGeneres adds her comments about this breakthrough for the ladies..

    And grateful women from throughout the land have posted their comments at this Amazon consumer reviews site.

    Thank you, BIC. Thank you so much.

    Oh, for (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    crying in a bucket.  Yes, I'm sure that this pen is answering a profound female need.  Not.
    OTOH, perhaps if the BIC feminine pen came with a vibrating
    Okay, okay, my bad.      ;-)

    ...and a decent lomg-life battery... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Angel on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:03:05 PM EST
    You betcha! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:13:05 PM EST

    Ms Zorba!!! (none / 0) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:09:06 PM EST
    My eybrows raised like rockets, my mouth agape....

    And yet, my lips forced into a spntaneous devilish little grin

    Just exactly what are they teaching you "down on the farm" as they say?



    Shooter, you need to (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    get out more and talk to a few women.    ;-)

    A tip of the hat to Melissa at Shakesville (none / 0) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    I saw that segment on Ellen (none / 0) (#145)
    by sj on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 09:54:56 PM EST
    I think she hit all the high spots.  

    this is appropo of nothing at all on this thread. (none / 0) (#106)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:41:37 PM EST
    watching/listening to a vid of the Cream "reunion" concert, Royal Albert Hall, 2005, on youtube. these guys hadn't played together in 30 years, and sounded absolutely outstanding! they just get stronger as the concert goes on. if i'd been just a little older, i could have seen them in concert the first time around. rats!

    they just put everyone else to shame.

    Clapton or Page on guitar? (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    clapton, of course. page never played with (none / 0) (#115)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:18:10 PM EST
    cream. he and clapton, at different times, played with the spencer davis group, but i don't know that they've ever played together, ever.

    Cream was, is, and always will be: (none / 0) (#118)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:21:20 PM EST
    baker - bruce - clapton

    Oops, of course (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    I had a momentary brain f*rt, and latched onto  the Yardbirds for some reason.

    ...which variously included Clapton, (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:28:55 PM EST
    Page and Beck.

    Does BTD need a lawyer? (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    or just a new bookie.

    Twenty-five people were indicted today in New York on charges related to a $50 million sports-gambling ring. This marks the culmination of an 18-month long joint investigation by the NYPD, FBI, Queens District Attorney's Office, and Nevada Gaming Control Board.

    might explain why he hasn't been seen much (none / 0) (#116)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 07:18:50 PM EST
    here lately.

    hey, hey, just kidding!


    well, of course (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Thu Oct 25, 2012 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    what do you expect the NY Pd to be doing, now that they've eliminated all serious, violent crimes?

    Don't they have some soft drink scofflaws (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 05:56:49 AM EST
    to be rounding up?