home

Thursday Open Thread

The jury in the John Edwards trial seems to have progressed to considering the charges involving Fred Baron.

Busy day here, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Fed. Judge Rules DEA Warrantless GPS Device Invalid | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I posted (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:30:49 PM EST
    this on another thread but think it's worth posting again. Gallup has an article based on their polling called Ten Key Insights into the US Presidential Election.

    link

    One thing missing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:59:10 PM EST

    from those ten key insights is Obama's poor showing in the primaries.  

    He could not break 60% against an imprisoned felon in West Virginia.  He could not break 60% against a political nobody in Arkansas.  He could not break 60% against UNCOMMITTED in Kentucky.  In closed primaries!

    .

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    Romney had the same problem in the primaries. The voters did not want him either. Hence it's going to be a close election.

    Parent
    If it doesn't poll likely voters (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    then just walk on by.

    Parent
    You aren't (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    going to get an accurate likely voter model this early in the game. The gallup article goes into more detail than just who are they going to vote for. It goes into direction of the country etc.

    Parent
    I know the direction of the country (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    That's what I wanna change!

    ;-)


    Parent

    You want (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    Busheconomics Part Deuce? Not surprised there. I don't understand why you aren't happy with Obama though because he's continued a lot of Bush's economic policies and that has been his downfall.

    Parent
    Yeah, because as you know, ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    ... things were going just fine and dandy under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

    :-P

    Parent

    Let me see (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:00:53 PM EST
    $2.00 gas, unemployment under 5% and stock market rising.

    You bet I want some more of that Bush economy.

    So does the country.


    Parent

    Two unnecessary wars that bankrupted the (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Angel on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:15:51 PM EST
    country.....yeah, the Bush yesrs were the good ol' days, huh?

    Parent
    A housing bubble caused by Democratic (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    housing policies and a failure to regulate when Bush asked....

    ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

    Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    And then......

    Link

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    <snip>
    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Link

    Parent

    Really pathetic (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:01:57 PM EST
    that you're still hanging onto the fiction tht Fannie and Freddie were significant contributors to the housing mess.  Seriously, it's pathetic.

    Parent
    You must have forgotton your history. (2.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:17:02 AM EST
    .

    It was Fannie and Freddie that pioneered the acceptance of no money down mortgages to be bundled into derivative mortgage backed securities.  Note that the taxpayers are still pumping hard earned dollars into those two zombies.

    Maxine Waters:

    Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act, has worked just fine.  In fact, the GSE's have exceeded their housing goals.  What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator.  And this must be done in a the manner so as not to impede the affordable housing mission.  A mission that has seen innovation flourish, from desktop underwriting to 100 per cent loans.

    Just to remind you the Fannie and Freddie "innovations" Waters is lauding were the two key drivers of the housing bubble.  The 100% loan is a no money down loan and is therefore riskier.  Desktop underwriting is another description for a "stated income" mortgage, otherwise known as a liar loan.  

    To compound the disastrous policy of making riskier loans into a pricing bubble to lesser credit worthy borrowers, the "focus on the regulator" paid its part as well. The bank regulators treated mortgage backed securities as preferred!!!!

    Bad policy hand in hand with regulatory failure created ugly results.

    .

    Parent

    Just like your (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    intellectual leaders at Fox, you disappear the dismaying fact that Fannie/Freddie had far lower failure rates on their loans than the rest of the mortgage industry.  (Iow, they knew what they were doing with the small number of people they gave that kind of mortgage to.)

    And as I think you probably actually do know, it wasn't even the dicey mortgages themselves that were the problem, it was the massive and insane bets the banks made on those mortgages, aided and abetted by the ratings agencies who told them giant packages of sliced-and-diced subprime mortgages were All Good.

    But you knew that.

    Parent

    all of this is true (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:51:38 PM EST
    but I also wonder if they realize they're essentially making "the bankers just couldn't help themselves once the government did it!" argument.  Which is beyond stupid.  Isn't the whole GOP platform that private business is somehow smarter and better at everything than the government?  If they are so great, shouldn't they have been able to figure it out and be better, rather than worse at it?  This is basically arguing that the banks are government lemmings, only ones that decide to jump off higher cliffs.

    Parent
    The risky mortgages (none / 0) (#179)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    .

    The risky mortgages were at the heart of the problem.  There was nothing wrong with mortgage backed securities other than they contained nonperforming mortgages.  If the mortgages performed the mortgage backed securities would have been great investments.

    .


    Parent

    IOW (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:12:55 PM EST
    there was nothing wrong with it, except it was a risky and ultimately terrible bet, and done on such a large scale that when the bets went sour it brought the entire country to it's knees.

    Parent
    I think you are addressing AAA (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    but when you write:

    it was the massive and insane bets the banks made on those mortgages,

    You have a strong point that that caused the financial system collapse, but that didn't cause the mortgage defaults which was the cause of the failure of the "insane bets" and the billions lost on CDS.

    Parent

    "Faliure to regulate"? (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    Not that it caused the meltdown, but Bush only requested more oversight in response to the accounting scandal.  As soon as the media attention and heat disappeared, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress let their own legislation die in their Republican-controlled committee, without so much as a vote.

    Just a taste of reality for you, Jim!

    Parent

    I remember (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:02:27 PM EST
    $4.00 plus gas and a stock market crash and bank bailouts

    Parent
    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:36:09 AM EST
    you guys were whinging about gas being $1.46 back in 2000 and Bush was saying he was going to get the price down 'cause he was in the oil bizness and had buddies. It climbed his entire time until the market crashed. Romney is trying to figure out what to do with him during the convention and when Bush said "I'm for Romney" his campaign had "no comment". ROTFLMAO. Bushies never take responsibility I know that. There's a reason Bush left office with a 19% approval rating the lowest EVER recorded not that I think you'd ever admit he was a disaster. You better hope Romney figures out what to do about him and Cheney if you want Romney to win in November.

    Parent
    Ga, you can watch and listen to what the Demos (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    said.

    Enjoy this video.

    I mean, the Democrats were going to fix the "high prices of $2.15 in October 2006 and used that as part of their campaign claims to win the House and the Senate.

    How did that work out??? Well, by July 2008 gasoline was over $4.00 a gallon.

    Ga, you can make claims but the Internet has a long memory.

    So keep on making those claims and someone will be around to prove you wrong.

    Parent

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    you're just undercutting the GOP argument that gas prices were too high in 2000 with your whining about gas prices being $2.15. Shorter PPJ prices when Bush left office Bush gets credit for gas prices even though the same people controlled congress but when gas prices were high it's now congress' fault.

    This is why people laugh at conservatives. They never take responsibility for the messes they create.  Can you decide who the buck stops with? I'm guess it depends on what the issue is with you. Like I said up thread, you'll never admit what a disaster the Bush administration was to this country. You'll find some excuse or someone else to blame or whatever but you will NEVER accept responsibility for that disaster.

    Parent

    Not being a partisan (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    party member, unlike you, I can state facts and not try to ignore them.

    I mean I take position after position over years and years that no conservative would take yet you keep on wanting to talk about conservatives in your replies to me.

    I mean, can't you understand that believing the Demos energy policy is a disaster doesn't make one a conservative??

    BTW - It wasn't Repubs who were:

    "whining about gas prices being $2.15"

    Watch the video. It was Democrats.

    Parent

    Seriously? Seriously? (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    When the highest gas prices in history, $4-plus prices all over the country, were during the Bush admin?

    Seriously?

    Parent

    I remmber that gasoline was around (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    $2.00/gallon in 2/2007 when the Demos took control of both houses. Unemployment was below 5% and the stock market rising.

    Just 17 months later gasoline was around $4.00, unemployment was rising as fast as the stock market was falling. In those short 17 months the Democrats had managed to convince the oil speculators they wanted high prices and would induce them by blocking legislation to encourage/allow new drilling.

    The usual songs of "alternative" and "green" and "environment" had been played by the Democrats like a they were a bought DJ pushing the latest records that teens were supposed to buy.

    The housing bubble, driven by Democrat policies and opposition to Republican attempts to regulate the boom, had started bursting in 2007. The Feds started pumping money and cutting rates and by March/April 2008 the bleeding, though not stopped, was under control.

    Oil jumped drastically in May, June and July and the economy started collapsing and the patched housing bubble burst like a water balloon dropped on a hot July sidewalk.

    In July Bush, too late in my opinion, issued an EO rescinding the EO that was part of the Feds block of drilling off shore. The speculators realized that there would be no shortage.

    Gasoline prices started falling and had reached $1.81 by the day Obama was sworn in.

    In the meantime Obama had opined on MSNBC in 8/2008 that he didn't mind high gasoline prices, he just wanted them to rise slowly.

    Then immediately after he was sworn in Salazar announced that all the public lands that had just been opened would again be closed.

    The speculators and oil mavens aren't fools. So Obama got what he wanted... a slow rise to near $4.00...

    In the meantime he lectured us on keeping our cars tuned and tires inflated and opined that the world would be saved by such as Solyandra...

    What a joke he has been.

    But his actions have kept the economy depressed and that is going to keep him from a second term.

    Sometimes you get what you deserve.

    Parent

    Unsupported, evidence-free fairy tales (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    Easy, aren't they, Jim?

    Parent
    Computer has a long memory (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:10:07 AM EST
    CNNMoney
    May 21 2007: 5:46 PM EDT

    Gas prices: Worse than '81 oil shock
    Gas now at highest level, even adjusted for inflation; AAA's reading of nearly $3.20 a gallon marks ninth straight record high in current dollars.
    a gallon marks ninth straight record high in current dollars.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Gasoline prices have soared to levels never seen before as even the inflation-adjusted price for a gallon of unleaded topped the 1981 record spike in price that had stood for 26 years.And higher prices could be on the way as Americans get ready to hit the road for the Memorial Day holiday and the start of the summer driving season.

    Avg. price for a gallon of gas $3.00-$3.47

    Parent

    In all reality (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    This is a silly argument

    American Presidents have almost no control over the price of gasoline.


    Parent

    Thanks for proving my point (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    and look again at the video where the Demos claim they will fix the problem if elected..

    Well, they were elected and the problem got worse.

    Just like Obama was gonna fix the problem if we elected him and the problem got worse...

    Fool me once, shame on you.

    Fool me twice, shame on me.

    ;-)

    Parent

    I thought this was the saying, courtesy of Bush: (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again."

    Parent
    So this must mean ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    Just like Obama was gonna fix the problem if we elected him and the problem got worse...

    Fool me once, shame on you.

    Fool me twice, shame on me.


    ... you didn't vote for Bush in 2004, right?

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    You should get a job rewriting history books for the Tea Party.

    Parent
    Every bit factual (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    Did you even bother withe video??

    Parent
    "Likely voters" at this point (none / 0) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:00:26 PM EST
    in time is a sure sign the pollsters stink.


    Parent
    Likely voter means (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    Voted in the last election

    Registered to vote inn the upcoming election

    States they plain to vote

    So yes, I take what those people say seriously. Much more seriously than other polls that are of people who may or may not vote.

    Parent

    Meaning of "voted in the last election" (none / 0) (#178)
    by christinep on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    Would that be the 2010 off-year election or the 2008 general election?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    That's my understanding, although if the poll is about the Presidential election it would specify "Last Presidential election."

    Parent
    so exclude everyone under 22? (none / 0) (#184)
    by CST on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    They may have lower turnout but I wouldn't assume none of them are likely voters.

    Parent
    Understand your point (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    but the most accurate result is still likely voters.

    Parent
    Uggggggggggggggh... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    ...there was no GOTV campaign, no ground organization, they already don't like Barack Obama in these places, and he's not going to win these places regardless.

    The # of layers of irrelevancy to Barack Obama's "poor showing" in Appalachia rivals Vidalia onions.

    We might as well focus on Mitt's poor polling in Massachusetts, among those who know his governance best.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    it does have some relevance when it comes to demographics because the same type of voters are in southern OH, western VA, NC and PA. It's really more or less a continuation of the same problems he has had all along. Whether it is enough to hurt him in November remains to be seen.

    Parent
    Obama won all 4 states last time (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by magster on Thu May 24, 2012 at 05:46:50 PM EST
    with the same problem, and is leading in polls in those 4 states now.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:54:08 AM EST
    had the wind at his back in 2008 and he's going to have an uphill struggle this year because a lot of people think that the country is going in the wrong direction. Obama had the opposite thing going on in  2008.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:04:35 PM EST
    Will not win NC.  VA is iffy.

    Parent
    Not really. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:31:26 PM EST
    He didn't compete in these areas. There is no interest among Obama supporters in these areas. The only people with any motivation to turn out were protest voters who have already shown they don't particularly like Obama (and this was already the case in 2008). PUMAs didn't disappear.

    However, according to the numbers I can fine (feel free to correct me) in WV the turnout in 2008 was 359,910. This year it was 178,000. In KY, the turnout in 2008 was 701,768, in 2012 it was 206,000. Will it have an impact on PA, OH, VA, and NC? Maybe. But it'll be mostly the same impact it had in 2008 when he won all those places.

    Parent

    Were there (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    not any local primaries to show up for in these states? Primaries for house seats etc? Or other local items? If the case is that because Obama didn't compete then the criticism about him having cultist voters would ring true because they wouldn't be interested in the party or any issue just Obama himself.

    Parent
    I don't agree with your argument here... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:40:37 PM EST
    If the case is that because Obama didn't compete then the criticism about him having cultist voters would ring true because they wouldn't be interested in the party or any issue just Obama himself.

    I don't think your conclusions follow from your assertions.

    Parent

    what does PUMA have to do with this? (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:48:40 AM EST
    these people who showed up in these primaries to vote for someone besides Obama are mostly blue collar unemployed.  PUMA may also have voted for someone else, but more likely a write in for Hillary or some other woman candidate, or skipped the top of the ticket.
    Obama supporters need to get a grip on the fact that there are a lot of people, long term unemployed, non blogger types, who do not see the charm in the man and it has not much to do with racism.  It has to do with jobs, elitism and a man who appears to them to dither while the nation burns.

    And this is not directed to you Addison, but to others on the thread and to the gods of the democratic party in general: can we please get rid of the  BS use of the word Appalachian? We all know it is just code for Rayci$t. But here is the thing, if you really think that the only or main reason to reject Obama as president is because of his race then it is you who have a one dimensional concept of the man based on his skin color and so who is the racist?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    you can write off NC this year.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    Or, at least, I don't think it should be in President Obama's calculus for getting to 270.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    a good article on the subject:

    link

    Parent

    Hahaha... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    ...I'm aware of RCP's stance on the President's chances.

    Parent
    Another good analysis (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    On why the Democratic primaries matter.

    Consider:

    There are only seven sitting presidents who have ever received less than 60 percent of the vote in any primary: Taft in '12; Coolidge, '24; Hoover, '32; LBJ, '68; Ford '76; Carter, '80; and Bush '92. All of these presidents, with the exception of Coolidge, were not re-elected -- and he eventually faced a substantial third-party challenge from one of his primary challengers.

    Moreover, consider the men who brought these challenges: former President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, Sen. Bob LaFollette in 1924, Sen. Joseph France of Maryland in 1932, Sen. Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1976, Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1980, and TV commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992. Obviously the quality here varies substantially, but all of these upstarts began with a much stronger national profile than Keith Judd or John Wolfe.

    Obama now joins this esteemed group. (Obama received 58.4% in Arkansas, 57.9% in Kentucky primary [against no opposition].  Add to that, he lost huge chunks of votes to no or token opposition in WV, NC, LA, AL, and OK).

    Or consider this:

    Now, no one expects West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kentucky to be a part of Obama's coalition this fall. But lots of people are looking at Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. These states are where this primary weakness becomes potentially significant.

    All four of those states have substantial populations in areas geographically and culturally similar to these "problem areas": southwestern Pennsylvania, western Virginia and North Carolina, and southeastern Ohio. In all of these states, Obama's path to victory is to hold down his losses in rural areas, and then maximize his vote among upscale and minority voters in urban areas.

    In 2008 this strategy worked well, in large part because the financial collapse produced a large turnaround in the voting preferences of whites without college degrees. He still performed relatively poorly for a Democrat among these voters, but his margins were enough to enable him to capture these four states. If he's facing a virtual rebellion among rural white Democrats (and presumably a similar problem with independents) this time around, his odds of capturing these four states diminish appreciably. Once again, this isn't to say that he will necessarily lose, just that his path to re-election narrows if Romney is racking up big wins in the 11th District of North Carolina, or in the old 6th District of Ohio.



    Parent
    OMG - the 4 in my lifetime (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:30:27 AM EST
    had actual primary challengers, and ran actual primary campaigns. Not at all applicable in my opinion.

    Parent
    You know what? (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:36:32 AM EST
    I don't think this means as much as conservatives want it to mean nor does it mean as little as liberals want it to mean but it definitely means something that people are ticked off enough to show up and vote against Obama. It's kind of Buchanan in '92. Heck lots of people voted for him in the primary that didn't even agree with what he stood for. It was more or less a protest vote just like this is. How that translates in November I just don't know.

    Parent
    I would have to see some exit polls (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    in WVa for example to determine it was any kind of a protest vote. I'm pretty sure uncontested primaries in May don't translate to much in November. But hey, I've been wrong before.

    Parent
    Oh - they lost too, by the way (none / 0) (#158)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    (except Calving Coolidge).

    The point being, (as Trende makes), that just because there are borders to states, doesn't mean those same types of voters aren't in states Obama is trying to stay competitive in.  

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    was a really good article. I don't know anything about the guy who wrote it but it was well thought out and made me think. The long and short of it is that Obama STILL has the same demographic problems that were present back in 2008. I think a lot of the reason the GOP is pulling some of the crap they are pulling is because they think that if they can create enough racial tension they can peel off enough white voters to win. That is exactly what is behind a lot of these voter ID laws in my mind like the ones in SC. They KNEW it would never past muster yet they voted for it simply to create racial tensions in the state because that works for the GOP. If they don't create racial tensions so that everybody can IGNORE what a crap job they've done, the people WILL start noticing what a crap job they've done running the state.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    And, while racism (none / 0) (#167)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    Was somewhat subdued in 2008 by the grand spectacle of it all ) it was just like holding a basketball underwater...it is now spring loaded eager to erupt to the surface.

    Today's poll in Florida regarding SYG Law, and gun control is, to me anyway, quite significant. Even in the midst of the Martin tragedy the folks there seemed eager to send a message. And, again to me only, that message ain't simply generic self protection.


    Parent

    I don't think it's just about racism (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    I think that may be just one aspect.  But poor rural whites have fared especially poorly the last 4 years.  Is that all Obama's fault?  No, but he's the guy in charge and that's who gets blamed.

    Parent
    I'm not (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    talking about "racism". I'm talking about "racial tensions" which is a different animal like passing a voter ID law that you know will upset minorities therefore creating the "tensions"

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    These were Democrats voting in these states (mostly, anyway, barring any open primaries).

    Parent
    It doesn't (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    matter which party they are a member of to create racial tensions. You saw it back in 2008 when Obama pulled that stuff in SC didn't you? He did a great job of creating racial tensions just like Republicans are doing today.

    Parent
    Maybe people need to agree (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    that when you need a government issued ID to cash a check, buy an airline ticket, board an airline, rent a car, check into a hotel, open a bank account.......

    thAT requiring people to prove they are who they say they are in order to vote isn't an unreasonable position.

    Maybe if the Democrats quit playing the race card on this issue and started an education process with the minorities in question the "tension" would go away.

    Parent

    The voter ID matter (none / 0) (#185)
    by christinep on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    Is what you say it is:  A technique to exploit racial/minority tensions (as well as a way to minimize votes from the economically disadvantaged.). The Colorado Secretary of State appears to be doing all he can for the Repubs in the way of ramping down the vote via zealous purging of voter rolls.

    On a related note:  Donald "He was born in Kenya" Trump is set to host Romney again as a surrogate & fundraiser.  Trump is also repeating loudly his birtherism BS about the President.  Well--land o' goshen-- I wonder how Mitt is going to react to that as he soon shares the stage in welcome with Trump?  And, I wonder how the polity beyond the "burghers" are going to view that (as in Independents?). Pretzels.

    Parent

    The party (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    doesn't typically engage in a big GOTV campaign or ground organization for primaries.  That's for the individual campaign to manage.  Interesting, though, that Appalachian Democrats are already being thrown under the bus.

    I'm curious to see who is next.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    Interesting, though, that Appalachian Democrats are already being thrown under the bus.

    Uncalled for, wrong, and not what I meant. I AM an Appalachian Democrat.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    I'm surprised then at how easily you dismiss the ... what did you call them?  Protest voters?  

    Parent
    Yeah, protest voters... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:41:10 PM EST
    ...people don't vote for a felon over a decent Democrat because they think he'd be a better president.

    Parent
    totally unrelated (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    but it made me laugh thinking of this.

    For those who don't feel like reading the whole thing, his wiki page headlines go like this:

    Early Life
    First Prison Term
    Mayor of Boston
    Second Prison Term
    Return to Office
    Governor of MA
    Return to Congress
    Return to the Mayorality...and prison (my personal favorite which comes with this quote:
    "This did not stop him from being re-elected while being incarcerated, a rarity in political elections.")
    End of career

    Parent

    Maybe there is a concentration (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu May 24, 2012 at 09:35:30 PM EST
    of convicted felons there?

    Parent
    These (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:37:51 PM EST
    people never got out from under the bus.

    Parent
    We certainly agree on that (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    It is the weight being given to the fact that we disagree on.  It appears that you've already decided it is insignificant.  I haven't yet applied my WAG baseline weight value.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    That was meant to be a reply to this comment of Addisons (which I am reproducing in its entirety because the comment nesting is already deep enough):
    Yeah, protest voters... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:41:10 PM EST

    ...people don't vote for a felon over a decent Democrat because they think he'd be a better president.

    Parent | Reply to This



    Parent
    Ah... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    ...I don't think it's insignificant. I think its significance was already factored into the 2008 results.

    Parent
    It's not 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    anymore and there are a lot of issues at play. Now I know that Obama is not going to win those particular states but if he can't make up the votes from somewhere like southern Ohio with increased turnout in another area it is going to have an effect.

    Parent
    And you know what? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:01:00 PM EST
    Those people in Southern Ohio, PA, NC, etc. read about polls and results like this too.

    Parent
    Well, look... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    ...we have different opinions on this. I think President Obama will get about the same % of the vote from "Appalachian" areas as he did in 2008. You seems to think that he won't.

    I think his primary performance this year is about the lack of any effort whatsoever in competing for votes or getting his supporters in these areas to bother to turn out for a pointless primary. It's a protest vote by people who never liked him and didn't vote for him last time.

    But we'll see! Bookmark this comment and tell me I'm wrong when the time comes.

    Parent

    I don't think you and Ga6th (none / 0) (#44)
    by dk on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    are far apart.  I think you're having more of a glass half empty/glass half full type of discussion.

    You're saying Obama will get "about" the same %.  I could be wrong, but I don't see Ga6th disagreeing with that.  But, in what may be a much closer election, even minor shifts will have an impact.  

    Parent

    What DK (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:44:06 PM EST
    said below.

    What I'm thinking is that these people were/are ticked off enough to show up for a primary where there may have been nothing going on, then they're sure to show up in November. My point is what if they are 30% of the voters in OH instead of 28% in 2008? (I don't know the actual numbers. I'm just using these to make a point). That would mean that Obama would have to work just that much harder in the cities getting people out to vote.

    I really don't think these people like Romney because I can't see him really advocating for anything that helps them either. It's just that Jimmy Carter won OH in 1976 with something like one vote in every precinct and a few little changes can make a difference in a close election.

    The way I see it is that Romney has some serious demographic problems as that the GOP base is dying off and that his ideas are the failed ideas of the past. Obama has the problem of something like over 70% of the country thinks it is going in the wrong direction.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    I really had no idea what you are talking about.

    Parent
    thrown under the bus (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:52:48 AM EST
    and expected to vote for Obama from under there as people chant "raysi$t" at us.  Being from Pa, I of course am one of them.  Being PUMA when PUMA was new, I am also, of course, uneducated, a bitter knitter and I think frigid...right?

    Parent
    Personally (1.00 / 3) (#78)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:06:01 PM EST
    I want Appalachian dems thrown further under the bus.  The are kind of racist and prone to vote for felons in jail in other states.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    Everyine who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist.  I forgot.

    Oh, they live in Appalachia, so they're stupid too.  They need soneone to show them the error of their ways.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    You have (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    forgotten that Obama did attack these people apparently. They have a distinct reason for disliking him outside of his race.

    Parent
    no problem (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:05:38 AM EST
    hang your racism right out there for everyone to see.  It seems you might need to look in a mirror. Here's the interesting thing to note.  No one can really argue anymore that African Americans lack the institutional power to give their racism teeth.  So when you say what you just said or Obama says something racist, as he did several times in 2008, even though no one had the gonads to call him on it, it matters.
    In other words, you don't get a free pass anymore in my opinion.  

    Parent
    Pretty disgusting comment, even for you. (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:33:57 PM EST
    But, hey, at least you say it out loud I guess.

    Parent
    they should forget Obama (none / 0) (#111)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:43:21 AM EST
    Attacked their livelyhood, coal.

    Parent
    And they cling to their (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:38:49 AM EST
    guns and religion...

    I mean, what kind of Americans are they???

    Don't have any Hope and Change??

    Parent

    Oh, Jim, we get that you're worried, and (none / 0) (#146)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    rightfully so because the GOP is a dying breed.  The demographics in this country are changing, and changing rapidly, and the GOP still wants it to be an elite club of old white guys.  Unless the GOP begins to embrace Hispanic, African American, and Asian voters, well...it's adios, goodbye and sayonara to them.  I'll take the Hope and Change thing any day over what the GOP offers.  

    Parent
    And the war on women, they need to ditch that too. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    Speaking of war on women (1.33 / 3) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:05:12 PM EST
    A letter from the Department of Justice (DOJ) caused the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith (UAFS) to reverse its policy and allow a 38-year old anatomically-male "transgender" student permanent use of women's restrooms on campus despite strong opposition from female students.


    Parent
    Doesn't at all apply to the GOP's war on women (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    and you know it, but keep trying if it makes you feel good.  

    Parent
    Remember what (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    Phyllis Schafly said about all the non-white voters out there: "they don't have American values". The GOP better figure a way to get that lady out of the sight of everybody quick.

    Parent
    Since I am not a Repub (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:08:56 PM EST
    I have no idea as to why you are addressing me on this issue.

    Stick around and you will discover I am a Social Liberal.

    Of course the current Demo party is not Liberal anymore.

    (Let's all prepare ourselves for jondee to show up with some unsupportable claim.)

    Parent

    Malarkey. (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by Angel on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    Not Republican, Jim? (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by christinep on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:30:34 PM EST
    Hmmm.  Looks like a duck , walks like a duck,  quacks like a duck....

    Parent
    he left 'em (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2012 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    decades ago when they alienated the Birchers and the White Citizen's Council..

    Parent
    So if you're just an "independent" ... (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    ... tell us several Democrats you've voted for in the past 25 years ...

    (Crickets chirping)

    Parent

    they're not liberal anymore.. (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    and politcal liberalism is a very high priority for Jim..

    Parent
    See, I told you he'd show up (2.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    jondee, Yman, et al....

    Wanna know why we can't get reforms?? Single payer insurance? Drug law reform?

    Because too many people like these demand you support each and every claim or be insulted and derided.

    Divided you fall and you divide yourselves!

    Parent

    Who cares, Abdul? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    I really don't put too much stock into Democratic primary results from an area of the country where a successful small business is defined by its ability to hire lookouts to watch for the cops.

    Parent
    You talkin' about the drug dealers (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    in LA??

    Parent
    California has the 8th largest economy ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    ... in the world, and the Los Angeles metropolitan area alone has a diverse economy that's thrice bigger than all of Appalachia combined, at least. Red Appalachia clearly has other issues going on.

    But hey, go ahead and keep on digging a rhetorical hole for yourself. Lord knows, it wouldn't be the first time you were too busy admiring the view to notice that you somehow managed to shove your head up your own rear.

    Parent

    I remember when CA was (2.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:04:10 PM EST
    the 5th largest economy in the world...

    It must have been Obamaized.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Oh, COME ON! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    Do you really, really utterly refuse to remember the housing bubble and its subsequent crash?

    Please.  If you're going to argue for your side, at least TRY to stick to reality and make some sense.  This is ridiculous.

    Parent

    To avoid repeating myself (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    go read my #100 in then #114.

    Parent
    Sorry, Jim (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:40:49 AM EST
    That was before Bush took over.  It was "Bushized".

    Parent
    nah (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:11:38 AM EST
    that would be Honolulu.

    Parent
    Hard to believe people are really making (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu May 24, 2012 at 05:27:48 PM EST
    an issue of this, or is it just you?  The Dem party was not even having real presidential primaries, mores the pity.

    Parent
    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:03:52 PM EST
    Who goes to vote in the primaries as a dem other than those angry at Obama looking to vent about something else important.

    Plus you picked the states that, well, let's just say a black president wouldn't be their first choice.

    It a close race but we knew in 2009 that it would be  because of the economy.

    Parent

    didn't you go vote in your primary? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:19:50 AM EST
    are you one of those people who only show up every four years?  Here in PA we had primaries for congress, senate, all kinds of races.  As a person who thinks all those offices matter I always show up.  

    Parent
    Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:18:29 AM EST
    ABG has previously stated that he is not a registered Dem, so unless he lives in a state with open primaries he wouldn't know what a Democratic primary encompasses.

    And yeah, I'm by nature a show up-er myself.  One of my favorite sayings is Benjamin Disraeli's "History is made by those who show up."  Maybe not every time you show up but it sure as heck isn't going to happen sitting on the couch flipping through the channels.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by sj on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    It a close race but we knew in 2009 that it would be  because of the economy.
    Once again who is this "we" you always use.  As far as I know you're not royalty.  And as I recall when you first arrived you were predicting a much improved economy that would lead O to his Inevitable Reelection.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#124)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:26:46 AM EST
    I think you and lots of other people are going to have to eat a lot of crow when those states vote for the first black republican presidential candidate.  

    Parent
    When they vote for him in the primaries, I will (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:56:35 AM EST
    all that proves (none / 0) (#90)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 09:12:28 PM EST
    is he's going to get crushed in AR, KY & WV. None of which are states he won before or needs to win now.

    Parent
    And I would expect a liberal protest vote (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    to come from someplace like California, not Ar, Ky or WVa. We'll see how he does there.

    Of course, given the outsized attention these results have gotten, he may actually campaign in California before June.

    Parent

    Apparently he slipped in and out yesterday (none / 0) (#166)
    by nycstray on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    I'd be surprised if he actually campaigned here before the primary. Come here for another fundraiser, not so much :)

    I didn't even notice if there's anyone running against him, I'm more interested in the funding for my local library :D

    Parent

    From our "Comedy Is Not Pretty" file: (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:25:40 PM EST
    Boy, we've got Republican wingbats all over the western U.S. who are stepping in it this week, big-time.

    Only one day after hapless Arizona Sec. of State Ken Bennett was compelled to apologize to his own consituents for his birthermania after Hawaii officials embarrassed him to high heaven before a nationwide audience by publicly questioning HIS credentials for office, Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) decided to follow in the dog poo-stained footsteps of Tom Tancredo. He attacked President Obama's patriotism and then got enveloped in his own dust cloud, conducting one of the campiest TV political interviews EVAH! with Denver's Chennel 9 News.

    But as stiff as the competition has been, this week's frontrunner for the Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs Award has to go jointly to Villa Park, CA Republican Deborah Pauley, anti-Islamic hysteric and erstwhile candidate for the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and small businessman Robert Walters, one of her die-hard political supporters.

    Okay, how die-hard is Robert Walters, you ask? Well, Walters is so die-hard that he sent out 7,900 letters of support for Ms. Pauley's candidacy -- on old "George Wallace for President" campaign letterhead that was apparently left over from the 1968 election, when Walters served as Wallace's California chairman.

    The effort sent Orange County Republicans into a tizzy, furiously backpedaling away from Ms. Pauley, who's also a member of the Orange County GOP Central Committee -- or I should say, WAS a member, until she was summarily removed from her post local GOP Chairman Scott Baugh, who had already put her on notice last year following an earlier race-baiting incident.

    "I'm not a white supremacist," Ms. Pauly said. Hopefully, we can now watch her candidacy die hard, too.

    (And to think, we still have Friday to go.)

    Aloha.

    Love it! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:20:00 PM EST
    Thanks for a satisfying Schadenfreude-ish laugh.

    Parent
    The GOP is never going to learn (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    it seems. You know, you dance with the ones that brought you and when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

    Parent
    Happy Birthday, Bob Dylan. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:50:03 PM EST
    Now, that's a Zimmerman post!! (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by EL seattle on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    There's a nice TalkLeft mention at the Howler... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by EL seattle on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:55:11 PM EST
    ...today. Concerning the Zimmerman coverage, Bob Somerby sez TalkLeft is "an invaluable resource if you're trying to follow this case." I think that most folks will agree with that statement.

    (Of course, maybe Somerby is just glad that someone is doing some solid coverage of the case, because that frees up more time for him to wage his crusade against the sort of clownishness that so often seems to pop up on MSNBC these days. But his praise is definitely justified, and I think I saw at least one TalkLeft fan in the comment stream there, too.)

    Thanks for the excellent work, Jeralyn. It is appreciated.

    Segue is Music, though not Bob (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu May 24, 2012 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    Dylan's birthday.

    Here's what I was privies to hear tonight:
    Cleveland Orchestra/Franz Weiser Most conducting @ Carnegie Hall. Complete, no intermission, performance of Richard Strauss' "Salome.". Marvelous.  Such a terrific wrap up to time in NY. Nina Stemme as Salome. Eric Owens as Jochanaan. I am floating. Can't wait to return.

    Maybe to see Cate Blanchett in "Uncle Vanya"?  This summer as part of Lincoln Center Festival.  

    I just read that Kiera Knightley (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:14:18 AM EST
    is engaged... Sigh, another dream gone... another dance card unfilled.

    What's with all these starlets forgetting about me down here in Alabama?

    Dag nabbit.

    Fracking coming soon to a national forest (none / 0) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    near you. Thanks to the BLM, fracking is coming your way. The Talladega National Forest is about to become a home to fracking.

    The BLM plans to begin selling leases for oil and gas extraction in the Talledega next month. It has all been a hush-hush process with people who closely follow issues relating to the Talledega surprised to learn of the leases.

    Parent

    P.S. sorry about Keira, pal. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    Thanks for thw arning. (none / 0) (#161)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    Time for me to get busy.

    Parent
    S E Cupp (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    Yes. It's disgusting and dumb. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    But, that's what Hustler does.  It doesn't mean that S. E. Cupp is right about anything. It doesn't make Michelle Malkin right about anything. It means nothing but that Hustler tries to get attention through demeaning sexual content and is largely protected by the 1st amendment.

    Parent
    So is Rush Limbaugh but that didn't (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:44:21 PM EST
    stop the bellyaching.

    There is and continues to be a double standard for conservative women and Hilliary Clinton.  

    We saw this play out in 2008.

    Too bad.

    Parent

    What double standard? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:50:17 PM EST
    Is there a groundswell of support among Democrats for Hustler?

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    have got to be freaking kidding. What conservative woman came to Hillary's defense back in 2008? Nary a one that I can remember. Conservatives cranked up the misogyny on that woman for over a decade talking about her "fat ankles" and all other kind of odious things. They were egging on the misogyny on Clinton that came from the left and then they go into full whine mode when Palin gets hit with it. You reap what you sow.

    Parent
    yup, I know it seems that way (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    but in 2008 I did see a few conservative women and men defend her.  They got shouted down of course.  I remember Palin saying something about Hillary shouldn't complain, but then when she got a taste of it, she kind of took her comments back and gave Clinton her due.  I wish I could remember where and when.
    But here's the thing, republican women, as they gain more of a toe hold in their party are going to see what it is like to get slimed from the right and the left and they are going to have to learn how to deal with it.  I expect that women on both sides are going to learn to work together. I don't want to say "well they didn't stick up for Clinton, so screw them".  How are we ever going to get ahead of the curve that way?

    Parent
    No, it's not! (double standard) (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    Show me a democrat aligning him/herself with Hustler.

    Republicans, otoh, not only align themselves with Limbaugh, they worship him, publicly and submissively.

    Try again

    Parent

    Larry Flynt (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    was a huge favorite of liberals a few years ago when he pulled some stunt I can not remember.  He offered money to out men who had gone to make prostitutes or something?

    Parent
    To find more (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:36:45 AM EST
    Republican politicians in sex scandals.

    Parent
    the fact that he dislikes (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    conservatives more than he dislikes liberals, doesn't make him any kind of "favorite of liberals"..

    But by all means, keeping letting fly: it's therapuetic and empowering.

    Parent

    Rush Limbaugh (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    Absolutely has a First Amendment right to spout his nonsense.  What he doesn't have a right to is a radio gig for millions of dollars and if his network or his sponsors deem that his statements are too toxic and polarizing, tehn they are free to pull their money and his support, and then he would be free to go stand on the street corner and say the same things he's saying now.  Everyone here (I think) would defend his right to do that.

    Parent
    Defend it? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    jbindc: "... and then [Rush Limbaugh] would be free to go stand on the street corner and say the same things he's saying now. Everyone here (I think) would defend his right to do that."

    Hell, I'd even offer him a heavily-reinforced concrete soap box for him to stand on and spew from.

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:50:33 PM EST
    There is and continues to be a double standard for conservative women and Hilliary Clinton.


    Parent
    He's lumping Clinton in with conservative women... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:54:19 PM EST
    ..not saying that there's a double standard for one and not the other. That said, I disagree with his premise as it relates to this latest case (I didn't rebel against Hustler because I don't read Hustler.

    Parent
    In other words, ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    ... he's whining.

    Parent
    He's Malkin'ing. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    ooof.. n/t (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    I so didn't get this. thanks. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    Fascinating. (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:13:05 PM EST
    And I do agree with you about the double standard.  Liberal women and women's groups have loudly condemened "Hustler" and Larry Flynt for this, whereas conservative women on Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke... ehhh, not so much.

    Parent
    "Double standard" - heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    Limbaugh is widely viewed by Republicans as one of their leaders.

    Not so much with Democrats and Larry Flynt.

    Parent

    Incorrect (none / 0) (#116)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:20:36 AM EST
    .

    Limbaugh is widely viewed by Democrats as a Republican leader.

    There, fixed that for you.

    .

    Parent

    Better change it back (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Yman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Republicans put him at the top of the list for the person speaking for the party.

    What did Ronny say about him?:


    Thanks for all you're doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I've retired from active politics, I don't mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.

    Limbaugh was also named an honorary member of the 1994 "Limbaugh Congress" by Republican members.  Not to mention having his bags personally carried by Bush to the Lincoln bedroom.

    Parent

    Are we in for a bank run? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    Well, a lot of people searching Google seem to think so:

    The volume of searches for the phrase 'Bank Run' has just hit an all-time high - higher now than even during the peak of the Lehman Brothers 'moment'. While English dominates the language choices, the Europeans (Dutch, Germans, and French) are extremely 'interested' as are the Chinese...but it appears the Singaporeans are running the most scared

    Singapore ... hmmm.   You can see all the charts and graphs about this here.

    I double checked this via Google Trends and this data looks accurate to me.

    Suspect in Etan Patz case in custody (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    and has confessed. NOT the person the police had long had as the prime suspect.

    False confession? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Addison on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    The truth of this confession is reported to be doubted by the investigators. I get the impression from most reports that the investigation is focused on proving that this guy is, in fact, lying.

    Parent
    That suspect, Pedro Hernandez, has ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    ... been arrested this evening for the kidnapping and death of Etan Patz. I guess the police didn't shake his confession.

    Parent
    Finally saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Wish I had my money back.

    Of course I was comparing it to the PBS series and it suffers badly there. Tried not to but couldn't keep from doing that.

    Just on its own it is average.

    I felt the same way about ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:49:25 PM EST
    ... the 1953 Oscar-winning film From Here to Eternity starring Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr, when compared with the six-hour 1979 NBC miniseries starring Natalie Wood and William Devane.

    I think the primary reason why these films suffer somewhat is that both Eternity and Tinker, Tailor are richly detailed narratives, and that type of meticulous storytelling is often far better suited to a lengthier small-screen adaptation, than to a two-hour-and-so-odd-minutes theatrical release.

    Parent

    Need to find a good movie to rent tonight (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:09:53 PM EST
    Can someone give me something they loved but think 90% of the population has not seen?

    Parent
    If you're looking for ... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:42:49 PM EST
    ... an underrated classic, I highly recommend Francis Ford Coppola's 1974 film The Conversation, starring Gene Hackman, John Cazale, Allen Garfield, Cindy Williams, Robert Duvall (uncredited), Teri Garr and Frederic Forrest (and in a minor role, a young up-and-coming Harrison Ford).

    It's about a San Francisco surveillance expert (Hackman) who becomes convinced that the unknowing subjects of his latest project (Williams and Forrest) are being targeted for murder, possibly by his own client. No spoilers here, so I'll say no more, other than the plot's got some real twists to it.

    Sadly, while The Conversation was truly a labor of love for Coppola, it's rarely mentioned by lay people among his great films. Nevertheless, it was nominated for three Academy Awards in 1974, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay (Coppola), and placed Coppola in the rarified air of being one of the very few directors / producers to have had two films nominated for Best Picture in the same year.

    (The other nominated Coppola film that year was the eventual Oscar winner, The Godfather, Part II.)

    Parent

    off beat (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    my taste is off beat, I loved the HBO movie "Temple Grandin".  It's a true story about a girl with Autism and cows.  LOVED IT.
     Or if you have not seen "Shine" with Geoffrey Rush, rent it. Also a true story, it's about a young man with schizophrenia, his abusive father and a piano concerto. Double LOVED IT.  

    Parent
    I totally agree (none / 0) (#174)
    by Zorba on Fri May 25, 2012 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    about both Temple Grandin and Shine.  Both outstanding.
    Of course, as a retired special ed teacher who used to work with autistic and schizophrenic kids and young adults (among others), I may be inclined to like such films.  But the acting in both- superb.
    If you're interested in the field of autism, you might like Mozart and the Whale, about two people with Apserger's Syndrome who fall in love.  Really good.  Not a great film, but quite good.    

    Parent
    Scanned my netflix history... (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    Have you seen 'The Inside Man', with Clive Owen? Spike Lee directed - it is a rare straightforward mystery-thriller for him, and I really loved it.

    Parent
    More about it (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:25:22 PM EST
    Dispatched to the scene of a bank robbery, detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) must match wits with a cunning thief (Clive Owen) who's always one step ahead of the cops. When a loose-cannon negotiator (Jodie Foster) is called on for help, the unstable situation spins out of control. Keith soon finds himself questioning the motives of everyone around him. Spike Lee directs this taut heist thriller about the perfect crime gone wrong.

    I forgot how great Foster and Washington are in it too. I may have just talked myself into watching it for the 4th time!

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:43:40 PM EST
    The Perfect Host with David Hyde Pierce. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Angel on Thu May 24, 2012 at 09:37:13 PM EST
    Really good.

    Parent
    If you can find it (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:00:09 PM EST
    "A `Head' of His Time"

    Saw this many, many tears ago....at a drive-in, no less. It's a campy, kind of psychedelic, western. It stars Don Johnson (as a teenager) and his adventures traveling through the fantasy West. Kind of a parallel to "Wild Thing" made famous in the 70's.

    Granted, you won't have a problem following the plot, but as a barely-out-of-my-teens, kid, armed with a girlfriend (and a smoke-able mood elevator) I just remember laughing & marveling at how much I enjoyed watching what I thought was going to be a throwaway flick.  


    Parent

    Stupid me (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    The movie is, "Zachariah, 'A Head of his Time."

    Parent
    Have you seen 500 Days of Summer yet? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:18:34 AM EST
    And Layer Cake (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 07:39:43 AM EST
    Nobody ever really talks about the film with Daniel Craig, but I thought it was very good.  If you don't mind drugs and drug dealer movie content :)

    Parent
    Get out of my... (none / 0) (#121)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:08:35 AM EST
    Netflix account!!!

    Layer Cake was real good.  Just watched 500 Days of Summer the other night.  Still waiting for 500 Days of Autumn...

    Parent

    Josh has a crush on Zooey Deschanel (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:30:20 AM EST
    So that was why I checked out 500 Days of Summer initially.  I couldn't believe how great it was, I couldn't wait to show my husband the dancing in the street scene.  And we let Josh watch it too which did nothing to prevent a deepening crush.

    Parent
    Who doesn't? (none / 0) (#126)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 25, 2012 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    Alison Brie too...

    Parent
    Speaking of drugs and such... (none / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:29:12 AM EST
    I'm looking forward to the release of On The Road.  Should be interesting, even if it does fail to include the line about Des Moines.

    Parent
    You have a point (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    of course they use to make l o n g movies with intermissions.

    And Tinker has almost no action so there goes the youth crowd.

    I've been trying to think of a good movie made from le Carre... The Tailor of Panama? Russia House??

    Parent

    Not a story by LeCarre, but I think ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:48:30 PM EST
    ... the best political espionage thriller for my money is the 1973 film The Day of the Jackal, starring Edward Fox as the suave but sinister British hit man hired by disaffected French Army officers to assassinate President Charles DeGaulle in 1962.

    Parent
    Definitely in my top 5 (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:14:22 PM EST
    along with "The Spy who came in from the cold."

    Parent
    I'm so shallow (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Fri May 25, 2012 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    Somewhere in my top 5 live "Ladyhawke", "This is Spinal Tap" and "Highlander".

    The other two -- and the order -- are subject to change.

    Parent

    I'll check out the miniseries (none / 0) (#135)
    by brodie on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    rec even as I'm a bit skeptical given how some of those miniseries back then were pre-fabbed and toned down to be suitable for network tv, and given how much I think of the original film by Fred Zinnemann.  I do like at least four of the actors in that tv cast however.

    And I see below that we agree on Zinnemann's great classic TDOTJ from twenty years later, a film which should have had greater clout with the Oscars except maybe back then it was put into the second-class Foreign Film category.  Great performances by Edward Fox as the Jackal and the fellow who played the French detective.  Masterly directing by Zinnemann, his best film of all.

    Parent

    I never saw the original (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:59:32 PM EST
    so maybe the lack of bias helped me, but I thought it was very good. Also it was just nice to see a mainstream movie that required some thought. There are so few of those these days.

    Parent
    some mildly encouraging news (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Thu May 24, 2012 at 03:36:03 PM EST
    on the senate front:

    "Elizabeth Warren, emerging from what many consider the roughest patch yet in her Senate campaign, has pulled into a virtual tie with US Senator Scott Brown, according to a new Suffolk University/7News poll."

    "That is a significant shift from the last Suffolk poll in February when Warren, a consumer advocate and Harvard Law School professor, trailed Brown, a Wrentham Republican, 49 percent to 40 percent.

    Just 5 percent of voters were undecided in the current poll, down from 9 percent in February, leaving both campaigns to fight over a sliver of the electorate."

    Although I think this is my favorite part:

    "In the presidential race, Obama crushed former governor Mitt Romney by 25 points, 59 percent to 34 percent in Massachusetts, a reflection of how far Romney has fallen out of favor in the state he once governed."

    Also, memo to Brown, lay off the personal cr@p.

    "The poll indicated that although 73 percent of likely voters were aware of the controversy surrounding Warren's heritage, 69 percent said it was not a significant story."

    For those who aren't into math, 95% of people who were aware, said it didn't matter.

    This could obviously change a lot (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:04:53 PM EST
    but at the moment I'm not optimistic on Warren's chances.  I don't think that it will be enough to rely on Obama's coattails for her to win.  On some key issues Obama and Brown are close enough on the issues that people won't have an issues splitting the ticket.

    To win, Warren has to be the aggressor in this and drive up Brown's negatives (or he needs to implode, but that seems unlikely).  The whole Native American heritage silliness was, of course silly, and it's not surprising no one here cared about it as a substantive issue.  But it was a distraction, and she can't affort to spend much time on the devensive.  She's got to start attacking hard if she wants to win.  

    I also think she could keep the base energized by showing more open disagreement with Obama on economic issues.  If she's forced to toe the current national Democratic party line on how to handle the economy, she's not going to be able to differentiate herself from Brown and she will disappoint the base.

    Parent

    4 seats (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    That's all the Republicans need to pick up for the majority (3 if Romney wins).

    North Dakota is gone, and Nebraska looks good for them too.  Last I saw, RCP had 8 Democratic seats "in play".

    Warren needs campaigning help - I don't think it's her style.  

    Parent

    also not optimistic (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    But I'm feeling slightly better than I was a week ago when I was downright discouraged.

    I don't think open disagreement with Obama is a problem for her, she hasn't really been toe-ing the party line on the economy to date, which in some ways speaks to Brown's resilience, there are still a lot of economic moderates in the state.

    The key I think is that if she does keep hammering that home, will it be enough to increase the D base enthusiasm that might not care that much about the president at this point, and get them to show up anyway to vote her in.

    That being said, I think the biggest thing is that most people have a positive opinion of both of them, and she's got to find a way to differentiate without going negative.

    Parent

    Imagine (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    voters being positive about both candidates.

    What is this world coming to?

    Parent

    Hmm, I actually think she (none / 0) (#46)
    by dk on Thu May 24, 2012 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    does need to go negative (though, of course, in that political campaign way of going negative without appearing to go negative, if you get my drift).

    I think more people in here need to be given a reason to vote Brown out.  

    As for party line, I haven't seen her challenging it much in her campaign as of yet (though I agree she definitely had a record of it before she declared which, IMO, is how she ran all of her potential primary opponents out of the race so early).  She needs to stick to that, not move right.

    Parent

    They should listen to him in hearings (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:18:10 PM EST
    I saw part of a Lieberman-led Senate hearing on what to do about the Secret Service the other day, and Brown's performance was horrible.

    He dropped in, spent his allotted time badgering the SS director, irrelevantly, about polygraphs, and then vamoosed.  He couldn't put two coherent sentences together, never mind logic.

    I didn't have all that high an opinion of him to begin with, but he turns out to be really, frankly, stupid.


    Parent

    She needs to go on the warpath..... (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    sorry, couldn't resist.

    Parent
    Swiftboating. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    1/32nd boating (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:15:00 PM EST
    LoL (none / 0) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:44:50 PM EST
    Gotta say, "Good one," Jim

    (don't make it a habit)

    Parent

    And that says a lot about 95% of the people (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 06:35:11 PM EST
    in question.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu May 24, 2012 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    I agree that most people here aren't gullible idiots.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Parent

    ;-) lol (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:15:52 PM EST
    Voucher (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 24, 2012 at 08:48:38 PM EST
    scam scandal breaking here in GA:

    link

    Surprise, surprise (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 24, 2012 at 11:21:50 PM EST
    Vouchers turn out to benefit the well-to-do.

    Hope this gets lots more publicity.

    Parent

    Watched Nat Geo's Geo Bee (none / 0) (#130)
    by brodie on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    competition last night, first time in maybe a decade I'd tuned in.

    Interesting for me was to see the racial/ethnic and gender breakdown of the ten finalists, all of whom were in the 13-14 age bracket.

    Of the ten, nine were boys, and the one girl was quickly eliminated in the first round.  In fact she barely looked competitive.

    Seven of the finalists, including the final four, were of Indian/Pakistani extraction judging by their appearance and names.  The other three consisted of a boy of Chinese heritage (a 3-time finalist), one caucasian (family Polish), and one Jewish kid.

    Nothing more to say except to note how striking it was to see the male and Indian subcontinent dominance of this event and maybe to wonder where the girls are and why students from that region are so good at geography.

    The Geography Bee, like the (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mr Tuxedo on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    National Spelling Bee, was a means of upward mobility for white children from what used to be called the lower middle class (way back when there was still a middle class). Now both Bees serve that function for the children of immigrants, but there are many more girls in the National Spelling Bee.

    I teach kids K-6, and if I had to hazard a guess about why the gender distribution between the two Bees is what it is, I would say that more girls than boys tend to have the eidetic capacity that often underlies championship-level spelling, and that more boys than girls tend to display the concrete thinking that often underlies the ability to amass and retain large numbers of facts.

    These are just my anecdotal observations, though, and this is not to say that girls or boys "are" one thing or another.

    Parent