home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

Big stories for today: The the Zetas' radio network and the ongoing hacking of credit card and email databases by those identifying themselves as members of Anonymous/AntiSec or related groups.

Both are more interesting than which Republican will win the Iowa caucuses, but since we've had no politics posts all day, here's an open thread, all topics (politics or not) welcome.

Update: Also interesting, this article about fears over tiger prawns (giant shrimp) invading the Gulf of Mexico.

< Report on Obama's Global Drone Killing Apparatus | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think that was because (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    Gore's fly was unzipped.

    Ironically, that was Big Al's best move of the campaign.


    Just a guess (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    but was this comment intended as a response to #20?

    Parent
    Why yes, (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    yes it was.

    What gave me away?

    Parent

    What gave you away (not) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:12:25 PM EST
    was your clever use (not) of the "reply to this" button.

    Parent
    Peter (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:22:59 PM EST
    Edger and I are friends. He made a reference to GWB "smirking" during the debate. I, jokingly, suggested that Bush's smirk was a reaction to Gore's zipper not being zipped.

    Edger "got it." he even rewarded me with a "5" rating.

    So, what's your problem?

    Parent

    Hey, man, chill. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peter G on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    Nothing personal. Just using the episode to gently remind other TL'ers that when someone replies to a comment without using "reply to this," the response can get separated and thus become a confusing little time-waster to hundreds or thousands of other readers.  How would anyone know that you and Edger were personal friends?  If your comment was directed to him personally, and only to him, presumably you would have e-mailed or texted it to him alone.

    Parent
    Oh, O.K. (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    I see what you mean. I always use the "reply to" button; don't know why I failed this time.

    Anyway, you'll be my age some day and it may seem a little more plausible to you then:)

    Thanks.

    Parent

    A question (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    I keep seeing/reading that the US DOJ has rejected South Carolina's new Voter ID law.

    Without commenting on whether or you think the law is necessary or constitutional, can anyone explain to me how the DOJ can just reject a law??

    I can see how they could file suit to block the law, although I thought only a person injured could file a suit (have standing), but I can't see how the DOJ can just reject a state's law.

    ?????

    Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    which enforces the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as authorized by section 2 of that Amendment), States with a long historic tradition of suppressing the rights of racial minorities to vote must submit any change to their voting laws for Justice Department approval, to ensure that the laws will not have a negative impact on the effort to correct those historic wrongs. This is known as "preclearance," and is not one of the law's permanent provisions. Rather, after debate, it was overwhelmingly renewed for a fourth time in 2006, with fully bipartisan support, for another 25 years.

    Parent
    Thanks Peter (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:46:58 AM EST
    You're quite welcome (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    It was a good question, Jim, raising an important aspect of federalism in constitutional law.  That is, under the Reconstruction Amendments, as a result of the Civil War (which the Union won, by the way, in case anyone was having trouble remembering that) the semi-sovereign powers of the states were diminished and the authority of the federal government greatly enhanced, in the area of individual rights and liberties, pursuant to specific enforcement clauses in these Amendments.  Whatever one's view of the Tenth Amendment, or the Necessary & Proper Clause, or any of the other more general provisions at issue in such controversies as the challenge to the ACA, the state-federal balance under the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments is quite clear.

    Parent
    The war between the states (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:11:38 PM EST
    was over 146 years ago, as all us good southern boys can tell you.

    ;-)

    The question now is if the Repubs win the 2012 election and get to appoint two SCJ's, will the "trend" continue?

    Parent

    You aren't winning the 2012 (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:17:43 PM EST
    I mean seriously Jim, winning it with what?  With who? How?

    Parent
    ABO, MT. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:39:25 AM EST
    Not happening (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 08:48:30 AM EST
    Especially not for military failure reasons.  That prestige belongs singularly to only members of the Republican party in the last decade :)  And they are all such a bunch of rubber stampers it belongs to almost every single one of them :)

    Parent
    Section 5 of the VRA (none / 0) (#3)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    Requires covered jurisdictions to get "preclearance" from either the DOJ or the USDC for DC for any any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.

    Parent
    Should read ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    "... changes to any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting" ...

    Parent
    I love (none / 0) (#2)
    by sj on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 09:41:19 PM EST
    Avedon Carol.  She pointed to this wonderful Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans.

    Also this story about two women sailors who became the first to share the "first kiss" after a ship docked.

    US Foreign LulzPolicy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:00:17 PM EST
    It's good thing Washington has spent 10 years and piles of 100 dollar bills that would probably reach the moon and back by now using the paradoxically biggest consumer of energy in the world, the US Military, to try to install a friendly government in Afghanistan and to secure a supply of energy to keep that paradoxically biggest consumer of energy in the world careening along trying to install friendly governments and secure a supply of energy, etc., etc., etc....

    Iran has signed a deal with Afghanistan to supply its neighbour with a million tons of fuel oil, petrol and aviation fuel a year, Iranian media reported without putting a value on the agreement.

    The accord was signed Monday by the Afghan trade and industry minister, Anwar Ul-Haq Ahady, and Iran's deputy oil minister, Alireza Zeyghami.

    Two-thirds of the export deal was for fuel oil, a category that includes diesel and fuel for agricultural, industrial and heating uses, according to Zeyghami. A quarter was for petrol and around 10% was jet fuel, he said.

    The agreement was announced as Iran is subject to Western sanctions against its oil and gas sectors
    over Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.

    How about hiring politicians who are elementary school graduates next time around, eh?

    D'oh! I thought this was gonna be about (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    - the Chinese capturing the first Oil, Gas, and Copper development rights in Afghanistan.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/1228/China-wins-700-million-Afghan-oil-and-ga s-deal.-Why-didn-t-the-US-bid

    Gotta wonder if they'll send in some of their vast and successfully oppressive Army to maintain the Afghan peace, such as it is.

    Parent

    I wondered if Tiger Prawns were tasty (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 27, 2011 at 11:24:17 PM EST
    Google says they are very tasty.  Perhaps we can munch our way clear of infestation if it happens.

    We ate lots of these in Vietnam and lived (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:57:24 AM EST
    to tell the tale.  

    Parent
    Mmmm, more yummy hormones (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    and more antibiotic toxicity and immunity in our population ahead.

    I read that tiger prawns are so prone to diseases that to get them to the size to get them to market requires massive use of antibiotics and growth hormones -- which we finally have had to curb in domestic cattle feed, owing to all the problems that occur for the next step in the food chain: humans.

    Parent

    Under ACA (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:11:02 AM EST
    Preventive care visits are free, except when they aren't.

    Sounds interesting (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    but apparently the article is no longer available at this URL?  Is there another?  Thanks.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:16:26 PM EST
    Doing this on an iTouch and sometimes the links don't copy the way I want them to.

    Here

    CST's analysis is generally correct.  It's a blurry line between the "free" preventive screenings that are written into the law and when a doctor has to treat something at the same time.  That's where bills kick in that many people weren't anticipating.

    Should insurance now pay for aspirin? Aspirin to prevent heart disease and stroke is one of the covered services for older patients. But it's unclear whether insurers are supposed to pay only for doctors to tell older patients about aspirin -- or whether they're supposed to pay for the aspirin itself, said Dr. Jason Spangler, chief medical officer for the nonpartisan Partnership for Prevention.

    Stop-smoking interventions are also supposed to be free. "But what does that mean?" Spangler asked. "Does it mean counseling? Nicotine replacement therapy? What about drugs (that can help smokers quit) like Wellbutrin or Chantix? That hasn't been clearly laid out."

    But the greatest source of confusion is colonoscopies, a test for the nation's second leading cancer killer. Doctors use a thin, flexible tube to scan the colon and they can remove precancerous growths called polyps at the same time. The test gets credit for lowering colorectal cancer rates. It's one of several colon cancer screening methods highly recommended for adults ages 50 to 75.

    But when a doctor screens and treats at the same time, the patient could get a surprise bill.

    SNIP

    Doctors and prevention advocates are asking Congress to revise the law to waive patient costs -- including Medicare copays, which can run up to $230 -- for a screening colonoscopy where polyps are removed. The American Gastroenterological Association and the American Cancer Society are pushing Congress fix the problem because of the confusion it's causing for patients and doctors.

    At least one state is taking action. After complaints piled up in Oregon, insurance regulators now are working with doctors and insurers to make sure patients aren't getting surprise charges when polyps are removed.

    Florida's consumer services office also reports complaints about colonoscopies and other preventive care. California insurance broker Bonnie Milani said she's lost count of the complaints she's had about bills clients have received for preventive services.



    Parent
    The whole (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    "gotcha" thing for colonoscopies just drives me crazy.  Every time I go in for one, for the past three times, polyps are removed.  You would think that it would be a good thing to remove the polyps (many of mine, for instance, have been pre-cancerous) and that the insurance companies would want to provide this at no cost to the patient, because it's a d@mned sight cheaper to pay for a colonoscopy that involves polyp removal than for the treatment of colon cancer.  Fortunately, we have pretty good insurance, it pays for most of the cost of the procedure, with some co-pays and deductibles, which we can afford.  But this is not the case with everyone.
    Ah, well.  Silly me.  They've no doubt run the statistics on this and decided that it's cheaper to pay for the treatment of colon cancer for a few people, as opposed to paying the entire freight of colonoscopies for the many.  Someone please tell me again why anyone ever thought that it was a great idea to depend upon for-profit insurance companies to provide for health "care" (or lack thereof)?  Can we get single-payer now?

    Parent
    one thing (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    that I think is coming to light here, which has been coming to light in MA for a few years now as well - is that it's not just (or even primarily) the insurance companies that are the problem.

    The hospitals themselves are a huge problem when it comes to cutting costs.  And the difficult aspect with that is they aren't just the money men.  It's easy to rail at insurance companies who just handle money.  It's much harder to do that with the people in charge of providing care.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but I live in MA too, and (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    I would beg to differ with the idea that in MA is is "coming to light" that for-profit insurance companies are not primarily the problem.

    Parent
    you don't think the hospitals (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    are a bigger problem?

    I'm not saying insurance companies are fine here, but they aren't the main reason your premium keeps going up.

    Parent

    The main problem (none / 0) (#43)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:52:04 PM EST
    is that so much of our health care dollars go to line the pockets of insurance companies that should be instead given to the providers of health care.  The providers of health care then no longer take insured patients, because the insurance companies keep the money for their own profits instead of paying the providers.

    Do some doctors/hospitals charge too much?  Sure.  But that is definitely not the primary problem.  The primary problem is the money wasted on providing profits to the few at the health insurance companies.

    Parent

    I really disagree with that (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    From my experience with the hospitals here.  They completely upsell you.

    It's not just that they charge too much for procedures (and it's not some).  It's also that they decide the care they give based on how much money they can make off you. Hence why they are trying to get away from the fee for service model.

    I'm not saying that the insurers are scott free here, but the state has been pushing back at that, somewhat successfully.

    The hospitals are a huge problem.  And yes, a part of the problem lies in collusion with the insurance agencies as well.  I'm not trying to let the insurers off the hook here, but we can't keep looking at hospitals and doctors like they always have our best interest at heart.  Because they really really don't. It's all about the $$$$$$$

    Parent

    All the more reason (none / 0) (#49)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    that the only solution lies in single payer (which ACA is essentially in direct opposition to, hence it is not a step in the right direction).  There must be essentially a single adminstrative arm to control costs (or at least the German model where private insurance companies are quasi-government agencies as the result of stringent cost controls).

    Again, I disagree with your assertion that for profit insurance is not the primary problem.  The only amendment I guess I would make is that the current Democratic and Republican leaderships are also the primary problem, as they are in bed with the for profit insurance companies.

    Parent

    To add, (none / 0) (#52)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    I think the problem is that you are making a bit of a mistake of blaming the people (i.e. the doctors and hospitals) you come into direct contact with, and not understanding that the primary problem lies with those who are behind the scenes (i.e. the Democratic/Republican leadership and the insurance companies).

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    I'm not blaming the wrong people, and it's not just my direct contect, although that is included.

    This is also coming directly from the mouths of the nurses that work there.

    Parent

    just as an example (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    there is no need to have 5 ultrasounds on a miscarriage that you know is a miscarriage with the first ultrasound, just because mom is nervous.  But you are certainly going to be able to convince a nervous expecting mom to check 5 times just to be sure, nevermind the fact that this will all work itself out soon enough and you will know for sure if all you do is just wait.

    That's not a behind the scenes problem.  That's an upsell problem.

    Parent

    Sure, but what I don't think you (none / 0) (#55)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    seem to understand is that the pervese incentives on healthcare providers is founded on the fact that for-profit insurance companies, and the Democratic and Republican leadership they are paying for, are the ones setting the payment protocols in the first place.

    Parent
    The hospitals (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:59:58 PM EST
    Have a huge role in that as well.

    Parent
    They aren't "primarily" (none / 0) (#58)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    responsible for the problem.  That lies squarely with the for-profit insurance companies and the Democratic and Republican leadership who pass bills to support them.

    Parent
    semantics (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    they are a very big part of the problem that has been largely ignored to date.

    Parent
    But it is not the root (none / 0) (#60)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    of the problem, and focusing on it obscures the salient issue.

    Parent
    here you have (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    hospitals charging obscene amounts for completely unnecessary procedures (which were all covered by insurance, btw); hospitals refusing to accept insurance because the insurers won't reimburse them as much; hospitals charging people under a different billing code - because they can and it costs more - if you can read the article linked by jbdinc you will see that when pushed back by some patients they did in fact change the billing back.

    Btw, the per person hospital cost in MA is the highest in the world.  You don't think that is a huge problem for the cost of insurance?  Remember this goody?  I'm sorry but I don't think this is a small/irrelevant problem.

    Parent

    I'm sorry, but I'm going (none / 0) (#70)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:37:01 PM EST
    to stick to the bigger context here.  If you want to fix the economics of healthcare, the primary step is ending the exorbitant skimming done by the for-profit insurance companies and either moving to single payer or turning the private insurance companies into quasi government entities.  Just look at the rest of the world.  Every story about greedy doctors and hospitals is not going to change the basic truth.

    It's not that some doctors and hospitals aren't greedy, but, especially gien your misunderstanding about the problems with the ACA, I think you don't understand the economics of health care particularly well.

    Parent

    if the hospitals (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    that cover the most people charge twice as much as the hospitals that cover less people, for the same procedure with the same results, that's a macro problem, and it's not a "some doctors and hospitals are greedy" problem.

    In the rest of the world, they control the hospital care as well.

    And I agree that we need to go to a public health insurance model, I'm not sure why you assume that I don't.  Where I don't agree is that we can't do anything until that day comes, or that there aren't other issues that are also critical.

    We already have a government insurance model here, it's called medicaid and medicare, and guess what - we also have a real hospital/doctor problem when it comes to actually providing those people care.

    We can walk and chew gum at the same time, no?

    Parent

    None of this negates the (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:49:45 PM EST
    fact that the existence of the for-profit insurance model is the primary issue.

    And the for-profit insurance companies, and the Democratic and Republican leadership who works for them, are working on dismantling medicare and medicaid.  Again, that's the point that shows the primary issue.

    Parent

    and we'll just have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#61)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    on "primary"

    The very much "for profit" "not for profit" hospitals are not honest brokers in this either, and they have even more support from politicians, because it's politically more acceptable to support them.

    Parent

    Well, when comparing (none / 0) (#62)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    this country with the rest of the world, your analysis doesn't hold up, but again, you're obviously not the only one who doesn't get the big picture.

    Parent
    Again, the issue I was (none / 0) (#56)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    addressing is who is "primarily" responsible.  No doubt that it's the for-profit insurance companies and the Democratic and Republican leaders who are passing bills supporting them.

    Parent
    remember the Tufts fiasco? (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    we won't take your insurance because they don't pay us enough???

    Parent
    Yes, that's true, CST (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    It's extremely complicated.  It's all too easy for doctors and hospitals to order every single test and treatment available.  In part, they may be worried about possible malpractice claims.  In part, they may be worried about "missing something."  And in part, they do it because they get reimbursed for such by many insurance companies, and they have no incentive not to order all these tests, and to charge more for them every year.  What we need is way more "evidence-based" care.  And, sorry to continue to beat the drum, single-payer.  ;-)

    Parent
    it's gone now (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    but i read it earlier.

    It's basically talking about the stuff others here have also mentioned, that a colonoscopy is only preventative if they don't do other fairly routine "diagnostic" things as well once they are in there.

    So doctors/hospitals are telling people they will get "free care" and then stick them with $1000 medical bills because of things that happen once they are already out of it - under anesthesia, so it's not like they can say yes or no.  And the same thing is happening to some degree with mammograms.

    Honestly this is one of those loopholes that you can anticipate but don't always catch.  And it's further proof (not like we needed it) that the people who are out to make money on this can be real @ssholes.  But if they don't work to close it, and figure out how to close it, it will be an epic fail.  Things like this are why the ACA has to be viewed by those who passed it as a work in progress, because it's not a finished product, and it won't be for years.

    Parent

    It's really less of a work in progress (none / 0) (#25)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    and more like a insufficiently large band aid on an already infected wound.  At some point, hopefully, the band aid will be ripped off and the wound will be treated, either with single payer or a heavily regulated system such as what we see in Germany or France.  Otherwise, the infection will grow but in the short term it will be harder to see.

    Parent
    Merry Happy 2012 from Greenwald (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    In a desperate attempt to find someone less slithery and soulless (not to mention less Mormon), [Republican] party members have lurched manically from one ludicrous candidate to the next, only to watch in horror as each wilted the moment they were subjected to scrutiny. Incessant pleas to the party's ostensibly more respectable conservatives to enter the race have been repeatedly rebuffed. Now, only Romney remains viable. Republican voters are thus slowly resigning themselves to marching behind a vacant, supremely malleable technocrat whom they plainly detest.

    In fairness to the much-maligned GOP field, they face a formidable hurdle: how to credibly attack Obama when he has adopted so many of their party's defining beliefs. Depicting the other party's president as a radical menace is one of the chief requirements for a candidate seeking to convince his party to crown him as the chosen challenger. Because Obama has governed as a centrist Republican, these GOP candidates are able to attack him as a leftist radical only by moving so far to the right in their rhetoric and policy prescriptions that they fall over the cliff of mainstream acceptability, or even basic sanity.

    -- The Real Reason the GOP Primary Is a Pathetic, Incompetent Clown Show, December 27, 2011



    Greenwald's mention of coopting the center (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    reminded me of that precise technique used in a famous Senate race here in Colorado in the 1970s. At the time, the question was whether Gary Hart could win in rather centrist Colorado given his earlier key managerial association with former Preseidential candidate George McGovern. (McGovern's strong anti-war message led the Repubs to characterize him as a far-left type, etc.) Even with the changing tide in view of Watergate, there was still concern among Dem ranks here that Hart could be successful in Colorado. What did he do? To begin, he moved to the right of 3 of the others in the primary...capturing the center. In the general, he eased slightly to the perceived center...and became Senator Gary Hart.

    Campaigns take strategy. Clearly, Hart demonstrated how to do it; and, his advice in that regard was long sought. Apart from the flaunting personal issue he later succumbed to on the yacht Monkeybusiness (which cost him a decent shot at the Presidency), Senator Hart did become a good senator.

    Parent

    It's out of Obama's hands (none / 0) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 09:21:47 AM EST
    The economy will decide who our next President will be.

    With Romney being the purported Republican Candidate the R's have removed the #1 asset Obama hoped to have going into the election: A certifiable, bat$hit crazy lunatic as an opponent.

    Justifiably, or not, millions of Americans, from both parties, blame Obama for the state of our economy. Even if they concede that he inherited a  difficult problem the consensus seems to be that he is out of his league, and has profoundly mismanaged the pitiful, so called, "recovery."

    With Romney they get:

    1. A handsome, presidential looking candidate.
    2. Both Executive (Governor) and Business (CEO) experience.
    3. Impeccable, attractive family life.
    4. For the General, will shed the looniness required for the primaries.
    5. Running against Obama, "A failed President," is a powerful message.


    Romney, the LDS Church and abortion (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    Big Oragne had a front page story of how Romney dealt with abortion before he became albeit briefly pro-choice.  Bascially, Romney was a cad and conferred with LDS Church leaders about saying he was pro-choice in order to get elected in Massachusetts.

    Romney was a Mormon Bishop (and later a higher level Stake President, which is akin to a Catholic Bishop).  He was counseling a woman on abortion:

    He said - What do you think you're doing?

    She said - Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots.

    And he said something to the effect of - Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?

    And she said - What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation.

    And he said - Well what about the life of the baby?

    And she said - I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy.

    According to the linked article, Romney later said he was pro-choice as part of the Church leadership decision he needed to do so to win in Massachusetts:

    Several years later, Dushku was pleasantly surprised to read that Romney was running for Senate as a pro-choice candidate, and even thought she could lend her support to Romney and his newfound pro-woman political stance. When she visited his office, he told her that he only supported a pro-choice agenda because church elders in Provo had told him that it was the only way he'd win the seat in the liberal state.

    To refuse to look into Romney's religious beliefs and his being directed by the LDS Church is to ignore reality.  

    How did Romney get to head the Salt Lake Winter Olympics?  He had no connection to the Olympics or to sports at all.  He had no connection to Utah except he spent 4 years at BYU--he lived in Massachusetts and was from Michigan.

    Why is Utah the reddest state in the Union?  

    Parent

    And if (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    The Dems go after his religion too much, they come off as looking like bigots - not at all liberal.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:03:23 PM EST
    The Dems should not go after his "religion" at all.

    But Pro choice women should know that Romney is anti-choice.  

    Just because he once took a contrary position--at the direction of the Mormon Church--for political expediency, belies where he really is.

    Too many want to view Romney as a moderate from Michigan....Not at all true on social issues.  Romney is the perfect stealth candidate in many ways.  Just like George W. Bush being a compassionate conservative in 2000.

    It is not just that Romney is Mormon but that he is hardcore....By analogy it is as if he were not just Catholic but a leader of Opus Dei....

    The Mormon Church is very politically savvy.  It was instrumental in passing the anti-gay Prop 8 here in California.  The Catholic Church did too but not nearly as strongly or effectively as the Mormon Church.  The Mormon Church is probably more than anyone responsible for the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1980.

    If you vote for him because he is a moderate from Michigan, and he wins, you will be very disappointed.

     

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    He's a moderate from Michigan, but how do you explain the fact that the voters of Massachusetts voted him into office?

    And on Prop 8, it wasn't just the Mormon and Cstholic churches - it was African Ametican voters (Obama voters) who helped defeat that bill in large numbers as well

    Parent

    Well, the reason he (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    won in MA is because, at the time, his stated views, particularly on social issues, were very different from his current stated views.  

    As for mormon leadership (to which Romney belongs, I believe), they are, in fact, bigoted against gay people if you look at how they spend their money politically.  But, of course, Obama's not shy about cuddling up with religious bigots as well when it serves his purposes, so I'd think supporters of either one should probably be wary of throwing stones.  

    Parent

    Different issues (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    It is one thing to cozy up to bigots, as you say.  It is an entirely different thing to take direction from them and carry their water.

    Mitt is first and foremost a Mormon.  When recently challenged for not having a "core" because he changes his views so often, his quick response was that he had always been loyal to his wife and church.  

    One very perceptive conservative commentator on Hugh Hewitt's old blog that took comments said that Romney was 100% loyal to his wife and church--but that everyting else was negoatiable.  He uses up all his loyalty on his church and his family......

    Romney's career has been advanced by the LDS Church. That is how he got the Olympics.  He will do the Church's bidding.

    Parent

    Not saying you're definitely wrong (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    but I think it's hard to get at people's motives.  I mean, it could also be the case that he's primarly a businessman and doesn't really care one way or another about all those social issues and just plays to whatever base he feels like he has to play to.

    In any event, it's the actions they take that really matter.  I mean, maybe Obama consulted with his religious advisors when he restricted women's access to Plan B, maybe he didn't.  Maybe Romney will consult with his religious advisors if he becomes President to take all the bigoted actions he would probably take, maybe he won't.    

    Parent

    But that is what I am saying (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:33:50 PM EST
    We know Romney's motives based on his own statements of how central his religion is to him, and based on his having had significant leadership posts in the Church.  His involvement with his Church is an all-encompassing thing--it is not just a couple of hours on Sunday, or the brief conversation with a bigot. He has spent years of his life devoting more than 40 hours a week to it.

    And as to Obama, a McCain or a Romney would never appoint a Sotomayor or a Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court....Romney says he likes Roberts and Alito.

    Mitt is a Mormon Manchurian candidate.

    Parent

    He lied a lot. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    Not hard for him.

    Plus Massachusetts isn't nearly as wildly liberal as people like to say it is.  The irony is that being a Mormon in MA as opposed to in Iowa or South Carolina isn't as big of a deal, but that's because MA is more liberal than IA or SC, not because they are all flaming liberals.

    Parent

    Mitt said he was a moderate (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    and more in favor of gay rights than Teddy Kennedy, etc.  He did not run for re-election.

    Also, bear in mind that Massachusetts has a relatively recent history of electing Republicans as governor.  Willim Weld preceded Romney--and probably gave Romney the idea of running for Governor in the first place.  

    And, as the linked article has shown, Romney running as a social moderate in Massachusetts was a strategy designed by the Mormon heirarchy to advance Mitt's career.  It was a moot point for the most part in liberal Massachusetts, but it will not be a moot point if he were to ever become President.

    I think you are missing the point:  Mitt is a social conservative who takes direction from LDS Church leadership.  If one is okay with that, then fine.  But don't be fooled by the slick packaging....

    Mitt is a Mormon Manchurian candidate.

    Parent

    But Bill Weld was a shoo-in (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:40:24 AM EST
    The Democrats hated Silber. He was scary. Incidentally, I don't think 1990 (when Weld won) was all that recent.

    Parent
    just as a correction (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    Weld did precede Romney, but not directly.

    It was Weld, then it was Cellucci (another Republican), then his LT. governor Jane Swift (also republican) took over after he resigned to become ambassador to Canada, and after Swift was Romney.

    So there was a string of republican governors before Romney.  Weld was the first one after Dukakis but certainly not the last.

    MA is not as liberal as some people would think.  We are right next to NH, and the southern part of that state is populated with a lot of MA expats and people who work in Boston.  Which means we are culturally not that far apart.  NH values do show up in a subset of the MA population.

    Parent

    Well, MA is in fact quite liberal, comparatively. (none / 0) (#98)
    by dk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    The greater context is that the MA legislature has a veto proof Democratic majority, so in most significant senses it doesn't matter who the Governor is, particularly with respect to fiscal policy.  I also don't see MA ever electing a governor who would be conservative on any significant social issue.  None of the Republican governors you mentioned were, including Romney when he ran for the job.  For example, Margaret Marshall, the former MA supreme court judge who authored the decision legalizing gay marriage in MA, was a Weld appointee.

    Parent
    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#102)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    I remember those interviews the local ABC affiliate did with Weld and Silber, and they were what did Silber in. Weld donned his wife's frilly apron and did the dishes after dinner, and came off as an easy-going moderate on issues, while Silber marched around BU barking at people about rules and came off as a scary authoritarian. There was no contest. I don't know anything about the Romney campaign, because I wasn't living there anymore. But Massachusetts liberal is nothing like West Coast liberal, and this West Coast gal was pretty stunned at how uptight and bigoted many Bostonians still were in 1990.

    Parent
    Maybe it's the definition of liberal (none / 0) (#104)
    by dk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    I lived in California for a while, and found many California "liberals" to be more libertarian really (i.e. more anti-government than liberal in the economic sense, for example).  And while left-wing Californians liked to talk about how tolerant they were, I was always struck by the almost caste-like system between the races out in CA, particularly Southern California.

    Parent
    ha! (none / 0) (#106)
    by CST on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    to clarify in advance, when I'm talking about the "libertarians" in MA - I consider them our  conservatives, not liberals.

    The liberals in MA are real economic liberals.

    Parent

    west coast vs MA (none / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    Boston/MA may be politically liberal but it's  culturally very conservative, I'm not surprised you thought it was "uptight".  It's not an east coast/west coast thing so much as a New England thing since most NYers I know say the same thing.  The bigoted is something else, but Boston has changed a lot since 1990.  Some of that culture is still there but it's much less socially acceptable and it's been diluted a lot.  Boston proper is no longer mostly white.  In the 2000 census it became a majority-minority city for the first time, and it still is despite the gentrification.

    Compared to the rest of the country MA is of course politically very liberal and a social conservative would certainly never win here.  But the fiscal conservative/libertarian streak is there, and the libertarian aspect is a big part of why a social conservative would never win.  That's what I meant by shared cultural values with NH.

    Parent

    Personally, I think (none / 0) (#107)
    by dk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    the term "culturally conservative" is a bit silly.  True, the culture of New England is different from NY, or CA, but using a term like "conservative" isn't particularly useful. Just for instance, the hold that the Catholic Church still has in NY (though I guess it's waning) compared to the way it is now in MA is quite striking.  New York is about 15-20 years behind MA in that regard I think.

    But, obviously, the stereotype of New Englanders being uptight has been around for a long time, so I suppose there's truth in it.  ;)

    As for NH, in large measure the liberal nature of MA has rubbed off quite a bit on NH over the last 10-20 years...perhaps partly as a result of the general decline in the Republican party in the Northeast resulting from the fundamentalist takeover in the Republican party, and partly because more Boston area workers moved to New Hampshire for cheaper real estate.


    Parent

    i thought it was silly too (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    but I keep hearing it over and over, so there must be some truth to it.

    I think it's because we frown on flashy.  Whether it's clothes, or behavior, or just generally standing out.  There is a live and let live vibe that is also "leave me alone and don't let your bright clothes and loud noises interfere with my personal space".  That's what I mean by culturally conservative.

    The catholic church change is so drastic it's shocking.  Although when I tell people over 30 where I'm from they still ask me which parish.

    Parent

    It may have been a stereotype but... (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    I found it to be all too true. I loved the people I went to school with - they were from all over the country and all over the world. I also lived in a predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhood. Conversely, the people I worked with in the Boston restaurants were mostly blue collar white people  from Boston and they were some of the most racist, sexist a$$holes I have ever encountered in my life. I was constantly teased for being a musician from "weirdo California." They were provincial, ignorant, and proud of it. Sorry it that offends. It's how it was.

    I'm glad to hear things have changed.

    Parent

    I can imagine that's true. (none / 0) (#112)
    by dk on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 10:53:28 PM EST
    Also true I've never met stupider, more racist and provincial people in my life than I met in my years after college in California.  I can't imagine what parents face when figuring out how to educate their children out there.

    Parent
    The holy rollers (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:42:25 PM EST
    particularly in the South, have been "going after" Romney's religion with tooth and nail for years..

    I have to laugh when I hear this new conservative meme about 'liberal hypocrisy' vis a vis Romney's religion.

    Parent

    Not sure how that is (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    A "conservative meme".  Assuming you know what's really in someone's mind vis a vis their religious beliefs and disliking them for it is flat out bigotry.  

    And a politician who says anything to get elected and plays to whatever audience they are speaking to?  Color me shocked!  I'm SURE no Democrat does that!

    Parent

    Sure, if someone has racism (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:39:54 PM EST
    in his heart--disliking him for that is fine by me.

    It is one thing to bash Mormons over their religious views of the Trinity or the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, or Temples or whatever.    I am not talking about that.   That is what the Southern Baptists talk about.

    I am talking about the raw exercise of power and influence in the political sphere.....That is not being a bigot, that is being aware....

    Parent

    The Baptists go after the Mormons (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    over theological issues such as the Book of Mormon, etc. and Joseph Smith and his many wives.  

    I am not talking about that--although that is an very interesting discussion to have.  I am talking about the the political views of the Church and how the Church has back Romney's career.

    Parent

    Just guessing, jbindc (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    Dems don't have to "go after" Romney's very close connection with the LDS/Mormon leadership, etc. In fact, they would be wise not to do so...for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that the issue is already there. Starting with the very evangelical component so key to the Repubs in recent memory; starting there because there are indicators aplenty in terms of refusal by same to "accept" him to date. That situation, most assuredly, will diminish the vigor with which the key evangelical component will approach the election...the "Gee, Maude, I meant to get down to the polls, but-you know--something came up, etc. etc. etc." and the "Love to help you in getting out the vote for our Repub candidate, but I'm so overwhelmed with all this other work, etc. etc." (It isn't the voting once at the polls; it will be the "energy" needed to get there.)

    And, that "energy" level for ol' Mitt isn't about to increase among Repubs/Repub-leaners considering the well-publicized Romneycare. There is a huge trust issue, as you know. Some of that--just guessing--stems from what some perceive as his "different" background. If his own party types are still so tepid (or distrusting) after all the years of his trying, the situation doesn't look to improve much in that regard.

    Parent

    Almost forgot (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    The Repub key component--religious right--has had a strong presence in the past decade in places like Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia. Interesting states, to be sure.

    Parent
    Sounds a lot like (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 07:46:37 AM EST
    the arguments for why we've only had one Catholic president, even though it is the single largest religious denominatio. In the country.

    Of course, liberals everywhere were aghast and clutched their pearls when concern and outrage was expressed over a certain Chicago preacher's teachings and a certain presidential candidate who was able to sit in the congregation for 20 years but never hear any of it.

    Apparently it's racist and bigoted to question how that candidate was shaped and influenced by a personal religious mentor, but if it's a religion that you don't like, it's ok to paint a candidate with a broad brush.

    Look, I have no intention of voting for Romney, but it makes me cringe when I hear/read so-called liberals sound EXACTLY like the people they purport to disagree with - just the names have changed.

    Parent

    For the record, jbindc (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    I did not gasp in 2008 nor do I gasp now as to the "religious issue,". My statement is only made as back-up for growing claims that the "issue" is out there...found anecdotally as well as in recent polling, etc. And, if that rudimentary evidence is accurate, one projection is that even a one or two percent effect in a swing state makes a difference. In that regard, consider again the politically energized evangelicals organized & transported by bus and van to polls in Michigan, Wisconsin, & Ohio in support of Bush in 2004...documentation aplenty as to the umbers & probable effect .  What was the result in Ohio again!  In sum:  the effect of an energized electoral component such as the evangelicals has had electoral influence in the past.

    Parent
    number 2 (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    Could definitely be used against him.  On both counts.

    Downsizing is not going to look good on a presidential resume these days.

    Parent

    That number 3 may take a hit (none / 0) (#18)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    I'm sure there are more dog-lovers than just me that remember his treatment of the family dog.  All for "efficiency".  If he'll treat his own family dog that way, people may start to wonder how he'll treat humans.

    But man, I can't argue with the other four.

    Parent

    LoL, yeah, that was pretty weird (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    wasn't it?

    Forgot about that, but don't know how much "legs" the story has. Hardly hear about it any more, and it doesn't seem to have hurt him that badly.

    I remember LBJ picking up his beagle by the ears and he won in a landslide.

    Parent

    Attitudes about dogs (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    have changed since then. Romney is lucky there aren't any images of his poor dog on the car roof . . .

    I honestly couldn't believe anyone would think that was okay to do with the family pet. We always put the luggage up there and had the pets in the car, even on road trips from CA to IL. Ya shoulda heard the cat! Siamese, nuf said.

    Parent

    In certain states (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    animal cruelty is a felony. I hope the dude has wised up ;)

    I also saw it as a lack of common sense/problem solving issue, and sheer stupidity. I mean really, "Gee, I know, let's put the dog on the car roof!", how stupid can you be?

    I will say, at least he didn't hang and beat the dog to death . . . .

    Parent

    "presidential looking candidate"? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:35:31 AM EST
    I remember seeing Bush and Gore on television in a 2000 debate and thinking that Bush appeared the more "presidential looking candidate".

    That was before he started with the smirking...

    Parent

    My favorite memory of the 2000 debates was (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Farmboy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    the look on Gore's face as Bush spouted nonsense factoids. There were two parts to Al's reactions: the "Did those words really come out of his mouth?" look when Bush said stupid things, and the "Really? You're giving that a pass?" face as the moderators sagely nodded and accepted the nonsense without question.

    I don't want to mow Somerby's yard here, but a functioning media would certainly have led to a different public reaction to those debates.

    Parent

    You didn't like Gore, either? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    Obama delivers on a number of these items (none / 0) (#28)
    by Farmboy on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    1 & 3 are givens for Obama as well, except for the voters who can't get past skin color - and they didn't vote for him last time.

    For item 2 Obama doesn't have CEO experience, but he can point to the Dow's improvements from Jan. 2009 to now - assuming the Dow doesn't crash between now and Nov. 2012. Using the Dow has been a staple of presidential campaigns forever, except when it crashes under a president's watch. Then it's ignored, or blamed on the other party.

    As to 4, Obama has always displayed gravitas. His 2004 convention speech made him look more presidential than Kerry. His delivery style is off-putting to some, but to me, Romney comes off like a used car salesman.

    Pushing item 5 is the one strategy that Romney really can go for. However, he has to get past his tendency to spout over the top statements. Despite Politifact's epic crash and burn, there will be fact checkers.

    Parent

    I wonder if the Obama campaign... (none / 0) (#74)
    by EL seattle on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    ... will run ads suggesting that the US needs a Democrat in the White House to stand up to the Republican-controlled House and Senante?

    That might be a very effective strategy to get Obama a second term as president.

    Parent

    This is snark, right? (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    "Be careful for what you wish?" (none / 0) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    I was handicapping the difficulties President Obama might have with Romney as an opponent.

    Please point to where I "wished" for something

    Parent

    Well, although I could be wrong (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 12:16:41 PM EST
    I think NYShooter was laying out the reasons why it could become a horse race.  He was laying out the reasons why based on the Republican candidate.  I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why based on the Democratic one.

    In my view, Obama has already failed to do the job.  But by "the job" I mean, you know, the actual Presidency, as opposed to campaigning for it.  

    As far as I can tell, we have a choice between two people who will fail to do the job of "Presidenting"

    Parent

    SITE VIOLATOR -- oliber20!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:12:54 PM EST


    I get rid of them (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    within a day. 99% are from India, Russia, Turkey and Romania, the Philippines and China.

    Parent
    You're very good about (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 11:49:08 AM EST
    blowing them out of here, J.  Does it seem to you that there have been rather more lately?  And I really don't understand why they bother writing in (English phonetic) Turkish, leading to a website, no doubt, in Turkish (although I haven't looked at the actual websites).  How many people on American blogs read Turkish?  I guess they get paid per placement, and it doesn't matter where the spam is placed.

    Parent
    They're all (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    over the place in the last few days, aren't they?  There are always spammers, but I don't remember having quite so many here in such a short period of time.  

    Parent
    They really are (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:19:39 PM EST
    It seems to me that TL had an infestation like this about a month ago and then it settled down.  But now they're baaaaaaack.....

    Parent
    Must be (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    the holiday season- they want to spread the "word."  Or "joy to the world."  Or something.  {{Sigh}}    ;-)

    Parent
    School's out (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 28, 2011 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    They have time on their hands.

    Parent