home

Tuesday Evening News Round-Up

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:09:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Before I turn my attention to American Idol, DWTS and Slumdog Millionaire (which arrived from Netflix today), there's more news to comment on today:

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Obamas Go to Europe | Tuesday Reality TV >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Evening News Round-Up | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Afghanistan (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    DEA agents seem like a minor issue to me. Americans should be more outraged that their tax dollars have just paid to legalize rape, child marriage and decimate what few rights women had in that sh!thole.

    Nothing like giving up a year of your life to watch this happen. I am beyond disgusted and I would hope everyone would contact the State Dept, Congress and the White House and tell them it is time to GET OUT NOW.

    This is what our tax dollars have wrought.

    Laizzes Faire Attitude? (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:38:00 PM EST
    Odd response for being so outraged and disgusted.

    Parent
    What is that suppose to mean? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    I personally think I have the right to say whatever I want about Afghanistan. I spent over a year there trying to help build that country and almost died three times for my effort.

    Our Govt, both Bush and Obama, have sat back and bankrolled (while looking the other way)corruption, human rights abuses and draconian laws. Apparently you haven't read my posts on this subject for the last two years.

    And Obama wants to make deals with the "moderate" Taliban? And to think we have paid for this with blood and treasure.

    Ya dude, I'm outraged. I'm not sure how that first post didn't make that Real CLEAR.

    Parent

    one thing that outrages me (none / 0) (#11)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:06:04 PM EST
    which is partially on your behalf, is that as usual, we never finished the job, imo. From the day Iraq started, you guys in Afghanistan, were forgotten by too many. I still think we should be there and am hoping that Obama makes more of a commitment to Afghanistan as I always thought it was the more crucial front. (although Bush succeeded in making Iraq a crucial hot spot as well.)

    Parent
    I once believed that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:10:18 PM EST
    But it is too late. There is a reason Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.

    Unfortunately, you can't turn back the clock. I had many people tell me it was better under the Soviets. It is too late.

    The safest thing for our country as un PC as this is....is simply to let these people go back to fighting each other. They will not have the time or resources to waste time on us if they are doing that. Plus, once the Taliban regain power, they will start dismantling the drug trade. They use it now to fight us. There was almost on poppy under the Taliban.

    Parent

    Well, we sure have made a mess of things (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:14:39 PM EST
    over there and thank you for what you tried to do; I still hold out hope that we can accomplish something, but sadly you may be right, but I hope not. BTW, at the same time, I'm praying my nephew doesn't get shipped over there, lots of dissonance you might say.

    Parent
    Sorry to hear it (none / 0) (#16)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:22:35 PM EST
    My brother was there (army) at the same time I was there. Afghanistsn is very bad and getting worse. Frankly, Iraq is safer. I've been to both places and if given a choice, I would take Iraq in a heartbeat.

    Parent
    The way women (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:44:00 PM EST
    are mistreated is the exact reason I still support intervention by us in Afghanistan. It disgusts me that we haven't been more outspoken in outrage to support the women and their activists who are desperately trying to save women's lives.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by dissenter on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:49:03 PM EST
    Because we bankroll this govt, they feel free to do what they have done. Continued intervention will do nothing but cost us billions of dollars and soldiers and US civilian lives.

    There is no fixing that place

    Parent

    Alt TV: Frontline tonight, Sick Around America, on (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    our health insurance woes.

    Check local listings.

    NOVA covering possible comet hit in Great Lakes as reason for sudden extinction of large animals in Americas.

    Frontline web site has video of preview footage, and, of coure, Sick Around America and its predecessor, Sick Around the World, can be viewed there.  Sick Around the World covered various healthcare approaches.

    I watched. It depressed me, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:38:31 PM EST
    and angered me.  Why we should trust insurance companies who look for people whose insurance they can rescind retroactively, and reward the clerks who do it, is beyond me; just looking at those oh-so-sincere insurance exec faces and listening to their unctuous assurances that of course they want to insure everyone - they just can't - made me want to spit.

    And I have no confidence - not even a sliver of it - that Obama can put together a real plan for reform; he will be protecting and looking out for the insurance companies the same way he is now looking out for Wall Street.

    Blood pressure on the rise again.  Must take some deep breaths.  

    Parent

    The Big Insurance lobbyist's -sincerity- (none / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:03:50 PM EST
    bothered me more than even the unctuous Big Insurance execs.

    I did get a tad upset with the Frontline people for not mentioning that single payer reps got in to Obama's healthcare summit only after lots of pressure. And then only 3 people.

    I also thought the Sick Around the World was tighter and more pointed in its presentation of the facts. But I haven't watched it recently.

    Parent

    Frontline (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    only has an hour, and they clearly decided not to get into the whole single-payer issue at all, or even much on how to fix this mess of a health care "system" we have, just to document what a disaster it is for people.

    I agree, "Sick Around the World" was much tighter, but it also had a more interesting focus.  This one was mostly just a collection of horror stories about the different ways you can get screwed in the U.S. system.  It's certainly valuable for enlightening the happy people who live in the kind of circles where everybody has gold-plated employer-paid health insurance and don't realize what a disaster this is for everybody else.  This program raised my blood pressure all over again, but it didn't say anything most aware people didn't already know.


    Parent

    Sick Around the World (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:55:17 PM EST
    Was totally fascinating, IMHO, showing the different ways other countries have successfully dealt with the health care issue.  The one depressing thing about it is that none of them wiped out their previous system and started all over from scratch, they built on what they already had and improved and expanded it.  There was also a terrific piece in the New Yorker a few weeks back that went into more detail on the same subject and came to the same conclusion.

    Depressing, obviously, because it means the idea of a national health care system in the U.S. is pretty much hopeless.

    This latest broadcast, "Sick Around America," is just plain depressing on its own.

    Parent

    Recently I tried to find a physician for (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:08:26 AM EST
    a relative in Florida.  I looked on the web in his city hoping to find a listing of internists.   Names of doctors are not readily available, only the system they work for.  Then if you do find the names of a few M.D.s there is no way to find out what medical school they went to, when they graduated and whether they are board certified or not.  This basic information, however, can be had for $12.95 on a link called healthgrades.  Isn't that incredible?  The most basic pieces of information, a doctor's medical school, his/her length of practise and whether he/she are certified in their specialty is a product that can be sold!!!!

    Parent
    I lost my flipflop callus damn it (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:13:01 PM EST
    This winter was pretty cool by Southern Alabama standards I guess.  I had too much flipflop time off.  I had never worn flipflops in my life before moving here and I thought they were a horrible footwear choice.  I spent the first summer here with suffering feet.  The second summer I succombed to the flipflop and wore crocs every other day until I got a callus.  The callus was there waiting for me last spring but this spring poof.....it is gone and my tender toe betweens are sore as heck, and now crocs are far from my preferred footwear choice and I don't have any.  I have great flipflops though.  It is very important as a savvy Southern girl to race to the stores when the new ones get in, and the only way you end up with cool ones around here.

    My daughter (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:27:22 PM EST
    would suggest you spring for Rainbows.

    Parent
    Holy crap, an $80 flipflop? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:32:51 PM EST
    Now that's some savvy

    Parent
    I'll have to make certain I get one of the (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    coolest styles.....otherwise what's the point?

    Parent
    She has (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    the 45.50 variety, in pink, green, and basic brown. Or about $150 bucks worth of flip flop lol. Supposedly standard fare for the southern college girl.

    Rainbows

    Parent

    I hit a site that had some limited editions (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:44:55 PM EST
    with crystal accents.  My fave pair last year were black with pastel color circles on them and little crystal dangling hearts on the thong portion.  They were pretty shot and then the puppies finished them off when I accidentally left them on the back porch.

    Parent
    The "Riviera" is cool (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:41:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I was sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    you were locked in on the color crystal for $80.00. Don't think my daughter knows those exist.

    Parent
    As a kid I lived on Oahu and wore (none / 0) (#67)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:15:26 AM EST
    flip-flops for years.  Gave them up when I came stateside decades ago.  Recently went back to them and found that if the top strap that goes between the toes is plastic or rubberized you will have trouble.  If it is made of some kind of fabric the breaking in shoud be easier.

    Parent
    As a kid I lived on Oahu and wore (none / 0) (#68)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:20:25 AM EST
    flip-flops for years.  Gave them up when I came stateside decades ago.  Recently went back to them and found that if the top strap that goes between the toes is plastic or rubberized you will have trouble.  If it is made of some kind of fabric the breaking in shoud be easier.

    Parent
    Justice in Michigan? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dpdoughboy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:31:52 PM EST
    Hi Jeralyn!

    I've been reading Talk Left for years but have never decided to get into the comments thing. I guess I've just been a lurker.

    The pieces you're doing on rallying support against the war on drugs are a grand slam. I just wanted to bring this to your attention:

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/friends_of_grand_valley_studen.html

    An unarmed college student in Michigan was shot in the chest while a drug-related search warrant was being executed on the apartment. Details are murky, but it appears the student was complacent with the

    I'm just surprised there isn't more outcry over this issue. It personifies everything evil and malevolent about the War on Drugs.

    My question - when is this madness going to end? This is so incredibly sad and pointless, yet there is hardly anyone rallying to this poor kid's cause... including the President.

    http://ssdp.org/index.php Students for a Responsible Drug Policy have set up a legal defense fund, but the entire ordeal shouldn't have happened in the first place. Where is the outrage in the community?

    Anyway, Thanks! Keep up the good work!


    Flipping through the channels during the (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:12:52 PM EST
    news hour this evening. Obama has a 500 person entourage with him at the G-20.

    Trimming the excesses sure doesn't apply to the WH.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:15:56 PM EST
    I'd feel better if he would cut back on the Secret Service, totally.

    Parent
    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:23:42 PM EST


    Parent
    It means (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:49:34 PM EST
    that the vast majority of the 500 most likely had a good reason to be there.  I somehow doubt he called up all his old college buddies and said hey, free trip to England on the taxpayer dime, everybody come along.

    The federal government is a massive operation, and every day presents a new opportunity for a lazy reporter to write a story about how the President isn't licking his own stamps during a time of economic crisis.  I just don't find these stories particularly compelling, although I respect your right to feel otherwise.

    Parent

    I'd personally like to know WHY he needs (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    the chefs. Aren't they gong to be doing back 2 back "lunches" and "dinners" etc? If they happen to be served food during the meetings, why does our president (and the other heads of state?) need a personal chef on the scene. I can't imagine they would be serving anything but the best organic foods . . . .

    I'd honestly like to know what "normal" is for our presidents and others. 500 does sound a tad excessive . . for ANY president.

    Parent

    Well, there are 200 Secret Service agents. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 01:21:32 AM EST
    And various aids for the economic stuff. Plus he has national security people for the NATO meetings that follow the G20 meetings.

    There are the aides who are with him all the time; there are the aides that do the grunt work; there are Treasury officials who do the staff work before and after the world leaders talk. And then there are all the people in similar jobs for the NATO stuff. A whole lot of people. Also, there are the staff that allow Obama to keep up with the day-to-day of being President. It's not like he gets to leave the office behind.

    He's not just going for the weekend. He will be tackling a number of diverse issues in England and Germany and France and, I believe, Belgium.

    I have to say i don't understand the sniping about Obama's trips on Air Force One and Marine One and taking staff with him. It's not like he has the option to fly coach.

    Of all the things to not like about what Obama's doing, and there are many, this seems a little petty.

    Parent

    Think whatever you want (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    we've never heard that such a huge entourage was part of any previous president's traveling group. Why do you think it is petty to want to know who the 500 people are? Does he take this group with him to Camp David or Chicago when he's gone for more than a couple of days? It would be safer and cost us much less to host all these things here if he needs 200 SS to travel with him. I believe when the US does the hosting, we provide the security sweeps, etc. and only the standard contingency of guards come with the visitors.

    It's a first, we're paying for it, and we really have a solid right to question it.

    Parent

    Let's see (4.75 / 4) (#76)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:30:31 AM EST
    We could probably find a number if we really tried, but here's the first hit that comes up when I try to google the issue.

    When the president does finally turn up, he does so with a small air force, a massive entourage and a motorcade of armour-plated vehicles. These include the president's bullet-proof limo, a military ambulance and a communications van packed with state-of-the art devices.

    Around 250 heavily-armed secret service agents, dozens of advisers and teams of sniffer dogs escort Mr Bush on most foreign trips. White House cooks join government political aides.

    "When the president travels, the White House travels with him from the cars he drives, the water he drinks, the gasoline he uses, the food he eats," says John Barletta, former secret service agent for Ronald Reagan, who organised overseas visits.

    Really seems like this trip is par for the course for Presidents, and unlikely to be a "first."  I'm sure there were people who thought Clinton was the "first" President to have donors stay in the Lincoln Bedroom, but really it was just a function of who the press chose to focus on.

    Parent

    BushCo never allowed ANY (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:29:27 AM EST
    details of any of his movements or entourages to be known.

    Parent
    I think it has to do with food safety (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    issues as well

    Parent
    I'd be curious to hear if previous POTUS (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    have traveled with such a huge contingency of people. This was on the news and it was reported as an intent on his part to pressure the other countries.

    Parent
    He's also incoporating a bit of campaign style (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:46:54 PM EST
    visiting after the G20 to his other stops. A town hall style meeting in a sports area in one of the countries. Wonder if that factors in?

    I'd also like to know what has been done in the past and what the other heads of state are doing. I'm sure their citizens would like to know also if they are traveling with so many people.

    Parent

    Well, that means he won't be eating any of the (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    meals on his journey that isn't supplied (ingredient wise) by his staff/chef. Why would he eat a meal that Jamie Oliver cooked (or not) for the G20 and not others? Wouldn't that be an insult to other "meal hosts"? Especially the folks he's dining with? For total food safety, he would need all the ingredients from trusted sources along with his personal chef I would think.

    I would think chefs would consider it an honor to cook for him and others in his position and would bend over backwards to meet their needs.

    I can understand security and such, but I do think 500 is a bit much when it comes to an entourage. Especially in this day and age of advance communications. I'd love to see a breakdown of the list :) Are all the others bringing such a large group? That's a heck of a lot of lodging to free up and secure . . .

    Parent

    Remember Canada when he refused (none / 0) (#62)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    to have dinner with the PM.

    Seems he may be a seriously finiky eater.

    My guess is the bulk of the entourage was financial people to push the US recovery plan on the rest of the world.

    Parent

    I was raised to.... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:21:51 AM EST
    consider myself rude if I refused food offered by a gracious host...I was taught to be polite and eat it, even if its nasty.

    Parent
    C'mon...Refused to Have Dinner? Really? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by daring grace on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    Snort. Finicky eater.

    Look, there are plenty of substantive things to criticize President Obama on--and even plenty of accurate petty things. But this nonsense about a refusal to have dinner with the Canadian PM is unworthy of comment unless you can produce a link verifying it. I never found one the last time this was floated at the time of the visit. And I still can't locate one today.

    In fact, Obama and Harper DID share a 'working lunch' according to the CBC so, apparently, the Canadians were able to meet Obama's 'finicky' needs. I can't help but think that if there was a dinner slight at the time the Canadian media would have been filled with reports of it.

    Parent

    As I recall (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 01:12:54 PM EST
    the point was that Obama made it a short visit and returned to the US before dinnertime, which strikes me as rather unremarkable, as opposed to the imaginary scenario where Obama is eating alone at the hotel while his seat remains empty at the PM's table.

    Parent
    He probably sneaked a (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    snack whilst shopping for gifts for his family.

    Parent
    It's possible (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    Perhaps some photos will emerge of the President ducking into Tim Horton's.

    Parent
    I did not know that! (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:03:19 AM EST
    I'm picky about where my food originates and how it's prepared, but I have a feeling I would bend a bit if I were president and visiting other nations, etc. As it is, my friends are fine with me picking the restaurant because of my "pickiness". They know that I've done my research  ;) But I'm also relaxed enough to eat the food at the ballpark.

    Financial folks, eh? Could be. He has been know to travel with more than a few "advisers".

    Parent

    In my small exposure to how the (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:16:21 AM EST
    military handles high security highly guarded anything, I'm betting that if we knew how many plays and players are required for each contingency to inspect and protect their leader we would realize that shared meals in such an environment as the G-20 is barely short of a miracle.

    Parent
    Don't like the chefs? (none / 0) (#63)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:59:51 PM EST
    How do you plan to fight off the French then, with Ramen noodles?

    Parent
    You obviously don't know much about me (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:06:39 AM EST
    I'd be perfectly happy to dine on the meal Jamie Oliver will prepare for them and I'm sure many of the other chefs. I just don't feel a need to truck around my own in such a situation.

    French don't generally want to fight me . . . .  ;)

    Parent

    Good for you then! <n/t> (none / 0) (#69)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:22:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Not at all pressing... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 08:20:30 AM EST
    but it is rare when Congress gets to work on something unquestionably righteous, and even rarer that John McCain and Peter King are behind a good idea...a belated presidential pardon for Jack Johnson.  Link

    I don't think the critters can or will fix the economy, but they can correct this injustice.

    GWOT No Longer Acronym (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:30:23 PM EST
    The new one is CAEWWTDUH.

    You forgot . . . . (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    MCD!

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:56:26 PM EST
    Now you are linking to right wing hate editorials? Just to trash Obama? Wow that guy is some bigot.

    Parent
    Oh Crap! (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:20:07 PM EST
    I just did a general google on the term because I had heard it on the news. Just scanned the info and picked a link . . .

    OOOOPS! Honestly, it had NOTHING to do with trashing Obama. I just thought it was funny the admin was changing terms and was adding on to your notice of it.

    Parent

    Monday Eve? (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    Uh hello?

    I'm giving up now (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    too many mistakes for me today, I'm on overload. I'll be putting up a tv thread and checking out.

    Thanks for spotting that.

    Parent

    For whatever reason, it feels like Monday today to (none / 0) (#47)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    me too. Keep forgetting there's the election in NY....

    Parent
    And don't forget (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    NY-20 between Jim Tedisco(R) and Scott Murphy(D). Polls close at 9ET

    With half the precincts (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:40:45 PM EST
    reporting:

    Tedisco 51% (39,002)
    Murphy 49% (38,199)

    Parent

    2/3rds reporting (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:46:00 PM EST
    Tedisco 50.4%
    Murphy 49.6%

    Parent
    96% Reporting (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    Tedisco 50.03% (73,523)
    Murphy 49.97%  (73,421)

    Parent
    99.5% reporting (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:18:22 PM EST
    Murphy takes the lead for the first time tonight:

    Murphy 50.008%
    Tedisco 49.992%

    Parent

    Looking like Tedisco in a squeaker (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:01:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Looks like (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    we're going to a recount.

    Parent
    1 precint left to report (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    and it's from Saratoga, Tedisco's strongest area.

    Murphy leads by 81 votes out of over 150,000 cast. Whether any absentees are in these totals I don't know. There are supposed to be approx 4000 absentee ballots.

    This one won't be over for awhile.

    Parent

    I expect the absentees to favor Tedisco (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:35:14 PM EST
    But you're right, this is probably going to require a recount stage.

    Parent
    All precincts reporting (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:43:51 PM EST
    Murphy  50.002% (77,344)
    Tedisco 49.998% (77,279)

    Parent
    Not the resounding win (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    that was needed -- and well beyond New York.

    And oh no, not another recount, but I hope that New York's process moves faster than Minnesota's.  (Not criticizing the latter, as its process is so fair -- but fairness takes time.)

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    It was a resounding win. Murphy was a complete unknown in a republican stronghold of NY. He was down 14 or 15 points when the race started.

    Too bad he is a blue dog.

    Parent

    Not being seen that way (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:58:54 PM EST
    in media, and you had to know it would not be, no matter that it means beating a well-known  legislative leader -- if Murphy did.  But it can't have helped Tedisco to not even live in the district, from what I read.  The NY GOP must have had slim pickings?

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:13:31 PM EST
    Tedisco is the longtime assemblyman from Saratoga County, regardless of where he might happen to live.  He's a total hack, but a top-drawer candidate in terms of qualifications.

    I don't really care what the national media says about a race like this because they always look for the intriguing storyline in preference to the facts, and they have no clue about the local issues anyway.  If they want to decree that nothing less than a Democratic landslide will do in this Republican-advantage district, I guess they can decree that.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    It is more likely that the NY GOP voters are sick of Republicans and feel Obama and the dems are doing a good enough job.

    Parent
    Obama won the district well (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:06:31 PM EST
    so I read, so they already were with him -- unless this was one of the districts where Repubs stayed home last fall but turned out now.  If the analyses get down to that level of detail, it will be interesting reading.

    Parent
    Oh please, CC (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    The Republicans were the ones who needed a resounding win, and they didn't get it. Obama barely won this district last November, and in 2002 it was drawn to be safe for Republicans.

    Tedisco was expected to win, and now if he eventually does it will be by less than 1/2 of 1%, even though Republicans outspent Democrats in this cycle.

    Parent

    Oh, please, New Yorkers (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 11:04:21 AM EST
    from your exalted perspective, provide more than "oh, please."  The media and the state website provide more than that, at least.  

    But we out here in the boonies can only find stats such as that Obama won the district -- and that Gillibrand won it with 62% of the vote.  So we rather expected that the Dem running to replace her, and with the president's support, would win more than 50.00000001%.

    Well, off we go to find less dismissive and more fruitful discussion than what is here.


    Parent

    You are echoing the Republican spin (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 01, 2009 at 12:34:01 PM EST
    100%.

    But the bottom line is that this is one of the most Republican districts in the northeast. Tedisco is an experienced politician, and Murphy is a neophyte. The idea that this result is good for Republicans is just ridiculous.

    Parent

    Tedesco Will Sue, No Doubt (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:54:36 PM EST


    Parent
    He filed papers earlier today (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:15:26 PM EST
    link here

    news just said the 65 vote Murphy lead with 10k absentee ballots to count . . .

    Parent

    Rumor Mill (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    Maybe the Conficker worm is getting ready to consume the Bullz by driving the Dow down to ZERO.

    Another Obama appointee (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:56:02 PM EST
    with tax problems -- Sebelius, for pity's sake; wasn't she talked of for veep?  And the vaunted vetting finds this only now?  At least she already had repaid the govt for her errors.  So perhaps this one will not be worse.  

    And after all, after Geithner got through. . . .  I guess all the White House has to do is say that Sebelius is the ONLY possible person for the job.

    Tuesday Evening News Round-Up | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment