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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 5 of 60 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4199616)
Jobs report beats forecasts with 163,000 jobs in July


So there is that. Mildly good news, but not enough that it is immune to adjustments into bad. Plus the unemployment rate crept up a tiny bit. So basically blah with a side of OK and a sprig of meh.
   402. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4199622)
My favorite BBTF meme. And Mike Crudale.


Same here, not surprisingly. Fairly often I find myself wanting to invoke it in non-BTF contexts as well -- such as, a couple of minutes ago, a friend's Facebook post reporting Roseanne Barr's apparent declaration that Satan would be the preferable choice over Obama & Romney -- but luckily I realize that would make me look even more crazy than usual.
   403. billyshears Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:30 AM (#4199640)
Actually, that raises another problem: people trying to get on before everyone's off.


The seventh circle of hell is reserved for people who stand on the platform while waiting to board the train right in the middle of where the subway doors will open, instead of off to the side like all decent human beings.
   404. CrosbyBird Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4199643)
I'm sometimes guilty of this on buses, if there's a mother with a stroller who isn't able to immediately get off the bus. So I end up thinking there's no one coming off and walk into her. In those moments I usually feel awful enough to willingly submit to a beating.

That's not really the same situation. Nobody should have a problem with someone who waits patiently and thinks everyone who wants to has gotten off the subway. We're talking about the people who wait on the track right outside the doors and push into the car right away while people are trying to exit.

Proper subway etiquette:

Entering: Stand to the side of, rather than in front of the doors, until a complete wave of people has exited the train.

On the train: If you can't avoid standing by the door in a crowded train, then step out of the train when it stops to clear a path for exiting people. Don't just turn sideways and make people squeeze around you.

Exiting: Be ready to leave the train the instant the door opens, exit promptly, and move far enough away from the doors that you don't block anyone else. If someone is facing the door in front of you, they're leaving on that stop too, so shut your hole and wait for them to exit. If you get out and the line for the stairs is bleeding toward the doors, walk past the line to the other side of the tracks and wait there so you don't block other people.

If there's ever a day that I break down and start murdering people, it will be on a rush hour subway. Most people behave properly, but a few jackasses make it miserable for everyone else. They're almost never tourists either, but regular riders who should know better and are simply inconsiderate people. They should all get cancer of the eye.
   405. The District Attorney Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4199649)
Sounds about right. Also, when you enter, get as far into the center of the car as you can. And put bookbags or those Great Dane-size "purses" on the floor between your legs.
   406. Lassus Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4199650)
Anyone stressed out about the state of the world, the subway, the Fed, the election, or Aroldis Chapman should take 15 minutes and just watch this, and remember that we've somehow managed to produce Helene Grimaud.
   407. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4199652)
I'm a skeptic of central bank independence. Independent central bankers are the main thing standing between the present and an economic recovery in the US, and they're basically committed to driving Europe off a cliff. I blame the ideology of central bankers that inflation must be constrained at any cost, and that central banks are supposed to drive neoliberal labor market reforms, but the actual state of the economy and the lives of the people who make up the economy are a fleeting concern at most before you hunker down in bed to masturbate to Greenspan speeches again. The ECB basically appointed the most recent Italian PM, and they seem committed much more to establishing themselves as the leading power on the continent than in helping aid the crippling economic and social pain caused by the recession. (A recession for which these central bankers also deserve significant blame.)


In my opinion, this is a very dangerous and impatient viewpoint. Currently there is an institutional bias in monetary policy towards low inflation. The dual mandate is not weighted equally. This is a problem, and one that is caused by FED members coming of age in the 1970's. It is not necessarily permanent. Some people get it (Charlie Evans, John C. Williams).

Saying that you are willing to have a partisan Fed is just a horrible solution. Yes, at the moment it would probably lead to a better outcome--although I would say that since Obama can't even control DeMarco, that's not a given. However, let's examine a world with a partisan FED. Are they appointed on the same cycle as the President? Loose money for incumbents. Are they appointed on different cycles? Any Republican partisan who was running the FED right now would be making the money supply even tighter.

The independent FED is a very good solution that depends on institutional norms to work in the US. Currently monetary policy is too tight, and that is a shame, but the FED was successful in 2008-2009 at bringing out the bazookas to stave off catastrophe. That might not have happened in a partisan environment.

Europe is almost completely different because of the longstanding German paranoia of inflation. The Bundesbank is so paranoid about hyperinflation causing Hitler II that they reflexively choke off efforts for loose money. In addition, the ECB is limited by statute. It's a completely different situation than here.

Jobs report beats forecasts with 163,000 jobs in July


That's a good enough number to drive positive headlines for about a week and that's about it. Btw, May revised up, June revised down.
   408. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4199654)
Chris Truby is not a BTF meme. Chris Truby is an RSBB meme.
   409. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4199665)
Chris Truby is not a BTF meme. Chris Truby is an RSBB meme.


What it can't be both? It originated at RSBB, but the meme has propagated to BBTF. Someday it may become a Facebook meme.
   410. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4199673)
Someday it may become a Facebook meme.


It will need a photoshopped slide show image for that to happen.
   411. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4199676)
#407. You lay out the standard case for Fed independence, but why it monetary policy qualitatively different than the other government functions?

There is a clear "rally around the flag" effect, so incumbent presidents can declare war to help their reelection. There is a direct link between the economy and how well the out-of-power political party does, so that party can try to torpedo the economy.

Some would say that both the above have happened at least once. But isn't that the risk of a democracy. Politicians work for selfish gains. What makes what the Fed does so different than what the Congress or President can do that means they have to be "independent" versus those other two branches?

Note that I am not arguing the current state of affairs is the worst possible, I am just asking.

Historically there are reasons tings developed the way they did. There have been arguments about central banking in the US a long long time.
   412. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4199677)
It will need a photoshopped slide show image for that to happen.


With a cat. Clearly the most photogenic of all animals.
   413. booond Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4199682)
With a cat.


And a baby at a wedding
   414. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4199684)
Saying that you are willing to have a partisan Fed is just a horrible solution. Yes, at the moment it would probably lead to a better outcome--although I would say that since Obama can't even control DeMarco, that's not a given. However, let's examine a world with a partisan FED. Are they appointed on the same cycle as the President? Loose money for incumbents. Are they appointed on different cycles? Any Republican partisan who was running the FED right now would be making the money supply even tighter.
Different cycles obviously would be a disaster. I don't see why having a FED run by the party in power would be any worse than having the defense department or the treasury or the parliament / congress run by the party in power. It seems like the solution that we've come up with for democratic power - they have the power to run the country well and make peoples lives better, and if they don't, they're subject to being voted out of power.
   415. zonk Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4199686)
I think this is screwed up by after-the-fact analysis.

1) When someone wins a presidential election, we get four years after that to learn about their personality, which will always seem "bigger" in retrospect (see Obama, Bush).
2) When someone loses a presidential election, the memory of that person tends to be as a loser, even if they did well against the economic fundamentals and are quite charming or spectacularly weird (see Dole, Kerry).

I really don't see how John McCain wasn't a "bigger" personality than Obama, but was the guy who ran for president the year the economy went in the toilet with his party in office, so he lost.


It's Gonfalon's theory - but I think he was referring more to some stew of personality and let's say -- cachet.

For example, I wouldn't say Ike had an especially 'big' personality, but SAC during WWII carries a lot of weight.

McCain was no slouch, but Obama was a rock star... for better or worse and I say this as a then and now supporter - there's simply no doubting that Obama benefited significantly from some of his 'aura'.

Kennedy beat Nixon, too -- and while Nixon was also a 'personality' -- Kennedy just had that young, hip vibe.

America likes things 'big' - including our politicians. We don't always have the best reasons for liking things big - but I think as a nation, we're pretty darn consistent about wanting 'bigger'.
   416. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4199688)
Chris Truby, a cat & a baby at a wedding walk into a bar ...
   417. tshipman Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4199692)
#407. You lay out the standard case for Fed independence, but why it monetary policy qualitatively different than the other government functions?


1. In the case of crises, the FED needs to act faster than other branches are capable of. Not even the executive branch is capable of acting as fast as Bernanke in fall of 2008.
2. FED needs to be able to credibly signal long term goals. If inflation outlook is only stable until an election, this discredits inflation setting expectations.

What makes what the Fed does so different than what the Congress or President can do that means they have to be "independent" versus those other two branches?


Other parts of government contain numerous checks and balances to prevent abuse. To declare war officially, you need two houses of congress and a president on board. POTUS can do their little "peacekeeping" missions, but those are limited to shorter affairs.

What is the natural check and balance on monetary policy? There isn't one. It needs to be set as accurately and as quickly as possible. The other branches of government trend towards compromise, which is not a virtue for the FED.
   418. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4199695)
Speed, decisiveness, and credible long-term signalling are precisely the theoretical benefits of autocracy. I am not arguing they don't exist - though I'm very skeptical of (c) - I'm arguing they don't outweigh the benefits of democratic governance subject to democratic oversight.
   419. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4199697)
They're almost never tourists either, but regular riders who should know better and are simply inconsiderate people.


See, here's where I disagree. I think most of these people simply _don't_ know better, because most people are idiots.

They should all get cancer of the eye.


We'll see you next month.
   420. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4199698)
Chris Truby, a cat & a baby at a wedding walk into a bar ..


APOCALYPSE!
   421. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4199704)
417 - Replace Fed with the Military.

The military needs to be able to act really quickly. It needs to be seen as a rational actor with long term goals (presumably defending the nation, winning wars and not randomly invading people).

I am not convinced the Fed should be purely partisan, but why (for example) couldn't it be part of the executive branch in the same way the military is?
   422. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4199723)
See, here's where I disagree. I think most of these people simply _don't_ know better, because most people are idiots.
I think this type of behavior has more to do with selfishness than stupidity. (Though it's nearly always wrong to dismiss stupidity out of hand.)

It's the same reason some people think nothing of stopping in an active curb lane to wait and pick someone up during rush hour--hundreds of people delayed as traffic slows, and they simply don't care.

One additional peeve on the subway: people who lean against or otherwise wrap themselves around a floor-to-ceiling pole in a crowded car.
   423. Eddo Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4199738)
I loved standing in front of a massive crowd waiting to get on a train and refusing to move until the last person who was leaving the train was out of the way.

The little things can bring so much joy.

Totally agree. If I'm already on the train, standing near the door, I'll sometimes get off to let people out, and make sure I'm blocking people from getting on.
   424. Swedish Chef Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4199745)
The military aren't really part of the executive branch, right? I mean, they obey the president's orders and all, but it's not like they purge the officer corps when the administration changes.
   425. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4199747)
My peeve it the people who put their bags on the seats. Even when it is crowded, some people wont move them.
   426. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4199748)
The military aren't really part of the executive branch, right? I mean, they obey the president's orders and all, but it's not like they purge the officer corps when the administration changes.


That is my point. The military is "under" the executive branch but there is still continuity and tactical autonomy.

I am not arguing that this is the ideal solution, but I am unclear why the Fed has to be structured the way it is. Why couldn't it be structured like the military (or I am sure other ways)?
   427. Lassus Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4199778)
Speaking of the military, our peaceful, not particularly big 1-year-old bombay kitty just brought into the house a rabbit not discernably smaller than her that she had killed, and set it right on my GF's foot.

After initially freaking, my GF was heartwarmed by the gift of love.

I told her it was actually probably a warning that one of us was next.
   428. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: August 03, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4199784)
Chris Truby, a cat & a baby at a wedding walk into a bar ...


Who has their wedding at a bar?
   429. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4199796)
but it's not like they purge the officer corps when the administration changes.

That is my point. The military is "under" the executive branch but there is still continuity and tactical autonomy.


The composition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is defined by statute and consists of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS), and the Military Service Chiefs from the Army, Navy, Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau,[1] all appointed by the President following Senate confirmation.[2] Each of the individual Military Service Chiefs, outside of their Joint Chiefs of Staff obligations, works directly for the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Air Force.[3][4][5][6]


You know when a new President takes over the only prrson canned in the Forestry department may be the head, everyone else can stay.

When a new Secretary of state comes in, the vast majority of "career" diplomats and lower level employees stay- hell most lower level political appointees- even those appointed by the wrong side tend to stay on at least awhile-

the Military may have more continuity and less politically forced turnover than other executive branch functions- but it is a difference in degree rather than kind.
   430. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4199797)
I think this type of behavior has more to do with selfishness than stupidity.

I have a Mr. Hanlon on line one. Something about a razor.
   431. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4199805)
My peeve it the people who put their bags on the seats. Even when it is crowded, some people wont move them.


A few years ago the MTA announced that people who "occupied" more than two seats on buses/trains would be subject to a fine- every commuter knew that was aimed at the problem you speak of- nevertheless many local MSM outlets reported- with straight faces- that this was discrimination against obese persons- repeatedly- and they even had spokepersons on babbling about the rights of the obese- and one local cable show called up someone from the MTA, who I swear to god actually asked if he was getting punked...
   432. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4199816)
Who has their wedding at a bar?


My cousin just had her baby shower at a bar. Does that count?
   433. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4199844)

Different cycles obviously would be a disaster. I don't see why having a FED run by the party in power would be any worse than having the defense department or the treasury or the parliament / congress run by the party in power. It seems like the solution that we've come up with for democratic power - they have the power to run the country well and make peoples lives better, and if they don't, they're subject to being voted out of power.

Most of those things are an umitigated disaster in their current form so I'm not sure moving the Fed to that model is a good idea. More to the point, if you make the Fed a part of the executive branch it is going to be subject to the same checks and balances that the executive branch is right now. Treasury and Congress could both be doing more to stimulate the economy right now, but they aren't for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure why you automatically assume that a Fed subject to the same constraints as those bodies would be doing more to stimulate the economy than it currently is. It very well might do less.
   434. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4199852)

To expand on this point, the "problem" right now is that you have a large portion of the population and elected officials who are opposed to more fiscal stimulus. If the Fed were part of the executive branch, the same folks who rally against the budget deficit and fiscal stimulus would be rallying against inflation and monetary stimulus, and the Fed would probably be just as unlikely to act.
   435. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4199860)
To expand on this point, the "problem" right now is that you have a large portion of the population and elected officials who are opposed to more fiscal stimulus. If the Fed were part of the executive branch, the same folks who rally against the budget deficit and fiscal stimulus would be rallying against inflation and monetary stimulus, and the Fed would probably be just as unlikely to act.


Less likely to act than it currently is? Right now the budget is really in the hands of congress where the minority can usually say no, but often the president is blamed (rightly or wrongly). Putting the Fed under the President allows for better alignment of authority and responsibility.

Sure that could go bad, or be no better than things currently are, but worst case scenarios are easy to come up with and i think it has a reasonable chance to be better than the current status quo.

I began this discussion (when it was first brought up) neutral or even a bit against changing the structure. Slowly I am moving to a position that it is the current structure that is odd, and pulling the Fed out of where it is and making more politically accountable as part of the executive branch might be OK.

I am not totally convinced though. I would like to hear explicitly why it would be so terrible to be under the Executive branch though.
   436. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4199866)
To more directly address 434. I think much of the disconnect is the difference in authority and responsibility (who gets the blame). Congress critters have really good re-election rates and so long as they do nothing too ridiculous (the bar set by Michele Bachmann is pretty high) and avoid getting primaried they are fine. So why not tank the economy if the President is going to get all the blame anyway?*

I don't think the problem is no one wants fiscal stimulus, I think the problem is folks have made a calculation that more fiscal stimulus would hurt their re-election chances (or at least not help). If the Fed was more directly linked to the president then there would be incentive to counteract the fiscal deadlock a bit.

Again I am still not completely convinced, but I don't think it is crazy. I admit it is not going to happen anytime soon though.

* I am simplifying, but the President does get the lions share of credit and blame. A bit like a QB in football.
   437. Tripon Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4199868)
I always found it weird that the heads of each agency were appointed and replaced with each new admin., and most of the time there's no requirement that the new head isn't required to have an expertise in the department he's running. The fact that most departments don't overturn their personal is almost a requirement if only to get their boss up to speed to whatever they're doing...
   438. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4199871)
My cousin just had her baby shower at a bar. Does that count?


This is funnier if you quickly scan it and drop the o from the last word.
   439. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4199890)
One of Yahoo! News's top stories:

Retired adult film actress Jenna Jameson voiced support for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at a strip club Thursday, CBS San Francisco reports:

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," Jameson said while sipping champagne in a VIP room at Gold Club in the city's South of Market neighborhood. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office."


She's retired?
   440. Lassus Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4199901)
Way to bury the hilariously relevant lede, Ray.
   441. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4199909)
She's retired?

Porn stars have a much steeper and shorter decline phase than baseball players.
   442. Rants Mulliniks Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4199916)
Porn stars have a much steeper and shorter decline phase than baseball players.


That's only the rich female ones. The female B stars and all the men hang on way too long.
   443. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4199917)
Way to bury the hilariously relevant lede, Ray.


Heh. I liked her quote.
   444. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4199920)
The first comment from that story is something to the order of "Romney finally has a supporter who's changed positions more times than he has."
   445. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4199936)
The first comment from that story is something to the order of "Romney finally has a supporter who's changed positions more times than he has."


Not bad... I laughed.
   446. Swedish Chef Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4199942)
She has clear running mate potential. Mitt-Jenna '12!
   447. Steve Treder Posted: August 03, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4199956)
running mate

So that's what you kids are calling it these days.
   448. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4200013)
Re: The "bigger personality" wins the Presidency:

I was going to reply to #380, but Zonk's #415 was my Dow Scrubbing Bubble. He wrote hard so I didn't have toooooo.

There's obviously subjectivity at play, but my unscientific theory is intended for candidates' personality status at the time, not who some of them later came to be. Thus my ambivalence about whether or not 1928 and Herbert Hoover properly qualifies as the most recent exception; Hoover was very popular and had just spent the previous decade as a high-profile, troubleshooting humanitarian. More recently, Jimmy Carter enjoyed an air of excitement in 1976 that was completely extinguished by 1980; Carter A would crush Carter B.

John McCain is someone who loses in this system because of bad timing. Obama was the "bigger" opponent, but McCain would have won the personality race in a different year. 2000, for starters. For another specific example, Nixon loses to Kennedy, but beats Humphrey-- and Hubert Humphrey isn't the worst parallel to McCain.
   449. Swedish Chef Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4200016)
Thus my ambivalence about whether or not 1928 and Herbert Hoover properly qualifies as the most recent exception

If Hoover is deemed to have a personality, what about Calvin Coolidge, he should definitely be an exception or did he run against a potted plant?
   450. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4200025)
More recently, Jimmy Carter enjoyed an air of excitement in 1976 that was completely extinguished by 1980
Well, now you're talking about popular perception, which is heavily driven by whether people are or aren't looking for a change in policy and change in leader in the first place. Is this "excitement" a function of Carter's personality or of the underlying fundamentals that favored any challenger? Given that once the fundamentals turned on Carter, so did the perception of his personality, it seems like you're mistaking the effect for the cause.

People react well to a challenger in bad times, and poorly to a challenger in good times. That seems like the effect you're describing, and it shouldn't be attributed to any particular characteristics of the individuals involved.
   451. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4200032)
If Hoover is deemed to have a personality, what about Calvin Coolidge, he should definitely be an exception or did he run against a potted plant?

A potted plant might have been chosen before the 103rd ballot of the convention, which is how and where the Democrats ended up with John Davis.
   452. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 03, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4200044)
Jimmy Carter in 1976 had the "I will never lie to you" promise that struck a major chord, he had the then-shocking "lust and adultery in my heart" interview with Playboy, he had the down-home peanut farmer gimmick, he had the wacky mom and the slobby brother, he had the "who's this compelling out-of-nowhere stranger?" trajectory that Clinton and Palin later had and that Gary Hart would have had if he'd stayed off of boats, he had the big teeth which captured the public's imagination though only God knows why-- and most importantly, he had Gerald Ford to surpass. Again in not-so-alternate history, if Reagan had succeeded in getting the 1976 nomination, it's no contest and "The Simpsons" loses a great punchline.

Any politician's personality is largely a construct. Do we really think George W. Bush enjoyed clearing brush like a cowboy? Do we really think Bill Clinton felt our pain?
   453. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4200050)
Do we really think George W. Bush enjoyed clearing brush like a cowboy?


Who knows, but I know a lot of people who do enjoy stuff like that.
   454. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4200060)
I always found it weird that the heads of each agency were appointed and replaced with each new admin., and most of the time there's no requirement that the new head isn't required to have an expertise in the department he's running. The fact that most departments don't overturn their personal is almost a requirement if only to get their boss up to speed to whatever they're doing...

I still find this weird, also.
I was very interested to see my Obama-fan friends outraged with the presidential pardon office, when a study revealed that under Bush a statistically-unlikely percentage of white people were getting pardons, compared to black people. The study came out earlier this year, and only discussed the Bush years, but under Obama it had been the same guy in charge, with all the same policies, leading to very similar results. My Dem friends decided to remain angry with Bush about this issue, because cognitive dissonance hurts, I guess.
   455. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4200066)
Any politician's personality is largely a construct. Do we really think George W. Bush enjoyed clearing brush like a cowboy? Do we really think Bill Clinton felt our pain?
I think you're mistaking my argument. I'm not saying that you're wrong about the perception of politician's personalities, historically speaking.

You argued not just that the candidate with the "bigger" perceived personality wins, but that this explains their victory. I'm arguing that this perception is heavily (not entirely, but heavily) a function of underlying issues that make people more or less excited about any new challenger, any face from the opposition party. The perception is the effect of underlying fundamentals, and these fundamentals are the primary driver of electoral outcomes.
   456. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4200085)
The first comment from that story is something to the order of "Romney finally has a supporter who's changed positions more times than he has."


Not bad... I laughed.


Me too, I just laughed and now my 5 year old is asking me what I am laughing it.

Well, um, it is um a joke.
   457. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4200113)
Well, there's something to be said for consistency ...


The conservative group Heritage Action on Thursday demanded that House members vote against a short-term drought assistance bill that is coming to the floor later in the day.

The group said it considers the matter a “key vote” that it will use to evaluate members in its annual scorecard and argues the legislation's $383 million in spending on livestock disaster assistance is not necessary.

“Proponents of the bill cite the drought’s impact on livestock — and the absence of livestock-specific disaster programs — as the principle reason for the aid package. However, the livestock-specific disaster programs expired in 2011, meaning ranchers knew that they had to plan for possible disasters, including drought,” it said.

It notes the bill addresses wildfire and other disaster as well as the drought.

“Not only does this $383 million spending bill extend well beyond drought aid for livestock farmers, it continues making farmers, ranchers and orchardists more dependent on government and bails them out for not adequately preparing for hardship,” the group says.
   458. Steve Treder Posted: August 03, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4200145)
“Not only does this $383 million spending bill extend well beyond drought aid for livestock farmers, it continues making farmers, ranchers and orchardists more dependent on government and bails them out for not adequately preparing for hardship,” the group says.

"We represent extraordinarily rich agribusiness investors," the group continues, "Who would rather the littler operations go bellyup so we can buy up their land and assets for a song, and make everyone more dependent on us."
   459. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4200172)
Porn stars have a decline phase?

One day they are making movies and the next day they retire otherwise they keep on churning them out. Most have absolutely no decline phase. Very very few people want to see a plastic fat girl with wrinkles lying on her back while getting boned by a 22 year old.
   460. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: August 03, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4200198)
One day they are making movies and the next day they retire otherwise they keep on churning them out. Most have absolutely no decline phase. Very very few people want to see a plastic fat girl with wrinkles lying on her back while getting boned by a 22 year old.


There's a category for that.
   461. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: August 03, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4200250)
Yeah speak for yourself
   462. Bowling Baseball Fan Posted: August 03, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4200253)
Oh, not mine, but there are categories and fans looking for everything a twisted mind can think of. The japanese are gross.
   463. The District Attorney Posted: August 03, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4200295)
BTW, also don't put your bag on the subway seat next to you. It doesn't matter if you're willing to remove it when someone approaches the seat and acts like they're about to sit down on top of your ####. Just don't do it to begin with. Same for benches on platforms, of course. It should certainly be obvious to any human that this is tremendously rude, but apparently it nonetheless needs to be said.
   464. Lassus Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4200323)
BTW, also don't put your bag on the subway seat next to you. It doesn't matter if you're willing to remove it when someone approaches the seat and acts like they're about to sit down on top of your ####. Just don't do it to begin with. Same for benches on platforms, of course. It should certainly be obvious to any human that this is tremendously rude, but apparently it nonetheless needs to be said.

You know what, given the condition of the floor of a NYC subway car, if the car is half-empty, I'm not putting my bag on the floor. Sorry.
   465. McCoy Posted: August 03, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4200335)
Plus if the car isn't even close to being full it sends a message to people to find another vacant seat instead of cramming in next to me.
   466. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 03, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4200351)
What I think I love MOST about this anti-Obama attack ad is the horrible, 3rd rate voice-over actor they got to do the job, obviously fresh off of his stellar work for the Chop-O-Matic 5000 and pimping out your local king of basic access DUI attorney ...


Who is Barack Obama? We know less about this man than any other President in American history. What’s he hiding? His autobiography is full of fictional characters. But there’s a lot more than that. If you try to look into his past, you run into a brick wall.

His college records at Columbia, sealed! His college records at Harvard, sealed! We don’t know what his thesis papers were about because those are sealed too. He Selective Service record is sealed. His records as an attorney are sealed. He has a Connecticut Social Security number and we can’t get answers about that either.

And no one — I mean no one — has seen an actual physical copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

The fact is, if we don’t know who Barack Obama is, we shouldn’t even have him as a candidate for president. Let’s disqualify Obama before the Democratic National Convention. Call today to sign the demand to disqualify Obama… . We need 10,000 signatures from every congressional district to boot this guy off the ballot and have the Democrats nominate someone else.
   467. Steve Treder Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4200367)
That's a giggler.
   468. Steve Treder Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4200382)
Another one worth mentioning is the interview with Ann Coulter in which she explained that Obama's secret strategy to win the election is to ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Romney get a divorce between now and November.
   469. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 04, 2012 at 12:45 AM (#4200384)
Another one worth mentioning is the interview with Ann Coulter in which she explained that Obama's secret strategy to win the election is to ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Romney get a divorce between now and November.


That's probably just a reference to Obama having benefited in his Senate election from the leading candidates in the primary and general election being damaged from material from their divorce cases despite the records of both having been sealed.
   470. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 04, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4200395)
His college records at Columbia, sealed! His college records at Harvard, sealed! We don’t know what his thesis papers were about because those are sealed too. He Selective Service record is sealed. His records as an attorney are sealed. He has a Connecticut Social Security number and we can’t get answers about that either.

Although, to be fair, there is the whole "Obama as Constitutional Scholar" thing... I'm going to go read all of Obama's published legal scholarship OK now I'm done.
   471. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 04, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4200424)

That's probably just a reference to Obama having benefited in his Senate election from the leading candidates in the primary and general election being damaged from material from their divorce cases despite the records of both having been sealed.


They were unsealed during the election. And I still can't believe what the material was that was so damaging he had to drop out: a few times he asked his wife if they could have sex while people watched.
   472. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 04, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4200434)
Do we really think George W. Bush enjoyed clearing brush like a cowboy?


I think he enjoyed being photographed clearing brush in his cowboy costume. Once he was no longer president he quickly said, "Screw this ####," and sold the Photo-op Ranch and returned to his previous existence as a fancy lad.
   473. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 08:06 AM (#4201302)
So, how about some VP speculation. Your options are:

1) Tim Pawlenty
2) Rob Portman
3) Random other boring white dude
4) 2012 failed GOP presidential candidates (Santorum, Caine, ...)
5) Condeleeza Rice (or any other non white or non dude)

And when will it be announced?

1) This week (8/6 - 8/12)
2) Next week (8/13 - 8/19)
3) Two weeks (8/20 - 8/26)
4) Week of convention (8/27+ )

I am cheering for T-Paw (boring dude from my state), but I think it will be Portman, next week.

   474. Lassus Posted: August 06, 2012 at 08:19 AM (#4201308)
I'll concur: Natalie Portman.

Also, let's get some folks on here talking about the liberals' waste of money that the Mars Curiosity rover is.

As far as I'm concerned, that landing is a good reason to be alive today.
   475. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 06, 2012 at 08:24 AM (#4201310)
Portman seems like the obvious choice. Ohio's economy is doing comparatively well, he's got some national experience, and Ohio is the most likely tipping point state once again.

Marco Rubio should be on that list as choice (3), bumping the "field" options down a spot each. It seems like he doesn't want the VP spot, but I think it's likely that if he decided he became interested, he'd be first on the list (or at least second after Portman).

Rice is not a candidate - she pro-choice - but there's always the chance of a campaign making a surprise VP selection, and if Romney goes that route, it's likely he'd pick one of the party's rising Hispanic stars. Susanna Martinez is probably the best bet here.
   476. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 08:27 AM (#4201314)
475: I should have had a Christie & Rubio slot, because together I think they merit a slot. Mind blank I guess.
   477. CrosbyBird Posted: August 06, 2012 at 08:46 AM (#4201322)
lso, let's get some folks on here talking about the liberals' waste of money that the Mars Curiosity rover is.

As far as I'm concerned, that landing is a good reason to be alive today.


I stayed up until 2AM watching it live on my Xbox. I read an interesting article about the cost: over the nine years of the project, each American has paid $1.94 for the Curiosity rover. The total cost is about $2.5 billion dollars, about two-thirds of a percent of the American budget for 2012; the annual cost is less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget.

I'm also confused, because I thought the space program was a conservative waste of money, not a liberal waste of money. Gingrich was the one who wanted a moonbase, while Obama is the one who cancelled the manned mission to Mars.
   478. Lassus Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4201338)
I'm also confused, because I thought the space program was a conservative waste of money, not a liberal waste of money. Gingrich was the one who wanted a moonbase, while Obama is the one who cancelled the manned mission to Mars.

Oh, I dunno, I'm sure Ray and David were against it. I can't imagine Kehoskie's for it, but I'll be happy to be wrong. Various other grumps.

Obama cancelling the Mars mission was very very unpleasant.
   479. CrosbyBird Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4201346)
I think the space program is wonderful, but part of me wonders if it's a luxury we can't afford with the more earthly concerns we have right now. I was pleased to see how little the cost is, relatively speaking.

The acquisition of knowledge for its own sake is a worthwhile pursuit, as far as I'm concerned. I think it will be valuable one day to explore the universe (should we avoid destroying ourselves first) but it's a very long-term goal, and we've got some very serious short-term problems. From the comfort of my air-conditioned apartment in Manhattan, where my well-fed body types on one of three laptops, as I grab my smartphone and head to a taxi to get to work, it's easy for me to accept spending on the space program. Am I selfish to want more of that?
   480. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4201347)
Obama cancelling the Mars mission was very very unpleasant.


You're not getting off planet, monkey-boy. You might as well come to grips with the fact that you're going to die in this very small gravity well, Player.
   481. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4201357)
I think it will be valuable one day to explore the universe (should we avoid destroying ourselves first) but it's a very long-term goal, and we've got some very serious short-term problems.


I hear this a bunch and I really disagree. There will always be short term problems. Always. By this logic we will never reach beyond our grasp. and I believe that solving the short term problems (which again are always with us) requires long term thinking.

I don't know with 100% certainty that humanity will gain by continuing exploring our universe, but we always have. Pure science has always been used, always added to the set of possible solutions, made the possibility of solving problems easier.

It is such a small cost, not spending it is akin to eating your seed corn because your short term problem is you are hungry. It is a very short sighted solution. Everything can't be seed corn, but you have to have some or next years crop looks really bad.
   482. booond Posted: August 06, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4201366)
VP

Not that it matters much to general election.

T-Paw had the moment against Romney where he showed no backbone. It is an extremely bad moment. How would he stand up to foreign leaders?

Rubio - The Palin of 2012 (allegedly attractive, dim as road kill). He lied about parent's arrival to US. Drags Romney further right.

Christie - Fat, ugly and rude need not apply. We won't elect them.

Women - Ha! Repubs walked down that road before and Romney's too cautious to walk it again.

Which leaves the choice its been since about March - Rob Portman.

He comes from an important state. He's bland, white and not unattractive. His only real blemish is his work in Bush administration but that's less of a blemish than others. He's been the guy since the beginning.
   483. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: August 06, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4201383)
Obama cancelling the Mars mission was very very unpleasant.


Obama cancelled the Constellation/Ares program, and it's not obvious that Constellation was a viable way forward. It was basically a repeat of Apollo, and Apollo was vastly expensive, several times more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than the entirety of the current space budget. Constellation's Ares heavy lift rockets would likely have eventually gotten us to Mars if we'd have been willing to pay for it, but it wasn't ever going to scale up past "plant the flag" type missions and those are pretty pointless in the light of NASA's really successful recent robotic missions. There needs to be a new plan beyond subsidizing private enterprise satellite launches and so forth, but I don't think cancelling Constellation was a mistake.
   484. Lassus Posted: August 06, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4201389)
Obama cancelled the Constellation/Ares program, and it's not obvious that Constellation was a viable way forward. It was basically a repeat of Apollo, and Apollo was vastly expensive, several times more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than the entirety of the current space budget. Constellation's Ares heavy lift rockets would likely have eventually gotten us to Mars if we'd have been willing to pay for it, but it wasn't ever going to scale up past "plant the flag" type missions and those are pretty pointless in the light of NASA's really successful recent robotic missions. There needs to be a new plan beyond subsidizing private enterprise satellite launches and so forth, but I don't think cancelling Constellation was a mistake.

I can appreciate this, thanks Fernigal.

Now if only someone would steal more of Ray's money to pay the people at NASA to come up with a better plan, I'd be fine with that.
   485. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 06, 2012 at 10:38 AM (#4201397)
Who is Barack Obama? We know less about this man than any other President in American history.


If anything, I think most Americans know much more about Barack Obama than the vast majority of other Presidents. If you stop some schmoe on the street and ask him to tell you a fact about William Henry Harrison or Rutherford B. Hayes, how many are really going to be able to do that?
   486. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4201403)
If you stop some schmoe on the street and ask him


...basically anything about anything it will be depressing.

But yeah Obama is hardly a cypher. Anyone who beats the GOP must have some odd, mysterious, or threatening (all three?) qualities.

It is part and parcel with Conservatism never fails, it is only failed.
   487. zonk Posted: August 06, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4201457)

That's probably just a reference to Obama having benefited in his Senate election from the leading candidates in the primary and general election being damaged from material from their divorce cases despite the records of both having been sealed.


Whether Blair Hull was the "leading candidate" in the 2004 Democratic primary is open for debate -- he certainly had gobs of cash and he was also the Daley's preferred candidate, but don't forget that Dan Hynes ran in that race, too... and the Hynes name carries a lot of weight in Illinois politics. Hynes was the Chicago machine candidate - and one on one in a Dem primary, he's a decent enough opponent.

That was an extraordinarily tough field -- an open Senate seat in deep blue Illinois brought out pretty much every Dem in the state with any vision of advancement -- and Obama still managed to win not just a plurality, but an outright majority in the primary.

Jack Ryan may have been the 'perfect Republican' to run statewide in Illinois in 2004 - but even before the Jeri Ryan fallout, he was still running a good 10 pts behind Obama. Besides, it's the IL GOP that ought to get the blame for that debacle... the 'details' of Ryan's divorce essentially came down to he and Jeri visiting a strip club to give their relationship a 'spark' - hardly disqualifying. I volunteered for the Obama senate campaign in 2004 - and while I don't claim any deep knowledge of campaign strategy, I can tell you that we had specific instructions regarding Ryan's divorce for purposes of phone banking/canvassing that we weren't to discuss it... if it came up, we were to swing the conversation back to policy. It was essentially people like Phyllis Schafly who decided to make their last gasp stand for paleocon-ism/culture warfare in a state that really had no use for them.
   488. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 06, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4201506)
Interesting observation about campaigns' internal polling today on Daily Kos:

In 2008, more [internal] polls were released by Democratic candidates and organizations than were Republican polls. The margin was fairly modest (188 to 174), given what eventually became a strong Democratic election year.

In 2010, considerably more polls were released by Republican sources than Democratic sources. The final tally was 301 Republican sponsored polls, versus just 189 Democratic sponsored polls. Or, for those who prefer percentages, 61 percent of the internal or private polls released in the 2010 election cycle were released by GOP sources.

This is almost certainly not a coincidence. If the electoral winds are at your back, the chances that your internal polling will look good enough to share with others is pretty darned high. Conversely, if your political party is straining against a mighty political headwind, you might feel pretty motivated to keep your (lousy) poll numbers under wraps.

With this in mind, do we know anything about 2012? Well, it's awfully early, of course. But thus far, we have had 92 private poll releases for Democratic campaigns and causes, versus just 68 private polls releases for Republican campaigns and causes. That's a 58 percent Democratic majority. Not quite as good as 2010 was for the Republicans, but still a clear edge.
...
When campaigns play dueling polls, it is, at the very least, a sign that both campaigns feel confident enough in the strength of their campaign to put some numbers out there. When only one side is releasing data, either the silent partner in that race is keeping their awesome strength on the down-low for some inexplicable reason, or they don't like their numbers they are seeing.
   489. Steve Treder Posted: August 06, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4201512)
I hear this a bunch and I really disagree. There will always be short term problems. Always. By this logic we will never reach beyond our grasp. and I believe that solving the short term problems (which again are always with us) requires long term thinking.

I don't know with 100% certainty that humanity will gain by continuing exploring our universe, but we always have. Pure science has always been used, always added to the set of possible solutions, made the possibility of solving problems easier.

It is such a small cost, not spending it is akin to eating your seed corn because your short term problem is you are hungry. It is a very short sighted solution. Everything can't be seed corn, but you have to have some or next years crop looks really bad.


Perfectly put. The only thing guaranteed to be more expensive than investing in pure exploration and science is not investing in it.
   490. booond Posted: August 06, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4201522)
Besides, it's the IL GOP that ought to get the blame for that debacle... the 'details' of Ryan's divorce essentially came down to he and Jeri visiting a strip club to give their relationship a 'spark' - hardly disqualifying.


I thought it was more a sex club and not a strip club.
   491. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4201567)
In other news, that photoshopped picture of the Mars rover with Marvin's head in the frame. Pure comedy gold, people. Never would have thought of that one! You're hilarious.
   492. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4201582)
I thought it was more a sex club and not a strip club.
And not just a sex club, but a you-will-have-sex-with-other-guys-while-I-watch club.
   493. zonk Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4201596)
I thought it was more a sex club and not a strip club.


Eh - semantics, IMO... I'm not claiming to be well-versed in adult establishments, but I've been to enough, on occasion with well-heeled visitors, that if you have the cash - I think the lines tend to blur.

   494. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4201601)
I thought it was more a sex club and not a strip club.

That's correct. The main reason for their divorce is that he pressured her to go to sex clubs with him (she did not, or more accurately, she went with him not knowing what it was, and then refused to participate when they got there). The Smoking Gun has the relevant custody papers online. I actually don't think that should be a disqualifier; nor do I think that information should ever have been made public in the first place. The GOP said it did not pressure Ryan to drop out of the race and that he made the decision on his own for personal reasons, but who knows?

And not just a sex club, but a you-will-have-sex-with-other-guys-while-I-watch club.

According to her, he wanted her to have sex with him while others watched.

Eh - semantics, IMO... I'm not claiming to be well-versed in adult establishments, but I've been to enough, on occasion with well-heeled visitors, that if you have the cash - I think the lines tend to blur.

See above. I will not claim to have been to enough strip clubs to know anything, but I don't think what she described is typical.
   495. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4201604)
more accurately, she went with him not knowing what it was, and then refused to participate when they got there

Also known as a default swap.
   496. Lassus Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4201609)
Eh - semantics, IMO... I'm not claiming to be well-versed in adult establishments, but I've been to enough, on occasion with well-heeled visitors, that if you have the cash - I think the lines tend to blur.

A strip club where you can pay people to have sex with you is not the same thing as a sex club. This would be knowledge gleaned from spending the late nineties in San Francisco. Chicago in 2004, well, who the hell knows how the midwest operates.
   497. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4201614)
I actually don't think that should be a disqualifier


I don't know, it showed poor judgement on his part. He had Jeri Ryan and a viable political career and lost both because he wanted to ... well as discussed above. This is a poor ability to judge risk/reward in my opinion.

But the moral aspect, nah I could not care less. Consenting adults, do what you want, get divorced - none of that has much to do with ability to be a good politician.

I does bleed over a bit when you get to Gingrich or Edwards level of scumbaggery, I mean really at some point even I think you get disqualified for being a horrible human being.
   498. Lassus Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4201616)
He had Jeri Ryan and a viable political career and lost both because he wanted to ... well as discussed above. This is a poor ability to judge risk/reward in my opinion.

Sincerely. The idea that no one would recognize them or yammer about this boggles the mind. I wouldn't judge Ryan as qualified to mow my lawn at that point.
   499. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4201619)
But the moral aspect, nah I could not care less. Consenting adults, do what you want, get divorced - none of that has much to do with ability to be a good politician.
It wasn't a "consenting adults" matter exactly. Jack Ryan tried to deceive and pressure his wife into attending, and then having sex with strangers in these clubs. His wife filed for divorce because of this treatment.

It doesn't amount to criminal activity, but it's really shady and ugly. Of course, many great political leaders have done some shady, ugly things, and I'm not sure where things become disqualifying. But calling it just "consenting adults" "visiting a sex club" gets the story wrong.
   500. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 06, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4201635)
#499. You are misinterpreting what I am saying (it could be my fault for not being clear). In general I don't care what consenting adults are up to. The fact he wanted to go to a sex club or whatever doesn't matter to me. The fact his wife divorced him doesn't matter either. I recognize the consenting doesn't apply to her, but she (rightly) refused and bailed (and then divorced him).

If I knew them I would have an opinion about the behavior, but as a politician I think it is kind of beside the point. Yes he acted like scum and lied. And his wife divorced him. I question his judgment, but I don't think his sexual morals really enter into qualifications for office.

Like I said there is a line (Gingrich and Edwards clearly cross it; Spitzer for example didn't), but I don't think he crossed it for me personally. Maybe I have a high tolerance for that sort of behavior from politicians.

Anyway the "consenting adults" part was much more about the generalities than what happened between them specifically.

I fear clarity is absent in this post as well, but I don't feel up to re-editing it. Oh well, I hope it is sort of clear.

EDIT: Corrected some really bad spelling. And, flip.
Page 5 of 60 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  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

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(31 - 2:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(16 - 2:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4340 - 2:12pm, Nov 24)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(11 - 2:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: Danny

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(119 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(124 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(7 - 2:06pm, Nov 24)
Last: esseff

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1021 - 2:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(21 - 1:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(65 - 1:13pm, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8654 - 1:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(456 - 12:33pm, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

Newsblogred sox - Trying to make sense of Red Sox reunion with Hanley Ramirez - WEEI | Rob Bradford
(1 - 12:20pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod"

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(25 - 10:59am, Nov 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(17 - 9:30am, Nov 24)
Last: depletion

Page rendered in 0.8543 seconds
52 querie(s) executed