Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 24 2014 11:57 AM

I didn't see it, but news reports say that John Boehner told Jay Leno that he won't run for president because he doesn't want to give up smoking, wine, and golf.

Edgy MD
Jan 24 2014 12:25 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Golf's like a requirement for being a president.

Boehner's had a semi-public ongoing battle with smoking.

Frayed Knot
Jan 24 2014 12:33 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I didn't see it, but news reports say that John Boehner told Jay Leno that he won't run for president because he doesn't want to give up smoking, wine, and golf.


Why not? Obama managed two terms despite indulging in at least two of those when he was elected.
He still golfs (a lot) and I'm sure enjoys the occasional glass of wine too. He claims to have quit smoking but I'm not sure I'd take that bet to the bank.

Edgy MD
Jan 24 2014 12:39 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Boehner likely ain't running because (1) he seems to like his current job, as thankless and loveless at it seems, and (2) it'd turn the election into a referendum on the shutdown, which will otherwise largely be forgotten by election time.

Ashie62
Jan 24 2014 05:25 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Boehner seems perfectly happy where he is...and kinda burned out at that..

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jan 24 2014 07:21 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Exciting couple of days for the boss.

Struck a big deal about the bankruptcy and protecting pensions. Thursday he announced a big plan to expand immigration in the city. Was at the National Press Club on Friday on a panel with Mike Bloomberg to talk about the issue. Lots of national press have called.

Zvon
Jan 24 2014 10:20 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ashie62 wrote:
Boehner seems perfectly happy where he is...and kinda burned out at that..


Boehners lucky to be where he is and he knows it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jan 25 2014 03:20 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm not certain "happy" is the right word for how Boehner's feeling about his position. "Burned-out" is closer. "Resigned," "fortunate," and "trapped" seem yet closer.

Edgy MD
Jan 25 2014 04:46 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

It's weird, because he does seem trapped, but reports typically suggest he really likes the job, as thankless as it seems.

Frayed Knot
Jan 27 2014 07:35 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

This current string of three consecutive two-term presidencies, Clinton, Bush & Obama (assuming Barack finishes out his) will be only the second time in the nation's history that that has happened, and the first since numbers 3, 4 & 5: Jefferson, Madison, & Monroe.
By contrast, nearly 1/4 off all those to hold the office (10 of 43) failed to complete even one full term.

Edgy MD
Jan 27 2014 07:41 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Don't put a damper on the State of the Union.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 27 2014 07:43 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

It's hard to imagine that anything at all could diminish the wild popularity of the annual State of the Union address.

d'Kong76
Jan 28 2014 07:48 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

The State of the Union Address is always the funniest
tv in the last week of January.

Edgy MD
Jan 29 2014 02:00 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Go off topic with Congressman Grimm, he will break you like a boy.

Nymr83
Jan 29 2014 02:25 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Still glad i voted for him and wish i still lived in staten island so i could do so again. Fuck the reporter, id be pissed off too if i was doing you a favor and you took a cheap shot at me like that.

Edgy MD
Jan 29 2014 02:46 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Really?

Well, if he was justified, I guess that his apology was just a big lie then.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jan 29 2014 05:58 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Y'know one could argue that verbally and physically threatening a much smaller man for doing his job-- zealously, in a way that makes you annoyed/uncomfortable, but not unethically-- isn't the most honorable move for anybody to make, much less for an ostensible public servant, former law enforcement officer, and ex-Marine.

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Jan 29 2014 06:42 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Nymr83 wrote:
Still glad i voted for him and wish i still lived in staten island so i could do so again. Fuck the reporter, id be pissed off too if i was doing you a favor and you took a cheap shot at me like that.


I want to move to Staten Island just to vote against the guy. Cheap shot? He didn't even ask the question. And I guess we're taking this douchebag at his word that these "ground rules" were established, becuase it certainly didn't appear to the reporter that's what was agreed to.

Nymr83
Jan 29 2014 07:02 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Nymr83 wrote:
Still glad i voted for him and wish i still lived in staten island so i could do so again. Fuck the reporter, id be pissed off too if i was doing you a favor and you took a cheap shot at me like that.


I want to move to Staten Island just to vote against the guy. Cheap shot? He didn't even ask the question. And I guess we're taking this douchebag at his word that these "ground rules" were established, becuase it certainly didn't appear to the reporter that's what was agreed to.


I CERTAINLY take Grimm at his word over a journalist.

Edgy MD
Jan 29 2014 08:12 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

We're going to disparage an entire profession for dishonesty in order to justify this guy who just threatened to murder somebody in the Capitol?

The guy had already been considered cleared in the investigation. The whole scene is a disaster.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 29 2014 08:17 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Still glad i voted for him and wish i still lived in staten island so i could do so again. Fuck the reporter, id be pissed off too if i was doing you a favor and you took a cheap shot at me like that.


I want to move to Staten Island just to vote against the guy. Cheap shot? He didn't even ask the question. And I guess we're taking this douchebag at his word that these "ground rules" were established, becuase it certainly didn't appear to the reporter that's what was agreed to.


I CERTAINLY take Grimm at his word over a journalist.


That Grimm is a fucking thug and a scary guy. And I don't mind saying so, so long as I'm anonymous here. (I don't want nobody breaking my kneecaps and this roid rage politician reads like the guy that knows 500 guys that'll break 'em).

[youtube]bdw31G38s9A[/youtube]



January 29, 2014
Is Michael Grimm Man Enough to Serve?
Posted by Evan Ratliff



Michael Grimm was not among the four Republicans asked to respond to the State of the Union address last night, but he might as well have been. Not one to cede the spotlight casually, the representative from Staten Island eclipsed the dull speeches of his colleagues with a vintage, action-packed Michael Grimm performance. Footage of a United States congressman physically threatening a reporter may not have been the Republican Party’s preferred story of the evening, but it was the one that Grimm delivered:

http://www.ny1.com/content/news/202674/ ... era-threat

Shortly afterward, NY1 released a transcript of the incident. After obtaining Grimm’s brief response to the President’s address, the political reporter Michael Scotto began to ask a question on another topic—a federal investigation into the congressman’s campaign fund-raising. Grimm walked away as the question was asked. After Scotto signed off, Grimm, a veteran of the United States Marine Corps and a former F.B.I. agent who worked undercover, came back into the frame with his chest puffed, backing Scotto out of the picture:

GRIMM: Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this fucking balcony.


SCOTTO: Why? I just wanted to ask you…

(Cross talk.)

GRIMM: If you ever do that to me again…

SCOTTO: Why? Why? It’s a valid question.

(Cross talk.)

GRIMM: No, no, you’re not man enough, you’re not man enough. I’ll break you in half. Like a boy.

In Grimm’s world, there are men of great character, whose conduct stands above questioning, and boys, who come—as Grimm once put it to me—only to “demean and belittle” it. The reporter “insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot,” Grimm said in a statement, so he “verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect.”

The exchange with Scotto had a familiar ring to it. In 2011, I travelled to Grimm’s Washington office to interview him about his work as an undercover F.B.I. agent with a paid informant and con man named Josef von Habsburg. I also asked Grimm about a 1999 night-club incident in which Grimm, who was an agent at the time, was accused by an off-duty N.Y.P.D. officer of threatening a fellow-patron (“I’ll fuckin’ make him disappear where nobody will find him,” Grimm is alleged to have said), waving a gun at the officer (“I’m gonna fuckin’ kill him”), and using racially charged language in the fracas’s aftermath (“All the white people get out of here”).

Grimm denied all of these allegations—and did so again, later, through a spokesperson. He also called me a “liar” working on a “chop job.” “You don’t rate to come and question me on it, quite frankly,” he said, before dismissing me from his office. After The New Yorker published the story, in May of 2011, Bill de Blasio, the public advocate at the time, called for the N.Y.P.D. to release any files pertaining to the night-club incident—files for which I had also filed public-records requests. Those requests remain unfulfilled. Grimm, for his part, called the story “fiction,” “a witch hunt,” and “a hatchet job” perpetrated by the Democratic Party. For a moment, his past seemed to fade into the shadows as his congressional star began to rise.

Boys will be boys, though. In 2011, a reporter at the Daily News uncovered Grimm’s ties to a convicted felon in Texas named Carlos Luquis. A fellow former F.B.I. agent, Luquis had served as a director of an energy firm that Grimm co-owned. Prior to that, he’d served two years of a twelve-year federal sentence for fraud.

In 2012, another “boy”—in this case, a female reporter, Alison Leigh Cowan—reported extensively on allegations that an aide to a New York City rabbi had helped Grimm collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable campaign contributions, much of it in envelopes full of cash. Cowan later reported that yet another one of Grimm’s business associates, a partner in a failed Upper East Side health-food restaurant, had been accused of having ties to the Gambino crime family. Both the House Ethics Committee and the Justice Department are reported to have opened investigations into Grimm.

Grimm again denied any wrongdoing, and coasted to reëlection in 2012. Since then, his only brushes with impropriety involved reports that he had sex with a woman in a Brooklyn bar bathroom and a strange incident in which Grimm claimed that vandals smashed the windows of his Staten Island office in order to wipe the hard drives on his campaign computers. After Grimm announced that the attacks were a “politically motivated crime” and an “assault on democracy,” police could find no evidence that the computers were tampered with at all. An eighth-grader later confessed to the vandalism.

Then, two weeks ago, federal authorities arrested still another of Grimm’s associates, a Texas woman who allegedly funnelled more than ten thousand dollars in illegal funds into his campaign. (Grimm denies any wrongdoing.) The arrest raises questions about what Grimm knew of her actions and whether federal investigators may be actively pursuing the congressman himself for fund-raising improprieties during the 2010 campaign. They are sensible questions for a local New York reporter to ask Grimm. And Grimm’s constituents might expect him to be man enough to answer.


Grimm Night Club Incident

More Grimm Shenanigans

More Grimm

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... e-1.945072

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/nyreg ... wanted=all

http://www.bkmag.com/2013/10/15/did-a-c ... -bathroom/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/nyreg ... f=nyregion

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jan 29 2014 08:24 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

BML beat me to the punch. Nobody's been "cleared" of anything.

A friend who works as a reporter for public radio confirms that Grimm's reputation is, um, well-deserved (though he's always been cordial with her).

Edgy MD
Jan 29 2014 08:35 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Sorry, I had understood he was clear of the radius on the fundraising investigation.

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 29 2014 08:35 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm starting to take this personally!

Mets – Willets Point
Jan 29 2014 08:55 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I'm starting to take this personally!


I keep thinking of you every time I see "Grimm" in these posts. Of course, a big scaly monster is not one to mess with under any circumstances.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jan 30 2014 06:40 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Nymr83 wrote:
Nymr83 wrote:
Still glad i voted for him and wish i still lived in staten island so i could do so again. Fuck the reporter, id be pissed off too if i was doing you a favor and you took a cheap shot at me like that.


I want to move to Staten Island just to vote against the guy. Cheap shot? He didn't even ask the question. And I guess we're taking this douchebag at his word that these "ground rules" were established, becuase it certainly didn't appear to the reporter that's what was agreed to.


I CERTAINLY take Grimm at his word over a journalist.


Some journalists are nice people. Really. Mets fans, even.

Vic Sage
Jan 30 2014 08:20 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I CERTAINLY take Grimm at his word over a journalist.


...because journalists have nothing to lose by lying and losing credibility, which their entire careers are based on, but politicians, particularly one with this track record, never dissemble to serve themselves.

see, this is the problem with being an ideologue. all facts are received through a filter which distorts reality until it conforms to pre-existing views.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jan 30 2014 09:52 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Vic Sage wrote:
I CERTAINLY take Grimm at his word over a journalist.


...because journalists have nothing to lose by lying and losing credibility, which their entire careers are based on, but politicians, particularly one with this track record, never dissemble to serve themselves.

see, this is the problem with being an ideologue. all facts are received through a filter which distorts reality until it conforms to pre-existing views.


I think the sarcasm meter was on and he was saying he takes to word of the journalist over the politico. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Benjamin Grimm
Jan 30 2014 09:55 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I didn't get that he was being sarcastic.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 30 2014 10:05 AM
Re: Politics in 2014



January 27, 2014
Stephen Hawking’s Blunder on Black Holes Shows Danger of Listening to Scientists, Says Bachmann
Posted by Andy Borowitz



WASHINGTON —Dr. Stephen Hawking’s recent statement that the black holes he famously described do not actually exist underscores “the danger inherent in listening to scientists,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said today.

Rep. Bachmann unleashed a blistering attack on Dr. Hawking, who earlier referred to his mistake on black holes as his “biggest blunder.”

“Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you,” said Rep. Bachmann. “If black holes don’t exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don’t either, like climate change and evolution.”

Rep. Bachmann added that all the students who were forced to learn about black holes in college should now sue Dr. Hawking for a full refund. “Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,” she said.

Bachmann’s anti-Hawking comments seemed to be gaining traction on Capitol Hill, as seen from the statement by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Science Committee, who said, “Going forward, members of the House Science Committee will do our best to avoid listening to scientists.”


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/b ... hmann.html

Ceetar
Jan 30 2014 10:14 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

gee, that reads just like the Onion.

Mets – Willets Point
Jan 30 2014 10:18 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ceetar wrote:
gee, that reads just like the Onion.


The Borowitz Report is an Onion-like news satire column.

Ceetar
Jan 30 2014 10:21 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Mets – Willets Point wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
gee, that reads just like the Onion.


The Borowitz Report is an Onion-like news satire column.


Aha! didn't know that.

Mets – Willets Point
Jan 30 2014 10:23 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ceetar wrote:
Ceetar wrote:
gee, that reads just like the Onion.


The Borowitz Report is an Onion-like news satire column.


Aha! didn't know that.


A lot of people don't especially with The New Yorker header giving it credibility.

As to Hawking's new study, all I can say is "huh?"

Edgy MD
Jan 30 2014 10:27 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

If we can't trust the credibility of The Black Hole, then Escape from Witch Mountain and Tron go right out the window too!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jan 30 2014 11:29 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Wait, are you telling me that writing in "Give $1 To Shrinking Human-Interior Spaceships" on my tax filing since the '70s has been a fool's errand?

This is not fantastic news.

Zvon
Jan 30 2014 12:59 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

“Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,” Bachmann said.


Ha. We noticed.

batmagadanleadoff
Jan 30 2014 01:01 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Possible criminal charge discussed over Rep. Grimm confrontation with reporter

Law enforcement officials are discussing a possible criminal charge against Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., after his infamous confrontation with a reporter Tuesday night, Fox News has learned.

Grimm was caught on camera threatening to throw a reporter over a balcony and break him "in half" -- after the reporter asked him about a campaign finance investigation. Grimm has since apologized to NY1's Michael Scotto, and Scotto tweeted Wednesday that he "accepted his apology."

But a congressional source told Fox News that it doesn't necessarily matter whether Scotto wants to press charges.

It is unclear what officials will decide. But the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of the Columbia is conferring on the matter with law enforcement, a discussion fueled in part by the fact this occurred on federal property. The D.C. statute in question pertains to "threatening to do bodily harm."

A source familiar with the issue said Grimm's stature as a lawmaker does not exempt him.

The U.S. Attorney's Office would not confirm the conversations and had no comment as of Thursday morning.

The House Ethics Committee could also take action. However, only another lawmaker can bring an ethics charge against a colleague before that committee.

The committee has already backed down twice on any inquiry into Grimm's campaign finance issues as federal officials currently study the case.

Grimm had the confrontation with Scotto after the State of the Union address. The clip went viral and repeatedly was played on cable news channels on Wednesday.

Grimm issued a statement apologizing on Wednesday.

"I was wrong. I shouldn't have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool," Grimm said in a written statement. "I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I'll be working hard for my constituents on issues like flood insurance that is so desperately needed in my district post Sandy."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... -reporter/

Law enforcement must have a raging hard-on for this shady politician if they're considering whether to press criminal charges over that incident.

Ceetar
Jan 30 2014 01:06 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Fox News is the parody on the other side of the fence right?

Edgy MD
Jan 30 2014 01:21 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

There's nothing in that report that sounds like a parody.

Lefty Specialist
Jan 31 2014 06:59 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Perhaps the Congressman should choose who he decides to intimidate more carefully....


Rep. Michael Grimm didn’t know whom he was dealing with on Tuesday when he threatened to throw NY1 reporter Michael Scotto off the US Capitol balcony and “break you in half. Like a boy.”

The journalist is related to Anthony Scotto, former head of the Brooklyn longshoremen’s union and a former boss in the Gambino crime family.

“Michael is a tough reporter, and in true Scotto fashion, he’s not easily intimidated!” “Good Day New York” host Rosanna Scotto, Michael’s cousin and Anthony’s daughter, told me.

“Grimm’s outlook may be grim,” laughed one Brooklynite. “Is he nuts, or what?”

Frayed Knot
Feb 12 2014 01:16 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin convicted on 21 of 22 counts of bribery.
I didn't know that was even a crime for elected officials in Louisiana.

Nymr83
Feb 12 2014 01:48 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Frayed Knot wrote:
Former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin convicted on 21 of 22 counts of bribery.
I didn't know that was even a crime for elected officials in Louisiana.


They've yet to convict him for gross negligence in ignoring state officials who told him to evacuate the city much sooner

Frayed Knot
Mar 18 2014 10:02 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Surely I can't be the only one who pictures Putin* confronting some western ambassador:
DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM? I'M VLAD PUTIN AND I WAS MAKING MY BONES WHEN YOU WERE GOING OUT WITH CHEERLEADERS!
YOU GUYS DON'T SANCTION ME OUT, I SANCTION YOU OUT! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF MUSCLE ANYMORE.









* shirtless of course

Lefty Specialist
Mar 18 2014 11:46 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Let's hope he turns out like Moe Green.

Frayed Knot
Mar 18 2014 11:49 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ashie62
Mar 18 2014 12:24 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I believe Romney said during the Election that Russia was our most serious foe....

Said foe may likely continue to spread it's wings after which started after its victory regarding Syrian diplomacy...

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 18 2014 08:51 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ashie62 wrote:
I believe Romney said during the Election that Russia was our most serious foe....

Said foe may likely continue to spread it's wings after which started after its victory regarding Syrian diplomacy...


I believe the president's dismissive quote was "The 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back."

Romney was correct about that and many other things.

Edgy MD
Mar 19 2014 08:43 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Well, it was one of those planned zings that you've JUST GOT TO GET IN THERE. The president landed that one in a debate months after Romney made that quote, and in response to Romney speaking about the threat of Al Qaeda.

Politics will make dopes of us all.

Nymr83
Mar 19 2014 10:33 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Obama is reportedly also considering offering to give Putin the Sudetenland if he promises to behave himself.

Edgy MD
Mar 19 2014 10:46 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

...zings that you've JUST GOT TO GET IN THERE. ...in there... ... in there... .

Lefty Specialist
Mar 20 2014 09:21 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Giggle if you want about Romney being 'right', but what exactly would a President Romney or a President McCain have done in this circumstance? Probably pretty much the same things Obama would have done, because nobody's stupid enough to get into a war over Crimea. They like to carp, but when the rubber hits the road, there's very little you can do in this instance, certainly nothing militarily.

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and overthrew the government. And we did, well, nothing. There are few good options here that don't end up with two nuclear superpowers doing dangerous things. One thing that CAN be done is to impose business sanctions, preventing US companies from doing business with Russia. But donchaknow, there's a lot of active lobbying against doing the one thing that would make Vladimir sit up and take notice. Might hurt profits, say Pepsi and Ford and Exxon and Boeing.

Nymr83
Mar 20 2014 09:36 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Obama sounds like a big pussy in his speech this morning, using lota of words to anounce that we arent going to do anything real about the invasion, which he refused to even call such.

I dont know about romney, but i think mccain would have done much better in this crisis and probably would have done more ahead of time to bolster our ties to Ukraine as well as probably sanctioning Russia over their previous attack on Georgia. Obama's failure to seriously respond in the aftermath of that certainly contributed to Putin's feelings of what he could get away with here.

sharpie
Mar 20 2014 09:40 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

GW Bush was President in 08, Obama was sworn in in 09.

Nymr83
Mar 20 2014 09:48 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 20 2014 09:50 AM

sharpie wrote:
GW Bush was President in 08, Obama was sworn in in 09.

You may wish to look "aftermath" up in a dictionary, not that Bush handled it well either.

TransMonk
Mar 20 2014 09:50 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm seriously glad I don't poke my head in here more often.

Edgy MD
Mar 20 2014 09:56 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Well, I'm not expert on foreign policy and don't pretend to be. In fact, if you met me, I'm the first guy you'd call a pussy, if calling people a pussy is the kind of thing you do. (Which I really don't think you should do.)

That said, I imagine it is less instructive to analyze how a theoretical alternative president would have responded to this crisis, so much as to analyze policy alternatives leading up to it. Some things I imagine a theoretical president McCain wouldn't have done is announce a reset of our Russia policy, withdraw our missile defense program from Eastern Europe, begged the Russian president for space until after the 2012 election so he can alter policy without having to face the electorate on it, etc.

I am only a pawn in the game of life, so I don't pretend to know how different the lay of the land on the Black Sea would be, but those are some things that I imagine would have been different.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 20 2014 11:26 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Let's not forget that the most surprised guy here was not Obama, but Putin. He had his 'guy' in Ukraine, ready to cooperate just like the good old KGB days. He was setting up a cooperation sphere to keep Ukraine in the Russian orbit, rather than the EU's. They'd sent a nice big check ($15 billion) to keep his guy happy and pledged to cut the price of natural gas by a third. So Vlad thought he had this all taken care of, but those pesky people got in the way, eventually running a democratically-elected leader out of the country. (He was a corrupt thug, but he was elected in a free and fair election).

Suddenly Putin's looking at a government in Ukraine that is actively hostile to Russian interests. A part of that country is where a good portion of his fleet resides, part of the awkwardness of the Soviet breakup in 1991.

Now, this is NOT to justify taking a piece of another country. Far from it. But when we view things with US-centric eyes, we sometimes lose the plot a bit. Prior to last November, the average American could give two craps about Ukraine. If Ukraine's leader didn't over-react to protests, things probably would have fizzled eventually and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Putin wasn't sitting there for the past year saying, 'I think I'll annex Crimea'. If he'd really wanted to do this all along, he could have done it at any time he wanted in the past fifteen years. Events escalated quickly.

And because events escalate quickly, we need to be really careful how we address this. Because a year ago I don't think anybody, Putin included, thought we'd be where we are right now.

Frayed Knot
Mar 20 2014 12:08 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

The other thing that Putin's action does is takes a chunk of the pro-Russian peeps out of Ukraine leaving the remainder to be more pro-west than before.
In effect this whole action isolates him a bit more all for the price of expanding his territory, what?, by 0.5%. And, yes, I realize that it's the value of that territory (warm water ports - something even the old USSR had very little of) more than the size of it, but still, there's only so much you can do these days as an isolationist even if you're the biggest isolationist around.

Ashie62
Mar 20 2014 12:25 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

All of this could put "Back in the U.S.S.R" back on the charts.

Go USA...

Lefty Specialist
Mar 20 2014 01:16 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ukraine girls really knock me out! They leave the West behind!

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 20 2014 01:24 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Giggle if you want about Romney being 'right', but what exactly would a President Romney or a President McCain have done in this circumstance?


I don't think anyone is giggling at all. And I do not know exactly what a President Romney would have done differently.

I do know that candidate Romney raised Russia as an issue, and President Obama not only disagreed with him, but dismissed and belittled him. And the president, having already been in office for nearly four years at that point, should have known better. (Had he made the same claim as candidate Obama four years prior, I don't think there would have been as much criticism.)

TransMonk
Mar 20 2014 04:15 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Campaign rhetoric and actual policy are night and day.

I'd also like to know what Romney (or McCain) would have done differently...although now the would have the advantage of hindsight in their answers.

Edgy MD
Mar 20 2014 04:23 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Well, I tried to suggest a few things upstairs that they would have done differently, though it takes a much more Brzezinskinian mind than my own to know what outcomes they would have led to.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 20 2014 04:54 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Vlad wants Russia to be respected. Russia was humiliated in the early post-Soviet days, and it still sticks in his craw that the old Soviet Union broke up- he's said as much. He didn't like the eastward creep of NATO (including 3 former Soviet republics and most of the Soviet bloc). As an old KGB guy, fear and respect kind of go hand in hand. He can't get the old band together for real, but he wants outsized influence in those outer states, including Ukraine. A deal with the EU threatened that.

Even with all this, though, Russia is not our number one geopolitical foe. China is.

metirish
Mar 20 2014 05:37 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

It will be interesting to see if his oligarch friends start to make noise with him after the sanctions bite .

I do not see how Romney or whoever could have prevented what happened from happening, having said that Obama disappoints on foreign affairs.

Ashie62
Mar 20 2014 06:17 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

The Ukraine would provide Russia with good soiled land for growing stuff....

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 21 2014 11:13 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

TransMonk wrote:
Campaign rhetoric and actual policy are night and day.

I'd also like to know what Romney (or McCain) would have done differently...although now the would have the advantage of hindsight in their answers.



I disagree. People need to be held accountable for what they say in a campaign. You, in effect, just gave them carte blanche to say anything to get elected and then not following through. If he stood at a podium and said, "Well, that was just campaign rhetoric," people would be -- and should be -- appalled.

TransMonk
Mar 21 2014 12:24 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm still waiting for what Romney's alternatives to avoiding this situation were. Edgy pointed out that McCain wouldn't have done what Obama did...but that doesn't really give me anything constructive towards agreeing that Romney (or McCain for that matter) was right about dealing with Putin.

IMHO, Romney got asked a question two years ago about who was the biggest threat and gave one of several possible right answers at the time. Now in hindsight, we can declare him "correct" on his Russian policy, even though his answers about potentially dealing with Putin should he have been elected were vague (and IMO wrong) at best? I don't think so.

Accountability is all well and good, and believe me, as a guy for voted for Obama twice, I find myself disappointed in him more often than I'd like. But politics and policy is not a zero-sum game. "Romney was right and Obama was wrong" is all just finger pointing. I'm sure the Dems will pay for this and other things later this year because elections are reactionary events rather than proactive events.

But what do we do now? That's the only question/vision/plan/concern that actually matters to me on Russia going forward (and it's mostly rhetorical, BTW...unless you have a plan).

And on a side note: This Putin situation should be 10X more important than that missing plane, right? However, every news outlet I visit seems to show the plane story first. Have they all gone crazy?

Benjamin Grimm
Mar 21 2014 12:45 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

And the missing plane will be forgotten as soon as Lindsay Lohan or Justin Bieber does something foolish.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 21 2014 04:14 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

The missing plane allows people to speculate wildly without the inconvenience of having any facts to contradict them. In other words, perfect for cable-TV news. On CNN they're going on about black holes and God's wrath, fer criminy.

As for geopolitics:

Russia is a lot weaker than they used to be back in the day. Their economy is almost totally dependent on oil and natural gas. They don't come close to projecting the force around the world that they did 30 or 40 years ago. Yes, they still have a large army and plenty of nukes, but they're not a threat to the US in the sense they were until the '80's.

They've been replaced by China, who learned from the Soviet mistakes and competes with us in every way at a far higher level than the Ruskies do. They've essentially taken our manufacturing base and relocated it in their country over the past 25 years. Name one thing that used to be made in the US that is now made in Russia. China also has 4 times the population and is planning on putting a man on the moon in the next 10 years. They plan to be the dominant player in the 21st century whether we like it or not. That's why they're buying pork producers in the US, banks in London, Volvo, and it's why they bought a huge stake in the Alberta Tar Sands that the Keystone Pipeline will ship to the Far East. Putin is throwing his weight around in his backyard, but the Chinese are playing for keeps.

So when someone says that the Russians are our biggest potential geopolitical threat, it's not unfair to say that it's indicative of a Cold War 1980's mindset. The world has changed; presidents or potential presidents need to keep up.

Nymr83
Mar 21 2014 04:55 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

The missing plane allows people to speculate wildly without the inconvenience of having any facts to contradict them. In other words, perfect for cable-TV news


Yup.

Edgy MD
Mar 21 2014 07:47 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Lefty Specialist wrote:
So when someone says that the Russians are our biggest potential geopolitical threat, it's not unfair to say that it's indicative of a Cold War 1980's mindset. The world has changed; presidents or potential presidents need to keep up.

Well, to be fair, President Obama was mocking him because he was suggesting Governor Romney didn't appreciate the threat of al Quaeda, not China.

Lefty Specialist
Mar 22 2014 05:21 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

And Obama's incorrect, too. Al-Qaeda's a terroristic threat, not a geopolitical one, but at least we're into the 21st century.

dgwphotography
Mar 27 2014 08:27 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Leland Yee is a name that will probably ignored by the national media. Why? The California State Senator, a Democrat who has sponsored anti-gun legislation, has been indicted for...

wait for it...

...arms trafficking

You can't make this up...

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... corruption

John Cougar Lunchbucket
Mar 27 2014 08:53 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

dgwphotography wrote:
Leland Yee is a name that will probably ignored by the national media. Why? The California State Senator, a Democrat who has sponsored anti-gun legislation, has been indicted for...

wait for it...

...arms trafficking

You can't make this up...

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... corruption


Google news search shows 589 articles on Leland Yee. They can't all be non-lamestream.

metirish
Mar 27 2014 09:19 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

MSNBC is all over it



http://www.msnbc.com/search/leland%20yee - 3 stories



http://www.msnbc.com/search/chris%20christie 2178 stories

Edgy MD
Mar 27 2014 09:39 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

It's like it's Wayne LaPierre's birthday.

Benjamin Grimm
Mar 27 2014 09:39 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Should we start a "Happy Birthday" thread?

Frayed Knot
Mar 27 2014 10:20 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I really enjoy it when politicians get arrested for stuff.
Between this one and the Charlotte, NC mayor, it's turning out to be a very good week.

Edgy MD
Mar 27 2014 10:33 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

It's like it's Frayed Knot's birthday.

dgwphotography
Mar 27 2014 11:01 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote:
Leland Yee is a name that will probably ignored by the national media. Why? The California State Senator, a Democrat who has sponsored anti-gun legislation, has been indicted for...

wait for it...

...arms trafficking

You can't make this up...

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... corruption


Google news search shows 589 articles on Leland Yee. They can't all be non-lamestream.


I said National media -

CNN - no stories

ABC - no stories

CBS - no stories

NBC - no stories...

Benjamin Grimm
Mar 27 2014 11:09 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

CBS

ABC

You do seem to be correct about CNN.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 27 2014 12:09 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 27 2014 12:24 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
CBS

ABC

You do seem to be correct about CNN.



Note that neither story reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?

Nymr83
Mar 27 2014 12:10 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

CNN will be the last to report on it and only after its hig enough that it looks suspicious not to. FOX probably has it in their top 5 stories. This is where a good amount of bias, at least in the big media, occurs... not outright lying but choosing what to report and how prominently to do so.

sharpie
Mar 27 2014 01:14 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Note that neither story reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?


First line of the ABC story:
California state Sen. Leland Yee has been released from custody and his lawyer says the Democrat from San Francisco plans to plead not guilty to corruption and gun charges.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 27 2014 01:30 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Note that neither story reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?


First line of the ABC story:
California state Sen. Leland Yee has been released from custody and his lawyer says the Democrat from San Francisco plans to plead not guilty to corruption and gun charges.


Note that [crossout]neither story[/crossout] only one of the stories reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?

Oops, I went right by that. No excuse for the other one not to list it.

On edit, one of the comments in the story:

Kevin McIntyre • 19 hours ago
Again, no mention of party affiliation when the accused is a Democrat. Not surprised.

I wonder if that detail was just added -- or this this reader missed it.

Frayed Knot
Mar 27 2014 01:53 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Maybe some of the writers felt that after you say 'elected official from San Francisco' then any mention of party affiliation is superfluous.

metirish
Mar 27 2014 03:07 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

MGIM , an observation if it's OK?

You are a little more conservative sine you started working for Gov. Snyder?, or perhaps in your previous job you could not show that?

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 27 2014 04:47 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

metirish wrote:
MGIM , an observation if it's OK?

You are a little more conservative sine you started working for Gov. Snyder?, or perhaps in your previous job you could not show that?


I think I'm pretty moderate. But maybe I should stay out of the politics threads. I hope I didn't appear in your face or anything. Wasn't my intent. Apologies. I did think it's incomplete for the story to not include party affiliation.

It has been interesting to see journalism from this side after spending my entire career on the other.

Edgy MD
Mar 27 2014 05:07 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

You just keep on being YOU.


Nymr83
Mar 27 2014 05:09 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Michigan, you are 'conservative' only by the standards of this board/new york city, and you are undoubtedly one of the least offensive posters in this thread, myself included.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Mar 27 2014 05:14 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edgy MD wrote:
You just keep on being YOU.





That was, like, the best day ever! The real Batmobile. Second only to perhaps the Mets bullpen buggy with the caps as the coolest vehicle ever!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Mar 27 2014 05:19 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Cooler than swappin' your favorite Phils memories over 'cue with Luzinski?

#neverforget
#whataboutBullghazi

metirish
Mar 27 2014 05:36 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
metirish wrote:
MGIM , an observation if it's OK?

You are a little more conservative sine you started working for Gov. Snyder?, or perhaps in your previous job you could not show that?


I think I'm pretty moderate. But maybe I should stay out of the politics threads. I hope I didn't appear in your face or anything. Wasn't my intent. Apologies. I did think it's incomplete for the story to not include party affiliation.

It has been interesting to see journalism from this side after spending my entire career on the other.


it was just an observation, I have noticed some not so happy with Obama post in FB etc. And that's fine man, be you, I'm pissed at the dude too.

Frayed Knot
Mar 27 2014 06:55 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I heard that the NY Post is covering this story extensively - but only as to how it relates to the Paltrow/Martin split.

dgwphotography
Mar 30 2014 12:23 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I guess CNN doesn't cover State Senators, except when they do...

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blum ... challenged

dgwphotography
Mar 30 2014 12:27 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Note that neither story reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?


First line of the ABC story:
California state Sen. Leland Yee has been released from custody and his lawyer says the Democrat from San Francisco plans to plead not guilty to corruption and gun charges.


Note that [crossout]neither story[/crossout] only one of the stories reveals Sen. Yee's party affiliation. Coincidence? Inadvertent omission?

Oops, I went right by that. No excuse for the other one not to list it.

On edit, one of the comments in the story:

Kevin McIntyre • 19 hours ago
Again, no mention of party affiliation when the accused is a Democrat. Not surprised.

I wonder if that detail was just added -- or this this reader missed it.



That's OK. Here's another story from ABC. What's missing?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/californ ... d=23082339


A California state senator busted on arms trafficking and corruption charges in an FBI sweep has a legislative record of fighting for stronger gun control laws.


California Lawmaker Accused of Bribery, Gun Trafficking
Ben Margot/AP Photo
Behind the scenes, Leland Yee, 65, offered to connect an undercover FBI agent with an international arms trafficker -- all in exchange for campaign donations, according to a federal complaint.

During the investigation, the undercover agent mentioned his desire to spend as much as $2.5 million on automatic "shoulder-fired" weapons and missiles, the complaint said.

After several months of planning, a meeting with a trafficker was facilitated earlier this month in San Francisco, the complaint said, in which the group discussed their plan for getting the weapons from the Philippines.

"Once things start to move, it's going to attract attention. We just got to be extra-extra careful," Yee said, according to the complaint.

Yee Spearheaded Gun Control Legislation

One month after the Sandy Hook massacre, Yee helped introduce what was seen as one of the toughest pieces of gun control legislation in the country to ban the "bullet button."

The device allows for quick-change magazines on military-style assault weapons and is legal under California's assault weapons ban.

Yee's legislation was eventually folded into a package of proposals that were vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October 2013.

After the veto, Yee said he was "recommitted" to passing his legislation and said it would "protect the public while keeping an appropriately narrow scope."

Lawmaker Busted in Sting

Yee was arrested Wednesday on federal weapons and corruption charges.

"If these allegations are true, Sen. Yee is easily the biggest hypocrite on gun control to walk the halls of the capitol in Sacramento, if not the entire United States," Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in a statement.

Among the other 25 defendants caught in the sting were Yee's campaign aide, Keith Jackson and Raymond Chow, a onetime gang leader known as "Shrimp Boy."

Yee, a former San Francisco mayoral candidate who is running to be the next California secretary of state, has been released from jail.

His attorney, Paul DeMeester, told the Associated Press that Yee planned to plead not guity to the charges. He declined to further comment on the case.

Benjamin Grimm
Mar 30 2014 05:52 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I found this article on fox news.com that only obliquely mentions that Larry Craig is a Republican. (It clearly, however, mentions the party affiliation of every Republican who criticizes him.)

And yet this FOX News article, on John Edwards' scandal… doesn't mention his party affiliation at all!

Nymr83
Mar 30 2014 06:29 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I found this article on fox news.com that only obliquely mentions that Larry Craig is a Republican. (It clearly, however, mentions the party affiliation of every Republican who criticizes him.)

And yet this FOX News article, on John Edwards' scandal… doesn't mention his party affiliation at all!


I think the easy explanation on Edwards is that at the time I don't believe he held any actual elected office. Sure, FOX could have chosen to mention he was a former DEMOCRATIC candidate for office or former DEMORATIC senator. Would this be consistent with FOX's reporting on out-of-office guys? i don't know.

But ignoring a story entirely as CNN did is certainly far "worse" than not mentioning someone's party affiliation as ABC seems to have done.

Benjamin Grimm
Mar 30 2014 08:25 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I remember when a sitting politician was mentioned in an article, there would always be something like (R-Tenn.) or (D-Vt.) after his or her name. Is that no longer the standard?

Edgy MD
Mar 30 2014 09:04 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

That may not be in everybody's style sheet, but whatever their style, the point is taken that, if it is, you better be doing it consistently.

But considering how happy folks are to take their news from openly biased sources, it's hardly unsurprising when outlets fail.

Nymr83
Mar 31 2014 08:05 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I remember when a sitting politician was mentioned in an article, there would always be something like (R-Tenn.) or (D-Vt.) after his or her name. Is that no longer the standard?


That was always the standard for sitting members of Congress at least, not sure if it was applied to everyone.

Edgy MD
Apr 11 2014 10:31 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Kathleen Sibelius (D–KS) stepping down as Health and Human Soivices Secretary.

Edgy MD
Apr 17 2014 08:53 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Did anybody beta-test this slogan? I see it on cars and it seems to have an unintentional meaning. Like the person has had to steel themselves before taking medicine.

[fimg=600:1pvajimn]http://www.sweetfreestuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/hillary.png[/fimg:1pvajimn]

(Not actually saying that. The slogan just seems funny.)

Mets – Willets Point
Apr 17 2014 09:20 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

All those years of people advocating for small government has come to fruition as the the government is now effectively in the hands of small number of elites. Sorry President Lincoln, but government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from the earth.

Ashie62
Apr 17 2014 10:54 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edgy MD wrote:
Did anybody beta-test this slogan? I see it on cars and it seems to have an unintentional meaning. Like the person has had to steel themselves before taking medicine.

[fimg=600]http://www.sweetfreestuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/hillary.png[/fimg]

(Not actually saying that. The slogan just seems funny.)


It does seem a bit busy...

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 17 2014 04:10 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Yeah, that slogan. It's like the "I guess..." is understood.

TransMonk
Apr 17 2014 05:26 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote:
Yeah, that slogan. It's like the "I guess..." is understood.

This. Perfect!

Ashie62
Apr 17 2014 05:58 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

7 months til mid-terms...

d'Kong76
Apr 17 2014 06:42 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'd be surprised if she's not the next prez.

Vic Sage
Apr 18 2014 08:38 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Mets – Willets Point wrote:
All those years of people advocating for small government has come to fruition as the the government is now effectively in the hands of small number of elites. Sorry President Lincoln, but government of the people, by the people, for the people has perished from the earth.


WP, is this supposed to be "news"?

I love looking at those charts and graphs, though... they so colorfully and vividly show the separation of the top 1% from the rest of the population, which seems to start around 1980. Gee, i wonder what happened in 1980? I wonder what political philosophy rose to dominance at that time? I wonder what the impact could have been of "deregulation"... i.e., the continuous erosion of governmental oversight and checks on the prerogatives of corporate interests by those who thought it was government that was the problem? Oh, THAT's the consequence. I see. well, i guess i'll keep voting for the "drown the government in the bathtub" types, because that'll surely stabilize our society and improve the quality of most people's lives.

Assholes.

We get exactly the kind of government we deserve. so many people seem to prefer to suck the corporate dick in order to hold onto the illusion that "hey, maybe one day, somebody below me will have to suck MY dick!", rather than organize themselves in opposition, to create a system where people don't have to suck anybody's dick, unless they're into that sort of thing. But no. Instead, for the last 35 years, we've chosen just to take our turn in the barrel.

metsmarathon
Apr 18 2014 09:00 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

but government is sometimes inefficient or cumbersome or ineffective or poorly implemented or corrupt.

a phenomena which is never ever never exhibited by corporations. no, not ever.

the problem with the government is when it loses focus on that whole "of, by, for" ideal. when it becomes wrapped up in self-interest and self-preservation instead of the best interests of the people who are being governed by it.

at virtually no point ever is a coproration not wrapped up in its own self-interest and self-preservation and its own self-interests. corporations do not serve the public trust. governments do. well, they should, and frequently do. a corporation serves only its shareholders, by way of maximizing profits and profitability.

Edgy MD
Apr 18 2014 09:10 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Vic Sage wrote:
I love looking at those charts and graphs, though... they so colorfully and vividly show the separation of the top 1% from the rest of the population, which seems to start around 1980. Gee, i wonder what happened in 1980? I wonder what political philosophy rose to dominance at that time?

Those charts are demonstrating something different from the study, though. The study doesn't start until 1981.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Apr 18 2014 10:33 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

d'Kong76 wrote:
I'd be surprised if she's not the next prez.


I think the stars were aligned for her in 2008. The fact that she got pushed aside by a relative unknown with zero accomplishments is very revealing.

I'm not saying she's not the prohibitive favorite for the nomination. She's raised a ton of money and has a national network. But she's got all of the Clinton family baggage and few of her husband's gifts. She's always had high unfavorables.

There's a nagging part of me that thinks she ends up not running -- deciding late and sending the Dems scrambling. Their worst-case scenario would be Biden, who also has been building a national network and is clearly running, stepping into a void.

Benjamin Grimm
Apr 19 2014 05:17 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I suspect that if Hillary does create that void, someone younger and more dynamic than Joe Biden (whose time has passed) will step in. I have to say, though, that I have no idea who that would be.

Edgy MD
Apr 19 2014 07:43 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Well, two New Yorkers are on that short list: Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) and Senator Kristen Gillebrand (D-NY).

Smarter non-Clinton money would be on Governor Martin O'Malley (D-MD), though.

Mets – Willets Point
Apr 19 2014 10:44 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

The Democrats nominating Clinton for President is akin to ceding the 2016 election to whatever corporatist/Tea Party candidate the GOP wants to nominate. There is no way someone so universally hated by the right wing, as well as by many independents and true liberal/progressives (yeah, there's still a few of us left) can win a national election.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Apr 19 2014 09:51 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I disagree with branding Republicans dismissively as "corporatist/tea party" people.

I think branding successful people as bad went out after the 2012 election. And Hillary has been giving speeches to corporate groups at $200,000 a pop and is now worth more than $20 million herself, according to one recent story.

Mets – Willets Point
Apr 19 2014 10:58 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Yes, at least one half of the country despises Clinton because they consider her (unjustifiably) uber-liberal bordering on socialist and the major news media will beat that drum all through the campaign. Another larger portion of the country hate Clinton because (justifiably) her record leans to excessive pragmatism and plain outright support of corporatist/militarist actions completely in opposition to liberal and progressive politics. Thus, I use the hyperbole that the Republicans could run a candidate even from their most extreme fringe and still win because so much of the populace is united in their hate of Clinton. But the Democratic core love her to bits, so they'll probably nominate her.

And yes, I need no reminders that the Democratic party is a right wing party serving the interests of the wealthy.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 20 2014 09:33 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

metsguyinmichigan wrote:
I disagree with branding Republicans dismissively as "corporatist/tea party" people.


Relax, bud. Really, it's only to differentiate them from the corporatist/nominally-liberal knee-jerkers on the other side.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Apr 20 2014 11:29 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote:
metsguyinmichigan wrote:
I disagree with branding Republicans dismissively as "corporatist/tea party" people.


Relax, bud. Really, it's only to differentiate them from the corporatist/nominally-liberal knee-jerkers on the other side.



How would you define "corporatist?"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Apr 20 2014 02:05 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Bankrolled to a significant degree by, and largely favorable to/pursuant of the interests of large corporations and corporate associations.

I was being flip. But only because if when I seriously consider the matter, I make myself sad.

Mets Guy in Michigan
May 24 2014 12:58 PM
Re: Politics in 2014



The proof for the August primary ballot arrived today. I guess this means I'm a politician. But running unopposed for the lowest possible elected office has its advantages.

Edgy MD
May 24 2014 02:04 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Like.

Edgy MD
May 30 2014 10:35 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki resigns.


What a horrible way to go out. He did the right thing but man.

"I can't explain the lack of integrity among some of the leaders of our health care facilities. This is something I rarely encountered during 38 years in uniform. And so I will not defend it because it is indefensible."

I get that. At the same time, I-was-naive can only get you so far.

Frayed Knot
May 30 2014 02:08 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

And press spokesman Jay Carney follows Shinseki out the door

Edgy MD
May 30 2014 02:14 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

WoW!

Freaky Friday!

Benjamin Grimm
May 30 2014 02:30 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I think heads will continue to roll until someone explains the connection between Zooey Deschanel and Jenrry Mejia.

Ceetar
May 30 2014 03:13 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I think heads will continue to roll until someone explains the connection between Zooey Deschanel and Jenrry Mejia.


Zooey's nephew is named Henry. Maybe?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
May 30 2014 04:35 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I think heads will continue to roll until someone explains the connection between Zooey Deschanel and Jenrry Mejia.


She's swooning. She's very swoony. And some of the Mets' number are having very swoonworthy seasons.

Ashie62
Jun 11 2014 07:12 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Eric Cantor don't let the door hit you in the a--

Edgy MD
Jun 11 2014 07:38 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

First sitting majority leader to lose in a primary in ever.

In the end, he was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the government shutdown, which is silly, as a Congressman should never be singlehandedly responsible for anything. Was once a favorite of conservatives to be named John McCain's running mate. According to yesterday's results, he's suddenly not conservative enough. World is changing.

Once beat Ben "Cooter" Jones in an election. That's one I'd frame. But he couldn't beat this mystery guy who nobody knows nothing about except he hates immigration.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Jun 11 2014 11:54 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm no expert... [spits into spittoon]... but I'm-a reckon that replacing Eric Cantor with a fella from 'at there Tea Party ain't gonna get'cha any less shutdowns, am I right?

d'Kong76
Jun 11 2014 11:56 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 11 2014 12:21 PM

Who knows, but I do know they should lose the moniker.

Edgy MD
Jun 11 2014 12:06 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote:
I'm no expert... [spits into spittoon]... but I'm-a reckon that replacing Eric Cantor with a fella from 'at there Tea Party ain't gonna get'cha any less shutdowns, am I right?

Well, I'm going to work with the assumption that Brat ain't going to assume Cantor's chair as the majority leader. I'm not particularly confident in him even winning the general election..

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 11 2014 12:47 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

I hear it's a heavily Republican district, so he probably has a decent chance of winning. Fun fact: his Democratic opponent is also a professor at the same university.

But as Edgy says, even if the tea-party guy gets elected, he won't have the same juice in the House that Cantor had. At least, not for quite a while.

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jun 11 2014 01:16 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
I hear it's a heavily Republican district, so he probably has a decent chance of winning. Fun fact: his Democratic opponent is also a professor at the same university.

But as Edgy says, even if the tea-party guy gets elected, he won't have the same juice in the House that Cantor had. At least, not for quite a while.


He's a Michigan guy!

Benjamin Grimm
Jun 11 2014 02:16 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Oh! Well, in that case, he'll have immediate juice!

MFS62
Jun 12 2014 07:20 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Benjamin Grimm wrote:
Oh! Well, in that case, he'll have immediate juice!

Like that tobacco juice that was just aimed at the spittoon?

Later

Frayed Knot
Jun 12 2014 10:32 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

My only problem with an entrenched incumbent being defeated in a primary by an upstart unknown is that there aren't several dozen more of these happening all over the country.

d'Kong76
Jun 14 2014 09:42 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

If I were Dictator or King of the United States, I would
make Hillary Clinton president today. It would save my
loyal subjects 16 months of bbbyyy and it would be over
and done with. Eight years of Hillary, make it so!!

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jun 17 2014 07:54 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

d'Kong76 wrote:
If I were Dictator or King of the United States, I would
make Hillary Clinton president today. It would save my
loyal subjects 16 months of bbbyyy and it would be over
and done with. Eight years of Hillary, make it so!!


Seems like she's struggling to pull off a simple book tour. Maybe we should let the process play out.

Ceetar
Jun 17 2014 07:59 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote:
d'Kong76 wrote:
If I were Dictator or King of the United States, I would
make Hillary Clinton president today. It would save my
loyal subjects 16 months of bbbyyy and it would be over
and done with. Eight years of Hillary, make it so!!


Seems like she's struggling to pull off a simple book tour. Maybe we should let the process play out.



well, the "process" anyway.

Ashie62
Jun 17 2014 07:02 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Presidential non incumbent front runners have a way of crapping out sometime within the two years before the process...

Mets Guy in Michigan
Jun 18 2014 07:31 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Ashie62 wrote:
Presidential non incumbent front runners have a way of crapping out sometime within the two years before the process...



I thought this was an interesting article -- five reasons why she won't run.

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/17/5_reasons_hillary_wont_run_123015.html

TransMonk
Jun 18 2014 07:41 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I don't agree with her on several issues...but it would be really hard to convince me that there is another American more qualified to be President.

Edgy MD
Jun 18 2014 08:11 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I'm of the mind that thousands and thousands of people we'll never know about are generally more qualified to be president than the candidates we do know about.

TransMonk
Jun 18 2014 08:32 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Do you mean generally as far as elections go or generally as in the amount of qualification? 8 years as a first lady, 8 years as a Senator and 4 years as Secretary of State is a pretty unique resume.

Edgy MD
Jun 18 2014 08:40 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

I mean insofar as wisdom, insight, sober judgment, creativity, community-spiritedness, compassion, leadership, studiousness, courage, honesty, independence, and diplomacy can be considered qualifications.

metsmarathon
Jun 18 2014 08:43 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

i think that if, instead of elections, we posted the offices of president, governor, mayor, etc, on monster.com, or northjerseyhelpwanted,com, or wherever, and we were on the hiring committee to fill those positions, we would end up with a far better set of candidates to pore over than those who typically run for office, is i think the point.

we've ended up with a bunch of people who are far more qualified to run for office than they are to run the country. and therein lies so much of hte problem.

metsmarathon
Jun 18 2014 08:44 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edgy MD wrote:
I mean insofar as wisdom, insight, sober judgment, creativity, community-spiritedness, studiousness, compassion, leadership, and diplomacy can be considered qualifications.


wait, you want all that instead of "has done politics before"?

what kind of madman are you?

Frayed Knot
Jun 18 2014 08:46 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Presidential resumes are a fungible type of thing.
Barack Obama had an extremely thin one as far as national politicians go but people were willing to flock to him because he gave out an aura of being well-spoken (which, after eight years of Bush, goes a long way) competent, and trustworthy.
Hillary's CV is obviously much more extensive but I'm not sure she'll be able to sell the other parts of her game as well.
Timing plays such a large part in these things as well. Conditions that broke very well for BO in 2008 might not be there for HRC in 2016.

Edgy MD
Jun 18 2014 08:47 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

metsmarathon wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
I mean insofar as wisdom, insight, sober judgment, creativity, community-spiritedness, studiousness, compassion, leadership, and diplomacy can be considered qualifications.


wait, you want all that instead of "has done politics before"?

what kind of madman are you?

The kind who didn't even think to include "integrity."

metsmarathon
Jun 18 2014 08:49 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edgy MD wrote:
Edgy MD wrote:
I mean insofar as wisdom, insight, sober judgment, creativity, community-spiritedness, studiousness, compassion, leadership, and diplomacy can be considered qualifications.


wait, you want all that instead of "has done politics before"?

what kind of madman are you?

The kind who didn't even think to include "integrity."


see, you're just part of the problem...

Edgy MD
Jun 19 2014 02:13 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-California) becomes the new House Majority Leader. Steve Scalise (R-LA) takes the whip chair.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Aug 02 2014 12:42 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

"Screw you guys... I'm going home."

Ashie62
Aug 03 2014 07:55 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

TransMonk wrote:
Do you mean generally as far as elections go or generally as in the amount of qualification? 8 years as a first lady, 8 years as a Senator and 4 years as Secretary of State is a pretty unique resume.


Benghazi dude

TransMonk
Aug 04 2014 07:52 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

*facepalm*

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Aug 04 2014 09:53 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

MORE LIKE "FACEHOOF" YOU 'SCONNIE SHEEPLE!!!11!1!

Edgy MD
Sep 25 2014 09:21 AM
Re: Politics in 2014

Hey, man, Eric Holder is stepping down.

Edgy MD
Dec 30 2014 03:44 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Rep. Grimm looks to be reversing his vows not to resign, ending what has to be one of the more drama-concentrated four-year tenures.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr
Dec 30 2014 05:33 PM
Re: Politics in 2014

Edgy MD wrote:
Rep. Grimm looks to be reversing his vows not to resign, ending what has to be one of the more drama-concentrated four-year tenures.


And potentially costing his constituents millions of dollars in special-election costs.

Christ, if he needed to prove something and nab a quick ego boost, couldn't he have picked a barfight with a smaller reporter or something?