home

Sunday Open Thread

I'm spending this beautiful day outdoors. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Middle East Developments | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    more I see of Elizabeth Warren, the more I wish she'd run - so that I could vote for somebody.

    But Sen. Warren isn't going to run. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    So what are you going to do -- stay home? Perfection is always the enemy of the good, and if you demand it as the price of your appearance at the polls, you're both punishing otherwise decent candidates who can at least move the ball forward, and assisting those candidates whose policies you profess to abhor. While politics has rightly been described as the art of compromise, you gain compromise with leverage. By staying home, you've helped to give your side's leverage away.

    The U.S. House flipped in 2010, not because Republican voters necessarily turned out in even greater numbers than in 2008 (they didn't), but rather because huge swaths of the Democratic electorate decided for whatever their reasons to disengage and sit that particular election out. Why? Because "Hope and Change" didn't manifest itself immediately, and they get everything they wanted in 2009-10? Do you really expect politicians to pay attention to people who are so easily frustrated that they give up so quickly?

    Reality check here: The only lesson Democratic politicians will ever draw from liberal and progressive no-shows at the polls is that they really can't depend upon many members of their own side for political support at key moments. (See 2012-13 Wisconsin and Colorado Recall Elections.) Therefore, it only naturally follows that they'll look elsewhere for that support, and the odds are better than even that as liberals and progressives, we probably won't like where they're looking.

    As bat guano-crazy as the GOP's right-wing base is at present, their party establishment is compelled to listen to them because come hell or high water, those voters dutifully flock to the polls en masse at EVERY election cycle -- including both primary and special elections -- and don't only show up for the one that happens to fall on the second Tuesday of every fourth November during presidential years.

    And because the GOP right is fully engaged in the political process, they've gained an inordinate amount of leverage given the corresponding disengagement of the other side. They know that they can effect desired outcomes by applying constant electoral pressure at ALL levels of government, not just at the top every four years. And they most definitely realize that in every election year ending in "0", gaining control of state legislatures is very important because in most states, it is the legislature that controls the decennial congressional redistricting process.

    So while Democratic voters sat on their thumbs in 2009-10, Republican voters not only helped their party seize control of the U.S. House, but also delivered to the GOP the state legislatures in key battlegrounds like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina (and further elected Chris Christie as governor of New Jersey). Whereupon Republicans in those states -- not Democrats -- then proceeded to redraw congressional district lines to their own liking and benefit. Thus in 2012, even though 60% of Pennsylvania voters cast their ballots for a Democratic congressional candidate, Democrats managed to get only 25-30% of that state's congressional seats.

    We have an important upcoming election in less than four months, and the inordinate amount of attention that too many people are devoting to the one 28 months hence is not only silly at this point, but also ultimately counterproductive. Because once again, they're standing at the plate with bat resting on shoulder, and wondering about the next inning rather than concentrating on the immediate task at hand. What do you think the likelihood is that they'll be caught looking and called out on strikes?

    So, from Sen. Warren's standpoint, what's the point of her presidential candidacy, if the best she can hope for is continued stalemate assuming she wins, because she doesn't have an amenable Congress with which she could work to actually get things done?

    I know people around here get annoyed when I talk about their levels of political engagement (or lack thereof), but the good Lord willing, I'm going to keep annoying them until the lesson finally takes hold that EVERY single election is important, not just the presidential one every four years. And if you truly want and desire change, then you must commit yourself to becoming an effective and reliable instrument of that change at the ballot box -- which you'll never accomplish by removing yourself from the electoral equation in a selfish fit of personal pique, and staying home.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You ask... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    But Sen. Warren isn't going to run.
    So what are you going to do -- stay home?

    Probably.

    Unless there is someone I can vote for, and not simply someone presented as the less worse, I will not be voting.

    You are a Democratic Party partisan. So get your party in line.

    Remember back to 2006? The Democrats handed Bush a well deserved defeat. They won on ending the war in Iraq.

    So what did they do? They went wholeheartedly for Bush's surge.

    And if you insult people like me who cannot stomach voting for people they don't trust by saying that we're selfish, or not voting for these pieces of plastic out of "personal pique", you haven't a clue about making friends for your cause celebre.

    I wish you well Donald. I know you're going through a lot.

    But if you want me to vote for representatives of your Party, try to get them to give me a candidate I would want to vote for.
    Someone in the mold of Elizabeth Warren.


    Parent

    Would you vote (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:13:16 PM EST
    For Clinton/Warren?

    Parent
    I'd (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    think about it...
    but truthfully, I do not have any confidence in Secretary Clinton.

    And I also don't think that Vice Presidents have much sway over the thinking and actions of the President. (A notable exception, of course, is the Cheney-Bush cabal.)

    In recent history, what has Biden meant to anyone?
    He is, thankfully, mute - except occasionally when he steps out, embarrasses himself and everybody, and then slinks back into the shadows.

    If I could feel that Senator Warren would be a co-president, and that Clinton would sincerely seek her advice and counsel, I might consider voting for that ticket - but if I sense that hers would be a position of selling talking points - I simply couldn't.

    Parent

    I think you just made my (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    Argument for choosing her as VP better than I could.  Many people would give Clinton second look.  
    Two women on one ticket would be a powerful images in itself.

    Just MO.

    Parent

    True, (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:59:43 PM EST
    Warren on the ticket would cause me to give Clinton an umpteenth look.

    Parent
    Bad Idea, IMO (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:11:46 AM EST
    Two women on one ticket would be a powerful images in itself.

    Maybe powerful in an unelectable way.

    Imagine demographic categories who have not been POTUS and pair them up :

    Two black people? Two Chinese people? Two gay people? Two jewish people? Two hispanic people? Two transgender people?.....

    Parent

    Buzzkill :) (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    And historically (none / 0) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    The ticket is selected to appeal to the broadest swathe of voters :)

    Parent
    I completely disagree with the (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:56:44 PM EST
    Idea that two women could not appeal to "broad swath" of voters.

    Parent
    After all (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:57:38 PM EST
    Two men have been doing it since the founding if the republic.

    Parent
    Or a broad swathe (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    I vote "swath." (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:07:25 PM EST
    How do you know (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    what Biden has done?

    In recent history, what has Biden meant to anyone?
     He is, thankfully, mute - except occasionally when he steps out, embarrasses himself and everybody, and then slinks back into the shadows.

    Many times, VPs are working behind the scenes as a confidant and close advisor to the president. (And you can probably thank Joe Biden for getting the ball rolling on the firestorm of gay marriage cases and politicians jumping on board). If not for his "off-the cuff" statements (and I'm not convinced that they were totally "off-the cuff" - I think it was orchestrated), we wouldn't be as far along as we are now, IMO.

    And you really think Al Gore wasn't influential?

    Parent

    I understand about the perfect being (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Peter G on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    the enemy of the good.  But in the case of Democratic presidential candidates, we don't seem to be talking about comparing someone who is good with someone who is perfect, Donald.  We are asked to take someone barely acceptable over someone who would by comparison be pretty good, because the barely acceptable is so much better than anyone the Republicans will put up.  That's a different dilemma, it seems to me; much closer to the problem of the lesser of two evils. Voting for that barely acceptable candidate does nothing to push the party in the direction that would be better for the country.

    Parent
    Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 07:51:32 AM EST
    The case for staying in place
    Why Elizabeth Warren is too important to run for president....

    Take Elizabeth Warren at her word. She is not running for president in 2016. We should cheer. We need her on Capitol Hill. If we are lucky, she really is the natural successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who came into his own as a lawmaker when he stopped, at last, heeding the cries to "Run, Teddy, Run!"

    Kennedy built the sort of bridges across the aisle to his Republican colleagues that we can now barely imagine, partnering with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and others on issues from health care to education. Already, in contrast to the prevailing partisan dysfunction on Capitol Hill, Warren has joined Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in proposing legislation that would reimpose regulations on the nation's biggest banks to promote traditional lending and thwart high-risk trading in securities. She has teamed up with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to provide financial relief for fishermen suffering the collapse of commercial fisheries from New England to the Gulf Coast to Alaska.

    Just as Kennedy turned his position on the Senate Labor Committee into a platform to defend the economic security of ordinary Americans, Warren is using her perch on the Banking Committee to champion the needs of the poor and the middle class at a time of unprecedented income inequality in the United States. She has never been needed more than she is now, where she is now.

    Going to Washington to get something done rather than to stoke personal ambition might be a quaint notion to those who live for the campaign trail. For Warren, it looks to be her genuine modus operandi. The pundits should let her get back to work. Scott Brown will be happy to take their calls.

    Boston Globe

    Parent

    One thing (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:25:49 AM EST
    that never seems to occur to you, Donald, is that an option for the Democratic party with which you are affiliated to present candidates that folks like me would want to vote for.

    The only song you have been singing is that we have some kind of moral obligation to vote for someone who we do not like and/or do not trust because to do otherwise would be selfish or an expression of personal pique.

    This is TalkLeft.
    Give me someone like Elizabeth Warren, and I'll vote.
    Give me someone like Biden, and say goodbye.

    If you went to a restaurant, and one plate had many roaches on it, and the other just a few mouse droppings, would you feel obligated to down one or the other, or would you opt to get the he!l out of there?

    Parent

    This is TalkLeft. This is a pizza joint. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    Pizza is available with a huge variety of toppings, sauces, crusts, cheeses, etc. New York, Chicago, Denver, California - border to border, coast to coast. Lots of styles, lots of varieties, lots of different flavors. The one thing they have in common: they're all pizza.

    Your constant refrain isn't about the cleanliness of the joint - it's that you're in a pizza joint, and you don't like pizza.

    Parent

    Come on, my friend, sheesh (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    Pizza is an inanimate object, people are most definitely not. Your analogy is not just lacking, it is, in this context, utterly and laughable absurd.

    This country has entirely lost any political imagination. Any and all.

    That is the death of us, IMO.

    Parent

    Alive and Kicking in NYC (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    And not exactly sure what time period you are referring to when you say that this country has lost any political imagination..

    are you feeling nostalgic?  what era you like to dial the clock to?

    Parent

    Actually, (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    I thought it was a great metaphor. The point being that pizza, like the Democrats / liberals (more so than Republicans, it seems) come in a variety of flavors - but it's all good when they come together.  But if all you're going to do is complain about the group as a whole, then maybe you need to find a new group, since the old group will never satisfy you.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:39:03 PM EST
    or who is the pizza joint you are referring to?

    Lousy candidates? Is that the pizza joint?
    Democrats who morph into republicans at a moment's notice?
    Is that the joint to which you refer?

    I like honest people.
    People who speak spontaneously - with a combination of heart and mind. With emotion and intellect. That's the kind of joint I like to frequent.

    As I said, Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person I would like to vote for.  

    If she is pizza, terrific. No problem.

    Otherwise - I don't know what you're talking about.


    Parent

    I think your perception that GOP voters (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    "always" turn out to support their candidates is not supported by the numbers.  

    With respect to the 2012 election (bold is mine):

    The turnout percentage of eligibles voting was down from 2008 in every state and the District of Columbia, except two - Iowa and Louisiana. The turnout numbers of citizens who cast ballots were down in every state but six - Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Wisconsin.

    Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year.

    [snip]

    Seven states set record lows for overall presidential year turnout - Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. There were four record Democratic turnout lows - in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. The Republicans achieved record high turnout in two states - Alabama and North Carolina - and one record low in Hawaii.

    [snip]

    The lowest overall state turnout - excluding two states, Arizona and Alaska, which still have many ballots to count - was in Hawaii at 43.6 percent of eligible citizens, followed by West Virginia (45.1), New York (46.3), Oklahoma (48.5) and Texas (48.9).

    And, based on these numbers, looks like you have some work to do in Hawaii...

    Parent

    Still think (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:26:01 PM EST
    She would make a very sensible VP pick.

    Parent
    No, definitely not VP (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:51:34 AM EST
    She's much too valuable for that position. We're better off where she is right now.,

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    what I think too. She can influence legislation a lot more where she is than in the VP position.

    Parent
    I suppose that is conventional wisdom (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:50:57 PM EST
    I don't really agree.   IMO the VP position is what you say it is.  And what the president says it is.  I could she her doing a lot and Hillary being OK with that.

    I would love to see if she agrees with me or you.

    Parent

    One thing (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    she doesn't have the pit bull mentality that seems to be a requirement with VPs these days.

    I like her but I just don't see her as a national candidate on any scale right now. I'm not seeing the ability to fight the GOP like it needs to be fought from her.

    Maybe she will change my mind in the future but that's kind of how I see it right now.

    Parent

    Not sure we are talking about (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:04:10 PM EST
    for totally selfish reasons (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    I would like to not have to go through another special election for senate seat in MA.  After decades of John Kerry and Kennedy, the last few years of high-profile, nationally important senate elections has been really annoying.  I understand why some people like turnover and the idea of term limits in the senate, but it also means more awful campaigns.

    So a little stability in the MA senate seats would be nice.

    Parent

    OTOH (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    It would be a very easy seat for dems to keep.  

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    Nationally it makes sense for Dems to poach MA politicians for appointments (not presidents).  Personally it's annoying.  Although I don't think we'll see another screw up on the senate again - Dems got caught sleeping that one time, won't happen again for a while.

    Parent
    Legislative Record (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    As much as I like Warren's positions, her effectiveness as a legislator has not been that successful. I think any liberal position is difficult to represent given the forces at hand.

    And in some cases she has voted, unsurprisingly, against her stated liberal positions, and for her constituency.

    Like Obama, she has been blocked by GOP, and like Obama she has compromised.

    Parent

    If we had a couple more like her (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:14:03 PM EST
    She could be incredible.  She doesn't like to fight, she does not like to show force at all.  Because she is so alone she is ineffective.  If we had her and Paul Wellstone, well, I just wish.  We all thought Franken would be a bigger fighter, and it isn't that he doesn't fight...he just picks his battles.  There are too few, and it is too draining for so few to fight hard, often it ends up destroying them.  One poorly stated sound bite and you are out.

    Parent
    She Is a Politician (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:27:21 PM EST
    Not a saint.

    Parent
    I like Warren too....BUT... (3.50 / 2) (#82)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    she is certainly not perfect and I think would not run well in the democratic party for national office at this time. She was a registered republican until 1995 meaning she voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I. She became a democrat because "she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate"  Wiki link. Evidently it was not because she believes in the party platform.

    She also has had some issues with legal practice/consulting fees in MA.

    Elizabeth Warren and her supporters have mounted  an argument that what she did at her office in Cambridge for private litigants was not the practice of law.

    Warren herself, when confronted by a reporter after it was revealed she had no Massachusetts law license, claimed she was not practicing law. Her campaign later clarified that she was not practicing law "in Massachusetts" when she practiced law at her Cambridge office.  Warren denies ever appearing in a Court located in Massachusetts.

    That defense is becoming more and more comical as more facts come out showing that as far back as 1995 Warren used her Cambridge office to render legal services for which she was paid at least hundreds of thousands of dollars. Warren still refused to disclose the full extent of her legal practice, pretending that all she did was write a few briefs.

    Yet Warren's legal practice from her Cambridge office clearly went beyond merely appearing as "Of counsel" or Counsel on Briefs.

    link


    Parent

    Makes Sense (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    She voted for eliminating medical equipment tax for ACA, and the reason assumed was that she was representing the Medical Equipment manufacturers, many of which are in MA.

    Also she is for repeal or reduce the estate tax a GOP ideal. She defends her reversal on the estate tax (said the opposite in MA senate campaign), is that she wants to take the entire tax code on and not pick bits of it..  Not exactly sure that this is a great defense, considering that she loves Piketty.

    I think that she is a politician, and as much as I like her positions, she will do what she needs to do to get votes and power. To elevate her to a demigod is likely to be a very disappointing endeavor.

    Hope is what we have for her..  remember that?  Her 1st year as MA senator is lackluster to say the least. But, I assume it takes years as Senator to accumulate the political capitol to write bills and get them passed.

    Parent

    the actual quote from Wikipedia: (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[24]

    And it couldn't hurt to go to the links referenced to get the totality of her remarks on that subject.

    As an aside, I would also caution you not to make assumptions about who people vote for based strictly on their party registration; that Warren was a registered Republican until 1995 does not mean "she voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I," it means she was a registered Republican until 1995.  I've known plenty of people who began to vote Democratic long before they changed their official registration; the fact that she says she voted both parties could mean she didn't vote for any of those presidents.

    And one more: you might want to check into William Jacobson a little further; a conservative blogger with a practice in securities litigation and not much fondness for Obama might bear taking with a considerable grain of salt.  If you want the other side on the issue Jacobson raised on his blog, see here.

    Parent

    Hence the word (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    I assume. Yes it is possible she was a registered republican until she was 46 and  a law professor and never voted republican, or did not vote republican in those presidential campaigns. Its possible. She has never said that when she was a republican she voted for democrats. What she has said is from that quote:  "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets"

    I just think her oppo would be from democrats on this party switch rather than republicans. And democrats might not like that she switched for her stated reasons and not saying that she supported the overall party platform or that party platform was a major reason for her switch. Republicans might love it tho and would continue to focus on her heritage or some other BS. Just don't think she would play well in a national election for the democratic party.

    Parent

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:46:11 AM EST
    Was a Goldwater Girl

    Parent
    I voted for Reagan in 1980 (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    People evolve.  Well, some people do.

    Parent
    A shocking revelation. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:33:09 AM EST
    Not my proudest moment (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:36:20 AM EST
    I regretted it almost instantly.  

    Parent
    Oh not me, I couldn't vote yet (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    I waited until 1984.  I wanted so very much to be a yuppy.  I worked hard too, blazingly crazy hard, no Beemer showed.  I had a couple of friends with Beemers.  They also had silver spoons for some reason, and none of them ever worked a 60 hour work week.  Pretty sure they never have either.  That was when I finally got it :)

    I did get thrown out of my grandfather's house Christmas 84, maybe it was just shouted out.  I think he wanted to lay hands on me...but...well...family violence is frowned on :). Perhaps it had something to do with me telling my grandfather he had the political beliefs of a pu$$y or something like that too.  It all remains a little foggy :)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#114)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    That is a good topic of discussion, but to slam commenters, and caution them for misrepresenting such a vaulted figure for even suggesting that Warren was a GOPer and voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush should sends up red flags..

    Warren is a politiican, but it looks like she is gaining sainthood for some here at TL..

    Parent

    Since Warren herself has stated that she (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    voted for both Republicans and Democrats, I did not think it accurate to state that being registered as a Republican was categorical proof that Warren had voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I.

    Do you disagree?  

    And how does one get from there to elevating Warren to sainthood?  

    Nevermind; you always seem to be able to get to places no one else is going just by closing your eyes and clicking your heels.

    Parent

    Defending Warren's Honor? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    categorical proof that Warren had voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I.

    No one said anything about categorical proof.

    To get nasty to a commenter, who apologized for leaving out the word assumed, when you could have said that it is interesting to think that Warren had a different past, could have made for a discussion about Warren. But you chose to make it about ZtoA.

    Must be that your white horse got ahead of you..

    Parent

    OMG - just stop. (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    Get back to me when you and the English language are on better terms; you're just babbling now.

    Parent
    Babbling? (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    Any thoughts on Warren's legislative record as senator?

    Any thoughts on Warren's GOP background?

    Thought so...

    lots of thoughts on commenters grammar and english usage though.

    Wonder what that says about you as a commenter at a political blog..


    Parent

    Segue: grammar. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    Ever wondered what Kristen Stewart and Anne Hathaway would look like in drag? Us either.

    [yes, I am easily amused.]

    Parent

    Are we sure... (none / 0) (#153)
    by unitron on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:59:24 AM EST
    ...that shouldn't have been "us neither"?

    Parent
    Anne, no one, except YOU (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    is saying that her being a registered republican was "categorical proof" of her voting republican in national elections. She herself has said she has voted for both republicans and democrats.

    I also don't think it would be productive for me to insult you about your misunderstandings and assumptions as you do with me.

    I am very interested with Warren and find her a very valuable voice in politics. However, I have no interest in not looking at her actual history. Personally - speaking for myself only - I find that her republican party registration interesting and complex and makes her a more interesting candidate for national office.

    Parent

    ZtoA, YOU said that Warren's (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    Republican registration meant she voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush I.

    I said it meant no such thing.  And it doesn't.

    I have no idea why you don't even seem to know what you've said, much less why you are unable to comprehend what I've said, but at this stage of the game, I don't find it productive to engage either you or squeaky, because it only ever leads one place: down the rabbit hole with a seat at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

    Enjoy the cucumber sandwiches; I hear Elizabeth Warren used to like watercress, but now she's all in for cucumbers.  

    Or is she...?

    hahahahahaha!

    Parent

    Anne (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    Your continued insults are not productive.

    I corrected my assumption that Warren voted with the party she was registered with. I have been trying to engage in this conversation with you and others as best I can. You have repeatedly made it clear that you do not respect me. Fine. I appreciate you efforts to correct me despite your obvious disrespect and distain.

    Parent

    Reagan (none / 0) (#173)
    by Politalkix on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:25:06 PM EST
    was once a Democrat.

    Parent
    and I don't think Reagan was a (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    perfect candidate either. Good enough to get elected. Not a perfect president! Republicans hold him up as an ideal, but if they actually looked at his record they would see he was a very different republican than today's.

    It's so strange, the more I actually read about Warren the less perfect she looks. Obviously she is a darling for so many. I see her as more human and my expectations about her are modified. I like much of her record.

    Both parties seem to seek out what they consider perfect candidates who they love 100% and who do not have dimensions that they might not like. Even tho I support and voted for Obama I don't consider him a perfect president. Maybe a perfect candidate, but that don't seem to automatically translate into a perfect president. Yet Warren fans seem to be so defensive about that.

    Parent

    Hillary (2.00 / 1) (#179)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    Well the Warren love is mild at this point compared to the Hillary love (and Obama hate) that we had here during the primaries. It was amazing to watch, considering that there was not a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Obama.

    And really funny now that those once lovestruck for Hillary are now bored with her. Love is a fickle thing, I guess, particularly when it comes to politicians.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:40:18 PM EST
    You always quote BTD's "dime's worth of difference" without adding the "on the issues I care about" qualifier. But even funnier is that you said essentially the same thing about Kerry and Clinton.

    So apparently Obama, Kerry and Clinton are all just one person. If we are that advanced in cloning and creating ditto heads, it is even more important to give third party candidates a level playing field.

    hahaha

    Parent

    In My View (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    There is not a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Obama and Kerry AS POLITICIANS (in case you think I are talking about their sex lives etc)

    And as people, which is hardly the point here, they are very different.

    Parent

    How does that (none / 0) (#186)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:49:47 PM EST
    make a difference in what I posted?

    Parent
    It's not just one "side" or another (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:35:59 PM EST
    of any party. At TL there was and is lots of idealization of both Hillary and Obama!  Maybe it's just human nature to really really believe in a candidate and then president.

    Obama was so idealized that the actual man as president surprised many and they were very disappointed. Then the Hillary fans said basically "told you so" and then the Obama fans said basically "but he was at least better than Hillary who is bad (insert whatever word is used, but it pretty much means bad)". The result is anger and confusion which is founded on unrealistic expectations and, frankly, ideologies about personalities. It's like we are wanting to elect a king/god (in the non-gender sense).

    With that kind of approach no criticism whatsoever is allowed of the candidate/president. Every criticism is dismissed, attacked, or regarded as completely irrelevant. Those who express those criticisms are also personally attacked and dismissed. Yes, that does happen here on TL too.

    This is so polarizing! Each idealized claim and critical response simply engenders more of the same.

    Parent

    You are (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    correct about Obama letting a lot of his fans down.

    I don't think Hillary was idealized so much as people liked her fighting spirit and spunk and were sick of the airy shape shifting nature of the Obama campaign and people did say "I told you so" because they saw what he was from the beginning not the savior his fans saw.

    I like Elizabeth Warren but this seems like a repeat of Obama. She's spent little time in the senate and prior to that in the world of academia. Nothing wrong with that but again, I see the inability to get anything done with Warren. She likes to talk about issues but how is any of that actually going to get implemented? I mean Obama couldn't even lead his own party. Maybe Warren would do better on that account. I dont know but I'm tired of nothing getting done. I think Hillary knows how to twist arms and get people to vote for things.

    Parent

    Primaries (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:26:52 PM EST
    At TL there was and is lots of idealization of both Hillary and Obama!  

    That is not true ZtoA...  there were a few commenters, fewer and fewer as time went on, who supported Obama in the primaries, but most of the commenters supported Hillary.

    TL changed dramatically during the primary. A huge influx of Hillary supporters, many who left after Jeralyn supported Obama after he won the Primary, landed at TL to fight for Hillary.

    I even suspect that there were paid operatives here, as the rhetoric got so stirred up for Hillary and against Obama.

    So to characterize that there were equal or even close to equal idealization of Hillary and Obama is really not true. It is not even an opinion it is a fact.

    Parent

    I guess I missed the early primaries (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    here on TL. I started reading occasionally when there was furious debate on those candidates and I stayed because, more than almost any other site, there actually was debate. There still is. I think it's from J's policy of not censoring (except in certain legal threads) for content, only for words that hurt the site and repeated personal attacks. I respect that. Other sites were dominated by either Obama or Hillary supporters (I was banned from Kos simply because I was a Hillary supporter and on other sites simply because I didn't think Hillary walked on water). This kind of idealization and fervor was systemic among democrats! To characterize this as one side only (tho that might have been true a little bit on this one site) is not true.

    Even tho I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries I don't hold onto resentment for Obama supporters. Ha! most of my family and friends were Obama supporters. None of them "loved" him but I have met people who appear(ed) to. On some sites it's still all about that. The comments on those sites are so condescending of each other that I soon find them boring.

    And fervor can grow so extreme that people on the internet say things like "kill all Iranians, abortion doctors, 1%ers, bankers or whatever. I doubt IRL they mean that but some blog lets it out. Since I didn't get into it much here on TL I don't harbor any resentments to people here who strongly disagreed with me (and I changed my support since she lost anyway - tho it took a while!). Disagreed - mostly on the style of the candidate and the cliques around that, speeches, news coverage etc and seem to agree about many issues, as you point out, with the "not a dime's difference" view.

    In the last couple of months some commenters very much disagree about the teaparty which I find interesting. For one thing I do live in a very progressive bubble in my personal circle and in Portland in general so I really don't know about the teaparty.  Hearing different parts of a debate about them is fascinating to me as long as it doesn't get really insulting of each other. Gun debates get very heated tho.

    I also really like a discussion about things that are not in my own field of expertise and don't know much about. Here on TL there is lots of that and I've really learned a lot about crime, drug laws and enforcement, defense and prosecution issues.  

    Parent

    I don't understand the need (3.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    to characterize someone's - anyone's - support for a candidate as stemming from or being about "love;" is it meant to diminish that support, to trivialize it, to make it about emotion rather than reason and therefore make it less reliable ("fickle")?

    Most of the people I know care about issues, and we look to the candidates from that perspective: where are they on the issues?  What is their record?  Is their support for or opposition to something solid?  Is it more than words?

    That you don't see differences in candidates doesn't mean that others don't, but your attitude seems to be one that makes me wonder why you even bother to vote at all.  For some reason, you seem to have decided that all Democrats are the same, and the only thing that changes are the names - but that is not an opinion shared by everyone.

    I have no idea why it hasn't been made obvious to you that politicians change - they change over time, they change from who they were as candidates to who they are as elected officials.  People can choose to take note of those changes and decide whether they are in line with their expectations and whether they earn that politician another term.

    For myself, it is unlikely that I would vote for Hillary if she runs in 2016 - but she could surprise me, and I could change my mind.  Based on her comments about Edward Snowden, for example, and on other matters in that arena, I suspect she would be just as authoritarian as Obama - and Bush before him - and that's not acceptable to me.  To name just one example (there are others, but there's no point in citing them, since you will tell me there is no candidate who's going to be different).

    It has nothing to do with being in love, or having a crush.  I'm sure you'll be hot to tell me that isn't what I believe, and I know you'll be mangling and manipulating my comment better than any paper-shredder.

    Have at it.

    Parent

    Anne, please see my comment #188 (2.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with being in love, or having a crush.  I'm sure you'll be hot to tell me that isn't what I believe, and I know you'll be mangling and manipulating my comment better than any paper-shredder.

    Have at it.

    your attitude seems to be one that makes me wonder why you even bother to vote at all.

    I have no idea why it hasn't been made obvious to you that politicians change

    Actually, Anne, I chose the word "love" after thinking about it. You, obviously disagree. OK use the word idealize. But the fervor of some people's attitudes about politicians is IMO almost like love. Certainly populations have loved their leaders and have used that word. The Koreans that I know say that Koreans "love" their leaders. Maybe you don't but you know I was not addressing you specifically! I'm not talking about you, believe it or not. I thought the topic of this subthread was Warren, not you. You made it about me, then me and you. I never thought of it that way.

    The parts of your comment that I quoted are what I consider unnecessarily insulting. I'm not sure just why you seem to dislike me in particular. You seem to read squeaky when you read me. I am not squeaky. And, actually, I was responding to squeaky and my point was that it was not just hillary supporters, but avid supporters in general including obama supporters.

    Parent

    Please learn how to use the "Parent" (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    button so that you can identify the comment to which someone is responding; my comment was not in response to you, but to squeaky at #179.

    I asked squeaky why he frames support for politicians in terms of "love," not you.  In particular, asking if he does it to diminish the quality of that support.  It's a constant theme of his, but I've yet to figure out why he thinks he knows better why other people support whoever it is they support.  He's already shifted into "Warren love," so I kind of wanted to know why he does this.

    Squeaky says he doesn't love, or fall in love with, candidates, so I am perplexed why he seems to think others do.  

    Whatever.  I'm pretty much at the point where I don't really care what you think, but I've responded so that you can perhaps avoid lashing out again at someone who wasn't "talking" to you.

    And yes, I am rolling my eyes.

    Parent

    Anne, when I hit the parent button (none / 0) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 04:12:59 PM EST
    I get the whole thread. Please correct me on the proper way to hit the parent button on my computer.

    If you really want to know why "He's already shifted into "Warren love," so I kind of wanted to know why he does this." why don't you just ask him?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    Politicians change, like the wind..  they tell different groups what they want to hear.

    But more on point, politicians do change. Many of the neo-cons were leftists who became right wing radicals, for example.

    But from my POV, Hillary is the same as she was in 2008 as she is now. But for whatever reason, which I attribute to cultish love, many here saw her as the one.

    Interesting how you and others believe that Hillary was a different Pol during the primary, than she is now.

    Certainly her position on Snowden was no surprise to me. It seems obvious but what is surprising is that so many here think that Hillary changed.

    Parent

    ZtoA (none / 0) (#199)
    by Politalkix on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 04:43:46 PM EST
    I think that you have misinterpreted my post in a big way.

    (1)I did not say that Reagan was a "perfect candidate" for Republicans and am very aware that his actual record is quite different from what the tea party imagines it to be. However, there is no denying the fact that his Presidency changed the politics of America in a very fundamental way. I will say that he and FDR changed the trajectory of American politics more than any other President in the last 100 years (FDR for the good, Reagan for the bad). However, Reagan set the stage for a period of Republican ascendancy despite starting his career as a Democrat. Can Warren set the stage for a Democratic ascendancy? If she articulates her vision in a way that achieves the stated objective, why would I hold the fact that she started her career as a Republican, against her?

    (2)I have neither been surprised by BHO nor HRC in the six years that have followed the primaries in 2008. I am not disappointed by BHO and will definitely vote for HRC if she is the Democratic Party nominee in 2016 (unless she says something utterly crazy and cynical like bombing Iran). However that does not mean that I will stop wishing that someone like Sherrod Brown, Liz Warren, Deval Patrick or somebody else will run (even given the fact that they are all politicians and not "perfect" which I am definitely not imagining them to be).

    Parent

    You said he was a former democrat (none / 0) (#200)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    and I added that he was never a perfect candidate, even tho many thought of him that way.  He can be both a former democrat AND not a perfect candidate.

    Parent
    You didn't say "I assume," you said (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:36:55 PM EST
    "which means she voted for..."

    I'm somewhat used to your not always getting what others are posting, but you might want to make sure that your references to your own words are accurate.

    I never made any assertion that she didn't ever vote Republican - just that she may have been voting for Democrats before she changed her registration.

    Also, we're not talking about someone who underwent a shift in the last couple years, but someone who came over to the side of the sane almost 20 years ago.

    Parent

    oops you are right (4.00 / 3) (#96)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    I did not use the word assume. And of course you are correct in saying that a republican could vote democratic in a national election. She has never said that she did. Please stop with the personal accusations - they do not help, neither does your all too obvious disrespect.

    Parent
    It seems entirely more disrespectful to (2.33 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:36:05 PM EST
    not just misrepresent the words of others in order to make a point, but to do the same with your own words, apparently for the same reason.

    Maybe being casual about words works for some people, but it doesn't work well for me.  I think words mean something, I choose them carefully to make sure I'm saying what I both want and mean to say, and I do not like having those carefully-chosen words tossed about to make a word salad someone else finds more to his or her liking.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I've learned never to take what you write, or the links you post, at face value, because they invariably are never as you represented them.

    If you don't like being called out for these misrepresentations, perhaps you should consider the disrespect those misrepresentations convey, and be more careful in how you read them, as well as how you use them.

    Parent

    Beancounter (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:02:52 PM EST
    You appear to know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

    I would rather honest mistakes by a commenter than pretentious putdowns from you cloaked in self righteousness.

    Parent

    Anne, I have apologized to you (4.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    about not agreeing with you that being a registered member of the republican party does not necessarily mean they support republicans or vote republican.

    Instead of further attacking me why don't you comment on the point I was making that Warren's long time affiliation with actually being a registered republican might make her nomination for national office as a democrat a problem?

    Parent

    Rick Perry was registered as a D... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:30:48 AM EST
    ...back then, but I have no problem seeing him as nothing but a Republican these days, so Warren's registration a generation ago probably won't have Dems saying "Well, we want the White House again, but not * that * badly.

    Parent
    Perry (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    Do you think that Perry voted for Democrats?

    or do you think that even thinking that is disrespectful to Perry.

    Anne seems to think so... or at least she thinks that suggesting that Warren voted for Republicans is disrespectful.

    Parent

    Oh, brother, did you ever get that one wrong. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:12:18 AM EST
    The issue of respect had nothing to do with how Warren may or may not have voted; it had to do with ZtoA misrepresenting my words as well as her own words in order to support her arguments.  And it also was about not being totally honest in the links and paraphrasing she did of outside sources.

    I wish there was a Rosetta Stone language program for this translation and comprehension problem you have; I'd pay for it myself.  it would be well worth the expense if it would put an end to your terrible attempts to "translate" comments the meaning of which are already quite clear.


    Parent

    Anne, let me be very clear (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    My "argument" is simply saying that Warren was a registered republican until 1995. I have no definitive judgement about that, only that it be part of her record. Yes, people and politicians do evolve. A national party may well think that a candidate who previously switched parties will get its support. Lieberman certainly did. You are correct, let me say once agin, that being a registered voter in a political party does not mean they always voted with their party and many politicians go on the record about their previous votes for president. I suppose she will be asked.

    I did not "paraphrase" her quotes. I did not include the full quote as in Wiki in my first comment. You did and it does not change the meaning of the quote. She was a registered republican and changed parties because of her stated reason. Again here is the full quote from Wiki:

    Warren voted as a Republican for many years saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[16] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[24]

    Please let me know if this is incomprehensible to you.


    Parent
    Hahahaahah (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    As an aside, I would also caution you not to make assumptions about who people vote for based strictly on their party registration; that Warren was a registered Republican until 1995 does not mean "she voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I," it means she was a registered Republican until 1995.

    OK Queen Anne.. we are duly cautioned..

    you are full of it and yourself..

    Parent

    hahahaa (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:28:19 AM EST
    It is starting...  There were days here when no one could say anything about Hillary other than her sainthood. Even a mention of her hawkish stance, or vote for AUMF would send insults as response.

    It is a great point to mention that Warren was a GOPer. I did not know that, but it does help make sense of her, IMO.

    And to get comments about disrespecting Warren because you suggested that she voted for Republicans as a Republican is laughable.

    "I caution you......  " hahahaha

    Looks like Warren is the new TL saint, not a politician..  you have been "cautioned"

    Parent

    Today is my fourth anniversary of ... (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    quitting smoking!

    I'm not going to saying quitting is easy.  But it was much easier than I expected.  I began the process almost certain I would fail.

    But I didn't.  Guess I don't have an addictive personality.

    My original motivation to quit was to save money.  It was after one of Bloomberg's big cigarette tax hikes.  But I'm happy about the health benefits as well, of course.

    I've had some very stressful times over the last four years.  But I never had a serious desire to start again.  Or even just have a puff.

    So, if there's anything you wish to quit, maybe today would be a good day to start.

    Congratulations (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    I quit June 1 1992.

    And it was one of the best things I have ever done for my health.

    Parent

    What Jim said. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:17:01 PM EST
    I quit on Halloween of 1997. Best thing I could've ever done, particularly given my present battle with melanoma.

    Parent
    Bravo, great job Mr. P (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    Unlike you, however, I DO have an addictive personality, one that was completely cemented when I was a kid living in trauma and abuse, when I was basically forced by circumstance to soothe myself any way I could.  As such, I found myself puffing the cigs with abandon a few years back. Online poker, when I was making money at it, made me smoke like the proverbial power-plant chimney, sometimes a pack a night. I was worried I'd be as degenerate a nicotine addict as my old man, who has been smoking -- and I am not joking about this -- for 78 years (he started at 9 as a dirt poor kid living in the Lower East Side tenements). If my dad stopped smoking today, IMO, he'd be dead tomorrow.

    Which reminds me, we are off to the Florida panhandle at the end of the week, where my father and 12 Dixie Dadlers (and one family friend) will be gathering together in one place for the first time ever, on some barrier island in the Gulf. I hate humidity, I am a mosquito filet mignon, and I will have to pray (to the god I don't believe in) that my balsa-wood spine holds up through five hours in a plane, then six hours in a car.

    But pops is pushing 90 and lives on the other side of the country from me. So, all my whining aside, I am grateful for every extra day I get to spend with him. Every time we say goodbye to my dad at the end of a trip back east, I am convinced that I'll never see him again. Between my broken body and fractured family, the ache of mortal brevity is beating on me right now.

    Now...time to get back to the physical therapy. Peace, my friends.

    Parent

    Ack, and I meant to add... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    ...that ALL the Dixie Dadlers smoke. So it's gonna be an ashtray of a good time. ;-)

    Parent
    How's the back Jack? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    Feeling better I hope?

    I'd fit right in with the Dixie Dadlers...smoke 'em if ya got 'em;)

    Parent

    St George Island? (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    Yes! (none / 0) (#172)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    Good guess.

    Parent
    I was in Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:12:31 AM EST
    for a few days this past week and my friend there wanted me to watch some Ohio political shows. They were talking about how picking Cleveland for the convention was a slap in the face of the tea party and that Portman was going to run for president which I would consider him the Huntsman of 2016.

    Wonder what happened to that very nice lady (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    that was the Huntsman fan on this site? Maybe she will check in.

    Interesting, I had not considered that angle of the Ohio pick for the convention site...just seemed like an obvious choice since they must win Ohio to win. They basically rotate the conventions through their 'must win' states.  

    The interesting point to me was that they moved the calendar up to have the convention in June. The pundits were saying this is the part that will shorten to clown car primary cycle - maybe that is what has the TP abuzz.

    Parent

    That was (none / 0) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:13:14 AM EST
    "loved."   (love ed, her husband, as I recall)   Also, some site difficulty, I think.

    Parent
    It's not only (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    to shorten the season, which makes sense - no one wants to see Ted Cruz running his mouth off for a year before the nomination, when all he can do is hurt their party, but it will also free up money for the eventual nominee.  If you remember, Mitt Romney had the nomination sewn up in May or June, but his fundraising ability was tapped out from fighting the Newt Gingriches and Rick Santorums of the party, but he couldn't touch a whole pile of money that would not be avaible to him until he was the actual nominee in August.  Since Obama didn't have primary challengers to fight off, he did not have the same restraint, so for the whole summer, the Romney camp was at a distinct money disadavantage.

    And, the city has already raised $30 million to pay for the convention.

    It's always about the money.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 11:35:25 AM EST
    they were saying that Ted Cruz and other tea partiers wanted the convention in Dallas not Cleveland and the fact that Ohio is a swing state is part of it. Also they are trying to move away from a "base play" so to speak by having it in Cleveland. Apparently Birmingham Alabama was also under consideration. LOL.

    Frankly if someome like Ted Cruz gets nominated it's not going to matter when they have to convention. In fact having the convention earlier could actually make it worse for them since Cruz or Paul will be the nominee spouting the crazy junk instead of a couple of different nominees.

    Parent

    Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    Doesn't have the power you seem to think he has. And he certainly will never get the nomination, nor will Rand Paul.

    Cleveland was a good choice for them - seing state, good chance to showcase that the Tea Party doesn't run the show, chance to get volunteers on the ground, etc..  It was also a finalist for the Dems, so it isn't surprising.

    Parent

    Ted Cruz (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    has a large following among the tea party which could be enough to hand him the nomination. And he hails from one of the states with the largest number of delegates.

    You can't say never. Apparently they are going to be pushing Portman but remember that Romney would not put him on the ticket because his son is gay and he changed his mind on gay rights. If he somehow freakishly gets the nomination you can bet a lot of the GOP base mainly tea partiers are going to be sitting home just to show the GOP establishment the power that they have within the party.

    Actually the tea party has a pretty big presence within the GOP even in Ohio just not as much as say a state like Texas. What you don't seem to realize is that these people are NOT going to be told who to vote for in 2016 like they have in the past.

    Parent

    The Heritage of the Southern Strategy (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    I'm inclined to agree with your "reap the whirlwind" arguments these past months insofar as the Repub Party/Tea Party mixture is concerned.  Yep, Ga6th, it seems possible (and a bit more) that the Repubs' 2016 nominee will have to be acceptable to the relatively significant segment of TeaPots in that party.  In many respects, the Nixonian device of the Southern Strategy--the strategy once so useful to Repubs--has been withering for years on a national level ... thanks to demographic realities.  

    Unfortunately, for Repubs/Tea Pots, the allocation process for convention delegates that favors traditional Repub/Red states, is still grafted at the hip to the Southern Strategy overall.  Texas and Georgia and Arizona count big, in many ways.  Whether the acceptable candidate becomes Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, it doesn't matter all that much.  Whoever obtains the nomination--as a direct result of the Southern Strategy--has to hold the South.  And, what does it take to do that?  Would it be Huntsman or Portman or ???  I doubt it.

    Parent

    And what you keep missing (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    Is that MOST of the Republican Party does not want Ted Cruz on the ticket.  Just because there is a voal minority does not mean they have power.

    But know what you left off in your calculation?  ALL THE OTHER STATE PRIMARIES / CAUCUSES.  Yes, Texas has a lot of delegates.  So what?  California has more.  New York has a lot, Michigan has a lot, Illinois has a lot, Pennsylvania has a lot.  Those states will not align with Ted Cruz. Period.

    Hate to break it to you, but it isn't just the south that gets to vote in the Republican primaries....

    Parent

    Where (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    are you getting this "most"? Last poll I saw Cruz and Paul were the leading candidates.

    What you are missing is what Christine said above. The southern strategy of preferring red states over blue states deciding nominees is going to actually play in favor of a tea partier getting the nomination.

    John McCain tried the strategy that you are talking about. Right now there is no path for a moderate to get the nomination in the GOP. Don't bet on places like PA not voting for Cruz or Paul. Remember it's Alabama between Pittsburgh and Philly there.

    The problem is not the south so much as most of the GOP base AGREES with the south. You have people with that mindset all over the country within the GOP. It's a disease that affects the ENTIRE party. I mean look who Iowa nominated for the Senate? A woman who thinks we found WMDs in Iraq!! And Iowa is not the south but she sure would fit in with a lot of the tea party candidates here in Georgia.

    Parent

    Not sure what polls you are looking at (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:12:55 AM EST
    Yes, Paul is ahead (slightly) right now, but he won't maintain that during an actual campaign.  Cruz is running 6th - behind Christie and Huckabee even! Cruz has never polled out of single digits (at least in the last year), and I don't see that changing any time soon.

    What you are missing is what Christine said above. The southern strategy of preferring red states over blue states deciding nominees is going to actually play in favor of a tea partier getting the nomination.

    I completely disagree, as you know, because while there are pockets of Tea Partiers everywhere, they don't have large enough concentrations in most states to decide a primary winner.  The only way that happens is if Democrats cross party lines to vote in the crazies.

    Using the delegate count from 2012, when we were hearing these exact same arguments: "The Tea Party is strong!" (and they were much stronger than they are now), "Romney can't win because he's establishment / Mormon / rich / whatever!"

    If you add up the total delegates awarded from all the Southern states, (and I will even throw in Virginia, Iowa, Arizona, Alaska, and West Virginia)  - that doesn't even get you to 1000 delegates (you need almost 1200 to win the nomination). Also, there are 75 Superdelegates, who, as we discussed ad naseum around here in 2008, are going to back what the establishment wants and they will not vote en masse for a Tea Party candidate that will eliminate all chances of them winning the WH.

    As for the Iowa Senate candidate - did you see the other people running against her?  Sam Clovis, a Tea Party radio host endorsed by people like Louie Gohmert, Rick Santorum, and Phyllis Schafly? A car salesman?  Another Tea Party federal prosecutor? A wealthy businessman with no political experience? Seriously - Ernst is the only one with any political experience, and had the endorsement of many "mainstream" people (but also Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin).  Her win isn't that big of a surprise.

    Of course, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Iowa (Braley) doesn't sound like a polished genius either, so that's probably why it's a dead heat right now.

    Parent

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:49:09 AM EST
    These are the people that are most likely to show up and vote in GOP primaries. While there may not be a majority of them vs. independents and democrats in a lot of states there are a lot of them in the GOP enough to decide an election.

    You keep confusing me with someone else. I never said Romney would not win. I said he would win the nomination simply because the GOP base would come out and vote for who they were told to vote for. As you are seeing now with several examples there is a civil war going on in the GOP. 21016 is going to be different from 2012 and they are not going to be told who to vote for. You have to realize that the way they see it is the GOP establishment told them to vote for McCain and Romney because they were the only ones that could win a national election and they lost. They are not going to listen to them anymore. The stuff you are listening to is beltway blather, the same beltway blather that kept insisting the tea party was dead.

    Well, you're kind of making my point when it comes to Iowa. The GOP has been completely taken over by nuts.

    According to the polls Rand Paul is their leading candidate and he is a tea partier. What does that say? It really undercuts what you have been saying.

    Parent

    This (4.00 / 3) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:56:23 AM EST
    I completely disagree, as you know, because while there are pockets of Tea Partiers everywhere, they don't have large enough concentrations in most states to decide a primary winner.  The only way that happens is if Democrats cross party lines to vote in the crazies.

    Is borderline delusional

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    The Tea Party has a strong record so far this year?

    Speaking of delusional - it's those folks who think they are taking over the world.

    Parent

    Talk to me when (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:08:52 AM EST
    A Democrat wins in Mississippi.  

    Parent
    I don't think this is about when or if (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    a Democrat will be elected in Mississippi, but about the ability of mainstream Republicans (whatever that is now)to defeat their TP challengers in primaries.

    Parent
    If the Democrat wins (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    In Mississippi it will be because of a Tea Party challenger, the way he was "defeated" and the resulting "anyone but Thad" climate in that state.  

    So it is very much about a democrat being elected in Mississippi.

    Parent

    Talk to me when (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    Ted Cruz gets the nomination for president.

    Parent
    He won't (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    Rand Paul, that's another story.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    I don't agree that Rand Paul will be the nominee.  He's the flavor of the month right now, and he'll win a few early states maybe, but after that, he will peter out and fade into the sunset.  The fact that Sarah Palin endorsed him 2010 alone should about kill his chances.

    Why Rand Paul Is Not the "2016 GOP Front-Runner," in One Chart

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    that's good news for Ted Cruz!!

    Parent
    Eventually (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    it may be neither about total & outright win in a Repub primary nor total loss.  What you are looking at, jbindc, is the matter of overall disposition.  Will the TeaPots continue to support the Repub party ... period ... will they support the Repub party if the eventual nominee does not meet enough of their demands and/or interests?

    We might all go round & round about exactly how much power the Tea Party has.  At one point a few years back, the beltway-oriented media portrayed a powerful bloc and, in this cycle, that same media underplays the role of the Tea Pots.  Whatever their exact count, I would contend--as more pundits have begun to acknowledge (and Boehner himself in recent months)--that this extreme right segment will have significant sway in the outcome of the Repub presidential nomination cycle for 2016.  The reason is obvious: The electoral demographics give a decided advantage to the Democratic candidate at the outset; and, to offset that advantage, the Repubs must at least hold onto as many members of their party as they can.

    The Tea Party and would-be players know that they have the leverage.  When Boehner and the Repubs made an implicit (and sometimes explicit) deal with the TeaPots in 2010, they did so for the short-term with the ACA, etc. and to capture the angst/anger from the recession and associated long-growing societal ills.  Now, that the once in-charge "establishment" finds it to it's advantage to jettison the fringe, it appears that the fringe has infected the broader party with a number of further rightwing issues and that the TeaPots have morphed into barnacles.  In reality today: The Repubs cannot afford to lose even partial support and related votes from the inner party 30 to 40 percent reportedly sympathetic to the Tea Party ... because every percent lost becomes a gain for the Democrats in the general.  Yes, we Democrats want the Tea Pots to sit it out (in whole or in part) in 2016 or to join another party.  We look forward to Rand Paul & his followers being trapped in a minor party the next time around.  (Nasty, I admit.  But, fairly predictable too.)

    Parent

    Yes, the absolutely will (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    Will the TeaPots continue to support the Repub party ... period ... will they support the Repub party if the eventual nominee does not meet enough of their demands and/or interests?

    Because they don't want Hillary Clinton in the White House.

    Parent

    Oooh ... smart riposte (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    Yet--if simmering discontent showing in Mississippi is any indication of what is to come for Repubs, e.g.--likely inaccurate evaluation.  When groups in a larger organization are angry or boiling over at each other, organizational behavior and conflict resolution tends to suggest that they don't even focus on the "outsider" (even the omnipresent Clinton.)  

    We'll see, certainly.  But, internal conflict often trumps the external ... recall 1964 and the GOP as an example.  For the TeaPots, don't be surprised to see a substantial number dragging their feet during the 2016 general election cycle if their position isn't accommodated and don't be surprised to find them sitting at home brewing tea.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    I would say the odds are better of them sitting home if someone like Portman is nominated versus a Ted Cruz type. Remember James Dobson saying that he would not vote for McCain or somesuch. I would expect that the evangelical leaders would come out and announce that they were not voting for the nominee. The problem that the GOP has is that if it tries to expand its appeal beyond the evangelicals they are going to have a problem with evangelicals. Only when evangelicals get sick of losing presidential elections is this going to change.

    Parent
    You're smarter than that, christine (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    You cannot even begin to compare how party voters behave in a primary vs. how they will vote in a general election. You are comparing two different pools of voters and saying they are the same.

    During primaries, which have incredibly low turnouts, only the most partisan come to vote. And of course, there will be many independent voters who align with the Republican party who do not adhere to the Tea Party way of thinking, thus diluting the TP's influence.

    When groups in a larger organization are angry or boiling over at each other, organizational behavior and conflict resolution tends to suggest that they don't even focus on the "outsider" (even the omnipresent Clinton.)  

    Again - in primaries, yes.  But in a general election, they will have a common "enemy" and when the Republican Party (including Tea Party heroes, such as Laura Ingraham, Rush, etc.) all start to fall in line against this common "enemy", the most partisan voters will too.

    I can't believe the lack of logic you show with your comment.

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:57:29 AM EST
    there are states with closed primaries like PA for one.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 12:14:34 PM EST
    You think ALL Republicans will vote for the Tea Party?

    And of course, that has nothing to do with whether Tea Partiers will not support the (non Tea Party) Republican nominee for president in a general election.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    but who's more likely to show up and vote and it's a numbers game. You said above that independents will dilute the vote but that's not going to happen in the majority of GOP primary states because the majority of their primaries are closed. And then I'm sure somebody probably a tea partier is going to be able to use the Obama model of depending heavily on caucuses. It's not rocket science but pretty much the moderates are out going to be outnumbered in the primary.

    Parent
    No they aren't (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:11:21 AM EST
    You said above that independents will dilute the vote but that's not going to happen in the majority of GOP primary states because the majority of their primaries are closed
    .

    About half of the primaries are closed, but some are loosely enforced.

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    And with the new rules the RNC adopted this winter, it became very establishment-friendly and was meant to tone down the Tea Party influence.

    Parent
    You should (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:24:07 PM EST
    read this

    Despite their desire to make a schedule to help the establishment candidate it will probably hurt that candidate because he's likely not as well known and with ties to the base like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

    So their favored candidate is not going to be able to develop a base of support because of the compressed primaries. So they may actually be making it MORE LIKELY to get a tea party candidate as the nominee.  

    They also banned at least two news organizations from their primaries so they're making it MORE of an echo chamber situation. What a disaster. Whomever is going to come out sounding like a crazed nut from Fox News to the general public.

    Parent

    You miss the point, jbindc (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    The point is that the TeaPots will have to be accommodated--a lot--if the Repubs have a real expectation of keeping them in line.  As you know, people don't just automatically go to the polls at general election time ... they can get the flu on election day.  Lack of interest in a nominee (aka someone who doesn't offer enough of what you want) breeds the sniffles and other impediments to big voter turnout in a party.

    What will the "establishment" Repubs offer to the Tea Party?  That's the key ... that is the logic of the general election cycle :)

    Parent

    YOU miss the point (none / 0) (#174)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    In a national election (NOT a primary), the Tea Partiers will come out in force, even if begrudgingly, to support the (non Tea Party) Republican nominee.

    What will the "establishment" Repubs offer to the Tea Party?

    Easy.  They will offer them an alternative to a Clinton / whomever else with a D behind their name administration.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#177)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    The base of both parties always needs attention to maximize turnout.  After any publicized thrashing by the Repub "establishment" during primary season, the far right (aka TeaPots) will demand & receive at least the political equivalent of a-pound-of-flesh.  

    More on that later, of course ... from all sides.  Meanwhile, what do you think of Rand Paul?

    Parent

    You know, (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    I have ZERO respect and countenance for Tea Party values and associated agendas, but I have enough respect for the members as human beings to not select the term "Teapot" as my pejorative of choice.

    Parent
    I'm a Little Tea Pot Short and Stout... (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    I think that the use you understand tea pot to mean is a verb not a noun.

    AND, If the teapots are concerned about obscure connotations of teapot (the verb) they can change their name.

    Parent

    Did you keep reading? (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:44:16 PM EST
    You're right, though (none / 0) (#182)
    by sj on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 01:43:23 PM EST
    that the base needs attention to get to the polls. I'm no longer "the base" so thankfully I no longer do canvassing, because it is a lot of work.

    But is this:

    Meanwhile, what do you think of Rand Paul?
    just kindling?


    Parent
    sj: In answer to your question (none / 0) (#198)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    Yes ... Thursday kindling.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 17, 2014 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    strategy gets them 33%. They are going to have to get a candidate who can do a sister souljah on the tea party but the tea party is not going to come out and vote if they do that.

    If another so called "moderate" goes down in flames it's just going to embolden the tea party EVEN more.  Another establishment candidate is just going to continue this craziness.

    And then there's the issue of getting through the primaries without turning into a whacko. I've seen this happen here in GA with Jack Kingston. He's gone FULL ON tea party now. And then they have a problem with their platform still being stuck in 1950 or 1980. Everytime they suggest modernizing it, the Phyllis Schaflys of the world threaten a walk out and threaten not to vote for the nominee.  They can try to do all this stuff but I'm telling you it's not going to work. And don't you think Hillary would have a literal field day with pointing out how wacko their platform is?

    Parent

    I believe you are wrong (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    IMO if they do not get a candidate they like there will be a third party, tea party candidate.  

    They are done with being told who to support.  

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 16, 2014 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    really see them forming a third party. I see them maybe voting for the constitutioni party over the GOP or sitting home.

    But they absolutely are done with being told who to vote for. So if their favored candidate does not get the nomination then they'll probably do what I said above.

    Parent

    Of course, some other states have more (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    OTOH, check the proportions ... population/delegates.

    Because of my political perspective as a Democrat, I'm not much invested in how the southern states play in a delegate or electoral sense.  Tho, looking at the specific states I referenced, the direction of that threesome in coming years will become more interesting ... again, demographics.  What I do assert, strongly, is that the structural configuration of the Repubs delegate allocation and timing (see South Carolina, e.g.) makes the South a key--if not central--player for any would-be Repub presidential candidate.  That is a reality that does not usually come into play for a Democratic candidate; and, that reality is the spawn of the Southern Strategy.

    Just for crossword-puzzle-like speculation, I wonder where the Repubs turn to get a candidate ultimately that bridges the very conservative, TeaParty South with the Midwest and Upper Midwest, e.g.  I agree that the likelihood of a Cruz or Rand Paul nomination seems less than likely (unless the party really veers over-the-cliff); but, the ferocity of the TeaPots continue to drive the GOP ever further right on almost all major issues one can identify.  So ... guesses??? I'm thinking more & more that these-days-quiet Paul Ryan spans that divide (as he was called upon to do in 2012.)

    Parent

    Still (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    don't see Paul Ryan because he's a failed VP candidate. The tea pots are also talking about Ben Carson for President. Of course, he's tea party too but that would be interesting. Would the tea pots in the south vote for him? Not sure about that. he would probably end up like Herman Cain did in 2012 and not make it out of the primary.

    Parent
    Two Books Terry from Iowa, and the rest of (none / 0) (#94)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:52:08 PM EST
    the Iowa GOP leaders just pulled control of the Iowa caucus away from the Paulites who took it over in 2012. They're afraid of another never-ending sideshow like last time.

    Personally, I think that train has left the station. Cruz and Paul are both popular in Iowa, Palin has a fan base there, Huckabee keeps showing his face, Santorium has been mucking about...

    Long story short, somebody like Ryan will have to put on his/her own clown face or they'll be done there before the circus leaves town.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    I would say they are a tad bit late on that account considering the GOP senate nominee in Iowa. They have tried the control strategy and the only one that seems to have beat it is Cochran which just enraged them more.

    Parent
    I don't think Ernst will play that well outside of (none / 0) (#146)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    King's district - they're the only ones stocking up on ammo to fight off the UN stormtroopers enforcing Agenda 21.

    Branstad is busy trying to hang on to his governorship. The Lt. Gov. didn't work out as heir apparent, so he has to work one more shift to keep his corporate GOP buddies happy until their offspring are poised (see peter cownie, wdm).

    Parent

    Yes, I did (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    OTOH, check the proportions ... population/delegates.

    California cancels out Texas and then some.  After that - zip.  The whole south, plus a few states favorable to Tea Partiers STILL don't give someone the nomination.

    Parent

    Hey Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    I'm making moussaka

    It came off pretty well (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    For a first try

    Parent
    Good! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:44:20 PM EST
    You will get better at it.

    Parent
    One question (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    The recipe said fry the eggplant.  Which I did.  But the slices seemed to soak up more oil than I would have liked. No matter what temp the oil was.  Any suggestions for less oily eggplant?
    Maybe baking them?

    Parent
    Oil Temp (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 09:39:13 AM EST
    The oil has to be at 375º otherwise the eggplants absorb too much oil. Here is a chart of oil smoke points.

    Light olive oil has a much higher smoke point than Extra Virgin.

    I always soak the slices in cold salted water before frying... some, do the opposite and brine the slices to retain the water..

    Chewy or mushy, the detractors of either method of soaking would say..

    Parent

    Still (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    Looks great, Howdy! (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    Congratulations!
    Something my grandmother occasionally did, especially if making a huge pan of moussaka, was to use some sliced zucchini (pre-fried a bit or broiled, like the eggplant) and some slices of partially cooked potatoes (simmer until mostly cooked but still very, very firm, then dried off and briefly browned).
    Layer the zukes and potatoes along with the eggplant.
    A slightly different experience, but still very good.

    Parent
    I had something like this in Greece, it had (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    potatoes but no zucchini. Delicious!!  Mr. Angel is begging me to learn how to make it.  :)

    Parent
    Looks like (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    it came out pretty well!

    Parent
    Can you just come and cook it for me? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    "Zorba To Go" (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    She could make a killing just from the TL community!

    Parent
    Hahahahahaha! (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:41:08 PM EST
    No, I'm getting too old for that.    
    I have enough trouble just cooking for and supervising my church's two food festivals.  
    Not to mention dealing with the garden and canning and freezing the produce from it.
    I'm definitely slowing way down.  Too much arthritis.
    Old age.  It's not for sissies.   ;-)
    But consider the alternative.......

    Parent
    We would pay (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    Gladly

    Parent
    If you, (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    or anyone, wants recipes, just email me.
    My email is available on my User Info page.

    Parent
    I lightly brush the slices (none / 0) (#133)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    with olive oil and then I broil them.
    Squeaky's suggestion of a hotter oil temperature also works well.
    His suggestion to soak in cold salted water is also good.  
    I usually salt the slices on both sides, let sit for about an hour, then rinse them in cold water and press the eggplant between paper towels to remove extra moisture.
    Either way, the salt actually helps remove the bitterness from (especially) older or larger eggplant, and creates a better texture.  If you are using very fresh, just-picked eggplant, the salting is less necessary.

    Parent
    I wish I liked eggplant, but try as I (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:28:37 PM EST
    might, I just don't get the attraction.  

    Maybe some day.

    I like all the stuff you can put on eggplant, or put eggplant in, but not the vegetable itself.  Any vegetable you have to do that much prep work on to make edible just so you can bread it, fry it, broil it, or surround with tomato sauce and cheese, or whatever (in other words, disguise it) just isn't worth it to me.

    Parent

    Spicy Eggplant (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    Is one of the things that make life worth living.

    I find it a good meat substitute.   Trying to eat less meat generally.

    Parent

    If you like (none / 0) (#142)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    the tomato and meat sauce, the cheese, and the béchamel sauce in moussaka, but not the eggplant, you should try pastitsio (made with macaroni), instead.  If you want a recipe, email me.    ;-)

    Parent
    eggplant bitterness (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    When I was in Baltimore I had my first experience with white eggplant. I was told that white eggplant is never bitter. I'm not sure if that's true, but I can say that I never, ever had a bitter one. The flavor is just a bit milder than the purple eggplant, but I love it. If I had a garden I would grow it. Lots of it.

    And grilled, fried, broiled... whatever. It's all good.

    So good.

    Parent

    Yes, the white eggplant (none / 0) (#144)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 02:38:38 PM EST
    Tends to be milder and more delicate than the purple eggplant.
    However, my Greek ancestors would haunt me if I used it in moussaka.   ;-)

    Parent
    I just got back from two weeks in Greece and (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    Turkey.  Ate the best food evah!  

    Parent
    Follow the money... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    CalPERS Ex-CEO Buenrostro Guilty Plea Explains Why Bankers Make So Much Money

    The ex-CEO of CalPERS, Fred Buenrostro, has just pleaded guilty to accepting doucers, cash bribes and fees for placing investment business with a specific firm. The economic point that this helps us elucidate is why bankers and fund managers make such vast incomes normally. It's a concept called "efficiency wages". Essentially, when stripped right down, if people are handling or responsible for a large amount of money then pay them very well. So that it's not actually worth their trying to do anything naughty, the risk of losing that high income is greater than what they can gain by being naughty.



    Bankers ethics... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    Only obscenely high wages keep me from stealing. Nice to see them admit it.

    Parent
    World Cup revealing a major cultural difference... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    It takes Argentinos 3 or 4 days to drive 1600 miles. Definitely not Norte Americanos.

    Also, a major political difference. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    Both of the countries playing in the WC final, Germany and Argentina, as well as the host nation, Brazil, are led by women.

    I believe this is a first for international sports competition. I loved the shot of the box where President Rouseff of Brazil was sitting with Argentine President Kirchner and German Chancellor Merkel.

    Parent

    Yes, that was good to see. (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    Even seeing the heads of state at the game at all was really cool.

    Though I have not followed it closely I am enjoying the rare chance to do what most of the world is doing at the same time.

    Parent

    Added bonus : making Ann Coulter's head explode (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:02:36 PM EST
    Making Coulter's head explode (none / 0) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    is always good. It never gets old.

    Parent
    Here to LA (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:34:51 PM EST
    Is 1700 miles and my standard routine was to do it in three days.  Here to Amarillo, there to Flagstaff, there to LA.

    I liked enjoying the drive so that is more or less 8 hour days

    Parent

    I've done Denver to Chicago, about 1000 miles (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    in one day. I never took more than 3 from Chicago to  LA....when all I wanted to do is get there! Maybe they were enjoying the trip a little more. Hope so, cuz they sure are not enjoying the ending.

    Man, that goal was a thing of beauty. I can see the attraction of this sport!

    Parent

    I've done brutal (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 04:45:43 PM EST
    But the thing is I always loved road trips.  Still do.  So I only do brutal is there is no choice.

    Parent
    Yeah, me too these days. Don't do the marathons (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    anymore.  I really enjoy stopping a lot now and checking things out. Not as goal driven as my younger days.

    Parent
    Road trip! (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    I really enjoy stopping a lot now and checking things out.


    Parent
    You may or may not think this is nuts (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    but I really want to come to Arkansas and see that art museum the Walmart heirs built. Maybe you would like to come along - hitch with me like John Waters as we journey to the belly of the beast.

    Parent
    It's worth it (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    I could certainly meet you there

    Parent
    Make sure (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    I have enough warning.  It's about 2.5 - 3 hours away

    Parent
    ... (about 1,000 miles) by myself in 24 hours, and L.A. to Minneapolis (about 2,000 miles) with my sister in 52 hours.

    Wouldn't even think of doing that again at my present age.

    Parent

    Night Zero - The Strain (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:02:25 PM EST
    This opening episode, like almost any pilot, has a lot of heavy lifting to do in setting up the series' premise, introducing our main characters and providing the promised bits of horror. It has varying degrees of success here, with the horror elements being far and away the strongest. Guillermo del Toro's always had a remarkable knack for infusing shocks, scares and skin-crawling moments with an unbridled sense of fun throughout his career. The best moments in "Night Zero," directed by del Toro, harken back to several of his films, from Cronos and Mimic to Blade II and even the quiet dread of The Devil's Backbone.
    I wouldn't dream of spoiling any of these scenes for you other than to say that The Strain already excels at what most everyone's coming for, as the show glides easily through suspense, skin-crawling creepiness and on into shock and gore. This is del Toro and company's wheelhouse and it shows. It may be the comfort of knowing where they're going with their story, but there's a sense of confidence to the pacing here. The pilot has plenty of disturbing set pieces without feeling rushed.

    10 ET FX

    I don't care for Sci-Fi (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    But will record it for spouse who will be home soon.

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    Two movies you should see before you die - one is mentioned there, The Devils Backbone.  The other called Pans Labyrinth.

    Two very different stories.  Both about children in Spanish Civil War. Both subtitled.  Both  written produced and directed by Guillermo del Toro.

    Parent

    Neither (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    are children's movies.  Just sayin

    Parent
    Well IMO (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    The Strain hit the ground running.

    Parent
    American Horror Story - season 4 (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:15:44 PM EST
    Freak Show - Fallen Angel

    Those of you out there looking to add a little bit of unsettling spook to your Sunday will surely find that in spades in the creeptastic new teaser for FX's "American Horror Story: Freakshow." The latest installment of the Ryan Murphypalooza is short but not so much that it cuts out the terror.


    I watched (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    the World Cup - and was drawn in to some degree.

    But it does bother me, and keep me from enjoying this spectacle as much as I might want to, that there are no women's teams being represented.

    I would like it if the World Cup could present women's national teams as well as the men's teams. It could be like the Grand Slam events in the Tennis world - where there are women competing as well as men - with championship matches on alternate days.

    I also feel that was about baseball.

    It would be more about the sport, and less of the collateral aspect of male bonding.

    There is a Women's World Cup (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    Wow! (none / 0) (#33)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    I had not heard of it.

    I hope it gets the same coverage as the male version.
    That would be great.

    Parent

    It gets decent coverage (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 09:21:46 AM EST
    in the US - because the US team is highly competitive and has won - unlike our men's team.  Internationally it does not receive the same kind of attention.  I'm a little surprised you don't remember this as it was certainly big news at the time (then again I follow soccer, so I can't really judge what it's like for someone who isn't paying attention as hard) but it was one of the highest rated (television) soccer events in US history.

    The US also has had multiple professional women's leagues, although they don't do well attendance wise.  It's where all the international female soccer players come to play, and was the ambition for the two women in the Bend it Like Beckham film to come and play professional soccer in the states.

    Parent

    It's true. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    I wasn't paying attention - not being a soccer fan in general.

    But I didn't need to pay attention to be aware of this World Cup. Headlines screamed from everywhere - or so it seemed to me. The front page of the NYTImes. Huffington Post. You name it.

    So I watched - and enjoyed the idea that people all over the world were spectators to the same event.

    But, to reiterate - I didn't have to pay attention.
    The World Cup was knocking -even pounding on the door.

    What I would seek out - and definitely pay attention to would be women's baseball should we be so fortunate to see its rebirth.

    Parent

    The women's World Cup is held every four (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    years in the odd numbered years; the men's is held in the even numbered.

    Next year the women's WC will take place from June 6- July 5 in Canada. Qualifying games will take place later this year. Take a look at the official poster for next year's women's World Cup.

    It has been my observation that here in the U.S. women's soccer has received quite a bit of attention when it comes to international competition-- the World Cup, the Olympics. This is probably due to the fact that the women's team, starting in the early 1990s, has been much more successful in these competitions than the men's.

    The U.S. has been slow to embrace professional soccer, men's or women's. That is changing, slowly. I live in a soccer-mad city where both the women's professional team and the men's often play to sell-out crowds. Obviously, this is not the case everywhere.

    Parent

    Just enjoy things once in a while (2.67 / 3) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    There is a FIFA women's world cup also (BTW, USA has a pretty good record in that tournament).
    You are bothered for no real reason and should probably get out more.

    Parent
    What an (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:52:18 PM EST
    insulting reply.

    If you are inferring that the Women's World Cup receives the same kind of attention as the male version, you are delusional.

    I had not even heard of it until CoralGables made me aware of it.

    As I wrote, I would find it exciting if these kinds of games were integrated in a fashion similar to the way tennis is.

    And as for baseball, you left that out.

    There should be women's leagues - and they should get the same sort of sponsorship and presentation on television.

    And it is viable.

    Think of the women's game in tennis.
    Billie Jean changed everything.
    And Navratilova and Evert.

    Parent

    Here we go again (2.67 / 3) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    "I had not even heard of it until CoralGables made me aware of it"

    Just because you had not heard about it does not mean that the Women's world cup is not popular. It only reveals that you are not very informed about something that you are opinionated about (I have come to expect this behavior from you).

    You must have lived under a rock if you did not see live television coverage with sponsorship of the women's world cup. Mia Hamm, Julie Foudy, Brandi Chastain and others from US world cup teams are household names.

    The FIFA men's world cup is also popular among women all over the world, so your comment regarding "male bonding" was downright silly.

    Even in theocratic Iran, women were using the men's world cup as an instrument of "resistance" to fight for women's rights. link

    Parent

    I did not (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by lentinel on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 10:19:36 PM EST
    say it wasn't popular.

    I simply said I had not heard about it.

    It did not receive the kind of publicity that the male version has, or I would have heard or read something.

    It's nice that you're so au courant.

    Now - how about baseball?

    Wouldn't that be great?

    Why you can't respond and be civil escapes me.
    Seems to be a right-wing trait.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 08:12:25 AM EST
    I am a woman who happens to love baseball - I don't care that it's all guys playing.  Women's baseball may be a thing of the future, and that would be great, but let's face it - it's never going to happen unless it can be a profitable enterprise.

    Do you watch the WNBA and support the league by going to games and buying merchandise?  Do you watch the IWFL and buy merchandise? And the fact that you didn't even know about the Women's FIFA kind of shows that you want to be angry about something, but you don't really have all the facts.

    Parent

    I did not (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    know about the Women's world cup. As I said.
    I am glad to learn about it, and will follow it with interest.
    My hope is that it receives the kind and level of attention given by the media to its male counterpart.

    You don't care if its all guys playing baseball.
    On that, we differ.
    I do care.

    I think women would have a lot to offer the sport, and I would willingly support it.

    Of course profits drive these things. But think of women's tennis before BIllie Jean King. Now it claims as much interest as the men's game, and sometimes more. And the profits made by broadcasters, commercial interests and the players themselves are substantial.

    And once again, I must say that you besmirch your own commentary when you, as some others do, throw in a few gratuitous insults which do nothing to bolster whatever point it is you are trying to make.

    Parent

    Right wing trait (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    "Seems to be a right-wing trait".

    A "right wing trait" is to always whine or be angry about something without having all the facts! You have mastered that art even though you claim to be on the opposite side of politics.

    Parent

    by your own definition... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by sj on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    A "right wing trait" is to always ... be angry about something without having all the facts!
    ...you are describing yourself. All your responses are angry attacks. And you attack without understanding the original comment. So... no facts.

    Parent
    Criminals really are rational... (none / 0) (#41)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 07:14:22 AM EST
    Nadine Gordimer died. Very interesting obit (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    in NYT.

    Any recommendations as to which of her many novels to read first?

    Hillary On Jon Stewart Tuesday (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 14, 2014 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    Hillary Rodham Clinton will return Tuesday to Jon Stewart's The Daily Show for the first time since her 2008 campaign for president.

    The former secretary of State's appearance is the latest network interview tied to the release of her book, Hard Choices, Comedy Central announced Monday.