Tuesday Open Thread

Another busy day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: Jerry Sandusky sentenced to 30 to 60 years.

< George Zimmerman Team Begins Offense | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama's notes from the first debate... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:12:09 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but this had me laughing out loud.

    You have to scroll down a bit to see the "notes."

    Notes from the debate.

    I really needed that.

    Too Funny (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    I really like this line:
    Keep it together. FOCUS, Barry-O.

    I like him beating himself at ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    Tic-tac-toe.  Somehow that seems very Obama.

    I don't think it's funny at all (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    Things I could be doing to Reggie?  That scratched out and Miichelle written in?

    That's funny?  Whoever put this together has a sense of humor worth appreciating or sharing?  Not in my book

    There are plenty of humorous things out there about President Obama's debate performance but this was put together by someone who has been making up offensive lies about him for years.  I don't need to go this low to find something to laugh about when it comes to the Denver debate.


    Oh, for heaven's sake...I think it's (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    richly and deeply ironic that someone who regularly attains new heights of irreverance and sometimes inappropriateness would actually take offense to this.

    I didn't and don't know the first thing about the people or person who put this together, but I can tell you that, with the exception of the "Reggie" thing that just went over my head, I probably could have written most of what I saw there - because I was starting to provide that kind of commentary to myself as I was watching it.

    In truth, there wasn't a single thing that was funny about that debate, so what else is there to do but make fun of it - which has been happening on late-night talk shows, SNL and now this.

    ::rolls eyes::


    Reggie Love (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    formerly Obama's "body man" (i.e., the guy who stands by w/hand sanitizer, clean shirts, etc., etc., etc.) - all politicians at Obama's level have a "body man"

    i don't know who made the list up, but maybe it's the people at hillbuzz.org, who claim that Obama is gay (a "cakeboy") & that his marriage to Michelle (a "heifer") is a sham of the sort commonly arranged through the deeply embedded homosexual network of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago - these are the same people who have given Larry Sinclair a platform & who claim that Obama & Reggie Love are now ex-lovers after a nasty breakup

    just so you know


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    it will be interesting to see how Mitten's line about spending a romantic evening with the President is interpreted by the same people.

    Doesn't Seem to Match the Theme... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    ...of the rest of the scribbles.  I know who Reggie Love is, never heard of some homosexual relationship, even as a joke.  And that just way too dark compared to he rest of it that I don't think it where is was going.

    it's clearly a reference to Reggie Love (none / 0) (#36)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    nothing else makes sense

    but, speaking of actual "homosexuals," poor Sully is inconsolable


    Agreed (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    For anyone that sits regularly in meetings and takes notes, it was spot on for mind drifting.

    I though the Reggie comment was about Reggie Brown the Obama impersonator.  That he could 'do' him, as in impersonate Reggie Brown because.... they look alike.


    I think the reference (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    was, more likely, to Reggie Love--President Obama's former assistant.  My take is based on the cross-out with Michelle's name above not to mention the underlying meanness of the humor.

    exactly (none / 0) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    you nailed the giveaway

    Space Jump (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    It's On !!!

    Felix Baumgartner is going to jump from about 23 miles from the Earth.  He will ride a capsule connected to a balloon up for 3 hours, then jump.  He will be in space, maybe, depending on who's definition.  I prefer the one where humans can't exist w/o a pressurized suit which is about 6 miles.  Most say 60 miles, where aeronautical flight ends.

    I just watched the special on the previous record holder that did a 20 mile free-fall in 1960.  The cameras showed space without the blue atmosphere, making the sun a yellow circle in the blackness of space.

    Not sure what the speed of sound is at that height, but he will break it in nothing more than a pressurized suit.  It's less than the speed of sound at sea level, 768mph.  He will hit 670mph before deploying a parachute and gradually drift pack to Earth.

    Years ago while (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    working for ABC Sports we filmed a guy that jumped from a balloon at 43,000 feet.  Old stuff now but the pre programming and pressurization for 24 hours prior to the jump was quite complicated.  We did the show at Edward's Air Force base in Lancaster, California and all our footage had to be screened by the USAF due to the secret airplanes parked in the area.  I had the honor of filming in the command center where they monitor the spacecraft landings and is an extremely impressive room.  I hope Felix Baumgartner comes down instead of going farther up.

    I think he's nuts, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:09:11 PM EST
    but I certainly hope he lives through it.  
    Among the risks: Any contact with the capsule on his exit could tear the pressurized suit. A rip could expose him to a lack of oxygen and temperatures as low as 70 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (-55 degrees Celsius). It could cause potentially lethal bubbles to form in his bodily fluids, a condition known as "boiling blood."

    He could also spin out of control, causing other risky problems.

    Sounds pretty darned dangerous to me.  "Boiling blood"???  Among other things.

    It's Off (4.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    They cancelled it because of wind conditions.

    I do find it odd that they are doing it near Roswell, NM.


    streets of New York, John Lennon would have turned 72 years old today. The good always seem to die young.

    Obama's "Big Bird" ad (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    tone deaf

    not because the foundation behind Sesame Street has rightly objected:

    "Sesame Workshop is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization and we do not endorse candidates or participate in political campaigns," the organization said in a terse, two-sentence statement. "We have approved no campaign ads and, as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down."

    it's because the ad goes after Romney for not fighting Wall Street when Obama himself installed Wall Street on Pennsylvania Avenue

    the ad actually made me angry - this campaign has lost its way

    No kidding...and I don't think it's going (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:59:53 PM EST

    David Dayen:

    Let's look at that litany of Wall Street "criminals" and "gluttons of greed," which later get juxtaposed with Big Bird. You have Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski. So two CEOs prosecuted and convicted by George W. Bush's Justice Department, and Madoff, whose son turned him in before Obama took office, in December 2008, and who pleaded guilty.

    So the Obama campaign could not fill a list of three Wall Street criminals that the Obama Justice Department actually sent to jail. Heck, they couldn't fill a list of one!

    This is despite Eric Holder telling students at Columbia University in February of this year that his Justice Department's record of success on fighting financial fraud crimes "has been nothing less than historic." But not historic enough that his boss could point to, well, one Wall Street criminal behind bars as a result of DoJ's actions.

    That's painfully telling. Nobody from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or Citigroup or JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs or Bear Stearns or Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or even Countrywide or Ameriquest was available to stand in as a "glutton of greed" in this advertisement. Literally no major figure responsible for the financial crisis has gone to jail. So the campaign has to use two CEOs from a decade-old accounting scandal, and a garden-variety Ponzi schemer. The financial crisis plays no role in this advertisement trying to juxtapose cuts to PBS with the financial crisis!

    Marcy Wheeler:

    Seriously though. How does this help Obama?

    Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Kozlowski. Criminals. Gluttons of greed.

    These are not the people who destroyed our economy.

    Lloyd Blankfein is. Obama's DOJ chose not to prosecute him even after he lied to Congress.

    Angelo Mozilo is. Obama's SEC gave him a wristslap and DOJ did nothing.

    DOJ isn't even joining in the what's-old-is-new suit against JP Morgan and Bear Stearns, five years later, and Eric Schneiderman isn't charging any human beings there.

    This ad shows well that Mitt doesn't understand which villans threaten our country.

    But it also shows that Obama has the very same willful misunderstanding.

    This ad could give new meaning to "hoist by one's own petard."


    More importantly ... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    the Children's Television Workshop makes a lot of money from selling the Big Bird license.  One of the reason's Sesame Street hasn't required any government funding since 1978.

    the Big Bird ad (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    looks like something that flew south from Jon Favreau's Facebook page

    I actually haven't been able to bring (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    myself to watch it - I'm really just sick of campaign ads.

    Here in MD we have several issues going to referendum - one is about the expansion of casino gambling, and there must be millions being spent on ads - they are just non-stop: for, against, for, against, ad infinitum.

    The second is the Civil Marriage Protection Act, and those ads are just now starting to join the Question 7 gambling ads.  It just makes my blood boil every time I see one of those "traditional marriage is the best place for children to be raised" ads.

    The third is the Dream Act legislation that would allow undocumented individuals to attend MD colleges at in-state tuition rates.  I am probably jinxing it to say this, but I haven't seen any ads yet - I'm sure they're coming - and I'm sure they will get my blood pressure up, too.

    And we have another month to go...ugh.


    We've got Monsanto and friends spending (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    millions (literally) to defect prop 37, aka labeling GMOs in our food. I call it the right to know WTF you are eating act :D Haven't seen any pro ads, but it was a people's measure put on the ballot and at one point was 2-1 in favor in the polls.

    Who on god's green earth... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    is so against casino gambling?  The Jesus Patrol?  Same sponsors as the marriage for me but not for thee ads?  Haters gonna hate...

    Casinos are a win win win for everybody...jobs, tax revenue, and most importantly safe & legal local action action action for my fellow degenerates...they should be allowed in all 50.


    Here's the thing, kdog: (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    The ads against the measure have nothing to do with the morality of the gambling itself, they are really being generated because the competing gambling interests behind the ads are compteting for their own share of the the same gambling dollars within a relatively small region.

    First, the original "slots" question was voted on by Marylanders as an amendment to the Maryland Constitution in 2008 - it is now Article XIX.  
    Per the summary of the new referendum, Article XIX:

    authorized a maximum of five video lottery facility licenses at specified locations in Allegany County, Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Cecil County, and Worcester County. All five licenses have been awarded, and the facilities in Anne Arundel County, Cecil County, and Worcester County are open to the public.

    Article XIX also requires that additional forms or expansion of commercial gaming in the State, such as provided under Chapter 1, be approved by referendum in a general election.

    And further:

    Chapter 1 states the intent of the General Assembly that a video lottery operation license may not be awarded in Prince George's County unless this referendum is approved by a majority of the voters in Prince George's County voting on the question.

    Prince George's County is where the additional license would be located,so here we are.

    There was an article in the Baltimore Sun this morning about the amount of money being spent on this issue; here's an excerpt:  

    In a filing posted Tuesday with the State Board of Elections, the ballot committee financed by Penn National reported that its outlay for the effort to defeat Question 7 has reached $21.6 million -- $18 million of which has been spent.

    Meanwhile, a pro-expansion committee reported that it has spent $17.7 million. Of that, $14.4 million was supplied by MGM and the rest by its allies at Caesars Entertainment and the Peterson Cos.

    The combined spending of $35.7 million -- with four weeks to go before Election Day -- exceeds the total spent by Democrat Martin O'Malley and Republican Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. when O'Malley ousted the incumbent governor. The gambling money has financed an ad blitz -- via television, radio and direct mail -- that makes the referendum issue difficult to avoid for many Marylanders.

    What you have are three companies - Penn National, MGM and Caesar's - taking sides and spending money in order to prevail.

    MGM is the prospective developer of a casino at Peterson's National Harbor in Prince George's County -- one of the sites permitted if voters approve the gambling expansion plan adopted by the General Assembly.

    Penn National is fighting the plan, contending that it puts its Rosecroft Raceway at a disadvantage in the competition for a casino license. Penn National is also concerned that a National Harbor casino could cut into business at its Hollywood Casino in Charles Town, W.Va.

    Caesars, an affiliate of which holds the license for a planned casino in Baltimore, supports the referendum measure because it would clear the way for casinos to offer table games such as blackjack. Caesars executives say that with table games, they can make the Baltimore casino a more upscale destination than they could under Maryland's current slots-only law.

    Now, the ads themselves don't really address this - they focus on where the state's revenue from expanded gambling is going to go.  One side says that expansion is a good thing because the money will stay in Maryland instead of going out-of-state, and it will go to education; the other side says that we can't trust what the pro-Question 7 interests say the money will be appropriated for, because the law doesn't require that it be spent on education.  Here's an excerpt of the summary:

    Chapter 1 adds expansion of public early childhood education programs to the permitted uses of gaming proceeds, including proceeds from table games if the referendum is approved statewide.

    Under current law, the primary purpose of video lottery terminals is to raise revenue for: (1) education for the children of the State in public schools (prekindergarten through grade 12); (2) public school construction and public school capital improvements; and (3) construction of capital projects at community colleges and public senior higher education institutions.

    The pro-Question 7 and anti-Question 7 ads are running pretty much back-to-back, and I think the end result is that most people have no idea what to believe - so it may come down to it being voted on on the basis of whether people approve or disapprove of the gambling itself, and whether the people who live in the areas affected do or don't want gambling in their back yards.


    I see... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:53:25 AM EST
    so a swinging d*ck contest between big gaming interests are behind the ad wars...shoulda known.

    Were I a Marylander, I would support whatever gets real table games...VLT's suck worse than the drive to AC;)


    Fine for you to gamble, as you aren't (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    financially destroying a family.  Of course, you purportedly win.  

    Working too much... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:23:24 AM EST
    can destroy a family, drinking too much, too much/too little of alotta things...thats no sound argument for gambling prohibition.

    Blackjack doesn't destroy families, families do.


    That said, the well-documented and inherent social costs that have long accompanied the gaming industry are rather hard to ignore, try as the vested interests might. These include:
    • Increased crime rates;
    • The adverse impact on local small businesses, including employment;
    • Personal and business bankruptcy;
    • Suicide and mental illness related to pathological gambling;
    • Increased rates of substance abuse, domestic abuse and child neglect; and
    • Increased government expenditures related to (1) the provision of necessary social services to impacted populations, (2) the direct regulatory oversight of the gaming industry itself, and (3) public corruption.

    I should disclose that I've studied this issue in quite some detail when I served as the senior policy analyst for the State House majority out here. Further, I would note that Hawaii and Utah are the only states in the country that do not allow some form of legalized gambling -- and in my personal opinion, for good reason.



    Benevolent tyranny... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:24:02 AM EST
    is still tyranny Don.

    Agree with kdog (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    First they come for the gamblers.

    Then they come for the porn.

    Then they come for abortion rights.

    Then they come for you.  

    I don't want someone to make my moral decisions for me.


    It's a classic liberal/progressive... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    mistake, thinking you can solve all the worlds human problems via the law, when all you do is create more problems and unintended negative consequences.

    I think it boils down to this...there is a certain amount of human ugliness that we must accept as a cost of freedom...the societal costs of alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, drug addiction, calorie addiction, pick your addiction are some of these costs of freedom.

    Not that I think the sky is gonna fall with all forms of gambling legalized or anything.


    Somewhat fallacious, I think (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:29:21 AM EST
    to (a) equate regulation of activities that are harmful to public health and/or the welfare of others with banning those activities outright or making them illegal, (b) equate regulation of activities that are harmful to public health and/or the welfare of others with regulating or banning activities that are merely offensive to majority morality, (c) equate regulation of activities that are harmful to public health and/or the welfare of others with regulating or banning those which are merely potentially harmful to the individual choosing to engage in that activity; or (d) equate regulation of activities that are harmful to public health and/or the welfare of others with government policies which infringe on specific Constitutionally protected rights.  Each sort of public policy problem is different from the others.

    Certainly not idelogically opposed to... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    reasonable regulation (prohibiting minors, enforcing standards, honest advertising, etc) nor society addressing the downside in ways outside of outright prohibition (funding treatment, education of the (true) potential harm, etc).

    Zero tolerance style prohibition of morally unpopular or potentially dangerous activities I can never get down with...a cure that is worse then the disease if there ever was one.


    Very nice summary Donald (none / 0) (#121)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:48:52 AM EST

    There was a time in the not too distant past where the only places where you could gamble legally in this country were surrounded by desert, poisonous snakes, and unexploded ordinance. That arrangement seems to have served society well.

    That arrangement... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    served the mafia very well, the rest of us I'm not so sure.

    If I was one step closer (none / 0) (#141)
    by fishcamp on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    to the teepee I could have a casino I think.  Allegedly I'm 1/16th Iroquois and I think one has to be 1/8th Indian to qualify.

    Anybody can have a casino... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    all it takes is cash to cover bets and a rudimentary knowledge of games of chance...the question is whether you will be placed in chains for it.

    You stumbled upon the only downside to the law becoming more gaming friendly...gambling and tobacco is all Native American nations have goin' for 'em economically.  White man giveth, white man taketh away.  But what's right is right, like splitting Aces;)  


    Maybe you could convert (none / 0) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    to Pequot. I believe they take you in at 1/32nd and you get a piece of Foxwoods.

    Foxwoods today has debt (none / 0) (#145)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    to the tune of 2.3 Billion.

    Who would have guessed (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:50:42 AM EST
    the state headed towards the biggest winning margin for Obama (Hawaii) and the state headed for the biggest winning margin for Romney (Utah) can actually find common ground.

    No kidding (none / 0) (#61)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:17:16 PM EST
    Obama gets his butt kicked in a debate and all he's got is Big Bird?

    Meanwhile Lybia is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess and the economy is well the same.

    A week talking about Big Bird is a week he won't get back.

    Romney's obviously not scared of the issue.

    Guess he's not afraid of the Big Bird debate?  


    At this point (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    I'm not sure that Obama wants to reelected. I think he would be perfectly fine going off and doing speeches for money. He reminds me of George W. Bush in 1992 who seemed annoyed that he had to even show up for a debate with that "hick from the sticks". Obama seems to have the same attitude about Romney thinking that he's not worthy of anything.

    You know what (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    that issue said to me about Romney though? It crystallized in my mind exactly what is wrong with the GOP thinking in general. They are the most penny-wise and pound foolish group of people I think I have ever seen. They will whine about the money that goes to PBS but will thinking nothing of sending shrink wrapped millions over to Iraq to just disappear and spend trillions on a quagmire in the desert.

    Slado (none / 0) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    Don't worry about BHO. Let him keep talking about Big Bird till Mittens looks like a turkey. The silliness of Romney's deficit plan will be clear to all. Then the turkey will be stuffed with talk about Bain, 47%, income tax returns, Romney's sleazy salesman makeovers, vouchercare, social security privatization, Massachussetts records etc.
    You have a problem with that?

    Just pointing out (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    That Obama is out of ideas.

    You got a problem with that?


    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    now the Obama supporters will know what it was like to be a Romney supporter for months and months. LOL.

    Romney is out of ideas (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    about how he is going to cut the deficit. Since he has offered one example (PBS), we have to keep talking about Big Bird to expose the non-seriousness of his candidacy, until he comes up with more examples of spending cuts.
    Look, Republicans are the ones who have been running around the country saying that the country has a spending problem and not a revenue problem. Why are they getting so shy about telling us what they will cut now.
    BHO will be happy to discuss what investments the country needs to make because Democrats believe that we have an investment problem at this time to grow the economy.

    But Obama is also sounding the deficit (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    alarms, too, isn't he?  He's been doing a fair amount of talking about getting the deficit down, and he's also saying he suspects he and Romney are in general agreement about Social Security - yes, I know Obama's saying that he won't go for privatizing it, but the last thing I want to hear from a Democratic candidate is that he thinks his position on the safety net is close to the Republican one.  As if that's a good thing - it's not.

    No, Romney is not being honest about what he will cut - but he's a Republican, so I think it's safe to assume that the cuts he would support are not going to hurt the so-called "job creators" - the wealthy.

    Obama's message should be that we don't have a spending problem, we have problems that could be greatly helped by increased spending. Unfortunately, his plan seems to hinge on getting the Congress to go along with allowing the high-end Bush tax rates to expire - and he hasn't exactly had a whole lotta luck with the Congress, has he?

    And then what - what if he ends up compromising somehow?  This is a president determined and committed to the Bowles-Simpson Grand Bargain, and while he has been willing to give up on a lot of things, I don't see him giving up on this.

    And that's not going to bode well for the economy, or for most of those who have been struggling for years.

    Romney and the GOP don't have the answers, but I don't think Obama's answers are dramatically better or different.

    The real message of the Big Bird ad - for me - isn't that Romney's a fiscal prevaricator, it's that Obama and his DOJ have nothing to brag about when it comes to holding Wall Street accountable.


    Nothing to brag about (none / 0) (#98)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:50:02 PM EST
    except Dodd-Frank.  Of course, since we didn't string up the bankers in the street, it probably wasn't good enough.

    Oh, dear Lord...more of the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    comedy stylings of vicndabx; please don't quit your day job.

    Heh (none / 0) (#106)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    and you resort to your usual methods when you have no argument to make.

    As pointed out by others, obviously, the law needs to be tweaked but it is a start, and it is something the admin can point to.


    So now you know his "heart"? (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    BHO will be happy to discuss investments the country needs...
    Seems to me you are presuming a great deal.
    Why are [Republicans] getting so shy about telling us what they will cut now.
    I expect because they want to win the election and they don't want voters looking at that too closely.  At least, if I was a soulless oligarch who was only interested in acquiring an ever larger slice of the pie, that's what I'd do.

    And the Taliban (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    shot 14yr old schoolgirl, Malala Yousufzai .

    Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group was behind the shooting.
    "She was pro-West, she was speaking against Taliban and she was calling President Obama her ideal leader," Ehsan said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

    "She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas," he said, referring the main ethnic group in northwest Pakistan and southern and eastern Afghanistan. Most members of the Taliban come from conservative Pashtun tribes.

    Doctors were struggling to save Yousufzai, said Lal Noor, a doctor at the Saidu Sharif Teaching Hospital in the Swat valley's main town of Mingora.

    I cannot tell you how incredibly sad this makes me.

    I am off today. Sorry (none / 0) (#45)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    The link to the above story.  
    Taliban shoot 14-year-old Pakistani peace campaigner[/url]

    Who knows... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    sounds like a smear of the dead to me, bad form.

    Regardless, as an artist he was the best of the best of the best.

    Saw the Fab Faux on Saturday, played the White Album in its entirety with the help of the Creme Tangerine Strings & Hogshead Horns...even "Revolution 9".  "Number Nine, Number Nine, Number Nine".  It was nuts times 9.

    that smear was deleted (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:19:57 AM EST
    and the commenter warned not to repeat those kind of attacks here.

    Just finished 'Wilderness of Error' (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:54:10 AM EST
    Errol Morris's book about the Jeffrey MacDonald case. Well worth a read. It is a thoughtful survey of not only the evidence, but the philosophical implications of the case.  The ability of the news media to decide the narrative, and then shape public opinion around that narrative, has far reaching implications, as we see in all areas of life.

    There is no doubt that there was a bungled crime scene, good old boy prosecutors that withheld evidence from the defense and performed faulty analysis on other evidence, and a judge that decided the defendant was guilty and helped the prosecutors, then spent the rest of his life denying appeals. And yes, critical mistakes by the original defense team. The current judge deciding on the latest appeal is the best friend of the deceased original judge. He has denied other appeals and I don't have much optimism for the current one.

    Helena Stoeckly told many people over the course of many years that she was present at the house and knew who perpetrated the murders, but was afraid to testify lest she be prosecuted. People saw her with blood on her clothes the morning of the murders. The prosecutors never offered her any type of immunity, and instead, according to one marshall, threatened to prosecute her if she testified for the defense. The judge decided she was unreliable due to drug use and refused to let other witnesses testify about what she told them. This book paints a more complete picture of her than I have seen in the past.

    Anyway,there was a miscarriage of justice at the very least. If you think MacDonald is guilty anyway, maybe you think the end justifies the means, as the prosecutors did. But I don't think that is ever true if we care about the integrity of the justice system.

    Maureen (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    Dowd wrote some commentary about Obama.

    She quotes someone, an "expert" I surmise, attributing Obama's lackluster performance in part to his "race".

    I have seen this expressed from time to time, even here.
    And especially during the 2008 campaign when it was used as a rationalization for every backward step he took.

    He can't appear to be an angry black man.
    That's the gist of it.

    What a load of racist crap.

    Women can't be angry either, I suppose, lest they be labeled as hysterical.

    What crap that is.

    Who are the people he would be risking offending if he would express anger about the decaying cities, the blockages placed before him by blue dogs and right wing republicans. What portion of the electorate would he risk alienating? Not the people who are unthinkingly referred to as his base.

    Anger is not someone yelling. It is a feeling.
    And if he, or anyone running for public office, can't experience and express anger at the way the majority of American citizens are being treated by the collective government, they should not be running.

    If Obama doesn't feel angry on our behalf, or can't express it, he should just bow out - as he seemed to do in Denver.

    It is a personal characteristic of the man, imo. He isn't interested in waging a fight against the forces that oppress us. To attribute it to race is racist and insulting to all the black people who have stood up in the face of injustice at the risk of their very lives.

    A blog I like (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by the capstan on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 11:08:07 AM EST

    Today's--about the debate--really stings, I think.  tt is the Margaret and Helen blog, and I like it enough to get it emailed to me.  (They are liberal old folk, just like me.)

    I have Margaret and Helen bookmarked (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    for whenever I want a chuckle.  

    Do not mess with us "women of a certain age"!


    If I were the Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    I would run ads suggesting Mitt says one thing in private and one thing in public.  Bring the 47% comment back into the public consciousness and address the stream of lies that are currently coming out of Mitt's newly moderate mouth.  I think the 47% is the winner of this election and they need to keep it out there.

    I Think They Need... (none / 0) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    ...to start showing how many GWB folks Romney is assembling and how very close his ideas resemble GWB's governance.

    We are just digging out from that mess and Romney wants to flip the clock back to 2000.  Not just Romney, all republicans want those failed policies back and no one is pointing this out.  

    Huge mistake IMO.


    I don't really think they can do that (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    O has kept much of the worst (civil liberties) of GWB's governance.  And O is also an "austerity for thee" proponent.  But seriously, there has to be something to compare himself favorably against.  I don't think it's domestically though.  

    I think a PAC will have to do that (none / 0) (#138)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    Obama's campaign is sticking to the Forward theme and he has demonstrated a pretty big aversion to bringing up GW.

    Perfect... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    ....We are moving forward and they are trying get the band back together.

    I have noticed a real aversion by everyone to not mention GWB.  Seems like a good strategy for the republicans, but why the Dems aren't at the very least showing comparisons between Mitt and GWB is baffling.


    It's disturbing how he is allowed to (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 09:22:26 AM EST
    claim he is moderate on abortion when millions of Americans are watching him and then his campaign walks it back hours later.  That has happened twice now.  It happened during and after the debate too.  How can Rachel Maddow be the only journalist reporting on the dynamic?  It has happened so often how can it not be NEWS?

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    some wingnut neighbors who constantly cannot get their own mailing address right. I even at one time said something to her because I actually got official state mail for them and was about to send it back to the state because this was before they moved in. She said oh, I thought our address was X04. I said no, your address is X02. Anyhow now this has morphed into me getting all kinds of wingnut mail but unbeknownst to the mailers of this junk the recipients are not getting it because I'm just putting it in file 13. So their idiocy might be coming back to bite them.

    Just the facts... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    I hope that doesn't mean (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    he could be released upon good behavior after only 15 years.

    This guy should be spending all of his remaining life behind bars, hopefully carefully thinking through what he did, accepting responsibility and trying to become a better person.  That will help him in this lifetime and he'll come back in the next as a better person too.


    Pennsylvania sentencing law (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    grants no time off, none, for good behavior.  The 30-year minimum is an earliest parole eligibility date. In other words, for a defendant in his late 60s, its an effective life sentence of imprisonment, without the judge making the grandstanding-type gesture of a 150-year sentence, or whatever.

    It doesn't mean that (none / 0) (#13)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    The judge said:

    You are sentenced to spend not less than 30 and not more than 60 years in prison; that has the unmistakeable impact of saying the rest of your life.

    I believe that under PA law, he can't apply for parole until he has served the minimum amount of the sentence--at age 98.

    It's still not enough.


    It's enough justice (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    which is what the justice system can and ought to do.

    Revenge?  That's different.  And even of that, there never can be enough for what he did.  

    So what are we to do?  Figure out any means of prevention.  Let's start with ending idolatry of athletics in general.  Regarding college athletics, let's stop making that an oxymoron.  Let's make college be college, and let's make pro athletics pay for its own, separate, training system.


    Check on those points. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    Good to know this is effectively a life sentence.  A serial offender like that, all those victims over a number of years, he needs to be isolated from society for the duration for our protection alone, apart from any consideration of revenge or other reason.

    Agree too on rethinking college athletics, at least the major sports that act as farm systems for the pros.


    It works out to about 8 months per count (none / 0) (#33)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:34:06 PM EST

    Cheap remark, with no sound basis (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:53:05 PM EST
    If you assume the PA legislature exercises wisdom in defining the "unit of prosecution" (conduct constituting one count), or the PA courts have a prudent standard for when counts should merge (multiple counts addressing same essential conduct), or the district attorney exercises sound discretion as to how many counts to bring, and if you assume that all convictions should produce equal and consecutive sentences, then your comment might make sense.  But since none of those things is true, it doesn't.

    Funny one from The Onion! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    The piece is titled:

    "U.S. Treasury Cowboy Claims Something Done Spooked Economy":

    WASHINGTON--U.S. Treasury Cowboy Earl "Buck" Laramie gathered reporters around his campfire at sundown Monday, rustled them up some biscuits and bacon, and broke the bad news that "Somethin' or someone done spooked the economy" recently, resulting in the nation's financial system running wild and free across the high chaparral.

    The rest is equally funny.  You can read it here.

    Obama is a "Great President"! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    Or so thinks playwright and screenwriter Tony Kushner.  In an interview about the upcoming film "Lincoln", for which he penned the script, he says this:

    "I feel like I watched the Obama presidency very much through a Lincoln lens," Kushner said. "The movie is the movie, but it's been, I think, extraordinary to watch what I consider to be a great president in action while working on a film about a great president in action."

    Hmm ...

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:19:07 PM EST
    ...he was watching Obama through some kinda lens to see 'a great president in action'.  I saw an alright President who was nothing like Lincoln.

    Some maybe we all ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    need to go to Kushner's optometrist.  Then the "greatness" will come into focus.



    Or His Dealer and... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    ...get the 'good stuff'.

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    He is.

    Obama's election (none / 0) (#109)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    was a great cultural & political milestone - full marks to Obama & his 2008 primary & general campaigns for that achievement - Obama deserves to have his likeness carved into Mt Rushmore for that reason alone, & it would be fitting to have his likeness placed next to Lincoln's, just as it was beautifully appropriate that Obama was sworn into office on the Lincoln Bible

    but Obama is not a great president - he has been small & craven, not great

    & more's the pity, since he does have greatness in him


    I guess I caught the Lincoln fever too (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:54:03 PM EST
    must be this movie, also my mom mentioned wanting to find an audio book on "good ol' Abe Lincoln" a few weeks ago.  On top of all of that kdog talking about Levon Helm made me think about the Civil War again.  Forces conspire.

    Anyway I'm only 62 pages into this so far great book, but I can see some similarities in terms of political skill and their somewhat idiosyncratic way of thinking.  Lincoln's early career was not particularly partisan.  He was always thinking along slightly different lines.

    I think for Obama to be regarded as great ACA has to actually work (and not be repealed), unemployment has to drop faster than it is, cuts to Medicare and Social Security have to be avoided and revenue must be increased, ...I guess that's all that comes to mind at present, I can't really pinpoint any foreign policy benchmarks, too difficult and perhaps too far out of his control.


    And yes Dodd-Frank (none / 0) (#102)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    and other financial reforms for the consumer's benefit would have to be preserved and/or expanded.

    Actually, Dodd-Frank would need to be (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:04:02 PM EST
    strengthened; as it is, the industry lobbyists are working hard to get Congress to take as much starch out of it as they can - which is pretty much SOP, and the reason why regulation usually needs to start as strong as possible in order to accommodate the inevitable weakening.

    Yes (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    I was writing pretty sloppily but I guess by preserved/expanded I was trying to gesture at the idea that Dodd/Frank and consumer reform will have to be shown to work, as well.  to address the problem more regulation will probably be required.  My hope is that Warren gets elected and wreaks havoc in the Senate as a voice on these issues.  If he gets mired in GOP/Blue dog land without liberal voices I think we'll see his 2nd term moving him away from rather than toward any acceptable liberal definition of Greatness.

    I can tell you one thing that's true (none / 0) (#101)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:54:14 PM EST
    Tony Kushner is a great playwright.

    Breaking: (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    I'll read it after I've read Monica Lewinsky's (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    book, which will be .... uh, never.

    But of course. (none / 0) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    I thought the same thing, sarc (none / 0) (#137)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 12:21:30 PM EST

    Why progressives differ with liberals-AfPak policy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    How exactly does this article ... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:53:09 PM EST
    ... about a horrific attack on a young Afghan girl illustrate some difference between progressives and liberals in AfPak policy?

    I know, right? (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    It's a derailment (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    by someone so freaked out by Obama's pathetic debate performance that lashing out at those mean DFH's is his only recourse.

    You really have a fertile imagination (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:51:29 PM EST
    and honestly I am less worried about BHO's first debate performance than you seem to be. Some mistakes were made which I hope will get corrected. The President and everybody supporting him have their work cut out for them. That is ll there is to it.

    Then why the whiny hit on liberals? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:31:35 PM EST
    As Yman pointed out: your article includes nothing that explains your opening comment on some imagined war between liberals and progressives on Af/Pak. Maybe you could illuminate that for all of us, since your link didn't.

    Shoephone (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    when was the last time you responded when a person who self-identified as a liberal hit out at progressives? These hits are not uncommon in TL. I would use both terms interchangeably till I found out that progressives were considered children of a lesser God by some in this site.

    You failed to answer my (and Yman's) question (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:25:05 PM EST
    There are some self-identified liberals (none / 0) (#94)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    here who have always portrayed our involvement in Af-Pak as "immoral" and have berated people on the left for not standing up to the President to pullout from that part of the world. To me the moral issue about our AfPak involvement has always been more complex than people here would like to imagine. In one recent post, MT (within the last 2 days)did mention that she felt a lot of Americans did not see anything morally wrong about our involvement in AfPak. When I saw the news about how the Taliban treated the teenaged girl, I remembered MTs post. Thats all there is to my posting.

    If there are some (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:44:58 PM EST
    self-identified liberals here who have always portrayed our involvement in Af-Pak as "immoral" and have berated people on the left for not standing up to the President to pullout from that part of the world.
    Take the conversation to them directly.  Stop throwing out written hand grenades and picking fights with every self-identified liberal.

    Thanks for answering (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 09:12:51 PM EST
    I still don't think "some" equals the original blanket statement you made, but at least I understand where you're coming from. I also think that many liberals (and I indentify as one) have feelings about our involvement in those two countries that are much more complex than you allow.

    Do you really believe that a woman and a feminist such as myself would callously say we should simply abandon the women and girls of Afghanistan? Please. My evolution towards believing we should pull out of Afghanistan has taken me years. It's partly in response to Karzai's rank dishonesty and aggressive unwillingness to fully engage against the Taliban, and partly in recognition of the historical evidence that no colonial or invading nation has ever been able to tame or "win" in Afghanistan. I've come to believe the situation is hopeless, and that our sustained presence there may be doing more harm than good, for their citizens and ours.

    As for Pakistan, they were never our allies, except for, perhaps, under Benazir Bhutto. That country is nothing but deadly trouble for us. It is fully under the control of the Islamists and it is a fool's errand for us to think we have any opening.

    When Bush and Cheney took their eye off the ball and sent us into Iraq they committed a disgraceful mistake, but there is nothing, IMO, that can be done to rectify our position in Afghanistan. More than $1 trillion later, these wars have only helped to bankrupt us. Yes, I want us out, knowing full well that we leave innocent women and girls to fend for themselves against the very people who are killing our soldiers, the same band of crazies that have been committing acts of violence against the innocents for years.

    What can we possibly do now that we haven't already done and failed at? What's the plan? More of the same is not a viable plan.


    Ahhhhhh ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 07:36:26 AM EST
    In one recent post, MT (within the last 2 days)did mention that she felt a lot of Americans did not see anything morally wrong about our involvement in AfPak. When I saw the news about how the Taliban treated the teenaged girl, I remembered MTs post. Thats all there is to my posting.

    So your blanket attack on "liberals" is based on a unidentified few "self-identified liberals here" and a post by MT.

    That makes sense.


    Not "children of a lesser God" (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    Typically, liberals believe in a separation of Church and State.  

    However modern-day progressives are not the same as old-school liberals.  As an old-school liberal, I, too, initially thought (8 years ago) that progressive was just another word for "liberal" without the baggage.  So you weren't alone in that usage.  In fact, I was a member of the Progressive Caucus in my state organization.  And we had to really work to create that caucus.  We nearly lost the vote.

    Over time, however, I found that many self-identified Progressives would often sell-out traditional liberal ideals and principles without a qualm. And along with that sellout, there often came that oh-so-familiar curled lip toward the DFH's who hung on to their principles.

    So your feelings have been hurt by some liberals hitting out at self-identified progressives?  I guess that would be one of those equal and opposite reactions.  

    I suspect in many ways we have more in common than it appears on the surface, but I'm not going to put alot of effort into finding common ground with someone who spends so much time calling others "wrong" simply because you disagree with them. It isn't going to win you any friends.  Or allies.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    I don't think progressives really have any beliefs. It seems to me that if progressives had a so called set of beliefs they would have fought against things like the ACA. IMO progressive means what ever Obama does. Look the Taliban is pure evil. That being said there comes a point as to where are we going and what are we going to do? I mean if we have to "save" everyone then going into Iraq would have to be described as the right thing because we got rid of Sadaam.

    One can also say (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    liberals do not have any beliefs. They advocate for the right of people in our country to be able to (1)blaspheme (2)smoke pot and have access to medical marijuana (3)protect themselves from government intervention in their sex lives (4) have a financial and health care safety net.

    However, any of the things that they advocate for themselves can get people killed, jailed and flogged in public in many parts of the world. Worse, children can get killed or flogged for having the audacity to ask for an education for themselves.

    To me this attitude of "I have got mine, you are on your own" to people who had the misfortune to be born in certain societies is no different from the attitudes of many in the ultra-rich class towards the less fortunate in our country.

    Just my opinion....


    Most so-called "liberals" don't ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:46:13 PM EST
    have a cohesive political philosophy. They have a rather spongy philosophy largely an evolution of the social democratic ideology which began in the nineteenth century.

    Whereas genuine leftists tend to have a cohesive philosophy which allows them to have coherent responses to novel situations.

    "Liberals" often get muddled by novel situations and find themselves supporting things merely because a politician they like supports them.  This has allowed Dems to away with all manner of moves to the right.


    Alternate Answer (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    Unlike conservatives, liberals and progressives aren't a monolith so some liberals/progressives were happy enough with parts of ACA to overlook the downsides and others were not, some care about the drones and others care but not to the Glenn Greenwald levels, etc.

    The fact that we don't all walk to marching orders from MSNBC as conservatives do from Fox is a good thing, not a bad one.

    It is what it is.


    Conservatives aren't a monolith either. (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 07:37:53 AM EST
    Know your enemy - or you're condemned to fighting straw men.

    So tell me . . . (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    where does the term "bleeding heart liberal" come from?

    I was against going to war in Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    because I did not believe the lie about WMDs.
    Getting America involved in a war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons would have been more comparable to direct American military invention in Syria or Iran  and not Afghanistan.
    Your opinion about progressives is wrong. Progressives like me were ahead of BHO on the policy in Egypt and Libya (please take a look at my posts). We were expressing our opinions long before it was clear how BHO would act in both cases. I am happy about how he is handling the situation in Iran and Syria.
    Progressives like me assess situations on a case by case basis.

    If I can be nit-picky, you probably (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    could have avoided being taken to task had you simply spoken to what you as a progressive believed as opposed to what all progressives believe.

    For myself," I don't even know what "progressive" means anymore. Initially, I think it was the replacement for the more easily-bashed term "liberal," but over time, it seems to have lost much of that meaning.  Liberals have a progressive mindset, but progressives don't necessarily have a liberal one - if that makes any sense.

    The problem is that while the Overton window has been moving to the right, I still see framed squarely within it the "progressive" label - and in my book, that changes the meaning: rightward is regressive, not progressive - at least in the context of how I see our current political culture.

    It's like those annoying web pages where no matter where you navigate on the page, the sidebar ads stay with you.

    Anyway, I'm kind of rambling - apologies - all I really wanted to say was that I think you would get less pushback if you made it clear that the opinions you were expressing were yours and that you weren't speaking for an entire group; inevitably, someone who identifies as a member of that group sees things completely differently and, kaboom, off we go.


    You just (none / 0) (#25)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    looo-o-o-ve to tell people they're wrong.  Such a scold.

    sj-please do not take things so personally (none / 0) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    I just said why progressives differ from liberals. I did not scold anyone. Ga6th was the "scold" (which I did not mind) here telling me that progressives do not have any beliefs.

    You do come (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    off as scolding a lot of the time but frankly you did not on that particular post to me at least.

    I find it ironic that "progressives" were calling the ACA (Bob Dole's HCR) the "most progressive legislation evah!". Those kind of statements along with others lead me to believe that progressive can be defined by "whatever Obama does".

    Anyway, there has to be some sort of "where are we going with all this" to Af/Pak and everything else we are doing right now. I do not believe in the whole "democracy in the middle east" thing because democracies have to evolve over long periods of time and don't just "blossom" for the most part. I know this worked after WWII but Germany had previously been a democracy. I'm not sure that religious fundamentalism and democracy are compatible. I mean I even see it among the fundamentalists in this country. they would like nothing better than to become a theocracy instead of a democracy.


    I'm not taking things personally (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    It was not me that you were scolding.  This time.   I'm just pointing out how much you love to say other people are wrong.  Apparently, simply because you disagree with them.

    And yes, you are scolding. That's what I said about you reading your comments as if you are on the receiving end.  If you can. I'm not sure that I'v seen you ever put yourself in the shoes of another.  Not an easy thing to do, I know. I often fail at it myself.


    IOW (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    Just because progressive have the exact same views as Obama, they are somehow not the same because they formulated them before Obama took action ?

    Come on.


    Please define "belief." (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    Is "belief" to be defined as one's personal commitment to grant to even the very least of our brethren those rights that we otherwise have long since reserved for our own selves, i.e., the right and expectation of equality and fair play?

    Or should "belief" be properly considered as one's own singular and unimpeachable devotion to a particular diety, whose apparent sole sense of purpose is to merely and routinely validate one's own sense of personal privilege?

    Were I you, I'd be really careful about going there. By nature, one's own personal beliefs and values are generally not conducive to a rational and objective interpretation offered by an outside party, by most any sane and reasonable measure.

    Ultimately, while all of us share certain significant community values, each one of us will eventually play the game by our own respective code of personal standards and conduct. In so doing, one would hope that we would not stray altogether too far from our mutual and collective standards of community and decency, as to be considered rogue and / or grievously deviant behavior.

    Speaking for myself only, I always try to remember that right next to the definition of "abberant" in the dictionary is a blank square, and within that square is a phrase consisting of only three words:

    "Your Photo Here."



    Let (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    me put it this way: a set of issues that they believe generally as a group, a big picture kind of thing so to speak.

    I mean I can tell you what liberals in general believe in. They believe that the government can be a force for the middle class, that somethings are done better by the government than by private industry and not everything should be put into a "business model" especially education.

    What I have seen in self defined "progressives" say they support an issue or a cause and then once Obama  does it, it all of a sudden becomes okay even though if a Republican had put forth the same policy it would be something they would be railing  against.


    Then I would offer that there is ... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    ... a clear difference between being a progressive liberal and being a Democratic partisan. The two are not necessarily the same thing, any more than they are mutually exclusive.

    I'm speaking as someone who both happens to be a local senior Democratic Party official, and further believes that sound public policy development generally makes for good politics over the long term.

    From personal experience, I would note that some of my biggest and most bitter political fights during my adult lifetime have been with fellow Democrats who've placed short-term political expediency ahead of responsible lawmaking.

    In fact, I'm now actively involved in a Honolulu mayoral campaign, a nonpartisan race that pits two Democrats against one another this time around, which has gotten particularly heated and nasty of late.

    Our opponent is advocating a heavy rail system along the south shore of Oahu that is wholly inappropriate and inadequate for meeting our future transportation needs.

    The current mayor and his immediate predecessor allowed what would otherwise have been Hawaii's most expensive capital improvement project ever to be turned into a multi-billion dollar cash cow for an unholy alliance of well-connected business firms and labor unions.

    As it stands, the project's currently estimated $6-plus billion price tag would prove to be financially ruinous for a city and county of just under one million residents, if fully enacted and developed. Because I firmly oppose the plan as fiscally irresponsible, I'm presently working for the candidate, a former Democratic governor who's committed to killing the project if elected mayor. We're going to win.

    And once we've done so, I'm going to work to ensure that some of the senior staff in our opponent's campaign -- who've authorized some truly despicable and libelous ads against my candidate to be developed and subsequently aired -- find themselves politically radioactive after this is finally over. Karma can be a real b**ch.


    Sounds to me (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    like those are the actions of a Fightin' Dem*
    And once we've done so, I'm going to work to ensure that some of the senior staff in our opponent's campaign -- who've authorized some truly despicable and libelous ads against my candidate to be developed and subsequently aired -- find themselves politically radioactive after this is finally over. Karma can be a real b**ch.
    Are you sure you don't want to just "look forward, not backward"?

    * Fightin' Dem = good thing.


    I (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    don't think people put nearly as much thought into the progressive v. liberal distinction as you are.

    This is like listening to a discussion between Ralph Reed/Christian Coalition conservatives and Wolfowitz/Neocons over the appropriate US position on whether to let Iran get nukes.

    The rest of the world is like "there is a difference".  

    I just don't think the average person calling him/herself a liberal or progressive looks at the nuances and distinctions this way.  The words are used interchangeably.


    Good to know that (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    liberals on this site are above average.
    I just don't think the average person calling him/herself a liberal or progressive looks at the nuances and distinctions this way.

    Today is the last day to register to vote in Colo. (none / 0) (#34)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    And Secretary Gessler's online voter registration system has been down all day.

    Lara Logan (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    I would have never expected this kind of talk from her

    It's safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    she's no longer a journalist. Maybe she's shilling for a job at Fox.

    why not? (none / 0) (#82)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    serious question

    I saw Ed Schultz (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 04:33:43 PM EST
    speak in Miami this morning (He's doing his show from here tonight). Since I've had nothing but basic cable for quite awhile now, I haven't seen him in years and remembered him as just another boisterous TV/Radio host spewing things on par similar to the left's version of an O'Reilly.

    He wasn't that way today. Instead I saw a calm speaker making a case for what he thought was best for the country moving forward. I'm not sure if it's a change in his approach, a change in his life, or just today's setting, but he did a great job.

    Ed Schultz can be (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    rhapsodic but he speaks out for the middle class.  He brought much needed national attention to  Wisconsin Governor Walker's assault on public workers right to collective bargaining as well as  to the other Koch-brother inspired mischief.  Glad to learn that Ed did a good job in Miami.  President Obama needs some vocal support now from Democrats at this critical juncture, including from those who over the past four years could find  no wrong and, indeed, took umbrage at criticism  intended to be constructive.  But, now there seems to be an unforgiving piling-on for the president's lackluster debate.

    Wonder what Ed would think of this (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    DC richest town in America

    Apparently working for government is the only way left to make it in America.


    You must not have read (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:37:29 PM EST
    your article.

    The large salaries may be attributable to the nearly 47 percent of workers who hold college degrees, making Washington one of the most highly educated areas in the country.

    Perhaps we should do more for those that want to attend college. I think Ed would agree.


    Except that's not what the article says (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    The article says that the richest cities are the ones that employ more people with college degrees, in areas of finance and high tech.

    I'd suspect that the place where govt. has a big effect on D.C. salaries is where it intersects with the millionaire lobbyists and other influence peddlers.


    And doesn't D.C. have an extremely high (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    percentage of residents with law degrees?

    One other point Slado missed (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    9 of the 10 wealthiest areas are from blue states in the last election that value education, while all ten of the poorest regions are from red states in the last election that devalue education in favor of lower taxes.

    Excellent piece slado linked to, although not so sure it's the case slado intended to make.


    And 3 of the top 6 (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    are in the "Fruit and Nuts" state of good ol' CA. The state most often compared (not favorably!) to Europe ;) D@mn, lots of educated whacks live here, lol!~

    Even the mountain lions are moving to CA, (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:38:16 PM EST
    per an article I read on line today.  

    I would heartily recommend ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    ... Richard Florida's seminal 2005 book, The Rise of the Creative Class.

    Dr. Florida has long argued that those metropolitan areas which encourage social, cultural and intellectual diversity and innovation among their populations tend to thrive generally, while those which have adopted policies promoting social homogenization of the community often find themselves in the grips of economic stagnation and recession.


    Working for government is a good (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:32:10 PM EST
    way to make it in America--make it a career, from undergraduate economics/poly sic major to faux Nobel laureate in economics.  (signed: Paul Ryan).

    Romney contimues to debate Romney (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 10:25:37 PM EST
    Romney told the Des Moines Register:

    he would not pursue any abortion-related legislation if elected president.

    "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda,"

    The Romney campaign later said what Romney said wasn't true:

    "Gov. Romney would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life," spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, declining to elaborate.

    He should talk to his running mate (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:14:01 AM EST
    about the legislation he put forward.

    Good debate topic.


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 05:28:40 AM EST
    Romney said that there was no legislation that he was "familiar with" that would become part of his agenda.

    Nice little all purpose caveat.
    Ignorance is bliss.

    And, to examine the rest of it - from Romney and his spokespeople...

    What the f--- does becoming "part of his agenda" mean?
    He could "support" something and also claim that it is not part of his agenda. And what does "support" even mean?

    And what, exactly, is "legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life"? Would that be regulation of the nuclear  industry? Efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons? Or labeling products containing GMOs? More cops on the beat? Don't think so. It is a repulsive euphemism for preventing women from making choices regarding their own health, their own bodies and their own futures.

    Slippery, sneaky, parsing and mincing.


    How to write a headline: (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 07:40:41 AM EST
    I must be getting old (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    I would have much preferred a link to the actual story than to the juvenile approach put forth by Wonkette.

    Ditto...guess that makes me old, too. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    The headline didn't do anything for me, and neither did the writing that followed it.

    Just came from 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kramartini on Wed Oct 10, 2012 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    to watch argument in Tom DeLay appeal.

    From his questions to DeLay's attorney, Chief Justice Jones didn't seem to be buying the whole checks vs. cash thing, and the other two justices were largely silent on this point. I don't think the case will be decided on that issue.

    Justices Gaultney and Goodwin focused their questions on the Travis County DA. They both seemed to believe that DeLay's acts were not illegal and the DA didn't explain very well why she thought they were.

    Based on these observations, I believe that the appeals court will acquit on the grounds that the state failed to present any evidence that a crime was committed by anyone.