Saturday Night Open Thread

It's 95 degrees in Denver, apparently a record.

Who will be Mitt Romney's running mate? Some say Marco Rubio, while the LA Times gives this list:

Some of the names bandied about most often are Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

Jeb Bush couldn't be any clearer he isn't interested. Paul Ryan said he's keeping his options. I wouldn't, it's not going to be him.

Who do you think Romney will pick? And does it matter?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< George Zimmerman's Credibility | Post-Election, Mexico May Shift Its Focus in the War on Drugs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Some Tea Partiers are pushing for Walker (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:16:21 PM EST
    and I'm all for it.  He has spent most of his time as governor outside of the state with big Repub donors, anyway, and every day that he is away from Wisconsin is a good day for Wisconsin.

    The local librul blogs are trying to track down a Tea Party petition for lots of us to sign it, too.

    Take our Perp Walker, please!

    Rubio (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:42:17 PM EST

    Good morning, Vietnam! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:19:26 PM EST
    It's almost 7:00 a.m. on Monday, June 10, and we're leaving Ho Chi Minh City in two hours to travel north to Cam Ranh and Nha Trang via motorcoach.

    The city formerly known as Saigon is a wonderful place, and I'm so glad I came. I'd gladly return one day, given the opportunity. We went to the former presidential place yesterday, since renamed "Reunification Palace." What a splendid place and beautiful grounds! We also saw Notre Dame de Saigon Cathedral, a wonderful relic of the French colonial days, and the ladies went shopping across the street at Diamond Plaza.

    In the afternoon, we traveled by motorcoach to Can Tho in the Mekong Delta region, and took a cruise along the Mekong River. How tranquil and peaceful it all looks now. This was the area where my father served as advisor to the 4th Vietnamese Marine Battalion, which sought (in vain, ultimately) to pacify the delta region before being ordered back to Saigon to participate in the Nov. 2, 1963 overthrow of President Diem. Now, there are numerous fishing villages along the river, and kids just waved at us as we cruised on by.

    We get to Nha Trang sometime around 6:00 p.m. tonight. Talk to you all then.


    We went to Nha Trang (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:50:30 PM EST
    for the sole purpose of seing the Champa monument, which took about 20 minutes!  But the beach is lovely.  We ran into the most English speaking tourists of anywhere else we went on that trip.  

    We had our home broken into (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    Tuesday night. Looking for a Security System.

    ADT looks the best. Anyone got any info??


    Sorry to hear it. We have had ADT (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:11:59 PM EST
    for several years now, since an incident that was not a break-in but appeared to be an attempt.  (The idiot did not realize that we were home.)

    As many neighbors used ADT and recommended it, we contacted ADT among others.  ADT appeared to have the best "menu" of what we wanted (in addition to basic security, i.e., smoke alarms wired rather than on batteries, etc.) with a very professional series of contacts, presentation to us, etc.

    Telling for me was that the rep said that our home was a logical target, since just about everybody else in the area had security -- and the signs outside that state so.  Duh.  That made sense.

    Anyway, ADT has been good.  No problems on their end, even when we canceled the credit card that we had been using for the monthly fee to be debited, and forgot to tell ADT.  It did not stop our service, continuing it until contact could be made -- this took weeks, as we were away -- for a new card.  

    The problems that we have had are owing to this historic old house, with its original doors.  Twice a year, with the change of seasons that causes old wood to expand or contract, we get the alarm that the alarm is not making contact with one or two of the doors.  ADT faithfully comes to make the adjustment, immediately . . . until the next time, when it has to reverse the adjustment!

    I hope this detail helps.  It sure helps me and mine, especially a daughter who spotted the would-be intruder, sleep better at night.  And with daytime breakins, when I often am working at home, ditto.


    Jim, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:38:54 PM EST
    I suggest a pit bull or two... they bark, and they scare people. If you get males, make sure to neuter them at about one year.

    The breed loves children, protects them, they used to be called nanny dogs in the US. Look it up, I'm serious. I can find you one or two up on Sand Mountain that will be as loving to family as you like, and as dangerous to aggressors as you want to train them to be. They are wonderful with children (or grandchildren), and a bark or two serves as a better defense than an alarm. They bark before the fact.


    So sorry (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:44:52 AM EST
    to hear this. It is one of the worst feelings in the world to come in and see your stuff strewn everywhere. My grandmother had it happen to her three times. We think it was because she lived in the country and there were no neighbors to "see" what was going on.

    We used ADT at one time and they were okay. The problem I had with them was that the dog would set off the alarm. Everything set off the alarm and they were constantly calling us late in the night wanting the password. I hope you have better luck with your security system. I'm sure there are good ones out there.


    rottweilers work pretty well (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:49:52 AM EST
    and they are sweety pies to the people who live there and friends of the family.  They aren't very good with the neighbors cats though.

    Depends upon the size of the cat. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:07:19 PM EST
    My friends, who live in Weaverville, CA in the Trinity Mountains (about a five-hour drive north from Sacramento) have a rottweiler which now prefers to stay indoors, after he got terribly mauled by a neighborhood mountain lion last summer.

    oh no (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:03:20 AM EST
    poor baby.  We have a bobcat that visits our woods, but so far it has not mauled the dog or eaten the cat.  

    jimakappj, as you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:56:04 AM EST
    consider equipment and installation security packages, check into video-cams and remote access.  The prices have come down in recent times and they provide an added deterrent.  I am not always sure of how helpful they are, but our local police tell us they are very effective.  If nothing else, it is re-assuring to observe your property when traveling.

    Get a dog (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jharp on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    A German shepherd works well.

    Yes, they are. (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:57:21 PM EST
    They're fiercely loyal and protective, they bond very well with small children, and they make great pets. As guard dogs, well, their bite has the force of 250 foot pounds, so nuf ced.

    But unfortunately, the breed tends to not age very well. German shepherds seem particularly prone to degenerative myeloplathy (a serious nerve disorder) and hip dysplasia, and as they get older, their effectiveness as guard animals can become seriously compromised. Plus, their average life span is quite short, about 9 years.

    I got a white German Shepherd puppy almost by default (my new neighbors had a female with puppies, and they gave me one) literally within days after I first moved to Hawaii, and she turned out to be just a wonderful and constant companion for me, especially in the aftemath of a divorce. No judgment, no attitude, and always happy to see me and be with me.

    But she began developing hip dysplasia at a little over seven years of age, and when the end came at a little over 9 years of age, her demise proved to be very swift. She simply stopped eating and drinking water, and I took her to the vet's and learned that her kidneys had failed completely and she was dying. It broke my heart to have to put her down.


    I know the pain: (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by the capstan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    my last GSD was pts ahortly after 8th birthday because of degenerative myelopathy (paralysis).  But she had a cart (wheelchair some call it) and was chasing balls an hour before the vet came.  Still a guard dog, tho: she could pull herself along the floor still (was losing that ability),  The vet was dumb enough to step over the ramp gate when he came and she attacked.  I had to tackle her and hold her down quite some time before the vet would touch her.

    There is a cheek swab DNA test for DM carriers now; good breeders have the parents cleared first.


    Two-item package: (none / 0) (#2)
    by the capstan on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    there's the equipment, the actual alarms, and then there is the company that installs and monitors the alarms.  I chose mine because of the human factor (an electric co-op, in my case).  I have not been disappointed; they are very helpful--and they have excellent, really up-to-date equipment also.

    Sorry for your trouble!


    How terrible (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:30:32 PM EST
    I'm very sorry to hear this. I don't know of any good alarm systems but wish you the best.

    Sorry to hear that. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Angel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:51:10 PM EST
    We have used Brinks, which is now part of ADT, for 30 years and have been very pleased with their service and rates.  There are all sorts of amazing things they can do depending on your home and your budget.  We had glass break sensors installed in this house when we built, that was a fairly new option at that time.  Our smoke alarm is tied into the security system as well.  Good luck.  Hope the police catch the culprits.

    sorry to hear that jim, i hope no one was (none / 0) (#9)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    home at the time.

    i know nothing of home security systems, other than what i read/hear. ADT is probably the most well known, but that doesn't necessarily corrolate into reliability. lights on outside the house (assuming it was broken into at night) do seem to have good deterrent value, or so i am told by the local constabulary. also, neighbors being aware of strangers (though, realistically, who spends their evenings staring out the front windows of their house?), along with good locks on the doors and windows, crooks don't want to have to spend lots of time actually breaking in.

    good luck.


    Remeber (none / 0) (#10)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:56:55 PM EST
    most thieves are searching for the easiest target of opportunity. While you can't outrun a bear you only need to outrun your companions.

    The warning sign is the primary value of an alarm system.

    A blinking faux alarm adds a second level of security cheaply

    A dog deters most thieves.

    I remember hitch hiking by a farmstead in Kansas. The road side  perimeter fence  was posted with hand written signs

    Trespassers will be shot on sight -survivors will be prosecuted

    Impressed me :)

    Sorry for your loss.


    Well James, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:54:07 PM EST
     For most of my life, I've had just about every type of security system made, both at home and in business. If you're really serious about this, in my opinion, you've got two choices:

    1. Buy a security system, and a monitoring service,


    2. Buy a trained guard dog.

    If you choose option #1, be prepared to spend a lot of money. Most "starter systems" alert the monitoring service when there's a typical break-in, i.e. forced entry through a door. Depending on the sophistication of the burglar he may choose entering through a window, and that, if you choose to wire them, means a lot more money (depending on how many windows you have.)  

    Again, depending on how smart your burglar is, he could gain entry in other ways. He could disarm your system, (in today's world where hackers break into the Pentagon just for the fun of it, that's pretty simple) or, with the help of a reciprocating saw, simply cut out an opening for himself. But, my ole buddy, Jim, doesn't cave that easily and is gonna thwart that sneaky bugger


    Adding motion detectors to his system. Of course, adding motion detectors also means adding dollar signs to your total bill.

    By now you're feeling like you've been caught in a chipper-shredder, but, Surprise! You've just begun, yes, there's more. Having gone this far you say, "what the "hey" gimme all the bells and whistles. So, they're gonna install more equipment, and monitor more stuff


    Integrated fire protection
    Assorted noxious gasses
    Power outages
    Heat/air disruptions
    And, you get the picture.

    However, all that so far is the good news, the bad news is yet to come. Yes, the bad news is that, all that equipment, and all that sophisticated, electronic monitoring,

    Really works!

    And, that means that for the rest of your (hopefully, long, long life) you ain't gonna have one second's peace. That's right, cause 999 times out of a thousand it ain't a burglar that's setting off  your alarms (and getting your neighbors hating you even more than they probably do already)

    IT'S YOU!

    Oh, yeah, it'll be at least ten years before you start remembering to turn off the alarm before you leave the house.  And, at least that long to adjust the sensitivity on the motion detectors so that an errant gnat on its way to playing "doctor/nurse" with a bawdy Ms gnat doesn't send a six alarm armada of hook `n ladders to your doorstep.

    But, when all is said and done, just think of how great you're gonna feel when you and Mrs. Jim jump into your Nash Rambler (or was it a Studebaker?)  on your to a glorious vacation, glowing in your new-found sense of security. That's right, even while you'll be hundreds of miles away, your house will be protected from those thieving burglars. And, then when the alarms go off, the only people responding will be the cops. That's right, your friendly, hard working, underpaid, cops. And there they'll be....inside your house....knowing you're hundreds of miles away....

    Ahhh, security. Ain't it great?

    p.s. If you wanna know about dogs, I know all about them too:)


    In the couple years since I had alarm (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    system installed, law enforcement has arrived once--at about 1 a.m.  And it was my error.  But I do feel safer, espec. when I come home at night or from a trip.  

    I've pretty well settled on ADT (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:33:06 AM EST
    Everything is wireless including notification of the fire/police. Battery backup. Two way communication and infra red motion detector.

    Neighbors??? The palatial retirement compound sets on 8 acres with green belts and and lots and lots of trees.

    So I may add a moat with alligators.

    And it aint a Rambler or Studebaker.... It's an Oldsmobile...



    Eight acres? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    Then your answer is found in three words:

    Gaggle of geese.

    I'm quite serious. Geese actually make quite effective guard animals, because they're territorial, they're always alert, and they don't take too kindly to potential intruders in their midst. They are particularly aggressive when kept in groups of two or more, and will attack.

    Anyone's who's ever experienced an assault by an angry goose -- which includes yours truly -- can tell you that it is not a very pleasant experience, to say the least. They'll beat at you with the front of their wings, and its hurts -- a lot.


    Damn Republican geese (none / 0) (#78)
    by BTAL on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:58:14 PM EST

    Geese are inherently nonpartisan. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:31:30 PM EST
    They get easily pi$$ed off at everyone.

    An excellent suggestion (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:50:46 PM EST
    but since we are inside the city you can't have animals or fowls running free.

    Yeah, I know. Sounded silly to me but that's what government is good at. Solving one problem, dogs running free, by creating another.

    When I was a boy guinea fowls were a popular bird as they would warn of any intrusion... man or beast... while laying eggs... if you could find them. They also kill small snakes and lizards and eat ticks and other bugs..of course that was on the farm and long before every square inch was zoned.


    I have your solution (none / 0) (#93)
    by BTAL on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    You have eight acres and I have eight Labrador puppies.  Instead of putting the ad in the paper, I'll deliver them to you.



    We don't have that problem ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    ... of draconian anti-fowl or anti-animal ordinances here in Honolulu. The law only applies to those animals and birds that roam off-property. So, as long as you keep them on your own premises, everything's cool.

    You'll hear roosters crowing in the morning in my valley to announce the break of dawn, and I know of several homes in my neighborhood that keep a flock of geese outside.


    "Here in Honolulu"? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:17:14 PM EST
    i guess that's what force of habit will do to you.

    Okay, off to Cam Ranh Bay and Nha Trang. Talk to you all later.



    Uh..... can you train them (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    not to wander off???

    The thought of fencing in 8 acres drains my bank account.

    And having been raised on a farm I know what a rooster sounds like.... and how to roast one..



    No monitor option: (none / 0) (#55)
    by the capstan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    I got my system because I am alone in the middle of 4 acres and my GSD was becoming paralyzed. For the first couple of years, when it was monitored, I got lots of 'are you okay?' calls from headquarters AND the police sometimes showed up too.  At that point, I stopped the monitoring; the neighbors can hear the alarm and know to send help if it is not turned off promptly.  I had bought the equipment and paid for installation, so no monthly bills.  It has the glass breaks, window alarms, smoke alarms--everything I need--and I set it at bedtime and when I leave the house.

    Now I have another dog which has a good deep bark.  He is a service/alarm dog (not attack dog)
    who will alert me to any change in the vicinity.  

    When I move in a year or so, I shall restart the monitoring, but not by land line as now.

    ps--the motion detectors I use are solar-powered and silent.  Otherwise, the deer would drive me nuts.


    we have a sign (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:17:39 AM EST
    "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again."......That's terrible.  So far I have kept the semi significant other from putting it up anywhere.  I carry a gun for protection because we live so far out and on 30 acres.  It would take police 15 minutes to get here.  But that doesn't mean I ever want to shoot some one.
    On the other hand I think people are sick to death of feeling like helpless victims just waiting to be the next hit of some criminal.

    GSD beats ADT (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    Just ask my nextdoor neighbor :)  When it rains down here and the doors and windows swell it puts most of the systems on the fritz too and the people who break in know it.  This is break in season in lower Alabama.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#3)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:29:53 PM EST
    who Romney will pick but my vote is for Hillary who is both pragmatic and has the conservative foreign policy credentials

    and yet (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:26:24 AM EST
    she is more liberal than Obama in both domestic and foreign Policy.  I agree, I'd take her as Romney VP...as long as he promises to retire right after the election.

    Gut reaction: South Dakota's Thune. (none / 0) (#5)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    My boring "analytical" reaction (Ohio, Ohio, & Ohio) : Robert Portman.

    I predicted Thune (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    back in March and there's no reason to change.  I think Romney wants safe, experienced, no drama, confirmed conservative.  Thune does that while adding senate FP experience.  Downside:  he doesn't help win any particular swing state.

    Portman is also in the safe category like Thune, though he has the negative of being W's Budget Director. His VP stock has mostly risen since March.  Downside:  not universally considered conservative by conservatives, bland to a fault personality.

    Interesting fact:  Portman helped prep W and Cheney in 2000 for the debates, playing both Gore and Lieberman.  He apparently was very impressive and had done his homework on both candidates.

    Example:  playing Gore during a mock debate, he suddenly walked over and invaded W's personal space.  A skeptical W:  "Gore wouldn't do that."  Portman:  "No, he's done it before.". Portman said he'd seen it having studied all previous Gore debates.  Sure enough, a few days later in the final debate, Gore pulls his stunt.  W is ready with his dismissive double take.


    two points: (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:49:42 PM EST
    1. who cares?

    2. it doesn't matter.

    from this point on, mr. romney must play to the general audience, not the base rubes of his own party. the general audience is actually concerned about things like having a job, not being kicked out of their house, their children being educated in schools where the teachers actually know what they're talking about. this is problematic for mr. romney, because his publicly stated positions on all these issues are antithetical to the hopes and desires of the group of voters he must actually appeal to, to have a chance of victory in nov.

    bottom line: romney could pick jesus christ as his vp, and it wouldn't matter, because he is the one running for pres., and the general public can only just barely stand him.

    Chris Christie (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    Christie will shore up his standing with the tea party folks and is also liked by independents.  Added bonus--if Romney loses, Christie becomes frontrunner for 2016.

    christie isn't even liked by the people (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:58:37 PM EST
    in his home state. taking his obnoxious show on the road will destroy whatever mystique he has created outside of NJ. the more you see him, the more you can't stand him.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#12)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:10:56 PM EST
    59 percent of voters approve of the governor's performance in office,

    Where did you find the data to support your assertion?


    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:59:56 AM EST
    interestingly, there was no link provided for that Q poll. absent the tabs, it take it with a large grain of salt.

    as to my source for my original comment, it was based on reports on DKos, citing several different polls, which reports i'll have to go back and try and find for you. however, the Q poll, as reported (and this may be the article's author's mistake, not Q's), has a glaring error:

    they seem to have equated "doing a good job" with "i like him". the two, by definition, are not mutually inclusive.

    again though, absent the tabs, i'm reluctant to take back my original comment, which was that his home state constituents can't stand him. they may well think he's doing a good job, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like him.


    The Veep (none / 0) (#13)
    by brianrw on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    Put your money on Portman.

    That is my prediction too (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    Ohio is key.

    Finally, some "Straight Talk" (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:28:08 PM EST
    Living Europe's Nightmare

      "Losing a long war is always hard to accept. Hemmed in by the Americans and the Russians in the final days of World War II, Hitler convinced himself that he had two armies in reserve to mount a counter-attack and win the war. Meanwhile, having lost the entire Pacific, Japan's Imperial Cabinet believed that no enemy could set foot upon the country's sacred soil. When the truth is unimaginable, human psychology finds an alternative reality in which to dwell. That describes the global situation today. The entire planet seems to be in denial about what is about to occur in the eurozone."

    From project-syndicate.org

    To read the rest of the article

    click this Link

    Shouldn't that be... (none / 0) (#18)
    by unitron on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:23:59 PM EST
    ...for a link to an article with a link to the article click here?

    yeah, probably (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:39:41 PM EST
    but, my link gets you to the article immediately while the other way you'd have to sift through a potpourri of other assorted tomes.

    I think I'm copy write protected; everybody was duly acknowledged.

    Jeez, this is a tough room:)


    Too tired to read it now, (none / 0) (#24)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:47:52 PM EST
    but I will read it tomorrow. I already disagree with the Japanese premise proposed. The populace had been trained in ways to defend Japanese soil.

    Germany-- I'll need to read what was written, but the Japanese leaders didn't suffer from insanity. Some of them preferred the whole thing ending, including the Japanese "race" ending, before surrender.


    Jeff, my friend (none / 0) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:16:46 AM EST
    article has nothing to do with '45 Japan/Germany. The author was just making a loose analogy with today's Europe, which is, when faced with an  inevitable, painful, situation, the mind can simply ignore reality and replace it with a delusional, positive outcome.

    that might explain how bush got (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:07:05 AM EST
    re-elected in 2004, mass delusion.

    Thanks everyone. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:11:29 PM EST
    We were at a little league game. (I coach.) My daughter who had been there since 5 (our team's night to do the concession) went home about 8 (our's was the second game) because she was tired. When she went to put in the key the door just swung open. She started screaming, ran for her car, drove off called 911 and then me. The police were there quickly.

    It appears the burglar was in the house, panicked when he heard my daughter and ran off. He had collected some electronics in a stack, found a small amount of cash in my daughter's room and had just (evidently) went into my wife's jewel box when my daughter screamed. He scattered the jewelry but took only a gold necklace of considerable value. (The really expensive items were in a separate location.)

    I am thankful she didn't wander in and surprise the thief in person. That could have caused real problems.

    BTW - We have security lights, dawn to dusk, all around the house and a motion detector light on the back side of the shed. The police said that the thief was probably dropped off, walked to the front door, rang the door bell enough to insure no one was home and then boosted the door. The lights were probably a help. How ironic is that??

    My sweet standard poodle (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:43:07 PM EST
    has a huge bark, and he uses it whenever someone enters.  I still say a pit bull or two. They may never bite anyone, even an intruder, but they look mean, they are smart, easily house-trained, and love children. They also have growls and barks that are... scary.

    Delilah has a scary bark too (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:51:08 AM EST
    It is scarier than the German Shepherds who will sometimes be a little quiet when they mean bad business.  You always know when Delilah isn't happy with you, and if you can only hear that bark without the bouffant that goes with it, you have no idea what sports that big bark.

    Same with Roxy!, as long as (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    you don't see that she's a spotty 50lb puppy wiggling all over the place :D

    When we lived in the inner-city (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:50:23 AM EST
    34th and Monroe in gloriously misnamed Normal Heights (one of the five most ethnically diverse neighborhoods in the US, I remember reading once) a burglar broke into our next door neighbor's house in the middle of the day.  Someone called the cops and, when he heard sirens, he tried to makes his escape via jumping the fence into our yard. But what does he see on our side of the fence but Alex, our 75 lb. shepherd/lab/pit bull mix, who was as sweet as pie to everyone but unknown intruders.  Literally, the guy dropped his booth into our yard, stayed on the other side of the fence and gave up as the police screeched onto the scene.  

    I agree, Jeff, Canine & Co is the best option.  Plus you can't snuggle or get your bed warmed with ADT.


    that should read dropped his "booty" (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    and i don't mean his ace.

    Standard poodles are great guard dogs. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    There's a house down the road from us, and they have three of thse big dogs. Every time I walk by their place on my way to and from the express bus as I commute to and from work daily, they all come rushing out to the driveway gate to bark at me, looking and sounding for all the world like they'd tear my head clean off my shoulders, if ever given the opportunity -- and mind you, I'm walking on the other side of the street.

    Thank god your daughter is OK. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:54:32 AM EST
    Very scary.

    Wow (none / 0) (#19)
    by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:30:19 PM EST
    That's incredible. I sympathize.

    What ever you do, don't let your neighbors become more observant, concerned or involved.

    If they pursue any of those facets of citizenship they may end up dead or incarcerated.


    I would love my neighbors (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 11:48:04 PM EST
    being observant, concerned and involved.  But I don't want my neighbors shooting dead the children of other neighbors.

    Of course (2.00 / 0) (#28)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:04:08 AM EST
    I agree. Unless those grown children are committing serious, life threatening crimes against my family or myself.

    Do we agree?


    I'd prefer my neighbors call police (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:23:30 AM EST
    and then me, in that order.  

    Grown Children? (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:05:56 PM EST
     TM was a junior in high school. My nephew is 16, just a little younger but way taller. He must be nearly 6'6" by now, still growing, big feet altho skinny. Do you mean tallness by your term "grown"? I know very many high school juniors, and have for years, but I don't think of them as "grown" in the sense that they are fully adult yet. Do we agree?

    I agree (2.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:58:43 PM EST
    that I don't want to see anyone, regardless of age,  hurt or killed , particular a youngster.

    However life sometimes presents unsatisfactory alternatives.

    I would hope that in the unlikely event that a loved one, or just a plain citizen is being viciously attacked, that the victim or  fellow citizen would intervene with whatever force is necessary to protect themselves.

    A phone call is great but, totally insufficient if the victim is in immediate danger of great harm or death.

    A teen is more than capable of causing death. Urban crime logs offer sufficient testimony to this unfortunate truth.

    We can also note that young teens make compliant soldiers. This is evident both historically and in a number of contemporary "third world" conflicts.

    Do you believe that you would allow your self to be beaten to death in order to protect the promise of the person killing you?



    Oh I know (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:39:31 PM EST
    and in the case you are referring to, GZ's MASSIVE head injuries almost required a bandaid or two. He managed to get up and continue just fine despite all his massive injuries.

    My nephew had much worse injuries when a couple of years ago he decided it would be interesting to ride his bike down some concrete steps. This was a block from my house and he rang my bell afterwards very bloody and I provided bactine and bandaids (and TLC) - so many cuts and scrapes! Much more bloody than GZ. That vicious vicious staircase. Maybe TM was afraid and defending himself, in which case his attack could not be slandered as "vicious".

    And thanks for agreeing with me that TM was not a "grown" child and now is in your estimation a "youngster".

    And if you think an intentional  gun kill shot is what is required for high school juniors, then please do not move anywhere near anyone I know.


    really? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:46:21 AM EST
    your nephew came to you after cutting his head open from smashing it open on concrete steps and you didn't take him to the hospital?  Whats wrong with you?  If you were my sister or brother and that were my kid I would be furious with you.

    When you are in the process of falling and getting injured it is scary, but you know it is going to stop.  With GZ, he had no idea when it was going to stop or if TM had some further intention of inflicting bodily harm.  He didn't know what would happen even if he managed to get up and try to get away. It is likely TM appeared to be in a rage.  That alone could cause him to draw his gun after first calling for help.
     You do not make a convincing case at all.


    Oh really, ThersaInPa (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    My nephew was bloody, but required NO stitches. Ha! His head was not smashed open and I never said it was. Since you think GZ's head was "smashed open" (despite visual documentation of merely two small cuts) he should have been rushed to the hospital, not just looked at by paramedics and released.

    But I guess your point was that fear is the most important aspect, not actual injuries. And fear is reason enough to take an intentional kill shot at a high schooler.

    And from the tone of many here they are in the grips of their fear. The idea is to say if their fear is rational or not - reasonable or not. It is not easy to evoke fear in people by getting into a state of fear and doing a lot of "what ifs" in order to evoke fear in another. And I could not talk you out of your state of fear. So I guess that means that if a certain percentage of people in a certain demographic, place and time all experienced states of fear it  would prove those fears were reasonable.

    I do feel very sorry for GZ actually, and see that his was a very difficult position. If he had identified himself or tried to communicate with the youngster he followed at some point, and not just used his gun to communicate, then I would see him as more reasonable.


    158 lbs, not 165, and (none / 0) (#158)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    the rest is just your imagination as to what one of hundreds of possiblities occured that night.

    Not worth responding to (2.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:49:21 PM EST
    Please allow a 165 lb high school junior to get a full mount on you and beat you for 45 seconds without the prospect of immediate intervention.

    If you maintain the same opinion I will rethink your credibility.


    If I "ALLOWED" (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:10:16 AM EST
    a high schooler to "mount" me and "beat"on me for -whatever-?  And if I allowed that I would think that I would end up with at least as many owies that my nephew had (who's massive injuries were more massive than GZ's and who walked a block to my house to ring the bell and get tlc, bactine and bandaids which GZ did not seem to need even after official paramedics looked at his owies.)

    I suspect (none / 0) (#110)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:48:48 AM EST
    that you have never been in fight.

    A subjugated combatant who has yielded by repeatingly calling for help, should fear for his life if the assailant will not relent.

    I remember two 7th grade classmates who beat innocent adults. In one case to death in the other to a coma. One of the  stricken adults had intervened when he witnessed a shop shoplifting.

    I also suspect that your nephew was not in the same situation as GZ

    Please feel free to correct my assumptions.


    I remember a good friend (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    walking down a street and suddenly breaking her leg. OMG! And I knew kids who were beaten by adults - I suppose I should say innocent kids. Would they be "subjugated combatants who have yielded"? Besides you don't really know what happened that night. But OMG the fear!

    Most people have never been in a fight (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    and thus have no idea of how quickly things happen and how difficult it is to get out from under someone on top of you.

    What gets me is all (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    the people who've never been anywhere near a war who think they have all the ethical, political, and strategic answers covered..

    I have to agree with this (none / 0) (#165)
    by Rupe on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    Also the feeling of terror and panic that sets in when you're physically trapped is monumental, its like a switch goes off in your brain to do whatever you can to get out of the situation.

    That's scary (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:43:39 AM EST
    It sounds like your daughter handled it just right.  

    My house was broken into once.  A young cousin was living with us while finding and then getting settled into a job.  He apparently surprised the burglar by arriving home in the middle of the day.  He hopped into the shower and afterward when he walked into the kitchen he saw the pile of electronics on the floor.  All sitting by the window.

    They took only the smaller stuff that was easy to carry.  Like my cases of CD's and cameras and my cousin's new spiffy leather jacket.  I got the video camera back but what I wanted more than that was the tape that was in it.  I had video of my son dancing with my grandmother on her 80th birthday party.  That was gone forever.

    I had the serial number of the video camera and when it was pawned, the pawn shop owner did the right thing and reported it.  I don't understand why the police couldn't do anything to the guy who pawned it, though.  As I recall, they said since it was no longer in his possession they couldn't charge him with holding stolen property.  It didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

    It was after that experience that I installed the (ADT) alarm system.  Mostly we set it off ourselves.  And once my Dad did when he came to visit before I got home from work.  He panicked and completely forgot about the code to turn it off.  I didn't have another surprise visit for a long time after that, which made me a little sad.

    Anyway, I'm sorry you are going through that.  That sense of violation stays with you for a while.


    My next door neighbor was robbed recently (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ZtoA on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    but she didn't know for days, maybe a week or two. Apparently she had a wonderful collection of silver jewelry and whoever broke in came in thru a tiny window and shut it after, went for the jewelry, and slipped out again leaving everything else. I was at a coin shop later and mentioned it, and they said that while coin and pawn shops used to get stolen goods, they are heavily monitored these days and the goods go on ebay. Apparently these professional thieves monitor high end shops and target shoppers, knowing what expensive goods they have. She's monitored ebay and craigslist but nothing. She's a sweet lady. I gave her some pepper spray and comforted her, but not sure how practical that was.

    If thieves came to my place I would be fine with them clearing out all the junk in my garage! and taking the 100lb old TV, if they could get it out the door. I have several nice old books, but all under $1000 and I know the independent booksellers in town who know about my books and would contact me. Other than that, its mostly clutter.

    Sorry for everyone who has had break ins! It upset my nice neighbor too.


    yeah, no kidding. (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:12:27 AM EST
    The lights were probably a help. How ironic is that??

    so much for getting advice from the "experts".


    Just ordered (first time) from Zappos (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 01:24:25 AM EST
    on line.  Gave a h/t to TalkLeft.  

    Oculus, Zappos is great... (none / 0) (#68)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    but expensive.  They do have every size of Levis that are difficult to find elsewhere, like 35w-35l.  And the next time you order mention that you could not find the overnight delivery on their website and they will upgrade you to VIP status.  That gives you overnight Fed-ex delivery...FREE for life.  I ordered a Timex recently at 2:00 pm and there it was at my door the next morning.  They are simply the best.

    I ordered 5 black skirts. (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:59:36 PM EST
    Each different. Can't find my fave. I think I left it in hotel in NY. Prices seem reasonable. Hope I like one. Am gettiing free 1-day shipping.  

    Some are suggesting Romney/Petraeus (none / 0) (#36)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:39:12 AM EST
    Which could be interesting, I guess.

    If this election works the same way as the last couple times, Romney can also announce his choice for Secretary of State before the Nov. vote.

    And maybe he'll announce a whole cabinet line-up? I don't think there's a law against that, and it will get press coverage. This seems like one definite advantage that chalengers have - when incumbents change personnel around, it's often viewed as a sign of desperation but when challengers announce who they'll appoint it's a "fresh start".

    all true. (none / 0) (#41)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:17:24 AM EST
    however, the bottom line is, it is still mitt romney running for president. absent a change of name, and a radical change of personality, he's still going to be, well.................mitt romney.

    when's the last time we elected a "pod person" to the white house?


    Pod Person (none / 0) (#107)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:02:46 AM EST
    A person pretending to be something they aren't, or an impostor. This is inferred because of the old alien movies where alien pods appear on earth and the "pod people" dispose of the humans and slowly reproduce the bodies, pretending to be humans.
    The pod person was pretending to be my father, but I knew that he was an alien when he acted differently than my father ever would have.
    buy pod person mugs & shirts

    when's the last time we elected a "pod person" to the white house?



    I don't see that happening (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    I can see Petraeus running for President, but he isn't hooking with the GOP in its present condition and taking orders from any of them. The guy gets major shit from the Conservatives in the military for being too Liberal.  I think David Petraeus would rather be right where he is if he has a change of President because he is in his mind actually doing something of benefit for his country.  The GOP isn't doing much of anything that is of benefit to its country and even sabotages the economic well being of the whole country trying to gain power because it can no longer win a debate on their merits of their arguments.  Many soldiers call what they have done and continue to do a form of terrorism.

    Rubio? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    I don't see him as a very good pick. He didn't even break 50% in the senate election in FL. He doesn't seem to really help much at all plus you have his made up background.

    Romney will probably pick a bland Midwesterner like Pawlenty or Portman. I mean does he want to have someone who might have some charisma on the ticket?

    Not Rubio for the reasons (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:56:37 AM EST
    you cite plus the Romney campaign is going to rely on GOP massive voter suppression, and other tricks, to win FL.  

    Young Rubio is kind of high risk, brings some unwanted personal baggage, and would undermine an effective Romney attack line that Obama was just too young and inexperienced and wasn't up to the job.

    Portman is this election's Dick Gephardt:  a safe but very bland pick who won't move the numbers anywhere in either direction except possibly in his important home-swing state.  In the end, Teresa Heinz Kerry nixed Gep even though hubby was interested, because of the blah factor.  And somewhat similarly, because of lack of personal chemistry with the nominee (per recent WaPo article), Romney supposedly is not enthusiastic about Portman.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    The 2012 election is going to be so exciting isn't it? (snark snark) This election is about as interesting as watching paint dry. I think it's why so many people are ALREADY skipping talking about it and jumping up to 2016.

    Romney may just eye Marco Rubio (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    with the cluelessness that McCain looked at Sarah Palin.  As McCain thought Governor Palin would attract women, especially those disaffected by the Democratic primary, so too, Romney may feel that Senator Rubio's Cuban heritage will attract other HIspanic voters correcting an electoral weakness. Rubio is sort of a prince of the tea party; however, he may give Romney pause owing to Rubio's boyhood and family's Mormonism while living in Las Vegas, and to the risks of national scrutiny of matters brought up during his senate race.  

    what? There are no women in the (none / 0) (#50)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:34:41 AM EST
    republican party?  I know as a fact there are many smart capable women in the R party that outclass some of the jokers he is considering.

    Condi Rice? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    the one that was running around screaming about the "mushroom cloud"? I think she pretty much made herself into a national laughingstock over first Iraq and secondly Katrina. I don't think she'll be showing up on anybody's list ever. She's done.

    Condi is high risk (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    high reward.  Her role in the unpopular Iraq War and the unwanted connecting of Romney to Bush.  Plus she's a novice as a pol.  And not likely to bring more women to the GOP, no more than Sarah did but for slightly different reasons.

    Doubtful pick.  Only if Romney falls behind in the next two months as the economy takes a dramatic swing in the right direction.  Both unlikely to occur.

    A Hail Mary option when you need a game changer -- which Romney doesn't need now.

    Obama otoh might need a HM option if he has too many more weeks like the last one.


    Digby has a post up about Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    bristling when Latino leaders sd. he isn't getting the Latino voters' support due to increased deportations.  

    that is why I think (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:08:00 PM EST
    Obama will lose Colorado

    Do they seriously think ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    ... they're going to get a better deal and break from the same people who think it's a great idea to build a wall along the Rio Grande?

    I truly feel for them and sympathize with their position, given that my wife is Latina and I have Latino in-laws -- but honestly, I get so tired of listening to people threaten to cut off their noses to spite their own faces.


    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    they think they're going to get a better deal out of Romney. It's not like they're going to vote for Romney but why should they show up for Obama when he has not kept his promises. He has done more deportations than any other President and I would think that alone is enough to make them stay home. Romney probably does not even enter into the equation.

    My hard line h.s. facebook group (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    challenged my assertion Obama deported the most evah.  So I had to look it up.  Controversial.  

    Then I stand by what I said. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

    I wonder if Romney (none / 0) (#104)
    by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    with strong credentials against illegal immigration could use that meme as a fig leaf to displace some of the reluctance to formulate a comprehensive immigration policy?

    A similar misdirection  seemed to work for Obama who was given leeway to pursue a foreign policy that would be verboten for McCain; particularly when Dems totally controlled congress.


    that is not it Donald (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:18:57 AM EST
    it is a matter of respect.  If you pander to people for their vote then let them down, you don't get to go back and arrogantly say "well where else are you going to go".  The response to that is always going to be, from some people, "screw you".  Eventually the response of Latino people is going to be screw you.  Just like eventually the response of women is "screw you".  You are tired of it?  Then stop voting for democrats who pull this kind of arrogant crap on voters.  You can not force people to vote for politicians who show up every couple of years to make promises they never keep.

    So, Donald...do you ever get tired of (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:47:21 AM EST
    politicians making promises they can't keep, or is that just so expected that the "blame" for when things go sideways goes to the poor saps who wanted to believe that their interests were actually of some concern?

    I don't know, I tend to think it isn't the fault of the voter, but of the politician who, once votes are in hand, walks back, dials back, lowers expectations and sometimes even just abandons the positions that got him or her those votes.

    And as long as the answer is that we don't have any choice, really, but to go with the least evil of the candidates, that the only thing that matters is voting for Brand D no matter what they do or how deeply they betray us, well...it's just establishing that there is no consequence for failure to perform.  And the bar goes lower and lower and lower, the quality of the candidates gets worse, and so does the resulting representation - if you could evn call it that.

    Speaking for me, Donald, I get kind of tired of this "blame the victim" attitude that's really just designed to shut people up so that business as usual can proceed unimpeded.


    Ping Pong Ball Rice? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jharp on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 05:38:07 PM EST
    Isn't she also known as Ping Pong Ball Rice?

    I vaguely remember someone referring to her as that. Maybe Jon Stewart?


    interesting (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:04:45 AM EST
    a very smart capable republican woman who held powerful positions in the last republican administration is a hail mary pass?  Why?  Would you describe a man with a similar resume the same way? No, you would not.

    Go back and re-read (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:23:57 AM EST
    my above post, paying special attention to the reasons I gave for her being a very risky pick.

    You're barking up the wrong tree looking for sexism where none exists, and by that I don't mean to imply that only female posters are capable of completely misreading a simple, direct post.


    I can't speak for anyone but myself, but (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    when I'm considering the intelligence and abilities of possible candidates - male or female - it isn't enough to know that they are intelligent and capable, I have to examine what they have used those considerable gifts for.  Condi Rice fails that test, and that has nothing to do with her gender.

    Yes, she's smart, and yes, she's capable, but would you say the country was better off for it?  I wouldn't.  

    She's a Republican.  She capably aided, abetted and enabled an unnecessary war, and ignored intelligence in service to a lot of very bad policy.  And makes no apologies about it.  Apparently, one does not need a working moral compass to be able to play classical piano...who knew?

    But, hey - if that's what Mitt Romney wants to bring to the table - if that's the kind of smart-and-capable he thinks he needs to bring to the table - he's more clueless than even I thought, which is saying something.  And I would be thinking that if he was looking to bring a man of those sensibilities onto the ticket.

    The real problem, of course, is that there are far too many men and women among the smart-and-capable set who seem uninterested in using their gifts in service to anything other than power and money.  Which is, as far as I'm concerned, what happens when people are told they have no other options but to vote for whichever candidate is the least terrible - those candidates just keep getting worse and worse.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    No one seems to want to blame al Qaeda and the thousands who directly or indirectly enabled them that resulted in the attack that started this.

    Instead some of us endlessly attack Bush, and in this case Rice, for believing what his intelligence people told him and responding. (If anyone wants to cry "Bush lied and people died, don't bother. The lack of anti-war activities against Obama proves that 99% of the Bush activity was just anti-Republican.)

    And no one seems to understand that in today's wired world the terrorists watch what is happening in the target country and use their terrorism to try and change public opinion. After all, Vietnam gave us direct proof that the actions of anti-war demonstrators prolong the war.

    So was Rice on the "wrong" side?? That depends on your view of what causes the most harm to the country and what is "wrong."


    Jim, don't confuse 9/11 and the Iraq war. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, but Bush and Cheney and Condi and Rummy, et al, somehow convinced the American public that was the case.  How they did it was through outright lies, distortions, manipulation and a very, very helpful media.  And here we are 10 years later with thousands of American deaths and untold injuries and a returning-soldier suicide epidemic on our hands....  Do we really have anything to show for our misguided efforts?  Other than Carlisle and Blackwater and other connected companies making trillions off this unjust war?  We have a bankrupted country whose trillions of dollars could have been better spent in a myriad of other ways that would have contributed to the well-being of those in need.  My thoughts have nothing to do with anti-Republicanism.  They have to do with doing what's right.  And that means calling out the lies and the liars when I feel the need. Period.  

    Angel (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    The intelligence info Bush had from not only the CIA but from all the world's major agencies led him to take the actions he took.

    What you are doing is saying, "Bush lied and men died," although in a nice way.

    Now, I criticize how the "peace" was handled. I would smashed enough infrastructure to get everyone's attention going in and then I would have kept the Iraqi army intact and in their barracks by paying them. And I would have "accepted" enough oil from them to pay for my "crime stopper" call. I would have then split thenm into their three natural parts, established a secular government modeled on ours... and dared anyone to bother it.

    But, we didn't. And the anti-war protesters, who in my opinion were mostly anti-Bush, extended the fighting, as in Vietnam, by giving the terrorists hope they could achieve a political win. And they may have. Certainly in Afghanistan they see that if Obama withdraws as he says then they expect to return to power. I see Obama's use of drones as a way for him to project an image of strength while keeping the lid on.

    But did Bush lie?? Not in my world. In my world, knowing what he knew at that time, he did what I would have done. From Bush's 2003 SOTU:

    The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct--were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

    It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. .......


    Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.


    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

    If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

    Blah blah blah (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    I won't argue with you because you will never admit the truth.  Bush lied.  

    Angel (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:00:04 PM EST
    So why  did you bother???

    Silly (none / 0) (#166)
    by kidman1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    Condi Rice is an admitted conspirator in torture. her response to a student who had her on a cell phone camera when she went back to Stanford and was asked about what she did and she said all she did was to pass orders along- sorry that is a conspiracy.

    The real problem is not having Constitutional authority and the crazy war powers act.

    This is the best description of Bush's real problems and it could not be said any clearer by a man that should have been President or had the option to be on the SCOTUS. This is your Bush problem.



    So the upshot (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:15:00 PM EST
    is, if you oppose war, people die..

    Paging Mr Orwell. Again.

    But thanks for the reminder once again about how the sixties seachange was THE trauma certain quarters on the Reich side of the aisle have never gotten over..


    Face it Jim (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    after reading your posts for 8+ years, it's obvious that "in your world" Bush not only NEVER lied, he never uttered a word in public you'd take issue with, never embodied ANY significant philosophic position you'd take serious issue with, never even made a misstep in his private life you'd take issue with..

    The man's a reglar' Lord Jesus. Or, apparently a reasonable stand-in for the time being..

    What is it that Bush symbolizes to you that's so compelling: the final revenge of The South..the definitive getting back at all those hippie agitators and peace creeps?


    If I may, jondee, (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:21:18 PM EST
     let me play Jim's surrogate here for a moment. In my opinion it's not "in my world," or in "bush's world" that's the problem. It's anything "In the Demo's (as Jim would phrase it) world," that has Jim perplexed. If it comes from the D's side, it's no good. Simple, isn't it?

    We all know one liners and bumper sticker slogans are reliable alternatives to careful analysis, fact based conclusions, and respect for peer reviewed hypothesis. Those things are just, oh so hard. Adopting feel-good slogans, and never veering from them, makes life so much simpler.

    Once again, as one of GWB's inner circle was quoted, "facts? Who needs facts?" "we deal in reality, and since we make whatever reality we want, we`re always right" (paraphrasing somewhat)

    The one thing Jim and the Murdoch/Fox/Limbaugh propagandists understand is that the American people don't do "nuance." When a highly paid, veteran NYT columnist can write his view of what Bush's foreign policy should be, "Suck on this," you know we're finished as a functioning Democracy.


    they see nuance as a cultural threat.. (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    the end of religion and the world-as-we-know-it or something. Instead of as an Emersonian spur to (for lack of a better term) higher consciousness..

    Pure, unadulterated, culture war panic..

    Plus, I firmly believe there's a revenge element to a lot of this: If you're gonna humiliate us, we're gonna take you down with us..


    I always enjoy having someone who has never (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    met me or had any actual in depth exchanges decide what/who I am.

    Shooter, psycho babble doesn't work with me, even when we have an expert like you spreading it.

    I note that:

    1. No one disputes my comment that anti-war demonstrations results in combat being extended.

    Extended combat results in people dying.

    1. The vast majority of the anti-war people were and are Democrats.

    2. Their opposition to the war has decreased to near zero with the election of Obama, who, I think, ran as a Democrat.

    And the point I didn't make:

    The way to oppose a war is to stop it from happening. Elections have consequences. Anyone and everyone should have known how a Republican would respond to an attack on the US.

    And everyone should do what Democrats did when I was a Democrat. Partisan activities and demonstrations end when the shooting starts.

    That changed and I was no longer a Democrat, although I was stupid enough to be fooled the second time and voted for Carter.


    Problem solved (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:30:13 PM EST
    No one disputes my comment that anti-war demonstrations results in combat being extended.

    Okay - I dispute it - and since your premise is nothing more than a gratuitous (evidence-free) opinion, I don't even have to offer any evidence to refute it!



    Extended combat results in people dying.

    Sometimes, sometimes not.  It's all about comparing it to the alternative.  Of course, if you avoid going into an unjustified war based on false premises altogether ...

    3.  The vast majority of the anti-war people were and are Democrats.

    Probably true, and they should be very proud for not being duped by GW's sales pitch.

    Their opposition to the war has decreased to near zero with the election of Obama, who, I think, ran as a Democrat.

    Their opposition decreased because he said he would end the war.  It took longer than I would have liked, but the Iraq War is over.  But maybe you can get your boy Mitt elected and be an armchair/TV warrior for an Iran War!


    Partisan activites end when the shooting (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 13, 2012 at 02:36:40 PM EST

    And so does free thought, free speech etc..

    Which is why chickenhawks and conservatives are always chomping-at-the-bit for the NEXT war: ta keep all 'a 'em hifalutin smarty pants and "cultural elites" mouths shut for awhile..

    And I love that Carter bit: knowing you Jim, all that meant was that your "the South shall rise again" instinct temporarily got the better of your "they're all radical socialists" instinct..


    just curios (none / 0) (#113)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:38:52 AM EST
    have you ever described Joe Biden as running around screaming?  He has said and done some pretty stupid things, but I don't remember anyone accusing him of "screaming" or of his being done.  Is that a team democrat response?

    Not Biden (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    but George W. Bush. Anyone who ran around trying to great a false hysteria post 9/11. Condi is just one of many. Dick Cheney was another.

    Rummy, too. AKA Dr. Strangelove (none / 0) (#127)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:06:02 AM EST
    She would be an interesting choice (none / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:29:36 AM EST
    smart, capable, experienced, I think she might be up to it.

    She's certainly smart, capable and (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by brodie on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    experienced in the dark arts of drumming up a false basis for starting a war for political purposes.

    If Romney is so unwise or desperate to select her, I'd look forward to the discussion on the start of the Iraq War which would inevitably occur.

    Maybe she could then bring in W or Cheney to testify on her behalf.  That might be interesting.

    But would Colin Powell also then weigh in?  That would be interesting.

    Btw, Teresa, you sound very enthusiastic about Rice.  Does that indicate you would vote for a Romney/Condi ticket?  If so, why?  Isn't Joe Biden at least as "smart and capable" and isn't he even more experienced?


    Your last paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:54:35 AM EST
    IMO says it all about what may be involved here. Via successive everything-is-wrong-about-the-present-president other aspects are revealed as the camouflage lifts.

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    Only to those who see any reality-based negative comments towards Obama as an affirmative vote for Romney.

    Those who see that also tend to see things like fairies and pixies.


    I SO had no idea (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by sj on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    what you were talking about here until jbindc cleared the confusion from your delusion.

    And, I SO disagree (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    with the both of you as to this point.

    When people directly indicate that they oppose someone, a politician, for that person's works or non-works or whatever reason, that is one thing. Hey, even we dedicated Dems can/should respect that.  To each his own.  In that sense, sj, I respect (and "hear") your position as to the current national situation.  As for individuals who appear from a compilation of statements/writings to be only voicing critiques yet bit-by-bit add in hefty amounts of push/plugs for the oppotion party & named candidates...well, from your political experience, sj, I think you recognize political & campaign spin when you see it.

    IMO, jbindc' spin for Romney has at least as much party flavor as my direct & open support for the President. While Teresa's Condoleezza's spin is just now coming into perspective, it appears more & more obvious as an agenda.

    The point: I know my political purpose & agenda. There is no attempting to screen or obscure it. And, IMO only, it is much more helpful in discussions when participants who appear to have a political agenda as well own up to it as well. Trans: You are clear & direct, sj. Some others--not so much.


    Consider this: (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sj on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:47:05 PM EST
    One still is who one is -- even if one doesn't identify with a major party.

    As you know, I support neither candidate.  I believe that jbindc also supports neither (jb, please correct me if I'm wrong).

    Even though I don't support either candidate, I am still doing the same thing I would be doing if I did support the Democratic candidate: disregarding entirely all the machinations of the Republican party.  I have never had much interest in their campaigns and I have even less now.

    I believe that jb is doing exactly the same thing that she would be doing if she did support the Democratic candidate: analyzing the Republican field and the implications.  

    One still is who one is -- even if one doesn't identify with a major party.


    Yep, sj, you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    But I am looking forward to what's really important to the Dems - how are they going to outdo the Greek temple columns at the convention?

    And, I repeat my respect of your position, sj (none / 0) (#142)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    I appreciate that, christine (none / 0) (#172)
    by sj on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 06:42:26 AM EST
    Thank you.

    HAHAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    My "spin" for Romney - what a joke!  Thank you for the laugh.

    Just because I point out where Obama is weak and Romney has a strength is, again, NOT a "spin" for him.  You are so blinded by partisan loyalty that when someone states a fact that is contrary to your vision of "hope and change", well, then that person MUST be s shill for the Republicans.

    I dunno - I think I called it pretty well so far.  I said back as far as 2008 that Romney would be the nominee.  Even around here, I was pooh-poohed by many ("Oh no, they would NEVER nominate a scary Mormon!"), but I guess I called that one right.  I'm not a political genius, but I'm not blind to what's really going on.

    It is funny that some liberals have become exactly what they despised - closed minded to reality and unwilling to see the forest for the trees.


    Cut the you-know-what, jbindc (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:48:33 PM EST
    I am sure that you know the difference between being blind--as you would say about me--and arguing for the opposition candidate--which is my claim about you.

    Nope, I'm not "blinded" or anything else by my political loyalties.  In fact, my penchant personally is to look always at what could & does go wrong in any campaign. That is part of the ebb & flow of a campaign.  And, the ups & downs are part of the ebb & flow of most things, actually.  What I observe in your writings is that you mark ONLY (or, at least, 99%) the downs for Democrats.  I don't think it strange then to conclude that your pro-spin for all things Republican during this cycle & your boo-hooing/lamenting all things Democratic has a lot to do with what your political direction is.  For the latest jbindc lamentation, see the "analysis" you gave about the Senate gains/losses & compare to projections currently available even via Realclearpolitics etc.  

    As they say "Just sayin.'"  In any event, we both had a laugh from each other.


    Okay, if I can throw in my two cents here... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    It seems like there's an effort to criticize people for not being sufficiently into the game of let's-list-all-the-ways-the-other-guys-are-worse, accompanied by a lot of rather petulant frustration that not everyone sees the wisdom of being grateful for what we have (please, sir, may I have another?), and thinks the focus needs to be on what we need to do to make things better over and above - way above - casting the all-important "D" votes.

    We could spend the next five months listing all the ways in which the GOP just sucks at policy and governance, but the problem is that the Democratic ship, under the guidance of the current WH occupant, is moving in that same direction (I'm not sure I can say "being steered," because he has trouble owning action words when it comes to the economy).  Not away from the iceberg, but toward it, and all we keep being told is that if we hit it, it will be the GOP's fault.  I expect we're going to hear a lot about that in the coming months.

    Republicans are terrible for this country - I know that, you know that, we all get it.  Too many people are reaching the point where it is no longer enough that Brand D - whatever is left of it - is marginally better.  We don't want to get used to that, to accept it, to give in to it.  And that's what that constant message does - it's a form of brainwashing - and I, at least, am not going to go gently into that good night.  If you want to make my life worse, make it harder for my kids and their kids to get ahead,  guarantee that I may never get to stop working, have me thinking that I might as well go full monty since I won't have any privacy left, wage war all over the world and be proud of it, consign millions to lives of poverty and injustice - well, fine - but don't expect me to like it, or act like I like it, or take the "well, at least it's being done by Dems" approach.

    And don't make the mistake of thinking that my opposition to those kinds of policies means I'm going over to the even-darker side - I'm not ever going to do that.  

    The truth is, holding the Democratic convention in the banking capital of the country, in a right-to-work state, after 4+ years of financial horror perpetrated by banksters, and efforts to de-legitimize and silence the unions, and make sure the average guy's neck stays firmly under corporate bootheels, may have been about the most tone-deaf decision the DNC could have made if it had or has any intention of still branding the party as being "of the people."  As symbols go, it's sixteen kinds of horrible.  Whatever mocking results from it, they brought it on themselves, and it isn't my obligation, as a Democrat, to defend or excuse it.

    I think most of us just want to live, not in a perfect world, or an unrealistically ideal one, but in one that is more economically fair, more attentive to the rule of law and accountability and essential justice, and doesn't pervert the meaning of this country's governing documents for power and money.  Apparently, even that is too much to ask for,  but so what - we're not getting it anyway, no matter who we vote for.  

    I don't suppose it's ever occured to you that you get so gosh-darned irritated at jb because she makes it harder to defend the sorry-ass Dems and their incremental march to austerity?

    No, that couldn't be it.  We all know incremental is better, right?  That way, by the time we realize the Dems have made the water boil, we'll just be pleasantly poached frog, which is so much better than being flash-boiled by the GOP.


    Your analysis of this situation as to motive (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    is not correct. Honestly.

    My comments here are driven by my perception that some people do have an agenda that is undivulged (and, in my read, obscured) by a continual stream of attack only to speak glowingly in related political commentary about the opposition.  (See the Condoleezza Rice kerfuffle, eg.  and the fascinating analysis of Senate odds despite professional analysis shown in places like electoral-vote sites.) Again, I have stated & continued to state and believe that "to each his/her own" when it comes to politics.  As an example: sj has stated clearly the driving forces that lead to sj's electoral conclusions; and, I respect that.  Based upon a series of commentary in the other situations, I find it more than difficult to believe that the "agenda" is anything other than what I have stated. IMO...of course.

    Now...I recognize that you have consistent & strong beliefs about what you just wrote, Anne. And, I respect that.  You are open, transparent, and passionate about it.  I respect that.  Please understand that my opinion here is as presented...it is not a sub rosa or other backhanded way of saying anything else.


    it just feels so gd good (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:25:53 PM EST
    to stick it to Obama one more time: like Tex Watson if he'd been on Team Hillary. And Post-08 revenge is a dish that's best served cold. Over and over and over again. Pure fleeting emotional catharsis. The guy they love to hate, as they say..

    That's a still a big part of all this. Not the whole of it, but a big part.

    I do have to laugh - because I'm done crying - at the people who still TALK as if they believe there's a possibility that a true progressive could get elected President under the current rigged game.


    christine, I think what (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    undermines your claim not to be backhanded are your asides to others about the motives and agenda you seem to be imputing to people with whom you disagree.

    You want people to take you at your word, and it seems only fair that you return the favor, no?

    When all is said and done, we are each going into the voting booth and casting our ballots based on whatever conclusions we've reached on the basis of whatever issues are most important to us.


    Not imuting anything to those who disagree other t (none / 0) (#170)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    Two people involved in the particular series of comments ...and for the reasons stated & restated.  No need to attempt a broad-brush paint job here, Anne.

    And (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    I am sure that you know the difference between being blind--as you would say about me--and arguing for the opposition candidate--which is my claim about you

    You would be wrong - as always when you try this tack.


    Good form (none / 0) (#146)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    ...can't see any substance in it tho.  Here's my bait in return: Since the Greek temples talking-point is injected below, what might you forecast about the upcoming Republican show in Tampa???

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    The Republicans will have their usual hate-fest.

    I won't be watching.

    The really fun part of the Democratic convention, though, will be as all the speakers bach the banksters, and then Obama will accept his nomination at Bank of America stadium.

    Oh, I probably won't be watching that one either.


    She is on tape saying that (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by sallywally1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    No one could ever imagine terrorists flying a plane into a building....

    Really? Since I'm pretty sure you could have heard people imagining this right and left in any neighborhood tavern...well before it happened.

    You can be smart and capable without comprehending the circumstances and nuances of the real world, and that seems to me to be the clear case with her.

    She could present herself well, certainly better than Sarah Palin, but I don't see her dealing well with the real world outside an intellectual policy framework, which is a recipe for serious disaster just like it was in 9/11 and in Iraq when the international group seeking for weapons in that country could not find them and asked for time to keep seeking but was pre-empted by the Bushies in their rush to attack in Iraq.


    YES! YES! YES! Please let it be Condi. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    Obama would be reelected in a landslide if Condi were on the ticket.  

    In the United States of Amnesia? (2.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    don't count on it..

    Half of 'em would be saying "who is that forceful, well-spoken woman up there? and a great role model for minority women, too.."

    Mama Puma up above is already talking about how smart and capable Condi is..


    Until this gets trotted out: (none / 0) (#173)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 12, 2012 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    "Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing, warning of an imminent attack by al Qaeda on American soil using airplanes..."

    Does not matter (none / 0) (#71)
    by kidman1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 04:42:12 PM EST
    Romney is not going to choose someone with more personalty than he has and that rules out Christie and probably any Gov., since he was one.  Thune would be logical, but it does not matter unless you nominate an incompetent like Palin.

    The President always has a game changer before the convention and that is to let the VP and Sec. of State exchange places.

    Too bad the media and everyone here should write every member of the local and national media to ask the following question of Romney:

    Since you have admitted the recession was not the President's fault, what would you have done differently than Bush and what do you currently propose to do that is different than Bush?

    who (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    are you talking to?

    Need to use "Reply" button.


    They are responding... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    to J's question in her post.  Hard to reply to that using the "reply" button.

    There, you got that out (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:45:09 PM EST
    feel better now?

    Felt fine before, thanks. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    That is a very good question. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    I think he would probably do nothing different than what Bush did.

    Isn't the question what Romney would (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 07:43:44 PM EST
    do differently than Obama has been doing?

    not really (none / 0) (#162)
    by kidman1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    as his answer as to what he would do differently that Bush and how he disagreed with Bush is key to understanding the difference between gen. nonsensical Republican economic theory and Obama's and the Democratic view. You can ask what he would do differently than Obama, but the dumb American public would not know that his proposals are the same as Bush's and that is why we are where we are.
    Of course facts mean little to the Republicans or Romney and truth is a concept that left them sometime ago.

    Please tell me - when has supply side ever worked in the world: 1920's- oh no that depression figured that out!  1980-1992, well Clinton did not take over a big booming economy and Regan raised taxes more than he cut spending, albeit by a small amount. 2000-2008- well that recent memory is still here.

    Same old worn out Republican view and have a family in Alabama worried about their lack of jobs blame it on the gay couple getting married in San Francisco or an abortion in NY being the cause. Of course people want a strong military, they want inspections of the food we eat and the drugs we take, they want parks, fire, police, highways and so forth. Gov, is all around and accepted for the good that it does, but then when you try to help the black girl in the ghetto,, then there is too much government. The picture is there and the art is blemished.


    Conventional wisdom (none / 0) (#94)
    by pgupta on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:31:48 PM EST
    The conventional wisdom is that the VP pick does not matter.  I think that it does make a difference.

    My picks would be:

    1. Portman
    2. Rubio

    It won't be Marco Rubio. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:59:06 PM EST
    There's just too much personal baggage there, which would tend to make him the issue in the campaign.

    Sen. Rubio has had significant trouble paying his mortgage on his Miami home, having missed numerous payments to the point of being threatened with foreclosure. It seems that he bought the then-$550,000 house with a $495,000 mortgage in 2005, then immediately had it reappraised to $735,000, and took out an additional $135,000 second mortgage against the additional equity.

    But alas, the housing bubble burst, and the Rubio home is now worth $375,000, yet he owes over $500,000 on it. In short, he's under water.

    Rubio has also been cited for failing to make payments on his college loans for law school, and got in some serious trouble for having run up at least $15,000 in charges for personal expenses on a GOP-issued credit card, while he served as chair of the Florida Republican Party.

    Finally, there's that nagging little issue regarding Rubio's false claim during the 2010 U.S. Senate race that his parents were refugees from Fidel Castro's Cuba, which was undermined after his election when records subsequently showed that the elder Rubios had emigrated to this country voluntarily in 1956 -- some three years before Castro came to power in Havana.

    Were Mitt Romney to be so foolish as to choose Marco Rubio as his VP choice, his campaign will deserve every bit of greif and flack it will get from the media and various Democratic 527 groups.


    Re: the Cuba claim (none / 0) (#154)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    Rubio's got some fudge factor on the Cuba claim, since someone leaving in '56 can claim to have been fleeing the revolution, since it had been going on since '53.

    But I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons not to like him.


    NCAA College Baseball: (none / 0) (#95)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:38:44 PM EST
    No. 1-ranked UCLA, Arizona and Florida have already qualified for the College World Series in Omaha. Florida State looks to close out Stanford today, up 8-2 in the 7th inning of Game 2. South Carolina are tied up, 0-0, in the 6th of Game 2, with the Gamecocks holding a 1-0 lead in the best-of-three series.

    But in the Baton Rouge Super-Regional, the vaunted No. 2-ranked LSU Tigers look to be in very serious trouble with the lightly regarded visiting Seawolves of Stony Brook (NY) University.

    The Tigers got lucky in Game 1, helped out by an overnight rain delay on Saturday to eventually win 5-4 yesterday in 12 innings, just before getting completely shut down in Game 2 on only two hits, a 3-1 Seawolves triumph that knotted the best-of-three series at one game each. And now, the Tigers find themselves on the short end of a 4-1 score in Game 3, and are running out of outs.

    To consider the magnitude of what Stony Brook might be able to accomplish here, were they to somehow hang on to vanquish LSU and go to Omaha, it would be the equivalent of a 16th seed making the Elite Eight in the NCAA basketball tournament.

    In other words, it's never been done. The lowest seed to ever make the College World Series prior to this year was a 13th seed, Fresno State in 2008. And not content to merely make an appearance in Omaha, Fresno then went on to win it all that year, blowing out No. 1-ranked Georgia in the final two games, 17-6 and 8-1.

    Go, Seawolves!

    And the fifth-ranked Oregon Ducks apparently also have their hands full with the Golden Flashes of Kent State up in Eugene. The Ducks got dropped 7-6 in Game 1 last night, and now have to win out in order to advance to Omaha.

    Update: (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    Stony Brook has increased their lead to 6-1 over LSU.

    Jan Brewer for VP? (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:33:46 AM EST

    lol, not a bad idea (none / 0) (#116)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 06:32:12 AM EST
    in one way.  If you want an "attack dog" for the campaign, she would make a good one.  The woman is tough as hell and she doesn't back down easily.

    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 07:22:40 AM EST
    THAT would be interesting.

    But in reality, a VP choice makes very little difference as to whether the candidate wins or not.

    my comment about Christie (none / 0) (#123)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    I think I must have had a comment about Christie being a sexist pig.  Perhaps it would go over better with  

    choose any of these links and read or watch the video.  But this post is actually as good an explanation as any.....

    US Secretary of Commerce being investigated (none / 0) (#124)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    for hit-and-run accidents over the weekend.  


    Just read they are saying he had a seizure of (none / 0) (#130)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    some kind.

    Pawlenty - ugh (none / 0) (#139)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    ticket could be called Dull and Duller

    Only problem for Obama is that some (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    people associate dullness with competency.

    Epsecially after (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    Flash and celebrity