Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Rick Sanchez is out. A terse statement from CNN:

"Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well."

* Richard Blumenthal's campaign rushes out a new ad hammering GOP candidate Linda McMahon over her apparent suggestion that lowering the minimum wage -- which she didn't know -- shoudn't be off the table. The Blumenthal team sees the gaffe as a useful check on the obvious momentum she'd gained.

* But: The McMahon camp rules out cutting minimum wage.

* About that much-maligned stimulus: Kevin Drum notes it's proven to be good policy that was well executed, but because the White House set expectations for it too high it will never be seen as a success.

* Counter-intuitive take of the day: Former DCCC chair Martin Frost says Obama needs to forget about young voters (who don't vote in midterms anyway) and focus on limiting losses among seniors by hammering the GOP on Social Security.

* Newt Gingrich is still the same transparently shameless hustler he's always been.

* Sharron Angle hints that Sharia Law may be taking over here and there one of these days.

* Which prompts Eric Kleefeld to observe: "It's quite interesting that Angle is warning against a system of religious law taking control of the United States -- she has herself alleged that the Democrats' policies violate the First Commandment to acknowledge God as supreme."

* Funny catch by Taegan Goddard: Charlie Crist says he would have left the GOP and switched to indy even if he'd been winning the GOP primary by 20 points. Hmmm...

* Philip Rucker on how the Crist-Meek death struggle is allowing Marco Rubio to coast on a Reaganesque message of optimism.

* Bill Maher Tweets that more Christine O'Donnell tapes are coming, and vows to press on, because "if she wins masturbation will be outlawed."

* John Cornyn allows that he's not exactly bullish on O'Donnell's chances.

* Also: O'Donnell appears to think that God is following American politics rather closely.

* And the NRSC, seemingly smelling blood, goes up with a new spot pillorying Alan Grayson as a "national embarrassment" over "Taliban Dan":

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 1, 2010; 6:09 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sharron Angle's M.O.: I never said what I plainly said!
Next: Open Thread

Comments

Obviously, even if Christine O'Donnell wins, m@sturb@tion will NEVER be outlawed. She's only talking about voluntarily remaining chaste. Are you libs really that CRAZY?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

So, Gingrich fleeces donors while again pretending to run for President.

Good work if you can get it.

The right sure likes them some hucksters.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 1, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

"Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well."

Umm, okay, how about Erick Erickson, CNN?

He's said things FAR more insulting. Time to clean up your act, CNN.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 1, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

This one is for the neighborhood spambot, STRF:

* General Mills Moves Away From Rainforest Destruction *

The new palm oil procurement policy includes specific commitments on critical issues including respect for the rights of Indigenous communities, prevention of further destruction of endangered rainforests and protection of peatlands, a major source of climate change causing emissions from palm oil production. In addition, General Mills has set a goal of “sourcing 100 percent responsible and sustainable palm oil” by 2015, setting a new bar for the American food industry.

http://ran.org/content/general-mills-moves-away-rainforest-destruction

You can also go here for more info on why palm oil industry is bad for rainforests:

http://www.theproblemwithpalmoil.org/

Thank you for bringing the preservation of the rainforests to our attention, SaveTheRainForest!

I suggest everyone call their congresscritters and express support for policies that preserve and protect our planet's endangered rainforests.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 1, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

FIRST AMENDMENT EXCPETIONS IN NEW YORK


A Manhattan Judge has said there are exceptions to the First Amendment


"(W)hile many RNC demonstrators may have preferred to roam freely throughout the sidewalks adjoining Madison Square Garden or the corridors of the venue itself, the First Amendment does not guarantee that degree of access," the judge wrote.

"Whatever the legal or practical parameters of the term 'sight and sound,' there is no constitutional entitlement to see the whites of the eyes of one's intended audience."

City lawyer Peter Farrell said: "We feel that the court has validated the city’s claim all along –- that the Police Department did its best in balancing the complex challenge of allowing RNC protests to go forward while also ensuring public safety."


__________________________________

So there are EXCEPTIONS to the First Amendment which can be carved out.


I wonder if the First Amendment Exceptions can be looked into for the GROUND ZERO MOSQUE.


I am extremely disappointed in everyone who claims to be a leader - that the issue has not been framed as WHETHER it falls into an exception or not.


Obama included - he shouldn't be saying what he has said to the American People - and it only confirms the sentiment that he really isn't on our side.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"About that much-maligned stimulus: ... because the White House set expectations for it too high it will never be seen as a success."

Don't you just hate it when lies become conventional wisdom? Conservatives are quite used to this frustrating phenomenon. "What comes around goes around."

Posted by: sbj3 | October 1, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Sharia law? In the United States?

Would that mean that some towns or counties might ban the sale of alcohol?

Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Again, what they ACTUALLY said (nothing about "outlawing" it):

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So you can't masturbate without lust." -- Christine O'Donnell (1996) MTV’s "Sex in the 90s"

"The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery.' Christ said 'I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.' I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times." -- Jimmy Carter (1976) Playboy magazine

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

CNN? CNN??

Is the Clinton News Network still on the air?

Hey, how about those big, TEA PARTY coloring books for the kiddies?

What a revolutionary idea.

I hear they're selling like hotcakes.

Imagine that!

Christmas is just around the corner too.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 1, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Sharia law? In the United States?

Would that lead to some states banning gay marriage?

Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

STR, there have been exceptions to the 1st Amendment for a long time.

Seriously, look it up.

I'm letting you in on this in case you were thinking about yelling "FIRE!" (in all caps) in a crowded theater tonight.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 1, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

You are perfectly free to yell "FIRE!" (if it's true ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

What was Sanchez thinking?

Posted by: maritza1 | October 1, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Sharia law? In the United States?

Would there be demands for prayer in public schools?

Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Jake, stop calling STR an arsonist. It's impolite.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 1, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

As a matter of Constitutional law, that First Amendment holding in Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) which specifically limited the scope of banned speech to that which is directed to AND LIKELY to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after the fact. The five categories of unprotected speech are obscenity, fighting words, fraudulent misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent lawless behavior, and defamation.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI:

Obviously, I've never called SaveTheRainforest an "arsonist". Like 12BarBlues, you are simply trying to stir up trouble by lying.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

BGinCHI


THE POINT is that the debate over the mosque at Ground Zero should center on whether the proposed mosque falls under one of the exceptions.


The First Amendment is not absolute.

Obama and crew have really been deceptive on this issue - there ARE exceptions, and the mosque falls under a few of them.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I never liked Rick Sanchez. As a white Cubano, I found him to be racist and an idiot. Looking at Rick Sanchez, no would never know he's Hispanic/Cubano. You see, Hispanic or Latino is not a race, but an ethnicity. Hispanics can be of any race. In my personal experiences, I have found white Cubans in Miami and other white Hispanics to be racist towards black U.S. citizens and Afro Latinos/Hispanics.

Good riddance to Rick Sanchez!

Posted by: Ward4DC | October 1, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

Thank you - I will take that post as an expression of support.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Thank you for that - You are right.


I was just "pulling from the headlines" a case from today - in order to illustrate the exceptions.


For Freedom of Religion - which is where I was going - there has to be a "COMPELLING INTEREST"


With the mosque at Ground Zero - I believe there are several Compelling Interests.


- Our nation does not want to give a propaganda edge to the other side.

- The potential for the site to be used as recruiting for terrorists.

- The potential that the site could be incitement to violence - because it is such an emotional issue.

I think there was a case from 1963 which dealt with Freedom of Religion.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

You're welcome.

Because of the importance of "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), we have traditionally subjected restrictions on public issue picketing to careful scrutiny. See, e. g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318 (1988); United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980).

Of course, "[e]ven protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799 (1985). This whole area of the law is a very fact-intensive analysis.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

The most important issue is the economy


We are in the middle of the Great Obama Stagnation.


What are the democrats going to do to get us out of this Stagnation?


The stimulus has not worked.


Plain and simple - we need a new team in there.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Keep in mind that all of that simply allows the government to punish speech AFTER THE FACT. In order to exercise prior restraint, the government must show sufficient evidence that the speech, publication, etc. would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). I don't know if they have ever been able to meet that standard.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"About that much-maligned stimulus: Kevin Drum notes it's proven to be good policy that was well executed, but because the White House set expectations for it too high it will never be seen as a success."

"NEVER be seen as a success"? That's a bit absolute, no?

I was just reading about how Clinton's approval rating has improved now that he's no longer the subject of incessant attacks.

The same will happen with the Recovery Act (as well as other policies enacted by the Obama administration). Now, the vilification of the Recovery Act (and other policies) is proximal, and it's difficult for objective assessments to break through. But, in about 2-5 years, it won't be. And, probably 20-30 years from now, people will fondly reminisce to their grandkids about how it "saved us from another depression."

Posted by: associate20 | October 1, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

"Also: O'Donnell appears to think that God is following American politics rather closely."

Everybody reads Nate Silver.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

associate20:

That depends quite a bit if Obama is re-elected or not.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 1, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham,

My understanding is that God started reading Nate Silver because Nate was better than God at picking the winners in baseball. And then God, like everyone else, was pleased to see that Nate was behind the great analysis of polls and voting at fivethirtyeight.com.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse


Jake writes

In order to exercise prior restraint, the government must show sufficient evidence that the speech, publication, etc. would cause a “grave and irreparable” danger, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). I don't know if they have ever been able to meet that standard.

__________________

Isn't that the PENTAGON PAPERS CASE?


The Washington Post was a party in that case.

Interesting, that the standards at the Wasington Post have dropped from “grave and irreparable” danger to whatever vague infraction they take today for banning posters.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll weigh in on the comments about changing the blog's format---even though Greg is probably gone for the weekend.

The short answer. Don't change. I just stopped in at the Fix for the first time in weeks. Every once in awhile they'll get some hits on a thread, but one today had 0 comments and another had 5. The threaded format is no way to run a blog that is essentially an open forum for well-behaved(?) adults. If people want to conduct private or limited conversations, they should email each other---or just get a room somewhere.

The problem with asking for suggestions is that you always get more than you can use, and when and if change comes, some are still disappointed because it wasn't what THEY wanted. Some of the very ones who were screaming loudest for change at the Fix are now among the missing---and it isn't because they were banned.

It's become such an echo chamber that the following comment was addressed to Chris Cillizza today by one of the resident liberals:

"I know you are an elite, east coast, conservative, latte drinking, Republican blogger . . . You do have to get out more often and find out what real Americans are thinking and feeling . . . "

LOL. So now even CC is a wild-eyed Republican in that crazy alternate universe. I quit hanging around because the liberals I most enjoyed bantering with were either banned or left of their own volition. Comments are monitored, sometimes before posting, and subject to being deleted. It may not be a big deal to check the individual threads if there are only 10 or 15 comments, but what if there were a hundred? If you can't jump to the top or bottom and check for new posts, who's going to waste time picking through the whole thread looking for new ones?

I remember, before the change, a Drudge link would bring in literally hundreds of commenters. Now, as 12Barblues pointed out, you can't even READ the comments without signing in.

And the drop in participation isn't because of 37th&O. He was banned---that was supposed to INCREASE participation.
What do you suppose happened?

I'm as busy as the next person and spend less time here than many of the others, but I don't consider it a problem to scroll past any posts I don't care to read.
Really. How much longer does it take to look at the bottom of a comment instead of the top to see who posted it? Most fit on one screen! If you're fussing about things as trivial as that, you probably should be medicated.

If someone like 12BarBlues doesn't want to mud wrestle, I respect their wishes. Others, like Liam, enjoy a little rough and tumble. No two people are wired the same. If someone is just crazy or using racial epithets or whatever, okay. But to ban someone because they double space and use too many carriage returns? C'mon.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Brigade | October 1, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse


@brigade,

IMO, the reason the Fix comments fell off so much is because of the threaded comments at the Fix. Speaking for myself, it's too hard to keep up with everyone's thoughts because you can't tell where new comments are in the stream.

I prefer the chronological posting of comments.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 1, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

What was Sanchez thinking?

Posted by: maritza1 | October 1, 2010 6:38 PM
----

You mean Loretta Sanchez? When she said Republicans and Vietnamese were trying to take "her" seat? I can't imagine---unless she's a bigot. What do you think?

Oh, or maybe you meant Rick Sanchez. LOL

Posted by: Brigade | October 1, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"* Which prompts Eric Kleefeld to observe: "It's quite interesting that Angle is warning against a system of religious law taking control of the United States -- she has herself alleged that the Democrats' policies violate the First Commandment to acknowledge God as supreme."

Theocratic dominion is inappropriate to Angle, DeMint and crowd only where the wrong theology is concerned. In fact, such dominion is the ONLY appropriate organizational structure for civic society to these people. Humans, by and of themselves, cannot strive to govern themselves or they are guilty of placing themselves above God and God's laws. This is explicit in DeMint's statements that concern the matter. And it's implicit in the "argument" that Obama is guilty of hubris to even suppose that he, or any other human or human agency such as government, might operate as a leader or a source of civic good.

That this is insane and deeply dangerous to a pluralist democracy is obvious. That it invites or even demands bigotry is equally obvious. But the problem is worse than this.

It isn't just human organizations of civic governance congress that are conceived by these people as hubristic and destined to lead us astray. It applies to the courts as well, thus Eric's point. But beyond that, it applies to the sciences and all the ways we have developed of studying and understanding the world. All of these fall subservient to the theological dogmas favored by these people.

And they have no hint - none - that everything they indict is a projection of what they themselves are up to.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Rahm has some serious work ahead of him.

He hasn't really been in Chicago city hall since before the Clinton administration - how much support will that bring him?

Rahm was pretty tough with the Polish community - he really did not make many friends when part of his district consisted of Polish neighborhoods.

I only bring that up because Rahm's old district did not include the black and hispanic neighborhoods which would be so important in a Mayor's election.

The gay community is probably not happy with Rahm over what has happened under Obama - so Rahm really can not count on them to support him as a block.

So what does Rahm have - as a block he can count on? I am wondering.

Rahm MAY be thinking he has significant union support - I really don't know what is going on there - however I would imagine that Rahm is not in a strong position there.

One has to remember that Daley and the unions have had some friction over the years.


In the end, if Rahm loses a residency hearing, that might be the kindest thing to Rahm - it would be bad for him to go down without a great deal of support.


I keep on wondering if Obama is setting up Rahm - pushing Rahm out - and saying to Rahm, "let's see how well you do"


There has to be a back story here that isn't out yet.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

test

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

STRF still doesn't understand that the First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law . . . ."

The First Amendment is not a restriction on the Washington Post. The Post is not obligated to provide anyone an online "soapbox."

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"* Which prompts Eric Kleefeld to observe: "It's quite interesting that Angle is warning against a system of religious law taking control of the United States -- she has herself alleged that the Democrats' policies violate the First Commandment to acknowledge God as supreme."

Theocratic dominion is inappropriate to Angle, DeMint and crowd only where the wrong theology is concerned. In fact, such dominion is the ONLY appropriate organizational structure for civic society to these people. Humans, by and of themselves, cannot strive to govern themselves or they are guilty of placing themselves above God and God's laws. This is explicit in DeMint's statements that concern the matter. And it's implicit in the "argument" that Obama is guilty of hubris to even suppose that he, or any other human or human agency such as government, might operate as a leader or a source of civic good.

That this is insane and deeply dangerous to a pluralist democracy is obvious. That it invites or even demands bigotry is equally obvious. But the problem is worse than this.

It isn't just human organizations of civic governance congress that are conceived by these people as hubristic and destined to lead us astray. It applies to the courts as well, thus Eric's point. But beyond that, it applies to the sciences and all the ways we have developed of studying and understanding the world. All of these fall subservient to the theological dogmas favored by these people.

And they have no hint - none - that everything they indict is a projection of what they themselves are up to.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

The liberal cabal destroyed the Fix - all the infighting - which YOU were a part of.

When they start to ban people - and not others - people notice.


It is PRECISELY THAT INJUSTICE that played a factor.


All those people who said they would leave if someone wasn't banned - they all stayed - but they drove EVERYONE ELSE away.


12Bar - the Fix got hurt because of you - why don't you go back there - it is what you wanted SANITIZED.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Re Rick Sanchez...
Wow, that was fast! I'm not surprised that he's out, though. Even though CNN peddles a lot of junk-food journalism, Rick Sanchez should have known better than to bite the hand that feeds him.

The odd part is, whenever I saw Jon Stewart poking fun at him, I never felt that it was savage. I think most of the media just can't take what I consider valid criticism.

Re Christine O'Donnell...
I may be way behind, but where is she, anyway? I haven't read much about her campaign lately. Is she campaigning at all?

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 1, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 at 8:16 PM

The same principles apply - it is the American tradition.


If you like censorship, move to a nation that only approves one point of view.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

The MAJOR problem on this board appears to be that the voices are much closer to 50 - 50 right-left than before.


The liberals would prefer an echo chamber.


Anyway, the liberals are more upset about their prospects for the elections this year.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

@bearclaw - It is hardly my place to presume God's thoughts. But assuming that He has a discerning intellect, it follows that Silver would be a prudent means by which He might keep track of the US political scene.

I do have a question though as to whether Angle believes God keeps track of politic events in Nova Scotia.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

@brigade,

IMO, the reason the Fix comments fell off so much is because of the threaded comments at the Fix. Speaking for myself, it's too hard to keep up with everyone's thoughts because you can't tell where new comments are in the stream.

I prefer the chronological posting of comments.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 1, 2010 8:08 PM
----

I agree. But that is exactly what some of the posters at the Fix wanted. The comment sections of these blogs were surely never meant to be conducive to private conversations. I know you don't like to get in the sort of snarky back-and-forth that Noacoler/Chris Fox and Broadwayjoe and some of the others liked, and I appreciate that. But when someone calls me and idiot or a fool or whatever, I automatically assume they want to take the conversation to a lower level, and I'm always glad to oblige. And vice versa. As you've no doubt observed, insults to me are rather like water to a duck.

I like Greg's blog, and I hate to see this childish pattern of people saying they're no longer going to participate because the conversations have become too coarse. My gracious. People can scroll past what they don't want to read and ignore anything to which they don't want to reply---can't they? That's not much to ask in the service of civility. The more commenters you attract to a blog, the more nonsense you have to wade through. It sort of goes with the territory. Just one of life's little teeny weeny troubles. Why take it out on Greg by threatening to leave if he doesn't ban this one or that one?

I made some snide remark the other night about turning out the Democratic base with cigarettes, cheap wine, and walking-around-money---or whatever---and you would have thought I'd blasphemed the Holy Ghost from some of the reaction. People just need to lighten up and not sweat the small stuff---don't take it all so seriously. I hope no one hangs himself if Republicans take the house in November. LOL.

Posted by: Brigade | October 1, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

I see that Digby has another post up on the Reconstructionist crowd... http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/just-dont-call-them-theocrats-part-xxiv.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

STRF at 8:24,

Wrong. If I support the First Amendment rights of people to assemble for purposes of protest, that doesn't mean that I have to support letting them protest in my living room. Are you willing to let a bunch of leftist hippie types protest in your living room?

In fact, the ability of private persons and entities to limit speech in their own purview is part of the American tradition. No newspaper is obligated to publish every "letter to the editor" submitted to it. I get to choose which candidates' lawn signs go on my lawn. The fact that I deny you the right to put your Christine O'Donnell sign on my lawn is not censorship. That doesn't abridge the First Amendment, in fact it is completely consistent with the First Amendment and our nation's history and tradition.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Re Christine O'Donnell...
I may be way behind, but where is she, anyway? I haven't read much about her campaign lately. Is she campaigning at all?

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 1, 2010 8:21 PM
----

I think she's just counting on pressing the flesh, kissing babies, and staying away from the national media. She doesn't have much of a chance, but she figures in a very small state, where you can hit each and every county each and every day, that her best bet is just to take it right to the voters. People like you or me or Rachel Maddow, or whoever, can't directly help or hurt her if we can't vote for or against her. So she'll ignore us all.

Posted by: Brigade | October 1, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

@brig,

There were all sorts of ideas, but I don't remember the threaded aspect being very important, but maybe it was. I am not an experienced poster (am getting more so), but I didn't realize how threading would change the readability, or rather one's desire to read, the comments.

You are right--I don't like to mud wrestle. I hope I never call people ghastly names because I hate it. Those who like that sort of thing can go for it. Usually, I skip those posts.

You can rest assured, not that you don't already, that you aren't on anyone's short list to get rid of. Don't worry about that.

STRF has his unique style, which some wise person called performance art, which irritates many, if not most people here, left and right. Last night he was getting from the right on his spamming, but it made no difference. As we all remember, far too vividly, STRF drove Fix posters to near insanity, and he's going down the same road here.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 1, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

correction: Last night he was getting guff from the right on his spamming, but it made no difference.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 1, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw

The question is whether there are bunch of people on this board who are entering into civil discourse like adults.

Instead, we have some people who say "Im going to ignore this person or that person"

Instead of just ignoring someone - they are seeking to isolate that person - and organize others to also ignore that person - often with some comments about how superior they believe they are.


12BarBlues has been on this board almost daily attempting to stir up trouble - and encouraging other people to start fights.


The QUESTION is whether the board is to be ruled by people who are acting more like a group of 9 year-old girls who are trying to run a clique at an elementary school.

The board is for adults - which means a measure of maturity is expected -

Much of the problem here is people do not like OPPOSING VIEWS - and they are seeking out some violation in order to make an excuse to support some banning.


It is ALL based on Content - I don't see these same people complaining about people who fawn over Obama and attempt to say that is administration is the greatest in the history of all nations.

So apparently you are in favor of censorship - fine.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues at 8:43 PM


Near insanity? Taking the blogs a little too seriously?

Did you once say that you needed therapy after being on the blogs too much???


This is getting absolutely ridiculous.


12Bar - if you really did need therapy, you need to get off the internet - it indicates that you are unstable - and I am beginning to wonder given your behavior.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"Sharia law? In the United States?

Would that lead to some states banning gay marriage?

Oh, wait . . ."

The concept of "states banning gay marriage" is actually meaningless. Insofar as marriage is a legal relationship, it simply isn't conferred on gay couples, or at least wasn't until a few wacked out judges decided to remake society.

Under sharia, it wouldn't be an issue, since gays would be stoned to death.

Other than that, your comment made a lot of sense.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 1, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

STRF,

Free market. Free speech. No one is obligated to respond to you or engage you in discussion. If you don't like that, and feel ignored, you have the absolute right to stop commenting here, to find another place to comment where people want to discuss issues with you, or to start your own blog.

Complaining that you are being ignored gets you nowhere. Ignoring you isn't censorship, and your inability to understand that rather obvious distinction is perhaps demonstrative of why people find you difficult if not impossible to put up with. I thought conservatives didn't like people who play "victim".

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"And it's implicit in the "argument" that Obama is guilty of hubris to even suppose that he, or any other human or human agency such as government, might operate as a leader or a source of civic good."

I have never heard nor seen such an argument. Where have you?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 1, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists" to protect incumbent interests, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Atlantic editor James Bennet at the Washington Ideas Forum. "It's shocking how the system actually works."

In a wide-ranging interview that spanned human nature, the future of machines, and how Google could have helped the stimulus, Schmidt said technology could "completely change the way government works."

"Washington is an incumbent protection machine," Schmidt said. "Technology is fundamentally disruptive." Mobile phones and personal technology, for example, could be used to record the bills that members of Congress actually read and then determine what stimulus funds were successfully spent."

video of Schmidt's talk here... http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/googles-ceo-the-laws-are-written-by-lobbyists/63908/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

A mature adult tries to tone things down when they get to be too much - they don't go nuts and start to encourage people to ignore others.

That is harassment - and intolerance.

I think that is what the problem is - the liberals have become intolerant.


The purpose of a board is to see ideas from people who do NOT agree with you - not to just see one point of view.


We will have to see if the posters on this board can act like mature adults - and handle opposing points of view - and discuss issues with people they disagree.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

What is Gloria Allred doing?

Is she representing the Meg Whitman maid?

How can a lawyer - who is supposed to be acting in the best interests of the client - go on television and have the person confess to committing several crimes???

I don't get it - there is no way that this can be in the person's best interests.


Gloria Allred should be up for malpractice - and the bar should consider taking her law license away.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

QB,

Just like the right to marry wasn't "extended" to interracial couples until "a few wacked out judges decided to remake society"?

Just like the right to live in certain neighborhoods wasn't "extended" to Blacks, or Asians, until "a few wacked out judges decided to remake society"?

Fortunately, even if the courts won't enforce Equal Protection, young people today will grow up to sweep away with the ballot the prejudices of their parents.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | October 1, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 at 8:57 PM


Perhaps you haven't been part of the discussion. However, I don't care if you ignore me.


There are several posters on here who have stated that they want to ignore this person or that person.


HOWEVER - it appears those people are EXACTLY the people who are now complaining that THEY are getting ignored. And that is precisely the problem - they want their way, and they are being ignored. So they are WHINING.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse


bearclaw1 at 8:57 PM

I have no problem with you ignoring me - however don't come back later and complain that I am ignoring you.

You see - once you demonstrate that you have a closed mind, I can see that you have little to say, little to contribute to any conversation, and probably your thoughts are extremely limited as well.


And that is precisely the situation - I am ignoring people - and they don't like it.


However, I am not the one who is telling people to ignore each other.

Please go back to ignoring me. Thank you.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 at 9:16 PM


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Is that what is whole thing is about? Gay Marriage????

Were your little feelings hurt when I stated that 33 states had REJECTED gay marriage - and the American People didn't want it?


Is all this about GAY rights?


I also stated clearly that I was against teaching 7 year old children about gay sex in school. I believe that is what is most objectionable.


The problem is the liberals want to FORCE their views on other people - they are not seeking consensus.


How about this as a gay marriage compromise referendum - one which also prohibits teaching gay sex in schools to anyone under 16 AND one that legalizes ALL SLURS - anyone can say anything they want to anyone.


How about that as a compromise? Put that on the ballot, and you will probably win.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

@QB

"Senator Jim DeMint: Well, I think people are seeing this massive government growing and they're realizing that it's the government that's hurting us and I think they're turning back to God in effect is our salvation and government is not our salvation and in fact more and more people see government as the problem and so I think some have been drawn in over the years to a dependency relationship with government and as the Bible says you can't have two masters and I think as people pull back from that they look more to God. It's no coincidence that socialist Europe is post-Christian because the bigger the government gets the smaller God gets and vice-versa. The bigger God gets the smaller people want their government because they're yearning for freedom."

You'll want to (or maybe not) reflect on that "can't have two masters" notion.

Or Bryan Fischer at the recent Value Voters Summit...

"We know that politicians get every last bit of their authority from God. We know that there are certain things that are right in the sight of God and certain things are evil in the sight of God. And I would submit to you that the conscience of the man of God cannot rest as long as the authority of God is being used to trample the will of God. The conscience of the man of God cannot rest as long as it is being used to trample on the moral law of God.

Now one last thought, we know another thing about public officials. They are ministers and servants of of God. Paul twice refers to them as deacons or ministers of God. They are literally ministers or deacons of God. A third time he refers to them as servants of God. Paul goes out of his way to drive home the point that political figures exercise a vocation that is every bit as sacred as the role of pastor of your church. Now I ask you who has a greater interest in the selection of the ministers of God for our culture than the people of God."

Both quotes noted here, a post which you ought to take the time to read and absorb ... http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-you-know-that-politicians-get-every.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Bearclaw


If you don't like what has been going on with gay rights - go complain to Rahm Emanuel and Obama -

- NOT me.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

"I think she's just counting on pressing the flesh, kissing babies, and staying away from the national media. She doesn't have much of a chance, but she figures in a very small state, where you can hit each and every county each and every day, that her best bet is just to take it right to the voters. People like you or me or Rachel Maddow, or whoever, can't directly help or hurt her if we can't vote for or against her. So she'll ignore us all."

Posted by: Brigade | October 1, 2010 8:38 PM

You're probably right. I'm guessing the national media has decided she's not such a shiny object anymore and is focusing its attention elsewhere. Yes, I'm not in DE, so I have no vote there, but I think she should be kept in the spotlight as a good example of what non-critical thinking and unfocused anger can lead to (we may not be on the same side on this, so sorry if I offend you!).

Posted by: carolanne528 | October 1, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The illegal alien and Meg Whitman story


Curious - Is Gloria Allred saying that Meg Whitman should have fired the woman?


Meg Whitman was paying her $23/hour which is $47,000 per year.


The letter - apparently - stated clearly that the letter did not mean the woman was illegal - and cautioned against firing the woman because she was illegal.

So, the letter which Gloria Allred brought forth was MUCH different than one might imagine.


So again - WHAT IS THE POINT - that Meg Whitman should have fired the woman? The woman was hired with the understand she was legal.

So, is Meg Whitman supposed to conduct her own investigation - ??


Obama wont' even deport the illegal aliens anymore - so why should Meg Whitmen be responsiblie to investigate and take WHAT action?


Gloria Allred should be up for possible disbarment after this episode - television viewers throughout the country would support that action.


.
,.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

"Theocratic dominion is inappropriate to Angle, DeMint and crowd only where the wrong theology is concerned."

You can say precisely the same thing about your party, only substitute the social(ist) gospel.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 1, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Truly unthoughtful, qb.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 1, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

If you are a conservative, and you don't agree with Obama, you are a racist.


If you are a liberal and you don't agree with Obama, you are "irresponsible."

Either way, Obama thinks it is his role to tell you how wrong you are.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

It appears that all the democrats have to offer the American People now is negative ads.

Is this the post-partisanship - the bipartisanship and the post-racial attitude which was promised the American People ???

Yea, the American People notice - they just aren't telling you now.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | October 1, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, if you are still around today:

I do not see how those statements you quote are accurately described as you did:
"And it's implicit in the "argument" that Obama is guilty of hubris to even suppose that he, or any other human or human agency such as government, might operate as a leader or a source of civic good."

Demint was answering the question, concerning comparing the roots of the tea party movement to the Great Awakening: “Just so I understand, when you say spiritual revival how are you terming that? What do you mean specifically as in “spiritual revival?”"
His answer is a standard statement of conservative perspective on government from a Biblical view, and focused particularly on the importance of individual citizen spiritual life. It's a very ordinary conservative critique of a society that turns away from God and toward government instead. I doubt very much you could find any room between what was said by WFB, for example, and any number of anti-communist conservatives of the 20th century. It says nothing like your characterization. The "two masters" point is to me saying nothing more than the standard view that final obedience and devotion must be to God and not a government acting against Godly justice. Christians both right and left believe this.

Bryant's statement also is, as I'm sure you know, just a standard exposition of the teaching of Romans 13 (I think it is) about the relationship between God, government, and citizen (or subject). I see no difference between his gloss and what someone like MLK Jr might have said about it.

What he is saying is more nearly the opposite of how you characterized it, unless you meant to imply something like "might operate as a leader or source of civic good [apart from or in opposition to God]." That is, he is saying simply that civic leaders are responsible to be agents of God's justice. When they are faithful to that duty, plainly it is not hubris to suppose they are leaders or sources of civic good. It is only when leaders depart from that duty that they might be said to lose their authority.

It interesting to me that that Biblical passage actually doesn't say that last part, nor in fact does Bryant. It must be inferred, but it is a necessary inference. I've debated with some conservatives who take the simplistic view, from Paul's teaching, that literally every government leader, Obama included, is "chosen" by God. I think this is not a supportable interpretation and of course leads to incoherent results. (In a democracy, this seems to imply infallibility of the vote, and more specifically the God-inspired infallibility of the majority vote.) What it overlooks is what I think Bryant hints at here, which is that "rulers" who do not adhere to God's "justice" begin to forfeit authority. It also overlooks voter fallibility.

(continued)

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 2, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Continued to Bernie:

Now, to you all this apparently constitutes "theocracy" in government and lawlessness in citizens ("two masters"), but it is no more than the standard Christian view of government that as far as I know has been shared by right and left for a long time. Both Demint and Bryant might be implying that civic leaders are responsible to God, but they certainly are not saying, as you suggest, that civic leadership itself, or pretention to it, are hubristic or illegitimate.


"Truly unthoughtful, qb."

In fact, it was, just as thoughtful as your charge of theocracy. A number of your liberal compaatriots here on this blog argue that church teaching on social justice compels liberal public policy. Surely you know that this is a common policy viewpoint of the left. Not universal, since there is a sizable secular left. But when the left argues that Biblical teaching on justice requires the welfare state, it is just as theocratic -- or not -- as what you criticize.

If that is not the case, it falls to you to explain why, and not with dismissive comments.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 2, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

All, here's an open thread, with a note on the comments section:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/open_thread_6.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 2, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

@Jake: "Obviously, even if Christine O'Donnell wins, m@sturb@tion will NEVER be outlawed"

Dang straight. She ain't taking my m@sturbatory rights away unless she pries them from my cold, dead fingers.

So to speak. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | October 2, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

QB
First, theology/theocracy are terms which refer to some religious text/authority. To conflate this with any and all political theories or philosophies is intellectually lazy and unserious. Switzerland and the Taliban are not equal. The Taliban and Turkey are not equal. DeMint or Rushdooney and Neibuhr are not equal.

Comparison of the Tea Party movement to the Great Awakening is equally ahistorical and not merely because of the centrality of corporate funding and astro-turf organization behind the first.
The GW (in whatever period/version) was fundamentally a spiritual movement, not a political movement.

You probably ought to consider the differences between what DeMint is up to and the way religious communities such as the Amish/Hutterites/Mennonites proceed. While both hold that biblical injunctions (that is, their particular interpretation of biblical injunctions) ought to trump laws or policies made by rulers, these groups maintain only that such a lifeway applies to them. They isolate themselves and say "Our community will operate in this manner." They do not demand that all citizens living in whatever geographical region they inhabit must organize themselves in the manner and according to the values they prefer. Not DeMint.

You said: "It's a very ordinary conservative critique of a society that turns away from God and toward government instead. "

Utterly false. That is an ordinary critique only from a certain sort of modern Christian conservative. You'll have some great difficulty finding such a claim from Eisenhower or Goldwater or Bush senior or Gerald Ford or Nixon or Truman or Thatcher or anyone in the tradition of Brit conservatives.

DeMint does not represent tradition. He represents a deep and dangerous break from tradition and the manner in which he violates your traditions puts him far closer to extremist Muslim political theory than to any of those names just listed.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 2, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

RE: Sanchez
Don't dare tell the truth on TV, radio or print. Your Masters WILL replace you.

RE: Grayson
Don't dare to think that you follow the same rules as the Republicans. (Pelosi would have allowed an investigation into Bush Co if there had been a (D) behind his name.) Dems are always their own worst enemy.

Posted by: rjmmcelroy | October 2, 2010 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis:

Thanks for agreeing.

bearclaw1:

Banning someone IS censorship.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 2, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"First, theology/theocracy are terms which refer to some religious text/authority. To conflate this with any and all political theories or philosophies is intellectually lazy and unserious."

Of course, I did no such thing. What is lazy and unserious is setting up straw men rather than addressing arguments honestly. This seems to be habit for you, since everyone who disagrees with you is lazy and unserious.

" DeMint or Rushdooney and Neibuhr are not equal."

I don't suppose they are in all respects, nor said I anything of the sort. But what is undeniable is that many strands on the left appeal to the Bible and seek, for example, to apply the Social Gospel as a mandate or guide for public policy. It is notable that you do not deny or even address this fact. The Good Samaritan and Beatitudes are, these leftists claim, not just instruction for private charity but for government policy. They are every bit – or not – as "theocratic" as the Demints of the world.

" The GW (in whatever period/version) was fundamentally a spiritual movement, not a political movement."

True, but it had profound political impact, providing impetus to movements toward self-government and liberty and against authoritarianism. Demint said the Tea Party movement is "akin" to it because "a lot of the motivation" is spiritual. But he didn't say they were identical. He described the Tea Party movement's spiritual component as arising largely in response to overgrown government. I don't know what you would find if you were able to conduct a thorough and reliable survey of the Tea Party groups, but I know a good number of people involved, and they are very much spiritually motivated.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 2, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Continued to Bernie:

" You probably ought to consider the differences between what DeMint is up to and the way religious communities such as the Amish/Hutterites/Mennonites proceed."

I know that you always presume to know what people are "up to," but this was a discussion of your claim about a certain argument's being made, and your offering a particular statement by Demint as supporting your characterization. What you may think he is "up to" but which is not evidenced in his statement is rather beside the point.

I am intimately familiar with the Amish and Mennonites, first hand.

" They do not demand that all citizens living in whatever geographical region they inhabit must organize themselves in the manner and according to the values they prefer. Not DeMint."

Yes, they are separatists. Thus, you've set up quite a dichotomy, in which religious people can either be theocrats or separatists who do not participate in wider public life. As BO might say, you've set up a false choice. On the theocratic side of your dichotomy would fall not only Demint but an endless parade of those on the left – Jim Wallis, MLK, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Jeremiah Wright, on and on, who want to "impose" their Biblical Soocial Gospel on everyone. If there is some other option that "your side" fairly occupies and Demint does not, you haven't come close to identifying it.

"Utterly false. That is an ordinary critique only from a certain sort of modern Christian conservative. "

Having been immersed in the conservative intellectual world for 30 years, I can confidently state that you don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you haven't read your Bucklely, Kirk, or Chambers lately. In fact, that sentiment wasn't even limited to modern conservatives. John Adams (radical theocrat?) said: "Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind." Thus, it is not surprising that Kirk traced American conservatism to him.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 2, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Last part to Bernie:

"You'll have some great difficulty finding such a claim from Eisenhower or Goldwater or Bush senior or Gerald Ford or Nixon or Truman or Thatcher or anyone in the tradition of Brit conservatives."

You have a rather odd view of the parameters of legitimate conservatism. No Reagan? No Buckley?

Whether what Bryant said is or isn't consistent with a broad stream of conservative thought does not depend on finding equivalent statements from the individuals you list. Bush, Ford and Nixon weren't even conservatives. Goldwater was a libertarian. There really was little or nothing conservative about him at least from the context of the 1970s on; when he was "Mr. Conservative," of course, there had not yet been an intellectual revival by Buckley of conscious conservatism, nor had the country been confronted by radical counterculuralism and postmodernism.

I suppose Eisenhower and Truman must in some sense be viewed as "conservative" or at least traditionalist, but then of course they predated the counterculture as well. They did, however, both enthusiastically support adding "under God" to the Pledge, so apparently were "theocrats" as well.

"DeMint does not represent tradition. He represents a deep and dangerous break from tradition and the manner in which he violates your traditions puts him far closer to extremist Muslim political theory than to any of those names just listed. "

You lose credibility with such overwrought, even wild claims. Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Buckley, Reagan are among those who say you are in error.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 2, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company