Master Index of Archived Threads


Politics in 2012

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 05:41 AM

Rick Santorum has been surging the last week, not on his own virtues but on the strength of better funded campaigns surging earlier and receding as they faced the scrutiny of frontrunners. Here's hoping that the small window of opportunity that media and voters have had to scrutinize Santo lead to a similar recession. Of course, then his voters will quite possibly run to Ron Paul. Either way neither of them will make it far past New Hampshire.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2012 06:39 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Republican presidential candidates that I want to see drop out of the race as soon as possible: Santorum, Perry, Bachman.

metirish Jan 03 2012 06:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

It's an awful field , can't see the winner beating a mediocre Obama.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2012 06:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd like to see Paul gone before anyone else. I like a lot of what he has to say about economics but his views on foreign policy are such that I consider him ten times more dangerous than the incumbent... I'd vote for a 3rd party or leave the t p spot blank if he was on the ballot in november

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 06:54 AM Re: Politics in 2012

ahh, that lovely year where everyone spends so much time talking politics even though more than 90% of the people know who they're going to vote for.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 07:02 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, I don't know who I'm voting for.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 03 2012 07:19 AM Re: Politics in 2012

And even if you do know who you're voting for (or against) that's no reason not to observe and discuss the process. We watch and discuss the Mets even though we know who we're rooting for.

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 07:28 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: And even if you do know who you're voting for (or against) that's no reason not to observe and discuss the process. We watch and discuss the Mets even though we know who we're rooting for. yeah, but I take joy in watching the Mets. I don't derive any joy (except maybe secondary Daily Show mocking) from the broken election process. particularly hearing about fringe Republican nominees who's opinion on how things should be done are about as useful as yours or mine. (Actually, I'd rather have the debate with you than say Herman Cain fed to me via the Fox News/media conduit) Similar reasons to why I don't enjoy sports draft talk. Expending all that effort on things that are going to be settled a few days later with certainty seems like a waste of time to me. Of course, I could just be a curmudgeon.

Frayed Knot Jan 03 2012 07:49 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 03 2012 07:59 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Rick Santorum has been surging the last week, not on his own virtues but on the strength of better funded campaigns surging earlier and receding as they faced the scrutiny of frontrunners. Huntsman and his kinda hot daughters awaiting their day in New Hampshire.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 08:12 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process. Well, I think it's broken in that all roads have to go through Iowa, and by the time we get through South Carolina, we've more or less got our nominee, and we might as well close for business after Florida. Hilary Clinton --- with her wealth of support --- was able to take her case most of the way, but she's certainly an exception and was hardly appreciated for it. That we have our candidates eliminated by a relative scarcity of voters in with relatively specialized interests in relatively isolated population pockets of the US doesn't particularly serve our Democratic ideals well.

metsguyinmichigan Jan 03 2012 08:23 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I was able to spend a fair amount of time with Romney when he was running in 2008, and was pretty impressed by the way he handled all kinds of questions. I think he's going to get the nomination. They'll pair him with someone more conservative and, I suspect, a woman or a minority. Or former Secretary of State Rice, who is both. (And despite his protestations, I wonder if Marco Rubio will be drafted for that VP slot.)

Mets – Willets Point Jan 03 2012 08:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Bachman/Palin '12.

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 08:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process. that there is a Republican party at all is what bothers me. (And as a non-Republican that can't participate in the process, the individual candidates are basically irrelevant to me until they've decided, so there isn't much value in my listening to them) What would be wrong with just adding Obama (and anyone else) to that ballot now, and selecting the president from a list that's more than 2? New Jersey also hasn't voted for a Republican since 1988 and is 'predicted' to vote for Obama this time as well. So no matter what I do on election day, my vote is being cast for Obama. Where's the motivation to learn anything at all about the candidates?

metsmarathon Jan 03 2012 09:09 AM Re: Politics in 2012

perhaps so that you may better understand their positions, and perhaps become so motivated either for or against them that you yourself motivate others, and build a groundswell, or support a groundswell, that ultimately results in a better outcome. either that the candidate you favor is elected or that the opposition sees the value of some of your positions and adopts them to their own. also there's the idea, faulty though it may be, that local politics may percolate up to national politics, and htat by becoming more engaged on any level allows you to be more engaged on eery level. at least so says a guy who doesn't pay much nevermind to the whole process, though he clearly and most assuredly should.

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 09:18 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metsmarathon wrote: perhaps so that you may better understand their positions, and perhaps become so motivated either for or against them that you yourself motivate others, and build a groundswell, or support a groundswell, that ultimately results in a better outcome. either that the candidate you favor is elected or that the opposition sees the value of some of your positions and adopts them to their own. also there's the idea, faulty though it may be, that local politics may percolate up to national politics, and htat by becoming more engaged on any level allows you to be more engaged on eery level. at least so says a guy who doesn't pay much nevermind to the whole process, though he clearly and most assuredly should. I wonder on the truth of the local politics percolating up. I don't pay nearly enough attention to those either. I'd think at least there would be more candidates with differing opinions there, but I haven't seen much of that either.

Frayed Knot Jan 03 2012 10:12 AM Re: Politics in 2012

So basically you declare the system to be broken on account of hating not only all the Republicans but even the very existence of their party and therefore anything any of them has to say? Well, I think it's broken in that all roads have to go through Iowa, and by the time we get through South Carolina, we've more or less got our nominee, and we might as well close for business after Florida. Except that the winner of Iowa rarely goes on to win the nomination and that it's only over early if one candidate manages to outpace the remainder in the first few primaries. It's a fight within the party for who'll represent the party just as it was, for instance, with the Dems four years ago - a race which neither finished early nor was decided the way most saw it as being when it started out.

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 10:19 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: So basically you declare the system to be broken on account of hating not only all the Republicans but even the very existence of their party and therefore anything any of them has to say? the the existence of _their_ party, the existence of any party. The idea that the election is a battle between Republicans and Democrats and not a meeting of minds to select the best person to better this country. Also the likelihood that a candidate is probably going to toe the party line pretty closely, which makes it very hard to believe I'd ever find a Republican candidate better fitted to run the country than a Democratic one.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 10:34 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process. that there is a Republican party at all is what bothers me. The fact that there are parties that are allowed to exist despite the fact that you or I don't like them doesn't speak to me of a break in the system, but rather a place where it's working.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 10:38 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: Well, I think it's broken in that all roads have to go through Iowa, and by the time we get through South Carolina, we've more or less got our nominee, and we might as well close for business after Florida. Except that the winner of Iowa rarely goes on to win the nomination and that it's only over early if one candidate manages to outpace the remainder in the first few primaries. But I mentioned he other early states, didn't I? Frayed Knot wrote: It's a fight within the party for who'll represent the party just as it was, for instance, with the Dems four years ago - a race which neither finished early nor was decided the way most saw it as being when it started out. But I discussed that, didn't I? And I explicitly spoke in relative terms, didn't I?

Mets – Willets Point Jan 03 2012 10:50 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process. that there is a Republican party at all is what bothers me. The fact that there are parties that are allowed to exist despite the fact that you or I don't like them doesn't speak to me of a break in the system, but rather a place where it's working. I think Ceetar is clunkily saying that he does not think the two-party system is an effective for electing the best candidates, not that he thinks the Republican party should be outlawed. I believe there is merit in this argument that candidates should run as individuals representing the best interests of their constituency balanced with their own consciences rather the platform of a political party.

metirish Jan 03 2012 10:53 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Is Féidir Linn.

seawolf17 Jan 03 2012 10:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Republicans, in a state by state basis, are deciding which Republican should head this year's Republican party ticket. I fail to see what's "broken" about that process. that there is a Republican party at all is what bothers me. The fact that there are parties that are allowed to exist despite the fact that you or I don't like them doesn't speak to me of a break in the system, but rather a place where it's working. I think Ceetar is clunkily saying that he does not think the two-party system is an effective for electing the best candidates, not that he thinks the Republican party should be outlawed. I believe there is merit in this argument that candidates should run as individuals representing the best interests of their constituency balanced with their own consciences rather the platform of a political party. He's right, though, and people do run independently all the time. But their financial resources are always overshadowed by the big dogs.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 11:04 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, that's not what I read I certainly agree with a wide slate of candidates, running on the platforms outlined by their consciences. If it was up to me, you'd walk into a voting booth and rather than see two names, you sit at a keyboard and select your candidate from a database of all constitutionally eligible citizens.

Frayed Knot Jan 03 2012 11:05 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Well, I think it's broken in that all roads have to go through Iowa, and by the time we get through South Carolina, we've more or less got our nominee, and we might as well close for business after Florida. Except that the winner of Iowa rarely goes on to win the nomination and that it's only over early if one candidate manages to outpace the remainder in the first few primaries. But I mentioned he other early states, didn't I? Frayed Knot wrote: It's a fight within the party for who'll represent the party just as it was, for instance, with the Dems four years ago - a race which neither finished early nor was decided the way most saw it as being when it started out. But I discussed that, didn't I? And I explicitly spoke in relative terms, didn't I? I now have no idea what you're talking about.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 03 2012 11:26 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: Is Féidir Linn. Is that a new contender to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael?

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 11:31 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Irish translation of "Yes, we can." Literally translates as "It's possible with us."

Frayed Knot Jan 03 2012 11:36 AM Re: Politics in 2012

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Rick Santorum has been surging the last week, not on his own virtues but on the strength of better funded campaigns surging earlier and receding as they faced the scrutiny of frontrunners. Huntsman and his kinda hot daughters awaiting their day in New Hampshire. Obviously a large part of it is that he's more or less skipping IA in favor of putting all his marbles into NH, but I still find it a bit surprising that Huntsman has yet to have his day(s) in the sun. He's a guy whose conservative credentials are fairly solid and there can't be that many voters hung up over his stint as ambassador in the Obama administration - hell, they've overlooked/forgiven bigger "sins" from most of the others who have been awarded at least temporary front-runner status.

Edgy MD Jan 03 2012 11:41 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: I now have no idea what you're talking about. Well, I asked three simple questions. They all inquire about the parts of my post which you don't mention as you are speaking to relevant details of the primary system as if I've ignored them, but I haven't.

Ceetar Jan 03 2012 11:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

seawolf17 wrote: He's right, though, and people do run independently all the time. But their financial resources are always overshadowed by the big dogs. Yeah. It's like inviting Oliver Perez to compete for the starting job last year. Just because you let him play doesn't mean he's really part of the process. Even the campaign finance reform stuff that gets mentioned often seems to be a nod towards making it look fairer rather than actually making it equal.

sharpie Jan 03 2012 01:38 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Obviously a large part of it is that he's more or less skipping IA in favor of putting all his marbles into NH, but I still find it a bit surprising that Huntsman has yet to have his day(s) in the sun. He's a guy whose conservative credentials are fairly solid and there can't be that many voters hung up over his stint as ambassador in the Obama administration - hell, they've overlooked/forgiven bigger "sins" from most of the others who have been awarded at least temporary front-runner status. He's also the candidate of whom that Obama probably has the most to fear. Can't see any of them, other than Ron Paul, picking off many 2008 Obama voters which they'll have to do.

MFS62 Jan 03 2012 09:28 PM Re: Politics in 2012

sharpie wrote: Can't see any of them, other than Ron Paul, picking off many 2008 Obama voters which they'll have to do. If Ron Paul picks off Obama voters, I'd be looking for hanging chads. That whole mess came about when someone realized that a predominately Jewish district in Florida had voted for Pat Buchannan. Didn't make any sense. Later

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 03 2012 09:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't think it's necessarily about actively picking off Obama voters as it is about ramping up turnout and hoping circumstances (see: Lehman collapse in 2008) go your way late in the game.

Nymr83 Jan 03 2012 09:50 PM Re: Politics in 2012

MFS62 wrote: sharpie wrote: Can't see any of them, other than Ron Paul, picking off many 2008 Obama voters which they'll have to do. If Ron Paul picks off Obama voters, I'd be looking for hanging chads. That whole mess came about when someone realized that a predominately Jewish district in Florida had voted for Pat Buchannan. Didn't make any sense. Later Paul could attract some voters who chose obama as the anti-war/anti-bush candidate but would prefer an economic conservative who is even more of a pacifist than obama's opponents ever accused him of being. he'd also LOSE a ton of mccain's voters who voted for mccain as a safe figure in whom they trusted the national defense. I think anyone who has read this board's past political crap knows how far to the right i am (relative to this board and to the new york area)... if i am here saying that i think Paul is worse for this country than obama, what kind of chance would he really have in the general election? Meanwhile, in Iowa, Romney and Santorum are too close to call, Paul in 3rd, and Bachmann in last.

MFS62 Jan 03 2012 09:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Thanks for explaining why you think that way. Interesting. Later

Ashie62 Jan 04 2012 04:15 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Santorum should go to NH and get on message with his "working man's" economic message as he won't find many evangelicals there. If he survives, take both the social values and econimic message to SC.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2012 05:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn reported the official vote count at 30,015 for Romney and 30,007 for Santorum. Each candidate pulled in about 25 percent. Wow. 8 votes in a statewide election.

G-Fafif Jan 04 2012 06:08 AM Re: Politics in 2012

There were parody showdowns in this cycle that had a larger raw vote spread than Romney-Santorum.

metirish Jan 04 2012 06:40 AM Re: Politics in 2012

How many total votes were there?, seems crazy and hard to understand why such a small state wields so much power, if that's the right word. Thankfully I didn't watch any of the coverage, did see where Keith Olbermann was in a tizzy because his show was bumped for coverage and apparently he wasn't doing the covering.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2012 06:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn reported the official vote count at 30,015 for Romney and 30,007 for Santorum. Each candidate pulled in about 25 percent. Wow. 8 votes in a statewide election. As I'm trying to say, a relative paucity of folks have so much influence. Keith Olbermann exists in a tizzy.

sharpie Jan 04 2012 07:01 AM Re: Politics in 2012

sharpie wrote: Quote: Can't see any of them, other than Ron Paul, picking off many 2008 Obama voters which they'll have to do. If Ron Paul picks off Obama voters, I'd be looking for hanging chads. That whole mess came about when someone realized that a predominately Jewish district in Florida had voted for Pat Buchannan. Didn't make any sense. Later Paul could attract some voters who chose obama as the anti-war/anti-bush candidate but would prefer an economic conservative who is even more of a pacifist than obama's opponents ever accused him of being. he'd also LOSE a ton of mccain's voters who voted for mccain as a safe figure in whom they trusted the national defense. I think anyone who has read this board's past political crap knows how far to the right i am (relative to this board and to the new york area)... if i am here saying that i think Paul is worse for this country than obama, what kind of chance would he really have in the general election? I agree with you, NYMR, that Ron Paul would be disastrous. My point was only that there would be some Obama voters who would probably vote for him whether as the GOP nominee or as a third party candidate (although the Republican nominee would lose far more votes to him in that scenario) and that Mitt Romney would hardly pick off any.

Edgy MD Jan 04 2012 07:10 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I wouldn't give Paul enough credit to label his brand of isolationism "pacificism." Pacifists who fly to him aren't thinking about it enough. It's not pacificism at all. It's living in lily-livered denial. I'd love to see him run a third-party campaign. Snarky Tweet from Ron Paul’s Twitter Account Fired at Jon Huntsman, Deleted During the Iowa caucuses tonight it wasn’t just the wind sending a chill into the hearts of presidential candidates. At 8:30 p.m., just after entrance polls started pouring in, Ron Paul tweeted a snarky shot at fellow Republican candidate Jon Huntsman. “@jonhuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he’s in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks,” read the tweet that came from Paul’s verified Twitter account. The tweet from Paul’s account was deleted within half an hour of its being sent, but ABC News captured a screenshot. Huntsman has foregone campaigning in Iowa, instead stumping in New Hampshire. At his 150th appearance there, he told ABC News’ Susan Archer tonight that instead of watching the caucuses, “I’ll have to see if ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ is on tonight.” Here's hoping he just raised Huntsman's meager profile.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 04 2012 07:32 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Bachman and Perry have both canceled scheduled appearances in South Carolina.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 04 2012 07:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

G-Fafif wrote: There were parody showdowns in this cycle that had a larger raw vote spread than Romney-Santorum. Don't remind me.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2012 07:53 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Bachman and Perry have both canceled scheduled appearances in South Carolina. Perry had said he was "re-evaluating" his campaign or something like that... Which is code for "writing an appropriate speech to thank my supporters and end my candidacy in the next few days." Last I'd heard, Bachmann had claimed to be pressing on, but cancelling appearences in the next primary state (I assume NH was dead to her anyway) pretty much says goodbye. I think they accounted for about 15-20 percent of the vote in Iowa so it will be interesting to see where that support goes. John McCain is apparently ready to endorse Romney.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2012 08:00 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: How many total votes were there?, seems crazy and hard to understand why such a small state wields so much power, if that's the right word. You have to remember that this isn't a state-wide election but rather a caucus involving only registered republicans and only those who care enough to go to their local community centers or whatever to listen to platforms and speeches before declaring their support to one of what is usually a myriad of candidates. It's obviously a big step but still just a first step and for all its supposed out-sized power the winner here rarely wins the nomination. Think of it more as a way of picking off those at the bottom rungs than a final say as to who's on top. Tim Pawlenty bailed months ago when the interest he expected never materialized and now Bachman & Perry have to reassess their goals. Meanwhile Huntsman sat it out entirely hoping for better results elsewhere and the show moves to the northeast where a more traditional voting process solidifies things a little more. Iowa, btw, is 28th in population among the 50 states.

Nymr83 Jan 04 2012 08:17 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I think turnout was about 120,000. I don't know how that compares to past years, the population of iowa, registered Rs In Iowa etc

metirish Jan 04 2012 08:22 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot wrote: metirish wrote: How many total votes were there?, seems crazy and hard to understand why such a small state wields so much power, if that's the right word. You have to remember that this isn't a state-wide election but rather a caucus involving only registered republicans and only those who care enough to go to their local community centers or whatever to listen to platforms and speeches before declaring their support to one of what is usually a myriad of candidates. It's obviously a big step but still just a first step and for all its supposed out-sized power the winner here rarely wins the nomination. Think of it more as a way of picking off those at the bottom rungs than a final say as to who's on top. Tim Pawlenty bailed months ago when the interest he expected never materialized and now Bachman & Perry have to reassess their goals. Meanwhile Huntsman sat it out entirely hoping for better results elsewhere and the show moves to the northeast where a more traditional voting process solidifies things a little more. Iowa, btw, is 28th in population among the 50 states. Cheers, I forget that it's only registered republicans. And yeah, I was surprised when I saw the population on Iowa , just over 3 million, would never have guessed that.

sharpie Jan 04 2012 10:28 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Bachmann drops out but Perry says he's staying in. About the same number of voters as 2008's GOP caucuses. Dwarfed by 2008's Democratic caucuses.

Frayed Knot Jan 04 2012 10:52 AM Re: Politics in 2012

sharpie wrote: Bachmann drops out but Perry says he's staying in. Perry's probably got a bit more money before his campaign goes broke. Bachman, I'm sure, borrowed heavily just to get this far and a sixth place finish tends to throw a brake on future fundraising efforts. About the same number of voters as 2008's GOP caucuses. Dwarfed by 2008's Democratic caucuses. That (the 2nd part there) is surprising to me. Iowa is pretty much middle of the road politically and I don't suspect the D registration out-numbers the Rs by all that much. And while you could say that the intensity for the big two candidates in the Democratic 2008 race was certainly higher compared to whatever exists for any one candidate in this year's Republican slate, I would think that the sheer number of them now would make for enough niche voting to cover much of the difference.

sharpie Jan 04 2012 11:01 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Almost 239,000 votes in the 2008 Democratic caucus. Iowa has gone Democratic in 5 of the last 6 general elections.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 10 2012 06:52 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Did anyone hear the clip of John McCain accidentally endorsing President Obama in New Hampshire yesterday?

Ceetar Jan 10 2012 06:58 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Did anyone hear the clip of John McCain accidentally endorsing President Obama in New Hampshire yesterday? Someone replayed it on Z100 in the morning yesterday. Amused me.

Edgy MD Jan 10 2012 10:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

At a rally with Chris Christie coming out for Romney, the MLBS face protesters chanting "Mitt kills jobs!" and "Christie kills jobs!" “Really? You know, something’s going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart.” Whoah... What did that mean? Was he referring to Fernando Martinez?

Edgy MD Jan 11 2012 07:01 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Journalists tips hand.

metirish Jan 11 2012 07:09 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Journalists tips hand. This year turned out to be a particularly wasteful one in the Granite State. Once Romney won in Iowa, the question was not whether he would win here but by how much. Yet the reporters descended anyway: Our hotel rooms were nonrefundable. The good residents of New Hampshire, uninspired by the candidates, seemed less interested in attending candidate rallies than in years past. The result was that traveling mobs of journalists routinely outnumbered the “real people.” makes sense, on the Evening News the NBC reporter showed one of the ballrooms for I think Huntsman, he remarked how small it was and then showed the crush of journalists in there.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 11 2012 07:34 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: At a rally with Chris Christie coming out for Romney, the MLBS face protesters chanting "Mitt kills jobs!" and "Christie kills jobs!" “Really? You know, something’s going down tonight, but it ain’t going to be jobs, sweetheart.” A blowjob joke. Charming. The dude obviously hates women.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2012 07:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Journalists tips hand. Most revealing campaign journalism I read this year.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2012 07:46 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: A blowjob joke. Charming. The dude obviously hates women. That's certainly my first guess. Alternative interpretations include "Romey's opponents are going down!" Or "Your movement (or it's support) is going down." Or "The fight --- it's going down!" The "Sweetheart" tag certainly makes it condescending, under any interpretation, provoked or not. I'm sure he'll be asked to explain soon enough. Watchers are certainly trying to sort it out. It's the nature of politics, and why the cardboard likes of Romney survive and occasionally flourish. What initially hits the scene as refreshing frankness often reveals itself as embarrassingly loose-cannon. Ask Herman Cain.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2012 07:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

douchey move by the fat guy.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 11 2012 12:19 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Wait... you mean... Chris Christie IS KIND OF AN ASSHOLE?

Ashie62 Jan 13 2012 02:46 AM Re: Politics in 2012

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Wait... you mean... Chris Christie IS KIND OF AN ASSHOLE? Nah...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 13 2012 06:03 AM Re: Politics in 2012

He provokes confrontations with important constituencies when there are PLENTY of other options for discourse on the table... with so much regularity that it's surprising when he sits down to talk/broker. Regardless of how you feel about the guy's politics, it's indisputable he's of the same sociability species as Giuliani and Spitzer-- Bungholus Northeasternus.

metirish Jan 13 2012 06:23 AM Re: Politics in 2012

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Bungholus Northeasternus. brilliant

Ashie62 Jan 13 2012 10:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: He provokes confrontations with important constituencies when there are PLENTY of other options for discourse on the table... with so much regularity that it's surprising when he sits down to talk/broker. Regardless of how you feel about the guy's politics, it's indisputable he's of the same sociability species as Giuliani and Spitzer-- Bungholus Northeasternus. Pleez...anyone who has the balls to take on the NJEA is fine by me. Proud to have him as my Governor.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2012 10:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, while much of this is up in the air, and I'm sure he hurt himself with the sweetheart tagline, I don't really think he provoked the confrontation. I think a lot of political leverage is about YouTube these days. Provoke your enemies into confrontations, or tease them into thinking they're safe, and then point an iPhone camera at them.

Ceetar Jan 13 2012 12:30 PM Re: Politics in 2012

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: douchey move by the fat guy. Best part about the running for president rumors was I thought we might have a shot at getting rid of him here. bah.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2012 12:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, he might end up getting elected Vice President.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2012 01:33 PM Re: Politics in 2012

You can watch this whole noxious ad, or you can cut to the 43 second mark, and then cry a little. [youtube:xesvwanf]tyFaWhygzjQ[/youtube:xesvwanf] Mon Dieu!

Vic Sage Jan 13 2012 02:11 PM Re: Politics in 2012

that ad made me want to vote for Mitt. but what's with the French thing? How exactly does speaking French disqualify you as a conservative? is it the French, specifically, that conservatives object to, or simply having the education to speak ANY other language? In that case, they should love Perry cuz he cain't even speak English dat good.

metirish Jan 13 2012 02:17 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I thought his speaking french means he is actually a socialist euro loving weenie ...... now this is dumb Rory Lamont reprimanded over Obama tweet Rugby: Scotland and Glasgow Warriors fullback Rory Lamont has been reprimanded after calling US president Barack Obama a “whore” on Twitter. The 29-year-old, who is set to start for the Warriors in Sunday’s Heineken Cup clash with Leinster, made the remarks on the social networking website and has been reminded about his future conduct by the Scottish Rugby Union (SRU). A statement from the SRU read: “Social media provides a platform for our players to engage with fans and act as ambassadors for our team and the sport in general. “We do make players aware of how best to use social media, such as Twitter, so they can make the most of the service. “We have spoken to Rory about the tweets identified and he fully accepts the language used was completely inappropriate and has apologised unreservedly for offence caused.” Lamont wrote on January 4th: “The rise of (Republican presidential hopeful) Ron Paul in the US has to be the most inspiring story in western politics. He doesn’t work for wall street like that whore Obama.” Lamont, who is yet to delete the message, said today: “If I have ever caused any offence from the language used in my tweets I do apologise.” http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/rugby/ ... 40580.html

Vic Sage Jan 13 2012 02:20 PM Re: Politics in 2012

No 1st amendment in Scotland, Irish. :) It's an American invention. Though i doubt it would pass today, if put up to a vote.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2012 02:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

that ad made me want to vote for Mitt. but what's with the French thing? How exactly does speaking French disqualify you as a conservative? is it the French, specifically, that conservatives object to, or simply having the education to speak ANY other language? In that case, they should love Perry cuz he cain't even speak English dat good. It's the throw-anything-up-and-see-what-will-stick the sewer of American politics. The "Mitt/French" thing first surfaced as a bad thing in Iowa in an add put out by a super-Liberal PAC. Crap, now I can't vote for Romney. I guess that means Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin are out, too.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2012 02:23 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Moderate Massachusetts Governors speak "French," while real red-blooded 'mericans speak Freedom. How stupid. Made me a Romney fan.

Frayed Knot Jan 13 2012 02:41 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Both that ad and the ones where he's being taken to task (both by his Republican challengers and the DNC trying to get a jump on the general election season) because he "likes firing people" are giving Mitt better publicity than his rather stiff personality seems capable of getting on his own.

Edgy MD Jan 13 2012 02:53 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Hard to say. The xenophobia appeal may fly in certain primaries where it wouldn't in a general election. I hope not, but it's an ugly world. The real story is that Newt's campaign shot to the top on his strategy of remaining above the fray and clean. Once he got there, the PACs took aim and hurt him, so he changed course and dove down into the mud. One of the great strategic capitulations I can think of.

Frayed Knot Jan 14 2012 12:52 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Oh, and btw, Newt speaks French also - lived there for a time as a teenager. His PAC might want to check on that sort of stuff before running off ads they deem to be helpful.

Edgy MD Jan 14 2012 01:42 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd be surprised to find out he didn't speak French. His dissertation was "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960." Pretty worldly for a xenophobe. But, as I said, an Obama-leaning PAC played the same card. Anything that'll hurt them. Here's hoping that the next time Gingrich addresses Romney in debate, Romney responds, "Speak to me in French, you prick!" before turning quickly to Paul, and spitting out, "And I'll be expecting only German from you, you nut!"

metirish Jan 17 2012 12:08 PM Re: Politics in 2012

If Mitt makes it to the big house will he continue to wear jeans? I get it Mitt, you're working class and the jeans really tell me that, now, roll those sleeves up.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 17 2012 03:22 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd be surprised to find out he didn't speak French. His dissertation was "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960." Pretty worldly for a xenophobe. Until you actually read the dissertation, wonderfully presented in comic form here.

Ashie62 Jan 18 2012 01:41 PM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: If Mitt makes it to the big house will he continue to wear jeans? I get it Mitt, you're working class and the jeans really tell me that, now, roll those sleeves up. Yes

Ashie62 Jan 18 2012 01:43 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: metirish wrote: If Mitt makes it to the big house will he continue to wear jeans? I get it Mitt, you're working class and the jeans really tell me that, now, roll those sleeves up. Yes he probaby would after helping a Washington Food bank..we're good at that.

Nymr83 Jan 18 2012 02:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

he probaby would after helping a Washington Food bank..we're good at that. who is "we"?

Ashie62 Jan 18 2012 05:03 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: he probaby would after helping a Washington Food bank..we're good at that. who is "we"? Mormons

Ashie62 Jan 18 2012 05:03 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Uh, yes I am... The south Jersey Interfaith food bank is roughly 80% Mormon stocked. We're funny that way.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 18 2012 11:15 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't think Irish was making a joke about his being Mormon, so much as it was about his being so out-of-touch with Joe Average-- see: venture-capital-born riches, alien-programmed-to-run-for-president demeanor-- that jeans seem like a visual joke on him.

metirish Jan 19 2012 05:39 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about him being Mormon ,the jeans bother me as LFSW explains .

Edgy MD Jan 19 2012 07:03 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Not sure it means much, but a new tally puts Romney's Iowa win in question.

metirish Jan 19 2012 07:32 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Perry dropping out according to twitter.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2012 07:35 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Again? Has he been hanging out with Brett Favre?

TransMonk Jan 19 2012 07:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: I couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about him being Mormon ,the jeans bother me as LFSW explains . I'm much more concerned with his magic underwear than with his denim. Talk about being out of touch.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2012 07:40 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I wonder if Perry had gotten in earlier, whether he'd have been more polished. Hard to imagine him coming off as less polished.

metirish Jan 19 2012 07:40 AM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: metirish wrote: I couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about him being Mormon ,the jeans bother me as LFSW explains . I'm much more concerned with his magic underwear than with his denim. Talk about being out of touch. magic underwear?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 19 2012 07:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: metirish wrote: I couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about him being Mormon ,the jeans bother me as LFSW explains . I'm much more concerned with his magic underwear than with his denim. Talk about being out of touch. magic underwear? See, now THAT's a Mormon dig.

Vic Sage Jan 19 2012 10:09 AM Re: Politics in 2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 19 2012 10:16 AM

while i have no patience for those who routinely engage in magical thinking, and certainly don't support them being handed the reins of power, i find the hypocrisy of those steeped in Judeo-Christian magic who feel no compunction about criticizing Mormonism, or Islam, or Scientology, or whatever magical belief structure they don't happen to adhere to, on the basis that "Your magic is silly and absurd; mine is divine, spiritual and morally superior" even more deplorable. If Mitt's candidacy does anything to either stifle that hypocrisy or expose it, i'm all for him. Take that magic underwear and run, Mitt, runnnnn!

Nymr83 Jan 19 2012 10:10 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: I wonder if Perry had gotten in earlier, whether he'd have been more polished. Hard to imagine him coming off as less polished. I like the guy, but he was just TERRIBLE with a podium infront of him... I feel like he'd step up there in the debates and Obama would start whacking him like Muhammad Ali fighting the champion of the local gym. Still, if anyone is going to have a chance against Romney then everyone else better bail out fast, they can't keep letting him win plurality victories.

metirish Jan 19 2012 10:21 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Vic Sage wrote: while i have no patience for those who routinely engage in magical thinking, and certainly don't support them being handed the reins of power, i find the hypocrisy of those steeped in Judeo-Christian magic who feel no compunction about criticizing Mormonism, or Islam, or Scientology, or whatever magical belief structure they don't happen to adhere to, on the basis that "Your magic is silly and absurd; mine is divine, spiritual and morally superior" even more deplorable. If Mitt's candidacy does anything to either stifle that hypocrisy or expose it, i'm all for him. Take that magic underwear and run, Mitt, runnnnn! I'm weighing up the magic nickers versus the burning bush that talked........decisions , meanwhile my nickers keeps getting wedged up my arse.....not magic at all.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 19 2012 10:24 AM Re: Politics in 2012

This whole election is gonna be about Romney's 1%-ness, not his undies.

TransMonk Jan 19 2012 10:47 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd find conservative candidates A LOT more appealing if they kept their religions out of their politics. As it is, I discount most every one of them off the bat based on their religious stances. Give me a more compelling reason against abortion and gay marriages than "because the [belief documentation] tells me so." Magic is magic is magic and none of it has anything to do with governing the country, IMO.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2012 10:54 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd be surprised to find out he didn't speak French. His dissertation was "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960." Pretty worldly for a xenophobe. Until you actually read the dissertation, wonderfully presented in comic form here. I'm not sure I get that. I never read Tintin. But I'm pretty confident in Newt's background of Frenchiness, and pretty dubious about the "Massachusetts moderate" linkage.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 19 2012 11:35 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'd be surprised to find out he didn't speak French. His dissertation was "Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945–1960." Pretty worldly for a xenophobe. Until you actually read the dissertation, wonderfully presented in comic form here. I'm not sure I get that. I never read Tintin. But I'm pretty confident in Newt's background of Frenchiness, and pretty dubious about the "Massachusetts moderate" linkage. The point is that such a thesis may appear worldly, but upon reading it it oozes the xenophobia of a man who believes that black Africans must be managed by a colonial regime for their own good.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2012 11:41 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, that seems to be what they're trying to say, but I don't have the initiative to read the actual thesis myself now. Maybe someday. Certainly if I'm seriously confronted with the possibility of voting for the man.

Vic Sage Jan 19 2012 12:43 PM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: I'd find conservative candidates A LOT more appealing if they kept their religions out of their politics. As it is, I discount most every one of them off the bat based on their religious stances. Give me a more compelling reason against abortion and gay marriages than "because the [belief documentation] tells me so." Magic is magic is magic and none of it has anything to do with governing the country, IMO. Agreed, but to be fair, i don't think religious demagoguery on an issue is the exclusive domain of the conservatives, though in recent decades they've perfected it as a strategy and organizing technique. Over the years, religious dogma has been the basis of some issues on the Left, too, from abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement, to anti-war protests in Vietnam era. But even where i agree with the position, the appeal to religious doctrine as a basis for civic policies is always problematic in a democracy.

Ashie62 Jan 19 2012 01:04 PM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: metirish wrote: I couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about him being Mormon ,the jeans bother me as LFSW explains . I'm much more concerned with his magic underwear than with his denim. Talk about being out of touch. magic underwear? Its for real...Worn by some to feel closer to God and generally worn by couples being married in the Utah temple. Why did the elder escape the lion chasing him? He ran faster than his partner.

metirish Jan 20 2012 01:14 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Farmer Mitt Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tosses an apple to supporters during a campaign rally at Barn, Harmon Tree Farm today. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Valadius Jan 20 2012 02:13 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Stephen Colbert wrote: The only difference between Mitt Romney and a statue of Mitt Romney is that a statue never changes its position.

Frayed Knot Jan 21 2012 08:04 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Newt wins big in SC - not a totally unexpected event except that he almost matched the vote total of Romney & Santorum combined. Looks like we got the makings of a real live horse race here. Mitt's been playing it cautiously up to this point but he's going to have to loosen the reins a bit going forward ... assuming he knows how to do that.

Edgy MD Jan 21 2012 08:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

That Chuck Norris endorsement paid off big.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jan 21 2012 09:03 PM Re: Politics in 2012

So... Mitt strikes voters as either not conservative enough or as having made his money from being too much of a capitalist (which is such a fascinating critique to me... and even odder, it seems to have traction). Okay, fine. So the more-culturally-conservative-than-thou, demi-populist South Carolinians run to... the establishment guy who twice left ill wives for younger models. This is weird. Republicans are weird.

Edgy MD Jan 21 2012 09:24 PM Re: Politics in 2012

If Chuck Norris endorsed Steve Bartman in Chicago, Steve Bartman would win in Chicago.

Valadius Jan 22 2012 08:57 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'll say it again - Republicans are looking for "Angry Firebrand Guy." Which is Newt.

metirish Jan 22 2012 09:46 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney looks like a guy that doesn't like doing the debates while Gingrich seems to relish it, fires him up. American politics is always fascinating.

seawolf17 Jan 22 2012 11:35 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Fascinating in a "holy crap I can't believe this is the best we can do" way.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2012 11:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

It's not, of course, but it's the way the system shakes things out.

Edgy MD Jan 22 2012 01:48 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords resigns.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 23 2012 01:44 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Rick Santorum wants you to C.U.M.

Edgy MD Jan 23 2012 01:59 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Sen. Mark Kirk, holder of the seemingly cursed Senate seat formerly occupied by the president, is felled by a stroke. It seems to me that it would well serve us if a member of Congress could designateg a proxy with their state's governor to serve their term if they become mentally incapacitated.

Ashie62 Jan 23 2012 03:38 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Wait until Santorum sells himself to Newt after Florida. Oye..

Nymr83 Jan 24 2012 08:02 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Sen. Mark Kirk, holder of the seemingly cursed Senate seat formerly occupied by the president, is felled by a stroke. It seems to me that it would well serve us if a member of Congress could designateg a proxy with their state's governor to serve their term if they become mentally incapacitated. Its sounds like doctors are hopeful for a full recovery of mental faculties, but perhaps not a full retention of physical abilities. I would definitely agree that a worthwhile change to the law would be to have all senators and representatives pre-name their own replacement.

Valadius Jan 24 2012 09:03 AM Re: Politics in 2012

What, like an unelected "Vice Senator"? I don't think that one will fly.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2012 09:06 AM Re: Politics in 2012

No, a designated replacement --- so the constituents' right to representation isn't compromised in the midst of a serious health crisis, or overturned in the case of a sudden death.

Mets – Willets Point Jan 24 2012 09:21 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I think the will of the people is best represented by having a special election as soon as possible after an office is vacated. And I say this even though I ended up with Scott Brown as my senator by this process.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2012 09:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, but obviously not every state plays that way. Nor was it clear what Massachusetts would do under their own law. We have the 25th amendment to deal with the presidential health crises, but no similar clarification for succession for members of Congress, so it took a year for Rep. Giffords to acknowledge what was plainly obvious to anyone (but seemingly heartless to state out loud), that she couldn't do her job and her constituents weren't well-served by her retaining it. I like to think, as governor, I'd ask each member of my state's Congressional delegation to put in writing who they'd like me to appoint in their stead should they die in office, but my hands would be tied in the cases of Giffords and Kirk (and doesn't that sound like a badass law firm?). So, since I'm so damn right, let's make it the law!

Frayed Knot Jan 24 2012 09:54 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I dislike the idea of being able to name your own successor. Aging reps & sens could simply declare themselves to be no longer able and step down with a year or so to go giving their designated second a head-start on incumbency for their own election.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2012 09:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, I'm more concerned with sudden death, but that's a consideration, though certainly no president has made that move. Back-door incumbency certainly didn't help Paul Kirk, who had to withdraw himself from consideration for re-election, lest it be seen that his party was looking to do exactly that. (And it's all about the Kirks.)

Vic Sage Jan 24 2012 11:21 AM Re: Politics in 2012

It seems to me that it would well serve us if a member of Congress could designate a proxy with their state's governor to serve their term if they become mentally incapacitated. how could we tell? i'd say about half of them are mentally incapacitated on any particular day you might choose to name.

Frayed Knot Jan 24 2012 11:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Well, I'm more concerned with sudden death, but that's a consideration, though certainly no president has made that move. Back-door incumbency certainly didn't help Paul Kirk, who had to withdraw himself from consideration for re-election, lest it be seen that his party was looking to do exactly that. (And it's all about the Kirks.) Nassau County Republicans used to do the back-door incumbency thing all the time. One year - just a day after the elections!! - they "decided" to promote the just re-elected county guy to head Nassau County OTB (the most plum patronage job of all), then jumped one of the just-elected Town of Hempstead honchos to the now vacant county job, and of course then had to pull someone else out of his/her just-won job to fill the Town job, and etc. The bottom line to it all is that in the following election all those folks were running for election to their own jobs technically for the first time but all having the advantage of one year plus 364 days in the job as the incumbent.

Edgy MD Jan 24 2012 12:08 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, sure, but a vacancy created by a promotion or what-have-yew is a different thing. And it's easy to abuse under the current system in a largely single-party political entity such as Nassau County. I'm talking about protection against such abuse of chairs being filled by the dominant parties.

Nymr83 Jan 24 2012 01:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Valadius wrote: What, like an unelected "Vice Senator"? I don't think that one will fly. I meant that they should name them before they themselves are elected, just as candidates for President and Governor have Vice Presidents and Lieutenant Governors (in NY at least) on the ballot with them, this way nobody is getting something they didnt expect ahead of time.

Frayed Knot Jan 24 2012 03:16 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Well, sure, but a vacancy created by a promotion or what-have-yew is a different thing. And it's easy to abuse under the current system in a largely single-party political entity such as Nassau County. I'm talking about protection against such abuse of chairs being filled by the dominant parties. Special elections are the way to go IMO because if a naming system can be abused it will be abused. Not that you're ever going to get rid of all abuses, like Mass. democrats changing their succession rule every other year depending on which one they think favors them at that particular moment, or naming a care-taker Senator to baby-sit the family's personal seat until baby-brother is old enough to run on his own. But the problem with pre-designated successors is that anytime the party wants to give their next up-and-comer a leg up they can simply claim that the incumbent is stepping down early for health reasons, and without having a contested election there's also nothing stopping them from doing so early in a term. It's like those who suggest that arm-guards should be banned for batters except in the case of injury; if that ever happens there'll suddenly be more elbow injuries (complete with doctors swearing to them) than you can find at an arm-wrestling competition.

Nymr83 Jan 24 2012 04:48 PM Re: Politics in 2012

off-topic, but rather than banning the medieval-body-armor-like arm guards i'd make a rule that a pitch that hits one is a "ball" instead of a "hit by pitch" the same could apply here: name your successor, but he/she can't run for re-election (if he/she doesnt agree to that, then he can refuse the appointment and run in the election like everyone else)

G-Fafif Jan 31 2012 09:47 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Not just the best Onion-like headline that's true that I've ever seen, but the story it accompanies, from Politico, is breathtaking. John Tyler, president from 1841 to 1845, has a grandson who's still alive. And kicking. And apparently named for the president his grandfather succeeded. And he has a brother who's alive. An older brother. Tyler's grandkid: Newt's a 'jerk' By: Mackenzie Weinger January 27, 2012 02:26 PM EST President John Tyler’s grandson Harrison Tyler, 84, says he’s not impressed with the state of politics today and particularly thinks Newt Gingrich is a “big jerk” for his three marriages. Incredibly, President Tyler, who was born in 1790 and became the 10th president in 1841, has two grandchildren still alive today. His grandson, Harrison Ruffin Tyler, currently maintains the Tyler presidential home, Sherwood Forest Plantation Foundation in Charles City, Va. Harrison said he doesn’t spend much time focusing on the 2012 presidential race — “I can’t stand watching television” — but considers himself a conservative. His big problem this election, he said, is with the candidates. “I don’t really like any of them,” he said in an interview. But Tyler’s especially not a fan of Gingrich, who he dubbed a “big jerk.” “He needs to stick with the same wife, that’s what my mother taught me,” Tyler said. “But that doesn’t seem to happen much today.” Tyler, an engineer who founded his own business, ChemTreat, in 1968, said he thought it was important that Mitt Romney had business experience, but noted he is firmly undecided at this point. He said he plans to vote this fall, but “I just haven’t made up my mind yet.” And President Barack Obama — who Tyler called a “charming man” — just doesn’t have the right pro-business policies to get his vote, he said. “Well, I think he’s a charming man, but he grew up in the society where he believes in running the show and changing the apple cart and taking it away from those that have,” he said. Tyler said he prefers to focus on the family home in Virginia, not on politics. He spends some time giving lectures on local Jamestown history — he’s also descended from Pocahontas — but notes he didn’t even start studying presidential history and his grandfather until his retirement. “I’m retired from my business,” he said. “I’m 84 years old. I drive around, I bought a lot of additional land, beautiful land around the river. I just drive around watching all the deer and all the turkey.” President John Tyler, who lived from 1790-1862, had 15 children during his lifetime, making him the most prolific president. One of his children, Lyon Gardiner Tyler, born in 1853, fathered Lyon Gardiner Tyler, Jr. in 1924 and Harrison in 1928. Lyon Tyler, Jr., is 88 and currently living in Franklin, Tenn., according to Harrison. President Tyler was William Henry Harrison’s Whig running mate in the 1840 election, which spawned one of the most famous campaign slogans in American history, “Tippecanoe and Tyler too.” On his 32nd day in office, Harrison died of complications from pneumonia. Tyler was then the first vice president to become president due to the death of his predecessor, serving from 1841-1845. John Tyler also has the distinction of becoming the first president to get married while in office — after his first wife died in 1842, Tyler married Julia Gardiner, who was 30 years younger than him, in 1844.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2012 09:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

And the president changes his position on campaign fundraising. Right on schedule.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 07 2012 02:18 PM Re: Politics in 2012

This photo is digitally manipulated, but it still explains a lot of Romney's campaign success which is collecting a lot of R-Money (Republican Money).

Ashie62 Feb 09 2012 09:39 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Looks like a tube of Crest toothpaste.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 07:28 AM Re: Politics in 2012

The president is expected to announce a compromise today on the health care exemption issue for religious employers.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 08:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: The president is expected to announce a compromise today on the health care exemption issue for religious employers. Any leak on what the compromise is going to be? I mean, there should be no exemption whatsoever but a compromise is better than a blanket exemption.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 08:47 AM Re: Politics in 2012

The world is compromised.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 08:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: The world is compromised. so?

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 08:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Sew buttons.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 09:00 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Seriously, exemptions from laws for religious institutions under the first amendment are as old as the Republic itself. You're not going to win in thinking they can be thrown out. You can only work for the most just compromise. There's way too much at stake here, including the Affordable Care Act itself.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 09:02 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Seriously, exemptions from laws for religious institutions under the first amendment are as old as the Republic itself. You're not going to win in thinking they can be thrown out. You can only work for the most just compromise. I'm not trying to win, but I still think they should be thrown out. I understand that's why Obama's compromising, I'm just hoping it comes down more on the side that better prevents institutions from not providing healthcare.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 10:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ml?hpid=z1

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 11:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-to-announce-adjustment-to-birth-control-rule/2012/02/10/gIQArbFy3Q_story.html?hpid=z1 It's actually a pretty reasonable compromise. I'm kinda shocked. It also seems fairly childish, in a "I'm just going to leave this condom here. I am not giving it to you. If you happen to pick up this condom it's on you, I did not provide you with it" way.

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 11:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

i think the church's stance on contraceptives is foolish and backwards. i also think that the exemption which will not allow church employees to obtain separate contraceptive coverage is patently ridiculous. i hat to pull out the kid-toucher card, but if hte catholic church can continue to employ priests who repeatedly fondle and abuse young children, then surely they can find it within themselves to employ adults who wish to have consentual sex with decreased risk of pregnancy.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 12:38 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, whether or not you have any faith that they are actively weeding out and working to prevent pedophilia in the church, that's a card you can play on any issue they speak to, I think. The church's (and the bishops') failures with regard to pedophiles in their midst are facts that can't and shouldn't be ignored, but it's also a fact that we would have never moved this far toward universal coverage without the work of the USCCB. Decades of work. The other part of this --- and the main reason there's such surprising unanimity among the USCCB is that it's their position that this exemption was promised to them. The health care overhaul has gone forth with their approval and advocacy, but the promised exemption was rescinded. So yeah, disagree with them, but they aren't setting this up as a wedge issue (though some Republican candidates are using it as one). They want the overhaul to go through. Their position is that health care is a right, even as they disagree that unfettered access to contraceptives and abortifacents are one.

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 01:28 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: The other part of this --- and the main reason there's such surprising unanimity among the USCCB is that it's their position that this exemption was promised to them. The health care overhaul has gone forth with their approval and advocacy, but the promised exemption was rescinded. well that's a good point then. i still maintain that they are wrong for wanting the expemtion, but given their stance on the issue, and the prior promises made to them, they should be granted it in at least some fashion. if hte exemption of church employees is the minimum that they will accept, then the greater good will still be served, however unfortunate and distasteful the exclusion is. ideally, those in the direct employ of hte church will be more aligned with their supposed core beliefs, but that is not necessarily the case, and those people are being left out in the cold over this issue. even more distasteful is that this is being turned into a wedge issue. i needn't agree with each and every stance which an organization may take to still recognize the net benefit served by an organization. if i disagree that the catholic church should oppose contraceptives, it does not mean that i oppose hte existence of the catholic church and wish to see their entirity wiped clean of this earth.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 01:45 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Certainly any "war on religion" type of rhetoric is counterproductive and should be dialed down.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 10 2012 01:57 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Honestly, that's the only kind of speechifying I've heard from ANYONE on the right/advocating for these faiths on a national level. It's sad, because there's a real discussion to be had in there... but except on a rare person-to-person basis, it won't happen.

metsmarathon Feb 10 2012 02:05 PM Re: Politics in 2012

i guess what it comes down to is, if access to health care is a fundamental human right, does is supercede the fundamental human right of religious freedom? people are free to worship and believe as they see fit. but what of when that obstructs the ability of others to be healthy?

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 02:13 PM Re: Politics in 2012

@DaylightAtheism wrote: The bishops framed this all along as a religious liberty issue; they can't object now w/o proving it's contraception itself they oppose

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 02:17 PM Re: Politics in 2012

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Honestly, that's the only kind of speechifying I've heard from ANYONE on the right/advocating for these faiths on a national level. It's sad, because there's a real discussion to be had in there... but except on a rare person-to-person basis, it won't happen. If you dig deeper, there's plenty of discussion. I swear. It's just, that's not what the news is going to carry. And it conditions us all to speak in hyperbolic terms, because it gets validated by the media. (I don't know what that tweet above means. Is that suggesting that this should be a some sort of wedge-issue chess game?) metsmarathon wrote: i guess what it comes down to is, if access to health care is a fundamental human right, does is supercede the fundamental human right of religious freedom? That's one of the reason we have courts. Rights butt up against each other. The strange part is, linking health care to employment and employers is largely an historical accident, and I think if they just started this whole reform movement by working to delink them, we'd be in a better place right now.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 02:25 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: (I don't know what that tweet above means. Is that suggesting that this should be a some sort of wedge-issue chess game?) Should've grabbed the previous one too. It's applauding the compromise for appealing to the religious freedom and suggesting that any further objection would reveal that they're also trying to push their view on contraception.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2012 02:30 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't get it. It's not like it's a secret that the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 02:33 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I don't get it. It's not like it's a secret that the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception. Yes but it's a religious opposition which has no place. They were trying to link it to religious freedom, but this compromise does a good job of separating them.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2012 02:52 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Why does it "have no place"? I don't think it's wrong to portray it as religious freedom. They don't want to facilitate a practice that they officially oppose, and they don't want the government to force them to compromise their beliefs.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 02:57 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Why does it "have no place"? I don't think it's wrong to portray it as religious freedom. They don't want to facilitate a practice that they officially oppose, and they don't want the government to force them to compromise their beliefs. No one's forcing them to compromise their beliefs. No one's asking them to hand out birth control pills. But they don't get block their employees access to the health care rights that regular US citizens get because they feel differently about it.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 02:59 PM Re: Politics in 2012

They didn't see the original mandate that way. They saw themselves being mandated to do just that.

Ceetar Feb 10 2012 03:29 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: They didn't see the original mandate that way. They saw themselves being mandated to do just that. So? How they see it doesn't change the law.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2012 03:30 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Sew buttons. And how you see it doesn't change the Constitution. These are delicate issues, that could do without all the "So?"

Ceetar Feb 11 2012 09:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Sew buttons. And how you see it doesn't change the Constitution. These are delicate issues, that could do without all the "So?" how I see it? You pass a law, it applies to the whole country. Why should they get an exemption? The whole molestation scandal already is evidence of how they think they're better than ordinary citizens. But they're not. The whole everyone is created equal thing. I get that the whole world is compromised, but If I start at that state, the other side is only going to look to compromise further. (And hey look, the bishops are still bitching because the employers name will still be on the health care plan it's employees have and they can get free birth control. They are actually making out better from what I can tell. Non-exemption employers have that birth control factored into the price of the plan, whereas the exemption employees are getting it for free) I get that this is the politics thread, and not the ideology thread though, yes. But that compromise is more than fair. The bishops need to shut the hell up and stop trying to force their opinion of what's moral on other people.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2012 03:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: Sew buttons. And how you see it doesn't change the Constitution. These are delicate issues, that could do without all the "So?" Ceetar wrote: how I see it? You pass a law, it applies to the whole country. I didn't really ask how you see it. But your tone isn't necessary. Ceetar wrote: Why should they get an exemption? I didn't say they should. Ceetar wrote: The whole molestation scandal already is evidence of how they think they're better than ordinary citizens. That's more than a little over-broad. Ceetar wrote: The whole everyone is created equal thing. This is getting silly. Laws are full of exceptions. We have equal protection under the law, but that's not the same thing. And the phrase, of course, is "all men are created equal." So it's tough row to hoe when our statement of universality is already disqualifying the fairer gender. I get that the whole world is compromised, but If I start at that state, the other side is only going to look to compromise further. I don't know what that means. You didn't start at any state. You didn't write this law. I didn't. I posted that a compromise was reached because I think compromise is a wonderful thing. (And hey look, the bishops are still bitching because the employers name will still be on the health care plan it's employees have and they can get free birth control. They are actually making out better from what I can tell. Non-exemption employers have that birth control factored into the price of the plan, whereas the exemption employees are getting it for free) I get that this is the politics thread, and not the ideology thread though, yes. But that compromise is more than fair. The bishops need to shut the hell up and stop trying to force their opinion of what's moral on other people. Come on and lighten up. This sort of hostility makes politics awful. Folks thinking those who disagree with them deserve censorship, disenfranchisement, removal from the process. Nothing gets done without compromise. Nothing.

Ceetar Feb 11 2012 04:24 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Come on and lighten up. This sort of hostility makes politics awful. Folks thinking those who disagree with them deserve censorship, disenfranchisement, removal from the process. Nothing gets done without compromise. Nothing. And that's the problem with politics in a nutshell. compromise instead of what's best. to be specific, worrying about appeasing bishops (among other parties) instead of sticking to the cause: which was healthcare for all. Elected officials are supposed to be in office to do what's best for the people, not what the bishops/corporations/lobbyists/etc want. And I'm not talking about censoring or removing anyone from the process. But health care for all is hardly doing that, nor is this compromise. The only one suggesting that is the bishops, who want to remove their employees from the process. And again, I applaud the compromise it seems like a very fair solution. But I'm not the one complaining about it, again the bishops are unhappy with this and want to push their opinion on what their employees should be able to do in their personal life.

Edgy MD Feb 11 2012 05:03 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, I guess I disagree with most of that. Right up to the point where you say "I applaud the compromise." I agree with that. But it certainly seems to contrast with your contention two paragraphs up that compromise is what's wrong with politics. And I'm not talking about censoring or removing anyone from the process. Well, sheesh, I don't know how else to interpret "The bishops need to shut the hell up." That's certainly not going to happen. The health care overhaul wouldn't have gotten where it did --- wouldn't even have gotten on the agenda --- without their work. I can't imagine you were telling them to shut up then. Full disclosure. 1. I work with an organization under the auspices of the USCCB. 2. The place is loaded with non-Catholics. Including my boss. 3. Their health plan policy effects me. And my wife. Directly. My wife is a non-Catholic. 4. As part of my employment I agreed not to undermine them by publicly taking positions contrary to their positions. So I'm not. I just think compromise is a great thing in this country and I'm glad we've moved further down the road.

Ceetar Feb 11 2012 08:56 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Well, I guess I disagree with most of that. Right up to the point where you say "I applaud the compromise." I agree with that. But it certainly seems to contrast with your contention two paragraphs up that compromise is what's wrong with politics. And I'm not talking about censoring or removing anyone from the process. Well, sheesh, I don't know how else to interpret "The bishops need to shut the hell up." That's certainly not going to happen. The health care overhaul wouldn't have gotten where it did --- wouldn't even have gotten on the agenda --- without their work. I can't imagine you were telling them to shut up then. Full disclosure. 1. I work with an organization under the auspices of the USCCB. 2. The place is loaded with non-Catholics. Including my boss. 3. Their health plan policy effects me. And my wife. Directly. My wife is a non-Catholic. 4. As part of my employment I agreed not to undermine them by publicly taking positions contrary to their positions. So I'm not. I just think compromise is a great thing in this country and I'm glad we've moved further down the road. I'm not trying to say they're all evil. And I think they should shut up, particularly post-compromise and I think it's hypocritical to be a proponent of health care yet try to limit yours. But that's an opinion. I don't wish they couldn't speak, I merely wish they wouldn't. I get that they had a hand in getting it passed/on the agenda. Kudos. But I also wish government didn't work that way, and health care wasn't something that needed to lobbied for by a third party. I wish things could be done without it being politics first. How about people first? Maybe 'compromise' is the wrong word for what i Feel is wrong with politics. Maybe I'm just concerned that too much of politics is aimed at the compromise first, instead of slowly negotiating towards it. If everything is a compromised, middle of the road agreement to please everyone, can you really truly create real positive growth?

Mets – Willets Point Feb 13 2012 10:26 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Here's more reasons why I always predict - nay, expect - Republicans, conservatives, Tea Partiers, et al to win elections and continue to dominate American politics in the future.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2012 01:57 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: If everything is a compromised, middle of the road agreement to please everyone, can you really truly create real positive growth? I don't make sense of much of what you wrote, so I don't want to continue. But you asked a question, so I'll respond. I don't see at all that "everything is a compromised, middle of the road agreement to please everyone...."

Ashie62 Feb 13 2012 04:14 PM Re: Politics in 2012

He don't like catholics too much lol

Ceetar Feb 13 2012 07:08 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: He don't like catholics too much lol Actually, most Catholics use and support birth control.

metsguyinmichigan Feb 13 2012 08:15 PM Re: Politics in 2012

We had a staff meeting today to plan coverage for the Michigan primary. I've got Santorum, which could be interesting. Two polls today say he's ahead of Romney. We'll see.

Ashie62 Feb 13 2012 09:00 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: Ashie62 wrote: He don't like catholics too much lol Actually, most Catholics use and support birth control. based on what?

Ceetar Feb 13 2012 09:16 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: He don't like catholics too much lol Actually, most Catholics use and support birth control. based on what? [url]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Religion-and-Contraceptive-Use.pdf So it's not like employees are really supportive of the the position the bishops have been taking.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2012 09:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Let's not descend into non-sequiter theater.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 13 2012 11:23 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm not certain that pointing out that most American Catholics do not adhere in practice to church doctrine on birth control (according to that survey and some others I've seen, never mind a shit-ton of statistically meaningless anecdotal evidence) IS a non-sequitur. Unless, of course, the idea behind politics is the politics itself, and not, y'know, finding practical solutions to actual problems. (That said, I like compromise, too. Big fan.)

Edgy MD Feb 14 2012 05:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

American Catholics, to a large degree, drink to excess. We drive over the speed limit, we talk shit about our neighbors, and we sometimes fail to declare income on our taxes. Not all of us mind you, but many of the faithful have been known to steal and distribute illegal drugs. Contrary to the teachings of our church, many American have called for the expulsion of undocumented aliens, and have turned their backs on the poor at home and abroad. During the Civil Rights movement, many white Catholics worked for the integration of society and access for all. But many others called for their bishops to help them resist integration and to accept their public school children at Catholic schools and to keep black children out. Catholics masturbate like fiends. Some of them have abortions, consume porn, and harm the dignity of their fellow human beings. They fight in unjust wars. Not all of them, but enough to give you pause if you really believe that adherence by the faithful is the main criterion by which you judge whether the bishops have a right to stand by their teaching in action. So far, 100% of Catholic presidents have been profoundly adulterous. Catholic teaching, whatever you think of it, isn't arrived at through the consensus of the (allegedly) faithful. Much of church teaching on contraception is ignored. Much of church teaching on everything is ignored, to varying degrees. But that's not the issue. The truth is that we're all going to come out of this OK.

Ceetar Feb 14 2012 06:54 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Catholic teaching, whatever you think of it, isn't arrived at through the consensus of the (allegedly) faithful. Much of church teaching on contraception is ignored. Much of church teaching on everything is ignored, to varying degrees. But that's not the issue. The truth is that we're all going to come out of this OK. Correct, but Catholic teaching has no place in politics. That's the point of separation of church and state. Church doctrine shouldn't dictate legislation, but the interests of the masses should. A person should be able to work for a a Catholic school without having to adhere to the bosses moral stance. Yeah ,we'll probably all be fine. What's this about Obama submitting a new budget? Heard someone say it has some educational focus?

metsmarathon Feb 14 2012 07:19 AM Re: Politics in 2012

well of course it has a place in politics. insofar as that teaching is "contraception is bad, m'kay" i mean, we could go all "get your religious morality out of my country," but then we really wouldn't have a country. that religious morality shit is part of the reason we declared independence, and a leading contributor to the freedom of our people of every color. i believe the church's thinking on contraception is deeply flawed, as i also think it's thinking on a few other issues is flawed. however, they have a right to their opinion, and they certainly have a right to express their opinion and argue for its adoption by the greater masses. i mean, i would expect anybody who thinks that they are right about an important topic to wish that others would agree with them. the part of religion that has no place is the simple rejoinder that "contraception is bad because god says so, or jesus says so, or this book over here says so if you read it a certain way, and if you disagree then you're going straight to hell, you dirty sinning motherfucker." and i don't think that the church is going that route. but i'm not really paying htat much attention to the whole thing. the church needs to explain why contraception is a bad idea, especially taking into account the world we live in, and have always lived in, and if they have a sufficiently strong basis for their opinion, then perhaps they will win the day. in a perfect world, there would be no need for contraception. people would only mate when they are married, and only when they are fully capable of raising and bringing children into the world. but there are mitigating factors, not all of which stem from the innate sinfulness of man. and even those that do, i should think that hte catholic church, of all groups, should be fully on board with the accomodation of the sins of man. man as sinner seems to be one of their running themes. f they were so bent out of shape over people committing sins and not wanting to facilitate its continuance, then they should really do away wit hthat whole forgiveness thing. and perhaps therein lies the solution. go to confession, get a condom. they could even tie a donation to the whole deal. think of hte marketing opprtunity!

Mets – Willets Point Feb 14 2012 07:30 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: He don't like catholics too much lol Yes, Obama hates Catholics. Obama is also Socialist, Fascist, a secret Muslim, and was born in Kenya. This is just another manufactured controversy for an election year.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 14 2012 07:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Catholic teaching, whatever you think of it, isn't arrived at through the consensus of the (allegedly) faithful. Much of church teaching on contraception is ignored. Much of church teaching on everything is ignored, to varying degrees. But that's not the issue. Actually it is part of the issue. The Pope and the Bishops do not hold a monopoly on knowing what is right and wrong. During the Vatican II council a special commission of learned theologians inspired by the Holy Spirit and informed by the Sense of the Faithful determined that artificial birth control within a loving marriage was not sinful. Paul VI, influenced by one powerful cardinal, suppressed the commission. Later popes whose driving goal has been to overturn the reforms of Vatican II have upheld the suppression. But the Church does not equal the Vatican hierarchy and the Church has determined that birth control is not sinful. There have been many instances throughout Church history where the faithful have remained true while the Pope and bishops have erred (the Arian controversy, the Cadaver Synod, the Western Schism, among others). I believe that in future days that people will look back at the hardline position against birth control in the same way. Especially considering that faithful Catholics have been excommunicated for taking a stance in favor of birth control. It's another example of a fearful hierarchy working to exert their worldly power instead of working towards the Kingdom of God. Sadder still that right wing elements within and without the church are using this to manufacture a wedge issue during an election year.

Edgy MD Feb 14 2012 07:52 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: Correct, but Catholic teaching has no place in politics. That's the point of separation of church and state. Church doctrine shouldn't dictate legislation, but the interests of the masses should. And this is where you couldn't be more wrong. All of our voices have a place in politics. Church doctrine does not "dictate" legislation. How is somebody disagreeing with you "dictating"? To the extent that "separation of church and state" is an American doctrine, that's not what it's about. Telling a dissenting voice to shut up is dictating. Actually it is part of the issue. The Pope and the Bishops do not hold a monopoly on knowing what is right and wrong. It's an issue, yes. An issue within the church. An enormous issue. It's not the issue on the table here.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 14 2012 08:04 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Actually it is part of the issue. The Pope and the Bishops do not hold a monopoly on knowing what is right and wrong. It's an issue, yes. An issue within the church. An enormous issue. It's not the issue on the table here. It's means the fact that the vast majority of American Catholics support and use birth control is relevant and they cannot be dismissed as "bad Catholics." So when bishops and right-wing pundits claim that their "2000 year old holy teaching" is being violated by the government but the Catholic Church doesn't even agree that this teaching is holy or correct, they're being disingenuous at best.

Ceetar Feb 14 2012 08:11 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Ceetar wrote: Correct, but Catholic teaching has no place in politics. That's the point of separation of church and state. Church doctrine shouldn't dictate legislation, but the interests of the masses should. And this is where you couldn't be more wrong. All of our voices have a place in politics. Church doctrine does not "dictate" legislation. How is somebody disagreeing with you "dictating"? To the extent that "separation of church and state" is an American doctrine, that's not what it's about. Telling a dissenting voice to shut up is dictating. yes, and the voice of the crazy guy down the block who wants to be able to shoot his black neighbor has a voice in politics too. Doesn't mean his opinion should lead to legislation. These things should be created in the best interest of the people, and while everyone is welcome to voice their opinion on what that is, interpretations of 2000 year old books should not hold much weight, and certainly not more weight, than reasoned arguments. The bishops want to claim they're speaking for Catholics, but really they're speaking for what they think Catholics should want. And they're clearly wrong in this case.

Vic Sage Feb 14 2012 08:36 AM Re: Politics in 2012

As we debate church doctrine and try to bend the spoon with our minds, lets just remember... there IS no spoon.

Edgy MD Feb 14 2012 09:29 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Your tone is just spectacularly insulting, Ceetar. Your position keeps shifting to the point where it is undiscrnable beyond the sniff of contempt.

Ceetar Feb 14 2012 09:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Your tone is just spectacularly insulting, Ceetar. Your position keeps shifting to the point where it is undiscrnable beyond the sniff of contempt. my position is not shifting. i'm not trying to be insulting, so i'm sorry if it's coming across that way. I simply don't want religious opinion to affect US legislation, specifically individual freedoms like the access to health care as put forth in that legislation. (Or the right to an abortion, or to marry who you love for other personal issues often railed against by religious sects) I'm not saying they don't have the right to voice their opinion, but that opinion is theirs, not the collective opinion of American catholics. but whatever, I'll move on. I'm sure I can find something better to do than argue with you about something that's already been decided. I'm pretty sure Obama is not going to further compromise to appease them at this point.

Ashie62 Feb 14 2012 09:44 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: Correct, but Catholic teaching has no place in politics. That's the point of separation of church and state. Church doctrine shouldn't dictate legislation, but the interests of the masses should. And this is where you couldn't be more wrong. All of our voices have a place in politics. Church doctrine does not "dictate" legislation. How is somebody disagreeing with you "dictating"? To the extent that "separation of church and state" is an American doctrine, that's not what it's about. Telling a dissenting voice to shut up is dictating. yes, and the voice of the crazy guy down the block who wants to be able to shoot his black neighbor has a voice in politics too. Doesn't mean his opinion should lead to legislation. These things should be created in the best interest of the people, and while everyone is welcome to voice their opinion on what that is, interpretations of 2000 year old books should not hold much weight, and certainly not more weight, than reasoned arguments. The bishops want to claim they're speaking for Catholics, but really they're speaking for what they think Catholics should want. And they're clearly wrong in this case. Scratch my balls you bigot.

Edgy MD Feb 14 2012 09:52 AM Re: Politics in 2012

And the introduction of your privates won't help.

Ashie62 Feb 14 2012 09:53 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: And the introduction of your privates won't help. I'm sorry....Fuck you Ceetar..hows that..

Edgy MD Feb 14 2012 09:57 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Although it may be an effective form of natural family planning.

Mets – Willets Point Feb 14 2012 10:15 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: The bishops want to claim they're speaking for Catholics, but really they're speaking for what they think Catholics should want. And they're clearly wrong in this case. This is a good summary right here.

metsmarathon Feb 14 2012 11:01 AM Re: Politics in 2012

religious opinion does and always has affected american legislation, and surely always will. as long as religion shapes the lives of the citizenry, it will shape the laws of our country. and that is not a bad thing. it is only a bad thing when Religion gets in the way of effective discourse, or when religion becomes the discourse.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 14 2012 09:12 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Ceetar wrote: The bishops want to claim they're speaking for Catholics, but really they're speaking for what they think Catholics should want. And they're clearly wrong in this case. This is a good summary right here. This is where I was going-- indirectly-- yesterday. If the overwhelming majority of the church's members practically disagree with the church bureaucracy's stance on this, then exactly whom are church advocates advocating? Whose rights are being trampled... especially since they aren't owners, but stewards of the money (tithed from its members, no?) that pays for these health plans? What-- in this limited instance-- are the church government's emissaries and lay "leaders" but corporate executive officers who find a particular legal responsibility onerous?

Edgy MD Feb 15 2012 05:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

That's not really the model they operate under. Many may think it should be, but it's not.

Edgy MD Feb 15 2012 05:33 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Santorum lands the all-important Dave Mustaine endorsement. Here's Mustaine expressing his sullen disappointment over the threats to the traditional family.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2012 09:53 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace Sells (But It Would Sell Much Better In A Market Boosted By Capital-Freeing Tax Cuts)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2012 10:07 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace Sells (But Not Nearly As Well As Cultural-Conservative Red Meat In The Primaries)

Edgy MD Feb 16 2012 07:23 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace Sells (And Does Especially Well When Packaged with a Side of Special-Forces and Unmanned Drone Assassinations)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 16 2012 07:28 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace Sells (But At A Hyperinflated Rate, And Only From Your "Doomsday Prepper" Neighbor, Ever Since The Worldwide Economic Collapse)

Ashie62 Feb 17 2012 09:30 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Kinda Politics and abit old but this is Ashie at about 1:06 in the red shirt in clip from the Michael Moore Ficus for Congress movie.. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jL6tfLM5dY&feature=related

metirish Feb 19 2012 07:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Kinda Politics and abit old but this is Ashie at about 1:06 in the red shirt in clip from the Michael Moore Ficus for Congress movie.. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jL6tfLM5dY&feature=related that's cool Peace Sells... But Santorum Ain't Buying

MFS62 Feb 19 2012 08:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace sells, so we'll let Israel bomb the crap out of Iran. Later

Nymr83 Feb 19 2012 10:36 AM Re: Politics in 2012

MFS62 wrote: Peace sells, so we'll let Israel bomb the crap out of Iran. Later I believe Israel is still waiting for a 'Thank You' card for Osirak.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 19 2012 01:45 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Peace sells, so we'll let Israel bomb the crap out of Iran. Later I believe Israel is still waiting for a 'Thank You' card for Osirak. Refresh my memory: is that the one that was designed by its French engineer expressly to NOT be convertible/usable for weapons-production?

Nymr83 Feb 19 2012 02:20 PM Re: Politics in 2012

[url]http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/IraqAtoZ.html you can read the whole thing as it is pretty interesting, but if you want you can just skip to the paragraph that begins with "The proliferation potential of Osirak..."

Edgy MD Feb 21 2012 09:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm Hillary Clinton. I wear what I wear.

Nymr83 Feb 21 2012 10:59 AM Re: Politics in 2012

She's either really happy to standout (anything to stay in the news ahead of her 2016 presidential campaign) or ready to kill whoever forgot to tell her they'd all be wearing white for the picture. But hey, Hillary looks downright stunning compared to Clinton's secretary of state!

Ashie62 Feb 21 2012 07:40 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Either way, that is one scary photo.

Edgy MD Feb 21 2012 09:06 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Also, what was with the rule that all the wimmens need to sit down in front?

themetfairy Feb 25 2012 10:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I just told D-Dad that if he ever has a mistress, he should not make a sex tape. When I explained that I was just watching CNN (setting up the DVR to tape metsguyinmichigan's national television debut tomorrow) they were talking about a tape that John Edwards had made with his then-pregnant mistress. D-Dad accurately referred to Edwards as a scumball....

MFS62 Feb 26 2012 01:04 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney still has problems thinking on his feet. And no matter how hard he tries, he still can't "connect" with the average folks. For example, when he was asked what cars he drives, he said "I drive a Mustang (a little out there)and a pickup truck (not bad). But then he went on to say that his wife has two (not one, two) Cadillacs, one at each home. (At least he omitted that she has a chauffer at each place) All he had to say "We have Ford and GM cars". Period. And that might have won him some of the Michigan auto worker votes he was looking for in the first place. Later

Ashie62 Feb 27 2012 10:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: I'm Hillary Clinton. I wear what I wear. The real leader of the G20

TransMonk Feb 29 2012 11:58 AM Re: Politics in 2012

My favorite Onion headline of the election so far... Romney Thanks State He Was Born And Raised In For Just Barely Giving Him Enough Votes To Beat Total Maniac

Nymr83 Feb 29 2012 04:05 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm interested, has anyone seen exit polls broken down by party affiliation? Michigan has open primaries right? So did Dems show up to vote for the guy they presumably like better or the guy their guy is more likely to trounce?

Ashie62 Feb 29 2012 05:40 PM Re: Politics in 2012

CNN Flashed a graphic of exit polling of Dems voting in Michigan...Santorum 50% Romney 15%

Edgy MD Feb 29 2012 05:41 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Vote by Party ID Gingrich Paul Romney Santorum Uncommitted Other/No Answer Democrat (9%) 3% 17% 18% 53% 6% 3% =#FF0000]Republican (60%) 7% 6% 48% 37% 1% 1% =#800080]Independent (31%) 7% 21% 35% 34% 2% 1% (2,200 Respondents)

Ceetar Feb 29 2012 06:07 PM Re: Politics in 2012

What percentage of those Democrats do you think are actually not going to vote for Obama that it matters? Were they voting Santorum in a "most likely to lose" way?

metsguyinmichigan Feb 29 2012 07:20 PM Re: Politics in 2012

It's over, at least that's what poli-sci profs, pollsters and pundits tell me. [url]http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/02/experts_mitt_romneys_michigan.html It was a pretty wild week. I was able to cover a Romney rally on Monday morning and spent some time with Santorum on Tuesday afternoon before attending his election night party. You could tell it wasn't going well, the room seemed to have as many media people as attendees, and it seemed like a deflated balloon, even before he came out for the non-concession speech. The whole Democrats voting thing turned out to be nonsense. As James Carville said, the Dems have enough trouble getting Dems to show up at elections when Dems are on the ballot, much less in Republican elections. To be fair, Romney's crowd wasn't all fired up, either. I've covered political rallies where the atmosphere absolutely crackled with excitement, and these were pretty flat. Ron Paul actually draws the biggest crowds. His people are loyal to a fault -- there just aren't enough of them. Santorum carried most of the outstate, especially the conservative areas in West Michigan. But Romney took the Detroit suburbs and some of the more populated areas. One of the profs said these two weeks were Santorum's chance to show he could withstand the negative ads and glare of the spotlight. He failed.

Edgy MD Feb 29 2012 07:54 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, I don't know if it's the distasteful turn these campaigns have taken from time to time, but the greater story is the more the Republican turnout than the Democratic one. Romney did better among Catlicks. Santorum better among Proddies. That can't be good for either.

The Second Spitter Mar 16 2012 07:49 PM Re: Politics in 2012

MoveOn.org ad on the GOP's War on Women. [youtube:ll7y6t27]IfjAMRgpoug[/youtube:ll7y6t27] Not sure who the intended audience is, but the message is effective. Good luck, Rick!

Edgy MD Mar 16 2012 07:53 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, the war-on-women thing. Rick Santorum heads into Puerto Rico with an endorsement from Carlos Baerga. Watch out!

The Second Spitter Mar 16 2012 08:43 PM Re: Politics in 2012

^ Wow, that must be the most esoteric endorsement since Tinkerbell endorsed Obama. Speaking of Obama, it's nice to see some people Down South showing their hand so early.

Edgy MD Mar 16 2012 08:52 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Without clicking, I'm going to guess it's the "Re-N**" sticker.

The Second Spitter Mar 26 2012 09:59 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney: "Russia is #1 foe" Great to see the Republicans using "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" as the basis for their foreign policy platform.

Ashie62 Mar 26 2012 10:15 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney: "Russia is #1 foe" Great to see the Republicans using "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" as the basis for their foreign policy platform. You are painting that wildly out of context.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 26 2012 10:25 PM Re: Politics in 2012

The actual context: Santorum said something about Romney being roughly equivalent to Obama, and kindasorta implied that you might just as well vote for Obama if you're choosing between those two... so Romney decided to take the "high road" by playing pin-the-tail-on-the-foreign-enemy/Obama instead.

The Second Spitter Mar 26 2012 11:02 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Who is it that always stands up with the world's worst actors? It's always Russia, typically with China alongside. In terms of a geopolitical foe, a nation that’s on the Security Council, and as of course a massive nuclear power, Russia is the geopolitical foe. The idea that our president is planning on doing something with them that he's not willing to tell the American people before the election is something I find very, very alarming Yes, the context clarifies that it's hyperbole-filled, hysteria-inducing slapdash.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 26 2012 11:35 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Hey, man, that's no slapdash-- that's "ill-conceived but painstakingly-chosen dreck, carefully distilled from a larger dreckpile compiled daily by a team of dozens of drecky advisors with sharp haircuts, executed with painful, painful awkwardness by a man who's running away from a successful, temperate gubernatorial record with gusto and similarly painful awkwardness." Mind your diction.

The Second Spitter Mar 26 2012 11:38 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I like how you called it "painful, painful awkwardness" -- it almost rhymes with "very, very alarming".

Edgy MD Apr 03 2012 09:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney lands the all-important Gene Simmons endorsement. Demons endorsing Mormons. What a country!

TransMonk Apr 03 2012 09:47 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'll be voting in the presidential primary (and local stuff) over lunch. We'll have a gubernatorial recall primary in May and a gubernatorial recall election in June, as well. I don't think I have gone to the polls four times in one year before.

Edgy MD Apr 10 2012 12:16 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Santorum suspending.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 10 2012 12:29 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Thanks Sarah Palin for teaching him how to quit.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 10 2012 12:32 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Probably saw an embarrassing loss in his home state on the horizon, and wanted no part of that.

TransMonk Apr 10 2012 12:33 PM Re: Politics in 2012

So, it's going to be Romney? Fuckin' shocker.

Edgy MD Apr 10 2012 12:40 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Gingrich should follow in short order after Pennsylvania. Paul will probably hang around, not as a real candidate, but as a figurehead for his movement, before turning the reins over to his son.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 10 2012 12:53 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Even though it was obvious that Romney would be the candidate four (or more) months ago, I think the GOP has benefited by the extended primary. Romney is obviously the guy that the Republican's true base wants. He's a one-percenter who will work to help end regulation for corporations while giving them more taxpayer-funded handouts, will cut taxes on the rich, and will try to crush unions and workers' rights so that corporations have a steady supply of cheap, disposable labor. But Romney had problems with the extended base, those people who vote Republican against their economic interests on social issues. He's from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, has a history of "moderate" views on gays and abortion, and his religion is suspicious to Christian conservatives. Now George Bush was able to work around similar problems (born in elite New England, educated at Yale & Harvard & the third generation of Washington insiders) and win over these voters by playing a folksy rube (or maybe he was a folksy rube?) but Romney hadn't been able to break his image problem. Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul all offered something to the social conservatives and as long as it seemed like any one these three had a chance they were kept in the GOP fold. By debating them Romney also had to make public pronouncements and promises to the Republican right. I think if his nomination were a "done deal" back in January, the Tea Party and others of their ilk may have even split off and supported their own candidate, building on the success they had in getting their way in the Congressional elections of 2010. This would obviously hurt the Republicans' chances in the general election, and with Obama being very unpopular these days, the Tea Party may have even eked out an electoral victory. Instead the party is unified by a now more conservatively credible Romney and stands a good chance of winning the Presidency come November

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 10 2012 01:01 PM Re: Politics in 2012

My arch conservative Facebook pals already crying that there'll be "2 democrats" running in Nov. I think maybe Romney appoints a hardcore running mate as a means of extending his image, for his sake one from a state like Va. or Ohio.

Edgy MD Apr 10 2012 01:25 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney: "Senator Santorum is an able and worthy competitor, and I congratulate him on the campaign he ran." Paul's campaign: "Dr. Paul is now the last – and real – conservative alternative to Mitt Romney." Gingrich: Pledges to stay in GOP race until convention to give conservatives "a real choice."

Nymr83 Apr 10 2012 08:46 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: Romney: "Senator Santorum is an able and worthy competitor, and I congratulate him on the campaign he ran." Translation: "Now that i have vanquished my opponent, I will heap praise on him so that he will endorse me, speak at my [crossout]crowning ceremony[/crossout] National Convention, and possibly become my running mate."

Edgy MD Apr 10 2012 08:49 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm betting big ducats against his running-matiness.

MFS62 Apr 10 2012 10:18 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Based on what he says about the purpose of sex, I'm guessing this is the first time Santorum has pulled out. Later

metsguyinmichigan Apr 11 2012 05:06 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Folks I interviewed yesterday said there's no chance that Santorum becomes the veep nominee, and poor polling in his home state was behind the decision to leave the race. They called him an over-achiever in the race who did well to rehabilitate his image after the 18-point loss in his last Senate campaign, but didn't have the organization or money to hang in there. The experts pointed out something interesting. Santorum was winning in many of the states that Republicans usually win in the general, but Romney was doing well in the states the GOP usually loses - Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan -- and the states they must win, like Ohio and Florida. The speculation was that if Romney can carry the states the GOP usually wins, and can pick off one or two of the blue states -- Michigan? -- he can win.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 11 2012 07:32 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metsguyinmichigan wrote: The speculation was that if Romney can carry the states the GOP usually wins, and can pick off one or two of the blue states -- Michigan? -- he can win. That seems like a reasonable game plan. I figure that Romney will likely win all of the states that McCain won, and Obama won't win all of the states that he won in 2008. So the question is, which states will Romney pick off, and will they add up to enough electoral votes? I figure Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio are all in play to one degree or another. Did Obama win North Carolina? If so, add that one to the list.

Edgy MD Apr 11 2012 07:43 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Then-Senator Obama totally won North Carolina. It was by the skin of his no-longer-smokey teeth, but he was the first Democratic candidate to carry the Tar Heel State since then-Governor Jimmy Carter in 1976. Candidate Votes % Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) 2,142,651 49.69 Senator John McCain (R-AZ) 2,128,474 49.36 The winning edge? Basketball.

Gwreck Apr 11 2012 06:07 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Obama won Indiana in 2008 as well. Basically, Obama can afford to lose 3 of 4 between North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Lose all 4 and Romney probably wins.

Edgy MD Apr 11 2012 07:44 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Indiana --- another basketball state.

Ashie62 Apr 11 2012 07:57 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney/Christie.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 11 2012 08:35 PM Re: Politics in 2012

veeps who would have attended the same college (Delaware). I can't see that happening though.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 11 2012 08:52 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: Romney/Christie. Northeast governor tag-team? I'm not going to say there's no chance of this happening, but I'd sooner bet on an actual pro wrestling tag-team getting the nom.

Ashie62 Apr 11 2012 08:56 PM Re: Politics in 2012

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Romney/Christie. Northeast governor tag-team? I'm not going to say there's no chance of this happening, but I'd sooner bet on an actual pro wrestling tag-team getting the nom. I'm mainly going on Christie's audition in Israel.

Edgy MD Apr 16 2012 07:16 PM Re: Politics in 2012

So, the Secret Service. Incredibly disgraceful or disgracefully incredible?

Nymr83 Apr 16 2012 07:37 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: So, the Secret Service. Incredibly disgraceful or disgracefully incredible? If this had happened in DC I'd say some reprimands were in order, but for anyone who is part of the president's entourage to behave like this as guests overseas is embarassing to the president and the country, they should be fired.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 16 2012 08:03 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm almost to the point of so-incredible-it's-amusing. I mean, leave aside the 5-6 reasons that it's a major judgement error professionally, and the ethics of the infidelity/paying for sex thing, and the emissaries-of-our-country thing... and just focus on this for a second: they thought it best to HAGGLE PUBLICLY WITH A PROSTITUTE WHILE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 16 2012 08:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

That's what's so incredible to me, too. That they apparently didn't even try to be circumspect.

Edgy MD Apr 16 2012 09:30 PM Re: Politics in 2012

So, the Secret Service. Incredibly disgraceful or disgracefully incredible? If this had happened in DC I'd say some reprimands were in order, but for anyone who is part of the president's entourage to behave like this as guests overseas is embarassing to the president and the country, they should be fired. Oh, if this is remotely true, without a doubt. The job I'm more concerned with is the director's. This (again, if true) is clearly a systemic thing. On top of the Salahi party-crashing, this has been a disastrous term for the Service. Add onto that the obvious reality that the agents assigned to the president's team should be the most elite in the business. Add onto that both incidents pretty clearly compromised the safety of the president/presidency. I'm staggered. There was an Onion headline when Steve Jobs died, something like: "Last Guy in America Who Knew What the Fuck He Was Doing Dies." Stupid shit, but some days I think about that headline a lot.

Nymr83 Apr 17 2012 08:10 AM Re: Politics in 2012

So, the Secret Service. Incredibly disgraceful or disgracefully incredible? If this had happened in DC I'd say some reprimands were in order, but for anyone who is part of the president's entourage to behave like this as guests overseas is embarassing to the president and the country, they should be fired. Oh, if this is remotely true, without a doubt. The job I'm more concerned with is the director's. This (again, if true) is clearly a systemic thing. On top of the Salahi party-crashing, this has been a disastrous term for the Service. Add onto that the obvious reality that the agents assigned to the president's team should be the most elite in the business. Add onto that both incidents pretty clearly compromised the safety of the president/presidency. I'm staggered. There was an Onion headline when Steve Jobs died, something like: "Last Guy in America Who Knew What the Fuck He Was Doing Dies." Stupid shit, but some days I think about that headline a lot. Yeah, given the party-crashing thing and this latest incident Obama would do well to fire the secret service's boss as well.

metirish Apr 18 2012 01:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Frayed Knot Apr 18 2012 01:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Now THAT's a good one. I, however, find myself much more pissed off about the whole GSA story.

Ashie62 Apr 18 2012 04:25 PM Re: Politics in 2012

New President will bring a new cadre to the secret service.

Edgy MD Apr 18 2012 10:18 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I doubt it. The agency has two assignments --- protect the presidency and protect the currency --- and they're both pretty a-political. A new director could certainly help, but it won't take a new president to get a new director. Yeah, the GSA mess is probably more significant. I suppose it could grow going forward, but I'm kind of curious why it isn't a bigger story, election year and all.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 19 2012 07:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ashie62 wrote: New President will bring a new cadre to the secret service. Mark Sullivan, director of the Secret Service, is a Bush-era appointee so the problems at the agency transcend Presidents or parties. I've long thought the Secret Service should be disbanded. Our elected officials are representatives of the people in a democracy and are not elites who deserve special treatment. Presidents and other elected leaders should have to take their chances just like everyone else. Consider September 11th where one man (George W. Bush) had the secret service, the military, and a private jet to protect him as he was whisked away to a bunker in Omaha while the rest of the country had to face the terror unprotected with thousands paying for it with their lives. Additionally, it would be more difficult for our elected leaders to be alienated from the day-to-day problems of the people if they had to live more like the rest of us. This is as good a time as any to do away with the elitist and outdated Secret Service.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 19 2012 08:03 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I think without the Secret Service (or some other agency providing protection), we'd have a new dead president every week. There are a lot of crazy people, and a lot of guns, out there.

Ceetar Apr 19 2012 08:06 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Our elected officials are representatives of the people in a democracy and are not elites who deserve special treatment. They're not protected because they're elites, they're protected because they're targets. I'm fine with that, I'd rather go the other way and stop treating regular citizens like criminals on the subway or at the airport.(or at BJs, but that's a private thing) Every tourist with a camera near a bridge or the 7 train is not a terrorist.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 19 2012 08:17 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Ceetar wrote: They're not protected because they're elites, they're protected because they're targets. Isn't Granny with $20 in her purse a target for muggers? Aren't women frequently targets of rapists? Weren't the employees going about their daily work in the World Trade Center targets of Al Qaeda? Everyone is a target but only the "elites" get a buff dude in a dark suit with an earpiece and a gun to protect them at all times. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think without the Secret Service (or some other agency providing protection), we'd have a new dead president every week. There are a lot of crazy people, and a lot of guns, out there. Yep, there are a lot of guns out there and as a result 11,015 Americans died in 2010 alone. None of them were elected officials. None of them had Secret Service protection because apparently they were serfs whose lives meant nothing.

Nymr83 Apr 19 2012 08:22 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Not having appropriate protection for elected officials is absurd. If you think the threats to "granny" are the same as those to the president of the united states, you should be committed to an asylum.

Ceetar Apr 19 2012 08:25 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Everyone is a target but only the "elites" get a buff dude in a dark suit with an earpiece and a gun to protect them at all times. difference between specific target and general violence. muggers may target grannys with a purse, but they're not researching, as a whole, my granny and her patterns and when she goes to the market and how long she's out of sight of the security camera in the parking lot. And if someone did make a real threat against her, the police would in fact protect her. (maybe not _as much_ but then she doesn't know secrets that compromise national security) If a witness testifies in a trial against a criminal, they also may get protection. it exists. same for the Trade Center. Probably should've been protecting it _more_.

metsmarathon Apr 19 2012 08:44 AM Re: Politics in 2012

well, the president is the commander in chief of the entire us military. also, with all the effort that we go through to elect the president, it's fairly well incumbent upon us to wish that he survives. and while hte attack and murder of a granny carrying $20 in her purse is certainly a terrible thing that can destroy families and lives, the targeted assassination of a sitting president can destabilize an economy, a nation, and even a world, wreaking far more havoc on far more people than poor granny. there is a reason presidents get targeted. to hopefully cause such disruption, and to advance a cause, be it political or strategic. and there is a reason we should thwart those attacks. also, in addition to being hte commander in chief of the us military and hte leader of this fine nation, the president of the united states is the (arguable) leader of hte free world, and is targeted for that reason as well. and finally, if the president is not elite, we sure as fuck have elected the wrong motherfucker.

Edgy MD Apr 19 2012 09:01 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I like to think that if I'm president, yeah, I forgo the trappings of the presidency. Walk to work, shake some hands, refuse to attend inaugural balls, and yeah, shed my Secret Service detail. That's me --- a real dude, not a suit. If I die that way, I would hope it would be fast, and millions of sinners would repent in their weeping for saintly me. I'm serious. Not sure I can ask that of anybody else though. I do know that without the Secret Service, Sasha and Malia Obama would be in enemy hands in about 25 seconds. I guess the president would have the private citizen's choice of paying for his family's own security, but that would be an enormous job that would outstrip the income of 95% of us. Only the elite would come to play such a game. Or a corporation or rich private donor would underwrite his security detail and that would perhaps create troubling relationships. I get swept off the street when the presidential motorcade comes through here in DC. I don't like it, and I don't like to see how it's all become so militarized and like so much of our security culture, has lost all perspective and dehumanizes us. I accept that their role isn't about protecting the president, but the presidency, which isn't merely a person but a public trust and a deep public interest. (Politicians start dropping, it won't be people power that fills the void, but corporations and cartels.) But when you take the mission to a level where it eclipses other equal and humanizing concerns, scandals like that in Cartagena become heartbreakingly inevitable.

Edgy MD May 09 2012 01:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

So, who else is gonna go out tonight and marry a dude?

Mets – Willets Point May 09 2012 01:32 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm not sure if he's a couple of days late on this or if he held off hoping that he wouldn't negatively influence the "I hate Obama and will vote against everything he favors" crowd.

metirish May 09 2012 01:33 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: So, who else is gonna go out tonight and marry a dude? Obama is hemming and hawing as to what to do .

metsmarathon May 09 2012 08:08 PM Re: Politics in 2012

i don't get why people have a problem with homosexuality. men? more gay men = more available women. more gay women = more lesbians, and who doesn't like lesbians. women? more gay men = more gay friends, and what woman doesn't need more gay friends? more gay women = more lesbians. again, who doesn't like lesbians. everybody wins. and really, ew heteros have so seriously fucked up the holy sacred institution of marriage, lets give the gays a turn.

MFS62 May 10 2012 07:26 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Considering all the other issues (jobs, economy, terrorism, health care, etc.), if this becomes the primary issue of the election, no matter what our sexual orientation, we're all fucked. Later

Benjamin Grimm May 10 2012 07:27 AM Re: Politics in 2012

That seems extremely unlikely.

metsguyinmichigan May 10 2012 07:57 AM Re: Politics in 2012

It's a distraction issue, like the contraception debate not long ago. This is intended to get the Republicans to stop talking about the economy and focus on social issues, including ones like this that aren't even federal issues. I've heard that this was supposed to drop just before the convention, and Biden screwed up by talking about it earlier. Curious to see whether Romney takes the bait for more than an obligatory response. I covered his appearance in Lansing this week, and his message was entirely on the economy.

seawolf17 May 10 2012 09:54 AM Re: Politics in 2012

It's stupid that human rights are a political football.

Benjamin Grimm May 10 2012 10:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Romney apologizes after bullying incidents in high school revealed By Robin Abcarian 11:07 a.m. CDT, May 10, 2012 A Washington Post investigation into Mitt Romney’s years at the Cranbrook School in Michigan, which included a disturbing account of Romney bullying a student who later turned out to be gay, earned an unusual apology from the presumptive GOP presidential nominee this morning. The incident came to light one day after President Barack Obama said he supports same sex marriage, and Romney reiterated his opposition. "Back in high school, I did some dumb things," Romney said during a radio interview this morning, reported by the Post. "And if anyone was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that. The Post said the call with Brian Kilmeade of Fox News, was hastily arranged by the campaign to respond to the potentially damaging story. The Washington Post story, by Jason Horowitz, detailed a 1965 incident, witnessed by at least five Cranbrook students, in which Romney, incensed by the dyed blond locks of a fellow student, led what the Post described as a "posse" of students in a charge against the boy, threw him to the ground and hacked off his hair. "He can’t look like that," Romney told a close friend at the time. "That’s wrong. Just look at him!" No one was punished for the incident, according to a number of witnesses, who the Post tracked down and interviewed. The Post also detailed incidents where Romney said "Atta girl," in class to a closeted gay student, and deliberately held a door closed while an sight-impaired teacher walked into it. But it is the story involving John Lauber, described as "a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney" walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye" that may cause problems for Romney. After Romney rounded up some friends, including Matthew Friedmann, who gave his version of the story to the Post, "they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors." Lauber, who died in 2004, was traumatized by the incident, according to a witness who bumped into him years later at a bar in Chicago O’Hare International Airport. "It was horrible," Lauber reportedly told David Seed, a witness to the event, who apologized to Lauber for not helping stop it, the Post said. "I’m a very different person than I was in high school, of course, but I’m glad I learned as much as I did during those high school years," Romney told Fox today, according to the Post. "I’m quite a different guy now. I’m married, have five sons five daughters-in-law and now 18 grandchildren. "There’s going to be some that want to talk about high school. Well, if you really think that’s important, be my guest."

Mets – Willets Point May 10 2012 10:59 AM Re: Politics in 2012

"Back in high school, I did some dumb things," Is this not true for every human being who has ever attended high school? Politics is going to be impossible if people are going to be called on for things that they did in high school.

Benjamin Grimm May 10 2012 11:06 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Everyone did dumb things, but not everyone did mean and nasty things.

metsmarathon May 10 2012 11:16 AM Re: Politics in 2012

jesus shit, just when i thought politics couldn't get any stupider.

Edgy MD May 10 2012 11:17 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Those alleged actions suck, but... I got my share of bullying in high school and middle school, but it wasn't until years later I realized that I had joined willingly and actively in the abuse of at least one other guy, probably more. It seemed light and fun and harmless at the time, but if he absorbed it the way I absorbed mine, he went to bed feeling pretty horrible. Sorry, Kyle. But yeah, it's going to be a long --- and horribly unproductive and un-illuminating --- campaign if we start it out by debating about the candidates' actions as juveniles.

metirish May 10 2012 11:34 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Just like every other recent campaign though, right?

Edgy MD May 10 2012 11:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Vote independent. Vote write-in. Make your vote hard to win.

G-Fafif May 10 2012 01:09 PM Re: Politics in 2012

That settles it: I'm not voting for any 18-year-old prep school student for president ever.

Ashie62 May 11 2012 08:41 PM Re: Politics in 2012

atta girl!

G-Fafif May 12 2012 03:44 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 May 14 2012 03:11 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'll vote for BULLY over PU**Y any day of the week. I hope Romney will BULLY America's enemies instead of telling them he'll be able to do a better job kowtowing after the election.

metsmarathon May 15 2012 09:47 AM Re: Politics in 2012

i don't think the us of a needs to act the bully in it's foreign relations, running roughshod over those nations too weak to stand up to us, stealing the lunch money from those nations too small to oppose us, and running away crying at the first upstart to punch us in the mouth. a bully does not respond to enemies - he generates them. a bully is a bad thing. romney may well have been one in the past, and i don't know if he is one now, but i sure as hell don't want one for a president. i don't want a pussy either, of course. i suppose i want an eagle scout, or a marine. do what's right. stand up for what's right. seek out what's right. don't back down. that's what i want.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 15 2012 10:26 AM Re: Politics in 2012

False choices don't enlighten debate any more than bringing up prep-school hijinks does.

sharpie May 15 2012 10:41 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Most of the time I would agree but what Kid Mitt allegedly did was really beyond the pale. From what others who participated in the event say, it sounds like a particularly brutal assault on a kid because they thought he might be gay or at least offended them because of his dyed hair. Not that it is totally equivalent, but if a candidate had raped someone back in prep school, shouldn't that disqualify him? I don't think you get a pass because you're young. TP'ing someone's house, fine. Minor league shoplifting, fine. But deliberate cruelty especially toward someone who he had no personal issues with but merely didn't like the look of, that isn't ok.

Edgy MD May 15 2012 11:07 AM Re: Politics in 2012

sharpie wrote: Not that it is totally equivalent, but if a candidate had raped someone back in prep school, shouldn't that disqualify him? Maybe. If you otherwise supported Bill Clinton, should the credible accounts of acquaintance rape and other degrees of sexual assault in his past have disqualified him if you were armed with them when you went into the voting booth?

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2012 11:16 AM Re: Politics in 2012

As someone who did vote for Bill Clinton twice, I'd have to say no, that wouldn't have disqualified him from getting my vote. I wouldn't have wanted him as a brother-in-law, but I was okay with him being President. I have to say the same about Romney. If this story is true, then he's a jerk and an asshole and I wouldn't want him for a brother-in-law either. But if I agreed with his policies, I'd probably vote for him anyway. (I don't and I won't, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

Edgy MD May 15 2012 11:17 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't know what the answer is. It's all very murky. Some of the witnesses gave varying accounts of whether they were there at all, there as witnesses, or active participants. I think we remember these shameful things as we need to remember them, in order to live with ourselves. It sounds horrible. But it also sounds like, although they portray him as the ringleader, they were caught up in it just as much as he was. Then there's the reality that, while the incident appears to have been widely known, no punishments were meted out. Clearly the culture at some level, allowed for this sort of thing, and young men in packs get caught up in culture, no matter how stupid. This certainly doesn't absolve him, but it contextualizes it. Just as the relative youth does. I'm not planning on voting for Romney. If I otherwise was, would this sway me. Eh, um... maybe I'd like to hear him speak about it before deciding. I'm no big fan of President Obama's famed Philadelphia speech, but maybe Governor Romney would do well to give us one of those: a frank speech about his past and his coming to terms with it.

metirish May 15 2012 11:45 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I think my main problem with the Romney thing is that he still doesn't care for gays.

Benjamin Grimm May 15 2012 11:53 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't think he's going to get an endorsement from John Travolta.

sharpie May 15 2012 12:15 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Fair point on Clinton. Paula Jones didn't seem particularly credible back when folks were voting for or against Bill Clinton. Clinton wasn't alleged to have gang raped anyone, however. Maybe it's the collective assault part of it that seems particularly loathsome to me. Coupled with what Irish noted.

Lefty Specialist May 15 2012 01:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

What Romney did as a 17-year-old bothers me (as someone who got picked on in high school), but it bothers me a lot less than what he proposes to do as a 66-year-old.

The Second Spitter May 18 2012 12:02 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Curt Schilling, tea bag shill (pun intended) gets caught to the tune of $75m in public money.

Nymr83 May 21 2012 10:07 AM Re: Politics in 2012

"Gets caught"? It sounds like his company is struggling to repay a loan, hardly a crime unless you'd like to re-open debtors prisons. If the state of Maryland didn't like the business opportunity presented by the loan then they were free to not invest, I don't see anything in the news about there being fraudulent or otherwise illegal conduct involved.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 21 2012 02:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm pretty sure that SS was referring to the fact that he's a public face of "slash government to the bone" who's going to the government for a handout in the form of debt absolution.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 07:20 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I've gotten sick and tired of Nanny Bloomberg, whose latest stunt is to decide to try and ban "sugary drinks" of more than 16 ounces from being sold at NYC restaurants. Bloomberg has to go, I'm just afraid whoever replaces him will be just as big a "nanny" but will also lack an understanding of economics, will cave to public worker unions, raise our taxes, and will deter the effective police tactics that have prevailed under Guiliani and Bloomberg.

Edgy MD May 31 2012 07:59 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I can't find a soda under 20 ounces anymore. I don't need a ban, but how about an option?

TransMonk May 31 2012 08:25 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I really enjoyed the half-liter bottles of water/soda in Italy. A little less daunting at ~16.9 oz. Am I less of a patriot if I favor the metric system?

Nymr83 May 31 2012 08:32 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: I can't find a soda under 20 ounces anymore. I don't need a ban, but how about an option? I know the Duane Reade next to my office has 6-packs of miniature cans of soda (they are 12 Oz. I think), is there Duane Reade in your area?

Ceetar May 31 2012 08:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: I really enjoyed the half-liter bottles of water/soda in Italy. A little less daunting at ~16.9 oz. Am I less of a patriot if I favor the metric system? I've been meaning to train myself a little more to think metrically. Probably silly, but I don't want to be multiplying every KM by 1.6 when I'm in Europe, or every KG by 2.2. I can get behind a sugary drink tax, even am sorta okay with a trans fat ban, but banning big sizes seems excessive. also, common dietary advice suggests I have like 125 ounces of water/liquid a day. need big sizes for that. I see cans and 12oz bottles of soda alllll over the place, but then I'm never in DC.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 08:51 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm not ok with the tran fat ban, I'm sure King George would approve the Sugar Tax, but I don't! What I'd like to see is a ban on using food stamps for soda and other such products. If you want to be unhealthy on your dime that should be your business, but there's really no more reason for the taxpayer to buy you a Coke than there is for buying you Rum or Cigarettes.

Vic Sage May 31 2012 08:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

no sugary treats for the poor? But what ever happened to the prevailing attitude of the ruling elite on this subject: "let them eat cake"?

A Boy Named Seo May 31 2012 09:15 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I can't find a soda under 20 ounces anymore. I don't need a ban, but how about an option? I know the Duane Reade next to my office has 6-packs of miniature cans of soda (they are 12 Oz. I think), is there Duane Reade in your area? I remember when mini cans of 12 oz. soda used to just be called 'a can of soda'.

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2012 09:25 AM Re: Politics in 2012

There are mini-cans that have less than 12 ounces. I think they're 8 ounces. They're pretty small. I've seen them in the supermarkets.

Ceetar May 31 2012 09:31 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There are mini-cans that have less than 12 ounces. I think they're 8 ounces. They're pretty small. I've seen them in the supermarkets. I don't even get the point of that. what's next, selling sips of soda? Other things I don't get: 11.2 ounce bottles of beer.

TransMonk May 31 2012 09:36 AM Re: Politics in 2012

The 8 oz. cans are good for mixers.

Ceetar May 31 2012 09:41 AM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: The 8 oz. cans are good for mixers. ooooh, good point.

Edgy MD May 31 2012 10:09 AM Re: Politics in 2012

There is no downside to the trans fat ban. It's a standard health regulation. The next consumer who can detect the difference between trans fat and your standard polyunsaturated fat will be the first.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 10:48 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Vic Sage wrote: no sugary treats for the poor? But what ever happened to the prevailing attitude of the ruling elite on this subject: "let them eat cake"? Let them eat salad! :) Edgy DC wrote: There is no downside to the trans fat ban. It's a standard health regulation. The next consumer who can detect the difference between trans fat and your standard polyunsaturated fat will be the first. I believe Applebees was forced to take the Apple Pie off their New York Menu as a result of this ban, it was still available in NJ and this was the reason they gave at least. Perhaps you are right and there is no taste difference, but if so why use transfats? There is probably a cost savings (which is ultimately passed on to the consumer.). If consumers want less fatty (and presumably slightly more expensive) non-trans fat food, the free market will produce that outcome. You guys are right about the sodas, the 8 Oz cans are the "mini-cans" I was referring to (I guess people wanted smaller cans and the market responded!) Edgy had said he can't find anything smaller than 20 which I find strange, aren't 12 ounce cans prevalent everywhere? Or do you only have the bottles for some reason? Transmonk wrote: The 8 oz. cans are good for mixers. I think I can remember them at catering halls and fancier bars long before I saw them in stores, so there is a good chance that that was the original nitch they were made to fill.

Ceetar May 31 2012 11:50 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Perhaps you are right and there is no taste difference, but if so why use transfats? There is probably a cost savings (which is ultimately passed on to the consumer.). If consumers want less fatty (and presumably slightly more expensive) non-trans fat food, the free market will produce that outcome. I disagree. Do markets ever adjust to slight differences like that? Do people eat at say McDonalds over Burger King because the burger meal is 20cents more or 20 calories less? nevermind that very few places are actually disclosing the trans fat. Most of the time a large portion of the market is driven by advertising, marketing, and availability. The general public is not usually presented with a trans fat versus not trans fat option at the restaurant. Look at craft beer for example. big market increase over the last couple of years, but it's a drop in the bucket. It's taken years and years and years and the market still hasn't reach it's level. Because we're force-fed Budweiser through ad campaigns, pricing and available to big stores (say a grocery store, which is unlikely to have a large, if any, craft section even if it's down the street from the brewery but will have 10 different varieties produced by Coors in Denver) the supply never really reaches market and chicken/egg means everyone still makes most of their money on the big brands so there's no real desire to push it. (Nevermind the dirty practices, which are pretty bad too)

metsmarathon May 31 2012 11:58 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: If consumers want less fatty (and presumably slightly more expensive) non-trans fat food, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want less cancer-causing, and presumably less effective, insulation than asbestos, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want less mental-defect causing lead in their paint, albeit with less coverage and duller whites, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want more UV-blocking ozone up in the sky, at the cost of less oomph in their CFC-free hair spray, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want fewer PCB's in their rivers and streams, at the cost of slightly higher cost of manufactured goods, as well as the effort required to research the entire supply chain and the lifecycle of all of hte materials and processes which go into a manufactured product, the free market will produce that outcome. the free market doesn't always know best. not that the "government" knows best either, but on hte rare instances where it does, well, why not let it do something right? banning soda may not be the right thing to do. it probably isn't, necessarily. it's been discussed before, but perhaps the appropriate step is to de-subsidize hte corn industry, making HFCS more expensive, and therefore the highly manufactured foods which rely upon its cheapness will become more expensive, tipping the scales somewhat backwards to favor the purchase of healthier more-whole foods.

Edgy MD May 31 2012 12:08 PM Re: Politics in 2012

The free market is a wonderful corrective, but it's often enough late to the party, like at Love Canal. Sometimes the free market expresses itself in the market of wills at the ballot box, that elects wise governments that create regulations that act on behalf of the people they represent, and regulate for and against things coming at them before they come, discerning with the help of experts what threatens people before it gets to market. If the people later feel that they got screwed out of an awesome dessert, they can elect somebody else. In this case, they got screwed out of nothing. Yes, trans fat costs less to use. No, that savings didn't get passed on the consumer, because the competition was using the shit also, and the free market sets the price of goods. Meantime, hundreds of thousands were dying preventable deaths.

Mets – Willets Point May 31 2012 12:16 PM Re: Politics in 2012

“Unless we deliberately restrict our choices by creating restrictive rules, thereby simplifying the environment that we have to deal with, our bounded rationality cannot cope with the complexity of the world. It is not because the government necessarily knows better that we need regulation. It is in the humble recognition of our limited mental capability that we do.” – p. 177 from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang

Ceetar May 31 2012 12:19 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: “Unless we deliberately restrict our choices by creating restrictive rules, thereby simplifying the environment that we have to deal with, our bounded rationality cannot cope with the complexity of the world. It is not because the government necessarily knows better that we need regulation. It is in the humble recognition of our limited mental capability that we do.” – p. 177 from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang oh, I thought that was from Terry Collin's philosophy on bullpen roles

Benjamin Grimm May 31 2012 12:21 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Don't get Terry started on Ha-Joon Chang.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 01:20 PM Re: Politics in 2012

“Unless we deliberately restrict our choices by creating restrictive rules, thereby simplifying the environment that we have to deal with, our bounded rationality cannot cope with the complexity of the world. It is not because the government necessarily knows better that we need regulation. It is in the humble recognition of our limited mental capability that we do.” – p. 177 from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Translation: I'm not smart enough to run my life without "help", so you shouldn't have the opportunity to try it either.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 01:34 PM Re: Politics in 2012

metsmarathon wrote: If consumers want less fatty (and presumably slightly more expensive) non-trans fat food, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want less cancer-causing, and presumably less effective, insulation than asbestos, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want less mental-defect causing lead in their paint, albeit with less coverage and duller whites, the free market will produce that outcome. To the extent that the harms of these products are disclosed, people should be able to use them if they so choose (unless they are harming OTHERS by doing so, such as a landlord who uses lead paint in apartments for rent) To the extent that the harms WEREN'T disclosed, I'm not suggesting we get rid of tort law/products liability. metsmarathon wrote: if consumers want more UV-blocking ozone up in the sky, at the cost of less oomph in their CFC-free hair spray, the free market will produce that outcome. if consumers want fewer PCB's in their rivers and streams, at the cost of slightly higher cost of manufactured goods, as well as the effort required to research the entire supply chain and the lifecycle of all of hte materials and processes which go into a manufactured product, the free market will produce that outcome. Polluting the PUBLICLY owned river isn't at all the same as "polluting" your own body (or property), the market doesn't need to regulate harm to others, the law should do that. The market will regulate the balance between harm and price that a consumer wishes to do to themselves, and I have nothing against laws that require disclosure of information about products (such as the calories on menus law in NY) metsmarathon wrote: the free market doesn't always know best. not that the "government" knows best either, but on hte rare instances where it does, well, why not let it do something banning soda may not be the right thing to do. it probably isn't, necessarily. it's been discussed before, but perhaps the appropriate step is to de-subsidize hte corn industry, making HFCS more expensive, and therefore the highly manufactured foods which rely upon its cheapness will become more expensive, tipping the scales somewhat backwards to favor the purchase of healthier more-whole foods. I would certainly be behind the end of government subsidies to "harmful" products (actually, to anything), people should be free to hurt themselves, tax dollars don't need to subsidize it.

metsmarathon May 31 2012 01:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

“Unless we deliberately restrict our choices by creating restrictive rules, thereby simplifying the environment that we have to deal with, our bounded rationality cannot cope with the complexity of the world. It is not because the government necessarily knows better that we need regulation. It is in the humble recognition of our limited mental capability that we do.” – p. 177 from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Translation: I'm not smart enough to run my life without "help", so you shouldn't have the opportunity to try it either. so. the car you're driving. you understand enough about its design and manufacturing to be able to tell me that, were it produced without being made to comply with a single government regulation, you would be able to discern not only that its performance claims are legitimate, but that the materials used are such that you're comfortable with the environmental and health impacts which they produce, and that, in the event of an impact or accident, that it would provide for you a level of safety which would afford you the ability to survive the impact? would you know enough about hte combustion process occurring within the engine to determine whether or not the combustion process was being done efficiently, and with minimal byproducts, and would you also be able to tell me the extent to which those byproducts are harmful? would you also be able to tell me that you would be able to discern which fuel retailers are delivering hte fuel which you require to properly operate that vehicle, and that its constituents are as you would expect them to be, and that the impurities contained within the fuel are not only minimal to the extent that they will not cause damage to your vehicle, but that you understand the extent to which the combustion of the fuel with those byproducts is harmful? and will you also know how the fuel is stored on-site at that facility such that the fuel reserves are reasonably contained such as to preclude their frequent release into the local environment, and also that the fuel was delivered to that site from it's source with a maximum practicable amount of responsibility? we live in a complex world. we don't make our own stuff from raw materials we are able to source ourselves. we're so many steps removed from the raw materials that we simply cannot know enough about the products we by to be able to buy them without the "help" of government regulations. if i'm wrong, prove me so. show me how you can know all of this. the amish can get by with a minimum of government regulation. how can a modernized, mechanized society? ... are you against seat belt laws?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 31 2012 01:58 PM Re: Politics in 2012

marathon and a few others have more or less said what I've had to say, and put it more succinctly than I likely would have. I'm just incredulous that nymr-- or anyone, really-- is arguing against the trans fat ban on civil-liberties-y grounds. “Unless we deliberately restrict our choices by creating restrictive rules, thereby simplifying the environment that we have to deal with, our bounded rationality cannot cope with the complexity of the world. It is not because the government necessarily knows better that we need regulation. It is in the humble recognition of our limited mental capability that we do.” – p. 177 from 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang Translation: I'm not smart enough to run my life without "help", so you shouldn't have the opportunity to try it either. So... not a big traffic light fan, huh? Also... enough, please, with the "effective Giuliani and Bloomberg police procedures" business. Establishing OEM and outlining/streamlining various emergency protocols is one thing (and NOBODY's rolling that back), but "stop and frisk" and "broken windows" and COMSTAT stat-focused policing? Basta. OE: I TOLD you marathon articulates it better.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 02:14 PM Re: Politics in 2012

MetsMarathon- sorry, I can't read, much less quote and reply to, that big blob of text on my blackberry. So I can only respond to your last question at the moment: Yes, I am against seat belt laws. I am against the principle of the government forcing me to not do something (in this case not ride w/o a seatbelt) that can only potentially harm myself and not others. By no means are seat belt laws an egregious wrong of big government, if there was a sliding scale of liberties being violated by government, seat belt laws would be less than a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. But they wouldn't be a zero. And as such they are probably, from a practical rather than philosophical point of view, not worth fighting. But yes, I philosophically am opposed to them. LWFS- likewise, I can't read your whole post on my blackberry while already in thwe reply window, but to answer only your first paragraph- while I am not STRENUOSLY objecting to the transfat law, I am not sure how YOU can argue that it is NOT a SMALL violation of your liberties.

metsmarathon May 31 2012 02:24 PM Re: Politics in 2012

are you for or against infant/child seat laws, and mandatory seat belt laws for minors? do you also believe there to be no cost associated with an unbuckled driver in an serious accident beyond that which the driver incurs unto himself?

Nymr83 May 31 2012 02:44 PM Re: Politics in 2012 Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 31 2012 03:00 PM

metsmarathon wrote: are you for or against infant/child seat laws, and mandatory seat belt laws for minors? Now you've gotten to a much harder and more interesting question(s): to what extent should the state, which I don't believe has any place interfering in a consenting adult's "unsafe" decisions about themselves, act to protect the well-being of a child too young to make those decisions for themselves? I fully admit that I don't have an easy answer to this. I feel the state SHOULD have laws protecting you from your parents, just as they should be protecting you from me (it should be illegal for me to stab you, or for me to let the toxic waste from my factory spew onto your land), butI don't know where exactly to find the balance between protecting the child and allowing the parents freedom to raise their children (and I do believe there needs to be freedom to raise your child as you, not the government, sees fit.) Child car-seat (or child seat belt) laws easily fall on the "that's ok" side of the line for me... The parents' desire for unsafe-ness with no benefit to themselves or the child should bow before the child's safety, but its a lot easier to come up with much harder examples. do you also believe there to be no cost associated with an unbuckled driver in an serious accident beyond that which the driver incurs unto himself? What cost? To whom? There may be costs to society in terms of this idiot's (yes, I think he is an idiot, I just think he has the right to be one) new burden on taxpayer-funded entitlements programs, but you didn't think I favored those programs in the first place, did you? I'm not going to accept that the basis for limitations on personal freedom (seat belt law) should be ANOTHER unwanted limit on personal freedom (raising my taxes to fund public healthcare.) The next logical question in this line of thinking is one I wish to pose to YOU, then: Assuming that we will have some sort of taxpayer-funded benefits (whether Libertarians like me want them or not) do you think that the freedom of the RECIPIENTS of these benefits should be limited by the state in order to limit the costs to the taxpayer? Here's an example: we're not going to outlaw skydiving because, although risky, even the non-libertarians are willing to admit that an adult should be allowed to weigh the risk-reward of skydiving themselves. BUT should we prohibit anyone whose healthcare from a skydiving accident would be paid for by the public from doing it? We already do this in far less extreme circumstances (you can't use food stamps on alcoholic beverages, even if a beer is what you like to drink), and I could propose far MORE extreme ones (on medicare? NO SMOKING!) But I think skydiving hits somewhere in the middle, feel free to use a different example though if you have abetter one, as its the underlying question of limiting the recipients of benefits that I am interested in.

Edgy MD May 31 2012 02:48 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Hey! It's 4:50! Time for afternoon Thalidomide break!

metsmarathon May 31 2012 02:48 PM Re: Politics in 2012

i suppose bloomberg would contend that that freedom to raise your kids as you see fit should not necessarily extend to being able to pump them full of suragy soda.

HahnSolo May 31 2012 03:01 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: are you for or against infant/child seat laws, and mandatory seat belt laws for minors? Now you've gotten to a much harder and more interesting question(s): to what extent should the state, which I don't believe has any place interfering in a consenting adult's "unsafe" decisions about themselves, act to protect the well-being of a child too young to make those decisions for themselves? I fully admit that I don't have an easy answer to this. I feel the state SHOULD have laws protecting you from your parents, just as they should be protecting you from me (it should be illegal for me to stab you, or for me to let the toxic waste from my factory spew onto your land), butI don't know where exactly to find the balance between protecting the child and allowing the parents freedom to raise their children (and I do believe there needs to be freedom to raise your child as you, not the government, sees fit.) Child car-seat (or child seat belt) laws easily fall on the "that's ok" side of the line for me... The parents' desire for unsafe-ness with no benefit to themselves or the child should bow before the child's safety, but its a lot easier to come up with much harder examples. The Freakanomics guys, if you want to believe them, will tell you that there is no evidence that a car seat is any safer than just a regular seat belt for your kid.

Nymr83 May 31 2012 03:05 PM Re: Politics in 2012

metsmarathon wrote: i suppose bloomberg would contend that that freedom to raise your kids as you see fit should not necessarily extend to being able to pump them full of suragy soda. I'd put that on the "not ok" side of the line myself, but even if you disagreed why wouldn't you limit their sale to 18 year olds the way you do with cigarettes rather than ban them altogether? I made a huge edit to my last post marathon with a question for you, I need to do some actual work at work now so I may be gone awhile, not ignoring you if I don't respond again for a few hours

Edgy MD May 31 2012 03:17 PM Re: Politics in 2012

That's part of the problem. We all have to do work. And as much as I flatter myself that I'm smart (I'm fucking brilliant) and informed (I'd clean the floor with seawolf on Jeopardy, but I'm religiously opposed), I just don't have the time every time I eat a Rice Krispies treat to determine if they have been causing testicles to spontaneously explode in Juarez, and I'm humble enough (despite what this run-on sentence might suggest) to realize that. So I'm thankful for my regulatory community, even as I acknowledge they've not always succeeded. They have legislative oversight to balance their zeal and their susceptibility to undue influence (the regulatory community, not the Rice Krispies treats), and they've saved us from utter ruin. I believe in the free market. The free market has done more to avert us from the damages of our energy crisis than a book case full of regulations, and we're going to need both if we're ever going to find our way forward, energy-wise. Frances Oldham Kelsey is nothing short of a great American (Canadian-born American) hero, and if anybody deserves one of those crazy medals we've been giving out, it's her.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 31 2012 03:49 PM Re: Politics in 2012

You didn't pick a side and yell at the other one. PICK A SIDE AND YELL AT THE OTHER ONE!

seawolf17 May 31 2012 06:41 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Edgy DC wrote: (I'd clean the floor with seawolf on Jeopardy, but I'm religiously opposed) Holy hell, it is SO. ON.

Ceetar May 31 2012 06:57 PM Re: Politics in 2012

seawolf17 wrote: Edgy DC wrote: (I'd clean the floor with seawolf on Jeopardy, but I'm religiously opposed) Holy hell, it is SO. ON. answer in the form of a question please. that should be "What is Holy Hell, it is SO. ON."

metsmarathon May 31 2012 08:27 PM Re: Politics in 2012

HahnSolo wrote: The Freakanomics guys, if you want to believe them, will tell you that there is no evidence that a car seat is any safer than just a regular seat belt for your kid. i'd be very curious to see how they're determining that, seeing as how the kid is in a 4-point harness that's tighter than what he can get with a 3-point harness that's almost certainly too big for him. it may certainly be true that 12-year olds don't necessarily need bosster seats, but 2-year olds do, and 5-year olds probably do. where's teh cutoff? dunno, but it probably has to do with size/strength versus severity of impact. or is this one of those things where by making the kid safer, i'm tehn a less-safe driver, because i've built up the expectation that i am now able to do more stupid things with my car with minimal repercussion? "can i beat that semi across the intersection? well, i've got the kid in a harness, so i might as well try!"

metsmarathon May 31 2012 09:23 PM Re: Politics in 2012

ok, i just read some of what they've got on their website, and i sure as hell feel like something is awfully missing re: car seats. basically, in 2003, there were some 940 2-6 year olds involved in fatal crashes (where someone somewhere died) riding in properly installed car seats. 10% of those kids died. there were 560 2-6 year olds involved in fatal crashes wearing only a lap & shoulder belt. 10% of those kids died. a 2 year old wearing a lap and shoulder belt is not what i'd call "restrained". there's simply no way the shoulder belt is positioned properly. also, what's missing in the tally is the severity of the impact. i suspect there's a hidden signal whereby the vehicles in which the kids wearing the seat belts were inherently less safe, or the parents in those vehicles were inherently less safe, and that lower speeds were involved in a number of those fatal impacts for the seat-belt kids. i think you are more likely to yourself buckle up if you are also putting your kid in a child seat, and that if you're only putting your 2 year old on the bare seat, held in with only a plain jane seat belt, you are less likely yourself to buckle up, or require the remainder of your passengers to buckle up. or perhaps you did not get air bags or anti-lock brakes. furthermore, the crash data tehy present indicates that while 940 kids were in fatal crashes while riding in properly installed car seats, only 50 were in fatal crashes while riding in improperly installed car seats (45% death rate). that's an astoundingly high percentage of properly installed car seats! NHTSA claims that 80 percent of car seats are installed improperly, per the source article in the times. so here's the problem - if 20 improperly installed car seats were reported as properly installed, in those fatal crashes, then you're adding on 9 deaths or nearly a full percentage point to the fatality rate for properly installed car seats. (it drops from 10.1% to 9.3%, versus 10.4% for lap/shoulder belts) and then a $200 car seat maybe doesn't seem like such a burden. also unsaid is how many kids were initially put into seat belts but unbuckled themselves en route to teh crash. minimm can operate a standard seat belt. he cannot unbuckle his car seat.

Edgy MD Jun 01 2012 10:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

This comes from a friend of mine in the industry. He's a passionate worker for traffic safety and I'd trust him with my bollucks. This is actually hotly-debated subject in the traffic safety research community, though many people and organizations like to pretend (and some may sincerely believe) otherwise. Let's be clear, though, about what, specifically, the Freakonomics guys claim. They claim there is no good evidence that child safety and booster seats do a better job of preventing kids ages 2-6 from being killed in crashes, compared to just using a regular seatbelt. There is plenty of good evidence that child safety seats are much better than seatbelts for kids younger than 2. The Freakonomics guys don't even dispute this. There is also plenty of good evidence that child safety seats and booster seats do a better job than seatbelts of protecting kids up to at least age 4-5 from being injured in a crash. This is kind of important, because for every kid killed in a crash, about 75-100 are injured. Lots of people find it worthwhile to do something that decreases their kids' risk of being injured in a crash, even if it doesn't significantly effect their risk of being killed. Back to the specific claim of the Freakonomics guys, i.e., that there is not good evidence that child safety seats do a significantly better job than seatbelts of preventing kids ages 2-6 from being killed in crashes, some very good studies by highly respected researchers have found basically the same thing as the Freakonomics guys. There are also several good studies which suggest that child safety seats do significantly reduce the risk of death relative to seatbelts for kids older than 2; but again, there are also really good studies done by really smart people that have concluded that they do not. I have read just about all of those studies, and honestly, while none of the studies are perfect, I think the ones suggesting that child safety seats and seatbelt are roughly equally effective for older kids are better studies (not because of what they found - I find it kind of hard to believe, but I still think the best of those studies were better than the ones on the other side of the debate). All of this is not to say that the Freakonomics guys (and authors of other really good studies that arrived at basically the same conclusion) are necessarily right, but I would be lying if I said there was clear evidence that they were wrong. That a child safety seat could be very effective in reducing a kid's risk of being injured, but not reduce a kid's risk of being killed doesn't really seem to make sense. It could be true (I honestly don't believe it, but this really is what the best studies, on the whole, seem to suggest), or it might just be an artifact of the studies that have been done. For crazy reasons that I won't get into, the best data to use for a study of the effectiveness of child safety seats (or, well, anything) on injury risk isn't so good for studying risk of death, and the only data that we have that can be used to study risk of death can't be used to study risk of injury. The data that we use to study risk of injury is in many regards vastly superior to the data used to study risk of death, but there aren't enough cases of deaths in that data to use it to study risk of death. Make sense? No. Fair enough. It shouldn't. But that's what we have to work with. Back when I was pretty new to traffic safety research, I had a minor role in a study that was originally done for the specific purpose of "debunking" the study by one of the authors of Freakonomics. "Unfortunately" (from the point of view of the sponsor), the results of our study could be characterized more appropriately as "confirming" than "debunking." The lead author, who was very senior to me, couldn't believe the result, and despite being obliged to report the result, originally included some statements in the report of the study that I think would be fair to characterize as cheap-shots at the Freakonomics article. In the peer review process, one of the most respected epidemiologists in the world, at the end of his 41-page-long review, made this really useful point. (I saved the review and am quoting directly from it here.) [list]"Let me summarize my view of your results in a more personal way. If I had a 3-year kid (I don’t) and I was going to take that child driving today, I would put the kid in a car seat in the rear seat. I wouldn’t worry about this decision; I would already own the seat, I would know how to use it, and there is no evidence that doing this is harmful. But as an injury researcher, I would acknowledge (if anyone asked my opinion), that the evidence that doing this is better than putting the child in a seat belt is weak. Current recommended practice is not well supported by evidence. I don’t regard this situation as terribly troubling; there are lots of things we do that are not evidence based. It is hard to study everything in a way that satisfies everyone. Would it be nice to have better evidence on this topic? Sure."[/list:u]

Edgy MD Jun 01 2012 10:42 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Let me suggest that there is perhaps a psychological risk compensation factor going on there that the data aren't picking up. Perhaps a person going to five blocks at 20-MPH to the store for milk is not going to take the time to secure his child that he might take if he was going for two hours on the highway at at 60MPH. Therefore he's exposing his child to a world of harm, if no greater a fatality/accident rate than he would in the latter case.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 01 2012 10:55 AM Re: Politics in 2012

The one thing that makes me skeptical of all these safety claims is that much of the laws in this field were advocated by the "Juvenile Products Safety Council" which is really just a lobbying group of kid-product manufacturers. They've made it illegal for instance to have a secondary market for things like cribs and child seats as a means of reducing their liability while playing upon the fears of young parents. Evil.

metsmarathon Jun 01 2012 10:57 AM Re: Politics in 2012

i actually don't have too much of a problem with teh notion that, fitment issues aside, a car seat may reduce your chances of injury more greatly than it will reduce chances of death. without getting too morbid, i think a lot has to do with the type of injury sustained, particularly in teh case of fatal injuries. there are some crashes you cannot walk away from no matter how well you're strapped in. and there are plenty of crashes where the extent to which you are restrained can directly correlate to your ability to survive it. a lap-shoulder belt restrains you from moving forward, and also from moving in towards the middle of the vehicle in an opposite-side impact. i imagine it does little to prevent your upper body from slamming into the side of the car you're sitting on. a 4 or 5 point harness restrains you to a much greater extent, such that bodily injuries from impacting the vehicle interior should be more reduced. i suppose the cost of this additional restraint could be additional stress on the head/neck. could that be the difference-maker? ultimately, teh freakonomics guys are right, that the ideal solution is a car which is designed to maximize the safety of teh child occupant. or perhaps for the auto manufacturers to work with a car seat manufacturer to better produce a compatible product. another avenue would be (heh) improved federal regulation (beyond the LATCH and the tether hardpoints) defining the car seat - auto seat interface to ensure that there are no fitment issues. but that would probably be a charley foxtrot.

metsmarathon Jun 01 2012 10:58 AM Re: Politics in 2012

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: The one thing that makes me skeptical of all these safety claims is that much of the laws in this field were advocated by the "Juvenile Products Safety Council" which is really just a lobbying group of kid-product manufacturers. They've made it illegal for instance to have a secondary market for things like cribs and child seats as a means of reducing their liability while playing upon the fears of young parents. Evil. selling a used crib is illegal? a car seat, i can understand - you never know if it's been in a crash and has been structurally weakened. but a crib?

Edgy MD Jun 01 2012 11:00 AM Re: Politics in 2012

That sounds so unfair to Snoop Dog.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 01 2012 11:27 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metsmarathon wrote: ultimately, teh freakonomics guys are right, that the ideal solution is a car which is designed to maximize the safety of teh child occupant. Or perhaps making the places we live easier to get around without having to drive everywhere.

metsmarathon Jun 01 2012 11:59 AM Re: Politics in 2012

well, yes, but when you do want to drive anywhere, you probably want your kid to be safe.

TransMonk Jun 04 2012 05:07 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I got this going on tomorrow: http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-recall- ... 17949.html

metsguyinmichigan Jun 04 2012 08:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: I got this going on tomorrow: http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-recall- ... 17949.html I was a panelist on a weekend news show, and the guest was a Republican strategist. He believes Walker wins by between 6 to 10 points.

TransMonk Jun 05 2012 06:27 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I think he'll win by a point or three. And then his supporters will tout it as an overwhelming mandate.

Edgy MD Jun 05 2012 08:37 AM Re: Politics in 2012

One-three points? A little help, Mr. President?

TransMonk Jun 05 2012 08:48 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Tell me about it. I've been mad at a lot of people about what has been going on here for the past 16 months. Obama is near the top of the list.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 05 2012 11:18 AM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: Tell me about it. I've been mad at a lot of people about what has been going on here for the past 16 months. Obama is near the top of the list. He's sent people there. I'm not sure why, but I think it looks bad for a sitting president to come in and campaign in favor of a recall, especially when the attempt is for political reasons. It would be different for a president to campaign for a friend to defend against a recall, but not to go on the offensive. Not sure why I think that.

TransMonk Jun 05 2012 11:48 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm of the opinion that he stayed away for political reasons. Obama won WI in 2008 and he doesn't want to risk losing it in 2012 by being on the losing end of a (divisive) recall election. He has no balls...he should have been here in February of 2011 and he should have been here last week to support his party and defend it's principals and ideals. There are very few people in this state who are up in the air about this recall. People are either for or against and both sides have been vehement and nasty to defend their side. Frankly, I'm ready for it to be over. Once Feingold lost his Senate seat in 2010, this state became foreign to me politically.

Edgy MD Jun 05 2012 12:36 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, though I don't think it's just Wisconsin he's worried about, but standing for any candidate in an isolated election hurts him if the candidate loses.

TransMonk Jun 05 2012 12:44 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I understand...every second of the POTUS's life for his term in office (and much of the time before it) is based on political moves. The last of the non-cynic in me really wanted the President that I voted for to stand up for the ideals that got him elected rather than "send some people" so that he didn't have to show his face in a losing effort. But, that and millions of dollars in out-of-state funding will by me some radio ads.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 05 2012 12:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: He has no balls...he should have been here in February of 2011 and he should have been here last week to support his party and defend it's principals and ideals. Well, he does defend his party's principals and ideals, it's just that they involve Wall Street boosterism, war surges and drone attacks, and continued erosion of civil liberties.

Vic Sage Jun 05 2012 12:50 PM Re: Politics in 2012

heh heh. good one, WP.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 05 2012 08:29 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Wow. Looks like a big win for Walker.

TransMonk Jun 05 2012 08:52 PM Re: Politics in 2012

California millions bought more votes than I thought they would. I can practically hear the two party system crumbling into one.

Nymr83 Jun 05 2012 10:40 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Congratulations to Governor Walker! The Associated Press says 9-point victory, thats an ass-whooping in political terms.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 06:31 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Are there any other terms in this situation? Wake me up when the indictments come down. Kleefisch is the big winner...she'll finish out his term.

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2012 07:18 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Tough to make the claim that outside money influenced this all that much when, in the end, the voting proportions looked pretty much the same way they did two years earlier when the same candidates were running for the same office. The problem with pushing for a recall like the Democrats did here is that they had little reason to expect they could 'flip' enough voters when the big issue that spawned this whole thing was one Walker essentially ran on in the first place. Just because you have the ability to demand what amounts to a do-over doesn't always mean it's a good idea as the Republicans found out when trying to oust Clinton on 'charges' that were never going to win anyone over who wasn't already in their camp. In both cases those on the outside convinced themselves that their anger was going to provide a big enough spark to catch fire across the land/state once they got the ball rolling, a belief that seems oblivious to the fact that those not in agreement with you going into the matter are not only not mad but are, by definition, in the majority, and that by failing to make your case that ball you started rolling tends to roll back onto you. It's a bit like the old adage that if you're going to go after the king you better kill him because if you don't you're going to be worse off in the long run.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 07:58 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Bah...Walker began running statewide TV ads at Christmas time where he would look into the camera and make half-truths about job growth during his term. The dems didn't even have a candidate until a month ago...and they were only able to raise a fraction of the money (most of it from in-state). I cannot believe that it wasn't an influence. In the end, people do what their told, and overall we deserve what we've got. I live in a very liberal bubble. There are nearly half a million people in my county. Estimates are saying about 80% of registered voters in my county voted yesterday and Barrett won with 69% of the vote to 30.5% for Walker. I would have trouble thinking of ten people I know that voted for Walker. Unfortunately, the rest of the state has very different opinions than I do, or they are very gullible. Either way, in my mind, this was less about Wisconsin. Single-party nations are bad for democracy.

Nymr83 Jun 06 2012 08:13 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Single-party systems are indeed bad for democracy, but that's not what we have. We have unions crying and begging for a new election when the guy did exactly what he campaigned on the first time, and oh look he won again! As a matter of principle I think Recalls should be reserved for situations involving what are essentially impeachment-worthy crimes where the legislature (or other appropriate body) refuses to act. Otherwise, you're wasting tax dollars (I don't care about the private dollars raised by both sides, you can't say this was free for Wisconsin taxpayers) and distracting people from doing the jobs that you elected them to do, and all this by collecting signatures from less people than voted against the impeachee (is that a word?) in the first place. If New York had recalls and they tried recalling Cuomo, I'd vote for him just on that principle alone in the recall election. I hope yesterday will serve to discourage future efforts of this type and instead get people to focus on the next scheduled election.

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2012 08:31 AM Re: Politics in 2012

I'm not trying to make the case for Walker here Monk (or against him for that matter - I've never even been to Wisconsin), I'm merely trying to say that this recall seemed to lack an overriding reason for why a state that elected a Governor should turn against him before his term was half over. Of course the folks who didn't like him going in weren't happy, that pretty much goes without saying. But if the "liberal bubble" in and around Madison and the labor unions both in-state and out are talking only to each other than they run the risk of believing that their anger is everyone's anger and then wind up surprised when the majority that was against them just a short time ago haven't all changed their minds. That's why I brought up the Clinton analogy when some on the right were so consumed with anger towards Clinton that they couldn't understand how everyone else wasn't also. And while most folks tend to think that the other side is "gullible" or mis-informed, or bought off, or just plain stupid, the problem here was that those who lost in 2010 failed to find a compelling argument that would convince enough (or, as it turns out, any really) Walker voters to do a mid-stream 180 and when the second vote almost exactly mirrors the first vote it's tough to make the case that the new result was all due to recent money and voters "doing what their told". And, yeah, not getting your way all the time is not the same thing as "single party" rule.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 09:14 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Unions = $ for Dems. No unions = no $ for Dems. $ wins elections. No $ for Dems = fewer Dems winning elections. Great for conservatives, bad for liberals. I'm a liberal. YMMV. We're certainly not there yet, but from my POV, it's a slippery slope. I'm glad the recall is over, and as I stated yesterday, I didn't think he would be recalled, so I am not surprised. I reserve the right to be unhappy with the outcome because I think he's a slimy douchebag who has not kept his campaign promises. If I seem whiny, I apologize...this is an argument we have been supporting here for a year and a half.

Nymr83 Jun 06 2012 10:20 AM Re: Politics in 2012

"Unions = $ for Dems" as you put it is exactly the problem in my mind. Either membership/dues in the union shouldn't be mandatory or the union shouldn't be allowd to play politics while also being the bargaining agent with the elected officials.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 10:27 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Like I said, YMMV. I feel the same way about corporate funding of political campaigns.

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2012 11:53 AM Re: Politics in 2012 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jun 06 2012 02:01 PM

TransMonk wrote: I'm glad the recall is over, and as I stated yesterday, I didn't think he would be recalled, so I am not surprised. I reserve the right to be unhappy with the outcome because I think he's a slimy douchebag who has not kept his campaign promises. If I seem whiny, I apologize...this is an argument we have been supporting here for a year and a half. I didn't expect you to be happy about it Monk man and I'm not trying to talk you into being so. My only points were that I don't see last night's result as something that was bought and paid for by outside money and that I don't think, short of corruption and/or some sort of criminal malfeasance, that a recall (or a phony impeachment, or a birth certificate sham) is the best way to deal with the result of an election when a just-elected member of the other party has the nerve to govern as if he's a member of the other party. Swinging for the head and missing in this sort of circumstance can be worse than never swinging at all and it's often better to simply land body blows as the minority opposition and wait for the next opportunity. And the good thing about being in a democracy is that the next opportunity always comes around.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 06 2012 12:02 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Yeah, now your options are down to assassination or coup d'etat.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 12:09 PM Re: Politics in 2012

No problem, we'll survive. Personally, I'm not really affected by any of this right now. I just worry about the future...

Frayed Knot Jun 06 2012 01:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Mets – Willets Point wrote: Yeah, now your options are down to assassination or coup d'etat. Or, you know, winning the next election.

sharpie Jun 06 2012 02:27 PM Re: Politics in 2012

It does look like one of the recall attempts in Wisconsin did prevail so the state senate will flip to the Democrats. Makes it harder for Walker to do more polarizing things.

TransMonk Jun 06 2012 02:54 PM Re: Politics in 2012

This is true, but the stupid Wisconsin legislature is out of session until after the November election when half the democratic seats will be up for re-election anyhow...so it's unlikely to matter much in it's current configuration. I'm not sure what the state senate is doing with 6 months off. Who do they think they are? Pro athletes?

Nymr83 Jun 06 2012 03:05 PM Re: Politics in 2012

On the one hand, you'd like to see legislatures, who presumably have voted themselves "full-time salaries" actually work full-time. On the other hand, the last thing I want is for a government body that has completed all essential business to be sitting around thinking of more ways to spend my money or regulate my life.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 06 2012 03:38 PM Re: Politics in 2012

TransMonk wrote: Unfortunately, the rest of the state has very different opinions than I do, or they are very gullible. Probably less gullibility than the fact that American conservatism (and I include most Democrats as conservatives) is an ideology built on the idea that the most base aspects of human nature - selfishness, greed, prejudice - are virtues. American conservatism will continue to spread and grow in power - even as it ultimately will destroy the nation - because of it's base appeal of "I got mine and screw everyone else" is so much easier than things that would actual save this country (like cooperation, equality and sustainability).

Nymr83 Jun 06 2012 07:46 PM Re: Politics in 2012

That is the biggest load of shit I ever read. What will destroy this country is the time when the far left have managed to get enough of the electorate dependent on government handouts funded by taxpayers to ensure their own perpetual election.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 06 2012 08:26 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: That is the biggest load of shit I ever read. What will destroy this country is the time when the far left have managed to get enough of the electorate dependent on government handouts funded by taxpayers to ensure their own perpetual election. You keep believing that. Meanwhile, taxpayer money will continue to go hand over fist to big corporations and the extremely rich as they consolidate control of the country into the hands of an elite few. But hey, as I said, your party is in the ascendancy and will soon be in full power. Good for you. You may even make out okay as an individual even if the next generation is stuck with poverty, environmental devastation, and the tyranny of the corporate oligarchy.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 06 2012 08:47 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: That is the biggest load of shit I ever read. What will destroy this country is the time when the far left have managed to get enough of the electorate dependent on government handouts funded by taxpayers to ensure their own perpetual election. Corporations have more economic and political might-- not to mention person-shaped civil rights-- than they EVER have in the history of this country, and you still think big government is the issue?

Edgy MD Jun 07 2012 06:20 AM Re: Politics in 2012

You think corporations have more might than in the gilded age of the great industrialist robber barons? Nymr83 wrote: That is the biggest load of shit I ever read. I've been reading such statements a lot online. We're very hyberbolic about things we disagree with.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 07 2012 07:04 AM Re: Politics in 2012

"and the tyranny of the corporate oligarchy." A political strategist told me that the whole "corporations are evil" thing was created, or at least strongly pushed, in anticipation of running against Romney. I don't recall prior Democratic residential candidates demonizing the business sector to this extent.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 07 2012 07:13 AM Re: Politics in 2012

This is the first election since corporations were declared to be "people".

Nymr83 Jun 07 2012 07:16 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metsguyinmichigan wrote: "and the tyranny of the corporate oligarchy." A political strategist told me that the whole "corporations are evil" thing was created, or at least strongly pushed, in anticipation of running against Romney. I don't recall prior Democratic residential candidates demonizing the business sector to this extent. While none of us (I think) are old enough to "recall" it from personal experience, FDR's campaign rhetoric against business probably makes Obama seem pretty tame by comparison.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 07 2012 07:18 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metsguyinmichigan wrote: "and the tyranny of the corporate oligarchy." A political strategist told me that the whole "corporations are evil" thing was created, or at least strongly pushed, in anticipation of running against Romney. I don't recall prior Democratic residential candidates demonizing the business sector to this extent. Romney's strategist, no doubt.

metirish Jun 07 2012 07:25 AM Re: Politics in 2012

As I read this wonderful thread I am struck by one thought ......democracy is the real winner here ..... In other useless news I still have not become a citizen and I promised myself I would after the last election.

Edgy MD Jun 07 2012 07:26 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This is the first election since corporations were declared to be "people". The framing this as a referendum on whether or not corporations are people seems megasilly to me.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 07 2012 07:30 AM Re: Politics in 2012

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: "and the tyranny of the corporate oligarchy." A political strategist told me that the whole "corporations are evil" thing was created, or at least strongly pushed, in anticipation of running against Romney. I don't recall prior Democratic residential candidates demonizing the business sector to this extent. Romney's strategist, no doubt. He wasn't working for Romney, but a GOP strategist. No Dem strategist has denied it. It's interesting peeking behind the curtain, if you will, at the process and the people paid to come up with the messages. On one hand, it's like a giant chess game to them, and on the other, it's a job.

Nymr83 Jun 07 2012 07:35 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: As I read this wonderful thread I am struck by one thought ......democracy is the real winner here ..... In other useless news I still have not become a citizen and I promised myself I would after the last election. Having not met you, I still can't help thinking of Groundskeeper Willie from the Simpsons every time I see your user name (I'm sure the blurb about the Mets grounskeeper under your name isn't helping matters), does anyone remember the episode where Springfield was going to deport all the immigrants? in the end they all become citizens - except Willie!

Edgy MD Jun 07 2012 07:40 AM Re: Politics in 2012

A friend of mine married a political operative. I see him at parties, and he tries out his messages on me. Rather than give him the affirming and angry Iknowand...! Iknowand...! response he's fishing for, I give him a yabbut answer, and he just gets bored and twiddles with his iphone and eventually walks away. They truck in good-vs.-evil, and nuance is useless. Yet I'm the boring one. Maybe I should talk to him about The Wall.

metirish Jun 07 2012 07:40 AM Re: Politics in 2012

LOL......Pete Flynn, Groundskeeper Willie and me.......good company I'm in

metsmarathon Jun 07 2012 08:07 AM Re: Politics in 2012

isn't willie a scot?

metirish Jun 07 2012 08:08 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Indeed he is.....still, good company ...

Ashie62 Jun 07 2012 05:24 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Willie's grandfather is Engish.

Nymr83 Jun 08 2012 08:08 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Obama is apparently unhappy with Mayor Booker because he came out and defended Bain Capital on national tv, undermining Obama's attack on Romney's old company. The democratic governor of MA has done the same, but that's something Obama probably has to live and expect given it is a MA company. Bill Clinton has also come out to defend Bain, but Obama can't really afford to get on his bad side, leaving aside the people who will pull the (D) lever automatically, Clinton has to still be more popular than Obama with independent voters, right?

Ceetar Jun 08 2012 08:17 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Nymr83 wrote: Bill Clinton has also come out to defend Bain, but Obama can't really afford to get on his bad side, leaving aside the people who will pull the (D) lever automatically, Clinton has to still be more popular than Obama with independent voters, right? Are independent voters 'similar' enough that they can be said to act in a group at all? I guess technically I fall into that category, but I'm not an 'undecided' voter that needs swaying either.

metirish Jun 08 2012 08:18 AM Re: Politics in 2012

That Booker stuff happened weeks ago, then he tried to backpedal. Corey Booker to me has always come across like a bit of a wanker, they type of guy that likes seeing his name splashed across the media and the type of guy that believes all the hype surrounding him. In other words, a politician.

metsguyinmichigan Jun 08 2012 08:24 AM Re: Politics in 2012

metirish wrote: That Booker stuff happened weeks ago, then he tried to backpedal. Corey Booker to me has always come across like a bit of a wanker, they type of guy that likes seeing his name splashed across the media and the type of guy that believes all the hype surrounding him. In other words, a politician. He appeared at an education writers conference I attended last month -- was the week before his Bain issue, I think. Pretty charismatic guy, and doesn't seem afraid to piss off the unions with his school positions.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 08 2012 08:25 AM Re: Politics in 2012

dgwphotography Jun 08 2012 09:13 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This is the first election since corporations were declared to be "people". Yeah, um.. no. The supreme court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as "People" since 1819...

Edgy MD Jun 08 2012 09:48 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Well, some of the same rights, yeah. But yeah, the notion of being scandalized by the notion that corporations have rights is more than a little overblown.

Edgy MD Jun 25 2012 06:56 AM Re: Politics in 2012

A ruling on the Affordable Care Act (calling it Obamacare sounds cheap, silly, tired, cliched, overtly politicized, blah, blah...) is expected perhaps as early as today.

Edgy MD Jun 25 2012 09:52 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Day starts off with a pretty solid win for the administration: Supreme Court rejects much of Arizona immigration law Washington Post By Robert Barnes and N. C. Aizenmann The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but upheld other provisions, giving a partial victory to the Obama administration. The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally. However, the court let stand the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. The court said it was “improper” for the federal government to block the provision before state courts have a chance to interpret it and without determining whether it conflicts with federal immigration law in practice.

Edgy MD Jun 25 2012 11:36 AM Re: Politics in 2012

Round two goes the other way, as the court strikes down a century-old Montana prohibition against corporate campaign contributions. Supreme Court throws out Montana ban on corporate campaign spending Washington Post By Robert Barnes and Dan Eggen, Updated: Monday, June 25, 12:04 PM The Supreme Court on Monday effectively overturned a century-old Montana law that prohibited corporate spending on political races in the state, ruling 5-4 that the measure violates the First Amendment rights of companies to spend funds on elections. The decision fell along similar lines as the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , which found that corporations and unions have a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts of money for and against candidates. Justices are expected to hand down long-awaited rulings on health care this week, but it’s already been a long year for the president before the Supreme Court. Late last year, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a 1912 state law banning corporate spending on elections, a law that arose from the corruption that troubled Montana during the copper baron era. The state’s high court said that even after the Citizens United ruling, the legacy of corporate control of its politics and other factors unique to Montana justified a ban on spending by corporations regulated by the state. So Citizen's United remains unaffected, with the small distinction that Elaine Kagan swung to the minority on this one.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 25 2012 01:31 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Benjamin Grimm Jun 25 2012 01:35 PM Re: Politics in 2012

I don't understand that painting. It seems to be Republican, because Obama and Clinton are unhappy and Reagan and Lincoln and Washington are cheering, but if it's a Republican painting, why isn't Jesus in it??

Mets – Willets Point Jun 25 2012 02:42 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Obama is like "Woah, that's an historic document. You can't just walk around with that." Meanwhile the founding fathers and early Presidents are like "Finally! They've been treating that thing (and us) like sacred relics for so long. Someone has finally realized that it's a living document for everyday use!" On the other side, 20th century Presidents mope: "We were so dumb, why didn't we realize that?"

Edgy MD Jun 25 2012 02:46 PM Re: Politics in 2012

Looks a lot more partisan than that. It ain't 20th century presidents, but latter-day Democrats on the right. Not sure what it's saying about them, but they sure look like Red has disappointed them. Roosevelt so sad, he can't even enjoy having his ability to walk restored.