home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:31:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Supreme Court: No Right to an Ethical Lawyer | Mexican Court Overturns Caro-Quintero's Release >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 207 comments (207 topical)
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 179 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    "Big wallet, tiny dick" or "My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of bribery." (link)

    Volume 178
    Volume 177
    Volume 176
    Volume 175

    Happy middle of the week (I shall not say H**pday anymore). And here's a funny extra link, 26 corporate slogans that make more sens that the real ones.

    Another Dadler classic... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    and the honest corporate slogans are funny too.  

    I get these invitations from Linkedin all the time in my work email from customers and vendors and stuff...I just delete them.  Or get asked from time to time by colleagues "Why can't I find you on Facebook?"  Sh*t It's hard enough working with these people, never mind "networking"!  I'd need hazard pay for any of that.

    Parent

    Thank you, my man (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:49:43 PM EST
    Always appreciate the props, and those brand slogans really cracked me up, or most of them anyway. And no kidding about the social networking. I get contacted by old high school acquaintances, not friends, just people I sort of knew, and damn if I don't want to say, in the most polite way, I haven't talked to your for a decade for a reason. But I'm too nice a guy. Dumbsh*t that I am. ;-)

    Parent
    This is no century (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    for nice guys...maybe we're just not cut out for the 21st century?  Dinosaurs before our time;)

    I came up with another one for Apple...but this being a filtered family blog I won't do it to our hostess, even with asterisks and intentional mispellings.

    The youtube one might be the best...that ain't no comment section that got there, it's a comment sewer!

     

    Parent

    Dude, the WA state legislature is ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    ... poised to tackle the issue of "random sobriety checkpoints."

    I think you should post a comment on Facebook and LinkedIn with a hyperlink to this article, denouncing these repeated attempts by local authorities to crack down on those who are randomly sober.

    That ought to give them all something to talk about.

    ;-D

    Parent

    It never ceases to amaze... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    how searches and seizures so patently in violation of the 4th are allowed to stand.

    First they came for the sober, and I said nothing because I am never sober....

    Parent

    First (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Sweet Sue on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    Genuine laugh of the day, thanks.

    Parent
    Then I've done my job... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:38:16 PM EST
    for the day...My Pleasure!

    Parent
    Look at the date of your post, kdog. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    You actually said that yesterday! Now, what have you done for us lately?

    ;-D

    Parent

    And BTW, if you didn't see it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    Check out the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary "Bernie and Ernie," about Bernard King and Ernie Grunfeld. A great story I hadn't known before. (link)

    Parent
    Thanks for the heads up... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    Bernard was a little before my time, at least pre-ACL tear Bernard was, but my older bro says he was the best pure scorer he ever saw.  The synopsis sounds interesting...30 for 30 does great sh*t.

    Parent
    It was solid (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:35:18 PM EST
    Almost all the 30for30's have been awesome.

    Parent
    Bernard was insane with the ball (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:22:47 AM EST
    Filled it up like a madman. Without a three point line of shot clock in college, he and Grunfeld put up 50 points a game on average between the two of them. And in the NBA, Bernard's true scoring ability blossomed. Crazy to think NY city players had to go to the SEC, Big 10, of the ACC (when it wasn't close to being the conference it is now).

    Parent
    I Saw That last Night... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    ...but went with the 30for30 short on Pete Rose.  Sad, but I will check out the B&E tonight.

    Rose could have smoked, and been hooked on, crack and not have been so ostracized from MLB.  the got their pound of flesh and many more.

    Parent

    And for very good reason. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    It's too bad for Pete Rose that his vice wasn't snorting cocaine or procuring prostitutes, but gambling. He not only bet on baseball games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, he bet on games involving his own team. And then, he lied about it to both investigators and the late baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti, when he was being questioned about his activities.

    As an institution, Major League Baseball has a very long memory. And unfortunately for Rose, that institution remembers how the infamous Black Sox scandal of 1919-21 almost fatally compromised the game's integrity, and in the process nearly destroyed the sport of professional baseball itself. And if you're a baseball player or manager with significant links to organized gambling, woe be unto you should baseball's powers-that-be find out about it.

    It's too bad, really, because Pete Rose's career as a ballplayer speaks for itself, and his accomplishments on the field would have otherwise made him a virtual lock for the Hall of Fame. But Rose got mixed up with some very seedy elements who could've caused grave harm to major league baseball, were evidence to ever be made public that he compromised his team's chances during games for the sake of himself or someone else winning a few bets.

    Thus, like the late "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, who admitted under oath to accepting a $5,000 bribe to help his Chicago teammates throw the 1919 World Series, Rose is now persona non grata, and deservedly so.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Are You Seriously... (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    ...equating one betting on themselves/team to win to taking a bribe to throw a game ?

    Comparing Rose to Shoeless Joe is like equating Obama to Hitler IMO, way over the top.  

    If pro sports actually cared, I would imagine that ever single person who regularly bets who is involved in pro-sports has at one time or another bet on themselves, or their team to win, including owners.  

    I doubt many have taken money to throw a game.

    Parent

    Yes, as matter of fact, I'm doing exactly that. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:43:20 PM EST
    Scott: "Are You Seriously equating one betting on themselves/team to win to taking a bribe to throw a game?"

    What Pete Rose in betting on Cincinnati Reds games while serving as that club's manager was indeed equitable with "Shoeless" Joe Jackson's admission under oath that he accepted a $5,000 bribe to help throw the 1919 World Series.

    (In fact, Jackson not only admitted to the authorities while under oath that he took the money, he further claimed that he had actually been promised $15,000 -- and then proceeded to accuse a White Sox teammate of absconding with the $10,000 balance which was due him! While he was a truly great player, he was also not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier.)

    It's long past any point of reasonable debate that Rose was betting on games involving his own team. He's since publicly admitted to such, as part of a promotional tour for a book, and said that he was betting on his games every night, averaging about $10,000 a pop. As noted baseball reporter and writer Hal McCoy wrote:

    "The major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game."

    Rose's wagering on Reds games constituted a very serious breach of Major League Baseball's established protocols regarding gambling, which date back to that 1919 Black Sox scandal which ultimately cost Shoeless Joe and seven of his teammates their careers. From a legal standpoint, Rose was liable and thus subject to banishment for his failure to disclose a conflict of interest which, as Hal McCoy said, potentially compromised both his judgment as a manager and the game's integrity.

    But from the standpoint of public perception, even the mere appearance of such a conflict can prove just as damaging as the real thing. Whether or not Rose actually made decisions as the Reds manager to swing a particular game one way or another is completely beside the point.

    Rose compounded his problems by repeatedly refusing to be forthcoming when confronted specifically about his gambling activities by outgoing MLB commissioner Peter Ueberroth and incoming commission A. Bart Giamatti, and by further misleading their investigators.

    That Pete Rose was one of baseball's greatest players ever on the field is not in dispute here, most certainly not by me as a former player myself on the college level. But in discussions about the Pete Rose case over the nearly quarter century since his 1989 banishment from baseball, I've noticed that a lot of people have shown a remarkable tendency for selective memory about the man and his personal history. It's almost as though they believe that his accomplishments on the field fully mitigate whatever damage he did to the game while off of it.

    But the May 1989 report submitted to Commissioner Giamatti by Special Counsel John Dowd, Esq., accompanied by seven volumes of exhibits, evidence, interviews, attachments and notes, clearly says otherwise, and outlines Rose's transgressions against baseball in stark and meticulous detail. And as MLB's Rule 21 explicitly states:

    "(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

    "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." (Emphasis is mine.)

    And in that regard, it should be further noted that when given the opportunity to respond to the Dowd Report, Rose: (1) did not take issue with any of the report's findings and conclusions, and (2) agreed to accept Commissioner Giamatti's judgment and decision to ban him from baseball for the duration of his natural lifetime.

    Sorry, but Pete Rose got exactly what he deserved. I rest my case.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sorry... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    ...didn't realize you were the such an MLB law and order guy.

    I will never consider throwing a game in the same park as betting on oneself or ones team.

    Where do you stand on steroids in MLB, those guys worthy of the Hall of Fame, is that better or worse than betting on yourself ?

    Pretty sure there is a regulation or two in there about performance enhancing drugs, should all those guys be cast out with Rose ?

    Parent

    Given that steroid use was only ruled illegal ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    ... within the last decade, I'm inclined to let whatever home run records that were set by Barry Bonds, et al., stand. But then, I also think that everyone should also know exactly how and why Roger Maris' home run record came to get obliterated in the first place.

    I mean, if Major League Baseball could somehow see it fit to have placed an asterisk behind Maris's name in its record books for 37 years because his 61 homers came during a 162-game season rather than 154, then surely it can do the same for Barry Bonds, if only so our children and grandchildren might thereby be prompted to inquire about the meaning of that asterisk.

    As far as Alex Rodriguez's lengthy suspension from baseball is concerned, as well as the suspension of the dozen others implicated in this latest scandal, I believe that all of those penalties should similarly stand, since we are talking about infractions which occurred well after MLB adopted its policies on the use of PEDs.

    And that's the primary difference between the two. Bonds, Mark McGuire, Jose Canseco, etc. were all using PEDs during a period of time when MLB and the players' union were not only looking the other way, but were actually going out of their way to impede any attempt to implement a policy on their use. It was only under the looming threat of federal action that they acquiesced and adopted rules thereof.

    OTOH, A-Rod, et al., knew that what they were doing was now against the rules (if not the law itself), and they went ahead and did it anyway. If you choose to break the rules and instead prefer to take your chances, then be prepared to man up and suffer the consequences should you get busted.

    I have to admit, I am rather anal-retentive when it comes to laws, rules and due process. That's the legacy of my years working in the legislature and on Capitol Hill. But then, I'm also inclined to recall the late Jane Addams's astute observation that the essence of immorality is rooted in our own tendencies to make exceptions of ourselves, if not for others, too.

    If you're going to provide for an exception to a given law or rule, then that exception should be stated clearly and upfront at the very beginning. If circumstances require you to revisit and possibly amend that law or rule, then there is an established process by which one can accomplish that.

    But one doesn't just openly flout established laws and rules, simply because one finds it personally convenient on one's own part to do so. That's hardly standing upon principle; rather, that's succumbing to the expediency of the immediate moment.

    And should one's action in that regard be allowed to subsequently stand, then a dubious legal precedent has been set, and there's really little or nothing to prevent anyone else from later claiming that same self-serving privilege for themselves.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Rose seems to have made a deep commitment (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:25:41 AM EST
    at some point to being an azole and a slob..

    I saw a youtube video in which he was guffawing about how he should've spat on Ray Fosse..

    As far as the gambling goes, Cobb and Tris Speaker both were investigated for that, and Hack Wilson, "a highball hitter on the field and off", supposedly used to party with Capone's henchmen, which may or may not have included the subject of placing a gentleman's wager or two.

    But, I could care less if Pete the slob ever gets in the Hall. That honor should have a LITTLE something to do with carrying oneself with at least modicum of grace and dignity, imo.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    ...the hall of Fame is suppose to be for on field play, not their personal lives.  Using your rational Ruth shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.  I disagree, folks like Rose have a far more deserved place than say Doug Harvey the umpire or Jacob Ruppert an executive for the Yankees who died in 30's but was put in the HoF this year.

    The real question is will the rather large group of outstanding players who are known steroid users get in, like the Rocket, Mcgwire, and Bonds ?  Seems odd to me to allow their records to stand without allowing them in the Hall.


    Parent

    I didn't say he shouldn't be (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    I just don't care that he isn't.

    And what was the worst thing Ruth did? Smoke and drink and throw rocks at cops when he was ten years old? Whore around and eat too many hotdogs? ;-)

    If Rose is going to have zero class, the least he could do is keep his trap shut. But that's just me..

    Parent

    In that regard, Halls of Fame memberships are ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    Scott: "The real question is will the rather large group of outstanding players who are known steroid users get in, like the Rocket, Mcgwire, and Bonds ?  Seems odd to me to allow their records to stand without allowing them in the Hall."

    ... entirely subjective, regardless of activity or sport -- as are their voters' various rationales for inclusion and / or exclusion of various players, officials and personalities from consideration.

    That said, we should also remember that opinions and viewpoints about certain matters can indeed change quite profoundly over the course of time. While Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, et al., may well be kept out of Cooperstown for the foreseeable immediate future because the controversy is still fresh at the present moment, there's really nothing in the rules which would prevent some future generation of voters from revisiting the subject and reconsidering prior decisions made by their predecessors.

    Pete Rose and "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, though, present another matter entirely. Until the MLB Commissioner, whomever he or she may be, formally rescinds the respectively banishments of each man from baseball, neither is eligible for admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I Have Been Going Round & Round... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:28:07 PM EST
    ...with the aholes at Linked in.  I have never had a page, ditto for Facebook or any other social media.  But Google my name, and there it is my work address at Linked-in.

    I have contacted them 3 times to ask them to remove my information, they won't because they claim I don't have an account, WTF ?  I don't think it's safe for anyone in a big city to have that kind of information Google-able.  My work address is almost worse than my home address in that I am there at the same time every day and there is no front door, anyone can walk right into my office.

    Our door/elevator security is only functional after 5pm.

    I hate that I have no control over that kind of personal information, no legal recourse.

    Parent

    I'm no lawyer (duh!)... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    but I always wondered if it would be possible to copyright your personal information somehow, and sue for copyright infringement everytime some coporation plasters it on the internet or sells it for profit.  If you can copyright a song or a slogan, why not your personal info?

    Even if the lawsuits went nowhere, the legal fees might deter the google's and linkedin's of the world and get them to respect privacy.  But I assume it's another pipedream and you can't copyright your identity.  Is there a real copyright lawyer in the house who could explain why not in laymen's terms?  Is this an option we sign away when we don't read the infamous fine print?

    Parent

    Those (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:57:24 PM EST
    invitations are maddening.

    Facebook.
    Linkedin.
    and now,
    mf'n Twitter.

    I'm not even sure what those things are...
    except that Facebook gives me the willies.

    Parent

    Boone, NC Election (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    One of those humorous backfires. The Republican quest to cut back on Dem voters in Boone had them move both an early voting site and an election day site away from the campus at Appalachian State University.

    The result...A Dem is elected Mayor and all three open City Council seats were won by Dems...two of them by local college professors.

    I'm on the other end of the state... (none / 0) (#38)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:15:20 PM EST
    ...and smiling at that news.

    Parent
    GA6thDem (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    From the other thread.

    Romney's campaign has even started letting the oppo research on Christie out of the bag.

    Yes, exactly.  Any thoughts as to why this was released now?  Before an election Christie was sure to win?  Was it to harm him in the election? Otherwise it served no purpose.

    Or was it to release it now, have the press question it, and by the time 2016 rolls around, it will be so far removed in time and space that it won't matter.  If it was TRULY bad stuff, someone would have gotten this out long before now.

    This is ALL in preparation for Christie to run.  Air the dirty laundry now and move on.  The fact that you keep hoping that it's really bad stuff that will derail him, doesn't mean it will happen.

    It is because they want to head off (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:11:54 PM EST
    him even thinking of running and do you really think that the voters of New Jersey don't know about his problems already?

    Apparently Romney also blames Christie for his presidential loss.

    Parent

    None of this (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:15:46 PM EST
    is Christie's main problem. Like I have said 100x times already his problem is that the people that vote in GOP primaries hate him. Yes, they hated Romney too but as you see all over the country they are not going to be told what to do anymore.

    Why do you want him to be the GOP nominee and the President so desperately? Once he gets in office he will be pandering to the tea party left and right unless you think having a tea party president would be a good thing?

    Parent

    I'm not sure why (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:20:56 AM EST
    You think me analyzing the situation makes me "want him to be the GOP nominee".  Because actually, IF Hillary Clinton gets in the race, Christie might be the only Republican out there who could beat her, so why would I want that? If there is another Democratic nominee, Christie DEFINITELY has a good chance of winning.

    However, I will say, I think it would be a much smarter campaign where real issues and policy differences could be discussed, unlike say, if Ted Cruz was the nominee and then we'd just hear crazy batsh!t stuff.

    I just think we heard all this hysteria before 2012 - especially on this blog -  "Romney will NEVER be the nominee!  The tea party will never allow it!"  All those people were wrong.

    I know why you are so eager to promote the meme that "the tea party will never allow it", but I think the Republican hierarchy is going to get a little better rein on their party, starting with money.  These tea party members of Congress SAY they don't care about winning, but do you really believe that?  It doesn't do them or their backers any good if they aren't in a position to work legislation and have a bully pulpit. And let's face it - once most people get a taste of the trappings and the power, they like it.  It's kind of hard to go back to your district after being a one or two term Congress critter. All the Republican Party has to do is cut off their funding.

    I stand by my statement - if the "dirty laundry" was so bad (and Romney actually blames Christie for his loss), this information would have been leaked way before now to try and derail his gubernatorial campaign.  If his 2013 campaign gets derailed because the stuff is so bad, he's done as a presidential contender for 2016.  The fact that it was released when it was tells me it will be old news by 2016, if it's even going to register as more than a blip on the radar. Yawn.  

    Parent

    Chris Christie...sigh. Or maybe...urp. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:33:34 AM EST
    I think there're several things at work here.

    One:  to no one's surprise, the media has a bit of a crush on Christie, and I don't think that can be completely ignored in this equation.

    Two: that being said, I'm not sure the east-coast, media-elite thing sells the same in all parts of the country; that Chris Matthews feels the need to bromanticize everything Christie does may be less effective with people who just plain don't like people from the east coast, no matter what party they're with.

    Three: I think the Tea Party will continue to be a thorn in the side of any mainstream Republican, doing what they have to even if it hurts the GOP's overall chances; it will matter more to them that he won't adopt the full-on TP agenda than that he can draw right-of-center Democratic votes.

    Four: here we go again with the inevitability of Hillary Clinton.  I get that there is interest in her running, but I  would just really, REALLY like not to have every single potential GOP candidate's chances measured against her.  Okay, so she may decide to run, in which case it would matter, but right now?  I'd rather see Dems picking apart the potential GOP field, which would have the additional effect of selling the Democratic agenda NOW.  

    Five:  the dirty laundry?  I tend to look at it as a warning shot across Christie's bow, a message that there's more where that came from, so how badly does he want to be president?  Enough to fall in line with the Tea Party?

    Finally, Chris Christie.  I think people mistake boorish and bullying for "straight-talking" at their own peril.  


    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    I think Chris Christie would play much better in the middle of the country with a great many people than he would in the New Englands of the world.  He's pretty plain spoken, and whether you agree with him or not, people like that - as opposed to being talked down to.

    What you call boorish (which, sometimes he is), other people would say he really cuts through the bullsh!t. He doesn't appear to feel the need for constant validation (unlike, say, the current occupant of the WH).

    And again - all this speculating of whether he can withstand the Tea Party! (TM) is silly as three years is a long way off.

    Parent

    Well, I guess we'll have to see how (none / 0) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    the TP fares in the mid-terms, and maybe that will tell us where all of this is headed.

    I'm just dreading it, I really am.

    And I'm annoyed with myself for falling into the trap of "not liking" Christie's personality, at the same time as I wonder whether people consider the consequences associated with people who don't give a sh!t what anyone else thinks of them.  Does power added to that equation add up to someone who doesn't listen to people who actually do know more than he does?

    The choices are just so abysmal, and show no signs of getting better anytime soon; hard to work up much excitement for the potential candidates beginning to be talked about, and even harder to contemplate three years of "campaigning" without triggering my gag reflex.

    Blech.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    We have a president who very much wants to be liked and adored, and yet he doesn't seem to want to listen to people who don't agree with him and do know more than he does.

    Is that working?  In some areas, sure, it's been ok.  In others (cough, Obamacare, cough), it's pretty much been cluster.

    Parent

    You seem to be making (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    a marshaled argument for Christie.  Early on, one can see the potential across-party-lines early appeal of a "moderate" Repub, but the pushback from his own party will start soon, imo.  (One thing to which Anne alludes:  The brashness may have an allure back East, but it doesn't sell well out West.  A fine line between a portrayal of independence and big backyard bully.)

    Two questions for you jbindc:  (1) In an earlier reply to Ga6th, you hinted at Hillary Clinton being your option if she were in ... do you regard yourself as a supporter of Hillary for President.  I recognize that the ultimate decision is hypothetical and that it is somewhat premature; but, since her strong supporters are not being shy about saying so, the question is relevant to one's analysis.  For example: I have always been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton ... and, should she choose to run, I'll be there campaign ready.  (2) What is your reaction to Jeb Bush?  Recognizing the "dynastic" problem he might inherit, a Clinton candidacy would confront the same ... and, so, that possible negative might be a wash.  Comments among some in Colorado--on a very anecdotal and very limited level--suggest an openness to his potential candidacy.

    Parent

    Christie's temperment (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    Will play better in more places way more than you think.  People perceive him as a straight shooter (whether you think so or not), and considering that over the last 20 years, our politicians have been reduced to beating around the bush, using talking points, prevaricating, and outright lying and then backtracking, I think many people all over the country would prefer his style over someone who seems like they are lecturing us and treats us as if we are stupid.

    I've always been a Hillary supporter.  I think she was by far the superior candidate in 2008 in policy, in intellect, in experience and in connecting with people and understanding the issues, and I was ticked beyond belief when it was the Democratic Party poobahs (and many Obama supporters) who did what they did to try and get Teh Chosen one in, proving to me that they are just as scummy as the Republicans.

    But I am not one of those who clung on and kept lamenting that "Well, if Hillary was president...." (I admit to engaging in hypotheticals now and then, but not a constant drumbeat). Obama is president and that's who we're stuck with, good or bad.

    Jeb Bush?  I don't think people care as much about the "dynasty" problem as you do.  I think that is a topic for fun parlor games and op-ed writers and bloggers to speculate about, but when it comes down to it, if the voters think a Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush bring the most to the table and would be the best president, then they will vote for them.

    Parent

    No, it won't (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:01:25 PM EST
    Be honest. His persona plays very well in Jersey just like Giuliani's played in NYC. And that's fine. But it's not going to play well in the rest of the country. McCain was billed as a "straight shooter" and he was able to pull it off waaaayyy better than Christie ever will. McCain does not have that gruff barking edge that Christie does. Maybe it plays WELL to you but you have to look past yourself into these things.

    Chris Christie as the nominee for the GOP would put GA in play for the Dems. Do you really think the GOP is going to throw away a dependable red state in the EC for a candidate that won't even carry his home state? I think they're done with candidates who won't even carry their home state.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    I think, depending on the Dem nominee, he would play well in the Midwest and the West, maybe the Southwest. Lots of blue collar workers (with what jobs are still there) to whom he has great appeal. If his opponent is someone like Barack Obama, someone who is dismissive of blue color and non-elite or non-creative class people, Christie would crush him/her, even in the South.

    Parent
    GA in play for the Dems?? (none / 0) (#192)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    Because of Christie?

    HA HA HA HA!

    Parent

    Right from the start the people (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    here at TL have known Obama more intimately than he knows himself; as if his private dream journal secretly circulated amongst them..

    Id like to hear jb's in-depth psychological profile of that late knight in shining armor from Baine Capital, but that wasn't going to happen then and it's never gonna happen now..

    Obama's basically a fairly shallow, opportunist-careerist - like that ever-smiling, cynical, Mrs Clinton-Carlyle-Goldman-Sachs, who we're all supposed to so excited about - but it's a giant roach motel in D.C that attracts that personality type almost exclusively seemingly.

    And anyone who can get enthused in any way about Christie is, imo, leading a very imaginatively dessicated life.  

       

    Parent

    It would be easier (none / 0) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    To give you my in-depth psychological profile of you.

    But I'm trying to be extra nice today.

    Parent

    Oh my, they are starting already (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:53:38 AM EST
    GOP weighs limiting clout of right wing

    First step - moving back to the primary system for choosing nominees, instead of the convention system.

    Parent

    That is (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:11:58 AM EST
    why they are having a civil war right now. They can try but the voters are not amenable to going along.

    Parent
    And they are getting plenty of tea party (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    Candidates out of primary states too, so how can that be the problem?  If they want the extremism to end they have fire the low information disinformation agency known as Fox News and be shed of Limbaugh and all his copy cats.

    They have been breeding crazy for how many years now?  At the apex of that success they want to somehow easily be rid of all these crazy people raised almost from the cradle at this point?  Good luck with that.

    Parent

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    what a former GOP friend of mine who actually ran for office said. He said that unless the GOP figures out a way to get rid of the Limbaughs and the rest of the talk radio crowd that they are going to continue to have extremism. This is why I think getting rid of their extremists is going to be very difficult. I certainly do not see a move within the GOP to get Limbaugh off the radio but maybe they were hoping that liberals could do their dirty work for them on that account.

    Parent
    It's the day after Election Day (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    Voters are tuned out.

    Parent
    Not (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:32:29 AM EST
    the tea party ones but maybe all the other voters. The tea party is going to see this kind of stuff as a stab in the back.

    Parent
    You're (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:10:13 AM EST
    not really analyzing the situation. You're repeating the blather from the same people who thought Obama was awesome back in 2008. These people don't actually ever speak to any voters it seems.

    Christie would not even carry his own state against Hillary now and probably not even three years from now.

    Christie is not going to win the primary. Cruz is already taking pot shots at him and expect it get worse. The tea party controls the GOP right now. I mean you even saw that in the debt ceiling. 75% of the GOP is now controlled by either evangelicals or tea partiers. The moderates are only 25% of the party and they have no say in who gets nominated anymore.

    In THEORY what you are saying COULD happen but if you look at REALITY it WILL NOT happen. They cannot rein in the tea party because money does not matter. Remember Sanford in SC? The GOP pulled his money and he still won. Then you have millionaires who actually fund these crack pots and you have Jim Demint who funds the crackpots. So reality does not back up your theories on what is going on in the GOP.

    Why would the GOP want to derail his gubernatorial  campaign? They are fine with him being governor of NJ. They just don't want him to the be the nominee because they see him as another RINO destined to lose much like Romney and McCain.

    Parent

    Hope you are right (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:56:56 AM EST
    It would be nice to see Hillary really run up the score.

    Maybe Christie is like Giuliani.  But he looks more like McCain and Romney.

    Who is Chrisitie's competition for the nomination?  Rachel Maddow just exposed Rand Paul's utter inability to deal with pressure.  Cruz is too nutty.   Jeb Bush?  Too staid for the Republicans and no sizzle.

    Christie is solidly pro-life, and as a perceived tough guy, the Republicans would probably think him just the person to take the fight to Hillary.

    Just going by history, Christie will be the nominee.  But maybe you are right and the Republicans are too impatient and have totally jumped the shark.

    I think the acid test is how close is Christie to beating Hillary.  If he cannot poll closer than 5 points to Hillary, the Republicans might just throw caution to the wind since he can't win anyway, and nominate a total loon.    

    Parent

    Christie (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    is a combination of McCain, Romney and Giuliani. He has the same corruption problems that imploded Giuliani's campaign minus the mistress. The people that vote in the primaries see him as another McCain and Romney destined to lose.

    Cruz is too nutty for the general electorate yes but the GOP base LOVES this guy.

    I told all the people back in 2008 and 2012 that said the GOP wouldn't nominate McCain and Romney that they were wrong. At that time I said that Romney and McCain will be the nominee. I have seen it time and again that the elders in the GOP come out and say vote for candidate X and the voters come out baa baa baa and vote for the anointed candidate. However, things are VERY different now.

    Actually your last paragraph is the big selling point against Christie. They are saying if he can't even flip NJ against Hillary what is the point in nominating him? And frankly they do have a point. So the GOP elders may have no say in who's nominated but may end up winning and getting rid of the tea party in the long run if they let a loon like Cruz be the nominee.

    Another thing the GOP sees the demographics and everything else being against them so they don't think any of their candidates are going to win in 2016. So they think they might as well nominate someone like Cruz who they like instead of someone like Christie who they don't like. Long story short: they would rather lose with Cruz than lose with Christie.

    Parent

    Jeb Bush! (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    Sometimes being the "front-runner" this early can be a curse.  And, I think that Ga6th makes good points ... particularly about the intensity of anger against Christie in his own party.  

    As luck would have it, in a recent casual conversation with a few Repubs that live in my neighborhood, I ribbed them about the Repub Civil War and asked their opinion about potential candidates (the three are longtime party activists, with one--hold your nose--being invited as a history professor to give commentary on the local Fox affiliate in the 2012 election.)  Fascinating response:  They danced around Cruz, split on J.Bush, seemed to be casting about, and practically spit when I suggested maybe Christie ... they saw him as a betrayer who should run as a Democrat.  Well, I guess that they can change their minds.  But, in this atmosphere, I'm wondering if Paul Ryan would attempt to remake and sell himself as a jumbled conservo-moderato?

    Parent

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    EXACTLY the same thing Republicans down here in GA say about Christie. They literally HATE the guy and say he should be running in the democratic primary instead of the GOP primary. He's the Joe Lieberman of the GOP. Jeb Bush doesn't even register with them. He's a nonentity and someone they are not interested in because it reminds them of George W. and the father H.W. who they swear is the one that caused them to start losing presidential elections back in 1992. They love Cruz down here in GA, love, love, love the guy. While most people see Cruz as a crackpot he speaks the same wacko-ese language the primary voters down here in GA do.

    Parent
    Yeah, Christie is a lot like Rudy ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    he plays very well in the tri-state media market.  And in very controlled national formats.  But he can't move much beyond that.

    If they can keep a hurricane going through the whole campaign, he might do okay.  Otherwise, it won't work.

    Combine that will his difficulties with Republican primary voters.  And his chance to get the nomination is almost nil.

    His failure, however, should tee things up nicely for Jeb Bush.

    Of course, a lot depends on where the Dems stand in '16.  And a lot of that depends on ACA.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:21:10 AM EST
    not really analyzing the situation. You're repeating the blather from the same people who thought Obama was awesome back in 2008. These people don't actually ever speak to any voters it seems.

    Seems like the voters in NJ spoke quite convincingly yesterday. Voters of ALL persuasions - not just Republicans.

    And a poll showing a Clinton-Christie matchup, taken days before a gubernatorial election, 3 years out from a presidential election is completely meaningless.  NJ voters were not focusing on Christie as president.

    Tea Party!  Tea Party!  Oooh!  

    Yeah, you mention Sanford, but how about the Tea Party candidate in Alabama who just lost?  Christine O'Donnell?  Sharon Angle?  Todd Akin?  Sarah Palin?  Tea Party candidates have been losing and will continue to lose.  They are not invincible. Their high was in 2010, and it's been downhill ever since. They also have three more years to completely show the crazy and fade back into the woodwork and let the adults into the space.

    The people with the most vested interest in keeping the Tea Party alive and in the news is the Democratic Party, because they know they would have a much harder time running against moderate Republicans. So yelling "Tea Party!" is a great smokescreen for PR purposes.  Maybe it will work, or maybe in three years' time people will look at them as the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

    Parent

    The thing (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:29:48 AM EST
    is that you don't understand is that the tea party does not care about winning. They only care about their "principles". They want candidates who agree with their principals. And those tea party losses did not keep the tea party from nominating more loons did it?

    The people who want to keep the tea party alive is the tea party itself. Speaking for myself only I would be glad for them to drop off the face of the earth tomorrow but I'm telling you they are not. The tea party is now 75% of the GOP. They have control. If the so called GOP "establishment" had control those candidates would never have been the ones chosen would they? I hate to tell you this but the tea party is not going to fade anytime soon.

    And heck that crackpot in Alabama came within a few points of knocking off that guy. That scared the dickens out of even MORE Republicans. This is what is keeping the tea party in control. With the exception of a few, the entire party reviles them for causing losses but fears their ability to get rid of so called establishment candidates and you have to admit they have been very successful at getting their candidates nominated haven't they?

    Parent

    I think you may be right about (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    the Tea Partiers more willing to lose with a loon than lose with Christie.

    The most desperate the right wingers become, the more dangerous.  The more they lose, the more crazy, the more insistent.  If Christie doesn't look like he can really beat Hillary, they will have a hard time swallowing another moderate.

    If the Tea Partiers were amenable to reason and logic, they wouldn't be Tea Partiers in the first place.

    Parent

    If the Tea Party keeps losing like they have been (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    They can have all the principles they want - and pout them on the street corner and on blogs.  Who cares?

    They can't do anything with those principles if they can't get elected to higher offices.

    And as for Mitt Romney blaming Christie for his loss, well, this certainly doesn't sound like he feels that way.

    Mitt Romney said on Sunday that Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey could be the Republican nominee for president in 2016 and could "save our party," comments that appeared to contradict reports that Mr. Romney's presidential campaign had been concerned about Mr. Christie's health.



    Parent
    Like I said (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:58:51 AM EST
    they don't care about winning. And the info coming out now about Christie contradicts the health concern claim.

    Yeah, that statement by Romney about how Christie can "save" the GOP will probably make the primary voters hate him even more than they do now.

    Parent

    Shrug (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    As predicted, it's starting.  That shows that this is who they fear the most.

    And here. (My emphasis)

    Since its ascendance as a political force, the Tea Party has drawn its power from exactly the tactics the establishment used on Tuesday. The far right has thrown most of its energies into Republican primaries; it has loudly refused to support candidates that didn't meet its standards; it has threatened to sit out elections featuring an "impure" nominee; and it has been perfectly willing to lose seats for the party if that was the price of getting its way. Whether knocking off respected incumbents like Dick Lugar and Bob Bennett or elevating untested candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party's M.O. has been to pour resources into draining, quixotic intraparty battles, even if they came at the expense of general-election victories. Many conservatives still argue that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election because he wasn't forcefully conservative enough, causing an unenthusiastic GOP base to stay home. Like the establishment Limbaugh describes, they're gratified by losing if it bolsters their theory.

    Until now, the establishment has mostly tried to reason with the Tea Party rather than play its game. Spooked by the right-wingers' passion and numbers, the country-clubbers have sought to placate the pitchfork-wielding mob with appeals to common purpose and calmly reasonable arguments for unity. When the Tea Partiers have won primaries, the establishmentarians have largely sucked it up and fallen in behind them, figuring even an out-there Republican is better than a Democrat.

    SNIP

    Conservatives love to claim that far-right candidates are actually more electable, but less than a month ago the New Jersey Tea Partier who once ran a primary race against Christie, Steve Lonegan, lost a low-turnout special election to Cory Booker. Not only can't Tea Partiers win elections on their own, Christie showed that establishment Republicans can win tough races without their help.

    Conservatives can complain all they want. But what's being done to them is only what they've done in the past. The Republican establishment has turned the Tea Partiers' tactics against them, and the establishment is winning.



    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    they wish they were winning. There is a civil war going on and yes, the establishment is fighting back against the tea party but it's not like the tea party is taking it laying down. Do you really think that any republican could win a general election without tea party votes or even a senate race without tea party votes or vice-versa? No, they have this codependent relationship and right now they are fighting for who is actually going to be making the decisions.

    I mean it's really just basic math.

    I live in tea party central here in GA in a +29 GOP district heavily tea party. I can tell you that the establishment may think they are "winning" until the tea party sits home and doesn't vote for the "establishment" candidate.

    Parent

    The doctrine of preemption only works ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    ... if people start talking about the dirty laundry right now -- as opposed to, let's say, 30 months from now. Who's to say right now that while seeking to preempt, they didn't provide Democrats with a detailed road map to induce an opponent's pratfall?

    I think Chris Christie has an awful lot of baggage. His negative rates were actually pretty high for an incumbent governor seeking re-election, and it's to the New Jersey Democrats' discredit that they failed to offer a serious challenge in this race.

    Further, while some people may see Gov. Christie's propensity to berate and insult others in public as refreshing for a politician, I think more people will probably find that thin-skinned character trait to be unsettling and ultimately disqualifying, than not. He blows up and snarls at people one or two times on the campaign trail like that, when the national media's following his every move, and he'll be history.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And that is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    precisely why I think the GOP is dumping oppo research now. They want him to not even think of running for President. Though I really don't know why they are worried about him. He's really unlikely to get very far and they have much worse candidates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who the primary voters actually like.

    Parent
    Show me one politician (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:37:08 AM EST
    Who runs on a national level that doesn't have any baggage?

    His negative rates were actually pretty high for an incumbent governor seeking re-election..

    Yeah? Really?  And yet he still won 57% of the vote and won almost every category of demographics, including 57% of women and 50% of Latinos (and even garnered 21% of African Americans, UP 12 points from four years ago), all while getting (unofficially) around 70,000 more votes than he did last time in a landslide victory. The lowest approval ratings of his tenure were in 2011 at 44%, so I'm not sure what negative rates" you are talking about.

    I think that sounds like a lot of wishful thinking by Democrats because they know that at this point, Christie is the Republican Party's best shot at the WH.

    Three years is a lot of time and a lot can happen by then.  But don't pin your hopes on a Ted Cruz nomination.

    Parent

    Take your Christie crush somewhere else, jb. (1.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    I think the volatile Christie is both a bully and a blowhard. He won 57% of the vote because the Democrats for some unfathomable reason chose to not contest his re-election with anything more than a token effort at fielding opposition.

    Our former Gov. Linda Lingle skated by the same way out here in her 2006 re-election bid for the same reason. And like Christie, many voters and media types initially mistook her penchant for bluster and sleight of hand for actual accomplishment.

    Further, like Lingle, Christie has no political coattails in his own state. The New Jersey legislature remains firmly in Democratic hands, the majority party losing only two seats in the Assembly on Tuesday and none in the State Senate.

    Also, consider that the same night Christie was re-elected, New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved by an even bigger margin a ballot initiative which not only raised the minimum wage by one dollar, but also pegged future raises to the rate of inflation.

    Now, as governor, Christie vetoed the legislature's attempt to do the same earlier this year and then campaigned against the ballot measure, contemptuously dismissing it as "ridiculous" and "stupid." Nevertheless, over 60% of New Jerseyans approved it.

    You choose to see Christie as an Obama-hugging moderate. Well, what's the hell's so moderate about showing no empathy for the poor and misfortunate, hating abortion, consistently opposing GLBT civil rights, being hostile to teachers unions and a worker's right to organize in general, and consistently opposing all large public works and capital improvement projects (until, of course, a late-season hurricane does a number on your state and you're up for re-election)?

    Speaking for myself, I see Christie as a stock blustery cartoon character, yet another GOP "Daddy" who talks patronizingly to his own constituents, whenever he's not chewing them out and angrily wagging his finger in their faces. As Slate's John Dickerson recently characterized him, he's the establishment guy who's "a Republican bedtime story."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Project much?? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    You crack me up.

    Once again, you invent things that aren't there. How completely arrogant of you.  Not sure where I ever said this:

    You choose to see Christie as an Obama-hugging moderate.

    I have not said anything about his policies and stances, or how I feel about them. I HAVE, however, been discussing politics and strategy  The obvious nervousness around here and some places on the liberal blogosphere are very telling, though. Kinda like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs already. (Some liberal leaning news sites and blogs are actually not this crazy and are looking at what is as opposed what they would like it to be.)

    Funny how looking rationally at what could possibly happen is "having a crush" but being blindly loyal to a party (Nah, nah, I can't hear you) is the rational way? I get it - he isn't your cup of tea.  But that doesn't mean he won't play well to many more people who are obviously not as smart and elightened as you are.

    Sorry, I like to look at the WHOLE picture and not just project how people on one liberal blog, who are very much of similar minds, like to see the world.  And outside of this blog, and a few other liberal outlets right now, your hair on fire stance doesn't seem to have that much weight or evidence as to what millions of voters could be looking at in three years. (Another important point - THREE YEARS).

    But again, it certainly is ironic that you like to talk about people having "crushes" when you are ALWAYS the one with blind crushes on candidates and party.

    "There is none so blind, as he who will not see."

    Parent

    What are your views of Christie's policy (2.00 / 1) (#131)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    positions and his stated views?  While I understand that you have been writing an analysis of his positioning in his party, it is quite reasonable to ask what your own view is of Christie as well.  

    The reason that it is reasonable is twofold: First, we all can be and are influenced by our own predisposition toward a person/candidate and that influence necessarily affects our own analyses.  Second, the question is always there in these instances anyway ... not just by people like me but by readers in general ... when we read political analysis, it is quite normal & expected to search out the writer's political predisposition.

    Parent

    Since jb has already stated that (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:58:06 PM EST
    she's always been a Hillary supporter, it's probably fair, don't you think, to conclude that she likely does not agree with many of the positions he holds that are at odds with Clinton's?

    As many times as jb and I have clashed over the years, I can say that she does make me think; she makes me have to sort out my own thoughts and opinions and look beyond the end of my own nose.

    Now, I'm not an Obama supporter, as you know, but in not supporting him, in being critical of most of his policies, I don't think anyone has ever mistaken me for a Republican.  And yet, all jb has to do is bring up someone like Christie, who won his race with a large percentage of Democratic votes, and I can fairly see the hackles rising on the back of your neck.

    I pretty much fail to see how her or my or anyone's political preferences have anything to do with quantifiable information, but somehow, Christie's margin of victory and other demographic components of it are so threatening that you have to challenge jb on the meaning of her even bringing it into the discussion.

    I would have to say, after reading through the comments, I am more perturbed by this assumption that Hillary Clinton is going to be the candidate than I am by a discussion of the emerging possible candidates on the GOP side.  As much of a Hillary supporter as you are, I'd think you'd want to get as much conversation going about the strengths and weaknesses of her putative opposition, rather than burying you head in the sand, but, to each his own.

    I guess I just don't like the hissing noises that seem to accompany your not-so-subtle inquisition of jb's "motives."

    Parent

    I hear you, Anne, but (2.00 / 1) (#137)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    The question posed concerns views about the Republican Chris Christie.  The Hillary situation is the Hillary situation.

    We often write here about other commentators, some well-known & some not well-known.  We often also note and/or look for the commentators' political preferences/background, etc.  As I said, it really is a relevant and illuminating question.  You clearly have no problem stating openly your position; neither do I.  Continuing in an open vein, it is my impression--after reading many comments authored by jbindc--that the writing reflects someone who writes well, defends her positions strongly, and seems predisposed to those individuals known as moderate Repubs.  That is why I very directly raised the question--not to dishonor nor to judge harshly nor for any other purpose but to understand the context and starting point of the commentator now and in future.  

    Parent

    jb predisposed to those (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    individuals seen as moderate Republicans?

    Hmmm.....I've never viewed jbindc as a strong supporter of Obama. YMMV

    Parent

    If jb is predisposed to moderate (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    Republicans, that would make her much more approving of Obama's policies, don't you think?

    Now, in considering your wish to not consider how jb feels about Christie's positions in light of her support for Clinton, I can only marvel at the level of disingenuousness contained therein.

    If I tell you I voted for Jill Stein, do I really need to explain where I come down on the views of  Chris Christie or Paul Ryan?

    Maybe you should consider being as clear and open in the expression of your own views and motives as you seem to admire in others.

    Parent

    Christine, that is (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:37:07 PM EST
    not the impression that I have  gotten from jbindc at all.
    As I have said, I do not always agree with her, particularly when it comes to her much stronger "law and order" stance at various times than I agree with.
    Be that as it may, she has shown no propensity for being in favor of any Republicans, so-called "moderates" or otherwise. She has tried to discern why various Republicans may or may not be acceptable to the GOP as a whole, and what that may mean in future elections.
    She is a Democrat, but she is not willing to toe the entire Democratic line.
    But then, I am probably way, way farther from toeing the Democratic line than jb is.  As far as I am concerned, I do not discern a whole lot of difference between Obama, Hillary Clinton, or most of what may have been considered at one time "moderate" Republicans  (if there are any left, which seems very doubtful).
    As I have said before,  "I haven't left the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party left me."

    Parent
    I read through the comments to my comment (2.00 / 1) (#191)
    by christinep on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    Well, Zorba, what can I say ... except, after considering responses wondering why I might appear to question anyone's position, etc., there is still no answer to the question posed to jbindc.  

    My question to jbindc was and is: What are your views about the policy positions & views expressed by Governor Chris Christie?

    Of course, no one needs to answer or respond to anything.  Support or non-support isn't the all-consuming issue; and, it is fine that a group of individuals often associated with being supportive of each other -- sj, Zorba, Anne -- are supportive here.  But, from the standpoint of wanting to know motivation in terms of the seemingly strong push for Christie from jbindc ... a legitimate question.  Many here, after all, ascribe motivation or suspected (or stated) positions in any number of comments.  How we view candidates surely has a lot to do with our predisposition, no matter the protest.

    If one wants to not answer or avoid responding about one's views on Christie or anyone else, that is fine.  But, then, we cannot escape the very different tact and direct viewpoints given about any number of others.

    There has been a lot of justification or offense-defense played here about the question of one's views as to Christie's policies ... one thing there hasn't been: A direct response.  (No matter our friendships and likes-dislikes, we all know that.)


    Parent

    christine, when you start from a premise (4.50 / 6) (#203)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:11:38 PM EST
    that is erroneous, everything that follows is pretty much crap.

    Not only has jb not made a "seemingly strong push" for Christie, she hasn't made any push at all.  To assess the landscape is not to "push," and yet that is the accusation you've made, and now you're getting a little dog-with-a-bone about the fact that she hasn't answered your disingenuous and frankly stupid question.

    Perhaps the inanity of your tactic would be better demonstrated if I characterized your comments about Jeb Bush as a seemingly strong push for him, and I refused to see your support for Clinton as evidence that you do not share Jeb Bush's views.

    But perhaps not; it's so hard to see when your eyes are wide shut.

    Parent

    To paraphrase (4.00 / 3) (#199)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    Mona Lisa Vito, maybe it's because it's a bullsh!t question.
    What are your views about the policy positions & views expressed by Governor Chris Christie?
    Were I she, I would have answered that question honestly had you never started your Republican accusations. Once you did that, your question could never have been seen as made in good faith. Not possible.

    After all you have read here -- if indeed you actually read it, and if indeed you comprehended it -- the fact that you are sanctimoniously re-posing the question limns how puerile it was to begin with.

    As for this bit of nonsense:

    it is fine that a group of individuals often associated with being supportive of each other -- sj, Zorba, Anne -- are supportive here.
    What are you, still in High School? Do you seriously go looking for cliques? Oh Lordy.*

    And hey, jb? Did you know we're supportive of each other? And all this time I thought we were both calling it like we see it.
    -------------
    * wait never mind. I see why you do it. I went looking for cliques myself and I found you having lunch with Politalkix and MKS with MT (the cr@zy version) occasionally sitting at your table.

    It was almost kind of fun looking for that. Except for the dross I had to read.

    Parent

    jb writes a lot of analyses (4.00 / 3) (#148)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    that don't present any personal position at all. It's analysis, not adovocacy. And if, as you say, you have read and actually processed "many comments authored by jbindc", her admiration and support for HRC would be crystal clear.

    jb and I disagree about lots of things, but I don't make the mistake of assuming that her analysis is anything but exactly that: an analysis of the playing field. Presented as a commentator not as a coach or other advocate. It isn't very hard to see that at all.

    You and Donald both take the tack that analysis of the playing field -- particularly the opposition -- implies support of the opposition. If all you want to hear is cheering for your Home Team, you could be happy with voters who are Democrats the same way that I am a Bronco "fan". That is to say, it's easier to get along in my environment when I don't actively voice my utter disinterest in the game.

    Carrying that analogy forward, that kind of Democrat is no more motivated to go the polls than I am to actually watch a football game.

    Carrying the sports analogy even further: when Donald talks sports -- analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition is de rigueur. Apparently it's only prohibited when discussing politics.

    Oddly -- and counter productively -- your and Donald's unwarranted accusations put her in the position of defending her analysis; which in turn appears to put her in the awkward position of defending something she personally does not believe in.

    In any case, if you paid as close attention to individual "commentators" as you wish to imply, her long history of Democratic ideals* would be obvious.

    -----
    * with the notable exception (in my mind) of having an overly pro-law enforcement bias.

    Parent

    Disturbed by talk of a Hillary (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    candidacy?

    When people like Schumer are publicly endorsing her?

    It is just fine to talk about Christie running but not Hillary when by all accounts Hillary is far more likely to be the nominee of her party than Christie of his?

    jb's constant idea that she is bringing reality to those who are deluded is more than "arrogant" (her word for Donald) and more to do with her own bias (as noted by Christine) than "objective" reality.

    Parent

    Huh (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    When people like Schumer are publicly endorsing her?

    I could see "where people like Schumer' endorsements might warm the hearts of hedge fund managers on Wall St. but I fail to see why it would be considered a deciding factor for people who are tired of a government by the corporations and for the corporations.

    Parent

    Is this a parody... (4.00 / 3) (#162)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    Disturbed by talk of a Hillary (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:07:16 PM MDT

    candidacy?

    When people like Schumer are publicly endorsing her?

     It is just fine to talk about Christie running but not Hillary when by all accounts Hillary is far more likely to be the nominee of her party than Christie of his?

    jb's constant idea that she is bringing reality to those who are deluded is more than "arrogant" (her word for Donald) and more to do with her own bias (as noted by Christine) than "objective" reality.

    ... of christine and Donald?

    Parent

    I would agree with this... (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:27:23 PM EST
    after reading through the comments, I am more perturbed by this assumption that Hillary Clinton is going to be the candidate than I am by a discussion of the emerging possible candidates on the GOP side.
    ...if I were still a Dem. HRC has many, many fine qualities, but really? Three years out the Party is already granting her a laurel wreath?

    Nothing like locking the Party members into a single track of inevitability whether they want to be there or not.

    I'm sure that Party leaders would like that, though. No pesky input from the hoi polloi required.

    Parent

    Perturbed by assuming (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    Hillary being the nominee:

    The thing about Hillary, and why she is a dominating influence, is that we already have a pretty good idea what she is about.  Not a lot of due diligence required, not a lot of surprises.....

    I guess we could wait until she puts out a white paper as updates on her positions...but rather than rely on what she may say, just look at what she has done...I am comfortable with that.

    A token issue candidacy from the Left may still occur, and could be good for her.  She will need a sparring partner before debates with Christie....or maybe even Cruz?

    Parent

    What? I'm not getting that at all from (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:19:29 PM EST
    what jb's been posting; I see her looking at what the media's saying, what the demographics and party breakdown look like from Tuesday's voting, how he measures up against Clinton, how the national GOP and TP factions may be viewing him.

    I think that's known as "analyzing/assessing the data," not "falling in love."

    I, like you, also see Christie as a blowhard/bully, and he has some very unpalatable views on many issues that matter to me; I don't see jb touting those positions as ones she agrees with, but maybe you have a secret decoder ring (although if you do, it might be in need of a tune-up, or re-calibration).

    Or maybe you don't, and instead of reading the body of jb's comments on Christie, you just took a short cut and allowed yourself to assume you knew what she was saying and why, and, well - you've kind of been doing a lot of that lately, and it's not serving you particularly well, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Donald, you need to (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    re-read jbindc's  comments.  In no way has she indicated that she has any kind of "crush" on Christie.  I don't always agree with her, but she has always made no bones about her support for Hillary Clinton.  She has been trying to analyze what may be happening with Christie and the Republican Party.
    You do your side of the argument no favors by trying to paint Democrats who do not agree with you with some kind of broad, unfavorable brush.  If the Democrats cannot accept divisions and dissent within their own party, then they are no better than the Republicans, are they?  IMHO.
    Namaste.


    Parent
    Excellent point (none / 0) (#158)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    the Democrats cannot accept divisions and dissent within their own party, then they are no better than the Republicans, are they?
    And bears repeating.

    Parent
    Point taken, Mme. Zorba. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    I'll trust that the blooms will fall from Chris Christie's rose bush soon enough. He's a nasty piece of work, simply from a standpoint of personality, and he's certainly no political moderate.

    As for me, I don't know who I'll support in 2016. I'm inclined to back Mrs. Clinton, but given my own position in the party, I'm going to hold off making any such pronouncements until she actually declares herself to be a candidate for the nomination.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I understand and appreciate (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:21:17 PM EST
    your position in the Democratic Party, Donald.  But for those of you who have had, and still have, some influence in party politics, it is incumbent upon you to try and use any influence you have to shift the national party away from where they are right now.
    This country is in crisis.  The Republicans seem to have surrendered to the Teahadists.  The Democrats keep looking more and more like the Republicans of the 70's  and 80's, and worse.
    I think that Christie will manage to blow himself up (no pun intended) well before 2016.  But there are even worse Republicans waiting in the wings.  If the Dems cannot come up with a candidate who is an actual Democrat, then they risk losing voters who will either stay home and not vote, or who, like myself, will vote third party.  Of course, I realize the danger of this, but I have often thought in recent years that this country may have to go even farther down the toilet, until the situation is so bad that at last Americans wake the f*ck up.
    Namaste.


    Parent
    iow, you when you look in the mirror, (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:49:46 PM EST
    you see Christie.
    Speaking for myself, I see Christie as a stock blustery cartoon character, yet another (DNC) "Daddy" who talks patronizingly to his own (TL) constituents, whenever he's not chewing them out and angrily wagging his finger in their faces.


    Parent
    I wouldn't assume (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:24:29 PM EST
    Donald is overweight...

    Parent
    Didn't even cross my mind. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:59:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Lingle--another Republican (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    governor in a blue state.

    We had Ahnold too.  

    And Massachusetts had their share.

    But the Republican Governors in these states have little portable support beyond just their position as governor.  California was never close to voting for a Republican to go to Washington in spite of Ahnold.

    Electing someone to watch the bottom line at the state level is not the same thing as electing him or her to national office.

    Parent

    Choosing a Senator (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    With no executive experience is a rare event and does not translate well to the presidency.  2008 was unusual in that there were ALL Senators as the main candidates in both parties.

    So we elected one.

    A governor is much more appealing in so many ways.

    Parent

    Speaking of executive experience (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    we have many here who brag about voting someone for president in 2012 that never rose to the level of small town mayor.

    For many, experience means not a thing unless it relates specifically to the person they dislike.


    Parent

    That's true (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    I assume you are speaking of HRC.

    In my opinion, she is one of the few exceptions, as she has now run a federal agency, and has lived with and seen (and advised on) executive positions for half of her adult life.  She has seen budget negotiations from both the executive and legislative sides of the house.  She has worked with and chaired non-profits and boards,a and was a partner in a law firm. Besides doing about 70 other things, including being a prolific writer.  All of this is well documented.

    She has more relevant experiences than anyone I can think of  - past or present - that makes her uniquely qualified and competent to do the job of president.

    Now, you don't have to agree with her positions or her issues. But what I think you are doing is trying to subtly compare her experience with that of Barack Obama, and you can't do that.  No one really knows about his experience, as it was always presented in vague terms.

    But my point was that historically, Senators don't get elected president - not since Kennedy - because Senators have voting records that can easily be manipulated - with all the the procedural votes and such (see: John Kerry), they talk a lot in "Senate-speak", but don't say much, and they don't have to really be held accountable for much, whereas an executive (whether in business or politics) is directly accountable to people. And even a "small town mayor" has more direct experience with running things than a 1 term,  part-time Senator.

    Parent

    I didn't see that (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    The post was about 2012.  I think he was referring to people voting for the nobodys running in 2012....

    It wasn't about Obama.....

    Parent

    You missed my point (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:19:48 PM EST
    Blue states electing Republican governors does not mean they will elect Republicans to Washington.  Or that that success is a ticket to national success as a Republican who can appeal to Democratic voters?

    President Wilson?

    President Weld?

    President Lingle?

    U.S. Senator Ahnold?

    President (or even Senator) Pataki?

    President (or even Senator) Giuliani?

    It is a well known phenomenon for a (deep) Blue state to elect a Republican Governor from time to time.  They are perceived as no threat on social issues (because in part they cannot do any harm on that score), and perhaps as being effective to clean up spending issues.  Those Republicans typically go nowhere.  Care to show us a counter example, rather than peddling your gut instinct?

    Which Republican governor from a Blue state has been successful on a national level?

     

    Parent

    Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:34:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Red State governor from a Red State (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    California was Red State back then......

    And reliably so.  Ike, Nixon (all three times), Ford, Reagan and Bush I all won California.  Bill first cracked California and spent a lot of time doing it....

    Reagan carried his home state as any contemporary Republican would.

    Parent

    Name a Democratic governor (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    from a Red State that was successful nationally.

    (and no, Bill Clinton was elected when Arkansas was blue).

    What's your point?

    Parent

    I was not the one (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    making the point about the appeal of Governors, you were.

    My point is that just because Christie won in New Jersey does not translate into national success.  

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    Was to look at history.

    Obama was the first sitting or recent Senator since Kennedy to win the presidency (and that would have happened no matter WHO won).

    GWB - governor
    Clinton - governor
    Bush, Sr. - VP, Ambassador, Head of the CIA, congressman
    Reagan - governor
    Carter - governor
    Ford - VP, congressman
    Nixon - VP, Senator
    Johnson - VP (although he never WON the presidency)
    Kennedy - Senator
    Eisenhower - Supreme Allied Commander
    Truman - VP, Senator
    FDR - governor
    Hoover - Secretary of Commerce
    Coolidge - VP, Governor, Lt. governor
    Harding - Senator

    Voters like governors because of the executive experience and VPs.

    Parent

    I never said Senator Cruz would win (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:05:36 PM EST


    Parent
    You do mention Obama (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    in almost every post.

    We aren't talking about Obama.....

     

    Parent

    If you were consistenly (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    applying your "Governor" model, you would be touting Jeb Bush.  Red State Governor from a (largely) Red State...or perhaps swing state, but not a blue one.

    People overstate the national sway of Republican Governors from Blue states....

    Parent

    Jeb Bush hasn't been a governor for (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    7 years. And, in case no one has mentioned this yet, jb is "touting" nothing. She is surveying and analyzing the playing field.

    I could be wrong, but I believe jb would welcome thoughts pro and con about the analysis itself if some people would just stop trying to pretend she is touting or otherwise promoting a POV.

    At least that has been the case in the past. Even if, in the end, we did end up throwing plates at each other. :)

    Parent

    I don't think Jeb Bush could win (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    Maybe in 8 years.

    Still too close to his brother's debacle. And a Republican governor from a blue state would have MUCH more appeal to blue state and purple state voters than a Republican governor from a red state.

    Your logic makes no sense.

    And I'm not "touting" anyone.

    And again - please name a Democratic Governor from a red state who did well nationally.

    Crickets.....

    Parent

    I agree with your conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:36:13 PM EST
    about Christie being the nominee, but not the reasoning in how you get there.  It is not because he is a governor from a blue state.  That is not what drives Republican votes.

    The arguments against Christie being the nominee being espoused here are very good....I agree with large parts of the analysis, but I think they are still thinking like liberals. The most important goal for Republicans is beating liberals.  The policy at issue does not matter all that much, I would submit.  

    For most Republicans, it is about cultural (which often translates as religious) issues and resentment.   Gay marriage, and women in power, and decline in majority status for whites, and an amalgam of other social issues, all work to create a congealed mess of fear, anger and despair.  The most bitter blow is having the government side with liberals on cultural issues.  They know they have lost on marriage equality, but having openly gay troops and gay married troops is nothing sort of catastrophic for them, even though their public criticism of this is muted because they know they are in a rapidly decreasing minority.  Being essentially authoritarian, they crave and need validation from the government. And they do not have it.

    So, the tribal howl of despair can be heard throughout Republican politics.   This trumps even issues about taxes. Witness Grover drown-the-government-in-the-bathtub Norquist being aghast at the Tea Party shutting down the government.  And the pro-business Republicans unable to stop the Tea Party from shutting down the government  And Obamacare is not about policy for Republicans. How could it be when it is a Republican idea first implemented by business oriented Republican Governor? For Republicans, "Obamacare" is a proxy for urban, culturally liberal, and, yes, Black America, or at least Black and Brown America.  They want their country back.  

    How do Republicans win?  By beating Democrats.  If they can defeat liberal, it-takes-a-village, feminazi Hillary (them speaking), then all is well.  And to have a big, aggressive, obnoxious male bully beat Hillary, would be a lot of cultural validation for Republicans.  And that is what it is really all about for most Republicans. Christie is pro-life, and anti-teacher, and anti-union, which are pretty good cultural hot button issues for Republicans, and they will fall back on that in terms of accepting him as a conservative.

    The foremost goal is cultural validation for Republicans, not issues about a Republican health care plan.   If Christie can deliver, and he is polling close to Hillary, then the Republicans will follow.

    As to jb's views on Christie, they seem very much a proxy for anti-Obama sentiment.  For example, repeatedly emphasizing that Christie does not "talk down" to voters like Obama, and that Christie has real experience, unlike Obama.  Christie's win in New Jersy is an implied rebuke of Obama, etc.

    But I have been talking about Hillary. As an Obama supporter, I will probably be a bigger Hillary supporter than many here.  Not out of the emotional attachment to her that many have (although I do like her), but out of a partisan desire to see Democrats win.

    Parent

    Except it could also be said (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:31:58 PM EST
    on your list going back to Harding.

    6 were Governors at one point.
    6 were Senators at one point.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:38:54 PM EST
    but after they were Senators, they did something else - like a higher office.

    Parent
    Arkansas (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:04:38 PM EST
    is a tricky one because yes it was blue when Bill was running but promptly went back to red after that.

    Parent
    And yet (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    Alan Cranston won the Senate race in 1980, so California wasn't ALL red.

    Parent
    Sure, not all Red (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:01:40 PM EST
    but mostly red....

    The State Legislature was held by the Republicans as late as 1994-1995.  It is not like it is today where there are no elected Republicans of note, unless you count Issa.

    Back in the 1980s, there was a Northern v. Southern California split.  Northern was liberal, San Francisco; Southern--Republican suburbia in LA and San Diego.  The Inland Empire was all Republican white suburbia.  The agrarian Central Valley was all Republican.

    Occasionally, Northern California could pull off a victory or two, but not consistently--and not for a Presidential candidate.

    Parent

    ...uh, Reagan? (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:44:08 PM EST
    Which Republican governor from a Blue state has been successful on a national level?
    Did you really ask that question?

    Parent
    Bombshell from Al Jazeera: (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    According to reports today, Swiss forensics experts have apparently concluded from their examination of the body of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, that he was fatally dosed with radioactive polonium by someone in the autumn of 2004, and died of radiation poisoning in November of that year. In short, he was murdered.

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    we know Mossad would never do anything like that..

    No that there isn't a big what-goes-around-comes-around factor to consider with Arafat.

    Parent

    That could be (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    But Arafat's departure did not help the Israelis...

    Arafat was somewhat predictable and a little lazy.  

    Parent

    Imagine that you've learned to live with (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:10:34 AM EST
    this.  The popularity of homeschooling has skyrocketed, as nobody wants to send their kids outside.  Telecommuting is now the norm for those able to maintain employment.  But there's no getting used to the change.  Your kids wake up screaming and refuse to sleep.  Your rage makes you physically ill.  Antidepressants are on everybody's shopping lists, but shopping is a life-and-death proposition.  Canada is facing an immigration crisis.  So is Mexico.

    Now, Pakistan claims to be targeting evil criminals with surgical precision.  And some in the U.S. government go along with this.  But others object.  The U.S. Supreme Court declares the drone deaths to be murder or war -- murder being illegal under U.S. law, and war being illegal under the U.N. Charter via Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

    The U.S. Congress insists that criminals must be indicted and prosecuted, that negotiations with hostile groups cannot succeed while drones tear the negotiators limb from limb, and that Pakistan has no right to put its robots in our skies no matter what its good intentions.  Statements agreeing with this opposition to the drones are signed by everybody who's anybody.  Popular demonstrations against the drones, and -- bravely -- in the face of the drones, dwarf anything seen before.  In fact, the world joins in, and people protest Pakistan's murder spree all over the globe.  Human rights groups in various countries denounce it as criminal.  The Pakistani prime minister reportedly checks off men, women, and children to kill on a list at regular Tuesday meetings.  He's burned in effigy across the United States.
    [...snip...]
    The Pakistani human rights groups are not made up of evil people.  They very much mean well.  They want to reduce the number of Americans killed by drones.
    [...snip...]
    They believe this makes them "objective" and "credible," and it certainly does do that with certain people.  These Pakistani human rights groups are not pulling the trigger, they're trying to stop it being pulled as often.
    [...snip...]
    From here in the United States, the cries are for justice.  Many want the prime minister of Pakistan prosecuted for murder. Many are beginning to view the absence of such legal justice as grounds for violence.  I'm growing worried over what my neighbors and even myself might unleash on the rest of the world.  I'm beginning to fall in love with the feeling of hatred.
    We have also learned to live (none / 0) (#56)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:16:57 AM EST
    with cut and paste.

    Parent
    Which makes it impossible to read (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:18:54 AM EST
    apparently, especially by the blind.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 180 (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:13:48 AM EST
    Her office supplies now include bondage chairs and ball-gags. (link)

    Volume 179
    Volume 178

    Get your Thursday on, my friends. I'll be taking the BART out to Orinda to brainstorm business ventures with an old college chum of mine who just moved to the Bay Area. Talking companies and coin is always a good break from driving yourself crazy trying to figure out the novel you want to have done in a few months. Or at least I hope it's good break. ;-)

    The insurance "giveaway" (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    Ackroyd looks at a bronze plan for NY on the exchange.

    I've taken a look at the Bronze plans in New York State. This one has a premium for an individual of $348 per month.
    ...
    What you get for your $4,176 per year is the requirement that you pay $3000 out of pocket before qualifying for a 50% copay on most services.  The well care visits, checkups and so forth, have no copays, but you're still out of pocket for the first $3,000. link

    The law props up a system which not only requires people in the U.S. to pay 2, 3, or 4 times more health care than other countries but enshrines a system that continues to charge more and more in premiums while paying less and less for actual care.

    My daughter and son-in-law have (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    pretty much decided they won't look for new insurance on the MD exchange.

    Currently, daughter is insured through MD's plan (which is going away) and paying around $300/month.  Her husband and the baby are on a CareFirst plan (that is being discontinued), with about the same monthly premium.

    They can get a private CareFirst plan to cover all of them that has a $1,000 deductible ($2,000 total for the family) and 20% co-insurance for about $585/month.  It's an HMO, but the network is large, all their doctors and hospitals are in it, and there are no referrals to specialists required.  They will get coverage for things they don't have coverage for now - vision and dental for the baby, for example - but it isn't an exchange plan, either.

    Would they be giving up their existing plans if they didn't have to?  I don't know.  Maryland is one of those states where insurance companies have been mandated to provide coverages that other states have not required, but I think the added coverage mandates for children under the ACA have some appeal for them, and rightly so.

    Parent

    There's a reason bronze plans are named (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:41:08 AM EST
    for the metal used in very durable screws.

    Parent
    Good news (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    With help from experience union organizer David Rolf of SEIU on November 5 voters in the Seattle suburb of SeaTac passed Proposition 1, which calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage for airport, hotel, and restaurant workers. That is the highest minimum wage in the US.

    Real News Network has the full story...

    erm... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:54:54 AM EST
    "experienced"

    Parent
    Fascinating article re Marina and Lee Oswald: (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    NYT

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 181 (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    GOP stands for Get On Prozac. These folks need help, and yesterday. (link)

    Volume 180
    Volume 179

    Peace out.

    Funny (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    According to the WH you can "Still Keep It"....Period

    How Many Times... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    ...you going to kick that dead horse, jesus Goebbels, it's already true you don't have to keep repeating to make it so.

    We get it, he lied, don't need several daily posts reminding us of how you feel about the matter.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:32:29 PM EST
    he's finally convinced me: next time I'm voting for the scorched earth libertarian/apocalyptic Christian ticket..

    At least when they tell bald-faced lies it's for Almighty God and Free Markets. A higher cause, in other words.

     

    Parent

    Your Forgot... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    ...according to Slado no one cares when they lie.

    Parent
    It's for a Higher cause: (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    God and mammmon. The two masters that have become one.

    Parent
    Just saying it's funny (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    Take it easy.  Meant as more of a snark.

    Parent
    It's funny allright... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    anybody else so sick of ACA debate that it...umm, maybe requires it's own mental healthcare?

    I realize it's a very real important thing to people who are seriously ill, have been seriously ill, or need to see a doctor regularly...but maybe it's time for the rest of us to whom it is just an academic or insurance rate/policy argument to stfu about it, myself especially.  I mean, as long as we're using the insurance model wtf is there to talk about?  Is what it is...another broken yet semi-functional societal system we're not serious about fixing.  Primarily because we're not serious about fixing the  mothership problem...a broken thoroughly corrupted system of self-governance.

    Parent

    The Mothership Problem IMO is... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    ...the corporate takeover of the United States Government via 'campaign contributions' and lobbyists.

    And the two party system that allowed it to happen.

    Parent

    Yes indeed... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:34:19 AM EST
    that's what I meant by "corrupted".

    Parent
    Ok so how about this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    Obama supporters shafted by Obamacare.

    Obama about to give special treatment to unions.

    Good times.

    Parent

    Unions (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    the other right wing bête noire..

    You'd think they were invented by Marx and Engels themselves.

    Covering all the bases today.

    Parent

    Not Exactly the Same Horse... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:07:23 AM EST
    ...but that one is on it's last breathe.

    Beyond a handful of folks, I think the rest of us, even former Obama supporters like myself, realize the guy is full of cra@p.  From spying, to ACA, to the DOJ, to the DEA, just about everything that comes out of the guys mouth is lies and/or hackery.

    The difference, at least for me, is you are clearly a partisan hack not in the least interested about discussing the issues, whereas some of us are trying to have a debate, not repeat "He Lied" or "He Sux" 10,001 times.

    Surely you know you aren't changing minds, so the only other explanation for your 2 to 6 identical posts per day are meant to annoy rather than inform, which is the main goal of a troll if I am not mistaken.

    Parent

    I'm not a partisan hack (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    I left the republican party because they are exactly that.

    It's just Obama is just absolutely horrible.  Your are being too kind.

    All he appears to want to do IMHO is expand the federal gov't to the benefit of big business.  

    He's not helping the little guy, IMHO he's actually hurting him.

    About the only thing he's done right is repeal DADT.

    Other then that he's a complete failure.

    Parent

    Define Leaving the Party... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:43:14 AM EST
    ...every link you post and every position you take is republican, sorry if you are ashamed to be a republican, but calling yourself the king of the park doesn't actually make you king of the park.

    Proclaiming you are not a republican while taking every single one of their positions isn't exactly leaving the party.

    Post a couple criticisms of the republican party, if you have left it, certainly you have some complaints and I would be curious to see what they are.  Because from where I stand you are a devoted republican through and through.  Nothing wrong with it other than your claim of not being one. yet taking every one of their stand and using their talking points in just about every post.

    Have you ever voted for anyone who is not a republican ?

    Parent

    That's not really fair bro... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    Slado is conservative, no doubt, but that's not the same thing as Republican.  I take him at his word.

    True conservatives are as sh*ttily represented by big-business felating Republicans as liberals are by big-business felating Democrats.  Like we are reminded everytime an election comes around by our liberal hosts, who else ya gonna vote?  Conservatives have the same conundrum...worse even because the party that claims them has a heaping side-portion of crazy to go with the crooked.  

    Unlike most liberals, I do usually find somebody better to vote for, and they get 1% of the vote.  I can't speak to who Slado votes for, but it wouldn't surpise me if Gary Johnson got his vote in 2012.  And I totally respect that...I'm not one who thinks liberals have all the answers, I tend to think our country would be at it's best when we borrow from all the "isms", all in moderation.    

    Parent

    You've gotta be kidding.. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    Cut social security, tort reform, crooked unions, Hugo "Fidel" Chavez, Obama-and-the-Democrats-lied over and over..

    Exactly everything on Rush's don't-forget-to-mention list next to the microphone..

    Slado might as well be typing from the Heritage Foundation.

    Parent

    I Know That... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    ...but much like the Tea Partiers there are a lot republicans who think changing the name is changing the product inside.

    Kdog, if you hold all positions republican, use republican talking points, and voter republican how are you not a republican ?  At some point you have vary from the party to not be part of it.

    He left the party and I want to know what he disliked about it enough to leave.

    I dislike Obama a whole lot, disagree with the D's on a lot of things, but I vote D and I use the talking points I like.  But I am still a D and could write for days about my problems with it's policies and governing, especially the current group of dopes.  But at this rate, I might have to find some faction of the D party because like GWB the stain he is putting on the party might be more than a lot of us want to bare.

    I really wanted to know what policies drove him away.

    Parent

    Hopefully Slado will chime back in... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    I don't wanna speak outta turn, but if I recall correctly he's sommented in the past it was G-Dub's two terms that opened his eyes that Republicans were playing him for a fool like Obama plays us.  The unfunded spending, the wars, the hating on gays, etc.

    Parent
    the non-privatized prisons.. (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    those socialist public libraries, national parks, and fire departments..

    Parent
    Slado...Help! ;) (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    I think Slado's down with the public library and national parks...just my two cents, worth 2 cents less than that.

    Parent
    You Kind of Are (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    I was asking for Slado's opinion, not your opinion of what you think Slado thinks.  Nor did I really want you to do his homework.

    IMO if he's not a republican he should be able to offer some criticism including why he left.  I don't suppose he will answer because that is just not in the republican blood, they don't like dissing their own, ever.

    I am very curious to read Obama's number one hater here, has to say about the faults of the republican party he left.  100% serious.

    Parent

    You recall it was (none / 0) (#171)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:34:04 PM EST
    Sarah Palin that introduced the word "hater" into the political lexicon, right? Is that who you really want to be quoting?*

    Just food for thought.

    Parent

    dog (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    just curious. What person that we'd know comes closest to this "true conservative" you're postulating?

    Parent
    Good question... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    nobody in today's Republican party obviously...if I had to pick somebody in politics it would have to be Gary Johnson.  Conservative principles less the crazy, the hate, and the religion bullsh*t.

    Outside of politics...my brother-in-law.  A salt of the earth generous kind human being who I enjoy talking politics & idelogies with, even though we don't agree on much.

    Parent

    Conservative=libertarian? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    the libertarians of today are a kind of new hybrid, a modern day phenomenon. I think most of the so-called Founding Fathers would've thought them depraved and, or, insane from a philosophic standpoint.

    Of course, there's a lot going on today in this country and abroad they would probably consider insane and unsustainable.

    Parent

    The forgotten 10th amendment... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:36:54 PM EST
    makes me think the founding fathers were kinda like OG Libertarians.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Judging Libertarians by the Koch Bros. is like judging Liberalism by Hillary Clinton...goes without saying everybody's full of sh*t to some degree.  Some more than others.

    Parent

    Hot air (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:20:19 PM EST
    Really? ROTFLMAO. Hot Air is really the correct name for that wacko. Does she still think that Syria hid the WMDs from Sadaam?


    Parent
    Gotta love your re-phrasing (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:10:07 AM EST
    From an article (on Hot Air, no less) titled:

    "Report: Is Big Labor about to get some of its doggedly sought-after ObamaCare relief after all?" (in the form of a question), translated to:

    "Obama about to give special treatment to unions."

    Oy.

    Parent

    Classic Yman (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    Never debates, just snarks and shoots the messenger.

    Obama sucks.  

    Parent

    Classic Slado (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    Always takes a question, kicks it up a notch, then falsely states it as fact.

    BTW - What's to debate?  A report (from Hotair, no less) that the Obama administration might propose "certain self-insured, self-administered plans" (as opposed to unions) from the law's temporary reinsurance fee in 2015 and 2016?

    Parent

    Some Family Values News (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    Atheists have a lower divorce rate the religious people and the more religious  a religion is, the greater chance of memebers getting a divorce.

    Beyond Nevada(vegas), the highest divorce rate states are, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

    Non-dominational, which is mostly fundamentalists have the highest rate at 34%, Baptist at 29%, and atheists at 21%.

    LINK

    According to the article, 50% divorce rate is a projection:

    The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue. However, that is only a projection and a prediction."

    Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
    The followup question would be (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    What percentage of Atheists get married as opposed to Christians or any religious person?

    Also more people are Christians or religous so we're talking about a much higher population with more factors.

    Just saying.    

    Religious people are people too.

    Parent

    Yes, they are. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:53:39 PM EST
    Slado: "Religious people are people too."

    And as such, they are subject to committing their own fair share of sins, same as you or me.

    As I pointed out the other day, the biggest defender of traditional marriage at the Hawaii legislature right now is State Sen. Sam Slom, who loves it so much he's been in three of them, and has traded in each wife for a newer model. Apparently, he's confused the term "sanctity" with "sanctimonious."

    Now personally, I don't care how other people conduct their own private personal affairs or how many times they divorce and remarry, as long as they accord to everyone else the exact same opportunities to screw it all up and make a royal mess of things that they presently enjoy.

    But given as I don't ever consciously seek to demean religious people regarding how they choose to live their own lives, I really do resent the fact that far too many of them seem to believe that they somehow have both the right and obligation to (a) recreate society in their own warped, funhouse mirror image to reflect the way they think things ought to be; and (b) seek to deny to others their respective and innate humanity in the process.

    So, if the truly pious Mormons in our midst deign to lecture the rest of us about our lascivious behaviors and lecherous ways, then the fact that their Latter-Day brethren in the State of Utah are the biggest consumers per capita of online porn in the country is certainly a very pertinent point, and makes it fair game in the debate.

    If the Roman Catholic priest in Hawaii who led the charge to strip GLBT people of their right to marry whom they want -- true story! -- gets caught in a sexually compromising situation with the wife of a prominent member of his parish, why shouldn't his wanton hypocrisy and crass opportunism be publicly acknowledged by us, if not shouted out to the heavens and the multitudes?

    So, given the sanctimonious pronouncements of Southern politicians on any number of divisive social issues from abortion and contraception to teen sex education and GLBT civil rights, Scott is absolutely right to publicly note the fact that several states in the Bible Belt lead the country in divorce rates. Don't get me started on their rates of teenaged pregnancy and out of wedlock births.

    That's why if one truly doesn't enjoy getting hoisted by one's own petard, personal adherence to the doctrine of "live and let live" is always the best (and safest) policy.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    He uses the term divorce RATE (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    not raw numbers, so I assume it is a % of the people that are married that then get divorced. Does not matter if more or less atheists get married than religious people, the divorce rate amongst those that do is lower.

    Parent
    Way too serious. I bet (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    you comprehend the wonky Krugman op eds.

    Parent
    Is belief in the essential (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    purity and goodness of money and the profit motive an officially recognized religion now?

    Parent
    You sh*ttin' me? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    It's probably the oldest one there is!  As far as "civilization" is concerned.

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    long been known that the divorce rate in the so called bible belt is the highest in the nation. Religion is probably ONE of the factor. So many Southern Baptists don't engender really good treatment of women demanding that they be submissive. Well, that only works so long until they get sick of being submissive to a husband who wants to hunt all the time or watching sports or whatever. The other factor I would imagine is the poverty rate is so high in the south. I would think a high poverty rate also stresses marriages plus the social pressure to marry younger here in the south than in other parts of the country. My two cents anyway.

    Parent
    What definition of "Southern Baptist"... (none / 0) (#34)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    ...are you using?

    Because the correct one is very specific and leaves out a very large percentage of the Baptists who live in the South.

    Parent

    I would be talking (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:09:48 PM EST
    about those Southern Baptist churches that belong to the Southern Baptist Convention. I didn't know there were any others. I was thinking that the other Baptist churches were considered independent Baptist.

    Parent
    One could debate... (none / 0) (#42)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    ...whether it's "belong to" or "are affiliated with", but otherwise you are quite correct.

    Though there are many non-Baptists completely unaware that it doesn't just mean any and all Baptists who live in the South.

    Interestingly, half a century ago, among white Baptists, the SBC affiliated churches were generally much more liberal and progressive than the "free will", "hard shell", and "primative" non-affiliated Baptist churches.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    I remember those days. I also know that there are a number of formerly Southern Baptist churches who would be considered independent as breaking with the SBC over things like women ministers etc. The SBC was quite moderate until the conservatives took over in the early 80's. Now there is little difference between the SBC, hard shell or free will baptists from what I have seen.

    Parent
    Baptist churches (none / 0) (#45)
    by the capstan on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:51:38 PM EST
    There is an association formed by former Southern Baptist  churches which disagreed with the latter's views on women and the inerrancy of the Bible.  It is called the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.  They accept as members people who have not been 'dunked', as well as having women deacons and ministers.  Of course the Southern Baptists retained all the ministerial schools and most of the missionaries, but CBF churches are doing very well now.  Politically, their members are not likely to belong to the Tea Party, being of a more liberal caste of mind.  Their churches may declare themselves to be 'welcoming,' which refers to a more diverse membership including non-whites and homosexuals, for example.

    There is also a group of Northern Baptists, as well as an association of black Baptists

    Parent

    Religious People are People Too (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    Agreed, but aren't they ones who are still defending marriage for people they don't think deserved to be married because they defile it ?  Aren't they always the ones telling us about family values, which I assume included staying married ?

    It's the hypocrisy, not the fact that they have a harder time remaining married.  

    What are they going to do when a poll like this comes out stating they are getting divorce by greater numbers than gay folks.  I know, they are still going to do what they always do, bash gay people because the Bible says it's A-OK, facts be damned about them actually defiling marriage with greater frequency and how gay people don't deserve that right.

    Keep in mind, my criticism isn't for all religious people, just the ones who insist on telling the rest of us that we are less because we don't believe and practice what they preach.

    Parent

    What is a "more religious" religion? (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:30:23 PM EST


    Parent
    One that preaches (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:21:06 PM EST
    those that believe in all other religions are going to hell.

    Parent
    Isn't that universally applicable? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:59:17 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#96)
    by Slado on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    Catholicism (the largest Christian church) does not believe this.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    13 years of Catholic schools taught me those not baptized in the Catholic Church but were otherwise good spend eternity in limbo. The rest were heaven or hell.

    Parent
    Does that apply to Jews also? (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:49:22 AM EST
    or, just to other Christians?

    I spent a year at a Catholic college run by the Marist Brothers. In one of my classes, "Brother Michael," the instructor, was so blatantly, jaw droppingly, anti-Semitic as to leave one speechless. (The great majority of the apple-cheeked, blue blazer, red tie students couldn't get enough of his vile, disgusting, Jew-baiting jokes.)

    Anyway, my first day in class was also my last as I requested a transfer out. I was refused, so, I went to the Dean of Men where I was also refused. It was only when I threatened to "go public," and take my story to the Town's biggest newspaper that he complied. (The Dean did not express any disapproval of "The Brother's" behavior.)

    My question is, was my experience an aberration, or the norm? The fact that the Brother's demented beliefs were shared by virtually all the Catholic kids, and, apparently, The Dean's,  makes me kind of believe it's more wide spread than just what I experienced in that classroom.

    I hope I'm wrong.


    Parent

    Well, when I was in Catholic school, late '50s (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    early '60s, Jews were still thought of as "Christ Killers", and as such were not very much liked in the Church. It may not have been an official position to indulge in anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism was not a sin either.

    And we were taught that only Catholics would go to heaven. Nobody else. Sorry, good people who were not Catholic. Tough break.

    Parent

    The way I was raised (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    it applied to all non-Catholics. Jews, Muslims, aborigines, Buddhist, you name it. Everybody but "us" were doomed to -- at best -- an eternity of limbo.  Horrible, isn't it?

    I believe the new Pope does not fall into that line of thought, but a very quick search did not produce a link.

    Parent

    Supposedly, this changed in the 60's (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    ... with Vatican II, although I remember getting much of the same in my conservative, Byzantine Catholic church when I was growing up in the early 70's.  The Church's official position seems to be that it is possible for members of other religions to achieve salvation/heaven, but it is a highly qualified inclusivism.  There are a lot of roadblocks for other (non-Catholic) Christians - and even more for non-Christians.

    Pope Benedict XVI's interpretation seems consistent with the pre-Vatican II doctrine.

    Parent

    Good Point... (none / 0) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    ...Catholics generally believe they themselves are the ones going to hell.

    Parent
    Read the Link... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:25:27 AM EST
    ...I took it mean folks that devote more time to religion like the fundamentalists whose entire lives, from rise to sleep, revolves around religion in some manner.

    Whereas... say the Methodists, which is the religion I grew up with, devote an hour or two a week to their religion, usually on Sunday before football.

    And while I am not an atheist, the time I devote to religion in a given year would fit in the space between a rock and hard place.  So it would seem the odds of me getting a divorce are very slim since I will never be sucked into the hocus pocus notion that anyone should spend eternity another person.  Just kidding.

    Parent

    Starting off with a bang (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    Terry McAulilffe's first day as governor-elect:

    McAuliffe also announced that he would sign two executive orders upon taking office in January: the first a non-discrimination policy protecting gays, lesbians and transgender state workers; and the second a pledge that neither he nor members of his family would accept any gifts greater than $100 while he is governor.

    And then:

    As of late morning Wednesday, Cuccinelli had not called McAuliffe and had no plans to do so, according to two people close to the campaign.

    Stay classy, KC.

    McAuliffe may have a tough time:

    Neither candidate went over well with voters; individually and together, they drew the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates for governor in the past two decades, according to Washington Post poll data. Comedy Central's "Daily Show" billed the race as a choice between a heart attack and cancer. Some of the state's largest newspapers either refused to endorse anyone or recommended a vote for someone who wasn't running.

    And a surprise:

    The Libertarian candidate, Robert Sarvis, did well among young voters, winning about a fifth of their vote, according to exit polling. But despite Cuccinelli's warning that a vote for Sarvis would, in effect, be a vote for McAuliffe, survey data indicated that the third-party candidate drew fairly evenly from both major parties' bases.
    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    I hope he does a good job for you guys in VA. And Ken sounds like the original sore loser.

    Parent
    I was in London (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    yesterday.

    Most interesting.

    The metros - "undergrounds" are fairly clean - especially compared to NYC.. but they are narrow and have relatively low ceilings - or so it seems.

    During rush hour, there is a mob of people like I have never seen - even in New York.

    One interesting thing - the seats are very cushy - like a sofa - with little armrests separating each space. New York, as you might know, has hard plastic.

    But what I can't understand is why the Brits tolerate and even revere the fkedup Royal Family.

    When I was in the Underground, all I could think about was that the Queen and her brood should be made to travel that way. That's one thing the French have over the Brits. They got rid of the monarchy and good riddance.

    I suppose the rationale is that the monarchy in Great Britain is a tourist attraction - the palace and the pomp - and therefore maybe some tourist money trickles down to the people.

    But I simply can't stand it.

    And then I realized that in our country, there is no monarchy, but our government officials get the best of everything. First Class all the way. Premium health plans. The lot.

    And why?

    Why do we tolerate it?
    When I see those slobs in the private jumbo jets, it makes me so mad I could spit.

    PS (none / 0) (#32)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:25:19 PM EST
    In one of the Underground stations - there were HUGE signs on the wall - in the spaces usually reserved for blockbuster Hollywood films - proclaiming the value of the "NSA snooping".

    46 plots thwarted it said. 46 mind you. Not 45 or 47.

    And it said that the NSA assured that their snooping only affects something like 1.6% of internet traffic - whatever that means. (Not 1.5% or 1.7%°)

    Then it asked; "Where do YOU stand?"

    I could only wonder who paid for it.

    Parent

    Maybe a satirical.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    political art piece?  A Banksy perhaps?  I mean it can't be on the level NSA authorized pr...could it?  

    I tried some searches and can find nothing on the NSA doing any PR advertising in London....but I did find out that Bittorrent has put up billboards in the US sh*tting on the NSA, but those are obviously satirical.

    Parent

    They've got their own NSA, the GCHQ (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    As for propaganda, the old restriction was that America sourced propaganda couldn't be employed domestically, (never true), but that restriction was recently thrown under the bus.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    I remember that "The Economist", a newspaper I believe, put a little note on the bottom offering a free issue if one were to send an sms to somewhere or other.

    This was no satire.

    It also had a caricature of a hooded terrrist sitting typing in front of a computer - presumably cooking up something unsavory.

    Really creepy stuff.

    And the line -- "where do YOU stand?" -- reminds me of commie witch hunts...

    Parent

    That is Nutz... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    ...that would be like a sign in NYC stating the SIS/MI6 is keeping American's safe or whatever the UK's version of the NSA is.

    It has to be swipe at the US, it just had to be otherwise they have lost their fricken minds if people think another country has their best interests in mind when spying on them.

    Parent

    Did she consent to (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:44:29 PM EST
    taser # 2?

    NFL bet

    Perhaps she's religious (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:23:26 PM EST
    and turned the other cheek.

    Oh wait, that would make her a Saints fan.

    Parent

    Shocking (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 07:08:40 AM EST
    (No pun intended), but they also both had .1% BACs....

    Parent
    They were both drunk? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:42:13 AM EST
    Imagine my surprise.  Not.
    Maybe these two deserve each other.  It would be a shame to mess up two households.

    Parent
    I'm just sorry they have children. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:46:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Donald, since the other thread is closed (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:43:37 AM EST
    I must respond to your congratulatory comment about Ed Murray (and Michael Shiosaki).

    The reason Murray won is not because Seattle voters liked him, but because so many really loathe McGinn, who not only antagonized the city council from Day One of his mayorship, but also blatantly lied to everyone when he said he would not oppose the tunnel that's replacing the soon-to-be-dismantled-Alaskan Way Viaduct. Worse, he stood by a terrible police chief for far too long.

    But Murray is just another corporate lawyer who became a power-hungry grandstander in the legislature. He had his a$$ handed to him last year when phony Dems Rodney Tom and Tim Sheldon announced right after their re-elections that they were now going to caucus with the Republicans, essentially giving the Republicans a one vote majority in the previously Dem-controlled state Senate (which as you know was led by Murray, the Majority leader). Murray is as ambitious and egotistical as any politician I've ever seen. Bottom line, he didn't want to stay in the Senate if he couldn't have control of it. Becoming mayor of Seattle is a way for him to keep his name in lights.

    Maybe he'll be good for the city, maybe not. I'm not holding my breath. A lot of longtime Dem activists cannot tolerate him any more than they could McGinn. A lot of folks think he's been around a long, long time, and kinda wish he would just dry up and go away. The only voters who really seemed excited about Murray were the gay activists. The only people still supporting McGinn were the increasingly irrelevant bicycle enthusiasts.

    And, incidentally, I had direct dealings with Shiosaki a few short years ago when he was the Seattle Parks Department's mouthpiece. In short, he is a liar and a major a-hole. I don't trust him as far as I can spit.

    There. I said my piece. I should also say that, since I don't officially live in the city limits anymore, I didn't have a vote in that race. If I had, I would not have voted for either Murray or McGinn. I would have written in "Cosmo the Clown," who, IMO, would be just about as good in the position of Seattle mayor as the other two clowns.

    I appreciate and value your opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    I know from watching Mayor McGinn from afar, that he was alienating whole swaths of the Seattle electorate with his penchant for provoking often needless confrontation, even with liberal allies and friends on the City Council and in the community. So, it really doesn't surprise me at all that he lost big-time. It sounds like Ed Murray just so happened to be at the right place at the right time, in order to capitalize on the crystallized public opinion.

    When I was with the Hawaii legislature, we had to work with a cantankerous Democratic governor who was exactly like that, and I can tell you, it was both frustrating and exhausting, because he could really be quite nasty when he felt like it -- which seemed to be more often than not during his second term. It's now been eleven years since he left office, and even the mere mention of his name still conjurs up some pretty raw feelings in certain local Democratic circles.

    I will readily admit that I really don't know either Mayor-elect Murray or his husband, other than from what I've read over the last few days in the Seattle Times and P-I. I'll have to trust in your own assessment of them as a resident of greater Seattle.

    I did meet then-State Rep. Murray once about a dozen years ago, when we were both attending an annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Philadelphia, and he struck me as a straight shooter and very knowledgeable guy -- which, of course, doesn't necessarily preclude him from also being a willing tool of the political establishment. That said, it would indeed be a shame were his tenure in city office to be noteworthy only for the fact that he's the first openly gay mayor in Seattle history.

    Thank you for the update on Murray and Shiosaki.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Complicated 4A Case (none / 0) (#54)
    by ragebot on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 05:54:39 AM EST
    Way too many issues to post here.  Basically after a legit traffic stop LEOs obtained a search warrant based on a drug dog alerting the drivers seat in a car and subjected driver to multiple anal searches.

    Perhaps the worst part is the hospital billed the driver for the search, which would seem to void any qualified immunity they might claim.

    On the bright side Obamacare may cover it.

    Anal Probe

    Leo is About as Accurate as... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    Same cops get another guy,  Timothy Young, who received almost identical treatment as David Eckert.

    Turns out:

    We've learned more about that drug dog, Leo, that seems to get it wrong pretty often. He might be getting it wrong because he's not even certified in New Mexico.

    If you take a look at the dog's certification, the dog did get trained. But his certification to be a drug dog expired in April 2011. K-9s need yearly re-certification courses, and Leo is falling behind.

    "We have done public requests to find anything that would show this dog has been trained, we have evidence that this dog has had false alerts in the past," Eckert's attorney Shannon Kennedy said.

    The doctors from the Gila Regional Medical Center have been turned over to the state licensing board.  It's possible they could lose the ability to practice medicine.

    And the police officers will be answering to a law enforcement board.

    LINK

    How much money is this and I would imagine many other false positives is this crack team of cops going to cost the tax payers of NM ?

    They should all be fired, this is like the Son of Sam, apparently the dog told them to to give anal probes even after the xray showed they were clean.

    I was under the impression that if cops think you are holding, they give you a laxative and wait you out until nature runs it's course.  But only after an xray confirms something odd.

    And someone might want to make sure the dog isn't suffering from eproctophilia.  Click the link it took 10 minutes to track down.

    Parent

    For the ladies (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:23:00 AM EST
    About your, um, "unmentionables".

    It's 1856 all over again (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:03:00 PM EST
    For the first time since the mid-1850s, a Whig Party candidate won office.

    First they blamed the Republicans (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    then they blamed the contractors, now they blame the insurance companies.

    Somebody needs to own up.

    And oh, my, Three Pinocchios

    The White House effort to blame insurance companies for lost plans

    But, I will say this is good news (at least for me) and now the letter I received makes so much more sense.  Maybe this news should be getting out more:

    That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.

    At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama's landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.

    "Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.

    Some of the nation's biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers' renewal dates for the end of December. There's also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.

    Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.

    "This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."

    This issue could affect some of the 15 million people nationwide who purchase their own coverage and millions more of the uninsured who are expected to join government exchanges next year. It would not pertain to the 150 million Americans who get health benefits through their employers.

    SNIP

    If an insurer offers this option, it would then be up to consumers to decide whether they want to renew an existing policy into 2014. The length of any renewal may depend on what month their annual plan year begins.

    Many lower-income people will qualify for federal premium subsidies, which will be available only when purchasing new coverage available in state- or federal-run insurance exchanges. It would make financial sense to take advantage of that government aid. Individuals earning less than $46,000 or families below $94,000 annually would be eligible for subsidies.

    However, many people who are middle income or above could face significantly higher premiums next year with no subsidies. Those premium increases are tied to federal requirements that insurers accept all applicants regardless of their medical condition and the inclusion of more comprehensive benefits.

    Renewing an older policy could mean forgoing some of those richer benefits and new limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses.
    GO DUCKS... (none / 0) (#127)
    by fishcamp on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    they play Stanford tonight at 9 pm EST on ESPN.  Lotta other sports on at the same time...NFL, NBA,NCAA.  Hi Casey.

    "You're right!" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edger on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    "It's better not seeing what's coming!"

    My brother-in-law gigging with Sergio Meneds... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:05:00 PM EST
    ...at the Glastonbury Festival this summer. This is just the highlights. He's the cat in back playing second keyboard, flute, and sax. At about the 4:20 mark (sort of perfect), he gets some good solo time. Check it out, and his new platter. (link)

    oops forgot the Glastonbury link (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 06:05:51 PM EST
    Idiot I am. (link)

    Parent
    The NFL Live guys on ESPN hold their ground (none / 0) (#207)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 08, 2013 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    Listening to them discuss the latest developments in the Jonathan Martin case, I am really glad they aren't wavering in the least. Football is such an influence on a lot of young men in this society, and taking this stand as they are, IMHO, really helps toward eliminating this garbage from society. (link)

    Wednesday Open Thread | 207 comments (207 topical)