Thursday Morning Open Thread

You know what today is right? The first day of the college football season! Hallelujah!! You folks watch Romney. I'll be watching some SEC football!

Here are my picks today: Vanderbilt +220 over South Carolina. (Vandy to win!), Washington State +12 over BYU (what will be the big viewing event in Utah tonight?), UNLV +9 over Minnesota (the BiG is turrible as Charles Barkley might say), and finally, Rice (+17) over UCLA (UCLA has been consistently awful at the beginning of the season.)

Open Thread.

< Another Win for Kim Dotcom: NZ Court Approves $5 Million for Lawyers | Republican Convention: Final Night and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A political chuckle ... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:27:14 AM EST
    to start your day via The New Yorker.

    Apparently... (2.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    Soooooooooooo (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Bailouts out the the auto industry are bad, even when they work, but bailing out one plant is good so long as a republican tries to do it ?

    What is the date of the last vehicle manufactures at the Janesville plant,IOW, the last day of operations ?  

    It is absolutely hysterical to see the right all up in arms over a plant that was entirely unionized, which I am told, it the GD devil.

    make up your mind republicans are plant closures good or bad if they are manned by unions.  I seriously cannot keep track.

    But even funnier, those pesky liberals over at Fox News disagree with your view of this Ryan lie.

    And I quote:

    On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan's speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was  Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.

    But this is the best part:

    As the GM plant headed for closure, Ryan - who has represented Janesville in Congress for the past 14 years - made a rare departure from his free-market orthodoxy that frowns on government intervention. He backed the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler, a bailout Romney has loudly said was a mistake, and teamed with Democrats in Madison and in Wisconsin's congressional delegation to unsuccessfully lobby GM to keep the plant running.

    Yup, when the S hits the fan, even pin headed Ryan understands the free market is BS when people are added to the equation.  I would add he kept this very quite as it probably would have sidelined him in the party.

    But nice to know even a hack like Ryan supported the bailout.  But wait, there's more:

    While Ryan initially denied an Associated Press report this week that, despite opposing the bill, he'd asked for stimulus money for two companies in his district, he later acknowledged he had, calling it a "constituent-service matter."

    He lied, but more importantly, the very stimulus he denounced time and time again, was the money he was trying to secure.  Is there a hypocrite box to get into the GOP, or is that just a byproduct of the never ending lies ?


    It's both. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    When it comes to dishonsty, the Republicans like to cover all their bases.

    We have come to expect (none / 0) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    disassembly,  mis-statements and mis-underestimations (to use a G.W. Bush term), but, clearly, the pants Paul Ryan was wearing last night had to be made of asbestos or the whole convention hall would have been incinerated.

    The lying was blatant and  easily checked.....so what is up?   I think we can look to Paul Ryan's idol, Ayn Rand and her "Noble" lie, a lie justified in her mind as one told for the great and good purpose.  Of course, balancing Rand and the Eighth Commandment (Augustian), thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor will be needed when he faces his friend, the honest eminence, Cardinal Dolan.

    But, then Ryan can attempt to justify his lies on the basis that thinking people do not quality as his neighbors.   And he will certainly not get into trouble with the head of his ticket, since "Lying for the Lord"  in your own interests seems to be a value.  


    The new (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    word for it is "Lying for the Lord". As long as you have convinced yourself that you hare lying for the right purpose then lying is not even just okay it's no become "moral"

    Yes, "Lying for the Lord" (none / 0) (#180)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:08:53 PM EST
    is a point of discussion among some Mormons.  Apparently, a means justifies the end value, with the "end" being whatever your needs are.

    I think (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    What is the date of the last vehicle manufactures at the Janesville plant,IOW, the last day of operations ?

    It was around May, 2009.


    Mid 2008... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    ...but the plant was on stand-by for a couple years, then a work force stayed on to decommission the plant.

    I am from Wisconsin and that Janesville plant is something I drove by so many times.  The first GF I had in Texas had a Janesville Tahoe, huge tag on the driver door.  Although i didn't know anyone who worked there, that plant seemed to go on for miles, and thinking how small that town is, just makes me sad that it closed.

    In truth a Presidential candidate shouldn't claim he has the ability to keep a plant open, those are people's lives.  People who may have had options, but passed because of his promise.  Just another promise Obama failed to keep.

    And I wish Ryan had succeeded and kept those jobs, and I am not faulting that.  The poorer my birth state becomes the more I fear it will turn red.  I just hate how he's ready to slash in every direction until it actually comes down to his 'territory', then exceptions are made.  I hate that Ryan badmouths the very union workers he tried to save to look tough with the idiots in his party.  I hate that he lies with such impunity on a national stage, mostly because when it's all said and done, his hide is far more important then the very people who elected him in Wisconsin.  I hate that the R's have decided that Obama was wrong and Ryan was right when they essentially were doing the same thing, just on different scales and now they are holding it against Obama and Ryan can't help himself but pile on.

    Let's just hope my home state can see who he really cares for, himself, and vote him out when he returns home a defeated man.


    I agree, Scott, that Obama's promises (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    added to the heartbreak there.

    Just another broken promise to Wisconsin.

    Not surprising that it's a toss-up state now.


    Nope. 2008. It's not that hard to find (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    your friend Google to find this story on a Not-So-Merry Christmas 2008 in lovely Janesville, where the plant closed on the eve of Christmas Eve.

    I know a lot of people there, including many students who could not return to college, after many family members lost jobs not just at the GM plant but also in the many peripheral businesses reliant upon it.

    I also know the filmmaker of "As Goes Janesville" and have seen previews.  Watch your theaters (or possibly soon online) for showings that will break your heart.

    It is a lovely, lovely town, all too emptied now.


    I like Janesville. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    My cousin lives just outside Ft. Atkinson, along the Fox River. He got flooded out in June 2008, when the river overflowed its banks, and then was laid off by GM in December of that year. He's now working for his father (my uncle), who owns an excavating business. He commutes daily to Rockford, and is a heavy equipment operator.

    The official closure came in the fall, 2008 (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    Official closure???? (1.00 / 2) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:51:16 PM EST
    I guess it depends on what the meaning of official is...


    About 50 workers will remain at the Janesville plant to complete an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors Ltd. They're scheduled to finish by May or June, and then the plant will close down for good, GM spokesman Christopher Lee said.

    And Obama had promised to keep it open.

    Ryan was spot on.


    What a truly pathetic attempt (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:57:13 PM EST
    to prop up the Lyin' Ryan.

    Attempting to equate a campaign trail promise with what Bush's policies actively made happen to those jobs in Janesville...

    There really are no words for how silly that is.


    Worse, Obama never promised to (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    keep the plant open; the most he said was that he would fight to re-tool plants like the Janesville facility.

    Two quotes of interest:

    The first:

    I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant.  But I also know how much progress you've made - how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out.  And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.  The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it's where it will thrive.  I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that's the future I'll fight for as your President.

    And the second:

    "Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country," Obama said in a statement released by his Wisconsin campaign organization.

    "This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America."

    He never promised anything more than to fight.


    Google is your .... (none / 0) (#149)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:49:34 PM EST
    ... friend..

    Last car December 23, 2008.


    ... closed its doors for the last time on December 23, 2008 -- one month before President Obama took office.

    General Motors had initially announced in June 2008 that the plant would be closed in 2010, but the severe economic downturn in the fall of 2008 led GM to accelerate its timetable. Over 1,000 employees were laid off in Janesville.

    Disclosure: I have a lot of family (on my father's side) in the northern IL - southern WI area, and my cousin was one of those who lost his job at the Chrysler plant.


    And those 1,200 came after 3,000-plus (none / 0) (#175)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    previous layoffs that kept kicking and kicking a town that already was down.

    The anger at GM goes far beyond Janesville, though, because every taxpayer in the state already had kicked in major millions of bucks to remodel the plant in kowtowing to a GM threat to close it, not many years before.

    Many of us have avoided GM cars ever since.  Sorry, Detroiters, but GM suckered Wisconsin, bigtime.  


    Yes, they did. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    And hopefully, with the new management regime at GM came enlightenment. I have a real affinity for the region of northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, and it's heartbreaking to see what's happened to formerly prosperous small cities like Rockford and Janesville, thanks in large part to outsourcing and mismanagement.

    And here's a visual for those (none / 0) (#181)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    who can't google their way to the words that tell the truth.

    Many of those workers remain unemployed.  Others' families are torn apart because they only could get work several states away.

    See the movie "As Goes Janesville."  Really.


    LOL. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    The Washington Examiner.

    Is Vandy really +220? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:41:39 AM EST
    I might try to watch that game - sounds like a real offensive juggernaut!

    It's not the point spread Ruff... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    that's the money line...bet a hundo on Vandy to win straight up (no point spread), and if they win you collect 220 clams on the 100 bet.

    The point spread on the game is Vandy +7.


    If you haven't read Matt Taibbi's (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    article in the latest Rolling Stone magazine, you really should; it sheds a lot of light on Ann Romney's husband, a man who made his fortune buying companies with borrowed money, sucking as much cash as possible out of them and then sticking those companies with massive debt, who is now selling himself as the man who can solve our deficit and debt problems.

    A few excerpts:

    By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions - placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself..


    Then in 2000, right before Romney gave up his ownership stake in Bain Capital, the firm targeted KB Toys. The debacle that followed serves as a prime example of the conflict between the old model of American business, built from the ground up with sweat and industry know-how, and the new globalist model, the Romney model, which uses leverage as a weapon of high-speed conquest.

    In a typical private-equity fragging, Bain put up a mere $18 million to acquire KB Toys and got big banks to finance the remaining $302 million it needed. Less than a year and a half after the purchase, Bain decided to give itself a gift known as a "dividend recapitalization." The firm induced KB Toys to redeem $121 million in stock and take out more than $66 million in bank loans - $83 million of which went directly into the pockets of Bain's owners and investors, including Romney. "The dividend recap is like borrowing someone else's credit card to take out a cash advance, and then leaving them to pay it off," says Heather Slavkin Corzo, who monitors private equity takeovers as the senior legal policy adviser for the AFL-CIO.

    Bain ended up earning a return of at least 370 percent on the deal, while KB Toys fell into bankruptcy, saddled with millions in debt. KB's former parent company, Big Lots, alleged in bankruptcy court that Bain's "unjustified" return on the dividend recap was actually "900 percent in a mere 16 months." Patnode, by contrast, was fired in December 2008, after almost four decades on the job. Like other employees, he didn't get a single day's severance.

    The leopard isn't going to change its spots; the man who has preyed on vulnerable companies like vultures prey on roadkill is not going to change that behavior, he's changing the target.

    Information like this (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    emotionally exhausts me.  Something is going to give somewhere where we don't want it to.

    If there's a bright spot, it would (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    have to be that at least there are still some Matt Taibbis out there calling BS where it needs to be called; most of the rest of the media seem to engage in what David Dayen calls "theater criticism."  Here he is commenting on the media's coverage of Paul Ryan's speech:

    ...here's how CNN covered it in the immediate aftermath (bold was in the original):

    Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I'm sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I'm sure they will. As far as mitt romney's campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered.

    Burnett: That's right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He's a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.

    We live in a time when the media literally thinks it's a separate job to separate true from false in reporting on national political figures. They think their main job is theater criticism. Read "Paul Ryan Accepts Republican Vice-Presidential Nomination", the lead story by Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times today, and it's just a rote regurgitation of what Ryan said, faithfully captured. This is how most campaign speeches are covered.

    Sure, leave it to the "fact checkers."  Don't take the time to report to the people what those disputed points are.  Don't even comment about the number of what were clearly lies, or remark on the dishonesty of using lies to get the people motivated.  I mean, who wants to hear that?

    Yes, it is emotionally exhausting, and depressing, and head-bangingly frustrating.  And it's not going to get any better, I don't think.


    7,800 words and worth every syllable (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01:39 PM EST
    Having a captured company by the testicles Romney forced them to borrow money to pay Bain "dividend recapture."  Who in hell borrows money to payt a dividend.

    Taibbi called it tribute and the label is absolutely perfect.

    Companies like Bain Capital build nothing.  Romney's company was nothing more than a gang roaming about looking for a mugging victim.

    George W. Bush's business ventures were honorable by comparison.


    Two words: (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    cal1942: "Who in hell borrows money to pay a dividend?"

    Bain Capital.


    Sounds like (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    He would have been better off accepting $30 million bucks a year to run a hedge fund, instead of turning it down to run for President.

    We'd certainly be better off... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    he took that gig, instead of possibly scoring the presidency.

    We should all be sh*tting bricks...imagine the profit potential he must see in the presidency that he would turn down a 30 mill gig...like say if capital gains income becomes tax free as proposed in the Ryan plan.  


    Something tells me that driving ambition ruled (none / 0) (#12)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    On the surface, the reported $30M is more than a lot...but, then, Romney is accustomed to more than a lot.  And, when you get the drive, the fever to be President--which drive may be common by degree to all candidates at that level in modern history--you pursue it.

    True (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:05:29 AM EST
    Or you get to a point where you just aren't motivated by money any longer.

    Or Romney wants to go down in history as ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Erehwon on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    as the "best" president ever since ... James Polk.

    I'd rather Romney go down in defeat ... :-)


    If someone could fix (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    our problems in one term, they should win in a landslide, regardless of party.

    Then perhaps Mitt Romney should ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    ... promise tonight to annex British Columbia, and thus finally fulfill James Polk's 1844 campaign pledge to resolve the Canada-Oregon Territory border dispute with Great Britain at the 54-40 latitudinal boundary.

    Spoiler Alert... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    my issue hasn't arrived in the mail yet! ;)

    Just like in "Goodfellas"...find a struggling business, get your foot in the door, proceed to borrow every cent you can and suck every dollar outta the place by hook or by crook, and then torch the joint.

    Mitt Romney ladies and gentleman...Original Gangster!  Brooks Brothers Edition.


    Remember Linda Bloodworth and her (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    husband (whazzis name) who worked with Bill Clinton's campaign to make savvy promotional material?  

    Isn't there anyone supporting Obama who could take the info Taibbi provides and make an easily understood "documentary" to counter the deSouza film in the movie theatres now?


    Linda Bloodworth-Thomason (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    There was a good Obama doc on Current TV last night....only saw a little of it.

    That's all good. But I'm talking about (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    whipping the Taibbi info into shape to show in movie theaters and actually get people to buy tickets to see it.  

    Why doesn't George Clooney do it? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    He's a personal friend of Obama's and a Hollywood heavyweight film maker. Maybe he could get Harvey Weinstein to pitch in. And Rob Reiner.

    I know...but I don't know if it is happening (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    or could happen in the next 60 days.

    I know I'm a bad person (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    I haven't been able to pick up much from his persona. But reading the part yesterday about how he screwed with bonusing those under him, giving them varying bonuses for no reason other than to make them doubt their own perceptions of their performance and those around them, it just struck me.  I read that and I thought to myself, "Yes, that's who he is. I see that in his history and how he even approaches me, how he believes that saying two conflicting things minutes apart is acceptable behavior for him. A touch of subtle abusive megalomania.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    is probably the only male Republican Senator that I listen to with the female Senators from Maine being the others. Compared to the other Senator From South Carolina, Graham is almost a Blue Dog Dem. But every now and then he lets what he's really thinking slip out and this week was one of those times

    "The demographics race we're losing badly. We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

    And even the angry white guy... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:36:29 AM EST
    vote is not all locked up for the GOP.  I'm a politically angry cracker. Though non-politically speaking, rather content.  

    Unless he means perpetually angry white guys, in which case he's probably spot on, GOP got them locked up, twisted, and directing their anger in all the wrong places...but there ain't nearly enough of 'em, praise the lord.


    A most (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    worthy project for the Republicans: generating an angry white guy vote.

    Graham isn't just saying that he wants the vote of those angry honkies that are with us already. He wants to generate more of 'em.

    What a cahuntry.


    They make suck at governing... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:37:37 AM EST
    but the GOP can sure put a "Two Minutes Hate" together to feed and fuel more kick the dog...they've got it down to a science.  They will have some success, but it's a loser long term.  

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    I think that both sides are pretty good at the two minute hate routine.

    No problem. Tell 'em to hate Iran.


    You know why you're "rather content"? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    Because you've got the bong. Which reminds me, pass it over here, and stop bogarting it.



    Lindsey's words (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    clearly expose the nature of the Romney campaign.  

    Appeal to the darkest side of human nature.  The welfare ad isn't even the slightest bit subtle.

    The "joke" if it can be called a joke will be on the people he's appealing to.  If they elect Romney they'll pay the steepest price.



    I came across (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    a link someone posted on another blog about what the welfare ad was doing. It was a link to Bill Moyers. The welfare ad is specifically designed to get the angy white working class guy to vote for Romney 'cause apparently they need some reason. According to Moyers they have something like 8 of these ads in rotation and they are the only ones that have moved Romney's numbers.

    Since those ads (none / 0) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    have come out the gap has been narrowing in important swing states.  

    They won't stop running those ads in spite of all criticism including media articles exposing the lie.

    This is a new low even for the Republican Party.


    Republican Party? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    Does it even still exist? I thought they had pretty much given in to the Batsh!t Crazy Party . . .

    They have. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    Thinks the GOP will cooperate more with him in a second term.
    President Barack Obama says his re-election might help end the political stalemate in Washington, much like "popping a blister."

    In an interview with Time magazine, Obama says he expects Republicans in Congress to work more cooperatively in a second term, since his re-election would no longer be a factor.

    Oy. Is he seriously that delusional or his he a complete moron?

    With the demographic shifts.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    ... the GOP will need to reinvent itself if the Dems can withstand the challenge this election and regain control of the House too.

    It makes sense. Unfortunately, I'm not wanting Obama to work with the GOP.


    The Dems (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    are not going to regain control of the House this time. They need to pick up 25 seats, they are likely to get around 10.  No, Nancy Pelosi will not be the Speaker in January, so Obama will have to work in his magic fairy-land imagination with Republican leadership (and that's assuming no Republican takeover of the Senate as well, which is too close to call at this point).

    If the Dems keep the senate.... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    ... there absolutely has to be filibuster reform. I'm hopeful (translate: deluded) about our chances in the House.

    It Will Get... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:21:05 AM EST

    There is descent chance they could get the Senate and the Presidency and they will keep the House.  Right now I am feeling good about the filibuster.

    It sucks when we want pass legislation, but damn it could save us from unleashed republican ambition, that would make the Bush years look like the good ole days.


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    They're serious about their platform and we have evidence they'll act ruthlessly to enact it.  The evidence is what we've seen in several states since the mid-terms.  Those legislatures and their governors have acted in spite of public outcry.

    If Republicans get the Senate, the White House and hold the House they'll stop at nothing to enact their radical agenda.  They appear, IMO, to be on a Kamikaze mission knowing that much of the serious damage they can do will be very difficult to undo.


    Yep. You're all gonna get Sconnied (none / 0) (#176)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:39:21 PM EST
    a la Scottie "Perp" Walker, courtesy of the Koch Bros.

    Fight now.  We're still the walking wounded, after watching our lives and entire ethos change overnight.  


    In a strange way, Sen. Graham's comment (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    Presaged the reality of what the next election cycle may bring.  The numbers, the demographic numbers, are the kind if facts that give even Ryan apoplexy.  Without any rose-colored glasses, those numbers will require Repubs to alter methods & message.  I agree that a second term for this President will see a changed dynamic with Congress...to the good...because, when you throw everything at the other guy two times running and adding in the famous demographics, the Repubs really have no other choice but to negotiate if they want to maintain majority party status.

    Ye, in a strange way, Graham made the announcement.  Heck, the Repubs might eventually seek out the ghost of Everett Dirksen.


    People (not just you) (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    are pretty glib assuming that the "[GOP] really [has] no other choice but to negotiate if they want to maintain majority party status".    I know that historically elected officials in general paid attention to that kind of thing.  Having said that, I'm not convinced that this kind of thinking still dominates the "typical" Republican mind set.  

    I don't think an appropriate level of batsh!t crazy has been factored in.


    They Can't (none / 0) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    Tea Party will not here of it, and exactly what are they going to negotiate on, the stuff they spend 4 years claiming would be the end of the world.

    Never happen.


    You DO have a point, sj (none / 0) (#112)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    More than some of the Republicans these days seem to be on lunatic ledge. For now, I can't quite fully give in to thinking that is where they really are...maybe denial on my part, but the consequences of that bunch being genuinely nuts--as opposed to outmaneuvering themselves by playing to the nuts==is too challenging to digest.
    Here's hoping that I don't have to deal with that kind of indigestion anytime soon.

    My premise as to the promise of bona fide negotiations in a second term stems from views about "power"--its acquisition & retention--dating back to Machiavelli(and, undoubtedly, earlier.)  In shorthand: Rulers, regimes, people don't cede power willingly...usually.  There may be pretenses about it, such as setting up new mechanisms & fronts and dribbling out crumbs with little agreements.  But, when the dynamics shift via seismic populace shifts, everyone knows that the obstruction & feints won't cut it.  That is why, IMO, the overt emphasis on voter suppression this go-round, since the coupling of voter ID front with heightened appeals to racism signify a crossing-the-line attempt in aggressive ways to obtain/retain power.

    Most organisms, especially those in the guise of political institutions, historically demonstrate a decision to survive as intact as possible so as not to lose power, authority, and all identity.  Somewhere in there, I believe that some version of "uncle" by the frustrated Repubs would be a natural outgrowth of an Obama second term. We may be witnessing a version of the Last Hurrah now!


    In a strange way, Sen. Graham's comment (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    Presaged the reality of what the next election cycle may bring.  The numbers, the demographic numbers, are the kind if facts that give even Ryan apoplexy.  Without any rose-colored glasses, those numbers will require Repubs to alter methods & message.  I agree that a second term for this President will see a changed dynamic with Congress...to the good...because, when you throw everything at the other guy two times running and adding in the famous demographics, the Repubs really have no other choice but to negotiate if they want to maintain majority party status.

    Ye, in a strange way, Graham made the announcement.  Heck, the Repubs might eventually seek out the ghost of Everett Dirksen.


    It's not a question. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    Is he seriously that delusional or his he a complete moron?

    One is tempted to answer simply, "Yes" on both points.

    Another way to interpret his forecast of a blister-popping four years is that he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again.

    He has governed as a republican.
    Instead of ending the war in Afghanistan when he assumed power, he sent in 30,000 more troops.

    His record on civil liberties is abysmal. What more could McCain have done to fkusup?

    He hearts the draconian "patriot act".
    The dems are as for it as the repubs.

    According to his frightening V.P. pick, Biden, the last election was about a "three letter word - J O B S." That hasn't worked out either.

    His actions regarding the targeted killing of an American citizen (and his son who happened to be in the way) accused but never charged or brought to trial is hair-raising.

    The detention of Bradley Manning is horrific imo.
    Exposing collateral murder was patriotic. It expressed the "transparency" for which Obama has such contempt.

    Then there are the little things - the call to religion rather than a confrontation with those who promote the sale and easy access to weaponry.

    The ongoing boondoggle for the "star-wars" project in Europe.

    The on-again off-again demonization of North Korea and Iran.

    The appointment of Geithner.

    In short, so much of the horrific agenda of the Bush presidency is still with us.

    Even if you place the blame on intransigent or mean nasty racist ugly republicans, the sad fact is that Obama has been unable or unwilling to forcefully and publicly confront them. He still isn't.

    And for most of the issues I mentioned above, Obama is actually for them. They are horrors and relics from the very worst of the Republican-repressive-Bush era - embraced and endorsed by Obama.

    And if Obama has clearly stated that a woman has the absolute and unequivocal right to terminate a pregnancy, I have yet to see it. I would look forward to this issue being brought up during one of the debates and seeing whether there is any perceptible difference between what Obama and Romney will state as their position on this important issue.

    To sum up, if Obama goes down, it will be because he has stood for so little that even those who are truly frightened of a Romney presidency feel that they have nowhere to turn.


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    I'm banging my head on the desk wondering why Obama is stuck on stupid when it comes to this kind of stuff.

    No he's neither (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    but you and Romney need to get a room.  :-)

    So my expectation is that there will be some popping of the blister after this election, because it will have been such a stark choice. Where Republicans refuse to cooperate on things that I know are good for the American people, I will continue to look for ways to do it administratively and work around Congress. And a good example of that is, for example, making sure that homeowners around the country can take advantage of these historically low rates and refinance.

    There's no reason Congress can't move forward and at almost no cost to the federal government really boost the housing market and our economy. But if Congress won't do it, we'll keep on looking for ways to get that done without legislation.



    Which still doesn't change the original point (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    But nice try. He actually thinks these people will see the error of their ways and come to him singing Kumbaya.

    And since he assumes the "blister will pop", I'm sure he'll have just as easy time with Putin on missile defense, since he knows he'll have  "more space" to maneuver.


    Your original point (none / 0) (#98)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    is impolitic and makes no sense in a country where we don't all agree.

    Your point: The president is still going to try to work with Republicans?  OMG!!!!

    As though he has a choice.


    Oy (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    Hardy Har Har ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    even he doesn't really believe that one.

    In all seriousness, he's not going to get much help from either party.  The economy is going to take another dramatic downward turn in 13-14, rendering him a lame duck virtually from the jump.

    I foresee a lot of foreign travel.


    Well, that's one theory (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:28:32 PM EST
    Isaac update (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    Not sure where this is exactly, but the Percy Quin Dam in Mississippi is in danger of failing today with mandatory evacuations taking place along the Tangipahoa River

    I just heard on the news that the levee in (none / 0) (#31)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    Plaquemines parish will be breached today to relive the pressure from all the water. I don't know how big an area will be flooded from that breach, but it can't be good.

    CBS update (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:05:43 AM EST

    Tangipahoa Parish President Gordon Burgess issued an emergency alert warning of the "imminent failure" of a dam at Lake Tangipahoa in Percy Quinn State Park in Mississippi. CBS New Orleans affiliate WWL-TV reports Burgess said between 50,000-60,000 people had 90 minutes to evacuate.

    This is near the edge where Mississippi is on the northern border of Louisiana sending the water back into Louisiana.


    Dam update (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    A controlled breach dumping four feet up water towards Kentwood, LA is now planned to prevent the failing of the dam which would send a 17 foot wall of water towards Kentwood.

    very sobering (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    The Times-Picayune (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:56:00 PM EST
     shows a map of the expected flood area

    The controlled breach of the dam has started with the water flowing south into Louisiana towards the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. As this storm moves north a lot of water will still be coming back south as is shown in this case.

    Would hate to own one of the houses swamped by the intentional breach but still far safer for many thousands more if they can keep the dam intact.


    I saw on the news last night (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    that a lot of people aren't leaving their homes, saying they don't have anywhere to go. If it were me, I think I'd just get the heck out of there anyway. I keep remembering video footage of all those people stuck on their roofs during Katrina.

    I'm glad that Ryan's speech is being shredded... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    ... for dishonesty. US News used the word "lies" in its headline. Politifact, AP, WashPost, even Fox (online, not on TV) said Ryan was trying to set a record for number of lies to include in a speech.

    When Romney's spokesman said that they're not going to let factcheckers dictate their campaign, that was even too much for the media to take. (knock on wood).

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    Michael Steele on MSNBC... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    when asked why Ryan's speech was so factually inaccurate, "Conventions are not about facts"

    Did anyone from MSNBC challenge him (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    on that statement?  I'm guessing not.

    I didn't watch the speech and other than a few excerpts here and there, haven't been able to bring myself to read it.

    As for Steele - who might have been one of the worst RNC chairs ever - I live in MD, where he was the lieutenant governor - always a useless position in MD - to Bob Ehrlich, who is the chair of the MD Romney campaign.  Please don't get me started on him.

    Honestly, this is becoming a sh!t show to end all sh!t shows.


    wow (none / 0) (#37)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:15:37 AM EST
    Watching an MSNBC host I know nothing about... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    but she's putting on a decent show (I don't have cable, so livestreaming a feed). Ezra Klein noted right after Steele how dangerous it is for people to grade a speech as "successful" because of its effect when it's so dishonest, and to separate politics from fact is something the media has to really be careful about.

    That's the dirty little no-so-secret (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    No one really wants to get rid of the filibuster.  It's horrible when you are in the majority, but great when you are in the minority.  It's also great for the president to use as an excuse whenever something doesn't get done, even if he has a filibuster-porrf majority and tons of political capital.

    The Big Lie (none / 0) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    The fact is that the Big Lie technique works for the #RNC.  It worked with Iraq and it works now.  Lies seem to stick and the facts confuse people.  We on the left chase facts, when in truth to the GOP base, facts do not matter.  They want the lies.  I realize that drawing parallels between the GOP and fascists scares people, but read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie.  

    Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the expression "big lie." Goebbels wrote the following paragraph in an article dated 12 January 1941, 16 years after Hitler's first use of the phrase "big lie," titled "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik" and translated "From Churchill's Lie Factory." It was published in Die Zeit ohne Beispiel.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous

    Who Cares (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    Bill Oreilly was on the today show and he said 20M people watch the convention are party people.  I was surprised at how he called the whole thing, and i am quoting, 'bovine' and self-congratulatory BS that should be reduce to 2 speakers, the candidate and their running mate.

    He was speaking of both conventions, and I think it's the first time I have ever agreed with him.  It's simply a waste of time and resources in the age of the internet.  Only the diehards pay attention to the convention and their votes are already determined.

    We all know what's coming, no surprises, well except for this mystery guest tonight, which Fox has rumored to be a hologram of Reagan.  I might actually stomach it just to see what sort of hack job they will do to get Ronny up to speed with the current GOP.

    The reports I see (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    say the mystery speaker is "Make my day" Clint Eastwood.

    I fear that, more than any other of the rumors.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:22:30 AM EST
    I will happy dance for a week if the surprise... (none / 0) (#47)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    ... guest is Donald Trump.

    Ol' Clint Eastwood (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    I've always liked his movies...just not his politics.

    One thing we do know is that the image Clint will project now could really be none other than a backward looking one.  No matter the nostalgia...the reflection will show those on stage & in the audience as the opposite of the future.  Here, I'm gonna say it: Make my day (lets see him rally the troops ala Charlton Heston with the rifle clenched above his head.)

    If they showed "spaghetti western" clips, well....


    Maybe Hank Williams, Jr., will (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    show up too.  

    I assume... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    Clint is gonna ask us "you feel lucky punks?"  With the Romney/Ryan ticket pointed at us, in place of Dirty Harry's 44 Magnum.

    Perhaps Eastwood hopes to get some (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:38:35 PM EST
    traffic to his newest release:  Trouble with the Curve.  Eastwood is an aging baseball scout.  Justin Timberlake is in the movie too.  

    Speaking of Timberlake... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    I saw "In Time" recently...loved the concept of that film, reminded me a lot of our economic system.  The Phillipe Weiss character is a regular Mitt Romney.

    Check it out, if ya haven't already.


    For a Former Boy Band Member... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    ...he is a damn good actor, but more importantly, he knows how to pick a script.  Can't think of a bad movie, but I am sure someone will remind me, but Alpha Dog and Black Snake Moan he did some heavy acting in really good movies.  Facebook was pretty good and played the part well.

    Plus he is easily my favorite SNL regular.  Junk in a Box and Liquorville w/Gaga are two of the funniest skits ever.

    And I'll admit I don't totally hate his music...


    Don't forget Amy Adams, who plays (none / 0) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    Eastwood's daughter in the movie. IMO, she is the reason to see Trouble with the Curve.

    Well, also, it's a baseball movie, and (none / 0) (#140)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:20:34 PM EST
    who doesn't love a good baseball movie? Especially a baseball movie that looks to be chock full of sentimentality.

    Heck, i still make it a habit to watch Bull Durham every spring.

    Of course, I am, in general, very sentimental.


    I do love the Westerns (none / 0) (#141)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    not so much the Dirty Harry stuff. Haven't seen either of the Iwo Jima movies or the boxing movie.

    Sad to see him speaking on Romney's behalf, as I'll now root for "the Ugly"


    Halarious... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:39:35 AM EST
    ...I seemed to remember the right going nutz over his Super Bowl auto industry commercial.
    On Twitter, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin fumed, "Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad?"

    Along with Nancy, I bet (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    if she is well enough to attend

    But conventions do provide a bounce usually... (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    and even if its the party's partisans only watching the conventions, that's important for turnout. Nobody can dispute that the only time McCain was a threat to win was after the reaction to Palin's speech at the convention that fired up the base. That enthusiasm waned as she became more and more of a joke, but if she actually had more intellectual curiosity and knowledge of policy, that bump might have made things a lot closer.

    I actually disagreed with you, for once, probably because you agreed with O'Reilly. :)


    Romney (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    Got a little bounce after Day 1 of the convention.  Whatever remaining bounce he gets is likely to be small and short-lived as the Democrats will have their convention next week, and Obama will get a little bounce after that.

    THEN people will start paying attention to the election.


    538 has Obama's chances of winning over 70% (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    today, compared to around 65 or 66 % earlier in the week. Ohio is killing Romney's chances.

    No. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    At least, according to the latest polls it's tied or within the margin of error.  Obama seems to be gaining a little ground, but 10% ar still claiming to be undecided.

    None of this matters, of course, as most people still aren't really following the election and won't be until next month.


    I feel this will be unlike ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    recent coin toss presidential elections.  And it will follow more traditional models. It will look close for a while then break fairly decisively for one side. In this case for the President.

    Oh (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    I think Obama will probably pull it out too, but I think we will be up very late on Election Night.

    I wouldn't buy lots of snacks ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    you'll have weeks of leftovers.

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    It certainly won't be as big a win as he had over McCain.

    Only because 2008 was a slaughter.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:42:58 PM EST
    Obama won't win Indiana again, but he'll be in the 300s.

    He won't win NC either (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:45:54 PM EST
    I guess I don't really care as long as ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    Romney doesn't win.

    I still don't see his path to victory if Ohio is looking as bad as it seems for Romney.


    How is it looking bad? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    As I pointed to before - every poll shows them tied or within the margin of error.  Where is the rush over to Obama?

    Fuzzy Math (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    Romney has only led in one of the last dozen presidential polls taken in Ohio.

    The only way Romney wins the race (none / 0) (#76)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    is by stealing it. And, thankfully, the ugly voter suppression tactics aren't working everywhere. Florida's was struck down, the Texas voter ID law was just struck down a few hours ago as well.

    The voter suppression is the story of this race, and as for Ohio, wasn't it that crook Ken Blackwell who admitted publicly that Ohio's law was created to allow Romney a win?


    Plus, the Banksters already ... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:50:58 PM EST
    have a guy in the oval who will bend over for them any time they ask.

    So they have no incentive to aid in any frauds.


    Don't focus just on voter ID laws (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    as they usually are only clauses in larger laws with lots of voter suppression tactics.

    For example, the courts in Wisconsin struck down the voter ID clause -- but not other parts of the Republicans' wide-ranging law that garnered little notice but had huge impact already in the recall election, such as oddities in ID's needed to register to vote, increasing the days needed for residency to register to vote, etc.

    And then, beyond the new legalities, there are the new illegalities, such as voting machines banned by state law but in use in areas of that state, as became evident afterward -- but discussed only on blogs.  Major media there are all for the Republicans, so nothing is being done to demand different machines by November.

    As Wisconsin has been forced to follow a blueprint by the Kochs' Americans for Prosperity and other groups, I cannot imagine that these tactics -- including the look over there! focus on voter ID -- are not occurring elsewhere, too.


    And Their Number Hit... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    ...removing registered voters because of some discrepancy, usually with their address.

    One theory is that we will know early (none / 0) (#123)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    on election night...in view of the potentially paramount roles of one or a combination of Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire. (Florida, too & of course, but we all know that state can take awhile to be resolved.)

    The House Effect of that poll purporting (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    to show a tie in Ohio is about 4 to 5 points pro Republican (per Nate Silver, NYTimes...who reviewed the poll agains other outcomes and polls by this outfit.)

    Does technology permit (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    a hologram of Il Duce?

    A surprising (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    column on Fox's online site (Fox.com) by Sally Kohn - detailing the lies and distortions in Ryan's presentation last night.
    Thanks to magster below for making me aware of it.

    It's worth seeing.


    It will be interesting to see if any of the democratic speakers at next weeks convention will be as forthright and articulate.
    I hope so.

    This could be interesting.

    Start a meme... (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Travener on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    From now on, Paul Ryan's to be known as Lyin' Ryan...

    Bet Jeb Bush is ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:06:47 PM EST
    loving this convention. Two of his significant rivals in '16 (Christie and Ryan) laid an egg on the big stage.

    The limelight (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    has been as cruel as a florescent tube in a fitting room--soft lighting is kinder to their grotesqueness,  and that includes Jeb.

    Washington Post polls... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    Stephanie Cutter to Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    "Well, you know, Andrea, there's no delicate way to put this, but he lied," Cutter said. "He blatantly lied and brazenly. A number of different things have been fact checked by members of the media, independent fact checkers."

    Stephanie Cutter as your source? (2.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:47:19 PM EST
    The woman who's been caught lying multiple times?

    Obama needs a better spokesperson.


    Good lord, jb - no one needs a "source" (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    to know that Paul Ryan lied his ass off last night; what is it with you and strawmen?  

    If you watched it or read the transcript and have been paying minimal attention to events, you could spot half a dozen blatant lies without even breaking a sweat.  And they weren't the obscure, meaningless kind, either.

    Tell you what: pick a source you find credible and see if that person isn't listing the same Paul Ryan lies as the odious Stephanie Cutter - oh, what's that glow?  Oh, it's your strawman going up in flames.

    But wait - there's another one waiting in the wings - Yay!  Which one is it?  Oh, look: it's "they all do it."  I should have known.



    Jeezus is right (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    Of course Ryan was lying.  But that has nothing to do with Stephanie Cutter who also been shot down mulitple times already this year as a proven liar.

    Criminy - it's not one or the other.

    She's a terrible spokesperson and not believable, except to those already with stars in their eyes.

    Wake up.


    Wake up? You think I have stars in my (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    eyes?  Hoo-boy.  That sound you hear is untold numbers of TL commenters and lurkers snorting with laughter at the idea that I have any stars in my eyes when it comes to Obama.

    I can't speak for the commenter who brought the Cutter-to-Mitchell quote in, but I read it simply as proof that Dems were very much onto Ryan's problem with the truth, making it likely that Dems were going to be making an issue of it.  Which they absolutely should do.

    The point was Ryan's lying; you decided to make it about Stephanie Cutter, whose believability in this instance was more or less a non sequitur, since what she said was as obvious as saying "the sun rises in the east."

    For the record, I am not a big fan of Cutter, but if you are going to tell me that because Stephanie Cutter said that Paul Ryan lied, you didn't believe it, or that you needed someone more credible to tell you he lied before you would, I'm going to suggest that I'm not the one who needs to wake up.


    "Shot down multiple times," huh? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    Okay, I'll bite -- when, and for what?

    What about Robert Reich? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    Does he meet your standards? He's been writing about Lyin' Ryan since before that fact-challenged speech last night.

    There were at least a dozen of news sites this morning exposing Ryan's lies. Pick one.


    Oh, Christ! Shooting the messenger again. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    Get off your high horse, jb -- you seem to keep hitting your head on the ceiling beams as you pass by.

    It's abundantly clear to anyone who's moderate-to-well informed and has a command of the English language that Ryan proved himself last night to be a serial BS artist. Does mendacity have to hit you upside the head on multiple occasions, too?


    I point it out to show Obama's campaign (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    is going to run with Ryan is a liar. The L word will be all over campaign commercials and convention speeches.

    Sure they will (3.50 / 2) (#90)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:55:06 PM EST
    Because when both sides are screaming "Liar, liar, pants on fire", they don't actually have to put forth actual plans of their own.

    But Stephanie Cutter is the worst spokesperson.


    Funny, how I was just saying to a friend (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    a bit ago: That Stephanie Cutter is one of the most effective campaign spokespeople in years...they put her in front of the cameras when it is "big point" time.  

    Lyin Ryan: How poetic, and what poetic justice.


    Today is Molly Ivins' birthday: (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    She belongs to that ... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    increasingly long list of people we could use today. She is greatly missed.

    Rufus T. Firefly? (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    The only one I could come up with.

    A '5' because of randomness (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    Let me try...

    Molly J. Muledeer?

    Theodore Treefrog?


    You're cracking me up! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    And you actually had me googling those names to see...

    No, I was replying to MT's lament that she couldn't answer Josh's query regarding the names of any good dictators.

    Rufus T Firefly - Dictator of Freedonia (1933)
    Chaplin, as you-know-who (1940)


    Josh might like the dictator (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:46:34 PM EST
    president played by Walter Huston in the 1933 film Gabriel Over the White House.  Declares Marshall Law, dissolves Congress, initiates govt jobs and foreclosure relief programs, handles organized crime via military tribunals, invites foreign leaders to DC to watch display of massive US military might causing them to sign disarmament treaties, etc.

    Even FDR liked it.  Probably found it tempting.


    This may be exactly perfect for his (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:55:18 PM EST
    Social Studies class.   Extra points if he does a synopsis of a film that is over 50 years old.  He was excited about it but I'm not an older film buff so I had no suggestions for him.  His teacher would probably love this too.

    School started for him 2 weeks ago, 7th grade, different periods and teachers.  We have been "discussing" an IEP for him.  The school tells me that an IEP for Joshua requires a 60 day study to even determine if he qualifies.  Not that I flatly believe them on any of this.  They attempted to first tell me that he didn't qualify because he doesn't have learning disabilities or retardation.  What a load of bull$hit.  He has a profound hearing loss and I know my federal laws.  When I dead eyed flatly told his counselor that, she backtracked quickly, said that perhaps she was wrong.  No, it isn't perhaps you are wrong....You are just plain and simple WRONG!

    The Junior High has begged me to let them prove they can provide for Josh without an IEP though.  I acquiesced.  It reminds me a bit of being able to take advantage of the fact that there are Unions and Union rights though, it affects things for everyone on the playing field but if you aren't participating and playing THAT game you may be enabling the end of Unions or IEPs.

    Because of all this though, even recent movie experiences have recently suffered.  I will look for this at Netflix.


    Ahhhh..... (none / 0) (#167)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    the reply fail gets you everytime.

    I think the King and Queen in Ever After did a pretty good job. Drew Barrymore was just so sweet she couldn't have been a bad queen.


    I guess I forgot to hit "reply" (none / 0) (#159)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    to MT.

    Also, Charlie Chaplin. OK, there's two.


    Yawn. (none / 0) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:23:37 AM EST
    SeC trolls be trolling.

    It would be kind of cool if ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:46:10 AM EST
    the Securities and Exchange Commission had a football league.

    All respect to you football fans (none / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:49:48 AM EST
    but for me only, I don't know which is worse--being forced to watch the convention, or being forced to watch football.  Oh wait--maybe football has the edge. ;)

    Forced ? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    You live with Dick Cheney, that must suck.

    I might be forced to watch (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    the latest episode of 'Breaking Bad' for the third time.

    Hmmm, Aaron Rodgers or Mitt Romney? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    Guess which way it's gonna go in Paul Ryan's home state tonight for the Packers' last preseason game?

    Viewers demanded and are promised no cutaways to the convention.

    Ryan may be the only Wisconsinite watching Romney tonight.


    All I've got are the Seahawks tonight. (none / 0) (#189)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    Still, even they are better than the GOP convention and the monotonous tones of the Mittster.

    Well then (none / 0) (#185)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:15:05 PM EST
    there's also baseball and tennis on right now.  In fact Roger Federer is playing as we speak live in NYC.

    Oregon (none / 0) (#7)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:06:23 AM EST
    is favored by 37 over Arkansas St.

    Live in Portland... Have two sons who are Ducks... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cashmere on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    Oregon Ducks...  Still... I cannot stand the Ducks!  I guess it is because I am an Oregon State Beaver! Once a Beav, always a Beav, even though our football team is miserable.

    One thing that really enables me to despise the Ducks...  Their coach, Chip Kelly, a true arrogant SOB... and of course the MASSIVE amount of money that Phil Knight (NIKE) floods the football program with.  I could go on and on about this...

    Thanks for letting me rant... I feel better now.


    The Beavers (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    game is postponed this weekend due to Isaac. Too bad for the Beavers and for Nicholls State. For the Beavers one of the few surefire wins on their schedule, and for Nicholls the big payday at Reser Stadium that would help fund their sports programs for the year.

    Tough break for the Beavs, who were hoping (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    for a season opening win before they took on the Wisconsin Badgers. Now, the Beavs will have to work out the kinks during the Wisconsin game.

    And a tough break for Nichols State, who really could use the payday that would have been for them.


    Cancelled Beavers game will cost local (none / 0) (#184)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:14:37 PM EST
    Corvallis businesses approx. $3 million for the weekend. Bars, restaurants, motels, all had geared up for the big opening weekend of football season.

    "Surefire win"? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    Hey, no looking backward. This is America (none / 0) (#187)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:17:05 PM EST
    where we only look forward. The past means nothing to us.

    Hey (none / 0) (#191)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    Was trying to give a boost to the PAC12. Could have gone the other way since I'm a wrong coast Duck fan. Tough break for Nicholls as they miss out on a big payday and a surefire win which they could have used after weathering Isaac.

    Vandy (none / 0) (#9)
    by bmaz on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    Has historically given SC fits; still, I dunno, think I will go with the 'Ole Ballcoach.

    How does football impact (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    Armando's new avocation as radio guy?

    Obama Crowds Still Small ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    but growing.  Nowhere near the '08 numbers.

    More on this from WSJ.

    TMZ confirms Eastwood will speak at RNC tonight (none / 0) (#86)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:50:31 PM EST

    How is this really (none / 0) (#95)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    a big get?  It's no secret he's Republican.  

    I thought they had miraculously turned someone.  Couldn't think of who though.


    The GOPers wnt to counter Ryan's youth (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    and vitality with the 80-something former mayor of Carmel, CA.

    I agree. Who cares?


    Ratings last night down by 18 million (none / 0) (#117)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    from Palin's speech 4 years ago. Naming a VP to change the brutal news cycle 3 weeks before a convention might have been a big mistake. I guess the RNC had to generate some buzz or excitement. An 82 year old actor to give a rah rah speech is the best they could come up with.

    * 17 million. (none / 0) (#119)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    Not to mention picking a VP (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    ... who's since generated his own brutal news cycle just last night, and all on his own.

    Too bad Hollywood is so biased (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    against conservatives. I'm sure he can barely get a movie deal.

    Truly. (none / 0) (#154)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    I've never paid attention to Eastwood ... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:16:03 PM EST
    ... on the subject of politics -- but I'll go see any movie he directs. He's one of the true American masters behind the camera.

    Somewhat the opposite (none / 0) (#198)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:56:59 PM EST
    for me -- for a while anyway, 15-20 years ago, I definitely closely watched his politics, around the time of his Carmel mayor stint as it looked like CA could be getting another Reagan.  Fortunately --rare for a Gooper pol -- he was true to his word and called it quits in elected office after Carmel.

    Never much of an Eastwood the actor fan; always hated his too macho by half on-screen tough guy performance, not far from his off-screen persona apparently, at least for a long while.  

    As for his directing, it's cliched warmed over Spielberg.  Not much original or memorable, from the half the oeuvre I've been forced to watch.

    Ironic that the allegedly principled and no nonsense tough guy, anti-slick pol, independent minded Eastwood appears ready to endorse a famously unprincipled, finger-to-the-wind slick talking empty shell of a pol.  

    What's his pitch for Romney going to be?  Or will it mostly be some hackneyed stuff about how America is behind at the half and now needs to change quarterbacks?


    Because of the Chrysler ad, I suppose... (none / 0) (#97)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    Doesn't do much for the image of the GOP being a bunch of angry old white guys though.

    New judge assigned to Zimmerman case: (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    As advertised (none / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    Local papers describe her as a conservative judge that dishes out big sentences. Translation being, did Zimmerman just go from the frying pan to the fire.

    Like I told one of the Zimbots yesterday: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    Be very careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

    Ann Romney talks to 'you people' again (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    I heard this on the radio this morning...guess I am not the only one it struck as amazingly condescending. h/t Atrios.

    "You people really know how to party." (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    She sd., referring to a campaign event she attended in Puerto Rico.  Best time she ever had in her life.  

    Now, if Hispanics could only "get over their biases."



    Just wow. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    Ms. Romney: "It really is a message that would resonate well if they [women and hispanics who usually vote Dem] could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us [the GOP] look like we don't care about this community."

    Yeah, that's the problem: women and hispanics are too biased and stoopid to vote the right way. Nice.

    In contrast, Ms. Obama appeared on Letterman last night and IMO knocked it out of the ballpark. I have been critical of her at times in the past, but she was just awesome. What a contrast.


    I still say that Ann Romney =s new Barbara Bush :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    Michelle Obama is really great on those (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    late night shows. Always comes across as smart and a lot of fun.

    Just went to CBS.com to watch it... (none / 0) (#138)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    ... She is terrific.

    I (none / 0) (#171)
    by lentinel on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:18:46 PM EST
    can't remember a "first lady" who didn't come off better than her spouse.

    Yes Ann, it is the Dem machines that (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    make the GOP look like it does not care about that community. That's all it is, not your policies.

    Josh wants to know why we don't (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    ever talk about the good dictators?  I asked him if there was a good dictator.  He says there must have been at least one or two out there?  I'm too tired to think of anything supermom thoughtful to answer him with.

    The term 'benevolent dicator' comes to mind (none / 0) (#172)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    But no examples

    The term 'benevolent dicator' comes to mind (none / 0) (#173)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:18:56 PM EST
    But no examples

    2:33 of Clint's speech will be this.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    So, no one clicked the link? (none / 0) (#170)
    by magster on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:18:43 PM EST
    He's got a singing voice that is as sweet as creamy butter. . .

    Eastwood actually did his own singing. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    But nevertheless, Paint Your Wagon still received scathing reviews and was a total bomb at the box office.

    And even though Paint Your Wagon was a substantially bigger payday for him, I bet Lee Marvin kicked himself afterward for reneging on his initial acceptance of the lead role of Pike Bishop in Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch in order to star in this 3-hour-long turkey, while William Holden was probably eternally grateful he did so.

    Eastwood later said that Marvin's affinity for the bottle on the set of Paint Your Wagon led to numerous production delays, and that his own frustrations with that film actually strengthened his resolve to become a director, and take control of and responsibility for his own work.


    I've never seen it, but I really should (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    One of my best friends loves it, and I'm a Lerner and Loewe fan.

    I like it (none / 0) (#194)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    even though there was no baseball in it. Had some slow spots but Lee Marvin was great.

    Oh wow. I forgot he was in that movie (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    Nice scenery anyway.

    My Facebook adventure of the day (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    My sister posted a tea party poster about how liberals and Chris Mathews are the real racists. I couldn't let that one stand, so I politely linked to this Digby post that neatly summarizes the history of GOP racial politics . My sister in law, who is even more conservative than my sister, replied 'if there is a four letter word in the first sentence I don't read trash'. Ah Digby. She said that horrible word 'sh*t'.

    Well hopefully some of my sister's other friends aren't so sensitive.

    My sisters and I don't always get along, (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 07:59:12 PM EST
    but at least neither of them is a conservative Republican. Heck, not even my cousins have gone conservative, not even the ones who traded in our cradle Catholicism for life as reborn Christians.

    We were all raised by New Deal Democrats who were, in turn, raised by Irish immigrants who fell in with the Democrats very soon upon arriving in the New World.

    I think if any of us tried to vote Republican our arm would fall off.

    I consider myself lucky in this regard.


    You ARE lucky (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 08:09:56 PM EST
    If I could quickly dispose of my two bash-the-poor, hate-the-women-folk, fear-the-brown-people Republican cousins, I would do it in a heartbeat. They ruin family get-togethers with their incessant baiting, and embarrass everyone else into stunned silence.

    Yep - Janesville (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    I was correct.  The Janesville plant did not cease all operations in 2008, although most of the operations were stopped.  It was put on standby in 2008, but only completly ceased operations in 2009.

    General Motors Co. has committed to reopen its idled plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., and keep its shuttered assembly plant in Janesville on standby status.

    The commitment to the former Saturn plant in Tennessee was part of a contract settlement reached late last week between GM and the United Auto Workers union.

    Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.


    The Janesville plant stopped production of SUVs in 2008 and was idled in 2009 after it completed production of medium-duty trucks.