Thursday Open Thread

The feds shut down Silk Road 2 and arrest San Francisco programmer Blake Benthall.

“As alleged, Blake Benthall attempted to resurrect Silk Road, a secret website that law enforcement seized last year, by running Silk Road 2.0, a nearly identical criminal enterprise,” said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in a statement. “Let’s be clear–this Silk Road, in whatever form, is the road to prison.”

CENTCOM confirms airstrikes against the alleged Khorasan Group and there are reports that it killed the intended target, Frenchman David (Daood) Drugeon.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wednesday Open Thread | FBI Director Justifies Agency's Impersonation of Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • So (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:05:27 PM EST
    I've been DVRing Halperin and Heilemanns new show on Bloomberg.  It's ok.  But I'm watching and I hear "this program is brought to you by Koch Industries" followed by this commercial.. Which more than anything reminded me of this commercial for the fictitious evil company U-North from the film Michael Clayton.

    I like Jon Stewart's version better

    The payback to the Koch Bros (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    Quite illuminating that a component of the first order of business listed by the "new" Mitch McConnell is passing legislation to approve the Keystone Pipeline.  Looking at a key component of the Koch Bros enterprise, building the Keystone Pipeline must be near the top of the wish-list.

    FYI Chip (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    your are not really supposed to give some one a 1 because you disagree.  I could care less and I'm sure kdog feels the same this comment is a grumpieness too far.
    Also it's completely correct.

    The truth hurts, huh, Uncle Chip (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:31:13 AM EST
    Look, I served in the government working for the EPA for 27 years. As a manager in enforcement for the majority of those years, I did come to have a factual basis for my comment.

    Believe it or no, the branch that I managed had a long drawn-out action against a Koch operation in the early 1990s ... a pipeline spill and violations of RCRA.  At the time, I had no idea or inkling of who the Kochs were or what direction they took.  What proved odd, tho, was that a case which would normally settle administratively (trans: under $125K) dragged on for several years.  At monthly status updates, I'd inquire about progress on the case ... for some years, the answer was that respondent would not agree to anything, etc. etc.  It couldn't have been $$$ in view of the operation's worth vis-à-vis any assessed civil penalty. Principle of a we-are-not-doing-anything-we-don't-want-to-do variety?  More likely.  

    My advice to myself tends to be: Don't forget the
    lessons we have the opportunity to learn (no matter how hard-learned.)  Here: Koch Bros. & pipelines are central to Koch Bros. $$$$$ ... ergo, it stands to reason that the Keystone Pipeline may have more than a little to do with where they want to go. (Even Koch's involvement in Wisconsin politics at the start of Scott Walker's gubernatorial career suggests a connection with energy operations permits and development.)  Simply a surmise on my part; but, methinks, a good one:)

    BTW, this may be surprising to even my own friends, but I've never been tied into a quick solution to the Keystone Pipeline ... because it cuts lots of different ways (as I'm sure the people of Nebraska and other "hosts" for crossing-pipeline might come to know.)  President Obama has been wise to let the national & international scenario play out; and, now, we come to at least the penultimate act in the Keystone "drama."

    Good luck to you, Chips.


    Oops, almost forgot (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    That case involving the Kochs did eventually settle administratively for about what we thought was it's worth.  Funny how things work out ....

    Conflicting information on GJ announcement (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:40:25 PM EST
    Rumors abound that prosecutors will announce the  GJ verdict in the Michael Brown case this weekend. It is thought that some people have been given advance notice of the release and they have been issuing veiled warnings, requests for prayers and notification that the doors of various churches in the diocese will be open for individual and corporate prayer on that day of the announcement.  

    In direct conflict with these rumors is this week's statement by McCulloch that it could be several more weeks before the announcement.

    ST. LOUIS -- Activists asked Wednesday for advance notice before prosecutors announce whether a Ferguson police officer will face charges in the shooting death of Michael Brown, saying they can help prevent widespread violence if they have 48 hours to prepare for protests.
    The grand jury was expected to hear evidence in Brown's case until mid-November, but McCulloch said Tuesday night that its work could continue for several more weeks. link

    Another (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    StL friend said something similar last night.  Rumors.

    My priest is part of the coalition of clergy (none / 0) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:19:55 AM EST
    who are trying to keep the city from igniting.

    An email I received from her this week, makes me give this rumor a little more weight than I might otherwise.

    She did not give a time frame when she discussed the upcoming announcement but her framing made it seem like it might be sooner rather than later.

    Also these rumors are coming from a lot of different places. My #1 grandson is attending one of the more prestigious colleges located in the city and they are advising students on procedures they should take to stay safe.


    Regarding Urban vs. Rural issues (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by CST on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:06:42 AM EST
    From another thread - and I realize to some extent I'm beating a dead horse.

    I really hate the implication that somehow urban issues are "elitist - we think we know better" and rural issues are somehow more pure/honest/noble/whatever.  Especially when three examples brought up for ways that urban people dominate the conversation/political environment were - guns, corn, and the gas tax.

    I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think there's anything particularly elitist about not wanting to get shot when you're walking down the street.  Also, there is no way anyone can say with a straight face that urban voters/opinions on gun control have any impact whatsoever on gun policy in this country right now.  This is one clear example where rural/suburban voters have won.  And yes, I'm a little annoyed at the complete lack of empathy for people who live in high-crime areas.  Horrible, and frankly, offensive example given the crime rate and abundance of guns in this country.  But maybe I'm just upset because once again I heard gunshots from my "elite-urban" apartment last night.  I don't care if you want to hunt, be my guest.  I enjoy shooting occasionally.  I still think it's not asking too much for a freaking background check.

    No one hates corn.  At best, you can say that no one cares about corn.  But I've never heard anyone say anything negative about corn.  It's freaking corn.  This is a non-issue for urban people.  So no, we probably don't care about it as much as a rural person, but we're not actively doing anything against it either.  We don't spend any political energy fighting corn, I don't even know what that means.

    Gas tax - ahhh yes.  The gas tax, that elitist idea that you actually have to pay for the infrastructure you build.  It's not easy for anyone - people who live in cities aren't all rich.  Most of us aren't.  Sure, we might have better public transit options, but many of us still drive and it still sucks to pay a lot for gas.  But guess what?  We all need roads and money doesn't grow on trees.  As it is, we have some of the cheapest gas in the world and our bridges and roads are falling apart.  Personally, I'd gladly pay a slightly higher gas tax so I don't end up on a bridge while it fails, killing everyone.  But I guess that's just lil' old elitist me.

    Mostly, I'm really sick of the implication that everyone who lives in a city is rich (elitist).  That is not the world I've ever lived in.  New York City is a lot bigger than Manhattan.  There's nothing elite about urban poverty.

    Also, to make a case that urban people control the political environment, you'd be better off citing examples where urban people are changing policy - not places where they have tried and failed to change policy (ahem, gun control).  If anything that makes the opposite case that people who do not live in urban areas have more power in the political process.  The fact that they have different issues and different priorities does not mean they are actually able to implement them.

    You missed the entire point (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    I didn't say, "...urban issues are "elitist - we think we know better" and rural issues are somehow more pure/honest/noble/whatever. "

    What I said was that there definitely is a coastal bias - whether in the media, in politics, and in discussions such as this, that border on elitist because when issues that come up, many times it's looked through the lens of what people in NY, DC, Boston, and to some extent, LA would find palatable.  Sometimes it's good policy, but other times it's dismissive.

    I only used those three examples because that's what came off the top of my head - that wasn't an exhaustive list, but you all know that (or maybe you don't and that's kind of the problem in a nutshell). (And while I mentioned the gas tax, I know we've had conversations around here about jacking it up to $8-$10 a gallon to encourage public transport.  But that's an idiotic idea, unless you want to pay $20 for a gallon of milk and put thousands of people out of work, but hey, maybe you do).  But while I think many of the conservatives who have a public platform have some crazy ideas, there are many, many more people out there who don't go off on rants on blogs, and who don't have access to the media, who just want people who espouse and make the decisions to at least listen to them without being dismissive.

    Let's look at the Supreme Court, for example.  They all have law degrees from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. The president went to Harvard. I would not say that is group with diverse backgrounds (even as much as their political outlook may differ - they all had the same education).  Gee, it would be nice to see people in power who went to the University of Michigan, or the University of Texas or any number of other fine institutions. (I seem to remember the mocking Sarah Palin took for going to community college and graduating from the University of Idaho.  Idaho!  Who could take that seriously???)

    Actually, the attitude even around here does get a little smug sometimes, and the fact that I have had so much pushback from suggesting that people who live and occupy most of the country might not feel like their opinions are being taken seriously (and no, I'm once again, not talking about the far righties), actually underscores my entire point.  It's all been pooh-poohed here. And the fact that all the big giant liberal brains who want to argue with me can't see that, really shows how narrow minded some of them actually are. They can't possibly grasp that people in Topeka, Kansas, might not have the same experiences or front and center issues as someone living in Manhattan.  And for that, they are mocked.

    Many things liberals espouse are good, but sometimes they are just condescending in how they do it ("You are dumb, and we know better than you").  Maybe they don't mean it that way, but it sure comes off that way, especially when of course, they actually ARE calling people in the middle of the country or the south, or west, stupid.


    It is pretty easy to miss your (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:06:55 PM EST
    point when you use guns and corn as examples.

    The political power resides in those who are strong advocates for guns and corn.


    maybe (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by CST on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    if you would stop framing it as an urban vs. rural thing and acknowledge that what you're concerned with is a money vs. not money thing.  I will certainly acknowledge that there is a money bias in the media and in politics.  And while money tends to reside on the coasts, it is in no way representative of those places.

    I think part of the problem stems from your own confirmation bias.  You moved from the midwest to an east-coast big city, I assume when you moved you became a white-collar worker and interact with other urban white-collar workers who espouse these values and now you think that's representative of the urban east coast environment.  Leave the office once and a while - there are millions  of people out there who didn't go to Harvard and don't live in Manhattan and maybe never went to college, maybe graduated from a state school, but still live in east coast cities.

    I also find it really weird that you consider the space people occupy to be relevant at all. Who cares if they occupy most of the space of this country? I don't care if you have 10 acres of farmland or 500 square feet in an apartment - your issues are just as valid.  That doesn't mean we should be dismissive of them, but that doesn't give them any greater say than anyone else.

    Also, corn and gun control and gas taxes were the examples you provided - not me.  And no one in their right mind seriously proposes $8-$10 for a gallon of gas.  We're usually talking raising it by cents.


    Actually (none / 0) (#192)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    I was a white collar worker in the Midwest too, but again, why would you even think that I wasn't?  And oops - your bias is showing again

    I think part of the problem stems from your own confirmation bias.  You moved from the midwest to an east-coast big city, I assume when you moved you became a white-collar worker and interact with other urban white-collar workers who espouse these values and now you think that's representative of the urban east coast environment.  Leave the office once and a while - there are millions  of people out there who didn't go to Harvard and don't live in Manhattan and maybe never went to college, maybe graduated from a state school, but still live in east coast cities.

    So much wrong with this paragraph.  Assumptions, assumptions. Know what they say about assuming?

    Ah to be young and so sure of everything.....


    I'm not a child (none / 0) (#196)
    by CST on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:35:45 PM EST
    And that is remarkably condescending.

    I never said you weren't white-collar in the midwest, but if you grew up there, I'm assuming you weren't born into an office.  It makes a big difference because if I only ever worked in a white collar environment in Boston, I would have a very different view of the city than I have from growing up here.  And your attitude about the east-coast is remarkably white collar, so if I assumed wrong, it's because the way you write about the city makes it seem like you have blinders to the rest of it.  The only thing I'm sure of is that there are many poor/middle-class people who live in the city and you refuse to acknowledge them or their issues in your posts.


    I find it rather ironic that in a post (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    where you criticize liberals for being condescending, you have chosen to snugly display a condescending attitude towards liberals.

    And the fact that all the big giant liberal brains who want to argue with me can't see that, really shows how narrow minded some of them actually are.

    You have the same tendency to pooh-pooh  the ideas of others when they do not agree with yours and employee the same mocking tactics towards liberals as those we often hear from rural areas.

    As to other people not recognizing that the needs of others are not the same as their own, I think one of the prime examples of you not recognizing that the needs of others don't match your own, is how easily you dismissed the fact that poor people find it extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain a photo ID.



    The larger and better point to make (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    we of certain socio-economic classes have a lot more in common than not regardless of where we live.

    We all need to start putting some positive energy out there around that, instead of bickering amongst ourselves.

    I can get behind corn subsidies if you can get behind Obamacare.


    Amen Vic... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    the problem is the two parties and the 1% that owns them both bank on us bickering...classic divide and conquer.  And it works every time.

    Sure (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    If my perfectly good plan hadn't been canceled, then offered to me with fewer offerings for an 8% increase, and then again with an 11% increase for 2015.

    I can always get behind something that offers me less for more, and is such a cluster that they can't even get the wording right in a bill that they worked on for a year.  This was spectacular work.


    As I recall, you have not written (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    anything positive/supportive/in favor of( or anything similar)the ACA from the start.  The my-legally-substandard-policy-was-cancelled is a nice prop that you have employed from time to time, but your very open and obvious opposition has been out there since day one.  Just sayin'.

    BTW, I wonder if the DC Circuit will continue to follow through on Halbig and render what many had considered might be supportive of the ACA similar to the 4th Circuit.  Who knows why the Supreme Court foursome announced its decision today to take up the federal subsidies issue as to the ACA.  So ... who knows.  In passing, tho, it does seem that CJ Roberts understands the practical effects of the big decisions--whether it is in the millions that would openly lose what they had gained and/or the corporate interests who now are wanting more & more to be part of the process and whom the Justice has supported in most significant other cases.  The clock ticks ... another legal attack on the ACA ... the real & political consequences should the millions that gained (many of whom vote in presidential elections) now feel that political justices would cruelly take it away.  Very unpredictable, despite what McConnell & Boehner say they want and despite the wishes of a J. Scalia.

    The posturing of so many may well change dramatically. Oh, now what about the plan for replacement???  Sorry, but I believe the reality knocks aspect of the years worth of attacks are about to come face-to-face with millions of real-life people who would mightily resent losing their only healthcare insurance (on the coasts and in the heartland of the plains and in the mountains)... and the result will be the opposite of what opponents have demagogued since 2010.  

    Just thought it might be fascinating to preempt a potential snip & clip from yourself with a few words about "oh my."  I really am curious as to how this will progress.


    I think the issue with corn is related (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    to the federal subsidies paid to farmers for planting corn.

    Corn is America's biggest cash crop by far, and across most of the Midwest it is the most profitable by far. Because roughly 40 percent of the crop is being diverted into gas tanks, a bushel of corn fetches a much higher price today than it did before the government-subsidized ethanol boom.

    Even when prices drop during abundant harvests, as they have in recent weeks, the profits for an acre of corn often still exceed those for soybeans, wheat and other alternative crops that might be grown on the same highly productive land.

    No surprise, the government's pro-corn agenda has produced unwanted side effects..  
    The "crop insurance" name is misleading: At one time, crop insurance actually insured the crops of participating farmers against drought, floods and other extreme hazards. The program has expanded into a vast giveaway that enables farmers to lock in their revenues come what may. This taxpayer-funded insurance in effect eliminates the business risk that farmers would face from a failed crop. Expanding the program with billions of additional dollars, as lawmakers have set out to do, would give farmers another reason to plant more (and more) corn without regard to potential consequences..... Link

    Take time to read the entire article. It is interesting. Of special interest is

    Corn like guns is a real poor example. The political power resides with advocates and not with those wanting more sensible policies.


    Very funny (none / 0) (#140)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    "No one hates corn.  At best, you can say that no one cares about corn.  But I've never heard anyone say anything negative about corn.  It's freaking corn.  This is a non-issue for urban people.  So no, we probably don't care about it as much as a rural person, but we're not actively doing anything against it either.  We don't spend any political energy fighting corn, I don't even know what that means."

    The diatribe to which you reponded was very funny!
    I love corn. I have it with most of my meals as a side dish. I almost thought that the corn-strawman against urban dwellers hating corn was written by someone that sniffed ethanol while typing.

    The funniest thing is nobody has ever accused BHO of being a corn-hater. link

    OTOH, Iowa voters in 2007 and 2008 were not sure where HRC stood on corn :-). jbindc is behaving very erratically today.


    Oh the irony... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    the finest corn in all the land is grown on the "elitist" East End of "elitist" Long Island in the "elitist" NY Metropolitan Area.  Pespi challenge that sh*t against any other corn if you don't believe me;)

    It's so good we actually eat it instead of turning it into sugar-crack syrup or ethanol.


    i'm partial (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CST on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:37:10 PM EST
    to VT corn myself.  That other elitist northeast-liberal urban state :P

    I'm partial (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    to driving my car with reasonable expenses and not taking public transportation.

    lucky for you (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CST on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    gas prices are the lowest they've been in years.

    Must be because all those liberals keep clamoring for higher gas taxes and have so much political power that now it's impossible to drive.

    Also, don't move to Hawaii or Alaska.


    Any Native American reservations... (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    near you?  

    I've been buying my smokes from them for years, never knew they had a gas station on the rez too until recently.  Three of the four things I burn most are now tax free...Home-f*ckin'-run!  Now if the tribe offered home heating oil deliveries I'd be batting a thousand.

    Even at the white man's highly taxed rates, we're down to 3.09 a gallon around here...a lot better than 3.89.


    Not here (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    But I have a second cousin that does that!

    You could also make friends with an active duty or vet - they can get cheaper smokes at the PX.


    I know this (none / 0) (#204)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 06:11:19 PM EST
    is on the other side of the state from you but I used to do NY for work and apparently there is some Indian reservation up around Buffalo where apparently a lot of people buy cigarettes. I had no idea about the whole going to buy stuff at reservations until then.

    The best justice money can buy.... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    the dirty details of the 9 billion in hush money JP Morgan Chase paid Holder's DOJ.

    Though I suppose it could be worse under Republican rule, they might have played ball with Dimon for much less than 9 billion in hush money.

    Deja vu all over again (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    2006 - the Democrats take control the Senate and House.
    Send more troops to Iraq,

    2014 - the Republicans take control of the Senate and House.
    Send more troops to Iraq.

    Condi Rice on charges of Republican Racism (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 02:48:08 PM EST

    CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE: We're not race blind. Of course we have racial tensions. The United States has made enormous progress in race relations and it is the best place on earth to be a minority. The idea that you would play such a card and try fear mongering among minorities just because you disagree with Republicans, that they're somehow all racist - I find it appalling, I find it insulting and as a Republican black woman from the south - I would say really? Is that really the argument you're going to make in 2014?

    RICE: First of all, does it mean you're not acting black if you speak well and are interested in progress? What are we doing to our kids if we tell them their ethnic identity has to make them unsuccessful? That to me is a racist thing to say. I've been asked many times myself and I say, I've been black all my life, you don't have to tell me how to be black. In my mind, the greatest thing about the US is you can be of any color, ethnic group, nationality, religion and you can have dreams and aspirations that are your own and pursue them. That's what this country is all about

    I like Condi get tired of the race argument in politics.

    You can be for limited government and not give a flip about race.  

    They would be more credible (4.75 / 4) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    if the stopped the coordinated nationwide effort to suppress Minority voting.

    Voter ID whoopla (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    For all the non American love we see around this site it's amazing Liberals/Progressives don't want to adapt modern voting and ID laws that the rest of the developed world uses.

    The whole debate about voter ID is foolish .

    A) Because there is fraud, just how much who knows but definitely not as much as right wingers scream about
    B) Because there is equally as few people who will be "disenfranchised".

    I mean really.  How many crippled grandmothers with ID who won't be able to send in their absentee vote are there?

    It is really stupid to not require ID to vote.  You cant' make a logical argument that voting is essential to democracy but then support the ability for people to abuse the system.

    It seems if you loved government


    And it's a Complete Mystery... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    ...why every single republican solution to a problem that doesn't exist results in less minorities voting.

    Thought you were a libertarian, yet here you are wanting the government to implement a solution to a problem that does not exist...  shocker.

    And mean seriously, Condi Rice, the only person in America that thinks GWB was a great President.  Pardon me while I puke and laugh at the person who believes anyone cares what she thinks.

    I forget, what was her job when 9/11 happened ? Some kind of adviser...


    So you don't like Condi's opinion (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    on race so you attack her on 9/11?

    That makes sense.  Yes.  Since she's at fault for 9/11 she doesn't know anything about race.

    Good point.  Hadn't thought of that.

    I'm for personal liberty and less government.   I'm also for fair voting and its unfair for most voters to have no rules for voting.

    You needed an ID along the way to do the following...

    Buy Beer
    Buy a Gun
    Check out a Library Book
    Check into a hotel
    Buy Cigarettes
    Open a Bank Account
    Buy a house
    Rent and apartment
    Get Married
    Get on an Airplane
    Pick up a prescription

    How many people who don't do any of these things also vote?


    I'M Sorry... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    ...maybe I wasn't clear, I don't think Condi Rice's opinion on anything is worth putting on a bubble gum wrapper.

    I was simply pointing out that what she thinks should not matter because she failed about as bad as one can fail at their job.  Why would her views on race be any more accurate then her views on keeping the country safe, both, and every other thought in her head are not worth repeating as some words of wisdom.

    And to answer your question, the republican solution will, without a doubt, ensure less black people vote.  And since there is no problem, why implement a solution that is unfair ?

    As a libertarian, the government implementing solutions to problems that don't exist should be a little unsettling, especially if you are indeed worried about fairness.


    You don't need ID to buy (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:35:01 PM EST
    a gun if you buy it at a gun show. You don't need an ID to open a bank account on the internet. And so many companies are going to these pay cards that you don't even need a bank account. You don't need it to pick up a prescription unless it's a controlled substance. You don't need it to get married. I don't think you even need one to check into a hotel. I don't remember showing mine the last time I checked into one. This list just shows how out of touch the GOP is with everyday living and everyday lives of Americans.

    The last time I picked (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    up my BP medicine I needed a picture ID. Ditto for checking into a hotel, opening a bank account, getting on an airplane... and

    getting my poker winnings.


    Those aren't rights, like the right to vote (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 06:59:28 AM EST
    so your feeble attempt at making an analogy here sucks, as the kids say these days.

    To use language you may be able to understand, I saw you try to palm that card. Uh-huh!


    Not True Jim (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:56:12 AM EST
    I pick up a friends pains meds all the time, no ID required, just the reciting the address.  And not to get off topic, but I basically have very strong prescription in my possession that is not in my name.  I always wonder shat would happen if I got pulled over.

    Some of the items you sited are private industry requirements or policies, not government mandated.

    Bad analogy considering most people w/o ID's don't have the $$$ to fly, open bank accounts, or gamble.


    Photo ID (1.67 / 3) (#118)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    There's another reason for Photo IDs:

    So that squatters like this can get their names and their genders right for their booking photos and bathroom visits.

    How many different names and genders do you think he/she/they voted under???


    Oh, give me a break... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    probably none.  I don't get what it is you're so afraid of.  

    And, hey - where's your contempt for those who have the right to vote but can't be bothered?


    Well the photo ID problem (1.50 / 2) (#125)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    is solved in one fortuitous moment:

    He/she/they now have a Mug Shot -- problem solved.

    I'm sure they will accept that Mug Shot at the polls if he/she/they want to go there.

    BTW -- Get a life and a grip and a sense of humor while you're at it.


    While I'm at what, exactly? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:13:46 AM EST
    Reading a comment that you're now claiming was a joke?  A snark tag would have been helpful.  Some days, it's hard to tell who's serious and who's not, especially when there are people who would have been completely serious about what you posted.

    But let's not get carried away...when the mug shots are taken, does the arrestee get an order form, kinda like you do with school photos, so he or she can get a bunch of wallet-sized ones, as well as larger ones suitable for framing?

    By the way, I have a great life, have a firm grip on it, and my sense of humor is just fine; you, on the other hand, sound like you got up on the wrong side of bed this morning.  Poor baby!


    Chip sleeps (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    under the bed

    How dare you indicate (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    that he sleeps under the bed when it is very clear that he  sleeps where he lives - under a bridge. :-(

    Under the bed? Oooh, no, I don't (none / 0) (#137)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:22:57 AM EST
    think so...that's where the scary stuff is, the boogey-man and the monsters...

    We all know that the Photo ID (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:28:47 PM EST
    is not designed to keep you, jimakappj, from voting. A not surprising elitist list of activities where you need a photo ID. A list that is completely irrelevant to many of the people who don't have the necessary money, time or documents to obtain a photo ID.

    Now let's look at some information on people who are most likely not to have a Photo ID.

    No Bank Account
    At a time when you can pay bills online and deposit checks remotely using a cell phone, it's amazing how many Americans don't have bank accounts. One in nine households is without a checking account.
    Not surprisingly, low-income people are the ones most likely to be underbanked, according to FDIC data. Among households with annual incomes of less than $15,000 a year, 28% have no bank account and another 22% have less than a full range of services. Rates of underbanking are similarly high among the unemployed, people without high school degrees and those under the age of 25. In addition, African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanics have higher rates than whites and Asians. Only about 5% of employed middle-class Americans are without bank accounts, but more than 20% use financial services outside the banking system -- typically for reasons of convenience. link

    People living at or near the FPL of $11,670 don't spend a whole lot of time checking into hotels that require a photo ID. Nor do they jet set around the country on planes.


    I have no problem with sane (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    and humane photo ID laws for voting.

    That said,  Fraud is not and has never been the reason for these laws.  I can link to several quotes from honest republicans admitting this.  Republican in power.  Ones who make and enforce the laws.   In person voter fraud is so rare as to be almost nonexistent.  There is no reason to stop one SINGLE elderly person who has voted all their lives from exercising that sacred right that people have died to provide because they don't have a birth certificate and can't afford to get one.


    At a time when fewer and fewer (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:40:17 PM EST
    people are voting, what is our solution?  Make it harder to vote.

    Out of one side of our mouths comes, "register and vote, have a voice, participate in your government," and out of the other side comes, "sure you can vote - let's see your ID. No, not that one, this one.  Plus this other one.  Oh, you don't have that? Sorry.  Too late now.  Come back in 2 years."

    Out of one side of our mouths comes, "vote early, vote when it's convenient, avoid the crowds," and out of the other side comes, "oh, this isn't your polling place - that moved.  Sorry, can't vote early anymore - we stopped that."

    The reality is that some of us want more people to vote - all people - and others only want the kind of people who will vote to elect the people they approve of.  

    Those people, the ones who only want the right kinds of votes to be cast for the right kinds of people, they are the real fraud.


    Won't this be (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:40:51 PM EST
    There is no reason to stop one SINGLE elderly person who has voted all their lives from exercising that sacred right that people have died to provide because they don't have a birth certificate and can't afford to get one.

    A problem that will die out in a few years?  I get that there's very little fraud so as to make laws like this worthwhile, but isn't the excuse that some people don't have birth certificates - isn't that just as almost non-existent as well (or will be)?

    And don't most states nowadays offer people a free ID if they can't afford one? (I truly don't know and am just asking)

    Isn't this a problem that, if given enough lead time, would go away?  You could require a photo ID of everyone in the 2020 election.  That would allow for folks who don't have a photo ID to be able to get one.


    People could still be disenfranchised... (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    lost your ID night before election day, left it at home and can't go back and get it in time, etc. etc.

    Since there is no evidence of voter fraud on any scale to justify disenfranchising even one person, it ain't broke so don't fix it.  I've never shown an ID to vote in my life, and I hope I never do.

    We're not talking about buying a case of beer here...this is a sacred inalienable right, as pointless as it may be in practice.  What I'd like to see is voter expansion...restoring the right to vote for felons in states that forbid it, lowering the voting age to 16, for some examples.  Not voter suppression, which only serves those who don't want true representative government.


    Here is one article from NC (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    Hidden Costs: Even if voters who currently lack ID were given free ID, they still have to pay for the legal documents needed to get ID, such as a birth certificate or social security card. These documents can be hard to obtain and cost money. It also costs money (and time) to get to the DMV, the social security administration, or a county records department to obtain these documents. For low‐income voters, these barriers are significant and unfair. Link

    Recommend reading the whole thing.


    Hate linking on iPad (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:45:32 PM EST
    Here is good  link

    Here is another from ACLU (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:42:08 PM EST
    Research shows that more than 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification; a disproportionate number of these Americans are low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, and elderly.  Link

    Asking because I really don't know the (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    answer not because I'm disputing your info...

    How do all these people get aid? Food stamps, housing, Medicaid/Medicare, etc? Don't you have to show ID, prove citizenship, etc., to receive benefits?

    I am really surprised the number is so high. Like Slado mentioned in an earlier comment, you need either a state ID/DL, birth certificate or SS# for just about any transaction in this country.


    To answer your question (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    I don't know.

    I found this information from 06 which says a person would be prevented from receiving Medicaid if they did not have the documents.

    The Deficit Reduction Act, which was signed by the President on February 8th, contains a provision that would require all citizens applying for Medicaid or renewing their coverage to produce a passport or birth certificate to prove they are U.S. citizens. There would be no exceptions for any Medicaid applicants or beneficiaries, not even individuals with severe physical or mental impairments such as Alzheimer's disease.

    This new requirement, which a recent study by the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services shows to be unnecessary, would almost certainly create significant enrollment barriers for millions of low-income citizens who meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements. It also would increase Medicaid administrative costs. (For a discussion of these issues, see Leighton Ku and Donna Cohen Ross, "New Medicaid Requirement Is Unnecessary and Could Impede Citizens' Coverage and Policy Priorities," revised January 4, 2006. link

    I have looked but I cannot find if the powers that be developed a way to work around this requirement. They may have done so but I cannot locate any information on it.


    Thanks, MO Blue. (none / 0) (#78)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:52:46 PM EST

    That ACLU statement (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    While shocking, doesn't finish the thought, however.

    (From 2012)

    How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?

    It's not clear.

    According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.

    In late September, an analysis by Reuters and research firm Ipsos of data culled from 20,000 voter interviews found that those lacking proper ID were less likely to vote anyway, "regardless of state law changes."

    Among those who said they were "certain to vote," only 1 percent said they did not have proper ID while another 1 percent said they were uncertain whether they had the proper ID.

    The analysis also found that those who lack valid photo ID tended to be young people, those without college educations, Hispanics and the poor.


    As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.

    So, just as there is no widespread in-person voter fraud, there is no widespread lack of photo ID by those who can and would actually vote, but for the lack of said ID.  And there are still ways of getting people the documents they need to get an ID.  Yes, it would cost money to get them copies of their birth certificates and such, but everyone has SOME kind of documentation about who they are.  (And as for transportation of getting to these offices - how do these people get around to conduct the rest of their lives?)

    As for old people, they are most likely getting Social Security, Medicare, or some other kind of assistance - how do we know they are who they say they are for that?  They must have proven their identity some way. And a college kid who doesn't have an ID?  

    But regardless - this is definitely a non-existent problem, but saying things like "it's too hard" is just an excuse.  We put a man on the moon - we could surely figure out a way to get people photo ID if we put our minds to it.


    How about we (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    enact the law after all those great minds have figured it out so that not one person is denied his or her voting rights.

    According to your link the law could:

    decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent

    That sounds like more than 1 person to me.

    Of course, maybe it can be rationalized as a non-exist problem since, per your link, it only effects:

    young people, those without college educations, Hispanics and the poor.

    You missed the part (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:48:23 PM EST
    About the 1% who were "certain to vote".

    There are also things called "provisional ballots", so it isn't like they CAN'T cast a ballot.

    And how about the Dems, if they are so concerned, start efforts now to get people ID and registered to vote?  Why is only ever a concern weeks before an election and then is forgotten about until it becomes a political issue?


    Didn't miss that part at all (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    but you might have missed this part.

    not one person is denied his or her voting rights.

    Under your scenario it is better to deny 1% their right to vote so that you can claim that you fixed voter fraud which btw, is the non-existent problem.

    About those provisional ballots:

    To add insult to injury, Hiller was also denied the opportunity to cast a provisional ballot, something she is entitled to do even under the state's voter ID law, although it is doubtful that it would have made much of a difference if she had cast a provisional vote. Under Kansas' voter ID law, a voter who casts a provisional ballot because they lack photo ID must still show up at the local election office with identification before their ballot can be counted.

    How about the pols, Rs and Ds, who are elected to represent the people come up ways to make it easier to vote rather than coming up with ways to deny people their rights.  


    Not true (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    but everyone has SOME kind of documentation about who they are.
    Dang, I wish I could remember the details but I know I have talked about my friend who did some volunteering (through a church? school? I can't remember). What I do recall was the shockingly large number of the people that came in for help trying to prove that they were indeed who they believed themselves to be.  I think it was the way MD had defined suitable ID for various types of request that led to a circular reference.

    Okay, I need to contact my friend and get detailed scoop again.

    My point is: that is middle class thinking that you are doing right there.


    It sounds like you support the photo ID law (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 08:25:56 AM EST
    Just so everyone is clear on where you stand on this issue, do you support the law requiring everyone to have a photo ID to vote?

    I guess my feeling on this is that (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    people should be presumed to be citizens, entitled to vote, unless the government can prove they are not, or they are otherwise not eligible.

    Wouldn't that be a better standard, given how rare voter fraud has been documented to be?  Voting does not entitle the voter to any kind of monetary benefit, so I fail to see why we want to make it hard for people to exercise their right to vote, unless...this is about those imposing the restrictions and requirements not wanting to be voted out of office.

    Oh, I get that non-citizens don't have that right, but I guess I've always found it ironic that we attach something negative to the idea that someone who is not yet a citizen cares enough about this country to want to vote, but don't have the same contempt for those citizens who have the right but can't be bothered to register and/or vote.

    And aside from the logistics of complying with the ever-changing requirements being imposed by the states, this is one step closer to national ID cards, and a "papers, please" mentality to go along with the militarization of law enforcement.

    I wish people had a better ability to think past the ends of their own noses to the wider consequences, unintended or otherwise, of imposing these what's-the-big-deal? requirements and restrictions on the right to vote.


    It will (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    there is no reason to stop them from voting till them.  And no.  It's not always easy.  If I look I can find the middle aged guy from a month or so ago who said he tried and failed twice, for stupid reasons like "they ran out", and finally got one on the third try.  If you have no transportation and no disposable income that's a problem

    The man mentioned was black.


    Agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    But I think the argument that all these people won't be able to figure out a way to vote is equally as silly.

    If they really want to vote they will.   How hard is it to get an ID?

    It really comes down to how the laws are imposed and when they are.   If you give people lots of time and also do same day registration you can do it fairly.

    What I find amazing is how we have 50 different ways of voting in each state.   Seems we could standardize federal elections if they're so important.


    How hard it is depends on the state (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    in some places a birth certificate is required.  Many old people don't have these and they are not easy to get.

    It is (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    very difficult to get an ID and the GOP has been lying to people like you about this. Here in GA I had to have seven pieces of paper to renew a driver's license I have had for 25 years. The Real ID act initiated and passed by the Bush Administration has wrought this disaster of a law. It's a hidden tax and if you have to have a driver's license it is a hidden poll tax should you not have a marriage license from 1986 or some such.  

    Ga, I flat don't believe this (2.00 / 4) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    Here in GA I had to have seven pieces of paper to renew a driver's license I have had for 25 years.

    Jim, when I renewed my driver's license ... (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:51:55 AM EST
    ... last February, I was quite surprised to learn that I not only needed to provide proof of citizenship (passport), but also proof of legal name (birth certificate), two documents proving domicile such as a bank statement, paycheck stub (with address) or utility bill, and my Social Security card.

    Ga6th is telling the truth. What you believe is immaterial.


    Here (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 06:22:03 AM EST
    ya go Jim driver's license

    This is what happens when you continue to allow people namely the GOP to lie to you over and over Jim.

    I had to have my current DL, my birth certificate, my marriage license, my social security card, and two credit cards statements or utility bills that were in my name. If you're divorced you need divorce decrees. All of this you must pay for if you don't have it already and some of the ones that you've had for years don't qualify because they have to be certified. It's a poll tax administered by the disastrous Bush Administration.


    That's Jim's shtick: (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 06:54:30 AM EST
    If you tell him something that wasn't mentioned on Fox News or wasn't in his experience, then, you're lying, because he knows better than you.

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 07:36:32 AM EST
    wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit him in the face with a baseball bat.

    If you have any doubts, Uncle Chip (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:00:51 AM EST
    Google is your friend.

    Jim, if you're any kind (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    of a decent human being, you should apologize to GA for "flat out" not believing her.

    They would/could say... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    that's just business, nothing personal, a numbers thing, you understand.  LOL

    ... with nothing to offer but a steady stream of GOP platitudes and campaign slogans. Perhaps Condoleezza Rice didn't get an opportunity to hear her fellow Republican "Anthony from San Diego" on C-SPAN this past Thursday morning.

    Four-plus decades after leaving Alabama, Dr. Rice is so breathtakingly out of touch with the harsh reality that still besets most African-Americans throughout the country today, it's rather painfully obvious that the only thing she cares to remember about her race is how to run away from it.

    I do find Dr. Rice's personal reaction to the issue of racism entirely understandable, since her childhood and adolescent years were concurrent with a particularly gnarly era in Southern history, and I commend her for what she's since accomplished with her life.

    But Rice's lack of empathy for the African-American community is at once distressing and pathetic. Because for all her innate intelligence and intellectual prowess, which are both considerable, she's either unable or unwilling to publicly acknowledge that she also caught a few breaks along the way, thanks to affirmative action. Instead, judging by the political company she's chosen to keep, she appears more than willing to raise the drawbridge, now that she's managed to cross to the other side.

    And for someone who claims to be a political independent, Slado, you sure do seem to share Dr. Rice's affinity for Republican talking points.



    As soon as a republican (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    says "the best place on earth" they're already in misty Hallmark greeting card b.s mode. Morning in America..(cue the violins.) Rice bases her "best place to be a minority statement" on what factual grounds exactly?

    And Slado, from what I've read, "limited government" doesn't exactly precisely encompass where you're coming from. Sounds more like you and yours want pull the whole edifice down around everyone's ears. And the start building a lot more (privatized?) jails and prisons and police forces when the safety net and social programs are utterly done away with. In the name of boosting minority's lot in America.  



    I heard one of the respected wingnut (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    talk radio fixtures say the other day that people who support Obama "live in excrement and expect the rest of us us to pull them out of it."

    As far as I'm aware, not one person of any note on the Right thought there was anything inflammatory or hateful or outrageous enough to condemn about what that nitwit crowed over the radio. Which further tells me that that kind of rhetoric is more or less accepted and even expected on the Right.


    If I could I'd love (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    to go back in time and abolish the social welfare programs that institutionalize poverty but that's not going to happen.

    I'll take stopping the growth of government or at least slowing it.

    6 years of progressive economic policies and unprecedented pumping of money into the economy by the FED have led to the slowest recovery since the depression and a widening of the income gap.

    Nobody benefited more from the election of this president and his policies then the wealthy 1%.  

    So if that is the case.   How can opposing his policies be racist?


    Spoken Like a True Christian... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:17:54 PM EST
    ...going back in time to tell people who need help, desperately, that help actually hurts them.  Maybe you could take the food out of a child's mouth and scream, "That sandwich is only hurting you !!", then toss it on the ground and high five republican jesus for helping poor people.

    How about going back and ensuring that southern business owners don't drag a bunch of people from Africa to America to do the work they didn't want to do ?  Then after years and years of being property, when they are finally released, those same people won't have to spend generations trying to figure out how to F them even more and Condi Rice won't have to pretend racism doesn't exist in the party with no black politicians.

    Nope taking away from people who have nothing is the obvious solution.  Republican Jesus would be proud.


    Not sure if Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    is a social welfare program but you will take it (and my Obamacare) from my cold dead hands.

    I'm not taking anything (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    That ship has sailed.

    I can believe ideologically that they were misguided but that argument was lost 70 years ago and it's not going to be won now.

    That said if you want future people to have it we have to fix it along with the social safety net (or blanket) if we want to keep them going forward.

    Also if liberals really wanted to help the poor they'd figure out better ways to use these programs rather then guaranteeing that generations of people become wards of the state.

    Throw on top our drug war and criminal justice policies and you have government attacking the poor much more then any racist republican could ever dream of.


    For someone who complains ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    ... about empty talking points, you're very good at constructing whole paragraphs from them.

    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:25:25 PM EST
    I guess you missed welfare reform back in the 1990's.

    "Republican Jesus" (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    That gives me an idea.  Thank you.

    Not My IDea... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:36:41 PM EST
    ...if from Crooks and Liars, they used to do cartoons that were hilarious.  HERE is an example.

    The loaves and fishes one (none / 0) (#36)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    is my favorite. It makes me laugh every time!

    Why stop there? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    We should go back and give the county back to Native Americans.

    Nobody got a worse deal then them.


    No, Republican Jesus... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    ...is not down with handouts.

    You are the one who brought up going back and screwing people, I mean helping them by taking away from them.

    Myabe you could help the kazillionaires by taking away from them and giving it to the people with nothing, real jesus would actually be proud of that kind of help.  Republican jesus would kick your A.


    Jesus (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    Said..."Love they neighbor as thyself".

    Not, "Pay onto Caesar what is his so he can establish social welfare programs".

    I find your Jesus Republican argument pretty silly.    


    What about Pope Francis' statements (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    urging more systematized aid and help for the poor ... as a central part of Catholic belief?  I'm Catholic, and I recall your comments that you consider yourself a Catholic now as well....?  Is it more than Madame Bovary, is it more than going to Church to see the candles ... sorry to cut to this particular chase, but--unless we separate Sundays from the rest of the week--our spiritual beliefs must certainly be relevant to our integrated self???

    I Am Sure You Do... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    ...and that is what makes it so funny, you spew this garbage about christianity one day, then the next it's stepping on the people with nothing, apparently, for their own good.

    "If I could I'd love to go back in time and abolish the social welfare programs..." -Slado

    Mark 10:21-22 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me." When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

    I am sorry, what were you saying about republican jesus and programs that help the poor ?


    The eminent suffragist Susan B. Anthony ... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:57:33 PM EST
    Slado: "Jesus [said] ... 'Love [thy] neighbor as thyself. Not, 'Pay onto Caesar what is his so he can establish social welfare programs. I find your Republican Jesus argument pretty silly."

    ... once observed, "I distrust people who know so very well what God wants them to do, because I've noticed how it always coincides with their own desires."

    Thank you for proving her point. Sen. Al Franken nailed it a long time ago during his comedy days, with "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus."



    So give them a better one (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:40:29 PM EST
    This is America, is that impossible? I guess so. Sad.

    Those programs kept food in my tummy... (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    ...when my dad decided to be a self-absorbed prick and leave me and my young mom, which resulted in us living in the inner-city. I remember waiting on a hot sidewalk for blocks to get our check some months. I remember my mom not being particularly proud of having to use food stamps at the grocery store. I remember that my bedroom wasn't even a bedroom, but a large storage closet with a window. That's what we had WITH help, I can only imagine what would'be become of me had we NOT had that help.

    So, I resent you callous and dismissive attitude, but you're entitled to it.

    Also, it's not factually possible for the federal government to go financially bankrupt, nations sovereign in their own currencies never can, so all discussions about economics, poverty, cutting social programs...these "debates" have nothing to do with money. They are always about moral/ethical choices to make people who have very little and no power survive with even less. It's simply a blithe inhumanity masked as bullsh*t "fiscal responsibility."



    like I said to Capt (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    The programs are institutionalized now.

    Also I'd be a huge hypocrite if I said no programs are needed because my brother is handicapped and collects disability.

    Even if by some miracle I became supreme ruler of the US tomorrow I wouldn't abolish them.

    I would reform them however so we could afford them going forward.  I'd also try to figure out a way to fix our criminal justice system and drug laws.

    As I said.  The argument for the welfare state was lost a long time ago.  


    I wish you did not think (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    programs that provide for your disabled brother or people in their retirement constitute a welfare state.

    As someone living in an area with lots of poverty  I can tell you the actual "welfare" available to people who really need it is pretty thin.   Contrary to popular opinion.


    In my state (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    GA for adults with no dependents and not disabled is  topped at $337 (iirc) per month for ONLY 3months per calendar year and it has to be paid back. You are also eligible for up to $187month in food stamps (depending on how the math works out for you) and basic health care.

    So basic "welfare" for someone like me is about 1k per year (MUST be paid back and you sign off against your SS in case you don't pay it back) + food stamps and health care. That will get a person far, especially one in their 50's that is totally rejected on the job market due to age . . .


    In AR (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:41:36 PM EST
    an adult with no children get nothing. I looked into it back befor I started getting SS.  You can get about 300 a Month in food stamps but no money for rent or utilities.  No cash assistance at all.

    Ouch. Yup, pretty much sucks when your (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    unemployment runs out and you are past the age of 40-45 in this country . . .

    I'm putting my complete ignorance on (none / 0) (#80)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    this subject on display here...
    but I thought all low income people received housing subsidies (section 8 I think it is called?), food stamps and Medicare.
    So, it is only adults with dependents and people with disabilities who get assistance? What about the elderly?

    Nope. Not all poor people. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:26:19 PM EST
    Adults who are not disabled and do not have dependents are the back of the line. Housing goes to women with children and disabled first and the number of housing vouchers is limited. Just like waiting to get approved for disability insurance, housing is a process. Not sure how quick it is for women with children to get housing, but again, vouchers are a controlled number. There is also 'math' which goes into all of these processes. In Ca, if you make over $277 a month (adult w/o kids) you are not  eligible for that  300 a month-for-3months-that-you-have-to-pay-back. You can work on food stamps and there is a calculation on how much you get based on living expenses/earnings etc. Healthcare here is pretty much the easy part, from what I can tell, since Obama care kicked in. If you make "too much" (lol!~) that would kick you off MediCal, Obamacare kicks in and you have free/subsidized insurance. So if you just make a bit too much for MediCal, you can still get healthcare without spending from that minimum wage paycheck.

    Elderly are different because once they hit SS/medicare age, they are out of that part of the "welfare" system.


    Thanks, Nycstray. (none / 0) (#90)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:16:42 PM EST
    Quite eye opening.

    I have been grumbling for the past few days because our health insurance plan (through my spouse's employer) which has been great for the past few years (no deductibles or coinsurance, just $20 copay and covered just about everything) is now changing.

    Because of the tax on Cadillac plans feature in Obamacare, the employer is no long offering those plans, only plans with deductibles and coinsurance. So, our health care costs are going to be going up substantially.

    It is a good thing Obamacare is helping some people or I would be grumbling even more... :-)


    That's the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    way it is here in GA too but the GOP apparently has been very good at putting forth these myths but I see the reason why they do. It's all about extremely poor people feeling like they are somebody and the odd thing is they would rather starve themselves and their children because "those people" are gonna get X when X might even help themselves too. Crazy. Anyway a number of years ago probably about 4 my husband lost his job and just out of curiosity and partly desperation I went to the GA social services website and checked on food stamps. At the time I had a 17 year old, a 9 year old and then me and my husband. Do you want to know what the food stamp allotment for a family of four was $200 to $400 a month. There is no way I could feed four people on that amount and I'm not talking steaks. I'm talking probably not even being able to buy any meat on that amount and certainly almost nothing on the lower amount. $200 a month would be nothing but pbj sandwiches.

    Pretty sure it's more than that (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    for a family of four.  Here it's about 300 a month for a single person.  That's food stamps.  Which contrary to common knowledge can not be spent on anything but food.  And not all food.  When you check out at the grocery store, if it's like here, you will see two totals.  One for everything eligible for food stamps, and a total.  You can't buy any non food.  Not toilet paper.  Not coffee filters.
    It's state by state but in AR a single adult gets no financial assistance beyond that.  None. Ever.  If you are disabled financial aid is possible but it's not easy to get and can take years.

    However (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    if someone in the house has a job that would reduce what they get depending on the amount of the income.  But a family of 4 with no income would get more than that.  

    One other thing (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    the income cutoff here is about 1200 a month.  So a full time minimum wage job, even before the MW increase, would put you out of the program.

    Well, how many MW jobs actually hire you (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:00:43 PM EST
    full time? They might have to give you benefits if you work more than x-hours per week, ya know . . .

    Yeah, there's even stuff at the farmer's market (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 10:07:00 PM EST
    you can't buy with your food stamps because of da rules . . .

    The reason you can get financial aid if you are disable is because of SS. But it is a b!tch to get, from what I understand.

    I think you and I fall in the same demo. We be screwed, darn able-bodied adults with no kids be we!


    "Reform them" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:45:30 PM EST
    "Cut" or "slash" would be a more accurate description.  Get rid of all the undeserving slackers and welfare queens, right?

    There are many things to criticize about (none / 0) (#27)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    this country. Having said that, I would agree with Rice, the US is one of the best (if not the best) place to be a minority. There is a reason immigrants flock to this country.

    The issue I think is being a minority (by minority, I mean dark skinned) and poor.  Try being both of those in a 3rd world country.


    In a 3rd world country... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by unitron on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    ...being dark-skinned doesn't necessarily mean being a minority.

    But being poor in a 3rd world country still bites, no matter what color you are.


    You are right about that. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by vml68 on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    In a 3rd world country being dark-skinned doesn't necessarily mean being a minority.

    Though in most Asian countries where almost everyone is some shade of brown, you would be surprised by how much the people that are a lighter shade of brown are favored over those that are darker.


    Of course it is... (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:24:36 AM EST
     but do we aspire only to being better than nations where being poor means being consigned to a life of hopeless, wretched misery?

      Obviously, there are huge advantages to living in a prosperous and powerful nation and while the benefits are not and never will be equally distributed, even the poorest among us here have better prospects than the masses in the impoverished nations.

      To me, that's beside the point. The salient question is whether we do enough relative to what we can afford to do, given the will, to provide for neediest among us.

      I also  base my  perspective on the reality that the poor will always be among us. No matter how strong our economy and how capable of providing jobs it may become, there will always be some people who do not make it on their own. It's  not at all realistic to believe that all the educational and training opportunities imaginable together with a perpetually booming economy would result in eliminating the existence of people who do not support themselves entirely through their own efforts.

     I'm deliberately saying "do not" as opposed to "cannot," largely because I don't believe assistance should be premised entirely on whether a recipient is physically or mentally incapable of performing work that pays sufficiently to allow for self-support, or otherwise deemed deserving or worth of assistance.

      I believe assistance and services should be provided not so much on the basis that the recipients deserve or are entitled to receive it  as on the basis that it's  morally  right  to give it. Beyond that, is the more pragmatic belief that if we do not provide for the poor, deserving or not, we will incur other costs which may be more undesirable than higher taxes. (Crime, political instability, worse social dysfunction and pathologies, etc.)



    Your comment (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:54:43 PM EST
    provides sensitive and sensible insights overall, and offers what you term a "pragmatic belief" that seems to be often overlooked or dismissed.

    Namely, " that if we do not provide for the poor, deserving or not, we will incur other costs which may be more undesirable than higher taxes. (crime, political instability, worse social dysfunction and pathologies, etc.)

    Perhaps, this perspective may be seen as crass, being either a form of extortion or an unseemly insurance policy.  But, it is merely acknowledgement of the workings of the capitalistic economic system and the realization that human behaviors follow a pattern not unlike that of a bell curve. Opportunities are there for all:  most will do well, some very well, and some not well at all.  Attenuations for those that do not do well at all permit the rest to succeed in the system.  


    I agree with what you say but I was (none / 0) (#134)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    not talking about whether the US could do much more for its poor than it is doing right now.
    I was responding to this comment by Jondee.

    As soon as a republican says "the best place on earth" they're already in misty Hallmark greeting card b.s mode. Morning in America..(cue the violins.) Rice bases her "best place to be a minority statement" on what factual grounds exactly?

    I would not call what Rice said B.S. Condoleeza "mushroom cloud" Rice was wrong about a lot of things but that does not mean she is wrong about everything.
    I find it odd that just because she is a Republican her views on being black or a minority in this country are being mocked.


    She is Being Mocked... (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:23:29 AM EST
    ...at least by me, because she is about as clueless as they get, not just with this or that topic, but every word that comes out of her mouth.  So if she has something to say about GWB, security, race, or gender, it all goes in the same garbage basket.  The ramblings of a diluted fool.

    Am I suppose to think that on one subject she is has some authority, no.  I wouldn't take her advise on how to change a tire if I were stranded on the highway, because I know she doesn't know what the he11 she is talking about and there is a real good chance, her advise would damage my vehicle.

    There are several Bush cronies I would toss I the same mix including Rumsfeld, Feith, and Yoo, but there are plenty more.  

    I cannot even process the notion that she may not be wrong about everything.  Maybe, but that is like trying to pick the winning lottery numbers, there is a chance, but not really.


    You make a good point (none / 0) (#141)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:32:06 AM EST
      There is obviously a very strong tendency among some here to enforce rigid orthodoxy and the idea, "yer either fer us or agin us." Couple that with some or most of that group also having the seemingly reflexive tendency to mock, attack, insult or belittle others because of disagreement and it can be difficult to maintain a reasoned discourse.

       It is instructive for me that how my comments are received depends so dominantly  on how closely they hew to the views of the people who seem to live to pounce on those people  who dare challenge their views. And I do mean pounce on those people, not the ideas.

      It sure I'm alternately well received or very negatively received not based on any differences among  the tone of my posts, the factual premises asserted for my views or  the logic or lack thereof in my posts, but almost entirely upon whether those posters who can abide no dissent agree or disagree. I obviously am more aware of how my posts are received, but I believe that statement is generally true.

      At the risk of being presumptuous, I'd suggest that if think this post might be directed toward you, then it probably is. Maybe you should take a few deep breaths  before responding and see if you can express disagreement without impugning the character, integrity, intelligence, etc., of those who write something with which you disagree.



    Speaking for me only... (none / 0) (#172)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    guilty as charged!


    I do mean pounce on those people, not the ideas.

    I have "pounced" on a couple of people whose online personas really grate on my nerves, when they have made comments I have completely disagreed with. When those same comments from posters I have a high regard for would just get a silent "agree to disagree" from me.

    So, I am being hypocritical when I wonder why people are discounting Condi's message just because they don't like the messenger.


    IMO people gain or lose (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    creditability based on their actions.

    The "mushroom cloud" lie, which was just one of many, was an enormous lie that helped justify this country taking disastrous action.

    People who spend years lying to an individual or a country in order to promote an ideology or a political agenda more often than not lose all creditability. It is very easy to dismiss their public statements as nothing more than another attempt to promote the same ideology or political agenda.

    Condi Rice has absolutely no creditability as far as I'm concerned. The same holds true for Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Rove, Wolfowitz and Powell to name just a few.

    It all comes down to a matter of trust and not likability.


    Sure, (none / 0) (#181)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:32:07 PM EST
     someone who has a history of being untruthful should and will be viewed as less credible.

      I have no problem with that. But, that doesn't support the next leap being made. Just because one (or several, or even many people) with a credibility problem makes an assertion should not cause people to  summarily dismiss the assertion. A liar can say something that is accurate, that particular  person's lack of credibility  might be a very good reason to be skeptical (as might the motive  as well) but it should not end the discussion.

     This is a logical fallacy:

      A has told lies.

      A says X is true

      Therefore, X is false.


    I do not find Condi creditable (none / 0) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    It is my opinion that the public statements she makes are politically motivated and are less than honest.

    Now you do not have to agree with me or support the next leap, as you put it. It doesn't bother me one way or another.

    Now if you would like to point out all the ways that Condi's statement is accurate with verifiable data, we can continue the conversation. Otherwise, you have gave your opinion, just as I have given mine.


    Correction (none / 0) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    you have given your opinion

    For illustration (none / 0) (#200)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 04:38:27 PM EST

     Her factual claims are highly supportable if a tad hyperbolic. The partisan political point that followed is highly dubious  but not the statement:

      "We're not race blind. Of course we have racial tensions. The United States has made enormous progress in race relations and it is the best place on earth to be a minority."

      You could quibble that a tiny  handful of small wealthy countries with very small minority populations might be more pleasant for those small numbers, but no country with a sizeable minority population would fall into that category. It's pretty undeniable that the countries of origin of the minorities or their ancestors  are not great places to live except for a privileged few-- hence the emigration.

    At the median, black families made $39,715 in 2010, down from about $44,000 in 2000.in 2000. -

    During the aftermath of the Great Recession, the annual unemployment rate peaked at 15.9 percent for blacks in 2010 and 2011.

      Note that link is lamenting the economic status of African Americans relative to whites.

      A valid lament  because there a large disparity in this country.

      But, consider

     Nigeria, one of the most developed nations in Africa:  $2420. Population below international poverty line of US$1.25 per day 54.4(%) 2007-2011

    Kenya: $1760.
    Population below international poverty line of US$1.25 per day 43.4(%) 2007-2011*


      Maybe you think it better to be poor where most others are too, but  my, fairly uncontroversial, opinion is that is false for, one would think, self-evident reasons.

      there is a suggestion at times that our race relations are worse than in other industrialized nations, but In reality they tend to be similar or worse wherever large numbers of people with darker skin than the dominant culture also reside.

      Taking instead a "rich" country

     In France average  net-adjusted disposable income per capita is 29 322 USD a year, which is very close to that in the USA. But, is France  better for minorities? No.

      Sadly, that isn't true, either. Otherwise, how does one explain why Arab immigrants in Europe are worse off than those in the United States? Why are leaders of Arab communities in France warning that social and racial tensions are in danger of creating a "social and political atom bomb"? Sure, France may be an extreme case, but the situation of Arabs in the rest of Europe is hardly better. In general, Muslims living in Europe -- of which Arabs constitute a significant proportion -- are poorer, less educated, and in worse health than the rest of the population. In the Netherlands, the unemployment rate for ethnic Moroccans is 22 percent, roughly four times the rate for the country as a whole. In Britain, the Muslim population has the highest unemployment rate of all religious groups.




    It isn't just because she is a Republican, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    it's because she didn't act with integrity and honesty during her time in the Bush administration, and her actions - or lack thereof - enabled Bush and Cheney and their minions to perpetuate evil that cost a lot of people their lives.

    In other words, it's hard to trust someone's perceptions are authentic, or mirror the perceptions of ordinary people, when that person has proven herself to be willing to be dishonest and disingenuous in service to terrible people with a terrible agenda.

    And really, while it may be marginally better to be a minority here, I find it incomprehensible that Rice isn't aware that far too many of her fellow Republicans espouse decidedly minority-unfriendly policies that they work for with great zeal.

    No, it isn't because she's a Republican that I would tend to reject her perceptions and opinions, it's because they come from the same person who helped Bush/Cheney lie their way into a war.


    I understand why Scott and you feel (none / 0) (#167)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    that way. Maybe as a minority myself, I am being extra sensitive about the issue. But, I would hate it if someone discounted or minimized my experience as a minority in this country just because they did not agree with the way I have lived my life or the decisions I have made. Not that I have made any decisions as disastrous as Condi Rice!

    I think she's entitled to speak for herself, (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    but I don't hold her opinions in general in much regard.

    In other words I don't really care what she thinks, quite frankly; there are a lot of other people out there - like you - whose opinions and perspective to which I would assign much more weight and authenticity.


    Typing too fast... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    "there are a lot of other people out there - like you - whose opinions and perspective would carry much more weight and authenticity. "

    It's simply illogical (none / 0) (#177)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    to dismiss everything someone says because you stornly disagree with them on a certain partisan issue.

    Should I ignore the things Obama says about family, faith, children, the military because I disagree with him so much on economics and the role of governmetn?

    No.  It'd be a silly partisan thing to do.

    You should have no problem taking the things Condi says about race because you don't like her foreign policy.   One has almost nothing to do with the other.

    Disregard her opinions on the ME peace or terrorism but it's intellectually dishonest to discard her views.

    I read every comment you make with an open mind.  When you're wrong I'm happy to point it out.  But by your logic I should never come to this site and read anyone's opinion because I disagree with you so much on certain issues.

    IMHO you are letting your partisan glasses blind you.  But that said I still like to read your posts.


    They would (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    be more credible if they didn't promote candidates like Nathan Deal who would consider Condi "a ghetto whore" and I can probably name a whole slew more Republicans who have said similar things and Condi would have more respect instead of being a laughingstock and apologist for the Bush Administration if she would actually ever criticize the racism in the GOP instead of giving it a cover.

    I don't have to defend (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    Kooky republicans to know I better identify with their policy solutions.

    Just like you don't have to defend kooky progressives and democrats.

    I would think an educated progressive like yourself wouldn't judge a whole group of people based simply on the actions of a few.

    I don't hold all progressives captive to your views after all.


    What are (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:29:09 PM EST
    you talking about judging a whole group by a few? I said Condi can't seem to find the time to call out someone like Nathan Deal or others when they make these kind of remarks can she? But she can find time to give them cover. I'm not talking about all Republicans I'm just talking about the racist ones of which there are plenty of down here in the south. I've never heard her utter one word of criticism of any of them for their statements yet right after every election she comes out with these kinds of statements completely ignoring what is going on in the GOP. This is why no one listens to her. She's simply not credible.

    So (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    all we hear from republicans, Boner, McConnell, McCain, is don't do it.  Don't do it. Don't do it.
    All we hear from the White House is we are doing it.
    Get ready, here it comes.  We are doing it.

    Raise your hand if you think this bodes well for governing.

    Not that I want them to govern.  

    What are/aren't we doing? (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    Executive action on immigration. (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    Boehner warns, Obama will "burn himself" (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    Not sure if Boehner has a cross in mind, or what.

    Those wacky repubs.  Gotta love 'em.  Or run.


    And McCain is pleading (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    pleading.  That's almost funny.

    John McCain 'Pleads' With Obama Not To Act Unilaterally On Immigration

    lol; I don't know what he's going to do... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:17:09 PM EST
    but the anticipatory histrionics are worth it.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:51:05 PM EST
    I even get what game they are playing here. It's not like the GOP is going to do anything on immigration and why are they pleading for him not to do it? Makes no snes to me.

    A judge just upheld gay marriage bans (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:58:48 PM EST
    there is now a split.  SC here we come.  Ready or not.

    Not just "a judge" (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Peter G on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the next level of court below the Supreme Court. The vote was 2-1. That makes binding precedent within the circuit, that is, for Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Unless the Circuit "en banc" (all 16 eligible judges) decides to reconsider the decision, then indeed a Supreme Court review is likely the next stop. And the ACLU doesn't have to ask for en banc review; they can just proceed to the Supremes, which is probably more likely.  The majority opinion by Judge Sutton is very readable, but very weird.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:06:41 PM EST
    i actually read it.  It was at that link.  It struck me pretty oddly too.  But I don't read many legal decisions.

    The dissent by Senior Judge (none / 0) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    Martha Craig Daughtery is readable as well.  Too bad Judge Daugherty's thinking did not prevail on the panel.  The dissent starts off on a roll and gets better:

    "author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal, whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same sex marriage violates equal protection under the fourteenth amendment.  Instead, the majority sets up a false premise-the question before us is "who should decide," and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism."

    Reading the majority opinion before the dissent, it did seem (a) that the majority was discussing the personal views of the  merits of same sex marriage more than the constitutional issue before it,   And, (b) the argument for reciprocity--acceptance of legal marriages in another state or country rests on an even shakier premise.  

    As Justice Ginsberg explained in a recent speech in Minnesota, when a split in circuits occurs (and she did mention the possibility of the sixth circuit),  it was likely that  the Supreme Court would become involved. And, Judge Sutton's majority opinion seems, to me, to have the sole purpose of facilitating that process.

    Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take this up yet in this session, for a decision by June 2015.  While it is technically possible for the Supreme Court to change direction, it surely would introduce chaos.  My best guess is that Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the only Justices in opposition.  

    Roberts is not likely to want the Court to be on the wrong side of history (he may have different legal reasoning than the others, as in ACA).   I doubt that any other decision would come from the full Cincinnati circuit, so a move directly to the Supreme Court is probably the best way to proceed.


    I think you are right (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    I hope you are right.

    Me (none / 0) (#165)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:59:28 PM EST

    Chief Justice Roberts (none / 0) (#166)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    thinks especially highly of Judge Sutton.

    Please, Peter, do not (none / 0) (#174)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    make this week any worse than it has been.    Based on the majority opinion, Justice Roberts and Judge Sutton are not in the same league.  Sutton's legal knowledge is no doubt better than the historical knowledge he displayed in his writing, but it seemed to evade, if not re-cast,  the question before it.  The religious undertones of the opinion makes me think that a basis for overturning state bans may be found in the Establishment clause.

    Sutton does acknowledge that same sex marriage is not a matter of if it will happen, but, rather,  when and by whom--apparently, the matter of constitutional equality is not for a judge to judge. No heroic lawyers or jurists to get credit (take that, RINO Ted Olson).  Not for a lowly Appellate Court to decide and unlike the other Circuits, the sixth has no guidance from the Supreme Court.  And, Sutton's need to evaluate the social impact for this social experiment (MA has only ten years at it) seems more in line with a graduate student thesis in sociology than an appellate judge.

    I think Roberts can still hold Judge Sutton in high regard and find an avenue, less strident than Judge Daughtery, but more intelligent than Sutton.  Roberts can keep his Republican ties with Sutton, he just need to filter out his bias.


    Sutton does not lack for intelligence (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    But he is totally wrong on this case.  In that, I certainly agree with you. Nor did I mean to imply that because the Chief Justice thinks highly of Judge Sutton, he would be especially likely to agree with his decision. If a majority of the Court is ready to take the step of finding marriage inequality unconstitutional, my take on Roberts is that he is more likely to find a way to concur than to dissent.

    Yes, and I did not (none / 0) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    intend to give the impression  that Judge Sutton is not intelligent, but I do believe he held some that asset in reserve in crafting his decision.  

     It seems more like a rear-guard, Dred Scott-quality screed than what might be expected by an apparently distinguished jurist.  Baker v Nelson, the one-liner rejecting the appeal of a Minnesota SC decision striking down gay marriage in 1972, is a weak hook upon which to hang his hat.  Judge Daugherty called it a "dead letter."  

     Judge Sutton did clerk for Scalia and perhaps picked up a few bad habits in the process.  But, he has shown at least an occasional stray from Republican conservatism in his decision in support of ACA--giving a roadmap for Chief Justice Roberts .

    So, Sutton's potential influence cannot be dismissed, but it seems to me that Roberts has already joined Justice Kennedy to provide an eventual 6/3 when it comes to it.  Pretty brash thinking, but  the idea cheers me.


    Link (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    Silk Road 2 was taken down (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    by social engineering:

     - from the above article:

    Authorities say that they were able to arrest Benthall after an undercover Homeland Security agent was able to gain the trust of Silk Road 2.0′s administrators and received access to "private, restricted areas" of the site reserved for its leaders. Through that operation, the agent said he was able to interact directly with Defcon.

    Well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    Harry Reid just cut off Obama's legs. Good for him.

    Please explain (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    or provide a link.

    Link (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:41:42 PM EST
    It's in the WaPo (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    and Reid's aide has come forward how Obama threw them under the bus back during the negotiations over the debt ceiling and now the senate is pretty much done with him.

    I think it's pointless (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    and sad.  We not only have to deal with a crushing defeat we now have to deal with the mandatory finger pointing.

    Well (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    IMO it's more or less about cutting Obama loose because in all honesty he's a lot of the problem. he's been the problem for quite a while now. He keeps himself bunkered down in the White House with his small circle of friends. People are just done with him and are ready to move on. Nobody wants to hear about unicorns farting rainbows or ppus anymore not that I ever wanted to hear though there is still the Obama is Awsome crowd.

    Harry Reid? (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    You mean the guy who described Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

    That Harry Reid?


    Nothing to see hear (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    Move along.  Only republicans can be racist you know.

    And there it is (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:42:20 PM EST
    Cheap, baseless accusations of racism because Reid's Chief of Staff criticizes Obama ... racism by association, no less.



    I'm not (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    really accusing Reid of being a racist.

    But I do think he is rather dopey.
    And completely useless and ineffective as a majority leader.

    What he was expressing about now president Obama, was typical, in my opinion, of the thinking of the people who are the king-makers behind the scenes.


    No idea what that's supposed ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    ... to mean, or how it relates to the criticism from Reid's COS, or Reid's comments are supposed to represent the "thinking of the king-makers".



    Sorry... (none / 0) (#104)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 05:25:00 AM EST
    I think I got confused by your comment.

    So if mine was unresponsive, that's why...


    And now for something completely different (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:01:54 PM EST
    How creepy is the Ravens Cheerleader Mom

    What is with this phenomenon.  I often joke with my buddies..."Where were these teachers and moms when I was in school?".

    But seriously these women are sexual predators.  Is this more common now then it used to be?  Or do we just hear more about it?

    I think we just hear about it more... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    it's creepy, yet not as creepy as a man doing it...product of our gender conditioning to feel that way I guess.

    Or in some rare cases it is true love...remember Mary Kay Letourneau?  


    OT, MrK, did you see that MileHi (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    came out of hiding last night for a brief moment?

    I had not... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:17:05 PM EST
    thank you, that's a relief.  

    Don't scare us with such prolonged absences Mile Hi!

    Now if 'Bama Jeff would do the same I'd have no such worries...


    Oh, my (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    Mitch McConnell is exceeding my wildest expectations. He plans HUGE cuts in Medicare. So the elderly tea partiers who showed up to vote for him are going to get sand kicked in their face right off the bat. No bipartisan legislation but he plans to pass far right legislation by reconciliation. All unpopular stuff. I can't remember it all.

    Hey Jim ppj these are the guys you voted for. All that whining about your premium? Mitch wants it to up more. You guys are about to get what you voted for.

    They won't balance the budget on the backs.. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:23:36 PM EST
    ... of the poor.

    They'll balance the budget on the corpses of the poor.


    The best description (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    I have heard of the current GOP is petty, small minded, mean and vindictive. I think that pretty well describes them.

    2016 (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    Are we going to have Red State seniors holding signs saying they want Obamacare too?

    I can see one thing happening. CA is still keeping an eye on single payer for the state, if the TP has their way, us left coast kooks in CA may get SP sooner . . . :P


    Wouldn't that (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    be a scream? People with signs and wheel chairs saying Mitch keep your hands off my Medicare. LOL

    The Advocate person of the year (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 06, 2014 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    Vladimir Putin.  Interesting choice.

    Photo (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 08:46:34 AM EST
    Of Putin is a reference to TIMEs Hitler Man of the Year cover

    This is a great choice.  People are complaining that there was so many heroes this year, Tim Cook, Michael Sam, their finalist list is truly impressive.
    And that really great.  But it's brilliant to not take our eyes off the prize.  To not forget how much there is still to do even tho things are looking a lot better for some.

    Great choice.  Great image.  It will be iconic.


    Veto... (none / 0) (#103)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 05:20:39 AM EST
    The republicans are already salivating about OKing the Keystone Pipeline.

    I'm not sure he would want to, but if Obama wanted to veto it, would he have the power to do so?

    They need 2/3rds vote of both Houses (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    To override a Presidential veto.  So it's in the Won's hands if there was a bill that passed both houses anyway.

    The election results (none / 0) (#105)
    by lentinel on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 05:49:41 AM EST
    are seen as being good for business - or so they say.

    It seems that the sanctions against Russia by the gummint are having a negative impact on American businesses in Russia.

    I would guess that the Repubs would be gung-ho for sanctions, but if that's really not too good for business....

    What will they do?
    What will they do?

    Either way, we get the business, if you know what I mean.

    Sharyl Atkinsson reveals her cluelessness about (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 07:13:15 AM EST
    computer hacking, blames Media Matters for telling the truth about her claims.

    Sharyl Attkisson refused to answer questions from Politico about the inconsistencies in her story of alleged government hacking into her computer. Instead, she once again lashed out at Media Matters.

    In a Huffington Post interview yesterday, Attkisson changed her story about an alleged intrusion into her laptop computer. In her book Stonewalled, Attkisson wrote that an anonymous source had given her the identity of the person who had hacked into her computer. But while speaking to Huffington Post, Attkisson said she didn't know who the hacker may have been, but "I just know that there's some government tie."

    When Politico reporter Dylan Byers asked Attkisson about these inconsistencies, she refused to address them. Instead, she told Politico that "I am not reading Media Matters and would caution that they are an unreliable, partisan, vested 'source' that in the past has produced much incorrect and distorted information."

    She added, "I continue to be surprised that anyone treats them as a credible source--while never seeming to seriously address allegations from it's right wing counterparts. The media's disparate treatment of the two politically-motivated groups is addressed in stonewalled. So, in short, Media Matters is a proven, unreliable, partisan source."

    Media Matters previously consulted with security experts about a video released by Attkisson showing evidence of purported "hacking," and they concluded it was more likely that the backspace key was stuck on her device.

    The attack on Media Matters follows her pattern of claiming - without evidence or substantiation - that Media Matters has gotten reporting on her wrong. Similarly, in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Attkisson said "I actually read little to zero of what [Media Matters] write[s]," but again claimed "they have definitely said many, many, false things."

    She has a fine career ahead of her on Fox Noise.

    Loretta Lynch (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    US Attorney out of Brooklyn, expected to be Obama's nominee for Attorney General.

    Jobs Report (none / 0) (#142)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    Pretty good news today but underneath all the fan fair is an ugly story.

    Another drink please, bartender.

    Think this is why the American people don't "feel" the good news the numbers say they should.

    I don't think this is all Obama's fault other then to say the policies of the past aren't going to work with tomorrow's economy.

    We need something different to spur new job growth that isn't low paying and part time.

    Any ideas?

    Perhaps, I mis-read your comment, slado (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    Let's see ... good economic news as unemployment keeps falling and numbers of jobs keep growing.  Let's see also ... President Obama has repeatedly stressed over these months of growth that we, as a country, have much more that we can do in terms of wages & job growth (most recently, he cited the pressing need for increasing the minimum wage and specifically said again that there should be opportunity for bipartisan agreement on infrastructure growth and the jobs that investment would produce.)  

    Finally, let's see ... I read your comment here to focus on the cloud in every silver lining.


    What kinds of jobs are those? (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    Do you know?

    As of April, the vast majority of jobs created were low-wage, mostly things like fast food and retail.  Do you know if this has changed and all of a sudden the jobs being created are higher wage / professional?


    This report showed increases (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    In healthcare, education and other non-retail categories.

    That's my point (none / 0) (#179)
    by Slado on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    While we've created more "jobs" the labor participation rate keeps dropping and the wage rate stays flat.

    Meaning everyone who is not really rich isn't seeing their household income increase and in fact see it decrease because they don't have full time employment or are working at low paying jobs.


    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 11:58:23 AM EST
    just said they are taking a case that challenges the right of those without a state exchange (me) to be eligible for the discounted price I now get through the ACA.

    This one is personal.

    New Republic (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    Here it comes (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:29:58 PM EST
    I would really like to understand (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    under what circumstances the court could actually decide that because my state, and 36? others, did not create an exchange and I used the one that I was told from day one I could and should use, that I should be the subsidies available to those lucky enough to live in a star with an exchange.
    The NPR link said the issues are "complicated".  I have seen this before.  Why?

    It's interesting that of the two cases from lower courts, one agreeing and one not with that objection, they took the one disagreeing.  In other words they aparrently took the case that held that in SHOULD get the benefits of the ACA.



    The issue is "complicated" only because (none / 0) (#169)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    the precise words used in the statute authorizing the subsidies refer explicitly to the state exchanges and not to the federal exchange, while everyone (everyone honest, that is) agrees that this is not what the drafters intended. In other words, the restrictive language is an unintentional drafting error. The circumstances under which a court is allowed to say that a statute means something other than what it seemingly clearly says (not resolving an ordinarily language ambiguity, in other words) are understandably pretty narrow and hard to invoke.

    While I agree that this lawsuit is stupid (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    Isn't beyond a little incredulous that people who wrote a 1400 page bill, that took over a year to write, that was written by mostly lawyers - that they wouldn't have seen this coming?  Especially when there were people at the time who aired these concerns (so it isn't like they were completely unaware of this)?

    And to answer Capt's question:

    It's interesting that of the two cases from lower courts, one agreeing and one not with that objection, they took the one disagreeing.  In other words they aparrently took the case that held that in SHOULD get the benefits of the ACA

    It's because the other case, Halbig v. Burwell, is still pending for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to hear it en banc on December 17th, so the Supreme Court couldn't take it yet.


    I understood the complications (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    as Peter explained them.  And we agree it's stupid.

    My real question is that does any one think they will take healthcare away from 5 million people because of this?  Even to the point of saying congress has to fix it? ( good luck with that).  
    I am not so worried about myself.  Probably the worst case for me is I would have to be uninsured for a few months before I can get Medicare.  I am worried about all the people I know who this would screw.  It seem almost unimaginable to me that they would do that.


    I would like to think that the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#199)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 04:21:30 PM EST
    just wouldn't.  It would look way too political for their own tastes and self-image.  But nothing is impossible.  I would have said the same about the Voting Rights Act decision (Shelby County) and I would have been wrong.

    Bo Diddley may be gone... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    ...but dammit if he still don't rock on. (link)

    Have a great weekend, peeps. I'm emerging from the cave, I believe. We shall see. Peace out, y'all.

    I've always been partial... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    to the Ronnie Hawkins & The Hawks version...but no Diddley like Bo Diddley.

    Bo Diddley a Gunslinger!


    That is indeed a great version (none / 0) (#156)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    Then again, you can hear every rock riff ever... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    ...in a Blind Willie McTell tune from almost a century ago, so what do I know?

    Oops, forgot the link (none / 0) (#161)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Taj Mahal on that action (none / 0) (#162)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    The todd man on Obama (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    Mr. Todd dissects "the promise versus the reality of Obama" and concludes that he will be regarded, at least in the near future, as "a president whose potential wasn't realized." He writes that "income inequality is worse than ever," that the Middle East could well be "more unstable when Obama leaves office than when he took it," and that while he "wanted to soar above partisanship," his tenure in office will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations."

    and this:

    what critics see as Mr. Obama's passive leadership and lack of managerial experience; his disdain for, but inability to change, politics as usual in Washington; and his reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus.

    Seems like Chuck Todd got a lot right about Obama here even though I'm not a big fan of Todd.

    Amazing the high bar (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by vicndabx on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 03:43:31 PM EST
    People set up for this guy.

    Halarious (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 at 05:01:05 PM EST
    Nothing to see hear only republicans can be racist you know. - Slado

    But Condi said.... blah, blah, blah...