home

Saturday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Senate Passes $600 Billion Defense Authorization Bill | "Shami Witness" Arrested in India >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • A reader's theatre presentation of this (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 06:16:58 AM EST
    new play had me in tears tonight. Very resonant in light of the recent death of Tamir Rice. The playwright read the part of the mother/stepmother.

    Brownsville Song

    On a rainy morning at daybreak (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:14:24 AM EST
    That was nice (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:29:05 AM EST
    but it almost put me back to sleep.

    So I had to turn to a bookmark around.   I don't keep it just to wake me up.  But it works for that to. It's bookmarked because I love the song, I love the pic and I love Iggy.

    It just cheers me up.  Every time I hear it.

    Parent

    I went through a phase (none / 0) (#15)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:31:37 AM EST
      in my midteens of listening to stuff like the Stooges, MC5 and the New York Dolls, but I don't remember ever hearing that. It's more "tuneful" than I associate with Iggy.

    Parent
    I spent last night listening to Jello Biafra's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    various D.O.A. tributes to the reign of George Dubya, starting with Full Metal J****.

    Not so cheery.  No links, the html would melt.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#45)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    if you ever want a lullaby type song

    Parent
    The more people look at what is in the CRomnibus (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:27:50 AM EST
    bill the worse it gets and Obama is supporting this piece of crap legislation.

    CRomnibus that the House passed on Thursday night included a GOP-proposed change to an Obamacare program long loathed by Republicans.

    A House aide confirmed to TPM that Republican staffers requested the change to the so-called risk corridor program, which is designed to keep premiums stable by making payments to insurers if they lose more money than expected in the law's first few years. link



    God bless Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    i absolutely love the abject panic in the beltway chattering class about her.  I have been listening to MSNBC this morning and since I woke up it has been a nonstop smear fest of Warren.  She is Ted Cruz on the left.  She is demagoguing.  She doesn't understand the bill.  Seriously, she doesn't understand the bill?  Steve Kornaki (who I loath) gave Jim Moran, who voted for and help twist arms for passing this bill, and who's biggest complaint seems to be he doesn't get paid enough about 20 minutes of unchallenged smearing and lying about her and this godawful bill.   I encourage people to watch it online.  We need to understand what is coming.  FROM THE SO CALLED "left".

    God bless her.  She is the new liberal lioness.  I hope to god she can be convinced to run for president.

    Parent

    She's (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    definitely not running for president but I actually think she's more effective where she is. She doesn't have to worry about a lot of things a presidential candidate would and can just let it rip.

    Parent
    Warren is an exellent advocate (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    in the Senate. She even has the desk of another great advocate.

    As you may be suggesting, the passion of the advocate/the protagonist can be quite a different matter than the judicial temperament helpful to a judge or other role.  I'm still mindful of a prophetic, pragmatic bit of advice from the political philosopher Saul Alinsky that a key to change and movement is to know the process and identify where in the directional movement your personality/yourself naturally fits. For instance: Are you a catalyst, a first-line fighter, the next line in an advance, the negotiator, the decision-maker. (Short: Force-fits can work for awhile ... but, they are hard.)

    At this time, I think that the unusual significance of the Massachusetts Senator is how she uses the freedom <of no confining expectations> to champion and advance a crucial set of national economic concerns from a liberal perspective.  In and of itself, that can only help advance a much-needed, focused national debate.  

    As for aspirations to the Presidency:  I understand that for a person to seek that position, success almost always depends upon the degree of drive to attain that post ... from historians to political scientists to pols and the candidates themselves, the consistent advice is that the would-be candidate has to know and act on that campaign endeavor with their total and entire being. For now, there is no indication that Senator Warren has that all-consuming personal drive ... unless she clearly voices a change in thinking, it might be wise to take her at her word/words.

    Parent

    I wouldn't bet the farm on that (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:41:01 AM EST
    movOn just announced they are going to spend a million dollars to convince her to run.  And a group of influential Obama staffers, the ones who got him elected, just sent her a letter calling on her to run.

    The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States

    Parent

    She's toast if the advisers move in. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    Stay Angry and Stay Outside.

    Parent
    She strikes me as a person (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    who could be inside and stay outside.

    Parent
    You see (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:01:45 PM EST
    this is exactly the problem. It's a repeat of Obama, same people, same strategy same lack of experience. It's like a dreaded repeat. She has said repeatedly that she is not going to run. The thing is I don't think she wants to be president. She doesn't want to answer foreign policy questions nor she seem interested in that.

    Don't get me wrong. It's not her that's the problem as I see it. It's the people like Move On that are the problem. They're the same ones that were shopping "Obama is the savior" stuff back in '08. I don't even know if the voters want another repeat of Obama.

    Parent

    thank you (3.00 / 2) (#206)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    i was simply going to say "MoveOn" are idiots - you explained why

    Parent
    Chris Hayes (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    did a segment on this last night with a representative from  MoveOn.  It's on the list below the featured clip.  I cant and link directly.  It called "Warren for President: it's getting real"  or something like that.

    Parent
    We need to keep her... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by unitron on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    ...right there in the Senate, where she can get something done.

    Or stop some other things from being done.

    We could use the kind of national conversation that her running for President might begin, but I'm not confident that it wouldn't be hijacked by the minions of big money.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:28:55 AM EST
    this seems to be the standard response every time this is mentioned.  That's your opinion and you are welcome to it.  I, and millions of others, could not possibly disagree more.

    Parent
    I know people want her to run, but (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    Warren herself has been very clear that she does not want to run in 2016. Not everybody wants to be president. She has been consistent and adamant about not running. So, frankly, I wish people would leave her the hell alone about this. It strikes me as so disrespectful that people ignore what this woman has said about what she wants and insist that she give them what they want.

    Find a progressive who wants to enter the race and throw your support to them. A whole lot of money is, IMO, being wasted trying to draft Warren. Money that could be spent on a good candidate who actually wants the job.

    Parent

    Take it up with MoveOns 8 mill members (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    who just decided at a representative meeting to spend a million dollars to change her mind.

    Seems pretty funny you think it's disrespectful to try to get someone to run for president.  We must define that word differently.

    Parent

    What I think is disrespectful is to (none / 0) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    ignore Warren's statements that she is not running and to continue to try to force her to do something she has stated she does not want to do. We have all known people who cannot take no for an answer, and it is at best annoying.

    It is one thing to ask someone to run, as many did ask Warren months ago, and quite another to ignore and disregard the answer when it is not the one you want.

    Find someone who wants to be president and back that person.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    a. Everyone says they don't want to run
    And
    b. She isn't being blackmailed

    Parent
    It's intriguing for sure (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by CST on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    MA politicians don't usually do well on a national stage, some people think it's because the state is too left.  The ironic thing is, that's exactly what people like about Warren.  I think the real problem with MA politicians is the northeast attitude and Warren isn't from here the way Kerry and Kennedy (and Bush) and others are.  She's not a snob.  But she does speak her mind like some other MA politicians I can think of - Frank, Capuano, etc...

    I also honestly think that any Dem nominee could probably win in 2016.  So it would be pretty freaking awesome if it were her.  There is a built-in demographic advantage and I don't see her squandering it.

    On a selfish note, I'm kind of tired of close races.  We spent so many years with Kerry-Kennedy that it's weird doing this over and over again.  But it's probably for the best to get some fresh blood in there.  I love having Warren in the senate but if she decided to run for president she'd have my full support.

    The other unmentionable thing that everyone is thinking and few people are saying out loud yet - does she defer to Hillary?  And if not, how nice/ugly will the primary be?

    Parent

    Does Hillary even want to run (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    if there is a very good option?

    Parent
    another good question (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by CST on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    Would Hillary defer to Warren?

    Honestly, I'd be pretty happy with either one of them.  They both have pros and cons.  Hillary might be more effective behind closed doors.  She's been closer to the process.  She also seems more willing to compromise.  That can be a good or a bad thing.  I think there are still some major question marks about Warren's effectiveness.  But one thing we can be relatively sure of - she will use the bully pulpit in a way that Obama could have and didn't.  And it will be much harder for the media to pretend she's irrelevant.

    Parent

    Why on earth would she or should she? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:31:28 AM EST
    She has a much broader base of support than Warren does, at least right now.

    Parent
    New Republic yesterday (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    Fivethirtyeight (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 06:18:43 PM EST
    that Warren is not as well liked by democrats as Hillary is. Obama was tied pretty much with Hillary in 2006. I think largely that is because Warren does not have the appeal to minorities that Hillary has.

    Parent
    Exactly right, IMO (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:35:52 AM EST
    Warren would be starting from zero appealing to and getting out the vote of minority voters. Clinton has a history there, through Bill and herself. Much broader base to start with, and a better shot at making inroads to middle class white people.

    I know Warren's ideas would be better for middle class white people than they can even imagine, but even the pure fact of her running as the draftee of the left would put her in a hole.

    If she wants to do it she should stand up and do it, not get pulled in by some draft movement.

    Parent

    Too early to say (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    it's not too early. For some reason candidates from the northeast have a problem with minority voters or minority voters have a problem with those candidates. It's pretty much the way it has been for quite a while now. Don't ask me the reason because I don't know.

    Parent
    Is there any evidence (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:23:10 PM EST
    she has a problem with minorities?  I would say it's more about name recognition.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 04:35:42 AM EST
    what I mean is not that she personally has a problem with minorities but that candidates from the northeast have problems with getting minorities to show up to vote for them.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:28:29 PM EST
    You really do not know! Even your facts are wrong. Warren grew up in Oklahama in a working class family.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 04:39:17 AM EST
    she did but for the last 30 years she has been in academics and lived in MA. There is nothing wrong with being in academics but as we've seen with Obama, coming from that background doesn't translate well into the presidency.

    Parent
    The conclusion that a background in (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:08:39 AM EST
    academia Is not a good match for the presidency based solely on your view of the performance of one man seems like a real stretch to me.

    Warren and Obama are two very distinct personalities and are extremely different politically.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:06:51 AM EST
    there's Woodrow Wilson too if you want to use him as another.

    What's this all looks like to me is a repeat of Obama circa 2008. Warren is a rock star say some. Obama was a rock star in 2008. Move on loved Obama. Move on loves Warren. Obama had not finished a term in the senate. Warren has not yet completed one term.

    Though like I said above the people that are pushing Warren to run are the same ones that were suckered by Obama. It seems they have learned nothing from six years of Obama. I just feel like the same group who blew their wad on Obama are the last people I'm going to listen to about yet another presidential candidate.

    Parent

    You of course are entitled to (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:52:41 AM EST
    your opinion but IMO Warren and Obama are nothing alike politically.

    If you want to compare political positions on issues, you would be much closer by comparing HRC and Obama. Both are DLC corpoate Dems.

    Parent

    But see (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    that's the problem. Obama was saying the same thing back in '08 and he did not hold to it.

    Parent
    Actually Obama was not saying (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    The same thing back in 08.

    He was saying Social Security was on the table, Reagan was a transformational president and the Republican Party was the party of ideas.


    Parent

    As a Republican? (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    Question: Given your support for President Obama etc. ... now, what is your problem with Hillary Clinton?  (Since in so many ways with regard to the President's efforts I have been supportive of you, I must admit a bit of surprise here.  What am I missing? Seriously, politalkix.)

    Parent
    Isn't funny, both Elizabeth Warren (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:15:42 AM EST
    And Hillary Clinton were both Republicans in their younger years.

    Parent
    I know a lot of people ... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    ... who were trying to figure out their political positions when they were in high school or college and ended up "switching", if you will.  I think it's often the case that people adopt the position of their families or the the dominant positions in the area in which they grew up, but make their own choices after they get out on their own and become more informed about issues.

    Parent
    Yes, it is interesting (none / 0) (#165)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    Some people take much longer in their youth to get the message tho :)

    Parent
    If being a Republican in the past (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    Is some kind of major issue now, then HRC has the same issue.

    If you want to consider actual policy positions now, Warren is to the left of Clinton.


    Parent

    Excellent question (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:28:16 PM EST
    she was one of the first ones to join Ready for Hillary so she would have to explain that one if she ran but in all honesty I don't think she's going to run because of the MA graveyard of presidential candidates and she's smart enough to know that and also she seems like she really doesn't want to be president. Not everybody does and there's more to being president than just the banking issues.  

    Parent
    Massachusetts did (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 06:12:06 PM EST
    yield presidents, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, and John Kennedy.   George HW Bush was born there, but, he is, of course, a Texan.

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    and it's really unfortunate that it's the way it is now but it is and I really do not know what it is that way.

    Parent
    What CST said (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    she slapped current and former dem administrations pretty damn hard in that floor speech.  

    Parent
    ... here in the islands who was well-respected, had high public approval ratings and was very popular with the electorate on a statewide basis. (I will keep specific references to the office he held vague, out of current respect for his privacy.) And with the then-current governor termed out that year, some people took it upon themselves to organize a draft to get him to run for the top job.

    Problem was, he had made it quite clear that he wasn't interested in running for governor. But that didn't deter the busybodies who absolutely knew better, and they kept up the public pressure. This in turn prompted the media to repeatedly ask this public official about his intentions, even though they'd get the same answer each time: He was not interested and was not going to run.

    It reached a point where despite his repeated statements that he had no intention of running and his request that these so-called supporters please stand down, the chair of the draft committee -- who also served as chair of the state party -- took to the local television news broadcasts to demand that this public official heed the voice of the people. Polls were taken by the party and the results released, showing him as the clear frontrunner for governor.

    Frankly, the chatter got obnoxious, and for his part the target of these people's "affections" went silent. In the meantime, other Democrats who did want to run for governor started attacking him politically; one even went so far as to hint that there was an ongoing federal corruption investigation with this public official as a target. (There was not.)

    So, on the very day the 2002 state party convention was to convene at the Sheraton Waikiki, this public official called a press conference, and asked that the state chair be present for his announcement. Of course, speculation was rampant amongst draft organizers and the media that he was about to declare his candidacy for governor, and hundreds of delegates were giddy in anticipation.

    Only he didn't declare for governor. Instead, he announced that at age 48, while he intended to serve out the remainder of his term which expired two years hence, he would afterward retire from politics altogether and go home -- and then, he delivered a few very choice words to the state chair and those party officials and members who had made his and his family's life a living hell for the better part of six months.

    He then thanked everyone for their past support, turned his back and walked right out of the convention, and eventually resumed teaching marine biology at a local university on a full-time basis again. (He holds a Ph.D in the field.)

    Our convention turned into an utter shambles as various politicos scrambled to fill the void, and by early summer they started attacking one another with gusto as they jockeyed for advantage in the race for the gubernatorial nomination. And not surprisingly, Hawaii elected its first Republican governor in 43 years that year.

    We lost the services of a very good, knowledgeable, conscientious and competent public official that day, because some people presumed to know better than he did what was good for him, and refused to take no for an answer. And he's since repeatedly made it clear upon several public queries that because of that painful experience, he's not interested in returning to public office and really wants nothing more to do with politics. He definitely won't be back.

    As I said yesterday, not all elected officials aspire to higher office. From my own experience in the field, about two-thirds of them are perfectly content to continue serving the public at their present level.

    And I agree with caseyOR that it's disrespectful to not take them at their word when they tell us time and again that they're not interested in running for another office, as Elizabeth Warren has done. She's even had to ask a Draft Warren committees to cease its efforts. And further, she's made it clear that she's supporting Hillary Clinton, should she declare her own candidacy for president.

    Politics was never Ms. Warren's first calling or primary choice as a career option. If I recall, it took an awful lot of cajoling by Massachusetts citizens to even convince her to run for the U.S. Senate -- and even then, she entered the race somewhat reluctantly and it took a while for her to find her stride. She really owes us nothing here.

    I can assure you that should Sen. Warren ever have a change of heart and decide to reconsider her options, she'll be the very first to let everybody know.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    the fact is she has been meeting with big name donors.   I wouldn't worry to much about Ms Warren.  I feel pretty confident she is quite capable of not being overwhelmed by us presumptuous admirers.

    Parent
    democracy for America (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:30:45 PM EST

    And MoveOn do not share your concerns.  And I'm afraid I don't either.  

    Democracy for America recently conducted its own poll of the group's roughly 1 million members and found strong support for Warren, with 42% choosing her as their top pick in 2016. Just under a quarter each chose Clinton or Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

    "Washington consultants can spout off a dozen reasons why Elizabeth Warren shouldn't run, but none of that beltway blather means a thing next to this one, simple truth: The Democratic Party and our country desperately need Warren's voice in the 2016 presidential debate," DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement. "Pending the results of MoveOn's vote, we will ask DFA members to support our plans to join the emerging Draft Warren effort."



    Parent
    Obama campaign staffers (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    for Warren-

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 300 former campaign staffers and organizers for President Barack Obama have signed on to a letter urging Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2016, the latest effort to nudge the Democrat into the race.

    The Obama alums said in the letter released Friday that they want someone who will "stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests." The letter was released by Ready for Warren, a grassroots group promoting a potential campaign.

    Warren, a favorite of liberals, has been courted by the left. MoveOn.org announced earlier this week that it was starting a draft Warren campaign and promoting Warren in early presidential states Iowa and New Hampshire.



    Parent
    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    where she stands on anything other than economy/big banks/wall st?

    Parent
    Warren (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    Boston Globe (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    on foreign policy

    That trip could raise speculation that Warren is trying to add to her foreign policy portfolio ahead of a potential presidential run, but it also could be seen as her playing catch up to other freshman senators who have already traveled abroad.


    Parent
    But see: Howard Dean's support for Hillary (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:15:19 PM EST
    The move on (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:39:48 PM EST
    poll and the Democracy for America poll should surprise no one.

    Parent
    Adding (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    i have absolutely no doubt she might not want to run.  Who would?  But sometimes history calls.  You either answer or you don't.   No one will blame her if she declines.  But that won't stop us from trying to change her mind.  Even if she loses to Hillary, which I think is becoming less a sure thing by the day, she would totally change the debate.   Really that might be the biggest and best reason for her to run.  To change the debate.

    Watch that speech that I linked to and try,try to imagine Hillary giving it.

    Parent

    One other thing (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    when Obama gave his famous convention speech that set him on the path he had no intention to run and probably would have said, and even may have said, the same things.

    Sometimes history calls.

    Parent

    Can't verify the veracity of (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    one of Barack Obama's political advisors during his first candidacy for President, when asked how long "O" has been thinking about running?

    Answer: "Since Kindergarten?"

    Parent

    You can't verify it (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    and O didn't say it.

    Got it.

    Parent

    More likely, it is the person who (none / 0) (#56)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    does the calling.  

    Always helpful to remember--especially in the day when organization & money are a key component in every campaign, that there is a "sausage part." Even tho you all know that I admire & respect President Obama very much, I also do not kid myself about a politician who hails from Cook County, Illinois ... those that succeed are practical people with powerful interests in the near background.  There is nothing wrong with that, of course; but, it is always about more than a speech.  Actually, my favorite political speech of yore came from Mario Cuomo, followed closely by Ted Kennedy's 1980 convention speech.

    Parent

    And s sometimes people should ignore it (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:27:48 AM EST
    "...he had no intention to run..." (none / 0) (#161)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:14:22 AM EST
    That we can absolutely prove or that he will admit to, perhaps, but that's no guarantee.

    Parent
    Like others, I'd rather have Warren in the senate (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:27:11 AM EST
    holding Hillary's feet to the fire if she is President. Much more effective that way.

    As wonderful as she is,  I frankly don't think Warren would be a good president.

    Parent

    The Nixon era Hillary Rodham might have. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    She's got way too many constituencies, real and potential, to feel that free now.  Like Jacob Marley's chains.

    Parent
    Hillary has the essential (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    experience and a superb grasp of government.  Maybe not impossible ... but hard to beat that lineup.  (one thing I do know: It is a bit early to beat up our own people right now.  That would be a relative of the circular firing squad. :))

    Parent
    As Bubba used to say (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    its a hit dog that howls

    Parent
    Or someone who wants to speak up (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    for someone she strongly supports.  (You should understand that, uh.)

    Parent
    If my math is correct (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    that's all of 12.5 cents per member. Not a very impressive number.

    Parent
    Going into an election (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 06:29:05 PM EST
    The left has come to understand that we must do our part to swing debate left and bring up points for debate that are of concern to the whole nation but will be ignored if someone does not represent them. And we must get comments and commitments from candidates because Presidents almost always have to find a center.

    Getting Warren to run is about that.  Thinking that she would remain exactly as she is as President is ridiculous though.  She would not shut the government down over the Cromnibus.

    Bernie can run and swing the debate left and his seat remains safe, if running would damage Warren's ability to maintain her seat in any way....not worth it to the country...at all.

    Parent

    Why would running for President (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    Damage Warren's ability to maintain her seat? Ted Kennedy maintained his seat just fine after losing the nomination in 1980.

    Parent
    Her win was very narrow (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:23:11 PM EST
    She is not yet the lioness of the Senate to Kennedy's lion.

    Parent
    Things have changed a lot (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    since that race.  And she won't be running against Brown again.

    Parent
    It wasn't that long ago to have changed that much (3.50 / 2) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    Capt.  That constituency obviously easily swings Republican.  

    Parent
    Are you serious (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    she is the new rock star of the party.  Her seat is safe and so is she.

    Parent
    She is doing well, everyone is happy about (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    That. I have never been over the moon instantly for the new rock star though to become President. We have had this debate many many times now just different faces and voices.  One of them was Barack Obama, a lot was made of his terrific speech against of all things....the AUMF :). How does that size up with his use of that same AUMF now?

    Parent
    The nitty gritty of what I'm saying is (4.40 / 5) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    The next President of the United States will not turn out to be your boyfriend or your girlfriend either, anymore than Obama did.  And Warren is just now learning to use her voice, I don't think she's ready to be President.  Obama wasn't.  I don't want to go through THAT all over again either.

    And Warren was the only candidate I gave money to that election cycle, so it isn't as if I am not a supporter.


    Parent

    The nitty gritty (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    of what I'm saying is that her voice is needed.  And honestly it almost doesn't even matter if she runs of not.  It's the draft Warren movement that's important.  Almost - but not quite - as Important as a candidacy.
    It empowers her.  It strengthens her position in the senate and the party.  It's a good thing.  And it's happening.  It really doesn't matter that much what you or I think.  It's happening.

    And I'm good with that.

    Parent

    I am good with that too (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:18:29 PM EST
    And I do agree that the fact that she has made the list and it's official or the heads wouldn't be talking, they'd be laughing, is important. It strengthens her.  It is evidence that what she generally proposes is what a sizable number of voters want or are wiling to swing to because the existing reality for ordinary people calls for it.

    Parent
    Thanks for clarifying (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    If I read you right, Capt., it is the "movement:" and, that movement needs a figurehead ... and, for you, at this time, Warren is good.  

    Parent
    To be clear-er (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:40:33 PM EST
    i think she would make a fabulous president. And if she runs I will support her.  I will vote for her in the primary.

    I'm not holding my breath.   As I said the movement is the thing.   It's being called the new left.  The left tea party. They don't know what to call it cause it's been so long since there actually was a left in this country it's going to take a while.

    All that said, I would not dismiss the fact that more than 400 people have signed the MoveOn petition since I signed it a bit over an hour ago.  And if you read those links it's pretty clear she is playing chess.  I guess we will see how demenions it  has.

    Parent

    About the chess: Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    The only thing is we might not really be in on what the "game" is.  Oft times, a good legislator (Senator et al) will accept the good circumstances in their favor to enhance the chances of obtaining their legislative goals via enhancing the Senator's own person/status.  It works that way in a win-win where a movement can also advance their position...a savvy backscratch.

    Parent
    I greatly admire how (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    Obama is approaching retiring the existing AUMF.  Very savvy

    Parent
    Word (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 04:48:10 AM EST
    It's a repeat of Obama all over again. Apparently the move on crowd are slow learners or maybe they are easily fooled.

    Parent
    No, she won't. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 01:08:09 AM EST
    But Massachusetts just elected a GOP governor this year, so there's at least one high-profile Republican in the Bay State who could choose to challenge Warren's re-election in 2018.

    Parent
    Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:30:23 PM EST
    was hardly the lion of the Senate in 1980.

    Parent
    I honestly don't understand the resistance (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:47:26 PM EST
    i don't think she would win the nomination.  At the moment.  But that could change and seems to be changing rather quickly.  I want her in the race for her voice.  Bernie is a nice guy but no one takes him seriously.  And as far as that, speaking only for me, I would love to see debate between Hillary, Bernie and Elizabeth.  

    Parent
    My only resistance to her running (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:12:07 PM EST
    Because she is unlikely to win at this point, is if big money uses that in some way to damage her ability to hold the seat she now feeds and nurtures in the Senate.  Being taken away from your day job to run for President has been used as an argument for tossing new incumbents.

    I don't need Warren to damage her current career and ability to fight the left fight how she now can for my entertainment.

    If a terrific team gets behind her and they firmly believe with some evidence in hand that they can keep her safe enough, it is her risk to take.  I'm not pushing though.  She will have some things to say during the primaries whether she is running or not.  She also has her endorsements to use.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 04:51:33 AM EST
    and that's exactly what is going to happen if she runs. The rain of hell is going to pour down on here. As a matter of fact it already is from a lot of sources calling her the "Ted Cruz of the Left".  And she knows it and she's smart enough to know what would happen if she runs for the presidency.

    Parent
    I heard Kos on a radio show over the weekend (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    point out also that if Warren runs and loses, either in the primary or the general, her message is greatly injured. It will be taken as a repudiation of her economic message. So if she runs she better be darn sure she wins. another reason I'd rather have her continue fighting and spreading the word through her high profile Senate seat than be a flash in the pan.

    Parent
    I'll add that if Obama and the Dems had not (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    squandered the last six years when they should have been listening to and promoting Warren's economic populist message, we would not be in this position now. Really frustrating and infuriating.

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    100 percent correct. And right now it's unlikely that she would win a general election because the message has not been out there long to enough to start sinking in.

    Parent
    Just sad to think of where we are vs where I (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    hoped we would be by now, economically and most other areas of American life.

    Parent
    I feel (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    the same way.

    Parent
    Kos is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    Warren should run to win and do whatever it takes to win. However, Kos is wrong that a message gets "greatly injured" with a loss. Electoral defeats for Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did not turn them into "flashes in the pan". Why would it do it for Warren? Just because she is a woman?

    Kos and some people are trying to intimidate Warren into not running by saying something along the lines of "Nice Senate seat you have got there, it would be unfortunate if something where to happen to it". They better be careful because this kind of threat can create a backlash. If their candidate loses in 2016 owing to a backlash from the left, Warren will be back in 2020 and the Koses of the world be thoroughly discredited.  

    Let Kos worry about his own blog at this time because whatever message he has may get greatly injured once people start leaving (owing to him peddling corporatist mediocrity).

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    let's see. Kennedy never ran for President again after running against Carter. So you can take that for whatever it means.

    Ronald Reagan ran for the GOP nomination three times. It took 8 years for his message to take hold with the people who vote in the GOP primary and the general election. So using that as an example it's going to take 8 years for Warren's message to sink in.

    Parent

    That was a long accepted nickname (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    The whole country seemed to agree to bestow upon him.

    Parent
    politalkix: What is it that you seek? (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    Someone to be the front or figurehead for a movement? Clarify.

    Parent
    Christinep (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:03:13 AM EST
    IMO, Warren or Sherrod Brown, are the best candidates for the Presidency in 2016. And Warren can lead a movement to the Presidency better than anyone else from the Democratic Party whose names are being thrown around for the nomination in 2016.
    Hope that clarifies things for the umpteenth from me :-).

    Parent
    Perhaps, I'm a slow learner... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by christinep on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    but, I missed the lead-up from you to this "umpteenth time." :)

    One thing I've completely missed seeing: In view of your support of the President and his positions--and with myself in agreement with President Obama's positions and approach the majority of the time--I am trying to figure out what accounts for your not-too-veiled negative view of Hillary Clinton.  If it is personal, I understand that we all have that experience as to people we know and people we don't know and respect your position.  If it is, ostensibly, Hillary Clinton's political beliefs/background/experience, I would simply state what you must already know ... that is, the Obama-Clinton recorded and open views on almost all subject matters are in alignment with little daylight between them.  So .... wondering.

    Parent

    Just so that you know (none / 0) (#187)
    by Politalkix on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    I would like even the President to move significantly to the left on domestic policies. The candidate that I would like to see win the nomination from the Democratic Party should

    1. Not move right of BHO on foreign policy (and HRC will be to the right of BHO in this regard).

    2. And significantly to the left of BHO in domestic economic policy (you are correct that HRC and BHO's beliefs are very similar). I will also not support the TPP that the President is interested in signing.

    3. I am also firmly against coronations. If HRC wins the nomination, let her fight to win. I will not coronate her. BHO fought to win the nomination in 2008, let HRC also fight for it in 2016. There is no place for coronations in a democracy, IMO.


    Parent
    You keep making the same baseless claim (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    Not move right of BHO on foreign policy (and HRC will be to the right of BHO in this regard).

    No, she won't - that was easy, with just as much evidence as you offer.

    I am also firmly against coronations. If HRC wins the nomination, let her fight to win. I will not coronate her. BHO fought to win the nomination in 2008, let HRC also fight for it in 2016. There is no place for coronations in a democracy, IMO.

    Yes - as opposed to everyone who is in favor of coronations ...

    Oy.

    Parent

    A couple of things (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    Kos is entitled to his opinion like the rest of us but that's all it is.  And it's totally wrong IMO.  And not just in mine.  There are mant MANY political activists that say exactly the opposite.  That running would strengthen not weaken Warren.  
    And if by some miracle she got the nomination I agree with CST the next dem nominee is going to be the next president.  The demographics say so not me.

    Second
    Anyone who thinks Hillary will not be to the right of Obama of foreign policy is delusional IMO.  

    Bottom line. We all get opinions I get mine you get yours and the 106,559 people who have so far signed the MoveOn petition get theirs.  

    This is mine.  Warrens voice is needed in this presidential race.  She doesn't need to win but it would be AWSUM if she did.  You don't agree?  That's fine.  There's always a petition to tell her not to run.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    I am trying to figure out what accounts for your not-too-veiled negative view of Hillary Clinton

    If you could rate based on understatement, this one would be in the 6-digits.

    But comparing Clinton to Obama?!?  Are you trying to give him an aneurism?

    Parent

    Can (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    you make a better argument for Warren than a recycled Obama argument? Obama was supposed to do that and it fizzled.

    Unfortunately I see Warren as being able to get about as much done as Obama with is very little. She's not been there in Washington long enough to develop relationships to get things done. Voters are going to want to make a course correction after Obama and the same stuff that was used to promote Obama is not going to work this time.

    The way I feel about it is Move On et. al. blew their wad and their credibility with Obama. Then it was a speech about the war. Now it's a speech about the cromnibus bill. But in the end they are both just speeches which translate into exactly nothing other than making people feel better.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, MT, but that's NOT how you do it. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    Militarytracy: "The left has come to understand that we must do our part to swing debate left and bring up points for debate that are of concern to the whole nation but will be ignored if someone does not represent them. And we must get comments and commitments from candidates because Presidents almost always have to find a center. Getting Warren to run is about that."

    If that's really what the left has come to understand, then to be perfectly blunt, the left is an a$$. Because if you examine the actual numbers at all political levels across this country, where we've been losing the debate big time is at the state and local levels of government. Not coincidentally, these are the very level which serve as the primary incubator for eventual candidates for federal office, and further determine the makeup of our congressional redistricting.

    The DNC has become so incredibly and outrageously Beltway-centric of late that state and local party structures have been withering for lack of national support, while the self-absorbed national party has managed to suck the air out of the room, as they seek to centralize fundraising efforts in Washington. As recently as 2010, Democrats held exclusive control in the majority of all state legislatures throughout the country. But not any more.

    Because while the DNC started cutting its support for state and local Democratic efforts once Howard Dean stepped down and / or was muscled aside as its chair in 2009, Republicans were pouring $30 million into the "Redistricting Majority Project", also known as REDMAP.

    REDMAP was the political initiative that helped the GOP seize the statehouses in Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and elsewhere in Nov. 2010, and gave them near-exclusive control over the decennial congressional and state-level redistricting process in those states.

    Republicans now have gained complete control of the governor's office and both chambers of the  legislature in 23 states, while Democrats can say the same in only seven states. Of the 98 state legislative chambers across the country, Republicans control 68 of them, and the Democrats just 30. (The Nebraska State Legislature is unicameral and nonpartisan.)

    Further, Republicans now also control every single state legislature in the entire South save for one in Kentucky, where Democrats retain control of the State House of Delegates. Nationwide, the GOP has outright control of the state legislature in 30 of the 50 states. Democrats control only 11 state legislatures outright, while 9 states have split control of the legislature between the two parties.

    When local Democrats in Wisconsin revolted in 2011-12 and forced a recall of Gov. Scott Walker and six GOP state senators, the RNC poured millions of dollars into that state to shore up their side, while DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz did little more than fart loudly in the general direction of Milwaukee. That's what's happened again this year, and it's crippling our efforts and ultimately hurting us very badly.

    So, if you really want to not only "do our part to swing debate left and bring up points for debate that are of concern to the whole nation," but to keep that leftward swing sustained, then you and I and the rest of our Democratic coalition need to tear our eyeballs away from the fishbowl that's Washington, D.C., at least for right now.

    Rather, we need to refocus our attention on organizing ourselves politically at the local precinct level. Then, we need to resolve to ensure that our voters head to the polls for each and every election, even if it's just for filling a single vacancy on the local school board.

    We need to once again start paying attention to every single gawddammed game on our schedule, not just the Super Bowl. As bat-guano crazy as the Republican Party appears nowadays, their members and supporters aren't so insane as to not vote in an election, the way ours are wont to do time and again for whatever their reason.

    Those two recent recalls of Colorado Democratic state senators were allowed to occur -- even though registered Democratic voters outnumbered their Republican counterparts in both those districts -- because GOP voters turned out at the opportunity to kick our guys out and put their guys in, while ours simply shrugged their shoulders and stayed home.

    Focusing one's attention like a laser beam on the presidential election -- which comes up only every four years -- to the virtual exclusion of most everyone and everything else that's downticket, has proved itself to be a clear pathway to eventual political ignominy and irrelevance, if we continue down it. To that effect, we best reacquaint ourselves with this simple but mighty concept, per the late, great Thomas "Tip" O'Neill:

    "All politics is local."

    Why is it that only Republicans seem to heed O'Neill's admonition nowadays? We are NEVER going to be able to change the tone in Washington, if we keep allowing our voices to be drowned out in our own backyards due to our own nonchalance and apparent disinterest in the politics of our own communities.

    We therefore must renew our own political commitments to our own neighborhoods, towns, cities and states, and take care of our own business at home. If we can do that, as Democrats once did successfully for several generations from the 1930s until well into the 1990s, the rest of our country's politics will realign itself upon that new equilibrium. That's how Democrats kept their congressional majorities for the better part of 62 years, from 1932 to 1994, with a few short periods excepted.

    The DNC is certainly capable of garnering a near monopoly in political fundraising, but it is structurally incapable of enabling and enacting the formation of a new national political dynamic all on its own. For that to happen, it needs robust and healthy state parties with enthusiastic supporters to do the work at the local level. Whenever Democrats and their progressive allies show up, Democrats and their progressive allies will generally prevail.

    That's what Howard Dean knew and his two successors didn't. And that's why his 50-State Strategy worked, while Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman Schultz both flailed impotently thereafter. Because even if we win the White House again in 2016, it will mean little or nothing if we keep losing ground at the state level while becoming noncompetitive in the Deep South.

    Okay, I think I've ranted enough already today to fill up several open threads, so I'll shut up now and let everyone else have their say. I hope I haven't glazed over anyone's eyeballs with this stuff.

    It's just that I feel just as passionately about what's happening to our nation and party as any one of you. And from my own vantage point as a senior official in the Hawaii Democratic Party, this is my understanding of what's wrong with Democrats right now, and what has to be done to right the ship before it's too late.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And because on a national level... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by unitron on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    ...The Democratic Party seems to be in the clutches of the kind of people who would dump Howard Dean and somehow expect state politics to take care of themselves, I don't want any more contact between those people and Warren than absolutely unavoidable.

    Parent
    Well, the other lioness (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    of the senate, Miss Lindsey (R. S.C) disagrees.  "If you follow the lead of the senator from Massachusetts and bring down this bill down people are not going to believe you are mature enough to run this place," billowed the senator who bought five rugs for five bucks in an Iraqi market as a sign of his maturity and that war's success, "Don't follow her lead.  She is the problem."

    Parent
    Dan, show a little class (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    and drop the Miss.

    Parent
    That common nickname (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    is an honorific for Senator Graham, justly noting his  uber-macho readiness to bomb wherever and whenever, "cut the head of the snake" off of Qaddafi, take out Iran, into the Syrian woods.  All while sipping a mint julep sitting on the veranda.

    But you are probably correct, it is declasse to join South Carolina's tea party innuendos.  I will try to give Miss Lindsey--err, Senator Graham all the respect that I can conjure up.  But, please give me some time on this.

    Parent

    I'll also add a small apology (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    in that there are several that use the slur. You just happened to at the time I was ready to respond to it. TL is supposed to be a classy upgrade from the norm. We should work to maintain that.

    Parent
    It's not a slur (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    but thank you miss manners

    Parent
    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:11:23 PM EST
    not a slur.

    Parent
    Well....in the Army now (none / 0) (#194)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:27:57 PM EST
    That is a slur.  That can get you reprimanded.  That can go to the IG if your commander ignored reprimanding someone for it.  Setting sort of a low bar around here :)

    Parent
    Yeah well (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    we are not in the army.    Are we supposed to get army haircuts too?

    Parent
    It's only a slur (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    if it's meant as a slur.  And no reasonable person believes that was Dans intention.

    Parent
    I'm not a fan of Graham (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    but you keep referring to him buying 5 rugs.. can you provide some links??

    Parent
    Google is extremely easy (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    You have to actually want to know (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    You'd think a self-described techie (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    would know to check the validity of a claim by using Google these days.

    Parent
    And here I thought the base (2.00 / 2) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    legal defense point was that the accuser was supposed to provide the evidence.

    Okay, Mr. Jones. The state has charged you with stealing. Just go on Google and you'll find all their evidence....

    ;-)

    Sigh.... Guess those evileeee Repubs don't have the same rights as those sweeeeeeeet Demos.

    Parent

    Does it ever bother you (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    being the annoying 5 year old running around the circle of adults talking going NEENER NEENER NEENER LOOK AT NE LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME?

    Just wondering.

    Parent

    If this was a court of law (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    You might have a point, but when you post in ignoramus about a point somebody makes, and you can't be bothered to do a Google search, that's kinda different.  A lot different, as a matter of fact.

    No charge for the lesson.  😃

    Parent

    Quit making things up. (2.00 / 3) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    My comment was a request to KeysDan for a link.

    He graciously provided it.

    But Shadow1, aka Yman, had to jump in with a snark.

    Then Shadow2, aka Mordiggian, had to jump in with a snark.

    Now, if you had truly wanted to refute whatever position I was going to take based on the requested link info you would have waited.

    But you didn't. Which proves that you feel incapable of responding.

    Parent

    A grade schooler who really (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    wanted to, could've found that information in two minutes.

     

    Parent

    Gotta link? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:41:58 AM EST
    Take your old, bedraggled (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:06:02 AM EST
    phrase and retire it.

    Live up to the fact that you could've checked it out on your own, but that you didn't, despite your preening over what a great techie you are around here.

    It's the hit dog that barks the loudest.

    Arf-arf!

    Parent

    It's a hit dog that (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    howls.

    Aroooooooooo


    Parent

    1. This isn't a courtroom (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    1.  Graham wasn't "charged" with anything - Keysdan just repeated something Graham said.

    2.  There was no question or dispute about what Graham said.

    3.  You are the absolute last person who should demand links.


    Parent
    This is probably the first time (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:41:21 AM EST
    referenced that I did not link--now in the common domain. But here it is again.

    Parent
    Warren wants to shut down the government (2.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    to get her way.

    Cruz wanted to shut down the government to get his way.

    You like Warren.

    You do not like Cruz and the Repubs and attack him.

    Yet the damage done by shutting down the government is the same in both cases.

    Hmmmmmm

    Parent

    Ah, are you worried Jimmie ? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    you should be.

    Parent
    Worried, Howdie?? (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    What me??

    ;-)

    Nope, just tickled to see the Demos try and act like it is okay for them to shut it down and bad for the Repubs to shut it down.....although outside of not being able to tour the WH, Washington Monument or Arlington Cemetery... I don't see much effect...and since the workers get paid for the time they are off it looks very much like an unscheduled vacation.

    And on your hopeful side, since The Trail of Tears went through AR maybe Cherokee Liz will visit your local area to emphasis her 1/32 heritage.

    WashPost

    Parent

    She wants to shut the government down (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    from kowtowing to Wall Street businesses.

    FTFY.

    Parent

    I understand her motive (2.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:11:21 PM EST
    Do you understand that the results of a shut down will be the same....

    It does, you know, rain on the just and the unjust alike.

    Parent

    Funny how you only object (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:52:28 PM EST
    To shut-downs that the Republicans don't initiate for their political advantage, but take umbrage when a Democrat does it.

    It also rains on the smart and the stupid.

    No charge for the lesson.

    Parent

    Please quit making things up (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    You can't show where I have cheered the Repub shut down.

    Parent
    With as much venom towards the Republicans when they were doing it  as well.  

    Geeee (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 07:07:20 PM EST
    The Repubs want to reduce the budget a whopping 2.6%.
    Wow.

    I am underwhelmed.

     

    And here, you blame the "Demos" as you call them, for the threat of a shutdown:

    Actually it is the Demos who (none / 0) (#29)

    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 10:27:04 PM EST
    failed to pass a budget when they had majorities in both houses and Obama in the WH.
    Now they are threatening to let shut it down because the evileeeeeee Repubs want to cut spending 2.6%.

    Wow. The strain. The sacrifice.

    The hypocrisy.

    You weren't cheering the Republicans on, just providing them deniability.

    If I'm violating some sort of rule here, let somebody else do the tattling, since your own record in that area isn't exactly unblemished, if you know what I mean.

    Parent

    If she wanted to do that (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    he could have.   Stick to thing you understand.  Like poker.


    Parent
    I'm not sure I can be saddened (none / 0) (#5)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:44:14 AM EST
      by a provision limiting the sources of money with which to subsidize insurance companies.

      In the long run, prohibiting the handout might be beneficial by making more realize that a system built upon the need for insurance companies to make more money is actually diverting money from actual health care.

    Parent

    I agree with you somewhat (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    IMO there are at least two possible long term ramificications that could result from this and from the basic structure of the Obamacare in general.

    The best case scenario would be the one you described. More people would realize that a system built upon the need for insurance companies to make more money is actually diverting money from actual health care.

    The other scenario is that the premiums become more and more unaffordable and the powers that be convince people that government should not be involved in healthcare at all. Even those parts that work fairly well would be scraped and everything completely privatized.

    Even if the first scenario took place, it would as you described be a long term effect. Some people have the financial means that allow them be able wait for long term solutions, others do not. Substancial increases in premiums could hurt a lot of people living on the edge, short term. Also, even if people realized they could get better healthcare under a different system, their wishes would be pitted against the extreme wealth of the insuance industry and the medical complex system. If both parties dance to the tune of the moneyed interests, people could object as much as they want and nothing would change.

    A lot of people have poopahed my second case scenario and insisted that the people's demands would just have to be met. I am not convinced since there are billions ($$$) of reasons why that might not happen.

    Parent

    An interesting thing happened yesterday (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:47:40 AM EST
    my DishNetwork dish had been knocked out of line, ok I ran into it on the lawnmower, and needed to be realigned.  It worked but not well.
    Anyway, when the guy arrived the first thing he said was "I really want to thank you".
    I didn't know what he was talking about.  But he reminded me.  He came early in the year to install the thing and while he was working we were talking and we started to talk about health care and the ACA.   He had no plans to sign up.  He was a Obama hater.  I started telling him about my experiences and how I thought he should give it a try.  I guess I talked him into it.  He said they had been amazed and thrilled with the coverage overall but more importantly his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer A couple of months after they signed up and they were very thankful to be covered.  For obvious reasons.
    It was a nice thing.  Made my day.

    Parent
    it was a very nice thing (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:55:59 AM EST
    Glad that you made a difference in their lives.

    Parent
    Betsy McCaughey (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    is very disappointed with you right now.

    Parent
    That's the best news (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:36:32 PM EST
    I have had this week

    Parent
    Good points (none / 0) (#11)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:13:30 AM EST
     and while you phrase this as a conditional:

    If both parties dance to the tune of the moneyed interests....

      It's going to take some very  effective activism  for that to cease being reality.

    Parent

    "America has one political party, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    the party of property..." - Gore Vidal

    Parent
    IMO Individuals of all political (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    Persuasions would have to drop their best of two evils philosophies for that type of activism to have a chance.

    Parent
    HealthCare.gov sucks (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:54 AM EST
      I am attempting to apply for 2015 coverage. First, the page would not even load in IE. I switched to Chrome and it took a while but it loaded.

      Then I went through the full application and submitted it. I got a message that my application was successful and by clicking on "see eligibility results" I would be informed what plans are available. I did so and  was sent a .pdf with the results.

      According to it, I am eligible for Medicaid-- which is obviously wrong. I don't know the exact income threshold for eligibility in my state but I have no doubt I am not below it. But, because of this screw-up I cannot now proceed to select the plan in which I want to enroll and appear to be stuck in limbo.

      As far as I can tell so far, the only way to correct the error is to file an appeal which must be processed and ruled upon before I can proceed further.

      The help telephone number (which will likely provide no help) has now had me on hold for over 20 minutes.

      This is absurd because  I shopped before I created an account and know that I am not even entitled to any tax subsidies and I just want to get  my freaking coverage and pay for it.

       

    FYI (none / 0) (#33)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:37:14 AM EST
      I found a way to delete my application and start the whole rigmarole over. I'm really going to be frustrated if it ends up with the same result.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:47:58 PM EST
     almost completed the process. Done except that the link to pay the first month's premium just gets me a message that the plan provider will contact me in "a few days."

       I end up paying about $100 a month more for basically comparable coverage than I pay this year. That's about a 9% increase. Could be worse.

    Parent

    Certainly no expert on this subject, but, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    I have been wondering since the ACA was born, when I hear some naysayers complain, "I'm paying $XYZ more "for the same coverage. Thanks, Obama@#%#@!......."

    While I fully believe you've done your due diligence in comparing plans, Recon, am I wrong in feeling that many people don't really compare plans thoroughly, item-by-item, and just compare bottom line price?

    My sense is that many of these folks aren't totally aware that the reason their new plan is $XYZ more is that the new coverage is actually much better than their prior one. In other words, are many of the complaints, simply because they're not accurate "apple/apple" comparison? The point, of course, would be that The ACA has some firm minimum standards to qualify for even their lowest cost plans while, usually, with Insurance Companies they find out (sometimes to their great sorrow) only when they finally have to file a claim.

    I'm not insinuating those people are dummies, heck, I didn't really, really know my coverage when I was getting employer-paid insurance. But, if I'm right about these perceptions, they would just be another addition to the list of complaints I have regarding This Democratic Party's ineptitude in marketing its political positions.

    Parent

    I think you are right (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    its very confusing.  Really the best idea is to do it on the phone.  Once you get through they really are pretty helpful at navigating the thing.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:47:26 PM EST
     I first will say that my premiums had been increasing by as much or more every year in recent years, so I can't ascribe the increase to the ACA. It's definitely not making coverage more affordable for me but that's not the same as saying it's the cause of it being more expensive

      Second, I don't qualify for any tax credits because I'm fairly well off (not rich by any means but way better off than most). I played around with the site a bit when I was "shopping" and it seemed to me that  a great many people might see lower actual premiums as a result. It depends on the number of dependents for which one is seeking coverage and varies from state to state, but people well into the middle class qualify for tax credits. Just from my cursory exam, it appeared that in my state a family of 4 with an income of almost $90K could receive credits that would be a good bit more than the amount of increase I am getting.

    Parent

    It really does (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    i had problems yesterday.  I decided to wait until after the 15th.  There is more time after that.  That is just if you want coverage to start on January 1.   I can wait.

    Parent
    Yeah my complaints (none / 0) (#54)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 01:55:08 PM EST
     are with the site's functioning  and the process not with the actual coverage eventually obtained.

    Parent
    It was better today (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    for some reason I got thru

    Parent
    The organized counteroffensive (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    by former CIA and other governmental officials is, itself, a runner-up to the appalling Senate summary report on torture.  The NYTimes reports that planning began last spring when tidbits started  appearing about the report.

    Former Directors,Tenet and Goss have been prime engineers of the counteroffensive to the their Constitutional overseers oversight.  The smarmy former director, Michael Hayden, has been a media ubiquity--presenting his version of events after getting in his disclaimer that :everything here happened before I got there..."  

    John Rizzo, former chief counsel of the CIA, is also making the TV rounds, defending the agency while pushing his book of CIA experiences," Company Man."   Of course, there is rarely an opportunity missed to criticize Senator Feinstein.

    It is not an easy task, in fairness.  Present Director Brennan, is looking like an entangled box of pretzels: acknowledging  methods that had not been authorized were abhorrent, and should be repudiated by all. All the while bobbing and weaving, saying the cause and effect  between the use of "enhanced interrogation " and useful information is "unknowable,"  although the agency has not concluded that  the "enhanced interrogation"  allowed the agency to obtain useful information.

    Of course, Cheney is predictably incorrigible. However, he did, as unintended as his shotgun blast to his friend's face,  prove that torture is not only ineffective, but also,  unnecessary.

    All that is needed, is a friendly FOX news interviewer and he spilled the beans.  Not only did he incriminate himself, but he also fingered the ringleader, George W. Bush.  Cheney without as much as a drop of water forced down his throat, revealed that Bush.."was in fact, an integral part of the program and he had to approve it."  "We did discuss techniques.. there was no effort on our part to keep it from him."    What was done is quite knowable. Thanks for that Cheney.

    ... who won the 2014 Heisman Trophy this evening with 90.6% of the possible votes, one of the highest percentages in the history of the award. He had over twice as many points as the second-place finisher, Wisconsin RB Melvin Gordon.

    Mariota is the Ducks' first Heisman (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by caseyOR on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    winner. His production over the course of his time at Oregon is spectacular. And, by all accounts, Mariota is a great guy, too.

    Hopefully, the Ducks will cap off this season by winning the national  championship.

    GO, DUCKS!!!!

    Parent

    Yay !!! (none / 0) (#131)
    by ZtoA on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:52:48 PM EST
    What's your prediction on (none / 0) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    "Johnny Football's" upcoming debut as Cleveland's starting QB vs. Cincy?

    A lot of drama percolating. I know the Cincy Defense is drooling blood for their Sunday, "welcome to the NFL, Johnny" party.

    I don't have a vested interest in either team, but the sub-plots are reason enough for me to watch the game. I kinda feel bad for Hoyer; it's gotta be a be-ach with "Hollywood" breathing down your neck. Deep down inside, does he root for a big Cleveland win, and, himself out of a job?

    Then again, I did have the honor of being assigned Jim Brown's desk for a semester at Syracuse, a few years after his, and their National Championship.

    Parent

    Over the last 3 games (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:26:46 AM EST
    Hoyer has thrown 7 interceptions and zero TD passes. He needs to hope he is employed in the NFL next year, not whether he's a starter again.

    Parent
    The 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by fishcamp on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    with all the fast goodies, keeps coming and going on the Apple refurbished page for $400 less than the exact same one on the new page.  This is one of those I don't believe is refurbished, but over produced.  Santa, this is what I want for Christmas.  

    Me too Santa... (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    I've been eying that on the refurb page too. Unfortunately I am not flush with cash his Christmas....maybe next year!

    Parent
    Has there ever been a VP (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    as deranged as Dick Cheney?

    Hmmm, good question....upon reflection, (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    HECK NO!!!

    Parent
    Getting teary watching Sen Tom Harkin (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    in his final Senate speech. Soooo sorry to see him go, especially given his replacement.

    On the bright side, good bye and good riddance to Michelle Bachman.

    Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 07:27:50 PM EST

    Anyone who thinks Hillary will not be to the right of Obama of foreign policy is delusional IMO.
    That's nice.  Evidence-free opinions and a dollar will get you any size coffee at McD0nalds.

    youre fvcking kidding me right?  I'm not even going to bother posting the links.  There are hundreds of them.  I'm posting the Google search.  Many are from right leaning sources applauding Hillary's foreign policy and comparing it to Obamas.  Do some reading and educate yourself before making enmabrrasing statements.

    LINK

    Sorry, Capt. (4.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    I have no idea if your response was intended for me, since it barely touched on my point, but in response:

    1. I wasn't agreeing with Kos.
    2. Who said Warren shouldn't run?!?  Personally, I want her to run.
    3.  
      Anyone who thinks Hillary will not be to the right of Obama of foreign policy is delusional IMO.

    That's nice.  Evidence-free opinions and a dollar will get you any size coffee at McD0nalds.

    Torture report and loss of our moral authority (3.50 / 2) (#137)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:29:53 PM EST
    Best summary of its meaning I've read.

    Reason Magazine

    Of course since we're still the only superpower we don't need the moral authority to be a bully but the way our nation acts and continues to act Post 9/11 has reduced whatever we had and it took our entire government working together to do it.

    Three students shot outside (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 05:50:35 AM EST
    a school next door to my old high school in Portland.  They say it's gang related.  Kids are wounded but not dead.  Oh, and Taylor Swift is 25 years old today.

    25? (none / 0) (#37)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    I thought she was, like, 12.

    Parent
    Then, what does that make you? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    Like, 200?

    LOL, just kidding; Actually, I just saw her for the very first time the other day, singing in Times Square, on Good Morning America (or, one of those a.m. programs)

    I said, THIS is what's #1 Box Office these days?

    Then I rolled over, and went back to sleep.

    Parent

    Shooter (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    whenever I get ready to knock today's music, I'm reminded of my father doing the exact same thing with Elvis and the Beatles as he spoke fondly of Ol' Blue Eyes. All it shows when we knock today's music is our age...and our inability to adjust to the present.

    Parent
    I should mention (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:13:51 PM EST
    I say this while listening to a 1974 Jimmy Buffett release on CD (I also have it on vinyl).

    Parent
    Sometimes I feel like 200. (none / 0) (#81)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    Or more.

    Parent
    Aw, c'mon now. you look great! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:15:42 PM EST
    Not a day over 150, if you ask me.

    p.s......I hope I don't have to qualify this by stating that I'm kidding. I little ribbing doesn't go down well around here these days. Too much paranoia, I think. But, now I gotta go sooth some ruffled feathers.

    Parent

    Mississippi Burning (none / 0) (#64)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    What the h### is going on down there in Courtland, Mississippi:

    Have they interviewed the guy in the striped shirt filling up the can of gasoline yet???

    6 days ago they claimed to know who the perp was as she allegedly whispered his name to a fireman.
    Was that a hoax???

    Then they spent 2 days interviewing an old acquaintance/boyfriend who it wasn't and was out of town anyway.

    Then another 2 days before they find her on a CCTV tape [thanks to a reporter not the sheriff] and  there is a guy filling up a can of gas next to her who disappears out of the picture without paying for it.

    How many people can there be in Courtland Mississippi wearing a striped shirt like that???

    And don't tell me that Ali Baba there let some guy steal gasoline from him.

    And how hard can it be to tell if the accelerant used to kill her came from that station or not???

    It's time to shake up that little mecca down there to get some answers.


    Something doesn't seem right about that (none / 0) (#135)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 10:29:31 PM EST
    investigation.  Maybe they know more than they're letting on? Maybe some people are afraid to come forward?

    Parent
    Two things I read (none / 0) (#170)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    and am not sure how true they are:

    She spent some time in a battered women's shelter a few months back per her father.

    Her father works for the police department down there.

    Parent

    Re Italian criminal procedure: (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    After seeing John Adams' controvesial opera "The Death of Klinghoffer,". I am reading "The Achillo Lauro Hijacking: lessons in the politics and prejudice of terrorism," by Michael K. Born, who was the director of the Whilte House situation room at the time of the incident.

    Under Italian law, Leon Klinghoffer's daughters' attorney was permitted to participate in the criminal trial in Genoa.

    Correction. Reading (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    further, it appears the trial was as to criminal charges and the Klinghoffer daughters' civil lawsuit for damages, in which their attorney participated.

    Parent
    All Ferguson Evidence Out Now (none / 0) (#111)
    by RickyJim on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    See link.  Last important piece was an FBI Interview with Mike Brown's partner in crime, Dorian Johnson.  Again I congratulate DA Robert McCulloch for the great job he did in squashing the efforts of some agitators to make a mountain out of this molehill of a case. By having a lay tribunal examine all the evidence, it was determined that it should not be pursued further, and then most importantly, he released all that evidence.  Contrast that with the Garner case in NY which suffers greatly from lack of information about the Grand Jury proceedings.

    Wow - and to think ... (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:22:12 PM EST
    ... that just a few days ago the tinfoil crowd was pushing baseless conspiracy theories about the Feds withholding the testimony and promising Dorian Johnson he wouldn't be indicted for imaginary charges of "perjury, riot incitement, etc."

    Oops.

    BTW - Calling Dorian Johnson a "partner in crime" with Michael Brown would suggest that he conspired with Brown in some criminal act.  That would be just as specious as the other claims, particularly since the police chief specifically stated they determined he committed no crime.

    Parent

    Applause (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Uncle Chip on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:57:30 PM EST
    I applaud McCulloch for his admission that Wilson committed perjury before the Grand Jury with these words from the report:  

    In his original statement, Wilson said he fired once inside the car. He told the grand jury he fired twice. Physical evidence appears to back up his initial story. [Care Main p49]

    I also applaud him for keeping in the report all of the following incriminating information much of which we all knew from day one:

    1]That Wilson was allowed to return to the station where he would destroy incriminating evidence -- and he did.

    2]That the Ferguson dispatches and lack thereof would be devastating to Wilson and thus they would do their best to hide and lie about them -- which of course they did by claiming that their computer's clock runs fast and is often off by 19 minutes and 37 seconds. Really!!!

    3]That Brown was never inside the Tahoe contrary to what was claimed by Team Wilson for 3 months. He was outside the window the whole time.

    4]That Wilson didn't call dispatch when first encountering the two and was thus not conducting an arrest.

    5]That Wilson was the one to pull the gun out of its holster.

    6]That Brown's hand was not inside the Tahoe when shot -- and it wasn't.

    7]That the physical evidence would prove Wilson's story1 and story2 and story3 all to be bogus.

    8]That prosecutors wouldn't produce a timeline because it would prove that there wasn't time for that long drawn out struggle for the gun that Wilson alleges took place in the Tahoe.  

    It would also prove that he began shooting at Brown almost immediately after he turned around -- and it does.

    It would also prove that Brown didn't "charge" the guy with the gun that he was running away from -- and it does.  

    Afterall taking 7 seconds to cover 22 feet is not even close to "charging" -- just ask any NFL linebacker.

    9]That the police union would "find" a witness for Wilson -- even if they had to look 480 feet away for a guy with the eyes of Superman and the ears of Dumbo.

    All in all though I am impressed with the physical evidence turned up by the StL County detectives and investigators particularly the blood evidence on the ground at Markers 19 and 20.

    Too bad the jury wasn't.

    Parent

    Quit making things up (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    there wasn't time for that long drawn out struggle for the gun that Wilson alleges took place in the Tahoe.  



    Parent
    "Quit making things up"??? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    You should tell that to Team Wilson who made so much stuff up that even the Prosecutor's Office had to make note of it in the report.

    Most of the witnesses, including Dorian Johnson, told the same story before the Grand Jury that they did earlier to investigators -- the one big exception to that being Darren Wilson.

    Every time he told his story it changed and it became so noticeable that even the Prosecutor's Office had to remark in the report that physical evidence backed up his initial story not the one he told to the Grand Jury.

    Now what were you saying???

    Parent

    I am saying that (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    there wasn't time for that long drawn out struggle for the gun that Wilson alleges took place in the Tahoe.  

    you are making things up.

    Like most conspiracy folks you edge and fudge a little seeking to create an atmosphere of wrong doing. There was a struggle. No one has claimed it was long and drawn out.


    Parent

    Long and drawn out story -- (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    No one has claimed it was long and drawn out.

    Wilson did.

    Or did you miss his long and drawn out "story" -- and of course what the GJ Report says about its veracity or rather lack thereof.

    They stopped just short of calling it "perjury" but made clear note of it.

    The central part of that struggle for the gun story was the alleged gunshot to the hand inside the Tahoe -- but the prosecutors said that physical evidence proved that that did not happen.

    That gunshot had to have happened while the gun was outside not inside.

    Only one shot was fired inside the Tahoe and it hit no one and nothing but the door panel. It was recovered with no blood on it or the door panel where it entered.

    It turns out that Dorian Johnson's story remained consistent from first interview to the Grand Jury, while Wilson changed his story again and again with his final story not matching some of the physical evidence.

    In other words, Wilson lied to the Grand Jury while Johnson likely told the truth.

    Chew on that --

    Parent

    So Produce Your Legal Brief (none / 0) (#162)
    by RickyJim on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    and send it to the Governor of Missouri with a demand that Wilson be indicted.  What good does it do to place your conclusions in front of non believers like me?  

    Parent
    McCulloch was in a no win situation (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:36:52 PM EST
    he did the best he could. Releasing the evidence was probably the right choice... however, evidence doesn't really matter to people who are emotionally involved.  

    Some people will always believe Mike Brown had his hands up and Darren Wilson decided to execute him.

    Parent

    Young women are getting ready for Warren (none / 0) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:00:02 PM EST
    Did you (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:28:05 PM EST
    After you sign (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:31:37 PM EST
    its fun to watch the numbers change.  Almost 100 people have signed since I signed about 20 minutes ago.

    Parent
    42 more (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 08:36:37 PM EST
    since I posted that comment.

    Heh

    Ok I'll stop.

    Parent

    Remember this . . . (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 04:05:39 AM EST
    Ow! The stupid, it hurts! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    Jonah Goldeberg mansplains the real world to you, and why it gets a veto. I find it simply amazing how that "real world" always manages to coincide with his own views and desires.

    And I thou only dumb conservatives were racist (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 13, 2014 at 11:15:04 PM EST
    Why don't liberals ever really have to say their sorry?

    Juan Williams

    Is the answer to hold everyone to the same standard or to stop the game of situational outrage?

    Seems it matters more who we thought you were before then what you actually are when it comes to throwing the media book of scorn at you.

    Yeah, I agree with Juan there (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    That is really offensive. And incredibly stupid. Explains a lot about how bad most  movies are these days if idiots like that are in charge.

    Parent
    Plenty (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:01:11 AM EST
    of rank and file liberals are pretty ticked off about that not only the stupid statements but the pay differential between men and women at Sony.

    Parent
    When I read the stuff between (none / 0) (#182)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:59:42 AM EST
    Pascal and her so-called superior, I hear Lewis Black and Amy Poehler doing the dialog.

    Parent
    More (none / 0) (#156)
    by Uncle Chip on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 07:54:44 AM EST
    Ferguson documents released

    McCulloch said he believes he has now released all of the grand jury evidence, except for photos of Brown's body and ....
    Brown's shirt and an official timeline and the 911 calls particularly the one at 12:01:50pm and how the projectiles recovered matched up to the locations of their shell casings and a few other things that could help to tie it all together.

    The FBI... (none / 0) (#192)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:10:08 PM EST
    is investigating a possible lynching in North Carolina. I'm not saying that it is, or that it's racially motivated.  That has yet to be determined.

    I'm not kidding in the least (none / 0) (#209)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:05:44 PM EST
    But if you think a list of Google links - with many from rightwing sources - is evidence, well ...

    ... you're fvcking kidding me, and you should educate yourself before making such embarrassing statements.

    They are hardly all from right wing sources (none / 0) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    in fact the second one in the second page is from a site you may be familiar with.  It's called TalkLeft.

    I not jim and I'm not going to waste any more time in arguing such a ridiculous on tis face statement.

    Good day to you sir. Or ma'am.  

    Do you read before replying? (none / 0) (#211)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    What I said was that "many" were from rightwing sources, which is exactly what you said in your first post.  Same thing with you imagining my agreement with Kos and opposition to a Warren candidacy.

    I get it that your jazzed up for a Warren candidacy ... congrats - if it actually happens.  In the meantime, if you want to respond to one of my posts, how about you respond to what I'm actually saying, as opposed to whatever it is you think I'm saying.

    BTW - The TL link doesn't even support your claim ... kind'uv the big problem with pointing to the number of Google links as evidence that something is true.  Here, ... I'll show you.  106,000 hits for "Obama more hawkish than Hillary Clinton".

    One more for the easily confused (none / 0) (#212)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:25:21 PM EST
    my comment about Hillary's foreign policy had absolutely nothing whatever to do with a Warren candidacy.  

    Congratulations on making the right decision on EW.

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#213)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:49:53 PM EST
    Uh, yes ... your comment that started all this did.

    I made a comment about Hillary's foreign policy in response to Politalkix.  To which you responded with a rant about Kos and Warren and included one sentence about Hillary's foreign policy.

    Seriously, if you're not going to read my posts before you reply to them, at least read your own.

    That way, you won't be so "easily confused".

    Sigh (none / 0) (#214)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:11:14 PM EST
    A couple of things (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:21:00 PM EST

    Kos is entitled to his opinion like the rest of us but that's all it is.  And it's totally wrong IMO.  And not just in mine.  There are mant MANY political activists that say exactly the opposite.  That running would strengthen not weaken Warren.  
    And if by some miracle she got the nomination I agree with CST the next dem nominee is going to be the next president.  The demographics say so not me.

    Second
    Anyone who thinks Hillary will not be to the right of Obama of foreign policy is delusional IMO.  

    Bottom line. We all get opinions I get mine you get yours and the 106,559 people who have so far signed the MoveOn petition get theirs.  

    This is mine.  Warrens voice is needed in this presidential race.  She doesn't need to win but it would be AWSUM if she did.  You don't agree?  That's fine.  There's always a petition to tell her not to run.

    Parent

    I had not commented all day so I wanted to address a couple of things

    Now please have your last word because I am really really done with this nonsense.  I will try harder in the future to make my comments idiot proof.

    "Idiot proof"? (none / 0) (#215)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    Right - you respond to my post - burying one relevant sentence in the middle of a diatribe - then you just expect everyone to understand that only the one sentence was responsive.

    Heh.

    How about you work on "not idiotic", first.  In the alternative, you could try posting fewer than 48 times in a single thread (see above), which would allow enough room to avoid lumping all your responses together.

    Just a thought.

    Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#216)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:44:05 AM EST