Saturday Open Thread

The three hour Eagles "rockumentary" on Showtime just began airing. It's the History of the Eagles, as told by the Eagles. It starts with the early years of Henley in Texas and Frey in Detroit, with lots of guest appearances. There are also some great performances.

Random question: Does anyone remember the version of Hotel California in concert with Henley and many men wearing turban style hats playing drums (see update below, it was trombones not drums) -- to me it had a decidedly African beat. I think I saw the live performance many many years ago, and had it on my computer, but can't find it now. I can't even remember whether it was the whole band or a Henley solo concert. [Added: it was Henley's solo Inside Job Tour at Red Rocks in July,2000.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. [Update below):

Update: I love the segment with Glenn Frey describing how Jackson Browne would write a song. Frey lived above Browne, and he says he learned how to write songs by listening to Jackson through the floor of his apartment.

Glenn says Jackson would start in the morning, and when he got the first verse, he'd replay it 20 times. Then he'd start on the second verse and do the same thing. Then Glenn would hear Jackson's teapot whistle. There would be quiet for 15 or 20 minutes. Then he'd hear Jackson play a third verse, and repeat it about 20 times. Then Jackson would play the whole thing about 20 times. Glenn says that's how you write a song: Elbow grease and practice.

After the Jackson Browne segment, which includes an interview with Jackson, Henley and Frey move on to their time with Linda Ronstadt. She's interviewed as well. And so on.

Update: Thanks to Mr. Natural in comments, this is it. It's from Henley's 2000 solo tour for Inside Job. I remembered it as sounding African or Moroccan. Others call it the "mariachi version." There are trombone players wearing turbans and even Henley is wearing a "Nehru" collared shirt. But there's only one bongo drummer, and he sits behind the bunch of trombone players who are wearing the turbans. The turbans are black, not bright colors as I remembered. From Daily Motion (the link posted by Mr. Natural is just to the audio.)

Don Henley - Hotel California (Inside Job Live... by dim-maggi

He performed the same version on the Today Show (and In The Long Run -- with an introduction by Katie Couric, who asks Henley if he's "having fun.").

Check out the plea by the person who uploaded it not to take it down because it's fair use.

NOTE; DO NOT REMOVE. No monetization from the video. Not selling this video. not profiting. Video is uploaded in quality LOWER than the original broadcast . This program is NOT taken from any professionally released DVD.

Under Section 107 US copyright CLAIM FAIR USE of Copyright this video is presented to open discussion and for historic purposes.This video is over 23 years old. fact that the video I preserved still is in this quality..is reason enough to leave up.

Have I mentioned I hate You Tube's copyright enforcers?

In the humorous Henley department: He recently ranted about the lack of driver courtesy and manners in general. And 15 years ago, he was sued by an Inside Job tour concert goer who said he threw one of the mararacas at her hitting her in the forehead because she took his picture while performing. David Geffen claims in the movie he's a malcontent and has always been a malcontent. I think of him more as a curmudgeon, although they may be the same thing. Either way, he's still one of my favorite songwriters and I love his voice.

Again, open thread, all topics welcome.

< Friday Open Thread | Tina Fey Back as Palin on SNL >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Eagles on "60 Minutes." (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 07:16:42 PM EST
    "We're somewhere between the Osmonds and the Stones." LINK.

    I never missed an Eagles concert tour when I was growing up in SoCal. The first time was California Jam at the old Ontario Motor Speedway in 1974, when I was 13. But the most special Eagles concert I ever saw was when their "Hell Freezes Over" reunion tour made a pit stop out here at Aloha Stadium in Nov. 1995, while on their way to Japan. I was undergoing chemo at the time for Hodgkin's lymphoma and having a rather rough go of it, when my friends Mike and Sharon surprised me by scoring tickets for us. I was in heaven, along with over 60,000 of my closest friends.


    Or maybe just an assertion (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    that Sanders' campaign has once again shown itself to be tone-deaf to the broader electorate.

    Get a grip, lentinel. You will get your chance to vote against your personal demon, Hillary Clinton.

    I am not (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    interested in voting against anyone.

    On the Don Henley update (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    I agree, malcontent, curmudgeon, or 'loitering on stage' , say what you will about him,  he is one heck of a singer/songwriter - I like his solo work as much as I like a lot of the Eagles' work. My 'End of the Innocence' tape got worn out in my car.  I had it in near exclusive rotation with Tom Petty's 'Full Moon Fever' in my car for about a year. And I drove a LOT back then.

    'The Heart of the Matter' still gets me every time.

    My favorite Henley song is ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:10:01 PM EST
    ... "The Boys of Summer," which first came out in 1984, while I was in college. I didn't quite get its sense of yearning for one's fleeting youth long since past, but I've since come to greatly appreciate it as particularly poignant, perhaps never more so than these past two weeks with the respective passings of David Bowie and Glenn Frey.

    Love it too (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    And you can bet I bought a pair of Wayfarers

    Ruffian (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    "My 'End of the Innocence' tape got worn out in my car.  "

    Same here. I remember I was in Houston for three weeks trying a federal drug case when it came out and played it over and over and then played it some more.

    The TL kid told me the other day he thinks he is permanently scarred from how many times he had to listen to the "Actual Miles" album while growing up. "Actual Miles" was Henley's greatest hits album in 1995 -- I'm sure he meant the "Everybody Knows" track -- a Leonard Cohen song. I was obsessed with it. I would play it ten times in a row, never getting sick of it.  I also played it on the way to Court back then -- these lines always struck me as being about the criminal justice system

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That's how it goes
    Everybody knows

    and snitches (particularly the big boat cases with drugs coming in from Colombia, Central America and elsewhere)

    Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
    Everybody knows that the captain lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died

    I also love this version of Heart of the Matter, from the 1990 Farm Aid concert. But the original video that was released with the song is great too. I wish I knew what computer I had it on...I can't find it on the internet right now. I just remember there was a girl on a swing (but keep in mind my memory is often wrong on these kind of details.)


    I'l have to see if I can get (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    'Everybody Knows' cut. I didn't get the Actual Miles album at the time since had all of his solo albums already - did not see the extra cuts - or more likely at the time I did not know and love that Leonard Cohen song as I do now.

    If TL Kid had to get sick of a song, that is a good one! That's my favorite verse too, no surprise.


    Jackson Browne will be performing (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:19:03 PM EST
    on Late Night with Stephen Colbert Monday night.

    Gonna have to stay up and watch that one...won't be able to wait to watch my recording on Tuesday. Glad no one is going to make me pick who I love the best.

    thanks for that (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    I'm setting the DVR now. I never check to see who's on talk shows (since I rarely watch them -- I'm always watching something I taped earlier at that hour.) -- but I'd be upset if I missed Browne.  

    He did the most political (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    song off his new album. It is a great song. I wish he had done more though...especially after a long segment with Donald frickin' Rumsfeld.  I'm a little disappointed in my Stephen, just for that time balance - he did a good job with Rummie, considering he is an entertainer and not a newsman. Got Rummie to say something like 'Facts are not intelligence'.

    But I needed a lot more Jackson to wipe the Rummie out of my brain.  


    The 3 Hour Eagles... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    ...documentary is on Netflix as well.

    So Tuesday I rented Joe Dirt II, got home and it wouldn't play, pulled it out and it was seriously scratched.

    Anyways I did not want to put it back into the machine and someone else to get it, so I called Netflix.  They were impossible, insisting I had an account, I don't, and I got into it with the lady on the phone.

    Then I realized, mid call, that I probably shouldn't be talking to Netflix over a Redbox rental.  I felt like such and idiot, especially considering it was Joe Dirt.  I apologized, she laughed, and called Redbox.  They tagged the movie and gave me two free rentals.

    I have done it before, go online to Netflix looking for new releases and realizing I am at the wrong website.

    Stardust for Bowie (4.50 / 2) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:19:15 PM EST
    I love that (none / 0) (#21)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:23:32 PM EST
    Very cool. It actually makes me teary-eyed.

    When D. Bowie & B. Crosby (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:23:05 AM EST
    sang The Little Drummer Boy together, which one made the first overture? In other words, whose idea was it?

    I'd bet real money (none / 0) (#29)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 02:08:10 AM EST
    it was Bing's idea.

    Wiki (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 04:16:08 PM EST

    The track was recorded on September 11, 1977 for Crosby's then-upcoming television special, Bing Crosby's Merrie Olde Christmas. The pair exchanged scripted dialogue about what they each do for their family Christmases, before singing "Little Drummer Boy" with a new counterpoint with original lyrics written for the special, "Peace on Earth".

    Bowie's appearance has been described as a "surreal" event, undertaken at a time that he was "actively trying to normalise his career".[4] He has since recalled that he only appeared on the show because "I just knew my mother liked him".[5] Buz Kohan was not sure that Crosby knew who Bowie was, but Ian Fraser claimed, "I'm pretty sure he did. Bing was no idiot. If he didn't, his kids sure did."[1]

    According to co-writer Ian Fraser, Bowie balked at singing "Little Drummer Boy": "I hate this song. Is there something else I could sing?", Fraser recalls Bowie telling him. Fraser, along with songwriter Larry Grossman and the special's scriptwriter, Buz Kohan, then wrote "Peace on Earth" as a counterpoint to "Little Drummer Boy". Crosby performed "Little Drummer Boy", while Bowie sang the new tune "Peace on Earth", which they reportedly performed after less than an hour of rehearsal.[1]

    A few days after the taping, Crosby said of Bowie, "clean-cut kid and a real fine asset to the show. He sings well, has a great voice and reads lines well."[6]

    Full disclosure (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    I just watched that fir the first time.  I knew about it of course.  It was not the kind of thing I would have paid attention to at the time.

    I remember being somewhat sad at the time that Bowie was "normalizing" his career.   I was not at first a huge fane of post glam Bowie.  I was later.  It was nice.


    New Game of Thrones trailer (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 06:02:33 PM EST
    A veritable blizzard! (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 06:31:57 PM EST
    He has to be back in some way...too many things in play to just drop that character, right?

    Right (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 06:44:18 PM EST
    I would think so.  This was funny-
    Seems a little suspicious, if the character has been written out of the show on account of total deadness. We didn't see Ned Stark on posters for Game of Thrones season 2, or Rob Stark hawking season 4, or Stannis's hopes and dreams for season 3, now did we?

    Didn't Stannis make it past season 3? (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    Seems to me I remember a little bonfire after that....

    Just watched the premier of (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    BEOWULF on Esquire.  Really pretty god.  Very good detail and art direction.  Pretty good effects.  And real actors like William Hurt.  Created by James Dormer of STRIKE BACK.

    If you are into to that sort of thing try it.

    It's being criticized in some quarters for not being bloody enough.  



    Those knights or whatever they are (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    who bring people back to life, I suspect may have something to do with the resurrgence of Jon Snow..

    "the brothers without banners" (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:11:18 PM EST
    my daughter just reminded me.

    The Red Woman (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:17:09 PM EST
    Can too apparently.  I suspect her.  She conveniently arrived at Castle Black the end of the last season after sneaking out of Stannis camp before the slaughter she said would not happen.

    That Red Woman is a real piece of work.. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:55:11 AM EST
    she's sort of the Game of Thrones version of one of Ted Cruz's pastors..

    Jeralyn I posted the other day (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 06:09:33 PM EST
    about that segment of the documentary. I love it too, as a huge fan of all of those artists. It is such an evocative story - when he tells it you feel like you are right there.

    Turning on the doc now.....

    I gotta be honest.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    not a Joe Wlash fan. My Eagles fandom diminished at that point....

    great musician though, gees (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:08:39 PM EST
    Don Felder .... Great musician but who'd a thought he'd have less common sense than Joe Walsh? People are amazing.

    he was very apologetic (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:20:39 PM EST
    in the movie -- especially regretting the time he poured a beer over Frey's head. He said it was a humiliating gesture he regretted. He also posted a nice tribute to Glenn after he died. And during an interview in the documentary, he said he really misses the Eagles and chokes up and then ends the interview.

    There's a great clip in the ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:54:52 PM EST
    ... "60 Minutes" segment I linked below (and again here, with the clip at about the 14:40 mark) in which Glenn Frey and Don Felder lose it onstage at what proved to be their last concert together as The Eagles in July 1980. Frey says something condescending about Felder's professionalism, and Felder responds with a promise / threat of physical violence once they leave the stage. And that was all she wrote for the band for 14 years.

    Yes - and those disputes in the heat of the moment (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    are somewhat understandable. What got me was that 15 years later, after the Hell Freezes Over Tour reunion, Felder was still festering about what he got paid in relation to Frey and Henley.  You would think that at that point he would be able to let things ride.

    I saw that in the doc he showed he regretted that decision. I'm sure that was genuine. Too bad all the way around.

    Another thing that got me was Walsh 'graciously' saying it was right for the Hall of Fame to also recognize Randy Meisner. Uh, yeah, I would think so.  Was there any questions about that?


    And it wasn't just Glenn Frey. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:56:35 PM EST
    Don Henley and other band members have also admitted that they had found it increasingly difficult to work with Don Felder over the years, most especially after the monstrous success of the "Hotel California" album.

    Awesome guitarist though he was, Felder had an inflated opinion of his own worth to The Eagles and further nursed a lot of personal grudges, particularly against Frey. By the late '70s, he had become a divisive element and toxic presence in the band.

    I've no doubt that Felder is sincerely remorseful for his past behavior, and it's a shame that he apparently never availed himself of any opportunity to express those regrets personally to Glenn Frey, before Frey passed. But as they say, we grown too soon old and too late smart.



    And we hurt ourselves the most (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    Ahh, rock 'n roll gossip (none / 0) (#74)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    is fun.

    Look, they were all known to have been equally a-holish at one time, so what's the point of trying to lay blame on one or another? Rock bands are famous for their internecine squabbles.


    Yeah, I was more commenting on the (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    self- wounding stupidity of it than anything else. Don't mean to be judging anyone's position in the arguments.

    ruffian, my comment wasn't aimed at you (none / 0) (#94)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:26:57 PM EST
    What's the point? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    None, really. We're just chit-chatting. But for what it's worth, the other members of the Eagles mostly blamed Don Felder for their acrimonious 1980 breakup. Further, it's rather telling that Felder was still expressing bitterness toward Glenn Frey and Don Henley for years afterward, and he was the odd man out when the band reunited in 1994. (Former Eagles bassist Randy Meisner quit the band in late 1977, citing his health and a desire to return to his family in Nebraska, and was replaced by Timothy B. Schmitt.)

    Whatever (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:23:27 PM EST
    I don't know any of them personally--I think the only one on this blog who does is fishcamp--but I did grow up with people who have been in the music biz for 35 years now, and know all those people quite well. After some of the stories I've heard, I don't care one way or the other. But this is certain, when people who are considered to have been jerks start calling each other out as having been worse, it's all meaningless in the end.

    Bottom line, the gossip and the backbiting doesn't interest me nearly as much as the music that was created.


    Just for the record... (none / 0) (#95)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 06:51:00 AM EST
    Don Henley had a very dark side, and all of them bickered all the time.  Some nights they would be out on the town, but not together, and if they ran into each other at a club they often wouldn't speak and one or the other would leave the building.  I usually hung with Glenn since Henley stayed up all night, most nights and didn't ski much.  Glenn was a gun ho skier and paid more attention to his health back then.  Other nights they would carouse together like nothing was ever wrong.  Hard to figure out, but they did have fun.

    ... especially when you're a band on tour, I guess the others are going to grate on your nerves occasionally. And the Eagles certainly had their share of assertive personalities. Relationships are hard to maintain unless you work at them, and it seems like most of the band members had more in common with one another than they did differences, even though those differences could sometimes be significant. That they ultimately overcame them to reunite says something about them. Thank you for the personal insight.

    And your point is -- what, exactly. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Okay, so you're only interested in the music. Fine. But it's also okay for others to talk about other things, too, you know. Who appointed you the hall monitor? I've noticed that you're not upbraiding Jeralyn for essentially talking about the same thing, i.e., the Eagles' back story and inner dynamics.

    Lighten up. If you're not interested in the topic, then you're not interested. So move on. But don't just barge into the middle of the conversation and attempt to shut it down, by demeaning one or more of its participants because their banter somehow falls short of your standards.



    Donald, I know about the personnel (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:25:49 PM EST
    changes. I'm a musician and followed a lot of those players closely.

    You got that right (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 08:12:23 AM EST
    Lennon-McCartney, Watters-Gilmore, Neil Young-everybody, to name a few. Even Simon-Garfunkle!

    Even (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    Sonny & Cher??

    Say it isn't so.............sob, sniffle.

    Here's a version I've never heard, Don Henley (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 07:18:43 PM EST
    with brass largely displacing guitars on Hotel California.  I don't even know what this arrangement would be called; it's somewhere outside the lines of reggae, salsa, ska?  What Henley really needed was the horn section from this excellent Mariachi version.

    The same tune, dazzling, by the Gypsy Kings.  

    Like California itself, a confluence of influences.

    I'm pretty sure that's it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    see my update. There's a video of it on Daily Motion (its the same as the one you linked to, only it has video not just audio.) It's not the Eagles but Henley's 2000 Inside Job solo tour.

    I saw this version earlier this week. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:01:58 PM EST
    Can't say as I really cared all that much for it. Like you said, Henley needed a bolder horn section. But hey, he co-wrote the song, so he can do what he wants with it. I give him kudos for trying something different.

    P.S.: That mariachi version of "Hotel California" was catchy -- at least, it was until that guy started singing. Then I couldn't help but start to laugh. I don't why it struck my funny bone, but it did. Loved the Gypsy Kings cover, though. ¡Muchas gracias, Señor!



    538 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    gives Cruz a 49% chance of winning IA caucus with Trump having 35%.

    RCP poll average (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 09:17:23 PM EST
    Has Trump leading and Nate Silver was on Chris Hayes show a couple of day ago admitting everything they have said about Trump was wrong and they actually don't have a clue.

    My money.  Trump wins Iowa.  


    Just wait for Trump to start calling (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    the Des Moines Register "a buncha looooozers!" for endorsing Rubio.

    comment deleted (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:23:45 PM EST
    by Shoshone with a potentially libelous comment about the Trumps. You may not claim people are racist here.  That's name-calling and opinion.

    How about this? (none / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    Is it okay post a link to the WAPO article as well as the NPR story and let people make up their own minds, based on what the federal case against the Trumps was all about?

    It's a pretty awful story (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 10:42:05 PM EST
    But I don't think it will have any effect at all on the primary.  If he gets to the general, yeah, maybe.  
    I don't think there is a single thing in there that will surprise either his supporters or detractors.

    He has repeatedly been re-tweeting white supremacist stuff.  
    He did it again today.

    OTOH Cruz is touting and campaigning on the endorsment of a preacher who says Oprah is the antichrist.  Well, not exactly THE antuchrist.   Just read about it.   And this is not something said in passing.  It's something he has apparently been talking about for years.  Last night on Rachel she was spotlighting the difference in Trumo/Cruz where Oorah is concerned.  Trumo has said he wants her fir a running mate.

    Anyway, just sayin-



    This guy and others if his group (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 23, 2016 at 11:25:43 PM EST
    Have some other pretty "colorful" beliefs-

    Ted Cruz is making no secret that he wants to be the candidate of the religious right. But recently, Cruz has made a play for the support of leading members of the New Apostolic Reformation, an overtly fascist offshoot of the religious right that thinks it can bring about the Second Coming by taking over the world. Just last week, he appeared at a conference hosted by NAR leader Rick Joyner. Now comes word that another NAR leader, Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer, has endorsed him. But it turns out that a decade ago, Bickle said something that could potentially be tied around Cruz like a millstone. Bickle was caught on tape saying that unless Jews accept Jesus as the last days approach, most of them could be mowed down by a "hunter."


    But this is pat-a-cake stuff compared to something Bruce Wilson of Talk2Action discovered in 2011. Wilson obtained footage of several sermons from 2004 to 2009 in which Bickle argued that in the near future, Jews who refuse to move to Israel and accept Jesus as Savior will be chased down by "hunters" sent by God. These hunters will kill something like two-thirds of the Jews, with only one-third of them surviving to "become lovesick followers of Jesus."


    One of the most chilling excerpts comes near the end, at around the 5:53 mark. It's from a message Bickle delivered at a 2004 "Israel Mandate" conference. Bickle claimed that all Jews would be given "grace" to accept Jesus-and if they didn't respond to that grace, God would "raise up the hunters" to slaughter most of them. He then went as far as to say that Adolf Hitler was "the most famous hunter in recent history" because he drove many of the Jews to Palestine. I don't think I need to tell you how unhinged and outrageous this is.

    there's video

    I wish I was making this stuff up but this is it.   We are talking about a guy who seems to have a reasonable chance at the most powerful office on earth.
    It does go a bit toward explaining why faced with Trump or Cruz, Trump is being chosen.  As vile as he is.  


    As a (mostly) non-practicing Jew, (none / 0) (#27)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:39:35 AM EST
    those apocalyptic firebrands have always given me the willies like nobody's business. They believe in punishment above all else, and their kind populate a whole bunch of religions.

    Cruz isn't getting the presidency. That much I'm sure of. But, if the dominoes fall in a weird way by the time the South Carolina primary comes into view, and we actually do end up with a three-way race, it would be the most unusual presidential election for these reasons:

    3 guys from New York
    2 self-funding billionaires
    2 Jews

    Oy. The comedians will be so happy for this material!


    It's worth mentioning (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 09:04:19 AM EST
    That with Ted it's not just Jews who have it coming-

    Pastor's 'Kill the Gays' Rally Attended by GOP Candidates


    Just watched that again (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 09:25:40 AM EST
    What I noticed is that even months ago before he was leading any where it was clear from the introduction and the reception that Cruz is special to these people.   The others were there to curry favor.  Cruz was there because he is a believer.

    That (none / 0) (#45)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    true believer status  just may be his saving grace in Iowa, he certainly seems to have the backing of the Evangelical establishment. Unlike the much of the rest of the electorate the Evangelicals are not in the midst of an insurgency. If Cruz grab just a few more votes from the Carson/Huckabee/Santorum deadenders he should be able to win it.

    If Iowa were a primary I would be close to ceding it to Trump, however the nature of a caucus with ample time for "proselytizing" to take place gives Cruz room for a "two hour surge" that can carry him over the top.


    Fwiw (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:01:17 PM EST
    The reporting of a Trump ground campaign that is much more serious than has been previously reported continues.  I heard it on some of the morning shows today.

    Is it true?  We will know in a week.  Because if he wins it will be a huge story.

    Personally, as.i said, I expect him to win.   But you could be right.

    Just really glad speculation ends in a week.

    I hope you are right.  I really do.  I think Cruz would be a much less serious threat to Hillary than Donald.   And if Donald wins Iowa, it's over.


    I'm with (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    FL Joe on this. Iowa is tailor made for Cruz. Think Santorum and Huckabee winning previously. And where are their voters going to go because surely they are not going to make the 15% cut there.

    Of course I'm not sure that winning Iowa is going to make much of a difference in the larger picture.


    Never say never when in comes to Iowa (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:26:37 PM EST
    voters but that tailor made for Cruz is now behind 34 to 21.

    Never under estimate the importance of corn....and ethanol.


    I have (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    heard mostly negative things about trumps ground game, with the NYT and others being skeptical of it as recently as two weeks ago link

    I think you have to have a real solid (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    grounding in an imagined idealized past and otherworldly fundamentalism to tie your hopes to that loose canon...

    Notice how these folks always say they want to "get BACK to what made to what made this country great" etc.. In other words, for them the way forward is the impossible task of going back to what was already proven insufficient and unsustainable..

    Trump himself, I'm convinced, is in this almost purely for the purposes of feeding his runaway narcissism.


    2 things (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    It's being reported that stories are being and have been "planted" to encourage under estimation of the ground game to make the story of a win even more dramatic.

    do we believe that?  I am just the messenger.

    Second, the person running the operation is the person who won Iowa for Rick Santorum.

    As I said lets see what happens.

    I stand by my prediction.  While hoping you are right.


    That (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:30:37 PM EST
    sounds to much like 11 dimensional chess to me, bottom line is there is no such thing as a stealth ground game. If it's not in your face phone-banking, canvassing and pamphleteering it does not exist.

    And a woman (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 09:08:38 AM EST
    Here is the lengthy (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    Announcement of the Bickle endorsement on the Cruz campaign site-

    HOUSTON, Texas - Presidential candidate Ted Cruz today announced the endorsement of Mike Bickle, Founder and Director of the International House of Prayer of Kansas City, an evangelical missions organization based on prayer
    "Through prayer, the Lord has changed my life and altered my family's story," said Cruz. "I am grateful for Mike's dedication to call a generation of young people to prayer and spiritual commitment. Heidi and I are grateful to have his prayers and support. With the support of Mike and many other people of faith, we will fight the good fight, finish the course, and keep the faith."



    Hopefully (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:28:27 AM EST
    The second time is a charm

    The presidency is not an entry-level position. Whoever is sworn into office next January must demonstrate not only a deep understanding of the issues facing America, but also possess the diplomatic skills that enable presidents to forge alliances to get things done.

    By that measure, Democrats have one outstanding candidate deserving of their support: Hillary Clinton. No other candidate can match the depth or breadth of her knowledge and experience.


    In the final analysis, Iowa Democrats will have to choose between the lofty idealism of Bernie Sanders and the down-to-earth pragmatism of Hillary Clinton. For some, this will be a choice of whether to vote with their hearts or their heads.

    Clinton has demonstrated that she is a thoughtful, hardworking public servant who has earned the respect of leaders at home and abroad. She stands ready to take on the most demanding job in the world.

    Experienced... (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:36:07 AM EST

    But I don't have the sense that she has "evolved"from the person who voted for the war in Iraq.

    To call Sanders call for free tuition and medical care for all, "lofty idealism", shows how little we Americans now expect for all the money we send to the government.


    As one who has supported (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    your absolute right to state your opinion on any subject you please there is one little quirk you indulge in that is, somewhat irritating, if not, disingenuous.

    Referring to H.R.C, you've stated, more than once, that she, "voted for the war in Iraq." Now, I understand that everyone knew, or, should have known, but, those clairvoyant positions are opinions.......not facts.

    I realize you may consider that hair-splitting, but, it really is important. Senator Clinton took the time to write a lengthy letter accompanying her vote to authorize the use of force. In it she explains, in quite some detail, her reasoning for her vote, her trepidations in doing so, and, the conditions under which she hoped her vote would be considered.

    Again, scoff all you want, call me a naïve dunderhead, whatever; it's just that an issue of this profound importance deserves to be stated accurately.

    And, fwiw, I, for one, would react to your comments with a much more open mind if you separated your opinions from the actual truth.



    If there is (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    someway that you have found to an "absolute truth", I commend you.

    What I can say, and I believe that this is demonstrably true, is that there is one person running for office right now who, given the same information available, voted "no". Someone who got it right, as opposed to someone who "got it wrong".

    The other thing I can add it that there were books written at the time, Joe Wilson's testimony, lots of other citizens and plain folks who saw through this crapathon laid upon us by George W. Bush.

    Now, I will frankly admit that it is my opinion that Clinton based her vote in good measure guided by her political instincts. That is an opinion. Just an opinion.

    As far as my other assertion, that she has not "evolved" from the ethic that led her to vote for the war, is her criticism of Obama - blaming him for the retched state of affairs in Syria because he didn't heed her prodding to support the rebels soon enough. I wish he had continued to resist the pressure to engage us, but that sort of resistance does not seem to be his forté.

    I would never criticize you or call you any name.
    I just disagree with your conclusion about what really transpired during the period of decision in 2001.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    Did she vote for it or against it??

    Hillary (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 10:48:43 AM EST
    Is a liberal, and has always been so.  She can call herself a moderate or progressive, or whatever she wants to appeal to a broader audience, but to think that she's not a liberal is just plain silly.

    My bold.

    We've gotten this raft of "Clinton is liberal" exposés as Clinton has revved up her 2016 campaign, speaking out in support of gay marriage, a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, and criminal justice reform. But what many of these articles miss is that Clinton has always been, by most measures, pretty far to the left. When she's shifted positions, it has been in concert with the entire Democratic Party.

    To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising.

    Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton's record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members -- he was not more liberal than Clinton.

    Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a "hard core liberal" per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a "hard core liberal," Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.


    In 2008, while Clinton had trouble with her position on Iraq, Democrats didn't view her as out of step ideologically overall.


    Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War. But unless your name is Jeb Bush, the Iraq War just isn't as important to a presidential candidacy in 2016 as it was in 2008, when it was the second-most-important issue in the Democratic primary. Clinton beat Obama on the other big issues, including the longtime liberal cause of health care.

    As someone who is decidedly liberal, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:51:11 PM EST
    I can tell you that I do not consider Clinton to be a liberal; compared to conservative Dems or Republicans, sure, you can call her a liberal, but to truly liberal democrats, she just isn't.

    I don't frankly care where the overall democratic voters position themselves - I assess her place on the spectrum in comparison to where I am on that spectrum.


    Since she's right with Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:05:12 PM EST
    Then I guess you don't consider her a liberal either?

    You are a self-proclaimed moderate (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    That's fine. It's a perfectly fine world view to hold. But you have no idea what it is to be a liberal. It's something you read about and somehow manage to get completely wrong.

    And Hillary is in no way liberal. I'll accept that she is "progressive" in some ways by my definition. My definition includes some more than a passing flirtation with neo-liberalism.

    You really should stop telling us left-wing commie liberals what a liberal really is. Because I'm pretty sure we can each evaluate that for ourselves. We can analyze voting records and public statements and actions just fine. Really. We don't need you to put Elizabeth Warren on a pennant and then wave it around.

    I expect you'll do it again anyway.


    Having read and written here at TL (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    for some years now I feel confident that I can say that I am a liberal and to the left of many here who are also self-described liberals.

    When I look at Clinton's body of work- her votes, her policies, her speeches and public statements, the things she did at the State Dept., - I believe she is a liberal, not a neoliberal, but an old-fahioned FDR and JFK liberal. She is also a political pragmatist, which I think is a good thing since I am also a political pragmatist.

    I find it interesting that commenters here, people I believe would be backing Warren were she running instead of Sanders, reject the very idea of Clinton's liberalism even in the face of evidence that Clinton's record is, in fact, more liberal than Warren's.

    Yes, there was her horrendous Iraq war vote, a vote she has said repeatedly was wrong. To my mind that vote was no more injurious to the United States in the long run, and maybe less so, than Sanders' votes against gun control and against gun manufacturer liability. There is no politician that I know of, and I have been around politics and in politics for six decades now, who pleases 100% of her/his supporters 100% of the time.

    Because I have been undecided between Clinton and Sanders I have very carefully watched and read and listened as this campaign has unfolded. What I have observed is that Sanders is basically a one issue candidate. It is an important issue, a critical issue, but not the only important and critical issue facing the country. Yet time and again, no matter what the topic is, no matter what he is asked, Sanders pivots back to his one issue.

    Well, the country has a multitude of problems, problems that require more than angry denunciations of "the establishment" and calls for a "grass-roots revolution" to solve.

    Two things have been critical to my decision to support Clinton. One is the need to rebuild the party from the ground up and get whichever one of them is president a Congress they can work with. Separate from her own campaign, Clinton is pouring money and people and hard work into this effort. Sanders is not.

    The second was illustrated by the response each of them had to the horrific water situation in Flint, MI. Sanders called for the Michigan governor Rick Snyder to resign. All well and good and I agree.  Clinton, however, called the mayor of Flint to ask what she, Clinton, could do to help. She sent two staffers to Flint to do anything and everything they could do to assist. While also thinking that Snyder should resign, Clinton publicly called on Snyder to apply for federal disaster status so that money could start flowing to Flint to help on the ground right now.

    These two examples illustrate what, for me, is a very important difference in the campaigns. Sanders is a big talker with big ideas. Clinton is a doer with policies and plans on how to actually do what needs doing.

    So, I have thrown my support to Clinton. Should Sanders win the nomination I will support him whole-heartedly, but now my money and energy go to Clinton.


    Thank you for your (none / 0) (#112)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    thoughtful response. You put it out there without the need to have a snit. Some people could take note. Just saying.

    I hear and understand what you are saying. Last go-round I was a Hillary supporter. I get what the appeal can be.

    But for me it is a matter of priorities. Sanders' priorities are more in alignment with mine. Some family members were devastated by the financial situation O inherited -- and yes, I know he inherited it. But all he had to offer was bandaids. And not a single one of them were the right size. I completely agree with BTD here.

    And I don't see that a HRC would champion HOLC style problem eight years later. I don't know that she wouldn't, but I don't see her as realizing that the economy still sucks for those on a fixed income. And that's the thing really. I just don't know.

    On the other hand, I know it is not OK for people to need two or three jobs to earn enough to live on. That is not OK with me.

    Personally I consider Sanders a doer. And he's got the results to show for it.

    And in my perception, HRC is way to neo-liberal and this is something that I actively dislike.But all you people out there commenting please note: That is my opinion. Please don't presume to shove your opinion off as fact. And stop with the sneering and bullying and trying to shove us in to fit in with your herd.

    I don't fit, and I don't want to.


    Maybe being a "left-wing commie liberal" (2.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    Isn't really about being "liberal".  Maybe it's just about just a commie.

    So maybe you'll stop telling the majority of the Democratic party, who are not "left-wing commie liberals" what is good for the party and that your ideas are best for the country.  Maybe you'l understand that most people do not agree with you, mkay?

    And I'm sorry things like facts - voting records, speeches, issues worked for, etc. don't make you believe.  Too bad - you're kinda like jim on this - don't confuse you with facts and all.


    Nobody's telling the so-called majority of (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    the Democratic Party what is good for the party or that our ideas are what's best for the country; what we are doing is expressing what we believe, and trying to choose a candidate who most closely aligns with those beliefs.

    I thought that's how it was supposed to work, that I was supposed to decide what I believe, not form my beliefs from what others in the media or politics - or on some blog - tell me I'm supposed to believe.  I didn't know I was supposed to make these decisions based on what a majority of some group thinks.

    I have no idea why you have decided to slash and burn your way through the Sanders supporters this way, nor does it make any sense to me your single-minded effort to brand Clinton as a liberal when in all the years you've been commenting here I have never gotten even a glimmer of liberal identification from you.  

    You support Clinton; that's fine.  No one's giving you a raft of sh!t for doing so, but you haven't missed an opportunity to belittle Sanders, his supporters, his ideas, his experience.  I hate to break it to you, that's not making Clinton supporters out of them, it's really just p!ssing them off.

    Not that that seems to be a concern for you, but as a method of persuasion, it's kind of a fail.

    The "left-wing commie liberal" thing was a poke; those of us who actually are liberals are well-acquainted with being called commies, dirty-fking hippies and worse. If you had a liberal bone in your body, you'd have recognized that, and not used it as an opportunity to actually brand liberals as commies.

    Support Clinton if that's what floats your boat.  More of us than not have stated on many occasions that we will be voting for whichever of these candidates is the nominee, so it might be nice if you'd stop treating us like the enemy.


    Oh no you don't (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    I didn't bring up the left wing liberal commie comment - sj called herself that, and I repeated it back to her so no, you, nor she do not get to put that on me.  (Try reading, it really helps).  She certainly she loves to dish it out, so she can live with her own words and not need people to come to her defense.  She constantly trolls, but loves to accuse others of such, so I am now calling her on her BS. And that's most of what she writes - compete BS.

    And thanks for your advice - since you are so blind to the angelic Sanders supporters, but me pointing out his faults is me being the bad guy.  O-kay.  Logic fail.

    Flame away.


    If you were a liberal, or if you had (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    read my comment about the use of "left-wing commie," and taken a moment to digest it, you would never have taken it and used it the way you did; you didn't repeat it back to her, you took an admission by a liberal of the kind of thing we liberals regularly get called, and you made it an actual insult.

    No liberal would have done that, jb; you completely lost the argument right there.

    As for your playground-level neener-neener comment about Sanders supporters, well, that's just so silly, it makes me laugh.  I've made a number of comments about Sanders' flaws, as have others, so I'm not sure who these blind angelic Sanders supporters are.

    It feels to me like the Clinton supporters are just so royally ticked off that Sanders is making Clinton work this hard for something she was supposed to just have handed to her; many of us are thrilled that someone is pushing her to places she'd never, ever have gone had she been essentially unopposed.

    And, one more time: we've said we'll vote for her if she's the nominee, so maybe you could just dial it down a notch.


    All of this leads to one conclusion: (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    While the majority of Sanders supporters on this blog have declared they will vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, the majority of Clinton supporters on this blog are unlikely to support Sanders if he's the nominee.

    I'd love to be proven wrong about that, but I don't think I am.


    How did you come to that (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    conclusion? I do not know of any Clinton supporter here at TL who has stated they will not support Sanders. On what are you basing that statement?

    I think you are way off base here. I do not understand why you would make such a claim.

    Please, name these many Clunton supporters you are so certain will not support Sanders.


    From everything I'm reading here (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    it's pretty clear there is more vitriol towards Sanders than you may want to acknowledge. I've seen exactly one Clinton supporter vow support for whomever the nominee turns out to be--and that was Donald from Hawaii.

    Until people prove me wrong, I'm going to stick with my--admittedly assumptive--conclusion.


    You need better reading skills (none / 0) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    If you think Donald is the only one who would vote for Sanders. CST and ruffian, Clinton supporters, have both said they will support the Democratic nominee whether that is Clinton or Sanders.

    And you clearly did not read my posts on the subject as I have been quite clear that if Sanders wins I will support him whole-heartedly.

    I can  think of only one person who posts on TL who has stated they will only support the eventual Democratic candidate if their person wins and that is kdog who has said his vote would go to Jill Stein or someone like her if Clinton gets the nomination.

    As to this vitriol you claim is aimed only at Sanders, , OMG, how have you missed the comments tearing Clinton apart for her hawkishness, her speaking fees, her supposed neoliberalism, etc?

    Your comment is flat out wrong.


    Pretty sure I have said so (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    If not I do now.

    Correct about me too (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    I think I have said so explicitly, if not I will do so now for the record. I will happily vote for Sanders int he general. I don't have to be in love with the guy to think he is the best candidate in the race and vote for him.

    I have said repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:09 AM EST
    I will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee.

    Your "suspicion" is insulting and baseless.


    From what do you draw that (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:11:57 PM EST
    conclusion?  I doubt any Clinton supporter on this blog would refuse to vote for Sen. Sanders if he is the Dem. nominee.

    To my recollection, only DonaldFromHI (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:31:12 PM EST
    has actually stated it.

    Stand down (none / 0) (#111)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 02:31:42 PM EST
    You're getting ridiculous. And I have never cared two sh!ts about who agrees with me. The herd mentality is not part of my makeup. I don't care what you or other Democrats think. You are welcome to your own thoughts. No matter how petty.

    I became an officer/activist in the Dem party because I wanted to put my priorities on the table. Not because I cared what others put there.

    What I am saying is that you have no idea what a liberal is. So stop trying to tell us. Give your own perspective. That works and cannot be argued with because it's your own opinion.

    Stop trying to sell us on something that doesn't work for us.

    What's that phrase? Don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's raining.


    Moreover (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    Where did you get this cr@p?
    So maybe you'll stop telling the majority of the Democratic party, who are not "left-wing commie liberals" what is good for the party and that your ideas are best for the country.
    Because cr@p it is. Utter cr@p. And proof that you retain nothing about other commenters from one thread to the next. I am not a Democrat and therefore have no vested interest in what they do.



    Gotta hope (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:23:33 AM EST
    that Bloomberg enters the race.

    We need a little more chaos.
    And to watch the republican heads explode!
    What joy!

    You assume (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    He would take votes only from Republicans?

    Good point! (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 08:34:49 AM EST
    Let all the heads explode!

    That's a beautiful Simon and Garfunkle (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    song in that Bernie ad, but the ad itself is painfully lilly-white..

    It's the kind of ad I'd expect to see for Bernie's Vermont senatorial reelection campaign.

    The despairing, alienated young people and other folks trapped in some of our decaying inner city neighborhoods and barrios are going to see that ad and just feel even more that they've been forgotten and don't really matter in the corridors of power.

    Images can be very powerful. And that preaching-to-the-choir ad is a real dissonant note that Clinton, if she and her posse have half a brain, should addresss head-on..


    Excellent point (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:03:36 PM EST
    My reaction exactly.   I am a big S&G fan.

    Simon and Garfunkle (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    Used to ski in Aspen too.  Needless to say I skied with them a few times each year.  What I remember most about them was all the girls that wanted to meet them.  There were three restaurants on Aspen Mtn. then, and those guys wanted to ski from restaurant to restaurant period.  Many did that to rest due to the altitude.  The girls I knew would come over for an intro and then other girls, seeing that, would come over.  It didn't take long for the three of us to spoof on that like, "Hi, I've forgotten your name, but would you like to meet Simon and Garfunkle"?  I never saw them bicker, but I'm sure it's much different in a recording studio.    

    I often thought The Eagles weren't happy unless they were arguing.  They were very good at it too.


    I guess they eventually (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    Had their differences.  Some of Simons early solo work is my all time favorite stuff.  Still play it constantly.  Rhythm of the Saints would be on my all time best list.

    Heres (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:15:12 AM EST

    yer welcome


    Sidenote (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    He is wearing Marvo Rubios go go boots

    Memoirs!!! (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    Just sayin'

    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    her ad is here if you have not seen it.

    Simon and Garfunkle (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 06:30:33 AM EST
    I feel like I as a liberal I am supposed to like them.   "Feeling groovy" is a catchy tune but aside from that, not so much for me.

    I always think how I coulda been listening to the Stones instead.....


    And further assume that ... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    jbibdc: "You assume [he] would take votes only from Republicans?"

    ... he maintains his political stature and relevance west of the Appalachians and south of the Mason-Dixon line (save perhaps for Florida), and has enough standing to cobble together a national campaign organization, both on the fly and in time to gather enough signatures in all 50 states to qualify his independent candidacy for the ballot?


    Who would you vote for in that scenario? (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    whoever is the Democratic (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:21:28 AM EST
    nominee (so long as it's not Biden, which isn't going to happen.) This is a Democratic blog, and it supports the Democratic party and ultimate nominee, once chosen. I suspect most TalkLeft readers agree. Your question is nothing more than baiting.

    There are some Republicans who comment here, and their views are welcome, so long as they don't shill for a Republican or third party candidate. So please don't invite such responses.

    It may be getting time for you to get your own blog. You are trying too hard to direct the conversation here. You have made your support for Sanders clear.  If he's nominated, this blog will support him. As will most readers here. That some of us prefer a different Democratic candidate doesn't mean we would vote for a Republican or third party candidate.

    Most readers who urged a third party candidate in 2008 after Hillary dropped out and refused to support Obama stopped reading and commenting here or were banned from this site. Stop the baiting. You're not fooling anyone.


    I have said I will support the nominee, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:43:50 AM EST
    whoever it is, as have many other Sanders supporters. However, I have not seen the same comment from Clinton supporters, except for you and one other. Since there has been a lot of sturm and drang to the effect that Sanders can never win against the Republican attack machine, I think my question is a fair one, because if Democrats won't vote for him, then that is what would contribute to his election loss.

    I don't need my own blog, but I'm certainly willing to bow out of this one. I think there's a lot of hypocrisy going on in the comments here, and it merits attention. Not to mention that a very new commenter has been allowed to blog clog like crazy.

    But consider me gone. It's not worth it if honest discussion is discouraged.  


    what new commenter (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 26, 2016 at 12:53:09 AM EST
    is blogclogging? I don't read all the comments, so I don't know what your cryptic comment means.

    I am not trying to drive you away, i just want you to stop baiting. You have become so fast and furious with the allegations, my concern is you are going to make people not want to comment for fear of being attacked. And that's unacceptable.

    The commenters here have not changed and become hypocritical. But you have become much more strident. You can stay or go, but please, if you stay, stop accusing people of various things because you disagree with their opinions.


    He is only entering if Sanders is the nominee (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    I think GOP hearts are not the only ones that would explode. You may want to keep a brain bucket next to your computer chair.

    States have rules to follow ... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    ... in order to qualify for the ballot. Bloomberg can't wait until late spring. He literally has 4-5 week window at best to make a decision and go for it -- and even then, it's an questionable proposition, given that (a) he has no national organization in place, and (b) the farther away one gets from the northeastern seaboard, the more unknown and irrelevant he becomes politically. These feelers are his ego talking, nothing more.

    Probably correct, just his ego talking. (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    I suspect if Clinton wins Iowa he'll drop it altogether. If not...then I guess Super Tuesday would not be too late for him to make a decision?

    *heads....though hearts may explode also (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    Michael Bloomberg, (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    is reported to be prepared to spend at least $1 Billion for his presidential campaign.  Bloomberg's net worth is listed at about $40 billion, give or take a few $ Billion.   His campaign would whittle his wealth down to maybe, $39 Billion.  

    With Trump and Bloomberg, Citizens United is becoming irrelevant.  No need to be a sugar daddy to someone like a Rubio, just run yourself.  Maybe, the Koch brothers will run next. David or Charles?   I remember the days when Romney was the rich guy with great wealth of about $250 million, those car elevators and all.  This is chump change, as are speaking fees and book deals.  


    He can spend as much as he wants. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    He still has to cobble together a national campaign organization on the fly, and then gather signatures in all 50 states to qualify for the ballot as an independent candidate.

    Pffft please (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    all I'm saying is that it's a tone deaf ad. Not that it's racist.

    Hey, if a cracker like me think it stinks, what are the folks in the hood going to say?

    I like Bernie a lot, but this was a sour note.

    I certainly don't think his overall (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    message ignores minorities. Far from it.

    I just think that ad, besides the touching music, was ill-advised.

    Which is what ends up happening when, for whatever reasons, American pols feel compelled to hire smart alleck yuppies who went straight from grad school to the Beltway (and I'm looking at you too, Hillary) to advise them and work on their political campaigns..

    I'm sure some markeing genius made the cynical calculation "well, THOSE people don't vote anyway"..

    Thanks for your response (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    which, to me, clarifies what you were expressing.

    It is evident to me that you did not infer from my initial reply that I was calling you a racist - as Howdy took it upon himself to assert.

    I believe that ad hominem attacks are against both the policy and spirit of this blog - and I wish Howdy would not rely on it so frequently to make his points.


    everyone needs to stop referring to (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    others as "racist." It's name calling, it's a personal attack and it's potentially libelous.
    Lentinel did not call anyone racist and Captain Howdy's comment otherwise was not called for. I've deleted most of that sub-thread.

    Jondee's comment started it all and he didn't call anyone racist.

    (If you wonder why there are no threads on TL devoted to the recent Oscars hubbub, it's because commenters  refuse to discuss race issues without sinking to name-calling and potentially libelous comments. I'm not willing to play comment police on this topic. Those of you who continually engage in this sort of name-calling in your comments (as to each other or politicians or actors or anyone else) are going to find yourselves in time-out.)


    Byzantine Catholic monks (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    Da beauty of da YooPee would make (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Towanda on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:46:27 PM EST
    anyone get religion.  Also get some lingonberry jam in Escanaba, at a great restaurant for Swedish pancakes.

    And da Yoopers are a hoot.

    On the way, stop at Sinsinawa in Wisconsin for bread for that jam.  The nones have been baking it for more than a century (and have been there for half a century before that, at least).  Their locale on the Sinsinawa mound also gives a great view of the gorgeous southwestern area, along the Mississippi.  Both are among my favorite drives -- along the dunes of upper Lake Mich or along the mighty Mississip on the Great River Road, where eagles fly.  (And for both, there are good online sites with maps with best stops to make.)


    With all the music discussion (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sj on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    My head went to jammin' for your "jam" reference. Now I want to visit the monastery.

    For some reason, this story called Findhorn to mind.


    There is nothing more enjoyable (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    than watching the ESPN "experts" and network folks have to eat their words.

    Go Broncos!

    Why thank you, jim.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 06:32:30 PM EST
    It was a long 2 minutes at the end; heck, it was a long 17 seconds at the very end.  

    But, it is fun to have a bit of celebration ... beginning with watching the post-game stadium fireworks from our place.  Lots of smiling people here for the next few days ... that has a special glow.


    I lived in Littleton for 17 years before retiremen (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 24, 2016 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    So thank you!

    We moved in '86 so I suffered through all the bad and all the good! I keep trying to adopt the Titans but I just can't do it.


    MI AG Press conference (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    "If you can't drink or bath in your water you should not have to pay for it"

    Such generosity.   I'm underwhelmed.