Max

Casey008, thanks so much for your post. To listen to some folks here, the mainstream media (not counting FOX News) is dominated by conservatives.

Chris Matthews gave some rare praise to Romney today after he declined to attend Donald Trump's circus debate. The former Massachusetts governor also got an endorsement from Dan Quayle. While everybody realizes that this endorsement is worth diddly squat, at least Mr. Quayle had vastly superior qualifications to be VP than our current president had in 2008.

What gets me about everything with lionizing Democrats who cheat is that the top hate figures for Republicans are Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, none of whom have ever cheated (unless you count "lusting in [his] heart"), and who are in many ways ideal pictures of marriage and family.

Just becuase people have sterling personal lives doesn't mean they can't be criticized. (I don't recall Democrats ever limiting their criticism to social-values hypocrites.) If people disagree with Pelosi's viewpoints, or think that Carter and Obama are incompetent, then they have a right to express their dissatisfaction (much like liberals have the right to reject conservatives who lead perfect personal lives).

I am not, though, going to play silly games with people whose mind set is so closed off, they think they are right all the time, and that anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of partisan idiot.

This is coming from somebody who is a bellwether of independence and non-partisanship. Seriously though, I am surprised you believe that I think I am right all the time, given that you previously trashed me for being wishy-washy.

I don't think it sounds heartless... it's true. You see it all the time in the music business, if someone dies young before their time in a tragic way (Like JFK did) then they are cannonized and put up on a pedestal. If Janis Joplin had died in 1985 after she hadn't had a hit record in 10 years, she would have just been a news blurb, and not this "legend". When I said what I did about marital infidelity, I didn't mean that it didn't matter at all, I just meant that positions on policy always trump the marital infidelity. Primarily because we on the outside don't know precisely what goes on in the privacy of a marriage, heck, for all we know, Eleanor Roosevelt could have been a lesbian, and her and Franklin could have had an "understanding". If that WERE true, we certainly would never have known it. Now, a man leaving a wife because she is ill or dying, then to me, that's a diffeent story. That's a dealbreaker for me.

Alphanguy, thanks for clarifying your position on infidelity. I sincerly apologize if I misrepresented your views in any way.

I really appreciate your kind words regarding my thoughts on how emotion (largely) resulted in the JFK/Reagan worship. While we disagree on political matters, I greatly admire the fact that you judge politicans objectively.

These are some truly awful Republicans. I laugh not only at them, but the entire party. They are destroying themselves right in front of my eyes, and I hope that is what it takes to leave these Tea Party folks and ultra right-wing people far behind.

Fortunately, the Democrats are in great shape, since they can all point with pride at their excellent leader.

I must also say that some of Gingrich's treatment of his wives, like dumping one when she was severely ill in the hospital, goes beyond just affairs.

That is a great point, Carl. However, all the evil that Gingrich did in his personal life pales in comparison to what the longtime Senator from Massachusetts did at Chappaquiddick. Were he not part of the 1% that the Occupy movement loves to blast, "liberal lion" Teddy would have spent time in prison. However, he used his money and family name to get off, and was rewarded by getting to remain in Congress for the rest of his life.

In recent decades (before he died), Kennedy supporters would often say that Chappaquiddick happened a long time ago, and he already suffered enough, so we should all just forget about it. Yet these same Kennedy supporters sing a much different tune when discussing Gingrich's early-80s divorce from his first wife. Apparently, these actions must be far more evil than anything their beloved Teddy did, and can never be forgotten. Furthermore, Gingrich is not even morally fit enough to serve as dog catcher.

If Huntsman can't get the nomination, I hope he runs as an independent. This idea was floated around by former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman. If the nominees are Gingrich and Obama, then it's ripe for the former governor to do this (and he is personally has the funds to do so). People just aren't going to want to settle between an incompetent president and an egomaniac.

I could care less about conservative cries that a Huntsman independent candidacy would ensure Obama's re-election, since a Gingrich nomination alone would do that. I also wonder how much of the MSNBC crowd--who currently praise the former Utah governor to the hilltops--will be willing to ditch Obama and vote for Huntsman.

I apologize if this sounds heartless and offends others, but I wanted to also say something controversial in regards to JFK and Reagan: I feel that emotion is a big reason why the public at large (and not just partisans) have such favorable views of them. Because of the terrible tragedies that occurred at the end of their lives--assassination and Alzheimer's--many people are naturally more inclined to overlook their flaws and exaggerate their qualities (as is human nature). An additional reason why they remain so beloved is becuase they were such great speakers. (It's important that one mourns for both these men and their families, but nobody should let objectivity be overruled by emotion when judging their presidencies or their quality as human beings.)

This is no joke, but whenever Americans rank all the presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (listed in chronological order) almost always rate among the top six. (Clinton obviously did not suffer a personal tragedy, but is highly regarded because he's recent and because his two successors were so incompetent. I feel Clinton is also very over-rated because he failed to anticipate a second attack on the World Trade Center and because the "sizzling" economy of the 90s was largely based on accounting fraud.) The fact that John Q. Public puts JFK, Reagan, and Clinton on the same pedestal as Washington, Lincoln, and FDR is a damning indictment on the education level of our society and shows that many Americans have a complete ignorance of history.

I'm not sure what the point would be. If Nancy Pelosi said, "I just want to let everyone know that I think JFK was sleazy," she would be torn to pieces by most conservatives. And most conservatives would probably immediately say JFK was a far more worthy President than Obama, even though Obama has not had any affairs. So that would end up meaning that both parties love adulterous Democrats, I guess?

Carl, if personally condemning the man is too much to ask, then I would hope that some liberals could at least remove him from sainthood and admit that he's not one of our greatest presidents ever. However, I don't expect Democratic criticism of JFK (aside from the occasional "he screwed up the Bay of Pigs, but that really was the military's fault" type of comment) any sooner than a conservative would dare say a bad thing about Saint Ronnie of Reagan.

FDR a womanizer? But he couldn't even walk. anyway... my voting doesn't hinge on somone's fildelity in their personal life. It's nice if they are good and decent and all.... but the three of us here discussing this are all men, we all know the drill.

I'm no medical expert, but when I was a student at George Washington University, I took a class that was taught by a medical doctor (who is an OB-GYN). He said that as part of their training, they indeed learn how people in wheelchairs (and with other physical disabilities) are able to have sexual intercourse.

Alphanguy, I sincerely apologize for my rudeness, but if marital fidelity is not important to you, then Gingrich's and Cain's affiars should be irrelevant. (You can be bothered by the hypocrisy involved, but the affairs themselves should not determine their fitness for office; there's plenty of liberal hypocrisy that exists as well, such as Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel not paying their taxes on time). In contrast to most Americans, fidelity is very important to me because it is a key measure of one's loyalty and trustworthiness. That's why I attack all politicans--Republican or Democrat--who engage in such behavior. (I am not an unforgiving person, and I realize that good people can make mistakes and deserve second chances. However, those who have been unfaithful for long periods of time are not deserving of any more chances.)

Adultery from FDR or Jack or Bobby was not known when they were in office. Unless you're saying these men were elected because of adultery I don't see the comparison. I'm also not sure when FDR was declared one of "the most notorious womanizers of all-time."

Carl, here's a brief summary of FDR's womanizing:

Roosevelt allegedly had affairs outside his marriage, including one with Eleanor's social secretary Lucy Mercer which began soon after she was hired in early 1914. In September 1918, Eleanor found letters revealing the affair in Roosevelt's luggage, when he returned from World War I. According to the Roosevelt family, Eleanor offered Franklin a divorce so that he could be with the woman he loved, but Lucy, being Catholic, could not bring herself to marry a divorced man with five children. According to FDR's biographer Jean Edward Smith it is generally accepted that Eleanor indeed offered "to give Franklin his freedom."^[23] However, they reconciled after a fashion with the informal mediation of Roosevelt's adviser Louis McHenry Howe, and FDR promised never to see Lucy again. His mother Sara also intervened, and told Franklin that if he divorced his wife, he would bring scandal upon the family, and she "would not give him another dollar."^[23] However, Franklin broke his promise. He and Lucy maintained a formal correspondence, and began seeing each other again in 1941—and perhaps earlier.^[24][25] Lucy was even given the code name "Mrs. Johnson" by the Secret Service.^[26] Indeed, Lucy was with FDR on the day he died. Despite this, FDR's affair was not widely known until the 1960s.^[27] Roosevelt's son Elliott claimed that Franklin also had a 20-year affair with his private secretary Marguerite "Missy" LeHand.^[28]

The effect of these affairs upon Eleanor Roosevelt is difficult to estimate. "I have the memory of an elephant. I can forgive, but I cannot forget," she wrote to a close friend.^[29] After the affair any remaining intimacy left their relationship. Eleanor soon thereafter established a separate house in Hyde Park at Valkill, and increasingly devoted herself to various social and political causes. For the rest of their lives, the Roosevelts' marriage was more of a political partnership than an intimate relationship.^[30] The emotional break in their marriage was so severe that when FDR asked Eleanor in 1942—in light of his failing health—to come back home and live with him again, she refused.

Secondly, I don't think that FDR, JFK, or RFK should be given free passes for their personal behavior just because it wasn't known at the time. It would be really refreshing if, for a change, a Democrat slammed these men for their disgusting actions.

I do concede that FDR was at least a great president. On the other hand, JFK is our most over-rated president ever (even surpassing Reagan). Aside from the Cuban Missile Crisis (which might not have happened if he hadn't flubbed the Bay of Pigs up so badly), JFK does not have a single outstanding accomplishment to his credit. (Creating the Peace Corps was a noble thing to do, but hardly qualifies as one of the greatest presidential achievements.) Liberals just assign the things that the hated LBJ accomplished--such as passing the Great Society programs (with JFK called the New Frontier) and the Civil Rights Acts--while leaving LBJ with all the blame for why Vietnam went wrong. (JFK himself escalated the war in Vietnam, and tried and failed miserably to pass the landmark legislation--in a heavily Democratic Congress--that LBJ achieved.)

The over-the-top liberal worship of JFK is a mirror image of what conservatives do with Reagan. However, whereas liberals pretend "what might have been" if JFK lived (and assign the best case/pie-in-the-sky scenario to it), conservatives blatently re-write history and present a Reagan that never existed: one who never compromised, always appointed conservatives to the Supreme Court, and never gave illegal aliens amnesty.

I love the idea of a Gingrich/Cain ticket, because it could really help erase the red state/blue state divide that Obama failed to do. Given that today's Democratic party holds in high esteem some of the most notorious womanizers of all-time--people like FDR, Clinton, and Saints Jack, Bobby, and Teddy--I would expect liberals to enthusiastically embrace such a ticket.

Everybody probably knows this by now, but Cain suspended his campaign today. (He did not formally drop out because--if he had done so--he would no longer be able to collect money to pay off campaign debts.) Though I doubt it will be Romney or Huntsman, Cain said that he will endorse another candidate.

Just a week or two ago, I though that Newt Gingrich getting the nomination was just a pipe dream of both the Democrats and the far-right. Now, I'm really scared shitless about this actually happening. Romney only leads in NH, while Gingrich leads in IA, SC, and FL. While I always knew that Romney would lose in IA & SC, many expected the anti-Romney forces to be fractured (leading to a different candidate winning in IA than in SC). Furthermore, FL is the one southern state where Romney could win a GOP primary, so that news is terrible for him. If Gingrich wins all three states where he currently leads, he will be the huge favorite come Super Tuesday. (His nomination will seem inevitable if he also scores an upset win in NH.)

Romney is making a huge mistake by acting like a general election candidate. (As Hillary Clinton knows, this is a dangerous strategy to use in a primary.) I often see him attacking Obama, but he seldom attacks Gingrich.

Max, sorry it took me so long to find this. I do agree with you, but I stand by the fact that P&G were relatively late to the game with their progressive storytelling (with both major CBS shows--particularly ATWT, it took Marland to do that--which he did VERY well, and Lemay's AW as admirable and theatrical as it was didn't particularly make a point of dealing with social issues--nor should it have--but for all its sophisticated drama and psychology it was still very much white--in fact I've heard it suggested both GL and AW regressed from Agnes Nixon's slight efforts to integrate them in the 60s after she left). AMC, was kinda disliked by the soap press especially for a while partly due to its social stories which seemed to get it--and OLTL to a lesser degree--an audience of younger viewers who didn't watch soaps before.

While an illegal abortion is in some ways more shocking it also was a trait of melodrama, going back to Tennessee Williams in the 40s if not more. Many say Irna Phillips (with Bill Bell--who later did melodrama to perfection on his own at DAYS) spent her first year creating AW on high melodrama in an attempt to get instant ratings but her heart never felt into it and it was a poor fit for her, and it sounds like people thought the abortion story was very poorly handled and just a plot driven excuse. Regardless, illegal abortions had been handled, probably not well, on various primetime hospital shows, etc, before--so Erica having the first legal one when the very fact that it WAS legal to have an abortion was still seen by a huge percentage of the population as shocking if not downright wrong IS why AMC got so much attention.

But I definitely agree that much of the progress these shows did was forgotten and I think you raise a valid point.

Eric, there is no need whatsoever to apologize. You are a very busy man, and furthermore, it took me just as long to respond to your initial post.

I sincerely appreciate your explanation on why Erica's abortion was a bigger deal than the illegal abortions that had been previously done. I had never before seen things this way.

Just excluding the P&G soaps, I have always wondered why certain ABC soaps have never gotten the praise they deserved for their socially relevant storylines. Specifically, I don't know why the soap elite feel that AMC & GH are so superior to OLTL, RH, and Loving. All of these soaps tackled social issues, but only AMC & GH have gotten praised to the hilltops for doing so.

I'm not surprised about the Gingrich endorsement over Huntsman. Huntsman is a moderate. NH conservatives don't even want college students to vote, and they care more about repealing gay marriage laws than any real problems. They would love Gingrich, who panders his way to the right every time it suits him.

Perhaps that was a conservative paper that endorsed Gingrich over Huntsman or Romney. (I honestly don't know, though that would explain the endorsement.) Gingrich often panders to the right, but not always: such as the time in the debate when he refused to deport illegal immigrants who had been in the United States at least 25 years.

I don't think T-Paw would have been a strong candidate. He had the media, and the media loved him, but he was uncharismatic, he's an extremist on social issues without any of the charisma to balance that out, he left Minnesota in a bad fiscal place, he raised taxes (even if he didn't call them taxes), and he was just gutless.

I didn't mean to suggest that he'd be a strong candidate (sorry if I gave that impression), just that he would have been stronger than Romney (who flip-flops on every issue imaginable). Pawlenty is conservative on quite a few social issues, but he looks moderate in comparison to Bachmann and Santorum. Furthermore, I think that it is a stretch to say that the media loves him, though they did advance the "Minnesota nice" narrative quite a bit. (IMO, the media "loves" very few politicans. They did "love" Obama four years ago when they presented him as the man who would bridge the red state/blue state divide and as the individual who would put an end to politics as usual.)

Cain is "reassessing" his candidacy 24 hours after allegations came out that he had a 13 year affair with another woman. If he does drop out, it would not be good news for Romney.

Nevertheless, I don't believe that Gingrich will emerge as the anti-Romney candidate, given his past association with Fannie and Freddie, as well as his positions on illegal immigration. (Perry's stances on immigration will also prevent him from emerging as the conservative alternative to Romney.) I predict that the actual anti-Romney that will emerge can only be somebody who passes the Tea Party Purity Test; assuming that Cain drops out, this only leaves Bachmann and Santorum. (Because Bachmann has made so many blunders, there's just no way one should count Santorum out, despite his current showing in the polls.)

It was a huge blow to Huntsman for the largest NH newspaper to endorse Gingrich. (Huntsman really needed a prominent endorsement to push him over the top in NH.) While I continue to support the former Utah governor, I believe that he should drop out of the race if he doesn't either win in NH or come in a very close second. (Right now, Huntsman is spending just about all of his resources in the Granite State.) Otherwise, his continued presence in the race will just take votes away from Romney and make it more likely for a fringe candidate to get the nomination.

In hindsight, Pawlenty made a huge mistake by dropping out of the race in August (even though almost everyone thought it was a good idea at the time). The conservative wing of the party is looking for any alternative to Romney, and Pawlenty was the second choice for many Republicans. (He was my second choice as well, and thus Pawlenty could have also drawn support from more mainstream Republicans who are also looking for an alternative to Romney.) Pawlenty would have also been a stronger candidate against Obama in a general election than Romney will be.

The below is a quote that Eric made in the now-locked "AMC & OLTL Will Move Online" thread. (The context of the quote was that I originally stated that when compared to AMC & GH, the P&G soaps failed to get decent recognition for their "socially relevant" storylines. I'm sorry that I took so long to respond to Eric's reply; it's just that the news of the PP venture collapsing came shortly after Eric made this response.)

I think it's undeniable--historically pre 1980s. Sorry--but all the soap press at the time--think late 70s, complains how the PGP soaps still were afraid to have other races (one exec at ATWT in a soap book I have says that there's nothing they can do, when they ty Black characters ratings fall--this was from 1977). Bell at DAYS and Y&R much less so.

AW had an ILLEGAL abortion--as did several soaps I believe, Erica's is famous for the first legal one on TV, primetime or daytime. That's the hooplah.

When Agnes Nixon was writing AW and OLTL for a few months at the same time she mentioned that PGP refused to allow her to have two friends, a black character and a white one (both women) become roomates as "immoral"--OLTL had no such issues with OLTL (as they were desperate to have a hit, and a younger targeted show). Loving was the first show to have an AIDS storyline way back in 1983--before it was addressed on primetime tv, although ATWT tackled it more comprehensively. AMC had a lesbian storyline which was actually pretty major in 1983 as well (they planned on a ga male storyline but ABC wouldn't allow them to as they had a gay male on Dynasty--weird politics). Same year Loving had the first incest story.

Eric, on one matter, I have to disagree with you: I actually think that the AW abortion was a bigger deal than Erica's abortion, given that the former abortion was actually illegal.

I stand corrected regarding the AIDS storyline; honestly, I read in one of the AW books that it was the first soap to do an AIDS storyline. I'm guessing that the author was completely unaware of the AIDS storyline on Loving. It's sad that Loving--much like the P&G soaps--was completely ignored for its socially relevant storylines. (Loving also may have been the first soap to have a storyline with a character in a wheelchair.)

When the ABC soaps get acclaim for socially relevant storylines, the only two soaps that are usually being referred to are AMC & GH. The fact that Loving, RH, and (much of the time) OLTL are ignored by the soap elites is just as perplexing to me as the fact that few recognize the P&G soaps for their forward-thinking stories.

What a joke. No one cares about helping the economy. All they want to do is yell TAX CUT! and point fingers at the other side. The Republicans know that the worse things get the better off they are, and the Democrats just seem inept and beholden. What an embarrassment this is. And as always it's the poor and the middle class who will pay for this, all while being told how greedy and worthless they are.

What I don't understand is why Congress is the only party responsible, while Obama (according to Martin Sheen) remains "the only adult in the room." If memory serves me correctly, Obama was a huge proponent for having this super-committee exist in the first place. Of course, this committee was soon filled with highly partisan members, so everybody knew it would fail.

Why does Obama usually follow and seldom lead? Rather than implementing policies of his own, he usually can't wait to form a committee whose in charge of solving the nation's pressing problems. And what really gets me is that in the few cases when his committees give good recommendations (such as the acclaimed Bowles-Simpson committee), the president doesn't even bother following through on many of them.

I doubt it. Wisconsin has always been mixed. Walker just conned people by hiding his true agenda. Voters always fall for it.

I've got to respectively disagree with you here, Carl. Even though the non-partisan political "experts" have long claimed that WI is a swing state, the state's electoral history (aside from the 2010 GOP wave and popularity held by four-term former governor Tommy Thompson) does not bear this out. For one thing, the state has long had two Democrats in the U.S. Senate up until this year. More importantly, one has to remember that WI hasn't voted Republican in a presidential election since 1984; in 2008, Obama won the state by 17 points.

Regardless of how I feel, I'm sure that Romney (or whomever the GOP nominee is) will waste tons of time and money in WI next year when he really needs to exclusively spend his resources in the true swing states of FL, OH, and VA (as well as smaller ones like CO, NH, and NV). There's do doubt in my mind that Obama will win WI in 2012. (What's even worse than the GOP spending tons of money in WI is that they are going to do the same thing in PA & MI, two so-called swing states that have a long history of voting Democratic in presidential elections. These states will require the GOP to spend even more resources than WI will; furthermore the fact that they are so unionized and contain huge urban areas will make them such an uphill battle for a Republican nominee to carry.)

The bottom line is that if George W. Bush never won WI, PA, or MI, what would make Democrats fear that Romney would win them (against a much more difficult opponent)? Whether he wins or loses re-election, I can predict right now that Obama carries all three of these states in 2012.

How did this man ever get elected to higher office?

Roman, this only happened because Obama and the Democrats were so unpopular in WI (a solidly Democratic state that was one of ten that Michael Dukakis won) in 2010 that a huge GOP tide swept the state which resulted in the election of a very conservative Republican as governor.

Santorum has been quietly fying under the radar while slowly rising in the polls. When you combine that with the fact that he has not made any major blunders (this year), I would not at all be surprised if he wins the Iowa caucuses. (Now that Gingrich has surged in the polls, the huge mistakes he made at the very start of his campaign will likely come back to haunt him.)

Members of Occupy Wall Street are very talented spin doctors. After they were forced to leave Zuccotti Park, they managed to make a defeat sound like a victory, by saying things to the effect of "This breathes new life into our movement. Since we're no longer confined to the park, we can spread our message to an even larger audience." Seriously, after listening to spin like that, you'd think that it was their plan all along to leave Zuccotti Park and move elsewhere.

Carl, when you're right, you're right. I'm sure that hypocrities on the right will be there to take credit for any more stimulus that comes to their districts. (I won't be surprised if I'm attacked as wishy-washy becuase I happened to agree with you on that point.)

Here's an article from "Faux" News regarding Jon Corzine's dwindling wealth: (Sorry to use a right-wing website for info, but after other folks have gone to liberal websites to support their arguments, I think I'm entitled to link to a partisan site once in a while.)

http://www.foxbusine...his-reputation/

It's funny that Democrats--who claim to be the party of campaign finance reform--didn't make much of a fuss when Corzine spent $60 million of his own money to buy a U.S. Senate seat in 2000. Furthermore, Democrats were strangely silent when Obama opted out of pubilc financing in 2008 (reneging on an agreement he earlier made with McCain), thereby having four times the amount of campaign cash as did the Arizona senator.

Today, all employees at Jon Corzine's former company--MF Global--were terminated.

Perhaps, now more than ever, we need more government stimulus that President Obama and Congressional Democrats are pushing for. After all, I am sure that the white-collar ex-employees at MF Global can easily transfer their skills and apply them to a shovel-ready job.

Many conservatives opposed this measure; I'm not sure what they have to do with each other.

Carl, a major reason why some conservatives were opposed to this measure is because they thought it was too extreme. If CNN was some tool of the right-wing, they wouldn't have reported that, nor would they have mentioned the concerns that women had with the law.

Here's a CNN article explaining why the "Personhood" ballot measure went down to defeat in Mississippi:

http://news.blogs.cn...sure/?hpt=hp_c1

Clearly, any objective, non-partisan adult would have to conclude that CNN is part of the "Conservative News Media" after reading this article. (Thank goodness for truly non-biased sources of news such as the Huffington Post.)

In NJ (which I'm surprised Carl forgot to mention), I fully expect the Democrats to retain their majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

If Republicans make legislative gains in VA (a crucial swing state), that's a bad sign to come for Obama in 2012.

A number of heavily partisan states have a governor from the minority party (or recently have had one); such victories (excluding re-election victories) are almost always flukes. In KY, a Democratic governor was elected in 2007 because his Republican precedessor was engulfed in a scandal.

It's beyond hypocritical for Cain to attack his accusers for making unproven allegations of sexual harassment while he himself suggests that Perry supporters or liberal Democrats are responsible for leaking these stories (despite failing to provide solid evidence that this is the case).