home

7 Years Later, O'Malley Discovers "evils" of "dynasty"

Ya think?

< NYT Defense of Clinton Coverage: Drudge Loves It | Pols are pols and do what they do: when O'Malley loved the DLC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not sure this means nearly as much (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    as having two candidates - Sanders and O'Malley - tag-teaming Clinton from much more liberal positions than she has.  

    Many of us wanted someone to challenge Clinton from the left, and now we have two candidates who are going to do that.  

    I think that's a good thing.

    O'Malley much more what? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:28:44 AM EST
    You must be kidding.

    Parent
    Well, there's this: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    Ended the death penalty in Maryland: As governor, O'Malley signed legislation in 2013 making Maryland the sixth state to abolish capital punishment. A year later, he commuted the sentences of the four remaining inmates on Maryland's death row. He remains a opposed to the death penalty, saying in a statement after a federal jury convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death that "the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent."

    Raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour: O'Malley has said while campaigning that he supports raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. One of his last major policy achievements during his final year as governor was signing legislation that would increase Maryland's minimum wage to $10.10 by 2018. "It is not fair, it is not right, it is not just that people should play by the rules, work 16-hour days and still be raising their children in poverty," O'Malley said at the ceremony when he signed the law.

    Legalized gay marriage: In 2012, O'Malley signed a bill legalizing same sex marriage in Maryland, joining seven other states in enacting marriage equality. The law survived a statewide referendum held later that year, which marked the first time marriage rights in the U.S. were extended to same-sex couples by a popular vote. O'Malley has continued to be vocal about the importance of marriage equality as he has geared up for his campaign. "The dignity of every person tells us that the right to marry is not a state right, it is a human right," he said at a Democratic event in April.

    Implemented stricter gun control laws: After pushing it through the state assembly, O'Malley signed a sweeping gun control measure requiring handgun buyers to submit fingerprints and obtain a license, banning 45 types of assault weapons, limiting gun magazines to ten bullets and banning gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. O'Malley's package was considered one of the most progressive proposals in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The National Rifle Association vowed to fight the legislation, but their petition to halt its implementation ultimately failed.

    Gave in-state tuition to the children of immigrants: Despite staunch opposition, O'Malley signed legislation as governor extending in-state tuition breaks to undocumented immigrants at Maryland's colleges and universities. And two years later, he signed a law expanding the ability of illegal immigrants to get a driver's license. He has also supported President Obama's executive action on immigration and has gone even farther, saying the U.S. should not send unaccompanied minors who cross the southern border back to their home countries. "When refugee children arrive on our doorstop fleeing starvation and death gangs, we don't turn them away -- we act like the generous, compassionate people we have always been," O'Malley told a group of Iowa Democrats last month.

    Link

    Here's a more comprehensive list.

    The zero-tolerance policing from his days as mayor is going to be a problem for him - we all know it doesn't work.  But I live in Maryland, and I am a liberal, and in my opinion he led the way on a lot of the issues from a liberal perspective - and he stuck to his guns on a lot of it.

    Please explain why you think O'Malley running as a liberal is a joke.

    Parent

    More liberal? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    Death penalty I'll grant you.

    The rest is standard issue Dem now.

    Parent

    What about Baltimore ... two-edges (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by christinep on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    'Happened to see a bit on ABC's "This Week" earlier ... during the interview by Stephanopoulos with O'Malley, the troublesome area for him seemed to be questions associated with his approach to reducing crime in that city.  And, the spokesman for the NAACP in Maryland--who appeared on the show as well--stated that he questioned why O'Malley would consider his mayoral position in Baltimore an asset when others regarded it as "his greatest embarrassment."

    Reacting only to that interview, I thought that O'Malley seemed relatively well-spoken.  Even as the confirmed Hillary Clinton stalwart that I am, tho, I would not take someone apparently as astute as O'Malley seems for granted ... and, I'm sure that the Clinton campaign will not let down their guard either.

    Yet, he will clearly have a difficult time in the matter of Baltimore ... i.e., trying to make a convincing argument in the eyes of many removed from Maryland that as mayor and later governor he knows how to be a good executive when the national memory could be dominated by the image of recent conflagration.  

    Parent

    Given the awakening to the police brutality (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    Out there, I think that portion of his resume is going to eat his lunch.  Some of my well written liberal blogging pals who are black detest him.  I was surprised he announced given that part of his history and our current social problems.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 31, 2015 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    I think so too. I think the incident with the Baltimore Police pretty much ended his candidacy. Otherwise he might have had a decent shot.

    Parent
    Oh, he's going to have a terrible time (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    trying to get away from his zero-tolerance policing days as mayor of Baltimore, and an even harder time with the games that were played with the statistics he's so fond of.

    I've thought for a while now that this may be less about believing he can beat Clinton than about putting himself in a position to be considered for a position in the next administration.  

    For me, I look forward to there being actual liberal, forward-thinking policies being discussed, because I think for too long the liberal voice has been deliberately silenced, and it needs to be heard.  I am very impressed with the message Sanders is putting out there, but fear he will be portrayed by the media as a doddering fool who isn't worth their time. Which is another reason I'm glad to see O'Malley get in - it makes the liberal message harder to ignore.

    Then again, when you have a media that is so unbelievably fked up, seeming to act from a position of believing it is they who should decide how things are going to play out, well, who knows?

    Parent

    Can't see where his actions as mayor (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    would endear him to the AA community.

    I doubt he could make a convincing argument of why he pursued the actions that resulted in this grand jury assessment.

    But in that time, a grand jury concluded that too many arrests were being made in black neighborhoods without merit. And the city settled a lawsuit from people who said they were wrongly arrested for minor offenses. Altogether, these are the sort of concerns driving some of the anger in Baltimore today.

    With this record would he garner sufficient votes in the community to win the general if he happened to become the Dem nominee?

    Parent

    The MD ACA exchange rollout didn't (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:41:38 PM EST
    go too well, either, though since that was the bailiwick of the lieutenant governor, not all the ick stuck to O'Malley.  Brown paid the price for that and lost the last election to Larry Hogan, someone who has some Koch money behind him.

    Important to take into account that O'Malley ran for governor the first time while he was mayor, and won that election with the overwhelming support of the black community.  See results for 2006, here, and 2010, here.  In fact, without that support, he probably doesn't win those elections.

    Will recent events affect him negatively?  I'm sure there will be an effort to see that they do.

    Parent

    Do you think that the events over (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:57:31 AM EST
    the last year has changed the environment since 2010?

    Here in St. Louis it did change the voting pattern of some members of the AA community in the St. Louis County Executive race. Many members of the community voted for a Republican for the first time in their lives in protest of his support of McCulloch. While the Democrat did win and some members of the community still voted the D, it turned a race that was once considered a wipe out into a close race.

    Parent

    O'Malley was first elected mayor in (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:30:10 AM EST
    1999; he was reelected four years later, and served until 2007 when he was inaugurated as governor, so it's not as if he went right from the streets of Baltimore to a run for president.

    There have been 2 mayors since then - Sheila Dixon, who was president of the City Council when O'Malley resigned to go to Annapolis as governor, and who went on to win in the next election (with almost 88% of the vote), but later resigned over financial improprieties - and the current mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who was also president of the City Council when Dixon resigned, served the balance of Dixon's term, and then ran for mayor and was elected with 84% of the vote.

    Either or both of those mayors certainly had the power to change the policies that O'Malley instituted, so one has to ask, I think, how much responsibility O'Malley has for where things are now in the City of Baltimore.

    I do think it's possible Rawlings-Blake will get a Democratic challenger in the next election, but whether she wins the primary or a challenger does, I still expect a Democrat to be elected by an overwhelming majority of the vote - so to that extent, I don't see the pattern changing.

    Parent

    The operative word is "now." (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    BTD: "More liberal? Death penalty I'll grant you. The rest is standard issue Dem now."

    I think what Anne is noting here, BTD, is that Martin O'Malley actually got these things accomplished as Maryland's governor, as opposed to just talking about them as standard liberal fare. Further, he's been relatively consistent over the years in his embrace of liberalism, while other Democrats have been content to tout their liberal credentials only when the political pendulum swings back to the left, as is happening now.

    Speaking as someone who's supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy, I don't disagree with Anne's assessment at all. Further, I think that Mrs. Clinton will be well-served by O'Malley's presence in the race, if her campaign plays its cards right. Like Bernie Sanders, he'll push the debate within the party leftward, which is where it really needs to be right now.

    I've harbored a sneaking suspicion that O'Malley's also been positioning himself as her potential No. 2 pick, and in that regard, his campaign will also serve as his audition. That said, you never know. If Mrs. Clinton somehow stumbles badly in the coming months or later changes her mind and drops out, well, there he'll be.

    I also have a sinking feeling that the east coast media will likely ignore the relatively substantive and sober Democratic primaries, in favor of continuing coverage of the GOP clown car as it careens off the guardrails.

    Granted, the Republican primaries hold rich potential to be enormously entertaining. But the Beltway media's excessive focus on them contributes to their own growing misimpression that ours is still a center-right country, when that's not necessarily the case any more.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It used to be standard issue (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:43:24 PM EST
    I'll grant you. If it were still standard issue Dem I might still be one -- even though those are moderate positions and not liberal ones, in my view.

    Still, those positions are more liberal than most Dems will espouse.

    Parent

    My problem (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sun May 31, 2015 at 06:17:08 PM EST
    thus far with O'Malley is his ambiguity, from my point of view, regarding foreign policy.

    On the site to which you linked, this is how the section on foreign policy begins:

    On his 8-day trip to Israel, Jordan & the Palestinian territories, O'Malley said, "I'm sure all of you will ask me foreign policy questions. I respect your right to ask them, and I hope you'll respect my right to shy away from answering them."

    On the news of the day--apparent differences between Obama and the Israeli military on whether chemical weapons had been deployed by the Syrian military--O'Malley deferred to the president's judgment. "It's certainly one of the great challenges," he allowed.

    Asked whether the American people, weary from a decade of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would be ready to engage in another military operation to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, O'Malley avoided specifics. "I believe that the president will make that call," he said, "and the president will have the primary responsibility of making that case to the American people and also to Congress."

    How about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? "All of us hope for peace in the Middle East."

    and shy away he does...
    Evade is another term for it. Pablum.

    I also saw a clip about him - and he was asked about his stance on the legalization of marijuana. His answer was to say that that was not the subject at hand --- and he more or less waved the questioner away. It had that elitist edge that repels me.

    I believe in tells.
    That was a tell for me.

    But the shying away from letting us know where he stands on issues of war - Iraq - Afghanistan - Iran - makes me nervous.

    No matter how progressive he has been on other issues, if he goes along with what I consider to be a disastrous foreign policy he won't be able to achieve anything.

    I will also admit that, although I don't support HRC, I don't respond to going after Hillary as a campaign strategy.

    Parent

    ... much if any experience in the realm of foreign policy, so what looks like ambiguity to you is likely him just keeping his answers generalized, non-specific and non-committal.

    Further, the respective situations in Iraq and Afghanistan really defy easy and simple answers; even a policy of disengagement is going to have its potential pitfalls, as Barack Obama has since discovered upon taking office in January 2009.

    All that said, O'Malley won't be able to get away with foreign policy generalizations for very long, if he truly wants to be taken seriously as a Democratic presidential prospect. Were he a Republican, it would likely be a different story, since all he'd have to do is basically join the chorus of d*ck-swinging harpies. But he's not.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If he (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 05:26:47 AM EST
    doesn't have any opinions about what is going on in foreign policy, he shouldn't be in politics. Or at least, he should keep his involvement focused on the local level.

    Of course there are no "simple answers", but at this late stage in the game he ought to have formulated an opinion - or at least outline a process if he is offering himself as a candidate for the leader of the "free world".  Honestly, I'll bet that either you or I could come up with something to get us out of this never-ending Bush-inspired nightmare if we were asked to do so.
    Like maybe, "GTFO".... Simplistic perhaps, but at least it is an opinion.

    I don't know anyone who doesn't have an opinion. I'm sure you have an opinion. I know I do.

    Keeping his answers generalized is like Nixon having a "secret plan".

    The republicans, so far, have opinions. Horrifying ones. We need an aggressive counter-balance.
    His wishy-washyness on this is, for me, a turnoff and a warning bell.

    I am simply telling you how I feel about it. Not that it is the correct way to feel for everyone.

    There is also a sort of swagger that he has that also turns me off. Like he thinks he's really a gift.

    And then there is the matter of calling Hillary part of a dynasty.
    It's not as if she hasn't been active in public life - both elected and appointed - for lo these many years. Even when she was FLOTUS, she was active - trying to create a healthcare system - breaking the mold of the first lady being one who bakes cookies and reads to children.

    Comparing her to the entitled Bushes - born with umpteen million dollars in their cribs is kinda distasteful to me.

    Of course he won't, as you say, be able to get away with it for long... but the fact that he apparently needs to be coached to formulate what his "opinion" might be on matters of life and death reminds me of someone like Palin.

    Sorry to be so dogmatic, but I don't think there is much wiggle room here - and saying that he - or any random individual in the street - might be a better candidate than the contents of the clown car is not enough to generate any excitement for me.

    Parent

    Well, you seem to be seeking a white knight. (3.50 / 2) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 07:50:36 AM EST
    Good luck with that. You attach so many conditions and demands to your political support that you'd likely exhaust and ultimately discourage any candidate who's actively seeking it. As I've said to you before, the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

    If you desire effective political engagement, you really ought to cease viewing everyone who's in the game as fatally flawed and inherently unworthy. That sort of relentless and pervasive cynicism is how one marginalizes oneself from public discussions and opinion.

    It's all good and fine to have and maintain core standards. But when no candidates and public officials are meeting those standards, you might want to reconsider your expectations as perhaps worthy of Nietzsche's Übermenschen, but probably too lofty and unrealistic for regular human beings in the real world.

    And if you've got potential solutions or suggestions to current problems and issues, then please seek out those same public officials and share them. Don't wait for them to ask or invite you to the table, because that's simply not going to happen without some prompting on your part. Rather, you have to empower yourself by getting personally involved.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    There is a vast difference between (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:43:57 AM EST
    Seeking a candidate that will come close to meeting your requirements and requiring perfection.

    The little ditty about  "the perfect being the enemy of the good" has really has more often than not become more of "at least he/she is not quite as bad as the other guy" resulting in the candidate not delivering on a great many areas of real importance to a voter.

    Parent

    Then let me ask you: (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    Were you to somehow be inspired to throw your hat into the ring and declare your candidacy for public office, would YOU honestly be able to meet your own "requirements" to hold that office?

    I think that's a fair question to consider, particularly when you're griping that someone else's performance is somehow wanting from your perspective.

    Because if they are indeed wanting, and you find yourself seriously thinking that you could probably do a better job representing your community than whoever's currently holding the job, then I would urge you to take the next step, and consider a possible candidacy for the state legislature. Lord knows, we're always on the lookout for good people to run. Well, why can't one of them be you?

    Think about it. Aloha.

    Parent

    What a joke (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    The Republicans have a veto proof majority in my state. The idea that if I am unwilling to run for office, I do not have the right as a citizen to want better representation is ludicrous.

    It is a citizen's job to advocate for the policies that they believe are right regardless of what party the politician belongs to and they do not have to become a politician to have that right.

    To paraphrase Howard Zinn:

    When citizens adopt the compromises of legislatures, they have forgotten their role, which is to push and challenge the politicians and not to fall meekly behind them.

    ....we are citizens. Whatever politicians may may do, let them feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right....

    Parent

    It's Not Fair... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    ...and rather silly, using that logic we would all have to pretend we are built for politics.

    Sorry Donald, but I would require my doctor to not kill me when removing my tonsils, but there is zero chance that I could actually meet my own requirement.

    Yet is my family not to judge the doctor's performance when I am dead because they aren't up to the task themselves.  

    I mean seriously, I don't pretend to be able to know how to be a politician, but I am tasked to judge their performance every 2, 4, or 6 years.  I would even go so far as saying that it's a moral requirement in a democracy, and an actual requirement is some democracies.  Or is voting not judging ?

    Parent

    What you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    is not really responsive to my post about what O'Malley has said that puts me off.

    But I will try to respond to your post.

    I don't think that asking that someone running for president be prepared to express an opinion about our involvement in Iraq and elsewhere is equivalent to seeking some kind of magician.

    And Donald, I cannot help but question your repeated assertion that it is unrealistic for me to seek out a candidate to actually speaks to my interests - the primary one being getting us out of the quagmires in which the Bush era embroiled us, and in which we continue to be embroiled.

    This, while our cities fester from lack of attention, and in some cases burn.

    I really can't fathom that you would suggest that on matters of life and death - matters involving the deaths of our soldiers and countless civilians - that instead of insisting on a higher standard for candidates, you suggest I lower mine.

    No thanks.

    But you have found a way that works for you, so I wish you well.

    Saying, as you do,

    ..if you've got potential solutions or suggestions to current problems and issues, then please seek out those same public officials and share them. Don't wait for them to ask or invite you to the table, because that's simply not going to happen without some prompting on your part. Rather, you have to empower yourself by getting personally involved.

    has little or nothing to do with my reaction to O'Malley.
    It is a bromide - and it also puts forth an unwarranted assumption that I am not "personally" involved. I am involved.
    Anybody drawing breath is involved. And what you suggest, I think, that I would be more involved if I were part of the machinery of one of the major political parties, all I can say is that I have been, and it was definitely not my experience that I felt more empowered. Instead, it made me feel less empowered, and kind of foolish and Don Quixote-lite.

    If I praise Elizabeth Warren, or some of what I have seen from Sanders, all I get is that she isn't running - and he can't win.
    Looking to people like them is too "lofty and unrealistic".

    And if I criticize someone being thrust upon me by the establishment, then I am told that my expectations are unrealistic.

    Not a pretty picture.
    Kind of dismal, actually.


    Parent

    The problem remains... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:40:53 PM EST
    Most candidate's "opinions" are little more than talking points which are the result of polls and focus groups and massaging by professional crap artists like David Axelrod.

    O'Malley's saying nothing is actually more honest.

    Parent

    Not that honesty gets anyone anywhere (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:41:41 PM EST
    in politics.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    He's honest.

    He knows nothing.
    He hears nothing.
    He says nothing.
    And he wants me to vote for him.

    Who could resist a candidate like that?

    Parent

    There's a ton of info on O'Malley, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    and you don't have to look too hard to find it; he was mayor of a major American city for almost 8 years, and governor of MD for 8 years after that.

    I've posted a number of things about his record in both positions, but I guess you're just going to sit back and keep harping on - what is it - 2? quotes from a time when he wasn't running for president.

    I'd say your description of O'Malley is a lot closer to a description of yourself; and it makes me think you're just going to whine and complain for the next 17 months.

    Oh, joy.

    Parent

    No whining. (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    I was, in the post above, responding to Mr Natural's quote,
    "O'Malley's saying nothing is actually more honest."

    Fine.

    Maybe it's honest, but it tells me nothing about his position on what for me is the most pressing issue of our time - war. I want to know how he feels about Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts -- among others.

    I did in fact read your posts - but I will admit that perhaps I missed some current statement from him on that subject.

    I don't think that any progressive domestic policy can be achieved in the current atmosphere - which accepts these wars as inevitable. I don't think we can do much for ourselves or even the rest of the world if we continue to spend such vast quantities of money on killing people - mostly for reasons that I do not consider to be philanthropic.

    One of the quotes I read from him did not seem to be outdated. He said, I'm paraphrasing, that we should leave it to Obama - or those in charge...

    That does not resonate with me - but I don't consider it whining to express that.

    I also think that it is way off the mark, and kind of stinks frankly, to call Hillary Clinton's potential presidency a "dynasty" - equivalent to dynasty of the Bush family - born to enormous wealth and elitism - not to mention a hefty dose of fascism.

    I think Hillary Clinton deserves better. She has earned her right to be considered on her own terms. As I believe I wrote - not only did she serve in both elective and appointed offices, she also tried to do something about giving us a health-care system while she was FLOTUS.

    So, I don't go for that either from Mr. O'Malley.
    But I don't consider it whining to say so.
    All I'm doing is registering my personal reaction to something. Not grinding an ax.

    I like Sanders.
    And I really like Elizabeth Warren - and have said so. When I mention EW, the response I get is that she isn't running. OK. But I still think her manner of speaking from her intelligence and knowledge and a deep integrity could serve as an inspiration to other candidates running or who may choose to run.

    OT perhaps - but I am also somewhat cautiously pleased at the potential of normalizing relations with Cuba. There. Something positive. Maybe.

    Parent

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    believe those statements were made before he had announced he was running - which is not to say he shouldn't have an opinion, but my sense was that when he did express his views, he wanted to be able to contrast them with those of his eventual primary opponents and not be seen as criticizing the administration's policies.  With Hillary in the mix, though, it's going to be hard to avoid connecting her to Obama, unless he just comes out in general agreement with her positions.


    Parent
    So you think it is fine (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by nycstray on Sun May 31, 2015 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    That he basically discounts her whole resume?

    Parent
    I once asked an employer... (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by unitron on Sun May 31, 2015 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    ...back in my hi-fi selling days, about what I should say to customers about the brands we didn't carry that the competition did.

    He said if you have to sell your own stock by knocking the other guy's, you must not have very good stuff to sell.

    O'Malley should shut up about how fellow Democrats wouldn't be good as President and talk about why he would be.

    In this house (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    We want to know what he's going to do.  His first step into the yard is to rail against perceptions of political dynasty?  Does running attacks from day one work in the Dem voting booth?  I thought our voting block was more results based, less bull pucky tossing based.  I thought we left all that potential laying around to be picked up by the clown car.

    Has Bernie Sanders (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    Said what he's actually going to do?  Or has he just talked about his beliefs and platitudes - many which stand no chance of actually becoming a reality?

    Has Hillary Clinton (this election cycle)?


    Parent

    Both Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    and Bernie have pretty much have an outline of what they want to do. For example, Hillary wants to pass the dream act. She wants to overturn Citizen's United. Bernie wants to expand social security. So yes, if you've listened to either one of them you'd find out that they have put at least a partial agenda out there.

    Parent
    So has Jeb (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    who said he wants to raise Social Security to age 70 and include means testing.

    There are nuggets from everyone out there. Still far too early to expect much when the first Dem debate will likely be early September, sometime after Part A and Part B of the 1st GOP primary debate.

    Parent

    Which is what I just said (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 07:54:16 AM EST
    This is a wish list, with no real world way of how those goals will be accomplished.  ("Tax rich people" is not really a concrete plan and is really never going to happen in a way that would actually pay for what Sanders talks about - especially, as the next president will likely have one or both houses of Congress still being in Republican hands.  And "Break up the banks" - also never going to happen). Which is fine at this stage of the game, but eventually we will need more details from all the candidates, and we need solutions that actually have a chance of being implemented.

    But the criticism was about O'Malley not giving specifics. Why should he be held to a different standard than the other two candidates?

    Parent

    All I can say is, thank goodness (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 08:14:35 AM EST
    not everyone's attitude has always been some version of "Oh, that can never happen" or "We can't do that," because if it had, we'd still be living in caves.

    In my mind, this is about the message, and what that message says about someone's vision, where they want the country to go, what kind of country we want to live in.  A lot of things no one thought would ever be possible have not only been done, but improved on, so it seems to me that the only thing standing in the way of accomplishing the things we want is ourselves.

    There's no reason we can't expand Social Security, no reason we can't expand Medicare and/or have a single-payer health system.  There's no reason we can't fix crumbling infrastructure or guarantee a college education.  There's no reason we can't increase the standard of living, or close the income equality gap.  There's no reason we can't have gender equity in pay.

    Oh, but the Republicans won't let us.  The corporations won't let us.  We can't, they won't, it's not realistic, it won't work.  Maybe if there was a tidal wave of support we could.  Maybe if we made it a case of get on this bandwagon or get off it would.

    But conceding defeat without even a fight?  I don't get that.  Maybe in your world, you want a campaign of, "well, I'll see what I can do, but just remember, I will take 'no' for an answer," but I don't.  And that's why I'm happy to see Bernie Sanders out there pushing hard for average people, for the old, the poor and the sick.

    He gets it, you just seem to be content to sit in the garden and eat worms.  No thanks.

    Parent

    Why end with: (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    He gets it, you just seem to be content to sit in the garden and eat worms.  No thanks.


    Parent
    Because (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    Anne apparently is of the Obama 2008 school of magical thinking - all this wonderful stuff will get done if we just think happy thoughts and click our heels together.  There are LOTS of reasons why what she lists can't get done - just saying "there's no reason" doesn't make it so.  And no, I'm not saying we shouldn't advocate for them, but this is the honeymoon part of the primaries where anybody can throw out a wish list for Santa and followers (the Kool Kidz) will swoon.

    Then, eventually, as we get closer to getting a nominee and the election, reality is going to set in. And the Kool Kidz will once again will be disappointed.

    You're right, Anne.  I've learned - I don't expect much from politicians and frankly, I am not planning to devote nearly the time I did in years past to analyzing every little phrase a candidate utters, nor get giddy as a schoolgirl each time the poll numbers move. But I am certainly amused by all the heavy breathing for Bernie Sanders, the disdain for Hillary Clinton, and the indifference to Martin O'Malley.  But hey, unicorns and ponies worked for Obama in 2008.....

    Parent

    I wonder why you weren't a strong (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:34:39 AM EST
    supporter of Obama since he became president. His actual performance as president fit your idea of what is possible to a T.

    Parent
    Not Really (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    Magical thinking + lack of experience + not wanting to or able to get in a do the work does not make me a supporter.

    Speaking in broad platitudes and talking points and having unrealistic expectations with no concrete details just proves he (and those who supported him) had no idea what the hell they were talking about.  (See: "I will close Guantanamo within one year," for example).

    Parent

    Yes but the actual legislation (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:53:00 AM EST
    And his approach fit your worldview to a T. For the most part his actual legislation started out and was limited to what he thought the Republicans would accept. That was his starting point just as it is yours. No need to push the boundaries or actually sell ideas to the American people. Just take the avenue of least resistance and let the Republicans dictate policy.

    Parent
    I think we all accept (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    that Hillary will likely be the nominee, and I really don't see much "disdain" for her here.  Martin O'Malley is - for lack of a better description - the young white male "acceptable" candidate who in the past would be a shoe-in only this time no one cares.  He seems like a solid politician, but the front-runner role is already taken.  So that leaves Bernie.  I don't understand your disdain for his supporters.  We know he's not the front runner, but he's making the case for left-wing policies on a national stage.  Policies that are good for the country, and that aren't really that controversial to the public.  And he has a very loud and popular supporter in the senate making the case as well, and he'll probably be in the senate as well helping it happen.  If they can get enough support and be loud enough that the front-runners start taking up that mantle, then it's much more likely that things will get done.  But a defeatist attitude - not towards a politician - but towards the policy, is counter-productive to getting them passed.  The house is up for re-election too and so is the senate.  2 years later, it will happen again.  This isn't just a horserace for 2016 it's a marathon for the direction of the country.  And Bernie Sanders is at least trying to push the conversation in the right direction.  I'm glad you find support for that amusing.

    Parent
    Bravo (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    Your comment hit the nail on the head. I wish I could give you multiple 5s.

    Parent
    The irony (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:07:23 PM EST
    is that you're of the Obama thinking where he always says he can't do anything because of the GOP. Hillary or Bernie or whomever may not get what they want but I think both of them would at least TRY unlike Obama who just throws up his hands and says "the GOP won't let me".

    Plenty of people have had the opposition party in control of at least one part of the government and have been able to get things done. The problem with Obama circa 2008 is he did not campaign on actually getting anything done. It was all about unity and rainbows and ponies. You don't campaign for a mandate on issues you don't get anything done.

    Parent

    Try using Google, will yah (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    It's from an old nursery rhyme:

    Alternate Version 4:
    Nobody likes me, everybody hates me
    I'm goin' down the garden to eat worms
    Long thin slimy ones, short fat fuzzy ones
    Ooey gooey, ooey gooey worms

    Long thin slimy ones slip down easily
    Short fat fuzzy ones don't
    Short fat fuzzy ones stick to your teeth
    And the juice goes slurpin' (slurping noise) down your throat

    Given the sophisticated, yet doom-laden pessimism espoused by jbindc, it is highly appropriate.

    Parent

    If you engage in superficial, unsubstantiated (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    analysis, troll-rating me won't change that.

    Parent
    Since my statement (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    Was neither superficial, nor unsubstantiated, I troll rated you because, like so many of your comments, it was trollish.

    If you want to comment on your ratings, then actually contribute to the conversation and don't show yourself to be a 10 year old.

    Parent

    In your world, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:17:47 AM EST
    only a more draconian Grand Bargain is doable even if we have a Democratic president.

    In your world, raising the age of SS to 70 and turning Medicare into a welfare program are the only solutions because you are limiting the options to only what the Republicans will accept. In your world there is really no need to vote for Democratic candidates because you have already acknowledged that they are powerless to do anything other than pass Republican legislation.

    Your world is a government for the rich and by the rich with the average citizen throwing their hands up in defeat because nothing worthwhile is doable. Unfortunately, that is more or less what is happening because the attitude of accepting that we can do nothing better is shared by too many people.

    Parent

    Wrong. Again. (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:29:45 AM EST
    Maybe it's not your world, but the world I live in is called "reality", where it's good to dream, but if you expect monumental change on things like breaking up banks or free college for everyone, then you are always going to be sorely disappointed. Especially when to affect those changes, you still have to deal with the juggernaut called "The Republicans in Congress", also known as, "The people who control the money."

    I'd rather some things get done instead of walking away empty handed and defeated.

    YMMV

    Parent

    So you think that accepting the (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:45:11 AM EST
    Republican agenda and the resulting legislation is the realistic way to go?

    Hey, people just bend over and grab your ankles because to demand anything else from your government is unrealistic.

    Exactly what things are you going to get done that will be beneficial to the citizens of this country if you use your idea of only pursuing those policies that the Republicans will accept. Please be specific on exactly what legislation is possible in your realistic world.

    Parent

    defeated by whom? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by CST on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    Honestly I haven't seen any Republicans polling higher than Bernie.  If it comes to that, which it won't.

    I also think there is a good chance of a Hillary sweep which pulls in a lot of house and senate seats.  It would be nice if that's on a lefter-wing agenda as well, as advanced by a primary against Bernie.

    Parent

    I don't think you will find a single person (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    here who thinks anything will happen just by wishing it were so.  And I don't think anyone here has any particular expectation that just by electing the right person, all our troubles will be over.

    Far from it.

    But that doesn't mean we have to go into this with a defeatist attitude.  

    You're preaching about how unreasonable it is to even want  - for example - the expansion of Social Security, because "that's never going to happen," but I don't know why you'd want to close that door, and leave open the one to contracting/reducing it.  You may not think that's what's happening, but when people won't even fight for what's right - and possible - you create a vacuum for policies that go in the other direction.

    As I said, above, I don't want this to be a campaign where my choice is going to be someone whose attitude is "well, I'll see what I can do, but just remember, I will take 'no' for an answer."  

    Parent

    Fighting for politically popular positions (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    Like removing the cap on SS contributions, getting rid of carried interest would be such a faux pau on the part of the Democrats.

    Parent
    Promoting a position of (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    expanding SS is the counterweight to the Republican position of contracting/reducing it. Without it you are left only with the Republican scenario.

    With both positions being actively promoted in the public arena, you are providing alternatives. Best case scenario would be the position for expansion would result in the election of more Democrats and Independents who support that position making the legislation possible down the road. Hopefully worse case it sets up a toxic environment for reducing the benefits. Maintaining the status quo and not getting something done is better in this case than passing destructive legislation.

    Parent

    Excellent statement, MO Blue (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    IMO, Good strategy on a matter supported by the polity ... good chance for chalking up a genuine Social Security gain ... and, one worthwhile gain often invigorates supporters to define and go for the next step.

    Parent
    Chiming in, jbindc (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 12:30:23 PM EST
    From time to time here, I've asserted that incremental gains and half-loaves and a bit-at-a-time make a lot more sense in the world of governance than letting the want-it-all drive get in the way of reality's different points of view & inevitable negotiated compromise that goes with political resolution.  An incremental approach, tho, should not be taken to mean that there are no goals nor strategic direction.  To the contrary ... similar to a difficult journey, climb, personal or professional endeavor, there are many points/challenges to be met in order to get there.  

    My disagreement with the all-or-nothing approach is the reality that--in our world of diverse views--the disenchanted seekers, in their fixation only on the goal, tend to ignore the steps that get us there OR deny themselves/others flexibility in the process.  Knowing one's own temperament & attitudes toward compromise, changing short term markers in order to attain longer term goals, etc. cannot be overlooked. For example: The fact that earlier experiences involving political desires have been disappointing does not mean that the future path will be as disenchanting ... The key, imo, may be to re-assess both one's goals as well as the expectations about the ways & likelihood of getting there.  Maybe the climb up the mountain calls for a different assault (or maybe even a different mountain climb.)

    It may be that every challenge cannot be taken on at once <my understatement.> Perhaps, an assessment of where the polity is today is so far removed on a certain subject from how you identify the goal that you may want to put that one issue aside and take up another more achievable cause for now.  Mordiggian, I think, indicated that Social Security matters like removing the caps (ala means-testing at the top end) appears to have a lot of support -- so, that might be doable or an area where dedication to positive change could be channeled.  What I'm trying to say is that an honest analysis of what may be promising change in governance in both short and long terms is essential; and, an honest analysis of what you want to see happen in various governance areas and what you are willing to compromise on has to be included as well.  

    Alternately being passionate about a political goal followed by throwing up one's hands when the whole enchilada doesn't happen is nothing but a trap ... for political change and for one's self.  Write the goals, actions, & steps down in the manner of a formal strategy ... analyze your own needs and how they mesh ... and, mostly, chunk it down so that it and so that nothing is overwhelming.  Hey, the he!!-in-a-handbasket thing only happens when we throw it off the cliff.  

     

    Parent

    A do around (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    can be done on the nuts. It's not rocket science. Hillary will brow beat them until they go along because everyday she won't care what Washington thinks but what the average American thinks. Bill was able to get stuff through 2 GOP branches was he not?

    Just because Obama is a bad politician doesn't mean they all are.

    Parent

    He's not ALL bad at politics (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    ...Just because Obama is a bad politician doesn't mean they all are.
    He is excellent at getting himself elected.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    I put that under the category of campaigning. Yes, he is a good campaigner but I would still say bad politician because a politician is mostly about legislation IMO.

    Parent
    Another down rating because someone (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    Disagrees with this comment.

    Not being able to discuss and be thoughtful and address those we disagree with well verbally only makes us dumb, and in the the end if not checked leads to the blog being dumbed down.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    someone needs to get over herself. And her need to control others.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    Okay, well maybe you can help me with (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:27:05 PM EST
    something: why is it okay to uprate a comment?  Does the up-rater get upbraided for the cowardly high ratings?  Must have missed that if you're reprimanding anyone who chooses a rating over a comment.

    Why give anyone a high-5, or a 4, even?  Is a neither-likes-nor-dislikes 3 okay?  I mean, how wishy-washy is that?  Why bother?

    And what about the poor little 2?  What does that mean?  "You're not a troll, but I think your comment is borderline trollish?"

    Are you calling out the lurkers, who never comment and just use the rating system to convey their opinions about the comments?  Should they be allowed to rate if they don't comment?

    Honestly, my head is spinning...perhaps yours is, too.  

    Parent

    Jeralyn has addressed this Anne (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    Stop acting like she hasn't.

    Parent
    Jeralyn has addressed "1" ratings (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    She has not said giving a person a "2" rating is against the site rules.

    Please quit stating your personal policy as though it is Jeralyn's. It is not.

    Parent

    Jeralyn has made it abundantly clear (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    That the format this blog must exist in displeases her.  I specifically recall her stating that "down rating" is not for basic disagreement.

    2nd, why do so many only want to encourage an environment where all they will hear is their own neuro circuits firing?

    I almost never agree with jbindc.  I almost always read jbindc's comments.  Why?  Because this commenter has very often a different take on things than I do.  If I want to understand how to approach the solutions I long for I'm going to have to understand how to affectively address someone who disagrees with me.  This commenter is also in DC, this also pluses up in my book my desire to read these comments.

    You guys are only attempting to find a way to discourage debate and being well voiced as well as deeper understanding.  I don't even know why Jim gets down rated all the time, I think it's ridiculous.  Is anyone shocked by his opinion?

    Parent

    She has written on the subject (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Of people troll rating comments. A  1 is a troll rating.

    I have put what she has written on the subject in my comment. It is a direct quote complete with a link. sj has quoted Peter on the subject as well. You choose to ignore what she and then Peter actually wrote on the subject because it doesn't fit your agenda.  You are more than welcome to site where she has banned "2" ratings. I doubt that you can do so but please provide actual data to support what you say you remember.

    You,who rail against the rating system, use name calling, personal attacks and insults to shut down debates. That behavior is against the site rules. Also against site rules is going off topic. That is another of the site rules that you have decided to ignore in this thread while you make up rules for others to suit yourself. The topic was O'Malley and not the rating system. Maybe it would be better if you monitored your own actions in regards to the actual rules than begin an off topic rant about a subject where you do not have the facts.

    Parent

    I said FINE Mo Blue (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    I'm taking some of the recent ratings that I have problems with up with Jeralyn.

    Parent
    MO Blue (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    has addressed your misinterpretation here.

    Whereas this comment of yours fits this description perfectly:

    A "2," on the other hand, tends to mean that the comment has obvious logical flaws, patently lacks intellectual integrity or coherence, and/or willfully misses the point of the post to which it refers ... yet fails to sink to the full depths of "trollery."
    But I won't downrate you. I will, in fact, be kinder to you than you ever are to others and I won't scold you. Or rant and rave at you. Or wag my finger at you. Or put my words in another's mouth. Or twist "the rules" to put you in the wrong.

    But okay, maybe I will mock you. But it's all in good fun, right?

    Parent

    Fine (2.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:40:26 PM EST
    I'll take up some of the recent thumping going on around here with Jeralyn

    Parent
    Oh my dear (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:49:27 PM EST
    that could be interesting:
    Fine (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:40:26 PM MDT

    I'll take up some of the recent thumping going on around here with Jeralyn

    ...when you are the one doing the thumping.

    CG and I, I believe, understand each other with no hard feelings at all so your problem is your own.

    But I kind of hope this whole conversation is deleted. Your obsession and scolding have initiated a whole bunch of comments that are really, really a whole bunch of nothing (with the exception of MO Blue's relevant quote. A reminder is good). It doesn't rival a jim rabbit hole, but it's getting there.

    And that's a lot of wasted bandwidth when there isn't even a current open thread.

    Parent

    Still taking rating abuse up with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:50:28 PM EST
    You go right ahead, MT (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    If that makes you happy.
    Have at it.

    Parent
    Happy? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 05:19:54 PM EST
    Bullying makes me unhappy.  I was raised to address both bullying and my unhappiness.

    Parent
    If bullying makes you unhappy, (3.50 / 2) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 05:32:23 PM EST
    why do you choose to engage in it.

    Telling you that your comments were not factual and providing data to correct your erroneous comments is not bullying you. Your lecturing others on their actions, your name calling and trying to enforce non existing rules on them fits the profile of a bully not what others have been doing.

    Parent

    Hey Christine (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 10:20:19 PM EST
    I guess you don't agree with MT that giving another commenter a "2" rating is against the site rules.

    I wonder if MT will report you to Jeralyn for rating abuse and for shutting down debate by giving someone a "2" rating. Somehow, I doubt that MT will file her report to Jeralyn listing  all the offenders of MT's version of the site rules but you never know. ;o)

    Parent

    Oh and BTW, Christine (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 10:35:12 PM EST
    I find it rather ironic that you give MT's comments stating that giving 2 ratings are against Jeralyn's rules and shut down debate the highest rating and then you chose to dole out 2 ratings yourself.

    Is this a case where you think MT's rulz are great and wonderful as long as you do not have to follow them?

    Parent

    I support MT in the matter at hand here (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    AND, I will not be drawn further into a trumped-up debate.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Oh, my god, the irony is so thick (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    you could cut it with a knife, and there's no lack of unintentional hilarity to be found, either.

    I find it deeply ironic that the woman railing about "pouty babies" rhetorically stomped her feet all through the thread and then flounced off to go tattle to Jeralyn.  

    Meanwhile, the person who now expresses her support for MT in MT's sandbox rants about people rating other people's comments with 2's does exactly that to someone else!  And not for the first time, I might add.

    So...how are things down in that nice big hole you all dug for yourselves?  

    You people crack me up.

    So there.

    Parent

    And that's the truth! pfffttt (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by sj on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    Hat tip to Edith Ann.

    LOL

    I support MT in the matter at hand here (none / 0) (#115)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 12:14:08 PM MDT

    AND, I will not be drawn further into a trumped-up debate.  Thanks.


    I don't blame you for not wanting to comment on your own hypocrisy, but at least you know, and can admit, this crusade of MT's is a trumped up debate. And you support her campaign to rid the site of "2" ratings so very strongly that ... you are passing them out.

    Idle thought: I wonder sometimes if you ever try to read yourself.

    Parent

    How hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    You support MT's claim that giving people "2" ratings is against the site rules and it shuts down debates. And you gave me a "2" rating.

    So either you have chosen to break the rules of the site or you chose to support and give 5 ratings to comments that you know contains false information.

    WOW What integrity.


    Parent

    Well, I always knew (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 08:21:48 AM EST
    MT was the snitching type.

    Parent
    I believe you have used the existing (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 05:52:41 PM EST
    System to abuse others.  I will present my concerns and evidence to the person who can make the decision.  I don't believe that Jeralyn holds with abusing others on this blog overtly or covertly.  And I don't believe she intends for this space to be a place where debate is strangled, curtailed, or discouraged.

    Parent
    Look in the mirror, MT (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:21:22 PM EST
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?


    Matthew 7:3-4

    Peace does not mean an absence of conflicts; differences will always be there. Peace means solving these differences through peaceful means; through dialogue, education, knowledge; and through humane ways

    ― Dalai Lama

    A truly compassionate attitude toward others does not change even if they behave negatively or hurt you.

    ― Dalai Lama

    Namaste.

    Parent

    You are really funny (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    From your POV citing facts along with the corresponding links is abuse? Your beliefs are not facts and the facts do not support your accusations.

    You are the one who shut down the debate in this thread by highjacking the thread so that you could engage in your little rant and become the subject of the thread rather than the existing topic.

    As CG stated, he did not feel abused by sj's rating.  The debate between CG and myself had been resolved to our mutual satisfaction and the thread was continuing to go on topic until you decided that the rule to stay on topic did not apply to you.

    On a fairly regular basis you  abuse others and the system with your rants, your insults and your name calling. Your abuses are also part of TL's archives and easily assessable.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 31, 2015 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    not been very impressed with what I have seen out of O'Malley. Bernie at least is giving a people to vote for him. O'Malley seems to be just talking nonsense like dynasty.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:35:42 PM EST
    the Bushs have a dynasty.  The Kennedys have a dynasty.   I have never quite understood how a woman running for the office her husband held qualifies as a dynasty.

    Seems I remember it happening before without being called a dynasty.  Dingle?  Bono?

    Clinton rules I guess.

    Yep. The Clinton Rules. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun May 31, 2015 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    I wonder if anyone will be saying that of Lincoln Chafee when he announces his own bid for the Democratic presidential nomination on Wednesday. After all, he succeeded his own father John Chafee in the U.S. Senate back in 1999, upon the latter's death. If that isn't "dynastic," then I really don't know what is.

    Parent
    I wonder (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 04:43:49 AM EST
    if she was running for president as Hillary Rodham people would be saying the same thing? It seems it all has been kind of dumbed down because her last name is Clinton.

    Parent
    Yeah, don't you have to have at least (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 06:46:26 AM EST
    2 blood relatives in power a lot closer to successively to be a dynasty? That has always been a ridiculous claim to me too.

    Parent
    Dole? (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    Well ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    there's every indication that Chelsea will be getting into the family business soon.  And, as Hillary reminds ad nauseam, Chelsea now has a child.  So ...

    Parent
    Well, maybe we should wait until an actual (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    dynasty situation, as you describe it occurs, rather than falsely labeling HRC's pursuit of the presidency as one.

    Speaking only for myself, politicians pursuing that tactic turn me off. There are many areas (policy issues, votes etc) that other challengers have available to use in an effort to defeat her without setting up a false equivalency.

    Parent

    Your point, Robot? (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    Hmmm ... to sow dissension, raise doubts, play games?  The combo of several "concern" type comments.  Cute.

    Parent
    Robot's point is... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    he's offended by proud grandparents.

    Parent
    Okay, that made me laugh. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    I think lumping all politicians (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    who have children who may, at some point, enter politics with a clan like the Bushs only minimizes the very real and completely overt dynastic situation that exist with the Bushs.  Or the Kennedys for that matter.

    Parent
    This is an incredible amount of chatter (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 08:59:17 AM EST
    over someone that registers at about 1% nationally in Dem polling and and comes in at an underwhelming 2% in this morning's Des Moines register Iowa poll.

    For comparison purposes, O'Malley on the Dem side ranks right up there in polling with Bobby Jindal on the GOP side.

    From my POV, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    I would prefer a whole lot more chatter on Sanders and positions regardless of where he may rank in the polls.

    Parent
    Maybe there is more buzz than (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    I thought regarding alternatives to Clinton or O'Malley.


    The first evidence that Mrs. Clinton could face a credible challenge in the Iowa presidential caucuses appeared late last week in the form of overflow crowds at Mr. Sanders's first swing through that state since declaring his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. He drew 700 people to an event on Thursday night in Davenport, for instance -- the largest rally in the state for any single candidate this campaign season, and far more than the 50 people who attended a rally there on Saturday with former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland.


    Parent
    I never did watch The Wire though (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    Now that he has announced, maybe I'll be inspired to binge on Netflix.

    Parent
    It's a numbers (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:39:27 PM EST
    game. Jindal is polling the same at the number 15 position. At this point O'Malley polling2% put him at number three right now.

    Parent
    Very true (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Which currently says even less for O'Malley.

    Although, if for some reason neither Hillary nor Biden decided to run and Warren didn't enter the fray, O'Malley would likely become Number 1 and Sanders would stay right where he is at a distant second.

    Parent

    It is probable that if your scenario (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    came about, the corporate money and support would shift to O'Malley who is more likely to persue a more "vital center" (and the DLC) agenda to help promote and maintain his ascension to POTUS.

    Parent
    He's very astute (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    Just not a known face, name, record.  I expect his numbers to go up as he gets out there.

    Parent
    Look, some actions by politicians (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    are/should be disqualifiers, IMO. Many people consider Hilary's vote on the AUMF should disqualify her for the Office of President. With Johnson, it was the Gulf of Tonkin, and that war's escalation. Nixon, it was Watergate, Carter, the Hostage crisis.

    And, now we have Martin O'Malley, and his hope of joining that fraternity. The one big political advantage the Democrats hold over the Republicans is their standing with the AA population. But, even if you discount the political aspects of O'Malley's brutal, and statistics-obsessed policing policies, his disqualification runs much deeper.

    While all politicians are ambitious, O'Malley's was so demented he was willing to, literally, sacrifice hundreds of thousands of minority families for the single, craven goal of burnishing his creds with the "law & order" fanatics, and his dreams of higher office.
    The seeds for today's disruptions & protests were sown when the black residents of Baltimore finally realized O'Malley's, "in-your-face," arrest, arrest, arrest method of "helping" minorities was nothing but a cynical, calculated ploy to garner statistics at the expense of those who needed good policing the most.

    Bill Clinton's ambition resulted in Sista Soulja, Martin O'Malley's ended with Freddie Gray.


    That's some hyperbole you've got (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    goin' on there, Shooter...

    Might be worth noting that O'Malley was elected governor, twice, with the support of the AA community, both of those elections following on the heels of O'Malley's term as mayor.

    Please be aware that I am not defending O'Malley's zero-tolerance policing policies, but I think the temptation to jump on that bandwagon of florid criticism without understanding or appreciating the local political realities is one you should probably try to avoid.

    I have no doubt it will be an issue.  I also think Hillary Clinton's hawkish views are going to be an issue, too, as will her support for that 1994 crime bill that she's trying to distance herself from.  

    They all have some kind of baggage.

    Parent

    Now, the very democratic state of (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by christinep on Sun May 31, 2015 at 08:57:47 PM EST
    Maryland has a Repub governor.

    Although we are just touching on the issue of mayoral methods in the city and police/community relations, I suspect that issue may grow in this case ... maybe even disproportionately and unfairly.  But, sooner or later, it should be expected to be a pounding of the "tell us again how he is different than Giuliani."  Foreseeable.

    But then, like you, I really suspect that this is a try-out on O'Malley's part for VP nomination or subsequent high-level appointment.

    Parent

    Oh, my - how he is different from (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Sun May 31, 2015 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    Giuliani may be a "let me count the ways" conversation.

    Also, if you look at Maryland politics/demographics, you should note that geographically speaking, the majority of the state usually goes red - it is the heavily AA counties/Baltimore City and strong democratic counties in the DC metro area that turn Maryland blue.  

    Anthony Brown ran one of the worst campaigns ever, he couldn't get away from the terrible health exchange rollout, he was way too negative, and i think he took winning for granted.  He pretty much deserved to lose.  Legislature is still majority Democratic, so that helps, but there is much for people to learn and understand about Maryland politics outside the "blue state" label.

    Parent

    Hawaii recently had a Republican governor for eight loooonnnggg years, and all that time our state legislature remained resolutely 90% Democratic. Massachusetts has elected Republican governors in the past, and has one now. And California tossed Democrat Gray Davis in the 2003 recall and replaced him with Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. (And as I like to tease family members in SoCal, "How'd that work out for you?")

    Simply labeling the various states as "blue" and "red" invites people to make rather sweeping political generalizations about them which are often inapplicable for any variety of reasons. Even red states such as Arizona, Wyoming and Kansas have elected Democratic governors in the recent past. Each state's politics is unique respectively, and defies such pat and easy classifications.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    IMO the red and blue labels (none / 0) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 04:09:06 PM EST
    can work if you look at the policies and agendas the voters support, regardless of parties.

    If a state's government keeps passing the ALEC and Koch wish-lists, and the people of the state approve of and re-elect said government, then I'd say that's a red state. Look at Wisconsin as a good example. Once upon a time that state was as blue as they came. Over the last six years its government sold out and its voters repeatedly showed support in the polling booth for their right-wing state leadership and agenda.

    Deeds, not words, etc.

    Parent

    Wisconsin has long been a purple state. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 07:04:24 PM EST
    The difference was back in the day, many of its Republicans used to pride themselves as progressives, people like the La Follette brothers, Orland Loomis and Laurie Carlson, and they frequently made common cause with Democrats and even the Socialists who used to run Milwaukee. But there's always been a strong conservative streak in that state's GOP politics, particularly in rural communities and towns. Joe McCarthy would never have been elected U.S. senator if there wasn't.

    Parent
    If he is trying out for VP (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun May 31, 2015 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    He might want to cut the dynasty crap. Just saying, as I think that will bite him . . .

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by cpresley on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    I wouldn't think that would be a good approach in a job interview. Attack the boss for being a queen inheriting the crown from her husband.  

    Parent
    2 New National Polls out Tuesday Morning (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:04:48 AM EST
    For the Dem nomination, averaging out the two of them, O'Malley remains steady at 2%.

    Here are the totals:

    Clinton 61%
    Biden 14%
    Sanders 10%
    O'Malley 2%
    Webb 1.5%
    Chafee 0.5%

    The draft Elizabeth organization has officially shut its doors. The O'Malley, Webb and Chafee doors are open though they also appear to be closed.

    On the GOP side there is little change in that there is still no actual leader.

    The 2 new averaged out:

    Rubio 12%
    Bush 11.5
    Walker 10.5%
    Paul 9.5%
    Huckabee 9.5%
    Cruz 8%
    Carson 7.5%
    Christie 5%
    Trump 3.5%
    Perry 3.5%
    Santorum 3%
    Kasixh 1.5%
    Fiorina 1.5%
    Graham 1%

    As of right now, both Perry and Trump will be on the stage for Part 1 of the first GOP debate. Santorum, Kasich, Fiorina and Graham will be relegated to Part 2 of the debate.

    South Carolina and the Repubs (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 01:54:36 PM EST
    A biggie in the Repub primaries in terms of delegate numbers ....  So, what do you suppose Senator Graham's plan is?  Would one practical possibility be to hold the state, thereby keeping it away from the splintered far-right Repub contenders ... with the ultimate goal of brokering with Bush and/or Rubio (both of whom would appear to benefit by not completely losing South Carolina delegate numbers to the furthest right contender(s)?  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    obviously there is some grand plan behind Scarlett running. Maybe it does have something to do with SC delegates though I had thought it was to basically spend his entire time reaming Rand Paul.

    Parent
    That Biden number is interesting... (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    ...considering that, as far as I know, there doesn't seem to be any buzz or chatter about him running.

    Parent
    i think that at this point in our (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 03, 2015 at 02:52:26 PM EST
    insanely long march to the presidential election name recognition is the key to poll rankings. Thus, Biden ranks second, albeit a far second to Clinton, because he is the Veep. People recognize his name and know something about him.

    O'Malley, Sanders, and Chaffee, not so much.

    Parent