Sunday Night Open Thread

Not a good day for the Broncos, to say the least.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< R.I.P. Philip Seymour Hoffman | Heroin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I knew Denver was toast when BTD picked them.... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by magster on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:17:05 AM EST

    Renee Fleming: (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Star Ledger said "No Star-mangled banner this time".  

    Happy town! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    Seattle was a happy town last night, and it's a happy town today.

    Happy we romped in the big game.

    Happy nobody got hurt (here, anyway) in the aftermath.

    Happy the weather at game time made for no excuses.

    Happy the game was too lopsided for anyone to blame the officiating (excepting one local Bronco's fan, and then only tongue-in-cheek).

    Happy Welker didn't get concussed, and Manning didn't get seriously injured.

    Happy the 12's got their props on the big stage, even away from home.

    Happy a few ignorant talking airheads -- QUITE a few ignorant talking airheads -- got served heaping helpings of crow. I had been sick all week, lying around in my sweats and listening to sports talk maybe 18 hours a day, and I heard the most amazing things from people who should have known better.

    Happy for the 7th-round pick who picked six, picked up a fumble, and picked up the MVP award. Happy for three undrafted "pedestrian" wide receivers who accounted for 10 catches, 80 yards, and 2 TD's.

    Happy we scored in almost every possible way (no punt return td, dammit). Happy we gave up no sacks and no picks - another SB record, I'm told.

    Happy my pre-game prediction for the Seahawks (34 points, leaning toward 41) Came almost true. I figured on 2 FG's and 4-5 TD's ... 5 if they had both a pick six and a kick return, which they did. I just never figured Manning to give up a safety - and he didn't, sorta, he had it done for him. I had figured Denver for 5 scores, more FG's than TD's, and on another day they might have ... but Sunday they were just digging out from the avalanche when the freight train hit 'em.

    Happy for whoever bet Seattle over Denver before the season started, at 50-to-1 odds.

    Happy for friends and friends of friends who made out so well at the Grammy's to kickstart the week's excitement.

    And happy David Stern no longer heads the NBA. Seattle has the best soccer fan base by far, we're certainly in the discussion for best NFL fans, and if Mariners fans had only been less enthusiastic in the face of bad team management over the years, we'd be competitive there too. Something for the NBA to think about.

    For related gut-busting hilarity, see ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    ... #HowSeattleRiots

    It's funny because it's so, so true!

    Congratulations to you (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    The Seahawks and the fans.  You truly demonstrated a super performance.

    I saw a photo essay on KOMO-TV''s site ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    ... yesterday, which purported to show the results of Sunday night's "riots" on UW's Fraternity Row and in Pioneer Square downtown. But in looking through the 48 pictures, I couldn't help but notice that 90% of them were of the same mattress bonfire and the same broken windows, only taken from different angles.

    Wow (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    I'm not used to so much happiness from you!

    But as long as you feel it, I'm glad you're reveling in it. :)

    Me, not so much.


    That's what the clichéd phrase ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    ... "Wait'll next year!" is for.

    And congratulations (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    to you and other Seahawks fans.
    I can't really help that I was bored by this game, but I appreciate the fact that Seattle fans are ecstatic, and they have a right to be.

    Erratum (none / 0) (#61)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:15:03 PM EST
    That should be 150 yards receiving by undrafted receivers Baldwin, Kearse and Lockette combined.

    Joan Mondale (1930-2014) (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:37:41 AM EST
    Joan Mondale, who became known as "Joan of Art" for her promotion of the fine arts during the political career of her husband, the former U.S. senator, vice president and presidential candidate Walter F. Mondale, died Feb. 3 at 83.

    Her family announced the death but did not disclose the cause or where she died.


    In Washington and around the country, Mrs. Mondale became known as a tireless advocate for the cultivation of the arts. During her tenure as "second lady" of the United States, President Carter named her honorary chairman of the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities.

    She traveled around the country attending museum exhibitions, dedicating new works of art and otherwise directing national attention on artists, noted or undiscovered, whom she admired. For her own part, she was an accomplished ceramicist.

    She and her husband were the first couple to inhabit the vice president's residence on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory, and Mrs. Mondale turned the home into a showcase for American art.


    Mrs. Mondale also used her prominence to push for equal pay for men and women and for the Equal Rights Amendment. When her husband in 1984 named Rep. Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y) his vice presidential running mate -- making her the first woman to become a major-party nominee on a presidential ticket -- Mrs. Mondale was resolutely supportive.

    "She doesn't mince words, and I like that a lot," Mrs. Mondale said.


    Art As Evidence Youtube Panel (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    Trevor Paglin, Developing ways of seeing,.. to see secrecy.. Military and intelligence activities that are around us all the time but invisible.

    Laura Poitras, Techniques of feeling.. Documenting the WOT

    Jacob Applebaum, writing: leaked documents as found art..   subverting everyday objects and resisting the convenient.

    Glad the Seahawks won, but it was (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    kind of boring - I would have liked to see more of a tug-of-war; this game was just a beat-down.  I feel bad for Manning, but not so much for Elway.

    And I didn't think the commercials were all that great, with a few exceptions.

    Enjoyed the halftime show.

    For the amount of money they (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 11:33:48 PM EST
    spent on those commercials . . . what a let down :(

    Even Tim Tebow? (No, (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 11:50:36 PM EST
    I didn't see it.)

    Boring (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:27:57 AM EST
    Most of the commercials I saw really seemed to be lacking whatever they were aiming for.

    Heh, apparently I missed the this one . . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:42:13 AM EST
    While I don't think the level of (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:55:40 AM EST
    outrage about the commercial is called for, I don't think this was a particularly well-thought out ad.  Given that Coke has done so many variations on the "we'd like to teach the world to sing" theme, I initially - as the ad started playing - thought the whole thing was kind of ambiguous.  Were these Americans of various ethnicities, were they naturalized American citizens?  Were these citizens of the world lauding America because it gave us Coke?

    I don't know.  But I do know this: people are funny about their national symbols.  Sort of territorial. So, I don't think you sing America the Beautiful in any language but English.  If immigrants and naturalized citizens and American-born children of immigrants want to express their love of this country, they sing that song in English - it just doesn't have the same meaning sung in any other language.

    I think, on Coke's part, that it was incredibly tone-deaf, and I'd be very surprised if that very expensive ad is seen in its original form, ever again.

    Oh, and as long as we're on a subject that has legions of Fox News-types' heads exploding...did you catch the O'Reilly interview of Obama?  I guess O'Reilly just couldn't help himself, proving that yes, being as a$$ just comes naturally to him.  I seriously don't know how Obama managed to keep his cool (which probably got to O'Reilly most of all - I'm sure he was looking to provoke Obama into something ugly).


    I thought it was well done (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    I guess I'm so used to hearing various languages around me, I didn't think too hard on it. I was impressed about how smooth the transitions were. Many of the ads looked jerky and seemed to be lacking in production chops, to me :) Most of the ads I've seen that I like, were a bit smoother around the edges.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sj on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:59:19 PM EST
    I thought that was beautiful. But the comments at that site are exhibit A for the column.

    This sent me looking up the history of the song, and it happens that the melody was written as a hymn in 1882, the words were written as a poem in 1895 and the two weren't put together until 1910. They were not originally intended to be matched up.

    And anyway, I don't think much of the whole "national symbol" idea. Nationalism isn't patriotism, and is just another way of being exclusionary and divisive, imo.


    What's ironic is that I'd guess a fair (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    number of the people up in arms over this thing probably don't even know all the words, even in English - I mean, look at how many people don't even know the words to the Star-Spangled Banner!

    It's the melody people identify more than anything, don't you think?  At least it is for me.  And whether it was the parts sung in English, or the parts sung in other languages, it sounded pure and clear and honest.

    But I knew it wasn't going to go over well.  I guess the question is, since the people at Coke had to know that, too, was this just a case of "all you xenophobes need to get over yourselves," or "think how much more Coke we can sell to the non-English speakers?"

    Maybe it was both.


    I think it was a continuation (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    of their classic commercials that have been around forever. And frankly, I think it should have been viewed as typically American, ya know, that whole nation of immigrants thang :P

    If I hadn't read about the 'controversy' not sure I would have picked up on it. I found it pleasing to both the eye and the ear. I really do need to check my outrage meter though, I tend to miss all the RWNJ ones, but mistreat a dog* and I'm all over it, lol!~

    * no kid should be riding a dog, I don't give a d@mn how big the dog is!


    It didn't look real (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:14:23 PM EST
    * no kid should be riding a dog, I don't give a d@mn how big the dog is!
    That looked like green screen magic to me. Not that a kid can tell the difference. I'm pretty sure there are lots of kids who will try it.

    It was green screen (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:13:03 PM EST
    (and I hope it was 100% green screen not just part!) but little kids aren't going to know that. Saw comments where other people were upset by it and there were people defending it thinking it was ok. I think we know who's kids will be riding dogs ;)

    Maybe I'll make an ad next year that has kids playing with matches and see how folks feel :P


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    Maybe I'll make an ad next year that has kids playing with matches and see how folks feel :P
    Give me some advance notice so I can watch :)

    Better Yet, Kids Smoking... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:38:32 PM EST
    ...is always a hoot on Youtube.

    I lived on a farm, and I can assure you us kids tried to ride dogs long before it wasd a commercial.

    One, a Siberian Husky, hated it, but he had no problems with pulling a plastic sled with me on it, or at least at age 7, I thought he was down with it.

    These are the same dogs that run hundred of miles in Alaska, pretty sure the only thing a kid trying to ride a big dog is doing is annoying the dog.

    Also, didn't the Broncos used to have a monkey ride a dog around the stadium, complete with a saddle ?

    I have always had dogs, and even when they are annoyed, the simply love the attention.  Now the problem is going to be people who own smaller dogs and their kids trying to rider them, but then again, as mentioned above, kids don't need a commercial to figure out that riding animals isn't taboo in our society.


    It can permanently damage a dog's spine (none / 0) (#143)
    by nycstray on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    and of course most huskies would like pulling a kid in a wagon. Heck, I'm converting a wagon into a cart for my Dal to pull to the community garden and back. Done right, carting is good fun/work for many dogs.

    I just find it sad that this mother thinks her commercial is okay. If the neighbors dog bit her kid for doing this, she'd prob demand the dog be gone . . . cause ya know, all dogs are supposed to put up with anything their precious kids do these days . . .


    Ha! (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    But I knew it wasn't going to go over well.  I guess the question is, since the people at Coke had to know that, too, was this just a case of "all you xenophobes need to get over yourselves," or "think how much more Coke we can sell to the non-English speakers?"

    Maybe it was both.

    Probably both. But I'll opine that I doubt Coke will really lose customers. People with an existing Coke or Pepsi preference do not consider the two products interchangeable. I have both types in my family. That's why we always make sure water is available, too.

    I felt kind of bad for those advertisers (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    whose commercials ran late in the game, because I think a lot of TVs probably got turned off right after Percy Harvin ran the 2nd half opening kick-off back for 6...

    As for the Coke commercial - on the surface, I think it was fine, but I knew as soon as I heard the other languages that it was going to start something.  The sports radio show I listen to in the morning had all kinds of callers, many of whom were vowing never to buy another Coke product.  One caller said he wouldn't be surprised if someday he goes to a ball game where the national anthem gets sung in Spanish.  "This is America!  We speak English!" was the general theme of the calls.  Oy.

    I don't know - I'm feeling so cranky today.  The weather is crappy - again - it looks like we're going to get another round of something tomorrow night, and honest to God, the people I work with are making me crazy.  So, yeah - it's Monday!


    As soon as we saw that commercial, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    I turned to Mr. Zorba and said "This is going to cause a whole lot of heads to explode."
    I thought the commercial was well done.  But then, I grew up totally bilingual, speaking Greek as well as English, so the fact that some Americans are bilingual and proud of their ethnic cultures is no surprise to me.  You can be a proud American and proud of the land of your ancestors, both at the same time.  After all, the fact that we're here shows that our ancestors thought highly enough of this country to want to live here.
    And, yeah, I missed the later commercials, since we turned the game off.

    I WISH I spoke another language (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    I can't believe that people look down on others who can speak MORE than one language.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think it's (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    about the fact that people can speak more than one language, it's that they didn't like hearing "America the Beautiful" sung in any of those other languages.

    I think we should all have some proficiency with other languages - I used to be fluent in French, but that was a loooong time ago - it's always kind of embarrassed me that so much of the world has learned to speak English, while so many Americans still get annoyed when they go to other countries and the people don't accommodate their language needs.  "You don't speak English??  What???"

    Whatever it is, you can be sure the O'Reillys and the Hannitys and Limbaughs will stir up a whole big pot of ugliness over it, and use it to insist we have an official language: the xenophobes just love this kind of thing!


    They may not like (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Zorba on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    Hearing "America the Beautiful" sung in other languages, but to me, after giving it some thought, I think what the commercial was saying was America is Beautiful because of its diversity.  With so many countries around the world embroiled in ethnic and religious strife, we can celebrate our diversity.  We are not perfect, and we certainly have our small-minded bigots, racists, homophobes, etc. (as some of the comments on Twitter and some websites responding to this commercial show).  But we could be a whole lot worse than we are.  We may have a long way to go, but we have come a long way.

    Excellent summary, Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    A summary that contains the beauty that we witnessed.  It really is about the beauty of all the differences, the diversity, and the ultimate unity ... E pluribus Unum.  Thank you, Zorba.

    Some countries celebrate multilinguality (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:22:11 PM EST
    or at least bilinguality, as in Canada, with its anthem in both official languages.  The Coke folks could have hired Quincy Jones, as Canada did, and just video the "making of" with beautiful faces from First People to French Canadians and more.  The outrage today by "Americans" in our country is just appalling.

    And worry not for the advertisers; Super Bowl contracts specify cut rates for audience declines, quarter by quarter, based on constant surveys done throughout the game.


    The Weather G0ds are football fans. (none / 0) (#24)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    Yesterday was a beautiful day here in NJ. Very spring like. Today, I woke up to a Winter Wonderland. It has been snowing steadily since morning. For now I am enjoying how beautiful it all looks, since I don't have to go outside unless it is to walk my dogs.

    Hope your day gets better!


    "America" (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by the capstan on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    I thought it was beautiful.  (My family got to Virginia in the 1630's, I believe it was, and included one lone German immigrant's daughter way back--but I appreciate all those who did not have to take a foreign language at school to learn another tongue.  Most of us have some capability with something besides English, but not to level of someone who spoke it from birth.)  "America the Beautiful strikes the right note in any language.

    Game Totally Stunk... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    ...and I hate the commercial aspect, but I think the Coke commercial was effective in that they were trying to reach out to large unsolicited segment, but done in a pretty thoughtless way, but effective non the less.

    I can't imagine going to Mexico and singing one of their National songs in English, that would just be disrespectful IMO.

    Bruno and the Peppers rocked it.  As a dedicated football fan, nothing bothers me more that having some band/singer whose music isn't for the actual fans of the game, but a sparkly show for the commercial watching crowd.

    Still have the 30 mins halftime.

    And and did I ever miss that one, I called Denver by 13.  I like Seattle more, but damn did I want to see one of football's royalty finely get his just deserts.

    Did anyone else find it extremely off that Sherman left the game ?  They basically had the win, why would he leave the field, to me that would be the best time in their careers to be on the field.  He didn't look like he was in dire pain and there really was no reason for him to go back in game, the two main r3eason players leave the field.  Just odd to me.

    O'Reilly was good, as I mentioned last week, it's nice to see these guys getting somewhat grilled by folks who do not share the same point of view.  And I think Obama answered the questions very well and in very public setting.  Too many people just get bits and pieces, he shot down O'Reilly's point one by one.

    No answer is going to change the Fox crowd, but he certainly answered the questions to an audience that might not know all the specifics.  He did Obama a huge favor IMO.  And he got a little off the rails with Benghazi, but not at all with Health Care.

    Sure beats someone like Couric throwing softballs.  Even though no politician is completely honest, he came across that way, and Bill didn't pull any punches.  I'll take more of those kinds of interviews any day, for both parties.

    Can you imagine Bush or Cheney sitting down with Cooper or Obermann, on what was probably Obama biggest TV audience, certainly an audience with loads of non political following people.

    Take that Fox viewers, Bill just gave Obama a half billion dollar commercial(10mins x 60 secs x one million) if you use the rates they charged corporate America.

    I give props to Obama and Bill.


    Should Read... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    Still hate the 30 mins half time show.  For people who play their entire lives with 15min half times, it's not right to change the rules so you can milk the dollars from the concert.  Football should take precedence at the Super Bowl.

    And the GD milking of every last penny, they started SB shows at 10am, 7.5 hours before the game, that's a fricken shift at work.

    And lastly, anyone notice last week at the Pro Bowl that every person they spoke with had some version of "They are playing hard, no ones pulling any punches out there.".  It was so obvious that a mem had been put out, but I could stop from laughing.

    A Pro Bowl without players from the two best team isn't really the best of the best now is it.  Plus how do you cheer and keep track of the game when your team's players are on both sides.  

    I like the picking of players, but it has to be AFC vs NFC.


    Well, they took Sherman off in the cart, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    and later I saw him in a boot, with crutches, and it was reported late last night that he had a high ankle sprain; don't know if you've ever had one, but they can be pretty bad.

    I was hoping for more of a game, a real battle to the last second, and if it wasn't over by halftime, it was over after Harvin ran the 2nd qtr opening kickoff back for a TD.  

    I have relatives in Colorado, so I felt bad for them, but seriously, it was like the Broncos never really showed up.  There was a distinct lack of energy, and Manning just didn't have it - the throws looked soft, with no zip.  He was never comfortable in the pocket, never.  Which was unfortunate, because they had to abandon their run game early to have any hope of coming back, and Manning just looked awful.

    This game reminded me a lot of the Ravens' SB win against the Giants - we had such a punishing defense that year - and I really liked Seattle's attitude and drive.  Having seen the Seahawks now this post-season, I will probably follow them a little more next year - but they do look like they could be built for, if not a repeat, another year or two of quality football.

    The O'Reilly interview - oof!  I had it on while I was doing other things, so I mostly just got the audio, but I have no idea how anyone can watch or listen to him for more than half a minute, he is that obnoxious.



    Here's an example, maybe. (none / 0) (#66)
    by EL seattle on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:59:15 AM EST
    I think that translating the lyrics of this particular song to a different language (i.e. translating it to English in this case) would have severely reduced the song's impact and resonance -

    A National Anthem, sung in French in some old American movie.

    The other song was wisely left untranslated, too.


    I actually liked (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:15:35 AM EST
    both Tim Tebow ads.  They were funny.

    Loved the Ellen / T-Mobile / Beats ad, where she was Goldilocks.

    Most of the rest of the commercials were lame, although kudos for the Chrysler / Bob Dylan ad.

    "Let Germany brew your beer/Let Switzerland build your watch/Let Asia assemble your phone/We will build your car."

    Don't you think Dylan dilutes has (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:14:50 AM EST
    cred making big bucks shilling for any product?

    No (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    He's done commercials before.

    (I was never a Dylan fan - never thought he could sing and thought always sounded like he had a deviated septum.  But I went with the BF last year to see a Dylan concert at the Verizon Center here in DC.  It was, without a doubt, the absolute worst concert I've ever been to.  Dylan sounded like he should have stopped smoking 20 years ago, and reminded me of "Froggy" from the Little Rascals.  Absolutely horrible.)


    Don't Think Anyone... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    ...would think less of him for doing commercials.

    I hate it personally, but ion this day and age, if you don't do it, you are throwing away money.  Is there any artist of that caliper who hasn't sold their music for commercials.

    Music is a business.  Sucks, but whether its making money from releasing 'greatest hits' compilation of selling a song to Buick, they are cashing in on their talents, which is something nearly everyone does.  Unfortunately, most of us don't get paid that kind of cash for our talents.

    It's pretty much the norm and no one can seriously say Bob Dylan isn't one of the most talented musicians of our time.

    Even the Doors sold a song to Buick in the 70's.  At least he's not trying to develop his own Vodka or aftershave.


    I think was a concept there (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    but I don't think they pulled it off. And I don't think it made it to the 'special' level of a SB ad.

    I guess the SB ads really showed why we use them for potty breaks. The percentage of good is lacking, imo :)


    The Radio Shack ad... (none / 0) (#13)
    by unitron on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    ...was amusing, although I'm sure it means they're going to be carrying even fewer of the handful of items for which I go there, the puppy and the Clydesdale were cute and so was the little girl lassoing the Doritos, the Jaguar ad wasn't bad, and if someone wants to say (or sing) something nice about my country I'm not going to get all huffy about language and location.

    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    It was a little boy lassoing the Doritos.  :)

    That commercial ticked me off. (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    And people wonder why their dog bites their kid . . .

    The boy got to them first... (none / 0) (#44)
    by unitron on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    ...but didn't even have time to begin to get his gloat on before his sister comes up and ropes 'em right out of his hands.

    Poor Denver! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    The Denver Post's Woody Paige sums it up best:

    "The Broncos waited 15 years for this? It was not possible for the Broncos to play any worse."

    Completely agree with Woody (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    One exception: They played worse in the Superbowl shellacking by the NY Giants years ago; and, of course, they bombed out in another infamous Superbowl with the Washington not-to-be-named-ns a long time ago.  We try to forget those in Denver; but, you always have that yucky memory in the back of the head somewhere.

    Anyway ... like my eastern PA roots (see Philly fans rep) ... I abandoned the whole thing within seconds after the ludicrous early decision to run the kick-off back from deep in the end zone, only get to their own 14, and be so flummoxed that the center could not center and that snap was notoriously bobbled at the opening for the safety.
    Recalling past down-hill-from-there lousy hours, I retreated with wine, food, book to a quiet room and called a PA cousin who had just done the same.
    It is one thing to support strongly (and to the bitter end) a team that plays its best ... but, not at all the case, when said team plays as if high-school, acts like its a waltz, and defeats themselves before being trounced. (My husband watched the whole fiasco ... even as I quickly emerged to quip at halftime that "Brace yourself ... it could be 50 to nothing, or maybe they'll allow a touchdown."  Funny, in retrospect.)

    Time to focus on the Avalanche.  

    As for the "America the Beautiful" commercial--which I had to watch this am--local lore is that the writing was done looking westward from the locale of the now-Antlers Hotel in ColoSpgs with Pikes Peak directly in front.  Staying there with husband and little dog on trip this winter, I opened the curtains and beheld that magnificence.  Truly beautiful ... in any language.  The meaning of that message brought joyful tears.


    Denver gave a good account of themselves (none / 0) (#43)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    ... under the circumstances.

    Some Bronco fans are ragging Peyton Manning, but he had a remarkably good passing day against that defense. 34 completions, only two picks. 5.6yd average per attempt.

    Denver shut down Beast Mode, though they gave up a lot elsewhere to do it.

    They stuck to their game plan even after it got bad, and pulled even(ish) in several offensive categories after a disconcerting start.

    SF and NO got crushed in their first games against the Legion of Boom this season, and did better the next time around.

    For Denver, there was no next time around (except next season - maybe the Thursday nite season opener?).


    Somebody said... (none / 0) (#45)
    by unitron on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    ...that Manning set a record for most completed passes in a Super Bowl in yesterday's game.

    That's correct. (none / 0) (#48)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    But of those two picks Manning threw, ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    ... one led directly to a Seattle touchdown, and the other was a pick-six that buried them in a deep hole before the first half was even completed.

    Yes, he completed 34 passes overall, which broke a Super Bowl record, but most of those completions occurred after the game's outcome had long since been decided. The Broncos weren't able to muster a first down until the 9-min. mark in the 2nd quarter, and they couldn't score until the very last play of the 3rd, when they were already down by 36 points.

    For the most part yesterday, Peyton Manning looked like a 37-year-old quarterback who was channeling the spirit of former Bronco QB Craig Morton in Super Bowl XII. It's a shame that such a truly remarkable year for him had to end with such a miserable offensive performance.



    Picky, picky, picky :) (none / 0) (#55)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 06:29:36 PM EST
    ... the game's outcome was probably decided the very moment that first snap from center shot like a cannon over Peyton Manning's right shoulder and into the Broncos' own end zone, where Denver running back Knowshon Moreno had to fall on the ball for a safety.

    I actually posted in the TL Super Bowl thread in real time that the play looked to be "an auspicious debut." And I was eventually proved right, because it's now clear that Denver had immediately ceded the initiative to Seattle at that point, and the Seahawks never relinquished it.



    It didn't matter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    Who was playing QB yesterday.

    A 25 year old Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers or Brete Farvre was losing that game by a lot.

    Nobody open and no time.   Seattle completely whipped the Broncos up front and manhandled the receivers.   Only complacency once the game was in doubt allowed Manning to wrack up some garbage yards at the end.

    Peyton didn't play well but it was because of the Seattle defense more then Manning.


    Bank Pop smashes discovery record (none / 0) (#5)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 12:08:24 AM EST
    Averaging over 25 knots over 4,200 miles Bank Pop smashed the discovery route record sailing from Spain to San Salvadore.  The boat will be a favorite for this years Route du Rhum.

    Route de la découverte (Cadix/San Salvador)

    And yet (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    ANOTHER healthcare.gov problem.  Seems the site can't handle any appeals to fix problems that individual users may have - say, to correct their data, for example.

    Tens of thousands of people who discovered that HealthCare.gov made mistakes as they were signing up for a health plan are confronting a new roadblock: The government cannot yet fix the errors.

    Roughly 22,000 Americans have filed appeals with the government to try to get mistakes corrected, according to internal government data obtained by The Washington Post. They contend that the computer system for the new federal online marketplace charged them too much for health insurance, steered them into the wrong insurance program or denied them coverage entirely.

    For now, the appeals are sitting, untouched, inside a government computer. And an unknown number of consumers who are trying to get help through less formal means -- by calling the health-care marketplace directly -- are told that HealthCare.gov's computer system is not yet allowing federal workers to go into enrollment records and change them, according to individuals inside and outside the government who are familiar with the situation.


    Yeah, but everybody is (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    being held responsible for it...

    Or says Obama.


    Dumb Arguement (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    It's one thing to F up, but she didn't break any laws or doing anything unsavory.  We start firing every person that royally screws up and no one is going to have a job.

    How deep should it go, just politicians or all the consultants as well ?

    You hate Obama and you hate health care, her replacement isn't going to be Ted Cruz, so why do would you like to see her fired.

    I suspect just plain and simple pleasure of seeing a D fired because there is no way you think Obama will find a better replacement.


    If she worked anywhere (none / 0) (#62)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:24:37 PM EST
    Except government she would be long gone.

    Other then Onama she is the person most responsible for this debacle.   Assuming the CEO (Obama) put her in charge she failed.   If she was working for  Fortune 500 company she'd toast.

    But she doesn't.  She works for this administration who only holds president Bush and House republicans responsible for their screw ups.   Never themselves.


    OTOH if she was a CEO of a bank, (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:13:34 AM EST
    she could get a 74% raise.

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    Private industry runs on the good old boy system not on productivity or how you do your job. Or maybe the Peter Principle is a better description.

    Yeah, I dislike Obamacare (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:22:15 AM EST
    it is welfare for insurance companies, has caused millions to lose their insurance and be replaced, after a lot of struggles, with a policy with things they don't want and at a price they can't afford.

    .... Of course I'm only for a single payer system that would cover everyone so I'm obviously biased.

    And that she may have not broken any laws is meaningless. She was in charge. The project was a disaster. In the world I live she would have been fired.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 267 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 10:52:37 AM EST
    Cardio for sociopaths, one tenth of one percent style. (link)

    v. 267
    v. 266

    Less than a hundred comics to go until I reach my goal of 365 in a calendar year. Way ahead of that pace now. Time to go finish the collection of short fiction I have to submit to an editor next week. Peace.

    What about the big, bad Tea Party? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    It's on it's way out.  Ted Cruz as the nominee?  Hah!

    Just how close is the Tea Party to its demise? Last week, Fox News didn't even bother airing the group's official response to Barack Obama's speech, in which the president forcefully called for an end to tactics that prevent the government "from carrying out even the most basic functions of our democracy." Even Speaker of the House John Boehner, who seemed so downtrodden last year, now has an extra spring in his step, and is daring to push for immigration reform over the vocal objections of the far right. All but the most extreme Republicans have abandoned their shutdown tactics, and though the GOP still vows to repeal Obama's signature health law given the chance, the changing power dynamics on Capitol Hill are palpable.

    Indeed, it's been a rough few months for the Tea Party. Fewer Americans than at any time since 2010 now call themselves members or supporters of the group. The tactic of running far-right candidates in Republican primaries clearly cost the GOP control of the Senate in 2010 and again in 2012. Their intransigence also helped to prevent Mitt Romney from defeating the president they have so vilified. All this has sparked counter-mobilization by the GOP Old Guard too: Since last fall's ill-conceived Tea Party-led gambit to shut down the government, defund the Affordable Care Act and potentially default on the national debt, establishment Republicans have boldly lashed out at conservative outside groups that once had them cowering in fear, while pouring millions of dollars into races across the country to bolster moderates against right-wing insurgents.

    At the same time, some of the leading Tea Party figures on the national stage are now departing from elective office, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who won't seek reelection this year, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who left the Senate last year to become president of the Heritage Foundation. Others have consolidated their positions as national laughingstocks--most notably former veep wannabe Sarah Palin, but also the filibustering, Dr. Seuss-reading Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who seems to be following the same trajectory, only faster. Others have been busy distancing themselves from the Tea Party, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) taking a more moderate stance on immigration and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) choosing to emphasize civil liberties over more radical tactics.

    There may still be plot twists, turns and even reversals ahead for the Tea Party, but the main question now is not if the group is in decline but what its endgame will be.


    So Old White Angry Republicans... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    ...are going to start calling themselves republicans aand/or libertarians once again, wonder what the two democrats in the Tea Party will do ?

    The Tea party was/is nothing more than an delusion of republicans too ashamed to be associated with GWB, but would vote for him in a second.

    It can't be on it's way out since it was figment of deluded numbskulls imagination.


    Scott, you ever attended (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    a Tea Party meeting??

    He can (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    read polling which tells you exactly the same thing he's saying. They have an abnorally high approval of George W. Bush.

    That (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 07:38:46 PM EST
    article hardly makes the case that the tea party is on it's way out. It's comparing the tea party to political insurgencies that flame out over time. Yes, the tea party is going to flame out over time but apparently not yet.

    And the thing that the article doesn't address is whether they call themselves tea partiers or Republicans the problem for the GOP is the people that vote in the primaries.

    It makes a great case that the GOP is having civil war right now though.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:23:28 AM EST
    It says the people who are the face of the Tea Party are either retiring, or don't really have that much power (and are losing steam every day), money is not flowing to Tea Party candidates, and fewer and fewer people identify with the Tea Party.

    Why do keep thinking they are so strong?


    But Money (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 09:45:27 AM EST
    is flowing into tea party coffers. It's coming from Jim Demint at Heritage. It's coming from the Koch Brothers.

    Just watch and wait and see who they nominate for candidates. This article is coming from a GOP elite opinion not from the average voter who votes in the primaries.

    The thing that has changed it seems to me is after the whole government shutdown fiasco Boehner seems a little less afraid of them but he's still afraid of them. I mean he could pass immigration reform tomorrow if he wanted to but the tea party is holding that up too.


    Whatever strategic changes are (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    in the works, I do think the establishment made the mistake of allowing the Tea Party to catch fire at the grassroots level, so I think they refuse to see that they may need to start putting a non-threatening, sane face on Tea Party policies at their own peril - if what they want is what I think they want: to keep their seats and maintain their own access to the gobs of money that will flow into their pockets.

    This was supposed to be what the "re-branding" was all about - to make them look sane and reasonable - but that's been handled so badly, it may have done more harm than good.  I'm in no way convinced there is any appetite among establishment Republicans to distance themselves from the Tea Party by moving left - they just want a way to teach Eliza Doolittle to speak the King's English and mind her manners.


    That may be so (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    But the name of the game is to win elections, and if you keep backing crazy, you won't win.

    Fundraising is down among Tea Party candidates - someone is getting the message.

    Add to that, Tea Party candidates don't have a very good record of getting elected, even if they are the Republican nominee in the race, and you see why their power is slipping away, and will only be more of an influence as to being guests on cable news.


    It's been the stated goal of the (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    Tea Party to challenge establishment incumbents they don't perceive as being conservative enough; if they can do that at the primary level, they see that as a win - even if the "winner" loses in the general, they will have taken down someone they deem an unacceptable Republican.

    And chances are, it has also forced the Dem opponent to run further to the right, so even better, as far as they're concerned, right?

    These two factions may be at a crossroads, and money may be shifting somewhat, but I'm more concerned with the effect this has had on Democratic policy and the way Dems have moved to the right instead of doubling down and fighting harder for more progressive policy that will improve the quality of people's lives - and not just the rich ones!


    The conclusion in your first paragraph, Anne, (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    is bolstered today by two recent polls of Republicans.  The PPP poll released yesterday & the CNN/International both show significant slippage for Christie and the rise of one of the right-wing purists, the one and only Mike Huckabee, who now leads in both polls (with Rand Paul a close second.)  The usual caveat: A long time until 2016, and Repubs are preliminarily casting about among several would-be candidates.

    Like you, I wonder about what lesson the Repubs have absorbed regarding the Tea Party.  The recent move toward Huckabee doesn't quite align with a move toward political sanity.


    The recent move to Huckabee (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    Signals that many Republicans think the "liberal media" is out of touch with their feelings and is more along the lines of "You can't pick on one of ours."  It really has nothing to do with who they would ACTUALLY vote for at this point.

    A unique analysis, jbindc (none / 0) (#84)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    If your evaluation as to the intent of those polled is correct, the ramifications are extensive.  Would your evaluation only hold for Repubs when it is Huckabee as the preference or would the reactive response of those polled apply whenever pollsters attempt to elicit Repub preferences?  If the "go-away-liberal-media" attitude masks the true preferences of Repub responders, when will the world be able to get a glimpse of genuine preference?

    (Note:  Yes, my response has a bit of the facetious or, rather, incredulous flavor.  Yet, I also do see that it is possible that a group so ticked off by "the liberal media" could mislead as you seem to suggest.  If the latter is true, tho, couldn't that boomerang on the candidate(s) they actually support?)


    Since Huckabee (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    wasn't even on the radar of Republican voters until the flap last week for his comment about women's libidos, and then all of a sudden he's leading in the polls, it seems all but obvious to those who want to gleefully dance around and sing that "Hucakbee is the choice", that he is a backlash choice against liberal elites and the media.  They still want a Christie, or in the absence of scandal, a Jeb Bush, or John Kasich as their standard bearer, but since neither of those candidates has declared, they are going with the flavor of the minute.

    Even with the NJ scandal ongoing, the fact that Huckabee only leads Christie by an average of 2.2 in the RCP polls (within the margin of error) should highlight to anyone that this is clearly a rebound choice and the fervor will die down when the next flavor of the week rears his head.

    No one will have a really good idea as to who the nominee will be until 2 years from now.  Jumping up and down breathlessly when someone new takes lead week to week is pointless.


    So, at this point, we're not even (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    sure how many and which of the horses milling about in this paddock are going to end up in the starting gate, much less which of those that do is going to win the chance to be elected president.

    Makes me think that all these polls and breathless media reports are just about trying to make news where there isn't any - and I have to say it makes me kind of cranky when I think about how easily we are baited into their game.  And it's not like it gets us better choices, better candidates.

    People complain so about how nothing ever gets done in Washington, but when it's gotten to the point where a president doesn't even get one year in office before it starts all over again, is it any wonder?  I can't help but think that if elections were 100% publicly funded, we might actually be able to get the focus back on governance, where it belongs, and away from the obsession/fixation with money - raising it, making it and using it to buy and maintain influence.

    But, what would be the fun in that?


    They (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    DO NOT want Christie. I'm telling you they hate the guy and only now are embracing him for a short period of time because they see him as a "victim".

    That actually (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    bolsters my argument that there will be no moderate nominee in 2016. Anybody the "liberal media" deems "acceptable" would be a noncrazy person therefore you get back to nominating a crazy person because they're not acceptable to the "liberal media"

    I think most Republicans will vote for (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    whichever Republican gets the nomination - even if they have to hold their noses to do it - for the same reason that most Dems will vote for the Dem nominee: because neither wants the other party to win, even if their own nominee isn't their first choice.

    Yes, some Republicans will either decline to vote, or go third party - just as some Democrats will - but for the most part, Republicans are going to get in line and vote Republican.  I'm sure on conservative sites and blogs, you can find Republicans declaring they don't want this one or that one to get the nomination, and responses that mirror those we read here: "if you don't it's like giving your vote to the Democrat" or "as bad as he is, he's still not as bad as the Democrat."  And so on.

    If the GOP nominated a circus elephant, I'm pretty sure plenty of Republicans would vote for it.


    What (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:28:16 PM EST
    you don't seem to understand is that the people who vote in the GOP primaries think McCain and Romney lost precisely because they were moderates. They think that a "real conservative" like Cruz or Rand Paul or some other tea party darling would win.

    You also have to realize that they believe polls are made up by the "liberal media" and they reside in a rareified bubble of information. They believe that the majority of the country agrees with their way of thinking because Ronald Reagan won in a landslide 34 years ago.


    And yet (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    No far right crazy candidate has ever been nominated.

    And they won't be.

    All we heard from 2008 on (especially on this blog by some commenters) is that "Mitt Romney will never be nominated!  He's not conservative enough!  He's a Mormon!  The evangelicals will never allow it!"

    Guess what?  He was nominated.

    "John McCain will never be nominated!  He isn't conservative enough!"

    Guess what?

    Maybe in your little section of the south the Tea Party runs rampant, but since they are losing money and support, and have a dismal record of their candidates actually, you know, winning elections, I just don't see your analysis as being a good measure of what's actually going on throughout the entire country.

    There will NOT be a lunatic fringe candidate as the Republican nominee.


    You cannot (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    go by past behvaoir. Past behavior would never have nominated "i am not a witch" or "legitimate rape" candidates would they? I mean these were people who were nominated by the people who vote in the GOP primaries. These were state wide candidates. The same group got rid of Richard Lugar didn't they and nominated a nut for senate?

    I was not one of them (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:23:15 PM EST
    that said Romney would not be nominated I said HE WOULD be nominated because the GOP elite would tell the voters who to vote for and they would vote for him. You can look up my comments back then if they're still hanging around.

    But you seem unwilling to listen to the fact that things are very different now and Romney and McCAin are precisely the reasons they won't nominate someone they perceive as a moderate because they both lost didn't they?


    I think you are 100% right (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    At least when it comes to this red state I live in.  The base here does truly believe that because the moderates lost that means hardest right is finally their winner.  They are completely blind and dumb to reality.

    Talk radio (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:19:36 AM EST
    and Fox News has made it so that it no longer matters what state one lives in. In the states we live in there's just more of them.

    What money? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    And "what average voter?"  Fewer and fewer people are identifying with the Tea Party, so who are these people you are speaking of?

    And did you miss the part about all the money going to defeat the Tea Party?

    This article is coming from a GOP elite opinion not from the average voter who votes in the primaries.

    Actually, it's written by someone who works at the Progressive Policy Institute - an organization that would do well to further its mission fan the big scary flames of TEA PARTY! hysteria.


    Don't think it works this way (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    Actually, it's written by someone who works at the Progressive Policy Institute - an organization that would do well to further its mission fan the big scary flames of TEA PARTY! hysteria.

    On the Dem/Progressive side, making the opposite side seem more important than they are just spurs the current breed of Democrat to see a need to compromise with them. Marginalizing them is a much better tactic, if indeed it is a tactic and not just reporting the straight fact.


    Might want to tell that to MSNBC (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    We are not on speaking terms (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    Not even one way comm!

    What is good for their ratings (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    is not necessarily good for the country or the progressive agenda. Might want to mention that also to Fox News re conservative agenda.

    Why would I mention Fox News? (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    They love ALL the candidates, and at this point, don't really have to push one over the other - their candidate will shake out over time.  MSNBC, of course, wants to push the "scariest" possible candidate forward, so it (along with the liberal blogosphere) have a vested interest in continuing the meme of "TEA PARTY!"

    So what (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    if they are not calling themselves tea partiers? The GOP base is still aging white evangelicals. The people who vote in GOP primaries are largely people who ascribe to far right beliefs.

    And the Dems (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:58:56 AM EST
    who vote in primaries are generally the more activist lefty base, which does not mean they represent the whole Democratic Party.

    And yet again, those same people who ascribe to far right beliefs voted in 2012 (when the Tea Party was at its most active and front and center) and Mitt Romney was STILL nominated.  The Tea Party couldn't stop him when they were their most powerful and organized, and yet you want to think that they will have a bigger influence in 2016?  


    I keep telling you (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:03:55 AM EST
    it's not 2012. In 2012 they did what they were told. They have done this for decades but they are not going to do it anymore. The same for 2008 and the lesson they learned from those elections is to NOT VOTE FOR who they are told to vote for. I simply don't understand why you can't get this.

    You are basing things on past behavior not current behavior. Currently they are having a civil war.

    Do you really think the GOP is going to change ONE THING in their platform for 2016? They are not. They are going to use the same platform they have been using for 1/3 of a century or more. It's what their voters want. They are not willing to change to win yet.

    They even did an autopsy saying that they needed to change but have not done one thing the autopsy said to do.


    I pretty much concur (none / 0) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 02:40:20 PM EST
    With your take on the Tea Party.

    The big mistake most commonly made is not understanding that the general election is far down the list of goals for these zealots. Their goal, first, and foremost, is to destroy the existing order. If they can show incumbent representatives that their future depends on the Tea Party ideology they've accomplished their mission.

    You know the adage, "take care of the little things, the big things will take care of themselves." They believe that knocking off incumbent office holders will, eventually, send the message that "the road to the top runs through the Tea Party."

    So far, that strategy has worked pretty well. It was just a few weeks ago that almost everyone agreed, including BTD, that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Keep an eye on Ted Cruz; he's got the brains, the fervor, and the understanding that stupid people, and geniuses, are equal in the voting booth. And, he's mapped out a plan to be "The Stupid's" Pied Piper.....and ride that mob all the way to the White House.  


    Yes, (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 03:45:40 PM EST
    that is their thinking and when you actually say to them that their ideas are the reason they lose they will tell you flat out that they don't care about winning.

    I expect Ted Cruz or Rand Paul to be the nominee simply because they are the ones who are pandering to the far right and pushing their buttons.

    Cruz is a better grifter than Paul though. He knows exactly what to tell these people to get them to vote for him.


    What will be very interesting, (none / 0) (#157)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    if Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz gets close to the Republican nomination, is how the "birthers" will deal with the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, of an American citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father.
    As far as I am concerned, Cruz (even though I cannot stand him) is an American citizen and eligible to run for the Presidency.
    But so many Republicans made such a big deal about Obama's Kenyan father, insisting that Obama was also born in Kenya (despite his Hawaiian birth certificate, which they kept disputing), and despite the fact that his mother was an American citizen, so that no matter where he was born, he was also American.
    So how are they going to bend themselves into pretzels about Ted Cruz, who very clearly was born in a foreign country?

    Simple... (none / 0) (#158)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:20:36 PM EST
    Canada is White.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    he actually already has had some problems with that and his last name being Hispanic could cause a lot of problems too. Maybe Rand Paul is a shoo in for the GOP nomination after all. LOL.

    Christie invited to speak at CPAC (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    ... after being snubbed in 2013.

    Wonder what kind of reception he'll get.

    The jokes write themselves.... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by unitron on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    "Cardenas told the National Journal last year that Christie wasn't invited to attend because he had decided to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and supported a $60 billion aid package for Hurricane Sandy victims."

    which I guess means "Last year he was actually looking out for people, and we can't have any of that, but the way he screwed over all those drivers in Ft. Lee shows his heart's in the right place after all."


    Woody Allen (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slado on Mon Feb 03, 2014 at 11:49:12 PM EST
    My grandfather was falsely accused of abuse when I was young but my sister works in child services so I am always torn by this type of scandal because I know both sides could be true.

    I tend to believe Woody in this particular case but it's hard to overlook the creepiness of how he married his current wife even though my personnel misgivings are just that and he didn't do anything unlawful.

    This Link makes a compelling case for why the allegations might indeed be false, mainly the time and place of the supposed abuse but it's hard to reject the powerful letter that appeared in the NYT's.

    Interested in others thoughts.

    We know nothing (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    There were a few "witnesses" but nothing was pursued by authorities.

    The only that has kind of amazed me is that Woody Allen has never seemed to understand that he made a decision that permanently ended his family as he knew it, and that he was never going to be "forgiven" by those he sought it from. His whole "the heart wants what the heart wants" thing is very revealing. In a quite depressing way.


    Given that Mia Farrow has since claimed ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    ... that it was her late ex-husband Frank Sinatra who fathered her son Ronan (born in 1987), and not Woody Allen as was previously supposed, I'd offer in retrospect that her continued outrage over Allen's 1994 infidelity with her own adopted adult daughter Soon-Yi Previn is both selective and hypocritical. (Allen and Previn have since married and have two daughters, ages 13 and 14.)

    I won't pretend to know personally the dynamics of that long-ago relationship between Allen and Farrow. Thus, I really don't think it's my place to comment on the veracity of their adopted daughter Dylan's allegations. Were other women to step forward and offer a similar story, I might change my mind.

    However, I'm very sorry that her mother Mia continues to wear the sting and pain she felt at Allen's rejection like a hair shirt, and I further regret that she both chose to air the family's dirty laundry in public and also use her own then-young children as a weapon against him during their very acrimonious break-up. In that regard, we ought to consider that Dylan's outburst this weekend might well be the unfortunate but inevitable result of that bit of Mia's handiwork. After all, Hell hath no fury like a lover scorned.

    As Cate Blanchett, who was one of the targets of Dylan Farrow's very public wrath, graciously told interviewers in Santa Barbara yesterday in response to the young woman's accusations, "It's been a long and painful situation for the family, and I hope they find some resolution and peace."  

    Amen to that.


    Thirty years of psychoanalysis (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    and that's the best he could come up with? Someone needed to remind him that sometimes "the heart" is full of sh*t. That's where good friends who are willing to tell you the truth come in.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:20:34 PM EST
    I'm eternally grateful that my best friend told me nearly three decades ago, when I was using the occasion of the breakup of my first marriage to drink and womanize to excess, to please get a grip on my life and return to the real world.

    My only regret is that he since passed away back in March 1998, and I never properly thanked him for his forthrightness and friendship during a difficult time. My public acknowledgement of that personal failing will have to suffice.



    UPDATE: (none / 0) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    The web is lately all abuzz with the news that the New York Times might publish in its op-ed pages Woody Allen's written response to resurrected allegations that he once molested his adopted daughter Dylan.

    And in the meantime, documentary filmmaker Robert Weide -- increasingly concerned that his one-time subject was being "swiftboated" by Mia Farrow, et al. -- has ignored the director's counsel to not get involved, by weighing in on the matter himself with a pointed and very detailed shot fired not so much at Ms. Farrow herself and her brood, as across the bow of Allen's many and vociferous online critics:

    The Daily Beast | February 5, 2014
    The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast -- "As anyone with access to a computer knows, Woody Allen has been pilloried of late across the internet, over allegations that 21 years ago, he molested the daughter he and Mia Farrow adopted in 1985. Countless people have weighed in on this, many of them without the slightest idea of what the facts are in this matter. I consider myself allergic to gossip and tabloids, and go out of my way to avoid them. So when a celebrity is being devoured by the two-headed piranha of gossip and innuendo, I usually have minimal understanding of what they did, or were alleged to have done. Woody Allen is an exception."

    It's a good read, if one has the time and inclination to wade into what some find to be a very unpleasant and distasteful subject. (Most nasty break-ups of couples can indeed be quite unpleasant and distasteful, particularly to those who are acquainted with the warring parties.)

    But Weide confronts the rumors and innuendo head-on with the facts as he knows them. And if anyone is tempted to comment on the continuing Allen-Farrow tempest, they would be wise to first try to understand the situation fully, to avoid fueling any number of misperceptions about what happened between them.



    Obamacare sucks (none / 0) (#65)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 12:10:53 AM EST
    Is it really even a debate anymore?

    Man gets shafted by Obamacre and law will cost middle class income.

    These stories won't stop.  

    In my book, if my income is cut by .9% (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    but my out of pocket health care expenses are cut by more than whatever that amount is, I come out ahead.

    The jury is still out.


    More information (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 02:02:05 PM EST
    To judge Obamacare:

    The Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by more than 2 million in coming years, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday, a finding that sent the White House scrambling to defend a law that has bedeviled President Obama for years.

    After obtaining coverage through the health law, some workers may forgo employment, while others may reduce hours, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. Low-wage workers are the most likely to drop out of the workforce as a result of the law, it said. The CBO said the law's impact on jobs mostly would be felt after 2016.


    On Tuesday, the agency released a more detailed estimate that includes how ordinary Americans would react to those changes by employers. Some would choose to keep Medicaid rather than take a job at reduced wages. Others, who typically do not work full-time, would delay returning to work in order to keep subsidies for private insurance that are provided under the law.

    As a result, by 2021, the number of full-time positions would be reduced by 2.3 million, the report said.

    The reduction in employment from the health care law "includes some people choosing not to work at all and other people choosing to work fewer hours than they would have in the absence of the law," the CBO said.

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney immediately pushed back against the estimate, saying in a statement, "Claims that the Affordable Care Act hurts jobs are simply belied by the facts in the CBO report."

    White House officials added that the CBO report also rebuts a key claim of Republicans -- that the law has already had a significant impact on employment, including increasing the number of part-time workers.

    Carney said: "CBO's findings are not driven by an assumption that ACA will lead employers to eliminate jobs or reduce hours, in fact, the report itself says that there is `no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.'"

    No fan of Obamacare, but ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news

    The CBO projects that the [Affordable Care] act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

    As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

    As you have deduced, yman, (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    yesterday's repub-pushed talking points that "jobs" would be lost were quite different than the CBO report itself.  The CBO author clarified publicly and again today in Congressional hearing that CBO's look into the future of about 10 years from now would see that Americans would have more options about working hours because of the ACA effect.  That is, several different reasons could well result in people electing/choosing to work less hours or not at all.  

    In this sociological-type evaluation of what might result in future, CBO notes that those in forties and fifties might choose to work fewer hours or not at all since the availability of insurance under the ACA would not be tied to the employer and/or since the cost under ACA to the individual would allow that coverage without sacrificing living standard.  For those of lesser economic means, the reality of the $ cap for Medicaid eligibility might be persuasive in the same direction as well.  The point is -- as the NY Times editorial observes today, the initial reaction by some that "jobs" would be lost is far from accurate.  (By the evening news hour yesterday, networks such as ABC observed that there are two different views of what will happen, but that the ability of individual(s) to choose and not be tied to a particular job/employer to get or retain healthcare coverage could be considered a positive result by many.)

    What is interesting today about the continuation of "what the CBO report means" is the reported interaction between Cong. Paul Ryan and the CBO director (Emmenthal?)....  See TPM story on same. Ryan, via seemingly neutral leading questions, produced the clarification about the potentially beneficial (or neutral) consequences respecting employee choices.  I have already heard remarks about Ryan's judicious role in wanting to get the facts out in the open.  As he appeared to ease and allow for what looks like a contradiction to the initial Repub hyperventilating attempt at "gotcha," maybe Paul Ryan bought himself a second look as being fair and all that.


    I love the spin on this (none / 0) (#148)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:39:41 PM EST
    The report says 2.5 million people will leave the workforce because of Obamacre.

    That is not good news.  Not sure how more people not working and paying taxes is good for the economy.

    Explain to me the economic argument for why this is good news?

    Anyways it's nice to get a little embellishment against this law for once.   If the media had done a little honest reporting instead of cheerleading on this thing before it was passed we might not be stuck with it.


    Explain it? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    You didn't read the link to the LA Times article?

    Oh, really? (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:54:45 PM EST
    Slado: "I love the spin on this[.] The report says that 2.5 million people will leave the workforce because of Obamacare."

    One-time GOP VP hopeful and current House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan, no fan of Obamacare himself, would beg to disagree with you.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    That no one mentions who these lucky people are who will have the luxury of saying, "You know, I don't NEED to work as many hours at McDonald's because I have health insurance!"  My guess is, there won't be too many people at the top of the economic scale who are working just for health insurance and will be able to quit their jobs or reduce their hours.  They will proportionally be at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, so if they are not working, nor paying taxes, doesn't that open up to other governmental costs?

    Pray tell - who are these people?  (And please use a source other than TPM - a blog that has the phrase "Talking Points" in its name, so can't be taken as seriously as other media outlets).


    People reducing their hours ... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    ... or retiring earlier than they otherwise might because their health insurance isn't tied to full-time employment.

    LA Times

    New Republic

    Center For Economic and Policy Research


    Ah yes (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:22:11 PM EST
    From the article:

    It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

    The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor -- given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."  That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 -- not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely.

    The overall impact on the community will be muted, moreover, because most of that effect will be seen at the lowest levels of the wage-earning scale. The effect will be "small or negligible for most categories of workers," the CBO says, because there will be almost no impact on workers who get their insurance from their employers or who earn more than 400% of the federal poverty line (for a family of three, that's $78,120), the point at which eligibility for federal premium disappears.

    Hmm.. "older workers with serious health conditions" - again, who are these people who could afford to quit a job when they still have to pay for health insurance?  If they are really "older", they qualify for Medicare.

    And "... many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance."

    Again - these families can afford for these mothers to stay home?  Who are these people?

    I haven't heard of millions of people who are working just to get health insurance, but aren't working because they need to money to pay other bills.  Where are these people?


    Can't help you (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    Not sure if you're looking for a list of names and addresses, but there is no list.  OTOH, the CBO Report does make it clear that the reduction in total hours worked is almost entirely due to people who choose to stop working or work less.

    Hmm.. "older workers with serious health conditions" - again, who are these people who could afford to quit a job when they still have to pay for health insurance?  If they are really "older", they qualify for Medicare.

    Depends on how you define "older", but I would consider someone in the 60-65 age range to be an "older worker".  If they want to retire because they no longer need to hang on to their health insurance until they reach age 65, why not?  The premiums for those in this age group pre-ACA was often incredibly high, and you had a significant group of people who were "waiting for Medicare".

    And "... many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance."

    Again - these families can afford for these mothers to stay home?  Who are these people?

    Not sure what you mean by "who are these people"?  They're people.  I personally know several people (including two of my sisters) with young children who returned to work full time rather than working part-time because they needed the health insurance benefits.  When I was a new teacher, I actually lost money by continuing to work between the expenses associated with working and the cost of child care, but we needed health insurance.

    But it would apply to pretty much anyone who would prefer to work less hours or stay at home rather than work who chooses to do so because they now can afford to do so.


    I would add (none / 0) (#160)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:27:24 PM EST
    that the "freedom" given to individuals could be a powerful intangible.  If significant numbers of people find that they are not so beholden to their jobs because the fear of loss/moving from the job occasioned by the need to retain a healthcare policy of any kind, that alone could mean a shifting of lost leverage to the good of the employee.  Unions and workers groups have long been aware of the constraints and chains around workers who could not leave and seek work of their lives' dreams or other goals because of the fear of losing healthcare.  When you look at the implications here, it could well be that there is finally a jump-shift for the worker who has more real choice...because, yman, as you suggested, the real world for many people had been constrained by the old healthcare situation.

    Thank you for your comments, yman.


    If you've (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:22:49 PM EST
    ever been around working class people you would know that a lot of people work strictly for insurance. When I was working in insurance we had a discussion among us mothers with young children. If you have 2 kids 1/2 of your paycheck was going towards child care. Then you had the cost of clothes and gas and other stuff associated with working. Also having to have two cars. So some people were not making any money working there but continued to work because of health insurance. A lot of these women had husbands that worked for small businesses that did not offer insurance. I carried the insurance for my entire family even though working for an insurance company does not offer great benefits believe it or not my husband worked for a small business that offered insurance but it was pretty crappy insurance that did not pay much of anything.

    In my case, ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    ... it was significantly more than half of my paycheck (@ 1,600/month for two kids).  I can't remember what my net pay was, but my pre-tax gross was just under $24,000 - and as a teacher I was a "professional".

    I'm not surprised. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    I think it was about 29% of my take home so maybe it was more than half for them too but some places don't charge you as much for the second child. But still for me it was almost 1/3 of my take home.

    I know people who made no money and basically worked to pay child care but then when their children got older and got in school they just  made no money in the summers. The one lady who told me this said well, it was worth it in the long run though but it was was rough working for no money.


    re Talking Points Memo (none / 0) (#168)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    IIRC it got its name from the infamous so called 'talking points memo' that Ken Starr tried to prove was written by Vernon Jordan for Monica Lewinsky. It was a reference to a political signifier of the times.

    How appropriate that your source ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    ... would be a right-wing blog called "Hot Air."

    And in answer to your question, it isn't a debate when one doesn't rise to your bait.



    Negative anecdotal stories ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    ... won't stop?

    They never do.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 268 (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    Breathless? (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    In commenting on the early changing Repub voter polls <wherein Mike Huckabee recently surfaced as leading two such polls>, jbindc referred to some observers "(J)umping up and down breathlessly" over that type of report and Anne also referred to a "breathless" response to the news.  Clearly, a party with more than one possible direction available to it at a fork-in-the-road time would be wise to test out/try on different candidates as potential leaders along the way.  Nothing unusual about that.  I'd guess, however, that there is no more indication that the Repub primary voters will move in the Bush or Kasich direction than they would in the direction of the Paul Ryan or Rand Paul brand.  Previous Repub party patterns would tend to favor someone that might be considered next-in-line...as in Paul Ryan.  

    One of the most interesting Repub dilemmas these days, as viewed through the eyes of Democratic me, could be the direction and prognosis for Immigration Reform in Congress during the coming months. Will it move forward or will a segment of the very conservative Repubs be allowed to pull the plug ... because that dilemma alone illustrates the polarity between pragmatism or ideological purity.  The positioning of any future presidential candidate could be most telling.

    Back to Mike Huckabee's momentary turn at the front?  Anybody "(J)umping up and down breathlessly"? Not that I can see ...maybe it is more akin to a "yoiks" feeling from some of us.

    Why would it be a "yoiks" moment? (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    A Huckabee candidacy is what you WANT. Most people do not agree with, nor want an extreme conservative running the country.

    What scares more Democrats (or SHOULD scare them) is a potential Christie / Bush / Kasich / other moderate conservative nomination - someone who actually would get some Democrats and many independents to vote for him.

    Why do you think MSNBC et al has been pushing the Bridgegate to orgasmic proportions?


    What I "want" is Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    For whatever reason, jbindc, that you would project your notion of what I "want" is hard to figure.  While it would bring a laugh from me and other Dems, it would also bring a slap-of-the-forehead and an exclamation about what the Repubs might be thinking (a "yoiks" exclamation!)

    Several weeks back, I noted here that Jeb Bush could be a strong Repub candidate.  The dynasty argument thrown by a Bush and a Clinton would cancel each other out ... and, Jeb Bush may have the best chance in the Repub party for increasing Latino votes, a must for any Repub candidate.  The real issue regarding Jeb Bush is how the old-time power coalition holds up.  (And, from what I understand from Repub acquaintances, it would be wrong to take Mama Bush's dampening comments too lightly.)

    Ohio's Governor Kasich does seem to have pulled his act together after the debacle over unions and public employees shortly following Governor Scott Walker's maneuver. The Kasich name has very recently surfaced publicly in the context of 2016 ... we'll see if the name if thrown out to test the waters.   As for Chris Christie, the political damage from Bridgegate has been enveloped by the Sandy allegations and other operational allegations of behavior that seem to surround him in a bullying sleaze ... he cannot recover in any meaningful sense.

    The Year 2016 is so far and yet so near.  Presidential campaigns will be getting underway in another year; and, as you know, it takes lots of energy and work to mount any successful campaign in today's world.


    Which is (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    The Year 2016 is so far and yet so near.  Presidential campaigns will be getting underway in another year; and, as you know, it takes lots of energy and work to mount any successful campaign in today's world.

    why it's so incredibly funny that you were so happy to crow about Mike Huckabee's poll surge - as if it means something today.


    And what's particularly funny (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    For whatever reason, jbindc, that you would project your notion of what I "want" is hard to figure

    You (and MKS and PK) purport to know my mind and intentions all the time, so it's particularly hysterical that you feel affronted by this.


    not "affronted," jbindc (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    I consider the projection you made about what I "want" to be ... amusing.

    Why do you think that I'm crowing? (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    Frankly, jbindc, you seem somewhat sensitive when one of the Repub far righters surface or get the spotlight or gain the media attention.  That isn't my issue; that is your issue.

    Look, the campaigns are going to gear up shortly.  We all know that.  So, this is a year of pre-positioning; and, we all know that too.

    I would be interested, btw, in your response to my comment upthread about Immigration Reform being a fascinating dilemma faced by the Repubs in general now and, shortly, confronting the would-be presidential candidates shortly.  The alteration of perception on that matter--a matter of concern and votes in key swing states--will not automatically shift at the start of the formal election season.  (IMO, Jeb Bush has the kind of advantage in the general because of his more progressive approach in that significant matter.)


    More delusions (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 04:36:14 PM EST
    Frankly, jbindc, you seem somewhat sensitive when one of the Repub far righters surface or get the spotlight or gain the media attention.  That isn't my issue; that is your issue.

    There will be no sweeping Immigration Reform this year. And while it may be a problem for Republicans to face in 2016, the Democrats will have their own issues to face - Obamacare, for one.  And depending on the state of the economy, if it's bad, the Democrats will have that monkey on their backs as well.  So, to answer your question - Immigration Reform - whether it happens or not - will not be the be-all, end-all issue.


    Obamacare (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    is going to be a wash. The people who don't like it are going to scream from the rooftops but for everyone screaming they don't like it there is going to be someone who is doing a commercial that talks about how Obamacare saved the life of their child who had cancer etc. etc. etc.

    But in all honesty I guess that's all the GOP has. After all millionaire welfare doesn't seem to be selling to well these days.

    And Frank Luntz bemoans the fact that the dog whistles and code words no longer work on the electorate.


    Christie (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 04, 2014 at 06:28:42 PM EST
    has zero chance of getting the nomination. He's really not worth discussion and Bush has a poisonous last name.

    Mary Matalin makes fun of Kasich saying he needs ritalin. He's Newt Gingrich from Ohio.

    Look no further than what the people who are likely doing already like Rand Paul--they are pandering to the far right. This is what killed any possiblity of Romney winning. By the time they get out of the primary and sign onto all those crackpot ideas it pretty much renders then unelectable but if they don't sign onto those crackpot ideas they won't get out of the primary.


    My sister died last night. (none / 0) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:16:41 AM EST
    As you all know she had been in ICU for the last ten days, and on a ventilator for the past week. She was getting worse, not better. She was sedated when she was intubated. Over the weekend the doctors stopped all sedation, but she never responded. Not a single toe wiggle or finger squeeze or eyelid flutter. I never got to talk with her again.

    After watching them partially extract and reposition her ventilator tube because of a leak Monday night and hearing them say that the tube would need to be replaced yesterday, I knew I could not put her through another procedure when the chance that she would recover was so slim.

    So, I had her removed from the ventilator yesterday afternoon. First they put her on a morphine drip for about an hour so that she was relaxed and as comfortable as possible. Then the breathing tube and all the paraphernalia that goes with it were taken away.

    I stayed with her, talking to her, holding her. She died five hours after the tube was removed. Her breathing slowed and stuttered, then stopped. Then her heart rate dropped to 90 then 75 then 50 then 30 then 0. She was gone.

    When she was placed on the ventilator everyone, all the docs, thought it would just be for a couple of days.No one thought that she would decline so rapidly. I never got to talk with her again. I would give anything for just one more hour of talking with her.

    Every part of me is shattered. every beat of my heart, every breathe I draw is so painful.

    All of you have been so kind and caring toward me during the past four months. I am so grateful for that support.

    My deepest sympathies... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:53:20 AM EST
    dearest Casey...there are no words that can ease your pain, only time can do that....and it will.  

    I just hope you can feel all the love from the TL community while you mourn...we are with you in thought and spirit.



    My deepest, deepest sympathy and sorrow (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    for the loss of your dear sister.  May God bless you both.

    When my closest of friends, my sister Rita, died, the world was spinning and I was standing still.  She lived in the same high-rise condo building that we live in and when I called for morning coffee that day and she didn't answer, I went in and could not grasp that she was lying at my feet; she died on the way to the hospital a few minutes away.  No last words for either of us.  That was almost 10 years ago ... and, I still say Good Morning each day (with brief update)... and always will.  I've grown to feel life at all levels as the years passed.  Sad, what-ifs, wonderment, and joy.  

    Please make room in yourself to know that she heard you and your love in those last days of her love on earth.  Please know also that all that she was to you will never leave you.  That love has been, is, and always will be real and life-giving.  

    Be kind to yourself.  Be loving to yourself.  For me, I truly believe that your sister will watch over you from afar.  Peace be with you.


    Casey, we are all so very, very (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    You have my deepest sympathy.        

    My heart goes out to you Casey (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    I know you are grieving and words are never enough.

    You did talk to her all during the time that she was on the ventilator and most medical personnel believe that the words are heard by your love one. You were there all through the hard times when she needed you the most. You provided love and comfort and I hope you take some comfort from the knowledge that you made the journey easier for her.

    We, who are scattered across the country, can only be there for you in spirit but picture yourself wrapped in the love of your friends coming from all parts of the country.


    I'm so very sorry, casey. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    You were a good and loving sister, and no doubt your presence helped your sibling immeasurably in her recent struggles. You gave her the comfort of knowing that you were there for her and she was indeed loved, and that perhaps eased her own transition from this life.

    You are in my thoughts and prayers today. And in the weeks and months to come as you begin to reconcile your sister's passing within the context of your own life's journey, I sincerely hope that memories of better and happier times you enjoyed together will provide you both the comfort and the smiles you deserve. For as long as our loved ones are in our thoughts, they shall remain always with us in our own hearts and souls.

    Me ke aloha pumehana. (With all the warmth of my love.) Aloha.


    My deepest regrets! (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by the capstan on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    Losing a sibling is in someways worse than losing a parent: that is the person who knows best what made you you. When my 93-year-old sister goes, she will not regret her passing, but  I shall truly be orphaned.

    I'm very sorry for your loss, Casey (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    when you feel ready, find a peaceful place somewhere and talk to her. It's not a crazy thing to do at all.

    Oh, Casey, I am so sorry for your loss. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    I'm so glad you were able to be with her, holding her hand, right to the end; and you were there for here in so many other ways.  We should all be lucky to have someone there for us like you were for her.

    I wish you peace, send you hugs, and hope for the comfort of good memories of better times and the love of family and friends to ease each other's grief.



    Oh, Casey. I am so very sorry for your loss. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    The love you showed your sister in the end was meaningful to her, I'm sure of it.  You spoke to her and held her, and loved her in physical and emotional ways.  She knew.  She heard your voice.  She felt your presence.  That I believe.

    Peace to you and your family.  


    Oh Casey, I am so sorry to hear this. (none / 0) (#123)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    Your sister was blessed to have you as a sister.
    Your mom and you are in my thoughts.

    So sorry (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 09:10:16 AM EST

    So sorry (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:21 AM EST
    ... for your loss.

    one of my brothers. I wish you all the best.

    Oh honey (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    I am so, so, so sorry. I know very well how you feel and I'm crying, too, right now.

    Peace to you and all your family. It comes eventually.


    Condolences, my friend (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    I will send some meditative good thoughts your way. Peace to you and your family.

    And LOVE (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    So much LOVE.

    Our mortal coil is so tenuous. Blessings to you. My heart aches for you.


    Sincerest condolences (none / 0) (#147)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    on your loss....

    I am so sorry for your loss. (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    Please know you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

    My sympathies. (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 01:18:05 PM EST
    The loss never goes away, but, in time, it moves to a new and special place.

    Casey, how heartbreaking (none / 0) (#167)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 02:10:03 PM EST
    I'm so sorry. As hard as it is right now, you will be glad later on that you were able to be there for her so completely in these last months. I can really identify with your feelings about her. I don't even want to think about how I will deal with it if my sister goes before I do.

    My deepest condolences to you and your family.



    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 269 (none / 0) (#139)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    This is one ape who has no time for monkey business. (link)

    v. 268
    v. 267

    Happy Humpday, peeps. Registering my son for high school today. Oy!

    O'Reilly goes after Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 05, 2014 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    Why do I have a strong suspicion that O'Reilly is going to regret this?

    That O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 07:28:05 AM EST
    has such a populist touch: just think of all the people he's inspired and moved to start painting again on cave walls..

    I hope Stewart responds ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 06, 2014 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    ... and tears him a new one.