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 4 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4701079)
You're killing me, Sammy. You're killing me.


Though it would undoubtedly be a public good, alas, no.
   302. GregD Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4701081)
That is an ideology though.
but does it make one an ideologue?

The way the term is used generally excludes people who end up in the center. If all ideologue means is someone who has an ideology, then all people are by definition ideologues.

If you mean it to mean, as in common parlance, that she surrounds herself with people who prize ideological clarity and purity over other ends, I don't think that's true at all. I think the Clintons have always valued other attributes over ideology in picking their advisors, at times in my view to a fault.

(This distinction isn't just because she is a Democrat. I don't think John Boehner surrounds himself with ideologues for that matter, though I'm sure I wouldn't agree with his advisors on most issues. Paul Ryan? Different story.)
   303. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4701083)
I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.


I always assumed that PUMA was a GOP front...

   304. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4701085)
So where does she rate on "character, organization ability, leadership and so on"?


Compared to whom?

I think her character is fine, I prefer it to that of her husband for example. I think her organization ability is inferior to that of Obama (but his campaign organizations are world class) but definitely good enough, especially since she knows everyone and how the game is played (part of that experience Ray dismisses, because knowing everyone, who has the levers of power, and so on is not at all useful in his world I guess).

Her leadership is fairly good, her campaign rallied in 2008 and while doomed by some early miscalculations she ended up being competitive for longer than I thought she would and handled losing very well, salvaging what she could from the loss (which I think speaks highly about her character and leadership skills). She clearly has a strong following (that she has maintained and enhanced from her husband's machine, which does not happen by accident.

Overall I think she has the chops to be a good president, but you never know until it happens.
   305. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4701089)
but does it make one an ideologue?

I didn't write that she was an ideologue, although she is in a tepid, Laodocean, expedient way; I said she had a cadre of ideological supporters who see her as their icon. They know they need one, and they thought they had one in the catbird seat. They will go to the extreme. That can cause problems for a realpolitik, but it is also beneficial. FDR comes to mind as someone not ideological but who drew ideologues and could use them for his purposes.
   306. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4701090)
I've noted that. And the "reason," of course, is so that you can attribute any change -- warmer, cooler, more snow, less snow, wetter, dryer, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes -- to "climate change."


Ray, the science is clear on the issue. You're being an anti-science kook because your ideology demands you ignore facts. Congratulations on becoming the equivalent of an evolution denialist.

Global warming wasn't quite helping the liberal cause to redistribute wealth in this way,


Oh for ####'s sake, you paranoid lunatic.
   307. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4701091)
I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.


Well yeah, that is why Obama did so poorly in the general with women. Oh wait, no he didn't. The whole Angry women thing was a huge yawn fest (and as stated above perhaps a GOP front) that meant nothing.

HRC was a good soldier when she lost and she went the extra mile in support of Obama. And she earned my gratitude (and many other I suspect) for how she (and her supporters) handled it.

If you mean it to mean, as in common parlance, that she surrounds herself with people who prize ideological clarity and purity over other ends, I don't think that's true at all. I think the Clintons have always valued other attributes over ideology in picking their advisors, at times in my view to a fault.


Agreed. I was mostly being a bit snarky, not entirely though.
   308. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4701092)
Overall I think she has the chops to be a good president, but you never know until it happens.


Thankfully, she's shown no ability to be elected president. She "won" a senate seat from a liberal state, lost the nomination of her party to an unknown, and then was handed the booby prize of Secretary of State.

And people are forgetting how much of a blow it was for her to lose the nomination to Obama. She was Bill's wife. If that counted for anything it would have counted for that.
   309. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4701094)
I think her character is fine, I prefer it to that of her husband for example.

Talk about a low bar.

I'm not a fan of hers - I mean I'd vote for her over any of Christie, Paul, Huckabee, Bush, Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Perry, Santorum or Jindal, but I'm not a particular fan, then again I'd be hard pressed to come up with a career politician I am a fan of.
   310. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:17 AM (#4701095)
I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama?


No. I do remember Fox attempting to make that a big story, but in reality the "PUMA" movement was laughably small.

It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.


This willfully misreads the facts of the 2008 cycle, in so much as this issue briefly existed during the primaries. The issue with Hillary loyalists in the DNC was not that she was a woman, and thus it was her turn. The issue was that she was next in line, had served more in the trenches, and it made more sense for a long term strategy to have her win in 2008 and have Obama ready to be the next historical candidate in 2016. The big complaint from the deep HRC bench in 2008's primary was that Obama was jumping the queue, not that Hillary was entitled just because she was a woman.
   311. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4701096)
And people are forgetting how much of a blow it was for her to lose the nomination to Obama. She was Bill's wife. If that counted for anything it would have counted for that.


Huh? Losses happen in politics. There were reasons she lost (Iraq being a huge one, plus Obama is a world class campaigner and organizer, who matched her "Fist Woman" bit with "First AA"), but how she handled the loss and her actions since then have made her the most popular politician in the nation (and it is not even close).

And by the way, losing when you have an advantage (like being wife of two term president guy) does not mean the advantage did not exist. That is a very simplistic analysis you have there.
   312. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4701097)
If you mean it to mean, as in common parlance, that she surrounds herself with people who prize ideological clarity and purity over other ends, I don't think that's true at all. I think the Clintons have always valued other attributes over ideology in picking their advisors, at times in my view to a fault.


I think the attribute the Clintons look for above all else is loyalty to the Clintons. (Well what Bill looked for was loyalty to Bill)
   313. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4701098)
she's shown no ability to be elected president.


This is a less than insane point; HRC has never actually ran a successful campaign outside of New York. Granted, this does not mean she would not be able to beat whatever GOP nominee she might face in 2016, but it's a reasonable point to make.
   314. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4701099)
No. I do remember Fox attempting to make that a big story,


Not on this topic but FOX is currently trying to make this non-story of a "Dude" comment a big story:

The most entertaining and edifying piece of Benghazi news that happened last week was this May 1 interview between former White House spokesman Tommy Vietor and Fox News’ Bret Baier. Vietor was on to discuss his role in the editing of a sheet of Benghazi-related talking points drafted shortly after the attacks. Baier wanted to know exactly what changes Vietor made to this document, to the point of asking him if he changed single words: “Did you also change ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations’ in the talking points?” Vietor said he couldn’t recall changing that single word in the document. Baier was incredulous and pressed Vietor, leading to this amusing exchange:

VIETOR: Dude, this was two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane thing.

BAIER: Dude, it’s what everybody is talking about!


   315. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4701100)
she's shown no ability to be elected president.


No person who's still a candidate has shown such ability; only actual Presidents have. Talk about tautology.
   316. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4701102)
then again I'd be hard pressed to come up with a career politician I am a fan of


Like I said, compared to whom? The general population of politicians? She is well above average in character (for the attributes I consider being important for a politician, of which sexual loyalty to a spouse does not figure in very highly, btw).
   317. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4701105)
I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.


I think they were louder than they were numerous, though -- and I likewise don't think any of them were really part of her 'inner circle' or even 'around her'.

The whole PUMA thing was a rather fascinating, in a car-wreck sort of way, exercise in political cultism on the part of a handful of bloggers and assorted crazy people...
   318. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4701106)
307:

That has little to do with the point I made about her rabid feminist ideologue supporters. And I repeat, that's a good thing, if, like FDR, you can use and manipulate them. Which is easy for her--since on that score, she's in class by herself and really does have to do much beyond throwing the rhetorical bone now and again. Nixon, unlike say Reagan or Hilary or ..., didn't have a devoted ideological cadre that would storm the barricades and take a bullet. It can make a difference, especially in impeachment-happy-circumventing-elections-any-old-way-you can times.
   319. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4701107)
No person who's still a candidate has shown such ability; only actual Presidents have. Talk about tautology.


You don't have a sharp eye for observation, do you? Not everyone has run and lost. She has. So she's not in the same boat as viable candidates who haven't run, now is she?
   320. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4701110)
No person who's still a candidate has shown such ability; only actual Presidents have. Talk about tautology.


I love how the earlier comparison was to shrub, who showed the "ability"* to be elected to president twice!
certainly not when compared to George Bush the younger, who actually won two presidential elections


Much better than any possible Democratic candidate in 2016. Team Blue is doomed!

* Ability in scare quotes, because there are many factors being simplified into "ability". Many things matter, including who your opponent is. There is a difference between trying to get a hit off of prime Pedro versus AAA scrub guy, no matter what your ability to get a hit is.
   321. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4701112)
Thankfully, she's shown no ability to be elected president.


Other than Dubya and Obama, who can't run i 2016, has anyone out there established the "ability to be elected president?"

Nixon showed in 1960 that he had no ability to be elected president- two term sitting VEEP to an extremely popular President, lost to a political lightweight who owed his political career to his daddy's bank account.

Reagan showed in 1976 that he had no ability to be elected president, two term Governor of Caifornia, sky-high name recognition, lost to anon-entity "accidental" president whose signature "achievements" were pardoning Nixon and watching Saigon fall on the TV.

   322. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4701114)
Other than Dubya and Obama, who can't run i 2016, has anyone out there established the "ability to be elected president?"

Al Gore?
   323. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4701115)
I would also argue that being elected governor indicates a better ability to win a presidential election than being elected Senator does.

Certainly more governors than senators have won the presidency.
   324. bobm Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4701118)
This is a less than insane point; HRC has never actually ran a successful campaign outside of New York. Granted, this does not mean she would not be able to beat whatever GOP nominee she might face in 2016, but it's a reasonable point to make.

How often has a non-incumbent presidential candidate from the party of the sitting president won that party a (third) consecutive term in the White House? Bush the elder won against a mediocre opponent. Gore needed to win his home state to eek out a victory but couldn't. Is Hillary going to run on Obama's legacy or run away from it like Gore largely did?
   325. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4701119)
Al Gore?


:-)

completely forgot about him.

   326. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:30 AM (#4701120)
Not on this topic but FOX is currently trying to make this non-story of a "Dude" comment a big story:


Fox is fully on board with percolating Benghazi-outrage in the depths of the right wing, to facilitate the GOP House's preferred strategy of impeaching Obama over it if they win a majority in the Senate. The purpose of impeachment will not be to remove Obama from office, per se, but to generate an "impeachment" talking point wrt to Clinton in 2016.
   327. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4701122)
Is Hillary going to run on Obama's legacy or run away from it like Gore largely did?


I think Hillary is gonna run as Hillary, I don't think she is going to run on Obama's or Bills' "legacy" or away from them either.
   328. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4701123)
Is Hillary going to run on Obama's legacy or run away from it like Gore largely did?

Well, Gore didn't run away from the Clinton political issues legacy, just the Clinton hoopla drama legacy.
   329. GregD Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4701124)
Not everyone has run and lost. She has. So she's not in the same boat as viable candidates who haven't run, now is she?


Republicans as a party have long favored the person who ran a solid but losing campaign in part because of the way the party's establishment has worked (at least, arguably, until 2016--we'll see) and in part because they believed that a candidate who had been vetted wouldn't have any more surprises. And a candidate who could come in second in a primary was inherently more impressive than someone who hadn't. Some, even many, of the unproven candidates could not successfully run second in a primary because they lack the skills or organization or fundraising.

So Republicans nominated prior primary losers like Reagan, Bush I and Dole. They had a pretty good run with them. In 2000, they took a different path. In 2008 and 2012, they returned to nominating prior second-place finishers with less impressive results.

I don't pretend that this proves some exact relationship. I do think that it is hard to argue that a prior 2nd place primary campaign is proof someone can't run well and win the next time.

Hillary may or may not be that person.

I think Hillary's loss in 2008 was almost 100% caused by her positioning on Iraq and by Obama's fortuitous rediscovery of his single, unpublicized speech against the war as the primary neared.

If she is similarly out of step with the primary base in 2016, she will definitely be at risk of losing again. But I doubt she will be.
   330. Shredder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4701126)
I have little doubt she'd be a terrible president. I disagree with Obama on most issues but I'll say this for him: he got his socialist agenda passed, via Obamacare.
Well, we certainly saw the impact of global warming in the northeast this year, with frigid temperatures throughout a long winter.
Do you go out of your way to sound this stupid, or does it just come naturally?
   331. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4701129)
FWIW, my wife and a lot of female friends were ticked that Clinton lost. I think the Rs lost an opportunity to cultivate women there. But that would take fundamental change in R positions. Once the general campaign took off and Republican policies and plans got discussed, my wife and her friends came running back to Mr. Obama.
   332. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4701130)
I would also argue that being elected governor indicates a better ability to win a presidential election than being elected Senator does.


Historically, yes. But the specifics of 2016 may not map to the wide trends of history very well. You need a popular governor with cross appeal to voters outside of his state. Who does the GOP have in that mold? Christie? I don't think he appeals to enough national voters to win the primary, much less take down the DNC candidate in the general. Scott Walker? I haven't seen anything from him to suggest he would have a national profile, but that was true of Clinton in 1991 too. About the only former governor with a real name brand in the national pool is Jeb, and he has the Bush thing to deal with.
   333. AROM Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4701132)
Other than Dubya and Obama, who can't run i 2016, has anyone out there established the "ability to be elected president?"


Bill Clinton, who also can't run. Both parties should go with proven candidates though, and we do have a few living one term ex-presidents.

Daddy Bush vs. Jimmy Carter
   334. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4701133)
Well, Gore didn't run away from the Clinton political issues legacy, just the Clinton hoopla drama legacy.


This is an important thing, here. Gore tried to split the wicket by being "Clinton's third term, but without mentioning Bill Clinton." And of course, Ralph Nader. A potential Hillary campaign will not distance itself from Obama like Gore did with WJC, and I don't really see Bernie Sanders going full Nader from the left either.
   335. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4701134)
How often has a non-incumbent presidential candidate from the party of the sitting president won that party a (third) consecutive term in the White House? Bush the elder won against a mediocre opponent. Gore needed to win his home state to eek out a victory but couldn't. Is Hillary going to run on Obama's legacy or run away from it like Gore largely did?


The last time I saw an analysis regarding "third terms" it was not as bad as is generally portrayed, but I could be remembering wrong. I tend not to spend a huge amount of time crediting that sort of thing anyway.

I agree that she will run as herself and against the GOP in general (and work the historic first women factor full tilt). Obviously she has links to the last two Blue Presidents and she would be foolish to run away from that.
   336. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4701135)
Do you go out of your way to sound this stupid, or does it just come naturally?


Everything I post comes naturally.
   337. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4701136)
Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 primaries for two reasons: because she voted for the Iraq War, and because Barack Obama existed. Neither of those is a factor for 2016.

Women made up 54% of the November electorate in 2012, with an 18% vote gap in favor of the Democrats. That was when "first woman president" was not on the table.

Republicans might want to be judicious about calling Hillary Clinton a loser and a lightweight, because what will that make the person and party that loses to her?
   338. Shredder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:39 AM (#4701138)
Fox is fully on board with percolating Benghazi-outrage in the depths of the right wing, to facilitate the GOP House's preferred strategy of impeaching Obama over it if they win a majority in the Senate.
They need more than a majority. I don't think they can just change the rules on impeachment and removal.
   339. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4701140)
I think Hillary's loss in 2008 was almost 100% caused by her positioning on Iraq and by Obama's fortuitous rediscovery of his single, unpublicized speech against the war as the primary neared.


Obama also out organized and out planned her, showing a better understanding of the mechanics of how the Primaries worked and how to game the caucus system for every vote (with that better organization). Of course I am of the opinion Obama (or his staff) is the best campaign organizer of my lifetime and even then, with that and Iraq, he beat her solidly but not by a landslide or anything. She did not embarrass herself in 2008.
   340. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4701141)
Not everyone has run and lost. She has. So she's not in the same boat as viable candidates who haven't run, now is she?


Way to duck out of your original claim. But since you bring it up, candidates who became president after running and losing at least once (OTTOMH): Jefferson; Jackson; Harrison; Harrison; Cleveland; LBJ; Nixon; Reagan; Bush I. FDR was on a losing ticket as the VP.

Strong point you've got there.
   341. bunyon Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4701142)
Bill Clinton, who also can't run. Both parties should go with proven candidates though, and we do have a few living one term ex-presidents.

Daddy Bush vs. Jimmy Carter


I'd be on board with this. Mostly because I have a pet theory that the only way we're getting a truly good president again anytime soon is if a good VP gets elected and the chief dies in office. I'm not saying either of those guys for sure would nominate a good VP but it's decent money neither sees 2020 as well.
   342. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4701144)
Daddy Bush vs. Jimmy Carter

Can you imagine?

I gotta think Bush wins that one in 2016, but who knows?
   343. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4701145)
Fox is fully on board with percolating Benghazi-outrage in the depths of the right wing, to facilitate the GOP House's preferred strategy of impeaching Obama over it if they win a majority in the Senate.


I really hope they impeach Obama. It would be like Christmas. They will never manage to remove him from office and they will look terrible trying it. I can't think of anything (other than maybe shutting down the government again) that would make them look worse.
   344. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4701146)
How often has a non-incumbent presidential candidate from the party of the sitting president won that party a (third) consecutive term in the White House?


7: Monroe, JQA, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Taft, Hoover.
   345. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4701147)
I don't think she has a "cadre of ideologues" around her. I wish she did! I think she has a cadre, perhaps, but of loyalists, some of whom are utterly mainstream Democrats, some of whom are moderates who see themselves as to the center of the party, and most of whom seem to be the classic Clinton social-liberal, economic-conservative types.


I think we forget how incensed those women supporters were that their chosen one was bested, and even that it was by a black man, that did not soothe the savage breast. Remember how they didn't want her to endorse and support Obama? It was supposed to be a woman's time, and they were pissed, and they were virulent, on those grounds alone. That, to me, reeks of ideology.

but does it make one an ideologue?


I didn't write that she was an ideologue, although she is in a tepid, Laodocean, expedient way; I said she had a cadre of ideological supporters who see her as their icon. They know they need one, and they thought they had one in the catbird seat. They will go to the extreme. That can cause problems for a realpolitik, but it is also beneficial. FDR comes to mind as someone not ideological but who drew ideologues and could use them for his purposes.

The only "ideology" that Hillary has ever displayed is a mix of left-center rhetoric and center-left policy proposals, notwithstanding the labeling of health care reform as "socialist", or the idea that "It takes a village" is a code word for nationalizing childraising.

In the heat of the 2008 primaries, some of her most vocal supporters certainly yelled about the "anti-woman bias" of the media, and a minority of that minority made loud noises about not voting for Obama in November. Of course in the end all that PUMA rhetoric went by the wayside, and both of the Clintons actively campaigned for him.

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

The issue with Hillary loyalists in the DNC was not that she was a woman, and thus it was her turn. The issue was that she was next in line, had served more in the trenches, and it made more sense for a long term strategy to have her win in 2008 and have Obama ready to be the next historical candidate in 2016. The big complaint from the deep HRC bench in 2008's primary was that Obama was jumping the queue, not that Hillary was entitled just because she was a woman.

I think you're right if you're strictly talking about Hillary's DNC loyalists, but among the grass roots you did have a fair amount of "it's our turn"** sentiment among women, especially among those who never thought much of Obama in the first place and saw him as the skunk at Hillary's coronation party. But I doubt if any of this history is going to hurt her at all come 2016.

**Of course sometimes "it's our turn" could have been incorporating two themes: "It's our turn" as women; and "It's her turn" as the next in line of the familiar candidates. When you had a combination of those two thoughts is when you got a lot of the PUMA rhetoric, which at times went nearly over the edge.
   346. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4701148)
Way to duck out of your original claim. But since you bring it up, candidates who became president after running and losing at least once (OTTOMH): Jefferson; Jackson; Harrison; Harrison; Cleveland; LBJ; Nixon; Reagan; Bush I. FDR was on a losing ticket as the VP.

Strong point you've got there.


? I didn't say nobody who had lost had ever subsequently won. I said that running unsuccessfully puts her below other candidates who have not done so.

And it's also a factor that she didn't even make it to the election; she failed to win her party's nomination.
   347. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4701151)
? I didn't say nobody who had lost had ever subsequently won. I said that running unsuccessfully puts her below other candidates who have not done so.

And it's also a factor that she didn't even make it to the election; she failed to win her party's nomination.


So I guess that at this point in 1980 you would have been calling Ronald Reagan a two-time loser, or do you only use this line against Democrats?

P.S. "I wasn't around (or old enough to follow the election) in 1980" isn't an answer to the above question.
   348. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4701153)
I said that running unsuccessfully puts her below other candidates who have not done so.


Assuming everything else stays the same (which it never does). It also puts her ahead of everyone who has not gotten as far as she has (second place in a primary). Basically it doesn't say that much, because things change.

However given her odds of winning the nomination in 2016 and winning the general after that, I suspect many wannabe future presidential candidates would love to follow her career path if they could.
   349. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4701155)
At this point in 2006 there were numerous anti-HRC camps building for 2008. HRC was not nearly as popular with the general public, democrats in general and certainly not with the grassroots (which were not fond of her) as they are now. There is no one like Edwards out there, to say nothing of Obama. Heck the rest of that field is more impressive than the field I suspect we will see in 2016 (except for HRC). Maybe someone will appear in the next year or so, but it is getting late for that.

And no neither Warren nor Biden is a credible threat to HRC, IMO.
   350. Shredder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4701157)
Assuming everything else stays the same (which it never does). It also puts her ahead of everyone who has not gotten as far as she has (second place in a primary). Basically it doesn't say that much, because things change.
It's such a ridiculous perversion of logic that it's not even worth arguing. It's quicksand. I'd suggest getting out while you still can. Remember back in the late '80s and early '90s when the NFC was routinely beating the ever living crap out of the AFC in the Super Bowl? And everyone knew the NFC championship was the de facto Super Bowl, because whichever team won that game was going to absolutely run roughshod over the AFC representative? By Ray's logic, the AFC champion had proven more, because, well, there they were! Didn't matter that there were at least two, if not more, better teams in the other conference.
   351. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4701159)
I'd suggest getting out while you still can.


I'll throw you the idol, if you throw me the whip.
   352. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4701160)
I have to wonder what liberals see in Hillary that makes them think she has the slightest talent for this. She sucks at politics.
   353. bobm Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4701161)
http://nypost.com/2014/05/06/monica-lewinsky-breaks-silence-on-affair-with-bill-clinton/

After more than a decade of silence, Monica Lewinsky is ready to hang up her infamous blue dress.

Lewinsky, who had an affair with former President Bill Clinton while he was in office, opens up for the first time and tells her side of the story in a Vanity Fair expose {http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-speaks] that hits newsstands Thursday.

“I am determined to have a different ending to my story,” she wrote. “I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past.”

Lewinsky insists that her affair with Clinton was between two consenting adults, adding that she never imagined how it would change her life.

“Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship,” she wrote. “Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.”
   354. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4701165)
I have to wonder what liberals see in Hillary that makes them think she has the slightest talent for this. She sucks at politics.


She sucks at appealing to you, Ray. She appeals to lots of liberals, though, and she's pretty good at maneuvering the DC Village, which means no, she does not suck at politics.
   355. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4701167)
I have to wonder what liberals see in Hillary that makes them think she has the slightest talent for this. She sucks at politics.


Shrug. Trying to help you figure out how liberals think is pretty low on my list of to-dos.

What current GOP hopeful does not "suck at politics" according to you? What current Dem hopeful does not "suck at politics"? Inquiring minds want to know who we should be looking towards.

EDIT: And yes this is a serious question. What politicians should we be thinking about in the coming years. Who is good at this politics thing?
   356. Mefisto Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4701172)
I didn't say nobody who had lost had ever subsequently won. I said that running unsuccessfully puts her below other candidates who have not done so.


Well, let's use the Wayback Machine and capture your exact words: "she's shown no ability to be elected president."

Quit while you're behind.

And it's also a factor that she didn't even make it to the election; she failed to win her party's nomination.


Like Reagan (coke to Andy) and LBJ.

   357. Lassus Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4701175)
I have to wonder what liberals see in Hillary that makes them think she has the slightest talent for this. She sucks at politics.

Who in the name of Ivan Lendl do you imagine has a better chance of winning the election for the Dems? We're all ears.

EDIT: I mean, if you think she'll suck as president, that's one thing. A number of people don't. I guess I read that as talent at winning the election, maybe you meant something else.
   358. Ron J2 Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4701177)
#245 I'm pretty clear that to an 18th century gentleman, the right to bear arms would have meant the right to openly carry sword and/or pistol.

Musket wouldn't have been a consideration.
   359. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4701181)
Those women who, the news told us, were planning bitter boycotts following Obama's 2008 primary win supported him by 56-43% when the election came around. In 2012, the female vote was 55-44%. The effect of those totals is magnified by the fact that women make up 54% of all voters.

That's how women voted when they had the chance to elect and reelect the first black president. What do you suppose the numbers will be for Hillary Clinton? Less?
   360. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4701183)
That's how women voted when they had the chance to elect and reelect the first black president. What do you suppose the numbers will be for Hillary Clinton? Less?

As Obama noted the other night, it's going to be a lot harder for Fox News to convince its viewers that Hillary is a Kenyan.
   361. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4701186)
As Obama noted the other night, it's going to be a lot harder for Fox News to convince its viewers that Hillary is a Kenyan.


But the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan are irrelevant to the issue as they aren't voting for any Democratic candidate anyway.
   362. Shredder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4701189)
Who in the name of Ivan Lendl do you imagine has a better chance of winning the election for the Dems? We're all ears.
By Ray's logic, in order:

1) Carter - Shown the ability to win a presidential election;
2) Gore - Has also arguably shown this ability;
3) through 5) Tie between Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry - Have all shown the ability to win their party's nomination;
6) through ~150 million) Tie between all natural born U.S. Citizens over the age of 35 who have never run for president AND failed to win their party's nomination.
150,000,001) Hilary Clinton.
   363. zonk Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4701206)
But the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan are irrelevant to the issue as they aren't voting for any Democratic candidate anyway.


Ray: Democratic primary electorate lacks idiots!
   364. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4701209)
Ray: Democratic primary electorate lacks idiots!


Lacks *those* idiots.
   365. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4701212)
The liberal/modern liberal secession from the world of facts and established, agreed-upon principles really began in earnest with their rabid defense of the felonies Bill Clinton committed in office (*). Hillary Clinton's unhinged claims that it was all the product of a "vast right wing conspiracy" were a major salvo in that battle, thereby making her a primary architect of the separate Blue and Red realities that dominate our politics today.(**)

That isn't a record one should defend, and it's beyond bizarre to see the liberals and modern liberals line up to defend it.

(*) Concerning his office dalliance with a 22-year-old intern, and by way of blocking the claim of a female claiming sexual harrassment, no less.

(**)
Pre-decline: "Perjuring oneself in a depostion and to a grand jury is an extremely serious matter, and unthinkable in a sitting President. Everybody knows that."
Post-decline: "Of course he perjured himself in a deposition and to a grand jury; the Republicans were being mean to him. What else would he do?"
   366. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4701214)
As Obama noted the other night, it's going to be a lot harder for Fox News to convince its viewers that Hillary is a Kenyan.

But the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan are irrelevant to the issue as they aren't voting for any Democratic candidate anyway.


Well, now that you've countered that tongue-in-cheek point, maybe you can tell us which Republican candidate is likely to be able to beat the cluelessly inept politician Hillary Clinton come 2016.

Just as a friendly reminder, here are your main possibilities, along with their latest RCP poll standings vs. Mizz Sucks At Politics:

Clinton +9.4 over Paul
Clinton +9.0 over Christie
Clinton +10.8 over Bush
Clinton +12.4 over Huckabee
Clinton +9.3 over Ryan
Clinton +14.0 over Cruz
Clinton +14.4 over Rubio
   367. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4701217)
liberals and modern liberals



A hundred bottles of beer on the wall, a hundred bottles of beer.

Take one down and pass it around, ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall....
   368. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4701219)
Well, now that you've countered that tongue-in-cheek point, maybe you can tell us which Republican candidate is likely to be able to beat the cluelessly inept politician Hillary Clinton come 2016.


What is it with you repeating questions over and over again? You seem to think that by not answering the latest of your brilliant questions I'm avoiding it, rather than simply not being interested in it. I didn't answer this one because the question doesn't interest me. It might be what you want to discuss, and you might think it's a brilliant "gotcha" question, but it's not what I was discussing.

I don't care about those RCP poll standings, so much time in advance of anything that matters.
   369. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4701223)
I think y'all need to define your terms here, and a good source would be Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

President, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom—and of whom only—it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.
   370. GregD Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4701224)
The liberal/modern liberal secession from the world of facts and established, agreed-upon principles really began in earnest with their rabid defense of the felonies Bill Clinton committed in office (*). Hillary Clinton's unhinged claims that it was all the product of a "vast right wing conspiracy" were a major salvo in that battle, thereby making her a primary architect of the separate Blue and Red realities that dominate our politics today.(**)
I am in the minority on this, but I thought then and think now that Clinton should have resigned. As f-ed up as the investigation was, perjury is still perjury. (And I think if he resigned, Gore would have won fairly easily in 2000.)

I don't think conviction in the Senate inherently follows. The Senate articulated clearly in Andrew Johnson that it could define the standard of a high crime or misdemeanor however it wishes; there's no crime--except treason--that is an absolutely automatic conviction vote. In practice a murderer would be convicted.

I don't think, however, that there is any clearer "secession from the world of facts" than claiming that defending the Clintons from impeachment made them architects of the Blue/Red divide. I think it's pretty obvious that impeachment transformed the meaning of party by elevating differences to the state of war. To treat the response to impeachment as the cause of the divide impeachment caused is a highly creative way of thinking about causality. Next, you will be telling us that Shakespeare influenced the Bible, or that Jeter set the standard for Babe Ruth in gift baskets.
   371. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4701225)
Now we know that the decline of western civilization apparently started when Bill Clinton did not have "sexual relations" with that woman.
   372. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4701226)
Well, now that you've countered that tongue-in-cheek point, maybe you can tell us which Republican candidate is likely to be able to beat the cluelessly inept politician Hillary Clinton come 2016.

What is it with you repeating questions over and over again? You seem to think that by not answering the latest of your brilliant questions I'm avoiding it, rather than simply not being interested in it.


If it slithers like a lizard and avoids traps like a lizard, it's not likely to be a Canadian Mountie.

I didn't answer this one because the question doesn't interest me. It might be what you want to discuss, and you might think it's a brilliant "gotcha" question, but it's not what I was discussing.

Right, you just want to discuss how Hillary sucks in politics, compared to some candidate in your head that you don't want to reveal, presumably because it might give Hillary a chance to make a phone call to James Carville and have this mysterious opponent rubbed out.

I don't care about those RCP poll standings, so much time in advance of anything that matters.

A point you curiously never seem to make when YC posts about a dozen polls a day. But keep on entertaining us with your masterly spinning.

   373. GregD Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4701227)
   374. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4701229)
The infamous transcript; Today Show, January 27, 1998:

LAUER: Let me take you and your husband out of this for a second. Bill and Hillary Clinton aren’t involved in this story. If an American president had an adulterous liaison in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?
CLINTON: Well, they should certainly be concerned about it.
LAUER: Should they ask for his resignation?
CLINTON: Well, I think that—if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true. I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.


Well, I guess it wasn't that "serious" .... And it's not going to be proven true -- yeah, right.
   375. Steve Treder Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4701230)
I didn't answer this one because the question doesn't interest me.

It's way too early for all this drinking.
   376. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4701234)
So after we've finished kicking Hillary out of the cabinet for Benghazi, shall we now go back to deliver her husband's head on a platter over Monica?

Fair enough, but I think we should also go back and get rid of JFK for selling out the Bay of Pigs, Truman for firing MacArthur and losing China, and of course FDR for selling us down the river at Yalta. We demand justice!
   377. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4701235)
Right, you just want to discuss how Hillary sucks in politics, compared to some candidate in your head that you don't want to reveal, presumably because it might give Hillary a chance to make a phone call to James Carville and have this mysterious opponent rubbed out.


She fell flat on her face when she tried the first time. That might inspire confidence in you, but it wouldn't in me.

I don't care about those RCP poll standings, so much time in advance of anything that matters.

A point you curiously never seem to make when YC posts about a dozen polls a day. But keep on entertaining us with your masterly spinning.


Hilarious. I've never commented a single time on the polls he posts. Go ahead: I dare you to find such a comment by me. I don't even read the polls he posts; I skip past them. I'm not interested in polling, I'm not interested in commenting on it.
   378. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4701236)
So after we've finished kicking Hillary out of the cabinet for Benghazi, shall we now go back to deliver her husband's head on a platter over Monica?

After it (and more) was "proven true," did she continue to note that it was a "serious offense"?
   379. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4701240)
Lewinski, Clinton's "perjury", Hilary's political ineptitude, Mena, the murder of Vince Foster, as well as all the pants suit jokes--do we really want to relive all that again? The thing is the Republican types can't stop obsessing about all that, and the Democrat types just want to Al Gore it. Someone will have an advantage here when it comes to energizing their base with the necessary righteousness. Guess which?
   380. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4701241)
Daddy Bush vs. Jimmy Carter


I am a lifelong progressive Democrat, but if that somehow wound up as the choice, I'd be stumping for ol' 41 as hard as I could.
   381. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4701243)
Whatever the merits of Benghazi, the public doesn't care about it. She doesn't seem to have covered herself in glory (it was the proverbial 3am phone call come to life that they seem to have not cared much about), but, then, to be fair to her it's not clear to me what she should have done differently as she's not the CiC. Did people want her to order a military operation? Recommend to Obama that he do so? Isn't this best left to the people actually in the military? Perhaps she could have paid more attention to making sure the embassy was protected in advance of the attack but it's not clear to me that that's her job, either. As I said, her job is basically a nothing job.

I suppose the R's could/will try to make some hay with this during a presidential election if she makes it that far (it's clearly not an issue before that point), but really it's not an issue that the public can easily understand/follow. Four Dead Americans is a talking point, not a serious comment on what should have been done differently.
   382. Morty Causa Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4701244)
I am a lifelong progressive Democrat, but if that somehow wound up as the choice, I'd be stumping for ol' 41 as hard as I could.

Why buck the tide? Either way, Malaise Forever.
   383. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4701245)
She fell flat on her face when she tried the first time. That might inspire confidence in you, but it wouldn't in me.


Technically the nomination process for major political parties continues through June of election year. In previous cycles the candidates were effectively chosen by the end of the March primaries. However, Barack Obama did not win enough delegates to secure the nomination until June 3, after a 17-month-long campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama had a wide lead in states won, while Clinton had won majorities in several of the larger states. Because a form of proportional representation and popular vote decided Democratic state delegate contests, numbers were close between Clinton and Obama, the contest for the nomination continued into June 2008.[58] By May, Clinton claimed to hold a lead in the popular vote, but the Associated Press found her numbers accurate only in one close scenario.[59]


That is fell flat on her face? No, this is fall flat on one's face.
   384. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4701248)
But the idiots who think Obama is a Kenyan are irrelevant to the issue as they aren't voting for any Democratic candidate anyway.


Ahem:

A comparison of those who back Clinton but disapprove of Obama with the group that is both pro-Clinton and pro-Obama suggests that the swing constituency is much more likely to be blue-collar and white — 71 percent of the mixed group are white, compared with only 57 percent of the pro-Obama, pro-Clinton group, and it is also somewhat more Latino. Whites without college degrees constitute 47 percent of the Hillary Difference Voters but only 30 percent of the pro-Clinton, pro-Obama group. In keeping with this, 62 percent of the Hillary Difference Voters have incomes of less than $50,000 annually.

Ideologically, the swing group includes significantly fewer self-described liberals. Among the Hillary Difference Voters, only 29 percent call themselves liberal; among those who both favor Clinton and approve of Obama, 43 percent are liberals. Nearly a third of the mixed group are white evangelical Protestants compared with only 10 percent of those who react positively to both Democrats. Clinton also runs ahead of Obama’s approval rating among voters aged 30 to 49, among white Southerners and among independents, including those who say they lean Republican. -E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post


There's also a useful chart at the link.
   385. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4701249)
The historically interesting thing about Jimmy Carter's summer of 1979 "malaise" speech is that the underlying premise behind it was that he could call Americans to account and request action from them. He actually thought the President's job encompassed retreating for a few days with some aides, clearing his schedule, seriously contemplating important issues, and telling Americans the truth about them.

Carter's empirical judgment on the matter proved inaccurate, but the very thought that an intelligent man and accomplished politician could look at America and make those conclusions just shows how far we've declined since 1979. The whole idea that you'd communicate with the American public other than by flattering them and promising them more and more #### now seems hopelessly quaint -- but that's America's fault, not Carter's.
   386. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4701250)
However I am really appreciating this walk down memory lane. Back in the '90s with partisans arguing for the horror that went down. My goodness it was the worst thing ever done. Impeach yesterday, impeach today, impeach the future!
   387. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4701252)
Back in the '90s with partisans arguing for the horror that went down.

Yeah, impeaching the Chief Executive for feloniously and perjuriously interfering with the laws he pledged an oath to uphold. How horrible!!!!
   388. BDC Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4701253)
we should also go back and get rid of JFK for selling out the Bay of Pigs, Truman for firing MacArthur and losing China, and of course FDR for selling us down the river at Yalta

I for one remain bitter at Rutherford B. Hayes for resuming specie payments.
   389. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4701254)
presumably because it might give Hillary a chance to make a phone call to James Carville and have this mysterious opponent rubbed out


I read this carelessly the first time through, and now I have the mental image of James Carville giving Rick Santorum a rub-and-tug. So, thanks for that. :/
   390. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4701255)
shows how far we've declined since 1979


Heh. I love that you stick to this. Because 1979 has always been and will always be an apex, a highpoint in civilization. In a thousand years someone will write the Decline and Fall of the American Empire, and they will mark January 1, 1979 as the high point of civilization. I weep for those glory days of yesteryear, those halcyon days of my youth, when baseball was played the way it should be and before Lucas has ruined Star Wars.
   391. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4701256)
However I am really appreciating this walk down memory lane. Back in the '90s with partisans arguing for the horror that went down. My goodness it was the worst thing ever done. Impeach yesterday, impeach today, impeach the future!


He perjured himself and obstructed justice, BM. People ought not support his actions simply because they like his politics.
   392. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4701257)
Yeah, impeaching the Chief Executive for feloniously and perjuriously interfering with the laws he pledged an oath to uphold.


It sounds so noble when you put it that way. If only we, as a society, had the honor and fortitude that we had lost in the intervening years between 1979 and the 1997, we would never have a had a president with such low character as to have sex with someone not his wife and then lie about it. No one in the 70s or before had sex with women not their spouse, and if they did they, like the noble George Washington, told the truth about it.

"Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away..."
   393. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4701260)
People ought not support his actions simply because they like his politics.


Quote a single word I have written "supporting" his actions. I am mocking the pearl clutching and hyperventilating being done (then and now) over the issue. Have some ice cream, find a couch, relax and breathe.

And I am on record as supporting the possible plan for the GOP to impeach Obama. I think the GOP should impeach EVERY Democratic president.
   394. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4701264)
It sounds so noble when you put it that way. If only we, as a society, had the honor and fortitude that we had lost in the intervening years between 1979 and the 1997, we would never have a had a president with such low character as to have sex with someone not his wife and then lie about it. No one in the 70s or before had sex with women not their spouse, and if they did they, like the noble George Washington, told the truth about it.


The issue is not lying, but perjury and obstruction. At least if you're going to excuse his crimes be honest while you're doing it.
   395. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4701265)
It sounds so noble when you put it that way.

It actually sounds completely benign.(*) It only sounds "noble" to you because of your purely partisan, modern liberal perspective.

(*) Which is why it was always a completely straightforward and uncontroversial idea -- until the secession of liberals and modern liberals from the world of facts and empirical, agreed-upon principles.
   396. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4701267)
Quote a single word I have written "supporting" his actions.


Sure:

It sounds so noble when you put it that way. If only we, as a society, had the honor and fortitude that we had lost in the intervening years between 1979 and the 1997, we would never have a had a president with such low character as to have sex with someone not his wife and then lie about it. No one in the 70s or before had sex with women not their spouse, and if they did they, like the noble George Washington, told the truth about it.


You're deceitfully trying to claim that the issue was lying. That supports his actions by attempting to disguise what they really were.
   397. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4701269)
He perjured himself and obstructed justice, BM.


Shal we compare and contrast Barry Bonds and Bill Clinton? At least the Barry Bonds witch hunt was related to his ability to play baseball, his performance at his job. The Bill Clinton farce* doesn't even have that figleaf.

* Yes he had sex. Yes he tried to weasel out of it. I don't condone his actions any more than I condone Barry Bonds using steroids and trying to weasel out of that. Noticing something is a witch hunt is not endorsing every action ever taken by the victim of the witch hunt.
   398. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 06, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4701271)
You're deceitfully trying to claim that the issue was lying. That supports his actions by attempting to disguise what they really were.


Yes it sure is deceitful to call him claiming he did not have sex with her as a lie. Psst, Ray, it was a lie. He lied. And the lie was the problem. I am not a lawyer, so so I minimize throwing around legal terms, but lie, yeah that one I have a handle on.

EDIT: And his actions really were to have sex with someone not his wife and then lie about it. Those were his actions. There is zero deceit or disguise there.

EDIT #2: And That is not supporting his actions, it is refusing to condemn them as harshly as you want. Find something actually supporting his action. Good luck with that.
   399. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4701273)
Psst, Ray, it was a lie. He lied.

But not just a lie, since he perjured himself in a deposition and before the grand jury. Nobody cares about his lying to other people, like Hillary -- that's yet another modern liberal delusion.

JFK lied to Jackie about his carousing, one can be sure -- but no one cares.

And it very much impacts on his "job." He's responsible for upholding and executing the laws. Intentionally and feloniously violating them yourself obviously doesn't show the requisite ability to do so.
   400. Rants Mulliniks Posted: May 06, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4701275)
flip
Page 4 of 45 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3537 - 4:26pm, Sep 23)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogCalcaterra: If Bobby Cox has anything to say about it, Fredi Gonzalez will manage the Braves for a long time
(16 - 4:23pm, Sep 23)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(386 - 4:09pm, Sep 23)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogMets near extension with GM Alderson
(32 - 4:00pm, Sep 23)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(217 - 3:59pm, Sep 23)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogBaseball Caught Looking as Fouls Injure 1,750 Fans a Year
(161 - 3:59pm, Sep 23)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-23-2014
(15 - 3:57pm, Sep 23)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(264 - 3:52pm, Sep 23)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogJeter Denies Gift Basket Rumors
(33 - 3:46pm, Sep 23)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogMLB creates pace of game committee
(99 - 3:14pm, Sep 23)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogGene Collier: No shame in staying home for Pirates
(9 - 2:55pm, Sep 23)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOld Cuban stars don’t begrudge ballplayers who defect - The Boston Globe
(2 - 2:25pm, Sep 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-23-2014
(6 - 1:14pm, Sep 23)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB: Braves fire GM Frank Wren; John Hart to take over interim position
(143 - 1:13pm, Sep 23)
Last: Davo Dozier

Newsblog10 Degrees: Why WAR doesn’t always add up
(341 - 1:04pm, Sep 23)
Last: villageidiom

Page rendered in 1.0683 seconds
52 querie(s) executed