Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Ted Kennedy and Succession Politics



Who might step up if Sen. Ted Kennedy stepped down? Reuters photo by Jason Reed

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's letter to Gov. Deval Patrick requesting that state law be changed so that if he steps aside in the near future an interim senator would be appointed in his place set off a new round of speculation about the future of the legendary Senate seat.

Kennedy's proposal would amend a 2004 state law that calls for a special election to fill a Senate vacancy at least 145 days after the seat comes open, allowing the governor to appoint an interim replacement so that the state is not lacking a vote in the Senate in the period leading up to the special election. (The law was initially written to keep then Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican replacement if Sen. John Kerry was elected president.)

The fate of such a proposal is difficult to judge.

On the one hand, Massachusetts strategists with whom the Fix spoke on Thursday suggested that the state legislature isn't particularly keen on the idea of changing the law. A joint statement from state House Speaker Robert DeLeo and state Senate President Therese Murray was decidedly non-committal on the proposal. "We have great respect for the senator and what he continues to do for our commonwealth and our nation," wrote the duo. "It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for the people of Massachusetts as long as he is able."

It would also be difficult for Patrick to secure a rock-solid commitment from the appointee that he or she would not run in the subsequent special election, as Kennedy calls for in his letter.

Another factor to consider is Patrick's own precarious political position. Deeply unpopular in the state, Patrick faces a serious reelection fight in 2010 from state Treasurer Tim Cahill (I) and others, and might be tempted to use the appointment power to benefit his own political standing.

"You'll be looking for people who advance Governor Patrick's politics and the politics of the leadership in the state legislature who are all right now suffering with abysmal poll ratings, and they need to make this a win for them rather than an example of insider deals," said one senior Massachusetts Democratic strategist.

On the other, Kennedy -- and the political legacy he represents -- still retains significant symbolic and literal power in the Bay State. And, as Kennedy battles terminal brain cancer, it is hard to judge how much impact his condition and the legend he has created in the state will have on the debate over his proposed change in law. (Kennedy's health makes any discussion of succession difficult but his willingness to wade into the debate suggests that others in the state are positioning for the opening as well.)

If the Kennedy amendment is passed and state law changed, one name that might be appealing, according to a well-connected Democratic strategist with ties to Massachusetts, is former governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic party's 1988 presidential nominee, or former labor secretary Robert Reich.

In the event of a special election, the field would be significantly more crowded as many people have eyed Kennedy's seat for decades and, because it would be midterm for all Massachusetts elected officials, they would not have to give up their seats.

The six most commonly mentioned candidates are former representative Joe Kennedy, Reps. Ed Markey, Steve Lynch and Mike Capuano, UMass.-Lowell Chancellor Marty Meehan and state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Joseph Kennedy, the son of Robert F. Kennedy and a former member of Congress, would almost certainly have the right of first refusal since the seat has been in his family almost without a break (Sen. Ben Smith, a Kennedy loyalist, held the seat from 1960 to 1962 until Ted Kennedy was old enough to be elected to the Senate officially) from 1950 1952 when his uncle John F. Kennedy won it. (Ted Kennedy's wife, Vicki, would almost certainly take the seat without opposition but is apparently uninterested.)

Joe Kennedy has seemed uninterested in politics since he retired from the House in 1998, however, and made clear five years ago he would not run for Kerry's seat if the Bay State senator was elected to the White House.

Both Markey and Meehan have been positioning for years for Senate bids and were all-in if Kerry had won in 2004.

Meehan left Congress in 2007 after 15 years in the institution but is sitting on $4.8 million in his House account that could serve as significant seed money for a Senate bid.

Markey, who currently sits as the third ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has also been squirreling away cash for a statewide bid for years; he ended June with $2.9 million in the bank. Markey chairs a subcommittee in the House, however, and may not want to step aside from that perch -- even temporarily -- to run for Senate.

Lynch and Capuano are newer to the House but each is ambitious and, in a crowded primary field, have the sort of geographic/ideological bases that could serve them well. Lynch represents south Boston and has very strong ties to organized labor while Capuano holds down the Cambridge/Somerville area that is home to a large chunk of votes in a Democratic primary.

Coakley, who was elected as the state's first female attorney general in 2006, has been putting the pieces together behind the scenes for a special election candidacy for quite some time -- including conducting polling to test her viability. Some regard her as the favorite while others say her semi-open campaigning for the seat is unseemly and hasn't sat well with Democratic party regulars.

Friday's Fix Picks:

1. Pelosi: No public option, no passage.
2. President Obama, Michael Smerconish and health care.
3. Paterson loses a legal battle on LG appointment.
4. Alexi Giannoulias gets more establishment support in Illinois.
5. Print paper > the web?

Deeds To Frame Race As Warner/Kaine vs. Bush: Amidst polling that shows he has fallen behind former state attorney general Bob McDonnell (R), state Sen. Creigh Deeds (D) will deliver a speech today in Fairfax aimed at re-framing the Virginia governor's race. "He's going to talk about the choice Virginians face between moving forward or going backwards," said a Deeds adviser. The source added that Deeds will cast the race as a choice between the policies put in place by popular Democratic Govs. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine and those of former president George W. Bush. "McDonnell will bring back Bush economic policies to Virginia, and he'll take us backwards with his single-minded focus on a divisive social agenda," said the Deeds adviser. Deeds' decision to give what his campaign is billing as a major address -- and to begin his general election advertising with a commercial launching statewide today -- amounts to an acknowledgment that McDonnell has gained the upper hand over the summer months and that something in the race needs to change -- and change quickly -- for Deeds to reclaim momentum.

DNC Posts Best Money Month of '09: The Democratic National Committee collected $9.3 million in July, its best fundraising month in 2009. The DNC spent $6 million and ended the month with $16 million on hand and $5.1 million in debt. "We have a plan and its funding our operations to support the president's agenda including passing health insurance reform and to do what we need to support our political operations, state parties and campaigns," said DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse. Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee reported raising $6.26 million in July while spending $8 million -- a major chunk of which went to RNC efforts in the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The RNC ended last month with $21.8 million in the bank, down from the $23.6 million it showed at the end of June. Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for the RNC, said the committee's August fundraising was picking up considerably with an average of 2,000 new donors coming on board each day over the first two weeks of this month.

Death Panel Meme Going Strong: A new Pew poll shows that nearly half of all self-identified Republicans believe that President Obama's health care plan would establish so-called "death panels" (thank you Governor Palin) that would make decisions about end of life care. Forty-seven percent of Republicans and 45 percent of regular watchers of Fox News Channel believe that claim to be true -- although independent fact checkers have said it is not. As we wrote yesterday, part of the Obama administration's problem in the selling of this health care plan is their inability -- to date -- to effectively combat or rise above the misinformation campaign being run by opponents to the bill. The Pew numbers paint that challenge in stark relief.

Must Watch TV: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spends the hour (or most of it) with George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" on Sunday. McCain has laid low over the last few months as the debate over health care has raged. He's made clear he would like to play a bigger part in the negotiations but, to date, has been on the outside looking in. How hard a line against the plan does McCain take? Does he leave any wiggle room in hopes of emerging as the broker of a grand compromise?

Grayson Hires Hodson: Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson (R) has named Bluegrass State operative Nate Hodson as the manager of his 2010 Senate campaign. Hodson was serving as communications director for Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) after spending the 2008 election cycle as finance director for Sen. Mitch McConnell's re-election race. McConnell raised more than $17 million for that contest, which he won over Democrat Bruce Lunsford. Grayson is the Republican frontrunner for the seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Jim Bunning (R).

Kennedy School Announces Fall Fellows: Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government announced its fellows class for the coming semester on Thursday and, as usual, it amounted to a virtual who's who of the political class. The group includes Stephanie Cutter, who oversaw the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and played a senior role during the Obama campaign last year, Kim Gandy, the former president of the National Organization for Women, Peggy Noonan, a Wall Street Journal columnist and special assistant to the late Ronald Reagan, and Gina Glantz, a longtime labor operative who managed former Sen. Bill Bradley's (N.J.) 2000 presidential campaign. In addition to these resident fellows who will live and teach on the campus, there are a handful of visiting fellows that include: former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Chat Time!: The Live Fix weekly chat is scheduled for 11 a.m. For an hour, we'll take on all comers -- sort of like a king of the ring match. You can sign up for the RSS feed of the Live Fix and can submit questions early too. You can also just follow along in real time.

Say What?: "There's something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." -- President Obama saying, well, something, during a speech to Organizing for America volunteers. (DNC officials said 200,000 people participated in the OFA webcast of the President's remarks on health care on Thursday.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 21, 2009; 5:35 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: The Mystique of Misinformation
Next: The Live Fix!

Comments

Thank God.

Posted by: JakeD

==

This is an expression of joy that Kennedy was going to die

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 26, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Willow Palin (who was the only Palin daughter at the Yankee game Mr. Letterman "joked" about) is not a public figure and an adult. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | August 24, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Imus and Letterman .. no comparison.

Like it or not, Bristol Palin is a public figure and an adult (chronologically, anyway). When she became the spokeswoman for abstinence-only sex education after it failed in her own case she was setting herself up as the inevitable butt of jokes and deservedly so. Like Telly Savalas promoting Rogaine or Keith Richards hawking moisturizing lotion. If she was nothing more than the daughter of that horrid former governor then using her as a punchline would have been distasteful and wrong since its her mother who is the public figure, or was anyway.

Bristol Palin did nothing to deserve fame. She's the daughter of someone famous and she got pregnant out of wedlock. That's not an achievement and it didn't take any work.

The Rutgers sports team that Imus savaged as "hoes" were not public figures. They were young girls who had risen to their brief fame through hard work and dedication to winning. They had in no way done anything to merit being treated as figures of fun, much less the vicious insult that Imus used on them.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 24, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Would have been nice if Ridge would have resigned and spilled the beans in the days right before the election, because that might have made a big difference.

When an alert is raised that isn't just a change of some colored plastic token, it means extra patrols, it means leaves canceled, it means a lot of extra man-hours going into vigilance. And in some cases it means people get killed in accidents. To raise the level in the absence of solid reason to queer the election is morally and judicially repugnant and even in the season of hysteria that still obtained in 2004 (an election that was in essence a referendum on the use of torture) the news would have made a profound impression.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 24, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"But as weak and self-serving as this makes Ridge look, it of course reminds us all that the GOP is willing to fight at a level lower than we've seen since -- wait, we're STILL seeing that level of fighting aren't we? Yeah... it works well for them: we lie and scare a certain element of the public and then they stampede around disrupting cogent though and then they vote for us!"

Yeah, this is the real story which is getting lost in all the talk of the messenger. it would have been nice if he had not gone along with this and spoken out earlier, but that's not his character to speak truth to power. That's the common thread of all Bush appointees. We can be happy that we got what we did.

But the focus should be on Bush, not Ridge.

I never got into online chess. It seems like people only want to play bullet games. I don't do well in mouse clicking contests.

Besides, there's the whole appeal to winning money to play a game. I got to send my parents on a cruise from poker winnings.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 24, 2009 2:09 AM | Report abuse

As for me, I'm intermittently playing on line chess (my rating is embarrassing right now) and working on some overdue tax forms. We had a nanny for a couple years who lived in and paid taxes in another jurisdiction. Turns out that I was supposed to be filing forms with a whole bunch of zeros the whole time. Oh well--more money in fines.

I've saved money overall, but wish I'd either hired an accountant or at least one of those firms that handles the paperwork for domestic employees.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 24, 2009 12:17 AM | Report abuse

mnteng, don't leave out the momgeeks, I've posted 11 times!

Err, make that 12 times -- guess I better throw out a thought. So, Tom Ridge probably decided NOT to run for the senate back in May because of what he knew was in his book (well, that and he makes a lot more money in private life now *and* he doesn't have to explain himself to a bunch of short-fingered Conservatives who've never done anything but express their opinions). We all knew why DHS raised their code in August 2004 during the Democratic convention, but it was nice to have it confirmed in writing.

I'm pleased that Ridge had the backbone to get the raised color code restricted to the Washington-NYC corridor. Still if the intelligence was BS and the justification was political, Ridge also could have told those elements of the government "no, getting Bush reelected doesn't justify lying to the people and scaring them."

It's charming to go on some of the conservative pages and see the posters laying into Ridge for his lack of loyalty. Some of them mean loyalty to truth, but most of them mean loyalty to Bush. LOL! Others are very quick to scold Ridge and let Bush and his toadies off the hook. Yeah, I'm mad at Ridge for going along with it in August, but I like him for refusing the second time, right before the elections. And then I'm mad at him for resigning that same month and then lying about why he was leaving. True, he did get a lot of lucrative board positions and lobbying money for keeping quiet for 5 years -- a guy's gotta think about his old age.

But as weak and self-serving as this makes Ridge look, it of course reminds us all that the GOP is willing to fight at a level lower than we've seen since -- wait, we're STILL seeing that level of fighting aren't we? Yeah... it works well for them: we lie and scare a certain element of the public and then they stampede around disrupting cogent though and then they vote for us!

The DHS press release for the August raising of the security level makes great reading now that we know everyone was lying.

This afternoon, we do have new and unusually specific information about where al-Qaeda would like to attack. As a result, today, the United States government is raising the threat level to Code Orange for the financial services sector in New York City, Northern New Jersey and Washington, D.C.

http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0475.shtm

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 23, 2009 9:57 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"Been spending too much time reading online journals and playing online poker, so I usually have this page open."

Looks like a lot of the science geeks on The Fix are at the computer tonight ...

Posted by: mnteng | August 23, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

"JakeD 46
GoldAndTanzanite 34
DDAWD 32
broadwayjoe 20
margaretmeyers 11
scrivener50 9
FairlingtonBlade 8
shrink2 8
mark_in_austin 5

I'm bored in the lab and so set up an Excel spreadsheet to make this easy. If I get really bored, I might even write a macro.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade"

Been spending too much time reading online journals and playing online poker, so I usually have this page open.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 23, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: allainjules1 | August 23, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Sunday Evening Post count:

JakeD 46
GoldAndTanzanite 34
DDAWD 32
broadwayjoe 20
margaretmeyers 11
scrivener50 9
FairlingtonBlade 8
shrink2 8
mark_in_austin 5

I'm bored in the lab and so set up an Excel spreadsheet to make this easy. If I get really bored, I might even write a macro.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 23, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"@DD: I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with you on this whole Imus/Kurtz issue. But... On whether Cal cancelled on Imus after his comments, it's a fact Cal, to his credit, did cancel (see below):"

Well, I think it got kind of convoluted. The point I was trying to make is that in pointing out that Don Imus has been saying this stuff for a long time, Kurtz provided important context to the nappy headed hos story. People got upset at that comment, but people also overlooked previous comments he made. Is it because this comment got so much press? Well, I can't read minds, but it's not the worst guess in the world.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 23, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"Unbreak My Heart"

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

((((In the meantime, we get "Adventures of Black Helicopters and UFOs".

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse))))


Actually, in your case, it's "Adventures into Bad Psy Ops."

Roz Mazer Alert.


http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

(Why when I type "blog.washingtonpost.com" into the browser does the URL usually turn into "voices.washingtonpost.com"? Does this happen to any other "civilians" here?

Or am I being redirected to "spoofed pages," as the geeks say...


Posted by: scrivener50 | August 23, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Listening to "I'll Stop the World and Melt with You".

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the corrected link, s50.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

In the meantime, we get "Adventures of Black Helicopters and UFOs".

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 23, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I just tried to post the following comment to Frank Rich's essay on The New York Times web site:


Former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge opened the Pandora's Box. Frank Rich didn't come right out and ask the question, so I will:

How much of this extremist menacing is being tacitly encouraged by entrenched insiders within the dark bowels of the bureaucracy?

I call to Mr. Rich's attention the following article:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

Interestingly, I received a message on my computer screen, purportedly from The New York Times web site, that "comments are no longer being accepted."

Could someone here please verify if that is true? We're talking about today's paper here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html

Thanks in advance for participating in my latest investigation into "Adventures in Apparent Internet Censorship."

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 23, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Senor de la Vega presumably will return when duty calls.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

That's fine. BTW Zorro (Spanish for "fox") is dead.

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

TO: Jake @ 12:50 p.m.

"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" ran the video clip with on-screen captions. Viewers could hear voices that seemed to come from the crowd yelling the words that Frank Rich referenced. Millions of viewers saw it and heard it.

Unless what aired never really happened...

...something like the moon landing that some people think was faked in a TV studio.

I tried to Google up a link to the "Countdown" clip. Here's what I got:

http://www.youtube.com/browse?ytsession=uAaLWG2hBGeBa6lC7X4ZKQrtfHa2-cWng4rieCE2dbPT9HP8oqfWKDiKuJKEvmp3ngNw89K_CWN0IrBNPo21cHFhrhiH0cXo_iX91n6ahlO_gITmGDUERATrJMxNHQhGdYZsJTIfjVcVlhZrmsRsyJj_plIfEmJhChLjOmITg07oyXJ4j6HBeJbFJ9V2mNsQpaOsOFP7NiVQSgtbAVnREUIVgRvWh9VIjFG6L5embcKBQvug_SChocMprEiX1AUyu0OmXC1b-wj_HWsSlPq61nZYfB1_rODcYDLC8UU-IzIY0pz-u6hRGLTaU5mwBHAhAOWPrf_KjLls30KyaL3QCNb-gZ6kFpZA9CmKPqmzefs

Now, maybe it's just my internet connection that can't conjure up the Olbermann clip of the alleged Palin brownshirts.

Could someone else please try to find that clip and post a link here for the benefit of Mr. JakeD?

The link couldn't have gone "missing," could it?

Anyone out there from Keith's show?

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 23, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Unlike the MSM, I will not try to convince anyone that water is wet.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Another lie that Rich brings up is that Gov. Palin said nothing when people attending her rallies screamed "Treason!" or "Kill him!". An actual Secret Service report into that allegation pointed out that no one said that, so there was nothing to chastise. Just another left-wing meme like "I can see Russia from my house" (Tina Fey said that, not Gov. Palin ; )

If anyone actually has a link to real proof, rather than rumors or hearsay, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

@DDiego: I hope Sgt. Garcia didn't win.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

mm, BTW, I find it interesting the so-called mainstream media totally missed the significance of the "Tree of Liberty" Jefferson quote on that lunatic's t-shirt. He was not showing his interest in colonial history. As Rich tells us, the quote has a VERY specific McVeigh-ish meaning in the white supremacist community. What did the guy have to do--send a telegram? Put up a billboard?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 12:44 PM | Report abuse

The Rich column was excellent. As a cheerful midwesterner myself, I understand and appreciate Obama's kindly willingness to think that everyone has good motivations. He's wrong, but it is a good place to work from.
____________

More and more, I am thinking BHO does not fully appreciate what he's up against: the intense irrational hostility that you can't debate with or convince. I think Michelle DOES know and I wouldn't be surprised if she pushes him not to run for re-election in 2012. There's stuff in the wind that is very troubling...

Our President's only hope, IMO, is to pull out the old Clinton playbook.

It seemed every time WJC and HRC ran into a GOP impasse, invisible forces--perhaps coincidentally--outed, or threatened to out, a slew of key GOPers and his stuff just sailed through. I don't believe I'm saying this but BHO needs to call in, gulp!, "the Hillarians"--WJC, Begala, Sid Blumenthal, Carville, Sandy Berger, her Hollywooders, her legion of media plants at all the networks, her whole army of legendary tricksters, and of course the Queen Bee herself, Fix nemesis, the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton)--to do, er, what they do.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Needless to say, there's no violation of 18 USC Sec. 871 if Obama is not a natural-born citizen. You would have to prove that as well before I believe a 400% increase.

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

I don't believe that threats are up 400%. On the prior thread, I provided over 30 names of actual people identified as threats to GWB. You libs have conveniently forgotten all about Bush Derangement Syndrome. So far, I've only seen two (2) names re: Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | August 23, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The Rich column was excellent. As a cheerful midwesterner myself, I understand and appreciate Obama's kindly willingness to think that everyone has good motivations. He's wrong, but it is a good place to work from.

Not that I want to go back to Bush's west texas superior and smug negativism (that smirk always seemed to say "serve's ya raght"). Senator Coburn is carrying *that* flag, and we can all see that it is attracting the finest elements of this country (Mr. 'Standing silently cause I don't have to talk to no one, strapping my irons cause it scares you, let's water the tree of liberty Now' is right there).

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 23, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

The NYT's Frank Rich today on the link between the right wing militias and the lunatics who carry firearms to BHO events. An excerpt:

"Those on the right who defend the reckless radicals inevitably argue “The left does it too!” ... But this is a false equivalence. Code Pink doesn’t show up on Capitol Hill with firearms. And, as the 1960s historian Rick Perlstein pointed out on the Washington Post Web site last week, not a single Democratic politician endorsed the Weathermen in the Vietnam era.

This week the journalist Ronald Kessler’s new behind-the-scenes account of presidential security, “In the President’s Secret Service,” rose to No. 3 on The Times nonfiction best-seller list. No wonder there’s a lot of interest in the subject. We have no reason to believe that these hugely dedicated agents will fail us this time, even as threats against Obama, according to Kessler, are up 400 percent from those against his White House predecessor."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23rich.html?pagewanted=print

400 percent!!! Why isn't the Post writing about this?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 9:32 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times has an excellent editorial this morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html?_r=1
They break-down the 46 million uninsured that the GOP likes to characterise as 100% illegal aliens, folks enjoying a vacation between jobs, and rich people who don't need insurance. Turns out none of this is true.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 23, 2009 8:49 AM
__________
Great catch, mm.

I'd love for the media to focus exclusively on what's in the health care reform bill and tell us what's good in it and what's not so good. A real debate, learning moment.

Instead we hear only about these Big Pharma/GOP urban myths such as death panels, free health care for illegals, and domestic terrori-, er, "protesters" allowed to carry arms into BHO events. We know 77% of the public wants not just reform, but reform WITH the public option. But the media is selling a totally false narrative using lobbyist funded Astroturf protests and fake tricked-up polls.

I think BHO will have to have one of his O-lympic events in some park or stadium where he spends about one hour giving the Nation a top-to-bottom tutorial to push back against the lies.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

@DD: I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with you on this whole Imus/Kurtz issue. But... On whether Cal cancelled on Imus after his comments, it's a fact Cal, to his credit, did cancel (see below):

[From Slate]

"In other cases, guests will refuse to appear as an act of protest. After Don Imus called members of the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos," Cal Ripken canceled his appearance on Imus' show. "

http://www.slate.com/id/2207008/pagenum/all/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 23, 2009 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The New York Times has an excellent editorial this morning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23sun1.html?_r=1
They break-down the 46 million uninsured that the GOP likes to characterise as 100% illegal aliens, folks enjoying a vacation between jobs, and rich people who don't need insurance. Turns out none of this is true.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 23, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

no debris, you'd think Jake would know this is one of those smug distinctions without a difference that one hears in courtrooms.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 23, 2009 8:21 AM | Report abuse

nodebris, water as a gas [steam or vapor] or as ice, a solid, is not considered "wet". "Wet" is a property of liquids, and only of liquids. Thus a person might say "water is not always wet" without dissembling. However, to deny that water is wet in its liquid state is addlepated, befuddled, confused, eccentric, and peculiar.

One online dictionary uses this example:
=============================
3. Made up of liquid or moisture.

Water is wet.
=============================
Another uses this example:
============================
2. in a liquid form or state: wet paint.
============================
Thus the common expression "wet as water" is understood to have meaning by all, including you and me, who think of water in its common liquid state when we speak and write.

Have a great day!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 23, 2009 7:16 AM | Report abuse

For anyone who isn't a fan of Senator Ted Kennedy's singing I have only one word for you Boo! :-D

Now as a bonus song just for the Lion of the Senate

Justice vs Simian - We are your Friends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQLEj2cLXqk

Posted by: cooday | August 23, 2009 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza lets help push Ted Kennedy's number one YouTube song over 100,000. I've been promoting it on various media forums since the lion of the Senate endorsed President Obama in 2008 during the rough and tumble primaries and then in the general election :-D

Senator Ted Kennedy sings in public AGAIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdl86KNkt_M

Ted's singing is doing better then a lot of musicians on YouTube today. How cool is that :-D

Posted by: cooday | August 23, 2009 6:41 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: 'Technically, water isn't "wet". Items that come in contact with water can become "wet" but water itself is not.'

I'm not sure of the source of this "technical" opinion, but I'd opine that water is the very epitome of wet.

Perhaps jaked uses a similar logic when he protests that his prorogation of obvious falsehoods, such as the birther meme, somehow technically do not render him a liar.

Posted by: nodebris | August 23, 2009 1:35 AM | Report abuse

RACHEL MADDOW MUFFS DAVID VITTER SOUND BITE

• Media bias, sloppiness, or a staff infection?

http://groups.poynter.org/members/blog_view.asp?id=190108&post=76755

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 23, 2009 1:11 AM | Report abuse

"Funny you should mention Cal. After Imus made his racist comments, Cal, to his credit, as I recall, cancelled a scheduled appearance on Imus. In fact, he was one of the first to cancel on Imus, as I remember it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe"

But Ripken DID agree to the appearance despite all the other things Imus has said. What does that say?

Not trying to make this a referendum on Ripken or Imus. I'm just saying that knowing about all the stuff Imus had said previously gives some important perspective to the nappy headed hos comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Imus#Accusations_of_defamatory_speech

Read this. I'm not defending the nappy headed hos comment, but I don't see him crossing a line that he had never crossed before.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

It's Saturday night and I'm back home from a road trip with the teenagers! It was no bed of roses: we all caught the same head cold and yearned for a take-out place that would deliver cold OJ and hot pancakes to our motel room.

We talked about wee-weed up and what it meant to us. The kids thought it was the scared bed-wetting thing, but I thought wee-wee'd-up might refer to panicky little pigs and how much noise they can make about relatively little (a piglet will make enough noise for 6 animals if you just pick him up or if his momma walks out of his sight). So Obama was saying 'Pay no attention to the noisy opposition; every summer they sit and squeal and do nothing, like the pigs they are.'

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

If we understood heath care as a matter of love and meaning, health as what matters, good or bad life for the people we care about, would it not rise to the level of the nation's no-budget-for-national-security blind spot?

Why don't we have a free market for war games, Cheney/Bush/Obama, they are contracting that out. Can you imagine getting into that free market, getting on the playing field with Blackwater?

Well that is how stupid the idea of market competition is in health care. America's health care fantasy's could sink us, not the nation, but our beloved culture.

Americans are busy destroying their country, still worrying the people on the outside are the threat.

Cost containment is what everyone should be talking about. Maybe we don't want to contain costs? If we went to 50% of gdp, so everyone has health care, there is R&D, major prevention programs and all that, we would have to give up other things. Things.


Posted by: shrink2 | August 22, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

You're right, BB, I had forgotten the risks involved with amnio. Certainly any *older* mother should have it in order to be well informed. It isn't just an abortion tool.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Mass should just keep in mind the pitfalls of Illinois law regarding succession.

Posted by: nodebris | August 22, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!!

Imus / Beck comments = bad

Letterman comments = good

Posted by: JakeD | August 22, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Funny you should mention Cal. After Imus made his racist comments, Cal, to his credit, as I recall, cancelled a scheduled appearance on Imus. In fact, he was one of the first to cancel on Imus, as I remember it.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 22, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Technically, water isn't "wet". Items that come in contact with water can become "wet" but water itself is not.

Posted by: JakeD | August 22, 2009 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"In the DC area, many folks wondered why Kurtz never called Imus on "that stuff." Kurtz's defense seemed to be: I don't have any problem with the racist--and antisemitic--junk Imus has been spewing for decades (acc. to H. Stern, 60 Minutes).

I have a problem with that."

I don't have a problem with him saying that. I think it's important to know this. That Imus says this stuff, yet you still have people willing to give him air time and you still have big name guests willing to go on his show. I think Cal Ripken Jr. was one that was mentioned.

That's relevant information. It's not like nappy headed hos came out of the blue. When Letterman did the A-rod/Palin joke, people said the exact same thing.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

On multiple occasions, as we recall, Kurtz defended Imus on TV, and, yes, one of his main "defenses" was "Imus says this stuff all time."

In the DC area, many folks wondered why Kurtz never called Imus on "that stuff." Kurtz's defense seemed to be: I don't have any problem with the racist--and antisemitic--junk Imus has been spewing for decades (acc. to H. Stern, 60 Minutes).

I have a problem with that.

I suspect the Beck boycott caused Kurtz to have an Imus flashback. If the boycott weren't working, Kurtz would not be mentioning it. Losing 20 major sponsors, incuding GEICO and State Farm, in a couple of weeks IS a big deal--don't let Howie try to tell you water isn't wet.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 22, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The only issue this "conservative" has argued is the undue influence against those of us over age 65.

Posted by: JakeD | August 22, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"As for Kurtz, he has an agenda. He was arguably the most visible and loudest supporter of Imus when he was booted off TV. Kurtz was never personally held to account for his support of Imus's bigoted "humor." I assume Kurtz was none to happy when Imus was tossed. IMO, Kurtz also is no fan of BHO; in many past columns he used to have a snarky "Obama adulation" section."

What did he say in support of Imus? When the nappy headed hos thing came out, Kurtz only "defense" was that he says this stuff all the time. To me, that's more context than defense

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

"And if that was what you wanted, couldn't you just state that in your living will/directive? I would think that would be excellent use of your time with your doctor. The living will is your chance to say "Don't pull the plug or spare the horses because I want anything you can give me that will keep me alive as long as possible. Wires, IVs, monitors,extracts, monkey hormones -- I want it all!"

Posted by: margaretmeyers"

Yeah, but I think the issue conservatives have is that they don't want people to even consider the plug pulling option.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"P.S.: Colorofchange.org still needs your help with the Beck boycott. 20+ sponsors have left Beck so far...but they will try to rotate others in. Pls. check in with CofC, and contact the new sponsors they list, when you have time. Let's de-hate our airwaves."

Howard Kurtz said recently that these boycotts rarely work in getting people removed, so I'm not as optimistic as I was. Let's wait and see. At the very least, this is embarrassing for Beck.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 11:03 AM
________
Kurtz is laughably wrong.

It has been rumored/speculated that Beck's recent vacation was really a "timeout" ordered by station management in the hopes this boycott would die down. Beck will have to go if they can't find sponsors to rotate into the vacated ad slots.

As for Kurtz, he has an agenda. He was arguably the most visible and loudest supporter of Imus when he was booted off TV. Kurtz was never personally held to account for his support of Imus's bigoted "humor." I assume Kurtz was none to happy when Imus was tossed. IMO, Kurtz also is no fan of BHO; in many past columns he used to have a snarky "Obama adulation" section.

Trust us, the boycott worked with Imus, so it will work with Beck and Kurtz knows it and that's why he's pushing back.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 22, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, you can include some other mistakes the media outlets are making that end up "framing the debate:"

printing the opinions of people without any analysis of their misinformed statements (Times article by Kevin Sack interviewing senior citizens in Florida)

giving endless coverage to the noisy disruptions at the Town Halls where hysterics shouted at congressman and thought they were getting somewhere, and then getting strangely silent when there are calm forums where the topic is cogently talked about

pretending that the only fair way to cover the issue of health care reform is to repeat the lies and disinformation spread by one side. There is no fair way to present the views of the birther, death panel-believing, Obama is Hitler,and keep your gubmnint hands off my medicare crowd.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 11:49 AM
________
I totally co-sign, mm.

When a Sunday morning TV show has on the likes of Michelle Maglagang, the empress of self-hate, to debate ANYTHING, you realize legitimate journalism is dead.

Tell you one thing: say what you want about W's administration, but those gun packing yahoos who threatened BHO at the rallies would have been "taken down"--the hard way--if they had come within two states of W--that's a F-A-C-T. You can be sure the First Lady wasn't happy with the way all that was handled. There's an excellent cartoon in the editorial section of today's Post (I don't know if it shows up in the web version) about that issue.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 22, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Good points on all sides on the issues of end of life and beginning of life. It's the kind of conversation that keeps me coming back.

My understanding was that prenatal testing (amnio or the triple test) carries a roughly 1% chance of causing a miscarriage, on the order of the odds of a genetic defect such as Down syndrome. Let me check that...

...I just went to check that number and was shocked to learn that a 2006 study suggested that current techniques carry virtually no risk (~1% rate of miscarraige in both groups). Consider my stand changed. I agree that even if the parents would choose to carry the child to term.

Cheers!

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 22, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

As I stated, before, I'm fine with a mandated Living Will at age 18 -- make it as easy as voter registration and organ donation at the DMV -- it's the "every 5 years starting at 65, or more often if you are sick" part that is ripe for undue influence and looks like shades of Soylent Green to me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 22, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps conservatives want people to do whatever it takes for them to stay alive
Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 11:32 AM

And if that was what you wanted, couldn't you just state that in your living will/directive? I would think that would be excellent use of your time with your doctor. The living will is your chance to say "Don't pull the plug or spare the horses because I want anything you can give me that will keep me alive as long as possible. Wires, IVs, monitors,extracts, monkey hormones -- I want it all!"

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe, you can include some other mistakes the media outlets are making that end up "framing the debate:"

printing the opinions of people without any analysis of their misinformed statements (Times article by Kevin Sack interviewing senior citizens in Florida)

giving endless coverage to the noisy disruptions at the Town Halls where hysterics shouted at congressman and thought they were getting somewhere, and then getting strangely silent when there are calm forums where the topic is cogently talked about

pretending that the only fair way to cover the issue of health care reform is to repeat the lies and disinformation spread by one side. There is no fair way to present the views of the birther, death panel-believing, Obama is Hitler,and keep your gubmnint hands off my medicare crowd.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd, we agree completely. Have a great day.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 22, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mark, that was my main quip with the column. It's way oversimplified. You've got a lot of decisions to make and the choices are more than simply DNR and AHM. Suppose you're comatose? How long do you want to be comatose for? There are financial considerations. Yes, you'll be asked again in the hospital, but you don't want that situation to be the first time you've ever thought about this.

To me, it's part of a doctor's job to provide this kind of counseling the same way he should provide counseling for cancer treatment and anything else. It's a doc's job to keep you informed as to what's available. Will that make you more likely to choose palliative end of life measures? Of course, just like my doc telling me about penicillin will make me more likely to take it. Perhaps conservatives want people to do whatever it takes for them to stay alive, but they need to realize the world doesn't revolve around them. People shouldn't wait until the hospital to have a whole bunch of options thrown at them. Planning leads to better outcomes. If it leads to decisions that Palin or Krauthammer wouldn't make, then so be it. I think we'll live.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"P.S.: Colorofchange.org still needs your help with the Beck boycott. 20+ sponsors have left Beck so far...but they will try to rotate others in. Pls. check in with CofC, and contact the new sponsors they list, when you have time. Let's de-hate our airwaves."

Howard Kurtz said recently that these boycotts rarely work in getting people removed, so I'm not as optimistic as I was. Let's wait and see. At the very least, this is embarrassing for Beck.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Good news: BHO at 58% (Daily Kos, 8/22/09).

Despite a full month of the so-called mainstream media reporting approvingly on the birthers (still on their idiotic snipe hunt for the [non-existent] long form birth certificate), sidearm-packing town hall hoodlums and terrorists, and lies about health care reform measures supported by 77% of the country--and despite a cable network that gives over almost its entire broadcast day to bigoted entertainers, media hucksters, and white supremacists attacking our President--BHO is STILL at 58, way ahead of the other pretenders this space is always pushing for 2012 (Phalin, Pawlenty, etc.).

Imagine where the President would be if we had a normal responsible Cronkite-Katherine Graham-era media. BHO would be at 89%, maybe higher. The media's priority this week? The First Lady's shorts and "wee-weed." Unbelievable.

Get some rest at Martha's Vineyard, Mr. President. They know not what they do.

P.S.: Colorofchange.org still needs your help with the Beck boycott. 20+ sponsors have left Beck so far...but they will try to rotate others in. Pls. check in with CofC, and contact the new sponsors they list, when you have time. Let's de-hate our airwaves.

@DDiego: Sgt. Garcia lost. You won. Doin' right always wins.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 22, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

BB, there is a good reason for every woman to have amnio -- to be prepared mentally if there is something genetically wrong with the baby you are delivering and to be medically prepared. Downs syndrome has many physical complications, some of which need to be addressed immediately the baby is born (heart problems in paticular). Having that knoweldge lets your OBGYN get someone in the delivery room who has expertise in evaluating the baby.

I had my children very late, GandT. My kids were born when I was 37 and 39. You can plan all you want but for women especially, life makes the plan. Anyways, I did have amnio for both pregnancies. No Downs, but my husband and I had agreed that we would deliver a Downs baby. Instead my oldest is Autistic (Aspie, so don't get all sorry for me).

I have two points:
1. In an age where you can plan your pregnancies, prgenancy is the ultimate optimistic act -- optimistic aout the world, about yourself, about the future, about the baby.
2. Parents don't love their children because they are perfect, they love them because they are theirs.

Sh1t, THIRD point. I sometimes feel like Jake and TandZ need to renew their human certificates! You guys need to accept that sometimes your opinions are exceeding your understanding and experience. And I'm saying that in a nice way, not in a personal attack way.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 22, 2009 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Ddawd, you wrote many thoughtful posts. Let me color the Krauthammer discussion a bit. The basic "living will" is designed to guide a doctor when there is no other witness - and its key sentence will be something like this:

"If at any time I should have an incurable condition...certified to be a terminal condition by two physicians, and where the application of life-sustaining procedures would serve only to artificially prolong the moment of my death and where my attending physician determines that my death is imminent whether or not life-sustaining procedures are utilized, I direct that such procedures be withheld or withdrawn, and that I be permitted to die naturally."

It saves docs and hospitals from "Schiavo", as K said, or from seeking a court's guidance about the brain dead.
-------------------------------
When my dad was 83, he was diagnosed with colon cancer and refused surgery despite our pleas. He did not want the chemotherapy that would follow the surgery. He lived to be 87, the last several months in a hospice clinic, in good spirits, and never looked back on the decision. In his case, he sought counseling from several docs at Duke when he was 83. Consensus: 6 months to live without surgery + chemo
of which 4 would be normal; five to ten years to live if the surgery was successful with a year of miserable chemo, a little better than 50-50 on the success rate of surgery on an 83 year old. He chose as he did because he believed he would live a few good years with the cancer despite what the docs said and because he dreaded the chemo. He was ultimately happy with his choices.

Point is that the docs were pushing the surgery in my dad's case. I think this is part of the random sampling of the full range of advice that K misses.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 22, 2009 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, I just finished up my experiments to see your last post, BB. I've got nothing to say that I could say half as eloquently as you did, so I'll just nod in agreement. I'm sure I'll be having to make these tough decisions for myself someday. I'll keep all this in mind.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 22, 2009 2:44 AM | Report abuse

We made our decision about our child (children as it turned out) when we decided to not undergo amniocentesis--pardon the earlier misspelling. So, I truly feel that I am personally pro-life and politically pro-choice. Both for the same reason. I am not sure how one quantifies when life begins. When a nascent life begins, I couldn't bear to end it.

I come at this as the parent of a special needs child. Two actually (Secondo has autism; Primo is brilliant, but has delays in social interaction and communication). We also lost our first child (to be precise, a miscarriage at around 14 weeks). I truly sympathize with those who learn the child they are expecting has a genetic defect. And I would be the last person to force that choice on them. So, if those who are pro-life realize there is another side to the story, then some small good has come out of a terrible tragedy. And if those who are pro-choice realize the value of a life, even one different than that they imageind for their child, there's some value in that as well.

No slogans here tonight for me. Just my blessings to all.

Time for bed. The risotto with black beans and coconut milk rocked, especially when combined with seared shrimp and pineapple with pepperoncini and thai basil.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 22, 2009 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Except for the part Charles trashes Sarah for "death panels" but later admits that will happen.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003035.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Thought I'd link to the Krauthammer column on end of life counseling. I don't fully agree with everything, but it's one of the more reasoned things I've read from him in a while.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"My primary point related to hypocrisy. If someone believes abortion should be illegal except in the case of a threat to the life of the mother, then you are a hypocrite if you decide to have amniocenteis."

Well, a lot of people in all walks of life tend to be judgmental towards others in situations they haven't experienced or encountered others experiencing. I suspect becoming pregnant makes you reevaluate a lot of previously held beliefs. Not great to have been closed minded before, but in terms of getting it right, better late then never, especially when you have a potential life at stake. I guess the true hypocrites are those who get the abortion and are still pro-life. If you're pro-life and reconsider that position when finding you have a Down fetus, it's ok to give that a second thought. I'd rather people reevaluate these things than just blindly stick to ideology.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Wish you the best of success, BB.

I work with a guy I suspect may be mildly autistic, I have to pick my words with extreme care and the first few weeks were terribly frustrating .. I was *born* picking my words with extreme care, didn't speak until I was three years old and knew the grammar, and then began speaking in complete sentences, so I'm not used to having to be even more precise.

For reasons I won't go into in present company I adopted an old cat who needed veterinary attention and hadn't a chance without me of leaving the pound, and gave the little guy two more years of comfortable caring life. Not the same as your intent but I understand the need, I think.

Have a good weekend.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Being a little over a year in to the magical mystery tour known as autism, I sympathize. My child is high functioning and we have hopes that he'll will be able to have an independent life. My supervisor is that father of a young adult who has autism and is non-verbal.

My primary point related to hypocrisy. If someone believes abortion should be illegal except in the case of a threat to the life of the mother, then you are a hypocrite if you decide to have amniocenteis. I would note, as conservatives always seem to do so, there is the option of adoption. There is actually a shortage of Down Syndrome babies, i.e., there are more families actively seeking to adopt a child with Down Syndrome than such children are available for adoption. And, yes, we are thinking about eventually adopting a special needs child.

Well, I'm off to make a very late dinner. Toodles, everyone.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Note the sharp rise at age 40. I wonder what's up with that? By 45 it's at 3.5%. Not exactly Russian Roulette but a good reason to get childbearing over sooner.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

"The probability of bearing a Down as a function of age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trisomy21_graph.jpg

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

A lot of women hear about how the risk of birthing a Down child doubles when they are thirty, but doubling is a relative term. It only goes up from like 1/1000 to 1/500. I'm finding myself explaining that to a lot of my friends now as we're all approaching that age.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Aw, shucks, and you were doing so good "ignoring" me for a little bit there (what was it, 2 or 3 hours?). LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Dude, you ["chrisfox8"] do this for everything. The first time I addressed you directly, you were saying how all Down Syndrome babies should be aborted and aanyone who doesn't do so is some sick degenerate.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2009 11:51 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/supreme-court/sotomayor-for-scotus-what-it-m.html

(I've got plenty more where these came from ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse

And to think, this is after only three days. Can't wait to see next week!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 8:47 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

You remember all that, right?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin should have done what 90% of women do upon learning they are bearing a Down syndrome baby.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 13, 2009 4:33 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-nelson-strikes-bac.html?wprss=thefix

In the case of mental retardation, especially severe retardation, I think knowingly bringing such a child into the world is just bizarre. Mild cases can lead relatively whole lives, severe cases don't even know where they are. And it cannot be fixed, and when it can be fixed we'll be playing God, constructing personalities from a template. I'd be against that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 21, 2009 12:33 AM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/072009-morning-fix-jindal-rise.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Unlike "chrisfox8" / GoldAndTanzanite, who passed plenty of judgment on mothers who decided NOT to abort. BTW: how many parents would decide to abort if they knew their son would grow up to be a homosexual? Too bad that Ken and Jane didn't know.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

The probability of bearing a Down as a function of age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trisomy21_graph.jpg

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

"So, either Down Syndrome is surprisingly selective--only striking pro-choice couples"

Who knows? Pro choicers tend to be more liberal. Liberals tend to be more educated. More educated people tend to get married and start families at later ages. Older women are more likely to produce Tri21 fetuses.

But I think your explanation is more plausible.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"It is a tragedy to me that 90% of foetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted. Note that 90% number. Depending upon the poll, roughly half the population is opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Assuming there are some mixed marriages (pro-life marries a pro-choice), I would guess that at least 60% of all married couples have a person who is morally opposed to abortion to the extent that they think it should be illegal."

It can be pretty hellish for a family that isn't equipped to handle a Down child. Both the financial and the attention expenses are hugh. These kids need a lot of expensive medical care and pretty much never become independent. If a family makes the decision that they can handle a Down baby, then that's fine, but if they decide they can't handle it, they should be given the option to abort. Having a "normal" child is pretty arduous and life changing. Having a Down's child can be downright crippling. The child stays a child even when he becomes adult age. How many parents would want to sign up for that? Some would make the sacrifice for that long. Most won't. Not necessarily because there is less "worth" in not growing up, but the immediate and long term sacrifices are too great. Yeah, many people trivialize the situation by calling having a down kid "inconvenient." These people are just worthless pricks. Trying to reach a can of soup from the top pantry shelf is inconvenient. Raising a Down kid requires superhuman effort. Many people don't want to go through with it. I could never pass one microgram of judgment on someone who made either choice.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

No other birth control method is 100% effective.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

If conservatives were as authentically opposed to abortion as they claim they would favor forced sterilization of every female.

I don't see that happening either.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

If conservatives were as authentically opposed to abortion as they claim they would favor making contraceptive freely available without prescription or the taking of names.

I don't see that happening.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

You shouldn't be so surprised at hypocrisy among pro-lifers, BB. My mother used to talk about pro-life friends of hers, and there were several, who secured abortions for their young daughters when they got pregnant.

My mom confronted one of them about it, and got a shocked response. "But having a baby would have ruined her life."

"Pro-life" is mostly a way to beat up on other people.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I recently attended the 4th birthday party of a child with Down Syndrome. He's a classmate of one of my sons (the one on the autism spectrum). He's a lovely little boy and I think my son's life is the richer for having him as a classmate. So, I reject with prejudice the notion that such lives are without value.

It is a tragedy to me that 90% of foetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted. Note that 90% number. Depending upon the poll, roughly half the population is opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Assuming there are some mixed marriages (pro-life marries a pro-choice), I would guess that at least 60% of all married couples have a person who is morally opposed to abortion to the extent that they think it should be illegal.

So, either Down Syndrome is surprisingly selective--only striking pro-choice couples--or a shocking number of conservatives are hypocrites. I am personally opposed to abortion and politically pro-choice. In my case, that meant that we decided to forgo amnio as we decided that if our child had a chromosomal anomaly, we would choose to have that child.

I apologize to CC for the thread jack.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Unless, of course, the claim is now that there will be executions of defective individuals. I thought we fought a war over that.

==

I don't think so. I presume you're talking about WWII and the Nazi extermination of the mentally retarded, the blind, the psychotic. The history I've read says that America wasn't terribly outraged over the Holocaust, that it was ignored and dismissed as propaganda for a long time, and that even when the truth came out there was a lot of support.

I've seen with my own eyes old flyers urging returning soldiers returning home from Europe to keep their bayonets because there were still lots of Jews back in the states. It's been decades since I read Shirer but I believe the real outrage at the extermination program was after the war .. and far from universal.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Harvard's prestigious Kennedy School of Government announced its fellows class for the coming semester on Thursday and, as usual, it amounted to a virtual who's who of the political class. The group includes...Peggy Noonan, a Wall Street Journal columnist and special assistant to the late Ronald Reagan...."
_________________
I just spotted this. Is this a misprint? Was Kathleen Parker not available? Michelle Maglagang? E.D. Hill?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Like I said, 90% of us who are not in the ruling class (i.e. U.S. Senators, Presidents, and their daughters) will be subject to said "Death Panels", just like 90% (or 100%, FORCED ABORTIONS against the will of the mother, if those like "chrisfox8" get his way) of unborn babies with Down syndrome, misdiagnosed or not.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Today's post count (out of 130):

G&T 25
JakeD 21
DDAWD 15
Shrink2 7
Mnteng 4
Scrivener50 4
Yours truly 4 (including this one).
____________
Ali-Frazier
Sampras-Agassi
Nicklaus-Palmer
G&T-JakeD

Seems kinda natural.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe:

Larry Sinclair claims to have shared drugs and homosexual relations with Barack Obama too; do you believe that?

FairlingtonBlade:

Now, count up how many posts he's still using name-calling (he called scrivener50 "crazy" on the other thread) vs. me.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

One small point regarding the supposed death panels. Down Syndrome is not a fatal disease and thus a child with Down syndrome does not require life sustaining intervention. Unless, of course, the claim is now that there will be executions of defective individuals. I thought we fought a war over that.

==

That decision will remain in the hands of their future mothers, 90% of whom elect to abort. I approve of that decision but I'd stand against anyone who wanted to make it 100% by law. Fortunately there is no call for anyone to do that, so of course the suggestion is just another troll.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Today's post count (out of 130):

G&T 25
JakeD 21
DDAWD 15
Shrink2 7
Mnteng 4
Scrivener50 4
Yours truly 4 (including this one).

One small point regarding the supposed death panels. Down Syndrome is not a fatal disease and thus a child with Down syndrome does not require life sustaining intervention. Unless, of course, the claim is now that there will be executions of defective individuals. I thought we fought a war over that.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"Gregory Charles Royal and Kim Chatman have amended their earlier motion against Sarah Palin on Aug 3 [2009], to add bribery charges. The news was broken by the Alaska Report."

http://wwww.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/7/763270/-Sarah-Palin-Alleged-Bribery

Stay tuned. Maybe Ms. Heath and Mr. Royal will finally meet one more time...in court.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

You see, that was much better -- simply skip right over whatever I post, even though it completely demolishes your point -- now, just do that in EVERY thread.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

@BB: I think the Kennedy issue was discussed to death hours ago. Everyone with anything to say already said it, including a lot of swinery you noted earlier.

As for Lieberman, he's a real nasty piece of work. I'm always suspicious when Israel refuses to recognize criticism of its behavior as anything but hatred of Jews. Israel is brutal in its occupation and there's plenty to criticize, the fact of the settler movement leading the list.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

@BB: Mr. Royal might have had a special relationship with Ms. Heath but for her, well, "policy." It might have changed history.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the name-calling though. It suits you (and "chrisfox8").

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

No, we don't KNOW know from her alleged remark that she's a racist swine, but nice try:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/sambo.asp

"Undetermined"

I can't wait until she's elected President of the United States. Will you move, or simply kill yourself?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

What on earth does a DC musician have any business filing lawsuits about proclamations in Alaska? My impression has been that DC residents have always resented interventions into DC affairs by Congressman.

I would agree with the Israeli. Jews harvesting organs from others is a variation on the ancient blood libel (matzah is made from blood of gentiles). Disgusting.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Did Palin break law by failing to recognize freeing of slaves?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Friday to declare that she broke state law two years ago when she failed to issue a proclamation for a celebration commemorating the freeing of U.S. slaves.

==

This is petty stuff. Palin's out of office, she's sinking like a stone among her former supporters, she's turned into a national troll as someone who'll say anything for attention. We already know from her "Sambo" remark that she's a racist swine, so who cares. Let her continue her decline.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

In other news, a Swedish newspaper accuses Israeli soldiers of harvesting organs from dead Palestinians.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/08/21/israel.sweden.organ.harvesting/index.html

OK, it sounds like "well poisoners / child thieves," boilerplate European / Ukranian antisemitism ... but.

In his official response the West Bank settler Avigdor Lieberman, now defense minister, excoriates the 'paper not for accusing *Israelis* of crimes but for ...

"blood libels against Jews."

and of course he manages to work a Holocaust reference into it just for good measure.

This dodge leads me to suspect there is something there.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Perhaps it was "oddly" never reported because she never said "Sambo" (at least your side can't prove it):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/sambo.asp

Neither are Gregory Charles Royal's claims. And, failing to issue a proclamation hardly proves one a racist.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Heath Phalin's racial views are well known throughout Alaska, see, e.g., S@mbogate, but, oddly, are never reported by the so-called mainstream media.

Thanks to G&T for alerting us to a recent lawsuit against Phalin by Mr. Gregory Charles Royal, whose hook-up with you know who was famously aborted years ago due to her personal "policy."

Who knows what might have been?

"Did Palin break law by failing to recognize freeing of slaves?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit against Gov. Sarah Palin asked a judge Friday to declare that she broke state law two years ago when she failed to issue a proclamation for a celebration commemorating the freeing of U.S. slaves.

Plaintiffs also sought a retroactive proclamation for the 2007 Juneteenth celebration from Palin, or — with her July 26 resignation looming — from the governor’s office, said Gregory Charles Royal, a Washington, D.C., musician, who filed the suit in March.

“You just can’t ignore laws,” he said."

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/19262

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I'm right here -- if you keep talking about me, that's hardly "ignoring" me -- please, for DDAWD's sake, try a little harder.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

And oh, the repetition. That too.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

I guess it's also a matter of motive. For me, it wasn't really about pissing him off. It was that I just didn't care what he had to say and the clutter from the nonsensical back and forth was real annoying.

==

Well I'll never understand a troll's motivation, what possible gratification anyone could get out of being an irritant and a nuisance is out of my pay grade. But then, I'm a liberal. And while there may be liberal trolls I don't think I've ever seen one, the gratification of being a nuisance seems to come overwhelmingly from the other side.

But our own irritant troll is not going to leave this forum nor stop trolling out of the goodness of his heart, if there was any he wouldn't post all that racist junk. So if it takes pissing him off by ignoring him to the point that the opens a vein hey that's fine with me.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

The "racist" stuff never started, since I voted Alan Keyes for President AND non-racists can legitimately question whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"Joseph Kennedy, the son of Robert F. Kennedy and a former member of Congress, would almost certainly have the right of first refusal...."

Let's end this dynastic junk. Families should not "own" a Senate seat. Leave the law as it is, and let the normal process go forward when Kennedy steps down.

And I'm not so sure that his wife would have taken the seat "unopposed." That's what they said when Paterson in NY was about to appoint Carolyn Kennedy to that Senate seat until, well, you know. :) People aren't buying into the Camelot bull-, er, mythology the way they used to. Just sayin'.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | August 21, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

As long as the racist stuff stops that's all I care about

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

In contrast, ignoring undesirable behavior is a form of Behavior Modification, as is rewarding it with attention (whether positive or negative).

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 21, 2009 5:54 PM | Report abuse

My understanding of passive-aggressiveness was more that the actor behaved overtly with a cooperative façade, while in fact sabotaging the other person's efforts.

Example: A wants B to do something that B doesn't want to do (whether A is aware of this or not). So B does a half-baked job, or dawdles until it's to late to do the task, or some other act of sabotage.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | August 21, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

For those of you interested in what pResident Obama meant, Robert Gibbs has weighed in:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/21/getting_all_wee-weed_up.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 5:28 PM | Report abuse

"Meanwhile, ignoring someone is passive aggression; it is core part of the tool kit of a dysfunctional family, it is where the disappointment of a stale love affair gets purulent."

I guess it's also a matter of motive. For me, it wasn't really about pissing him off. It was that I just didn't care what he had to say and the clutter from the nonsensical back and forth was real annoying.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

ChrisFord1 is right on about Ted Kennedy.
The list of venal members of our ruling class is huge, Warren Magnuson, Henry Jackson and Bob Packwood, from way out here in the PNW, are examples of people who stayed on way too long. Castro, obviously, is in a different category.

Meanwhile, ignoring someone is passive aggression; it is core part of the tool kit of a dysfunctional family, it is where the disappointment of a stale love affair gets purulent.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"I think of myself as a decent American, and I tend to support term limits and not think of people in power 50 years as "tireless public servants" - but as remorseless lovers of influence, power, and their own egos."

I've always wondered if term limits was a form of paternalism. If someone is an incredible president, governor, senator, etc. why wouldn't we want to have that person serve term after term after term after term? And if he stopped being effective, then we the people would have the capacity to vote him out.

I do think term limits are necessary in practice, though, because plenty of people just aren't knowledgeable enough to vote out incompetent incumbents, especially non-presidents.

"I feel under no more obligation to "respect and admire" Teddys determination and dedication than I do the dedication to themselves and their ideas and determination to stay in power no matter what - of other politicians for life like Sen Byrd, Sen Ted Stevens, Fidel Castro, Sen Strom Thurmond. And Congressman Dingle, Waters, and Conyers."

It's not just longevity that matters, it's the pursued policies and I would think that criteria would set Kennedy apart from all those other people.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't even call ignoring someone passive aggression. It's just not giving him attention. I think passive aggression is better characterized by saying really offensive things with a winking emoticon at the end of it.

==

I call that "mockery."

And I do call ignoring passive-aggression, and wouldn't dismiss the designation just because ignoring is operationally indistinguishable from "not giving a crap."

We know full well that our troll is going out of his mind trying to get responses, just look how ugly he's getting with his posts. Can you imagine how many emails he's sent ChrisC? How stridently he's demanding action?

How many "names" he's putting in "quotes?"

I'm loving it. And I hope he pops like a stale zit and ends up on the evening news.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I think the article misses something in only talking about which Democrat will be annointed to Teddy's seat in the end. After 57 years of a Kennedy dynasty and a fellow Senator-for Life and loyal Kennedy retainer in the other seat - Mass may be ready for a change. That could be a Dem with no loyalty to the Kennedy Family, a *shudder* Centrist Dem, even a *gasp* Republican.
Mass voters are not as liberal as some think. Deval Patrick is a disaster, too. They have sporadically sought some political check to balance the power of the Teddys, Markeys, and Barney Franks.
------
"All that is irrelevant. What is releavant is that Kennedy has been a tireless public servant for nearly 50 years, not coasting on his name and connections but rather trying every day in the Senate to advance the causes he believes in. Whether or not these are causes you support as well - and I do - I think any decent American of any political affiliation must respect and appreciate the dedication and determination of this man.
Yes, I said it. Any decent American.
Posted by: bokonon13"

I think of myself as a decent American, and I tend to support term limits and not think of people in power 50 years as "tireless public servants" - but as remorseless lovers of influence, power, and their own egos.
I feel under no more obligation to "respect and admire" Teddys determination and dedication than I do the dedication to themselves and their ideas and determination to stay in power no matter what - of other politicians for life like Sen Byrd, Sen Ted Stevens, Fidel Castro, Sen Strom Thurmond. And Congressman Dingle, Waters, and Conyers.

Posted by: ChrisFord1 | August 21, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't even call ignoring someone passive aggression. It's just not giving him attention. I think passive aggression is better characterized by saying really offensive things with a winking emoticon at the end of it.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Scary. In between yakking on message boards, I work with huge pdf medical files people send me all day, these of a sensitive nature. I am assured by our geeks (I am sure you don't mind) that this info is all safe and sound.

==

Adobe (PDF) has done some real trailblazing work with content protection. You can count on the reliability of passwords .. and as a general rule, nobody tries to actually crack crypto unless there's some real value in doing so. I'm talking banks here.

What they always do instead is either physical hacks like keystroke loggers on the machine or, best of all Disgruntled Former Employees™ who know critical back doors. Anytime you fire one of those guys in the back room, change all the codes before he leaves the building.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

If you look at the lives of my clients, I'd say active aggression is over-rated. The divorce, screaming children, all that blood, the police, jail, really nasty room mates.

==

And the siiiiiiirens and the neeeeeeeedles and the electrooooooooodes ...

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Scary. In between yakking on message boards, I work with huge pdf medical files people send me all day, these of a sensitive nature. I am assured by our geeks (I am sure you don't mind) that this info is all safe and sound.

Meanwhile,

"{You'd think that someone who grew up in *my* family wouldn't need so many decades to figure out how much fun passive-aggression can be. But this is a blast.

A blast, I tell you."

If you look at the lives of my clients, I'd say active aggression is over-rated. The divorce, screaming children, all that blood, the police, jail, really nasty room mates.

PassAg, aggression that works.


Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaforamerica/gGM7SJ

Obama's speech plus Q+A. Took them long enough to get it up.

I was surprised by 1) that he showed up in person and 2) he spent an hour there.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty easy, it is just the return to and from the valid email address required by message board and blog sites to log in. We read everybody's email (we have to, just like the paper mail). Also, we bring up the history of who went where every day by the log in passwords we give them. I am sure a programmer could defeat this method, but we also have staff in the computer room, it is not like the situation in a muni library

==

Yeah I could get around that but it'd be tricky and an arms race with the guys in the computer room.

We technical types are really dangerous .. you know, most people with wireless routers don't protect them, don't use WEP or WPA, don't even change the password on their routers. Someone like me with a PDA or even a WiFi phone can pull up in front of a house and with a few keystrokes render the router unusable, or hijack it. I don't do crap like that but I know how.

I've sat in Barnes and Noble and surfed the nearby laptops using my own and Linux SMB commandline utilities. And I'm a total amateur with no disposition to be a hacker or cause harm, happily enough.

When I was in a hotel in Cần Thơ they had colliding IP ranges on the routers so, nice guy that I am, I logged into each one and fixed it.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

It is pretty easy, it is just the return to and from the valid email address required by message board and blog sites to log in. We read everybody's email (we have to, just like the paper mail). Also, we bring up the history of who went where every day by the log in passwords we give them. I am sure a programmer could defeat this method, but we also have staff in the computer room, it is not like the situation in a muni library.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I didn't hear anything

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Did you guys hear something? It sounded like a very faint whining sound..........

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 21, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, sorry to hear about your dad, Ken Fox, passing away. I can only imagine how ashamed he must have been of you.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Well that is why I wonder if koz is getting Haldol prns all day now. He can't seem to find his way back.

==

Maybe it's technically beyond him. I'm a programmer and I know about proxy servers, anonymization portals, lots of tricks. I haven't needed to do any of that, instead I'm just keeping it clean.

You'd think that someone who grew up in *my* family wouldn't need so many decades to figure out how much fun passive-aggression can be. But this is a blast.

A blast, I tell you.

I read your post on the other thread about zouk, and yeah it makes sense. How do you restrict Internet access to one screen name in day-room PCs?

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh please, if you thought it was so effective "breaking us down", you would have voluntarily followed DDAWD's advice a long time ago. Hopefully, our gracious host catches on to you.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD writes:
"Glad you appreciate it. I had to go to Michelle Malkin's page to find it. I have to go and wash the hack off me at some point."

You are a braver person than me, my friend. I think there's a BSL3+ facility in your Micro department where you can disinfect.

You're not alone in being burnt out on grass-roots campaigning. The OFA effort is a good idea, but the general public has a short attention span (not to mention day jobs). I'd be interested in seeing how much support (read: enthusiasm) BHO can drum up for Deeds and Corzine this fall.

Posted by: mnteng | August 21, 2009 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"By ignoring these guys, we might actually be helping them by depriving them of their attention fix. I'm mostly joking, but I'm kind of serious too."

Well that is why I wonder if koz is getting Haldol prns all day now. He can't seem to find his way back.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Who knows? By ignoring these guys, we might actually be helping them by depriving them of their attention fix. I'm mostly joking, but I'm kind of serious too.

==

It breaks them down. I mean, you really have to figure that anyone who gets his jollies out of being annoying isn't playing with a full deck in the first place. Before FC shut down U_M would follow every one of his posts with "support" from "anonymous" posters (the dot moniker was a free-for-all) and it was really really obvious.

Here we are, only day 3, and, well, you see already what it's doing. I imagine he has drool on the keyboard. Pop some corn because this is going to get better.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Having to defend Palin from Krauthammer. Now that's got to be some cognitive dissonance for someone.

==

Oh, I don't know .. my guess is that Palin supporters only know about Krauthammer as "someone who hates Obama like we do," but don't read his columns. There are, you know, big words an' stuff. Ewwww. Where's the remote.

What I really noticed was that a site that appeared to exist to ra-ra for Palin had to spend all its time defending her with spin.

By denying objective reality.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"In the end, by the way, U_M got so obsessed with trolling me that his wife divorced him. Imagine the fun when someone discovered that the day his wife was at her mother's funeral, U_M had been busy trolling away."

Wow, that sounds pretty pathological in a slot machine/Skinner box/operant conditioning sort of way.

Who knows? By ignoring these guys, we might actually be helping them by depriving them of their attention fix. I'm mostly joking, but I'm kind of serious too.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza:

Are you going to allow this?

If anyone else doubts that "GoldAndTanzanite" is really the BANNED "chrisfox8" (and "Cheopys1" from yesterday):

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:rdO8GQNup8MJ:pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup%3Fop%3Dvindex%26search%3D0xCBE75F690DEA9E58+%22GoldAndTanzanite%22+cheopys&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin, I did the critique of the Pearlstein piece.

But it is line by line and it is way too long for this place, formatting issues too. Do you have some address or page I could send it so you can see it?

The health reform effort and the "public option" in particular is the huge big deal for this administration, they made it so. They can not unmake that deal.

I can not believe what has happened in the last few weeks.

It seems to me now Obama is either the political genius of the age, or he has lost his grasp on reality.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Wow this "armpeg" character is a real sick piece of work

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what your old message board was like, but I imagine there was a lot of coming and going of people which makes it hard to shut out a troll since newcomers don't know he's a troll.

==

No, netslaves was actually a lot more stable than The Fix. Registration was required and it was moderated and unapologetically. When a bunch of trolls dropped in one day from f*ckedcompany and started Hillary Conspiracy threads, the mods nuked the entire threads and kicked out the trolls. There was a lot less guff about civility and a lot more emphasis on content. It was purportedly a troll-free zone.

But then Uncle_Meat, deprived of his target, bribed one of the admins with some sysadmin biz in his home state and got free rein to troll the place mad, and did so, starkly contrasting with the tenor of the board. When the business deal was discovered on the admin's client list all hell broke loose, the post revealing it got yanked, but everyone had read it. The good times never came back after that.

Then came the incredible Honda Cannon thread where the troll betrayed a sub-GED grasp of basic science, he left in a big crying huff, and the admins exacted revenge on most of the best posters. Mass ban, followed by mass exodus. And that was pretty much that.

It was a real shame because it was a GREAT board before they let Uncle_Meat in and let him troll. That's one reason I'm so adamant that trolls have to be stopped.

In the end, by the way, U_M got so obsessed with trolling me that his wife divorced him. Imagine the fun when someone discovered that the day his wife was at her mother's funeral, U_M had been busy trolling away.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

re. The cowardly run-away-and-hide Chappaquiddick murderer Mass. Sen. Ted Kennedy sent a letter to Democrap Socialist Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick requesting that state law be changed so that if he steps aside in the near future, an interim senator (i.e. a Democrap Socialist of course) would be appointed in his place.

Let me get this straight. The Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media and party shill Chris Cillizza, see nothing wrong in Ted Kennedy's letter to get a Democrap Socialist appointed in his place, even though this sleazy cowardly killer of Mary Jo Kopechne back in 2004 sent a very strong letter to then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney with the exact opposite viewpoint. The very reason the Democrap Socialist--controlled Mass. State government back in 2004, created and passed a law (with Ted Kennedy's urging), preventing the then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Senator (i.e. a Republican) if Democrap Socialist Mass. Sen. Hanoi John Kerry had won the US Presidentcy, Ted Kennedy now wants to change again, in order to make sure that a Democrap Socialist gets to replace him when he leaves.
The sleaze and hypocrisy of the slimeball Ted Kennedy, the Democrap Socialist Party, and their shills in their probaganda-arm the Main Stream Media is endless. Have you Democrap Socialist Party--shills no shame?

Posted by: armpeg | August 21, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Yesterday the Charles Royal search brought me to conservatives4palin.com so yeah I know exactly what you mean. Banner shows it with its back to the viewer, outline of bra straps, stairing in the direction of a mountain chain defiled by a pipeline snaking through it.

The alleged content was the same aggrieved defensive pouting we get from our ignored troll. She didn't say that! She didn't do that! It isn't true! It isn't true!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite"

That site is great. You have a whole bunch of posts talking about how great she is for bringing up death panels and how Obama's wee-wee comment was because he was so focused on Palin that he made a mistake.

But the most recent post is on how Krauthammer slammed Palin for talking about non-existent death panels. The poster bent over backwards to try and explain that Palin didn't really mean death panels and how it was just a metaphor.

Having to defend Palin from Krauthammer. Now that's got to be some cognitive dissonance for someone.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Gotta hand it to you, you were right all along and I should have listened. This is working so much better and now it's only a matter of time. No attention = no fun hence the embittered sarcasm and the increasingly repellent ugliness in hope of a response.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite "

Much appreciated. It is fun to watch.

I don't know what your old message board was like, but I imagine there was a lot of coming and going of people which makes it hard to shut out a troll since newcomers don't know he's a troll. This board is pretty stable, so it would be possible to get everyone to ignore him. I can understand Chris C not wanting to ban people, so it's good that we can just take care of the problem ourselves.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Are we supposed to be surprised at how low the previous administration was willing to go to keep power? Just look at how conservatives act now that they've been decisively booted from power. It's increasingly pathetic.

==

Nowhere near as pathetic as the Obama administration's determination to let bygones be bygones. For Bush and Cheney to stay out of prison would be the greatest injustice since the 40s, or at least since Reagan and North skated on Iran-Contra.

We were sold on change, we voted for change, and we get incrementalism and bank bailouts.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Glad you appreciate it. I had to go to Michelle Malkin's page to find it. I have to go and wash the hack off me at some point.

==

Yesterday the Charles Royal search brought me to conservatives4palin.com so yeah I know exactly what you mean. Banner shows it with its back to the viewer, outline of bra straps, stairing in the direction of a mountain chain defiled by a pipeline snaking through it.

The alleged content was the same aggrieved defensive pouting we get from our ignored troll. She didn't say that! She didn't do that! It isn't true! It isn't true!

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

top = to (darn Spellchecker ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Are we supposed to be surprised at how low the previous administration was willing to go to keep power? Just look at how conservatives act now that they've been decisively booted from power. It's increasingly pathetic.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 21, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Beside the fact that Gov. Ridge is trying top sell books, others privy to the decision deny that the terror alert level was politicized.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/21/townsend-refutes-ridge-claim/

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD:

Thanks for the link to the "wee-wee" comment.

Attention to detail and to the grass-roots pavement pounders was a major factor in BHO getting elected in the first place. It's good to see that they are continuing that.

Posted by: mnteng "

Glad you appreciate it. I had to go to Michelle Malkin's page to find it. I have to go and wash the hack off me at some point.

If Obama can get a generation of people active in local politics at the grassroots level in not just elections, but policy, that will be as valuable of an accomplishment as any bill he manages to get passed. It's hard to keep up that kind of enthusiasm once the election is over. I know I've been a little lax before the health care issue popped up and that's just because it's an issue so near and dear to me. I can't imagine I'd make that much of an effort on things like energy or the environment. Last year kind of burned me out to grassroots campaigning. There's just a lot of repetitive gruntwork. I'm glad that there are a lot of people who've kept up the fight even after the election. I think getting Obama in office was the easy part given the political environment. It's the policy that's become a pain in the ass. The army is definitely smaller than it was a year ago, but it's still substantial. Let's see what we can accomplish.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Pretty lame blog today. Between the looney Kennedy haters and the ignored troll, there's not much else going on.

==

Time for some creative topic drift.

Like Tom Ridge's claim that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted to elevate the threat level just before the 2004 election. National security as politics. Thousands of man-hours of extra vigilance to screw the election.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

just one. I can live with that.

==

Gotta hand it to you, you were right all along and I should have listened. This is working so much better and now it's only a matter of time. No attention = no fun hence the embittered sarcasm and the increasingly repellent ugliness in hope of a response.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Thank God.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I was hoping Kennedy would recover but it doesn't look like he's going to.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"The end result of all the rigamarole has been a much better blog, just not in the way it was intended, which seems to be the make The Fix a safe place for birther trolls."

just one. I can live with that.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

youf = your

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Is name-calling youf definition of "behave" too?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

My interpretation is that identities ChrisFox8 and King_of_Zouk were banned and are not welcome back. If the people behind those identities return with new identities and behave themselves, I've no problems with that.

==

The end result of all the rigamarole has been a much better blog, just not in the way it was intended, which seems to be the make The Fix a safe place for birther trolls.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

You have a curious definition of "banned".

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Pretty lame blog today. Between the looney Kennedy haters and the ignored troll, there's not much else going on.

Posted by: jasperanselm | August 21, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't resist a short post. I see the Scrivener got a question into CC today:

===

Philly 'burbs, Pa.: Do you think that your blog has been targeted by paid blog-spammers who try to pollute the political discourse -- especially when a comment arouses the ire of bureaucrats who may be pursuing a hidden ideological agenda?

Chris Cillizza: Um, no

===

That much said, it would have been interesting to get Chris's take on the issue of civility. My interpretation is that identities ChrisFox8 and King_of_Zouk were banned and are not welcome back. If the people behind those identities return with new identities and behave themselves, I've no problems with that.

I'm tempted to create AlexandriaRoyal just to demonstrate how easy it is. Alexandria for the city where I live, and I'm a fan of the KC Royals, it's been a rough decade.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Thanks for the link to the "wee-wee" comment.

Attention to detail and to the grass-roots pavement pounders was a major factor in BHO getting elected in the first place. It's good to see that they are continuing that.

Posted by: mnteng | August 21, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I really don't get it with the McCain Must-Watch thing. While I'm sure he'll get the buttons in the front, the McCain of the 2008 campaign is really nothing like the honorable straight-talker of 2000. The McCain we have now is the guy who called his opponent a terrorist and whose judgment was such that he chose a fundamentalist nutjob to place within reach of the nuclear football. That was a criminally irresponsible act, however desperate, and I will never forgive him for inflicting that vicious stupid woman on our national discourse.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 1:38 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA WAS NOT MAKING SISSY WHEN HE SAID "WEE WEE-ED UP"


Those who choose to think that President Obama was employing a "making sissy" scatological reference when he used the phrase "wee-wee- ed up" reveal an ignorance of urban culture...

... as they mistakenly dismiss the Obama "cool."

Mr. Obama, I believe, did not mean to say "wee wee-ed up."

It appears that he simply stuttered, as he often does, while trying to invoke the urban hipster expression, "weed up."

"Weed up" is defined by the Urban Dictionary as way-out cool, a term that derives from the street slang for smoking marijuana -- to "weed up."

Check out this Urban Dictionary posting from way back in March:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=weed+up

To put it succinctly, this President is no sissy -- he's one "weed up" dude.


***

While I have your attention, read this:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is up in smoke): http://NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

U.S. Senators are not subject to said "Death Panels". Unborn babies with Down syndrome will be. See the difference?

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"His last grasp for power beyond the grave"

hahaha

If only we had government run death panels, right?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Massachusetts is not giving Gov Patrick the power to appoint even a temporary US Senator as he has already destroyed the Dems political advantage by being incompetent. So many want Kennedy's seat that they will not allow any appointments.

Posted by: mascmen7 | August 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy has the most malignant of brain tumors and he has known it for 6 months. His last grasp for power beyond the grave is typical but does not serve the public in any way--just serves Kennedy. I've watched his career develop for 50 years, and have been awe-struck at the people he has destroyed who got in his way. He would be in prision if he had any other last name. Stop telling those of us who know the past to shut-up and worship.

Posted by: drzimmern1 | August 21, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

And you're just posting even though Mr. Cillizza banned your @ss.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 1:15 PM | Report abuse

He's just taking a page out of the Hugo Chavez rule book in how to repeatedly change the law to whatever he pleases due to his sense of entitlement.

==

You're just free-associating.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris' cannot be taken serious when he writes “Massachusetts strategists”; “Democratic strategist”; “senior Massachusetts Democratic strategist”; “…his wife Vicki would almost certainly take the seat without opposition but is apparently uninterested”. Why not just write “he said she said; she said he said; they said; etc.” It carries as much weight as far as I’m concerned.

I mean really doesn’t anyone at the WaPo demand that names be attributed to these articles. However, this is typical of Chris.

==

Yeah sometimes this column has the tone of a political gossip sheet. More than "sometimes" sometimes.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Maybe because the following 16 words were NOT a "lie":

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Where are all these hooting and howling Kennedy-haters coming from? Get a grip, guys, Chappaquiddick was decades and decades ago. He's been excoriated for it ever since and now he's dying. Give it a rest.

Kinda pales to lying the nation into a war, and I don't hear you guys objecting to that.

Posted by: GoldAndTanzanite | August 21, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

The JFK "Jr." reference has finally been corrected : )

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Chris' cannot be taken serious when he writes “Massachusetts strategists”; “Democratic strategist”; “senior Massachusetts Democratic strategist”; “…his wife Vicki would almost certainly take the seat without opposition but is apparently uninterested”. Why not just write “he said she said; she said he said; they said; etc.” It carries as much weight as far as I’m concerned.

I mean really doesn’t anyone at the WaPo demand that names be attributed to these articles. However, this is typical of Chris.

Posted by: rlj1 | August 21, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"Ted Kennedy has absolutely NO RIGHT to try and change the law he authored in 2004 to serve himself and his "family dynasty". "

First, Kennedy didn't author the 2004 law. He's a US Senator. That means he authors US law. The 2004 law was passed by the MA state legislature.

Second, he's not trying to serve his "family dynasty". This law would put a temporary Senator in place until the special election. There's no way that could help the Kennedy dynasty. Appointing a Kennedy for 145 days does nothing for the family. The statement that Joe Kennedy has right of first refusal has nothing to do with the proposed law change; it refers to the special election that would be held with or without this law.

In conclusion, you're an idiot, suffering from Kennedy Derangement Syndrome. Apparently it's an epidemic.

Posted by: Blarg | August 21, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

AndyGeorge:

Easy mistake to make. Not so easy to correct ; )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/18/DI2009081802330.html

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

He's just taking a page out of the Hugo Chavez rule book in how to repeatedly change the law to whatever he pleases due to his sense of entitlement.

Posted by: jahs4fun | August 21, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

joedoc1:

There's no statute of limitations on murder.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Funny, I always thought that when we had a little scuffle with the English in 1776 that sucession was ended. Where are the folks who remember Concord? Ted Kennedy has absolutely NO RIGHT to try and change the law he authored in 2004 to serve himself and his "family dynasty".
Talk about nerve!
The Governer should file the letter in the round file and protect the voters of MA from such a blantant attempt to subvert the democratic process.

Posted by: Poppy33036 | August 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

All that is irrelevant. What is releavant is that Kennedy has been a tireless public servant for nearly 50 years, not coasting on his name and connections but rather trying every day in the Senate to advance the causes he believes in. Whether or not these are causes you support as well - and I do - I think any decent American of any political affiliation must respect and appreciate the dedication and determination of this man.
Yes, I said it. Any decent American.

Posted by: bokonon13 | August 21, 2009 11:11 AM

I do not respect or appreciate him. He's an embarrassment to any Irishman who doesn't feed off the government dole. This latest political stunt simply confirms my disgust for the man.

Posted by: joedoc1 | August 21, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

When the Senate has been your whole life for over 40 years, it's hard to let go. Look at guys like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Robert Byrd. They live to serve. When they retire, unless they have something else that provides the same level of personal stimulus, they die. And like anyone, they don't want to die and they don't want to see everything they've worked for undone while they watch helplessly from the sidelines. Either fate is anathema to them. So they hang on as long as they can.

That Kennedy is even discussing succession is a significant departure from the political norm. My guess is that he knows he has only a short time to live and probably won't see Christmas. But he still can't bring himself to resign because he hopes he can hang on until the end and at least be wheeled into the Senate and with one of his last breaths cast at last cast a vote for health care reform.

Posted by: Gallenod | August 21, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

john adams, fill us in on Lynch and Capuano, please, if you can. CC makes it sound like ethnic southie vs. ethnic northie [Irish v. Italian heritage]. He told us Lynch is strong with the unions. If there is a difference between them that someone in TX might understand if he knew about it, what would that difference be?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 21, 2009 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"not a good choice right now since mass is trying to clean up corruption and give the boot to Patrick"

I figured Patrick's numbers are so low because most governors are having low numbers due to the economy. Is there something specific going on with Patrick?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

MArtha Coakley is jsut not liked very much.

she is compromised in may eyes because while as the middlesex DA she also sat on the advisory baord for the Boston archdiocease during their so called attempt to address the priests sexual assaults. She was seen not a s impartial but as good cover and a person who would look the other way.

not a good choice right now since mass is trying to clean up corruption and give the boot to Patrick

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | August 21, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IGqeLY-YUY

The wee-wee video.

It's pretty cool how intimate the audience is. It's like seeing your favorite rock band close up in an intimate setting. I expected that this was going to be done on a monitor or something. I was surprised to see that Obama was actually there in person.

One thing I've noticed is that he is extremely appreciative of the volunteers and field workers who got his ground game running.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Senator Kennedy's blatant attempt at partisan politics from his deathbed is a sad commentary on the state of mind that prevails in Washington, DC today. While Mr. Kennedy's personal history leaves much to be desired, he has nonetheless had a long and distinguished career as a "liberal lion" in the United States Senate. Whether or not one agrees with his political views, it is unfortunate that in his last days of life Senator Kennedy feels compelled to worry about the ramifications that his death will have on national politics. Alternatively, Senator Kennedy could simply resign from the Senate due to his medical condition and spend his remaining days surrounded by loving family members. Has there been a recent Washington DC politician who, when faced with terminal illness, realized that his or her ability to represent the people of their home state was compromised enough to justify resignation? I can't remember one. They all seem to try to keep the facade of being a functioning lawmaker right until their last breath. I have sympathy for Senator Kennedy's family, but it's time for him to do the honorable thing for the people of Massachusetts, give up his Senate seat to the next generation, and let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: jshay | August 21, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"We have great respect for the senator and what he continues to do for our commonwealth and our nation,"

Which lately hasn't been much since he hasn't been in chambers. He shopuld have stepped down a long time ago.

Posted by: ahashburn | August 21, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy is, no doubt, not a perfect man. Yes, he has had a drinking problem. Yes, Chappaquiddick happened, although it is interesting to note that one of the cons, either on this or another Post blog, implied that it happened 20 years ago. Try 40.
All that is irrelevant. What is releavant is that Kennedy has been a tireless public servant for nearly 50 years, not coasting on his name and connections but rather trying every day in the Senate to advance the causes he believes in. Whether or not these are causes you support as well - and I do - I think any decent American of any political affiliation must respect and appreciate the dedication and determination of this man.
Yes, I said it. Any decent American.

Posted by: bokonon13 | August 21, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"Joseph Kennedy, the son of Robert F. Kennedy and a former member of Congress, would almost certainly have the right of first refusal since the seat has been in his family..." WTF is THAT? The seat has "been in his family" ... "first refusal"... Talk about effing entitlement!!!

Posted by: BoonyTunes | August 21, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats again and again abuse their power in order to maintain their power."

I don't understand this. Is the complaint that the people of Massachusetts aren't going to be able to elect a Republican senator?

I don't think that would happen anyways...

Besides, if the Republicans weren't so intent on filibustering every damn thing in their field of vision, Kennedy probably wouldn't be concerned with the loss of a seat for a short while.

Personally, I'm fine with the appointment/ special election method. It's only a temporary appointment

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"(The law was initially written to keep then Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican replacement if Sen. John Kerry was elected president.)"

This is the most important part of this story.....

The Democrats again and again abuse their power in order to maintain their power.

How much more corrupt can the Democrat Party get?

Three "peas in a pod" the Democrat Party, our liberal MSM wolfpack press, and their like-minded rich elite pals in Hollywood.

The new "Axis of liberal evil" Where in the hell am I wrong? (I reference this story as proof)

Posted by: allenridge | August 21, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Most of you are wonderful, but every day there always seems to be someone who tries to get funny...People with mental illness are people too and they suffer terribly; they are always trying to make sense of things we take for granted. Maybe it is like when Windows locks up and you can hear and sometimes see the machine struggling, making a hash of its programs.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Jake, you forgot: the Dems did go into a frenzy in Texas when Republicans redistricted two years after the initial redisctricting based on the 2000 Census. It was determined to be constitutional, but it was apparently unprecedented.

In the current environment, any time a political party tries to change the system for party gain, the other party is going to yell bloody murder. Unless something requires a constitutional ammendment (state or federal), whoever wins the election will try whatever short-term maneuvering they think they can get away with.

And I believe "all wee-weed up" may refer to something like a gunfight where people start arming themselves with home grown artillery that fires an aqueous (watery) solution of salt (sodium chloride) and substances called urea and uric acid. Just a guess, though.

Posted by: Gallenod | August 21, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I can't wait for teddy the killer to die!! Not soon enough!
He should be sitting in a prison cell today not playing God for the Democrat party!

He is a POS!!

Posted by: jcrocket | August 21, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

McCain is Must Watch TV for what reason, precisely? To see whether he's managed to put his shirt on with the buttons in the front? Because an on-camera display of obvious senility can't be far away? When are you people going to start ignoring this irrelevant has-been?

Posted by: misterjrthed | August 21, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

isn't this supposed to be a democracy? The people of Massachusetts should be offended by this arrogant man

Posted by: loudountaxrevolt | August 21, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

In terms of what he meant, I believe he was talking about the media's overreaction every time a politician tries to do something big. The meaning was pretty obvious. It was just an interesting word choice.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"What the heck does getting "all wee-weed up" mean? Maybe someone that listened to the OFA webcast can explain. DDAWD?"

I actually had the same "WTF?" reaction that Chris C did.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

IS THIS A 'SPOOFED' INTERNET LINK, GENERATED BY U.S. SURVEILLANCE OPERATIVES TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT A COMMENT WAS POSTED TO A NEW YORK TIMES STORY...

WHEN IT REALLY WAS CENSORED?

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21ridge.html


Check it out. The comment at the top of this page lacks the "recommend" button that's part of all "legit" NYT comments.

Is this a clumsy, transparent "psy op"?

Will someone please alert the IG at Office of DNI?

This is NOT statecraft.

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 21, 2009 10:38 AM | Report abuse

What the heck does getting "all wee-weed up" mean? Maybe someone that listened to the OFA webcast can explain. DDAWD?

I think we'll start seeing IL move down the Senate Line now that the IL Ds are starting to get their stuff together, Kirk's moderate credentials notwithstanding.

Posted by: mnteng | August 21, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I won't bash on Sen. Kennedy, but if the GOP were doing the same thing (changing the law back just five years later for naked political gain), you libs would be flipping out.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

TO: "ajsmithva" @ 8:56 a.m.

Is this you? If not, read anyway:

http://nowpublic.com/world/govt-fusion-center-spying-pretext-harass-and-censor

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 21, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The celebration by co-religionists for the arrival of Libyan agent Abdel Basset al-Megrahi in Libya was nothing compared to the party Ted Kennedy's fellows will have when Teddy lands in their midst in hell........

By all means, change state law repeatedly to suit a kennedy.... they already changed it once for him AND let him drown a woman, flee the scene and delay calling the police/rescue with no consequences

Ted Kennedy embodies the democrat party....no wonder liberals love him....

Posted by: georgedixon1 | August 21, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

If MA voters fall for this scam, then they really are dumber than dirt.

Posted by: brunnegd | August 21, 2009 10:22 AM | Report abuse

If MA voters fall for this scam, then they really are dumber than dirt.

Posted by: brunnegd | August 21, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

THE DUKE!! :)

Posted by: andyroo312 | August 21, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

The concept that someone should EVER have "right of first refusal" to a powerful position of government, even as a simply temporary measure because of illness or death, simply because of his or her last name or lineage, is nothing short of utterly appalling and repulsive to me. It doesn't matter whether the name is Kennedy, Gore, Daley, Roosevelt, or Bush.

Posted by: LNER4472 | August 21, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

So Massachusetts law exists, at best, for the convenience of one party and, at worst, for the convenience of one family? Great. A banana republic inside the USA.

Posted by: qlangley | August 21, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

The reason why governors are assigned the job of replacing prematurely departing senators is in order to ensure that the state doesn't go for too long without representation at the federal level. That's fine, but it can be a corrupting influence: Witness the sorry situation with Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, essentially selling the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

I say, Go ahead and have an election -- it's the democratic thing to do. And so what if it takes some time? The good people of Minnesota seem to be none the worse for having only one senator on deck while Al Franken and Norm Coleman duked it out for eight months.

Posted by: enogabal | August 21, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

this is the problem with dems, they are arrogant and believe they own their official positions when in fact the people do...
these people believe they are the elite and don't have to answer to the people that voted for them...
they should follow the law as it is and stop being more loyal to the party instead of the being loyal to the country...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 21, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

If Vicki's not interested, Joan Kennedy is still around. Kennedy the former MTV VJ is certainly looking for work. Is Rosemary Kennedy still alive?

Posted by: tomtildrum | August 21, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Mike Ducarcass is a joke. No way that clown gets appointed to the Senate.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Mike Ducarcass is a joke. No way that clown gets appointed to the Senate.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

What is it about Ted Kennedy that drives Republicans insane?

Mark, I wish I could answer your question. But, to be honest, I don't pay much attention to local politics. It's hard to care very much in a one-party state.

Of the names mentioned, I'd most like to see Robert Reich as our elected Senator. That isn't going to happen; he's too liberal even for MA, he's not being considered as a candidate in the special election, and he lives in California. I'd be happy with Markey; he's done a good job as far as I can tell. And he's from my district. I know nothing at all about the other names mentioned.

Posted by: Blarg | August 21, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

The Fix including the bit about appointing Joseph Kennedy or Vickie Kennedy is just gratuitous. They've both said they don't want it, so to pose the situation as the Kennedys claiming a legacy-right to the seat is just a sop.

I know he wants stay in the Senate as long as possible, but if Kennedy were to do what so many Republicans are doing, and announce that he is resigning 150 days from now, the Governor could run his special election and have someone to take Kennedy's seat the same day Kennedy resigns. And Kennedy would be free to campaign for the person he wanted to have replace him, but the people would still have their vote.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 21, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Right on DDAWD, I've been wondering about the political aftermath of what looks to me like another failed health care reform effort.

I feel like I could have written Krugman's column this morning (though I find the "Progressive" label annoying). The Goldman Obama administration seems to have fallen apart, except of course, for the banking and insurance industries (which seem to have melded in the case of AIG), they got everything they wanted from this President.

Meanwhile, how ironic that Teddy and Mitt got together on the Bay State's health reform effort, which, though it is struggling through the recession, is working.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 21, 2009 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Changing the law yet again could backfire on the Democrats. Given Democratic control of the MA legislature, the law basically means any vacancy will be filled by a Democrat. First the law was changed in 2004 to benefits Dems and now Kennedy is pushing to change it again. Much as I favor a reasonable appointment process (appointed by the governor, confirmed by the legislature), frequently changing the rules of the game to favor your side is contemptible.

No way Reich would get appointed, though Dukakis is an interesting thought.

Spamming of the board today by Kennedy haters seems inevitable, so I'll take my leave early. See y'all the evening.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 21, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy is the exact same pile of smoldering dog sh^t he was that night he drove drunk, running off a bridge and slithered away to sober up and create his alibi as Mary Jo died.

You would think that being directly responsible in a reprehensible way for someones death would have at least a small positive impact on how one chooses to lead the rest of their lives.

He has been a drunken, womanizing sleaze since first being caught at cheating at Haaaaaavad. As they say; character is formed by age 5 - that must be some family.

It's no excuse but what do you expect when dad was a bootlegger; no different today than a drug smuggler.

And this is the best MA has to offer.

Excuse me while I go PUKE!!!

Posted by: Bcamp55 | August 21, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"...since the seat has been in his family since 1950 when his uncle John F. Kennedy Jr. won it."

I think maybe you skipped your coffee before posting this, Chris. It was JFK, and not JFK junior who was a senator, and he won the seat in 1952 and not 1950. JFK was first elected to the house in 1946. Six years later he won the senate seat. You might be thinking of Nixon, who won his senate seat in 1950.

Easy mistake to make. ;-)

Posted by: AndyGeorge | August 21, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

scrivener50, you'd better shut down your computer and get out of there ... the black helicopters must surely be on the way by now.

Posted by: ajsmithva | August 21, 2009 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Allowing a governors of one pary to replace a senator of an opposing party does have some legitimacy, as the people of the state did elect them as their executive. And the appointee will still have to run in an election within two years anyway.

Yes, Masschusetts changed the law to keep a Republican from appointing a Republican replacement for a Democrat. Both parties fear this. A few years ago people were talking about changing presidential succession in the event the Speaker of the House was of a different party from the president.

Even within parties you find governors and senators that don't like each other. Take Perry and Hutchinson in Texas, for example. It's unlikely that when Hutchinson resigns that Perry will appoint anyone she likes to her Senate seat.

Campaigns now run for up to two years before elections (3 to 4 for president), which gives us a nice long look at the people running. Having a special election 145 days after a vacancy might not give us time to shine the lights in the dark corners of the wannabe senators' history.

Massachusetts could resolve many of the competing interests by establishing a protocol for interim appointments that involves both the governor and the legislature, much like a court appointment. The governor nominates the replacement subject to the approval of the state senate (or legislature in a unicameral body). It wouldn't be as fast as a direct appointment or as democratic as a direct vote, but it seems a reasonable compromise. Everyone gets their say, the elected executive gets the leading role, and if the opposition party controls the legislature they get to weigh in.

What could be fairer?

(Ducking behind a protective barrier now...)


Posted by: Gallenod | August 21, 2009 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy is an utter disgrace and a drunk. As he lobbies for a reversal of the 2004 law created to avoid just this situation, Kennedy remains a no-show in Congress. The citizens of Massachusetts have been hampered by a vacant Senate seat for better than 5-months and it will continue to be this way for the foreseeable future as Kennedy refuses to step down. Had Kennedy stepped down even 6-8 weeks ago we would be well on our way to a special election. But he didn’t and we have not been represented in the Senate.

What exactly has Ted Kennedy done for the state of Massachusetts this past year? Nothing! So what makes a vacant seat any different?

Ted, we gave you a free pass on manslaughter you drunk, now pay us back by stepping down like a man.

Posted by: Patchie | August 21, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy, Robert Novak among the unknowing victims?'

AN AMERICAN POLITICIDE HIDES IN PLAIN SIGHT...

ENABLED BY THE NAIVETE OF ITS VICTIMS -- AMONG THEM, TEAM OBAMA

President Obama has been co-opted into becoming an enabler of a secretive, federally overseen "multi-agency coordinated action" program of extrajudicial targeting and inhumane high-tech punishment...

...misusing federally-funded volunteer organizations and secret weapons programs to subvert the rule of law.

This nationwide, federal-local apparatus has deployed a civilian vigilante army that covertly places GPS tracking devices to stalk, persecute, vandalize and harass many thousands of unjustly targeted citizens and their families...

...reportedly, even when they seek medical treatment at health care facilities.

"The program" also misuses government surveillance operations to censor, and maliciously tamper with, the telecommunications of many thousands of the unjustly targeted -- and, victims maintain, funnels surveillance data to citizen "community stalker" harassers.

An array of "programs of personal financial destruction" decimates the finances of "target" families.

And microwave / laser "directed energy weapons" are deployed to degrade their health, inducing illness, even "slow-kill" death -- a gross violation of human rights, government-enabled crimes against humanity.

And no authorities will investigate -- invoking the "Gulag" tactic of dismissing those who seek justice as "delusional."

Team Obama: Wake up and smell the police state that is co-opting your administration and destroying democracy and the rule of law at the grassroots.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA"

Posted by: scrivener50 | August 21, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I would love to see Michael Dukakis in the senate for 6 months. He lives down the street from some people I know. He walks to work everyday carrying a plastic grocery bag which he uses to hold the trash he picks up off the street on his way to work.

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 21, 2009 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Ted Kennedy should have been charged with manslaughter back when he killed Mary jo Kopechne, because Mary Jo would have loved to have lived at least another 40 years.
The kennedy clan bought ted out of that mess and tried to make the killing of Mary Jo disappear.

The elitist liberal does not deserve any thing special, and Massachusetts needs to follow constitutional protocol replacing him.

He'll soon have to face his Maker, but not soon enough for many who loathe him.

Posted by: spiris333 | August 21, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy was involved in getting the law changed in 2004.
Now the slug wants to change it back. Typical of the democrats' "retain our political power at any cost."
What a sleaze. But then, that's all he has ever been.
Contemptible.

Posted by: LarryG62 | August 21, 2009 7:45 AM | Report abuse

CC wrote:

"Joseph Kennedy, the son of Robert F. Kennedy and a former member of Congress, would almost certainly have the right of first refusal since the seat has been in his family since 1950 when his uncle John F. Kennedy Jr. won it."

This tendency to legacy politics is not new but it is not good.

A New England D will serve MA in the Senate - probably someone I would think was well to my left, but that is the nature of regions in America. We know that Meehan was effective for MA in the House. We know that Reich is taken seriously in policy circles. I ask New England "Fix" residents like Blarg to at least tell us how the various players are perceived as to effectiveness and integrity [again, I assume all will be staunch Ds and would be surprised if any were Blue Dogs - or even ex-military, but I would like to know if any were].

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 21, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Pelosi, Frank, Specter, Dean. These guys just might end up the heroes of the health care reform battle to save the public option. I'm getting a little more optimistic if Pelosi holds to her pledge. I I think the blue dogs might be starting to realize that they will face the biggest electoral penalty if they fail to get any reform passed. It's about time a line was drawn in the sand and this declaration will definitely have ramifications in the Senate.

Seems like the good guys are starting to fight back. It always seems a bit late under Obama, but it does seem to always eventually happen.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 21, 2009 6:45 AM | Report abuse

I think Kennedy and his loved ones should be allowed to savor these last moments of a long and productive life, and let go of the need to control the future.

None of us can know the future. Let go of that and love today.

Best wishes Senator.

Posted by: RedBird27 | August 21, 2009 6:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company