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

Sunday, April 16, 2017

OTP 17 April 2017: Baseball, giant American flags, and patriotism

Craig Calcaterra on a ginormous pre-ballgame flag in Atlanta:

While patriotism is a laudable trait — and while I consider myself to be a patriotic American — to suggest that flag-waving is exclusively done by those with noble and pure intent is simply laughable.

Do I think the Braves were making a political point with their giant flag on Friday night? No, not particularly. At least not anything beyond the efforts made by every baseball team which wishes to make its fans feel like going to the ballpark is not merely a commercial experience but a uniquely American one. Especially on Opening Day. And, well, especially when they just made those fans hand over their tax dollars for a new ballpark the team didn’t really need, so hey, let’s make sure we create the impression that this is about more than the Braves’ bottom line.

But let us not pretend for one second that displays of conspicuous patriotism haven’t spiked dramatically in our country over the past 16 years.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

 

BDC Posted: April 16, 2017 at 08:23 PM | 1402 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: braves, 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 1 of 15 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2017 at 08:07 AM (#5436406)
Oversell.
   2. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 08:15 AM (#5436408)
Moved from old thread:
My point has never been to excuse what Judge Griffen did.
Of course it was. That has been your sole point. When someone points out that person X did something wrong, and one's response is "Oh yeah? What about what person Y on the other side of the aisle did?" that is inherently an attempt to excuse person X.

First, I note you don't even bother to defend the idea that "Friends of Abe" isn't a blatantly partisan group,
That's because, unlike you, I don't pretend to know about something I don't know anything about based on having read one article in the NYT and a Wikipedia entry. I express no opinion about them. (I will note that according to the Wikipedia article -- which I verified on the IRS website -- they ultimately did get 501(c)(3) status, which means that the IRS was convinced that they weren't engaged in partisan activity.)
As for what Scalia said to them in his speech, maybe you can give us a clue, because AFAIK the transcript was never released.
Exactly. Which means that there's no basis whatsoever for saying he did anything improper. Could he have? Sure. That isn't the standard, for obvious reasons: there's also no transcript of what he said to his wife at breakfast two weeks before he died. Could he have said something improper then? Sure. He could have at any time or place.

Now, setting aside your lack of any information that he did anything wrong at this speech, I trust you realize that you've now gone from "Scalia made one (paid) speech after another to right wing groups" (your original claim) to (paraphrased) "Scalia was once reimbursed for expenses when giving a speech to a partisan group."
   3. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 08:16 AM (#5436409)
Majority in US No Longer Thinks Trump Keeps His Promises

Alternate title: "Some Americans yawn, stretch, and after morning coffee realize water is wet".

President Donald Trump's image among Americans as someone who keeps his promises has faded in the first two months of his presidency, falling from 62% in February to 45%. The public is also less likely to see him as a "strong and decisive leader," as someone who "can bring about the changes this country needs" or as "honest and trustworthy."


Click through for the gory details.
   4. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 08:20 AM (#5436411)
I was lectured about how I didn't really get it, but this is, still, the most likely outcome I think - The "candy option" for tax reform

As full-blown tax reform looks more and more like an unreachable stretch, there's increasing conversation on the Hill about what's being called a "candy option" — all the goodies, with none of the pain.

That would mean lower personal and corporate rates, plus some limited repatriation, funded largely by deficit spending.


The reason I think it most likely is at some point the GOP is going to want to do something, anything, pass some law, they can point to. Right now they have Gorsuch and ... a big pile of nothing.
   5. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2017 at 08:30 AM (#5436415)
But let us not pretend for one second that displays of conspicuous patriotism haven’t spiked dramatically in our country over the past 16 years.

The solution, as Evelyn Waugh wrote, is to put out more flags.
   6. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2017 at 09:11 AM (#5436425)
I don't get it. Doesn't every team roll out a giant flag on opening day? Haven't they been doing that for decades?
   7. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: April 17, 2017 at 09:18 AM (#5436428)
I was lectured about how I didn't really get it,


What, exactly, is it that you think you get?
   8. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 17, 2017 at 09:37 AM (#5436432)
I don't get it. Doesn't every team roll out a giant flag on opening day? Haven't they been doing that for decades?


Toronto does it during the home opener and on Canada Day every year.
   9. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:10 AM (#5436452)
Another presidential tweet!

Has no one on his staff explained how spellcheck works on his phone?

Also, what makes someone a "super Liberal Democrat"?
   10. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:17 AM (#5436455)
I don't get it. Doesn't every team roll out a giant flag on opening day? Haven't they been doing that for decades?


That's kind of the point.
   11. BrianBrianson Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5436457)
Also, what makes someone a "super Liberal Democrat"?


X-ray vision at no charge.
   12. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5436458)
Also, what makes someone a "super Liberal Democrat"?


The lack of a border wall around Krypton.
   13. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:27 AM (#5436461)
Also, what makes someone a "super Liberal Democrat"?


In Georgia's 6th? Youth and/or a tan.
   14. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5436468)
First, I note you don't even bother to defend the idea that "Friends of Abe" isn't a blatantly partisan group,
As David notes, FOA is a 501c3 entity, which by definition renders it less "blatantly partisan" than Norman Lear's PFAW, a 501c4.
   15. BDC Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:38 AM (#5436470)
On the judge in Arkansas: no, he shouldn't be engaging in political activism while he's ruling on political issues; and yes, it's irrelevant that Scalia went on junkets to talk to conservative groups (not least because his liberal colleagues do exactly the same thing on their side).

That said, it's kind of disingenuous to think that judges at any level are devoid of political and moral values, and to think that they don't consult those values when ruling on political issues. The very fact that you can identify ideological divides on the higher courts proves that. Each side likes to think that its judges are simply applying the correct spirit of the Constitution in their rulings, but if there were a truly correct spirit of the Constitution on any highly politicized issue, there would never be a divide. Until we replace SC justices with algorithms in the labor-free future :) that's just the real world we live in.
   16. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:40 AM (#5436471)
I don't get it. Doesn't every team roll out a giant flag on opening day? Haven't they been doing that for decades?
Craig would've made many more friends if he had directed his contempt toward the Yankees for having the gall to direct fans to stand and remove their caps to hear Kate Smith's screeching of the non-national anthem.
   17. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5436477)
Craig would've made many more friends if he had directed his contempt toward the Yankees for having the gall to direct fans to stand and remove their caps to hear Kate Smith's screeching of the non-national anthem.

This. A thousand times this. First of all, I hate that song. It is horrible. Secondly, they actually cut off the aisles, so you can't walk around during the song. I had a friend complain that I wasn't standing for "God Bless America" and I said, it is not the national anthem. I try to remember to leave before it starts.



Finally, it is the Yankees. F them.

   18. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5436478)
Craig would've made many more friends


No. The people shitting themselves because Craig has the audacity to point out that self-congratulatory performative "patriotism" is just jingoistic bullshit and capitalism selling you your own reified beliefs about the Reich back to you at markup would have #### themselves regardless.
   19. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:51 AM (#5436480)
"God Bless America" is the signal for Yankee Stadium's cut-off of beer sales, and thus is totally appropriate. By the time the seventh inning stretch rolls around, a lot of fans are "white with foam."
   20. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5436481)
and/or a tan.

I dunno, a lot of super-liberals are against tanning. It's worse than big pharma vaccinations.
   21. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5436484)
I dunno, a lot of super-liberals are against tanning.


Not the add-on kind.
   22. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:53 AM (#5436485)
I'm not saying there's a good time for Kimmie to murder millions of South Koreans per se, just that if you're going to do that, might as well take our Mike Pence as well, yeah?
   23. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2017 at 10:55 AM (#5436486)
The people shitting themselves because Craig has the audacity to point out that self-congratulatory performative "patriotism" is just jingoistic bullshit and capitalism selling you your own reified beliefs about the Reich back to you at markup would have #### themselves regardless.

I agree with this, but in my own unimportant opinion, it is an argument that needs a smaller scale, with a smaller audience, to work. For a mass audience, it just seems to make things worse, which is what I should have written instead of my #1 there.
   24. RMc's Unenviable Situation Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:04 AM (#5436493)
While patriotism is a laudable trait — and while I consider myself to be a patriotic American


Yep, I think I know where this is going. No need to read beyond this.
   25. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM (#5436496)
That Andy actually think it's ever permissible for a state court trial judge to participate in a protest demonstration "to arouse public opinion" against the death penalty, much less while the matter is pending before him, tells us all we need to know about his understanding of legal ethics.

That would be a smashing point, were it not for the fact that I've said exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. See #1464 and #1466. My point has never been to excuse what Judge Griffen did.

That's certainly not true. Andy attempted to excuse Judge Griffen's outrageous conduct - participating in a protest demonstration about an issue before him (according to published reports) - by comparing it to Justice Scalia perfectly proper speech activity, and in doing so Andy has repeatedly misstated the facts concerning Justice Scalia's speeches, neglected to cite actual ethical rules, and just made stuff up. Granted that's a pretty weak defense, but that's on Andy. This is what he said in #1475 (old thread), and neither #1464 or #1466 "said the opposite":
Or is the distinction that Scalia's speeches were "educational", rather than partisan? If that's the case, what can be more educational than a public campaign to arouse public opinion concerning the death penalty?

Judges can't participate in an anti-death penalty protests "to arouse public opinion" against the death penalty. They can't do that for any issue before them. The bottom line is that the entire Supreme Court and hundreds of other judges have given speeches similar to Scalia; Judge Griffen's conduct is virtually unheard of - no judge does that (that I know of). Andy's post was just a smear job, poorly done at that.
   26. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5436503)
Yep, I think I know where this is going. No need to read beyond this.


You're not really a patriotic American unless you jack off with a flag while bombing a third world country.
   27. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:14 AM (#5436507)
Le photo finish:
#presitrack 17/04
MLP 22% (-1)
EM 22% (=)
FF 21% (+1)
JLM 18% (+1)
BH 8% (-1)
   28. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5436508)
Or as Trump calls it, a powerful mandate.
   29. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5436510)
You're not really a patriotic American unless you jack off with a flag while bombing a third world country.
Interestingly, Sammy's happier than a pig in #### when our adversaries are bombing third-world countries. (To be fair, it's unclear whether Sammy cares if they're tugging away at the time.)
   30. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:19 AM (#5436511)
Or as Trump calls it, a powerful mandate.
I think he'd be more likely to call it a record margin of victory.
   31. Brian C Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:20 AM (#5436513)
NVM
   32. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5436517)
Interestingly, Sammy's happier than a pig in #### when our adversaries are bombing third-world countries.


But not as happy as he is when our adversaries from third-world countries bomb Americans.
   33. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5436520)
I swear I am not seeking out these articles, but I do admit I am amused by them every time - Trump learning to love Bush aides

Seven sources involved in the staffing process, including two administration sources, have said there's been a concerted outreach to some old Bush hands to serve as the "adults" at some of the top agencies. Their appeal is that they likely can be confirmed quickly through the Senate in key posts like deputy secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary positions.

Those involved said there has been varying levels of resistance from the Bush veterans despite the outreach, as they decide whether it’s more important to help a relatively inexperienced president than to harbor grudges about Trump’s scorched-earth campaign. There's also a risk that a heavy presence of Bush officials in Trump's administration could turn off the president's base of supporters, who revel in his outsider reputation and are already wary of Trump's recent tack away from some populist stances.


And of course ...

Cohen said some Bush veterans see the marginalization of chief strategist and populist hero Steve Bannon as a sign that it's safe to work for Trump. "As the administration is looking a bit more normalish, there will be more people who will be willing to go in," he said.

"What would be transformative would be if Bannon quits or is fired. I think that would be an indication that it will be somewhere closer to a Republican establishment administration. That will change a lot of people's attitudes,” Cohen added.


Does anyone here not understand that GOP President Trump's administration is far along the way towards being assimilated? I think it is a largely positive development because it means more adults in the room, even if it is adults I don't agree with at all on policy.
   34. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5436529)
Interestingly, Sammy's happier than a pig in #### when our adversaries are bombing third-world countries.


I see you're still in desperate lying mode.
   35. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5436535)
My point has never been to excuse what Judge Griffen did.

Of course it was. That has been your sole point. When someone points out that person X did something wrong, and one's response is "Oh yeah? What about what person Y on the other side of the aisle did?" that is inherently an attempt to excuse person X.


Nice try, but I wasn't excusing Griffen, and I think that not only was he wrong to participate in that demonstration, but that he should recuse himself in cases involving capital punishment. The fact that I also don't find Scalia's speeches before partisan groups to be kosher doesn't mean that I'm "excusing" Griffen.

First, I note you don't even bother to defend the idea that "Friends of Abe" isn't a blatantly partisan group,

That's because, unlike you, I don't pretend to know about something I don't know anything about based on having read one article in the NYT and a Wikipedia entry. I express no opinion about them. (I will note that according to the Wikipedia article -- which I verified on the IRS website -- they ultimately did get 501(c)(3) status, which means that the IRS was convinced that they weren't engaged in partisan activity.)


Again, you've refuted nothing that was in that Wiki entry. The exclusively Republican and conservative makeup of its membership tells you all you need to know about its political slant, regardless of whether it received a tax-exempt status after convincing the IRS that it wasn't engaging in partisan political activity.

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

Or is the distinction that Scalia's speeches were "educational", rather than partisan? If that's the case, what can be more educational than a public campaign to arouse public opinion concerning the death penalty?

Judges can't participate in an anti-death penalty protests "to arouse public opinion" against the death penalty. They can't do that for any issue before them.


And whether or not you choose to concede it, I agree with this point completely. It may be a great way to influence public opinion, but if a judge wants to do that he should at minimum recuse himself from cases involving such issues, and probably just resign his seat and run for Congress.

I note, however, that nobody's responded to a question I posed in the previous thread (#1482), so I'll repeat it:

I will, however, ask another question in my supreme ignorance: Should an elected judge who's campaigned on a "law and order" theme recuse himself from criminal cases? What if that judge has spoken out either in favor of or in opposition to capital punishment? Should he then still be allowed to participate in such cases that come before his court?


The bottom line is that the entire Supreme Court and hundreds of other judges have given speeches similar to Scalia; Judge Griffen's conduct is virtually unheard of - no judge does that (that I know of). Andy's post was just a smear job, poorly done at that.

So "hundreds of other judges have given speeches similar to Scalia"? Hundreds of other judges have given private speeches to highly ideological organizations such as the late "Friends of Abe" and then not even bothered to release the transcript? Do tell. Has Justice Ginsberg given private speeches to MoveOn, or to the Communist Party?

Of course if that's really been the case, I'd have the same reaction to those speeches as I have to Scalia's. You persist in trying to make this into a partisan issue, but that says more about your inherent Spiceristic tendencies than it says about anything I've written.
   36. BDC Posted: April 17, 2017 at 11:45 AM (#5436536)
Here's a weird story I ran across while trying to see if new copyright legislation is in the works (seems not): Georgia official state code is copyrighted:

A federal judge has ruled that annotations to Georgia's legal code can be copyrighted and that a nonprofit organization's copying and distribution of them isn't protected by fair use laws.

The state in July 2015 sued Public.Resource.Org Inc. in federal court in Atlanta. The nonprofit is run by Carl Malamud, an internet public domain advocate who argues for free access to legally obtained files.

The lawsuit said the nonprofit distributes and makes available online copies of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. The state argued the annotations include analysis and guidance added by a third-party publisher and are protected by copyright.

Malamud's organization countersued in September 2015 and asked the judge to rule that its activities don't infringe upon copyright laws because laws enacted by government agencies are not copyrightable and are in the public domain.

U.S. District Judge Richard Story last week ruled that the annotations are protected by copyright and that the nonprofit's use of them is not protected by fair use laws.


The idea that the annotations are protected is uncontroversial. "The text of the statutes itself is not protected by copyright, which the state has acknowledged, but the annotations are, Story ruled." The problem seems to be that the State only officially publishes an annotated code, and if you want that you have to pay through the nose.

It seems to be pretty easy to find the laws of Georgia via LexisNexis and other free databases, but one of the claims that Malamud makes is that the search functions there limit access and transparency: you can't just go to a webpage somewhere and browse the whole code. (This seems to be the case with Texas too, that I can tell, in that the code is posted by the state, and is free, but you have to search it to find laws, rather than just having the "raw" text.) Seems to me Malamud could have stripped out the annotations before posting the text, but that would have been a lot of work, and work that duplicates what some of the other sites already do.

Mostly interesting to me as an example of how information gets accessed in the digital age.
   37. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:07 PM (#5436551)
Again, you've refuted nothing that was in that Wiki entry. The exclusively Republican and conservative makeup of its membership tells you all you need to know about its political slant, regardless of whether it received a tax-exempt status after convincing the IRS that it wasn't engaging in partisan political activity.
I've been to at least a dozen FOA events over the years, Andy, and the crowd is indeed conservative and most attendees are probably registered Republicans. However, the group has never lobbied on behalf of a single political cause, and at last check, no one had even received a salary.
   38. McCoy Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5436553)
I-20 W by Flat Shoals has just buckled shutting it down as well. I guess Trump was right, Atlanta is a dumpster fire.
   39. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5436555)
highly ideological organizations such as the late "Friends of Abe"
Notice how Andy keeps saying this, but has identified no organizations "such as" the FOA? He's just going to keep talking about a single unpaid speech that Scalia gave five years ago to deflect from the fact that he falsely claimed that Scalia gave "one (paid) speech after another to right wing groups."


ETA: By the way, Andy, if you're interested in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's activities, you could read this. (Or this, which (unlike the things you mistakenly cite) actually is a conflict of interest.)
   40. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5436560)
Notice how Andy keeps saying this, but has identified no organizations "such as" the FOA? He's just going to keep talking about a single unpaid speech that Scalia gave five years ago to deflect from the fact that he falsely claimed that Scalia gave "one (paid) speech after another to right wing groups."
FTR, I don't give a damn that just about every liberal justice appears to have given a pep talk to the left-wing American Constitution Society.
   41. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5436564)
I'd hate a world in which writers didn't get themselves into random political fights on Twitter; nasty political fights overshadow my harmless and apolitical Twitter shenanigans.
   42. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5436567)
You persist in trying to make this into a partisan issue, but that says more about your inherent Spiceristic tendencies than it says about anything I've written.

Who's the partisan here? Quite obviously it's the person who interjected Justice Scalia into a discussion of the inappropriate behavior of a state court trial judge, falsely claiming that there was some equivalency between Justice's Scalia's perfectly proper speech activity and the state court judge participating in a protest about an issue before him. Andy has twisted himself it knots here - wrongly characterizing Scalia's activity as "paid speeches", and incorrectly describing the sponsorship of the speeches and the audiences. He appears to have abandoned most of his argument and is now quibbling about a single speech to one tax-exempt group he doesn't like (as if that is the test). Seems like he's the one having the rough day, not unlike some of the WH press briefings of late.
   43. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:31 PM (#5436569)
On a related note, I posted elsewhere that, although Craig and I are political opposites, we both agree that the world is an emptier place because George Steinbrenner never learned to tweet.
   44. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:33 PM (#5436572)
I've been to at least a dozen FOA events over the years, Andy, and the crowd is indeed conservative and most attendees are probably registered Republicans. However, the group has never lobbied on behalf of a single political cause, and at last check, no one had even received a salary.

Given how its membership was mostly made up of Hollywood types and fat cats, that's hardly surprising.

But to be clear about this, I'm sure that FOA was a perfectly legit organization, but its ideological nature alone (IMO) meant that sitting judges and SC Justices should have steered clear of it completely, just as they should also steer clear of any similar left wing group, no matter how reputable. This may be a quaint and stodgy take on matters like this, but again, it's directed across the board, and (for about the 4th time now) it also includes appearances at political demonstrations, however noble the cause.
   45. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5436578)
And once again, should elected judges who campaigned on a "law and order" platform, and denounced "liberal" judges for being "soft on crime", be allowed to sit in cases that involve these issues? That's not exactly the same thing as participating in a demonstration, but it's sure as hell clear evidence that they're not likely to render a disinterested opinion in such cases.
   46. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM (#5436580)
Given how its membership was mostly made up of Hollywood types and fat cats, that's hardly surprising.
"Fat cats?" LOL. Look up the term "below the line," Andy. For every Jon Voight type, there are 100 or more guys and gals who do the industry's grunt work and drive F-150s and Altimas, not 8-series BMWs. And I know of no studio execs or big-name agents who are involved with the organization in any meaningful way.
   47. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:45 PM (#5436584)
Quite obviously it's the person who interjected Justice Scalia into a discussion of the inappropriate behavior of a state court trial judge


I think you mean the fetid, bloating, rotting corpse of Antonin Scalia.
   48. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:45 PM (#5436585)
Forgive me if this video clip got posted earlier or on the older thread, but I'm still LOL-ing.
   49. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5436587)
I'd hate a world in which writers didn't get themselves into random political fights on Twitter


Just FTR, I am responsible for this entire debacle. I'm awesome.
   50. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5436590)
More infrastructure issues in Sammyland...

BREAKING: All lanes on I-20 West closed after highway buckles:
All lanes on I-20 West were shut down about 11:30 a.m. Monday when the highway buckled due to an underground gas leak, DeKalb County police said.

The freeway buckled on I-20 between Candler and Gresham roads.

Witness Greg Phillips saw a motorcyclist, who he said was going about 55 mph, crash when it happened.

“(The motorcycle) just fell in,” Phillips said. “It was like a dip.”

No cars hit the man who fell from his bike. The bike landed about 50 yards away.

“That’s a heck of a place in the road for this to happen,” Phillips said. “More work for the DOT.”

GDOT crews were headed to the scene for repairs about 12:15 p.m.
Maybe Atlanta would've been better off staying a boring cow town...?
   51. Guy Heckler's Veto Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5436594)
Did anyone see a couple of weeks ago that Trump tweeted JBL a couple of weeks ago before Wrestlemania, thanking him? JBL is now under fire for bullying he's done over the past couple of decades, with everyone knowing he's a bully. Hell, Trump probably knows he's a bully.
   52. Cargo Cultist Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:02 PM (#5436597)
I am disgusted with and ashamed of you lot for the ignorant anti-Americanism you display. You're not clever, or funny, or cute. You're nauseating.
   53. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5436601)
I am disgusted with and ashamed of you lot for the ignorant anti-Americanism you display. You're not clever, or funny, or cute. You're nauseating.


Sadly not nauseating enough, but we try.
   54. Lassus Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5436602)
You lot did not kick enough Chinese dogs today. (For those of you who met my GF at softball, if she sees you kick a pug, you might get out of the hospital in a year or so, if you're lucky.)
   55. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:06 PM (#5436603)
BREAKING: All lanes on I-20 West closed after highway buckles:


They're actual response was "this is probably due to a major underground gas leak," and they thought they might help.
   56. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5436604)
I am disgusted with and ashamed of you lot for the ignorant anti-Americanism you display. You're not clever, or funny, or cute. You're nauseating.


Oh noes. We have made the Cargo Cultist having of the sads. How can we go on?
   57. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5436605)
I am disgusted with and ashamed of you lot for the ignorant anti-Americanism you display. You're not clever, or funny, or cute. You're nauseating.
Relax, Cargo. It was just a short stretch of interstate and the motorcyclist will survive.
   58. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:07 PM (#5436606)
Samuel L. Jackson has recorded an ad for this week's Georgia special election. In it, he tells voters "We have to channel the great vengeance and furious anger we have for this administration into votes at the ballot box."

A Yellow Dog Democrat's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
   59. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:12 PM (#5436607)
Samuel L. Jackson has recorded an ad for this week's Georgia special election. In it, he tells voters "We have to channel the great vengeance and furious anger we have for this administration into votes at the ballot box."


I do not. I do not live in the 6th. I live in the hellish nightmarescape of the 5th.
   60. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5436611)
An article speculating on the am000,000unt the battered United passenger can expect to receive after the airline bumped him, then his head.
   61. BDC Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:27 PM (#5436615)
You're not clever, or funny, or cute

Hey, you've never seen me in my pink Texas Ranger gym shorts.
   62. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5436618)
And once again, should elected judges who campaigned on a "law and order" platform, and denounced "liberal" judges for being "soft on crime", be allowed to sit in cases that involve these issues? That's not exactly the same thing as participating in a demonstration, but it's sure as hell clear evidence that they're not likely to render a disinterested opinion in such cases.

What happens when you cross E.J. Dionne with an 80 IQ?
   63. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:35 PM (#5436622)
From The Hill: Anti-Trump Energy Poses Recruiting Dilemma For Dems:
House Democrats face a recruiting dilemma in 2018 as the liberal backlash to President Trump looks poised to boost progressive candidates in primaries. Democrats are seeing a groundswell of enthusiasm on the left, but that same energy could complicate the calculus in swing seats and districts carried by Trump that Democrats need to take back the House.

The party will likely need to strike a delicate balance between finding moderate candidates who best match the political profiles of the target districts on issues such as abortion and gun control without alienating its left wing.

The midterms are still a ways off, and the precise political climate unknown, but I have some doubt that nationalizing every House race, and making every Democratic primary a contest over who is the most anti-Trump candidate, will pay off. The closest analog may be the Scott Walker experience in Wisconsin. After Walker's labor law reforms were passed (over vehement Democratic opposition), liberals launched continuous anti-Walker demonstrations and turned every election into a referendum on Walker, starting with a State Supreme Court contest (in which the Democratic candidate pledged to overturn Walker's labor law), a recall election against some GOP legislators who voted for Walker's law, a recall election for Walker himself, and finally Walker's 2014 re-election. That's 5 elections in 4 years, all about Walker, with Democrats failing repeatedly, and Walker being re-elected by a wider margin than his initial election. 2018 could be quite different, but opposition party enthusiasm alone may not be enough.
   64. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:40 PM (#5436625)
The party will likely need to strike a delicate balance between finding moderate candidates who best match the political profiles of the target districts on issues such as abortion and gun control without alienating its left wing.


Remember kids, when the GOP swims so far right that they elect and actual, honest-to-god fascist, it's just the will of the people. But when the Dems nominate a center-left liberal, it's Stalinism reborn. Cause reasons. You people are generally speaking, too stupid to live.
   65. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5436629)
#63 is awesome. I salute anyone who can try to make the case that there is too much Democratic enthusiasm and too much Democratic success at recruiting candidates. That somehow all this positive enthusiasm and energy will somehow, someway end up as a negative.

That is awesome dude. Well done and perhaps the most "concerned" you have ever been.
   66. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:56 PM (#5436631)
But to be clear about this, I'm sure that FOA was a perfectly legit organization,
So sure that a minute ago you compared them to MoveOn or the Communist Party.
but its ideological nature alone (IMO) meant that sitting judges and SC Justices should have steered clear of it completely,
But who cares about your opinion? Judges are governed by a judicial code of conduct, not Andy's Personal Opinions. (Supreme Court justices are not bound by the code, but they govern themselves by it.)
   67. dlf Posted: April 17, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5436633)
Samuel L. Jackson has recorded an ad for this week's Georgia special election. In it, he tells voters "We have to channel the great vengeance and furious anger we have for this administration into votes at the ballot box."

A Yellow Dog Democrat's got personality. Personality goes a long way.


Pulp Fiction was on yesterday evening. Love that movie, but it simply can't be shown on standard cable tv without being bleeped to death.

Anyway, I live about a 4 iron away from the old Tom Price district and will be really glad when the election and expected runoff are over. I shouldn't be surprised, but there is a ton of money coming in and political ads are dominating the airwaves. My gut feeling is that Ossoff gets almost all the D votes while a bunch of folks split the R votes leading to a more traditional D vs. R runoff. This is a seat the Rs have consistently carried (north / northeast Atlanta suburbs) but Trump barely carried it in November so the Ds are smelling a least an opportunity to pick up a seat and, unlike the Kansas special election, the Ds are actively going for it.
   68. Ishmael Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5436635)
BDC from the last thread:
Resistance to such methods shows a kind of doublethink. Execution is supposed to be horrific enough to serve as a deterrent, but kind and gentle enough to resemble putting down your pet (the latter almost always done now by injection, even with horses). There's a similar contradiction in making executions private, of course. We want to make them terrifying, and we talk sternly about retribution, but we don't dare let anyone see the process, because that would be barbaric.

As I understand it, while executions in the US are not public in the sense that anyone can attend, families and friends of victims are sometimes allowed to view them.

I agree that it's interesting that it's relatively easy (apparently) to accept the idea of capital punishment in the abstract. The problem is that you have to actually, physically, kill by one method or another. State execution that is bloody, or violent, or bungled, or even clinical is somehow harder to stomach.
   69. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5436636)
#63 is awesome. I salute anyone who can try to make the case that there is too much Democratic enthusiasm and too much Democratic success at recruiting candidates. That somehow all this positive enthusiasm and energy will somehow, someway end up as a negative.
Well, conservative overenthusiasm likely cost them the Delaware senate seat in 2010, and possibly some others.

ETA: And liberals have been hyperventilatingly talking about primarying the Dems who voted for Gorsuch; while I doubt they actually could find someone able to do that, their desire to do so is a symptom of what YC is discussing.
   70. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5436637)
#63 is awesome. I salute anyone who can try to make the case that there is too much Democratic enthusiasm and too much Democratic success at recruiting candidates. That somehow all this positive enthusiasm and energy will somehow, someway end up as a negative.

I think that there's something to be said for the Democrats being willing to field "non-ideologically pure" candidates on an issue of peripheral* importance, like abortion or gun rights. If the Democrats want to compete in rural, high-religiosity districts, then they need to be willing to field pro-life candidates. In today's Democratic Party, someone who publicly shares Jimmy Carter's views on the issue is not welcome, which greatly limits the potential playing field for Democrats.

*-peripheral in the sense that federal legislation on those issues is largely irrelevant as a practical matter (philanthropy compensates for loss of federal funds for abortion and meaningful gun control legislation isn't going to happen regardless of which party is in power). Democrats need to stop conceding elections over issues that are wholly inconsequential to the bigger picture.
   71. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5436638)
Well, conservative overenthusiasm likely cost them the Delaware senate seat in 2010, and possibly some others.

Joe Donnelly in Indiana only won his Senate election in 2012 because Richard Lugar was defeated in the GOP primary by a guy who proudly professed his belief that social security was unconstitutional.
   72. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5436640)
But to be clear about this, I'm sure that FOA was a perfectly legit organization,

So sure that a minute ago you compared them to MoveOn or the Communist Party.


Your point being?

but its ideological nature alone (IMO) meant that sitting judges and SC Justices should have steered clear of it completely,

But who cares about your opinion? Judges are governed by a judicial code of conduct, not Andy's Personal Opinions. (Supreme Court justices are not bound by the code, but they govern themselves by it.)


Not very well in some cases.

And once again: Should elected judges recuse themselves from cases that deal with issues they've campaigned on?

   73. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:16 PM (#5436646)
Clapper, #63:
That's 5 elections in 4 years, all about [Wisconsin Governor Scott] Walker, with Democrats failing repeatedly, and Walker being re-elected by a wider margin than his initial election.

2010: 52.3% to 46.5%
2012: 53.1% to 46.3%
2014: 52.3% to 46.6%

Feel the Scott-mentum!

There's an even more amusing comment within the article Clapper linked:
“It will be difficult for them to get the candidates they need because their base won’t allow it,” a House GOP strategist said. “They are going to want ideological purity.”
Because ideological rigidity has been such a hindrance in winning House seats. Yeah, if I was saying something that trollworthy for print, I'd be calling myself "a House GOP strategist," too.
   74. dlf Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:16 PM (#5436647)
And once again: Should elected judges recuse themselves from cases that deal with issues they've campaigned on?


No.
   75. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5436662)
And once again: Should elected judges recuse themselves from cases that deal with issues they've campaigned on?

I haven't really been following this subthread all that closely over the past few days... is anyone actually suggesting this?
   76. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5436665)
In today's Democratic Party, someone who publicly shares Jimmy Carter's views on the issue is not welcome, which greatly limits the potential playing field for Democrats.


Jimmy Carter's grandson, Jason, ran for the governorship of Georgia last cycle on basically exactly his grandfather's positions on the issues. But, ya know, what's that when you've got a talking point to run with?
   77. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5436668)
I haven't really been following this subthread all that closely over the past few days... is anyone actually suggesting this?

Andy's trying to change his argument into that after being humiliated in the last thread.
   78. Ishmael Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:48 PM (#5436670)
If the Democrats want to compete in rural, high-religiosity districts, then they need to be willing to field pro-life candidates. In today's Democratic Party, someone who publicly shares Jimmy Carter's views on the issue is not welcome, which greatly limits the potential playing field for Democrats.

Aren't both parties pretty strongly sorted on the issue?

To call back to capital punishment - is the death penalty a strongly partisan issue in the US? Obviously there are more executions in red states, but I don't remember reading much recent debate on either side of the issue.
   79. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5436673)
#63 is awesome. I salute anyone who can try to make the case that there is too much Democratic enthusiasm and too much Democratic success at recruiting candidates. That somehow all this positive enthusiasm and energy will somehow, someway end up as a negative.

That is awesome dude. Well done and perhaps the most "concerned" you have ever been.


I am concerned that Clapper's concern might be concerning with concern to concern trolling.

Might be worth watching.
   80. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5436674)
To call back to capital punishment - is the death penalty a strongly partisan issue in the US? Obviously there are more executions in red states, but I don't remember reading much recent debate on either side of the issue.

In general, the probability of being pro-death penalty is higher among Republicans than Democrats and, as you noted, the states with the most executions are "Red States." Also, some of the strong opponents to the death penalty are racial justice organizations that are left-leaning on a number of other issues that tend to be partisan. But I don't know that a prospective candidate's position on the death penalty is ever a litmus test issue in the way that abortion or gun rights are. And from a practical standpoint, it's not really a national political issue (i.e., while it might matter at the margins whether your state's governor or attorney general has a strong stance on the death penalty, it doesn't really matter what your congressional representative's view is).
   81. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:03 PM (#5436678)
Non political topic from Facebook for us to ponder over:

Would you rather meet your ancestors from 1,000 years ago? Or meet your descendants from 1,000 years in the future?

My response: Descendants so that I can get the sports scores for the next century and live the rest of my life in wealth, ala Biff from Back to Future Part 2.
   82. BrianBrianson Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:04 PM (#5436679)
The Democrats don't have any internal cohesion on guns, and it'd pretty easy to get fairly pretty pro-gun candidates in rural areas (since guns are really a rural vs. urban issue, rather than left vs. right) Sanders got attacked in the primaries for being reasonably pro-gun, and it made almost no dent in his support (if any).

Abortion is much harder. A Democrat who took even the Conservative Party of Canada's position on abortion ("We don't know what it is, and we refuse to find out") probably couldn't get through a primary. It's actually a litmus test. Perhaps the litmus test of both parties.
   83. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:14 PM (#5436685)
Would you rather meet your ancestors from 1,000 years ago? Or meet your descendants from 1,000 years in the future?

Would you be able to communicate with either? Maybe the future as they will have the auto translator.
   84. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:19 PM (#5436687)
Abortion is much harder. A Democrat who took even the Conservative Party of Canada's position on abortion ("We don't know what it is, and we refuse to find out") probably couldn't get through a primary. It's actually a litmus test. Perhaps the litmus test of both parties.


For national office sure, but not for anything less than that. The Democratic Party is ideologically much bigger than:

I think that there's something to be said for the Democrats being willing to field "non-ideologically pure" candidates on an issue of peripheral* importance, like abortion or gun rights. If the Democrats want to compete in rural, high-religiosity districts, then they need to be willing to field pro-life candidates. In today's Democratic Party, someone who publicly shares Jimmy Carter's views on the issue is not welcome, which greatly limits the potential playing field for Democrats.


Seems to be willing to acknowledge. Look at Harry Reid and Tim Kaine and their views (just to mention the first two I thought of, there are plenty more). Once you get to the national level the parties are very sorted, which is why Tim Kaine had to "clarify" his stances (for example), but for most offices there is not a litmus test. I think ideological sorting of the two parties has done most of the work on that front.

On the GOP side I think taxes is a stronger litmus than abortion, honestly.
   85. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:21 PM (#5436688)
Would you rather meet your ancestors from 1,000 years ago? Or meet your descendants from 1,000 years in the future?


Descendants. I don't know that much exciting was happening in 1017 that I would care to speak to the natives about, on most things I would know more about (or could easily find out more about) virtually anything from that era (except perhaps what it is like to live in it) than they would know.

EDIT: Yes I am stating we today know more about that era than anyone alive then knew about it. The vast majority of people knew a few miles around their home and that was it.
   86. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:27 PM (#5436690)
Do they have to be direct descendants? Cause I ain't leaving nothing on this planet for you ####### to use after I'm gone. I could get behind a day trip to 1017 England. Only thing I'd be interested in in 3017, barring me on a rocket to another star system, would be watching your progeny burn.
   87. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:28 PM (#5436692)
Descendants. I don't know that much exciting was happening in 1017 that I would care to speak to the natives about, on most things I would know more about (or could easily find out more about) virtually anything from that era (except perhaps what it is like to live in it) than they would know.


The life of a knowledgable court adviser could be nice.
   88. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:29 PM (#5436693)
Hopefully this will calm Clapper's concerns ... Poll: Trump woes take toll on GOP

The most profound shifts in the Pew survey are in Americans’ perceptions of the GOP beyond Trump. Just 40 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 47 percent in January, prior to Trump’s inauguration.


And interestingly ...

Americans now trust Democrats over Republicans when it comes to dealing with immigration, 50 percent to 39 percent. In nine separate Pew surveys conducted over the course of Barack Obama’s second term as president, the two parties were never separated by more than 2 points on this question.

On foreign policy, Americans have shifted drastically toward Democrats: Forty-nine percent say the party would do a better job, compared with 36 percent who trust the GOP more. But last April, more Americans trusted Republicans (46 percent) than Democrats (38 percent).

Health care has represented the GOP’s most concerted domestic effort so far, and the poll shows little confidence in the party moving forward. A 54 percent majority says Democrats would do a better job on health care, far greater than the 35 percent who say Republicans would do a better job.


Of course there are areas where the GOP fares better than Democrats (who truth be told are not all that much better than the GOP in overall rating). So don't trust my excerpts, click through.
   89. BrianBrianson Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5436700)
For state offices - it's possible there's a little flexibility in Democrats on abortion in states where they're otherwise hopeless. But for any offices at the national level, I'm doubtful. Reid's been the Nevada senator since back when I was learning to walk. The sorting on abortion wasn't nearly so neat then. Incumbants ain't easily turfed. But a Harry Reid clone with his abortion position running for that seat today, I suspect, gets nowhere.
   90. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5436701)
And once again: Should elected judges recuse themselves from cases that deal with issues they've campaigned on?

I haven't really been following this subthread all that closely over the past few days... is anyone actually suggesting this?

It's just Andy's stream of consciousness head fake, part of his effort to defend that Arkansas trial judge who participated in an anti-death penalty demonstration while the issue was before him. Since his attack on Justice Scalia has been shown to be factually incorrect and not involving anything remotely similar, he's conjuring up hypotheticals to distract from the fact that his original claims have been thoroughly discredited.
   91. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5436710)
Poll: Trump woes take toll on GOP


One of the very weird things about the GA-6 special election is that you have three four or five distinct ad styles. First, there's "Hi, I'm Jon Ossoff. I look more or less exactly like an adorable Justin Trudeau meets Harry Potter slash fic story come to life. I'm ADORBES. Vote ADORBES!" Second, you have the "Hello. Jon Ossoff is running against Donald Trump. Please vote for him to prevent nuclear war." Those are the Dem ads. Then you get to the GOP ads. The generic attack ads are basically "Jon Ossoff eats Nancy Pelosi's muff and likes it." I paraphrase, of course. But then you have the GOP on GOP action. And THOSE are the weird ones. Because they're basically a lot of "don't vote for this guy, he didn't support Trump!!" And that seems and odd tack to take to me. Because whole the 6th is pretty solidly red for years, Trump did worse there than any GOP candidate has in a decade or more.
   92. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5436711)
John Bel Edwards says hi to everyone here.

Edwards is a conservative Democrat who is pro-life and pro-gun rights.[3] In 2008, Edwards ran for a seat in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Edwards was forced into a general election run-off with fellow attorney George Tucker.[4] Edwards was overwhelmingly elected, winning every parish in the district.[5] Edwards was the only freshman lawmaker to chair a committee in the legislature. Edwards chaired the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House. Edwards was also selected as chairman of the Democratic house caucus, a rarity for a freshman legislator. Edwards became a critic of Governor Bobby Jindal for the governor's frequent trips away from Louisiana to raise political funds for Republicans elsewhere while Louisiana has been reducing its funding for higher education.


He is currently the Gov. Of LA, and as far as I know a welcome member of the Democratic Party.

EDIT: Bold mine.
   93. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:53 PM (#5436717)
For state offices - it's possible there's a little flexibility in Democrats on abortion in states where they're otherwise hopeless. But for any offices at the national level, I'm doubtful. Reid's been the Nevada senator since back when I was learning to walk. The sorting on abortion wasn't nearly so neat then. Incumbants ain't easily turfed. But a Harry Reid clone with his abortion position running for that seat today, I suspect, gets nowhere.

A couple of years ago, an acquaintance/friend of mine was seriously thinking about running for a state representative seat as a Democrat in a district that is solid Red (mostly rural, high religiosity). Small business owner and a veteran with a young family, left-of-center on most economic issues, but pretty strong in his Christian beliefs. The state party chair told him that they would not support him in the general election because of his views on abortion. So he didn't run and the empty suit that did run as a Democrat got something like 30% (GOP currently controls the state house by a very healthy margin).

He would have been a long-shot given the leanings of the district, but the GOP incumbent was term-limited, so it was an open seat that could have been a seat that the Democrats might have had a shot at flipping with the right candidate. It's absolute insanity that the state party would discourage someone viable from running just because of his position on a single issue.
   94. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:57 PM (#5436718)
#63 is awesome. I salute anyone who can try to make the case that there is too much Democratic enthusiasm and too much Democratic success at recruiting candidates. That somehow all this positive enthusiasm and energy will somehow, someway end up as a negative.

Once again - to the surprise of few who follow this thread - Bitter Mouse has missed the point. To win the House, Democrats will have to prevail in GOP Districts that are currently purple or leaning red. Can they do that without nominating candidates more moderate than their liberal base currently seems to prefer? In 2006 & 2008, Dems ran a fair number of moderates, or faux moderates, and had considerable success in the short-term, even if most of those folks were wiped out in 2010 in seats the GOP has held since. My impression is that few had a serious primary challenge from the left.

Bitter Mouse has made more than a few posts here chortling about GOP primary wins by candidates who weren't the party's most electable option, but now he'd have us believe that Democrats are immune from the same phenomenon? Typical. The Hill article (that's by no means a conservative or pro-GOP outfit) raised a valid point, even if some here prefer to avoid it.

Can we at least agree that control of the House is the appropriate benchmark for 2018? The number of seats the Dems need is within the historical norms for the party out of power, so isn't anything less underperforming?
   95. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 03:57 PM (#5436719)
And once again: Should elected judges recuse themselves from cases that deal with issues they've campaigned on?

I haven't really been following this subthread all that closely over the past few days... is anyone actually suggesting this?


I raised this purely as a hypothetical, but I'll frame that hypothetical this way, since we've been talking about Judge Geffen and why he should recuse himself from cases involving capital punishment.

Let's assume that Judge Geffen is elected and not appointed, and that during his election campaign, he'd openly proclaimed his aversion to the death penalty. And let's assume that once he was seated on the bench, he didn't take part in any anti-death penalty demonstrations.

Given those hypothetical facts, should Judge Geffen then recuse himself from all cases that might involve the death penalty? Why or why not?
   96. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: April 17, 2017 at 04:01 PM (#5436722)
I raised this purely as a hypothetical, but I'll frame that hypothetical this way, since we've been talking about Judge Geffen and why he should recuse himself from cases involving capital punishment.

Let's assume that Judge Geffen is elected and not appointed, and that during his election campaign, he'd openly proclaimed his aversion to the death penalty. And let's assume that once he was seated on the bench, he didn't take part in any anti-death penalty demonstrations.

Given those hypothetical facts, should Judge Geffen then recuse himself from all cases that might involve the death penalty? Why or why not?

What exactly are judges supposed to run on if they're not allowed to articulate general positions on issues that will likely come before them? Their views on whether the NL should adopt the DH?
   97. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: April 17, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5436723)
It's just Andy's stream of consciousness head fake, part of his effort to defend that Arkansas trial judge who participated in an anti-death penalty demonstration while the issue was before him. Since his attack on Justice Scalia has been shown to be factually incorrect and not involving anything remotely similar, he's conjuring up hypotheticals to distract from the fact that his original claims have been thoroughly discredited.

By this I assume that if Justice Ginsberg were to give a secret speech to the Communist Party and didn't release the transcript, you'd be fine with that. In which case we'd also disagree, just as we obviously disagree about the propriety of Justice Scalia's speech before the F.O.A., but at least then I'd sleep the sleep of the unconfused, knowing that you're at least being ethically consistent.
   98. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 04:03 PM (#5436724)
For the record 6-4-3 I absolutely think there is a bias against pro-life Democrats, pro-choice Republicans and in fact anyone outside of the hot button issues of their respective parties. I just don't think it is nearly as big a deal as you are making it out to be.

It is not as prevalent and most especially it doesn't make nearly as big a difference as you appear to believe it does. If every Democratic leader and organization was suddenly perfectly OK with and even recruited pro-life democrats I just don't think it would make that big a difference in national totals of Democrats elected, and in many ways would depress enthusiasm in some of the core of the Democratic Party.

Put another way the GOP is the mirror image on abortion. There is a scattering of state level officials and even some Federal ones who are pro-choice, but on a national level it just is not going to happen. The country is roughly split on abortion 50/50 and has been for decades. So I am not sure why you are suggesting that it is the Democrats who are missing this great opportunity. Unless you think there is also a huge opportunity on the GOP side as well?

Logically if there was this opening to gain support on an issue this divisive and also this 50/50 it should be open to both sides, and yet neither side seems eager to jump in. While I don't like deferring to authority on these sorts of things, I suspect there is a reason neither side changes much. Maybe it is just inertia on both sides, but honestly I think by and large it is an issue mostly already baked in. There are not huge pools of available voters to the other side with a relaxation on this issue IMO.

But I could be wrong, I am open to more data on it. Personally I think the Democrats should just give up on gun control, that ship sailed long ago. Circle back to it in a decade or so, maybe, but until then just move onto better issues.
   99. dlf Posted: April 17, 2017 at 04:04 PM (#5436725)
Given those hypothetical facts, should Judge Geffen then recuse himself from all cases that might involve the death penalty? Why or why not?


Yes. Because he is implicitly stating he will not apply the law as it is written.
   100. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 17, 2017 at 04:11 PM (#5436728)
In 2006 & 2008, Dems ran a fair number of moderates, or faux moderates, and had considerable success in the short-term, even if most of those folks were wiped out in 2010 in seats the GOP has held since. My impression is that few had a serious primary challenge from the left.


Which is one reason your "concern" is not mine. I have seen little evidence of rabid hordes of ultra liberals shooting down moderate and even conservative Democratic candidates, especially for the 2018 elections (for obvious reasons). Maybe we could wait and see if that happens? Even a little bit. Meanwhile that sort of behavior has been happening for ages on the GOP side, so I understand why Clapper thinks it is standard operating procedure.

I think it is more likely that Democrats, currently in the wilderness, will be eager to do whatever it takes to win, which includes shifting right where needed. That is the typical behavior of the out of power party, to shift more to the center. Which is the basic reason that Clappers "concern" is dramatically overblown (as he well knows).

Can we at least agree that control of the House is the appropriate benchmark for 2018? The number of seats the Dems need is within the historical norms for the party out of power, so isn't anything less underperforming?


I think it is too early to tell yet. The number one issue in the vast majority of elections in my lifetime is and has been "the economy, stupid". Once we know more about what the economy looks like we will know much more about reasonable expectations in the House. Obviously though historical trends favor the Democrats in 2018, which is nice.

Page 1 of 15 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 11 December, 2017 - GOP strategist: Moore would have 'date with a baseball bat' if he tried dating teens where I grew up
(2211 - 4:45pm, Dec 15)
Last: simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose

NewsblogWinter Meeting Signings
(17 - 4:43pm, Dec 15)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(450 - 4:42pm, Dec 15)
Last: homerwannabee

NewsblogDerek Jeter Was Once the Captain. But Now He’s the Apprentice. - The New York Times
(89 - 4:42pm, Dec 15)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogMets agree to two-year deal with Anthony Swarzak
(21 - 4:18pm, Dec 15)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-15-2017
(8 - 4:10pm, Dec 15)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(2009 - 4:01pm, Dec 15)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(717 - 3:52pm, Dec 15)
Last: GGIAS (aka Poster Nutbag)

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(346 - 3:27pm, Dec 15)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogESPN: Bob Costas wins Hall of Fame's Frick Award for broadcasting
(22 - 3:18pm, Dec 15)
Last: DavidFoss

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(360 - 2:40pm, Dec 15)
Last: There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty

Sox TherapyA Container of Milk, A Loaf of Bread and a Dude Who Can Hit Home Runs
(30 - 2:39pm, Dec 15)
Last: jmurph

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(394 - 2:23pm, Dec 15)
Last: Fridas Boss

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-14-2017
(13 - 11:28am, Dec 15)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogCardinals trade for Marcell Ozuna of Marlins
(61 - 11:20am, Dec 15)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Page rendered in 1.1311 seconds
47 querie(s) executed