home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:05:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Big Brother 11 live finale is tonight. Go, Jordan (please, no spoilers for those of us not on the East Coast.) Is anyone going to watch Jay Leno instead? And the new season of The Biggest Loser is beginning.

Polls are closing in Manhattan where the winner of the District Attorney's race will be determined. Go, Richard! (Please let us know in comments who won when you find out.)

I've been writing briefs all day that I have to get in by midnight. So, you are on your own, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< BaucusCare: "A Bipartisan Bill With No Bipartisan Support" | Obama Rejects BaucusCare: Supports Public Option >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So apparently (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    It's becoming more evident how bad mainstream "journalism" has become - the MSM ignores stories that may or may not be important, until FOX News pushes them into it and then they act like they've never heard of it before (See:  Charlie Gibson and ACORN)

    Last week, Big Government, a site run by conservative Andrew Breitbart, showed videos of undercover stings in three ACORN offices, where journalists posing as pimps and prostitutes were instructed by employees on how to skirt legal restrictions on housing. The tapes got big play on The Drudge Report--where Breitbart has worked--and right-leaning news outlets and commentary shows. But only after the Senate voted to cut off federal funding to ACORN on Monday did the story get more attention in the mainstream media.

    ABC "World News" anchor Charles Gibson seemed caught off guard by the ACORN tapes on Tuesday when he told Chicago radio hosts Don Wade and Roma that he hadn't heard of them, in a clip flagged by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. Gibson added that "maybe this is just one you leave to the cables."

    Hate to say it, but Joe Scarborough was right when he said:

    "If the Christian Coalition, in 1995, had a sting operation carried on against it by a liberal group, I guarantee you it would have been front page, New York Times, the next day, " Scarborough said, "and people like me would have been called out, people saying, `how could you ever, ever justify supporting a group that would teach people how to violate the tax code and promote prostitution.'"

    No wonder people are cranky. No matter where they get their news - it's all crap and you can't believe any of it.

    This Acorn business is crap... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:15:16 AM EST
    the only troubling thing about it to me is the blase attitude towards sex trafficking of minors of a couple Acorn employees who were being entrapped.

    I don't have a problem with a community org. helping people who they believe to be members of the community skirt the rules of a rigged market society in order to buy a house or whatever and achieve the American dream on the shady side...thats what a good community org does.  I just wish once minors were brought into the convo the Acorn employees woulda thrown those jokers out on their arse.

    Parent

    I got lost (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:49:25 PM EST
    in the long paragraphs and mandatory links. That's why I asked for an abstract. Thanks for providing one. Yes, I think Mercury has gone retrograde.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:11:08 AM EST
    And the sun never rises. Or sets.

    Parent
    Check out the days on Venus (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 05:12:52 AM EST
    Or day perhaps, since Venus rotates retrograde and very slowly.  Fun link.

    Parent
    Great link! Thanks. n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:19:46 AM EST


    Parent
    Do you think if Hillary Clinton were president, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:21:30 AM EST
    they'd be saying "I want my country back" or threatening to secede from the Union or saying she wasn't even an American citizen or that she wasn't a Christian?

    Do you think Drudge would be running pictures of angry white 60 year old females on his web site?

    "I want my country back"--after 8 years of a Republican president, 12 out of 14 years of a Republican congress?

    Wake up and smell the coffee, people.....it's far beyond that Obama's a Democrat...they do not accept him as legitimate, because of his skin color.

    Reality check (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:39:30 AM EST
    They prob wouldn't question her citizenship and possibly not her religion due to her long history in the public eye, but you can bet your a** they would be ripping her to shreds in one style or another. Did you miss the Clinton yrs and the primaries?

    Parent
    They would hate her, but they would still accept (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:48:57 AM EST
    her as president.  60% of Republicans do not think Obama was even ELIGIBLE to be President or has any legitimacy. Some of them want to actually secede.

    The Clinton hating Republicans were fringe then;  Obama hate has gone mainstream in that party now.

    Parent

    Not sure how you (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by dk on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:59:28 AM EST
    can objectively say that Clinton hating Republicans were fringe when they were successful in voting to impeach him.

    Parent
    At least they used constitutional means. (none / 0) (#62)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:09:45 AM EST
    I don't recall any gun packing crazies at rallies spouting about the Tree of Liberty and patriots' blood.

    Parent
    Different point. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by dk on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:22:55 AM EST
    You said that the Clinton hating folks were fringe and not mainstream in the Republican party.

    Well, that's only true of you call the vast majority of the entire House congressional Republican caucus and a large number of the Republican Sentate caucus, "fringe."  

    Sure, the kinds of criticisms are different this time, tailored to the current person in office.  But it's not like these folks just started being crazy, and it's not the first time that crazy became accepted by the mainstream Republican party leadership.

    Parent

    Have you heard (none / 0) (#78)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    of the 1st and 2nd amendments, which pertain, respectively, to free speech and the right to bear arms? The crazies are using "constitutional means," even if you don't like what they're doing.

    In the 1992, they railed against Bill Clinton and said he was not legitimately elected because, at 43 percent of the popular vote, he didn't win a majority--in a three-way race, with George H. W. Bush winning only 37 percent. Eight years later, of course, they quickly revised their views about the sanctity of a popular-vote majority.

    But evidently it's more fun to rant about other people's alleged racism, especially when one's own obsession with the president's race precludes any engagement with actual facts.

    Parent

    Look (3.50 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:22:01 AM EST
    we spent months talking to Obots about the GOP and what they were really made of and all we were was admonished that we needed to hold their hands and tehy would calm down. They would've never recognized Hillary's legitimacy as President. They never recognized Bill's eiher. These same people were talkign about seceeding when Bill was president so this is nothing new. Now we have a wimp for Pres who's going to do what about the crazies? His wimpiness emboldens them.

    As far as Obama's religion issue, he has no one to blame but himself on that account. He wasn't upfront about the church he went to and his childhood in Indonesia.

    Parent

    They would be throwing (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 07:57:47 AM EST
    a massive sh*t fit over Hillary too.  But I think the point is that how they throw the sh*t fit matters too.  No doubt with Hillary we'd see sexist tropes.  With Obama we are certainly seeing racist tropes, including "I want my country back" and all the reverse blackface stuff.  These people know they're playing with fire and they love it.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    They use whatever they have, and there is no limit to the depths to which they will sink. With Bill Clinton it was class-based. Carter is a peaceful gentleman, so he was a wimp to them.

    I believe there is racism in the attacks on Obama, but if it were not that it would be something else.

    Parent

    People will at least take orders from a woman. (none / 0) (#66)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:18:14 AM EST
    They may hate it, they may curse her under their breath and make crude jokes behind her back, but they'll do it.

    I think there is a significant portion of the Republican base who just WILL NOT take orders from a black man.  It's not that he's not qualified; it's that he's not legitimate.

    I wonder if we had a military draft how many right wing patriots would become draft dodgers, claiming that Obama had no legitimacy to give orders as c-i-c.

    It's more than just racism--they just do not accept him as the lawfully, constitutionally elected president, like someone slipped a fast one by on Nov 4th.

    At least in 2000, we could point to a flawed process and activist SC.  Now, it's like a 7% margin of victory was not reality, but something that didn't even happen.  It's the equivalent of not believing in evolution--they just don't believe Obama is the President.

    Parent

    I think you are probably right (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:04:02 AM EST
    about the "not taking orders from a black man" thing.  And I think the death panel fears all stem from deep-seated fears that blacks are going to take over and kill whites.

    Joan Walsh has a point:

    I see one big difference, though, between Clinton's plight and Obama's: Anti-Clinton extremism never really touched off organized opposition to Clinton among American voters. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember, and can't find evidence, that tens of thousands, or even hundreds, of opponents rallied against Clinton, toting, say, cigars or blue dresses to mock the Lewinsky mess, or placards labeling him a murderer or rapist. (In fact the president's approval rating rose during and after the farce of impeachment.) This time the Republican attack is resonating with a small but extremely vocal and paranoid segment of its base, and I think racism has everything to do with that.


    Parent
    Here's a better one: (none / 0) (#86)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    PPP just did a poll of NJ.

    14% of Republicans think Obama IS the anti-Christ.  Another 15% are not sure.

    That's in New Jersey!  Imagine the #s in, say, South Carolina!

    Parent

    Including General Colin Powell? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    I think there is a significant portion of the Republican base who just WILL NOT take orders from a black man.


    Parent
    As the past year has shown us, yes, including (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    Colin Powell.

    Parent
    Please elaborate (none / 0) (#81)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    Who, in the past year, has refused to accept orders from (former) General Colin Powell?

    Parent
    Oh please, you well know he hasn't given any (none / 0) (#82)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:14:52 AM EST
    "orders" this past year.

    I'm referring to how he was treated by the Repubican Party and its base both before and during the election season.

    Parent

    So you're saying (none / 0) (#84)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:49:21 AM EST
    that something in the past year turned these people into racists? These people who adored Colin Powell when he was George W. Bush's toady?

    I think there is a significant portion of the Republican base who just WILL NOT take orders from a black man.

    Or was their change of heart about Powell's self-serving disloyalty to their beloved Fuhrer?

    Parent

    Early numbers (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:05:33 PM EST
    With 27 percent of precincts reporting, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. established an early lead in the race for Manhattan district attorney, capturing 44 percent in early returns. Mr. Vance has been endorsed by Robert M. Morgenthau, who will be relinquishing the prosecutor's job after 35 years. Mr. Vance was trailed by Leslie Crocker Snyder, with 31 percent, and Richard M. Aborn, with 25 percent.

    I think more have been counted by now but the Times is really doing a bad job tonight.

    60% reporting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    Vance 43
    Crocker Snyder 31
    Aborn 26

    Parent
    In case folks are wondering (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:15:58 PM EST
    If Vance gets 40% of the vote, he wins without a runoff.

    Aborn would need to catch Crocker-Snyder AND have Vance dip below 40%.

    Looks unlikely.

    Parent

    Aborn's chances dim (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    With 78 percent of precincts reporting, Cyrus R. Vance Jr. established a lead in the race for Manhattan district attorney, with 43 percent of the vote. Mr. Vance was trailed by Leslie Crocker Snyder, with 31 percent, and Richard M. Aborn, with 26 percent.

    Parent
    85% reporting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    no change in the numbers.

    Barring a miracle, Vance will be the new Manhattan DA.

    Parent

    Vance wins (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    44% of the vote.

    30% Crocker-Snyder.

    26% Aborn.

    Parent

    BTW, no possibility of a runoff for DA (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:23:52 PM EST
    It's a Manhattan-only race.

    Parent
    Mark Green comes in second for (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    Public Advocate. This one goes to runoff, but it's not hard to see this as his political death.

    Parent
    What is the job description of the (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:54:51 PM EST
    Public Advocate?  

    Parent
    Pretty limited, apparently (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:13:37 AM EST
    1. Preside over city council and break ties; and

    2. Act as a kind of city ombudsman.


    Parent
    At least the Public Advocate won't (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:15:22 AM EST
    have to visit the Green Zone during a bombardment.

    Parent
    Like the Iraqi insurgency (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:58:14 AM EST
    Mark Green just has very long death throes.

    Parent
    It's. Racism Pure and simple. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:17:28 PM EST
     

    I don't know but this is what I see, I don't think I am alone.

    Since Obama has taken office I have seen the right attack Obama.  As time is passing I see more and more extreme hatred toward Obama.    Many republicans say they are just stating their opinion but if you look deep you will see the hatred that is building up every day against Obama.  

    When I view the tea parties all I see are whites with their racist signs and in many states you can see them with their guns strapped to their sides.  

    The increase of gun sales and the increase of militias which IMO are nothing but white supremacy groups, have come to forefront and all because Obama who is President is
    black.

    The right wing radio talk programs are full of hate for Obama.

    I knew there would be some racist hatred toward Obama since his election, I just did not comprehend how many roaches would actually come out.

    I fear for Obama.  It will be a miracle if he makes his 4 years without an attempt on his life.


    Look (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    they hate Obama, yes, they do but they hate everybody outside of Joe Lieberman with a D by their name. The whole race angle is a real turn off to people and implies that no one can criticize Obama because of the color of his skin. If you agree with that then you basically have to agree witn Bush that criticizing him was akin to treason and hatred of teh military. It's all a bunch of hooey and these people dont do anything other than make the GOP look bad.

    Parent
    This is different (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Saul on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:35:56 PM EST
    I am all for criticizing where it's due.  Even I criticize  Obama as even the owners of this blog do.  But this is beyond criticism.  Too many just hate Obama because he is black and try to disguise it as legitimate criticism.

    I just noticed that Jimmy Carter is talking about the same thing.  Just saw his take on it at the Huffington Post.

    Parent

    how do you (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    know that they hate Obama because he's black? If Hillary had won they would probably be doing the same thing.

    I think what started this was the Gates incident. If Obama had stayed out of that perhaps some of them wouldnt be so inflamed. that incident played into their fears about Obama and teh GOP picked up on it and ran with it.

    Parent

    You and Jimmy Carter are not alone (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    in your opinion. That doesn't make it NOT an opinion.

    Look, obviously there is racism involved from some quarters. Blatant racism and institutional racism and covert racism, too, not just open shameless gun-toting racism. There are code words and veiled meanings. Granted all of that.

    But don't you remember Republicans shouting at Clinton and booing him when he addressed Congress? Hell, don't you remember what they DID to Clinton and tried to do to his presidency? Why do you think they did that? I'm betting you're not going to say it was because Bill Clinton was the "first black president."

    Do you think you would be seeing the same hatred if Colin Powell had been elected president as a Republican? The wingnut crazies are attacking and undermining Barack Obama not because he's the "black president" but because he is a Democratic president.

    Parent

    This... (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by otherlisa on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 04:12:38 AM EST
    The extreme right is using racist attacks on Obama...because they can.

    I have no doubt that if Bill Clinton was African American, they would have used that against him as well.

    They use anything, any ammo, any slander, any weapon they can bring to bear.

    It's uglier because it taps in to the whole history of racism in this country and how that has been manipulated to gain political power for decades.

    But if some other Democrat had been elected, who was not African American - trust me, they'd use something else. As ugly as they could find.

    Parent

    Prediction comes (4.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 05:29:23 AM EST
    true.  Criticism of Obama equals racism.  Didn't know buying a gun was racist though.

    Parent
    I see that som,e on the Left (3.33 / 3) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    is playing the race card...

    A little early don't you think??

    Parent

    I think the expression (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:09:39 PM EST
    "playing the race card" is itself a white racist formulation. Why are white people never accused of "playing the race card" even though we consciously and unconsciously revel in and indulge our white-skin privilege, all day and every day? Would it be because we hold most of the cards?

    Nevertheless, you said it's "a little early" to "play the race card," and that made me curious. When will the moment be ripe?

    Parent

    DA, please show some respect for bandwidth (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 02:35:12 AM EST
    limits and don't quote so much of other people's work. Comments are for your thoughts. The link and a short paragraph or two is sufficient. Thank you.

    Parent
    Was your comment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:04:10 PM EST
    meant as a response to Jim's or to mine?

    Jim said that someone on the left is playing the race card, and he suggested that it's a little early to do that. I commented on his use of what I see as a white racist rhetorical device, and I asked him to tell us when it would be appropriate to play the race card.

    If you were addressing me, what's the abstract of your comment?

    Parent

    To answer your questions (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:13:52 PM EST
    1. Never

    2. I have no idea, but it is an interesting question.

    3. And yes, it could go both ways, as anyone around during Wallace et al's days would agree.


    Parent
    I was talking to Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#28)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:16:24 PM EST
    Who are you talking to? If to me, your comment makes no sense. Is this the software, or is Mercury in retrograde?

    Parent
    I'm the one who commented that (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:21:50 PM EST
    it was a little early to be playing the race card, so it looked to me as if you were replying to me..

    Plus, your reply falls right under my comment in the nest...

    Of course I understand that since DA's replies are so lengthy it is easy to lose track.

    Parent

    I didn't realize we had a King (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    I mean I thought we had a President who we elected to do what Congress told him to do. I remember I was told that a few years back.

    Parent
    Who sd. the President is elected to (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    do the bidding of Congress?  

    Parent
    The argument was (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:23:36 AM EST
    advanced that the President is supposed to sign the legislation sent to him and carry out the resulting laws. I am not sure who advanced the argument, been two long but I remember the point.

    Obviously that is more suitable an argument to those out of the White House than those in.

    Parent

    Being the decorum kind of (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:38:02 AM EST
    guy that I am I find it obvious that Wilson should have waited until after the speech was complete to point out the inaccuracies and lack of logic about illegal alien and health care in Obama's speech.

    Something the White House 'fessed up to late last Friday afternoon.

    I felt the same about the boos of the Demos during Bush's 2005 SOTU speech.

    Having said that, the English seem to get along quite well with spirited exchanges in Parliament  without the London Bridge falling down or Big Ben stopping.

    Obama seems to understand that we have voters to correct the actions of ALL our elected officials and he left it in the hands of Wilson's district and accepted an, in my mind, unnecessary apology.

    I heard yesterday that the House will now have a list of words that members may not speak about the President.

    That's plum kingly of them and seems to violate the Constitution.

    Whatever happened to speaking truth to power? It was in vogue just a few years ago.

    Parent

    Don't tell me (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:30:02 PM EST
    you weren't around for Bill Clinton's tenure.

    That's all I can figure in your assumption that they hate Obama just because of the color of his skin.  If that's true, they also hate lily whites grey haired guys with southern accents.

    The right wing was after Clinton from the second he entered office...and before.

    Parent

    And I seem to remember (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    attack after attack on Bush.

    The Left needs to suck it up and quit whining. Appearing weak will not help Obama in the polls.

    Parent

    I do think (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 10:11:55 PM EST
    the right wing is better organized and more vitriolic and I really don't think that's a biased opinion.  However, they are also equal opportunity haters. I'm sure a few fringe are racist, but the majority are just Democrat haters.

    The most disgusting thing ever was watching Democrats using right wing lies against the Clintons.  Geez, I never thought I'd live to see the day.

    Parent

    Sorry Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:29:06 PM EST
    I can't think of anything that was more vitriolic than the Democrats treatment of women in the 08 elections.

    Parent
    Ah yes... (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:25:06 PM EST
    the Left has every major newspaper with the exception of the WSJ... plus ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and PBS.

    I guess Fox just has'em out numbered.

    ;-)

    Parent

    If you think (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:54:37 PM EST
    that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are "left," then you must be very far right. I regard NPR ("Nice Polite Republicans") and PBS ("Petroleum Broadcasting System") as DLC-style centrist, and the others as right of center to varying degrees.

    Parent
    If you think they are righty networks then (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 05:30:47 AM EST
    it would be worth listening to a lefty network just for the humor value.  Maybe chavez has some.

    Parent
    Ain't no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 11:33:41 AM EST
    "a lefty network", that is.

    Parent
    Opposition to Bush (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    was qualitatively different.  I don't believe demonstrators showed up with loaded guns at his public events.  

    Parent
    That's because Democrats in general (none / 0) (#26)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    are not gun nuts.

    But the hatred of Bush was extreme. It was well deserved, too, in my opinion. First, because Bush, unlike Obama, really was an illegitimate president (see Bush v. Gore, decided by Bush family friends on the Supreme Court). Second, because Bush wrecked our economy with tax cuts for his friends and used false claims to launch an unnecessary, preemptive, ruinous war on Iraq.

    All Obama did was get himself elected president as a Democrat.

    Parent

    Calling hatred of Bush by the Left (2.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:17:08 PM EST
    extreme is like calling the Pacific an ocean.

    Bush won the recounts.

    I didn't know I was a family friend although I couldn't figure out why I got that tax cut.

    Parent

    The family friends (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:08:49 AM EST
    were on the Supreme Court.

    If you think Bush won the recounts (and your use of the plural is highly questionable), you are misinformed. Even if you're only talking about the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, 1999, and stayed by Poppy's friends on December 9 because, as Justice Scalia explained, to count the votes would have been to "threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." Touching, Scalia's concern for the country.

    As for your tax cut, you got that because the Clinton surplus was burning a hole in Dubya's pocket.

    Parent

    Uh, no Bush won the recount (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    although some claim that had the hanging chads and pimples been counted Gore would have won. Problem is pimples and hanging chads and overvotes weren't allowed to be counted... But not to worry, the MN Demos fixed that and managed to steal the MN Senate seat for another comedian, AKA Al Franken.

    As for Clinton's economy, I made a ton of money off the Internet bubble but the bubble burst starting in late '99 when  investors stopped taking business plans written on envelopes... And the NASDAQ collapsed by 50% between March 2000 and February 2001. 9/11 finished it off. The tax cuts managed to get things started again. By the time the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 unemployment was below 5%, gasoline was around $2.00 and the DJIA around 13500. In 17 short months of Democratic oversight and control, by mid July 2008, gasoline was $4.50 a gallon, unemployment increasing rapidly, inflation spiraling and the DJIA falling. Nancy's Raiders had done their job. Democrats cam be proud.

    Parent

    So if it's "well deserved" (none / 0) (#36)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    that means the office itself does not command respect. You are free to boo or jeer or catcall if you think it is "well deserved."

    Which makes mincemeat out of the resolution against Wilson.

    Can't have it both ways.

    Parent

    I wasn't advocating any position (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:12:15 AM EST
    regarding Wilson, whom I didn't mention at all.

    Parent
    Right you are... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:49:30 AM EST
    Apologies. I was expressing my frustration with some of the bald-faced contradictions in today's news.

    Parent
    Bald-faced contradictions indeed (none / 0) (#49)
    by Spamlet on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 01:00:23 AM EST
    They beg the question of how the word "beard" came to be used in the acceptation described under definition 7a in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary.

    Parent
    It's your opinion, pure and simple (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Spamlet on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:34:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, you're not alone. Maureen Dowd (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:12:42 AM EST
    agrees with you.  Maybe that ought to worry you.

    And in her column on this, she claims to have heard another word -- a word that he did not say -- from Congressman Wilson.  So Maureen Dowd is hearing voices that others do not near.  And you seem to be hearing them, too.  And maybe that ought to really worry you.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Coral on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:21:18 AM EST
    It's racism, added onto the virulent anti-Democratic hate that we saw during the Clinton years. We saw it during McCain-Palin campaign, and it's getting worse now with no Republicans speaking out against what is happening.

    Truly shameful behavior on the part of Republicans, especially those who call themselves "moderate."

    Parent

    Define racism (none / 0) (#54)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 05:20:25 AM EST
    please.  Is is possible to disagree with Obama and not be a racist?

    Parent
    I know, I know (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:31:54 PM EST
    no Big Brother spoilers.  But just tell me, is Julie Chen really wearing a snuggie?  Saw that on the alt.tv.big-brother board.

    Tuesday Night Open Thread | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment