Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 12 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1101. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4703944)
Jason, I have no more interest in resurrecting the Benghazi issue than I have in re-fighting the Pueblo incident,

Andy, may I assume that your choice of the Pueblo incident was random?

More importantly, I had made no mention of the Rhodes memo until yesterday when Mouse made his drive-by comment, parroting verbatim the DNC talking points pretty much claiming that, were it not for Boehner's decision to form a special committee, the Senate Majority Leader would happily endorse up-and-down votes on House-passed legislation.
   1102. BDC Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:29 AM (#4703946)
a mistake is not a scandal

I still don't understand the scandal value of Benghazi, either, but I reckon part of the warrant for the lunatic right seeing it as scandalous is that it confirms their belief that Obama and his minions will stop at nothing to appease Muslim extremists, while surrendering to the terrorists or Putin or the French at the first opportunity. To them it's part of a pattern, not just an awful thing that happened.

   1103. formerly dp Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:33 AM (#4703947)
That's a pretty funny thing to say, FDP, considering you apparently see no evil re: Obama and Benghazi, only with Bush and Iraq.
I have plenty of other beefs with Obama's foreign policy. The civilians deaths from US drone strikes are deplorable, and they land squarely on Obama's shoulders. The strikes are categorically immoral in my view. (edit: 'categorically' is the wrong word here-- the execution and target selection process has been immoral) The admin's attempt to obscure the numbers of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes, in order to keep public support for them, is similarly immoral.

The Benghazi thing, by contrast, is a naked attempt to smear Clinton and Obama-- all of the sudden, after years of looking the other way while literally thousands of American troops died unnecessarily, some of them under very questionable circumstances, your side now cares deeply about the deaths of four Americans. I don't mind the politics, I mind the shamelessness-- that you actually expect us to believe this is about the 4 dead Americans, rather than your hyperpartisan agenda, that's offensive. We're not that stupid, Jason, and you're not that clever.
   1104. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4703949)
Is there politics involved? Of course there is ... and it's been present from day one, when the White House, scared shitless a few days after the DNC had concluded and mere weeks before the election that its "Osama is Dead, Al-Qaeda is on the Run" mantra was going the way of Bush's "Mission Accomplished," concocted the ######## narrative about the video.


This is obviously what the true believers in the echo chamber think. It's a bit silly the first time. It's absurd the 400th. The GOP is chasing "Benghazi" because they see it as a way to harm HRC in the run up to 2016. Everything else is huff and puff.
   1105. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:42 AM (#4703952)
Because you were so determined to get to the bottom of the Monica Lewinsky/Paula Jones/Juanita Broderick accusations, right? LOL. It seems fitting that you are heading to the land of Loony Tunes.


As with Benghazi, most rational people let go of that witch hunt after the tenth time it failed.
   1106. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4703953)
As for Beirut and politicization of horrific events:

House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. said Monday the nation had enough of President Reagan's "phony alibis and lame excuses" for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon and several congressional committees will try to get "some truthful answers."

The speaker also hit at the "blissful manner in which he (Reagan) likes to accept the blame. There has to be more than that."

Going beyond harsh criticism that began last week after a suicide truck bombing outside the U.S. Embassy annex in an east Beirut suburb, O'Neill, D-Mass., said:

"I have been in contact with the (House) Intelligence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary to get to the bottom of how this tragedy could happen in the same manner, in the same city, three times in 18 months."


http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2519&dat=19840925&id=TY1iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uHcNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4937,2896472

Now, the administration deserved blame for the Pentagon's failures but:

(1) It's not nearly as disgraceful as having this White House's cover-up, and;
(2) I don't recall the MSM laughing at O'Neill's accusations and ignoring the story for more than 18 months.
   1107. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4703954)
I still don't understand the scandal value of Benghazi, either, but I reckon part of the warrant for the lunatic right seeing it as scandalous is that it confirms their belief that Obama and his minions will stop at nothing to appease Muslim extremists, while surrendering to the terrorists or Putin or the French at the first opportunity. To them it's part of a pattern, not just an awful thing that happened.


The scandal value is that this story stuck with Fox viewers. And they have a new email to quote out of context, so fire up the Inquisition again.
   1108. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4703955)
I have plenty of other beefs with Obama's foreign policy. The civilians deaths from US drone strikes are deplorable, and they land squarely on Obama's shoulders. The strikes are categorically immoral in my view. (edit: 'categorically' is the wrong word here-- the execution and target selection process has been immoral) The admin's attempt to obscure the numbers of civilian casualties resulting from drone strikes, in order to keep public support for them, is similarly immoral.

That's not the point, FDP. I wasn't daring you to list a single criticism of Obama foreign policy, merely observing that you see no problems with the White House's Benghazi responses, yet want to blast away at Bush's decision to seek Congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq.
   1109. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4703956)
No. He was noting that neither rises to the occasion of outrage and multiple congressional witch hunts.
   1110. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4703957)
As for your citing of 9/11, Mouse, maybe when you return you can explain whether you're a full-blown Truther or merely a quasi-Truther (e.g., Michael Moore fan), as it will help guide my response.
   1111. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4703962)
Jason, I have no more interest in resurrecting the Benghazi issue than I have in re-fighting the Pueblo incident,

Andy, may I assume that your choice of the Pueblo incident was random?


It was, but if you wish, you can substitute "Who lost China?", "Who promoted Peress?", "Who lost Vietnam?", the sinking of the USS Liberty, or "What about greenies?". You've got enough people here to keep you occupied on Benghazi without needing my help.
   1112. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4703965)
It was, but if you wish, you can substitute "Who lost China?", "Who promoted Peress?", "Who lost Vietnam?", the sinking of the USS Liberty, or "What about greenies?". You've got enough people here to keep you occupied on Benghazi without needing my help.

Even more importantly, please be sure your mention of the USS Liberty was random. :-)
   1113. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4703967)
To further the obvious point, Fox is also blaming HRC's state department for those kidnapped Nigerian girls. It's about 2016. That is all it's about.
   1114. formerly dp Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM (#4703968)
merely observing that you see no problems with the White House's Benghazi responses, yet want to blast away at Bush's decision to seek Congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq.
The problem I see is with you, after not caring at all how many American soldiers died as a direct consequence of Bush knowingly manipulating intelligence, now pretending that you're all bothered by the deaths of 4 people. I get that your side is mad about their trumped-up rhetoric and crocodile tears being called out for what they are, but the solution is not to ramp up the rhetoric even more and squirt a bottle of saline solution into your eyeballs. Keep going with it if you want. I'm just saying the rest of us see it for what it is.

The drone strikes are ongoing and actionable. Innocents are dying on a near-constant basis, without any requirement that the US disclose their victims. So yes-- that's the more pressing issue for me.

Edit: from the link:
Yet the US strike policy is so broad that it considers any military-age male in a strike zone as a combatant, especially if he is armed. Thus, even by the strictest standards, there are likely many more civilians who have died but were considered fighters or militants.
   1115. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4703969)

I still don't understand the scandal value of Benghazi, either,


I _think_ the "scandal value" is - at least according to conservatives - that (1) Obama and Hillary "didn't care" about the Americans stationed there (thus they "ignored" Stevens's requests for help), and (2) part of their inaction and lack of response to the attacks was that they wanted to make it appear, in the run up to an election, that Obama had solved the terrorism problem, or at least that there weren't any major terrorist attacks against Americans on his watch.

To be clear, Obama and Hillary gave conservatives fuel for this by sending Susan Rice out on the Sunday shows to be a patsy and to call it a spontaneous attack based on some videos. It also seems that Obama never flat out called it a "terrorist attack," though liberals argue that his general "acts of terror" comments preferencing his discussion of Benghazi the next day in the Rose Garden cover it.

I can get behind the idea that Obama and Hillary tried to do damage control by spinning this and pretending it was the result of spontaneous protests, in order to deflect criticism from Obama in an election season. But that is very different from not caring in advance, and as I again repeat, it's not clear to me, without using hindsight reasoning, what Obama and Hillary _should_ have done that they didn't do.
   1116. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4703974)
The scandal value is that this story stuck with Fox viewers. And they have a new email to quote out of context, so fire up the Inquisition again.


I'm not on board with the Fox News View of this, as should be clear from my above comments, but how is what conservatives are doing any different from liberals arguing after 9/11 that Bush dropped the ball by not heeding the vague "bin Ladin determined to strike in US" PDB?

It's funny to see liberals and conservatives arguing against each other, oblivious to the fact that they are flip sides of the same coin, and that they aren't actually that far apart from each other when viewed triangularly by libertarians.

"Something Bad Happened" and our guy isn't in power so let's blame the guy in power so as not let that serious crisis go to waste. Both sides play this silly game, so acting like you are above it now that the shoe is on the other foot isn't really all that convincing.
   1117. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4703975)
If we're even more honest, we can apply this same rubric to Israeli politics, American support of resulting policies, and the Holocaust.

Wait, what?
To further the obvious point, Fox is also blaming HRC's state department for those kidnapped Nigerian girls. It's about 2016. That is all it's about.

And just because Troopergate is real doesn't mean that the DNC isn't doing its very best to milk the issue for all it's worth.* Welcome to Earth, Sam. Have you been here before?

* Unlike Benghazi, the talk about HRC and Nigeria isn't sustainable. Heck, no one would be discussing her connection now were it not for her belated attempt to raise holy hell over the issue now that she's a private citizen about to run for POTUS. (Similarly, I don't recall her getting all worked up over ##### Riot's imprisonment when she was Secretary.)
   1118. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:22 AM (#4703976)
I don't recall any hearings about that PDB ray. And I don't recall ever making a big deal about it personally.
   1119. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4703977)
It was, but if you wish, you can substitute "Who lost China?", "Who promoted Peress?", "Who lost Vietnam?", the sinking of the USS Liberty, or "What about greenies?". You've got enough people here to keep you occupied on Benghazi without needing my help.

Even more importantly, please be sure your mention of the USS Liberty was random. :-)


Actually it wasn't, because like the Benghazi incident, it involved a group of obsessive people who were intent upon escalating a tragedy based upon a misreading of information** into something much more sinister, in this case obsessing against Obama, in the 1967 case obsessing against Israel. The details and the specific charges are obviously different, but the insistence on a malign motive is identical.

**

   1120. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4703979)
But that is very different from not caring in advance, and as I again repeat, it's not clear to me, without using hindsight reasoning, what Obama and Hillary _should_ have done that they didn't do.

As I noted above, Ray, it's about context. The DNC was filled with speakers, including Obama and Biden, slapping each other on the back for killing OBL and decimating AQ, when this happened. (Prior to 9/11, no one in the Bush administration was going around saying anything remotely similar.) And because the White House had put so much stock in taking credit for OBL's death, it was reasonable to demand where was POTUS hiding (preparing for the Vegas fundraiser, no doubt) while these attacks took place. And as SBB pointed out earlier, it's the cover-up that's causing all this agita.

What could Obama and Hillary have done? Leaving aside the US decision to help overthrow Ghadafi, Obama deserves no blame for the events leading up to the attack on the Consulate. That no senior officials at Foggy Bottom were even punished is a testament to the determination to protect HRC's reputation by whatever means necessary.
   1121. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4703980)
because like the Benghazi incident

With that, Andy, I opted to read no further. We will just have to agree to disagree on Benghazi.
   1122. GregD Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4703983)
I'm not on board with the Fox News View of this, as should be clear from my above comments, but how is what conservatives are doing any different from liberals arguing after 9/11 that Bush dropped the ball by not heeding the vague "bin Ladin determined to strike in US" PDB?

It's funny to see liberals and conservatives arguing against each other, oblivious to the fact that they are flip sides of the same coin, and that they aren't actually that far apart from each other when viewed triangularly by libertarians.

"Something Bad Happened" and our guy isn't in power so let's blame the guy in power so as not let that serious crisis go to waste. Both sides play this silly game, so acting like you are above it now that the shoe is on the other foot isn't really all that convincing.


I didn't blame Bush for 9/11. Do I think it's possible things could have been handled differently? Sure. Do I think that it's realistic to know beforehand how to sort out the deluge of intelligence? Of course not. Things only become obvious in retrospect.

On Beirut, I was a pre-adolescent and a strong Republican, so I don't remember any strong feelings but am sure they were pro-Reagan.

I think your point is valid, Ray, but also that there are distinctions in kind.

Michael Moore is not John Boehner.

A call immediately afterward for an investigation, like Tip O'Neill, is not the same thing as running a series of investigations for month after month, finding nothing, then sparking up a new one.

There's both equivalence and false equivalence at play here.

It is fair game in politics to take advantage of one's opportunities, and I don't fault the Republicans for that. The new committee is absurd but Congress has done absurd things before. It is surprising to me that the House Republicans, seeing their advantage, now seem unable to run out the clock but seem determined to act in ways that will make them seem strange once again to independents. I doubt it will actually undercut them in November 2014, but it certainly is an odd strategy. Almost as if there's a big faction that is blind to strategic consequences or something...

I do think it's sad to see people of obvious intelligence like Jason now profess to be unable to see the distinction between a political jab and a serious point.
   1123. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4703988)
because like the Benghazi incident

With that, Andy, I opted to read no further. We will just have to agree to disagree on Benghazi.


Fine with me, as I've never seen much future in two dogs chasing each other's tails. And how about them Yanks and O's?
   1124. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4703991)
A call immediately afterward for an investigation, like Tip O'Neill, is not the same thing as running a series of investigations for month after month, finding nothing, then sparking up a new one.

There's both equivalence and false equivalence at play here.

You know precious little about the Speaker of the House, Greg.

Unlike Gingrich and Pelosi, Boehner has always been a strong supporter of the Committee system, which was why he allowed Issa, Rogers, McKeon, etc. to conduct their own Benghazi investigations. Pressure from the outside became too great for him to resist once the release of the Rhodes memo was made public.
   1125. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4703992)
And how about them Yanks and O's?

Yes, when will you be offering up a wager on who finishes ahead of the other?
   1126. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4703994)
A call immediately afterward for an investigation, like Tip O'Neill, is not the same thing as running a series of investigations for month after month, finding nothing, then sparking up a new one.

Frank "Nothing to see here folks" Drebin would be so proud of you, Greg.
   1127. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4703996)
It's hilarious that people are alleged to be Out To Hurt Hillary for when she runs. I just want to go on record here that I can't wait to see Hillary (1) run, (2) (unlikely but hopefully) win the nomination, and (3) lose the presidential election.

She is un-electable. Jeb Bush would beat her.
   1128. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4703997)
Wait, what?


The full context of that statement should be clear.

To further the obvious point, Fox is also blaming HRC's state department for those kidnapped Nigerian girls. It's about 2016. That is all it's about.


And just because Troopergate is real doesn't mean that the DNC isn't doing its very best to milk the issue for all it's worth.* Welcome to Earth, Sam. Have you been here before?


Troopergate? Oh, that thing with Palin's corruption in Alaska? Yeah, there was some spin about that in the DLC and some coverage in the leftier wings of the media sphere. There were not, of course, mind numbing, time and resource wasting Congressional inquiries held with the explicit intent of trying to gin up 'impeachment' against a duly elected President. But you keep pretending a hawk is a handsaw, chief. Whatever gets you through the night, right?

* Unlike Benghazi, the talk about HRC and Nigeria isn't sustainable.


This is where you give away the game. Benghazi isn't important because it is in the national interest. It's not important because it shows any actual corruption or problematic behavior within the administration. It's important because it's sustainable*. And as we enter the soft underbelly of the final two years of a second administration, Ben Smith and the click-bait whores are more willing to pick up the Fauxrage bubble narrative in order to create "narrative" and "controversy" heading into the 2016 general. Predictable and obvious.

*It is "sustainable" in much the same way Terry Schiavo was "sustainable." An undead thing that should have been buried years ago, kept alive by fools and charlatans out to turn a buck on the "narrative" angle.
   1129. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4703999)
Troopergate?

LMAO. At least I have a good excuse: Yesterday I showed my class HBO's "Game Change" and Palin's acceptance speech.
The full context of that statement should be clear.

Wait, what? I know you detest Bibi (and probably aren't too fond of either Livni or Lapid) but I'm not even sure you're even in loopy Beinart territory anymore.
   1130. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:16 AM (#4704000)
This is where you give away the game. Benghazi isn't important because it is in the national interest. It's not important because it shows any actual corruption or problematic behavior within the administration. It's important because it's sustainable*

Wait, what? No, Sam, the word you're looking for is "substance." There were defensible, although perhaps still faulty, reasons why the terrorist label hadn't been stuck on Boko Haram a few years ago, one being that the Nigerian government wasn't too keen on the idea.

I think HRC's attempt at a southern drawl or her embrace of the Yankees do way more to disqualify her for POTUS than her agency's lack of sufficient action on Boko Haram.
   1131. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4704002)
Yesterday I showed my class HBO's "Game Change" and Palin's acceptance speech.


Were they impressed with Candidate Ed Harris and politcal macher Woody Harrelson's performances?
   1132. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4704003)
Wait, what? I know you detest Bibi (and probably aren't too fond of either Livni or Lapid) but I'm not even sure you're even in loopy Beinart territory anymore.


Go re-read the full exchange for that comment. We're not actually discussing any specific policy. I maintain that the statement stands, with context, on its own.
   1133. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4704006)
Wait, what? No, Sam, the word you're looking for is "substance."


I'm just using your term, "sustainable." Now you want to change that because it tells too much. There is no defensible reason to re-engage a Benghazi investigation that has proved pointless a dozen times already. Aside from the Issa witch hunt, anything-to-undermine-Hillary obviousness. There's no national good to come from yet another spin of this wheel. But the national good is never really the point of the GOP, now is it?
   1134. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4704007)
Were they impressed with Candidate Ed Harris and politcal macher Woody Harrelson's performances?

Whatever you think of the substance of the story, that was a top-notch film. (Everyone appeared to agree.) Harrelson in particular did a heckuva job.
   1135. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4704009)
It's hilarious that people are alleged to be Out To Hurt Hillary for when she runs. I just want to go on record here that I can't wait to see Hillary (1) run, (2) (unlikely but hopefully) win the nomination, and (3) lose the presidential election.

She is un-electable. Jeb Bush would beat her.


Please tell me you're a betting man, and please post your odds on Hillary vs Bush and the other hopefuls.

------------------------------------------------

And how about them Yanks and O's?

Yes, when will you be offering up a wager on who finishes ahead of the other?


I'll let you know when I figure that one out myself, though I think that both of them are better than they were last year. But given how the AL East hasn't played much outside the division, it's hard to measure the improvement with much confidence. Both teams also have starting rotations that it's hard to get a bead on at this point.

OTOH if you want to pick your GOP candidate in 2016 for even money vs. Hillary, just name your price and we're on.
   1136. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4704010)
And "sustainable" was apt for the point that I made, Sam, just as "substance" was the correct term for the other point.

But the national good is never really the point of the GOP, now is it?

Whatever makes you sleep well at night.
   1137. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4704011)
OTOH if you want to pick your GOP candidate in 2016 for even money vs. Hillary, just name your price and we're on.

Like you said about the O's and Yanks, it's too early. Meanwhile, I deliberately took Sam's beer six-pack bet even though I believe a six-seat GOP pickup in the Senate is the most likely scenario just so that he might finally taste what a good brew tastes like.
   1138. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4704014)
OTOH if you want to pick your GOP candidate in 2016 for even money vs. Hillary, just name your price and we're on.

Like you said, it's too early.


What, you're not even as confident as Ray is about Hillary's un-electability? What would General Rove think about such squeamishness?
   1139. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4704016)
What, you're not even as confident as Ray is about Hillary's un-electability? What would General Rove think about such squeamishness?

Rove would agree with me, Andy, not Ray. She's way overrated as a candidate, of course, but (1) I want to see the field on the D side and (2) I want to see the field on the R side.
   1140. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4704025)
What, you're not even as confident as Ray is about Hillary's un-electability? What would General Rove think about such squeamishness?

Rove would agree with me, Andy, not Ray.


Divide and conquer, that's my motto!

She's way overrated as a candidate, of course, but (1) I want to see the field on the D side

I think you've seen it already, and this time I've already made a phone call to take care of ####### Nader just in case he wants to foist a third Bush upon us.

and (2) I want to see the field on the R side.

So do I, Jason, so do I.
   1141. bobm Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4704027)
After all, wasn't it Clinton who first said "In politics, once you learn to fake sincerity, you have it made".

Will Rogers IIRC
   1142. Greg K Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM (#4704029)
I would have thought a lot can happen in two and a half years. How often is the favourite that far out the nominee? (when that favourite isn't the incumbent President or Vice-President)

Honest question, I don't actually know. Is touting Hillary like touting Andy Marte in 2005? Matt Wieters in 2009? Mike Trout in 2013?
   1143. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4704030)
So do I, Jason, so do I.

Oh, G-d, I was deathly afraid that link was going to send me to a pic of either you or far worse, Madeleine Albright dressed in a toga.
   1144. bobm Posted: May 10, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4704033)
1089. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4703877)
OT - Hey I am off in the morning to Orlando for a week (fun, amusement parks, swimming pools, hanging out with friends)


Bitter Mouse and Mickey Mouse at the Happiest Place on Earth (other than Bhutan) :)
   1145. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4704034)
On an OTP off-topic note, am I the only one who didn't know about AmazonSupply.com? When exactly did Bezos decide to capture the wholesaler market?

   1146. bobm Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4704036)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/10/upshot/forget-benghazi-hillarys-real-problem-is-obama-fatigue.html


The latest investigation into the Benghazi attack reminds us that the issue isn’t going away any time soon. Pundits are already speculating about potential damage to Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects, but don’t believe the hype: Scandals rarely matter much in presidential election campaigns.

A far more significant threat to her potential candidacy is Americans’ desire for new leadership after eight years of the Obama administration. A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll found this week that 65 percent of Americans would “like to see a president who offers different policies and programs.” Only 30 percent said they wanted ones “similar to those of the Obama administration.”

Some of those disaffected citizens are presumably Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who will ultimately support the party’s nominee in 2016, but the problem that the poll highlights is real. Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, calls this the “time for change” effect.

“When a party has held the White House for two or more terms,” he said, “voters will be more likely to feel that it is time to give the opposing party an opportunity to govern.” Consider, for instance, the 1992 Clinton campaign mantra “change vs. more of the same” that was featured in the documentary “The War Room.”

As Abramowitz has shown, the incumbent party has typically fared worse in “time for change” elections like 2016 during the post-World War II era. When the incumbent party has held the White House for two or more terms, it has won only two of nine elections since 1948. When the incumbent party has held the presidency for only one term, it has won seven of eight.

Moreover, historical data suggests that the public’s attitude today is similar to the run-up to a previous “time for change” election that didn’t go well for the incumbent party. As the chart indicates, the percentage of Americans who currently favor “different policies and programs” is closer to levels from the 2005-2006 period under George W. Bush, another relatively unpopular second-term president presiding over a weak economic recovery, than from 1999-2000, when Bill Clinton was president and the economy was much stronger.

Of course, it’s far too soon to know how well the economy will be performing in 2016, which is the most important factor in determining which candidate wins. But given the hurdles Clinton could face, she may be wishing for a change, too — back to 2008, when she and the Democrats were the ones calling for change rather than trying to defend their record and hang on to the White House for one more term.

   1147. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4704040)
Honest question, I don't actually know. Is touting Hillary like touting Andy Marte in 2005? Matt Wieters in 2009? Mike Trout in 2013?

I'd say it's more like JFK against Goldwater in 1964 if Oswald had been quietly done away with before he reached the parade route. It wouldn't have been like the real 1964 landslide by any means, because the backlash against right wing extremism** was amplified by the assassination, but in both cases you still had (and will have) a GOP candidate who's far to the right of the national mainstream, especially once the primary season is over and the Democrats start highlighting the winner's rhetoric.

And while in the real 1964 election you had "Win one for the martyr", in 2016 you're going to have a lot more "It's our turn now" among women than the Republicans are likely to be able to counter by normal appeals to family values conservatism. And the more the Republicans unload on her, the more they'll create a backlash among women who take those attacks personally. That particular dynamic is as close to a sure bet as you'll ever see in 2016.

**Yes, I know that Oswald was a Communist, but the overwhelming percentage of violent action and violent rhetoric in 1964 was coming from the Right. That "JFK WANTED FOR TREASON" ad that greeted Kennedy in the Dallas Morning News was fairly typical of what the forerunners of the Birther crowd were spewing out in that pre-election year. Oswald was a Red, but in 1963 he was an anomaly.
   1148. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4704041)
On an OTP off-topic note, am I the only one who didn't know about AmazonSupply.com? When exactly did Bezos decide to capture the wholesaler market?

Jeff Bezos' worldly ambitions would put both V.I. Lenin and Rudyard Kipling to shame.

And you're next---and you. And you. And you.
   1149. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4704042)
**Yes, I know that Oswald was a Communist, but the overwhelming percentage of violent action and violent rhetoric in 1964 was coming from the Right. That "JFK WANTED FOR TREASON" ad that greeted Kennedy in the Dallas Morning News was fairly typical of what the forerunners of the Birther crowd were spewing out in that pre-election year. Oswald was a Red, but in 1963 he was an anomaly.

A prime example of the left's never-ending effort to blame the right for violence carried out by the left and other non-rightists.
   1150. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4704046)
I would have thought a lot can happen in two and a half years. How often is the favourite that far out the nominee? (when that favourite isn't the incumbent President or Vice-President?)

Five of the last six: Romney, McCain, Kerry (though 2.5 years might be pushing it), Bush Jr, and Dole. Clinton no, but he was considered a strong possibility in a jumbled field. Dukakis was firmly behind Gary Hart. Mondale, yes. Reagan had been the clear leader from the day he was reluctantly bumped aside at the '76 convention for President Ford. Carter no, but nobody was. McGovern, no. Nixon, yes. So, pretty often.
   1151. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4704047)
As for your citing of 9/11, Mouse, maybe when you return you can explain whether you're a full-blown Truther or merely a quasi-Truther (e.g., Michael Moore fan), as it will help guide my response.


What the heck? What on earth are you talking about? Where did I reference 9/11?

Besides I never said you response was boring, I said Benghazi! is boring to most people. It will never excite most people it is way to far away and fuzzy, and most importantly there is no narrative.

What did Obama want? Unless you are suggesting he wanted Americans to die, he did not want anything like what happened to end up happening. Cover up? Yeah, talking points on a Sunday show is not exactly like the a break in at the Watergate. Benghazi is boring. Sorry, but the GOP needs to find a better scandal.
   1152. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4704048)
And my flight was delayed and I am Bitterer Mouse, but I have to leave soon.
   1153. GregD Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4704056)
I do not doubt at all Obama fatigue

I think the key question is always relative to what.

I doubt Obama fatigue is atop anyone's hierarchy of values, assuming you aren't worrying about people who hate Obama and are going to vote for any r anyway

Some of it is probably democrats who will be glad for Hillary

Some of it though probably is democrats who aren't sure about Hillary or that rare beast true independents


The question there is the same as with generic republican or generic democrat polled against a real candidate. Generic always performs better.

If republicans could run "do something different" against Hillary they would probably win. But they can't. If they can find someone who is both non threatening and exciting they would be in good shape. That though is always hard to find. If they run someone non threatening but boring--Jeb or mitt--they have a shot but will probably be hoping for a Hillary error. If they run someone exciting but threatening they I think are looking at a really hard road in the EC. And if they run someone boring and threatening then it will be disaster as it would for any party


GregK on Hillary's position I think Nate ran numbers a while ago that said her polling in the democratic primary is better this far out than anyone other than an incumbent president. In a totally different ballpark than her 2006 polling. That could obviously evaporate but it would be a surprise. It is true that she had no credible challenger for the nomination--sanders and o'malley are credible politicians but not credible to best her--is both a cause of her polling and a consequence of it
   1154. tshipman Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4704057)
how is what conservatives are doing any different from liberals arguing after 9/11 that Bush dropped the ball by not heeding the vague "bin Ladin determined to strike in US" PDB?


Well, for starters, 9/11 truthers were always fringe. Second of all, no one in D leadership proposed partisan investigations into 9/11. There was a bipartisan 9/11 commission, but that was I think something embraced by all parties as a fact finding thing.

I think most Democrats took the position that it was incorrect to blame Bush for 9/11, but that his failures occurred afterwards in how he started a completely unrelated war with Iraq.

***

By comparison, Benghazi criticism has been all over the map. Somehow it was State's fault for not having more security, despite security detail budgets being cut by Rs. Somehow it was Obama's fault for not ordering a military evacuation, despite it not being physically possible for it to have reached anyone in time. Somehow it was a political calculation to repeat the story that the CIA had provided on Sunday talk shows.

I'm still not entirely clear what the alleged cover up was. As I understand it, it's gone through several different permutations. I think the current read is that Obama knew that the attacks were by Al Qaeda, and sent Susan Rice out to lie about it. This is all despite the intelligence community still believing that the attack was not planned and was an opportunistic thing.

The whole thing is a complete shitshow by Issa, who continually releases edited documents designed to play on Fox despite never actually having the goods.
   1155. Howie Menckel Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4704059)
we all know the limited value of predictable reactions from predictable places, so this from an avowed conservative and Hillary-hater made me take note


http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/..._river_default

"All of this babbling about Benghazi might make some sense if those behind it were opposed to U.S. involvement in the Mideast all along. If guys like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul were leading the charge on Benghazi, they could at least argue "I told you so." As adherents of the traditional conservative policy of non-interventionism, they did indeed tell you so.

But those braying the loudest over Benghazi are the same "neo"-conservatives who have also been calling for the United States to get involved in even more such exercises. If these guys had their way, we’d be gearing up for intervention in Iran and Ukraine.

The good news is that after more than decade of their bungling, the American people are tuning them out — which is what I strongly advise you to do when those hearings get underway."
   1156. Greg K Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4704063)
Thanks for the info Gonfalon and Alternate Greg!
   1157. simon bedford Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4704064)
two things
1 the whole 9/11 conspiracy stuff devolving into pseudo science and talk of "nano thermite", could it be that star trek nerds have hijacked this
movement?
2 regarding benghazi, i am suprised more people dont draw the parrallel to reagans folly in the middle east regarding Lebannon, where after suffering a horrendous setback, Reagan simply pulled everyone out and offered no apology or explanation beyind "we didnt reallize how crazy they were"
   1158. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4704068)
Well, knock me over with a feather, it looks like Kehoskie's found a new RINO.

Paul Diverges From His Party Over Voter ID

After you read the entire story, it's hard to know exactly what Paul stands for or doesn't stand for,

Within the past 8 months or so, Rand Paul came down with a bad case of politician-itis. He nows "stands for" just about anything that differentiates himself from the field of potential GOP presidential candidates.

***
I still don't understand the scandal value of Benghazi, either,

You don't understand how people see Obama and his administration, in the midst of a presidential election, conspiring to blame the deaths of four Americans on a YouTube video as a scandal?

I can understand partisans wanting the scandal to go away, but claims of "not understanding" the scandal seem quite strange.
   1159. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4704077)
An additional note on nominees who appear to have "come from nowhere," like Clinton, Dukakis, and Carter. In each of these cases, the press was late to catch up. They would have been considered favorites if the full extent of their behind-the-scenes preparations, alliances and infrastructure had been grasped before they succeeded, instead of in post mortems. Obama's the odd man out here; he was already considered the favorite for 2012 or 2016 after Hillary was done, but saw no reason to wait.

The Democrats have had a number of "up for grabs" years (1992, 1988, 1976, 1972, maybe 1968) in living memory, often sparked by the expected winner faltering. But the Republicans really haven't. So this will be interesting-- an actual open process, as opposed to the make-believe horse races that the media push so hard as real. It's likely that the GOP race is being won right now, not in two years' time, but we'll have to wait until 2017 for the book about how it happened.
   1160. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4704081)
Somehow it was State's fault for not having more security, despite security detail budgets being cut by Rs.

I can't believe liberals post this with a straight face. The embassies in places like Paris and Oslo were found to have more and better security than Benghazi. That's not a budget problem; it's a leadership problem.
   1161. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4704082)
I'm still not entirely clear what the alleged cover up was. As I understand it, it's gone through several different permutations. I think the current read is that Obama knew that the attacks were by Al Qaeda, and sent Susan Rice out to lie about it.


Yes, this is the current "scandal" that is being touted as impeachable offense. The nutter argument is:

1. Benghazi was a terrorist attack.

2. The Obama admin knew Benghazi was al-Q terrorism from the start*.

3. Because they knew an al-Q terrorist attack in the run-up to 2012 would doom their re-election campaign* the admin sent Susan Rice onto the Sunday talk shows to willfully mislead the public and blame the video instead.

4. This intentional misleading of the public* is tantamount to Watergate, and thus should be investigated non-stop until the POTUS resigns or is impeached.*

All of the points marked with the asterisk (*) are "things the right wing echo chamber believe with all their heart." They are also "things no one else believes." The echo chamber, though, believes that they are not only 100%, unquestionably true, but that they are so OBVIOUSLY true that it requires a covert "liberal agenda" to fail to see it as being the case. And they fundamentally believe that if they could just manage to pry this Benghazi "scandal" that they believe to be impeachable level offense out of the "truth media" of the right and into the public consciousness, past the gatekeepers of the "liberal media," that the nation would embrace their religion with open arms.

This is about the right wing echo chamber preserving their own cognitive bias at all costs, failing to even comprehend how others don't see what is "obviously true" to them, and thus recognizing the fact that Obama was only elected to a second term because of this nefarious lie about Benghazi. The Birther angle played out after term #1. They need a new narrative to prosecute their required religious belief that the second Obama term is equally illegitimate. Barring the ability to actually impeach and remove Obama, they GOP power brokers will settle for attempting to damage Clinton, who they rightfully see as their primary competition for 2016.
   1162. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4704085)
the admin sent Susan Rice onto the Sunday talk shows to willfully mislead the public and blame the video instead.

Right, this is exactly what the Obama administration did, as the recently released emails show. (You know, the emails they didn't find during multiple FOIA requests and Congressional subpoenas, but miraculously found after the courts got involved.)
   1163. McCoy Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4704087)
Like a Bush or McCain administration would have prevented the attacks. Who here honestly believes that?

Hell, with McCain the attacks might have been prevented because McCain probably would have sent in the Navy and Marines to blow the shvt out of Gaddafi's power base and in doing so a bunch more Americans and a shvt-ton of Libyans would have died.
   1164. GordonShumway Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4704088)
Five of the last six: Romney, McCain, Kerry (though 2.5 years might be pushing it), Bush Jr, and Dole. Clinton no, but he was considered a strong possibility in a jumbled field. Dukakis was firmly behind Gary Hart. Mondale, yes. Reagan had been the clear leader from the day he was reluctantly bumped aside at the '76 convention for President Ford. Carter no, but nobody was. McGovern, no. Nixon, yes. So, pretty often.


I would disagree on Kerry being the favorite in May 2002. Like Clinton, Kerry was seen at the time as a strong possibility in a jumbled field. HRC, Gore, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards all had equivalent if not greater support than Kerry.

It's interesting how Reps nearly always end up nominating the early favorite and Dems rarely do.

Dems, nominating early-favorite: Mondale.
Dems, nominating underdog: Obama (fave: HRC), Kerry (fave: the field - HRC, Gore, Gephardt, Lieberman), B. Clinton (fave: the field - Cuomo, Kerrey), Dukakis (fave - Hart), Carter (fave - the field: Ted Kennedy, Henry Jackson, Birch Bayh), McGovern (fave: Muskie), Humphrey (fave: LBJ).

Reps, nominating early-favorite: Romney, McCain, GWB, Dole, Reagan, Nixon.
Reps, nominating underdog: last time maybe Goldwater in 1964, as he was considered an underdog to Nelson Rockefeller, and possibly to Nixon, George Romney, and William Scranton among the chattering classes. But it's debatable whether Goldwater was really an underdog, as he was the keynote speaker at the 1960 convention, inherited the title of "Mr. Conservative" after Robert Taft died, and Rockefeller even then was pretty unpopular with the growing conservative wing of the party and outside of the Northeast.

The above is why I'm pretty skeptical of the inevitability of HRC's nomination. While Reps. are generally, ahem, conservative in their nominees for POTUS, Dems. have almost always ended up picking an underdog candidate.
   1165. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4704090)
**Yes, I know that Oswald was a Communist, but the overwhelming percentage of violent action and violent rhetoric in 1964 was coming from the Right. That "JFK WANTED FOR TREASON" ad that greeted Kennedy in the Dallas Morning News was fairly typical of what the forerunners of the Birther crowd were spewing out in that pre-election year. Oswald was a Red, but in 1963 he was an anomaly.

A prime example of the left's never-ending effort to blame the right for violence carried out by the left and other non-rightists.


Exactly how was I doing that? Do you see me going around blaming the CIA or anti-Castro Cubans for the Kennedy assassination? If Oswald wasn't a lone wolf Communist, I've yet to see any convincing evidence to the contrary.

OTOH the backlash against right wing violence and extreme right wing attitudes in 1964 was very real, and it was coming from all over the mainstream political spectrum, including many mainstream Republicans. Goldwater didn't help it with his "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" comment, which was the 1964 equivalent of Romney's "47%".

Between the 1960 and the 1964 conventions you had (a partial list):

1. (From Wiki) "In 1960, [Republican Congressman Bruce] Alger organized a protest at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas against Lyndon Johnson, by then the U.S. Senate majority leader, who was campaigning to become Vice President as John F. Kennedy's running mate. Alger held a placard which stated, "LBJ Sold Out to Yankee Socialists." The rally turned ugly, and Lady Bird Johnson was spat upon by a protestor."

2. Adlai Stevenson was bopped upside the head by a crazed woman in Dallas, just a month before JFK's assassination.

3. There were thousands of attacks upon civil rights workers and demonstrators all over the South, few of which were prosecuted and almost none of them resulting in convictions. Here's an eight page list just from one small Mississippi town alone, covering only from the end of April 1964 to the November election.

4. During the civil rights movement, church bombings by segregationists were also common. The Birmingham bombing that killed the four little girls was but one of scores of similar bombings throughout the South.

5. The right wing hero General Edwin A. Walker led a mob that rioted on the night that James Meredith arrived to enroll at the University of Mississippi, resulting in two deaths. That was hardly the first white mob that greeted such integration attempts, only the most publicized.

That's just an abbreviated list.

And other than Oswald, where was the parallel left wing violence in the United States? You tell me.

The point is that even though Oswald was a Communist, the Kennedy murder was an isolated left wing event, whereas the infinitely greater number of violent right wing incidents all fell into an easily discernible pattern, and when Goldwater made that comment about "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice", it recalled the events of the recent past to those outside the GOP convention much more than it summoned up memories of Patrick Henry. Goldwater was a decent man, but he constantly fed raw meat to the beast.

And BTW it also didn't help when Nelson Rockefeller was hounded off the Goldwater convention platform by his fellow Republicans. That also fit right into the narrative of right wing extremism, and those weren't Democratic hirelings doing the hounding.

   1166. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4704098)
We are all aware that you are a devout believer in the articles of the faith, JoeK.
   1167. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4704103)

Pew released its latest survey of Latinos on Wednesday. Among the findings:

Prefer a smaller government with fewer services

U.S. general public --- 51 percent
Hispanic population -- 21 percent

It's almost like the Dem concern trolls and the GOP's professional ethnics are lying when they claim Latinos are "natural conservatives."
   1168. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4704105)
And for folks less in the tank than JoeK, here's a reasonable summary of the big new "smoking gun email" that is driving Benghazi X: Boehner vs Issa

Link.
   1169. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4704108)
John Kerry's candidacy carried the same "inevitability dread" that Mitt Romney had, where his party spent years moaning "Seriously? Aren't we going to find somebody else?" and the answer was no. As I said, two and half years out was too early to officially anoint Kerry as The One True Favorite, but he never had to pass anybody.

"The field" can't be the favorite unless "name recognition" and "Generic Democrat" get to play, too. Even when there's a "Seven Dwarfs" year, people still see who's Doc and Grumpy, and who's merely Bashful and Happy.

The last surprise guy to "emerge" was Carter, but it turned out that his team grasped the new primary system first and did the grunt work of gaming it, while the media was waiting for Teddy.
   1170. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4704111)
And for folks less in the tank than JoeK, here's a reasonable summary of the big new "smoking gun email" that is driving Benghazi X: Boehner vs Issa

Yet another "reading for comprehension" failure by Sammy.

I've said hardly anything about Benghazi over the past year. I simply call B.S. when I see it, such as when people claim that GOP budget cuts were to blame for the lack of security in Benghazi.
   1171. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 10, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4704114)
I'll bet anyone who wants to bet even odds, I get the field, you get Hillary. Up to a total of a grand.

She lost to the 2008 version of Eugene McCarthy (without the 20 years of Congressional experience) in the primaries. Even LBJ wouldn't have wound up actually losing, as Hillary did. Democratic primary voters didn't like her. Republicans affirmatively loathe her.
   1172. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4704115)
Then you are rescinding your false claim at 1162, Joe?
   1173. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4704118)
The HRC bashing about electability is hilarious.
   1174. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4704119)
I'll bet anyone who wants to bet even odds, I get the field, you get Hillary. Up to a total of a grand.

Assuming she declares and has no health issues that would force her to withdraw from the race, I'm down for the max. Where, when, and how do you want to post?

EDIT: I'll check back later to see your response.
   1175. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4704120)
Then you are rescinding your false claim at 1162, Joe?

There are no false claims in #1162 to rescind.
   1176. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4704122)
John Kerry's candidacy carried the same "inevitability dread" that Mitt Romney had, where his party spent years moaning "Seriously? Aren't we going to find somebody else?" and the answer was no. As I said, two and half years out was too early to officially anoint Kerry as The One True Favorite, but he never had to pass anybody.

Kerry started out as a front runner based on considerable support as the most viable liberal, or most liberal viable candidate. He then foundered when Howard dean stole that mantle, but reclaimed his top of the pack status as Dean's candidacy imploded. Had Dean's candidacy not collapsed in Iowa, Kerry would have had a difficult path to the nomination. However, the most telling indicator of Kerry's political skills is not so much that he lost in 2008 but that no one is talking about him in 2016. That's also true for Dean.
   1177. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4704123)
The link I posted shows you why your claim at 1162 is false. You won't rescind it because you're in the tank. Just like I said before.
   1178. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4704126)
Assuming she declares and has no health issues that would force her to withdraw from the race, I'm down for the max. Where, when, and how do you want to post?

No assumptions allowed. She'll lie about health issues if necessary to save face.

The bet is she's elected president or she's not.
   1179. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4704127)
If Kerry or Dean ran in the primaries it would be a story an potentially one might beat out HRC. Barring that, the nomination is hers to lose and there isn't an obvious superstar like Obama to beat her again.
   1180. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4704128)
Sorry, Mouse, but you were right: It was Zonk who wrote the 9/11 nonsense, not you.
   1181. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4704129)
What about the ultimate pass-the-popcorn rumors that Gore is going to run?
   1182. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4704130)
The link I posted shows you why your claim at 1162 is false.

LOL. It does no such thing.

(Also, you read Ta-Nehisi Coates and Dave Weigel? Why not just hire a hooker to beat you with a tire iron and be done with it?)
   1183. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4704132)
As I said. You're a devout believer. You're in the tank. You can't be reasoned out of an article of blind faith.
   1184. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4704133)
If Gore runs it will be a major inter party feud obviously. As would Kerry running. Dean would be less so.
   1185. Joe Kehoskie Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4704134)
As I said. You're a devout believer. You're in the tank. You can't be reasoned out of an article of blind faith.

"Blind faith" is when a belief is based on something not seen. But we all saw Susan Rice blaming a dumb YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi.
   1186. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4704135)
You can have Dave Weigel, Sam. He's a pretty solid reporter but an unserious analyst. Even Dana Milbank (!!!), who has gone out of his way to rail against the GOP at every opportunity when it comes to Benghazi, doesn't buy the #### Jay Carney's been peddling:

"It is also impolite—but necessary—to point out that Carney and his colleagues' opacity made their Benghazi problem worse."
   1187. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4704136)
Isn't it quite telling that there is no clamor for Gore, Kerry or Dean? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Not likely they'd be sitting on the sidelines if they had a real chance.
   1188. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4704137)
As I said. You're a devout believer. You're in the tank. You can't be reasoned out of an article of blind faith.

"I'll take 'Lack of Self-Awareness' for $200, Alex."
   1189. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4704139)
Susan Rice did mention the video that Sunday. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest she was willfully lying when she did. She was relating the best information the CIA and WH had to give. The lie in your claim is that she was willfully misleading the public. You need that to be true in order for Benghazi to be a "scandal." The link I posted explains why the new emails don't change anything about the timeline or facts. It's just another excuse to preen, grand stand and witch hunt.
   1190. GregD Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4704140)
If Gore runs it will be a major inter party feud obviously. As would Kerry running.


Gore, yes

Kerry, I would say no.

I don't think he'd get 10 percent against Hillary. There aren't any Kerry believers out there lying in wait. He has no positives relative to Hillary
   1191. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4704141)
No Jason. I've provided links. Tell me where Weigel is mistaken or stfu.
   1192. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4704142)
My odds would be shorter on Gore and Kerry for the nomination than Hillary. She'd be favored over Dean.
   1193. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4704143)
Isn't it quite telling that there is no clamor for Gore, Kerry or Dean?

Gore's not even the face of "climate whatever" anymore.

Kerry knows very well that Secretary of State is the end of the line.

Dean would like another bite at the apple but the left would much prefer Warren or even Bernie.
   1194. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4704145)
Gore's not even the face of "climate whatever" anymore.

Kerry knows very well that Secretary of State is the end of the line.

Dean would like another bite at the apple but the left would much prefer Warren or even Bernie.


What's Hillary the face of?

Gore won the nomination and then the popular vote in a presidential election. Hillary didn't even win a nomination that had been red carpeted for her. Bill Bradley in 2000 was a stronger candidate that Barack Obama in 2008 and Gore fought Bradley off pretty easily.
   1195. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4704147)
Yeah, and what if Monica Lewinsky runs, also? It'd rip the Democratic Party clean in two!

The odds: Hillary would be behind Gore, Kerry and Lewinsky just to get the nomination (forget the presidency), slightly ahead of Dean, and tied with the chair that Clint Eastwood debated.
   1196. GregD Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4704149)
Bill Bradley in 2000 was a stronger candidate
on paper--he had an impressive bio and impressive credentials.

In practice he was a disaster, not just because he is boring, but also because he never constructed any campaign. He wasn't on the ground in Iowa, where we lived at the time. There was literally no there there.

He also struggled to raise money.

Obama had in 2008 one huge advantage--that one mothballed speech on Iraq. Hillary had a huge disadvantage in that her position in 2003 put her at odds with party voters (as it would have in 2004) even if Hillary's position was not distinct from many other Democrats.

By 2008, any anti-Iraq candidate was going to give Hillary a lot of trouble. The real fight was between Obama and Edwards to be the anti-Iraq candidate. Obama won that on the ground in Iowa, truly impressive.

It is possible that some issue could fracture the party in 2016. It isn't clear what it would be but it is the nature of the future to surprise us. By contrast in 2006, or for that matter in 2004, that the Democratic primary for a candidate identified with the Iraq war.
   1197. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:38 PM (#4704151)
Where here do you see any mention of al-Qaeda, Sam, even though their involvement was unambiguously mentioned in the CIA e-mail? Where did Rice mention al-Qaeda on the talk shows? Funny that Weigel didn't mention that.

Now go ahead and try to refute this from one year ago or STFU.

Good night.
   1198. GregD Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4704152)
I don't know that Dean would inspire the liberal base this time. His inspiration came solely from his stance on the war and his (pragmatic) reliance upon volunteer and e-efforts. Otherwise he is not exceptionally liberal for a Dem. he could run on single-payer, I suppose, but I don't think the Dem primary will be structured on that issue, as I think taxation is a bigger lefty issue at this point.
   1199. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4704154)
What's Hillary the face of?

Gore won the nomination and then the popular vote in a presidential election. Hillary didn't even win a nomination that had been red carpeted for her. Bill Bradley in 2000 was a stronger candidate that Barack Obama in 2008 and Gore fought Bradley off pretty easily.

I'm not saying HRC is a damn fine candidate, SBB, but let's first wait until next year to find out who wants to run against her.

OK, now it's good night.
   1200. JE (Jason) Posted: May 10, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4704155)
Flip.
Page 12 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(93 - 12:01pm, Sep 30)
Last: Willard Baseball

NewsblogMLB’s Biggest Star Is 40 (And He Just Retired). That Could Be A Problem.
(42 - 12:00pm, Sep 30)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogMadden: How dare the sabermetrics crowd and others try to diminish Derek Jeter’s greatness
(149 - 12:00pm, Sep 30)
Last: AROM

NewsblogBrown: Winners And Losers: MLB Attendance In 2014, Nearly 74 Million Through The Gate
(1 - 11:59am, Sep 30)
Last: philly

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8149 - 11:57am, Sep 30)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(37 - 11:55am, Sep 30)
Last: Danny

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(12 - 11:47am, Sep 30)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogMets close season optimistic for next year
(64 - 11:44am, Sep 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-30-2014
(9 - 11:34am, Sep 30)
Last: Batman

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(265 - 11:28am, Sep 30)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogRBI Baseball, 2014 Playoff Edition
(4 - 11:14am, Sep 30)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogFangraphs/Cistulli: Post-trade WAR for deadline trades
(8 - 11:08am, Sep 30)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(4041 - 10:51am, Sep 30)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogRemembering George ‘Shotgun’ Shuba, 1924-2014
(8 - 10:27am, Sep 30)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogBaseball Past & Present: Vote: The 25 Most Important People in Baseball History.
(283 - 9:19am, Sep 30)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

Page rendered in 1.2032 seconds
52 querie(s) executed