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 48 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 >  Last ›
   4701. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 29, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4221628)
but two minor characters that are involved in the saga are put on a short leash


Hey now you are both stars! But yeah I guessed it was you and Joe.
   4702. The Good Face Posted: August 29, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4221646)
Huh. I assumed Jim's warning was directed at Dan and Sam. Which would be a shame, because it seems like they're constantly on the verge of passionately making out after each round of insults.
   4703. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4221649)
JUST LIKE JOANIE AND CHACHI!!
   4704. BDC Posted: August 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4221651)
"You're an awfully hard man to like, Hitler."

Anybody here ever see that movie?


Max, right? Which is a really bizarre movie. You want to like the concept, in some ways, but it's just not very consistently carried out, and it gets too weird too quickly.

Along similar lines, a very good novel is Beryl Bainbridge's Young Adolf, which I found funny and irreverent (and much more skillfully done). But not for all tastes, I can understand …
   4705. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4221652)
Huh. I assumed Jim's warning was directed at Dan and Sam. Which would be a shame, because it seems like they're constantly on the verge of passionately making out after each round of insults.


More reasons why BBTF should watch more American Dad.... I immediately thought of the episode where Stan beats out Roger for a community theater part, and, long-story short - they end up getting arrested when they one-up each other to the point of public lewdness.
   4706. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4221661)
Max, right?


Yes!

Which is a really bizarre movie.


YESSS!
   4707. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4221663)
How about a vote swap? I'll get in a flame war with you and someone mad at me can get into a flame war with Joe.

Brilliant!

Oh, sorry, I forgot. You bastard!
   4708. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4221667)
(though when has repetition ever stopped me)


or me, or anyone else on these threads

Speaking as someone on the left, Sam embarrasses me often.

Likewise.


I don't see Sam as being of my political persuasion (Utilitarian/Rockefeller Republican) so he doesn't "embarrass" me, I on occasion find him to be:

funny,
witty,
enlightening,
maddening
infuriating
cringe inducing
right headed
wrong headed
pig headed

sometimes more than one in the span of a single post

   4709. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4221670)
How about a vote swap? I'll get in a flame war with you and someone mad at me can get into a flame war with Joe.

Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?
   4710. Jim Furtado Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4221672)
I would guess it is me and Joe. Apparently people have complained about Joe and I talking to each other and so now Jim is threatening action unless we knock it off. Which I guess means the discussion really will get passive aggressive since I doubt he is going to stop expressing his viewpoint on politics nor am I with mine. For whatever reason multiple people on this site are allowed to go back and forth with each other for years and have it get heated but two minor characters that are involved in the saga are put on a short leash.
At this point the tedious nature of your *interaction* annoys *me*. I'm tired of stopping into these threads and seeing the two of you squabble incessantly with each other like two-year old children. It's embarrassing to watch, frankly.

You guys don't like each other. I get it; we all get it. So stop it. There are many other people you can debate your points without it devolving into childish name calling.

Again, put each other on ignore.
   4711. GregD Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4221673)
Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?
Maybe Devil Anse?

Or Quality Meats?
   4712. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4221676)
Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?


yes, you are better off going by

Oejay Ehoskiekay
   4713. Jim Furtado Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4221680)
Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?

As long as you include a toothless photo.
   4714. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4221692)
To the extent that this is true, it's largely because of a de facto alliance between African American legislators and conservatives on the state level, both of whom benefit by the sort of gerrymandering that produces congressional districts that force few of either of those groups to have to compete for swing voters. If the lines were drawn so that more districts contained a bigger number of swing voters, I think you'd find more black congressmen representing majority white districts.

That's not my point, Andy. In Democrat-leaning districts where whites are in the majority, or even a mere plurality, African-American Dems have a difficult time winning elections.

And now that Obama is POTUS, why is Blue State America without a single African-American Democrat senator?


To put that in context, you'd want to know:

How many "blue states" have significant African American percentages? The U.S. has 12.2%. Blue states with higher percentages than that are Maryland (29%), New York (15%), Illinois (14%), and Michigan (14%). From those four states, we've had two Democratic Senators, both from Illinois.

How many black candidates have actually competed in Democratic primaries within those states? That I don't know.

How many have won, or lost? Again, I don't know.

Objectively speaking (if that's possible), how strong were their candidacies? You tell me.

Another question might be how many black Democrats have been nominated in red states, only to lose in the general election. Here you have Harvey Gantt in North Carolina, who lost two close Senate races to the most notorious Senate racist of the last 40 years (a Republican, in case you'd forgotten); and Harold Ford of Tennessee, who lost another close race in 2006. Give those two a handful of percentage points and the question would look a bit different.

In addition, if you look at Governors, there's Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick, one from a swing state with a high % of blacks, and the other from a blue state.

And then of course, there's the little matter of the current occupant of the White House, as you and others have noted. Can you even imagine an African American Republican being seriously considered for president by anyone other than Dick Morris? Condi Rice and Colin Powell are perhaps the best examples of black Republicans with possible crossover appeal (well, before Iraq, anyway), but they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated (even before Iraq), not with their liberal social views.

As you are no doubt aware, African-American politicos in Maryland are not exactly pleased at how the Baltimore-dominated machine treats them. Ditto in Jersey. The late Donald Payne was beyond furious when he was passed over for a Latino, Bob Menendez, after Frank Lautenberg retired.

No argument with you about Maryland. Don't know enough about the particulars in New Jersey.

EDIT: cokes to anyone who's deserved them. I've skipped past the last few hours of Kehoskie On The Cross posts, assuming that these are still going strong.
   4715. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4221693)
Jim as long as you are here, I would like to point out that while Hitler was brought up awhile back, it was in response to a current news story AND most importantly no one here compared any other poster (at least publicly) with Hitler- so this thread has not yet been Godwinned.
   4716. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4221697)
From Ann Romney, speaking to/about hispanics:

"It really is a message that would resonate well if they could just get past some of their biases that have been there from the Democratic machines that have made us look like we don't care about this community," Romney said. "And that is not true. We very much care about you and your families and the opportunities that are there for you and your families."


Boy that's going to go over well.

She stressed her immigrant roots, mentioning her grandfather who was a Welsh coalminer, aiming to connect with the Latino audience.
"I know what it's like to be the daughter of immigrants," she said.


You know what, all 4 of my grandparents were born in Ireland, and I grew up with a hell of a lot less $ than Ann, and I do not have the chutzpah to say that I know what it's like to be the child of immigrants (my parents did obviously).


   4717. Steve Treder Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4221699)
funny,
witty,
enlightening,
maddening
infuriating
cringe inducing
right headed
wrong headed
pig headed

sometimes more than one in the span of a single post


A single post? Hell, it's usually in a single sentence.
   4718. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4221702)
Can you even imagine an African American Republican being seriously considered for president by anyone other than Dick Morris? Condi Rice and Colin Powell are perhaps the best examples of black Republicans with possible crossover appeal (well, before Iraq, anyway), but they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated (even before Iraq), not with their liberal social views.

Ummm, Herman Cain was leading the polls at one point.

Powell and Rice's problem is that they are too liberal (especially on abortion) not too pigmented.
   4719. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4221706)
Maybe I can fool Jim by changing my screen name. Would "Hatfield" be too obvious?

Dammit, now I find myself putting away my box of nails. I actually think that'd be a great idea. I once drove four hours into the moonshine part of West Virginia to look at something like 4,000 books, and all I brought back was a book club edition of The Fountainhead, a book on the Hatfields, and a book on the McCoys. So anything that brings back memories of that great day in the country is all right with me.
   4720. Lassus Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4221710)
Speaking of liberal bias, the Syracuse Post-Standard is cutting back to three days per week as of Jan. 1, 2013.

Joe - I know we've had the discussion regarding the lean of the population and papers up north here, but are you saying this particular decision is liberally biased? The sentence as written implies that, but if you actually mean that it is, I don't get it.
   4721. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4221711)
into the moonshine part of West Virginia

There's a non-moonshine part of West Virginia????
   4722. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4221715)
Can you even imagine an African American Republican being seriously considered for president by anyone other than Dick Morris? Condi Rice and Colin Powell are perhaps the best examples of black Republicans with possible crossover appeal (well, before Iraq, anyway), but they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated (even before Iraq), not with their liberal social views.

Ummm, Herman Cain was leading the polls at one point.


Yes, until reality set in. The Republican base may enjoy a good kamikaze flight on the state level now and then, but on the national level they're not quite that suicidal.

Powell and Rice's problem is that they are too liberal (especially on abortion) not too pigmented.

Precisely the point about "liberal social views" I was making. For a black person to be nominated for president by the GOP, they'd either have to be way to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, or they'd have to survive the Tea Party gauntlet in the primaries. Neither possibility is likely for a long, long time to come.
   4723. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4221718)
There's a non-moonshine part of West Virginia????

Maybe not, but the smell of Sterno and burning turpentine don't overwhelm you in the vicinity of Martinsburg.
   4724. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 29, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4221719)
For a black person to be nominated for president by the GOP, they'd either have to be way to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, or they'd have to survive the Tea Party gauntlet in the primaries.


I'm not sure the word "black" is adding anything to that sentence. Is what you say here any less true of whites or Hispanics or Mormons?
   4725. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4221721)
Ummm, Herman Cain was leading the polls at one point.


he may have briefly had a plurality in a crowded Republican Primary field...

I will concede that he was a more serious candidate than Alan Keyes though
   4726. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4221724)
Speaking as someone on the left, Sam embarrasses me often.


Not nearly as often as the Angels pen turns that trick, though.
   4727. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4221728)
A single post? Hell, it's usually in a single sentence.


I am legion.
   4728. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4221734)
Huh. I assumed Jim's warning was directed at Dan and Sam.


Eh? This is crazy. Everyone loves me. I'm like friggin' Ray Ramano on this site.

Which would be a shame, because it seems like they're constantly on the verge of passionately making out after each round of insults.


If it makes anyone feel better, I propose Dan and I have a civil debate on the merits of our positions without wrapping things in 20 years of sarcasm and shared conversational assumptions that nobody else seems to get.

But I'm not making out with the guy. He has bad, bad hair.
   4729. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4221735)
"And that is not true. We very much care about you and your families and the opportunities that are there for you and your families."

The way she phrases it is very much an "us and them" type phrasing. She's basically saying the Republican party is not made up of minorities but gee golly we sure do care about you and your problems. I wonder how well that actually resonates with minority voters.

The reason Bill Clinton was so popular was he could get people to believe he cared about them and their problems. When was the last time a Republican was able to convince a lot of people that he cared about them?
   4730. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4221737)
Joe - I know we've had the discussion regarding the lean of the population and papers up north here, but are you saying this particular decision is liberally biased? The sentence as written implies that, but if you actually mean that it is, I don't get it.

No, it was just a segue from the topic of liberal media bias to a story about a paper that has a decided liberal bias. I can't see how this decision was liberally biased, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least partially the result of its liberal bias.

Every paper has its detractors, but respect for the Post-Standard seems to have plummeted over the past five or 10 years. It's one thing to have a liberal editorial stance, but the paper's goofy P.C. sensibilities have made it a local laughingstock. It's sad to see, especially in a one-paper city.
   4731. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4221742)
Not nearly as often as the Angels pen turns that trick, though.
TOO CLOSE TO HOME. TOO CLOSE.
   4732. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4221743)
The way she phrases it is very much an "us and them" type phrasing.


Multi-millionaire, cloistered wife of GOP pol fails to connect with working class minority voters? Shocking.
   4733. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4221744)
TOO CLOSE TO HOME. TOO CLOSE.


It is not Rickey's fault that you can't handle the truth.
   4734. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4221745)
I would vote for Romney if he could give the Angels some good late innings out of the pen.
   4735. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4221749)
When was the last time a Republican was able to convince a lot of people that he cared about them?


Romney has convinced a lot of rich people that he truly cares about them, that's for sure...

The "base" doesn't seem to actually care whether or not he cares about them, he's not Obama- and that's good enough for most.

OTOH I can never recall the actual rich being so actively enthused about a candidate before.
   4736. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4221750)
So, in the midst of the RNC and whatever attention bump that might get (particularly from otherwise disaffected young males who spend time on the internet and are put off by the RNC/Ron Paul fiasco), Barack Obama just decided to do a Q+A on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/ (note: the server is having trouble dealing with all the traffic.)
   4737. steagles Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4221753)
OTOH I can never recall the actual rich being so actively enthused about a candidate before.
before this election, an individual billionaire never really had the opportunity to spend $100 million of his own money in support of his preferred candidate.
   4738. Lassus Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4221754)
That Obama/Reddit news, which I'm assuming is real, is beyond surreal.
   4739. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4221755)
Barack Obama just decided to do a Q+A on Reddit:


and surprise surprise, it was pretty much a non-event-

but he did mention possibly getting Citizen's United overturned somehow- that should get Dan up in arms again...
   4740. formerly dp Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4221756)
but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least partially the result of its liberal bias.


It's happening in Alabama and Louisiana too-- it has nothing to do with "liberal" bias, and everything to do with the fact that younger generations aren't subscribing to print newspapers anymore.

The Birmingham News, The Press-Register, The Huntsville Times, and The Times-Picayune are all moving to this model. There are others too, these are just a few examples OTH. They're moving to Wednesday, Friday and Saturday because those are the days advertisers seem to like best. Or the days that the liberal journalists employed by these papers can best work their brainwashy magic.
   4741. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4221757)
That Obama/Reddit news, which I'm assuming is real, is beyond surreal.


apparently he logged on from Air Force One- and proved he was himself by uploading a cell phone photo of him doing so...
   4742. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4221758)
but I wouldn't be surprised if it was at least partially the result of its liberal bias.


print is dying EVERYWHERE
   4743. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4221759)
For a black person to be nominated for president by the GOP, they'd either have to be way to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, or they'd have to survive the Tea Party gauntlet in the primaries.

I'm not sure the word "black" is adding anything to that sentence. Is what you say here any less true of whites or Hispanics or Mormons?


Well, a white Mormon named Romney seems to have done pretty well. I'd like to think he's well to the right of the mainstream of American opinion, but that remains to be proven in November.
   4744. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4221761)
Nixon once wandered out of the Whitehouse at night and talked to people by either the Jefferson or Lincoln monuments...

One of our 19th C. Presidents would allegedly sneak out in disguise and stroll around DC chatting people up...

   4745. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4221762)

apparently he logged on from Air Force One- and proved he was himself by uploading a cell phone photo of him doing so...


OP delivered proof.


EDIT: And, fwiw, I'm a 26 year old city dweller with a subscription to the New York Times (and I might have maybe kinda possibly also bit on the Groupon for New York even though everything is on the website. :/ ) My gf gets The New Yorker.
   4746. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 29, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4221767)
Well, a white Mormon named Romney seems to have done pretty well.


Right, but I'm not sure why a black Mitt Romney couldn't have done just as well. If Herman Cain was less of a buffoon and had been a governor of a state somewhere, I don't see why the Republican primary electorate wouldn't have been willing to vote for him. The sentence of yours I quoted read to me like you were saying that to win the Republican nomination, you have to appeal to Republican voters. I'm not sure what the insight is there or what it suggests about race relations within the Republican party. And if you mean to suggest that a black candidate for the Republican nomination would have to be more conservative than Mitt Romney, then I have no idea why you would think that or what your evidence for it might be.
   4747. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4221768)
That Obama/Reddit news, which I'm assuming is real, is beyond surreal.
It's real. Best comment: "..it's funny to imagine President Obama sitting in the oval office giggling and looking at photos of cats."
   4748. Steve Treder Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4221769)
The way she phrases it is very much an "us and them" type phrasing. She's basically saying the Republican party is not made up of minorities but gee golly we sure do care about you and your problems. I wonder how well that actually resonates with minority voters.

It sounds condescending and insincere as hell to me. But no doubt that's just my liberal bias interfering with my ability to perceive reality, and minority voters will soon surge to Mitt's side and elect him in a landslide.

The reason Bill Clinton was so popular was he could get people to believe he cared about them and their problems. When was the last time a Republican was able to convince a lot of people that he cared about them?

Well, Clinton is a pretty high bar. Very few politicians of any ideology have been as skilled at faking sincerity as him.

But, yes, I would say the last Republican who was that good at it was Ronald Reagan.
   4749. asdf1234 Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4221770)

and surprise surprise, it was pretty much a non-event-

but he did mention possibly getting Citizen's United overturned somehow- that should get Dan up in arms again...


The reddit thread is a perfect summary of the last four years, as Obama ignores the upvoted users who asked him about Guantanamo, the TSA, and the drug war, but answers the kids who beg him to ID his favorite basketball player and the recipe for the White House beer. I cannot believe that this baby-kissing, war-mongering asshat is President. It's like 2004 all over again, but, miraculously, even worse.

At least he took the brave stance of voicing his support for a Constitutional amendment intended to overturn Citizens United. The courage to promise things that he knows will never happen is precisely the character that got him elected in the first place.
   4750. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4221773)
Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday aboard a 150-foot yacht flying the flag of the Cayman Islands. The exclusive event, hosted by a Florida developer on his yacht "Cracker Bay," was one of a dozen exclusive events meant to nurture those who have raised more than $1 million for Romney's bid. "I think it's ironic they do this aboard a yacht that doesn't even pay its taxes," said a woman who lives aboard a much smaller boat moored at the St. Petersburg Municipal Marina.


ABC News today
   4751. GregD Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4221774)
I don't think it's impossible Republicans would nominate a black candidate. Powell would have had establishment support if he were willing to backtrack on abortion (it isn't really social issues more broadly that matters but basically that one, plus perhaps gay marriage, that is the litmus test for both parties.) It would be interesting to see whether a black candidate would affect GOP turnout or enthusiasm, especially in the South. I wouldn't want to bet either way; it would be new territory.

I have often thought the Republicans would be the first party to nominate a woman for president. For a time Liddy Dole looked like she might be it but she missed her chance. The implications of the party's gender gap are much more dire than the party's racial gap. Black voters are concentrated in 1) states the GOP will never win and 2) states the GOP can't lose in the Deep South. They play a role on the margins of some of the Rust Belt or the Va/NC New South and some other places but it isn't determinative. Running so poorly among women, though, hurts the GOP in virtually every close state. Would a woman candidate prevent that? No. But it might slow the exodus.

Of course I also thought the GOP would nominate a black candidate before the Democrats since they have something to gain (not among blacks but among moderate whites, esp suburban women, who worry the party is racist.) So my track record ain't great.

I remain impressed by Romney's ability to win the nomination despite the evangelical concern about Mormonism. His losses in the South showed there was a hole there to exploit, but he managed to keep upright and moving forward.
   4752. bobm Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4221775)
[4650]
With his rescue plan a bust, Romney was forced to slink back to the banks to negotiate a new round of debt relief. There was only one catch: Even though Bain & Company was deep in debt and sinking fast, the firm was actually flush with cash – most of it from the looted money that Bill Bain and other partners had given back. "Liquidity is strong based on the significant cash balance which Bain is carrying," one federal document reads.

Under normal circumstances, such ample reserves would have made liquidating Bain an attractive option: Creditors could simply divvy up the stockpiled cash and be done with the troubled firm. But Bain had inserted a poison pill in its loan agreement with the banks: Instead of being required to use its cash to pay back the firm's creditors, the money could be pocketed by Bain executives in the form of fat bonuses – starting with VPs making $200,000 and up. "The company can deplete its cash balances by making officer-bonus payments," the FDIC lamented, "and still be in compliance with the loan documents."

What's more, the bonus loophole gave Romney a perverse form of leverage: If the banks and the FDIC didn't give in to his demands and forgive much of Bain's debts, Romney would raid the firm's coffers, pushing it into the very bankruptcy that the loan agreement had been intended to avert. The losers in this game would not only be Bain's creditors – including the federal government – but the firm's nearly 1,000 employees worldwide.


The GM bondholders that Obama screwed over say hi.
   4753. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4221777)
The GM bondholders that Obama screwed over say hi.


I love this talking point because it so perfectly encapsulates the stupid.
   4754. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4221787)
I don't think it's impossible Republicans would nominate a black candidate. Powell would have had establishment support if he were willing to backtrack on abortion (it isn't really social issues more broadly that matters but basically that one, plus perhaps gay marriage, that is the litmus test for both parties.) It would be interesting to see whether a black candidate would affect GOP turnout or enthusiasm, especially in the South. I wouldn't want to bet either way; it would be new territory.


I think Powell was the GOP's last real chance to 1) nominate an African American candidate that didn't reek of optics over substance* and 2) significantly realign the AA vote to balance out the Dem stranglehold there. It was both an issue of timing and personality. Powell was a war hero, a high-ranking member of the GOP establishment, had the super-cred of the Powell Doctrine and his time with a not-loathed administration (Bush I) at his back. His window was before the GOP doubled-down on the "we hate everyone but old white people and the super rich" strategy that has ruled of late (i.e. the "Tea Party" strain.) And Powell's window was pre-Obama.

If the GOP had gone with Powell as the first African American nominee from any party they could have clawed back some of the "Party of Lincoln" vibes they once had while losing only marginal support from the edges of the southern base. (They would have lost some of the most racist elements of the base, but most of the rank and file would have lined up behind Powell and supported him, even if some of them were supporting a black candidate the way some of the Christianists are supporting a Mormon candidate today; noses held and thinking only of beating the Kenyan Socialist by any means necessary.)

But that window's closed. The Dems took the "first black nominee" and "first black president" flag already, and flags fly forever. Any move now, especially since the GOP responded to the Obama moment by doubling down on the Dixiecrat, will inevitably smell of trying too hard and tokenism. (It doesn't help that they seem so desperate to find a "black guy of our own" that they push people like Michael Steele and Herman Cain into the spotlight for no reason other than their pigmentation.)

*There's a always popular undercurrent in today's GOP to try to replay this game, and double down on the lady parts as well, with Condi Rice, but Rice wants no part of it and would have to sort through the entire process while carrying the Bush-Cheney baggage, whereas Powell would have been on a glide path with no baggage due to the "success" of the his First Gulf War. And of course, the cognitive dissonance of trying to convince women to vote in mass for a GOP candidate just because she has a uterus, while pushing a policy platform that generally considers universal sufferage for women a "mistake" (seriously, listen to Limbaugh or Boortz sometime, kids) is an uphill battle.
   4755. Steve Treder Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4221789)
If the GOP had gone with Powell as the first African American nominee from any party they could have clawed back some of the "Party of Lincoln" vibes they once had while losing only marginal support from the edges of the southern base.

Agreed, but I'm pretty sure there was one important consideration preventing this: Powell wouldn't agree to run.
   4756. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4221791)
I don't think Powell wins the candidacy or the election in 2008. Being part of the Bush administration and being the guy who lied to the UN pretty much killed his chances for 2008. If Gore had won in 2000 Powell could have done well in 2004. At the time it was happening I thought that the Bush administration sent him to the UN with a known lie on purpose so that he would take the hit and it would ruin his political career. I still think that.
   4757. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 29, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4221792)
Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday . . .


Obama has had some pretty fancy fundraisers, too, and I'm pretty sure his donors will be wined & dined at the Democratic convention. Not an issue.
   4758. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:00 PM (#4221793)
Agreed, but I'm pretty sure there was one important consideration preventing this: Powell wouldn't agree to run.


The word was that his wife said she'd divorce him if he ran. If he would have ran I think he stood a very real chance of winning. He was popular and seems like a decent person. Having said that, I don't think he could have run in 2008 or 2012 and won. The GOP had moved too far away from where he seemed to be for that to happen.
   4759. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4221795)
At the time it was happening I thought that the Bush administration sent him to the UN with a known lie on purpose so that he would take the hit and it would ruin his political career. I still think that.


I think they were trying to use his reputation to add authority to the things he said even though they knew they were lies. I don't think they worried about his political career because he was never going to run against Bush in 2004.
   4760. Steve Treder Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4221801)
Having said that, I don't think he could have run in 2008 or 2012 and won. The GOP had moved too far away from where he seemed to be for that to happen.

Yeah, his opportunity was 1996 or 2000, or if Gore had won in 2000, 2004. Once the W administration sh!t all over him, his moment was over.
   4761. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4221803)
Did anyone else just watch McCain's speech? He said that the U.S. military needs to go into Iran, go into Syria, and make a greater commitment to the war in Afghanistan. I really didn't expect McCain to take those positions.
   4762. Steve Treder Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4221804)
He said that the U.S. military needs to go into Iran, go into Syria, and make a greater commitment to the war in Afghanistan. I really didn't expect McCain to take those positions.

I don't find myself surprised that McCain is taking those positions (especially in this circumstance; he's basically there just to be the military-background hawk since neither Romney nor Ryan can play that part), but the towering folly of those positions is notable.
   4763. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4221809)
I don't get it.


The gestalt of Lassus's posting history, summed up in four words.

Five, if you take into account the contraction.
   4764. GregD Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:37 PM (#4221813)
Yeah, his opportunity was 1996 or 2000, or if Gore had won in 2000, 2004. Once the W administration sh!t all over him, his moment was over.
The key moment, at least as Powell tells it, was 96, when the Bush people had no real candidate and offered to coalesce around him if he could negotiate an abortion truce with enough family values organization to give him, and them, some cover. He passed for the reason you stated. By 2000 the Bush people had another candidate in mind!

In terms of a black candidate down the road for the GOP, it still wouldn't surprise me. There is no base of black conservative GOP voters, but there is a cohort of black conservative GOP candidates. If one of them develops, I don't doubt the party would be open, even encouraging, of a run, in part to make them less toxic with cosmopolitan suburban white women. They don't need a black candidate to get black votes; they need a black candidate, eventually, to stop causing anxiety among some white voters. Though there are other simpler ways to do this. J.C. Watts seemed a likely figure until he slipped away. If Artur Davis really got elected to Congress in 2014 in Virginia, he could put himself in play by 2020 or something. A Latino seems more likely, though.
   4765. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4221815)


The word was that his wife said she'd divorce him if he ran. If he would have ran I think he stood a very real chance of winning. He was popular and seems like a decent person. Having said that, I don't think he could have run in 2008 or 2012 and won. The GOP had moved too far away from where he seemed to be for that to happen.


I wonder sometimes if it's less policy than it is the window dressing of being committed to smashing and annihilating the other side over all else.

Now, Mitt Romney has run as a 'true conservative' for about 5 years now (people forget - his 2008 campaign was built around being the 'conservative alternative' to first Guiliani and later McCain). Politically, I'm happy to take his word because the country as a whole isn't as conservative as he's had to play himself up to be on a wide variety of issues to appease the base. They might still vote for him because he's able to convince them Obama is screwing up the country and ANYTHING would be better, but that's not germane to my point.

The GOP base/what would become the TP set wasn't thrilled with McCain in 2008 either - but strictly on voting records, John McCain has one hell of a better case to be labeled 'conservative' than does Mitt Romney.

My take, at least, is that they seem genuinely more OK with Romney than they ever did with McCain.

Why?

I think it goes back to that rather infamous Q&A McCain did where he answered the 'Obama's an Arab' question from that old lady... Some politicians would laugh it off, others would stumble trying to respond without backing off the attack -- McCain immediately and resoundingly refuted it. He rather infamously refused to use Jeremiah Wright in attack ads as well. Add to that, on the few issues where McCain deviated from GOP orthodoxy, he didn't do it quietly. He called it being a 'maverick'. Party stalwarts call it being a 'RINO'.

Would Romney respond the same way in 2012? Or would he make a birther joke (and then, of course, after getting the soundbite Fox can put on endless loop, have the campaign issue a "Of course Governor Romney yada yada" statement)?

It's not even so much about 'pandering' to something the GOP believes in - it's just the idea of beating the crap out of the other side, even if it means taking shots below the belt.

I'm not saying there isn't a sizable and growing chunk of this thinking in the Democratic party - there certainly is... but really, Obama didn't run that way in either the 2008 primary or GE. Don't get me wrong - Obama can absolutely throw sharp elbows, but I think it would be fair to say that every debate doesn't have to be a death match and again.

One of the single biggest criticisms about Obama from the left is that he's been too interested in bipartisanship.

Colin Powell, I think, would try to be a consensus builder. Beyond a few litmus test items - maybe abortion, maybe 'taxes' (however you define that) - I think it's really more the idea that you will make the election a match to the death; you don't compromise with the other side regardless of the issue, you pummel their opinion out of existence.

Maybe Obama's unique personal story allowed him to avoid that in 2008. However, even in 2004, the guy who would stomp the crap out of the 'other side' was Howard Dean, not John Kerry.

   4766. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4221816)
In terms of a black candidate down the road for the GOP, it still wouldn't surprise me. ...

Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode. Olbermann and Matthews might have spontaneously combusted right on air.

White conservatives, meanwhile, would have lined up behind Thomas in record time, putting to rest this nonsensical notion that white Republicans won't nominate or vote for blacks.
   4767. Lassus Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4221818)
The gestalt of Lassus's posting history, summed up in four words.

You're going to insult me for someone else's poorly-written sentence?
   4768. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4221821)
I wonder sometimes if it's less policy than it is the window dressing of being committed to smashing and annihilating the other side over all else.


This is probably the most significant factor if not the only one(or even a majority of the motivation). A lot of politics is tribal, and we see even in sports that solidarity with those like us or near us is a large factor in things like who we cheer for. The desire to beat "the other side" is pretty innate, as it would very much be to the benefit of groups to be this way (in an evolutionary sense).
   4769. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4221822)
Nixon once wandered out of the Whitehouse at night and talked to people by either the Jefferson or Lincoln monuments...

It was the Lincoln Memorial, and if one were to compile a list of Nixon's Greatest Surreal Moments, that might have made the top 5. Here's how TIME described it:

(TIME, May 18, 1970) -- With an almost manic abruptness, the nation seemed, as Yeats once wrote, "all changed, changed utterly." With the killing of four Kent State University students by Ohio National Guardsmen last week, dissent against the U.S. venture into Cambodia suddenly coalesced into a nationwide student strike. Across the country 441 colleges and universities were affected, many of them shut down entirely. Antiwar fever, which President Richard Nixon had skillfully reduced to a tolerable level last fall, surged upward again to a point unequaled since Lyndon Johnson was driven from the White House. The military advantage to be gained in Cambodia seemed more and more dubious, and Nixon found that he had probably sacrificed what he himself once claimed was crucial to achieving an acceptable settlement: wide domestic support, or at least acquiescence, for his policies. Now it is the opposition that has gained strength....

Nixon was trying his best to reconstruct consensus, to show that if he was not embittered by the protest movement, neither was he cowed. He also attempted to display flexibility. He was not about to muzzle anyone, he said, but he counseled his subordinates that "when the action is hot, keep the rhetoric cool." He defended the Cambodia decision anew, but he also added that the troops would be coming out faster than anticipated. While not withdrawing from his tactical rationale for the Cambodian venture, Nixon gave an impression that was very different from the belligerent patriotism with which he announced the foray.

Singular Odyssey. Before dawn the next morning, Nixon impulsively wakened his valet and set off with a clutch of Secret Service men for the Lincoln Memorial, where he talked for an hour with a group of drowsy but astonished demonstrators. His discussion rambled over the sights of the world that he had seen -- Mexico City, the Moscow ballet, the cities of India. When the conversation turned to the war, Nixon told the students: "I know you think we are a bunch of so and so's." He said to them, the President recalled Chamberlain was the greatest man living and that Winston Churchill was a madman. It was not until years later that I realized that Churchill was right." He confessed afterwards: "I doubt if that got over."


At one point he tried talking to the demonstrators about the Washington Redskins. That one didn't go over too well, either.
   4770. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4221823)
I think they were trying to use his reputation to add authority to the things he said even though they knew they were lies. I don't think they worried about his political career because he was never going to run against Bush in 2004.

I don't think they were worried he would run in 2004. I think they wanted to make sure they cut his Achilles heal so that he wouldn't become the leader of the party or strong central figure of the party or run in 2008. They basically didn't want him to be a force in the party so they used him to a)get what they wanted in terms of the Iraq war, and b)any of the blowback for the lies would land squarely on Powell and permanently damage him.
   4771. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4221828)
Well, a white Mormon named Romney seems to have done pretty well.

Right, but I'm not sure why a black Mitt Romney couldn't have done just as well. If Herman Cain was less of a buffoon and had been a governor of a state somewhere, I don't see why the Republican primary electorate wouldn't have been willing to vote for him.


Don't you realize just how big an "if" that is? You're talking hypotheticals, but I'm trying to think of real black people who aren't batshit crazy, who would now have the proverbial Chinaman's chance of winning the GOP nomination. The problem is that any black Republican you can name is either batshit crazy or, like Powell or Rice, too "liberal" ever to be seriously considered.

Powell, in the wake of his Gulf War aura, might have had a chance in 1996 or 2000 (more likely 1996), if he'd chosen to run. In 1996, the Republicans were pretty damn conservative, but they hadn't yet been taken over by the Ayn Rand and Arpaio cults lock, stock and barrel. Unfortunately that day is now past, and what they're left with is a handful of clown candidates who pop up now and then, well described by Sam above as "optics over substance". They might win a House seat once in a while in the perfect situation, but get nominated for president? Don't hold your breath.
   4772. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4221829)
Nobody wants to comment on the new Arizona law that states pregnancy begins before conception? Technically every single woman in Arizona is pregnant right now. It is reassuring to know that Arizona with one bold swoop of the pen has eradicated rape in their state.
   4773. Lassus Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4221830)
I keep thinking I've misheard or misread that.

I mean, I'll ask Ray - how is that even legal?
   4774. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4221831)
Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode.

I think it's much more likely it would have been their condomns that would have been exploding, at the thought of running against Clarence Thomas.
   4775. steagles Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4221834)
Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode. Olbermann and Matthews might have spontaneously combusted right on air.
i think democrats would be pretty ecstatic about thomas committing to run for president, since i'm fairly sure he'd have to resign from the supreme court just to run.
   4776. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:12 PM (#4221837)
You're going to insult me for someone else's poorly-written sentence?


Silly rabbit Ray doesn't do personal attacks, just ask him.

Anyway don't feel bad you are in good company.
   4777. Ron J Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4221838)
sAM doesn't embarrass me. I've known him a long time and know that when he's over the top it's about 98% performance (unless Joey from the Braves NG. Then the anger and condescension is 110% real) And he makes up for it when he's serious.

Funny though. I count Dan as a friend too and his recent posts were jarring. I guess I owe him the same courtesy that I extend sAM.

To all concerned, the Bradley Manning references (particularly Dan's anger) led me to seek more information and I have to say I understand the anger.
   4778. JE (Jason) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:22 PM (#4221841)
At one point he tried talking to the demonstrators about the Washington Redskins. That one didn't go over too well, either.

La plus ca change la plus le meme chose.
   4779. steagles Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4221843)
Did anyone else just watch McCain's speech? He said that the U.S. military needs to go into Iran, go into Syria, and make a greater commitment to the war in Afghanistan. I really didn't expect McCain to take those positions.
he specifically said that we should be arming the syrian rebels, which kind of caught my ear, because i'm fairly sure that the last group of middle eastern rebels that we armed were led by osama bin laden.
   4780. JE (Jason) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4221844)
he specifically said that we should be arming the syrian rebels, which kind of caught my ear, because i'm fairly sure that the last group of middle eastern rebels that we armed were led by osama bin laden.

Very clever, but Libya, which is situated in North Africa, is a thousand miles closer to the Middle East than Afghanistan, which is in South/Central Asia.
   4781. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4221845)
I think it's much more likely it would have been their condomns that would have been exploding, at the thought of running against Clarence Thomas.
i think democrats would be pretty ecstatic about thomas committing to run for president, since i'm fairly sure he'd have to resign from the supreme court just to run.

The discussion was whether the white GOP establishment would get behind a black GOP candidate, not whether Dems or independents would like said candidate. Few people are more popular among white right-wingers than Clarence Thomas.
   4782. Tripon Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4221849)

Very clever, but Libya, which is situated in North Africa, is a thousand miles closer to the Middle East than Afghanistan, which is in South/Central Asia.


I don't think the U.S. armed the Libyan rebels, they provided coverage fire from the air, but it was mostly Europe that decided to have an adventure in Africa.

And I'll say this, the next country we invade(I.E. put troops in the ground), we might as well annex and make it a part of the U.S., because this whole thing where we just topple the existing government and then try to play middle men just gets the U.S. into trouble with no profit in mind. If we're going to play empire, lets just fully assume the role.


   4783. Tripon Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4221850)
   4784. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4221852)
The discussion was whether the white GOP establishment would get behind a black GOP candidate, not whether Dems or independents would like said candidate. Few people are more popular among white right-wingers than Clarence Thomas.

I'm sure that if "popularity" ruled the GOP primaries, Romney would have won New Hampshire, Massachusetts and maybe Michigan. But survey after survey showed that a big number of Republican primary voters wanted to pick the candidate whom they thought would have the best chance of winning in November, and that critical mass of voters was what put Romney over the top. The Tea Party mau-maus might be able to hold an establishment candidate's feet to the fire and force him to toe the wingnut line as rigidly as any Soviet era apparatchik, but they've got more sense than to nominate someone whom they know would have zero chance of winning the general election. And that includes every one of the current crop of Republican African American heroes. These folks may be crazy, but they're not that stupid.
   4785. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4221857)
Who wants to play Diplomacy? 4 spots left in the second game.
   4786. Tilden Katz Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4221859)
Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode. Olbermann and Matthews might have spontaneously combusted right on air.


Out of happiness? Thomas is further to the right than any of the GOP primary contenders, with the possible exception of Bachmann. He also notoriously does not like public speaking. And, as you noted, it would give Obama to move the court significantly to the left, even if he appointed a moderate. Liberals (like conservatives) prefer to be in power, and wouldn't really give a damn about whatever hypocrisy some would claim they were expressing.
   4787. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 29, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4221860)
you guys could understand the gop if you actually conversed with a republican. we don't bite

senator mccain has been very consistent on his positions. he has been pushing the administration on syria for some time.

and i won't smirk about how folks said the tea party would do this and the tea party would do that and i gently explained the tea party wouldn't do squat because the tea party is driven to get the president out of office (via the ballot box that is)
   4788. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4221862)
Did anyone else just watch McCain's speech? He said that the U.S. military needs to go into Iran, go into Syria, and make a greater commitment to the war in Afghanistan. I really didn't expect McCain to take those positions.


Just read it.

I'd say yikes.

I'm not entirely thrilled with Obama on Afghanistan, but it's more because I want to see a greater, quicker commitment to GTFO than the converse. The Iranian talk is just nuts. On Syria, I'm pretty sure we're already covertly arming the Syrian rebels whether we're admitting it or not. I can see both sides of that idea.

Won't matter, though.... but it concerns me so many people are prepared to double down on the disastrous foreign policies of the mid-aughts without much concern.
   4789. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4221863)
One of my favourite Bloom County stories from way back in the day.

"I admit...Jesse can give a heck of a sermon...and he rhymes well..."
   4790. rr Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4221866)


Talk to Repubs every week, Harv--even at a college. Andy plays pool with guys who make you sound like Nelson Rockefeller.

And I expect that everybody on both sides of the aisle as well as the Libertarians floating happily above the entire building would welcome your participation in this thread.
   4791. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4221867)
BTW what follows is NOT an attempted hijack. It's merely a bit of useful information for anyone with time on their hands tomorrow who doesn't want to watch the horror of Isaac or the horror of Tampa.

Tomorrow from 6:00 AM to 6:00 AM Friday morning, TCM is presenting its greatest day of the year: 24 straight hours of Warren William movies. Anyone not familiar with this greatest of all Hollywood cads, crooks and con men doesn't have a clue as to what they've missed, but here's a chance for you laggards to catch up. These are merely the highlights, but as you can see, the highlights make up practically the entire day. There's not a clinker in the entire carload.

6:00 AM Bedside (1934) A fake doctor sets up a lucrative high-society practice Cast: Warren William, Jean Muir, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Robert Florey. BW-66 min

7:15 AM First Hundred Years, The (1938) A working woman doesn't want to give up her career when she marries. Cast: Robert Montgomery, Virginia Bruce, Warren William. Dir: Robert Thorpe. BW-74 min

8:30 AM Wives Under Suspicion (1938) A D.A.'s personal life mirrors the love-triangle murder he's prosecuting. Cast: Warren William, Gail Patrick, Constance Moore. Dir: James Whale. BW-69 min

9:45 AM Mouthpiece, The (1932) A crusading DA goes into private practice and succumbs to the temptations of corruption. Cast: Warren William, Sidney Fox, Aline MacMahon. Dir: James Flood. BW-86 min

11:15 AM Skyscraper Souls (1932) A ruthless financier will stop at nothing to control a 100-story office building. Cast: Warren William, Maureen O'Sullivan, Verree Teasdale. Dir: Edgar Selwyn. BW-99 min

1:00 PM Three on a Match (1932) A woman's childhood friends try to rescue her from gangsters. Cast: Joan Blondell, Bette Davis, Ann Dvorak. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy. BW-63 min

2:15 PM Match King, The (1932) An ambitious young man corners the market on matches, then faces the destruction of his empire. Cast: Warren William, Lili Damita, Glenda Farrell. Dir: Howard Bretherton, William Keighley. BW-79 min

3:45 PM Mind Reader, The (1933) A fake mentalist tries to go straight, only to end up in jail. Cast: Warren William, Constance Cummings, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Roy Del Ruth. BW-70 min

5:00 PM Gold Diggers Of 1933 (1933) Three chorus girls fight to keep their show going and find rich husbands. Cast: Joan Blondell, Ruby Keeler, Dick Powell. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy. BW-98 mins

6:45 PM Times Square Playboy (1936) When he comes to New York for a wedding, an out-of-towner makes trouble for all concerned. Cast: Warren William, June Travis, Barton MacLane. Dir: William McGann. BW-62 min

8:00 PM Lady For A Day (1933) (1933) A gangster helps an old apple-vendor pose as a society woman to fool her visiting daughter. Cast: May Robson, Warren William, Guy Kibbee. Dir: Frank Capra. BW-96 min

11:45 PM Employees' Entrance (1933) An unscrupulous department store manager stops at nothing to get what he wants. Dir: Roy Del Ruth Cast: Warren William, Loretta Young, Wallace Ford. BW-75 mins,

1:15 AM Case of the Howling Dog, The (1934) Perry Mason gets caught between feuding neighbors who claim to be married to the same woman. Cast: Warren William, Mary Astor, Allen Jenkins. Dir: Alan Crosland. BW-74 mins (NOTE: This was the first screen adaptation of the Perry Mason character.)

2:45 AM Lone Wolf Spy Hunt, The (1939) A spy forces a reformed jewel thief to crack the safe where plans for an anti-aircraft gun are stored. Cast: Warren William, Ida Lupino, Rita Hayworth. Dir: Peter Godfrey. BW-71 mins

4:00 AM Arsene Lupin Returns (1938) A reformed jewel thief helps detectives track down a criminal. Cast: Melvyn Douglas, Virginia Bruce, Warren William. Dir: George Fitzmaurice. BW-81 min
   4792. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4221871)
you guys could understand the gop if you actually conversed with a republican. we don't bite

senator mccain has been very consistent on his positions. he has been pushing the administration on syria for some time.


Absolutely.

This is what concerns me.

I wouldn't be voting for Romney if he had the same foreign policy as Obama but the same domestic policies differences -- but to be perfectly honest, it's only the foreign policy that scares me.

Foreign policy would be an area where I really wish I could believe Romney is just tacking to the 'proper' side of the partisan divide, but it's actually one area where I honestly believe he's a true believer (or perhaps, just doesn't care enough about it to do much more than turn it over to the last crew that held court when his party was previously in power).


   4793. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4221873)
robin

i am anti-political thread. i stopped by to see what was going on and was taken aback by the just plain silly things being written about the party. there is some real howard dean level nonsense

i will skip it to minimize any further accusations of hypocrisy.

but if someone wants facts versus donna brazille like fantasy just let me know
   4794. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4221878)

and i won't smirk about how folks said the tea party would do this and the tea party would do that and i gently explained the tea party wouldn't do squat because the tea party is driven to get the president out of office (via the ballot box that is)


I think that depends a lot on congress and what Mitt Romney would ultimately turn out to be -- some form of what he was during his Massachusetts political career wouldn't bother me.

However, foreign policy was never a part of that career - and two things concern me: He seems to be relying on the exact same folks who I thought had already been thoroughly discredited to advise him in this area; and, foreign policy is actually one area that a President - for good or ill - can actually do a lot of things regardless of what sort of congress he has.

Hey, I get it -- the election is about the economy... but we're still going to have a foreign policy next year, and I would have just hoped whatever the domestic policy outcomes, we could be assured that lessons had been learned over the last 10 years. Everything about Mitt Romney's foreign policy statements and his foreign policy advisers says otherwise.
   4795. JE (Jason) Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4221880)
In addition to conducting air strikes and logistical support to NATO air forces, Tripon, the administration released tens of billions of dollars in assets seized from the Gaddafi regime so that it could be funneled to the Libyan opposition. AFAIK, we also helped the Qataris arm the rebels.
   4796. RollingWave Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4221886)
OTOH I can never recall the actual rich being so actively enthused about a candidate before.


Well, wouldn't they be very big for Herbert Hoover as well? who's probably by far the most successful busniessmen to ever succeded in getting elected (of course he would end up royally screwing all the people rich and poor)
   4797. zonk Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4221888)
In addition to conducting air strikes and logistical support to NATO air forces, Tripon, the administration released tens of billions of dollars in assets seized from the Gaddafi regime so that it could be funneled to the Libyan opposition. AFAIK, we also helped the Qataris arm the rebels.


Oh we absolutely armed the Libyan rebels, whether directly or by proxy. I have a real hard time finding any fault in how Libya went down. I think it was pitch-perfect foreign policy.

I'm not a non-interventionist by any means. I just think neocon geopolitical theory is madness.
   4798. McCoy Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4221889)
1 spot left in Diplomacy.
   4799. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4221893)
Ignoring that Obama would have picked his successor, it would have been fun to see Clarence Thomas declare this year, just to watch liberals' heads explode. Olbermann and Matthews might have spontaneously combusted right on air.

I would like to see BHO nominate Michelle, just to see everybody's heads explode.
   4800. RollingWave Posted: August 29, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4221895)
Espeically Hilary Clinton's heh
Page 48 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4574 - 9:55am, Oct 30)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(573 - 9:55am, Oct 30)
Last: Willard Baseball

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(964 - 9:48am, Oct 30)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(33 - 9:47am, Oct 30)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(60 - 9:46am, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1427 - 9:42am, Oct 30)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(17 - 9:38am, Oct 30)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-30-2014
(2 - 9:37am, Oct 30)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogAngell: The World Series is Almost Over
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 30)
Last: sotapop

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(7 - 8:55am, Oct 30)
Last: Bourbon Samurai

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(25 - 8:14am, Oct 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(9 - 1:14am, Oct 30)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogESPN: Jose Canseco shoots self in hand
(66 - 11:53pm, Oct 29)
Last: eric

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(15 - 11:14pm, Oct 29)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(509 - 10:55pm, Oct 29)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

Page rendered in 1.0917 seconds
52 querie(s) executed