Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I'll be flying solo on Daily Kos Radio from 11 to noon Eastern today. Discussing this post and I will be doing a review of the state of the race from the Electoral College perspective, with a discussion of the RV (registered voter) vs. LV (likely voter) issue.

How to Listen to Daily Kos Radio:

Can't see the Flash player? Click here to download the stream directly.

Open Thread.

< Romney blames the 47%, lets Wall Street off the hook | New Discovery in George Zimmerman Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Josh just had an expansion surgery (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:24:30 AM EST
    Went smooth, new veptor design opening his ribcage up more.  He ate a whole medium pizza last night.  But he has makeup school work and they just released Borderlands 2.  He is doing his work today but I can tell he is distracted.  Sometimes video games are great and sometimes they are a plague.

    Hey, give the kid a break! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    The show must go on (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    What a coddler you are, you must be an Obama voter or something

    MT your son (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Has so much courage....I so admire your son and you !

    Thank you Samsguy (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    When Josh was first born and I understood what he would face I thought there was no way people could do this.  Because of the Internet I was able to make contact with two other families on this road so that allowed me to entertain the notion that people can do this.  Josh's scoliosis going crazy upped what he has to deal with though, and he was born at a time when medical technology has exploded for severe scoliosis.

     And then some surgeons can take the really new stuff and start a high wire act.  Timothy Oswald in Atlanta has a lot of veptor understanding mapped out to the point that he is now planning where he is going to make incisions based on where it is most beneficial in the long run for the scar and the creation of scar tissue to be.  That was a fast evolution, but physicians have so much access to each other and what has been the best solutions in so many different areas.  We are deeply in the debt of those who went before us figuring things out, and their doctors who puzzled and argued and fought for new approvals to save the children.  Josh is in all advanced classes in junior high, but at one point he almost wasn't going to be here....at least not mobile at this point without a wheelchair.


    I understand and know the reality of the (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by samsguy18 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    Challenges Josh and your family  face on a daily basis......I know how important it is for parents in your position to first be informed and network.  The Internet is a wonderful networking tool.....most important MT is your love and commitment..without that Josh's road would be complicated.

    The Space Shuttle... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    ...is doing a fly over Houston today and tomorrow aboard a 747.  Hoping it might fly over this area tomorrow, today was the airports and downtown.

    At lunch I am going to see it at Ellington Field, it's going to be there until it lifts off for LA tomorrow.  Still a sore point that we didn't get a Shuttle, and really a shame.

    I can clearly remember having a matchbox type 747 with detachable shuttle as a kid.  It doesn't getting any more Americana than the Shuttle on a 747 IMO.

    Deux... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    The Space Shuttle is headed to Austin, then El Paso to refuel, Tuscon to honor the Gifford's, then to Andrews Air Force Base for viewing.  Tomorrow it will fly over LA and head to the science museum.

    The flyover are done at 1500 feet and are really something to see.  There is a plane ahead of he 747, and one either right behind or off to the side.  Can't tell what it is, but it's a fighter jet.  

    Took off here at sunrise, looked so neat with the yellow/orange backdrop.


    Mitt Romney... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:47:10 AM EST
    releases his plan to make college available to all.

    See kids, Mitt Romney is all about choices...you can sell your seed, be a lab rat for big pharma, f*ck rich old dudes.  Land of opportunity!

    Only from the dog :) (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:48:16 AM EST
    You can't even make soldiers and (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:50:35 AM EST
    convicts do this stuff anymore.

    During hard times... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    the thought had crossed my mind to answer one of those ads in the back of the Village Voice to go be a lab rat at Colombia University, they're always looking for recreational drug users to poke and prod...very briefly crossed my mind, then sanity triumphed over desperation and I stuck to day labor.

    Don't do it man (none / 0) (#26)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    your name is on file, like, FOREVER, i'm sure.

    No worries brother... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    just a passing desperate thought back in the day...I hope to sink no lower than selling blood, which I did go through with.

    I love me some ACLU... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 11:19:25 AM EST
    but gotta part ways with them on the father/daughter dance thing in RI.  My niece's elementary school holds them, I had to stand in for her dad at two of 'em...its a beautiful thing for daughters to share with their dads before they get too cool for dad.  As long as moms or surrogates can attend for the girls from single parent households, and no one is forced to attend, I see no problem.

    I don't think its about gender stereotyping...its about daddies and their little girls sharing special moments.  Sh*t the niece I attended with is a star athlete, you couldn't pigeonhole her into a Cinderella complex if you tried.  

    We agree. (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    I have happy memories of such events with my dad -- in part because, as I was an only daughter, he made it a practice to invite classmates whose dads had died.  (We didn't then, in my religious school, have daughters without dads for other reasons.)

    I'm all for fighting gender wars, but this is not one.


    The Father/Daughter Dance (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    would have totally escaped my memory, but my daughter recently mentioned that she was incorporating the picture from that evening somewhere into her wedding reception. With children, it obviously (as in your case) is a great memory that lives on and I agree there are better battles to fight.

    The original Magster was embarassed of me... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    ... by 2nd grade. Now she's 15 and you should have seen her face when I told her I volunteered as a parent monitor at the Homecoming dance.

    Lol... (none / 0) (#161)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:37:16 PM EST
    and Mother/Son dances on consecutive nights.

    My boys really lost interest after about 3rd grade, but we made/make them go anyway. I'm sure some kind of mother/son sporting event, like the baseball game discussed in your article, would be much more appealing to them.


    As the linked story makes clear (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    the problem was not about the gender of parent that was invited, but that the school scheduled two events for fostering pupil-guardian togetherness -- a dance for the girls and a baseball game for the boys.

    Easy solution... (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    Have a father/daughter dance and a father/daughter sporting event.  And a mother/son dance and a mother/son sporting event.  Everybody wins, instead of everybody losing out on the father/daughter dance.

    I don't know the answer as to why most girls prefer dances and most boys prefer sports (key word most)...I don't doubt indoctrination and gender stereotypes play a role, but I also think there are inherent differences between the sexes, and thats not a bad thing as long as there is equality.


    I certainly agree that the school district (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    could have responded to the ACLU's complaint with that solution.  I'm just saying that the complaint was legitimate, and the fact that the district responded by canceling the event rather than by expanding it, is not the fault of the ACLU.

    Point taken... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    still think the ACLU coulda passed on that one and focused on bigger fish, lord knows civil liberty is under attack left and right, facing far graver threats than the father/daughter dance.  The ACLU is not one to pass on an unpopular case though, bless them for that.

    If I understood correctly, a poorly written RI state law is the primary party-pooper...father/daughter dances do not violate similar federal law.  


    As a member of the ACLU Board of Directors (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:15:30 PM EST
    for my state, I can tell you that every year we do dozens of these little school district, or township commissioner, type cases, generally resolved by the sending of a letter pointing out the legal violation, along with the handful of bigger, immigrants' rights, free speech, religious liberty, police brutality, Voter ID, etc., type litigation.  Both large cases and small are important for the protection of civil liberties for all throughout the state.

    well if anybody is getting married (none / 0) (#104)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    Bride magazine says the first dance is the best man with the brides mother.  

    I'll tell my cousin... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    he walks the plank in a few weeks, but knowing his fiance she has Bride Magazine committed to memory.

    She even tried to black tie us for the reception, we drew the line.  The McArab clan will suit up, but tuxes are too much to bear.


    Good for Chick-fil-A (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:09:32 PM EST
     they cease giving money to anti-gay organizations

    Definitely a step forward and I can again taste in the goodness of waffle potato fries

    I'm not imbibing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    Too many horrible things said and done.  They won't hire a gay person.  Not food for me.

    Yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    this is a good thing, and not every Chick Fil A is staffed by jerks - in Austin the Chick Fil A handed out free water to protesters and was very supportive.  

    Still, Chick Fil A did a lot of damage and exposed their priorities.  Gay employees had to take flak about their orientation on the job because of their corporate bosses' beliefs.  The company was more than happy to capitalize on the willingness of the right to celebrate hate.  Convince me that you truly respect gay employees and I'll come back to the restaurant.


    Too late.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    ... I just ate some spicy Popeye's. Wouldn't eat chikfilA anyways, even before I knew they had a horrid soul.

    I'd never heard of Chik-fil-A until (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    the controversy erupted. I don't think we have it on the west coast. But honestly, fast food will kill you. Just say no!

    In moderation... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    it ain't gonna kill ya. Don't go all Bloomberg on us! ;)

    Studies show the #1 cause of death is life.


    Yep, everything in moderation (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    But when it comes to fast food, it's got chemicals in it neither one of us can pronounce or describe.

    Fast food is not to be taken in moderation (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 09:01:23 AM EST
    If you are being vigilant about your weight and health, it should be a rarely occurring event.

    Chic-a-fil has a college (none / 0) (#108)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    football bowl game that's semi-famous.

    I didn't like the food either, nomatter what (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:16:14 PM EST
    So bland! I make enough healthy style chicken at home. Give me Pop-eye's any day when I want to indulge in some fast food!

    Guerilla Art Awesomeness... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    most likely connected with the OWS anniversary, check out these NYPD posters...very cool sh*t.

    And the NYPD response, wasting taxpayer dollars making an episode of CSI out of it.  Classic.  Hope my new hero wore gloves and a hairnet!

    GMO corn. (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    In today's French edition of the Huffington Post, there is published a study of the effect on rats which were fed genetically modified corn for a period of two years.


    They died younger. They have more cancers.

    This report does not appear in the American edition.
    I don't know why not.
    To my knowledge, this cr@p is banned in the EU.
    In the US, to my knowledge, there is not even a requirement to label products containing GMOs so that consumers can know what they are ingesting.

    Monsanto seems to have a stranglehold on the government agency that should be responsible seeing that we are informed about these products so that we can make intelligent decisions about our health.

    What in the world is going on?

    UK and OZ scientists (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    I (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    have heard about this disagreement.

    What I can't understand is why our government will not allow us to choose.

    Personally, I don't want the stuff.
    But the government will not permit me to know what it is that I am ingesting.


    Problem is that GM crops won't let farmers choose (none / 0) (#126)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:27:15 PM EST
    either.....when their non-gm crops get pollinated by gm crops. Adding insult to injury, Monsanto will probably come after them for growing a patent protected gm crop.

    There are many food producers (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:38:12 PM EST
    who make and market non-GMO foods. The gvt is certainly permitting such labeling, which thereby lets you know "what it is that you are ingesting." There are movements in Cali and I assume other states for laws requiring GMO labeling. If it were me I'd just eat stuff labeled non-GMO and not eat the rest as it's probably got something GMO in it.

    Yay! (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:45:41 PM EST
    The government permits labelling.  Now if those pesky corporations would just take advantage of such largesse...

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:33:28 PM EST
    what I was getting at.

    The government does not require that foods containing GMOs identify themselves as such.

    To me, in this instance, it is like not requiring a warning label on iodine - because I consider GMOs to be toxic.


    Ya, I read a book, back in the day, (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    entitled something like "There are bugs in my peanut butter." It'll make you question all processed food, no matter how it's labeled...

    As (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    well you should.

    But my question still is: a)  Why does our government allow this potentially toxic substance to be in our food, and b) why does it not require the manufacturer to identify its presence in the food it is selling?

    My guess: Corruption.
    Corporations like Monsanto buying this protection from legislators and others in government.

    As citizens, we come in last.


    I think it has been proven (none / 0) (#180)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:26:31 PM EST
    to the gvt's satisfaction that the GMO foods are safe. iow, there is no potential toxicity, as far as the gvt is concerned.

    Like the latest: (none / 0) (#156)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    Just (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    read it.

    Some good advice about how to limit consumption of arsenic - but who'd a thunk it? For example that drugs are given to chickens containing arsenic, then the droppings become fertilizer containing arsenic and crops are contaminated.

    FDA -- are you listening?

    It was also interesting... yikes... that drinking water is allowed to have 5 parts per billion of arsenic in it --- in New Jersey.

    Personally, I do not want arsenic in my water.
    Do I have a choice?


    according to the report on pbs news at (none / 0) (#165)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:14:20 PM EST
    least the FDA regulates the amount of arsenic in water, but not in food.

    but... (none / 0) (#169)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:36:49 PM EST
    but... but... I don't want ANY goddam arsenic in my water.
    Is that too much to ask?

    taking advantage of it, like Whole Foods and others...

    With sales now topping $1 billion per year, non-GMO is the fastest growing natural food category. That growth is most visible in retail stores where more and more products display the Non-GMO Project verified seal to assure consumers that the products contain no genetically modified ingredients.

    Some very encouraging polls today... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:51:51 PM EST
    WI ain't no swing state. The only poll that has bummed me out is Quinnipiac's poll showing Obama and Romney essentially tied in my Colorado. Do I really have to go out and canvass again?

    and then they get even better... (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    Obama up 7, 7 and 5 in Ohio, Virginia and Florida respectively.

    Boom, boom and boom!

    Wish early voting would hurry up and start so that we could get some votes in the bank!


    Forgot to mention these are FOX polls.... (none / 0) (#150)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    Move to Iowa (none / 0) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:04:14 PM EST
    If I'm not mistaken early voting in the Hawkeye State starts a week from tomorrow.

    But when does the 2016 campaign start? (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:44:08 PM EST
    In Iowa? (none / 0) (#179)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    I think November 7 for the Republicans.

    magster: We are canvassing Sunday afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 11:44:31 PM EST
    If you would like to come with us, please let me know.

    This could be a Bennet 2010 situation...aka the race being the less-than-1% finale.  'Definitely need big turn-out in Denver to offset some other locales.


    Sure, Wisconsin is a swing state. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:58:17 PM EST
    It's just swinging back to sanity.

    For now.

    In the polling, anyway.  Not the same as the polls.  

    But remember how recently it voted for Walker -- twice.  Or did it?  Voter suppression laws are extreme now in Wisconsin (well beyond voter ID, the focus of too many folks), and as polling is based on precedent before these new laws, I would not count out at all the possibility of their impact again . . . and of corruption again.


    You're right, of course... (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    ... but I was sure getting bummed out this last month to see WI not colored in blue on the poll aggregator sites. To see Baldwin surging and O + 14 in a (probably outlier) poll is really really nice, and hopefully "cant get out of bed" depressing to the Waukesha nutballs.

    Ryan released (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    a second TV ad in his congressional district to hold his seat. That alone gives you a good idea where he thinks the Presidential ticket is headed in Wisconsin.

    The polls are a sea of blue today and all the competitive Senate races are still looking good.


    Saw on Young Turks that Michelle Bachmann is (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    only up by a couple of points in her district too. wouldn't a two-fer be outstanding!

    Also - Eric Cantor in a tighter race than planned (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    I would pay my life's savings to be a fly... (none / 0) (#49)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:26:19 PM EST
    ... on the wall when Ryan's closest adviser says "Mr. Ryan, Obama has clinched the election, and you've also lost your House seat. Can I get a reference letter from you?"

    Yes, that we might stick it to Tommy! (none / 0) (#157)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    <local joke about the jerk> is the best news for me -- and for the rest of you, as I read that seat now is seen by some as key to keeping the Senate.

    I'm less sanguine about the presidential polls, for reasons noted above and also because we've seen so many times that national pollsters screw up in Wisconsin, not knowing the laws and the like.  So, at this point, the trend is more promising to me than the straight stats.  Meaning, I so distrust the state Repubs, who have illegally put in place Diebold machines and voter-suppression laws and more that have turned half of the counties into Waukeshas, that I will not do a happy dance until Obama's margin is much wider.


    Pew (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    "Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.

    Not only does Obama enjoy a substantial lead in the horserace, he tops Romney on a number of key dimensions. His support is stronger than his rival's, and is positive rather than negative. Mitt Romney's backers are more ardent than they were pre-convention, but are still not as enthusiastic as Obama's. Roughly half of Romney's supporters say they are voting against Obama rather than for the Republican nominee. With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, candidates lacking mostly positive backing have lost in November."


    Proving only that (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Romney is the worst Republican nominee in decades. So what.

    Or Obama is decent? (none / 0) (#86)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    That's an option.

    In your imagination, perhaps (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    But in real life, it's because Romney is considered so insuferrable by those in his own party.

    I disagree obviously (none / 0) (#132)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:42:02 PM EST
    Good news, yes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:31:41 PM EST
    but let's not count our chickens before they hatch.  

    Some external factor can easily come along before now and November.  Let's wait until 11/7/12 to start high-fiving.


    Tim Tebow may run for office when his... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    ... career is over. We will all be saved by his awesomeness.

    Good thing... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:25:06 PM EST
    we run for offices and not pass for them, or Tebow would have less of a chance than Mitt Romney.

    Here is a gif file to validate your comment.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:47:04 PM EST
    Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day. Aaaarrgh. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    Avast, me mateys.

    I read someone, somewhere, who referred to Jamie Dimon as a pirate. I was outraged and personally insulted. Jamie Dimon could never pass muster with our pirate crew.

    Thinking about pirate jeffinalabama (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 12:48:36 AM EST
    jeff, we miss you and wish you well - check in when you can!

    To err is human (none / 0) (#171)
    by DFLer on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:31:54 PM EST
    to arrgghh is divine!

    "You could register your dog." (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    Gawd I hate idiots! So apparently in CA, you can now register to vote online. Of course during the news story we just had to hear some 'people's advocate' guy say that. Last time I checked, my dog didn't have a DL or state ID card . . . .

    I need to get a new ID card, guess I'll try and get Roxy! one too so she can register to vote this year :)

    Well you can understand why Republicans are (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:55:30 PM EST
    worried about dogs getting the vote. Romney would get buried like an old bone.

    er, excuse me...Canine-Americans (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:23:51 AM EST
    I'm so stealing that (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    for one of Roxy!'s winter sweatshirts :D

    I just love the exclamation point in (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    Roxy!'s name...my daughter's dog has the same name, and a personality equally deserving of exclamation.  She's not a dalmation - they're not 100% sure what she is - possibly some pit, maybe some pointer - she's a rescue dog and just the smartest, most affectionate thing - just loves being with people.

    I smile everytime I see you mention "Roxy!"


    It's a good reminder for me, lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    I love exclamation point dogs, but there are times trying to raise this one into a reasonable adult pup that I question my sanity :D

    Dals and pits have some traits in common as do pointers. I love the goofy energetic pit personality, which Dals have. I also like smart dogs with a sense of humor. And if they can go for miles, all the better. They say laughter is the best medicine, and Roxy! provides that daily. Sometimes, all I have to do is look at her, lol!~

    Now, about those paw prints on the dining room wall  . . .


    ha! (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    Do they (none / 0) (#196)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 01:06:48 PM EST

    Roxy! doesn't have to worry about that (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    I have her 'birth certificate' :D

    Another one flees the ship (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    Once hoping for a Cabinet position in a Romney White House, Tim Pawlenty checks the tea leaves and quits the Romney campaign today to become a lobbyist.

    fleeing? or fleecing? (none / 0) (#188)
    by DFLer on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:17:18 AM EST
    Pawlenty is such a jerk, imo,

    Charlie especially good today on voter ID (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 08:21:49 AM EST

    We leave Goodhair to pray down whatever we can, and we ride the jetstream of his devotions over the Pennsylvania, where a guy has decided to get right down the whole point on this voter-ID business....

    METCALFE: I don't believe any legitimate voter that actually wants to exercise that right and takes on the according responsiblity that goes with that right to secure their photo ID will be disenfranchised. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people that are living off the public dole, living off their neighbors' hard work, and we have a lot of people out there that are too lazy to get up and get out there and get the ID they need. If individuals are too lazy, the state can't fix that.

    Every other Republican in Pennsylvania would like to thank Brave Sir Metcalfe for attaching them to one of the most instantly unpopular tropes in the history of political thought. But you will hear more of this over the next month. It's the Universal String Theory Of Lazy Blahs. Mooch The Vote '12!

    Nails it. That is Romney's problem...if he explains what he really meant in his ramblings, it is even worse.

    Metcalf - the same clown who ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    ... declared veterans working against global warming to be "traitors" ... literally.

    Amazing (1.00 / 5) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    how having the actual GOP nominee out in the public doing his thing makes people appreciate the President.

    I just took a spin around some of my old stomping grounds (Tennessee Guerrilla Women, Shakesville, Ameriblog, etc.) and it's pretty amazing.  In 2008, a lot of posters and commenters on those sites openly called Obama a 1 term president who would look weak against the 2012 nominee.  Many said there was no difference between Obama and the ultimate conservative nominee anyway.  Plus HILLARY IS THE GREATEST EVER AND SHOULD HAVE WON AND NO ONE ELSE IS ACCEPTABLE AND  . . . well you get the point.

    I promised a number of those folks that I'd be back in September of 2012 to ride out the rest of the elction and see if their predictions came true and it's about that time.  So I have started visiting and commenting.  

    But I am having a small problem.

    They are too busy blasting Romney and encouraging everyone to vote Obama that they don't have time to reminisce about their prior positions.

    Curses. Robbed of my feel good "gotcha".

    Oh well.  I guess I'll take that resolution.

    Really bad taste (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Get the hell out of here if this is what you plan to do.

    I'm damn serious about this.

    I'll have you banned if you are simply going to troll for fights.


    Big Tent Democrat (none / 0) (#60)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    Do commenters get to call others here "stupid", "idiotic", "sheep", "mindless", etc. and never have to answer for that?

    I was angry when those labels were placed on me but I took it like a champ.  I came back everyday and in the face of almost complete opposition, made my points and predictions.  I never ran and I never demanded that anyone be banned.  

    Now if what we all hope happens occurs and Obama wins, are you saying that I can't say to Anne, for example:

    "Anne, you called me an idiot when I suggested that Obama's approval rating will rise as the economy improves in late 2012 and that Obama will have a good chance"?

    If not, that's fine.  Just give me the rules so I understand the standard.


    No you can't (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    And vice versa.

    Not here. Take that sh*t somewhere else.

    I basically had to run JB off and I will run you off too.


    Well (none / 0) (#124)
    by sj on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    Overall, it was still a very successful thread jacking, I'd say.

    Who jacked the thread? (none / 0) (#125)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    It was my thread.

    You did (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by sj on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    So far, out of about 120 comments, about 20 of them are yours being all... ABG.  So right off the top at least 10% of all the comments are yours before this Open Thread maxes out.  And you've taken the discussion into very ugly territory.

    It might be a loose interpretation of the term "Thread Jacking" but that is exactly how it reads.


    It's not necessarily (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    a pretty discussion.   What can I tell you? I'd like people to compare what they see now with what they said a year or 2 years ago, because in January I want the discussions to be informed by how accurate certain opinions were.  That's regardless of who wins.

    So when a person says that Obama should compromise nothing on the budget next year because it will cost the Senate in 2014, it is fair to look at whether that same person thought that the 2010 compromises cost us the POTUS in 2012, etc.

    We have actual meaningful results to compare to the predictions now and that should color how we view opinions and arguments provided in the future.


    Your memory ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:34:43 PM EST
    ... to put it kindly, ...

    ... "selective".


    You said much more than that (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    The vast majority of which was (and is) entirely wrong.  For example, the economy would have to improve substantially before late 2012 for it to make a difference in the election.  Moreover, while unemployment has dropped slightly this year, it's because so many people have simply given up.

    Hey, ...

    Maybe if more people lose/give up the crappy, low-paying jobs they've managed to get since this glorious "recovery" began, unemployment will actually get down under 7% and you can claim Obama's doing a wonderful job.

    Maybe someone besides you will believe it.

    BTW - The fact that Romney is a horrible campaigner who shoots himself in the foot regularly is hardly a reason for you to feel like Deion Sanders.

    Maybe Chad Johnson ...


    I'm prohibiting (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    ABG scorecards.

    Rats (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    There goes a wasted 45 minutes collecting prediction scorecards from various people.

    I think this next few weeks in TL is going to turn out to be slightly less satisfying than I thought it would be.

    Big picture: looks like people see the danger in Mitt and will at least hold their nose and vote for Obama.

    At the end of the day, that's all that matters I guess.


    Nope not all that matters. (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:53:39 PM EST
    And some of us in blue states won't even bother to hold our nose and vote for Obama. Mitt doesn't stand a chance in my state, but I don't think that's really going to boost Obama's numbers (actual people voting) here, no matter how repulsive Mitt is.

    If you are looking for satisfaction in TL, your gloating style and bullish!t will prob just give you a big fat nothing. Useless of course all your satisfaction comes from just being an a** :)


    One thing... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    we can all agree on is what a total douche Mitt Romney is.

    I wouldn't read stating the obvious about Mitt Romney as appreciation for Obama though...Mitt Romney would make one appreciate syphillis.


    KDog (2.00 / 1) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    If O wins, put September 2016 on the calendar.  I have that long to work on changing your thoughts.

    Unless you're gonna be... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:57:46 PM EST
    the author of the Dem platform in 2016 and plan on making heads explode all over the tyranny sector of our government, as well as their corporate & banking cohorts...you can't change my mind brother, only the inner party can.  And they won't.

    This is one of those times (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    when I'm reminded of what my lawyer in Family Court told me during a break in the proceedings when I asked why he had kept quiet....he replied, "sometimes it's best to keep my mouth shut when everything is going our way."

    I would suggest you take that sentence in and let your brain marinate in it for awhile.


    No I will pass (1.00 / 3) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:48:02 PM EST
    Go back to January 2010 and look at things even people here were saying about those defending Obama and warning of the dangers of a GOP presidency.

    If Obama loses or screws up, I'll be right here to take it.  

    But you are not talking to a quiet Barry Sanders type political junkie.  

    I am Deion Sanders.  And when I see the endzone, I am high stepping for the last 20 yards to the endzone because that's what Deion Sanders does.

    This is a guy many on this site said couldn't beat McCain.  I haven't forgotten.


    I'm sure if we go back in time (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    we can find some comments like that, and also some comments from you about how brilliant Obama was going to be on the debt ceiling (didn't quite pan out the way we all hoped although disaster was averted), how unemployment was going to fall, just wait, and then endless reasons for why it hadn't.  Not sure where Deion Sanders is going because your personal idea of the endzone moves around quite a bit.  Perhaps if you were willing to take your knocks on those issues people would be more willing to play the "I told you so" game with you.

    Endzone (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:08:53 PM EST
    Obama is supposed to lose.
    The dems are supposed to lose the senate.
    The GOP is supposed to increase its lead in the House.

    The point was that a more moderate position by Obama would result in crushing losses in 2012 and a general lack of enthusiasm in progressive causes.

    We don't know who will win, but we do know that parts of that prediction was wrong.  The enthusiasm gap is vanishing and actually becoming and advantage.  Our chances of keeping the senate are excellent.  There is also a surprising chance that we can make gains in the House.

    I think there is a discussion to be had about many of the attacks progressive left folks made against those that understood that a more moderate approach would probably serve best in the long term.

    If that discussion is taboo, so be it.


    Discuss some issues (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    Discuss the campaign.

    Don't come here trolling for fights.

    I won't have it period.


    Ok (none / 0) (#93)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    I will bring up an issue.  I would say the President's governing style has changed to a one more favored by progressives (moving toward the Bully Pulpit).  His current success is based on contrast - Democrats look better than Republicans, an approach favored by progressives as a governing strategy, also.  They're not talking (loudly) about trimming Medicare or putting other benefits on the table (although I think Obama would be willing to do that, which is another story altogether).

    His campaigning is more progressive than his governing.  No surprise it's popular.


    But wasn't the same true in 2008? (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    His campaigning has always been more progressive than his governing. I certainly don't expect that to change if he wins in November.

    But his campaign is based (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    on his record.  He can't just promise a bunch of stuff now because there is a record to run on.

    Bill Clinton's speech was grounded in the facts of what Obama accomplished, and that helped to make it a success.

    The arithmetic of what Obama accomplished was unquestionably progressive.

    That's why this line of reasoning rings hollow to me.


    His campaign is based (none / 0) (#110)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    on the most progressive parts of his record ("General Motors is Alive", withdrawing from Iraq).  Do you think people are high fiving and donating because they love the Grand Bargain?

    People like (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:06:13 PM EST
    the fact that he is looking for compromise. They appreciate the fact that he ended the war but the moderates appreciate the fact that he did so in an orderly fashion.  They feel the same way about Afghanistan.

    No one high fives over compromise because by definition you don't get everything you want.

    But they do value a person willing to find compromise.  And they will support a candidate on it even if it means they don't get everything they want.  From a few months back:

    "According to a Pew Research Center survey released Tuesday, 68 percent of the public says that lawmakers who share their views on the issue should compromise, even if it means striking a deal with which they disagree. Just 23 percent of people questioned in the poll say lawmakers should stand by their principles, even if that leads to a government default. The 68 percent who call for compromise is up 13 points from April."

    This, in a nutshell, was why Clinton's speech was so effective.  It wasn't necessarily all of the progressive stuff that got independents and moderate moving Obama's way.

    It was the fact that Clinton defined in a way that was masterful the fact that Obama was trying to compromise and the GOP was not.  That speech and that concept are what is going to win this election.

    In our lives people compromise everyday and if one candidate is looking to find a middle ground on hard issues and the other isn't bending on anything, the choice is clear.


    Actually that is last year (none / 0) (#115)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    But I can grab one from this year too.  The sentiment hasn't changed at all.

    I agree, (none / 0) (#127)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:30:27 PM EST
    people like compromise, or the appearance of searching for it.  Of course, with compromise the question is always where you start.

    There were a lot of moving parts in Clinton's speech, compromise was one of them but I don't think it was the main takeaway.


    This is not Hard Knocks (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    This is not Fight Club.

    Please stop this.


    I don't want you here to take it or give it (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    This isn't Fight Club.

    Shape up or ship out.

    I am completely serious.


    If that's the rule, that's the rule (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    after you have ridden out the election here, maybe you could ride somewhere else.

    If you don't like what they say (1.00 / 2) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    ask them leave eh lentinel?

    More trolling. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    Not really (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    It's (none / 0) (#114)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    just what you are saying is so pedestrian, so impersonal, so packaged and often so insulting and patronizing that I would think that you would wish to retire to other pastures once you think your job is done.

    Stop the bullshi*t (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    OK. (none / 0) (#148)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:34:19 PM EST
    Point well taken.

    And I am the insulting one eh lentinel? (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    It's just like 2010 again . . .

    There is no question that Mitt Romney (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    is a terrible candidate who's pushing terrible ideas; you and I can wholeheartedly agree on that.

    I'm sure we will not agree on this: Obama is benefiting less from the strength of his own positions, not to mention his record, than he is from the increasingly obvious perception that Mitt Romney isn't fit to hold the office he aspires to.

    I'm sure it doesn't' matter to you how Obama is pulling ahead, just that he is pulling ahead.  I would caution you, though, to dial back the glee and gloating a tad and consider that re-electing Obama doesn't transform him into some kind of true, liberal-leaning, committed-to-progressive-policy, determined-to-protect-and-defend-our-constitutonally-guaranteed-rights, Democrat.

    If he wins, the day after the election he will still be determined to strike a Grand Bargain that will weaken the social safety net, set any nascent recovery back, and imperil the quality of life of those whose lives are already on the brink of disaster.  He may replace Geithner, but it will be with an Erskine Bowles-type, who has full-blown deficit hysteria.  We will still have kill lists, and a DOJ that defends it, a policy of indefinite detention and a DOJ that defends it.  He will still be refusing to come to the aid of the still-beleaguered and still-underwater homeowners, lest some irresponsible borrower derive any benefit.  He's not doing any 180's on positions he has that aren't recognizable to most Democrats.

    I'm not saying he hasn't done anything good.  I'm saying that consigning Mitt Romney to defeat only guarantees that we continue to move slower than Romney would have, even as we keep moving in the same direction Romney wants to go.

    Romney being so, so unbelievably bad does not make Obama so, so unbelievably good; we just get to stay in the slowly-heating-up cauldron instead of being unceremoniously cast directly into the fire.

    Try as I might, I can't find much to be gleeful about there, even if I can't help thinking that Romney losing will truly be a bullet dodged.


    It's (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    is really noticeable that virtually no one is urging us to vote for Obama based on his actions as president. Only to vote for him as a wedge against someone worse.

    Obama better hope that the economy doesn't take a serious dip before the election - because I think that could trump anything and everything. The market has gone up, so people are somewhat pacified. But that could change.

    And as catastrophic as Romney's fortunes appear to be now, people are desperate - and after Obama/Biden made J -O -B- S the issue in 2008, Romney could find himself the hold-your-nose hope and change candidate of 2012.

    It is really remarkable to me to consider that I am being urged by leftist democrats to vote for someone who supports the death penalty, who used a drone to kill an American citizen who hadn't even been formally charged with a crime, who has an attorney general who proudly announces that his administration will allow former officials who ordered prisoners to be tortured to go uncharged and unpunished, who needed four years to come to the conclusion that gay Americans should have the same rights as non-gay Americans, who appoints the likes of Geithner and Gates, who uses indefinite detention without charge or trial to silence the likes of Bradley Manning, who praised Lieberman's "heart" and "intellect" and campaigned for him, who chose the likes of Biden as his running mate... I could go on - they urge me to vote for this person because the alternative is even worse.... It is to cry.


    Anne (none / 0) (#79)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:20:46 PM EST
    I think my point to you primarily is simple:

    Maybe most Americans want him to strike a grand bargain.  Maybe that is why his approval numbers and odds of winning defied the unemployment numbers and various other negative indicators even before we knew Mitt would be the nominee.

    Maybe Americans are equally frustrated with the far right as they are the far left and maybe Obama is benefiting because he is the candidate that people believe to some degree is looking for good faith compromises.

    I think that just as the right will have to look inward if Romney loses to figure out what happened, the left should reflect on what's possible and how to move the country slowly but inevitably to the left.  Getting dems elected in November is the first step.  The economy will be better in 2016.  Way better and we need to have dem policies taking the credit for that.

    But afterwards, progressives need to engage in serious discussions about the benefits of being viewed as the "reasonable" actors.  

    I think that is the key to our long term success. I am excited about this election most of all because I think it will prove that.


    This (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    Maybe most Americans want him to strike a grand bargain

    is pure speculation, not backed up by facts. All I see is a whole lotta "maybe" strung together over two paragraphs.

    Funny, I said you were a troll from day one, and now you may actually get banned for it. No loss.


    I bring the perspective (1.50 / 2) (#95)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    of a liberal who is a long time Obama supporter.  Sometimes that has been almost an embarrassing thing to say out loud here:

    "I support Obama because I think he is great for the country and the best person for the job out of all of the politicians out there."

    It's become such a taboo thing to say, that you get called a troll for doing so.  But it is a perspective missing from many discussions on the left.

    Anyway, I don't want to get banned so let's do some Romney bashing.


    Oh, quit your whining (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    No one here actually believes you are a liberal. And your designation as a troll is because of your behavior, not your ideology.

    Gawdammit (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    stop the bullsh*t.

    Enough of this.


    Ding (1.00 / 1) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    I am not a liberal because I do not believe that Obama's policies were non-progressive.

    My liberal credentials don't hold up because I don't adhere to the party line set by . . . well whoever the kind of the liberals is exactly.

    Thanks for the perfect demonstration of the issues that dems and liberals need to get a handle on after this election regardless of who wins.


    Moving the country to the left was (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    supposed to be the promise of electing Obama - and Dems in general - in 2008; that didn't happen - we've continued to move to the right on way too many issues, and we've done it not just with the cooperation of elected Democrats, but with policies and actions undertaken directly by them.

    There simply is no reason to put any hope in that changing with the re-election of Barack Obama.

    I don't believe most Americans understand what a grand bargain will mean, not just for them, but for their children and grandchildren; by the time they do, significant damage will have been done.

    Maybe someday we will have something that resembles leadership in this country, where the people we elect actually go to bat for the best policy, instead of settling, over and over again, for just letting the air out of the balloon because they fear it will pop.


    Today (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    Chick Fil Et said it would stop funding anti gay groups.  As a resident of Atlanta, that is an astounding piece of news.

    I trace that directly to the year long DADT repeal process and all that followed it.  That's just one example of the dems moving the country left but there are dozens more.

    But I only need to list one to prove the point.


    I would love to know (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    how you think that is connected to the DADT repeal specifically and not say, decades of highly organized and intelligent gay activism.

    Seriously...how does that part of this (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    always get left out?

    Answer (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    The polling in favor or gay marriage/equality/repeal of DADT began to move at a different vector within 1-2 months after Obama made the announcement of his intent to repeal DADT at the end of that year.

    The acceleration of the changes in the polls has been accelerating ever since that inflection point.  The combination of the repeal of DADT (and millions of soldiers being given training on gay issues), his stance on formal stance on DOMA enforcement and his eventual stance on gay marriage are all show up very clearly in the polling and the way trends have moved.

    I do not think the restaurant feels the pressure they did to cave if not for the polling changes fueled in part by admin policies.  Hard work by advocates is a part of it, but I think it is crazy to pretend that the President's positions didn't play a huge part.

    Something drastic changed on this issue in 2009.


    Pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    Chick Fil A was looking at the money they were losing with their positions.

    Also pretty sure Obama would never have taken the stances he did without the work at a federal and state level done by gay activists.  Unless Obama was responsible for Stonewall and I just forgot.

    I commend President Obama for his stances on DOMA, same sex marriage, and DADT, and the work he did in repealing the latter.  He does none of that without the influence of gay activists (oh and their money).

    Also the first poll to show more people support gay marriage than oppose it came out months before Obama announced to the HRC his intention to end DADT.

    The President is doing well on this issue but he was passed the baton by some damn hard workers.


    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:33:03 PM EST
    I never argued that he came up with the concept on his own lilburro.  I only assert that when looking at one of the overwhelming progressive success stories of the past 4 years, social issues related to LGBTs is probably no. 1.  And Obama took a lot of real risks there.

    There was a time less than a year ago, when many thought that the GOP was going to use his positions as a wedge issue this election, but even the conservatives see the train coming down the tracks on those matters.

    I guess the bottom line for me is that if we play into the narrative that Romney won simply because he's a bad candidate, it is not helpful for the country and the GOP will push to move even further right.

    Instead I would argue that we have a very good president who (like his party) is actually working in good faith the seek compromise and actually cares about the poor and middle class in this country.


    Well in the President's words (none / 0) (#136)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    "it's pretty clear where the trendlines are going."  (link)

    I think the President has shown leadership on this issue but this is a case of activists pushing the President and getting success.  Obviously the announcement in favor of same sex marriage was carefully timed to manage political risk (and I believe he has personally been in support for years).

    As for the trend itself, not every poll reflects a sudden change in 2009.  

    support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004.

    Whoops (none / 0) (#139)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    I forgot to add the link to what I was quoting above.  Nate Silver's chart.  

    The President's openness on this is absolutely increasing Democratic support, you are right.  It is having an impact, I just don't think he alone is having as large an impact as you have suggested.  And I don't support the DADT - Chick Fil A connection specifically.


    That's weird (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:34:01 PM EST
    I do not think the restaurant feels the pressure they did to cave if not for the polling changes fueled in part by admin policies.  Hard work by advocates is a part of it, but I think it is crazy to pretend that the President's positions didn't play a huge part.

    Something drastic changed on this issue in 2009.

    I was just thinking it's crazy to attribute this to Obama's leadership on DADT, given that it's part of a trend that's been going on for over two decades, apart from a slight drop in support for 2008-2009.

    But I guess if that's the best you've got ...


    The best I have (none / 0) (#131)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    is the chart and other evidence I can provide that shows the pace of change accelerating in 2010.

    Look, if your goal is to find a way not to give Obama credit for anything, you are going to be able to find a way to do that.  

    And you have.


    "Democrats supported gay marriage by a 59% to 31% margin in April -- that stands at 65% to 29% today. Most of this shift has come among liberal Democrats, 83% of whom now support gay marriage, up from 73% earlier this year."

    That's a massive shift.  That's directly related to his change in position.  Just one example.


    Try again (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Your thesis is that the Chik-fil-a reversal is somehow attributable to Obama's leadership on DADT.


    Obama's "leadership" on DADT was merely a reflection of how the country has progressed as a whole over the past 20+ years.  When DADT was enacted in 1993, the majority of Americans (as well as Congress and the DOD) opposed allowing gays to serve in the military.  By 2009, the vast majority (75-80%) favored allowing gays to openly serve in the military (i.e. repeal DADT), including most Republicans.

    The days of homophobes are numbered and their numbers have been rapidly dwindling by the year.  Chik-fil-a knows this, and its franchisees know they were on the wrong side of this issue.  It's about the money, not Obama's brave decision to stand with the 4-out-of-5 Americans who supported the repeal of DADT.


    OK (1.00 / 2) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    Obama gets no credit for Chik-fil-et or anything LGBT related.



    Perfect example of (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:55:44 PM EST
    how an internet troll operates: picking a fight over one issue (saying Obama deserves credit for Chik-Fil-A's backtracking) and then when that argument has been shown to be false, you go and conflate it with a second issue (Obama deserving credit for "anything LGBT related.")

    Incidentally, it's also the exact same tactic used by every conservative I know. Start an argument. Lose that argument. Derail conversation by conflating argument #1 with a new argument #2.



    as every conservative you know.

    And, nice derailment of the conversation by conflating of argument #1 with new argument #2.

    I know, I know, those dastardly conservatives that you know taught you to do it...


    Oh, hogwash (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:26:06 PM EST
    You need a new schtick as well. ABG had two complaints, and I answered them both.

    shoephone (none / 0) (#153)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    I don't know why people believe that calling someone a troll is supposed to be a horrible slur of some sort.

    I have always found that the first to hurl troll at someone is the first to run out of their grown up words and default to the easiest tactic.

    I stopped pushing on Chik Fil Et because there is no evidence I could provide that would be credible to you and I also see that there is no credit you would provide Obama in any event.

    So why have the discussion with you.

    My only thought to you is that the commandment by BTD that we avoid insults and stop looking to pick fights seems to have gone over your head.


    You have no evidence to show (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 06:10:35 PM EST
    that Obama had anything to do with Chik-Fil-A. It has nothing to do with satisfying my desire of evidence. You simply have no evidence. Otherwise, you would have linked to it by now.

    Yes, you are troll, and you have thoroughly hijacked another entire thread. Congratulations. Your incessant whining about being designated a troll is tiresome. You really need a new schtick.


    Holy moly (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 12:47:08 AM EST
    first of all maybe I'll again mention that Silver's polling compilation shows pretty steady trend lines on these issues.  By steady I mean unaffected by DADT, and consistent since 2004.  THE RESULT OF HIS CONVENTION SPEECH, NO DOUBT!!  Oh my GOD how did I miss that????  For goodness sake.  If you want to look at your Gallup poll alone, support has dropped since Obama came out in favor of gay marriage.  So why then did Truett decide to make a concession (supposedly, we'll see how long this lasts) to the pro gay marriage crowd now?  When the President himself acknowledges the trendlines as an influence on his policy, making him a "huge part" is kind of ridiculous.  He is doing the right thing, but he wouldn't bother to do so if the gay population and their allies hadn't pushed to make it established and popular that this is the right thing to do.  We, the little people, made it safe for him to come out in favor of gay marriage.  Why doesn't he do it 2 years ago?  

    As I have said elsewhere in this thread, I am glad Obama is showing leadership.  I am really glad.  But to act like he is some sort of historical mover and shaker on this issue is just nonsensical.  I like Obama but to put blind conjecture to the service of his election does a disservice to his actual leadership.  I mean do you want gay people to re-elect Barack Obama on the premise that he saved us and then find in the next 4 years that he did no such thing and does no such thing - that the battle is still fought issue by issue, state by state?

    Even by your own standards, and with your own evidence, this conjecture is bizarre.  And need I remind you that same sex marriage was legalized in Iowa and Vermont in 2009?  Surely this had as much of an effect, a "huge part" if you will, on public opinion toward gay marriage, which was the main target of Truett's hate groups, not serving in the military.



    As someone (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 05:27:20 AM EST
    who lives in GA, I can tell you that this was not the huge news that ABG makes it out to be and that Obama had absolutely nothing to do with this and bad PR had EVERYTHING to do with it.

    Those "checks" are so easy (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    ... when you use them against your own, straw arguments.

    The John Steinbeck view of leadership (none / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:47:27 PM EST
    In the Log from the Sea of Cortez, Steinbeck wrote tha leaders are like the leg of an amoeba.  An amboeba changes direction, not when a leader or  new leg pulls the rest along with it, but rather when the body of the amoeba pushes ahead, and that portion of the amoeba that is already where the rest of the amoeba wants to go becomes the "leader."

    Or, in politics, a leader just happens to be where the people are already going.  Being at the right place at the right time.  Conservatives are more apt to believe in the "great man" theory of politics. The progess of LGBT issues seems more like the amoeba theory:  people pushing their leaders.

    Adopting the amoeba theory can help--it is basically a version of "pols will be pols" theory espoused here.  Decriminalizing drugs will happen not when an elected leader advocates that, but when the people push the leaders to go there.

    The amoeba theory does not fully account, though, for MLK and Justice Marshall, etc.  It does help people take action to turn public opinion and ultimately elected leaders to their side.

    The Occupy Movement is a good example of amoeba politics.  And, comparing politicians to amoebas is fun, in any event.


    The point for me regarding this campaign (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    and more importantly what happens the day after the election is the reality of governing.

    Mitt losing is priority 1, but I am now starting to think about the upcoming tax fight and the grind of the next 4 years.

    It will stink if we spend another 4 years hearing from the left about how Obama is worthless for trying to do what 60-70% of the country wants him to do: find a middle ground so that we can progress and move forward.


    But the middle is where, exactly? (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    You talk about it as if it is set in stone, but I don't know anyone who doesn't understand that how the "middle" is perceived today is quite different from how it was perceived even four years ago.  And the more things move to the right, the more the middle does, too.

    Over these last four years, a lot has been normalized that people used to be horrified by; we have become numb to more and more erosion of our rights and been brainwashed into believing that we "have to" accept these things in order to be "safe."  Can you imagine if it was Bush who had a kill list, if it was Bush using his DOJ and the SG to argue the merits - no, his entitlement as Commander in Chief - of indefinite detention?

    I don't for one minute believe that 60-70% of the people are looking for what will result if and when Obama continues to "compromise" in order to get things done - we've seen that show before.  The people believe what they do, in large part, because the media never questions the message, they just keep disseminating it; over time, the people cannot be blamed for being so afraid of the doomsday that will befall their children and grandchildren if they don't sign onto compromises being pushed by the deficit hysterics that they come to support those efforts. Fear is a very powerful tool, and it is being used relentlessly to achieve goals that have little to do with any notion of "greater good."

    By all means, be an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but please understand that dancing in here and constantly blowing smoke and shifting the arguments and playing fast and loose with history isn't going to do much more than irritate people who are highly intelligent, equally highly informed and don't base their opinions on what some talking head tells them or what they read on some clever bumper sticker.  

    You'll have to do better than that, and so far, I haven't seen any indication that that's likely to happen anytime soon.


    Worry not. I am going to try (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    to not hold ABG against Obama when it's time to go to the polls.

    But it's getting more difficult by the day to not blame Obama for thread-jacking, too.


    but, gee-- (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by the capstan on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:28:31 PM EST
    hasn't it been nice these past weeks?

    Acceptable comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    In my view, not the time for it.

    But that's your choice.


    You know, my wife said to me last night... (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    ... I think Romney may be actually more of a jerk than Bush. Earning present tense hatred has a profound effect on people, including making the RV polls versus the LV polls not really very different (excluding today's AP poll).

    Bush 43 had at times (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    a personality that one could like, or so it may seem now in retrospect and in comparison to Romney.

    Bush sneered at people whom he thought were "elites," whicxh usually conisted of everyone who had a contrary opinion based on fact.  Romney sneers at everyone who is not a millionaire.....

    It was quite a spetacle to see Ann Romney sent out today to say (again) that Romney really is human, and does not despise poor people.  Marie Antoinette could not have said it better.  "Mitt really, really likes poor people."


    The comment about the cookies (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    is what really shows Romney for who he is.

    He disses the cookies as coming from a 7/11??  
    He was acting like the Lord of the Manor displeased about what the cooking stafff brought him.

    And, his joke about his also being unemployed--told to an assembled table of the unemployed.  Beyond cluelessness, a narcissistic cruelty is involved.  

    It is as if when he was a teenager he could have ruthlessly cut the hair of someone who was different.

    We have seen evidence of the real Romney before.  This latest video is so beyond ameliorating interpretation, that even his supporters wince when they view it.  But it is what Republicans really believe....


    Having not really payed attention to Romney (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:51:22 PM EST
    in action before the last few weeks, I am finally getting the answer to the questions I had about why even the GOP is so lukewarm about him. On paper he seems like everything they could ask for, but omg is he ever a jerk.

    Massive Diamond find in Russian Crater (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:37:50 AM EST
    The Siberian branch of Russian Academy of Sciences said that the Popigai crater in eastern Siberia contains "many trillions of carats" of so-called "impact diamonds" good for technological purposes, not for jewellery, and far exceeding the currently known global deposits of conventional diamonds.

    The deposit was discovered by Soviet scientists in the 1970s, but was left unexplored as the Soviet leadership opted for producing synthetic diamonds for industrial use.

    The diamonds are twice as hard as conventional diamonds.  

    Why not good for jewelry? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    Typical Woman...n/t ;) (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 09:55:49 AM EST
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    I am a crow.  I like shiny things. There are all manner of shiny things :)

    Imagine if diamonds were so inexpensive that diamond violence ended.


    Diamonds should be inexpensive... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    its such a scam...the market is flooded with second hand stones as people empty their jewelry boxes to stay afloat.  

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    ...that would happen, people fight over food and water which are cheap.  If it's something someone wants, violence will be in the mix.  

    Canada found something similar a couple years ago and it barely effected the market, they are worth far more saved than released.  Diamonds aren't near as rare as stuff that only comes from asteroids like iridium and palladium.

    Guys like shiny stuff too, like rims and chrome.  Not a self indulgent flaw reserved for women.

    I about spit out my water when kdog referred to you as typical...


    He was teasing me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:47:26 AM EST
    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    its a cultural thing...teasing = affection.  

    Holy roller muslims, take note;)


    I Know... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    ...but still really funny.

    RIP Steve Sabol (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#34)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    NFL films has had to abandon it's signature backgorund music to play the Benny Hill theme for the scab refs.

    But as to Steve Sabol, my brother and I used to make a point of watching the NFL Films higlight show on Saturday mornings, which aired as a transition between the cartoons and Wide World of Sports.


    "Benny Hill music"... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    well played magster, well played.

    Bad-ell and the NFL gotta cave soon, no?  Especially after Jerry Markbreit's scathing comments about the integrity of the game, and increasing gripes from players regarding player safety that the league supposedly cares so much about.

    The Chicago teachers took Rahm to school, now its the refs turn to win one for labor.


    The Bronco game was awful... (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    ... and not in the "we were robbed" sense (though we were), because there were some head scratchers called on the Falcons too, like marking off 10 yards on a Falcon 5 yard penalty. If instant replay hadn't overturned some big plays, the Falcons would have won by a lot more. And, its the kind of calls that were never a problem before. I thought Coach Fox was going to have an aneurysm.  The game almost took 4 hours because of the confusion and numerous replay reviews. It was laughably bad.

    I got a kick out of... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    the hardcore Saints fan who is scabbing and came within a whisker of officiating an actual Saints game.  For a league with a security/spy apparatus to rival the old KGB, that's some embarassing sh*t.

    or the ref who told a player that he better... (none / 0) (#47)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    ...start playing better because that player was on his fantasy team (player said he thought ref was kidding, but still...)

    Another gem... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    you'd think there would be a ban on scabs playing fantasy football....hope it ain't a money league!

    If this lock-out lasts all year, my money is on a game-fixing scandal cropping up.


    There was a great front page post... (none / 0) (#56)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    on Kos (by Laura Clawson?)about how one of the biggest sticking points is the league trying to get the refs to agree to switch to a 401k system rather than a defined benefits pension, with Goodell nakedly admitting that the 401k system sucks and has been a boon to employers since that fraudulent system has been imposed on workers the last 20 years.

    Just sickening, and I hope the NFLPA can credibly threaten to not cross the NFLRA's picket, because the refs don't have any other leverage other than how lame the scabs are. (Maybe one of the plaintiff lawyers in concussion class action can raise this lockout as corroborative evidence of the league's indifference to player safety??).


    Plaintiff... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:54:21 PM EST
    need only point to full slate of Thursday Night games as evidence of indifference to player safety.

    Selfishly as a fan I love the mid-week action, but it ain't right to have so many games on 3 days rest, should be a minimum of 5 days between games or something to allow players proper recovery time.


    While obviously tilted to the Broncos... (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    this blog is excellent as a football blog too, as well as this point about the refereeing:

    But here's what I find quite amusing regarding the allocation of blame for a loss:

    Why is one person's claim that Peyton Manning's three interceptions were the main reason for the loss considered indisputable, while it would be completely invalid to blame the refs?

    Both are opinions, and not based in delusion, right? Or is the latter un-American?

    Years ago, (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 08:48:21 PM EST
    I went through a gambling phase, and, you can  ask BTD, when you're gambling with real money every tiny movement, and action, is indelibly scorched into your brain. Talk about being "into" a game, you'll never forget that forward pass that was just half an inch too long, or the "holding call, that wasn't, and, on, and on. I remember thinking, "why in the world would any one watch a sporting event if they didn't have money riding on it?" lol.

    Anyway, as a gambler you're not necessarily superstitious, but little things mean a lot, and sometimes a small event on the field, or court, triggers your gut, and you just know something very good, or bad, is going to happen. As an example, let's say the knicks are playing the Lakers and, approaching halftime, the knicks are blowing out the Lakers by, oh 25 points. But, with two minutes left in the half the Lakers make a little run on the Knicks scoring, let's say, 6 straight points. Then, right at the buzzer, Kobe nails a 3 pointer. The game's over, my friends. I don't care that the Knicks go into halftime with a 16 point lead, that little spurt at the end of the 1'st half absolutely, positively means the Lakers are coming out in the second half and blow the Knicks off the court. And, especially if you've got money riding on the knicks, you might as well send it now......it's gone. Again, ask BTD; He knows what I'm saying. I'm sure he's got a few stories of his own to tell.

    Anyway, this is all leading to something important. Another one of those quirks we gamblers are very well aware of is "bad calls" by the refs, and what they mean to the outcome of the game. As a recent displaced New Yorker moved to Tennessee, I decided to take in the Titan's home opener against Tom Brady, and the Patriots. Here's what happened.

    Right off the bat the Titans got possession and young quarterback, Jake Locker, looked like a hall of famer marching his team down the field. Confident, pin point accuracy, he had the Titans rolling towards a touchdown. Then they bogged down around midfield, and the situation, suddenly, was fourth, and inches. The crowd was really into the game and, naturally, they were going to "go for it." So, Locker takes the snap and, instead of a straight ahead lunge to get 1'st down, young Jake Locker, cool as a cucumber, does his Johnny Unitas impression and lofts a perfect, timed pass that picked up about 35 yards, and a 1'st down inside the ten yard line. Then, Locker tosses a perfect pass into the end zone to Damian Williams, but defensive back, Devin McCourt hits Williams in the back, a full two steps before the ball gets there......a flagrant, no question, pass interference. But, no call. Replay, after replay showed the foul, but the scab missed it, big time.

    Now, my point isn't about how bad the scab refs were vs. the real ones. My point is about, as a gambler, the game was over....right there in the 1'st quarter, the outcome was guaranteed. There's just something about momentum, and when that's taken away from you, for whatever reason, in this case a bad call, Karma will not be denied.

    Of course, Brady and the Pats put on a clinic for the Titans, came out and kicked some Tennessee butt.

    The moral of the story: Listen to your Mother.......don't gamble.

    You listening, BTD?


    LANDSLIDE.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    My publisher of the Gos Weekly Review keeps putting this word up on her facebook status.

    Only Zimmerman's DNA found on handgun (none / 0) (#22)
    by David in Cal on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    See http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/19/zimmerman-dna-found-on-handgun-tests-show/

    IIRC Zimmerman hadn't claimed that Martin had touched the gun, so this result seems like no big news to me.

    The two minute video (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    I was almost more offended by Romney's (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    statement that something akin to the Iranian hostage crisis would be an "opportunity" that he'd have to take advantage of. Just so nakedly demonstrated Romney's lack of patriotism to look at a situation so cynically, and it really explained Romney's tastelessness in responding to the Benghazi situation.  What a d!ck!. I hate him. I really do. I think he is a bad person who will go to hell if there is one.

    That was a good ad (none / 0) (#122)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    I was especially struck by John King (I think that's who it was) saying that, when he was a child, his family had relied on food stamps when his father was ill. I think a lot of Americans will have had a similar experience -- of having to rely on the government at some point in their lives.

    In truth, Gov. Romney has insulted far more than 47% of Americans. Short of Pres. Obama's Kenyan birth certificate and Communist Party membership card being uncovered, I don't see how Gov. Romney can win.


    I agree (none / 0) (#181)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 11:09:07 PM EST
    John King's comments were very important. In addition, I think longtime Republican commentator David Gergen's statements were devastating. The DNC is finally figuring out how to deliver a strong, succint message!

    Israel/Iran (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:26:56 PM EST
    I actually think this is the most important topic there is right now.

    If Israel wants to attack before the elections, time is short.  We probably have about a month window, and then we'll have the elections out of the way and whoever is in power ready to push back without worrying about the elections.

    An Israeli attack will plunge the globe into a mini recession and we've gotta watch the issue diligently.  It is likely to happen without much warning.

    Senate Republicans.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by magster on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    ... avoid reporters' questions about Romney remarks right after upholding a filibuster (that would have otherwise passed 58-40) on a bill that would have given war veterans jobs.

    Romney ain't the only jerk.

    What filibuster? (none / 0) (#144)
    by unitron on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:25:30 PM EST
    Did they have to stand there in the Senate and read the phone book out loud for hours on end with no bathroom breaks, or did the Dems just cave when they heard the word filibuster?

    Why didn't some Dem filibuster in favor of the bill?


    Via (none / 0) (#142)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 19, 2012 at 05:18:55 PM EST
    digby, Sheryl Harris gives me a lot to contemplate.

    Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.

    So in this year's presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance.

    "Romney's going to help the upper class," said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. "He doesn't know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house."

    She'll vote for Obama, she said: "At least he wasn't brought up filthy rich."

    Her mind sounds like a magic carpet ride.  But at least we have her vote!  And I think digby is right about the GOP missing the mark on rural populism.

    Heh, I searched your posts, JB, to see (none / 0) (#202)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    where BTD had "run you off."

    Didn't find anything...