Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:30 PM ET, 01/11/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* House Speaker John Boehner will not support a strict gun control measure -- set to be introduced by a House GOPer and backed by gun control advocates -- that would make it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public official, a Boehner spokesman confirms.

HuffPo broke the news today today that GOP Rep. Pete King is set to introduce the measure, which has the support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a major gun control advocate. But Boehner spokesman Michael Steel emails that it will not have the Speaker's support, effectively rendering it a non-starter.

* Carl Hulse asks: Will the shooting force Boehner to play a less partisan role as Speaker than he otherwise might have?

Answer: No. It will be back to partisan business-as-usual on both sides by early February.

* A White House official says Obama's speech tomorrow will mostly focus on the victims and their families, and he seems aware of the pitfalls of giving any oxygen to those who will be looking for signs he's politicizing the tragedy.

* The State of the Union address is officially set for January 25th, and many expect Obama to revisit the tragedy.

* Jared Loughner's family issues a statement.

* Massimo Calabresi has lots more on what the psychiatric literature tells us about whether the political climate can encourage crazies to tip into political violence.

* I don't know why so many people are having trouble grasping this point from Joan McCarter:

Beyond the case of Loughner and whether or not he proves to be so mentally ill as to render the question moot, having the conversation about whether this is the way a civilized country does politics should be a no-brainer.

The key word there is "beyond." Putting aside the overly narrow debate over whether the climate created by the right helped cause this particular shooting, it's entirely appropriate to have a broader conversation about the larger issue of whether violent and incendiary rhetoric risks tipping the unhinged into political violence.

* Dave Weigel goes back and takes another look at Fox's earlier reporting on the bogus DHS-white supremacist story, and wonders why on earth people weren't a bit more cautious about it.

* Ben Smith notes that Tim Pawlenty's swipe at her over the crosshairs map shows that the damage to her is real.

* Reality check of the day: William Saletan on why the play-by-play of the Arizona shooting does not support the idea that armed citizens would make us safer in such situations.

* Relatedly, Matthew Yglesias wonders why a massacre in "one of the states with the most liberal gun laws in the union" has not "undercut the theory that such laws will actually reduce crime via spontaneous crime fighting by well-armed citizens."

* And Steve Benen is having a lot of fun knocking around Erick Erickson:

Erickson believes "God is upset" with atheists. I'm curious: how does he know?

That's easy, Steve! Michele Bachmann passed along the news about God's wrath after He mentioned it to her during one of their many conversations about whether Bachmann should run for president.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 11, 2011; 6:30 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bogus Fox claim that DHS tied shooter to white supremacists is debunked
Next: Sarah Palin and `blood libel'

Comments

We can't talk about violent rhetoric because the shooter might not have listened to it.
We can't talk about high capacity magazines because the shooter could have easily reloaded.
We can't talk about semi auto weapons because the shooter could have flung a knife.
We can't talk about mentally ill people not getting guns, because maybe mentally ill people need to protect themselves.
We can't talk about mentally ill people getting medical care because healthcare is not a right.
We can talk about the saving grace of Jesus Christ instead.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I hadn't thought of that. Why didn't another gun toting citizen pull out his or her Colt 45 and give the Loughner a second amendment remedy? Maybe the right will say the "problem" is that more people don't carry guns. Just wait for it.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | January 11, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I suspect that Obama won't talk about the "tone" in our politics during the speech simply because there isn't any direct evidence that the "tone" had anything to do with the shooting. If he does address it in the speech, it may be a sentence or two at the most and it will be so benign not to inflame.

Instead Obama will talk about the victims, the heroes, Americans coming together, the best of America, etc.

Because there is the SOTU coming up in a couple of weeks, Obama can talk about the "tone" in our politics there because Obama will be giving the speech in front of Congress which is a great place to talk about civility and tone.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 11, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Apologize for the omnibus post but:

"No. It will be back to partisan business-as-usual on both sides by early February."

I guess that's it for the holiday cheer.

"A White House official says Obama's speech tomorrow will mostly focus on the victims and their families, and he seems aware of the pitfalls of giving any oxygen to those who will be looking for signs he's politicizing the tragedy."

I am far more concerned that Obama will UNDER reach and miss yet another moment to take control of the national debate.

"I don't know why so many people are having trouble grasping this point from Joan McCarter"

None so blind and all that.

Good night, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 11, 2011 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"* House Speaker John Boehner will not support a strict gun control measure -- set to be introduced by a House GOPer and backed by gun control advocates -- that would make it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public official, a Boehner spokesman confirms."

Just curious if anybody thinks this law is appropriate, and, if so, why?  

"* Relatedly, Matthew Yglesias wonders why a massacre in "one of the states with the most liberal gun laws in the union" has not "undercut the theory that such laws will actually reduce crime via spontaneous crime fighting by well-armed citizens.""

Well, considering the complete hysteria surrounding the individual who brought a rifle to a Tea Party event within a couple of miles of a speech by Barry, is it surprising to find that people might be reluctant to have a weapon on them at a political event?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

!2BB:

I forgot to mention: great post at 6:35 PM.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 11, 2011 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Why do you call the President 'Barry' -- is this just another way of being disrespectful to the office of president, and this country in general?

Posted by: fiona5 | January 11, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Something bogus from FOX? Say it ain't so Greg...say it ain't so!

The joke here is that so many other outlets still consider that hack station as anything even resembling news.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | January 11, 2011 5:28 PM
------

So watch MSNBC instead. It was meant for people like you, and you couldn't possibly get any dumber.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

troll asks, "appropriate law?"

I don't think it makes any more sense than laws that prohibit me from driving out of the pub parking lot and heading into a traffic jam when I have a howitzer mounted on the hood of my car.

And why the hell can't I bring my grenade belt into an elementary school?

Just oppressive government regulation and I'm sick of it.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Why do you call the President 'Barry' -- is this just another way of being disrespectful to the office of president, and this country in general?

Posted by: fiona5 | January 11, 2011 6:58 PM
-----

Were you cretins being disrespectful to the office of president and this country in general when you referred to George W. Bush as Dubya? If you can't stand the heat, stay out of political blogs.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at this close watch of Palin's Facebook page after the assassination. Not only a lotta (and I mean A LOTTA) censoring but FAST!

Greg - when Sarah's operation goes kerfluey, you ought to pick up her staff. (h/t Benen)

http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html

Here's Erickson's notions about Obama's moment of silence...

"In yesterday's "moment of silence" he wanted prayer or reflection. Here's the problem -- when conservatives push for school prayer and advocate for a "National Day of Prayer," they include "or reflection" to get around namby-pamby atheist objectors.

But the left uses it too. The left uses it to accommodate atheists."

There can be no accomodation in proper American socieiy for those who aren't adherents to the one true faith (who are, apparently, bold and manly).

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101100022

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Hi Fiona!

"Why do you call the President 'Barry' -- is this just another way of being disrespectful to the office of president, and this country in general?"

Thanks for asking.  The reason is that I use Barry is that BushHitler McHaliburon was taken, along with Chimpy McSmirk and Shrub.  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"Massimo Calabresi has lots more on what the psychiatric literature tells us about whether the political climate can encourage crazies to tip into political violence."

Errrr, no. No he doesn't:

"The following articles do not show or attempt to show or even suggest that political factors definitively contribute to violence."

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/11/environmental-influence-on-violent-psychotics-part-ii/#ixzz1Am67rNu1

Posted by: sbj3 | January 11, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

@troll - re above to Fiona...

Now you've got a true equivalence. You and those guys. Congrats.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

troll asks, "appropriate law?"

I don't think it makes any more sense than laws that prohibit me from driving out of the pub parking lot and heading into a traffic jam when I have a howitzer mounted on the hood of my car.

And why the hell can't I bring my grenade belt into an elementary school?

Just oppressive government regulation and I'm sick of it.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:03 PM
-------

Makes perfect sense to me. The life of a government poultry inspector is already of greater value in federal law than the president of a major corporation, at least when it comes to penalties for assault or murder. Maybe we should just make it illegal for anyone but another politician to say anything derogatory about anyone in politics. At the very least it should be illegal to berate Democrats.

Gun laws? There are plenty of countries that don't permit private ownership of guns. What keeps you here in this dangerous place?

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:14 PM | Report abuse

I mentioned elsewhere the odd disconnect between "libertarian" folks on the right and their common response to not just refuse support to Wikileaks but to cast the transparency-in-government (and corporations) exercise as meta-dangerous and must-be-stopped. Here's a fine example...

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/julianassangemustdie-com-and-lat-blogger-andrew-malcolm_b20201

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Brigade asks - "What keeps you here in this dangerous place?"

The precious hope that one day you'll be my bottom-boy. What's say, darling? I'll dress you up pretty.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama should talk about the victims, and especially about public service as a noble calling. He should also note all the public employees among the first responders (her staff, police, fire, sheriff, University Hospital) and how we depend on such people in emergencies and we want good people to go into various kinds of public serivce and they are not the enemy.

He should talk in one sentence about not demonizing opponents as well as public officials. He should also say we should rededicate ourselves to the noble ideals of our founders and sustainers--to provide for the common welfare, come together as communities, and ensure that government of, by and for the people shall not perish behind a wall of security.

And he sould say that the only safe society is a just society and that is what we should strive for together.

Posted by: Mimikatz | January 11, 2011 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Bernie (brought forward):

"It's not even close..."

Well, perhaps not to eyes blinded by hyper-partisanship. But to anyone able to look at things somewhat objectively, they are quite close. Consider:

X makes claim Y, where Y accuses organization Z of highly immoral, perhaps even evil, acts. Claim Y is false.

This plain statement is representative of both Limbaugh's statement and Olbermann's statement. They are, as you should now see, quite close.  But to you only one of them is "ugly" and deserving of your "disgust".  That tells us more about you than about the content of the statements.    

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 11, 2011 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Re Ailes' interview two days ago where he claimed to have told his people to tone it down and added, "I hope the other side does it too."

Jay Rosen (one smart boy) gets to the real center of this one...

"Roger Ailes has dropped the fiction that Fox doesn't take sides"

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

@matt: "I hadn't thought of that. Why didn't another gun toting citizen pull out his or her Colt 45 and give the Loughner a second amendment remedy?"

Someone did. They came two seconds away from blowing away one of the heroes. So much for that theory.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

@matt: "I hadn't thought of that. Why didn't another gun toting citizen pull out his or her Colt 45 and give the Loughner a second amendment remedy?"

Someone did. They came two seconds away from blowing away one of the heroes. So much for that theory.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Brigade asks - "What keeps you here in this dangerous place?"

The precious hope that one day you'll be my bottom-boy. What's say, darling? I'll dress you up pretty.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:20 PM
-------

Not interested, but I understand now why you and cao are of such like mind.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Bernie (brought forward):

“You want to ask the guy for clarifying information, eg "what color are those demons? and are they about five feet tall or what? do they ever wear fancy hats? can they read? which languages? " etc”

I know what you mean. Of course, the proper answer to such a challenge would be to simply dismiss the questioner as “dishonest” and “playing games” and being “not interesting” and tell him to get back when he wants to “be honest”. Right?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 11, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Another fella notes the Ailes' unintended revelation...

"Ignore, for just a moment, the irony of the man who called NPR executives “Nazis” from “the left wing of Nazism” instructing anyone, even Glenn Beck, to drop the bombast and “tone it down.” What’s more interesting is his “I hope the other side does that.

It’s interesting because, according to the official fiction Ailes has put forth since Fox’s founding, Fox isn’t pulling for one team or the other; it only seems that way because every other media institution is so far left.

Maybe it’s a good thing that Ailes is being so frank about Fox’s politics. Maybe he’s to be applauded for dropping the pretense that his network, alone among the world’s media outlets, represents the uncontaminated will of the people. I don’t know. What I do know is that Ailes didn’t used to say this sort of thing in public, and now he’s done it twice in two months."

http://blogs.forbes.com/jeffbercovici/2011/01/10/roger-ailes-drops-the-veil-pt-2/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Mimikatz:

Nice comment. Thanks.

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 11, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

ruk (brought forward):

“Is this broad…accusation not exactly what you guys have been decrying since Saturday.”

No, it isn't. I haven’t decried anyone for generalizing about Republicans or the right. I have decried people who have drawn a connection between the killing and the right for which there is no evidence.

“And of course you are bright enough to realize that if you truly mean this you believe we all on the left...”

No, I do not believe everyone on the left believes this or anything else. It was just shorthand for those people who are trying to make political hay out of the situation, the vast majority of which reside on the left. There are, of course, plenty of exceptions.

“Do you sincerely believe that people on this blog, any commentators or pols you wish to single out, are really so craven that they would use a tragedy to score political gain.”

Of course I do. I thought you were reading the posts here this past weekend.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 11, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham:
"Maybe it’s a good thing that Ailes is being so frank about Fox’s politics."
-------

Whatever he's doing, it seems to be working. Not many watching MSNBC or CNN anymore. Even you seem to spend most of your time watching FOX---when you're not trolling leftwing blogs. If not, you must be simply repeating talking points you've picked up from other lefties. Big surprise, that.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

"when conservatives push for school prayer and advocate for a "National Day of Prayer," they include "or reflection" to get around namby-pamby atheist objectors."

It is seriously time for Erickson to just ST*U.

It is very common in the Catholic Church to hear the phrase "prayer and reflection" and I doubt that this is done in order to pacify "atheist objectors".

A**hat.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 11, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

In Arizona, protesters have to stay 300 feet away from the little girl's funeral, but you can't keep guns away from churches, funerals, politicians, or little girls.

Interesting priorities.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Jeez Scott... go back and try to suss out all you get wrong in your analogy. Produce something a little more analytically sound and I'll bother with you.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

@S-cat:

Bingo.

Obama is the Adult-in-Chief, yet again.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 11, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

In Arizona, protesters have to stay 300 feet away from the little girl's funeral, but you can't keep guns away from churches, funerals, politicians, or little girls.

Interesting priorities.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 7:37 PM
-----

Assume for a second (for the sake of argument) that it's against the law to carry a gun within 300 ft. of a U.S. Representative in the state of Arizona. Do you honestly believe this nutter would have obeyed that law?

That's the problem with some restrictive laws. The people you're trying to restrict pay no attention whatsoever to the laws in any event, so it's only the law abiding citizens who are inconvenienced.

The fact that this shooter could then be charged with bringing a firearm within 300 feet of the premises would mean very little on top of all the other, more serious charges.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, what's up? None of my posts today made the cut?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, what's up? None of my posts today made the cut?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Tomasky quotes an interesting piece...

"...last week, the departing boss of Israel's intelligence service, Meir Dagan, stated that in his view the Iranian program had in fact been set back to the point that it would not be able to develop nuclear weapons until 2015 at the earliest, it suggested that whatever was being done was working. No one, for obvious reasons, takes the Iranian threat more seriously than the Israelis (although WikiLeaks confirmed for all how worried the Iranians make all their neighbors). If they who had been saying two years ago that the Iranian threat would reach a critical level within a matter of a year or so were now saying it has been pushed out several years, it was more than just an interesting sound bite."

He adds his guess that Stuxnet may well be significant here which obviously opens a whole other kettle of rotting fishies, eg tools like Stuxnet used as weapons to bring down essential systems look to be part of our future. Still, good news on the Iran/nuke front.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/11/obama-administration-hillaryclinton-success-on-iran

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, what's up? None of my posts today made the cut?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 7:47 PM
-----

Sorry. You'll have to get more outrageous if you want to keep up with fiona and bernie.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"Still, good news on the Iran/nuke front."
-------

See, I can even agree with bernie on occasion.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Krugman has a short list of notes/rules for those commenting on his blog (eg, no naughty words) but this is my favorite...

"Get your insults right. There is, I believe, a fair bit of evidence against the hypothesis that I’m stupid. What you mean to say is that I’m evil."

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 7:54 PM | Report abuse

hi schrod, good to see you.

Re Erickson and that incredible idiocy he wrote/thinks, you may want to read Levenson's post at BJ ...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/11/i-hope-erick-erickson-lives-a-long-and-miserable-life-afflicted-by-at-least-six-of-the-ten-plaugues/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

Thanks for the BJ piece. My favorite, a bit of truth to humanity followed by a terrific insult.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As those struck by the Arizona tragedy already know, there is indeed a hell. It exists in this world, and we sorrow for those cast into it through no ill-deed of their own. Those who have true kindness in them—the saving grace of human mercy—will do what they can to ease the misery of those who have suffered so. That worthless waste of sperm that is Erick Erickson would rather rub salt in the wounds.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

"House Speaker John Boehner will not support a strict gun control measure -- set to be introduced by a House GOPer and backed by gun control advocates -- that would make it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public official, a Boehner spokesman confirms."

Strict gun control!? How about strictly stupid. I knew they were going to do this.

The people who need protection from lawmakers are not law makers. But when what happens all day every day happens to a lawmaker, well there are going to be laws dagumit! The NRA's flaks need to be protected!

Boehner knows better, it appears.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 11, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Greg:
Please stay with the gun control story. The gun loving/obsessed culture needs to change and pressure from the AZ shooting spree and other devastating crimes needs to rise from constituents but it's important to keep banging away at the politicians who continue to fail us and do the bidding of the NRA. If they won't consider the puniest of measures like the 1k zone for federal officials proposed by King let alone curbing access to assault weapons proposed by McCarthy, then they deserve to be denounced.

Posted by: wswest | January 11, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Sheesh...apparently I keep missing dirty words in my pastes. Anyway, here's a good post from Cole on Limbaugh and (at bottom) the Gergen thing...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/01/11/what-does-this-even-mean/

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Meant to post this yesterday but didn't get to it. Warning: if you are a typical right wing poster here on Greg's blog, you definitely do NOT want to absorb this very very long list of incidents.

"Insurrectionism Timeline

On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court embraced the National Rifle Association's contention that the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to take violent action against our government should it become "tyrannical." The following timeline catalogues incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since that decision was issued:"

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Americans who own guns know they can buy whatever they want, you just have to try harder or spend more money if the laws change. I am sorry if this news is news.

Lets look at Afghanistan. Did you know Americans are being killed by guns manufactured almost 100 years ago? Can anyone guess how many automatic weapons Americans have bought for the people of Afghanistan since the Soviets invaded until now; before we armed the insurgents, now we are arming the local constabulary. You know, hundreds of thousands.

Guns last a long time, they are everywhere. The horse left the barn America. If you want to do gun control, you will need a popular decision. To disarm America, the American people would have to want to disarm themselves.

You want proof? How about, a law that says Americans can't carry near a politician. Even funnier, call it strict gun control. How about a law that says if you are crazy you can't have a gun? I know, how about a law that says, if you are drunk, you can not use a gun. How about a law that says kids can't shoot each other with guns they might find around the house.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 11, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Mental illness expert, Question2 and Question3, vitriol, eliminationist, violent rhetoric, vary over time, equivalence, highly subjective...

Here's where we're at:

The NYTimes, Obama amanuensis and the locus of the first (before the bodies were cold) volley of blood libel against 50% of the American people, has an opinion piece today.

The opinion piece is by former Rep. Kanjorski.

Mr. Kanjorski, during the last campaign, called for the now Governor of Florida to be shot.

His piece in the NYTimes is on civility.

The mono-vocal Left calls for "soul-searching;" the soul-searching presumably to occur in the hearts of the half of their countrymen the Left has called violent, raging, ignorant fetishizers of the Constitution, without cease for the last 72 hours (continuing the refrain of the last 20 years or so).

I definitely believe, many on the left are very concerned and of good faith. As, of course, are conservatives.

I think Mr. Krugman, Mr. Moulitsas, Mr. Yglesias, Ms. Walsh, Mr. Benen, et.al., gave less than a trice of a thought for anything other than political advantage, they simply cannot change as a scorpion cannot change. Unfortunately a few at PL aped the NYT-stenographed line.

Meanwhile, the families of the Tucson dead and wounded mourn, and get to bear this sick spectacle, started and driven up to this very hour by the Professional/Media Left.

The call for civility by these reptiles is not to be given a shred of credibility.

Posted by: tao9 | January 11, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

wwest:
"consider the puniest of measures like the 1k zone for federal officials proposed by King"
-------

What's really surreal about this is that they don't come any further right than Steve King.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

My bad. I guess it's Peter King pushing the legislation.

Posted by: Brigade | January 11, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"Michele Bachmann passed along the news about God's wrath after He mentioned it to her during one of their many conversations about whether Bachmann should run for president."

The snark is strong in this one.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 11, 2011 8:36 PM | Report abuse

@Ims - You're very welcome. Painfully slow here at my store today so had a very tough choice between reading and dusting. I flipped a coin and went with the former.

For those of you with similar time-freedom, here's a wonderful interview with both Digby and Greenwald on Tucson and Wikileaks. It's over an hour of wholesome goodness...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/virtuallyspeaking/2011/01/10/glenn-greenwald-and-digby-virtually-speaking-sunda

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

from this morning, bernie wrote:

"@troll - I'll trust that your stats showing overall declines in violent crime are accurate (that matches my understanding of trends)."

Thank you for the trust.

"Of course, what's true for a full set of things isn't necessarily true at all for subsets. We wouldn't expect political talk radio, for example, to influence the frequency of rape or break-and-enter crimes. But we might not be surprised to see it influence political violence."

A couple of things. There is no specific tab for "political violence" in the FBI crime statistics. They may in fact accumulate such statistics, and not release them publicly, I don't know. So I used analogs, figuring that, with all this "rightwing hate rhetoric" around, particularly since Barry's ascendancy, that there would be a noticeable uptick in some sort of crime statistic. A lot of the anecdotal example you helpfully provided, were of either white supremecists and neo nazi's. Their violence would be categorized, I think, as "hate crimes". Now, I vehemently disagree that there is any sort of connection due to like ideologies between supremecist groups of any sort, and Repbulican doctrin. Why any intelligent person would think that mystifies me, but, since you included them, I must assume that you think, again, against all sense it seems to me, that "rightwing hate rhetoric" would motivate these groups to, at least, increase their level of hate crimes. Now, considering that the population in this Country has grown, year by year, and that, by your own estimation, "rightwing hate rhetoric" has increased, it would therefore be safe to assume that membership in these groups would increase and crimes committed by them would increase, to the point that it would be reflected in FBI statistics. A lack of increase in hate crimes would therefore reflect, most directly, that said "rightwing hate rhetoric" has increased political violence. We find that it did not, by the most direct way we can measure.
My question for you then is why is this measure disatisfactory for you?

"So there's not much help for you there."

See my question above. Would you accept anecdotal evidence from me as proof of a truth? Again, if political violence is increasing because of "rightwing hate rhetoric" why hasn't it shown up statistically? Don't you find that strange?

(more in next comment)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie-

So, does SCOTUS give some definition of "tyrany" in Heller?

These folks look ready to go:http://firedoglake.com/2011/01/11/build-your-own-joe-wilson-commemorative-you-lie-assault-rifle/

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 11, 2011 8:40 PM | Report abuse

So Brigade, what do you think about that? Everyone wants gun control if they envision themselves a logical target? Opportunism?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 11, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

12Bar in reply to your comment at 6:35


You are correct.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse

tao

Kanjorski should have kept his mouth shut, what an @ss. Actually, there's a lot of people who would be well advised to keep their sanctimonious bs to themselves. Everyone's angry and lashing out and there's a whole lot of politicking going on to take advantage of the anger. I'm not impressed and I've sure heard and read some very unwise people spreading their version of wisdom.

Maybe Kevin's right, it's tribalism, and we're hard wired to do it.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 8:46 PM | Report abuse


Greg -

Let's get the story straight -

Im a little confused about why you are calling the DHS story "bogus."


Department of Homeland Security DID write a memo - not so sure about what your point is on this.

THE MEMO ITSELF SAYS THE INVESTIGATION IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE FBI


HERE IS A COPY OF THE MEMO:


MEMO:

"The investigation has been taken over by the FBI, and is being run through the Tucson Command Post.

Here's what can be confirmed at this time (1800 hrs)... * Gabrielle Giffords Is in ICU.* Federal judge John Roll is deceased.

He did rule on a 32 million dollar civil rights lawsuit in February, 2010. That ruling brought death threats to Roll and his family, and for a time he was given a protection detail.* 6 deaths attributed to the shooting. 19 total people hit by gunfire.* suspect’s mother works for the Pima County Board of Supervisors* the suspect has multiple arrests ... But no criminal record? Intervention by someone?*


no direct connection - but strong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.).

The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic. Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate.*

DHS have a list of names and dates of birth of all victims.* the ACTIC is still playing a major role in the investigation... Computer forensics is cleaning up the surveillance videos, and images from around the scene, and involved in the investigation - working together, was MCSO, DPS, Phoenix PD, ICE, and of course the FBI. It did just come in from the command post, that the federal judge was Not originally scheduled to attend the meeting, according to wife. She stated that he received a phone call about an hour before and was invited to attend. Wrong place - wrong time. For the planning side, there are impromptu memorials popping up all over the state, but the largest one is downtown phoenix, at the capital."


__________________________________


OK Greg - what is being "debunked"???


There IS a MEMO FROM DHS - here is the TEXT of that memo -


I don't think anyone is mischaracterizing the memo.....


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

@troll - out of the store now and heading home. If I get the chance tonite, I'll follow up.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

bernie, from this morning, part 2:

"Secondly, you'd still have to address that quantity problem. Why would it be the case that there have been so many acts of violence (as my list above, h/t Digby) perpetrated by individuals and groups associated with modern right wing politics and such a relative few from the left?"

First of all, do you know for a fact that there has been no violence perpetrated on people or the property they own, of a rightwing persuasion? Lack of evidence cited, is not lack of evidence, I'm sure, a very, very smart man like yourself would acknowledge. And again, I am left utterly and completely stupefied that such a smart man as yourself would think that rightwing politics would be associated with supremecist, or more precisely you'd certainly agree, "hate groups." But, back to your statement, why is this violence not reflected in any statistics, and your left with anecdotal reports?

I look forward to your response, and thank you, in advance.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"troll asks, "appropriate law?"

I don't think it makes any more sense than laws that prohibit me from driving out of the pub parking lot and heading into a traffic jam when I have a howitzer mounted on the hood of my car.

And why the hell can't I bring my grenade belt into an elementary school?

Just oppressive government regulation and I'm sick of it."

Are you agreeing that the law is stupid?Also, I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure no such law exists, vis a vis a Howitzer and the hood of your car. Are you sincerely sick of "oppressive government regulation?" If so, of what type of "government regulation" are you sick of? Or is it all of it?

Again, thank you for your response and I look forward to your comments regarding my questions? :-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON


Hillary made some highly question remarks today in Dubai.

- she was trying to equate "extremists" in our country with "extremists" in the Middle East.


- The ISSUE is Hillary appeared to equate the peaceful Tea Party with violent Islamist extremists.


_______________________________


I am sure that Hillary was in the midst of attempting to build support in Dubai for fighting extremists in the Middle East.


And I am equally sure that Hillary didn't realize that they logical extension of her remarks would be to equate the two groups, implying that drones should be employed to take out the Tea Party.


This is the problem with the liberals - their rhetoric is SO CLOSE to being completely out-of-bounds.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"@troll - re above to Fiona...

Now you've got a true equivalence. You and those guys. Congrats."

You understand that I've never argued that there was not equivalence, right? One of my goals, which I would think you would laud, is to not "fetishize" powerful entities. Would you agree that the Office of the President (as opposed to the Office of the President Elect [snicker]) is a powerful entity? If not, why not?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 11, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

ALABAMA

Today is the 150th Anniversary of Alabama leaving the Union


It is important to realize that we have had times in our country far bloodier than today - this disputes can slip in to far worse situations.


The Oklahoma City bombing - that was 168 killed, 9 of them children in a day care center.


So - the democrats should really dial it back substantially - their attack rhetoric over the past few years has been ridiculous and INFLAMMATORY.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

We can't talk about mentally ill people getting medical care because healthcare is not a right.


_______________________________


Reading your posts, and those of other liberals, it is CLEAR why liberals are in support of Federally-funded mental health services and centers.


After reading your comments on this blog, I am beginning to swing over to your side on this -

You need to have these services - and if getting the Federal government to pay for them - maybe we should just do that. Perhaps the ENTIRE LIBERAL WING of the democratic party could sign up for such Federal benefits.


MAYBE that is the solution.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Do you honestly believe this nutter would have obeyed that law?
-----------------------------------------
Following your logic there would be no law against sex offenders not living within 1000 ft of a school because "do you think those nutters would obey that law". *No one* should have guns at a funeral/rally, whether they are nutters or responsible citizens, if one could use the word responsible to describe someone who carries a weapon to a funeral/rally.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

LOL regarding citizens having to disarm with 1000' of federal politicians:

- there are a lot more of us than them. I'd rather they stay 1000' away from us. We'll call or email them in their secured compounds as usual to communicate our preferences.

- the citizens with concealed-carry permits are trained and background checked, safer than the general morons at large.

- to someone who wants to shoot them the "1000ft Law" will mean nothing. Probably better to pass a law against murder instead ;)

- 1000 feet isn't nearly enough distance.
http://www.fcsa.org/wwwroot/visitors/worldrecords.php
2-3" groups at 1000 Yards... better make it a 1 mile / 1760 yard radius.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

LET ME BE CLEAR


We basically have a situation in this nation in which Obama's allies are at constant WAR with the Tea Party.


There are constant attacks on the Tea Party.

The acts of war against the Tea Party have included FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.

Now Obama's people are trying a SMEAR CAMPAIGN - attempting to link innocent people to the crimes of a mentally disturbed person.


These are INFLAMMATORY acts of war.

The NAACP resolution last summer - and the subsequent report this fall - same thing.


Obama has NEVER spoken out against these tactics - so one must conclude that Obama personally is supporting and encouraging these acts.


We basically have a sitution in this country in which the President of the United States is keeping, on the side, a force of people who are much like the SS - and contantly at war with a large portion of the population.


These are Nazi tactics - designed to enforce a far-left-wing agenda - and designed to discourage and deter people from voicing opposition to the governement.

AND designed to discourage and deter people from participating in the American political process.


That is the TRUTH.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:21 PM | Report abuse

LET ME BE CLEAR


We basically have a situation in this nation in which Obama's allies are at constant WAR with the Tea Party.


There are constant attacks on the Tea Party.

The acts of war against the Tea Party have included FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM.

Now Obama's people are trying a SMEAR CAMPAIGN - attempting to link innocent people to the crimes of a mentally disturbed person.


These are INFLAMMATORY acts of war.

The NAACP resolution last summer - and the subsequent report this fall - same thing.


Obama has NEVER spoken out against these tactics - so one must conclude that Obama personally is supporting and encouraging these acts.


We basically have a sitution in this country in which the President of the United States is keeping, on the side, a force of people who are much like the SS - and contantly at war with a large portion of the population.


These are Nazi tactics - designed to enforce a far-left-wing agenda - and designed to discourage and deter people from voicing opposition to the governement.

AND designed to discourage and deter people from participating in the American political process.


That is the TRUTH.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:22 PM | Report abuse

- there are a lot more of us than them. I'd rather they stay 1000' away from us. We'll call or email them in their secured compounds as usual to communicate our preferences.
----------------------------------------
You sound somewhat antagonistic, Tom in Colorado. But since you've been trained and background checked and are superior to the morons who are unarmed, I guess no one has to worry about you and your armed belligerence?

BTW, I like your suggestion that the perimeter be a mile. That suggestion must come from your training.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 9:28 PM | Report abuse

RFR: perfectly clear!, 'specially when you post it twice! ;)

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Clearly,

Everytime there is a Muslim terrorist committing a crime, we see Obama running to the microphones, telling people to NOT to jump to conclusions.


IN SHARP CONTRAST, this weekend we saw Obama's people rushing to define these crimes as associated with the Tea Party, and Obama's political opponents.


This kind of conduct has NO PLACE IN AMERICA.


Seriously folks.


Obama should be called out for this conduct.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Tomin Colorado

Sorry about that - I wasn't sure that comment went through - and I wanted to make sure you didn't miss the Nazi references.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

RFR: perfectly clear now!
When you triple space everything and post it twice it makes it like SIX TIMES MORE CLEAR !
:)

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Maybe Kevin's right, it's tribalism, and we're hard wired to do it."

Nope. We live in a society. Society is a bunch of tribes living together. If we were hard wired for tribalism then society wouldn't work. And certainly, if WE were tribalists here in the USA, and other developed countries were similarly tribal, then they would have many of the same problems we have, but they typically do not.

I think the dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats traces back before our country's founding, to the slave trade. That is really where the rubber meets the road with regard to the two political ideologies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Maybe Kevin's right, it's tribalism, and we're hard wired to do it."

Nope. We live in a society. Society is a bunch of tribes living together. If we were hard wired for tribalism then society wouldn't work. And certainly, if WE were tribalists here in the USA, and other developed countries were similarly tribal, then they would have many of the same problems we have, but they typically do not.

I think the dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats traces back before our country's founding, to the slave trade. That is really where the rubber meets the road with regard to the two political ideologies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

The Nazi SS and the Brown Shirts

The Nazi SS was designed to discourage people from opposing their leader.


Designed to discourage people from exercising their Freedom of Speech

Designed to discourage people from participating freely in their government processes.


- this is the problem with Obama's allies - too much of the NAZI Brown shirt stuff in their attacks on the Tea Party -


This weekend's OBAMA SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TEA PARTY IS A CRIME AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Isn't clear to everyone now that this guy is a new world order conspiracy type. I just read that "Loose Change" is another one of his favorite movies. I bet he's an Alex Jones fan too and probably Aaron Russo. These aren't new. You know, Zionist bankers in the shadow government control the world and all that jazz. Bilderbergs, Rockefellers, CFR and what not. Long history of this kind of thought. It's clear from his videos that this is where he comes from. This stuff is fairly common on the far right.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 11, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

RFR: No problem, we're on the same page there.

With the media and dems whenever one of these tragedies occur it is like:

"OMG White Christian Rethuglican Teabagger!" or... "please, no labels"

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Whatever it is Ethan, it's depressing as hell.

12Bar

Here's what might be some good news for our beautiful state, at least I hope we'll be one doomsday scenario that won't come to pass.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Lockyer pointedly noted that the state would only default in the event of thermonuclear war – an opinion he reinforced last month with an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, where he argued forcefully that the fatalist rhetoric surrounding the state's fiscal peril is out of step with reality.

"California has never failed to make its bond payments on time and in full, not even during the Depression. And there is no chance we will smudge that pristine record," the editorial reads.

The same sentiment lately has been getting more ink in the financial press, where columnist Brett Arends has urged investors to buy California bonds, despite others making the case that California could easily be the next Greece.

About a year ago in the Wall Street Journal, Arends argued (for at least the third time) that fears of the state's fiscal demise are overblown, especially given the size of its economy.

"California's latest budget shortfall, $20 billion over the next 18 months, looks a lot less intimidating when compared to the $1.9 trillion state economy," he wrote. "So too does the size of the state's general obligation debts: Standard & Poor's says there are $64 billion in Californian general obligation bonds – those backed by the state's tax power – outstanding."

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/experts-tales-states-demise-greatly-exaggerated-7968

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I really don't want to go over-the-top here


However, it is time that the country starts to take a hard look at the OBAMA OPERATIONS.

These are people who have been constantly attacking the Tea Party for 2 years now - on the internet and in the media.


- these actions are designed to discourage people from opposing their leader Obama.


- these actions are designed to discourage people from exercising their Freedom of Speech

- these actions are designed to discourage people from participating freely in their government processes.


- this is the problem with Obama's allies - These attacks on large numbers of American citizens who have simply exercised their Constitutional rights are improper.

This weekend's OBAMA SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE TEA PARTY IS A CRIME AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

The Obama smear campaign against the Tea Party has been highly improper.


Obama's people have been CAUGHT AGAIN.


If they were able to get away with these actions, we would have had full-blown attacks on the Tea Party this week.

Instead, they were caught - so now we have a muddled message.

Obama's silence on this SMEAR campaign is telling - NOTHING LIKE Obama's statements defending Muslims terrorist who kill people.


It really is unbelievable what kind of people are running the government right now.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Hahahahaha!

Ethan throws a RaceCard! - dude haven't you heard - those are all worn out now. Even Jon Stuart knows that:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2008/the-race-card

Ever since the Dem Superdelegates selected Obama over Hillary we knew that any opposition to anything would be "Racist!!!"

Too bad, the word did used to have some meaning.


Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

One of the programs being cut by our governor is all state assistance for adult literacy, which is my cause as I volunteer as a tutor for adults who cannot read. It is something we hoped wouldn't happen, but it is not a complete surprise. If the county also cuts aid, we will have to wrap up the entire program which has taught thousands of citizens to read over the last thirty years. This is an area where charging for the services would never work because illiterate people usually work for very low pay. We already run a number of fund raisers but we would never be able to raise the kind of money to support the entire program. All of our tutors are volunteers already.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Isn't clear to everyone now that this guy is a new world order conspiracy type. I just read that "Loose Change" is another one of his favorite movies. I bet he's an Alex Jones fan too and probably Aaron Russo. These aren't new. You know, Zionist bankers in the shadow government control the world and all that jazz. Bilderbergs, Rockefellers, CFR and what not. Long history of this kind of thought. It's clear from his videos that this is where he comes from. This stuff is fairly common on the far right.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 11, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie: thanks for the Levenson link. I hadn't had a chance to check that site out today and that post was a good one. I'm glad I didn't miss it.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | January 11, 2011 9:53 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I know, it's really bad, I volunteer for Hospice and we're worried as well. There's no choice now but to keep cutting and hopefully people will vote to keep the new tax rates at least where they are for the next few years, otherwise, we're really going to be in a world of hurt.

I'm just scrounging for good news tonight to make me feel better I guess. Good luck with the funding.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

Let me go out on a limb here re.: your pre-founding "dichotomy" theory:

The Republicans were the slave traders, right?

Posted by: tao9 | January 11, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama's allies carried out an incredible smear campaign against the Tea Party this weekend.

It is highly improper for government officials to encourage or support such smear campaigns.


Somehow, something here has to be illegal - there should be an INVESTIGATION into all of this.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:02 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

I know you probably get a lot of compliments about hospice, but let me add one more. My aunt who just died was under the care of hospice and thank God for that. The transition to hospice was seamless and her level of care went up under hospice. It is one of the great programs and covered under Medicare.

How does state funding affect hospice?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Tom, um I didn't play the race card. If you don't think that the states' rights movement and slavery were interconnected, then you really need to read up on American History.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Truth @ 9:40...

Some just have to believe there is a giant conspiracy in control of everything - let's them think that they and thier buds know it but everyone else is duped "sheeple".

A couple days ago I signed off on a thread with a tweak saying I had to
"go back to my day job as an Underage Child Labor Supervisor at the secret PalinRoveCo machinegun and white phosphorus grenade factory buried deep under Denver International Airport... in thier minds" (muahahaha!)

Then for fun I did a Bing search for Denver+International+Airport+Secret+Base. Holy Carp!- there are a lot of believers in that stuff.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

The Obama people should be investigated to determine if the smear campaign against the Tea Party broke any laws.


In fact, Obama's FBI Director was standing next to Sheriff Clawrence Dupnik while Dupnik made inflammatory remarks - which encouraged a smear campaign through the nation.


What is frightening about this - the Obama people have email "talking points" which SPARK a series of attacks against INNOCENT people around the nation.


This is a CONSPIRACY.


Ethan is in this email chain - and so are others on this blog.


They get their orders over the email - and they proceed to FOLLOW ORDERS - and start their attacks.


Somehow - attacking innocent people and smearing them has to be ILLEGAL.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I'm just a small spoke in the wheel. But it's looking like the cuts in medical are going to hit us. I haven't been to the office since last week so I'll probably know more later this week. Most of my work is outside of the office but I usually go in once a week or so.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 10:15 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

Well, let me know when you know. I was just wondering if Medicare pays for hospice for over 65's and the state helps support hospice for under 65's.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 11, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

@tao: "The Republicans were the slave traders, right?"

No, the slavery states were the foundation of the States' rights movement in the USA. That is, in essence, where the states' rights movement started. Obviously, at some point the modern GOP adhered to that ideology. Modern Democrats tend to believe more in a federal system of government. At some point we adhered to that ideology. Hence, the two ideological branches diverged over the dispute over slavery.

Does anyone dispute any of that?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

@tao: "The Republicans were the slave traders, right?"

No, the slavery states were the foundation of the States' rights movement in the USA. That is, in essence, where the states' rights movement started. Obviously, at some point the modern GOP adhered to that ideology. Modern Democrats tend to believe more in a federal system of government. At some point we adhered to that ideology. Hence, the two ideological branches diverged over the dispute over slavery.

Does anyone dispute any of that?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Tao

Ethan LOVES to forget that the Republicans freed the slaves


AND the democrats aligned themselves with the KKK - and passed the Jim Crow laws.


The democrats WERE the party of segregation, discrimination and HATE CRIMES.


Anyway.........


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

RFR:

Perhaps what your calling a "CONSPIRACY", is what party managers on both sides would call a "Plan".

Don't worry, Palin can take care of herself, and if not, meh.

Yeah the left and major media had/have Journolist and coordinate the message and talking points.

And despite all this they got smoked in November.
Biggest wipeout in the House of Representatives since 1938.
Biggest wipeout in statehouses plus governorships since cavemen started drawing on cave walls or something.
Pelosi and Reed's ratings are so low that Davy Jones is "man, that's deep"

Relax a little, we're winning.

Be Sgt Hulka not Frances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B65mtE2TN1w


Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

You probably think that Lincoln was a democrat.


The truth is that the democrats passed the Jim Crow laws.


The FIRST CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS were passed by Grant - a REPUBLICAN


The resistance ALL came from the democratic party.


I know you want to TAKE CREDIT for everything good the Republicans did -


AND ignore what your bunch of liars the democrats did for over a hundred years.


AMAZING that the democrats now take the position that the Republicans are somehow responsible for what the DEMOCRATS DID IN THE SOUTH DURING JIM CROW.


The KKK used to control blocks of delegates at the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONS.


So WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, medicare, medical and private insurance all pay for hospice care. Some money comes directly from the state, so we don't have to turn anyone away though, at least normally. As a volunteer I don't know too much re the finances, just that my compatriots are worried. We've already had some cut backs and no shortage of demand.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

“Jeez Scott... go back and try to suss out all you get wrong in your analogy. Produce something a little more analytically sound and I'll bother with you.”

I don’t really care whether you “bother with” me or not (haven't I said that before?). You asked for an example, I gave one to you. Of course it doesn’t fit the bill, because you "knew" before you even asked that no legitimate example existed. Therefore, this can’t be a legitimate example, QED. And of course its much easier to tell me to “suss out all you get wrong” rather than to actually figure it out yourself. That would actually require sound analytics, eh?

In any event, I didn’t present the example to convince you. You are, of course, a true believer, and therefore beyond rational discourse on the issue (witness your refusal to even “bother” with evidence contrary to your beliefs.) I presented it for anyone else out there who might have believed you actually had a point, but was open to contrary evidence.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 11, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Its not as if since the Republicans have taken over the South - that they are looking to bring back Jim Crow


Jim Crow was the act of the democratic party - a stain on their existence.


_______________________


To answer your question about States' Rights - the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were the root of that thinking.

At the time, it is fair to state that those Resolutions were rooted in fair questions left open in the Federalist papers.


After that, States' Rights came up in New England - in disputes over TRADE - and tariffs which hit New England states the worst.


After that, the South Carolina nullification crisis - which really did NOT deal with slavery at all.


So, factually, your point does NOT have a historical basis as you say it does.


HOWEVER, when the democrats put in the Jim Crow laws, they did claim States' Rights in order to segregate the South.


Again, the major players and conduct which you claim to hate came from the democrats.


The party of liars.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Funny how every now and then someone wanders in and tries to carry on a conversation with RFR. Tom made his day.

Have a good night all.

Posted by: lmsinca | January 11, 2011 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Good night Imsinca.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca

You are again dragging down the political climate -

Im sure you think that it is everyone else's fault.


Amazing the lack of Self-awareness coming from the democrats this week.


Greg Sargent appears to have some self-awareness - and he has softened his stand a bit, I'll give him that much credit.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

The liberals are attempting to ignore anyone who speaks the truth about Obama.


- it is almost as if Obama will improve his conduct if no one says anything.

- the liberals have almost become like a cult - no one can say anything about the leader

- the liberals all follow orders - the receive "talking points" via email.


This is the kind of stuff of some of the worst political organizations in the history of the world


Imagine if - during the rise of HITLER, a Tea Party-like organization emerged to STOP HILTER.

So many lives would have been saved.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

LOL...Ethan and RFR are taking the fight all the way back tonight.
Both punching back twice as hard too.

Heck don't stop here, take it on Tour - back to South Africa.
I wanna see you guys re-enact the Boer Wars and Apartheid.
You could take turns on horseback chasing black schoolchildren with bullwhips!

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"No, the slavery states were the foundation of the States' rights movement in the USA. That is, in essence, where the states' rights movement started....Does anyone dispute any of that? "

Everyone who cares about history should dispute it.

The notion of states rights was asserted on all kinds of issues in the early part of US history outside of the issue of slavery, including the establishment of a Federal Bank (McCulloch v Maryland), the Alien and Sedition Acts, tariffs, and indeed the very first state to threaten to secede from the union was the non-slave state of Massachusetts.

It is absurd to assert that the notion of States Rights was founded on the slavery issue.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 11, 2011 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Scott

Thank you - you are correct on all your points.

The Nullification crisis in 1832 in South Carolina wasn't rooted in slavery either - wasn't it the bank?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Scott:

You sound pretty well read on that period.
Been a long time since I've read federalist paper and founders correspondence - help me out.

Weren't the BOR and the 10th in particular insisted on by quite a few northern colonies before they would ratify the Constitution?

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, is correct that liberals support centralized power. That's way they tend to admire dictators and tyrants like Castro and Chavez. Pick your favorite.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 11, 2011 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to the main point of the week


Obama's allies conducted a smear campaign this weekend - and that needs to be fully investigated.

In fact, Obama's FBI Director was standing next to Dupnik when Dupnik made inflammatory statements against innocent Americans - attempting to link them to crimes they did not commit.


In fact, Dupnik had prior reports of the actions of the suspect. Dupnik ACTUALLY had evidence which pointed AWAY from the Tea Party.


Instead of quietly conducting a professional criminal investigation, the country saw Dupnik trumping up charges at American who he must have known were completely innocent.

This was an intentional smear campaign -

What Obama people were involved in this smear campaign???


What Obama Federal officials took part, or remained silent, while Obama's operation smeared innocent people???


THE NATION DESERVES A COMPLETE INVESTIGATION OF OBAMA.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 11, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Why not way

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 11, 2011 11:24 PM | Report abuse

As the nutter has bombed the thread, I'll bid all farewell and goodnight.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 11, 2011 11:26 PM | Report abuse

It occurred to me tonight....and I really should have gotten this clear before but....I've figured out why modern conservatives hate liberals so much.

They hate us for our freedoms.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 11, 2011 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Later guys. Thanks.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 11, 2011 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Has the concept of states' rights ever been used, or even mentioned, in connection with anything that wasn't utterly vile?

I've heard states' rights invoked in connection with opposition to hate crime laws, to environmental protection, to workplace safety, to workplace restrictions on expressions of bigotry .. never for anything that any morally sound person would call a good thing.

BTW, not interested in responses from ScottC3 or QB on this one.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 11, 2011 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, is correct that liberals support centralized power. That's way they tend to admire dictators and tyrants like Castro and Chavez. Pick your favorite.

==

Hmmm, it's conservatives who gush over Pinochet, and who backed Somoza, Batista, Thieu, and the Iranian Shah Pahlevi.

And liberal support of Castro and Chavez is more a conservative anecdote based on a few people than any nationwide reality.

Posted by: caothien9 | January 12, 2011 12:00 AM | Report abuse

TominCO:

"Weren't the BOR and the 10th in particular insisted on by quite a few northern colonies before they would ratify the Constitution?"

I don't think advocacy for the Bill of Rights was a regional issue. It was more of a political party thing, between the Federalists (anti-BOR) and the anti-Federalists (pro-BOR). And there were prominent people from both north and south in each faction. Alexander Hamilton (NY), James Madison (VA) and George Washington (VA) were all Federalists, while Thomas Jefferson (VA), Sam Adams (MA) and George Clinton (NY) were all anti-federalists.

So clearly it was not a regional issue.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 12:02 AM | Report abuse

cao:

"Has the concept of states' rights ever been used, or even mentioned, in connection with anything that wasn't utterly vile?"

Given your apparently idiosyncratic notion of what "utterly vile" means, who could say? But within the confines of the traditional meaning of those words, the answer to your question is: Of course.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 12, 2011 12:07 AM | Report abuse

" George Clinton (NY) were all anti-federalists."

Leading inexerobly to the advent of the Parliment of Funk.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 12, 2011 12:21 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, for instance, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) was not "utterly vile" in holding that the "take title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. I expect the same type of Supreme Court ruling against the "mandate" in ObamaCare.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 12:54 AM | Report abuse

caothien9, both left and right foreign policy types know that sometimes circumstances require U.S. "support" for dictators that one may not like personally. That's different than admiration for no strategic reason.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | January 12, 2011 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Big business is back in business says Dana Milbank's headline writer.

I'll bet that annoys Dana, since his article makes a different point. Both sides of American politics are unaware of the fact that nothing changed with regard to the relationship between business and government after Obama was elected. In his list of corporate flaks and lobbyists, he left out Tom Daschle, impresario of the ACA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011105637.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 6:09 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm, the weather forecast person on this site needs a cuppa

"Clearing. Low around 37. West wind between 10 and 13 mph becoming calm. Winds could gust as high as 20 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%."

Kinda makes it hard to decide what to wear.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 12, 2011 6:32 AM | Report abuse

So Brigade, what do you think about that? Everyone wants gun control if they envision themselves a logical target? Opportunism?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 11, 2011 8:44 PM
---------

The Carl Rowan syndrome: I'll give up my firearm after all the criminals have been disarmed. Problem: it's never going to happen.

After a national tragedy, politicians can never resist the urge to do something, whether it's relevant or not. And of course they'd like to afford themselves protection that is not available to other folks.

The issue here, it seems to me, is mental illess, as you have eloquently pointed out. The shooter has now made a mark for himself in history, which may have been more important to him than pursuing his odd political goals---whatever they may be.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 6:34 AM | Report abuse

12BarBlues:
"Following your logic there would be no law against sex offenders not living within 1000 ft of a school because "do you think those nutters would obey that law"."
-------

Actually, some of the laws regarding sex offenders are idiotic---another example of politicians over-reacting. Your post is quite telling. Only one type of "sex offender" may be considered a threat around schools, yet you made no distinction whatsoever. In some states, you only need be accused to get your name in the registry of sex offenders---no conviction is necessary. In some towns, these sorts of residence restrictions (of dubious constitutionality) effectively prohibit sex offenders from living anywhere at all within the city limits. Oh, and as a result, many of the offenders who would normally abide by a reasonable restriction---like pedophiles should not work around children---have simply gone underground. Gee, let's lock them up for that.

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 6:44 AM | Report abuse

I think the dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats traces back before our country's founding, to the slave trade. That is really where the rubber meets the road with regard to the two political ideologies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | January 11, 2011 9:36 PM
-------

Well, ethan, you've made the cut. Lincoln was a Republican, right? A larger majority of Republicans than Democrats supported Johnson's CRA, right? Bull Connor, William Fulbright, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., et al, all Democrats, right?

Posted by: Brigade | January 12, 2011 6:50 AM | Report abuse

We demand an abject apology from Barack H. Obama concerning the vicious libel that was broadcast by HIS lickspittle media.

About two nanoseconds after this horrible tragedy, in Arizona, the Obamacrat media had dozens of stories crafted to lay blame on conservatives, especially TEA PARY conservatives, and Republicans, in general.

I predicted it would happen and I was correct. I said that the only way the liberals would NOT blame Republicans, et al, was IF the perpetrator turned out to be a solid, blue, liberal Democrat.

It all unfolded in a sickeningly predictable way. BUT, the evil, Obama media ploy has backfired on them and they are looking even worse than before.

I think they are in solid NEGATIVE territory now. Below basement level. They're so far down, we may have to pump air to them.

Yes, Obama should use his next public opportunity to grieve for the dead and wounded and apologize for his media slaves and their vicious, partisan lies. It's only correct.

The whole nation is watching.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 12, 2011 6:52 AM | Report abuse

"House Speaker John Boehner will not support a strict gun control measure -- set to be introduced by a House GOPer and backed by gun control advocates -- that would make it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public official, a Boehner spokesman confirms."

Why won't Boehner support it? Someone should ask.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 7:11 AM | Report abuse

Palin remarks on Tuscon, and strength of American ideals:

http://vimeo.com/18698532

Full text here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/256942

Posted by: tao9 | January 12, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Battleground51

I agree with everything in your comment at 6;52

Except for one thing:


You write

"I predicted it would happen and I was correct. I said that the only way the liberals would NOT blame Republicans, et al, was IF the perpetrator turned out to be a solid, blue, liberal Democrat."


I would ADD: OR A MUSLIM.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Battleground


I am concerned about how much federal officials have been involved in the libelous smear campaign.


The FBI Director was standing RIGHT NEXT TO Sheriff Dupnik when he was saying the most imflammatory things.


Secretary of State Clinton was in Dubai - calling the man "an extremist" and equating the Tea Party with Islamic Terrorists.


There is a dispute out there as to the extent of the involvement of the Department of Homeland Security.

The democrats are out there, including in this blog, attempting to defend or "debunk" the story about Homeland Security - and NO ONE can understand that nonsense.


The Obama need an investigation over this one.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Sanctimonious, self-serving horsesh*t from Palin, and it even includes an invocation of St. Ronnie. I'll save you some time. THis is what Palin says:

1. Everyone is responsible for what they do and say except me. I am the victim here.

2. We accept the results of our elections whether we like them or not (except me).

3. God. America. God. America. God. America.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 7:47 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Jeez Scott... go back and try to suss out all you get wrong in your analogy. Produce something a little more analytically sound and I'll bother with you."

Why don't you explain what you believe to be wrong with his analogy . . . or are you not serious? :)

@Troll McWingnut: "Leading inexerobly to the advent of the Parliment of Funk."

And I know you're not serious. But in a goooood way. Yeah, baby.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 7:50 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne


In 2008 the democrats promised bipartisanship and compromise.


What the country got from the democrats is an atmosphere of REVENGE for the Iraq War and for the Florida recount.


(without regard for the fact that the democrats in Congress voted for the war. Had all the democratic Senators voted against the war, they could have blocked the war completely from the beginning)


However, the atmosphere in this country is horrible.

As it became more and more apparent that Obama is an inexperienced and incompetent URBAN RUBE - the democrats have gotten nastier and nastier.


The democrats do not want to engage the other side - the name-calling from adults in this nation is at an all-time high.


The attitude of the democrats is "jam" everything and there is no sense to care about bipartisanship or compromise.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 7:55 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "Maybe Kevin's right, it's tribalism, and we're hard wired to do it."

Well, I am right, of course, but that's not the whole story. Is it ever?

But, no, when there's a plague of locusts, and the elders of the other tribe start telling our tribe a story about how our tribes traditions and celebrations brought on the plague of locusts, it's time to break out the Frankie Goes to Hollywood (a "Two Tribes" reference, for anyone too young or not adequate reverent of 1980s pop culture to recognize it). There's going to be a lot of talking, but not much genuine communication.

Which, of course, is the other tribe's fault.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 7:56 AM | Report abuse

"@lmsinca: "Maybe Kevin's right, it's tribalism, and we're hard wired to do it."

We need more tribes.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 7:57 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,

THErE you ARE!!!

We were MISSING YOU BUDDY!!!!

The only thing that was missing from your comedy was that added touch of religion. BINGO. THERE IT WAS!!!!

Thanks for BEING here todaY!

I will enjoy reading your FUNNY TODAY

AS ALWAYS, my hats off to you my good good friend!!!!

Posted by: somethingelse2 | January 12, 2011 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Carl Hulse asks: Will the shooting force Boehner to play a less partisan role as Speaker than he otherwise might have?


________________


What a foolish question from a democrat.


The liberals were attacking the Republicans within hours of the crime.


So, somehow the Republicans have an obligation to be less partisan in that situation????


The democrats are fools in their hypocrisy.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:05 AM | Report abuse

somethingelse


You can knock off your harassment now

I hope you aren't a paid troll, paid to harass people who are Exercising their Freedom of Speech.


That would be hideous.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,
Don't forget that Beatles tune "Fool on the Hill"

RIGHT?!?!

How it relates to this, I DONT KNOW!!!!

Keep BRINGIN IT!!!!!

LOL man LOL!!!

Posted by: somethingelse2 | January 12, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,
LOL MAN....Paid to harass?!?! HOW DO WE SIGN UP!!!

Again, the funny irony in how you try to supress someone for their freedom of speech!!!


YOU ARE, the BEST poster ON THIS BLOG!!!!


woo woo!!!

.

Posted by: somethingelse2 | January 12, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "I'll save you some time. This is what Palin says:"

I took away something entirely different. If you ask me, she said that dueling to settle our differences was, ahem, the "old fashioned" way (wink, wink).

Her approach to a discussion of heated rhetoric was to bring up people settling political differences by dueling (i.e., shooting at each other).

The lady is awesome.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

"The lady is awesome."

She is more than that. Palin is the apotheosis of Right Wing ideology. She is the Radical Right incarnated. A walking, talking windup doll of victimhood, selfishness and irresponsibility.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 8:28 AM | Report abuse

somethignelse in reply to your comment at 8:13

It's like voter intimidation -

It is illegal to take actions which discourage or deter people from voting, which is a civil right.


Actions which deter or discourage people from Exercising their Freedom of Speech is a civil rights' violation.

So, are you in favor of the Civil Rights Act or not???


Those who violate that Act are being suppresed by the Civil Rights law.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 12, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "I've figured out why modern conservatives hate liberals so much. They hate us for our freedoms."

. . . said the first tribal elder. His tribesmen nodded in sage agreement.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 8:30 AM | Report abuse

RainForestRising,

Voting and POSTING on a BLOG ARE the same things!!! I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS!!!!


I am YOU!!!!

Posted by: somethingelse2 | January 12, 2011 8:35 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Palin is the apotheosis of Right Wing ideology. She is the Radical Right incarnated. A walking, talking windup doll of victimhood, selfishness and irresponsibility."

Well, Mr. Negativity, who peed in your punchbowl?

Well, fortunately, the left's rhetoric is so compelling, and conciliatory, that soon the radical right will be nothing but a footnote of history. Right?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 8:38 AM | Report abuse

I haven't heard anyone talk about states' rights much in decades. I've heard federalism and limited powers.

Colonel Kurtz is probably against DOMA and for states' right to redefine marriage. He would probably love Wyeth v. Levine and hate the Buckman case. I could go on.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:48 AM | Report abuse

I haven't heard anyone talk about states' rights much in decades. I've heard federalism and limited powers.

Colonel Kurtz is probably against DOMA and for states' right to redefine marriage. He would probably love Wyeth v. Levine and hate the Buckman case. I could go on.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 12, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis, do you honestly believe that she was advocating a return to dueling?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

"soon the radical right will be nothing but a footnote of history. Right?"

Not soon enough. The pathetic, insipid, whiny statement Palin made after several days of "reflection" is the end of her. I'm sure you agree.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 8:51 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, you will still abide by your promise to not vote for Obama again, though, right?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

As for the tribes, Kevin, I propose the addition of two to our national tribalism:

1) the Green Party for non-corporate liberalism; and

2) the Libertarian Party for ... libertarians.

The Democrats and Republicans can continue doing what they do best (worst?) but we the American people will have the option to join other tribes and still participate meaningfully in American representative democracy.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 12, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

All, morning post is up:

http://wapo.st/ikea65

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 12, 2011 9:02 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence: "Kevin_Willis, do you honestly believe that she was advocating a return to dueling?"

I can hope, can't I?

In any case, it was a crazy awesome thing to bring up, but, good golly, she can't be planning on running for political office if she's going to bring up dueling. That's like, flipping the bird to everybody to the left of George W. Bush.

Which is my point. But I'm pretty sure I heard a wink when she brought up dueling. A sort of: "And isn't it too bad we don't do that now?"

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

No (although George W. Bush did get elected twice ; )

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 12, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

“Working on making blockquotes using smart-quotes, and seeing if the pass in the WaPo editor . . .“

And not using {{ anymore, which had issues.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Testing the embed of images, something I'm also interested in:

img:http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/20080829/sarah-palin-miss-wasilla-1984.jpg:

We'll see if this works. Heh.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Nope. I'm going to do it this way, therefore:

|img://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/20080829/sarah-palin-miss-wasilla-1984.jpg|

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Think it works, but, alas, when embedded, that URL gives one of those "You can't embed me, you jerk!" type messages. So I'll try this instead:

|img:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/5.3.10SarahPalinByDavidShankbone.jpg/225px-5.3.10SarahPalinByDavidShankbone.jpg|

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

And now, a Horizontal Rule:

|hr|

Just messin' around.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

|img:http://tinyurl.com/5wl532s|

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

And now I'm testing out some secret features, like adding |hi:hi-liting to my sentences when I want to call out something|. Among other things.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 2:25 PM | Report abuse

And this type **|red:should be red and bold because I'm a crazy right wing nutter!|** . . . if it works as it should.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | January 12, 2011 2:28 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

© 2011 The Washington Post Company