home

Sunday Open Thread: Clock Edition

Don't forget to turn your clocks back tonight.

If you could really turn back time, what year would you make it? While you are thinking, along comes Cher to suport Hilllay. "If I Could Turn Back Time."

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Halloween Open Thread | 4th Teen Dies From Washington H.S. Shooting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I am now a serious Duck fan (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ZtoA on Sat Nov 01, 2014 at 11:17:10 PM EST
    I am assured the term is Duck fan and not Ducks fan. I watched my first Ducks game tonite on TV with a couple of good artist-sports nuts friends tonite. Wow that was fun! I went from commenting in the first minute "wow our guys have cool costumes, but what are those bat wings on their shoulders?" to understanding what it means to "get sacked". Evidently Phil Knight gets the Ducks new uniforms (or 'outfuts') for each game!!  I super enjoyed watching that game!! ! ...and I am starting to become aware of the history of the UofO vs the OSU rivalry. I will now start to actually read and not just to pretend to read while scrolling thru, college football threadlets on this blog!

    And speaking of "outfits" I have to admit to a secret liking of Cher. This video, with her 'outfit' (I think I understand the meaning of it) and the visual 'big guns'. Personally I don't want to turn back time since I was not a happy camper back then when I was a younger person. But I am all for 'happy camping' for others!!

    Time change for me means just one more hour of insomnia. I'm looking forward to chewing another piece of an ambien mid night. No worries tho.

    Kdog, I caught a bit of a piece of CNN piece on Ahawaska (sp??) tonite during the Duck ads. I have two close friends who traveled over 2,000 miles and then up the Amazon river to take that around 10 years ago. One had an amazing experience, the other just had a ho-hum experience with the "medicine".  As a teen I tried out every drug available to me - lsd, mushrooms. opium, pot and hash, alcohol, sex, and several others too.  Usually just one time to try it out. Not much cocaine tho - always hated the idea of cocaine and being around people on cocaine. I took the SATs seriously hung over and did not do as well on those as my parents expexted (600s). Oh well. My grades were good, and I really wanted to go into art instead of economics and investments too (to the horror of my dad).

    I always loved being around people who smoked/ate pot/hash tho - could relate. They always thought I was in the same head space, and maybe I was, but I only did those drugs a few times. I always thought "well--- that's it? I can do that to my head naturally so why spend any $ on that?".

    When the Ducks played Auburn in 2011 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 01, 2014 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    For the championship, they a couple of plays that made me clap a little.  I couldn't help it, they were great plays, I'm just wired that way.  Josh wouldn't speak to me after the game was over or kiss me good night...nuthin!

    Beyoncé's latest concert, she has some very revealing outfits.  Josh told me that Beyoncé is really destroying what is appropriate.  Made me giggle. I told him that as far as I was concerned Beyoncé was sort of a Cher ripoff in her latest show and I found this video and showed it to him.  He couldn't believe when it was made.  Everything old is new again.

    Parent

    Hahaha! Yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by ZtoA on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    Every thing old is made anew again. Especially sex and war!

    I watched some of those Ducks/Auburn moves on the TV tonite during commercials in this game. Evidently the Ducks have benefited greatly over the years with Phil Knight's support and the great sting of coaches he endowed. Watching those players was such a joy tonite. They have such intelligent mobility!!

    Parent

    I am now an even more serious fan of (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 12:35:18 AM EST
    Cicely Tyson, whom I was privileged to see on stage tonight in Horton Foote's play, "A Trip to Bountiful."

    Parent
    Love Cicely Tyson (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    Yes. Terrific film. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    Tyson seems to just get better and better (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    with age.  Like some fine wine.

    Parent
    Michael Wilson, the director, gave her (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    room to astound us. She breaks into dance while describing going to a dance when she was young.  When she is singing hymns to and with the young woman she meets on the train, Tyson was so animated and convincing. Michael Wilson directed Horton Foote's "Orphan's Home Cycle" in NY. I didn't realize he directed "Bountiful" until I read the playbill after the performance.

    BTW, this production of "Bountiful" was filmed for "Lifetime."

    Parent

    Terrific (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    I will set the DVR

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    i just dropped my premium cable channels.  I decided I don't really like Homeland and The Affair enough to keep paying for the service.  Everything else I care about is in hiatus until sometime next year and I decided I would save 100 bucks a month on my cable bill for a while.
    All my favorite stuff, Horror Story, Walking Dead, The Strain, The Americans,  The Bridge, TURN and some others I'm probably forgetting are all on basic.

    I will definitely want HBO back when Westworld starts.  They are also bringing American Gods and The Dark Tower.  So it will be required next year.  I have to decide if I want The Knick and Banshee enough to get MAX.

    My daughter purchases what she wants to watch (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:12:32 AM EST
    Al a carte from Amazon.

    Parent
    I do the same thing. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    Plus pay for Amazon Prime and subscribe to Netflix (still $7.99 a month). I may spend a little more than if I subscribed to cable, but I get to watch what I want, when I want, and commercial free (that alone makes the extra money worth it). I usually purchase full seasons of shows up front (like the season of Walking Dead). For local news and network stuff, I put a digital antenna on my roof. I eagerly await HBO finally getting smart and offering a direct subscription without requiring a cable or satellite subscription.

    Parent
    We are talking about the digital antenna too (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    Not really enjoying The Affair (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    We may join you.

    Parent
    I Got Rid of Premium... (none / 0) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    ...years ago, ditto for going to the movies.  I still rent a few DVD's but for the most part it all ends up on Netflix or Amazon.

    But I am clueless when it comes to current TV/Movie references and I am the jack@ss that has to to tell people, 'no spoiler alerts' for stuff that came out like 2 years ago.

    What I have discovered, that I generally hate all those shows, because when you watch them back to back, you realize the trickery they use to keep you watching doesn't work when there isn't a week of anticipation and media hype.  The same is true to a lesser degree for commercials, to me if there is not a break, the anticipation is greatly reduced.

    Not sure if that is good or bad, but almost everything people have hyped, I can't make it out of season one.  The pulp culture aspect is more influential then I ever considered.  Still can't make it out of season 1 of Breaking Bad, Dexter, or Orange is the new Black.

    Parent

    Yeah, there are fewer and fewer (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    I feel the need to see when they are first released. Could definitely have waited for Showtime to give Netflix have Homeland and The Affair.

    Maybe I will break the bonds too.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:13:52 PM EST
    as I said there are great things coming on HBO that I will definitely judge worth the price.   And I really really love The Knick.   And another MAX show Banshee.
    As much as I like Outlander and Black Sails on STARZ I may Netflix them.

    I got what DISH calls (something like) the Top 250.  Which gives me all the basics plus the Encore channels, The Movue Channel channels and 5 or 6 other movie type channels.   I really need a commercial free choice.

    But by doing that my bill went from about 180 something  to 80 something buck a month.

    Parent

    Nice! I definitly need to re-eavluate my options (none / 0) (#172)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    Bad news re: The Bridge - not picked up for a third season, at least not by the original network it was on  ...was it F/X?

    Parent
    That is bad news (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:24:20 PM EST
    But everybody's getting into the act.  BBC has a new series with Brian Cox called The Game that looks great.

    Parent
    Slado-out there? (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    speaking of Walking Dead.  Wondering if you think this season is as totally kick a$$ as I do?   There really has not been a dull moment.

    Parent
    More Catholic than the Pope: (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    Conservatives certainly have their panties all knotted up in a bunch over that wild and crazy Pope Francis, to the point where they now want to go Old Testament on His Holiness's a$$.

    That's perfectly understandable, really, given this Pontiff's cockamamie notion that serving the greater good for humanity's sake actually matters more than kowtowing to an increasingly politicized and militant conservative doctrine.

    Ross Douthat, the professional Catholic convert who loves to lecture the rest of us about what it takes to be a real Catholic -- and to think of all those years I wasted as a youth in Catholic schools -- goes so far as to warn Francis that the Holy Mother Church stands on the precipice of schism.

    With all due respect, Douthat is the type of holier-than-thou guy for whom my late Catholic grandmother had no patience or use, the man who wears his religion so prominently on his sleeve while failing to make room for true faith in his own heart.

    Like I and others here have said before, I'm really liking Pope Francis. If Douthat and the other malcontented Catholic retrogrades want to long for the olden days when the Magdalene Laundries was once considered enlightened social policy, then let them seek the Lord themselves armed only with a washboard, bucket of scalding water and some dirty sheets, all under the watchful eye of Sister Mary Hellsablazin.

    Have a blessed day.

    You know, I do find frequently (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    that the converts to Eastern Orthodoxy tend to be way more, shall I say, rigid and gung-ho about their adopted religion, whereas a lot (not all, but a lot) of the cradle Orthodox (as we call ourselves) are more laid back and much less rigid about the whole thing.  The converts do tend to lecture the rest of us, as well.
    It seems as if the Roman Catholic Church suffers from the same type of thing.
    Maybe Douthat should change his name to "Doubt-that" when it comes to the Pope's actions and pronouncements.
    Oh, and BTW, when the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch attended Pope Francis' installation in Rome (a truly historic and significant event), guess who had the most problems with that?  A lot of our converts (as well, of course, as did the most conservative elements of the Orthodox Church).
    I do like Pope Francis.  I just wish he wasn't so old.  May he have a long life!


    Parent
    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    When it comes to religion, I find nothing more annoying and irritating than the furious fervor of the converted faithful -- or perhaps that should be, the faithfully converted. Listening to bozos like Ross Douthat makes me want to go retro as well, and toss a few of them into the Halem'uma'u lava lake on Kilauea to appease the wrath of Pele.

    While such people have every right to conduct their own personal lives in accordance with whatever they perceive "the Lord's Truth" to be, their faith does not endow them with the divine authority to define for the rest of us the parameters by which we're each to practice our own spiritual and / or secular beliefs.

    I was watching a local public television show the other night called "Island Issues." And once again, I had to endure the twisted logic of this crazed Evangelical from New Hope Church, who's running for the state legislature from our district, and promising to work for the repeal of our recently enacted marriage equality statutes because such laws are "an abomination."

    She and I had a serious run-in two months ago at a local candidate's forum over the same issue. When she told me that I was risking eternal damnation by supporting LGBT civil rights, I simply responded that I preferred to keep my own counsel on such matters and that I'd gladly take my chances with the Lord.

    I really do have pathos and empathy for these people, of whom so many have had such messed-up personal lives that religion offers them a promise of order as a counterweight to the chaos. But Lordy, how they do test my patience sometimes!

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Keep fighting the good fight, Donald. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    After viewing some of the Hubble, (et al), observatory pics I find it pretty hard to believe in the petulant, small minded god some people try to jam down our collective gullets.

    The smaller minded the people the smaller minded their god seems to be.  Funny how that works.

    Parent

    Well, I have always thought (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    That, if the Evangelicals are right (not that I think they are), Heaven must be a pretty boring place, and all the interesting people are in Hell.   ;-)
    The whole "Rapture" thing that the Evangelicals are so enamored of also makes me wonder about them.  A whole lot.
    As far as I'm concerned, if they're right about this (which I in no way believe they are), then let them be transported up and leave the rest of us reasonable people down here to go on and make a much more decent world without the loonies.
    Okay, maybe I am being unkind to them, but this is what I think.

    Parent
    You are sounding like me there (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:48:56 PM EST
    i have also thought that the idea of the rapture where all "those people" magically disappear to leave the rest of of in peace never sounded that bad.  

    On another subject of this thread.  I was reading the links in Donald's post about the Pope and one link leads to another and another and another and I was surprised to learn, though I probably should not have been, that the fact that Francis is the AntiChrist is quite a popular conspiracy theory.

    Parent

    Don't feel bad (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 07:50:36 AM EST
    I feel the same way and they're also wrong about the rapture according to biblical scholars. Needless to say their kind of rapture might leave the rest of us to live in peace.

    Parent
    Josh went to church with his sister yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    He went to a class titled How To Get Into Heaven 101.  He said afterwards his sister teased him by saying he wouldn't get into heaven.  He snorted back that that has been made pretty clear to him.  He said he didn't take communion either.  I told him that that was okay.  When I was a kid the blood went down okay, but the body of Christ was more difficult.  I didn't chew, chewing Jesus is inappropriate.  So the cracker sat on my tongue and became soft until it felt to me like it had really turned into flesh.  And then I would have to try not to gag.

    He's a hoot.  He says, "Great, first human sacrifice and then cannibalism, nothing pagan to see here :)"

    Parent

    There is a Chinese candy (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    known as haw flakes, made from Chinese hawthorn fruit, that is the exact size and shape(not the same color, which is a brownish-red) of communion wafers.  My Scottish-Chinese Catholic mother used to play communion with her friends using this candy as the Host.

    Parent
    I can (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    just see Josh using his sarcastic wit over the whole thing. Anyway, tell him that evangelicals believe that if you click your heels together three times and say over and over Jesus is my personal lord and savior you are automatically going to heaven. Remember what you actually do doesn't matter for the most part. Once you're "saved" you pretty much have a blank check.

    Parent
    Yup, he said that's what they told him (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    Yesterday.  He can be as good a person as could be imagined and notta!  They also told him there is a book titled 'Can Liberals Go to Heaven?' but I can't find that on Google.  But he was told good works get you nothing while magic words and being saved do.

    Then he started talking about parental pressures, because many of his friends have that with religion.  I expressed sympathy for them.  He then told me that there are many kinds of parental pressure and I have raised him and I practically coded him to be a Liberal but he is developing his own political views.  He was sort of hands on hips :)

    I told him if he had views different than mine he couldn't get into heaven...joke, joke.  Then I asked him what his differing views were.  He said that he has a different view on abortion, and I did suspect that. He also said that he disagrees with me that we contributed to the creation of ISIL, ISIL is all our fault...100%  Joshua has spoken

    Parent

    Detrich Bonhoeffer (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    called it "cheap grace" and the evangelicals offer cheap grace but they bucketfuls.

    Parent
    by the (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    bucketfuls. I must have Howdy's spellcheck boogieman in my computer.

    Parent
    The converted-to-anything (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    can occasionally have the know-it-better-than-those-already-there posture and pronouncement.  OTOH, I realize that it is important for all of us to be shaken/awakened from the complacency of wherever we are, sometimes it seems that recently being imbued with the "aha" can turn some into the Cotton Mather-type of proponent.  Whether the "convert" is the one who gave up smoking or discovered climate change & global warming or evolved from voting for a Reagan/Bush or other Repubs, the changed can decide to preach to all of us who have been in the choir for awhile.

    I really love Pope Francis for so many breath-of-fresh-air reasons.  For one thing, he eschews all kinds of pecking-orders.  Today at Mass, the priest noted on this All Souls Day (aka Dia de los Muertos) that this Pope has a practice of going to the cemetery on All Saints Day (November 1st) as a reminder of the unity of all of us, ordinary people and saints, and as a reminder that we all have the saint within us.  (Later, when I went to the cemetery to visit my sister's earthly resting place, I told her that.)  What a wonderful, hopeful view of life and of heaven!

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    I believe that at this troubled juncture in its long history, the Roman Catholic Church is truly blessed to have a good and decent soul like Francis at its helm.

    Parent
    The danger of a schism in the (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    Catholic Church is a vapid voice like that of Ross Douthat.  He and his conservative ilk want it both ways: endorse the authority of the Pope when you agree with the views proposed and question it when you do not.  His vapidity of argument is illustrated by his illustration of Henry VIII and, in its way, papal stare decisis.  Douthat does not appear to get the complicated historical context and the specifics of a King who off'd two of his wives. Not much of an argument in opposition to communion for the remarried.
    For almost two decades, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have systematically tried to undermine and unravel Vatican II.  A happy period for conservatives; but a period of "just get over it, we have our Pope"  to  those who believed in the revolutionary changes set forth in 1962-1965.  Douthat et at. need to relax and try to understand even if that is not in their make-up.

    Parent
    Both articles linked (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    are sort of shocking to an outsider.  

    Let's start with the lead "is the Pope Catholic?"

    Parent

    - More songs about time (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:33:51 PM EST
    Time in a Bottle, by Jim Croce.

    Kurt Weill's September Song, sung by Lou Reed

    Love is so short, forgetting love so long... - from Neruda's The Saddest Poem, interpreted by Ute Lemper in her collection of a dozen Pablo Neruda poems, part of which you can listen to here.

    Chambers (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    DA-um (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    Even better (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:55:31 PM EST
    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    this might be subtitled "the original MORE COWBELL".

    I saw them do this live once for about 30-40 minutes.  It's an experience your head never fully recovers from.

    Parent

    Had you heard ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    ... about this? I haven't heard any more about the kickstarter campaign for Lester Chambers since 2012.

    Parent
    I actually learned about it (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:41:11 PM EST
    when I was looking for those videos.  Great that such an iconic entertainer may find a happy ending after all these years.

    Love this

    "We've got a lawyer now," Chambers said. "It's called the computer."


    Parent
    Speaking of time (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:45:28 PM EST
    daylight saving time is always such a shock

    Dark at 5:30.

    Parent

    and light at 6 am...that is even more of a shock! (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    Brittany Murphy.... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by desertswine on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:57:27 PM EST
    fought the good fight, god bless.

    Brittany Maynard (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 06:47:35 AM EST
    not Murphy (Brittany Murphy was the actress who died in 2009).

    Maynard's decision may not have been the one everyone would have made in the same situation, but I completely respect and understand it; just knowing she had the option must have been a comfort to her, and who would want to deny that small measure to someone in the terminal, deteriorating and painful situation she was facing?  

    Godspeed.

    Parent

    The late (and great) Frank Zappa (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    once said, "The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life."-FZ

    More power to anyone who find it necessary to follow Ms. Maynard's path.


    Parent

    I automatically give a 5 (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    to anyone who quotes FZ.

    I also agree.

    Parent

    Capt. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    Do you ever wonder what Frank's take would be on the current state of today's so-called politicians? Frank was no liberal but I believe he would eviscerate today's nutballs on the right.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    almost daily

    Parent
    One thing for sure (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    he would make Bill Maher look like a choir boy for his views on religion.  I saw Zappy live many times.  He was VERY political.  One of the last time I saw him there was a gigantic banner over the stage that said TAX THE CHURCHES.

    Parent
    If I could turn back time. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    It would be 1983 and I would be living back in Ocean Beach in San Diego, California. Working the door at the Beach Club, hanging out with Detour Derek and Lost Boys and driving my 1965 split windshield VW Transporter camper conversion. Uniform of the day, OP shorts, flip flops and a t-shirt from a local watering hole.

    I would not turn back time (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by CST on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    I've earned every year, wouldn't want to give any of them back, and I wouldn't want to live any of them over again.

    Maybe to a couple months ago, there's some things I'd do differently - but that's it.  Anything further back then that and you start running into the law of unintended consequences.  And if you put a gun to my head I'd probably say that the things I'd redo from a few months ago were probably for the best in the long run, it's just in the short run it can be hard to keep the big picture in mind.

    Half of "Click and Clack (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    The Tappet Brothers" of NPR's Car Talk fame, has died.
    Rest in peace, Tom Magliozzi.  You and your brother Ray provided us with many, many hours of entertainment and information about our vehicles.  You will be missed.
    Link

    Ah jeez. (none / 0) (#161)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    Don't drive like my brother. (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    And don't drive (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    like my brother.   ;-)

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    drive like my 21 year old son. He has gotten two tickets in less than a year.

    Parent
    Audiobook recommendation (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    Alan Cumming's "Not My Father's Son", read by the author.  He tells the story of his boyhood in Scotland and physical and mental abuse from his father, interspersed with anecdotes from his later/current life, and research into his ancestry.  I am glad the later stories, told with great wit and charm, are interspersed with the horror of his childhood or it would be really hard to listen to.

    If you want Alan's beautiful voice in your head for many hours (and who wouldn't?), give it a listen.  

    When did Fox News premier? (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    I'd like to turn back time to right before that, when it was still possible to have a rational political discussion with Republicans.

    The irony (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:18:04 PM EST
    is that you can predict with 95% certainty what they are going to say before they say it. They all seem to use preprogrammed talking points. I think it's hilarious that you can speak to five different conservatives and they will say almost exactly the same thing.

    Parent
    It's not just conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:15:24 PM EST
    It's pretty easy to predict what lots of hard core liberals (on TV and in real life) are going to say as well.

    This blog is a very good example.

    Parent

    Acutally (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    this blog is NOT a good example of that. The big orange is.

    Parent
    I can pretty much guess (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    what most people around here are going to say on any given topic.

    Like watching MSNBC.  Fox doesn't have the market cornered on that one.

    Parent

    true dat (none / 0) (#192)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    That still doesn't make this a liberal blog.

    Parent
    The commenters are (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:10:20 PM EST
    I should have referred to the comments and not the blog itself.

    But most of you are pretty predictable on most subjects.  I am in some ways too, but I think my comments have to do more with the contests and horse racing aspect rather than what I think is good policy.  Unfortunately, some people around here who don't choose to read very carefully conflate that with "support".

    Parent

    I don't conflate your (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    analysis with advocacy. I've made that distinction many a time.

    And I think as individuals most long-time commenters are quite predictable also. But that still doesn't make this a liberal blog.

    I know this for sure because I am a wild-eyed, knee-jerk, tree-hugging, safety net supporting, union-loving, know-I-missed-stuff, bleeding-heart liberal. :)

    Parent

    In my view (none / 0) (#191)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    the big orange is more neo-liberal than liberal.

    And I agree that "this blog" isn't a good example either. Like BigO, there are plenty of non-liberals here.

    Without rancor, I would say that jb with her appreciation of authority is a prime example of the type of commenter that keeps this from being a "liberal blog". As are J's views on gun control.

    There is a commenter for whom the military does no wrong.

    There is a commenter to whom Obama is wise and insightful.

    All of those are opinions, and as such are perfectly valid. But they aren't liberal.

    Parent

    Mmmm... (none / 0) (#201)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    I prefer to think of myself more as not jumping into to the "all authority is bad" bandwagon as a knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at all the facts (or ignoring those facts that inconveniently show that yes, some/many people that are accused of crimes are actually, you know, guilty).  That doesn't mean I'm not liberal in other respects.  But, whatever.


    Parent
    I know, darlin' (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    Mmmm... (none / 0) (#201)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:16:19 PM MDT

    I prefer to think of myself more as not jumping into to the "all authority is bad" bandwagon as a knee-jerk reaction without actually looking at all the facts...

    I know. We all have self-delusions. It's okay.

    Parent
    Is it just me? (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    i don't think I have ever just wanted an election to be over as much as this one.   I'm starting to not even care who wins.  I just want it to be over.

    Sadly it almost certainly won't be until January.

    No, not just you (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    I think that ever since I learned at some point over a year ago that due to the configuration of Senate seats up for election this time, the GOP was highly likely to take the Senate back, I resigned myself to that and just want to get it over with. The only thing in doubt is whether Dems lose enough seats for it to be considered 'a GOP wave', but the media is going to make their minds up about that depending on what narrative they have decided on, so the actual results barely matter.

    I am most interested in the FL gov race - will we get the sleazy ex Republican, or the sleazy current Republican?

    Parent

    This weekend I watched (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by sj on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:23:19 PM EST
    Some episodes on my DVR that were there since early this summer (don't ask). Many of the same type of Corey Gardner commercials as those playing now.

    Yeah, I can't wait for it to be over.

    Parent

    For everyone who may be gasping (2.00 / 2) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 06:47:52 PM EST
    for air after reading the latest prediction from the UN, I note that one of the most important requirements of a Scientific Theory is that it have
    predictive capability.

    pre·dic·tive
    prəˈdiktiv/
    adjective
    relating to or having the effect of predicting an event or result.
    "predictive accuracy"

    But none of the wild claims of doom made by the UN's hoxers have come true.

    A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.

    The report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by someone involved in the IPCC's review process, and is available for download online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated the rise in temperature that Earth actually experienced.

    "Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted," Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

    Link

    There now. We can all relax.

    Up early, I forgot (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:20:19 AM EST
    Neil Patrick Harris has joined the Freak Show, the American Horror Story: Freak Show that is. Sources confirm to E! News that Harris and his husband David Burtka will appear at the tail end of the FX hit's current season.

    NEWS/ Yes, All of American Horror Story's Seasons Are Connected!

    And now, co-creator Ryan Murphy has finally ended the speculation: All of AHS' seasons are in fact connected!
    "They're all connected. We're just beginning to tell you how they're connected," Murphy said in an interview with EW.com. "They're all very separate but there's clues every season that we're now telling you how the different worlds are intertwined."


    SNL (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:29:23 AM EST
    Conservatives speaking for themselves (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    Conservatives Are Already Freaking Out About Jeb Bush's Possible Run For President

    During a prominent gathering of conservatives in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire, the largest spattering of boos among the crowd didn't come at speakers' frequent mentions of President Barack Obama.

    The loudest jeers came when a speaker would mention former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
    ...
    Steve Deace, a prominent conservative in the crucial early presidential state of Iowa, summed up conservatives' problem with Jeb Bush: He's everything they hated about Romney, and nothing they liked about him.

    " I'm saying there's a chance" Bush could win the backing of conservatives and the nomination, Deace told Business Insider in an email, adding, "The same chance I have to  look good in a thong."

    It is a long article but the political junkies among us should read the whole thing.

    I think this (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    Steve Deace guy has been inhaling the toxic fumes of his Iowa cohort, Joni Ernst,  too long.  And, if the Republicans do take the US Senate he will be all the more emboldened in his quest for a high wacko presidential candidate.  But, he underestimates both the Republicans, who, when it comes down to it,  want to win with any warm body,  and Jeb Bush. the elastic, cellophane man.  

    Jeb is the smartest member of the Bush family, which is not, admittedly, a high bar when considering W. and Daddy.  Jeb will be as nimble as Romney but with  disingenuousness that is less glaringly apparent.  And, the Republicans will warm to his deceit.   Deace would be well advised to get to a gym, just in case that thong needs donning.   Bush/Miss Lindsey 2016. .

    Parent

    While your comment is thought provoking (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:19:56 AM EST
    as always, the 5 was for

    Deace would be well advised to get to a gym, just in case that thong needs donning.

    I almost took it back due to the fact that the thought of Miss Lindsey anywhere near the White House gives me nightmares.

    Parent

    And Jeb (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    has a Latina wife

    Parent
    And "little brown ones" (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    per Grandpa.

    Parent
    And just look how well they did as parents! (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    Daughter Noelle fell in love with oxycontin and got arrested arrested for prescription fraud, while son George P. took Daddy's car and performed a series of figure-eights on the lawn of his ex-girlfriend's parents after she broke up with him.

    Of course, neither kids nor Daddy Jeb can hold a candle to the brazen deeds of Great-Grandpa Prescott Bush and Great-Great-Grandpa George Walker, wanton admirers of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini who were first implicated in a plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 because he took the country off the gold standard, and then were later found to still be doing business with Nazi Germany -- in late 1942, no less.

    It's really too bad that FDR didn't take the time to have Prescott Bush and George Walker arrested for treason when he had the opportunity, and then have the family's assets confiscated. He could've saved his nation a whole lot of grief some fifty to sixty years hence.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Now, now, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    I don't believe that what the kids do when they are older is necessarily the fault of the parents.  Sometimes, you do everything you can do as parents, and the kids still go off the rails.
    And I really don't think that the sins of our grandparents, great-grandparents, and other ancestors, transfer to future generations.  I don't blame current Germans for what the Nazis did, and I don't blame current Turks for what the Ottoman Empire did to the Greeks, the Armenians, and others in the region.  (Well, I do blame them for making it illegal for the Armenian Holocaust to be taught or even mentioned publicly today in Turkey, but that's a different thing.)
    Does that mean that I want Jeb Bush to run?  No, I don't.  I haven't liked the Bushes for a number of years.
    But I don't think it's fair to paint all descendants with the same broad brush.  There are plenty of reasons to dislike Jeb Bush without talking about his kids or his ancestors.

    Parent
    I don't even dislike Jeb B. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:09:15 PM EST
    But I do believe that electing a third member of their pseudo dynasty would seal our doom as a nation.  We might as well slap a Stuck-on-Stupid bumpersticker on our national forehead and a Kick-Me bumpersticker on our behind.

    Parent
    I don't like (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    the whole idea of family "dynasties," whether Republican or Democrat.  The Republican dynasties, as far as I'm concerned, are way worse.
    But even the Dems (and I'm thinking the Clintons, here) are enamored of the dynastic stuff.  Yes, Hillary, while not my ideal choice, would be way, way better than Jeb.
    We are not a frigging monarchy, and I am sick and tired of the whole idea that, because your last name is "X," you automatically should ascend into politics and be elected.

    Parent
    Still (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    the wife of a president seems, to me at least, less dynastic that the son of a president.  Or two sons.  Or a son and grandson.  

    (Yes, Kennedys)

    Parent

    Absolutely, the Kennedys. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 11:36:39 PM EST
    Please don't remind me of the time in 1999 when I had the misfortune to squire around town the Honorable Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), who was then chairing the DCCC. The guy hit on my wife's visiting younger sister, a married woman -- and that was the least of it. Now there's one guy who should never have been in Congress, and got there only because of family pedigree.

    I'm generally no fan of the Kennedys, either, although I have come to admire both Robert F. and his brother Edward for their obvious capacity to grow as both persons and politicians -- Robert in particular, given the rather wretched company he kept in the early 1950s.

    How different this country might have turned out, had RFK not been assassinated in June 1968 and instead been elected president that November. You listen to the speeches he gave the last two years of his life, and you can't help but realize that he truly had his finger on the pulse of the nation, and understood what needed to be done.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    How would Clinton = Dynasty? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:25:47 PM EST
    First, she's married to the guy, not bred by him. And second, she has been working and brings her own credentials. It's not like she's trying to go from FLOTUS to POTUS . . . Although she would have been a heck of a lot better than whatshisname (no not the current dude!) if she had . . . :P

    Parent
    I can agree only in part, Zorba. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    Lord knows, I have close family members who've had serious personal issues and runs-in with the law, and in that regard, I have some empathy for Jeb as a father.

    That said, the Bush clan has clearly raised successive generations of their progeny with both a very undeserving sense of self-entitlement, and a painfully warped notion of what it means to go into public service.

    I further agree that as parents, we cannot necessarily control or even influence every action of our own children and grandchildren, especially as they get older and develop minds of their own.

    But that also said, we are also wholly responsible for the examples we choose to set for those children and grandchildren, and for the personal values we choose to impart to the generations that succeed us in this world.

    And quite frankly, given the evidence in that regard, the examples the Bush family has set and the values its members extol have sucked in equal parts for the better part of a century, and they've conducted themselves accordingly to our nation's long-term detriment.

    If the Bushes want to live lives of self-absorption and greed like characters on an episode of "Dallas,", that's their business. But if that's the case, then they should do it on their own time and their own dime. They shouldn't run for elective office as a means to harness the public domain for their family's own personal ambitions.

    We do not live in 16th century Florence, and we have no need nor use for any latter-day Medici's.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    so eloquently stated in another context:

    "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

    Parent

    Comparing (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    political families you don't like with a quote approving forced sterilization and eugenics?

    Really?

    Parent

    That's why I included the words (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    "in a different context" instead of just posting the bare quote.

    Parent
    To be precise (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    "in another context."

    Parent
    And it's still a horrible quote (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    even if you were making a joke.

    Parent
    I'm sorry that you lack a sense of humor (2.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    or proportion, along with an inability to read for meaning.  

    Parent
    Really! (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    Well, he did say it was in another context. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:42:27 AM EST
    And considering the often tragic reign of error that was George W. Bush's & Co.'s time in the White House, I'd offer that "imbeciles" isn't really all that much of a stretch.

    Parent
    And where would Moe of the (none / 0) (#130)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    Three Stogies be if he'd been unable to use the word imbecile?

    Parent
    Donald, you (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    did not mention the "bad judgment" of Jeb's wife, Columba, for  the discrepancy in valuation of jewelry and clothes to US Customs Agents at the Atlanta airport on return from a shopping spree in Paris.    $19,000 valued at $500 to Customs and a $4100 fine.  

    Parent
    LOL! Isn't that precious! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    If I didn't mention it, it's because I didn't know about it. But I do now, thanks to you! It neatly sums up that family's arrogance in one simple story. Thank you again for mentioning it and providing a link to the story.

    Given everything we know about them, if we as a country still choose to send yet another Bush to the White House, we'll get exactly what we deserve.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    They can use that in his (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    Commercials to woo the Hispanic vote.

    Parent
    Eric Erickson agrees with you somewhat (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 05:56:37 PM EST
    While he believes Jeb's last name will be an issue, he also had this to say at the bottom of my linked article:

    As Erickson said, "He has Romney's position, and Romney got the nomination."

    "  I think we need someone new to be the party's leader," he said. "It's just no one is sure who that should be, which gives  Jeb  an advantage."

    Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of National Review online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute:

    The trouble is, fairly or unfairly, that brand is tarnished. Among the rank and file of the GOP -- particularly among Tea Party types -- no one wants to see another Bush on the ballot. It's not unimaginable that a Bush nomination would spark a significant third-party movement on the right.
    ...
    It's less clear how well Bush would do as a nominee. Assuming he could keep the Tea Party right from bolting (a big assumption that might require putting Ted Cruz or Rand Paul on the ticket), Bush would have a lot of appeal to independents and a significant number of Latinos. Ironically, running against Clinton would make things easier for him because only in comparison to her (or Joe Biden) would yet another Bush seem like a fresh start. link

    I haven't been able to form an opinion on Jeb's chances yet which is why I wanted to expand the discussion. Your argument on any warm body definitely has merit. OTOH I also think that the most conservative elements of the Republican Party will be strongly opposed to Jeb's candidacy.

    As much as I hate to agree with Goldberg on anything, I do think that Bush would have to choose a favorite of the "Tea Party types"  as a choice for the VP spot.

    Parent

    I'm not sure a VP would stop a 3rd party (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:05:59 PM EST
    I think it's really likely there will be a right wing third party candidate in '16.  Mike Huckabee has all but said he will run if they pick a Bush or Christi or Romney.  Ted Cruz would also consider it.

    I think the nominee will be a right winger.   I was reading some conservative site the other day (sane conservative site) and the case was being made to "let them do it"
    The argument being Hillary is probably going to win no matter what because of demographics among other things and the Tea Party types are never going to shut up with the "if only they had been more conservative" stuff until they are allowed to try it their way.   So let them.

    Parent

    If Bush, Christi or Romney get the (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    nomination, I do think the establishment GOP will try to appease the more extreme elements with a VP pick. It, as you state, might not work but I do think they will try.

    A serious, well funded "Tea Party type" 3rd. Party candidate might make the 2016 election interesting especially if either Bush or Christi are chosen as the nominee. Would like to see them tear into each other during the run up to the general. I would have to stock up on popcorn so I could sit back and enjoy the show.

    Parent

    To clarify (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    especially if either Bush or Christi are chosen as the GOP nominee.

    Parent
    It would be interesting (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    with the establishment candidate getting all the corporate money and the 3rd party getting all the grass root money.

    Wonder who the Kochs would support?

    Parent

    The insanity will continue (none / 0) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    No doubt (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    it's interesting Joni Earnst has also said she wont support McConnell.  And the indie guy in Kansas has said he would not support Reid or McConnell.

    The internal republican war is likely to intensify if the do get power.  There are those who think they should actually govern going into 2016.  Cruz not being among them.

    Parent

    Joni (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:40:29 PM EST
    Perdue (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 06:50:28 AM EST
    has said that he would not vote for McConnell either. Really these people should be sending money to Alison Grimes so that they aren't going to have to prove whether they are loyal to Mitch or not.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:19:52 AM EST
    Jeb Bush is boring.  He's like GWB, but without the charisma.  He's going to be a tough sell to all the Tea Party types, but the Establishment Republicans will see that he gets funding if he does go for a 2016 run.

    Parent
    To be clear, I am not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    a supporter of Jeb Bush nor do I vote for Republicans.

    That you find him boring does not negate the fact that he has been in the news as a possible GOP presidential candidate.

    Since you are somewhat new to this blog, you may not be aware that in the past at least half of the posts were geared to discussing politics. Jeb's possible run has been discussed recently on this blog. My link was an attempt to flesh out this discussion by adding additional content.

    As with all posts on the blog, if a subject bores you, you have the option to scroll by until you find a subject that interests you.    

    Parent

    They talk about Chris Christe (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:46:14 AM EST
    running, even though Hillary Clinton outpolls the guy in his own state, let alone the rest of the country.

    Same thing with Ebola Perry, the political chatterers talk about Republicans running for President even though they're all polling at abysmal levels right now.

    Just because a bunch of news people and a few banckers think Jeb has a chance, doesn't mean he does.

    If you're here to merely regurgitate what other write without thinking about it, that isn't discussion or analysis, no matter how you spin it.

    Parent

    Feel free to enlighten us with (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:02:47 AM EST
    your great and thoughtful analysis on the politics of the day or any other subject you think is interesting. It would definitely be a change of pace from your usual mundane, predictable sniping.

    Go back to exchanging school yard taunts with Jim. I'm not interested in continuing this game.

    Parent

    Mo (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:09:33 AM EST
    Since I woke up early I was watching cable news.  Norm Ornstein made an interesting point and I wondered if you agree.
    The subject was, of course, the senate.  They were making predictions.  He made the point that both Louisiana and Georgia will go into runoffs and the Ferguson decision will come down between the election and the runoff and he thought it might very well influence AA turnout enough to tip both races toward the democrats.

    It was something i had not considered.

    Parent

    What you have to take into account is (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:09:00 AM EST
    the fact that it is a Democrat orchestrating the Brown GJ. The AA community strongly believes that McCulloch, a Democrat,  has structured the GJ so that it will definitely return a no bill on Wilson. There is some history that lends credence to their belief.

    Also, the CW is that the only action from the Democratic Justice Department will be recommendations on improvements to the local processes.

    A group of local African Americans have expressed strong disapproval of the Democratic Party to the point of stating that they will vote for the Republican for County Executive and encouraging others to vote for anyone but the Dem. Others  have also spoke of writing in other names for that position.

    If as I believe, the GJ returns a no bill and no concrete action is taken at the Federal level, it will be a real crap shot on how it effects the Democratic Party's relationship with the AA community.

     Will it have a nationwide effect or just a local effect? Will it make some reevaluate their relationship with the party? Will it cause more apathy or get more people out to the polls?

    These, IMO, are just some of the possibilities. Bottom line, I believe it is too soon to form any conclusion on the fall out other than the fact that there will be considerable fallout.

    Parent

    That's pretty much what I thought (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    which is why I thought it might be noteworthy Ornstein, a pretty smart guy, said it.

    Parent
    New Lies Exposed in Ferguson (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. government agreed to a police request to restrict more than 37 square miles of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests.
    ...
    The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Police Department, which responded to demonstrations following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media from witnessing the violence or the police response.

    Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to shots fired at a police helicopter.

    But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter shooting as unconfirmed ``rumors.'' link



    Parent
    That's disturbing (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:34:59 PM EST
    Have the Missouri GOP... (none / 0) (#140)
    by unitron on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    ...been doing their best to institute voter ID laws and shortened poll hours and all that other "Keep those people from voting" stuff?

    Because it would be such poetic justice if doing so meant that they weren't actually able to get and benefit from all those AA "punish the Dems for McCulloch" votes because of it.

    Parent

    They have been doing their best (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    but not a done deal yet.

    Here is a link that explain what is going on.

    Also, it is unclear what the turn out will be, how many people will vote for the R, how many will write in someone else or how many will vote the D out of habit.
     

    Parent

    Unsolicited advice: given you are a newbie (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    here, perhaps you should think twice b/4 criticizing other commenters.

    Parent
    Gee, I like the dispassionate analysis (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:10:23 AM EST
    and refusal to engage in personal attacks and stick to the issues at hand around here.

    Parent
    Jeb (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    has about zero chance of getting the GOP nomination and the article pretty much backs it up.

    Besides did you read where the Bush family is concerned about how George W. trashed the family name? What about the rest of us in the country? We're supposed to suffer through another Bush administration so that Jeb can "restore their family legacy"? No thanks.

    Parent

    Was their legacy that great? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    And is Jeb even capable of restoring their legacy back to mediocrity when many issues like climate change are reaching critical mass?

    Parent
    climate change.... reaching critical mass (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    Today's NY Times, By JUSTIN GILLIS

    In the starkest language they have ever used, climate experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said food shortages, mass extinctions and flooding are likely without immediate action.

    COPENHAGEN -- The gathering risks of climate change are so profound they could stall or even reverse generations of progress against poverty and hunger if greenhouse gas emissions continue at a runaway pace, according to a major new United Nations report.

    Despite rising efforts in many countries to tackle the problem, the overall global situation is growing more acute as developing countries join the West in burning huge amounts of fossil fuels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said here on Sunday.

    Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, the mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.
    "Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems," the report declared

    Some hoax, heh?

    Parent

    The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    Give us your money!!! Do as we tell you!!

    And this is what is going to happen according to the experts.

    Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases - all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

    No! Wait!!!!!! This is what is going to happen according to the experts.

    Failure to reduce emissions, the group of scientists and other experts found, could threaten society with food shortages, refugee crises, the flooding of major cities and entire island nations, the mass extinction of plants and animals, and a climate so drastically altered it might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year.

    One is global cooling. One is global warming.

    You pick'em.

    Parent

    Except there is plenty of evidence for (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    AGW, and we have better instrumentation and better theories than we did in 1975, when the article you excerpted from first was printed in Newsweek.

    And, of course, science is about understanding things, not imposing a dogma:

    "Global warming was not as understood as we thought," said Zhaohua Wu, an assistant professor of meteorology at FSU.

    Wu led a team of climate researchers including Fei Ji, a visiting doctoral student at FSU's Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS); Eric Chassignet, director of COAPS; and Jianping Huang, dean of the College of Atmospheric Sciences at Lanzhou University in China. The group, using an analysis method newly developed by Wu and his colleagues, examined land surface temperature trends from 1900 onward for the entire globe, minus Antarctica.

    Previous work by scientists on global warming could not provide information of non-uniform warming in space and time due to limitations of previous analysis methods in climate research.

    The research team found that noticeable warming first started around the regions circling the Arctic and subtropical regions in both hemispheres. But the largest accumulated warming to date is actually at the northern midlatitudes. They also found that in some areas of the world, cooling had actually occurred.

    "The global warming is not uniform," Chassignet said. "You have areas that have cooled and areas that have warmed."

    For example, from about 1910 to 1980, while the rest of the world was warming up, some areas south of the equator -- near the Andes -- were actually cooling down, and then had no change at all until the mid 1990s. Other areas near and south of the equator didn't see significant changes comparable to the rest of the world at all.

    Also:

    JRC scientists analysed surface temperature data records -- which began in 1850 -- to separate natural variations from secular (i.e., long-term) trends. They identified three hiatus periods (1878-1907, 1945-1969 and 2001 to date), during which global warming slowed down. These hiatus periods coincide with natural cooling phases -- the multidecadal variability (MDV), most likely caused by natural oceanic oscillations. The scientists therefore conclude that the MDV is the main cause of these hiatus periods during which global warming decelerated.

    However, they found that the current hiatus period is, for the first time, particularly strongly influenced by changes in the secular trend, which shows a strong acceleration from 1992-2001 and a deceleration from 2002 to 2013.Such rapid and strong fluctuations in the secular warming rate are unprecedented.

    This unique fluctuation in the recent secular warming rate could have several causes, such as recent changes in the tropical Pacific Ocean, the accelerated melting of Arctic ice, changes in the deep ocean heat storage or the increasing content of aerosols in the stratosphere. The authors recommend further scientific investigation of the causes and consequences of this change, in order to address whether the global climate sensitivity has recently changed. Such research is crucial to understanding current climate conditions and creating plausible scenarios of future climate evolution.

    And, this:

    Using satellite observations and a large suite of climate models, Lawrence Livermore scientists have found that long-term ocean warming in the upper 700 meters of Southern Hemisphere oceans has likely been underestimated.

    "This underestimation is a result of poor sampling prior to the last decade and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimated temperature changes in data-sparse regions," said LLNL oceanographer Paul Durack, lead author of a paper appearing in the October 5 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change.

    Ocean heat storage is important because it accounts for more than 90 percent of Earth's excess heat that is associated with global warming. The observed ocean and atmosphere warming is a result of continuing greenhouse gas emissions. The Southern Hemisphere oceans make up 60 percent of the world's oceans.

    The team found that climate models simulate the relative increase in sea surface height -- a leading indicator of climate change -- between Northern and Southern hemispheres is consistent with highly accurate altimeter observations. However, separating the simulated upper-ocean warming in the Northern and Southern hemispheres is inconsistent with observed estimates of ocean heat content change. These sea level and ocean heat content changes should be consistent, and suggest that until recent improvements occurred in the observational system in the early 21st century, Southern Hemisphere ocean heat content changes were likely underestimated.

    I hate having to bring all these nasty and Leftist-librul facts to your attention, but, there it is.

    LOL!

    Parent

    Facts?? (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    Facts are that scientific theories have a "dogma" about them.

    That "dogma" prevents Charlatans from telling you that the Emperor has new clothes when he is actually naked.

    And here it is:

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

    BTW - Did you figure out which was GW and which was GC?

    lol

    Parent

    Read my comment again (none / 0) (#129)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    because you apparently missed that I did identify it, Jim.

    As for trotting out the dictionary, I really expected more from you, like, facts, that demonstrate AGW isn't a real thing.

    Good try though.  8/10.

    Parent

    Ah yes you did (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    of course that should not have been hard since the GW was copied from NYshooter's directly above.

    I love this:

    AGW, and we have better instrumentation and better theories than we did in 1975, when the article you excerpted from first was printed in Newsweek.

    Theories aren't "better." Theories are either correct or they are not. At least Scientific Theories are judged like that. Theories on why I didn't win my last tournament are different. I call them "educated guesses." ;-)

    And the better instrumentation is doing the opposite. Indeed, it should improve the "inductive and predictive" capabilities but they haven't.

    Of course my point was the similarity of the claims.......why.....

    You can't tell a crisis without a score card!

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

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

    link

    Parent

    Let me learn you a little (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    about scientific theory.

    Despite these differences, there are four basic foundations that underlie the idea, pulling together the cycle of scientific reasoning.

    Observation

    Most research has real world observation as its initial foundation. Looking at natural phenomena is what leads a researcher to question what is going on, and begin to formulate scientific questions and hypotheses.

    Any theory, and prediction, will need to be tested against observable data.

    Theories and Hypotheses

    This is where the scientist proposes the possible reasons behind the phenomenon, the laws of nature governing the behavior.

    Scientific research uses various scientific reasoning processes to arrive at a viable research problem and hypothesis. A theory is generally broken down into individual hypotheses, or problems, and tested gradually.

    Predictions

    A good researcher has to predict the results of their research, stating their idea about the outcome of the experiment, often in the form of an alternative hypothesis.

    Scientists usually test the predictions of a theory or hypothesis, rather than the theory itself. If the predictions are found to be incorrect, then the theory is incorrect, or in need of refinement.

    Data

    Data is the applied part of science, and the results of real world observations are tested against the predictions.

    If the observations match the predictions, the theory is strengthened. If not, the theory needs to be changed. A range of statistical tests is used to test predictions, although many observation based scientific disciplines cannot use statistics.

    The Virtuous Cycle

    This process is cyclical: as experimental results accept or refute hypotheses, these are applied to the real world observations, and future scientists can build upon these observations to generate further theories.

    Are you with me so far?

    Anyway, the problem with your personal example is that the theories about why youngest can't be tested, so they are unfalsifiable.   Being unfalsifiable, they remain theories.

    And yes, theories change, as new means of acquiring and manipulating data change, thus allowing theories to be falsifiable when they weren't 20, 10, or even 5 years ago.

    Toodle-loo, old chap.

    Parent

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    Anyway, the problem with your personal example is that the theories about why youngest can't be tested, so they are unfalsifiable.   Being unfalsifiable, they remain theories.

    Exactly, my Dear Watson. My poker theories can't be tested.

    Neither can the claims of man made global warming.

    And both have failed totally in the predictive mode.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Parent

    if you had specific facts to bring tom (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    This discussion to show where it had failed, that would be interesting, but so far you've demonstrated no such thing.

    As far as predictions are concerned:

    A paper authored by Sawyer and published in the journal Nature in 1972 reveals how much climate scientists knew about the fundamental workings of the global climate over 40 years ago. For example, Sawyer predicted how much average global surface temperatures would warm by the year 2000.

    "The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature - an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."

    Remarkably, between the years 1850 and 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did increase by very close to 25 percent, and global average surface temperatures also increased by just about 0.6°C during that time.

    Sawyer also discussed several other important aspects of the Earth's climate in his paper. For example, he addressed the myth and misunderstanding that as a trace gas in the atmosphere, it may seem natural to assume that rising levels of carbon dioxide don't have much impact on the climate. Sawyer wrote,

    "Nevertheless, there are certain minor constituents of the atmosphere which have a particularly significant effect in determining the world climate. They do this by their influence on the transmission of heat through the atmosphere by radiation. Carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone all play such a role, and the quantities of these substances are not so much greater than the products of human endeavour that the possibilities of man-made influences may be dismissed out of hand."



    Parent
    Wes Clark (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    Discussed this weekend that climate change kicked off the war in Syria.

    Here's an article on it.

    The Pentagon has released more study information stating that climate change is unequal to anything in destabilizing the world and is predicted by them to generate global conflict.  According to them, at this time nothing is a greater threat to our national security Jim.

    Parent

    As I've written before (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    Those crazy Liberals, The Joint Chiefs of Staff, have issued a declaration stating that Global Warming (or, Climate Change) is the #1 National Security issue facing the United States.

    The Pentagon is spending Billions retro-fitting equipment, changing fuel chemistries, installing solar panels, etc.

    It didn't happen without disputes and debates. But, presented with all the irrefutable evidence, even the most skeptical officers were, eventually, convinced that GW is a real, and present, danger.

    Parent

    Going to solar (2.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:39:36 PM EST
    so as to reduce fuel usage is a good thing given that fuel might become scarce in the event of a war.

    To do so to combat a non-event is stupid. The temp has plateaued for some 16-20 years.

    But then the military is famous for fighting the last war with the last war's weapons and tactics.

    When nuclear subs, very quiet and very fast, came out the navy was still wanting very expensive directional sonobuoys that didn't have the range needed.

    Parent

    If you have an electric car (none / 0) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:38:51 AM EST
    You can charge it for free on post now.

    Parent
    No, you can't charge it for free (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:30:49 PM EST
    You can charge it at the taxpayer's expense.

    Parent
    Heh, well everything is at the taxpayer (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    Expense.  Poor healthcare costs more than good healthcare and is at the taxpayer's expense.  Global warming disasters and wars will also be at the taxpayer's expense.  The cheaper solutions, the military will attempt to usher in at the taxpayer's expense also because in spite of what some think the last thing any good soldier wants to do is go to war.  They would rather work to avoid the next war, and all their work is at the taxpayer's expense whether it costs in blood or treasure.

    Parent
    Look, I don't mind the troops getting a perk (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:41:05 PM EST
    heaven knows the pay is bad enough that they deserve them.

    But let us not think they are "free." Ain't so.

    And I totally agree that the military, despite Hollywood's continual attempts to show it as evil and just "can't wait" to go to war, doesn't want a war. No sane person wants to go to combat.

    In fact, Mutually Assured Destruction, was based on exactly that and all our, and the Soviet's, early warning systems, were deployed in support of that.

    Parent

    It just proved the loonie libs (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    who believe in AGW have taken over the Pentagon.

    Just thought I'd save Jim some typing here.  :-)

    Parent

    I think he'd (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    just give the family name more people that hate it. His political judgement is as bad as his brother's. Remember he's the guy who was sending the Florida Highway Patrol IIRC out to "save" Teri Schiavo. As good as the GOP is at smearing people I'm sure one of the candidates will be push polling that Jeb's wife is an "illegal alien" and since these are same people who think Obama was born in Kenya, it'll be successful. I just more or less see him as the last hope for some in the party not to get a whacked out tea party candidate as the nominee.

    Parent
    Who do you think will get the (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    GOP nomination? Also, your best guess on VP.

    Parent
    Judging (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 06:55:34 AM EST
    from what I see--a tea partier because from what I'm seeing is that if the "establishment" candidate wins the GOP base sees him as another loser and feels that there is nothing to lose by running their own candidate.

    If Huckabee runs I think he would be the one that gets the nomination. Oh, the club for growth and others are certainly going to try to take him down but tea partiers love that guy.

    Parent

    I don't see a Tea Partier (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:01:01 AM EST
    getting the nomination, unless Hillary Clinton is in, every other Dem is out and she doesn't have a long primary process. A Tea Party nominee would be a sacrificial lamb - it would appease the crazy wing of the party, and when that person loses in a landslide, the grownups in the party will say, "See, we told you so."  

    I'm thinking someone like a John McCain in 2008, although he did get much closer than anyone (including him) probably ever thought = being 2 months out and actually leading in the polls for a time. Someone who's "next in line", with a more moderate governor as VP, and who will be the presumed nominee come 2020.

    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    don't see how a tea partier doesn't get nominated at this point and if one doesn't I would expect the tea partiers to try to teach the GOP establishment "a lesson" too. The GOP base thinks that McCain and Romney lost because they were too "moderate". And it doesn't matter if McCain was leading in the polls for a time or now since he ended up losing. Walter Mondale led in the polls for a time in 1984 too.

    Parent
    I just don't see (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    Ted Cruz winning the nomination.  Hell, in a slate of candidates, I don't see Ted Cruz winning the Texas primary!

    There are more than just Tea Partiers that actually vote in Republican primaries especially in states like New York, California, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, all of New England, and Illinois. It's not just the south that gets to vote.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    but look at a state like Iowa who nominated a crackpot like Joni Ernst as their GOP nominee. And the California GOP is just as nutty now as the rest of the GOP. And your strategy of states like NY etc is the McCain strategy of 2000 and it didn't work.

    Probably what is going to happen is someone is going to use the Obama 2008 strategy in the GOP depending on caucuses and southern states to get the nomination. Any number of them could do this.

    Ted Cruz not winning Texas? Truly you don't believe that unless Rick Perry is running I don't see anyone else. The Republicans in Texas are truly cracked so cracked in fact that they nominated Cruz for the senate didn't they?

    Parent

    CA GOP is down to 28% (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 09:35:10 AM EST
    Crackpot Crazy isn't working too well for them here . . .

    Parent
    Yes, but (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    According to your theory, there are Tea Partiers everywhere.  If Rubio and or Jindal or some other Tea Party darlings get in, it splits the Tea Party vote.  Why this isn't obvious to you is beyond me.

    And then I found this article.

    Ted Cruz plans to be a thorn in everyone's side if and when the Republicans take control of the Senate.  See how well that's going to play when he goes to get the support and money from national players when he wants to run for president and is polling in the single digits.  It will be a short candidacy and then Ted will go somewhere else and run his mouth with more nonsense.  But he will not be standing on stage in Cleveland on a Thursday night in July of 2016.

    Parent

    Ya know ... maybe the term "Tea Party" (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    has taken on different meanings for different people.  I'm supposing that the range goes from something like a card-carrying/"I support the Tea Party & go to local meetings of the group whenever I can"/"I agree with all those people in 2010 who marched in Tea-type hats" to I think that some of the positions about no-taxation is good and illegal immigrants should self-deport to I think the merge of abolishing many government agencies & getting rid of the 17 amendment for direct election of senators together with the strong "social values" of the Evangelicals makes sense and--perhaps--to "The positions AGAINST most government aid to students with loans, youngsters with lunches, DREAMERS with any relief and--oh by the way--secure that border (the southern border) as first second & third priorities ... those are our platform positions."

    No, this post isn't simply about sarcasm from my end.  It is to say--as GA6th has stated a number of times--that there is every reason to find that what constitutes the Republicans today has markedly changed as it grows ever "conservative."  Many of the positions screamed by the 2010 Tea Party members have either been included or taken as a given in the 2014 construct of the Republican Party.

     With the possible exception of foreign policy differences, I think that the term Tea Party--or its positions--has been blurred; in many ways, the fervor helped that party in 2010 while the language & hardline positions of the Tea group were gradually absorbed by onetime Establishment Republicans.  While some degree of reining in by the Establishment did occur in terms of presentation and in terms of taming wildly excessive language, much of the money-manufactured Tea Party explosion of 2010 remains in various amount of mutation.  (My personal favorite has always been the absurdity of watching supposed populists calling for the abolition of the direct election of Senators by repealing the 17th amendment.  Breath-taking.)

    This leads to a suggestion that it might help here to state and/or contrast issues and positions taken by various contenders.  For instance, are there any moderates among those Repubs who could be or might be expected to contend for the party's presidential nomination in 2016?  If so, who would that person or persons be ... and, what positions on issues were taken to demonstrate that standard?  In fact, it would be fascinating to see a list of such Repub contenders ranked from Most Conservative to Less Conservative to ???

    Parent

    You don't (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:19:36 AM EST
    know much about the tea partiers if you think they will vote for Rubio or Jindal. They hate both of them. Jindal has some of the lowest approval ratings of any governor out there. This whole split the vote fantasy is beltway nonsense. They might split the vote for the first few events but past that someone is going to start rolling. Remember Santorum actually won IA back in 2012.

    Getting support from national players means nothing and actually is detrimental to getting votes with the people who vote in the primary because they believe those same national players are the reason why they lost the last two presidential elections.

    Parent

    Aaannnndddd (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    What happened to Rick Santorum after that?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:41:42 AM EST
    the problem was it wasn't announced that he won until weeks after when there was a recount. They'd already had a few more states voting. Romney was "declared" the winner at first. So that really does not prove your point. And good luck with a nonwhacko winning IA. The people who participate in the caucus there are heavily right wing evangelicals.

    Parent
    And in 2008 (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    Mike Huckabee won Iowa.  Who cares?  John McCain came in fourth that year and yet he was the nominee. Not sure what your point is - so a crazy can do well in Iowa?  So.What?  When it comes to states that have more delegates, when things settle down, the crazies are gone and spending time with their family.

    Parent
    Like I keep (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    telling you it's not 2008 or 2012 anymore. The crazies are running the show. You'll see even more if the GOP takes over the senate. It's not even a given Mitch McConnell will even be the leader if all these wacko candidates win tomorrow. They are pledging NOT to even vote for Mitch. Even Republicans admit that they have to cater to the far right because of the fear of a primary challenge.

    Parent
    I am in agreement with you (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    And yet (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    Even Republicans admit that they have to cater to the far right because of the fear of a primary challenge.

    All those people on the "far right" who challenged Establishment candidates......LOST in the primary season.

    As I keep telling you.  

    Sorry - you aren't going to see too many Christine O'Donnells or Todd Aikens winning  national elections.  Are Republicans more conservative than they used to be?  Maybe - or maybe some of them are more vocal and have more outlets than they used to. But they are not the entirety of the Republican Party.  There is still a large block that are the "no taxes" wing, rather than then "We hate Obama" wing.

    And Ernst et al can say they won't vote McConnell now - but who knows? Pretty bold statements for potential incoming freshmen to say - especially if they ever hope for a seat at the big kids' table should McConnell become the next Majority Leader. Just look at what happened to the twelve Republicans who didn't vote for Boehner for Speaker in 2013 - they were stripped of all committee assignments.

    Maybe it's a mistake, but the Establishment is already feeling confident and the press seems to agree with them...(my bold)

    For the Republican Party's leadership, taking control of the U.S. Senate might not even be the sweetest part of a victory in 2014.

    With growing confidence as Election Day approaches, Republican leaders are preparing to argue that broad GOP gains in the House and Senate would represent a top-to-bottom validation of their party's mainline wing. Having taken a newly heavy-handed approach to the primary season this year, the top strategists of the Republican coalition say capturing the majority would set a powerful precedent for similar actions in the future -- not just in Senate and congressional races, but in the presidential primary season as well.

    National Republicans managed this year to snuff out every bomb-throwing insurgent who tried to wrest a Senate nod away from one of their favored candidates. They spent millions against baggage-laden activists such as Matt Bevin, the Louisville investor who mounted a ham-fisted challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel, the conservative upstart who imperiled a safe seat by nearly ousting longtime Sen. Thad Cochran.

    The confrontational approach -- by both party committees and outside super PACs -- represented a sharp departure from the GOP's cautious strategy in the 2010 and 2012 cycles, when cartoonishly inept nominees aligned with the tea party lost the party as many as five Senate seats.

    If this fresh tack leads to victory, Republicans expect that aggressive posture will carry over into 2016. They learned the hard way, party insiders say, how direly even the establishment-minded Mitt Romney undermined himself by wooing the right during primary season.

    Senate GOP Whip John Cornyn, the Texan who twice chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the party had experienced a "very, very important evolution" this year -- one from which it would not turn back.

    "Where we ran into problems was where that small sliver of the party insisted on nominating people who could win the primary but couldn't win the general," Cornyn said of the past two election cycles. Of the party's successful 2014 course-correction, Cornyn said: "I promise you it's a lesson we will not forget."



    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:47:21 PM EST
    they didn't lose. The candidates like David Perdue adopted their positions or they did win like Joni Ernst or the one in Colorado. They all are far right. Perdue has been pandering to the far right since the end of the primary.

    Have you looked at the stances of any of these candidates? They would make the tea party proud. Ernst thinks we should have a constitutional amendment for person hood of an embryo????

    Parent

    This it's just not true (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    Joni in Iowa is probably going to win a SENATE seat and she is as crazy as Michelle Bachman on her worst day.  The guy in CO is just as crazy tho less likely to win at least.  
    Then you add in the freakin house loons who have created safe districts so that the dont have to worry because you can't get any crazier than the incumbent.  
    Don't know what country you live in but I live in a different one.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    JB is swallowing the beltway narrative hook line and sinker. If she actually looked at the stances these people have surely she would not be saying this. I mean like you say they're taking the same stances Michele Bachmann had.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    I talked to a friend of mine yesterday who is working for Nunn and Carter. He said there is a very sophisticated voting operation going on below the surface. I guess we will see how effective it is tomorrow. There's even a Dem for education that they are saying is going to win. The current one must have pissed off a lot of teachers.

    Parent
    A lot has been written (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    about the behind the scenes GOTV effort.  They say it's the biggest ever for a midterm.   We will know soon.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:50:12 PM EST
    haven't learned their lesson if you look at the candidates. These people are even saying they're not going to vote for Mitch McConnell for majority leader. How is that a win for the establishment I would like to know?

    The Republicans in Washington need to get a clue as to what is going on locally and what these candidates are promising voters. They are promising some pretty radical stuff. Like I said even the Republicans admit that they have to cater to the far right.

    Parent

    Its also pretty amazing (none / 0) (#193)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 04:51:58 PM EST
    that you are using John Cornyn as the voice of moderation.

    Parent
    John Cornyn (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    is not the voice of moderation, but IS a power player in national Republican politics, so I think his voice on this carries some weight as to the strategy that is currently being deployed (and that will be refined in the future).

    And as far as Ernst and Gardner - well, it's not just their craziness that is attracting people.  It's the fact that Obama has very bad poll numbers (as of today, he has a 42% approval rating), and in Iowa, Braley has been a terrible candidate, and in Colorado, Udall overshot the "all girl parts, all the time" strategy.  So, the Dems bear some responsibility here. People are not so much voting for something here, but very much against Obama and the Dems.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    then they need to get a clue as to who they're voting for if they don't know. They're going to wake up with Michele Bachmann running the senate.

    And Udall jumped 5 points on his opposition so he might pull it out.

    Parent

    John Cornyn ... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    ... is a corporate tool and partisan hack. If he's considered a power broker in Republican circles, then I'd say that's a pretty sad commentary on the present state of affairs in the so-called "Party of Lincoln."

    Cornyn is entirely predictable in his political positions, and whenever he speaks to the press he's a steady stream of platitudes, generalities and clichés, regardless of how folksy he tries to sound.

    Despite his many years in Washington, it's painfully obvious that he knows nothing of sound policy development, and that he'll dutifully sign and promote whatever his corporate benefactors and political handlers place in front of him.

    Listening to the man, I honestly have to wonder if he's ever had an original thought in his head.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Rand Paul (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 02:18:30 PM EST
    Or Rand Paul, maybe?  For one starting in his position--that would be as a proponent of international isolationism in a big-$$$$ dominated Repub interventionist party--he seems to be making some shrewd moves to date.  While I detest the everyone-for-themselves meme from which he came, he could make the Repub primaries spicy.

    IF Governor Scott Walker is able to defeat Mary Burke in his re-election bid in Wisconsin, I look for him to be a prominent player ... at the least.  Upper Midwest, carries the business motif reminiscent of the Romney selection, early front-man for the Kochs (remember the notorious call during the first election), presentable in a pleasant way and (as we have seen from Ernst and Gardner this cycle) the presentable demeanor and smile nicely covers unpleasant positions taken.) Think back to his anti-environmental positions in the extraction industry, his almost destruction of public employee unions, and his direct antipathy toward teacher unions ... positions which should track nicely with the conservative $$$$.

     Yes ... Walker as the Governor with the Very Conservative Creds from the electoral-vote rich upper Mid-West.  I know that Halloween is over this year, but contemplating a Walker run is downright scary.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    he's from the "north" in an increasingly southern party and he's pretty brash and did not finish college and I think was kicked out of Marquette. I don't know how all that would play with the GOP base but if he runs then I guess we'll see.

    Parent
    Thanks for your answer (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:20:49 AM EST
    I value your opinion and think you are accurately depicting what you see around you. You see the GOP base consisting of the Republicans you encounter just as my opinions are influenced by people I interact with in my city and state.

    While you may be 100% correct, I am not yet convinced that the GOP base is quite as monolithic as you see them.

    I'm mainly trying to gather more information from various sources to appease my curiosity. The idea that this country might be willing to elect another Bush after GW's presidency astonishes me. But then again, the fact that people voted for GW twice still leaves me shaking my head.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 08:54:19 AM EST
    if you've got even people like Jonah Goldberg pretty much begging Jeb Bush not to run I would say even the GOP realizes he's political poison.

    Parent
    But honestly (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:05:35 AM EST
    hiw much worse is he that Romney.  I mean Romney!  Mr. 47%.   Or Christi for that matter.  How long would Christi last without going nuclear on some reporter or opponent?

    The republicans got nobody.  If they were smart they would nominate A real moderate like John Huntsman.  Raise your hand if you think that's likely.

    I'm with you.  I think it might be Huckabees time.  Do not underestimate him.  He's as shrewd a politician as breaths today.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    he is the OTHER man from Hope.  No kidding.

    Parent
    Hope and Cringe (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:15:25 AM EST
    Born    Michael Dale Huckabee
    August 24, 1955 (age 59)
    Hope, Arkansas, U.S.


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:22:22 AM EST
    I think it's unlikely that he would be using the man from hope. Too Clinton. But yeah, he is shrewd. He knows how to work these evangelicals. Fortunately for Hillary she knows how he operates.  And how crazy will he sound after going through the GOP primaries? I mean look what it did to someone like Romney.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:28:58 AM EST
    being subjected to him as governor I would say Hillary or us would be very misguided to underestimate him in the general.

    Parent
    I certainly (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:43:22 AM EST
    wouldn't. He can fire up those evangelicals pretty close to what George W. did. That being said he has also pretty much said all women who use birth control are sluts. So he definitely has a problem keeping his mouth in check.

    Parent
    I don't think he is all that much worse (none / 0) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    than Romney or Christi. I just prefer the name Bush be considered toxic and I shudder at the thought of the next two years being spent rewriting GW's history and being inundated with the entire Bush family once again.

    I agree that it would be stupid to underestimate Huckabee. When he isn't doing full out crazy, he can come across as funny and likable.

    Parent

    National Journal (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee Are on a Collision Course as Evangelicals Audition 2016 Contenders

    Social conservatives are desperate to settle on a single candidate earlier than ever to avoid another "moderate" as the GOP nominee.
    ...
    After back-to-back cycles in which social conservatives failed to coalesce around a single candidate--resulting, they believe, in the nomination of moderates who haven't mobilized the Christian base to vote in November--evangelical leaders are acting early and with unprecedented urgency. In a series of private meetings over the past two months in Washington, Iowa, Florida, and elsewhere, Christian political leaders have emphasized narrowing their options sooner than ever and uniting behind one candidate to defeat the establishment favorite.

    Interesting articles with slightly conflicting POV:

    2016 Just May Be the GOP Base's Year

    With few exceptions, the Republican establishment prevails over its base. Yet, 2016 may be different, as the GOP becomes ever more evangelical, Southern, blue collar, and alienated. True, the road and rules to the convention favor the Republican machinery, but even so, the rank and file must buy in if the plans of the party's elite are to work as imagined.

    With less than a year and a half until Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primaries, the Republican field is tightly bunched, with no one having declared his candidacy but lots of folks looking. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Texas Governor Rick Perry are all in contention. Based on numbers, and numbers alone, a Christie-Huckabee or Huckabee-Christie ticket would capture the bulk of the party's demographics. How viable it would be and how well it would play is a different story.


    Southern Evangelicals: Dwindling--and Taking the GOP Edge With Them

    Parent
    If Cruz even gets close to (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    getting the nomination, I wonder if Orly Taitz and the other birther loons will climb out from under their rocks.
    I mean, they are still convinced that Obama was born in Kenya.
    Well, Cruz was actually born in Canada, and his father was a Cuban citizen at the time.  I mean, it was only earlier this year that he gave up his dual Canadian citizenship.
    Last time I looked, Canada was not part of the United States, but its own sovereign nation.    ;-)


    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    Se previous comment.  I think Huckabee wins that contest.  He is a much more canny pol than Cruz. Cruz definitely has the fullmooners vote.  Huckabee can do more than that.

    Parent
    Expect (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    the Koch's to spend a lot of money trying to take Huckabee out. Don't know if it will work but I'm sure they'll try.

    Parent
    Why would they do that? (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    I saw it (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    the last time he ran. Apparently he raised taxes in Arkansas which as you know is a big bugaboo with them. The Club for Growth was running ads all over SC talking about how bad his record was in Arkansas. Apparently enough voters in SC believed it because it hurt. Will it work again? I really don't know if it would or not but if Huckabee decides to run he has to know what is coming from the last time.

    Parent
    Yes, I also would like to know (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    why you think the Koch's would do that.

    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    above re his record in Arkansas.

    Parent
    A tale of two families and their votes (none / 0) (#9)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    link

    Here in Iowa, Suzanne Ortiz, 54, said she voted early for Braley because she fears Republican control of the Senate would lead to a stripping-away of the safety net and evisceration of the new healthcare law.

    "We lost everything," said Ortiz, a former 911 operator who said she and her engineer husband were forced to rely on Medicaid and food stamps after the economic collapse. When her husband's work picked up after two years of unemployment, they found their income was too high to qualify for help, but because of health problems, Ortiz said, "no insurance company would touch" her. Now they are both covered by Obamacare, and their sons are moving beyond minimum-wage jobs to a place "where they finally can keep their head above water."

    If Republicans control both houses of Congress, Ortiz said, she's afraid "that everything goes back to where we were."

    "At least now we can pay the bills," she said. "Maybe not on time, but we can pay them."

    Feeling that same uncertainty -- but emerging on the other end of the electoral spectrum -- were Wayne and Karen Gray, retired farmers who came to hear Ernst over breakfast at Big T Maid-Rite, a Toledo, Iowa, diner, during Ernst's recent swing through in an RV emblazoned with the encouragement to "Honk if you think Washington's broken."

    "It's a disaster -- this Ebola mess -- we just don't have any leadership right now," said Karen Gray, 74, of Tama, who described the Obama administration as "very reactive" on issues from Ebola to terrorism.

    She and her husband both felt reassured by Ernst's promise to bring "Iowa ways" to Washington, and the part of her talk when she noted that she had served in Kuwait and southern Iraq with the Iowa Army National Guard. "We could have kept ISIS from spreading," Ernst told the crowd at the Maid-Rite, chiding Obama's early description of Islamic State militants as a "junior varsity" force.

    "We just want everything back to normal, for our grandchildren," Gray said. "Everything she says is exactly how we feel inside about what is going on in our country."


    I despair. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    On what planet would anything Ernst says reassure anyone?  Where on earth do the Ernst supporters get their information from?

    Wait, never mind.  Pretty sure I can answer both questions.

    The one question I don't know the answer to: why do people want to believe this stuff?

    Parent

    The dem in that race (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    has been pretty terrible.  That should have been a blue seat and it probably won't be.

    Parent
    Braley (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    has done and said some pretty stupid stuff - starting with his insult of Chuck Grassley that turned into an insult against farmers.  In Iowa.

    Parent
    Most of Braley's "missteps' have started with (none / 0) (#119)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    him speaking the plain truth, the GOP rewriting it into a "he's done it again" story, and the media firing up the Wurlitzer to broadcast the GOP press release.

    Grassley was a farmer. Grassley didn't go to law school. He will be chair of the Judiciary committee. Where's the insult in any of that, except to the idea of having somebody unqualified for a position filling that position?

    And the chicken lawsuit? Pure fiction, yet it's often listed as another "there he went again" moment.

    Parent

    It doesn't matter what "is" (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:59:37 AM EST
    It matters what people perceive.  You understand that, right?

    It was a stupid comment by someone who should've known better. And it's not like Grassley is some stupid hick - he has a Master's degree and work towards a PhD. And he's been on Judiciary for a while, so this isn't anything new.  I mean, Dianne Feinstein is on the committee and she isn't a lawyer;  Al Franken is on the committee and he's not a lawyer. It's not a requirement.  Heck you don't even have to technically be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court!

    Parent

    I understand quite well how repeated stories (none / 0) (#132)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    shape perception. You should understand that what he didn't do was insult Iowa farmers - but that was the falsehood that the right ran with, and that was the falsehood that the media repeated, and that's the falsehood that has become common knowledge.

    Braley's biggest missteps in this campaign, IMO, isn't what he said; it's that he or his handlers didn't push back. They either ignored the smears and falsehoods - the fictional chicken lawsuit being another example - or they validated them with weak apologies and instead talked about public policies and issues.

    Regardless, tomorrow Iowa is going to select a serious whack doodle Bircher to represent them, and Lee Atwater's ghost will nod approvingly.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    understand what he thought he was saying.

    But I don't vote in Iowa, and I am not a farmer, so it doesn't really matter how I perceive his comments.

    And again - making Grassley look like he's some stupid hick was just ignorant on Braley's part.  Who's the stupid hick now?

    Parent

    When did Braley call Grassley (none / 0) (#141)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    a "stupid hick" as you claim?

    Or you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary.
    source

    Is it that you read "farmer from Iowa" and your mind translates that to "stupid hick?"

    Parent

    I read (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    his comment about "a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school" as Braley dog whistling that he thinks Grassley is a stupid hick.

    I'm apparently not the only one, since that was what got him in trouble in the first place.

    I think Braley's comment was stupid.

    Parent

    It was an incredibly stupid thing to say. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    And it ranked right up there with House Speaker Newt Gingrich's horrid 1998 comment while campaigning out here for a local GOP U.S. House candidate named Gene Ward, in which he compared Sen. Daniel Inouye and Congresswoman Patsy Mink to orangutans -- a comparison which Ward then thoughtlessly repeated during a televised debate. It was the kiss of death for his campaign.

    Parent
    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Nov 02, 2014 at 09:55:27 PM EST
    How is Ebola on their radar as a critical issue other than listening to hack fear mongers. Ebola is the biggest non-issue of the day. Exactly one person had died from Ebola in the US. Not much of a crisis in my book. I'm more concerned with my neighbor's overgrown weeds.

    Parent
    Maher responds to Berkley hubbub (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 07:42:36 AM EST
    he's still invited

    And he's still going as of now.  

    As usual I agree with every word.

    In other news (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    For those unwilling to watch the video (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    he says the only reason he would decline of of he thinks it's becoming about him and not the students.

    If the University does not withdraw the invitation I would say they think it's not there.

    Parent

    When I graduated in 1984, ... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    ... Arthur Goldberg gave our commencement address.

    There was a time when colleges and universities sought out noted persons of considerable stature and accomplishment for such occasions, rather than people of contemporary notoriety and / or fleeting celebrity.

    That's not to say that Bill Maher isn't perfectly capable of delivering a substantive and moving speech, but let's face it, he's no Arthur Goldberg.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    but it is the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech movement.

    Who would be better For that?

    Parent

    Larry Flynt. (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    When it comes to celebrating our First Amendment rights to free speech, you can't do much better than to invite the guy who's long served in the front lines in that fight, and was literally a victim of sniper fire because of it.

    Then there's also Daniel Ellsberg, the man who became the proverbial center of the storm with his decision to release the "Pentagon Papers." Were you a provost or chancellor and your intent to celebrate the free speech movement at UC-Berkeley, either one of those men would be better a better choice as commencement speaker than Bill Maher.

    Look, I like Maher. But he is an entertainer, a provocateur and (right now, again) a polarizing figure, while the University of California at Berkeley is one of the great public institutions of higher learning in the entire country.

    Were I about to graduate from UCB, I'd feel sort of shortchanged and resentful by the decision to invite him to deliver the commencement address at my graduation ceremony. And I'd likely feel the same way were Whoopi Goldberg, George Lucas or Jack Nicholson invited to do the same.

    College graduation is rightly considered a significant event in people's lives. Bill Maher's presence at the center of UCB's ceremonies holds rich potential to trivialize the day for its graduates. Worse still, he could steal their thunder from them, should he choose to use the occasion to call attention to himself by saying something provocative and controversial.

    I sincerely hope he won't, and I honestly don't think he will. I'd say the odds are better than even that he'll recognize the solemnity of the occasion and deliver a thoughtful and respectful address. But Maher being Maher, you never really quite know what to expect from him, week to week. That's why people tune in to watch him.

    And were UC-Berkeley to rescind its invite to Maher, well, he's still on the air at HBO, so it's not like he's being muzzled. And he'll be out here at the Sheraton Waikiki Ballroom for two stand-up shows on New Year's Eve, as he's done over the last few years now. We already have our tickets.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If Fox News pushed it, it must be true? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    This is what the RationalWiki has to say about Dr. Spencer's work:

    His book The Great Global Warming Blunder, published as a mainstream work after Spencer took his ball and went home after all the other scientists said mean things about him, includes some truly bizarre stuff. At one point, he outlines the current scientific theory for the ice ages, tiny fluctuations in the Earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles. The theory holds that temperature changes brought about by the orbital perturbations, though not strong enough to trigger glaciation or deglaciation in themselves, trigger feedback mechanisms that lead to wildly fluctuating temperatures - including the release or sequestration of large amounts of CO2 from the ocean and the biosphere. This puts CO2 at the forefront of non-solar climate charge throughout history, and also explains the well-known 500-year "lag" between temperature and CO2 during one climate change recorded in the Vostok ice cores. Spencer clearly and concisely summarises all this - and then declares it all to be nonsense. His reason? Because there's that CO2 lag in the Vostok ice core and he wants it explained![9] Yes, despite having explained it himself, he seems incapable of understanding what he has just written. So what does Spencer think caused the ice ages? He cheerfully admits that he doesn't have a clue.[10] This may be willingly swallowed by idiots, but to a reasonable eye this makes Spencer seem either hideously mendacious or an ignorant fool.