Saturday Night Open Thread

Are you watching the Olympics or following Mitt Romney's latest foibles abroad?

Romney's latest problem at home: Americans just don't like him as much as they do Obama. Here are the Gallup-USA poll numbers.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mick Jagger Turns 69, Rolling Stones Turn 50 | CounterTerror Officials: Tracking "Lone Wolves" Would Mean Fewer Civil Liberties >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe Pres. Obama will (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:57:50 PM EST
    say, "You're likeable enough, Mitt."

    Meanwhile, back @ the opera, Richard Strauss' "Arabella," whose younger sister is raised as a boy 'cause the Count and Countess can't afford to marry off two daughters due to the poor economy and his gambling debts. Of course, the cross-dresser is a mezzo.

    The litany of gaffes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:16:26 AM EST
     Romney has promulgated is strange enough, but if you stop and ponder some of them you can't help, or, at least I can't help, starting to think there's something wrong with him.

    I'm pretty lenient when it comes to excusing famous people, in this case, politicians, some of their foibles. I mean, let's be fair. They're in the public eye 24/7 and some brain farting is to be expected. But,  Romney's stumbling has a different feel to it. And, as always, I think the media is giving Romney a pass when they should be saying, "whoah, wait a minute, this isn't an excusable stumble, there's a side to Romney being displayed that goes beyond the pale."

    I mean, c'mon. a 12 year old child knows not to denigrate a host when attending their function. But Romney, at this late stage of seeking the Presidency, and ostensibly seeking to make a good impression with one of our greatest allies, and in front of the whole world? This isn't a stumble; this is a sickness.

    Catch this from one of the Republican's great sages, and most partisan intellectuals:

    Writing in the Washington Post:

    "On Thursday's "Special Report," Krauthammer launched into a rant about Romney's Olympics comment. "It's unbelievable, it's beyond human understanding, it's incomprehensible. I'm out of adjectives," he lamented.
    He said the purpose of Romney's trip was merely to express solidarity with America's British allies, and say nice things about his foreign hosts.
    "All Romney has to do, say nothing," Krauthammer said. "It's like a guy in the 100-meter dash. All he has to do is to finish, he doesn't have to win. And instead, he tackles the guy in the lane next to him and ends up disqualified. I don't get it."

    Later, Krauthammer also questioned the Romneys' choice to enter Ann's horse into the Olympics. "I'm not sure why the horse has to be in the most upper-class hoity-toity Olympic event ever invented. It's unnecessary," he said."

    And, if that isn't weird enough, I read somewhere that Romney has been telling people that he's not just not going to attend his wife's horse dressage event, he's not even going to watch it on television.

    Can this get any stranger?.

    Romney is awful, but (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:29:44 AM EST
    surely the warning signs from candidate Bush were at least as disturbing.

    But Molly Ivins was sidelined with cancer... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:01:38 AM EST
    ...and couldn't bring them to the nation's attention in the manner they so richly deserved.

    Yes, Bush was a problem, no dispute (none / 0) (#121)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    but, my post was simply my impression of Romney's personality that, for whatever reason, made a strong impression on me. Obviously, I'm no expert on psychology, but Romney scares the crap out of me, and I don't see any useful purpose in comparing Bush vs Romney.

    But, if your point was that Bush was a dimwit....I agree.

    "....at least as disturbing?" In a way, but different.


    Romney still probably (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    belongs more in the Rich Entitled Jerk category -- along with Dubya -- than in the Certifiably Mental group with Nixon and Lyndon.

    Of course there is some overlap between the two groups.  Jerks tend to be reckless and unprincipled, fully capable of starting wars unnecessarily, or subverting our democratic processes for their own gain, just as much as the Mentals.  

    At least with the Mentals we now have that Amendment (25th?) that could remove him for mental disability if certain of those around him in power have the courage to act on their findings.


    Andrew Johnson (none / 0) (#48)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    Because, if you're talking about arguably the best American President post-WW2 as mental, I'm going to have to question your judgement.

    No, Lyndon. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    In part I was referencing above the grave concerns two of his top aides had in the 1964-5 period (coinciding with his VN escalation) as to LBJ's mental state.  This was mentioned in the basic literature of that admin going back to the 1980s and subsequently has not been contested, but merely underplayed by some of his current hagiographers.

    In the end however both aides decided not to act further with their concerns, one of them feeling if he did the tables would quickly be turned on him by fierce Johnson loyalists and presumably Lyndon himself.

    Andrew Johnson strikes me as just a flat out drunk, racist and liar who probably should have been impeached over subverting Congress' intentions on Reconstruction.  Maybe a half bottle of whisky short of being borderline mental.


    Forgot to mention (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    that any president who unnecessarily starts a war, lies about it in front of Congress in order to get a blank check to wage that war, then lies about it repeatedly to the people does not deserve to be elevated to Mt Rushmore.

    And as to domestically, if I had an overwhelming 2-1 party advantage in Congress along with a very accommodating mainstream media, I too could have passed quite a few bills, probably including a national holiday celebrating our ET Visitors from Outer Space.


    Not so clear...about Johnson (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    Coming of age when I did--in the 60s--and being an anti-Vietnam activist at the time (& until it was "over" & beyond), there was a time when I would have saluted any negative commentary about the larger-than-life-type-egoist. But, looking back now & looking forward a bit too, my thinking is that your harsh rebuke of all aspects of his Administration has a strong emotional underpinning that goes too far.  

    Heck, you wouldn't want to project the inaccurate  image that you are as reflexively dismissive of his Presidency as he was about RFK, etc.  Seriously, the situation at the time of the Civil Rights Act in the mid-sixties was not that easy...large majority of not.  Looking at domestic legislation in the 60s we so admire today, considerable evidence (as well as extant memory)exists to support the conclusion that the legislation realized the light of day & became law primarily because of the experience, determination, legislative know-how, use of raw power, etc. by LBJ. He made it happen...for many years, the prime testimony to that has been the change of affiliation from Democratic to Republican in the old "solid south."

    There is a complexity, in a strange way, about LBJ.  Even my husband has come to be able to talk about him in a way that acknowledges the major 20th century domestic advances that LBJ forged/forced. (And, my husband refused to cast his first Presidential ballot for HHH because of Vietnam & LBJ...He went instead for a write-in cartoon character; and, we got the cartoon of Nixon (& the changing judiciary with JJ Rehnquist.)  In many ways, LBJ got a posthumous comeuppance in that as a President associated with or directly responsible some very progressive legislation domestically, he will probably be more remembered for the disaster & destructive fever that was Vietnam.


    You seem to have a ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:59:31 PM EST
    ... pretty selective memory about the 1960s and our 36th president. As christinep noted, LBJ was a very complex character, and not the malevolently cartoonish left-wing caricature you make him out to be.

    If anything, you're the one who appears to resemble the cardboard cutout, with your far-too-casual dismissal of the years of research and work LBJ biographers such as Robert Caro, as nothing more than "hagiography." Certainly, nobody here has suggested that he belongs on Mt. Rushmore, which renders your hyperbole about the man to be only so much white noise.

    Without a doubt, LBJ had his faults, particularly regarding his horrific misjudgment and miscalculation about the true nature of the conflict in Vietnam, which he viewed through the warped funhouse mirror that so often distorted Cold War international politics and diplomacy, rather than seeing it as a rather clear-cut issue of Vietnamese nationalism, which in retrospect it undoubtedly was.

    But there is no question that passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have been problematic, had President Johnson not thrown his political muscle and acumen behind them to beat down the objections and opposition from the Dixiecrat wing of his own party.



    Hagiography, Mt Rushmore: (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    mostly a counter to the poster above who said LBJ was arguably our best post WW2 prez. And to frequent media idiots like Doris K Goodwin who on a recent Morning Joe declared she would like to add at least half the face of Lyndon to that monument.

    Caro: I've read him and am currently reading his latest, and am quite aware of Johnson's complexities. I have a darker view while that author to cite one example of his blindness, apparently sees no conspiracy to kill JFK.

    More later -- dinner date.


    And since we agree Lbj (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:14:21 PM EST
    was a complex character it seems only fitting there be a complex reaction to his presidency, even one which directly counters the accepted revisionist orthodoxies parroted all too often in the MSM and sadly even on some good liberal blogs.  But instead of accepting and dealing with my counter directly on the merits, one poster can't resist a personal jab while another seems to think I should conform my views to those of the establishment lest I commit some thought crime against the Dem causing a groundswell which could subvert Obama's chances this fall. Or that was the flavor I detected.

    And all this just for basically taking the same jaundiced view that Bobby, JFK and maybe Jackie had of the man.

    And I didn't even get into what connection he might have had with Kennedy's murder, a very touchy but not so farfetched a subject, something even one leading assassination researcher and acclaimed recent author believes true in the foreknowledge sense.

    More later perhaps


    Emotionalism (none / 0) (#116)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:56:59 PM EST
    Look, I completely agreed with the various reported Kennedy assessment...and, as I have said at other times in this blog, my first vote was in the Indiana primary in 1968 for Robert Kennedy. To this date, I count that vote as one of the biggest citizen privileges allowed to me.

    My comment was fairly straightforward, I think.  In sum: Your emotions are getting in the way.  And, that is ok.  We all do that about some public & especially political figure.  Yet, here, I believe that Donald (and myself as well) focused a significant part of our individual responses on the reality of the 1960s Civil Rights legislation that resulted from LFJ's drive on the issues.

    Why I respond again: Your reference to darker aspects & allusions to undercurrents strongly suggest that you have a very personal axe to grind. It reads as if you are trafficking in conspiracy theories.  That--and only that--is what leads to my responses here.  If I have misread your allusion to subterranean or other such forces influencing your strong feelings, then I fully apologize here & now.


    Emotionalism: many of us (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    who lived through the turmoil of the 60s and remember it vividly and care about what it did to this country can't help but still have deep emotions about certain events and public figures of that period.  LBJ would certainly be a president about whom a reasonable person would still react strongly one way or the other.  Nixon similarly only a little less so.

    Again I blame Johnson for starting that unnecessary war and lying about it to Congress -- an impeachable offense -- and to the public.  Tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese, mostly innocent civilians, died because LBJ apparently wanted or needed to prove his manhood or be seen as a war hero in some personal modern Alamo scenario (in a suggested motive offered by a mainstream defender, not a detractor).

    Basically during the last four years of his presidency this country was ripped apart over that policy, and even when it was clear what was happening, the old fool stubbornly stayed the course on the war.

    Plenty there to still be emotional about apart from the suspicions some of us have about what he knew before the awful events of Dallas.

    Re Caro a clarification: until the latest volume I didnt consider him a hagiographer since about 45% of what he'd written previously was depicting Johnson's dark side. I'm just halfway thru the latest tome, but from reading reviews it's clear the latter portion of the book paints a too rosy picture, mostly because (in the opinion of one reviewer whom I know and trust) this supposedly great researcher suddenly narrowly limits the range of sources used, often using questionable secondary sources by hack (and very anti-Kennedy) writers.  At the same time he seems to ignore more recent scholarship on JFK and LBJ, including declassified govt docs. So I anticipate not being entirely happy or impressed as I finish this one off.  But until this volume I've been mostly impressed by his work; not a hagiographer and better than Dallek and the others.


    wow, interesting discussion about LBJ (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    I was a child when he was President.  I was old enough to be against the war but that happened mostly when Nixon was President.  Most of my opinions of both men have been formed as an adult.  Both, I think, were in their way, great men with fatal flaws.  If Shakespeare were writing now, both would be the subject of a play.  Johnson in particular, seems to me to have been an incredibly powerful character who if not for Viet Nam, would be regarded as a liberal hero and one of our greatest Presidents.  
    Regarding Nixon, take Watergate (and his fatal flaw, the paranoia and lust for power) out of the mix and I would wish Obama were emulating Nixon rather than Reagan.  

    Towanda thx for your comments (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by brodie on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    I would slightly disagree that LBJ was a great man with fatal flaws.  I think he was a deeply insecure man with strong tendencies to manipulate, dominate and control others (unlike any person he knew according to RFK), and an inability to stop lying (RFK: "He lied about everything and all the time; he lied even when he didn't have to.")

    Such as getting his blank check on the war:  this wasn't just a fatally flawed simplistic reading of the cold war situation and a wild stretch to evoke Munich, but a deliberate deception of congress designed for various personal and political purposes.

    Re the liberal domestic bills in 64-5, I have a very skeptical take:  namely that he was primarily motivated not by the
    principle of the thing but by a personal need to placate the liberal wing of his party, which had never trusted or liked the oil & gas Texas conservative, and to allay some of their suspicions about what involvement he might have had with Dallas. And the record shows that during his first year, he
    was very concerned about those suspicions. An additional factor would be his need to give the liberals something, keep them happy, while he quietly and deceptively planned to go to war in VN.  And there the record -- NSAM 273 -- shows he was taking the first escalatory steps w/n a few days of taking power.

    So, I question the motives and I don't think in the case of a president so notorious for his deceptive ways that it's entirely inappropriate to do so.  That's not emotionalism or "conspiracy thinking" as someone else suggested but clear-headed reasoning from the known facts.  And the fact that it runs starkly counter to the revisionist mainstream accepted wisdom only reinforces my conviction about this very destructive failure of a president.


    Ummm . . . huh? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    I just don't see (none / 0) (#158)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 12:17:22 PM EST
    how any objective analysis could lead to one to see JFK as a better president than Johnson- both were overly imperialistic abroad but Johnson at least had soaring domestic achievements to offset his his massive foriegn policy blunders, JFK's signature stateside achievement was what vague statements of purpose of about the Lunar mission, spying on MLK?

    i've been saying this for a while now. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:00:39 AM EST
    you can't help, or, at least I can't help, starting to think there's something wrong with him.

    i don't know what it is, misfiring synapses or something. i suspect it's been there all along, since he was a kid. the reason it's now become so noticable is because he has a much more focused media attention, nearly 24/7. i honestly don't want this guy anywhere near the nuclear "football", in case he gets a weird feeling one day.

    Let's give the Romney's some
    credit for a long marriage. Especially factoring in her physical disability.

    i've known lots of jerks who remained married for a long time. unfortunately, they were still jerks, just long married ones. given her serious medical issues, you'd think mrs. romney would display a bit more empathy for those, lacking her financial assets, dealing with similar issues. not so, she's just as disconnected as he is.

    He's just a typical pompous jerk. (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:43:04 AM EST
    There are lots of guys like him---people who marry  a tin ear for social nuance with a sociopathic degree of self-regard.
    What is unusual is that he is on the verge of being the nominee for President.
    I think he's intended to be Obama's tomato can.
    If that's not the case, then one really wonders if there are any sane Republicans capable of getting the nomination.

    While I don't have (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:45:46 AM EST
     the knowledge to explain Romney's "condition," certainly psychiatrists, or psychologists, could offer a diagnosis. In some ways Mitt's situation is similar to Obama's. Both men are manufactured products, carefully constructed, and marketed, as having the qualities they think the public would want them to have. Neither one seems comfortable in their own skin and that comes across in the awkward way they appear when they try to "wing it."

    Until recently, I, of course didn't want Romney to be our next President for all the reasons I wouldn't want any far Right, cruel, inhuman, sociopath to be our President. But, as we draw inexorably closer to election day, and I'm paying more attention to the candidate, what my studies reveal is a growing sense of dread that an actual madman has a reasonable chance of occupying the Oval Office come November.

    I'm not using the term, "Madman" in the clinical, mentally ill , medical sense. Rather, I use it in the sense that this potential President displays characteristics so abhorrent, so deviant, so selfish that the thought of him having the power and authority that a President naturally inherits fills me with a fear I haven't felt in all my years on this earth.


    I honestly wish (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by LeaNder on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:21:07 AM EST
    concerning the poll: I wish foreign affairs would matter more to Americans than they probably do.

    Military Leadership by Richard Sale

     It is hard not to draw the conclusion that in spite of the gallantry, bravery, self-sacrifice that U.S. troops manifested throughout the conflict, the world after the war was basically the same.  The whole conflict was a fiasco and misjudgment.

    I would put matters in much stronger terms. Then imagine for one moment the extra money the US could spend without these wars. But onward brave soldiers Iran waits. But whom do their sacrifices serve? Surely not the average US citizen.

    Condi Rice said something in an interview over here in Germany I find hard to forget:

    After 1989 everybody wondered who the next enemy would be, then 911 happened and suddenly everybody knew.

    Not verbatim but pretty close.


    I think (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:22:55 AM EST
    that foreign affairs would matter more to Americans if they felt that they had any say in the matter.

    I give you that we have, once again, (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    lost the peace. At some point we need to understand that our State Department needs a thorough cleaning. It is as bad, if not worse, than the military at keeping people around who should have been gone long ago.

    And you ask an excellent question.

    But onward brave soldiers Iran waits. But whom do their sacrifices serve? Surely not the average US citizen.

    Perhaps all we have done is destroy the fire ant colony in our backyard.

    But an even better question is this:

    Would you want to fight there or here?


    omg (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    it's a Dick Cheney lookalike.

    If fighting them there (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    had solved anything, you might have a point. But we are still fighting them here too, or acting like it anyway, with the massively beefed up security budgets and laws.

    Oh I agree that our (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    methods and strategies have been terrible.

    Of course telling the Taliban when we're leaving Afghanistan wasn't too smart.

    Of course it came from Obama... so what should we expect??


    Well, neither was giving the Taliban ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:07:16 PM EST
    jimakappp: "Of course telling the Taliban when we're leaving Afghanistan wasn't too smart."

    ... the breathing space and opportunity to reconstitute their military presence in Afghanistan in the first place, which is what happened on the Bush-Cheney watch from 2003 to 2009. So, what's your point?


    Good God (none / 0) (#162)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    all these years later you are still defending the dumb wars Bush started and itching for new ones.  You are a true caricature.  Or a GOP member.  Take thy pick.

    One point of disagreement (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:52:16 AM EST
    I don't see Romney as having been the product of marketing. Marketing would have built a better candidate. Even his ads do not try to sell him, they go after the other guy. If you look at the old pictures of him from school and then the early days of Bain, he has been the same fake package all of his adult life.

    Whatever he is seems to have emerged into adulthood fully formed.


    I see your point (none / 0) (#122)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    Maybe "marketing" wasn't the perfect word to use in describing Romney. But, I used it in the sense that what you see is not what you're getting. The "marketing" comes in when you're trying to sell a product, or an idea. "I was for reproductive rights when I was running in a liberal state, but I`m anti now that I`m running for the Tea party vote."

    I don't think I need to list the hundreds of similar examples to make my point. Maybe, instead of using "marketing" I should have emphasized his "flexible" personality as being "duplicitous."


    they have so much money (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 08:51:02 AM EST
    he doesn't really have to deal with her illness and she has no idea what it is like to struggle with a disability and, say, being a poor single mother.  She has no clue.

    Romney doesn't get people.  It is like he is a visiting space alien and he does a good job of seeming human but can't quite manage that last bit of human behavior.  When he was campaigning during the primaries I kept expecting him to suddenly open his weird grin wide and swallow the "little person" he was talking to, then just move on like nothing happened....still sporting his grin.  


    Romney backs idea of an Israeli preemptive strike. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:21:10 AM EST
    Acoording to the NYTimes:

    Updated JERUSALEM --

    In a speech here Sunday evening, Mitt Romney plans to assert that he respects Israel's right to take pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capabilities that could be used for a weapon.

    I don't know what it is about "preemptive action" that doesn't quite sit well with me. Maybe it's just that Bush's little invasions didn't turn out so good.

    Anyway, this is clearly a chance for Obama to unambiguously and unequivocally distinguish himself from Romney on this important issue of our national foreign policy.

    With the fact that Saddam was (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    planning to get back in the WMD business it turned out much better than you are willing to credit.

    And then there are all those weapons that everyone is now worried about that Saddam was, and is, thought to have moved to Syria.

    Could that be the reason we have taken no real action to stop the slaughter of innocent Syrians?


    Ooof (none / 0) (#44)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    With the fact that Saddam was (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    planning to get back in the WMD business it turned out much better than you are willing to credit.

    And then there are all those weapons that everyone is now worried about that Saddam was, and is, thought to have moved to Syria.

    Could that be the reason we have taken no real action to stop the slaughter of innocent Syrians?


    Just like we stopped the slaughter... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    ...of innocent Iraqis?  

    I'd find this laughable if I didn't have family ruined by that useless phucking malevolent misadventure.


    We didn't invade Iraq (1.50 / 2) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    to stop a civil war.

    And yes, some that would have been killed by Saddam were saved.


    The US killed (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    several hundred thousand Iraqis, displaced millions, rendered some urban  uninhabitable wastelands, created a skyrocketing rate of birth defects, all so that a non-existent WMD program could be stopped, and to make up for previous slaughter of Iraqis, most of which happened decades earlier?
    Where is the moral calculus which justifies this equation?

    By the way, on another note, did you read that the Koch-funded Berkeley study of global warming concluded that global warming is real, is man-made, and is worse than the standard estimates?
    What do you have against that---maybe a retired civil engineer in Botswana with an online petition?


    Since when did you start (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    believing Koch?

    What do you have for it? A UN bureaucrat that is an engineer??? A railroad engineer?

    In the meantime:

    From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
    To: John Christy <john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu>
    Subject: This and that
    Date: Tue Jul  5 15:51:55 2005


           This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

        article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
        uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
        7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.


    It isn't important when it isn't important.

    Back on topic.... War is terrible and many were killed, etc., etc.

    Now, what does that have to with my answer??

    Why nothing. Nothing at all.


    Your legs are getting old, jim (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    That's not much of a dodge.
    Try some aracept.

    And that wasn't much to dodge (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    The Koch brothers are now the source of good information.... because you believe in the information???

    BTW - Maybe Canada needs to read the report.... They dropped out of Koyoto.



    The Koch brothers are behind (none / 0) (#118)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:19:57 PM EST
    almost all of your "information" on climate science, whether you know it or not.
    They pay for bogus petitions by concered scientists, for example.
    For the reading impaired, the climate study was not performed by the Koch brothers themselves. They funded climate skeptic (real scientists) to do a review of the evidence on global warming. The conclusion of these scientists was that global warming is real, and man-made.
    For the reading impaired, the point is that if the Koch's can't find reliable climate change deniers, the public relations game is changing (though naturally, the science has been settled for many years).

    observed, that is pure nonsense (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:05:57 AM EST
    Dr Phil Jones himself said in an email made public
    by Climategate.

    If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.


    Let's see:


    I would like to see the climate change happen,

    What about that don't you understand?


    Sorry, Jim - it's true (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    Climate study, funded in part by conservative group, confirms global warming

    BTW - What Dr. Jones was saying was that he would like to be around in 50 or 100 years when their climate models are proven correct.  The fact that you keep pointing to this as some type of admission that climate change has not happened shows just how weak your argument really is ...


    We illegally invaded Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    for oil.

    Oh, and because Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy!! Waaaaaahh!


    Your (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    comment is totally without compassion for the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women and men who were killed by this cynical self-serving misadventure.

    And the reason we have taken no real action to stop the slaughter of innocent Syrians is because the people who run things in this country do not consider it in their interests to do so.


    Hogwash, I wrote: (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    Back on topic.... War is terrible and many were killed, etc., etc.

    Now, what does that have to with my answer??

    My answer was we didn't invade Iraq to stop a civil war.

    Should I have invested a few hundred words saying how awful people getting killed is??

    Don't we all know that?

    BTW - Can anyone tell me that if we invaded Iraq for the oil.... Why we went to Bagdad?? Heck, we could have taken 50,000 troops and seized all the oil facilities...

    But wait!!!! We didn't get any of the oil.

    Wish we had.


    Almost... (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:58:40 PM EST
    What you actually wrote was:

    With the fact that Saddam was planning to get back in the WMD business it turned out much better than you are willing to credit.

    This is not quite like saying,

    War is terrible and many were killed, etc., etc.

    Not exactly the same thought imho.


    And your point is what? (1.50 / 2) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:30:41 PM EST
    That we didn't keep Saddam from getting back in the WMD business??

    That it is terrible to not do... what? Collapse every time we mention that people are killed in war?

    Watch my lips. War is terrible. You've never heard me say other wise. But if you are going to do a moral judgment then you have to say, "How many died and how many were saved?"

    Your position is anti-war. Fine. But anti-war has killed more people than it has saved.


    Proof is required of this statement:: (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    "But anti-war has killed more people than it has saved."

    You are raving. (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    My position is not anti-war.

    My position is that Bush and Cheney and others in his administration deliberately lied to the American people and caused hundreds of thousands to die - Iraqis and Americans - for absolutely nothing.


    anti-violence campaigns (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    and beliefs have killed more people than they've saved as well. Many people are unaware of that.

    And alotta loose talk against incest and barnyard rape in red states has done nothing but cause the learning disabled and fundamentalist population to skyrocket. Another known fact.


    Not your average (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    post game handshake from

    The USA Baseketnall Team

    I must say (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:07:20 PM EST
    there's a lot about MO to like . . .

    Very cool (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by desertswine on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:22:07 PM EST
    Way to go b'ballers and first lady.

    Keep (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    on defending the disastrous Bush administration. I hope more of them do what you are doing and before too long the GOP will hauling itself into the dustbin of history.

    Stating facts is not defending (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    And I said nothing about the Bush admin, but then you think everything is about the Bush admin.

    Don't worry. Obama does too!



    You (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    didn't have to actually mention the Bush Administration but you were defending their signature disaster. I hope you keep it up!

    Quit making things up (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 04:22:11 PM EST
    It'll improve your reputation.

    You're (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:05:28 PM EST
    the one making things up. You still think Sadaam was going to attack us. The information that was released a while back completely undercuts this argument.

    You again make things up (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    First, you are incapable of knowing what I think.

    Secondly, I have never thought that Saddam was going to attack us. He did attack our flights that were enforcing the UN sanctions that Saddam agreed to.

    Thirdly, you provide nothing to back up your claim and you don't define "this argument."


    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    some of us are under the misimpression that the invasion of Iraq - the "shock and awe" campaign - happened under the Bush presidency.

    I must have been dreaming.


    baa waa waa (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    yeah, it's all a big fantasy that Iraq was the signature issue of the Bush administration. LOL LOL LOL.

    Another victim of Aurora shooting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 11:21:31 PM EST
    Mother of youngest Aurora victim suffers miscarraige

    A woman who was shot in the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting rampage has suffered a miscarriage, her family said.

    Ashley Moser, the mother of the youngest victim killed in the shooting, was pregnant and was shot in the neck and stomach during the attack July 20. The family said the trauma that Moser sustained caused a miscarriage and that she underwent more surgery on Saturday morning.

    Moser, 25, is being treated at Aurora Medical Center.

    Ms. Moser has a Wells Fargo account that accepts donations.

    that most well and truly sucks. (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:31:43 AM EST
    my condolences to her and her family, i hope she comes out surgery well.

    it's probably a severe problem for him (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:35:09 AM EST
    in europe at this point as well. i can't imagine why people don't like mr. romney? well, ok, yeah, i can, he's a sociopath, unable to form any kind of human link with other members of his species. his wife isn't far behind him. perhaps, that's why they married each other.

    Let's give the Romney's some (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:56:43 AM EST
    credit for a long marriage. Especially factoring in her physical disability.

    Usually I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    I don't understand why they deserve extra credit though for their marriage.  The rich when they are Romney rich aren't even married in the same fashion that we the peasants are :)  If they don't want to see each other for months at a time, that is more than possible.  They can live in different houses if they want and go on strange hiatus and that's perfectly acceptable in their world.  They don't even have to pass each other in the hall, and they are still capable of having fully functioning lives.  There are no fights about taking the garbage out, neither one of them touches the garbage.  And the toilet seat puts itself down.

    Given they have 5 sons (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 09:51:48 AM EST
    I don't think they find each other unlikable.

    I don't know how to answer this (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:08:41 AM EST
    without "going there".  I tend to be open minded as much as I can be.  Spending my teen years and early adulthood in Wyoming, I went to school with Mormons, more of them in college.  I became very good friends with one family.  I don't grow judgmental unless someone feels like it is their responsibility to judge me, and I had a child out of wedlock when I was 24 and their children my age did not judge me.  They did have a hard time making friendships outside their faith though and seemed to cherish mine, perhaps that is how I escaped judgement.  They used to babysit my daughter too for me when I was in Laramie and wanted to go out and sin at a bar.

    When you are Mormon though you are mandated to be pregnant when married as frequently as possible, and lusty lush lust is frowned upon to the point of practically being verboten.  I still don't know how they get it on because I always needed some lusty thoughts before yanking my clothes off.  It is not necessary in a practicing Mormon marriage to like each other in order to become successfully pregnant five times though.


    MT, thank you for another attack on (1.67 / 3) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:20:20 AM EST
    Romney's religion.

    I opine it will get worse as the election day approaches.

    Now, excuse me while I call all my Mormon friends and chastise them for only having one or two kids.

    And do you remember how many white's always had "a black friend?"

    BTW - Have you ever looked up "bigot" in the dictionary and then looked in the mirror?

    Yes, MT. You may not be but you're showing signs.


    Sorry Jim (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    It is a fact, not an attack

    However, the Mormon church is more tolerant of unwed mothers or pregnant brides than it is of divorced women (Laake 217). No matter how sinful the circumstances, a pregnant woman is fulfilling God's plan and her purpose in life, by providing a body for one of the many spirits waiting to be born. Bearing children is the main purpose of a woman in this life; Sonia Johnson stated that, "I'd been conditioned to believe that if I didn't have babies, I wasn't worth much. Having children was what women were made for" (Johnson 42).

    This too from the religious study (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    Mormon women today are still brought up to believe that the most important thing they can do is "to marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority" (McConkie 118). Deborah Laake, who was excommunicated in 1993 for writing Secret Ceremonies, states that "it had been repeatedly impressed on me that if I failed to marry a faithful Mormon man...in a Mormon temple, I would be denied access to the highest level of Mormon heaven" (Laake 4). The temple marriage is so important "that a longing for romance on earth should not be allowed to interfere with it" (Laake 77). Twenty-one year old Mormon men returning from missions are told they should be married within six months (Laake 51).

    I also think that the level of repression (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:41:26 AM EST
    of the self in the Mormon faith may have something to do with why Mitt Romney seems to have no easily identifiable human feelings, and is unable to connect to others on a human level.

    I would like for there to be some kind of explanation for how sociopathic he is that offers him some possible hope of recovery.  All of the practicing Mormons I have known though have similar emotional connection difficulties.


    I live in southern Utah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdm251 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    And it seems that the number of "married" in name only Mormons is staggering, the church seems to really frown on divorce so it seems like a lot of married couples live very separate lives, and even a certain amount of infedelity is tolerated on the part of males in the relationship.  

    MT, your source (1.50 / 2) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    is a blog titled exmormon.org. That doesn't lead me to trust its views.

    But either way you attacked Romney's religion. For him being a Mormon.

    That's just factual.

    Yet I am sure you would go off the rails if someone even mentioned Obama's middle name.

    Double standard? Yes.


    Regarding "facts": (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    Here's a fact:
    Romney is a Mormon.

    Here's a falsehood:
    Obama is a Muslim.

    See how easy that is?


    That's a false argument in that it (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    doesn't relate to people attacking one and not being allowed to mention Obama's middle name.

    What it relates to is your belief (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    it's more honorable to LIE outright about a person's religion (if they're a Democrat) than it is to critique, from experience, the religion of a conservative.



    The only falsehods on this thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    are emanating from you.

    Why are you (none / 0) (#163)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:36:44 PM EST
    so whiny about his middle name?  I bet it makes you even madder that certain "other" people get to say it, and don't get into trouble.  Double standard!!!  



    Look, Ann Romney has lived the life (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Towanda on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:46:27 PM EST
    of the classic Mormon wife, in terms of speedy marriage (within months of Mitt's return from his mission stint) and speedy reproduction.  She must have conceived on her wedding night, and she birthed five times in little more than ten years.  For any woman, that's fast work -- and for a woman of her generation (and mine), that's aberrant.  It's also a rate of reproduction that is not recommended, as it's very taxing on a woman's body . . . and look at her health since.

    Her own parents, not Mormons, disapproved at the time of her opting for that life and worried about its impact upon her.  (Her mother came around.)

    That said, for all the things Ann Romney has said and done that I dislike, I have admiration for how she has handled her MS and breast cancer and more.  She's a fighter.  


    The women on that site (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    Have been excommunicated for having differing views than they are allowed to have, or for divorcing, or for writing books about Mormon marriage rituals that are pretty crazy and disgusting if you are a feminist.  I did read the book Secret Ceremonies many years ago, written by a Mormon woman about how dysfunctional and repressive her upbringing and Mormon marriage was.  I read it because I had so many Mormon acquaintances then.  The women were very distant from me though, my friendships usually started with guys my own age, and then I could become acquainted with their sisters at some point.

    I never met any young Mormon female though in college who was outspoken or who even went on casual dates.  You had one guy, upon graduation and his return from his mission you married.

    They were not like us secular sinners.  We were dating, and cheating, and fighting, and in general an adolescent mess figuring out who we were and what we wanted.  The kids raised Mormon, they had a plan and as far as I can tell it wasn't their plan.  In my mid 20's I began to really feel sorry for them.  They did not seem to experience themselves as individuals, and their faith was supposed to fill in all those gaps.


    Something else that is rather obvious (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    Other than Mrs. Romney and Marie Osmond, what other Mormon woman has been allowed any sort of spotlight Jim?  What other Mormon woman have you ever heard the voice of?  And you have never heard anything controversial or self defining out of any Mormon woman in good standing with the church.  Even the Muslim faith has had female leaders, not many...but some.

    Mind explaining what you mean? (none / 0) (#60)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    How does Obama's middle name relate to a discussion of religion?
    Incidentally, did you hear about the Koch-funded study whose conclusion is that man-made global warming is an incontrovertible fact?
    Time for some children to stop hiding from the truth---even children of several score years.

    Observed, were you around in 2008? (1.67 / 3) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    Any mention of Obama's middle name was off limits because it supposedly meant he was a Muslim and we couldn't talk about that.

    Now we have Romeny who is a Mormon and we have MT bashing Mormons and linking to a blog named exmormon.org.

    The double standard is obvious.


    Another falsehood (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by shoephone on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    "Any mention of Obama's middle name was off limits because it supposedly meant he was a Muslim and we couldn't talk about that."

    Nope. Not even close.It wasn't "off limits", it was merely the logical response to the use of a thoroughly deceitful construct. The references to his middle name were used to imply that he is a Muslim. But he isn't.

    Try again, Jimmy. The truth this time.


    To mess up a tea partier ignoramus (none / 0) (#96)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    just ask them whether Omar Bradley was a Muslim because Omar is a "Muslim name"?

    Double standard? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:08:51 PM EST
    Being critical of Romney's actual religion is comparable to lying about Obama's religion?



    I'll write s. l. o. w. l. y. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:51:28 PM EST
    just for you, Jim. I understand nuance is a complicated word, especially for those brought up thinking slogans and one-liners are educational.

    So, I ask you, a:   h..y..p..o..t..h..e..t..i..c..a..l question.

    If you were a Mormon, left that church, and then wanted to write about it, what would be a better name for your blog than "exmormon.org?"

    What part of that name, in your open minded, critical thinking, brain leads you to believe that person to be an automatic liar?


    Jim says (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    "Any mention of Obama's middle name was off limits because it supposedly meant he was a Muslim and we couldn't talk about that."

    See??? It wasn't fair he didn't get to talk about that!  Nobody in America ever heard about Reverend Wright or Bill Ayers either--Nobody.  Because you know.  "We couldn't talk about that" either.


    Do you see the difference between (none / 0) (#93)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:30:53 PM EST
    Obama supposedly being a Muslim and Romney being a Muslim?
    No, probably not. More aracept, doctor!

    Regarding Obama's given middle name ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    ... of "Hussein," I would no more use it in reference to him in writing, than I would refer to Romney in writing with his given first name, "Willard."

    I consider it to be a mark of contemptuous personal disrespect to do so, given that neither candidate refers to himself that way, and further, it sounds like something a 10-year-old would do.

    I think using "Barry" and "Mittens" are okay, given that it's obviously a play on their own preferred public names. But "Hussein" and "Willard," no. The former is a quasi-religious / ethnic smear, while the latter is in clear reference to -- well, THIS.


    Which fact is it? (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    The fact that it is a fact fact or a fact that is not a fact?

    Maybe this is what you mean.

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)



    BTW, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    When you omit a sentence in the middle of quoting someone, you use an ellipsis (three dots in a row) to show you omitted something from their statement.

    Otherwise, people might get the idea that the misleading nature of your "quote" is intentional.


    No, it's just (none / 0) (#119)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    because he forgot his aracept.

    More lies ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    ... about Dr. Schneider.  Funny how they always feel the need to cut off parts of that quote, where he was talking about balancing the need to speak in short, interesting soundbites during media interviews while also being accurate.


    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Schneider on the distortion of his statement.

    Didn't read like any kind of attack to me. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    More like passing on an anecdote. Get a life dude.

    I mention Mrs. Rney's physical (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    disability as I know more than one couple whose marriage did not last their lifetimes. Other relevant reasons no doubt. One colleague's wife deteriorated to needing a wheelchair. After he retired, he left the lengthy marriage as he did not want her to depend on him 24/7.    

    Will Mitt with his level of wealth (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    ever be inconvenienced by his wife's illness?  If he ever was it would be by his own choice, because he was able to gain something meaningful from it.  He won't ever be the one wheeling her to the toilet at 3:00 or washing the soiled bedding.

    I'm kind of surprised Josh's (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:14:21 PM EST
    Mom is so adamant. Unless the Romney's live entirely separate lives in separate places, one assumes an emotional connection

    I'm not saying they don't have a connection (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    I'm just not willing to give them giant marriage kudos because their wealth affords them enormous comforts and retreats that 99% of those of us successfully and mostly happily married will never have.  My husband is still getting in trouble for forgetting the trash, not changing the toilet paper roll out, I'm still getting in trouble for leaving a window down on the car before a downpour and leaving the dome light on all night after unloading the car in the dark.  If only I had a car elevator, and a maid or five we wouldn't have to work this hard to be blissfully happy with each other year after year.

    Who knows. Marriage (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:10:39 AM EST
    success was not one of my accomplishments. Money was not the issue.  

    It takes two (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:02:11 AM EST
    You can't be successfully married on your own.  I can give them credit that being wed to each other must be a priority for both of them.  Being practicing Mormons though, even if they were not happy with their relationship, divorcing is not an option for them.

    Me thinks you just changed horses (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 01:21:46 AM EST

    How so? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:14:30 AM EST
    I have begrudgingly given them minor kudos yes, but being married or not being married is not the same choice for them that it is for most of us.  Not being married would destroy their good standing with God and everyone that is their support system.  Granted that happens to all of us to some degree when we divorce, but it isn't the same degree for Mormons.  If they divorce they have destroyed the first thing their faith mandated them to do as adults and you really don't get do overs with the Mormon faith.  Mitt is free to take another wife, but not if he ever wants to be President.  Imagine the pressure on her?  As long as he seeks the spotlight she can be special to him.

    Because you first disagreed with my (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 02:47:48 PM EST
    comment, citing the Romneys' wealth.  Now you are relying on their religion.  

    I don't think Mitt Romney is going to (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    experience the grueling day to day wearing down that comes with having a disabled spouse.  It is kind of like Rick Santorum and the luxuries he gets to have caring for his disabled child.  I remember him sort of holding up how much it costs him providing extra care for his daughter, as if it was a kind of badge of how much he loved her and he always looked so well rested.  As if the rest of us and our disabled children can all have that reality too.

    I think their faith is also a factor, I do find myself wondering today though if push came to shove how devout Ann would really be?  She wasn't raised within the faith and her father didn't agree with it.  If Mitt got really crappy with her would she dump him?  She might, I had forgotten that she wasn't raised Mormon.


    I hear you on that one. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 07:32:00 PM EST
    I also know a couple who recently separated as a direct result of the stroke she suffered a few years ago, which fundamentally transformed the inherent nature of their relationship from that of equals to one of a caregiver and dependent -- and that was something with which he simply proved himself unable to cope. It's terribly sad, but it happens.

    Willing to give Magic Mitt (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    credit for his long marriage, but it is not clear to me how Mrs. Romney's physical disability should be factored into that credit.  In sickness and in health seems to be a part of those marital vows. Although, it does contrast and compare Mittens with a former primary competitor, Newton Gingrich.

    Dowd endorses Obama (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:22:02 AM EST
    ...if we're going to have someone who's removed, always struggling to connect and emote, why not stick with the president we already have?

    Better the android you know than the android you don't know.

    The future looks bright.

    Speaking of polls... (none / 0) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:34:01 AM EST
    (RNS) For the second time in less than a year, the Gallup poll reports that a majority of Americans would vote for an atheist for president.

    No more Christmas trees on the White House lawn?
    No more Easter Egg rolls?
    No more calls from the executive branch for prayer and reflection?

    Sounds interesting.

    Just because you don't believe in God... (none / 0) (#19)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    ...doesn't mean you can't believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

    Especially considering we're talking about holidays that actually existed before The Church co-opted them.


    The (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    day that they call it something other than a Christmas tree, commemorating the agreed upon date of the birth of Jesus, I'll consider what you say as valid.

    And who says that I don't believe in God?

    I just don't believe that She has a place on the White House lawn.


    ... religion in American politics has nothing to do with the presence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny in public places.

    Speaking for myself only, so long as one's faith is expressed publicly in a matter that is both respectful toward others and tolerant of our social diversity, and is not meant to proselytize, offend, or coerce any select individual or group, I see nothing wrong with it. As with so many things, it comes down to a matter of divining one's personal intentions, and of discerning the difference between a message of goodwill and an effort to intimidate.

    Please re-direct your focus and political shellfire toward something more tangetial than commercial symbolism, lest you lose sight of the forest for all the Christmas trees.



    People don't know Romney yet (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:02:13 AM EST
    He can turn his image around.  He will put himself forward at the convention and put his narrative out there.  He may never be lovable but he can get to break even.

    Obama meanwhile is lowering his image with the negative campaign and the economy continues to tank.

    Romney has room for improvement.  All Obama can do is tread water.

    So, negative campaigning only (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:23:05 AM EST
    works for Republicans?!

    Republicans didn't base their whole (none / 0) (#140)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    election on being a candidate of Hope and Change.

    Republicans don't constantly put themselves above the debate.

    Obama was elected with a specific narrative and now that he has nothing to run on he's ditched it and turned into a normal poll.

    As BTD points out a poll is a poll but this one at least pretended to be something else for a while.  Now he can't even pretend to be that anymore.

    If he isn't that what is he?  A bad president would be my response.


    According to Samuel Popkin, in (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    "The Candidate," all challengers run on a theme of outsider and hope and change.  Then, if they win, they become the incumbent and must run on their record as President.  

    The more people know Mittens (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    the less they like him. Newsweek is now calling Mittens the wimp and an insecure person. Can't blame them by the way the Mittens is conducting himself. The right wing fundies are dragging him by one ear and Bibi Netanyahu is dragging him by the other while the British are kicking his groins and mocking him.
    This is the kind of image that is difficult to shake.

    Not as difficult as... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    "You didn't build that".

    I was amusing seeing the pro Obama spin machine kick into high gear to pretend Romney screwed up as big as Obama this week.

    The Olympics will come and go.

    "You didn't build that". has real staying power.


    You know what else has real staying power? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    The various smear campaigns keeping the Communist-Marxist-Fascist, UN loving, gun-stealing, grandma killing, Muslim extremist, Kenyan-born nonsense alive.

    Thanks to these Atwater-Rovian tactics over half the GOP base believes the President is a non-Christian, terrorist-loving, foreign usurper. We don't even need to go near what the right calls his wife and kids.

    Saying that Romney's real gaffes are the same as the lies from the right is beyond ludicrous.


    In other words (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    over half of the GOP base are knuckle walkers who would be ineligable to vote, if the requirement for exercising that right were the passing of a rudimentary I.Q beforehand.  

    No, in other words the GOP base has been (none / 0) (#150)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    lied to so well and for so long that more than half of them believe the smears over any contra-indicative proof.

    Sticking (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:25:51 AM EST
    power with the right wing but obviously not anywhere else as the election is still deadlocked according to Gallup.

    And now everybody is laughing at the guy who did the ad because he took government bonds for his business. LOL.


    You're joking, right? Six years of Mitt running (none / 0) (#51)
    by Farmboy on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    for President and with a straight face you say people don't know him yet? The US certainly knows him; he's been putting himself forward all that time. The GOP knows him; they spent nearly a year and hundreds of millions of dollars searching for someone, anyone, who wasn't Mitt Romney. And this week the world is getting to know him as well. And that is turning out to be exactly same sort of carnival show as we've experienced here.

    I'll grant you that his narratives, his adventures in storytelling, have been nothing short of breathtaking. Mitt has succeeded/avoided saving/eliminating via offshoring/outsourcing hundreds/tens/none of thousands of jobs by his own bootstraps/with gov't assistance every project he has/hasn't been responsible/uninvolved with.

    Room for improvement? All of Mitt's mansions put together don't have enough room for him.


    You know what though? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    The GOP base not liking him is not exactly a negative considering WHO they did like--Newt and little Ricky. Can you imagine how much more comedy would be happening with either of those two?

    It will be little Ricky's turn (none / 0) (#91)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:14:07 PM EST
    in 2016.

    I wan thinking more of the GOP as represented (none / 0) (#138)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    by the 17 angry old white men who paid for the primary runs by Michelle, Herman, Newt, and Rick; and who are now reluctantly paying for Mitt's campaign.

    IIRC, none of the fabulous five received more than 30% support by the voters until it was down to Romney vs. Santorum - and even then Mitt only had 37% approval in the polls when Santorum and Gingrich finally dropped out.

    I have to agree, a few more months of those four would have been far more entertaining than listening to the incoherent word salad put forth by the meandering Romneybot. My only hope for fun watching the GOP convention is seeing if the Ron Paul! lawsuit will disrupt the delegate voting.


    Outsourcing?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 05:32:39 PM EST
    Really? I thought it was Obama who sent the jobs to Finland....and Mexico.

    No, wait. That was Clinton and NAFTA.


    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 06:04:13 PM EST
    NAFTA? Jobs have gone to China.

    Consider (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    this a replay of Bush/Kerry back in 2004. IIRC everything Bush put out was either 9/11 a noun and a verb or scare! scare! scare!

    Slogging through Caro on LBJ (none / 0) (#27)
    by brodie on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 10:05:43 AM EST
    and the section on his VP years.  No mainstream historian ive read has put together a more detailed and persuasive case for JFK secretly planning to dump LBJ from the 1964 ticket.  In fact most mainstreamers, nearly all, accept RFK's later (oral history) assertions that he was still needed politically for reelect.
    But seeing how the Kennedys were deliberately marginalizing Johnson, keeping him on a very tight short leash with almost nothing to do, and given how badly and personally LBJ was taking this humiliating treatment, it's very difficult to imagine JFK wanting to accept another four years of having to deal with the difficult and distrusted VP.

    Caro finds credible, as I do, the assertions of Evelyn Lincoln who wrote in her 1968 memoir that Kennedy told her just before the Texas trip that Lyndon would be replaced, probably by Terry Sanford gov of NC.

    There was the disrespectful treatment and also by 1963 the congressional investigation of Bobby Baker, which had Lyndon very nervous and believing that Bobby Kennedy may have been behind it

    Season 4 of Damages was released on DVD (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    I'm watching Glenn Close weave another web as I hibernate from the 100+ heat/humidity index.  John Goodman and Dylan Baker are both excellent villains in this season. The torture in the plot is detracting a lot from the entertainment value, but I am certainly hooked on the plot line.  

    Intermixing with Olympic event live streaming.

    May watch the Ralph Fiennes 'Coriolanus' later. I have it out from Netflix and it will fit mood-wise with the Damages episodes. Nothing light and fluffy today - I watched (and loved) 'The Muppet Movie' during last weekend's hibernation!

    Enjoy! (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    My mom bought it on pre-order so we could both watch it pre season 5.  Good program to hide from the heat with :)

    Are Goodman and Baker ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    ... as good as Ted Danson, Len Cariou, Lily Tomlin and Campbell Scott were in Seasons 1 & 2? Unfortunately, I haven't seen Damages since it migrated from FX to DirectTV.

    They are right up there Donald! (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    Actors really seem to sink their teeth into these roles. I missed this season in real time too because of the switch to DTV and have been eagerly awaiting the DVD release - it does not disappoint. Also Chris Messina as Ellen's old friend that draws her into the case is outstanding.

    Now i have to wait for Netflix to  deliver the last DVD.  Good thing breaking bad is on!


    Worse than "bomb bomb Iran" (none / 0) (#49)
    by observed on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    from McCain?
    Romney says that "any and all measures" should be used against Iran.
    Another Insane Anglo Warlord for President. Just what the world needs.
    Oops, I switched around the letters of Ronald Wilson Reagan. My bad.

    ChickenTwit Mitt (none / 0) (#52)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 02:33:49 PM EST

    Could have just stuck to saying that the date palms and shrubs are exactly the right height in Israel to impress Bibi but there goes Mittens again...


    Hindsight's always 20 / 20, Jim. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    First of all, while the French Army in 1936 could have easily crushed Hitler, the French government was most certainly unaware of Hitler's directive to OKH (the German General Staff) when German troops re-occupied the Rhineland that year.

    Secondly, you fail to note -- conveniently or otherwise -- that Hitler was obviously playing upon French memories of the First World War less than two decades earlier. France had suffered 1.7 million dead and a further 4.2 million wounded in that conflict, which constituted nearly 15% of that country's population.

    (Conversely, our own country's losses in that war of 117,000 dead and 205,000 wounded amounted to a rather miniscule 0.13% of our population.)

    Given those generally horrific numbers, one can hardly blame the French for being terribly skittish about scrapping with the Germans again, even if they would've had the upper hand in any confrontation in the mid-1930s.

    No one is blaming France (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    My comment was:

    But anti-war has killed more people than it has saved.

    shoephone wanted proof.

    France's anti-war psyche, as well as England's, blocked a push back at the point that could well have stopped WWII. Millions died as a result.


    Double standard? (none / 0) (#112)
    by diogenes on Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    People instead like a fellow who is detached and Spock-like and who made it through Ivy league and Harvard Law as the first black president of the law review without seemingly once having $ex with the many women who would undoubtedly have been interested?  It isn't as if Obama were highly religious which would explain this.  Face it, Obama is just as interpersonally flawed as Mitt is.

    What?!? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    People instead like a fellow who is detached and Spock-like and who made it through Ivy league and Harvard Law as the first black president of the law review without seemingly once having $ex with the many women who would undoubtedly have been interested?

    Where did you come up with that theory?


    Feel guilty (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    By the time I get my morning situated I'm only showing up to listen to DailyKos radio when BTD and MOT are on.  School starts soon, I will be up two hours earlier then, and suppose that David Waldeman will get better treatment by me then.

    Missing the good stuff (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    If you aren't listening to Blue Skies radio, you just missed "That dog won't hunt" being replaced with "That horse won't dressage".  

    This thread is closing (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 11:35:33 PM EST
    due to the number of personal attacks.

    Jim, take your right wing war theories elsewhere. Jondee, stop bickering with him, Everyone else, stop the name-calling and post a recipe or something in response.  Thread cleaned mostly.