Friday Open Thread

It's a jail day for me. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexican Court Overturns Caro-Quintero's Release | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 181 (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    "Well I stand up next to a mountain" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:28:40 PM EST
    "And I chop it down with the edge of my hand..."
            -- Jimi Hendrix

    November 6, 2013
    American Masters
    Film: Jimi Hendrix: Hear My Train A Comin'

    Hear My Train A Comin' unveils previously unseen performance footage and home movies taken by Hendrix and drummer Mitch Mitchell while sourcing an extensive archive of photographs, drawings, family letters and more to provide new insight into the musician's personality and genius.

    The two-hour film uses Hendrix's own words to tell his story, illustrated through archival interviews and illuminated with commentary from family, well-known friends and musicians including Paul McCartney, band members Noel Redding, Mitch Mitchell, Billy Cox, long-time sound engineer Eddie Kramer; Steve Winwood, Vernon Reid, Billy Gibbons, Dweezil Zappa and Dave Mason.

    Are you experienced?

    Virginia Attorney General Race (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    As of late this afternoon the Republican lead is now down to 140, before finishing provisional ballots and an eventual recount.

    Two districts had miscounted (or lost ballots) and are now fixed.

    Is this the same thing you are talking about? (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 06:31:50 AM EST
    Nearly 2000 votes in Fairfax County possibly uncounted.

    Fairfax County election officials said Friday that they believe nearly 2,000 votes went uncounted after Tuesday's elections, a technical error that could affect the outcome of the still unresolved race for Virginia attorney general.

    The error stemmed from problems with a broken machine at the county's Mason district voting center, officials said.

    The machine, known as an optical scanner, recorded 723 votes on election night before it broke down, election officials said. Its memory card was then placed in a working machine, which recorded 2,688 votes.

    But that tally was not included in the statement of election results delivered by the Mason voting center to the county election board. Instead, officials received a statement that reported the 723 votes from the broken machine.

    Election officials believe that the larger total includes the 723 votes, which could mean adding 1,965 votes to the outcome, said Seth T. Stark, chairman of the three-member electoral board.

    But with Democrats looking for more votes, Republicans trying to protect the interests of their candidate and volunteers exhausted after three days of auditing totals, the board held off on making a change to the tally, officials said.

    This could be great news for Herring, as Fairfax County is heavily Democratic.


    Former prosecutor accepts jail (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    for intentionally hiding evidence of innocence in a Texas murder case, leading to 25 years of wrongful incarceration for his victim.  The prosecutor became a judge.  Sentence:  ten days on a guilty plea for contempt of court.  Before you scoff ... understand that this is the most severe personal penalty ever imposed on a prosecutor for engineering a wrongful conviction.

    He should have started a war, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:04:02 PM EST
    tortured people, bombed civilians, and murdered innocent kids. He'd be far better off, and even have millions of people cheering for him.

    Some people just have no idea what's good for them, I guess...


    Can Mr. Morton sue? (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 06:37:36 AM EST
    Is Mr. Anderson (the prosecutor / judge) exempt because of his governmental immunity, or can Mr. Morton sue because Mr. Anderson overstepped his authority (and now has a contempt conviction)?

    Texas has a no-fault compensation system (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    for exonerees. Morton received $2 million from the State fund.  Prosecutors are immune from federal civil rights suits for actions undertaken in their prosecutorial capacity, but not when they participate in the police investigative phase.  Seems to me that Anderson's misconduct was prosecutorial, not investigative.  I don't know about Texas state law in this regard.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    I'm glad Morton got $2 million - hopefully that sets him up for life, but no amount of money can give him back 25 years.  

    How sad and despicable.


    That 60 Minutes story on Benghazi? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:21:34 PM EST
    Turns out to be just some more fodder for the right-wing noise machine.

    CBS' Lara Logan Apologizes For Faulty 60 Minutes Benghazi Report: "We Were Wrong. We Made A Mistake"

    Bookstores are now asked (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 08:29:56 AM EST
    To return the book The Ebassy House to the publisher now too.

    More popcorn may be needed (none / 0) (#202)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    since the contortions of Repubs like Sen. Graham & friends who used the original 60 Minutes hyped story to continue their strange Benghazi drumbeat have yet to reply to the CBS recant.

    For anyone who... (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:24:47 AM EST
    hasn't gotten a vaccination for Shingles, I suggest you do.  After surgery a couple of months ago, now I have shingles and TRUST, it is painful and I am not even close to the blistering stage.

    Pretty painful aren't they? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:35:55 AM EST
    I had it a few years ago, and antivirals got rid of it a few weeks with only very minor blistering, but it felt like being stabbed in the face every half hour or so for a while...

    Medicare paid me $135 (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 07:00:48 AM EST
    of the $200 Shingles shot cost .  You have to pay for it on the spot and then go to Medicare on line and find the Shingles page which was quite easy.  Save the receipt and label from the little bottle.

    This is incredible. (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    I have it on the back/ribs and it has creeped up to the laproscopic "Pokie Holes."  Mere inches from the 6 inch incision scar.  Freaking hurts to even breathe.

    It is worse than the surgery.


    Yeah, it's somethng else allright... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    Viral infection of the nerves. About the only thing as painful I can think of are cluster headaches.

    It will go away though. They give you anything for the pain?


    I had it... (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by desertswine on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:50:22 PM EST

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 182 (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 08:21:40 AM EST
    If you have pre-existing conditions (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:31:03 PM EST
    and need insurance, you might want to read this.

    Ezra Klein speaks the truth (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    about the status quo situation in the individual health care insurance market that ObamaCare is working to change for the better.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    I think others have a better take on it that young (White House Cheerleader) Ezra Klein does not.

    Lynn Sweet

    George E. Condon, Jr.

    Brent Budowsky


    Ron Fournier

    I'm sorry that when Americans recognized the deception you tried to reinvent history: "What we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." No, no, no, no, no--that's not what you guys said.

    I'm sorry you didn't trust Americans with the truth.

    I'm sorry that the Democratic Party's decades-old chase toward universal health care is now at risk because your law--your legacy, sir--is off to such a miserable start. The online networks don't work and the people you need bought into the system, particularly young Americans, can't access the market and now may never trust it ... or you.

    You may disagree all you want (2.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    it just shows that you do not have a grasp on reality. If you liked the status quo (every post of yours attempts to demonstrate how ObamaCare is a negative change to the status quo), you should not have asked for health care reform. After all most people in America got health care coverage from employers and were not too dissatisfied with it.

    ObamaCare will work best for the sickest and poorest people (who will get subsidies) in America. This is what health care reform was supposed to achieve from a progressive standpoint.

    Your blind and comical antipathy towards the President is well known. You really have no standing to comment on the objectivity of Ezra Klein.


    O-kay (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    Speaking of losing one's grips on reality....

    How's the weather on Planet Zebulon?


    He He He (1.33 / 6) (#14)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    I think you got your b*tt kicked three times (remember HRC, McCain, Romney) because you are not reality based. With a track record like that you should not even be talking about reality...

    Don't even bother to come back with the sob story that HRC was robbed in the primaries in 2008. In primaries where the vast majority of voters were women, if the best she could do was wrestle the President to a draw in the popular vote and lose on the delegate count, she was not as stellar a candidate as you imagine her to be or the President was a superlative candidate. Take your pick. I will go with the later option.


    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    That's all you got? YAWN.

    Absolutely proving that you are not to be taken seriously.

    Wish we had an "ignore" feature.


    You got NOTHING! (1.40 / 5) (#17)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    That is why you threw dirt on Ezra.

    You forgot to add . . . (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:21:43 PM EST
    neener, neener, neener!!!

    Obama is a much better (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    community organizer than HRC.  He parlayed this skill into targeting voters in specific areas to maximize his delegate count.  He was very smart in getting all the delegates in interior NW red states that most dems ignored because they knew in the general the dems would lose those states.

    Not saying there is anything wrong with that, rather it is unconventional but very smart.


    HRC (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    did not get her ** kicked. The selective memory of people like you is really annoying. The super delegates picked Obama because he did not have enough delegates to win the nomination as did Clinton. You also need to remember that Obama always fades towards the end and I think that's the crux of some of his problems lately.

    Your memory is faulty (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    BHO was way ahead of HRC among non-super delegates. Normally super delegates support the person who is ahead in the delegate count. The power and hold of the Clintons on the party prevented a lot of super delegates from showing their support for the candidate who was ahead in the delegate count.

    Obama did not fade at the end. The voting results were pre-destined in a way because of the demographics in each state. If you have to depend on wins in unincorporated territory like Puerto Rico or states like West Virginia and Kentucky that were going to vote for the Republican candidate anyways in the GE  to define a surge for your candidate, you are skating on very thin ice. Voting in states like North Carolina or Oregon occurred very late in the calendar and BHO won those states.


    Mmm... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    So was Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

    In fact, in the last months of the primary season (April - June), HRC won 305 to Obama's 261 delegates. The only surge he got at the end were the delegates, based on actual people's votes, were taken from HRC from Michigan and Florida and given to someone who didn't earn them.

    Please get your facts straight if you want to re-fight 2008.  Seems insecure to me, since the rest of us are looking to 2014 and 2016, but whatever.


    Oh god (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by sj on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    Why on Earth are you starting a 2008 primary forest fire?

    I would talk about the voter trends and go over the rules again, and why it is controversial and by no means settled, and how a super-delegate endorsement does not equal a delegate until the convention and the actual vote, and the May 2008 closed door meeting of the DNC Rules committee and all. that. cr@p.

    However, you have been shown to have forgotten information provided to you as quickly as the very same day it was provided. So really, why bother.

    In the meantime, the "neener-neener" about the 2008 primary is out and out trolling. In the most literal internet sense.


    At one (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:07:22 PM EST
    point in time that was true but not at the end when the decisions were made. Don't be perpetually stuck in Febuary of 2008 and ignoring the rest of the primary. Obama faded at the end yes, he did. He started losing primaries and that was why people were screaming for HRC to drop out and people were calling the people who voted for her names.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by sj on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    The voting results were pre-destined in a way because of the demographics in each state.
    No reason to have primaries then. In fact, what the heck. No need for elections at all.

    That will save a bunch of money, too, amiright?


    Nate Silver was the one (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:24:53 PM EST
    who really came up with the demographic explanation of the 2008 Primary.  His idea was that there were no surges by either candidate...It was a matter of demographics....His record was quite good.

    That is how he went from Poblano, dKos blogger,  to Nate Silver, guru.


    Please also note (1.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    that I did not say that HRC got her * kicked. I said that jbindc got her * kicked because she is not reality-based.

    There are many reasonable people like Coral Gables, Christinep, Donald, ruffian, MT etc who supported HRC in the primaries. I would never say to them what I told jbindc because I trust their objectivity and sense of reality.


    I got my a$$ kicked?? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:32 PM EST

    The home planet is calling you back!


    Now now kids... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    This is Talkleft, not the Miami Dolphins locker room.

    Good one (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:03:45 PM EST
    Excpet in the locker room, you had two people with similar size and skill sets.

    In this case, well, let's just say that I am confident I would be the pro, and others would be a Pee-Wee football player.  It's not even close to a fair fight.  :)


    To be clear... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    I hope you know that comment was in no way solely intended solely for you old pal.

    Just trying to raise a glass for civil disagreement and lighten the testy mood.  If you and I can do it with the Grand Canyon between us on law & order issues, anybody can do it!

    Said it once I said it 100 times...we're all just knuckleheads on a blog, lets not take ourselves so seriously.  


    I've noticed that too, my dog buddy (none / 0) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    Somebody makes what, to me, is a benign comment, or gives an opinion that doesn't sound like a big deal to me, and, Wham!

    I know people are on edge for a lot of understandable reasons, but, jeez, the responses come equipped with 2x4's. and snark upon snark, and, not a small bit of anger.

    I've been keeping out because the anger and personal assaults......I hardly recognize the place lately.


    Not to mention, it is quite boring. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:46:30 AM EST
    Locker Room? (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    They are now reporting that Incognito held meetings for the offensive line at local strip clubs.

    Goes to show... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    nobody is all bad...we all have redeeming qualities to go with our flaws.

    Lemme guess...Martin had to supply the singles;)


    You may enjoy this (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    Spirit Airlines, known for pushing the advertising envelope, came out with this ad today.

    Don't be bullied by high fares. Fly incognito out of Florida, or any place for that matter.

    Yeah, but what's his real name... (none / 0) (#113)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:33:04 PM EST
    Your comments sound a bit shrill today, jbindc (1.67 / 6) (#67)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    While I won't go there (2.20 / 5) (#66)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    on the Hillary reference with you, politalkix,  because I surely intend to work on her behalf should she run for President in 2016, I would add to your references to "accuracy" in political predictions.  My favorite was the commentary jbindc & I engaged in sometime prior to the 2012 election where she persistently--like a good trooper--claimed that the Repubs would gain the necessary seats to control the Senate.  (Yep, we were all swatted down like flies.) And, the state of play in Michigan during that same period was promptly announced whenever some new poll showed Romney ahead in that State ... though I do not remember any such announcement from the prognosticator when the President would be in the lead in a kazillion polls there.  Well, a different slant, I suppose....

    Maybe we're all different "cheerleaders" for different teams ... an apt description, perhaps, using an overplayed jbindc noun.


    Careful, christine, your passive-aggressive (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    slip is showing...speaking of "overplayed."

    I wonder, since you must be so spot-on in the art of prognostication, if you would perhaps be so kind as to tell us what the PowerBall numbers will be tonight?

    Honestly, everyone here prognosticates, christine, including you, and most of us have about as much chance at being right as the local weather-person, so perhaps you could stuff a sock in whatever orifice your own analysis is emanating from, and quit trying to make jb out to be something and someone she clearly is not.


    Anne: Come now, (2.25 / 4) (#80)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    there is no hidden agenda from me on what policy/person(s) I support politically.  Quite open.  

    I'll say it again: The totality and pattern of jbindc's comments trumpet Repubs and lambaste Democrats, in general and in particular.  And, I'll also repeat: That is her prerogative.  


    How's your closing ratio? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    Find a buyer yet?

    Christine: you are subjecting jb to (4.40 / 5) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of argument.  It is disingenuous and dishonest in the face of jb's repeated expression of support for the same person you also support.

    I rag on Democrats all the time; do you accuse me of supporting Republicans?  No, you don't.  Did you conclude that I support Christie because I made some comments about where I saw his chances in the presidential race?  No, you did not.

    Anyone with a lick of sense understands that to analyze a political race without taking the competition into consideration is foolish as best, and meaningless at worst.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, christine, so I know you must look forward to being challenged on your commitment to the Democratic Party each and every time you weigh in with your trenchant analysis of the Republican competition.  


    Yes, I welcome your challenge, Anne. (1.00 / 2) (#88)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    In the meanwhile, I am open about my politics.  My statements with regard to my commentary with jbindc on the matter are honest.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    Completely dishonest and wrong.

    I have repeatedly expressed what I think about the Democrats.  Because you choose to ignore that, you cannot now claim that I never make my prefences clear (not that I HAVE to explain my preferences to you or anyone else).

    Nice lawyer tirck - repeat lies and try to get me to change my story.

    Too bad you got called out.


    What is your position about Christie's politics, (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    policies, positions? (Or is that calling you out?)

    Asked and answered, counselor (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    Move on.

    Sorry ... you have not responded (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    nor in any way indicated what positions and policies of Governor Christie you support and what you do not support.  You have spoken to the matter of his chances of getting the Republican nomination in 2016.

    Look, if you do not want to go on record nor say where you agree or disagree with the Governor, that is certainly your right and your prerogative.


    New rules?! (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:12:17 PM EST
    So . .  when someone discusses anyone's possibility of getting a nomination, they must now say which policies they agree/disagree with?

    Which means, what exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    You have spoken to the matter of his chances of getting the Republican nomination in 2016.

    Yes, I have.  So what.  You know what?  I have spoken to the matter of the Whig Party winning an election this week.  Why don't you ask me my thoughts on whether I see a resurgence of a following for Millard Fillmore and whether I thought he was a good president?

    Please explain how this translates into me supporting Republicans.  You can't, of course, but I'd love to see you twist yourself into a pretzel by just making stuff up (as you usually do).

    Asked and answered, counselor.  And any judge would tell you to move on or hold you in contempt. At this point, I'm already holding you in contempt.


    I understand your reluctance. Amen. (1.25 / 4) (#104)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    Here's an answer for you (3.00 / 4) (#107)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    I DID answer your question.  Several times.

    Find it in the archives if you are so interested.

    But quit lying.

    You have now officially become a cyber stalker.


    Bull (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:06:31 PM EST
    Say what you want, jbindc.  I cannot find an answer...nor can anyone else respond directly.  Great diversion.  

    Believe me, I understand where you are.  Peace.


    Christinep (2.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    I think you can possibly go a little easy on jbindc. Like you, I always thought of her and samsguy (the one who tried to convince us that he was an "independent") as closet Republicans (ofcourse there is nothing wrong in being a Republican :-) but I never understood the need to remain in a closet). Since all her friends are vouching that she is not, I will just conclude that she just has a thing for conservative bully politician types like Romney and Christie just as Edgar has an uncontrollable attraction for sociopathic despots like Putin and Assad.

    I wasn't cheerleading (4.00 / 3) (#68)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    But you know that.

    That's what many reputable pollsters and analysts were saying.  Sometimes they're wrong. I was basing my opinion on what was going on in the field and not magic fairy dust made up of hope and change.

    Just like people who have been saying all along (and continue to say) how wonderful Obama's presidency (and Obamacare, specifically) is. Sometimes you are just wrong.



    I'm not into "cheerleading" (1.00 / 5) (#71)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    but if you opt to use that term to describe a strong and open supporter of the President, then have at it.  As for the possibility that you might want to look at yourself in a mirror (or in whatever private place you choose), it would be hard to miss a Red supporter/"cheerleader" based on your comments ... comments where you highlight none too subtly the downsides of this Presidency and the White House while trumpeting whatever Republican person or policy seems to be having a momentary good day.  Maybe if you mixed it up a bit, the Red supporter label wouldn't have any glue.

    A "Red" supporter? (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    What you decided to descend into McCarthyism now to discount anyone who strongly disagrees with Obama's policies? Using a Red supporter label only sticks to the person using that description - it IMO glues that person to shameful period in the history of this country.

    Hopefully you will eliminate that phrase from future comments. It IMO has no place in any of debate.


    Once more with feeling (1.00 / 3) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:46:59 PM EST
    A number of you are very open about your beliefs and politics ...for example, you are, Anne certainly is, and I am.

    I am saying what I see with regard to a person who strongly asserts Repub positions/contenders when it comes to Presidential and Congressional politics and policies.  I do not demean nor disrespect that right.  My issue is with a Red Cheerleader trying to appear attired in Blue (in the speak of the day.)  She has a position; I have a position.  


    Once more with feeling, I don't care how open you (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 05:11:50 PM EST
    are about you beliefs and politics I think you can state those beliefs without calling someone a "Red" supporter  

    Once again I hope you will eliminate the label "Red" supporter from your discounting labels. It has a history that has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats but as previously stated it is strongly related to McCarthyism. It is not IMO appropriate.

    Also, if we are going to assign labels rather than discuss issues and call every person who we feel strongly asserts Republican positions as the right policies for the U.S. a Republican, then IMO you would certainly qualify for that label. As a strong supporter of Obama's policies, you consistently advocate for policies that even Obama has labeled Republican positions.



    Baloney, MO Blue (1.00 / 3) (#100)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    I have as much right as you or your allies here to use terms such as Red Cheerleader....  In that regard, please note--with objectivity--how many times and how many places similar appellations have been applied to others such as myself and those who disagree with you.  Be honest, please.

    At this point, frankly, it seems that one "group" is simply arguing with another group.  So long as derogatory names continue to be applied (for whatever reasons) to those with whom your "group" disagrees, it is to be expected that the favor will be returned.  All I can say is that there is justifiable reason for what I have said and that my response is honest and probably accurate.  Based upon many of your comments, I think that you can be open-minded enough to see the justifiable split that exists here.


    IMO there is quite a bit of difference between (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    calling someone a cheerleader and calling someone a "Red"supporter.

    If you think using McCarthy labels somehow advances your position, I guess there is no way to stop you from using them. As I stated, descending to that level IMO demeans you not the person to whom you chose to call a "Red" supporter. That is being real honest and to my way of thinking real accurate.

    Also, while we are continuing to be honest and accurate, you continue to support the policies and agendas that Obama has identified as Republican positions. Since, that is a true statement, I would think it would be equally true that using your own criteria calling you a "Red" cheerleader would be equally apropos. I fail to see the justification for your use of "Red" supporter or accusing another of being a Republican when you yourself support policies accurately identified as Republican by Obama.


    Based only upon today's terms, (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:13:39 PM EST
    Red equals Republican.  (In all honesty, I never thought about the definition from my childhood.) Seriously, I am using the language of the day.  I used "red" to define "cheerleader" since jbindc (for some reason) has taken to calling me a cheerleader.  My point: If I am a "cheerleader" for Obama, her responses (and non-responses) clearly suggest that she is a cheerleader for the Repubs.  Ergo, Red Cheerleader.  That is the clear meaning and intent.

    jb's responses suggest no such thing. (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    And whatever it is you cheer for is what you cheer for; it isn't more or less valid or require someone or anyone as a foil to have meaning for you.

    You support Obama, a president who has adopted and pushed for policies and legislation that are continuations of a Republican agenda.  A lot of us don't support those Republican-centric policies.  It doesn't make us Republican cheerleaders - it makes us anything but.  

    Given the rules of this blog, I can't cite the comments of others that show how wrong you are, but I can assure you that jb would not be getting the support of many of the most liberal members of this community if she was who you keep insisting she is.

    You're wrong, christine.  Wrong.  And no amount of your insisting that you're right will change that.


    The term you used was "Red" supporter (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    jb wasn't supporting any policies when you accused her of being a "Red" supporter. She was merely discussing the likelihood of Christie being the Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

    You OTOH state your support for Republican policies on an ongoing basis. You just choose to ignore that they are Republican policies. It doesn't matter how many times or in how many ways Obama confirms that they are Republican policies you continue your support. He has stated over and over again that he is promoting Republican policies and yet you continue to support those policies. You do what you accuse others of doing.



    Recall that the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#179)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    is a "Big Tent."  I am a Democrat ... always have been.  At times, when I've disagreed with my party, I chose to stay ... as in marriage, friendships, my career employment.  Sometimes we leave a situation we don't like; other times we stick it out because we agree with most of the policies or practices or living arrangements or whatever.  Those are individual decisions that we all face from time to time.  My point: The fact that I don't resemble your kind of Democrat does not make me non-Democrat nor non-liberal.  Let's not go the way of the litmus test.  

    That does not mean, of course, that should I support or campaign for almost everyone who isn't a Democrat (e.g., Repubs) that I could make the claim above.  It would then be fair & sensible for you to assume and say that I am not what I call myself.

    Again, the nature of the disagreement in this thread falls into very predictable fault lines (with all of us predictable people playing our roles.)  And obvious observation.


    So, you're still saying, in your (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:39:43 AM EST
    inimitable way, that jb has chosen to "support or campaign for almost everyone who isn't a Democrat (e.g., Repubs)," aren't you?  Still with the passive/aggressive...

    If the Democratic Party is as inclusive as you seem to think it is, why are you so determined to brand someone else a GOP supporter/campaigner when all she's done is offer analysis and opinion about the chances of the potential GOP field?  You've weighed in on some of these potential candidates, have you not?  But somehow, that doesn't make you a supporter/campaigner?

    If both you and jb are Clinton supporters, it would stand to reason that you have more in common, politically, than you can or want to acknowledge, but you seem incapable of seeing that, and will not let go of your hold on a political high ground you have no right to stand on.

    ::rolling eyes::


    O.K. You call yourself a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:40:56 AM EST
    and we should believe you even when you support Republican policies. How do we know that they are Republican policies? Why, Obama has told us that they are Republican policies.

    Somehow we must accept what you say rather than think that you are a closeted Republican even though you are on record as a strong supporter of actual Republican policies.

    Wow, this is really telling.

    The fact that I don't resemble your kind of Democrat does not make me non-Democrat nor non-liberal.

    It would have been nice if you had employed the standard with others that you want to claim for yourself. We wouldn't have had this conversation if you had done that. The fact that jb doesn't resemble your kind of Democrat somehow gave you permission to claim she was a Republican. That fact that you cannot see the correlation and that you want to be granted standards that you withhold from others is very predictable indeed.


    jb is not "asserting Republican (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:26:11 PM EST
     positions," christine, she is attempting to discuss the chances of any particular Republican in terms of the 2016 election.

    We're ALL doing that; YOU'RE doing that.  And you aren't branding anyone else a "Red Cheerleader," a term that reeks of the worst kind of demonization, and emblematic of how desperate you are to elevate yourself to the position of Chief Arbiter of What Is and Who Is the Right Kind Of Democrat.

    You have done nothing but demean and disrespect someone who has, repeatedly, and in increasing detail, expressed not only her support for the same candidate you support, but the reasons for her support.

    It must really suck to be you.


    After listening (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:31:43 PM EST
    for the umpteenth time how well Romney would do in Michigan in the General, I predicted Obama would win by 10 points.   Scoff, scoff, was the reply.  She new Michigan and her gut told her there was no way Obama would ever in a million years win by 10.

    Okay, whatever you say.


    Yep, you were right (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 07:20:09 AM EST
    But then again, you've been so wrong about the awesomeness of Obamacare, I figure we're even.

    Isn't this the same dude (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    that didn't realize he didn't have health insurance for a few months into his new job writing (cheerleading) about, among other things, health insurance?

    ezra, like a lot of people, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    thinks that obama is his 'insurance'. He never saw the salesman behind the grin.

    Anybody with any kind of a scam or junk product should be lined up knocking at the doors of all the ezra's out there.


    No, no! (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Watch it or you'll be the victim of PK's attempt at witty and biting putdowns!

    I'll tell him how witty he is (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    when he gives me his credit card number, expiry date, and CVV code. I have an awesome deal for him.

    I think PK is on the schedule today (4.00 / 3) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    You know who the rest of the cheerleaders are.  I think they take turns on this blog.  

    I've never seen any of them (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    close a deal in, well, as long as they've been here actually.

    Hard to find capable volunteer help to sell scams these days, I guess.


    The problem is that what is being used (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:42:43 PM EST
    to change the status quo is the same thing that brought it to this stage: private insurance.  And we are already seeing that exchange plans, which will likely have the sickest subscribers with the most medically-complex conditions, will be structured with narrow networks that will limit the choices and be loaded with potential financial land mines.

    Employer-based plans are changing, too.  My firm has already announced increases to employee contributions to avoid the "Cadillac tax" that will be implemented in several years.

    The truth is that not all individual-market plans are bad; I have one and it's good.  I know others who feel the same way.  But that doesn't mean I don't still recognize that there is a better way, a way that truly opens the door to all Americans, and wouldn't leave 30 million people still going without the magic insurance card that, if nothing else, gets them in the door, even if they can't really afford the price of admission.

    There was an opportunity to transition to single-payer.  That would have been the truly progressive way to deal with the crisis in care, not finding ways to put more of the system in private hands, and still leave people out in the cold.


    John Kery making his mark (none / 0) (#2)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    On Israel-Palestinian peace talks link

    More good news on the foreign policy front

    Progress in US-Iran talks on the nuclear issue could occur only because lots of preliminary meetings were held in secret and because of our muscular diplomacy.


    Every effort may not bear fruit but the change in direction of decades old US foreign policy is phenomenal. Best wishes to a transformative President and SoS!

    Congressional blowback (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    Seems there are reports Obama has softened the economic sanctions on Iran without congressional approval.  He is also trying to prevent congress from imposing even more sanctions.

    It is hard to be optimistic about talks that are based on the prez secretly removing congressional sanctions as a prerequisite to get Iran to talk.

    Here is the link


    Netan-Yahoo... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    is throwing a hissyfit, so we must be doing something evenhandedly right for a change.

    Talk about looking a 3 billion dollar a year gift horse in the mouth!  


    The problem (none / 0) (#13)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    is not so much how Israel reacts.  Rather it is how congress will react to Obama secretly softening the sanctions on Iran that the congress imposed.  Currently Obama has asked congress to refrain from imposing more sanctions on Iran because of his attempts to get Iran to talk.  It looks like the reason Iran is talking is because Obama softened the sanctions.  Not a good situation.

    To be honest (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    every time the GOP starts screaming about Iran I'm willing to bet that most people want to run further away from the GOP. Every time they start talking about Iran they sound like they want a repeat of Iraq.

    Well if it had been up to (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    GOP Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, we would have already been involved in a war with both Iran and Syria.  (At the very least, bombing the he!! out of both of them.)

    And then there is B e n g h a z i (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    Sounds like a right-wing war cry.  After the disclosure that 60 Minutes got it all wrong and now that reporter Lara Logan had to appear on CBS this morning to apologize for the "mistake," I wonder what the next B e n g h a z I war whoop from the Repubs will be.  Other than the obvious attempt to hit then-Secretary Clinton, I've never figured out--in the context of American history and experience--why the Repubs have latched onto that sad episode more than my dog with her favorite toy.  

    Unfortunately, the CBS screw-up, imo, is more than just an embarrassment for their increasingly gotcha form of "journalism."  Purveying the now-discredited story of a mercenary without, apparently, any corroborative witness has red-flags planted all over it.  So ... the day after the false and hyped 60 Minutes story, Congressional Repubs not only pointed to it as evidence in their quest to besmirch the WH and the Secretary, but old standby Sen. Graham announced that he would put a hold on the Fed Yellen nomination.  Big ramifications ... that seems to call for a Big Apology from more than the reporter Logan.  To begin with, what was the role of the Producer, the News Dept. and the rest of management in promoting and showing such an erroneous and inflammatory story.

    'Got that off my chest.


    I didn't say... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    Israel's reaction was a problem, just a sign we might be doing something right diplomatically.

    Obama & Kerry could deliver peace on earth and the Republicans in Congress would oppose it...I'm not gonna get worked up about what Congress thinks about it, sh&t I'm not sure Congress can think...see shutdown.


    Congress will not be (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    best pleased about the secret softening of sanctions.
    But how Israel reacts also definitely plays into the Congressional reaction because of the power of the pro-Israel lobby.

    That fits... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    the entire country is none to pleased with Congress! ;)  

    I say f*ck Congress if they are an obstacle to a peaceful resolution...a little more evenhandedness in Middle East foreign policy is one of the nice things I can say about the Obama admin.


    I had to give you... (none / 0) (#164)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:21:09 AM EST
    a five for the Neten-Yahoo!  Thanks for the smile,



    The Iran Sanctions Act, which ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:54:34 PM EST
    ... was initially passed by Congress in 1995 as the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act at the behest of President Clinton and then renewed in 2006, grants the White House considerable leeway to act at its discretion regarding the particulars of the Act's enforcement.

    It would be nice to have congressional approval on such matters in order to demonstrate a political unity of purpose, but it's not absolutely necessary. And frankly, Congress does the country no favors by attempting to hamstring a president's ability to conduct foreign policy and to negotiate with other nations.



    Where is the problem ? (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    He asked Congress to not impose more sanctions and backed off a policy his Treasury started ?  This is not a program mandated by Congress.

    If Congress has a problem with it, they should have jumped in when he began doing it, not when he decided to ease off.

    A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

    IOW, there is no proof beyond the number of violator destinations decreasing that anything has changed.  From 7 before the election to 2 since.   Maybe Iran stopped playing games and there simply aren't as many violations.  

    The entire article is based on the assumption that because treasury has issued fewer designations, Obama has backed off.

    Back in reality, most people would be very pleased with break-through in negotiations with Iran.  

    By Congress I assume you mean republican in Congress, the same clowns that shut down the government over legally passed legislation Obama championed that was upheld by the SCOTUS.  Yeah, I don't think anyone has any doubt abuot them having a fit over it, but not before they vote to repeal ACA for the 50th time.


    Duck Soup (none / 0) (#4)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    Stanford beat up on the Ducks for 55 minutes and then screwed the pooch for the last five.  The Ducks are probably out of the natty, Mariota (who seems to have an ACL issue) probably out of the Heisman race, and Stanford's loss to Utah combined with their el foldo in the last five minutes means Stanford is also out of the natty.

    FSU is the big winner, mostly because their schedule was front loaded and they are unlikely to lose for the rest of the year.  'bama has the hardest schedule but also probably has the best team.  If 'bama falls OSU stands to benefit most, mostly because it has an easy final few games.  Baylor has some hard games but also benefits if it runs the table because it could jump OSU.

    MY prediction for the natty 'bama v FSU.  FSU wins on the strength of Winston's arm and Winston wins the Heisman.

    Stanford did an "el foldo"? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    Last I heard, the Cardinal won that game, not Oregon. The high-powered Duck offense was averaging 55 pts. / game going into last night's matchup. The Cardinal defense held them to 14, with six of the Ducks' 20 points coming on a blocked FG attempt.

    You can only say that the Cardinal folded if they had lost. They didn't. And how, pray tell, was Florida State's schedule "front loaded," given that the Seminoles opened with Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, and Boston College?

    I can appreciate the fact that you're supporting your team, and there's no doubt that Florida State is indeed very good and you have a lot to cheer about. But you don't do it by denigrating and dismissing a similarly outstanding Stanford team, and by wrongly insinuating that the Cardinal somehow "folded" against No. 2 Oregon, when they in fact defeated the Ducks. Keep it classy.



    Stanford lost (none / 0) (#51)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    to an unranked Utah team that may well not have a winning record.  Stanford also allowed UO back in the game.  If UO had recovered both of the onside kicks instead of just one and scored one more time they may well have won.  You can disagree about this being folding, but it certainly lost style points with the BCS voters.

    I have seen lots of folks say 'how did Stanford lose to Utah', but all you have to do is look at how poorly Stanford did in the last five minutes of the game and it is clear how they lost to Utah.  The Stanford QB is really not up to the level of play needed to compete in big games.  I saw him miss passes guys like Winston, McCarron, Manziel, or Perry would make.

    Maybe we have a different definition of front loaded but FSU has played all the highly ranked teams on their schedule already while 'bama, Baylor, and the other relevant teams still have some highly ranked teams left.

    Props to Stanford for a good running attack that the Ducks could not stop even if they knew it was coming.  I am not sure how healthy Mariota is, but he certainly was less effective than in past games.  On the other hand Stanford was without their best D lineman.  Most folks would also say both Stanford and UO have a harder schedule than FSU and there is a better chance one of both of them will lose a game than FSU will lose.

    As I said Winston and FSU seem in the drivers seat with fewer bumps in the road than any other team.  Still predicting 'bama and FSU in the natty.  OSU most likely will be in the Rose Bowl but I could see Stanford, ASU, or maybe even another Pac 12 team facing them.

    Fact of the matter is now it is FSU and 'bama with everyone else in the distance.


    very sad day for my alma-mater (none / 0) (#108)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:41:09 PM EST
    the fighting Ducks.

    Yeah, they must have felt (none / 0) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:46:58 PM EST
    like George Foreman did when Ali figured out how to overcome Foreman's superior strength and size with his "Rope-a-Dope."

    How do you beat a team that scores 55 points a game? Keep the ball 42 minutes to your opponent's 16.

    The poor Duck Kids; I bet they're kicking themselves, thinking, "if we only had another quarter."

    Yup, they figured it out.....just a little too late.


    That's exactly what both ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:46:29 AM EST
    ... Boise State and Ohio State did to the Ducks in the 2009 season opener and 2010 Rose Bowl, respectively, and what Auburn did in the BCS championship game the following season.

    It's pretty hard to score 45-50 points with your offense riding the bench for two-thirds or more of the game.


    You gotta admit it, (none / 0) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 05:37:57 AM EST
    this year's road to the title has had its share of twists & turns....not to mention detours.

    I wasn't talking about the Utah game. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:07:13 AM EST
    Rather, I specifically took issue with that portion of your comment in which you asserted that Stanford folded in last night's game with No. 2 Oregon, when the Cardinal in fact won the game, and I further called out your contention that Florida State's schedule was somehow front-loaded, when it quite obviously was not.

    Regardless of whatever conference they're in, it's not easy for a D-1 team to run the table and go unbeaten during the regular season, which is why we generally only see one or two accomplish that feat out of 120 D-1 programs in any given year -- and quite often none.

    Florida State is poised to do just that, and it's perfectly okay to sing your team's praises when they're having an awesome season. Just please do so without unnecessarily disparaging another excellent team from a very good conference.

    Now, absent a few upsets of teams presently ranked ahead of the Cardinal -- i.e., Alabama, Ohio State and Baylor -- I would be very hard-pressed to make a decent case for elevating Stanford to the BCS championship game, even if they happen to win their remaining four games to finish 12-1. Certainly not at the expense of an unbeaten FSU!

    But that said, Stanford clearly doesn't deserve your scorn or ridicule on the basis of one four-point road loss to a 4-4 Utah team. Because for the record, the Cardinal have played and beaten five Top 25-ranked teams thus far this season to the Seminoles' three. And further, they also play nine conference games during the regular season to FSU's eight, and their nonconference schedule doesn't include the D-1AA likes of Bethune-Cookman.

    Overall at this juncture, Stanford's accomplished body of work more than speaks for itself.



    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    Guess we will have to agree to disagree about this.

    To me front loaded means FSU played most of its ranked teams early on and with the exception of the ACCCG will not play another ranked team.  In part this is because UF did pull an el foldo this year and currently is down 17-0 to Vandy.  Stanford played UO later in the season and may well have hard games against some Pac 12 teams.

    As I said in earlier posts 'props to Stanford' for beating UO, but they did let UO back into the game.

    Say what you want but there is a price to be paid for losing to an unranked team.  Utah is not that good no matter how you try and spin it.


    I'm confused... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    I thought Ray Kelly already had the top security job at the JPMorganChase cartel from 2002-Present?  

    This "new" position must just be payment for past services rendered busting heads at Occupy and turning a blind eye to massive criminality in his jurisdiction as Commish.

    jbindc (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    I didn't get to respond to you about Christie and why he would put GA in play should he be the GOP nominee (but we all know he isn't going to be). The GOP bases literally hates this guy SO MUCH they are saying that they will either sit home or vote for a Democrat because it's better to vote for a real Democrat than vote for a fake one (Christie). They think he's should be running in the D primary not the R primary.

    I think (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    If HRC is on the ballot against Christie, the Georgia Republicans will come home.

    I can't imagine she's very popular and many Republican voters in GA hate "that woman" and would not vote for her.

    People can talk big now - three years out - but when push comes to shove, they don't want another Clinton (or any Democrat) back in the White House for another 4 years.


    Every (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    other year that would be true but you have no idea how mad these people are at the Republicans in Washington. Unless the GOP does something to change their minds between now and then they are sitting home.

    They already think that Hillary is going to be the next president anyway whether they vote or not. The demographics for the GOP are only going to get worse they say in the next few years. So in their minds why should they bother to vote? It's not like GA has ever been decisive in a presidential election anyway.

    You should listen to talk radio if you can stand it and see what they are saying. They've gone around the bend truly.


    Don't you think Christie (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:55:27 PM EST
    is like Limbaugh?   May not agree on all policy points but they are the same stylistically.  Christie will bash Hillary just fine from a Tea Party perspective...

    Tea Partiers care for style (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    more than substance. They were lukewarm on Romney but loved it when he bashed BHO in the first debate.
    Same thing will happen if Christie bashes HRC. Tea Partiers will love Christie if he can "put that woman in her place". However, that kind of behavior will cause Christie to lose votes in states like Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, etc. Whatever the Tea Party will love, more moderate people will hate!

    Speaking of Tea Party memes.. (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    this "he talks down to people" got old quite awhile ago.

    He's the President for crissake. Sometimes I think some folks would be less "thrown" by Obama if he wore  hoodie and skulked through a gated community once in awhile..


    I thought the same thing..... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:49:21 PM EST
    If Hillary is the candidate it would be a huge opportunity for Christie. If you think the Clintons were bashed before, just wait till Christie loads up his canons and starts firing away. You can bet your last dollar that a lot of current, luke warm TP'ers will experience four hour erections when that angry, foul mouthed, knuckle dragging Governor fires salvo after salvo into Hillary. If you thought they were "off the wall" with their "Hillary murdered Vince Foster," or her "drug dealing airport," just wait for what Christie will come up with in '16.

    You're going to have to wear a Haz-Mat suit just to watch the campaign.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there are ways for Christie to get around the current hatred the TP'ers have for him, and, Hillary is his antidote. One good shot into her private parts and those ignorant, inbred, illiterates will love him to death.

    Remember, you're not dealing with rational, cognitive beings here; you're dealing with some never before seen, strain of mutants who will support the craziest of the lot. So, be prepared to see a Christie so crazy his own mother wouldn't recognize.    


    I see a very fine line (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    since Christie is already something of a bully, going all out on HRC could be disaster for him. Trying to satisfy the TP nuts, will lose him the mod/reasonable repub women's vote (and whatever Dems in the gen). I'm not sure he's the 'right' personality to go up against HRC, or win the primaries for that matter. 3 yrs is a long time for America to put up with this much crazy, will they really want an absolute jerk on top of it all? I think the right is going to need someone with a better personality :P

    You know, NY, I didn't say (none / 0) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:30:16 PM EST
    it would be easy.

    Any "R" candidate is going to have to maneuver in ways that are probably impossible in order to win both the Primaries and the General.

    I surely don't envy the machinations this guy is going to have to come up with in order to be our next President. But, Romney did it....somewhat. He degraded himself in ways that you, or I, would find impossible.

    And, yet, he almost won.


    All true until your last sentence (none / 0) (#140)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    He lost by 126 electoral votes.

    Gore almost won. Romney not so much.


    How about, (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:44:16 PM EST
    it was closer than it should have been?

    Let's face it, that Talmudic Scholar, Karl Rove, thought Romney had won,....... even after the votes had been tallied. lol


    Sad to say (none / 0) (#144)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    After considering Dubya was a 2 term president, I would be hesitant to count anyone out of the running no matter how crude, incompetent or crazy.  

    Amen, Sister (none / 0) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:51:47 PM EST
    Now, please don't interrupt me; I'll be in intense prayer for the next several years.

    Thank you, "ohmmmmm....." :)


    It still cracks me up (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    All these "The Truth About the Clintons" books that were cranked out by right wing  publishing houses..

    You'd think they were the Trotskyite wing of the Illuminati/Free Mason/New World Order conspiracy..


    Here's (none / 0) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    the thing though: that is what every candidate is going to be doing during the GOP primaries.

    But starting the crazy stuff to rile up the tea partiers is exactly what is going to turn off the majority of Americans from the GOP.

    Nobody seems to remember that Romney did better in the polls when Moderate Mitt showed up instead of Tea Party Mitt.


    GOP honchos (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    will make sure that the primary season is short. They will cut the number of debates drastically in 2016 being mindful of the damage that these debates caused in 2012.

    IMO, strictly speaking from an electoral perspective, it may be best for the GOP to nominate Huckabee. It would probably still not be enough for them to win a GE, however such an action may help in preserving some unity within the party. The GOP Wall Street backers are also as extreme on economic issues as social conservatives are on social issues, so there would be a lot of reluctance on their part to embrace Huckabee. However, if Huckabee is willing as an old dog to learn new tricks, you will find him cultivating more relationships with financial bigwigs.

    The 2014 and 2016 election seasons will be interesting for the GOP.


    No Huckabee (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    wouldn't create unity. The Club for Growth people despise Huckabee but Huckabee would at least get the evangelicals and tea partiers to show up and vote which is more than someone like Christie would be able to do.

    At this point I don't think there's anything that could unite them. You have two factions diametrically opposed to each other. Some of them even hate the GOP establishment more than they hate Democrats at this point.


    But Christie (none / 0) (#205)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    would get moderates and independents to show up, which, outside the South, would easily give him wins and a path to the nomination.

    Actually (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:01:24 PM EST
    it doesn't matter because on the freak chance that he does make it through the GOP primary, he's going to be turned into a tea party nut by the end of it. The same thing will happen to Christie that happened to Romney. It doesn't matter what his record is in NJ or who voted for him how large his margin was the other day, he is going to have to sign onto all the crackpot stuff that is going to be demanded from the GOP base like doing a 180 on climate change among other things. Rand Paul is already having an "investigation" into how Christie handled hurricane funds. Get out the popcorn and buckle your seat belts. We are going to get quite a show!

    Shrug (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    Again, it's three years away.  People run their mouths off now, but when push comes to shove, the will go with their party.

    In fact, by then, there could easily be the "Shy Cuccinelli" / "Shy Christie" phenomenon in effect - tea partiers who loudly decry that they will "NEVER" vote for Christie, but i the privacy of the voting booth, will always pull the lever for him.

    I think there are too many variables and too much time to go be believe with absolute certainty, that Christie can't be the nominee.


    Christie (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    has too many problems with the GOP base and he's not their only choice. So I think it's pretty safe to say that his chances of winning the nomination are very, very, slim.

    Even his religious beliefs are a problem. I mean every litmus test the GOP base has for a candidate he fails. Romney could at least sell himself as a business person which they like even though they hated his religion too. Christie just has nothing for them.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    That's what they said about Romney - the Tea Party and evangelicals would never accept a Mormon. Romney won 43 of the 57 states / territories, including the Deep South. Romney most likely would have won Georgia too, except for the fact that Newt Gingrich was running and won as the home-state boy.

    Christie is a pro-life Roman Catholic.  So was Rick Santorum.

    Your theories don't really add up.


    And when (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    did Santorum win the nomation? I guess I missed that. He could have won if he was the one that they were told to vote for but like I'm saying they are in revolt with this kind of stuff.

    A MORMON (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    won the nomination remember? Someone who was a member of a religion many in the Tea Party find to be (even more) of a cult than they do Catholics.

    This is just silly.  Running around with hair on fire saying that "CHRISTIE CAN'T WIN THE NOMINATION" is premature and speculative,and certainly misses a whole lot of information.

    Let's not forget - the extreme right will put up a couple (or few) candidates which will actually SPLIT the Tea Party vote. And, he will hands down win the fundraising battle. No one will be able to outraise him.

    Finally, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz also cannot beat him in the delegate rich blue states like California, Illinois, or New York (or pretty much most or all of the blue states).

    But again, it's still three years out.


    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    A Mormon did but guess what? That was also a time where they did what they were told who to vote for and they did which is NO LONGER. Can you not understand that there is a civil war going on and that they are not going to go along any more?

    I'm telling you Christie has no path to the nomination and even if by some freakish way he did win the nomination they would not vote for him. They would vote for Jeb Bush before they vote for Christie and I wonder if Jeb isn't one of the ones dumping all the stuff out there about Christie is Jeb Bush since he's the other supposed "moderate". The only thing Christie has going for him is the GOP elders are saying that he can win a general election. The GOP base says yeah, you told us that in 2008 and 2012 and we lost so we're no longer listening to you.

    No the tea party faction is FULLY behind Cruz. Rand Paul might be competition in that area but it looks like he's already falling apart before he even starts.

    You're the one missing the information. Do you remember Lieberman back in 2004 and about how popular he was with the people that voted in the D primaries? Christie has the exact same problem.

    The same thing was said about Giuliani winning blue states but he did not. The problem is the virus that affects the GOP in the south is the same virus that affects almost the entire party.  


    And I'm telling you (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    you seem VERY sure about something that is going to take place in 3 years, based on anecdotal information, without full knowledge of 1) who else will be running, 2) the state of the Tea Party, 3) the money backers, and 4)angry people spouting off because they realize that the tide is turning against them. For every Tea Partier you talk to or read on a blog, I can find you Republicans who will work against them.

    Giuliani?  Not even close - he was a mayor - he was NEVER going to get elected. It's not even on the same scale as a governor.

    What you're also discounting, is that depending on who the final Democratic nominee is, moderate and independent voters may actually vote FOR Christie instead of a Dem. And as I said before, the only way a Tea Partier wins the nomination is if the Dem nominee gets chosen quickly and a lot of Dems in later states cross over and make mischief.

    Since you are so sure, then I will go out on a limb and say there will not be a Tea Party nominee from the Republican Party in 2016.

    Sit back and watch.


    If GAth is right (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    it would make my day.

    Could we be so lucky.  If the Republicans nominate a loon, it would be a cake walk for Hillary.  Good for her, and good for Democrats.


    Truly (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:04:35 PM EST
    there is a holy war going on in the GOP. I guess nobody wants to believe it but it is. I was not one of those who said that Romney wouldn't get the nomination because of his religion or that McCain wouldn't get the nomination or that the GOP base would not come out and vote BUT it is VERY different this time. These people feel like they have been lied to and used and they are NOT going to take it anymore. If they don't win a primary this time they will try the next year and the next until they finally give up. Winning the house in 2010 has created huge problems for the GOP.  

    GOP con trolling the House (none / 0) (#115)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:59:27 PM EST
    may or may not have created problems for the GOP.  But a GOP controlled house is certainly creating problems for Obama and the dems.

    GOP (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 07:20:14 AM EST
    controlling the house has put the crazies in the GOP on full display and drug the GOP below levels not seen since modern polling. Governing has never been Obama's strong suit so probably in a lot of ways he could care less that congress has only put forth crazy legislation.

    No (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    this is not anecdotal information. You can read about how the factions are piling up money on each side of this battle. Jim Demint has turned the Heritage Foundation into a money laundering organization aiming its guns at the GOP establishment. As a matter of fact McConnell is so angry at these people that he is trying to cut the legs off people who fund this group. Karl Rove is trying to kill off the tea party with his last breath and his Crossroads Pac.. They now dislike Karl Rove AS MUCH as Democrats do. The Chamber of Commerce is having to blow wads of money trying to keep candidates from losing in primaries to tea party candidates. The debt ceiling thing was like jabbing a hornet's nest. Even here in GA our Governor Nathan Deal is looking at a primary challenge.

    It doesn't matter whether Giuliani was a mayor. His profile was EXTREMELY high after 9/11 and the GOP base even liked him a lot better than they like Christie. And the population of NYC is about the same as the entire state of New Jersey.

    Well, you tell me how the GOP is going to nominate a candidate who is not a Tea partier when that is 75% of their party? There's just no way. The GOP base has shrunk so much that they control the situation and if they do nominate a non tea party person then those tea partiers are going to sit home. It does not matter what happened in 2008 and 2012.

    Like I said it's a moot point whether those voters are going to vote for Christie because he's not going to be the nominee. He has the same path that Giuliani had which is none.


    Here (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    ya go


    That describes a lot of what is going on. It's not going to be over by the time 2016 comes around.


    I'll see you that article (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    And raise you.


    Christie is a pretty conservative guy on most issues, but because he embraced President Obama in the dark days after Hurricane Sandy and because he is considered soft on immigration and Obamacare, tea partiers call him a heretic. Conventional wisdom has been that such disdain among the most fervent members of the Republican Party base will make it impossible for Christie to emerge triumphant from the 2016 primaries. Conventional wisdom, however, could easily be wrong.

    In his post-election analysis on CNN, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich theorized that Christie could string together victories outside the party's conservative strongholds in the South. And, Gingrich said, by doing well in more moderate regions from New Hampshire to California, Christie would only have to run a respectable second or third in states such as South Carolina to gather an ample share of delegates -- perhaps enough to win the nomination.

    All of this chatter about 2016 is wildly premature, of course. There are a few ticking time bombs in Christie's past that could derail his ambitions (including his past life as a lobbyist in the service of a securities industry group that counted notorious scam artist Bernie Madoff among its senior officials). Still, the people of New Jersey reelected Christie by a huge margin, even though a majority of them disagree with their governor on issues ranging from raising the minimum wage to gay marriage. New Jersey voters simply like the guy.

    Look, we could back and forth on this from now until Christmas.  For every article you want to show me about how scared the mainstream Republican Party is of the Tea Party, I can show you one where they are coalescing their fundraising effort and are whipping the party in line.

    When I google "GOP Civil War", you know what comes back?  Stories mostly in liberal or liberal-leaning publications.  That's a great story for the left to run. Confusion to our enemies! But I've heard this story before - in 2008 - "Ooh, the Republican Party is dead and won't be a threat for 20 years!"  Until 2 years later when they kicked the Dems' a$$es in the mid-terms.

    It doesn't matter - it's three years away.


    Why I say jbindc is reality challenged (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:03:46 PM EST
    When I google "GOP Civil War", you know what comes back?  Stories mostly in liberal or liberal-leaning publications.  That's a great story for the left to run.

    You do not have to google. Just visit the RedState website and see what is going on. The grassroot conservatives are trying to run the establishment conservatives out of town. Someone even mentioned that he dislikes Mitch McConnell more than BHO. Red State is not a "liberal-leaning publication".
     Yes, three years is a lot of time and anything can happen. However, if you are not seeing any civil war within the GOP at this time outside of liberal leaning publications, it is because you are reality challenged.


    Newt (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    apparently is out of touch what is going on in his own state. Christie would not even break second or third here in GA. This is the same path they were predicting for Giuliani in 2008 and it didn't work for him either.

    Those ticking time bombs are what the other GOP hopefuls are going to lob at him.

    Actually your link backs up my case that he's VERY unlikely to be the GOP nominee.

    And regardless of all that, don't you think that any Dem could wrap the tea party around his neck after a primary like they did with Romney? There's going to be no 11th commandment anymore.


    I repeat (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 06:45:34 PM EST
    There will not be a Tea Party Republican Nominee is 2016.

    Newt's analysis is right,I think.  Christie can win the nomination even without the South.


    3 years is a lot of time (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    but in those 3 years, Christie has to govern and make choices. The Democratic party will make his life as uncomfortable as they can on issues to widen his rift with the Tea Party. Wall Street and the Chamber of Commerce wants immigration reform. Will it be possible for Christie to grandstand like Jan Brewer in New Jersey? Wall Street would not like any more shutdowns. If other Republican governors who harbor ambitions for a Presidential run in 2016 support shutdowns to curry favor with the TP, what is Christie going to do? Christie cannot talk evangelical like GWB could and I doubt he will be as disciplined as the former President on the campaign trail. Christie will be a very flawed candidate with a lot of vulnerabilities. I am sure the Democratic Party will assess his strengths and weaknesses and plan accordingly.

    Nope (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    Not when your ENTIRE base hates you. There's just no way around that. And then he has the corruption issues to boot. Coming in last in super Tuesday states is not going to help Christie win the nomination.

    And again, how do you get a candidate who is not a tea party candidate when 75% of your party is now comprised of the tea party? Christie would have to move so far right in the primaries he would render himself unelectable in the general just like Romney did.


    Seems like a concerted effort by (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:27:45 PM EST
    the establishment Republicans to do anything and everything to limit the ability of the Tea Party to determine the Republican candidates. They are currently talking about "how it chooses nominees and advocating changes they say would result in the selection of less extreme contenders."

    Leaders of the Republican establishment, alarmed by the emergence of far-right and often unpredictable Tea Party candidates, are pushing their party to rethink how it chooses nominees and advocating changes they say would result in the selection of less extreme contenders.  [...] The party leaders pushing for changes want to replace state caucuses and conventions, like the one that nominated Mr. Cuccinelli, with a more open primary system that they believe will draw a broader cross-section of Republicans and produce more moderate candidates. link

    By as Jed Lewison on DKos points out:

    Nice try, but replacing state caucuses and conventions with primaries won't fix the GOP's problem. In the case of Virginia, Cuccinelli was selected by a convention, but as Ed Kilgore points out, Cuccinelli would have won a primary: Cuccinelli led "establishment" Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling by a 51-15 margin in a hypothetical GOP primary matchup.

    Moreover, primaries didn't stop Republicans from nominating awful candidates like Richard Mourdock in Indiana, Todd Akin in Missouri, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and Ken Buck in Colorado. Why? Because the Republican Party's problem is ... drum roll please ... the Republican Party!

    Without the Koch money you would have to think the establishment would win hands down. If the crazies continue to receive ample funding it will be any ones guess on how this will play out. From the looks of it anything is possible.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 07:16:19 AM EST
    and the problem for the GOP is I'm not sure the moderates or the establishment is better funded than the crackpots.

    Not sure how this is going to (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    fall out 2016. I do know that several die hard Republicans (extremely right wing) would not vote for Romney in the general because he belonged to what they felt was an anti-christian religion. They didn't vote the D but they definitely didn't vote for a Romney presidency.

    It's (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:14:39 PM EST
    not the same situation it was in 2008 and 2012. Like I said I said the same thing back then but things are VERY different now. The tea party is not going to go along anymore. You see examples of it all over the place. I don't know why you insist on not seeing what is going on. They are fed up and they are going after McConnell and Boehner and almost everybody who is in Washington. And McCain and Romney are PRECISELY why they aren't going to go along anymore. Both lost and they think the reason that they lost is because they were the "chosen" candidates and in their minds Christie is another "chosen" candidate and another guaranteed loss for the party.

    Although I have to say, (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:56:55 PM EST

    One interesting sign regarding the tensions between the more "main-stream" Republicans and the Tea Party types is Steve LaTourette's Main Stream Advocacy Group's ad campaign against the Tea Party.  Link.

    Open warfare is breaking out among rival Republican groups, with one, Main Street Advocacy, set to start an ad campaign on Wednesday that blames conservative groups like the Tea Party for the recent series of political losses in critical elections across the United States.

    The ad cites what it calls a "Hall of Shame," including Representative Todd Akin, Republican of Missouri, who lost his bid for the Senate last year, despite a Tea Party endorsement, after he said a "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy.

    It also pokes fun at conservative groups like the Club for Growth and Freedom Works -- stamping the word "Defund" over their names -- because they recently pushed Congress to shut down the federal government in an effort to block financing for President Obama's health care program.

    Pass the popcorn kids, because this may be an indication of a Republican circular firing squad.  And I certainly hope so.  Might wind up being very interesting.


    Yes (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    I keep telling everyone that there is a HUGE fight going on but it seems nobody believes me. There are organizations that are firing at the tea party and organizations firing at the GOP in Washington. Maybe because of where I live I hear more and know more about this but I'm telling you it is going to get really NASTY.

    Yes, pop loads and loads of popcorn and enjoy the show.

    If you want an outline of what is going on it's thus:

    1. GOP establishment to the tea party: you caused a moderate GOP governor to sign onto all your crackpot ideas causing him to lose. You have continually put forth crazy candidates causing us to lose the chance of regaining the senate twice.

    2. Tea party to GOP elite: You have told us that we had to vote for McCain and Romney because they were the only ones that could win and they lost. You have completely sold out our "ideals" continually. You keep wanting us to vote for these losers. Your judgement is bad. Look what happened when we did not listen to you: we took the house in 2010. (They always conveniently forget to mention the senate).

    Hee, hee! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:29:00 PM EST
    Well, I believe you, Ga.  I'm buying popcorn futures in anticipation.  ;-)
    In fact, I am almost (I said almost) tempted to send LaTourette's advocacy group a donation.  Anything that causes the Republicans to start in-fighting is okay by me.  Let the games begin!  

    I think you and I are seeing the really (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    Nasty part of the Republican war down here in the Southy South.  I am content to watch, many are imploding around me too.  They implode into raging rabid frothing lunatics.  I'm kind of fascinated watching it.  Have no idea how this pans out in 2014 or 2016.  It's too freakin crazy around here for me to even venture a guess.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    I have no idea about 2014 and what's going to happen. I just know that they are not going to be done with all this by the time 2016 rolls around and they get to nominate a presidential candidate. I mean they are still mad about McCain and Romney.

    Did the Dolphins coaching staff (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    Still more to come (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    Seems like this is coming out in dribs and drabs.  I have seen reliable reports that put both sides in a bad light.

    Martin's lawyer has indicated Incognito was not acting alone.  The only 'fins to speak out publically have supported Incognito, including saying Martin was showing the months old incriminating tape with the insults around the locker room last May and laughing it off.

    I am sure more will come out that makes both sides look bad.  I say a pox on both of their houses.


    buddies a month or so ago. We drank a bunch of beer and made fun of each other and laughed our a$$es off for three days. Last weekend was another guys weekend at a car race.

    Probably 90% of the stuff we said to each other, if you saw it written, would seem much, much worse than the quotes I've seen in the Incognito/Martin case.

    It's all about context.


    But, I don't care how much beer you drank, (none / 0) (#132)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 09:56:28 PM EST
    I think you would have noticed if one of your friends asked you to "back off," quit his job, hired a lawyer, and (rumor has it) began formulating a lawsuit against you, a lawsuit that in Florida would pay triple indemnity, plus legal fees.....around 17 million bucks.

    That's a lot of "context," old buddy.


    comment. Buddy.

    iow, refer to your very own comment (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:15:15 PM EST
    You know, pointing out (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    that the Martin affair isn't really analogous to a bunch of us guys getting together, sucking down some beers, and, good naturedly, ribbing each other, is not a challenge.

    It was just a comment. And, if you felt that "buddy" disrespected you, I apologize.


    No worries. (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:35:48 PM EST
    My comment was not about "the Martin affair" as you put it, it was specifically about "the quotes I've seen in the Incognito/Martin case," as I said.

    iow, the quotes from various teammates where the N word, and worse, are said to each other.

    As you know, guys often bust each other's chops. Sometimes it's almost a competition as to who can make the most over the top comment. And some guys are way more relentless than others.

    Reading such quotes in black and white with no context makes them sound horrific.  

    But, as I said, I've been involved in "guys" conversations that, if they were written down, would look more horrific than any of the quotes I've seen in this case.

    But in the context of the verbal jousting that was going on at the time were funny as hell and enjoyed by all participating.

    I'm not saying these quotes are definitely meant in humor, just that we don't know the context of them at all, and so we don't have any idea if the quotes were serious or not.


    Incognito may have (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    s*xually assaulted a women with a golf club........

    I would hold off rushing to his defense.  This boys-will-boys stuff has got to go.  Too many Steubenvilles....


    Be careful with the accusations (none / 0) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:42:17 PM EST
    I think Incognito is a total jerk, but it is a legal site and there were never any charges. Your not so subtle exaggeration is NY Post type material.

    It is in the Daily News (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:58:38 PM EST
    in this article here.

    But the police report is here. What is described, if true, is a very serious assault.  Not hazing.  Not just horsing around.

    And I said he "may" have committed assault.   The police report is in the public domain.  It may or may not be true.  But if true it is a serious matter.  


    Actually what you said is (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:11:16 PM EST
    may have s*xually assaulted a women with a golf club

    Your police report says "simple battery". While he was totally obnoxious and crude, you don't get to change "simple battery" to "sexual assault".

    Other than that I agree with you that he's a total jerk and safe to say his past performance record confirms that.


    Assault is to threaten (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:18:58 PM EST
    Battery is to touch.

    Here is the definition of assault:

    At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

    An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

      That the touching was through the clothing does shield the conduct from liability.  


    Does "not" shield the conduct (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    Assault is not just a (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:06:46 PM EST
    criminal offense but also a civil violation.  If he was not charged, there is no current issue of protecting his constitutional rights.

    Civil liability is imposed by a preponderance of the evidence, and there is no presumption of innocence.

    There is just too much acceptance of these kinds of assaults at parties....


    Fatty Arbuckle Incognito.. (none / 0) (#188)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    The Dolphins... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    ...are the one who claimed Martin had mental issues and was gay, then backed off of that immediately, but the rumors that created haven't died down.

    Money quote:

    "Richie is the type of guy where if he's on your team you love him," a teammate said. "If he's not on your team, you hate him. Every team needs a guy like that."

    If only Martin had been a Dolphin...

    And this:

    Linebacker Dannell Ellerbe indicated that Martin should have come to the leadership council with his problems, which apparently carried over to his second season. The problem is Incognito was also on the leadership council, and possessed a tremendous amount of power and influence.

    The article states 'coaches' asked Incognito to toughen him up, what coaches ?  It goes on to say that Philbin told the players to cut out the rookie hazing, and that he tried to reign it in, which implies that it was some kind of an issue that needed reigning in.

    If the head coach didn't do it, who is left that would have been over Incognito and Martin ?  Offensive line or strength and conditioning coach and their assistant coaches.

    Or the source is trying to help Incognito, which seem more likely in that no names were given.


    One of the best commentaries I've read (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    is this one, from Jason Whitlock at ESPN.

    An excerpt:

    Welcome to Incarceration Nation, where the mindset of the Miami Dolphins' locker room mirrors the mentality of a maximum-security prison yard and where a wide swath of America believes the nonviolent intellectual needs to adopt the tactics of the barbarian.

    I don't blame Jonathan Martin for walking away from the Dolphins and checking himself into a hospital seeking treatment for emotional distress. The cesspool of insanity that apparently is the Miami locker room would test the mental stability of any sane man. Martin, the offspring of Harvard grads, a 24-year-old trained at some of America's finest academic institutions, is a first-time offender callously thrown into an Attica prison cell with Incognito and Aaron Hernandez's BFF Mike Pouncey. Dolphins warden Jeff Ireland and deputy warden Joe Philbin put zero sophisticated thought into what they were doing when they drafted Martin in the second round in 2012.


    Yeah, the Dolphins are circling the wagons around Incognito. I get Ryan Tannehill's defense of his Pro Bowl left guard. He needs him. He doesn't believe the Dolphins can protect him or win games without Incognito. There's a popular belief you can't consistently win football games without a few "thugs" like Incognito in your locker room. Makes you wonder how Stanford competes with USC, Oregon, UCLA, etc., every year. You wonder how Nebraska and Oregon survived after booting Incognito. You wonder why three NFL teams let him go. Maybe he's not as essential as the myth-makers would have you believe.

    But what makes me want to check into a mental hospital is Miami's black players' unconditional love of Incognito and indifference to Martin.

    It points to our fundamental lack of knowledge of our own history in this country. We think the fake tough guy, the ex-con turned rhetoric spewer was more courageous than the educated pacifist who won our liberation standing in the streets, absorbing repeated ass-whippings, jail and a white assassin's bullet. We fell for the okeydoke.

    We think Malcolm X was blacker than Martin Luther King Jr.

    Whitlock's p!$$ed, and rightly so, I think; oh, and he's black, if that makes any difference.


    Is it love (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    or are they being good, non-trouble-making, company men who don't want their stock to go down?
    I'm going with the latter.

    I Don't Disagree... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 05:24:04 PM EST
    ...but seems like he jumped to a lot of conclusions/assumptions.

    All these quotes coming from Incognito's teammates aren't time stamped so it's hard to tell if they said that before the Martin incident or before the voice mail was released.  They circled the wagons, but did it stop after the voice mail ?

    I can't imagine anyone defending him after that was public.  We all know people like Incognito, this way with some people and that way with others.  I really don't like the assumption that everyone knew about the level of depravity in the voice mail just because they shared a locker room and saw Incognito giving the rookie a hard time.  

    And what in the hell did Mike Pouncey do, so far he's received a subpoena for grand jury testimony in the Hernandez case. He's never been in trouble.

    I don't like like his assumption that black players were OK with the N word being used by a white guy to a black guy.  Come on, this is the NFL, these guys aren't cowering in the corner when white people are around, they are people who generally don't take cr@p from anyone.  I don't see Incognito using that word freely in the locker room as suggested.  Not saying it didn't happen, but there has been no proof of that to date.

    That is a good article, but would be far more effective if everything mention was public knowledge and not speculation.

    Quick note, I found it a little shocking that the two white announcers last night described Adrian Peterson's running style as 'violent' and 'angry'.  Two terms in complete opposition to Peterson himself and I get they weren't describing him, but that doesn't accurately describe his running IMO.  Or maybe it's because I think Mike Mayock is the worse announcer in all of human history.

    Anyways, my point is I agree with a lot of the racial aspects in the article, just not how they were applied in Miami before we know what really happened.


    Adrian Peterson as (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    an angry and violent style??  Much more power and grace....Closer to Jim Brown than many others, but.....

    Adrian Peterson ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 03:13:15 AM EST
    ... is the only worthwhile reason to watch a Minnesota Vikings game this year.

    Violent and angry.. (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    I can't help thinking back to when so many wanted to describe Obama as if he were the second coming of Nat Turner or H Rap Brown in a dashiki..

    Whitlock is silly (none / 0) (#122)
    by ragebot on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:39:32 PM EST
    But I do agree with Whitlock when he wrote:

    "I don't know Jonathan Martin."

    That did not stop him from blabbering on endlessly about him.  Same goes for Incognito.  And does anyone think Whitlock knows Incognito any better than he knows Martin.

    The 'fins locker room is nothing like a prison, the food is a lot better.  Anyone can leave at any time, just as Martin did.

    There are lots of unknowns about what happened.  But there does seem to be some agreement that Martin had and still does have some mental issues AND THAT INCOGNITO IS A BOZO.  

    I think one of the biggest problems the country faces is the way mental health is treated like the red headed step child of physical health.  As a country we need to recognize mental health issues are real.

    Almost any football fan will agree that there is not a great difference between the physical abilities of the best and worst teams in the NFL.  All the teams have big, fast, strong guys that former coach Jake Gaither would describe as mobile, agile, and hostile.  Same goes for coaching.

    It is the mental aspect that makes a winner.  The most important thing needed for a winning team is just that, the players and coaches must function as a team.

    This is why the 'fins are supporting Incognito and not supporting Martin.  Incognito is viewed as a team player and Martin is not.  It is silly to think the 'fins did not like Martin because he had a high IQ.  Every team I played on quickly recognized which player had the highest IQ and nicked named them Doc or Professor.  

    There is more to this story than has been revealed.  But I feel sure Martin was not disliked because he was smart.


    Well, I agree with at least one thing you said, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    "There is more to this story than has been revealed."

    How about the latest tweet, where the guy is going to do something to Martin's sister's mouth.....and, without a condom. Yeah, just a bunch of guys having fun.

    What you have is a bunch of privileged, temporarily overpaid, man/children. with average, three year careers to protect. As with any gang, "group think," is in control, and, even if some players privately sympathize with Martin, they're petrified that if they express their feelings they'll end up being "out" just like Martin is. Being labelled, "not quite tough enough," is a worse plague than having your sister, mother, or, self being denigrated. And, that's why even the black players in the Miami Mob pretend that Incognito's racist taunts were just "joking around."


    I am losing a lot of (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:48 PM EST
    my fondness for football.

    Tony Dorsett has just revealed his has early onset of dementia.  And his critics used to say he would never take a direct hit.

    Players are so fast and big now that the physics make this a different sport. Tackling used to be much more similar to a wrestling take down than this skull crashing annihilation via missiles of helmets....


    Getting hit by some guy (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    who can bench 400 and run a 4.3 40 and who's had a ten yard running start is probably like getting hit by a small car..

    No wonder so many of these wrs seem a little goofy..


    Annihilation is just a side effect (none / 0) (#155)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:16:48 AM EST
    The crashing you describe is designed to cause turnovers.  When I played we were taught to wrap up the ball carrier, now players are taught to try and strip the ball or cause a turnover with a big hit.

    Tackling the football (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:24:02 AM EST
    used to be discouraged.

    Another opiate of the masses (none / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    that's hard to cut loose..

    I know what you mean, MK. I went through the same thing with boxing, having grown up in a family in which Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson et al were more than just star athletes; they were symbols and demi-gods..


    Never ascribe to malice (none / 0) (#159)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    what is easier explained by something simpler.  Players are always afraid they will be cut because of a rookie coming up or because they have lost a step or a host of other reasons.

    None of us know why Martin was not accepted by his teammates, but that clearly was the case.  If he had mental issues that would go a long way in explaining a lot of things.

    Players need the right chemistry to form a team and there are many reasons someone does not fit in.  But one thing critics of Incognito and the 'fins actions seem to ignore is these actions were suppose to make Martin a better player.  Lets keep in mind Martin was a 'fin for well over a year and I would bet several other actions were taken before Incognito's ill advised effort.

    This is not suppose to be an excuse for what Incognito and the 'fins did, rather an explanation.


    Squish the fish (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:34:33 AM EST
    The whole thing regardless of malice or not just stinks....

    Bad news for Bitcoin (none / 0) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    Anyway, bakc in reality-land (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    The monthly jobs report is out.  The economy added 204,000 jobs,depsite the federal shutdown, which was good news, but the unemployment rate rose to 7.3%, which was not so good news. Some of that has to do with furloughed workers claiming unemployment benefits, so it's hard to tell if this is a trend or not.

    Silvia said that suggests a growing divide between the employed and the out-of-luck. Skilled workers are enjoying higher demand for their services, while those without jobs are having a harder time reentering the labor force.

    "The job market is actually narrowing," he said. "There's a smaller group of people working, but they are prospering."

    The data also suggests that the shutdown was not as damaging as many analysts had feared. More than 500,000 workers were on furlough during October, according to the White House, though some of them were misclassified as employed in the Labor Department report. Many will receive back pay, and some economists suggested that could actually boost spending over the next few months.

    The jobs report was not bad news (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:48:01 PM EST
    Prior months' jobs numbers were revised upward.

    The pleasant surprise was the 3Q GDP of 2.8% growth.  That is not bad at all.

    "Reality" does not mean acknowledging only negative news.


    Maybe you need to reread JB's comment (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:20:33 AM EST
    Because to my eye, this:

    The economy added 204,000 jobs,depsite the federal shutdown, which was good news, but the unemployment rate rose to 7.3%, which was not so good news.

    is both a positive and negative assessment.

    Apparently, today is "Let's Bully JB Day."

    Frankly, I'm not surprised by most of the insults, and where they're coming from. But the level of of antagonism is pretty astonishing.


    I have said I agree (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 12:29:53 AM EST
    that Christie will be the nominee.  But it is a lot of fun to read the counter argument and how the Republicans hate each other....If only it could last....

    The Rock Star and the Prime Minister (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    I just deleted two comments (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    One called another commenter "sweetie." That's a personal insult and not allowed. Another called someone a "stalker" -- also not allowed. Be civil in your disagreements please.

    Too bad "Red Supporter" still stands. (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:01:59 AM EST
    Just sayin'

    Well, you know (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:35:42 AM EST
    Some people are more favored around here.

    Some not so much, really. (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    Many have much in common with  bush (or red) supporters.

    I knew you were trouble, Edger. :) (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    It's not so surprising either, really... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    since they do get the policies they loved so much from bush from obama now.

    There must have been a stampede of people jumping ship like rats and registering as democrats so they could support obama when the writing was on the wall for the GOP leading up to 2008.


    Can't complain about the GOP (none / 0) (#178)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    living in the 50's if we keep translating everything said today as if we're living in the 50's.

    A claim has been made that (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 09:48:33 AM EST
    red supporter is the common day vernacular for a Republican supporter or cheerleader. So far I have been unable to find anyone else using that phrase in that manner. All kinds of references to Red State but the only things that come up for "red supporter" is the Red Bulls and references to Chinese communists.

    Evidently it is common usage after all.


    Since no one was talking about (3.50 / 2) (#191)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 09, 2013 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    energy drinks or soccer teams or Chinese politics, people knew what was meant but chose to revert to 1950's hype instead. Whether right or wrong can be debated, but taking issue with the words in this case is a waste of space.

    I presume of course that this wasn't an argument over support for the New York Red Bulls Soccer team which I didn't know existed until this very moment.

    But if true, what do people have against the Red Bulls? Perhaps fans of D.C. United?