Thursday Morning Open Thread

Jesse LaGreca, the Ministry of Truth, and I, will be on Daily Kos Radio today at 11 a.m. Listen here.

We'll be discussing Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and one of it first big results - a $210 million settlement agreement with Capital One for consumer fraud. Also, the GOP's latest attack on contraception, Mitt Romney's ad bragging about his Mexican roots (not a joke) and Justice Scalia's renewed admonition that we get over it on Bush v. Gore. The podcast:

Here is link to a story covering the Lackland Air Base sexual assault scandal that Military Tracy discussed with us this morning on Daily Kos Radio.

Open Thread.

< George Zimmerman on Hannity, Thread II | MSNBC Claims Al Sharpton Did Not Rush to Judgment on Zimmerman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Military Tracy..... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    coming up on the Armando/Truth radio show..

    I'm impressed MT...Good luck.

    Thank you so much to Armando (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    and Jesse for giving me a moment for my voice to be heard. Boys will be boys has not been on paper a governing principle in the military since I married into it.

    What I have seen here at Fort Rucker under General Crutchfield is that soldiers breaking any of the rules about dating or fraternizing with students that they instruct enjoys ZERO TOLERANCE to include recently a female instructor who thought she would date one of her students.  They were of the same rank but she still was currently in a position of authority over him, and she got slapped down....rightfully so.

    All I gots to the say to the Air Force is My General's better than your General, My General's better than yours.  My General's better cuz he observes regulation (not kennelration), my General's better than yours!

    Also, careful Airmen, you're starting to look like the Air Farce!

    Congressional Investigation needed...yesterday!!!!!


    Good luck Tracey ! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by samsguy18 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    Contact Senate Armed Services Comm. members (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:28:09 AM EST
     Armed Services Committee

        Carl Levin (Michigan)
        Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut)
        Jack Reed (Rhode Island)
        Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii)
        Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
        Jim Webb (Virginia)
        Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
        Mark Udall (Colorado)
        Kay R. Hagan (North Carolina)
        Mark Begich (Alaska)
        Joe Manchin III (West Virginia)
        Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
        Kirsten E. Gillibrand (New York)
        Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)

        John McCain (Arizona)
        Ranking Member
        James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma)
        Jeff Sessions (Alabama)
        Saxby Chambliss (Georgia)
        Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi)
        Scott P. Brown (Massachusetts)
        Rob Portman (Ohio)
        Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
        Susan M. Collins (Maine)
        Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
        John Cornyn (Texas)
        David Vitter (Louisiana)


    House committee mebers (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    Also, Army will beat Air Force next go around (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    Because.......God will smite in your evilness and tolerance and coddling of evil if you don't make this right, right now!  And really, can any commanders breeding and encouraging the same kind of command environment as Rice is birth a mean lean successful fighting machine?  NOPE, not if  girls hate you and you cannot access our loyalty and skills, we make up around 50% of the world...Good Luck in the end messing with us

    Great job, MT (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    Thank you! Rock on.

    How long does the show last? (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:34:29 AM EST
    Just clicked the link and it appears to be over (12:20 est). Will catch the podcast.

    Also, 9 of the instructors were in the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    same squadron under the same commander.  That's shocking, like fall down where you are shocking.  There had to be a team effort here, and communications of some kind.  You expect me to believe that 9 law breaking predators just happened to all be assigned the same commander?  But there is nothing to see.....move along now

    Gees. I am way behind on the news (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    Now I understand what you are talking about. Are heads rolling? Or at least pensions being reduced? What can I add, except that I will follow up with the letters to congresspeople and whoever you recommend.

    No your aren't dear (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:24:07 PM EST
    The military is trying its damnedest or maybe better, someone in the military is trying their damnedest to sweep this mess under anything available.  And if you are military affiliated and not of this mess, we don't want to talk about this.  We didn't do this, those other guys operating under the same command failure system we are though did, they were the unlucky ones that got stuck with this $hit.  Not us,  we missed this certain hell and failure, so let us not speak of it and thank our lucky stars we weren't sent to Lackland for anything.

    MT, I would really appreciate (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    Your speaking more slowly. With the timbre of your.voice it is hard for me to catch everything you say.



    I will focus on that if I get another chance (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    to speak on the topic there.  I wanted to speak about it so approached BTD and Jesse via BTD, I had no real plan to speak about it though until this morning.  I had been investigating and the more I discovered the angrier I got.  I need a mic too probably and not just my computer mic, should get one.  When I was able to talk though, I was a little angry.

    But it feels like nobody listens sometimes and as this scandal has evolved I know that angelajean at DKos has had to deal with a lot of anger and feelings of betrayal too.  She is an Air Force spouse, much more versed in that culture than I am.  As I began to investigate it though and better understood who had done what where and to how many people, I began to get really really angry.

    And having Mac Thornberry shut down any Congressional investigation based on what General Rice (a little rape and molestation of others must happen under male soldiers) told him, made me extremely angry.  If General Crutchfield ever said anything like General Rice said, I would pass out where I stood.  I cannot even fathom it.  Yet Rice said it all and meandered along and nobody said a damned thing to him about how full of it he was, I suppose because he is a General and it's his course and he will tell you what is par.  Even if that par is solid bull$hit and is the opposite of the regulations that he is supposed to be upholding and enforcing 24/7.

    He writes his own regulations. He develops his own leadership environment, not the Commander in Chief. Lackland is his fiefdom.  And that is the exact leadership environment that breeds things like this rapey evil mess.


    When I listened again--this time to the (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    podcast, I could understand you (and Armando) w/o difficulty.  Jesse, not so much.  Too damn fast, although slower than a last week.  

    And I was angry, not connecting certain things (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:57:01 PM EST
    Until afterward, but as Jesse said, this has similarities to the General McChrystal business.  This a rogue General!

    Everyone should be angry, it seems to me. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    There is something about vocalizing one's thoughts, as opposed to typing them, that connects one more fully to what's in one's head - hence the anger being and feeling so much bigger than we think it will; for what it's worth, I think you did an excellent job of speaking out on this.

    If only it all didn't just make me feel so sick.  Sick because it's going on, and sick because they're trying to hide it, sick because of the "oh, well - it happens," which seems at times to me to be a version of, "well, what do you expect when you let women in to this man's world?"

    Apparently, we're still not nearly as civilized as we like to think we are.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:15:52 PM EST
    This seems to be an instance where if you're not angry, then you're refusing to pay attention. And thanks to MT, this matter has now been brought to our attention. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

    Speaking for myself, I would be more than willing to bring this matter up with Sen. Inouye and Congresswomen Hanabusa and Hirono, because I do enjoy ready access to all three of them, thanks to my position in the local Democratic Party and my previous work for House leadership in the State Capitol. And the Old Man (Sen. Inouye) in particular, as Chair of Senate Appropriations and a Medal of Honor recipient, does have clout in military circles and could possibly get the ball rolling on a formal inquiry or investigation.

    (And honestly, if one is not willing to use one's access for something like this, then what good is that sort of access, really?)

    I think this is an issue worthy of further discussion, if only to educate ourselves further about the problem, so that when we do talk to our respective congresscritters, we can do so from a position of knowledge and fact.



    Listening to you about Lackland... (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:13:41 PM EST
    I didn't realize that all new airmen were sent there for training. I have a friend whose granddaughter just went off to AF basic training last month. I will have to ask her if she is there and make sure they are aware.

    As you all said in the podcast, the idea that we can't expect men to control themselves and this is just naturally going to happen is just ludicrous and infuriating.


    Mt...you were just fine (none / 0) (#104)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:13:49 PM EST
     this morning.  I just with we had more time to know when you and BTD will be on the airwaves.  Yes get one of those little microphones...get a good one...you're a star and deserve the best.

    This is so funny (1.00 / 5) (#144)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:21:11 AM EST
    Look at all these "progressives" assuming the guilt of everyone accused.

    Meanwhile parts of the freaking army ban pornography (let alone any kind of visits to foreign prostitutes even where they are legal). Yep- very young men, mostly, sent out to die in combat zones, as much testosterone as they will ever have and basically denied sexual outlets unless they have a wife/SO. And of course if they do have a family the armed services do a pretty crappy job of keeping them together.

    This is insane.
    My opinion? Some of these accusations are true, some are false, and some innocent lives are going to be ruined because the armed services have been about nothing but politics when it comes to gender issues. Another smearing of all the men in the armed services for the actions of a few, and another example of an agenda.

    You know what? We could use more women generals. But we could also use a lot more female bodybags. But since right now they don't pull their combat weight, I take most of these complaints about "underrepresentation" to be nothing but whining.

    Clearly the current policies on integrating women into the military are a complete failure.


    Yeah, it's so SO funny (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    And I'm sure that's what we need:
    But we could also use a lot more female bodybags.
    Sickening.  Really, really sickening.

    Yes (1.00 / 7) (#151)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:17:27 PM EST
    You are sickening.

    Equality means equality of risks too.
    The women in the military and fully half of their male and supposed feminist supporters don't seem to realize that.

    When you worry about the deaths of men in the military and the rights of the falsely accused in the military I will give two craps about how the one woman out of ten thousand who might have become one is being denied her Generalship.

    We can agree that rapes of women -and men - in the military are wrong. I don't care about the rest of the whining. Somebody told a dirty /offensive joke. WAAAAAAAAAAAH.

    You'd almost think the military was some sort of amusement park. Oh wait, that's what all too many women seem to think it is. They don't get much exposure to danger and they hardly ever pull any of the dirty/dangerous cleanup work. I tip my hat to the few exceptions and I spit on most of the opportunistic political and feminist vultures who have helped make this mess, as well as the sexually prudish, be they left or right.


    Wow. (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    Just wow.

    I know, right? (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    But it seems to be typical to double down on the crazy rather than admit there is something wrong with the original comments.  Not just this guy -- all the crazies.

    Crazy? (1.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    I'm not the one that has empathy that flows only one way.

    You might want to think about that. You might also want to think about what the military is all about -killing.

    That might put things in a little perspective for you.


    Because you can provide perspective. LOL (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    As if.

    You don't ever seem to (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    miss an opportunity to put your rank hatred for women on display, do you?

    Say, isn't there a rock you're supposed to be under?



    Hatred for women? (1.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:33:24 PM EST
    For wanting them in combat?
    Heck, I thought that was equalism.

    For wanting them in bodybags?
    Well, "affirmative action" shouldn't only flow one way. I'd say it's far more of a tragedy that over 90 men are dying as compared to one women than a few more whines about "leadership" positions. You want the benefits and power, you damn sure can take some of the responsibility and risk. Otherwise, get your ass back in the kitchen and get the heck out of the military.


    Women who have enlisted in the (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    military, or who have made it through the service academies and commissioned as officers in the US Armed Forces, have already voluntarily accepted and embraced the risks and responsibility associated with military service, which, in my opinion, puts them head and shoulders above a bloviating, thinks-with-his-d!ck Fighting Keyboardist like yourself.

    There isn't a woman in military service who does not believe she is as capable of combat service as any man; if you want someone to blame for the disparity between male and female military deaths, it isn't women you should be looking at, but men.

    Go f**k yourself; I'm sure no woman with any class wants anything to do with you.


    Hard to keep it all in sometimes? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:32:21 PM EST
    Sometimes, people reveal more than they intend.



    To be so pissed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    It is one thing to write about things, to read about things.  But to get to talk about things that are in your face and piss you off, I'm so pissed. Funny in a way, blogging can sort of lead to tamping down pissed in some ways. You get to talk about it and then you realize, "I'm really pissed all to hell and this is some raging bullcrap"

    Republican led of course, like clockwork


    Methinks one hour (none / 0) (#23)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:14:36 PM EST
    Me thinks two hrs. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:29:19 PM EST
    Me only heard one..hour (none / 0) (#76)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    mee mee thinks started at 10 central...twas over by 11 central..did I miss something?

    And another really ugly either fact or rumor (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    Because I don't have second source confirmation, BUT at this time it looks like 1 out of 3 basic training instructors at Lackland were involved in sexually harassing, pursuing, or assaulting and raping their female students.  12 trainers involved so far that Lackland is owning up to.  One cut a plea bargain, and named 10 other students he had inappropriate relations with that nobody even knew about yet.

    Glenn leaving Salon for The Guardian: (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    After five-and-a-half highly fulfilling years at Salon, I will be leaving to join The Guardian beginning on August 20. My last day writing on a daily basis for Salon will be August 15. Politico`s Dylan Byers has an article about the move here. I will write daily at the U.S. edition of The Guardian, which is based in New York, and will do so exactly the same way as I have here: with full editorial independence and the same type of readership involvement and support upon which I've long relied, including a vibrant comment section. In addition to the daily writing, I'll also write a more traditional once-a-week column there.

    Sounds like a good move for him.

    From our "Moral Majority" file: (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Gregory Peterson, a prominent Utah GOP activist and financial consultant, has been charged by Salt Lake City authorities with 23 felony counts, including four counts of rape. He's currently being held on a $750,000 bond.

    In July 2011, Peterson hosted a major GOP conclave at his cabin in Heber, Utah, with a guest list that reads like a Who's Who of that state's Republican Party politics.

    According to TPM, this was the same cabin where two of the four alleged rapes apparently took place -- including one which allegedly occurred the night after the aforementioned GOP gathering.

    I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this story as details emerge. One thing should be noted, however -- at this point, none of these allegations appear to be connected in any way to Peterson's political activities.

    Sitting at the bar at lunch today the two guys (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Angel on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    next to us were talking about the election.  First guy said, "Obama will win in a landslide."  Second guy said "I hope so."  If it had been 5 o'clock I would have bought a round!

    Two 60ish men were sitting next to me (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:21:16 PM EST
    This am in La Jolla discussing $27 mil/yr income and how Romney may have dealt w/taxes. $12,500 to each of five sons. Then what?  It was an intellectual discussion   I didn't catch any reference to the horse. They did allow $27 mil would be considered great wealth by ist people.

    I suggested teh might find "The Candidate" interesting.


    You can't spell "CRAZY" without ... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:12:33 PM EST
    ... the "R" and the "AZ."

    The Arizona ACLU today released thousands of e-mails from former State Senate Majority Leader Russell Pearce (since removed by recall), who was the author of the state's controversial immigration law, SB 1070. which they claim prove that the law was racially motivated.

    And after reading the linked article from the Arizona Republic, which contains a few of them, as well as some of the comments offered by Republic readers, I think the ACLU has staked a valid claim.

    Scalia sets the bar pretty low when he says, (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:07:14 PM EST
    "I'll retire when I think I'm not doing as good a job as I used to"

    According to Huffpo (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:43:37 AM EST
    (sorry, I won't link to a site which promotes Wakefield and Chopra), Romney did not even release all of his 2010 returns. Specifically, he did not show the form which one files when one holds money in a foreign bank.

    Always liked Deepak's take (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    on the nature of reality, life, the cosmos, certainly compared to his often narrow minded, traditionally materialist detractors.  Can't comment on Wakefield and the autism controversy, an area I've only glanced at.

    Re Romney, O's team must not relent in pressuring Rom to release all of 2010 plus 5-10 years, complete, of other recent years.  It's probably the key to his winning another term as I suspect there are major skeletons in those returns that will fatally damage the Mittster.


    Chopra is a complete, money (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    grubbing charlatan. Besides the fact that he is an unrepentant fake, I really, really resent the way he blames cancer victims for their illness. His constant refrain is that the cancer is a choice.

    Have to see his exact words (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    and in their entirety. That sounds very harshly judgmental like a xtian fundie, whereas Dpak has always struck me as someone with a live and let live liberal attitude.

    Maybe he was trying to emphasize our free will as human beings vs the non free will determinists, and how many types of cancer do result from people's conscious but negative lifestyle choices. Here's a thoughtful non judgmental article by Chopra suggesting the trend in cancer research is against overemphasis on genetic factors and more towards the prevention side of the issue.


    As I understand it, he believes (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:25:30 PM EST
    cancer is the result of a choice not to live, and not related to lifestyle choices.
    All his blather about lifestyle has nothing to do with his core beliefs, which are about turning Hindu scriptures into huge piles of money.

    No joke (none / 0) (#147)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    He makes $25,000+ in speaking fees and lives in a multi-million dollar mansion, drives around in his green jaguar...and doesn't seem to know crap about the realities of cancer. He is, indeed, just another "new age" con artist...

    Actually, it's not harsh and xtian fundy (none / 0) (#131)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    to deride Chopra's beliefs.
    I'm an atheist, and I abhor all attempts to explain the world with word salad.

    I tried finding a quote on cancer and Chopra, but the main google hits were fawning nonsense.
    I've seen it on TV, and read transcripts before.
    If you actually know what Chopra says, you can't possibly be unaware of his victim-blaming.
    He will do this even with dying cancer patients. Its really horrible.


    Irrelevant hearsay. (none / 0) (#141)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:38:15 AM EST
    I'm going to have to exclude it pending an actual quote in context that comes with a proper, acceptable citation.

    Please. You're awfully defensive. (none / 0) (#149)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    Educate yourself. Stay away from charlatans.

    Defensive? Just for asking you (none / 0) (#153)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    to back up your assertions, which you've been unable to do?  Heard of the psychological term "projection?"

    Here's a Chopra quote on cancer, (none / 0) (#150)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    written to a woman who was dying from failed cancer treatments

    "As far as I can tell, you are doing all the right things to recover. You just have to continue doing them until the cancer is gone for good. I know it is discouraging to make great progress only to have it come back again, but sometimes cancer is simply very pernicious and requires the utmost diligence and persistence to eventually overcome it."

    Disgusting. It's not quite the overt victim blaming I've seen elsewhere, but the subtext of victim-blaming is ineluctable. And, his advice is medically incorrect, obviously.



    Not only is there no (none / 0) (#156)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    overt victim blaming, I don't even think it's implied. I read it simply as Chopra encouraging a seemingly discouraged woman not to give up hope of recovery.  I think that's a good message.  And not even the skeptical, presumably traditionalist author of the piece you cite seems to be half as outraged and angry as you are.

    Sorry but you haven't produced the goods. Not even close.  Meanwhile I must move on.


    The victim blaming is absolutely there (none / 0) (#158)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    You have your eyes closed!
    But please, move on---you obviously have a closed mind. I see something of a rigid, fundamentalist mind set in you.

    BTW (and this is obvious to (none / 0) (#160)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    anyone who doesn't possess a rigid, fundamentalist, fawning mindset towards Chopra), the victim blaming consists of him asserting sole agency for recovery to the patient.

    DOH! Should have been obvious to me that (none / 0) (#162)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    proper approach was to go directly to what Deepak himself says. He is unembarrassed about being an absolute fool---after all, he has ridden the fool train to extraordinary wealth.

    He believes this shite???

    Chopra believes A) that cancer is caused by childhood emotional stress, and B) that EVERY person who has a remission from cancer has a concurrent change in attitude towards a more positive outlook.

    Look, I am 50. I have a layman's education on cancer and medicine. I know these claims are complete bunk. Positive thinking has no effect on the course of illness; in fact, it's a terrible demand to make of someone who is suffering from a life-threatening illness that they must have a positive view towards life.

    Chopra takes advantage of sick people for his own profit, just like any snake-oil salesman.
    He is a repellent figure. I need to take a shower after spending this much time thinking about him and his "ideas".


    Your intransigence and (none / 0) (#159)
    by observed on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    mental opacity have made me determined to find a better quote. This will mean wading through a mountain of obsequious pro-Chopra BS, but I'm interested, so I will do it.

    Tha sounds like a 10-hour show! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    Will be listening with great interest.

    For whatever reason, I couldn't get (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    the show today; will try the podcast when it goes up.

    600-Year-Old Bras Uncovered in Austrian Castle (none / 0) (#3)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    Four of them and they look very similar to modern day versions, a few, complete with lace.

    EBAY!!!!: (none / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    Probably commissioned (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    by an accidental time traveling woman of exceptional courage and beauty.  

    What?  Nobody else reads that kind of fiction?


    I Was Thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    ...Marty McFly went on a perv run.

    whew! (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:04:29 PM EST
    Thanks.  I was starting to think no one got my sense of humor... :)

    Ann Romney says "You people" (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    have all the information on their taxes that you need.
    "y'all mind your place now. Don't git uppity".

    Thats no way to speak... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    to your husband's potential employer during the interview process!

    Imagine applying for a job, and when questioned on a gap in your resume, you say "you people have all the info you need".  Would you expect to get the job?  Talk about a sense of entitlement.


    I didn't think it was possible (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    for a Repub presumed nominee for prez to sound more entitled, more smugly arrogant and snobbishly U-class and proud of it than Poppy, Bar and Junior.  But I think the Mittster and his dressage wife may have surpassed the Bushes in this coveted category.

    But for the sluggish economy, with potentially more depressing news to come, and the GOP Suppress the Vote effort, Obama would be looking at a landslide re-elect right now.

    Still, with those two major impediments, I like O's chances today a lot more than a month ago. Gotta stay on the attack though.


    um, Poppy won. (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    I don't think "rich, out of touch republican" is a bad dynamic  for a GOP candidate, much as we would like to  believe otherwise.

    Not a second term... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    and a big reason why (right or wrong) was Bush I looked like he never saw a supermarket checkout scanner before, nor had a clue what a gallon of milk was going for.

    It may be a stupid way to choose a leader, but being totally out of touch with the commoners has never been a positive for a pres. candidate. Ya gotta pretend and act as if you do at least.

    Though that may not matter so much anymore in this polarized era of cable news and the internet.


    You know (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    and a big reason why (right or wrong) was Bush I looked like he never saw a supermarket checkout scanner before, nor had a clue what a gallon of milk was going for.

    that's a myth, don't you?


    Perception is reality... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:02:37 PM EST
    I'm sure Bush I did know what a supermarket scanner is, but looking like a kid at Christmas in that photo-op said ten thousand words, and none of them good.

    It's not a "myth," but honestly, ... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    ... let's be fair to Poppy Bush here. Bar codes and scanners were first introduced into general circulation in 1980, and still weren't nearly as common in 1992 as we'd like to remember they were. Only the large retailers could really afford them, and until the price for such a system came down later in the decade, a lot of smaller stores and shops worked with keyboard cash registers.

    But more to the point, I hardly think a sitting vice president (1981-89) and president (1989-93) would've been allowed by his Secret Service security details -- particularly in the aftermath of John Hinckley's attempted assassination of President Reagan in Mar. 1981 -- to venture out in public to do his own grocery shopping at the neighborhood market, even if he was so inclined.

    So, while that rather disastrous 1992 campaign photo op of George H.W. Bush looking mesmerized by a supermarket bar code scanner did in fact happen, there's also an entirely rational explanation why he appeared so curious to learn how one worked. And while those videos and photos offered most of us some good and hearty laughs at his expense, I believe in retrospect that he got a bum rap over it.



    True, bar codes were (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    somewhat novel at the time, but wristwatches were not.  I think Daddy Bush got clocked when he checked his preppy wristwatch on camera in the midst of  the Clinton, Perot, Bush presidential debate in 1992.  Bush seemed uneasy or bored, or both,  by a question from an audience member on how a deep recession had personally affected him.  His out-of-touch moment seemed to many to have been freighted with deeper meaning--like how much more of this manure do I have to endure from these people.

    Of course he wouldn't do (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    his own shopping, but he also was Director of the CIA, so I'm positive that he saw more advanced much more sophisticated technology than a supermarket scanner.

    And I highly doubt that's what cost him the election.

    It's just a shame that this keeps getting repeated and the photo forwarded on.


    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    That election's been over for 20 years. Move on.

    But it's one of those (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    Things that get caught in the lore like "The Clinton people cut cords and popped off all the W's of the computer keyboards in the White House when they left," "I can see Alaska from my house," or "Obama was born in Kenya."

    None of those are true, of course, but it doesn't stop people who do not like the politician in question from actually believing it.  Dems and Republicans are equally as guilty.


    You're right. Poppy won - ... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    ... twenty-four years ago. And four years later, Poppy Bush lost because he was, well, a "rich, out of touch Republican" who didn't know what a bar code was.

    I daresay most voters hardly begrudge the rich their wealth. That said, wealthy people like the Bushes and the Romneys incur a lot of resentment because of their consistent failure to show any real sense of understanding and empathy for the concerns and struggles of the middle class and working poor. And when candidates like Mitt Romney deign to do so for strictly political purposes, it comes across as starkly patronizing, i.e., "Let me tell you a little about myself -- I'm also unemployed."

    The Romneys' obvious and thinly-veiled sense of noblesse oblige and entitlement stands in marked contrast to the style of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, who like Mittens were both similarly born into wealth and privilege, yet managed over the course of their lives to develop and maintain a real personal connection with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder (and often much to the consternation of FDR's aristocratic and overbearing mother, Sara Delano Roosevelt).

    I grew up in a family that can be considered fairly wealthy and well off by most any standards, and I was often told by my grandparents that to whom much is given, much is to be expected. My grandmother in particular tried to live her life by example, and was always trying to help other people, particularly the less fortunate. After she retired from running her father's general contracting firm, she volunteered at the L.A. Chapter of the American Red Cross, serving on the board and as a community program director, which even included spending two days a week driving the elderly, invalids and the infirm to doctor's appointments, etc., across the length and breadth of greater metropolitan Los Angeles.

    Excuse me for saying so, but I have a very hard time envisioning someone like Ann Romney ever doing the same. Now, to be fair, she's been dealing with multiple sclerosis for about 15 years(it's now in remission), but still, what does she and Mitt really do personally to make a practical difference in their community -- or should I say, communities? As far as I know, they've been quite generous with supporting their own Mormon Church, but that seems to be pretty much it as far as public obligations are concerned.



    Again, (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    not true

    And four years later, Poppy Bush lost because he was, well, a "rich, out of touch Republican" who didn't know what a bar code was.

    He lost because Ross Perot entered the race and took almost 19% of the vote (19 million + votes) and allowed Clinton to win without a majority.


    That's overly simplistic. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 because he ran on cruise control and his listless campaign failed to connect with voters.
    In fact, Bill Clinton held a commanding 55% - 31% lead over Bush at the end of both parties' nominating conventions that year, and maintained a consistent 13 to 17 point lead (depending on the poll) until Ross Perot re-entered the race later that fall -- so one could just as plausibly argue that Perot's candidacy actually siphoned away a lot more votes from Clinton than from Bush.

    And I'm not going to get into it with you any further, because given my experience with you, you're probably not inclined to listen anyway.



    Pot. Kettle. (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    But I probably would get a dissertation from you on an unrelated topic.

    And you're not into dissertations. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:41:06 PM EST
    That would require you to use some thought. You quite obviously prefer the simplicity of GOP sound bites and media platitudes.

    No (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    I prefer disserations that actually have to do with the subject at hand.

    But thank you once again for calling me stupid.

    What a DB comment.


    The supermarket scanner story (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    may have been exaggerated or misinterpreted, but no one in 1992 doubted he was out of touch with the average American's economic concerns, in contrast to Bill Clinton's ability to connect with ordinary people, as with the town hall debate where the woman asked Poppy how the national debt situation impacted his own life.  

    Bush didn't seem to get it, and looked bad seeming to talk down to her for asking an imprecisely worded Q.  Clinton immediately sensed what she was talking about and may have won the election right then and there by answering directly to her concerns.

    Perot may have helped slightly, but w/o him BC still would have prevailed.  After 12 years of Reagan/Poppy Republicant rule with the middle class unhappy with the economy, it was going to be a change election.


    Saying you're (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    myth busting while spreading myths is not doing yourself any good. The truth the matter is that Ross Perot did not let Bill Clinton "win" or Bush Sr. lose. That is an urban legend. The truth of the matter is that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race because Perot's votes would have been split 50/50 between Bush Sr. and Clinton.

    Are you sure Perot helped Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:11:25 PM EST
    I thought analysis of the votes showed he did not.

    Entitlement is true (none / 0) (#72)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    But one could only wish for noblesse oblige.
    the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth

    You're right on that one. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    That was obviously the wrong choice of snooty-sounding French terminology on my part. Thanks for correcting me on that. But like you said, one could still hope ...

    Yes, and us people were thrown (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    a juicy clue to their income from her boast that Ann and Mitt give ten percent of their income to the Mormon Church.  So we are getting somewhere, we just need the dollar amount of that annual donation for the past 12 years or so, and the surrounding documents.

    However, I am not entirely taken with playing puzzle with Ann, not to mention being less than thrilled to learn that the Romney's contributions to their Church may have been a part of the Mormon campaigns for CA Prop 8 and for keeping gay boys out of the BSA.

    Although Mrs. Romney's statement is a sign of crass warfare, it has a way to go to match that of Barbara Bush: "And, so many people in the arena here you know, were underprivileged anyway so this is working out very well for them."   ..on Katrina evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept 5, 2005.  


    Yeah (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    Those uppity people cling to their guns and their religion and might even knit and shouldn't be heard from.



    Apparently, folks need to be careful about (none / 0) (#8)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    discussing members of the Romney family. According to ABC News even the horse is off limits.

    Refalca stated that Seamus had it coming... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    There's some bad blood between the various Romney species.

    The $50 tax deduction? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    Try "$77,000." (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    Now, to be fair, that number actually represents Romney's 2010 deduction for a business loss for a dressage horse-owning company:

    "In the ensuing years, [Ann Romney's] involvement in the sport moved well beyond her own riding. Mrs. Romney and three partners (including Ebeling's wife Amy) formed a corporation, Rob Rom Enterprises, Inc., that owns horses in various stages of competition. The Romneys' share of the financial burden is unclear, though there are hints in Mitt Romney's tax and disclosure documents that suggest it is significant. Romney's 2010 tax return indicates that Rob Rom Enterprises incurred more than $77,000 in losses that year. Gov. Romney's 2010 financial disclosure form lists the Romney stake in Rob Rom at between $250,000 and $500,000. The Romneys also reported loaning between $250,000 and $500,000 to The Acres, through The Acres' ownership group, ACR Enterprises." (Emphasis is mine.)

    But in the world of politics, it may prove a diffference without any real distinction, as far as the voting public may be concerned. At least, that seems to be what Democrats are planning on.


    Actually, wrong (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:50:16 PM EST
    It is correct that they incurred a $77,00 loss (actually, almost $78,000).  But since the dressage horse is considered a "hobby", the Romneys only get to deduct $50.

    The way this works is that the Romneys, the Ebelings, and Beth Meyers have together formed a corporate entity called "Rob Rom Enterprises LLC," which owns Rafalca and pays for his upkeep. The Romneys reported $77,731 in "passive losses" related to their investment in Rob Rom Enterprises, but of that their account only deemed $50 to be actually eligible for deduction. The forms don't explain the thinking behind that, but it's probably because losses from your horse corporation can't be used to offset unrelated income. If Rafalca had brought in more money, then Rafalca's care and feeding expenses could be deducted from that income, but in 2010 Rob Rom Enterprises doesn't seem to have had much income.

    Which is not to say, that since the horse is an Olympian, and may now command higher breeding fees, that someday (if they decide to breed her), then those losses could'nt be carried forward, thanks to a weird tweak in the tax code.

    But for now, my statement is correct, and the horse is a $50 tax deduction.


    Stop telling me that I'm "wrong." (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:35:14 PM EST
    Did you even bother to actually read what I wrote?:

    "Now, to be fair, that number [of $77,000] that number actually represents Romney's 2010 deduction for a business loss for a dressage horse-owning company.

    Further, I then cited the source, ABC News, and quoted the paragraph from whence the $77,000 number came. Finally, I concluded with the following:
    "But in the world of politics, it may prove a difference without any real distinction, as far as the voting public may be concerned. At least, that seems to be what Democrats are planning on."

    Therefore, Mitt Romney declared over $77,000 in losses on his 2010 returns for dressage horses, and given the political arguments currently being made by Democrats over the airwaves, it's quite apparent that's the takeway number which they're betting most people will remember here -- not the $50 figure cited in Slate.

    Because in politics, whenever you find yourself on the defensive and are thus having to explain yourself in rather great detail -- particularly when the subject is public or private finances -- then the odds are better than even that you're losing the practical political argument in public, even if you may be entirely right in your logical assertion.

    Now, how exactly is that argument "wrong"?

    Jeez, jb, is it now your mission to take issue with and quibble over every single thing I say, even if you have to focus on the literal and mundane, or take it out of context? If it is, then you really need to get a life.


    Actually (3.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    What the Dems (and liberal blogs) are running with (and what they are counting on - people not understanding the difference) is that Romney took a $77,000 tax deduction on his horse, which simply isn't true. The fact that Democrats have stooped so low with this story, and others like it, into complete lying, tells us that the transformation is complete and there is no principle they are willing to sell if it means getting re-elected, just like the Republicans.  In other words, since they can't or won't try to convince voters why they are better because they (allegedly) have better policies, they have to resort to outright lying and treating voters like we are stupid.  Maybe you're ok with that in the name of winning, but I am not.

    And it grates me to no end to see intelligent people around here who, most of the time, have rational and coherent arguments and knowledge, resort to parroting Democratic talking points and piling on anyone who calls them out on it - again, especially when those talking points are lies.  You are all better than the Fox News crowd - why act like them?

    Somedays around the liberal blogosphere, it's like the Body Snatchers have invaded.


    I bet you couldn't find 10 people in the (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    media who understand what passive losses are and how they are treated for tax purposes, and that's in large part why we keep getting this kind of misinformation.

    Losses from passive activity can only be used to offset passive income  - they cannot be used to offset earned or ordinary income.  To the extent you have more passive losses than passive income, you get to carry them forward.

    But it's further complicated by the Alternative Minimum Tax rules.

    The bottom line is that they had $50 more in allowable losses than they had income, and that's where the deduction came from.

    Now, we all know that in the limited time the media have to explain anything, they are not going to give a tutorial on the passive activity and AMT rules - not if they don't want to put the nation to sleep.  

    But there is no excuse for allowing the flatly wrong talking point that the Romneys' got a $77,000+ deduction to become fact.


    Do you find it unlikely that Rmoney (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:18:44 PM EST
    will have passive income that will be offset by the remaining $77K+ in the next few years?

    Someone who understands the tax implications might think it reasonable to assume that the entire amount will end up being deducted over the next couple of years.  But explaining that in a news article would not get past a news editor.  So, it gets simplified for public consumption.


    Oh, I'm sure he will get to use it - (none / 0) (#143)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    but there's nothing wrong with that - it's the tax code that allows it.

    Here's a pretty good explanation from Forbes:

    Rob Rom [the horse] is reported on the Romneys' returns as a "passive activity"--meaning a business they don't materially participate in running. There are special rules for  claiming passive activity losses under Section 469 of the U.S. Tax Code-- added as part of  the 1986 tax reform  to try to limit tax shelters. Generally, you can only deduct losses from a passive activity to the extent you have current income from another passive activity.

    The Romneys' 2010 return shows $2,276,385 in losses from various passive activities, including a loss of $77,731 from Rob Rom, but just $2,120 in passive income.  Since the taxpayer must allocate passive income proportionately against passive losses, only $49 of their passive horse loss could be used.

    Tough, huh? But you don't forfeit the passive losses you can't use. Instead they're "suspended" and can be carried forward and used in future years to the extent you have income from other passive activities. Moreover, when you sell all of a money losing passive investment, any unused losses from it are liberated and can be claimed against non-passive taxable income. If Mitt wins and Ann sells her share of Rob Rom,  their suspended horse losses could, for example, be  deducted against Mitt's $400,000 Presidential salary.

    Hope this makes sense!


    Basically (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    If I understand this correctly...

    If you run a butcher shop, but do scrapbooking on the side to sell at craft fairs, you cannot decut your scrapbooking expenses out of your butcher shop because those expenses are not related to the running of the butcher shop.

    Now years go by, and your scrapbooking is a success, and you buy the space next to your butcher shop to sell scrapbooks.  You can then carry forward those scrapbooking expenses. (Probably justified as you were "building the business")

    The Romneys may, at some point, be able to deduct the $77,000+ loss in the future if, for example, they breed the horse and build up the business that way, then it could go from being "passive" to "active".


    FYI, in the world they're playing in (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    you don't make money from breeding the horse (esp. if it's a mare), you sell it because it becomes vastly more valuable if it wins a medal at the Olympics.

    If you were actually in the horse-breeding business, you might breed it and hope to sell the offspring, but if you're in it for the investment, you won't take that chance.  You'll just sell it.  Happens all the time to great riders, they get their best horses sold out from under them and then somebody else gets hired to ride them.


    "If you want to make a small fortune in (none / 0) (#165)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    the horse business, start with a large one."

    Truer words were never spoken!


    Which is what drives me the craziest (none / 0) (#146)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    And the fact that even some people around here parrot those talking points and refuse to back down, even in the face of, you know, facts.

    You were right in post 59. (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    If the goalposts won't stay put, don't count on any field goals.

    No reason for the DNC to run ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    ... those ads, when John Stewart and Steven Colbert are already finding ways to introduce Rafalca into the public conversation on a near-weekly basis.

    Thanks for the site link, btw (none / 0) (#69)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:28:04 PM EST
    I've added it to my bookmarks for later traversing. Some days a little humor is the only way to deal with the political crazy train.

    Wealthy Women (none / 0) (#28)
    by bison on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    To be sure, I do not know any truly wealthy women, they do not shop in WalMart; but that doesn't mean that I lack the ability to try to indentify and understand their sensibilities and intent.  Nonetheless, I keep coming back to an uncomfortable feeling that Ann Romney feels that her husband is entitled to the presidency, and she, like her husband, lacks a certain understanding of the middling sort in America.
    In interview April 2012 she said "I believe it's Mitt's time. I believe the country needs the kind of leadership he's going to offer... So I think it's our turn now." That statement smelled of entitlement.
    Today, she said, "we given all people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life."  This statement connotes class snobbery. The America people cannot scrutinize their finances, but they can make fiscal policies that will effect American  people's lives.

    Actually, what Ann Romney said was (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    "we have given all you people need to know. . . "

    It was the "you people" that revealed, for me, her true feelings about those of us in the lower orders.


    Couldn't "you people" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    Be directed at the journalists who keep asking the question?

    difference without a distinction (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    Furthermore, if she thinks this is only about what journalists want to know, rather than what the public is entitled to know, it makes her remark even worse, in my opinion.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    Sure the public is entitled to know this stuff.  

    But wouldn't you get a little huffy if people ("journalists") kept asking you the same question, expecting a different answer?

    Maybe she does think the little people have no right to know.  But is this really news?  Seems it's right on par with Michelle's comment about for the first time in her life, she was proud of her country.  

    People running for president (and their spouses) really ARE in a different time zone than the rest of us.


    No Doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    ...and all this GD nit picking... there is no doubt that comment was directed at the press and how many people get hung with 'You People' by people who know damn well it wasn't directed at them.  She wasn't address us and everyone knows it.

    Who cares, what they should be reporting is details about the actual candidate.  I don't give a F what their moms, their spouses or their kids think about anything.  They will not be signing legislation that effects me, leave them alone and quit reporting on the most insignificant non-sense of relatives.

    Where does Mitt stand today on Social Security, the budget, the deficit, not campaign blurbs, report what their actual plans are.  How is Mitt going to create job ?  If he's gonna cut taxes, what is he going to kill, who is going to suffer ?  That is sh1t that matters to us.

    I wouldn't mind seeing his tax returns, but then again I don't care that much.  So the rich guy paid people to maximize his wealth legally, shocker.  I want to know what he will do if he is charge ?

    Because to a person like me, there is no difference in his wealth or Obama's, they both have more money then will ever spend and steadily making sure it grows.


    Ross Perot addressed the NAACP once (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    With "you people.". A friend of mine--quite astute when it comes to a range of takes--said:  "And, what color is Robin Roberts (the interviewer)?

    You have got it backwards (none / 0) (#119)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:55:55 PM EST
    Show me the tax returns and sources of incomes of candidates and the friends they keep and I can tell you everything that they will do for policy! I do not need to hear what they say they will do for policy.
    I really do not care what Mittens says he will do for policy if he is in charge. I am sure that any thing he says can always get etch-a-sketched when necessary.

    Well, if you are a Romney supporter, sure (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    Ann Romney and Michelle Obama are peas in a pod.

    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    Just comments made by (potential) first ladies who make them sound elitist, whether or not they actually feel that way.

    first time I'm proud of this country (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by CST on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    sounds like a lot of things, but I wouldn't say it's elitist.

    And a lot of people hammered her for it.  In fact, you seem to bring up the "clinging to the guns and religion" quote whenever possible.  So it begs the question, why are you okay hammering the Obamas on being out of touch with certain groups, but think we should all just leave Mitt alone, and it's off limits to question?

    IMO, this stuff is telling.  Obama IS out of touch with certain people as is Romney - hence Geithner.  And we get the policy results we can expect from it.  In the case of the Romneys, with the tax argument on the table I find it relevant.  Why should he and people like him continue to pay low taxes?  Are his taxes lower than the average worker - and why should we keep it that way?  At the expense of funding social programs, all while screaming about the deficit.  Obama at least seems to think he can afford to pay higher taxes.

    I saw Michelle's comment as one coming from a dark place for black people in America.  You may or may not agree with that statement, but it's not exactly elitist.  If anything it's angry and a little bitter.


    Saw Sheila Bair on Bill Moyers over the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    weekend. During their discussion of rising income inequality,  Bair stated that there is no good reason to tax capital gains at a lower rate than income from a job is taxed. She said it is bad policy.

    She also stated that the claim that a lower capital gains tax rate creates jobs is false. We have years and years of data that shows that the lower tax rate does nothing for job creation and everything for keeping the very rich all the richer. The so-called job creators are not creating jobs. (Have to say I wish Obama would start making this point at every campaign stop.)

    Sheila explained many things about the financial crisis and the failure of the regulators to regulate and the failure of Congress to re-regulate. And she did it in a clear and direct and easy to understand way.


    Hey (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    the Obamas pay a lower tax rate than the average American too.

    I really don't care what's in the Romneys' or Obamas' tax records or offshore accounts, or income from foreign book sales. They are all very rich people - I get it. It's not like it's a surprise or anything.

    I'd rather hear about what you Barack and you Mitt are going to do for this country.  What is your plan?  With details.  How is that going to help me and mine?

    But no, when you don't have a plan and you have a terrible record (both candidates), all you can do is throw mud.


    which is exactly why (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by CST on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    I don't think they should extend the tax rate cuts for Obama or Mitt Romney - they don't need it.  The difference is Obama seems to agree with that statement and Romney doesn't.

    That is a policy issue and it's absolutely relevant.  I care because when they start screaming about the deficit like they always do - guess who's benefits are going to be on the chopping block?

    We know that for the D's - it's mostly tax increases and defense cuts, and that Obama at least has attempted increasing funding for healthcare.  And we know that Mitt Romney supports the Ryan budget - which slashes his taxes even further and drastically cuts necessary services.  That is Mitt Romney's "endorsed" plan.

    This isn't just mud slinging, it's about tax policy.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:54:31 PM EST
    Oh, I'd almost forgotten about (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    the persistent Republican talking point about Michelle Obama that you noted.  (<yes, this is snark.>

    I think so, yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    Couldn't "you people" (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 12:53:57 PM EST

    Be directed at the journalists who keep asking the question?

    I just don't think it was directed exclusively to the [so-called] journalists.

    I think it was simply an ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    ... unfortunate choice of words on Ann Romney's part, not unlike her husband's "I enjoy being able to fire people who provide me services."

    Out of context, what she said obviously sounds snobby and elitist. But within the context of the conversation she was having with a journalist, she was obviously expressing her own sense of personal exasperation with the media on the subject of her husband's tax returns. I honestly didn't see it as anything demeaning to people in general. So, to me at least, it's a non-issue.


    Mrs. Romney isn't running for office, but like (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Farmboy on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    every spouse she is a part of the campaign. When she comes off like a gilded-age matriarch from an Edith Wharton novel, intentionally or not, I'm confident Mitt's handlers will deal with it.

    It's the klein bottle logic employed by her husband's campaign that really caught my eye this morning. It takes a special view on reality to interpret an ad that mocks Mitt by employing a dancing horse metaphor as really an ad attacking Ann and mocking her MS.

    Personally, I think the DNC was out-crazied on this one.


    I agree. It is a jointly owned (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:25:52 PM EST
    horse, after all.  Not sure in which state the horse resides though.  

    I believe it's either ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:35:23 PM EST
    ... confusion or anxiety.



    It's actually kind of a non-issue to me, too (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    I haven't see video of the actual comment -- I've only seen quotes.  What I have seen is part of Robin Roberts' interview with her on GMA.  She came off as pretty likeable.  Something Cindy McCain was never able to accomplish.  I realize what kind of program Good Morning America is, but it's watched by an awful lot of people.

    she seems like (none / 0) (#95)
    by CST on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    A perfectly nice human being who can afford to pay higher taxes as the wife of someone who isn't the president.

    That's pretty much it :) (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    A perfectly nice human being who can afford to pay higher taxes as the wife of someone who isn't the president.
    She also isn't running for President (even though she does tend to talk about herself as a kind of co-candidate).  Asking her about the tax returns sounds like lazy journalism to me.  Ask the d@mn candidate, not the candidate spouse.

    Oops (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:35:22 PM EST
    I hadn't realized that the "you people" thing was on GMA.  Well, all I can is that if y'all are counting on rank and file viewers to be all up in arms about it, you might have another think coming.  

    Unfortunately, overall Anne Romney came off very well in the few minutes I saw of it.  I have it on in the background while I get ready for work.  I don't know -- it seems that's how a lot of people watch those shows.  I don't see a whole lot of people glued to the TV for them.  That's why they're segment oriented.

    Go ahead and attempt to make a big deal about it.  It doesn't hurt.  Maybe it will stick.  But all the outrage here sounds a little overdone to me.  And I have no use for either Romney.


    I agree with you that, (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:00:50 PM EST
     ".....overall Anne Romney came off very well....."

    But, the problem with that is that people (not you, certainly) will confuse "coming off very well" with the policies her husband, and his Party, want to foist on our country.

    I always worry when I see a Republican who is good looking, affable, and speaks in an empathetic, conciliatory voice. Knowing that R-politicians vote in an almost 100% lockstep manner when promoting their sadistic program of Class Warfare on the majority of Americans, the more attractive they are, the more dangerous they are.

    p.s. That goes for D-politicians too, but in a somewhat diminished degree. (See B.O.)


    The "you people" stunner (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    Says more than a study or column could convey.  IMO, she will be a valuable ally for sure...for the Democrats. While previous forays by Ann-toinette have hinted at a harshness that could be problematic--e.g., the recent charge that Obama & the WH were trying to "kill" her husband with campaign attacks--this mis-step may become the stuff of legend cited as the not-to-do advice for would-be First Ladies.  It may be that the primary accomplishment from the interview was to reinforce the elite out-of-touch image of Mitt while revealing the hatchet quality of Ann-toilette.

    And, as for the Mitt:  Hiding behind the wife as she delivers the political message on The Won't-Release-His-Tax-Returns matter is not going to erase the wimp & weenie image that has been shadowing him.


    That's pure wishful thinking (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    And really laughable.  Anne Romney may yet shoot herself in the foot and do some collateral damage to her husband's campaign, but it didn't happen in that interview.  Except in the minds of those who are predisposed to be antagonistic.  It will cement pre-conceptions -- which is all your hyperbole is reflecting here.

    This bit of "creative" writing is ... I don't know what.  Embarrassing, I guess.

    It may be that the primary accomplishment from the interview was to reinforce the elite out-of-touch image of Mitt while revealing the hatchet quality of Ann-toilette.

    I'm telling you outright: I have zero fondness for the Romneys and yet the image she projected while I put my shoes on was of a perfectly nice person.  As for this:
    And, as for the Mitt:  Hiding behind the wife as she delivers the political message on The Won't-Release-His-Tax-Returns matter is not going to erase the wimp & weenie image that has been shadowing him.
    She hardly issued a statement.  She was asked a question and she answered it.  Clumsily I think, but not shockingly.  

    Stand down.  If you need red meat, I'm sure it will show up.  But this is more like... pink slime.  No real substance.


    You couldn't have said it better! (none / 0) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    And, that's what makes Anne Romney such an asset for Mitt....and, so dangerous for everyone else.

    Well, judging by the number of comments (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    on this in many other forums--similar to mine by the way--I'm not alone in my thinking.

    You seem to have strong views as well, sj.  As we often do, we differ.  Of course, my high dudgeon is the stuff of politics...as is yours, IMO.  (An opinion I hold as strongly as you hold yours.)  I'm not going to slime you by talking about slime.  Ann-toinette gave us a present, we Dems, by moving from candidate's wife to almost putative candidate with her political spiel in the interview.  View it however you wish; and, a lot of us view it differently. (Laura Bush was much more effective...Ms. Romney seems a bit more like Laura's mother-in-law, Barbara Bush.)


    Judge by all the comments you want (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:43:02 PM EST
    But I expect most of them are from those who think like you do, are anxious for Obama to win, and seek every advantage for him.  That's not snark -- when I'm behind a candidate I'm the same way.  

    I'm commenting based on watching the interview.  Or, more accurately, by watching part of the interview.  That's how a lot of people watch the morning TV "news" magazines.  Your guy didn't gain nearly the advantage that you think he did.

    I actually tend to agree with you that she's more like Barbara Bush than Laura.  But that's based on what I know about her in advance.  And I think you're forgetting how much of the population didn't see BB for the snake that she is.  People actually liked her... thought she was "grandmotherly".  Grandmother from hell, in my opinion, but my opinion wasn't all that widely shared.  But I digress.  I'm telling you what I saw -- she didn't make me shudder.  

    FWIW that "Ann-toinette" (or "Ann-toilette" which you also typed) strikes me as rather schoolyard.  I find that even more childish than Mittens, which a lot of people also like.  But that's just me.


    Hey, sj...thanks (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    'Agree with a good part of your comment...especially as to how Mrs. Bush, Sr. was viewed (My dislike stemmed from her commentary on G. Ferraro as to rhyming.) As to Mrs. Romney's questionable comment: Sure, it has no long-lasting effect except--probably-to reinforce views of the Romneys as the very distant, unbending, uncaring very rich.  Her comment reinforces & negatively influences, to some extent, those who might not be too familiar with her.  

    As for myself: Normally, I stay away from the usual nicknames, cutesy names & terms (even the ones coined here), etc.  But--in all honesty--the Romney comments of which we speak today nailed home the arrogance IMO.  And--whether its not altogether "adult" of me, I cannot get the sobriquet "Ann-toinette" out of my imaging for Mrs. Romney. At least, for now.  


    You probably won't approve of my name (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    for the presumptive Republican candidate, Dubya Mitt Romney.

    Oddly enough, (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    I hear no fingernails on a chalkboard with that one :)

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    I don't find the "you people" in itself particularly offensive. I find the fact that she thinks she knows better than you and I what we should see w/r/t their taxes. She wants us to "hire" her husband for President but doesn't think that we should be able to make a judgement on whether we should vote for him. I guess we're just supposed to take his or her word for all this. Ugh.

    Yes....that is the stuff of elitism. (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    I'm prety sure she meant journalists... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 05:41:10 AM EST
    ...but whether it's all they need to know is immaterial.

    What matters is if enough of what the American people need to know has been released.

    It hasn't, not by a long shot.


    Is Mrs. Romney a former school teacher? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    Ah, the laboratories of democracy (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Kansas goes full-Ryan.

    Well I'm glad they are willing to sacrifice themselves..... to prove Ryan and the GOP wrong.

    I can't watch the ad (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:21:12 PM EST
    But in this month's Smithsonian Magazine, they have a piece titled "The Romneys' Mexican History"

    (There is also one titled "A Journey to Obama's Kenya")

    Rock Goes to College, part 2 (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    Posted the old Police performance (link) on this show a few days ago, now it's AC/DC with original singer, the late Bon Scott (link).  One sh*tty night back in '79 I tuned in to PBS in L.A. and caught these two episodes. Rocked my tube socks right off.  

    My sister was the AC/DC fan (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    but I always thought the song title 'Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap' was genius! Thanks for the old videos. Love this stuff.

    Angus Young with a smoking satchel on his back... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    Now that's pretty funny. Low tech at its "finest."

    The 2012 Emmy Award nominations ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    ... were announced this morning in Los Angeles. As expected, ABC's Modern Family, AMC's Mad Men, HBO's Game Change, PBS's Downton Abbey and FX's American Horror Story lead the way with multiple nominations.

    But one darkhorse to watch is the History Channel's critically acclaimed Hatsfields & McCoys, which received a Best Movie or Miniseries nod, along with four acting nominations for Kevin Costner (Lead Actor), Bill Paxton (Lead Actor), Mare Winningham (Supporting Actress) and Tom Berenger (Supporting Actor).

    Although Amy Poehler was nominated (none / 0) (#77)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    for best actress - comedy, her show Parks and Rec, was not. Too bad, I say.

    I heard Hatfieds and McCoys was good, but (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    I missed it. Will hope they re-run it or I can find it online.

    Do 4 of the best actor in a comedy series nominees really have to come from Modern Family? That seems absurd.

    Will have to toss a coin for rooting interest between Jon Hamm and Bryan Cranston. I fear Claire Danes will win, but I prefer...anyone else.


    Saw an episode and part (none / 0) (#114)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    of part two.  Decided to bail because 1) I have a thing about directors constantly shooting interiors in the dark for artsy or overly realistic mood effect and this one tested my patience early and often; 2) too many hateful knuckledragging maroons in both families constantly escalating petty squabbles into line-drawing matters that need to be settled by guns; 3) too many score-settling shootin's in a two hour episode for my taste.  Prefer just one or two, not a half dozen.

    Other than that, fine performances could be occasionally seen through the dim light by Costner, Paxton, Winningham and the rest.  I got no quarrel with them, no siree, and I don't intend to start nothin' with the director neither on accounta some of the things I've sed here.


    The problem with that is ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 08:51:43 PM EST
    ... that it WAS a violent blood feud -- and a rather legendary one, at that -- conducted by people who weren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. I don't see how you can effectively convey in a film a realistic sense (or senselessness, as it were) of what it was all about, without strewing a few bodies about over the course of a two-hour episode.

    P.S.: You defintely would've taken issue with Michael Cimino's big-budget 1980 bomb, Heaven's Gate. I think I was one of the few who saw it in the theatres back in the day, and I thought that Cimino must've waited for a rain or dust storm to arise before he began each day's scheduled shoot. He called it "realism." I called it "annoying."


    Donald, I know. (none / 0) (#142)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 08:46:12 AM EST
    If you grew up American, you know about that famous inter-family feud.  I was just being facétieux.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:24:13 PM EST

    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#113)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 07:31:04 PM EST
    Turkish spam, again.  It's getting to be a regular thing.

    Googled "Lackland Air Force Base" (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:35:52 PM EST
    just now and then selected "news."  Lots of major media re GOP holding up investigations, trial in progress, and back story.  

    Have any of you seen "Take This Waltz"? (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    Interesting indie film, with highly divergent reviews.  Michelle Williams, Seth Rogen, Ssrah Silverman,Luke Kirby.  Written and directed by Sarah Polley.  

    oh wow (none / 0) (#123)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    Complete travesty in Missouri:

    In a controversial case that involved the rights of illegal immigrants and their young children, a Guatemalan mother lost her effort today to get back the five-year old son who was taken away from her after her arrest on immigration charges and put up for adoption in Missouri despite her objections.
    A Missouri judge ruled the boy should stay with the Missouri couple, Melinda and Seth Moser, who took him into their home five years ago while his mother was in federal custody, where she attempted in vain to oppose the adoption proceedings.[...]

    The child, born as Carlos but renamed Jamison by the Mosers, has been with his adoptive parents in Carthage, Missouri since the age of 11 months.

    The judge said the biological mother had no rights to even see her child, according to the mother's lawyer.

    The ruling today reaffirmed the original decision by another Missouri judge who terminated the parental rights of Bail Romero, stating that "illegally smuggling herself into the country is not a lifestyle that can provide any stability for the child."
    The Missouri Supreme Court called the initial decision a "travesty of justice" and ordered a review of the case by a second judge.

    Not the "path to citizenship" we need for children brought to this country by undocumented parents.

    Oh wow, is right (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:53:32 PM EST
    How is this different from the Native American children that were forcibly removed from their homes?  The USA has a long ugly history of such acts.

    Actually when I went to find a link I was shocked to see that it's still going on.  So I linked to the search instead.


    I can't see the MO Supreme Court ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:38:20 PM EST
    ... letting this decision stand, not after previously denouncing a similar initial decision in the same case.

    meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    As the boy gets older, reuniting him with his mother will become more difficult for everyone involved. This never should have happened.

    Drip Drip Drip (none / 0) (#129)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    Reported in the LAT

    RIP Tom Davis (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jul 19, 2012 at 10:57:24 PM EST
    Those of us of a certain age remember Tom as Al Franken's comedy partner in the early days of SNL. Back when some say the show was actually funny.

    Just 59.

    So sad about Tom Davis. (none / 0) (#138)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:30:00 AM EST
    And those were the glory days of SNL. Franken and Davis were great. And Tom Davis continued to be a very funny guy.

    RIP, Tom.


    I was sorry to see that (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 07:09:18 AM EST
    Brought a lot of laughs to those of us lucky enough to enjoy SNL when it was fresh and new.

    He was an interesting guy who saw a lot of life...someone who's comments on the afterlife would be welcome. Hope it is good to you Tom!