Wednesday Open Thread

I'm still so busy I haven't been following any news.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< American People: Fix ACA | Michael Skakel Released on Bond Pending Retrial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 193 (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    Happy birthday to me. (link)

    Volume 192
    Volume 191

    My trusty stead, Bloody Mary, is waiting for me. We shall do battle against the fear of mortality, and we shall prevail. We few, we hapy few...!

    Happy Birthday! (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    Always a class act you are.

    Happy birthday, Dadler! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 05:35:58 PM EST
    And many happy returns.  {{Hugs}}

    Hugs right back (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    May the Pirate Crew one day descend on the farm. ;-)

    Happy Birthday to one of my (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 06:49:34 PM EST
    favorite commenters, who always has a way to make me smile - sometimes spew liquids out of my nose - whose passion and humor inform and illuminate everything you say.

    I sure hope one day to be able to buy a published book of Dadler fiction/short stories/whatever, because you have some serious talent and I love the way - sometimes a little cracked - you look at life.



    So kind of you (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:18:31 PM EST
    I appreciate it, glad to make you laugh.

    Happy Birthday to Dadler! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:54:40 PM EST
    Thank you for making me laugh out loud almost every single day!  

    Gracias, mi amiga (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    Peace your way to the nth degree.

    Happy Birthday (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by sj on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:12:31 PM EST
    Thank you for all the laughs, and I look forward to many more.

    Big thanks (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:20:16 PM EST
    Always enjoy your comments and POV, glad I can make you chuckle.

    From Sheriff John to you, Dadler (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by shoephone on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    Put another candle on your birthday cake
    We're gonna bake
    a birthday cake
    Put another candle on your birthday cake
    You're another year old today
    Happy birthday to you
    You're another year old today

    Just a bit of oldtimey L.A. nostalgia. Merry wishes on your special day.


    Awesome choice (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    Love it. Than you, my friend. Peace out.

    Happy Bday (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    Not sure what your flavor is, so why not both:
    Old School
    New School

    I'm a freak, neopolitan rainbow sherbet (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    Both of them make me happy. TY, my man.

    Happy birthday. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    You know, it's a little known but nevertheless true fact that if you start telling people that you're ten to fifteen years older than you really are, four out of five of them will then compliment you on how marvelous you look for your age.

    Enjoy the day. ;-D


    Dadler and the cops -- A "Love" Story (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    This was my yesterday. (link)

    Joy to the World!

    "Neighbors who care"... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:08:18 AM EST
    That's a laugher...a neighbor who cares would just knock on the door, or close the damn garage door for ya even.

    Hope the rest of your birthday wasn't so harrowing my brother.


    Third time in my life... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    ...I've had to look down the barrel of a gun. I would hope this is the last time. And nutty neighbor lady is whack, yells at drivers on the street, seems just too unhinged for anyone's good, especially her own. I'm just glad cop dude didn't have itchy trigger finger when I appeared in the garage and surprised him or when I came back down the stairs hurriedly, searching for my ID.

    The third time I've faced a gun, cont'd (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    Two of those times the gun was wielded by a police officer. And neither time could I have even remotely been considered any sort of threat. So I can imagine, probably better than most people, what some poor black or Hispanic kid goes through on a more regular basis.

    The Act of Affordable Care.... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 08:34:18 PM EST
    "WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress like to boast that they will have the same health care enrollment experience as constituents struggling with the balky federal website, because the law they wrote forced lawmakers to get coverage from the new insurance exchanges.", but they're full of it...

    NYT: For Lawmakers, a Gold-Plated Insurance Exchange

    Who is or Who Has: (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    "...boast(ed) that they will have the same health care enrollment experience as constituents"

    Seems like I remember the aids getting all bent out of shape over having to use the website, but I can't think of any member of Congress making that claim.

    But beyond that, why not, they get VIP status with the credit score companies, they get VIP treatment with mortgages, why would anyone think they weren't going get special status with insurance.

    That is Congress, they makes laws over an infinite amount of things they never experience with and/or have zero knowledge of.  And the very companies they regulate not only give them cash via campaign contributions, they also make sure their experiences are nothing like the real world.


    Who do we think we are? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:00:49 AM EST
    From the NYT:

    The National Security Agency is authorized to spy on the citizens of America's closest allies, including Britain, even though those English-speaking countries have long had an official non-spying pact, according to a newly disclosed memorandum.

    The classified N.S.A. document, which appears to be a draft and is dated January 2005, states that under specific circumstances, the American intelligence agency may spy on citizens of Britain without that country's consent or knowledge. The memo, provided by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, is labeled secret and "NOFORN," indicating that it may not be shared with any foreign country.


    The N.S.A. declined to respond to questions on whether the draft became official policy and whether spying on Britain without its consent had ever taken place.

    Oh, but, wait...

    But portions of the document appear to indicate that, whether by formal agreement or simply longstanding practice, both Britain and the United States believed that in extraordinary circumstances, one country might feel compelled to spy on citizens of the other.

    In a reference to an intelligence-sharing compact struck in March 1946, the memo said the two nations had agreed "that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons."

    That agreement, however, came with a caveat that "when it is in the best interest of each nation," unilateral spying by one nation on the other could take place, the memo says. It goes on to expand that mandate to allow spying by the United States on any of the Five Eyes countries (the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand).

    So...never mind, I guess.  We're good.  This is all good.  Nothing to see here.

    Anne (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    I don't believe there is anything that will result in any meaningful legislation that will come from the Snowden leaks.

    From the Manning and Snowden archives we have learned of murders of reporters, children being used as currency, that all Earth citizens using the internet are being watched, along with their leaders, and nothing.

    People simply don't care and I don't believe it has anything to do with security, they don't see it and they don't care they are in the proverbial Nineteen Eighty-Four.

    IMO there is literally nothing that will come of any leaks on that front that will get Americans bothered enough to care.  Unless of course it's something that constitutes some sort or republican witch hunt, then endless barrage of grandstanding, but in the end, nothing will change and worse off, they fricken know it.


    I can't let myself think like this (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    I fear you're right, but I just can't let myself think like that.

    No Budget, No Vacation Congress !!! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, the senior Democrat on the House Rules Committee, introduced legislation Wednesday that would prevent Congress from skipping town for the holidays if the House fails to pass a budget agreement by mid-December.

    Democrats are hopeful, however, that the vote will be tricky for Republicans amid reports that House GOP leaders are done legislating for the remainder of the year and have distributed a blank agenda for 2014 to their members. In a press release, Slaughter cites such articles and points out that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reportedly joked in a private meeting with Republicans that the House shouldn't even remain in session in December.

    As The Huffington Post reported earlier this year, the 113th Congress is on track to be the least productive in modern history, a tough record to beat given the 112th Congress was already the least productive since the 1940s. Boehner has called such reports "total nonsense," and said the American public would like to see Congress repeal laws rather than simply pass them.


    Why no similar bill in the Senate (none / 0) (#49)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    When one party controls the House and the other party controls the Senate it should come as no shock that there will be disagreements.

    Because the Senate... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    ...isn't the problem.  House republicans are; quit spinning it as this or that party, it is the house republicans who have been the major roadblock in regards to the budget.

    The Senate is the problem (none / 0) (#65)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    to Republicans and the House is the problem to the Democrats.  

    I Suppose... (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    ...the senate is the problem if you like a functioning government, great point.

    But, the bill is about the budget.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 194 (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    Hey, look, everybody! Way up there! (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    Isn't that the Wicked Witch of the West swooping around on her broomstick? It looks as though she's trying to writ some sort of message across the sky! It's says, "R-E ...", "R-E-T-I ..." -- why, it says "RETIRE, BOB!" That's it!

    Kdog (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:57:48 AM EST
    Here's a police blotter entry you can love:

    A Kalispell Police officer and a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officer were able to remove a five-pound sack of potatoes reported hanging from a tree on Seventh Street East that looked like it might fall into the street. Apparently, the potatoes were subdued without causing any mayhem.

    If ever there was a time... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    to whip out the taser...they coulda made tazed potatos.

    Hot damn people drop dimes for some stupid sh*t in Montana...

    A motorist reported a muskrat had just crossed U.S. 93 South and was very concerned the animal was going to get run over. An animal warden was unable to locate the rodent.

    An East Oregon Street man called with questions about "getting sucked into [applying for] a credit card" at a retail store.

    A casino patron was reported after he was drinking more than the maximum one drink per 15 minutes while simultaneously complaining that the drinks weren't coming fast enough. He was eventually given a ride home.

    A Baker Avenue woman contacted the Whitefish Police Department after seeing three teenagers run from her outbuilding, one of whom she believed she recognized as a friend of her son's.

    Small town police blotters (none / 0) (#142)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Are really fun to read.  :)

    Now this could be very serious (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:29:09 AM EST
    Buddhist Extremist Cell Vows To Unleash Tranquility On West
    "In the name of the Great Teacher, we will stop at nothing to unleash a firestorm of empathy, compassion, and true selflessness upon the West," said Rinpoche, adding that all enemies of a freely flowing, unfettered state of mind will be "besieged with pure, everlasting happiness." "No city will be spared from spiritual harmony. We will bring about the end to all Western pain and anxiety, to all destructive cravings, to all greed, delusion, and misplaced desire. Indeed, we will bring the entire United States to its knees in deep meditation."
    "And if you think even for a moment that we will ever relent, remember this: Thousands of candles can be lit from a single candle, and the life of the candle will not be shortened," Rinpoche added. "You have been warned."
    "I want to assure all Americans that we are fully aware of these threats from Kammaṭṭhāna, and they will not be taken lightly," acting Secretary of Homeland Security Rand Beers said at a press conference shortly after Rinpoche's video surfaced...
    "The danger of total enlightenment is very real," Beers added. "And we must be prepared."

    At press time, sources confirmed that President Obama has authorized a preemptive strike on Kammaṭṭhāna and deployed a fleet of predator drones to bomb Tibet.

    This could bring the two-party system to its knees. Oh. Wait. It already is...

    The coordinated attack on ObamaCare (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    Guess the source!  link

    Strange but true. (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    Weird story from today.

    My sister works at a large federal agency as a librarian.  Over the last couple of weeks, they have been preparing to move the entire library into a new space, and she somehow managed to find herself of being in charge of move coordination.  Last Friday, they moved.

    Flash forward to this week.  She was moving boxes and trying to arrange them in places near where people could empty them.  She moved a box out of the aisle, and when she came back, there was a piece of mail on the floor. She picked it up to look at it and....it was addressed to ME at my parents' home - it was an insurance bill from 2002. I have never been to her place of employment, so it's not like I could have dropped it on a visit.

    Now, obviously, this got stuck to something in one of her work files - something she was probably supposed to deliver to me way back when, and probably ended up stuck to the back of something and moved time and again as she changed jobs.  But the funny thing is, she said it was near a box of office supplies, and not in a box with her files.

    Weird, huh?

    That's the signpost up ahead, your next stop.. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by desertswine on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity.

    You can check in but (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:53:35 AM EST
    you can't check out.

    Uh, no, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

    Of course, you're to be forgiven for not knowing that, since long ago on that dark desert highway, cool wind in your hair, warm smell of colitas rising up through the air, up ahead in the distance you saw a shimmering light, and your head grew heavy and your sight grew dim, and you had to stop for the night.

    Of course, though, you really should've realized that her mind was Tiffany-twisted, when all the pretty, pretty boys she called her friends were dancing up a sweat in that courtyard, and when you called up the captain and said please bring you your wine, he said they hadn't had that spirit there since 1969.

    And that explains why ever since, you've been running for the door, trying to find the passage back to the place you were before.



    Maybe this federal agency... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:17:54 AM EST
    is keeping a file on ya JB.  Better go undergound...if ya need a safehouse let me know;)

    Ha Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:23:30 AM EST
    It's the FDA, so who KNOWS what they may have on me!

    But thanks for the offer - I may need it yet!


    The knock on the door (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    in the middle of the night.  Two men announce "We're from the FDA and we'd like to ask you a few questions, Ms. jb.  Do you now have, or have you ever had, any expired prescription drugs in your cabinet?"

    JB is most welcome... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    to let me hold any expired/unused scripts for opiates, sedatives, or amphetamines.  What are friends for?

    I think (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    There's some soon-to-be expired Tylenol PM.  It's not prescription, but that's still bad bad bad!

    Oh, oh! (none / 0) (#68)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    Well, if you see two guys dressed in white lab coats approaching your door, dump the expired meds before you answer the door!

    That Was an Actual Racket... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:13:59 PM EST
    ...here in Houston.  People were going around dressed in scrubs claiming to be on some sort of expired prescription disposal drive.  They were doing it for weeks.

    They did it because of this non-sense.

    This is a testament to how dumb your average American is:

    The DEA has removed nearly 1 million pounds of medication from circulation in the past 13 months through the take-back program.

    People actually take the time to drive to these places and turn over their old meds. Although I have never had this issue, but I suspect it would take be about 3 seconds to throw them away.


    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:35:13 PM EST
    And here I thought I was making a joke about the guys showing up at jb's place!

    Speechless... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    just when I thought my opinion of the "work" of the DEA couldn't get any lower, you turn me on to this sh*t.  

    Looks like they just held another one of these money, time & drug waster events...

    "The American people have once again responded to the National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day event, and we thank them for participating in this effort to battle prescription drug abuse," said DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart, who added that 4,114 agencies participated with DEA nationwide in this event. "These take-back events highlight the problems related to prescription drug abuse and provide a unique and meaningful service to our citizens. While we continue to finalize a uniform system for prescription drug disposal, we will continue to sponsor these take-back opportunities and give Americans the opportunity to contribute to the solution. DEA is grateful to the many federal, state, local, and tribal partners that have helped make this effort so successful."

    "Unique and meaningful service"...this guy slays me! He should do open mic night at Caroline's, this is some damn good material.  


    Know Your Enemies My Man (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    ...and FYI, Michele Leonhart is not a dude.

    Check out the brain child who heads the DEA testifying in front of Congress.  That statement above is genius compared to THIS.

    Yeah, she is the living embodiment of our drug control policy.


    Thanks... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:12:36 PM EST
    Come to think of it, "it" might be more apt than she or he.  She or he implies humanity, of which there obviously is none.  No brain, no heart, no soul...

    And Leon-heartless has her storm-troopers going to town in Denver today smashing and grabbing...their brand of torture never stops.


    And then they hand it all (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    over to some waste disposal company that buries it in a site next to some inner city playground..

    Or puts them in gumball machines to to sell in Gautamala or Honduras..


    The knock on the door (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    in the middle of the night.  Two men announce "We're from the FDA and we'd like to ask you a few questions, Ms. jb.  Do you now have, or have you ever had, any expired prescription drugs in your cabinet?"

    Sorry for the double post (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    Stupid tablet.

    In 1985, I went to a Dodger game... (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    ...with my old high school buddy and a bunch of his friends from Pepperdine. In the 7th or 8th inning, as they always do, the attendance was announced. At Dodger Stadium, unlike some other parks that put 3 or 4 choices up on the video-board to guess from, the PA announcer would say "...The Dodgers thank you for coming to the game. Tonight's attendance is..." And here's he'd take a slight pause, and in this pause I loudly blurted out "Forty-two thousand six hundred fifty-five!" A split-second after my blurt, the P.A. announcer continued, "Forty-two thousand six hundred fifty-five." Everyone within earshot of me turned around and gave me wide eyes of "Holy sh*t, how the hell did you do that?"

    To this day, I have no clue.


    Whats up Rainman! (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    Do you buy your boxer shorts at Kmart in Cincinnati too?

    15 Minutes to Wapner!


    And speaking of Dadler clairvoyance (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    Ask my wife about the night of the OJ murders. True story: we were camping for her birthday, in the middle of nowhere high-desert southeast of San Diego, twenty miles from the nearest paved road, couldn't get a radio or TV signal if we wanted to. After we'd fallen asleep in the tent, I had a dream that night about blood and blood and more blood all over the tiled ground on some pation, I saw a gate of some sort. I woke up in the middle of the night spooked silly, told my wife about it. We drove home a day later, and I saw the murder scene. It was eerily similar to what I saw in my dream. Now THAT was some Twilight Zone sh*t.

    I Rarely Dream... (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    ...or I just don't rememebr them because I am a hard sleeper.

    But early one morning I awoke from a dream.  My GF was already up and I told her about my dream in which I was on a plane and we were going to crash, the odd thing is right before impact, I had this amazing feeling of peace.  Woke up feeling like a million bucks, I had faced death in my dream and it didn't bother me.

    That day at work my buddy called and said a plane had crashed into the World trade Center.

    Purely coincidental, but what are the odds ?  I think it helped me knowing that maybe some of those folks experienced what I did in my dream right before impact, that pure terror wasn't the last thing running through their heads.


    patio, not pation n/t (none / 0) (#156)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    Serial murderer (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    Arthur Shawcross lived in the house literally next door to a friend of mine, and two months before the cops caught him, I had a very vivid, weird dream in which my friend had a secret hidden passageway connecting his house to the scene of the murders..

    Of course, after I woke up from that dream I had the  usual "what the?!" "the was bizarre.." response and put it out of my mind..

    My daughter took a nap before the Super Bowl one year and dreamed Brady would get dropped for a safety for the first score of the game which of course proceeded to occur..


    My Dad (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:51:56 AM EST
    ...used to dream true. He had lots of those experiences. From the time he was a kid. Verified by others. He saw his first Cessna in a dream the night before he saw it live. Colors and everything. He was about six.

    I go commando (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    Better for the clairvoyance. Ahem.

    ... on Facebook, accuse her of undermining your relationship with your spouse and children, inform her in no uncertain terms that your family neither seeks nor needs her personal approval, and then publicly refuse to endorse her candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

    Oh, wait, that's not you, is it? Okay. I tell you, so many people come to me for advice nowadays, I get a few of them mixed up every once in a while. My bad.


    Yeah, it's weird, but hey, look at the bright side. At least it wasn't an overdue notice from 2002 for a book you neglected to return on time. In 1995, I needed a notarized copy of my high school diploma as additional documentation. ( I think it was for a passport renewal application.) But when I was visiting my mother in Pasadena and went to my old school to get it, I learned that there had been a hold placed on such requests and transactions by my former English teacher who had since retired and passed away. It seems there was this outstanding matter regarding an unreturned textbook dating back to my senior year in 1979.

    $45.00 later, I got my diploma copy. Bureaucrats may come and go, but bureaucracies seldom forget.



    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    At least it was only $45 - I would have figured it would have been more!

    The funny thing is - she told me it was an unpaid bill.  Then she sent me a picture of it in case I didn't believe her.

    I had to point out to her that it said, "Thank you for your recent payment of $82.41."

    In my case, being the evil older sister, I told her it was Sylvia, the "ghost" that lived in the basement that we always teased her about.  To this day, she hates hearing about Sylvia.

    (Yeah, I'm also so evil that I will call her up when "The Wizard of Oz" is on, pause the TV at the scene where the witch says "I'll get you my pretty!  And your little dog too!" and then hold the phone up to the TV and hit play.  She hates that.  I, on the other hand, get hours of amusement, not only in the afterglow, but when I get to see her in person and re-live the experience.)  :)

    And before anyone feels sorry for her, she has her moments of getting me back too.  :)


    You're a little late to the party, dude. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Angel on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 07:57:07 PM EST
    And I'm pretty sure Jeralyn will be deleting your comment and all replies to you before the night is over.  

    that commenter was zapped (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 20, 2013 at 09:54:34 PM EST
    not just deleted. Multiple violations of the commenting rules, not even worth dignifying with an explanation

    Another one that is hard to believe. (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:39:41 AM EST
    Testing! Testing!

    Gonna send this on to Lamar. Since he's running for reelection he might do something.

    Saw that one... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    No police state tactics phase me anymore, but that story came damn close.

    NHTSA is doing it all over the country too...f8ckin' creepy man.


    This is beyond ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    How can this be legal?

    Will the Senate filibuster (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    of judicial nominees come to an end?

    Prior to the start of the Obama presidency there were 86 judicial filibusters in the nation's history. Since Obama took office there have been 82.

    Seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:03:25 AM EST
    They should change the filibuster rule that says a Senator actually has to get up and talk and not sit down.  Let the American people see that you are a doofus who's reading the dictionary and holding up Senate busines.

    I think the Democrats will rue the day if they completely get rid of the filibuster.


    Looks like the votes are there (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:09:50 AM EST
    to make judicial nominees an up or down without needing 60. Perhaps the "talking filibuster" will stay in place with judicial nominees. I haven't read in detail how it's laid out other than to know Reid now has the votes to make the change.

    A multitude of Federal Judge vacancies does no one any good.


    No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:17:17 AM EST
    This has been a problem for years.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    to anyone that is missing what is happening today. The new filibuster rule will have no effect on Supreme Court Judges or legislation. It would apply to executive branch and most judicial nominations.

    That is the distinction (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    they make today.  The Republicans take the Senate, and they will change the rules even further citing Reid's changes as precedent.

    The key question is whether the Senate Democrats think Hillary will win in 2016 to avoid a rush of nasty Republican legislation passed with 50 votes out of the Senate.  If so, then the Democrats and Obama and Hillary can get enough Judges appointed to survive any subsequent onslaught.

    And, liberals in general would do well to support a more democratic process.  Better in the long run even if the shoe will be on the other foot at some point.  


    I wasn't clear (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28:03 AM EST
    I was agreeing that open vacancies are not good for anyone.

    First vote (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    The Senate voted to end the filibuster on Patricia Millett's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 55-43.

    If the 6th Amendment... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:21:31 AM EST
    right to speedy trial existed anywhere but on paper, it could do a lot of good to those accused of federal crimes.  But alas, the 6th is a mythical right.

    Aren't they All... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:43:30 AM EST
    ...what right do you really have as stated in the Constitution ?  No one has forced me put soldiers up in my home, we can get drink, pay taxes, and vote for senators.  Obama can't run again and if he were to die, it established his replacement.  

    But the good ones, the ones that actually deal with our rights have been so convoluted and hacked into pieces that it perfectly legal for the NSA to spy on anyone in the world or to hold people without trials or charges, they can stop and frisk for no reason.  We have "Free Speech Zones" and secret courts with secret indictments upheld by secret judges.

    They are all abstract and mythical that bear little resplendence to reality.


    What I have noticed (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    Is that when the Republicans are in power but don't have a super majority they talk about confirming judicial nominees with a simple majority.  The same goes for Democrats.  But so both sides have always backed down just before going off the cliff.

    The DC Circuit has vacancies left over from the Bush administration that were blocked by the Democrats.  Added to all the vacancies the Republicans have blocked in the Obama administration and there are way too many vacancies.

    To make matters worse both the Republicans and the Democrats think they should have the ability to nominate candidates that reflect their political belief and should retain the slots from when their nominees were blocked.

    There are still lots of hard feelings about what happened to Bork and Estrada, to name just two of the high profile blocked jurists (I know Bork was not really filibustered).

    While what I call a true filibuster where someone has to stand up and talk has lots of drama I doubt the Senate will return to that.  Seems pols have reached the point where they are too lazy to put on a real filibuster.


    Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    One of those posts when I agree with you. How very disconcerting. :)

    Adn to compound the problem (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    Obama waited 6 or 7 months into his first term to make his first nominations and has been on a slower pace than his predecessors to nominate candidates (especially at the district level). Plus, he had the added pressure that 92 judges took "Senior Status" during his term.

    Link (Data as of January 2012)

    The problem just keeps compounding when you add in obstrutionist Republicans.

    I hope this loosens up the bottleneck.


    Nuke option passed (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    A little shocked at this given what will happen if the Republicans take the Senate again.  

    Maybe they could (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    change the rules on the last day of the term that the Democrats comprise the majority in the Senate.

    (No, I'm not serious, but I wouldn't put it past them).


    And interestingly enough (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:50:04 AM EST

    Three Democrats voted against changing the rules --Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas



    No Congress (none / 0) (#63)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    can bind a future congress.  That is the problem with this change.  Before the vote the Republicans said if they gain control of the Senate in 2014 (something that is a real possibility given the way red state Democratic Senators are running from Obamacare) the first thing they will do is change the Senate rules to eliminate the super majority requirement for anything, and on the first day.

    The Democrats, when in the (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    majority,  seem to worry more about what will happen if they lose than using their majority to govern in the present, while the Republicans appear to seize the moment and work to change the rules to suit their changing fortunes.  This, as Gail Collins explains, is why the Democrats,  when really, really frustrated, threaten the "nuclear option"--change is worse than atomic war.

    Speaking for myself only, I've always thought the filibuster to be an archaic vestige of 19th century lawmaking. For that matter, so is most any rule mandating a supermajority vote for approval, save for those matters under active legislative reconsideration, i.e., a motion to override an executive veto of a measure previously approved, or a motion to reconsider a matter previously tabled.

    Legislative rules always sunset upon the formal expiration of the legislative body's biennial term, which for Congress is usually (but not always) January 3 of any odd-numbered calendar year. For most (but not all) state legislatures, the old term expires on the designated Election Day, and the new legislature's term commences the day following.

    It is further interesting to note that most state legislatures, save for Texas and a few others, have actually dispensed with the concept of legislative filibuster altogether. Members are still free to debate a measure on the floor for as long as they so desire. But if any member offers a superseding motion to either call the question on the floor or table or re-refer the measure, and that motion is seconded, the matter before the body is henceforth closed to further debate, and discussion can only be reopened with the subsequent rejection of that superseding motion by simple majority vote.

    However, if a superseding motion to call the question is approved, then the measure on the floor is the immediate subject of an up-or-down vote by that body. If a superseding motion to table is adopted, then the matter before the body is thereby set aside until such time as two-thirds of the chamber's members would agree to re-open discussion and debate. If a motion to re-refer is adopted, the measure is returned to the last standing legislative committee which previously approved it.

    For that reason, a motion to table or re-refer is tantamount to a death sentence for any bill that's up on Third or Final Reading in either chamber of your state legislature. It can serve as a legislative fig leaf -- or coward's way out, as it were -- by providing members with a roundabout way to kill off a measure which might enjoy robust public approval but is opposed by corporate interests or other powers that be, without ever having to go on the public record in formal opposition.

    You might want to remember that little sleight of hand, the next time you see an otherwise popular piece of legislation simply and suddenly die in its tracks in your state legislature, even as elected officials might sing its praises in public. Their votes on such motions are only found in the transcribed proceedings of the House or Senate Journal, and not in the bill's legislative history (which is usually posted online). Therefore, your legislator's actual position on that measure might not be immediately apparent to his or her constituents.

    If you desire to hold your legislator to account for that bill's sudden demise, you'll have to surmise exactly how he or she voted on that particular motion on the floor, and not on the bill itself at Second Reading just a day or two prior, which is recorded in the bill's legislative history. A disingenuous legislator will often attempt to refer you to the legislative online history as a matter of public record, whereas the truth is actually in the recorded floor proceedings, which are often not online. That's why I consider it so critical that citizens understand the concept of legislative due process.



    Kinda long post (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:08:15 PM EST
    that starts to explain parliamentary procedure.  I can still remember way back in high school going through Henry Martyn Roberts' famous before mock legislative sessions.  Also had a great teacher back then who explained while Roberts rules may be the best known rules to the public there are also several other rules of parliamentary procedure.

    As you point the rules can be used to attain a bad result.  By the same token they can be used to obtain a good result.


    Who remembers The Cramps? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    Dumb Move By Reid (none / 0) (#64)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    In Obama's first term there was talk of eliminating the super majority requirement but instead a sorta, kinda, maybe deal was reached to avoid doing that.

    Before todays vote the Republicans said if Reid's no more super majority passed the first thing the Republicans would do if they are the majority in the Senate in 2014 (a real possibility given the way red state Democrats are running away from Obamacare) is eliminate all super majority requirements.

    If Reid wanted to do away with the super majority requirement he should have done it the first day of after Obama was elected.  It was a dumb move to wait until less than two years before the Republicans may gain control of the Senate.

    As far (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    as I can remember, JFK was killed on Nov. 22.

    Does anyone know why Obama and others are laying wreaths and such on the 20th and 21st?

    I have been wondering the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    The morning "news" magazines were doing the same thing yesterday.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    so as not to overshadow the events planned in Dallas tomorrow?

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    but I don't get it.

    Laying a wreath has at least some symbolic meaning. An expression of loss and respect.


    That is the last place I would want to be on the 22nd.

    And what are they planning? I'm reluctant to even think about it.


    Here's some news (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:11:15 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:12:41 PM EST
    Here's the official event list from the commemoration committee:

    Looking (none / 0) (#81)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    at it all briefly, I can only say that it feels like the usual rewriting of history. A smoothing out of a horror story.

    A "cowardly act"?

    I don't know.
    Oswald sounds completely genuine in the clip that is available of him after his arrest. He looks and sounds completely clueless. He doesn't seem to even be sure of what he is accused of doing.

    If the mob was behind it, it wasn't cowardly, it was a planned execution - with Oswald the fall guy as he said.

    No one has been able to duplicate his alleged marksmanship.

    And I have never heard of a political assassination in which the perpetrator doesn't claim "credit" - or at least express something relating to a motive or a cause he hoped to advance. A political assassin calling himself a patsy? Something doesn't lay right with me.

    But - enough with theories.

    The simple fact is that the president was murdered. The press jumped to a rapid conclusion that it was because of a climate of hate. Or a leftist plot. Oswald was tried, fried and convicted and ultimately killed on TV in front of everyone.

    The press was revealed to be one that jumps to convenient conclusions to peddle papers. It continues to do so - with its brothers and sisters in the broadcast media.

    In my opinion, it was the end of our democracy as we knew it. Even though I feel that JFK was inherently conservative, he gave everyone the sense that he was something new - a breath of fresh air. He had weekly press conferences. Think about that. Now the president is mostly in hiding.


    Yes, they have (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    been able to duplicate his marksmanship.  Many, many times.

    links? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    Because a search returns many, many links saying the exact opposite.
    Yes, they have (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:17:33 PM MDT

    been able to duplicate his marksmanship.  Many, many times.

    There was one experiment that claimed to duplicate the feat ascribed to Oswald, but this link discusses how the test parameters were thoroughly corrupted to get such a result.

    I haven't scrutinized any other content at that website but I strongly suspect that the proprietor has a specific POV. For that reason, I would be interested in reading about the tests that you allude to here.


    Off the top of my (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:37:16 PM EST
    head, Dan Rather at CBS set up one of the first public experiments.

     I  will look for the tape.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    Rather is the one, I believe, (none / 0) (#179)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    who let Richard Helms blather on unchallenged on tv about no one ever debriefing Oswald when he returned to the U.S from the S.U..

    Wikipedia has a good (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    I saw a show where they used forensics and recreated human skull and body, shot into it from the exact same trajectory Oswald would have been at.  They were able to replicate the blood and gray matter splattering.  Which means the caliber, velocity, and angle were true to the actual shot that killed him.

    They also tested other theories, and none of the splattering was even close, there is no doubt in my mind that he was killed by a rifle shot from the book depository building.

    If Oswald didn't do it, he was very close to the person who actually did.

    I am sure the show will be on the History Channel many times this week.


    Make That the Discovery Channel (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    Forensics and the JFK Assassination is the name of the program.

    It's ok with me (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:22:08 PM EST
    I'm one of the 61% who beleive Oswald did not act alone.  You just have to watch the Zapruder film and watch which way Kennedy's head propels after both shots - one goes forward (Oswald's shot) and the next it goes back and to the left, as if being shot from the right.

    I believe Ruby shot Oswald to make sure he didn't say anything - even if he didn't have anything incriminating to say.

    Do I need a tinfoil hat?  I don't think so, but I think we will never know the answer.


    The first shot went through (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    his back and out his throat.  The Zapruder film does not show that shot because his car went behind the sign.....When the car  emerges from the sign, JFK is seen clutching his throat with both hands....

    Oliver Stone popularized the "back and to the left" line by having Kevin Costner repeat it so many times during his closing.  But there are answers....Most if not all the issues raised by Stone have answers....

    One example, Stone made a point that JFK's brain went missing after the autopsy.  Years later, Teddy indicated he had had the brain cremated and had scattered the ashes...

    The best argument you have is that Humes and Boswell messed up the autopsy at Bethesda.  The X-rays have problems.    


    Uh, no (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    If you watch the actual film, he clutches his throat.  THEN you see him get hit from the right.

    The film (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    does not show the first shot to hit JFK.  That was my point.  

    You are commenting on the second shot to hit him.



    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    Which is why I said, like a majority of Americans, I believe Oswald did not act alone.  

    You also said (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    that there was a difference in how he reacted to the first and second shots.  You added in your own wrinkle here about the first shot that those who believe in a second shooter do not maintain.

    Ultimately, what public opinion surveys show is irrelevant.  


    He grabs his throat (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    And his head goes forward - not a lot, but it goes forward - indicating the shot was from the back.

    But I can sense you want to argue with me about anything, so we are done here.


    I am (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    not sure that Oswald acted at all...

    I refer to this video.

    I have never seen a political assassin behave in this manner. Usually, almost invariably, they claim some kind of "credit". They had a cause.

    He seems genuinely bewildered.
    At the time, he is only aware of being accused of killing an officer.

    My theory: FBI &/or CIA and Mob, having established a working relationship with the attempted invasion of Cuba, decided it was in their mutual interests to get rid of the president.

    And they have been together ever since.
    Cuba, decided it was in their


    I agree with John Kerry (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    in that who put Oswald up to it is in doubt.

    But as to multiple shooters, that theory got a lot of juice when Congress put out its report in the 1970s.  The evidence of multiple shots was based on the audiotape from a motorcycle cop.  The science on that does not hold up.

    The Oswald, Bannister, Ferry connection is an interesting one.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#111)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    but what do you think about the video I linked to above?

    Oswald loved the limelight (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    He earlier appeared on a radio, or perhaps it was a t.v. show, saying all kinds of things about Cuba and other subjects.

    Oswald was not insane...just a loser looking for attention.  I do not give any weight to his comments that he was not involved.


    Everything (none / 0) (#116)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:45:10 PM EST
    you say may be true...

    but I am interested in your opinion of him the way he appears and speaks in the video to which I linked.

    He appears disorientated.
    He only is aware of being charged with killing officer Tippit.

    Someone looking for attention doesn't usually behave as he does in that video.

    I did detect a micro-expression in his face as he was being led away from the interview that looked weird. I take that in.

    I will also ask you if a loser looking for attention would not take the opportunity to claim responsibility for an action that was bound to change the course of history.

    I don't know of political assassins who haven't done just that. They proclaim their cause and how the person they have eliminated stood in the way of their cause.

    Oswald, in that clip, expresses absolutely nothing but bewilderment. He isn't even sure what he is being charged with.

    Something just doesn't add up for me.
    I'm not looking for a conspiracy - but something about Oswald doesn't add up for me.

    I also have an unrelated question:
    Would you happen to know if it was widely publicized that the president would be riding in an open car that day?


    A lot of things (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 07:10:45 PM EST
    do not add up with Oswald.  

    Sabato, a lone gunman adherent, has added this piece of new research:

    In a larger sense, the insufficient security for presidents back in the early 1960s arguably made JFK's assassination almost inevitable. Twelve Secret Service agents accompanied Kennedy in the Dallas motorcade, none clustered around his limousine, while he passed dozens of open windows in tall buildings and massive unscreened crowds that practically enveloped him on occasion. This was standard operating procedure; my research team has compiled photos and film of JFK at home and abroad on dozens of occasions that were much like in Dallas; in quite a few cases, Kennedy stands up in the limo for extended periods, making his body an even easier target. And amazingly, unlike FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had an armored automobile, the president's car was not bulletproof. Also unlike Hoover, Kennedy wanted crowds to see him clearly and closely. The political rule of the day was that people were less likely to vote against an officeholder they had "met" personally.

    It seems odd but it took a long time for public figures to not ride around in convertibles.   Even after JFK, MLK and Bobby, the Pope still did not have the Popemobile until after he was shot.


    It was always struck me as beyond bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    that a guy who would be on anyone's short list of types in the City of Dallas most likely to take a shot at Kennedy -- former defector to the SU, avowed Marxist-Leninist, member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee -- just happened to have a job working in a building with an almost perfect marksman's overview of the motorcade..

    Also,I've never heard a satisfactory explanation  accounting for the "coincidental" presence of a CIA operative next in line behind Oswald in New Orleans when he applied for his tourist visa on his way to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. The Warren Comission apparently was concerned enough about that bit of serendippity to claim at the time that the name of the next person at the desk after Oswald was unknown even though they issued the name of every other person who applied for a visa that day..    


    I am (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    not sure that Oswald acted at all...

    I refer to this video.

    I have never seen a political assassin behave in this manner. Usually, almost invariably, they claim some kind of "credit". They had a cause.

    He seems genuinely bewildered.
    At the time, he is only aware of being accused of killing an officer.

    My theory: FBI &/or CIA and Mob, having established a working relationship with the attempted invasion of Cuba, decided it was in their mutual interests to get rid of the president.

    And they have been together ever since.


    Oswald was an odd one (none / 0) (#127)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    I was in a TV civics class when the prez was shot.  The teacher switched from the PBS station broadcasting the lesson to CBS.  Also remember watching Oswald live, he did seem confused, and after church watching Ruby shoot him.

    There are a few moments in your life that you never forget, for me these two stand out.  But there is something to your claim that Oswald did not fit the mold of a true believer assassin.

    At first everyone thought the right wing was responsible.  When it came out that Oswald was a leftie there were all kinda silly explanations.  The Warren report was suppose to end the silliness but never did.  Folks were claiming things like Johnson was behind it, the CIA was behind it, there was a right wing cabal behind it, and even crazier stuff.  

    The upside is after JFK, RFK, and MLK there seems to have been increased security and a lower risk for elected officials.


    The (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:36:06 AM EST
    downside is that elected officials are more remote than ever from the people they serve.

    There is a significant (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    body of forensic literature on the physics of the head shot.

    A new aspect that I just learned:  Not to be gross but the brain matter from the head shot sprayed forward.  Sabato was the one I think was pointing this out.


    Because it's Dadler's birthday ? ; - ) (none / 0) (#113)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 04:32:42 PM EST
    Happy birthday to Him !

    Allow me to recommend... (none / 0) (#117)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    ...the recently released in paperback Stephen Hunter novel "The Third Bullet", which offers a "maybe it happened something like this" storyline, along with a look at things from the viewpoint of someone who knows "snipering", to coin a term.

    And just for fun he throws in a how it happened involved time travel theory that offers a twist on the usual "going back in time to stop Oswald" approach.

    I'm trying (though not succeeding well) to describe the book while avoiding spoilers, which isn't easy, so just take my word for it, it's a very interesting look at the JFK assasination, and a decent read (or better) just as a novel.


    You can't keep your insurance (none / 0) (#74)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 01:14:11 PM EST
    The Hill reports

    Maybe we should start calling it the Unaffordable Care Act since dems are eager to get rid of the "Obamacare" name now that it's toxic and millions are finding out that the ACA is so affordable.


    Facts are starting to get in the way of ACA proponent talking points.

    ACA narrow provider networks (none / 0) (#100)
    by leinwa on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    Does anyone know if the exchange provider networks are limited geographically (i.e., if I go on vacation out of network "range" I'll be subject to balance billing?

    ack! (none / 0) (#109)
    by leinwa on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    poorly phrased. What I mean is, if I go on vacation across state lines, and experience an accident, will I still have coverage under the exchange plans? In Wa state we are subject to balance billing if we receive treatment outside of the provider networks, thus making me responsible for the whole bill.

    A question for lawyers: (none / 0) (#118)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 06:50:03 PM EST
    I just watched an episode from a tv show,"The Good Wife".

    It depicts a group of lawyers sending their investigator to remove evidence that would prove damaging to their client before the police get there and declare it a crime scene.

    They are doing it in the name of protecting their client.

    Is that legal?
    Is that an accepted practice?

    No and acceptable to who (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:10:21 PM EST
    I am sure it is acceptable to those who would be at risk if the evidence was found.  But if caught they could be charged with various crimes.

    IANAL, (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 21, 2013 at 08:28:50 PM EST
    But this would seem to me to be a case of obstruction of justice.  Which is illegal.

    Trouble brewing for Christie (none / 0) (#124)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:45:27 AM EST
    Christie cheerleaders please note. Christie did not refuse Medicaid expansion money in New Jersey.
    If embrace of the President does not sink Christie in a Republican primary, ObamaCare will.


    I don't know any (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:55:49 AM EST
    Christie cheerleaders on this site. Some prognosticators maybe, but that's a completely different thing.

    If embrace of the President (none / 0) (#125)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:47:36 AM EST
    during Hurricane Sandy

    And yet (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:25:49 AM EST
    it's still 3  years away and too soon to tell anything.

    But just for fun, since we're playing with facts that don't matter now....

    In a Quinnipiac poll in Colorado - very purple Colorado - Christie (and three other Republicans including Ted Cruz!) lead Hillary Clinton in a race for president.

    See how fun these things are three years out?


    The sampling in this poll is suspect (none / 0) (#128)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:54:24 AM EST
    Quinnipac may be the new Rasmussen.

    This poll shows that Clinton is trailing not only Christie but Rand Paul and Paul Ryan also. She is tied with Ted Cruz. That is not possible.

    They may have just polled Colardo Springs and left Boulder out.

    If Clinton does not break 45%, she will likely face a primary challenge. It is possible that Republican leaning pollsters understand that and are trying to skew polling results with bad sampling.


    Quinnipiac (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:19:40 AM EST
    tends to run slightly liberal, and is one of the most respected polling outfits, so your comment makes no sense, except in that this poll doesn't fit your narrow world view.

    And the point was that anybody predicting ANTYHING about 2016 now is just speculating.


    Anything about 2016 (none / 0) (#132)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    is definitely speculation. I do not disagree with that view.

    However, if you really think that if an election were held in Colorado right now, Ted Cruz would be tied with HRC, and Christie, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan would defeat her, I may have a bridge to sell you.


    Quinnipiac also recently showed (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    Tancredo ahead or even with Governor Hickenlooper for the next gubernatorial race.  The nicest way to put this (forgive the vernacular): Tancredo has one type of solid reputation in Colorado ... a solid, crazy, right-wing loon.  Starting his xenophobia and evidenced by his last losing race in Colorado.

    Perhaps, Colorado is difficult to poll.  Quinnipiac has been branching out in the past few years; but, if the latest Colorado foray is any example of supposed expertise, they have some catching up to do. Or, maybe Q. wants to emulate the big R.--to which you refer-- in polling.


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:21:45 AM EST
    Hickenlooper is almost underwater with his support right now and 49% of voters say he does not deserve to be re-elected.  The thing that appears to be saving him now is that there are at least 4 other Republicans (not just Tom Tancredo) who may be in contention, or at least, who are considered contenders.

    Occasionally mentioned as a possible dark horse candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Hickenlooper edges each of his potential GOP rivals by similar margins: He leads former U.S. Rep. (and 2008 GOP presidential candidate) Tom Tancredo (46 percent to 41 percent); Secretary of State Scott Gessler (45 percent to 40 percent); state Sen. Greg Brophy (44 percent to 38 percent); and former state Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp (44 percent to 40 percent.

    Interesting that the polls are so close for ALL the potential Republican candidates.

    But I like how you frame a well respected poll, by referring to it as a name of a non-respected poll (around here), because then, in your mind, that invalidates results you don't like.


    Seriously, jbindc, Quinnipiac is not (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    so highly thought of out here.  They may be missing something in the polling composition.

    Definitely, Hickenlooper has some work to do ... but, at least Tancredo and Gessler are near laughing stocks that are even derided by not just a few Repubs.  That is why I frame the poll as I do.  

    When I first took note of Q. polling some years back, it seems that their strong suit was NY and points up and down the coast from there.  It reminded me that PPP had their earliest strength in North Carolina, and points north & south in expansion. Then, both operations engaged in the Midwest.  From what I have seen, both operations tend to miss the real make-up in Colorado for different reasons.  The most notable for Q--in the past--has been Hispanic voting composition and percentage.  

    Right now, Hickenlooper has been getting hammered by the gun vote.  In the aftermath of his support for gun control measures, he took an obvious hit ... as did others, with two losing in a recall.  At this point, tho, there seems to be a reaction to the reaction setting in (particularly, a number of people and community forces are wary of using recalls except in the most extraordinary situation.  Also: On the left, Hickenlooper is questioned, etc. for his relatively supportive position as to fracking.  Also too: The number of state/federal emergency responses in recent years resulting from fires, flooding seems to have softened some anti-government types who are now beneficiaries of direct government action.

    Long & windy.  But, Hickenlooper is rather complicated (to tell you the truth, even the all-around Dem like myself can find him hard to go to the mat for.)  In a state like Colorado, tho, the Hicklenlooper hewing-to-the-middle mantra follows a successful line of mostly similar gubernatorial victors.  At the same time, the Tancredos and Gesslers of the Colorado Repub-world grab the headlines; and, given their tone & approach, we Dems are forever grateful.


    I didn't say Hickenlooper was going to lose (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:31:07 PM EST
    I was illustrating, once again, how things can change, and despite the roses and sunshine that some want to project, the Republican party is not dead, and that things can change pretty quickly.

    Unless someone wants to keep closing their eyes, and wishing upon a star, and dismissing any hint of dissent.


    Persistent, constant (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    negativity is not realism, either.

    Who said (none / 0) (#181)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    that the Republican Party "was dead". Neither me, nor Christinep said that.

    You are arguing with yourself, once again!


    Tsk, tsk (3.00 / 2) (#183)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:24:26 PM EST
    Paranoid much? The meme in 2009 all over the place (and again this year) has been about how the Republican Party is about to self destruct.  Yet, they are still here.

    The Republican Party is Dead

    The "Real" Republican Party is Dead

    Just how bad off is the Republican Party?


    But, in good news

    The Tea Party is Losing Support - even among Republicans

    And let's be honest (try really hard.  I know it's difficult for you to have an honest conversation) - you specifically continue to crow about how donw and out the Republicans are, how they don't stand a chance because of the Tea Party, etc.


    "crow about" (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    Does talking about an issue that many others are discussing in one form or another equal "crow about?"  It is possible to discuss the obvious Republican conundrum without it being called "crowing about" ... unless the negative message in that phrase <crow about> is meant to tamp down or quell any discussion.

    Hey, and you are correct, jbindc, that the whole exercise can be seen as premature this far out ... but, speculation about who-is-running-for-what abounds everywhere in any event.  Faulty as it is, this ... um ... parlor game is fun and sometimes creative. More important, for those potential candidates and candidate dreamers, that train is already boarding.


    Christie (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:29:09 AM EST
    is not going to be the nominee. This whole argument is kind of silly. He has no constituency within the GOP except maybe the few mid Atlantic and New England Republicans that haven't left the GOP. He's like the GOP's version of Joe Lieberman. Maybe he should form his own party and call it Christie for America or something.

    Christie (none / 0) (#133)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:48:42 AM EST
    is a East Coast media invention with no broad constituency within the GOP. Ofcourse, Wall Street loves him. But they love Paul Ryan and John Kasich also. And Paul Ryan can also talk Jesus in a way Christie cannot.

    I cannot understand why anyone thinks that the establishment GOP vote wont get split between 2-3 candidates (just like the Tea Party vote in the 2016 GOP primary.

    Democrats can drive wedge issues between now and 2016. Christie, as governor (unlike someone like Paul Ryan) will have to take sides-which will put him between a rock and a hard place.


    And yet you forget (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:38:00 AM EST
    Unike other governors, he is now the head of the Republican Governors Association, which will allow him to visit many more states, getting to know locals and local issues, and as Chris Cilizza points out:

    Chris Christie was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association on Thursday, a plum assignment that will allow the New Jersey governor to accumulate chits from his colleagues and build relationships with the mega-donors who are at the heart of any successful presidential bid.

    And regardless if he is an "East Coast media invention" - well, that worked well for a junior senator from Illinois a few years ago....


    You are reality challenged (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    that is why you could not see the strengths of the junior Senator from Illinois in 2007!

    I knew from the beginning that HRC would have the fight of her life from the junior Senator from Illinois, despite the media crowning HRC the inevitable candidate.

    For all your complaints about the media, you are a sucker for Beltway blather. You lack the vision and strategy to think outside the box (which the "cool kidz" in silicon valley have-that is why you keep losing to them).


    The so (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    called Junior Senator from IL had the Dem establishment backing him but I guess you have forgotten that. Not that it really helped him that much in a lot of states.

    The Dem establishment backed him (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    Partially because his last name wasn't Clinton, but also because he had a friendly "East Coast" media that hyped him.

    Another one that is reality challenged (none / 0) (#151)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    The Democratic establishment backed both BHO and HRC. And both of them had strong bases of support among grassroot activists.

    The reason I say that you and jbindc are reality challenged is because you still do not have any idea about the strength that BHO had among people.
    You foolishly believed that HRC could win Iowa because the media told you. You foolishly believed that HRC would have the support of young people and African Americans-both of which are strong constituencies of the Democratic party. You did not anticipate the coalition that BHO had already built among young people, African Americans, more educated progressives and lots of professionals and independents. Ofcourse, he had support from wealthy Wall Streeters (which Howard Dean did not have) but HRC had that too. I knew the coalition that I mentioned was a winning coalition very early but you were so consumed by the crazy talk inside HRC's campaign that you missed everything and still keep regurgitating Mark Penn's tlking points.

    To win, you should have a good understanding about your opponent's strengths. You and jbindc still think that BHO won because people who voted for BHO were stupid and got manipulated by the media and the Democratic Party establishment tilted the scales in his favor. This lack of understanding about an opponent candidate's strengths served you poorly in the past and will haunt you in the future.


    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    This lack of understanding about an opponent candidate's strengths served you poorly in the past and will haunt you in the future.

    You're right.  We are all being haunted now.


    Only you are haunted, not others (none / 0) (#153)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    He has taken possession of your mind. Your mind is consumed every second of the day by thoughts of how you can bring him down. Jondee is correct. It is like Captain Ahab and the whale.

    Repeat: The crazy continues... (4.20 / 5) (#154)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    tin foil, anyone?

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    I don't remember saying that HRC was going to win IA because she started late there. IIRC I thought Edwards was going to win IA.

    But there again, IA is a caucus state not a voting state.

    BHO had a better primary strategy using caucuses. He's not that great of a candidate. He basically draws the Dukakis coalition but that coalition is enough to win now. He has not expanded the party and surrounds himself with sycophants which has led to many a poor decision making process. He does not like to be challenged and you could tell that even back in the primaries where he started whining about Hillary needing to drop out. I saw the whole Obamacare CF coming back in 2008. He simply does not care about policy and this is what you get.


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#167)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:15:12 PM EST
    There were a lot of primary states that were front loaded in 2008 which BHO won (including your own state of GA). Please go and check the Democratic Party 2008 primary calendar.

    Ofcourse, his campaign made very good use of caucuses. It only shows the thoroughness of his planning.

    Regarding policy decisions, expansion of the party, his personality and the people he surrounds himself with-I will just have to disagree with you. And many others will do the same.

    Bill Clinton had also "whined" about Jerry Brown not quitting the race in 1992. All frontrunners do that. What you called "whining" was very mild if one takes a historical view of things.


    I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    say that he never won any primary states but he sure didn't win a the majority of them. He relied on caucuses which can easily be manipulated. And the states that had caucuses and voting IIRC Obama lost the voting part of the state but would win the caucus part of the state.

    Winning the GA primary backs up by Dukakis coalition statement because that is basically the demographics for the D party here in GA.

    Well, from googling I can't find anything about Clinton whining about Jerry Brown in 1992 but I sure did find Jerry Brown STILL WHINING about Bill Clinton in 2010.


    Caucuses (none / 0) (#176)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:43:42 AM EST
    were part of the nomination process long before 2008 and always will be. A good nomination process should have a nice mix of caucuses and primaries. Caucuses have a purpose, they draw the most energetic and informed people to have a larger say in the nomination process. Without caucuses, it would be impossible for people without high name recognition and boatloads of money to advance.

    Please also don't be so dismissive of the people you call "the Dukakis coalition". Whatever progressivism is alive in this country is because of them. I am very happy that this coalition is growing. The resources of the Democratic Party is better utilized in growing this coalition than people who culturally identify with the Republican Party. The Reagan Democrats did not keep progressivism alive in America, the "Dukakis coalition" did.


    As I recall, the most famous (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    "early" use of the caucus system was Gary Hart's mastery of the Iowa system in 1972 as chair for George McGovern.  

    As a Coloradan, I've participated in just about every caucus since the 1970s. Some caucuses are "boring, let's get out of here as soon as we vote on all these resolutions" in a group of 9 or 10 to 20 people per precinct caucus (but, it is the avenue to the state and even national conventions); some are informative about new candidates, lesser known candidates and generate much needed Q&A, debate; and, then, there was 2008.  As point-person in my district for Hillary Clinton at the time, I was flabbergasted by the turnout--hundreds in some precincts.  (My husband & I and others had done enough footwork/phone work/old-fashioned door work that we held our own. But, I have to admit even today, that the Obama organization was incredible ... Gary Hart could have learned a thing or three ... actually, the process was so invigorating in a democratic grassroots organization way, that I felt proud to be a part of the evening.)

    For a number of reasons, politalkix, I agree with your combo mix (which we have in CO) as best representative of the breadth of the political selection process.  (And, it sure beats the intro my husband & I first had as students in Indiana, where Governor and other high-level candidates were once selected by direct convention.  Lots of parties in the hotel hallways as the "process" developed the night before the convention in Indianapolis.)


    Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:13:50 PM EST
    generally do the opposite of what you think they do.  Look at the IA caucuses and how predictive they have been historically. My understanding is that caucuses are done because they are cheaper not necessarily better or more predictive or anything else.

    You are the one that is "dismissive" of the Dukakis coalition. All i did was state that was Obama's basis of support but it's now enough now to win an election. I never expected Obama to expand the D coalition and I knew all the stuff he was saying back in 2008 were lies about how his "coalition" would not vote for Hillary and other condescending crap he put out there. He was the one saying that he was going to expand the coalition and bring in all these other voters. Whatever. I really don't care. The reason people are talking about 2016 already is because people are so completely over Obama and the ones that aren't "over" him are LIVID at him for botching something like a website.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    most of us (even those of us who voiced support for different candidates like Christinep and Coral Gables who wanted HRC to win and me and MKS who wanted BHO to win), view the 2008 nomination process as a competition between 2 extremely worthy candidates. The Democratic Party nomination struggle in 2008 was a fight for the ages that I think will not be equaled in many years.

    BHO did expand the coalition. He brought a lot of younger people into the party and turned them into a Democratic constituency. Just look at political shifts happening in states like Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon, etc. He (and also HRC) has made the Democratic Party the mainstream party in America and pushed the GOP into the fringes of American politics.

    I think that you are overreacting about the ACA website. None of us (including many who were strong supporters of HRC in 2008) are "over BHO". We expect another 3 good years from him and then have him pass the baton to another worthy successor (HRC or someone else).


    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:42:45 PM EST
    He brought a lot of younger people into the party and turned them into a Democratic constituency.

    It was shown that "young people" did not stay and vote in primary and caucuses for party business, nor did they vote in great numbers for donwticket candidates and ballot measures.  In fact, 2008 saw a great number of state legislatures flipping from Democratic-controlled to Republican-controlled.


    Obama won Virginia (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    both in the Primary and in the General Election.  The Obama coalition elected a flawed candidate Governor just a couple of weeks ago.

    Hillary may need Virginia.


    The Obama coalition (none / 0) (#191)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    The new Democrats who became part of the Obama coalition will be important to Hillary in Wisconsin, Colorado and North Carolina also.

    If the HRC campaign talks the way jbindc does, a large number of AAs will also stay home. Ohio and Michigan may also then become too close to call.



    Before Obama, Colorado and Virginia (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    were typically Red States. Obama never was in any danger of losing Colorado.  

    And, Obama won Nevada going away.  Nevada is now a reliably Blue state in national elections.  New Mexico used to be a swing state.  No longer.  No one ever campaigns there in Presidential Elections.



    No (4.00 / 4) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    he did not expand the party. If we are still dealing with the same coalition we had 25 years ago, he did not expand anything.

    Bill Clinton made the D party the main stream party not Obama. Oregon was already a blue state and so I don't know what you're talking about there.

    Well, if you expect another "good three years" from him then you need to tell him to get off his duff and start doing something about the ACA, fire the sycophants he surrounds himself with and get people who are going to tell him the truth. He's even saying that he's going to veto the bipartisan fixes. The one thing that's finally bipartisan, the church at which he is worships at, to come out of the house or the senate his entire term as President and he's going to pull out the veto pen for this?


    Oregon (none / 0) (#195)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    was a blue state but BHO beat HRC in the primaries in that state. Gore and Kerry only won that state by very small margins. If you want HRC to win, you will need the support of the new Democrats that BHO brought into the party fold.

    You and jbindc are the worst supporters that HRC can have. If HRC decides to run, her campaign should hide both of you where nobody can listen to what you say. People like Christinep, Coral Gables, MKS, Donald and others have a better understanding of politics and campaigning.

    Bill Clinton's coalition did not carry Al Gore or John Kerry to victory. However, BHO won two elections comfortably. If you cannot understand the fact that these victories were carved out because BHO brought many new people into the fold of Democratic Party politics, you are living in la-la land.

    Bill Clinton was a great politician. It is correct that he brought back some Reagan Democrats into the fold and changed the party. However, many Reagan Democrats have died and will continue to do so because of old age. You cannot win elections with just the votes of baby boomers. You need an expanded coalition. No Democrat (including HRC) can carry some southern states and Appalachia like GA, KY, AR, TN, WV, etc that Bill Clinton carried, now.

    The future of the Democratic Party will be increasingly dependent on young voters that BHO brought to the party.  



    Dukakis (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:38:36 PM EST
    carried Oregon in 1988. The same coalition that was there in 2004 is the same coalition that Obama has/had. What you fail to understand is that if Dukakis ran today he would win with the same numbers he lost with in 1988.

    The problem is that BHO DID NOT bring anyone new into the party. He got the same percentage of white voters that Kerry got in 2004 and Dukakis got in 1988. The difference is that Bush did better with Hispanics but that is an anomaly. Clinton did better with Hispanics than Kerry did. BHO got 95% of the African American vote instead of the usual 90%.

    You cannot understand that it is NOTHING that Obama did but are the demographic changes that have happened in this country. It was always predicted that 2008 was going to be when the demographic changes came into fruition. Heck, if Hillary had been the nominee back in 2008 she would have had a 10 point win over McCain according to the exit polls. So does that mean that she would have brought more people into the party?

    The numbers don't back up what you are saying.

    Actually you are wrong about some of those states. I would imagine that Hillary could carry WV and AR but probably not the rest of them.

    The problem is that it's a myth that BHO brought young voters into the party. There were some of these voters that showed up during primaries to vote but only voted for him and did not vote for other candidates on the ticket. That's not expanding the party. That's creating a cult of personality. If he had brought them into the party like you are saying they would have actually bothered to vote for other democratic candidates.


    Incorrect (none / 0) (#204)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    Please read link

    "Barack Obama, who will be the nation's first African-American president, won the largest share of white support of any Democrat in a two-man race since 1976 amid a backdrop of economic anxiety unseen in at least a quarter-century, according to exit polls by The Associated Press and the major television networks."

    The Illinois senator won 43 percent of white voters, 4 percentage points below Carter's performance in 1976 and equal to what Bill Clinton won in the three-man race of 1996. Republican John McCain won 55 percent of the white vote.

    A stunning 54 percent of young white voters supported Obama, compared with 44 percent who went for McCain, the senator from Arizona. In the past three decades, no Democratic presidential nominee has won more than 45 percent of young whites. "


    Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:26:54 PM EST
    got a lot of white votes from the South. The South will not vote for any Democratic candidate in the Presidential elections (atleast in the near future). So BHO expanded the white voting base (as well the voting base of racial minorities) in many states that will matter to Democratic candidates in future elections.

    Iowa Caucus winners (none / 0) (#197)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:40:51 PM EST
    Iowa does a fantastic job in screening candidates for Democrats.

    It does a very bad job for Republicans because Iowa Republicans are culturally very big on social conservatism.

    Past Democratic Party winners have included

    2012 Barack Obama (won the nomination)
    2008 Barack Obama (won the nomination)
    2004 John Kerry (won the nomination)
    2000 Al Gore (won the nomination)
    1996 Bill Clinton (won the nomination)
    1992 Tom Harkin (quality candidate,not nominated)
    1988 Dick Gephardt (was he worse than Dukakis?)
    1984 Walter Mondale (won the nomination)
    1980 Jimmy Carter (won the nomination)
    1976 Jimmy Carter (won the nomination)


    Walter (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    Mondale in 1984 was a good pick? I would discount 1996 and 2012 because Obama and Clinton were running unopposed and their pick in 1980 probably was not that great was it?

    Gephardt makes sense in the same way Harkin makes sense since Gephardt was from a neighboring state.


    Mondale (none / 0) (#202)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    I would have never voted for Mondale in the primaries. However, I cannot understand why he would not be considered a good nomination for many of you. He supported large government programs and said that he was going to increase taxes to attain that objective. He was a FDR and LBJ kind of Democrat.

    Caucuses (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    A good nomination process should have a nice mix of caucuses and primaries. Caucuses have a purpose, they draw the most energetic and informed people to have a larger say in the nomination process.

    Participation in a caucus does not mean you are more "energetic" or "better informed".  It simply means they have more time or availability.  People with young children, those who work and the elderly often don't have time or the ability to sit for several hours in order to vote in a caucus.  Not to mention the mathematical rules that divide votes disproportionally, allow people to vote more than once and weigh votes based on your district of residence are inherently undemocratic.   Probably why the turnout in caucuses (as compared to primaries) is so much smaller - averaging less than 10%.


    This is a true statement (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Participation in a caucus does not mean you are more "energetic" or "better informed".  It simply means they have more time or availability.  People with young children, those who work and the elderly often don't have time or the ability to sit for several hours in order to vote in a caucus.

    1st line should read (none / 0) (#169)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    There were a lot of states that held primaries (and not caucuses) which were front loaded in 2008 that BHO won (including your own state of GA).

    Not that great a candidate (none / 0) (#189)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    Not at all true.

    How else could he get elected with unemployment so high?

    How else could he win in the first place.  If you win, it is hard to say you are a bad candidate.


    There's (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    campaign Obama and yes he can campaign but he can't govern. If you say he's a great candidate you would have to say George W. Bush was too because Bush got reelected even after lying us into a war. Both Obama and Bush could run a good campaign it would seem.

    "re-elected with unemployment..." (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    It is ironic that this (none / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    argument is occurring during the anniversary of the Assassination.

    During the Primary, Hillary compared herself to LBJ not JFK.....


    You can't have a discussion (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:16:24 AM EST
    without throwing out detritus like "foolishly", "foolishly", "cheerleaders", etc. etc. Do you think somehow magnifies your self-perceived greater insight? BHO won Iowa because it is a caucus state, and he played hardball at those. He didn't do nearly so well at states with primaries. That's politics.

    To win requires more than just knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses. You have to know and work with the strengths and weaknesses of your own candidate. You have to know and work with the strengths and weaknesses of the political processes in which you are participating. HRC's team blew it in the caucus states.

    I've run caucuses and I really believed in them til I saw in 2008 how easily they can be manipulated. Lost a couple of precinct people because of that. I still believe in them for crafting a platform. For picking a candidate, not so much. Colorado has both caucus and primaries, which can make things interesting. Unfortunately, the platform has ended up just getting filed the last few years.

    Now, can you leave 2008 and your bragging about your-brilliant-insights-while-others were foolish on DKos, please? You have no idea what the thought processes were for anyone six years ago.


    Who won the Virginia Primary (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:32:33 PM EST
    in 2008 and by how much?  28 points.  

    Who was able to use the Primary infrastructure to carry Virginia for the Democrats for the first time in eons.


    MKS (5.00 / 0) (#198)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    Here are the results of the Democratic 2008 nomination contest. BHO won many states that held primaries; even though the BHO campaign excelled in caucuses, it will be important to remind people once more that he also won a very large number of primary states. One can roll over the cursor over a state in the map to find out whether a primary or caucus was held.

    Democrats will benefit from the new coalition that he put together in many states for many years to come. Eg: Virginia, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Oregon-all of which held primaries.
    Colorado has a very high percentage of independent voters (about 33%). It is also a state with a high percentage of young voters. That state is becoming more and more blue because of the new coalition that BHO and Colorado's Democrats have put together.


    Yawn (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    Democrats will benefit from the new coalition that he put together in many states for many years to come.

    Yet you have no evidence that it's true.  Do you think repetition makes it more believable?


    Jeebus (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:03:38 PM EST
    You guys still want to re-hash the 2008 primary season? You still re-hash by taking a single datum to rebut a single clause out of a larger context? I am not going with you into that rabbit warren.

    That larger point is A) that it is not a single factor that drives a candidacy -- any candidacy for higher office. And B) assigning thought processes to someone else for events that happened six years ago is arrogant, and dare I say foolish, in the extreme.

    How hard is that?


    Your side wants to revisit (3.00 / 2) (#209)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    the issue constantly. Look at "Y"man bashing of Obama supporters....He even turns his nose up at he support of Obama supporters going forward.  So deep is the need to strike out based on 2008.

    How many posts talk about "bots?"  It won't stop, but recognize where the nastiness starts...I am fine in that environment, and maybe you are too.

    You are big on telling people to look in the mirror.  Try it.


    My "side"? (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by sj on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:33:43 PM EST
    Get over yourself. Or, if you want to decide I am on a "side,", then I suggest you actually read what I write. If you can find an instance of me referring to you guys as "bots" I would be shocked.

    Yman speaks for himself, not for me. I speak for myself, not for him. But if it makes you more sanguine gathering a tribe by assuming that others are doing the same thing, have it at. That's your delusion, and you are welcome to it.

    I don't care what you think now, and I certainly don't care what you thought six years ago. I don't even care what I thought six years ago. And anyone assigning thought processes six years ago to someone else is still arrogant and, yes, foolish.

    Which was the point. Which is still my point.

    Which you continue to ignore.

    You just want to fight your little straw men, so you put them up where ever you can. Doesn't matter that they don't belong there.

    Your side wants to revisit (none / 0) (#209)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:10:03 PM MDT

    the issue constantly. Look at "Y"man bashing of Obama supporters....He even turns his nose up at he support of Obama supporters going forward.  So deep is the need to strike out based on 2008.
    How many posts talk about "bots?"  It won't stop, but recognize where the nastiness starts...I am fine in that environment[.]

    Oh, I know very well that you are fine in that environment. Good to know that there is some self-awareness in you. And for the record, if you should go looking through my comments for the term "bots" you will find that I am specifically not fine with that environment. But neither am I going to meekly take attempts to brow-beat me into submission.

    Organization in caucus states (none / 0) (#162)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    went largely unseen. In the combination of circumstances, the caucus effect in 2008 cannot be overstated. Consider the significant front-loading effect of such organizing....

    And the crazy continues.... (3.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    Your comparison is crazy (none / 0) (#139)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    If a forced comparison needs to be made, HRC should be compared to Christie, not BHO.
    However, even HRC is not a good comparison. She had a much better appeal within her party than Christie has in his party.

    Christie's (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    equivalent would be Lieberman.

    Lieberman (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Never had the media love that Christie currently has.

    And being a Senator is very different than being a governor.  With a governor, there are actual results that can be observed and judged.  Senators make speeches and occasionally vote.


    What do you think Gov. Scott Walker (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    is planning? Could he be the Midwestern counterpoint Governor to Christie?  Or is he just toying around to see what the feedback to his latest remarks and sudden appearances?  

    No (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    Lieberman had PLENTY of media love. You just don't remember it because the majority of the base abhorred the guy. Same with Christie. Christie's record as governor has been pretty abysmal compared to a lot of other governors. Like I said this stuff they are saying is typical beltway blather. He's a supposed "moderate" which means he "could" win an election and completely ignoring what the people who vote in the primaries happen to thing of the guy.

    Tea partiers (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    don't like Ryan anymore because he has said he will support immigration reform.

    Actually I think Jeb Bush will beat out Christie for the ever dwindling moderate vote in the GOP primaries though I doubt he will be the nominee.


    In the what-if of politics (none / 0) (#163)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    With Gov. Scott Walker dancing around seemingly everywhere the last week or so, what does that do.  A conservative, but governor of an upper Midwestern big state ... does he counter Gov. Christie, beginning with his initial quips that he doesn't call his audience idiots when alluding to the brash style of the easterner?  Does that get focused on in a way so as to allow the re-emergence of a chastened and reinvented Paul Ryan?

    Well (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    somebody like him could sneak through the GOP primaries a lot easier than Christie and the far right used to love the guy but I don't know if that is true anymore. Someone like him could be a real dark horse.

    Midwesterners (none / 0) (#168)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:21:39 PM EST
    like Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, John Kasich, Mike Pence and others will get a lot of Wall Street money as well as money from the Kochs and other very rich people. Even Rick Santorum was getting funded by a billionaire, Foster Friess.

    The billionaires have a lot of money to spend.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 195 (none / 0) (#150)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:40:06 AM EST