2008 USP(G)ET pt. II: counting the days to 2012 primary thread 1

Left leaning smartypants who are so ready to dismiss stupid bigot Amerikkka might be well served to note the lack of negro water fountains, in re: gay marriage; just because the electorate is a little slower than your brilliant selves doesn't mean they're actually backwards

Please print and distribute amongst angry liberals, thanks.

lol:

Yet Joltin’ Joe has also become a fascinating Off Broadway spectacle in his own right. He is a distinctive blend of pit bull and odd duck whose weak filters make him capable of blurting out pretty much anything — “gaffes,” out-of-nowhere comments (pivoting midspeech to say “Excuse my back!” to people seated behind him), goofy asides (tapping a reporter’s chest and telling him, “You need to work on your pecs.”)

so basically the cycle is, leave the democrats (who like government and know how to work the levers) to clean up the mess and get the economy back on track, just in time for the next republican administration to come in and skim the cream off the top and spend a gazillion dollars on shiny new weapons and a couple discretionary wars

the most depressing thing about any of this is that even if Obama wins, within 15 years someone will come along and fuck everything up again. it's just how the cycle of history works. nothing is ever going to be perfected. it's depressing

yeah, it's not like there's a chance the under-35 generation is going to be a lifelong Dem voting block or anything

Rasmussen: Obama 48-47
Research 2000: Obama 50-42

"it's just how the cycle of history works. nothing is ever going to be perfected. it's depressing"

Just because utopia is impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make things better.

and by the way, to those wtf-ers about my comment re. LBJ, it's absolutely false that school desegregation led *inexorably* to full equality in law. Community organizers had immense amounts of work to do that could have easily not been done, and the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened when it did. And had the federal government not stepped in and *legislated* as they did, the states would have continued to fight against these organizers.

I point this out not to condescend (there's enough of that on this thread already) or to defend myself (because who cares) but to say that expecting states to work things out in 2008 in favor of gay marriage is unpromising. A few states, sure. Maybe in 2018 or 2028 the rest will---even out here, anti-gay bigotry is falling away among the young. But if you want the right to gay marriage (with all its legal benefits), it will take federal intervention. I know this is all obvious, but on this thread it seems like there's often too much taken for granted as obvious that is far from it.

But if you want the right to gay marriage (with all its legal benefits), it will take federal intervention.

Dude, that's what people are saying here. I think people agree with you. You're just talking about a different branch of the federal government. Federal intervention can be a landmark SCOTUS case.

Ok, cool. I think that, given the present culture war, if it were to happen soon, it would be better if it were legislated by Congress, or even (gulp) by constitutional amendment. Then it would be a more democratic decision than one that comes down from the Supreme Court.

And had the federal government not stepped in and *legislated* as they did, the states would have continued to fight against these organizers.

please print out and distribute amongst "it'll all work out in the end, vote Democratic" ppl, thx

Left leaning smartypants who are so ready to dismiss stupid bigot Amerikkka might be well served to note the lack of negro water fountains, in re: gay marriage; just because the electorate is a little slower than your brilliant selves doesn't mean they're actually backwards

I'm pretty much 100% on the fact that the opposition to gay marriage is not just wrong, but wrong for foolish, ignorant reasons. Trouble is, you can't just run out waving your arms and yelling that. I know it's not Bill Maher's job to reach across the aisle exactly, but he was doing this to Sarah Palin a couple weeks ago, too. Yeah, Bill, we get it, she's a housefrau who's not nearly smart enough to even have the job she does, much less the job she's running for, but when you gnash your teeth like that, it looks less than righteous, and -- here's the worst of it! -- it's not even funny. It's just smug. Not exactly the lord's work.

Though it was fun that every time he made another "LOL I think women are stupid anyway!" cracks, you could see Janeane Garofalo biting halfway through her tongue and burning holes through him with her eyes.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/

lol:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWQzZmU5ZjUzNGEyZWUyZjM5NDk0NzBkOTZiNWE0OTg=

hey guys, we've managed to tie together the economic problems with our newfound dislike of 'community organizers'! nice eureka moment for this dude here, u can see the lightbulb going off

and by the way, to those wtf-ers about my comment re. LBJ, it's absolutely false that school desegregation led *inexorably* to full equality in law. Community organizers had immense amounts of work to do that could have easily not been done, and the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened when it did. And had the federal government not stepped in and *legislated* as they did, the states would have continued to fight against these organizers.

I point this out not to condescend (there's enough of that on this thread already) or to defend myself (because who cares) but to say that expecting states to work things out in 2008 in favor of gay marriage is unpromising. A few states, sure. Maybe in 2018 or 2028 the rest will---even out here, anti-gay bigotry is falling away among the young. But if you want the right to gay marriage (with all its legal benefits), it will take federal intervention. I know this is all obvious, but on this thread it seems like there's often too much taken for granted as obvious that is far from it.

― it's a great breakup balllad sung by Bill Champlin (Euler), Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:08 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was 'wtf'-ing bcuz you said that LBJ had more to do with it than the courts which is blatantly false. who's talking about community organizers? Im talking about the actual heavy lifting of the civil rights movement done w/in govt that went beyond legislation and executive decision making.

ok. "heavy lifting of the civil rights movement" can mean a lot of things. I recently read the three-volume bio of MLK by Taylor Branch, and was struck by how large a role LBJ played in getting the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. You're definitely right that the courts had work to do after that, to interpret and to punish violators, but it was the Congress and the president who passed the laws.

I bring up community organizers because without MLK etc. I don't think anything like the Voting Rights Act or Civil Rights Act would have been on SCOTUS' plate any time soon.

we can both agree 'heavy lifting' is a subjective call but yr definitely downplaying the role that attorneys played in the coordination of the civil rights movement when you say You're definitely right that the courts had work to do after that, to interpret and to punish violators, but it was the Congress and the president who passed the laws.

brown vs board of ed was the 11th case to challenge that particular law re: segregation

The NAACP had a legal brain trust involved in numerous cases, and they used the judiciary to accomplish certain goals on the path to civil rights. brown v board of ed was not the only key decision, and theses werent simply a matter of judges deciding how to interpret - you had these attorneys working in conjunction with legislators to insure genuine equality.

Davis et al v. the St. Louis Housing Authority ended legal racial discrimination in public housing, for ex. It was no coincidence that 'the good guys' won this fight - the naacp had sent particular attorneys to take on cases that they thought would help to overturn inequities in the system, and worked on arguments that would accomplish those goals. much of the change really did come through the judiciary. robert witherspoon, frankie muse freeman, thurgood marshall etc all did serious legwork behind the scenes through casework to set the stage for legislators to be able to pass laws that couldnt be easily overturned by the judiciary, or easily circumvented.

Ok, that's really interesting. However, my understanding of Davis et al v. the St. Louis Housing Authority is that it made illegal discrimination for public housing on the grounds of race *in St. Louis*. But it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (signed by LBJ and given urgency to the Congress by MLK's assassination) that the federal government gained the power to enforce laws barring discrimination for public housing on the grounds of race. But I am no scholar of these things, so I could be getting this wrong.

http://cdn-www.dailypuppy.com/media/dogs/anonymous/bentley_basset_hound_01.jpg_w450.jpg

aww, look at his lil spotted snout

Ok, that's really interesting. However, my understanding of Davis et al v. the St. Louis Housing Authority is that it made illegal discrimination for public housing on the grounds of race *in St. Louis*. But it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (signed by LBJ and given urgency to the Congress by MLK's assassination) that the federal government gained the power to enforce laws barring discrimination for public housing on the grounds of race. But I am no scholar of these things, so I could be getting this wrong.

― the only real micaroni (Euler), Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:56 PM (59 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

right, but that legislation was relying on the groundwork laid out in states and by certain judicial guidelines/precedents (obv im not a legal historian, i just studied history, so im having trouble arguing this in the correct language but i think the point im trying to make is still pretty cogent)

yeah I feel you, the courts have been way important, no doubt

we're gonna go out canvassing for Obama tomorrow, here in the middle of a very red state; if anything lolworthy happens I will post

Cheney must keep records, judge orders

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKXn0zpu4g78bQXEplkbxWQy4euQD93AN5FO0

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Saturday ordered Dick Cheney to preserve a wide range of the records from his time as vice president.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is a setback for the Bush administration in its effort to promote a narrow definition of materials that must be safeguarded under by the Presidential Records Act.

The Bush administration's legal position "heightens the court's concern" that some records may not be preserved, said the judge.

A private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is suing Cheney and the Executive Office of the President in an effort to ensure that no presidential records are destroyed or handled in a way that makes them unavailable to the public.

In a 22-page opinion, the judge revealed that in recent days, lawyers for the Bush administration balked at a proposed agreement between the two sides on how to proceed with the case.

Cheney and the other defendants in the case "were only willing to agree to a preservation order that tracked their narrowed interpretation" of the Presidential Records Act, wrote Kollar-Kotelly.

Don't Miss
Read the opinion (PDF)
Read the order (PDF)
The administration, said the judge, wanted any court order on what records are at issue in the case to cover only the office of the vice president, not Cheney or the other defendants in the lawsuit.

The other defendants are the Executive Office of the President and the National Archives.

The lawsuit stems from Cheney's position that his office is not part of the executive branch of government.

This summer, Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress that the vice president belongs to neither the executive nor legislative branch of government but rather is attached by the Constitution to Congress. The vice president presides over the Senate.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bush administration's actions over the past 7½ years raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January.

In 2003, Cheney asserted that the office of the vice president is not an entity within the executive branch.

Two historians and three groups of historians and archivists joined CREW in filing the suit two weeks ago.

reading glenn greenwald is so depressing

He's like the DFW of Constitutional Law.

Dude from a local Dem office called me asking for my help in volunteering down at a different office than my usual spot. I explained to him, in my usual idiom, that I'd been drinking for the previous two hours in the local pub whilst my bike was waiting to get fixed, hated phone-banking, but was quite happy to come help do data-entry(if not exactly sure which night I could do so). Dude(sounding younger than me) made the effort to tell me that "maybe [..I..] should wash my mouth out with soap before [..I..] came down to help" which I ignored thanks to beer-dulled senses.

Took me a moment to twig exactly what he meant after he hung up before I got mad; who the fuck says this? this is portland fucking oregon, no one under the age of 80 in the early 21st Century actually comes out and says "you should wash your mouth out with soap," especially after entreating someone's time & effort in helping out their state-wide candidates, someone who's already gone out of their way to explain they're proper snookered at that point.

At any rate, my bike rolls far better having been repaired(two new tires and other stuff) and I was able to get thru another 80-100 pages of _Anathem_.

Every time I see DFW I think "Dallas/Fort Worth" and wonder wtf you're talking about.

Glenn Greenwald stinks and is full of oil barons.

Dude from a local Dem office called me asking for my help in volunteering down at a different office than my usual spot. I explained to him, in my usual idiom, that I'd been drinking for the previous two hours in the local pub whilst my bike was waiting to get fixed, hated phone-banking, but was quite happy to come help do data-entry(if not exactly sure which night I could do so). Dude(sounding younger than me) made the effort to tell me that "maybe [..I..] should wash my mouth out with soap before [..I..] came down to help" which I ignored thanks to beer-dulled senses.
so you were profane and drunk and possibly belligerent and now you're mad he called you on it?

Profane, no more than usual. Drunk, possibly but not really. Belligerant, hell no; I'm only belligerant online. I was more put off by his choice of idiom.

so he wanted you to CHANGE did he? seems quite idiomatic

man I just saw the new McCain ad - a shadow (cast by the White House) spreading across the country, terms like "skyrocketing taxes" superimposed & side-scrolling as the shadow darkens, eventually creeping into a window in a house where it darkens THE FACE OF A SLEEPING BABY OH NOES. The music is some righteous dystopian synth drone which suddenly lifts and becomes glinting soft-glockenspiel over the McCain-Palin logo, fading out as McCain's concerned but determined visage fades in with the slogan "Change Is Coming."

The fucking balls on these guys.

the ending of his ads seem like something out of a dystopian near-future sci-fi movie.

Diageo: Obama 45-44
Gallup: Obama 50-44

Michigan (ARG): Obama 48-46
Michigan (Epic-MRA): Obama 43-42
Missouri (R2000): McCain 49-45
North Carolina (PPP): tied at 46

he music is some righteous dystopian synth drone which suddenly lifts and becomes glinting soft-glockenspiel over the McCain-Palin logo,

Oooh. An Ultravox song, circa 1979.

THE IMAGE IS GONE ONLY YOU AND I, THIS MEANS NOTHING TO ME
IT MEANS NOTHING TO ME
MCCAIN/PALIN '08

Why I love my town:

http://hplfilmfestival.com/sites/hplfilmfestival.com/files/HPLFF08.jpg

because it rains always on to u?

didn't rain to-day! only cloudy!

sorz i havent been keeping up w/teh thread been traveling a bunch - anyway have we talked abt how awesome palin is gonna be in the '12 primaries

cant wait!

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/ap_poll_race_obama.jpg

"AP-YAHOO! NEWS POLL"

hahaha

i'm curious about the results of the concurrent "adjectives that describe whites" poll

poll thread?

wait, people asked to make generalizations about race said some stupid shit?

lol i didnt post it bcuz i think its necessarily telling us anything we didnt know

the independent/republican discrepancies are noteworthy

(or they would be if not for margin of error)