Max

I am shocked that Tom Eplin has totally disappeared since leaving ATWT. He has only done one movie since then, in 2007.

Crazy Todd Akin writes new book, doubles down on "legitimate rape" message. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/todd-akin-new-book-108745.html?hp=f3

I honestly don't know how well Cleveland's economy is currently doing. From a political standpoint, Cleveland is obviously the most hostile place in Ohio that the GOP could have chosen (which is why I thought Cincinnati would have been a better idea; however, that city may very well have had certain logistical or economic problems that caused the GOP to reject it). But it's hard to get any more anti-conservative than New York City, which is why I thought it was a mistake for the Republicans to hold their 2004 convention there (although I admit that the anti-Republican protests weren't anywhere near as bad as I imagined).

Though it may have made more sense to hold it in Cincinnati, the GOP has decided to hold its 2016 convention in Cleveland. However, I honestly don't think that the host city or state of a national convention will make any material difference in the outcome of an election. (Just look at 2012, when the Dems and GOP respectively lost NC and FL despite holding their conventions in Charlotte and Tampa.) The obvious exception to this rule may be 1968, when the Dems may have lost IL in part because of their horrendous Chicago convention.

DRW, I want to say that don't think that the alliance that Cochran has with either Lott or Barbour is based on friendship. Lott and Barbour epitomize the worst of "Good Ole Boy" lobbyists, and they view Cochran as the best way to enrich themselves. While McDaniel was worse, I honestly think that Cochran could be going senile. It was extremely bizarre when he mentioned "indecent things" done to farm animals. And many were shocked when he had no idea that Eric Cantor was defeated. Honestly, it is absurd that he (and Dick Lugar as well) asked for another six years in the Senate after spending 36 years there. But it's shameful that the establishment candidates are too cowardly to primary them, so instead they are only challenged by right-wing loons. I should have clarified that the nursing home stuff wouldn't have become nationalized (but, as I mentioned earlier, may have been his biggest liability in Mississippi). McDaniel's past statements would have become nationalized, and other GOP candidates would have been forced to answer for them. I commend you for saying this. The best thing for her and her supporters to do would be to fully apologize, and be thankful that this tape came out so early. Perhaps I am not being objective, but I have a feeling that many Democrats will regret nominating Hillary. If she loses, they'll wish that they went with someone who wasn't perceived as being so calculating and unlikable. And if she wins, they will be spared the greater of two evils, but they will have to constantly worry if she will abandon progressive principles by sending troops to Iraq (if there is a chaotic situation such as the present), approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, making major changes to ObamaCare, etc.

I thought this election result was a big blow to Democratic hopes of retaining the Senate. It was a result that few people expected to happen. Even with the fear that McDaniel might win, I am surprised that so many blacks voted for Cochran. I honestly think that Cochran wouldn't have gotten so much crossover support had he not received so much praise from Democrats and the liberal media. (Praise which I have to conclude is entirely insincere, given that nobody ever paid attention to Cochran prior to this race and given the fact that Cochran is a very close ally of the hated Trent Lott and Haley Barbour.) I really think that McDaniel would have been absolutely toxic in a general election. His rhetoric is far more firery than even Sarah Palin's, but the Nursing Home scandal--more so than any of his policy positions--would have been his biggest liability. Worse than that, Democrats all across the country would be gleeful over the fact that they would tie each GOP senate candidate at the hip with McDaniel (which is what happened with Akin and Mourdock in 2012). While the GOP thankfully won't have that problem, there's still a chance that Cochran could lose if McDaniel decides to run as a third-party alternative. Given how angry he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he does that. The book rollout was nothing short of a disaster. At this point, I would still say that her chances of winning the presidency are more than 50%, but that's only because there is so much more time to go. If some of Hillary's supporters don't think that she could very well be defeated (if this behavior continues), then they are too zealous in their admiration/support of her to be objective observers. The "dead broke" comment was the gaffe of the year. It may be literally true, meaning that in 2000, on the Clinton's personal balance sheet, their liabilities exceeded their assets. (Similarly, Donald Trump could have made the same claim when he wanted to declare bankruptcy, but everyone would laugh at him if he said he was "dead broke.") Yet everyone knows that the Clintons were going to move into very nice houses (she incredibly even said "houses") and that they had unlimited earnings potential (because people would pay big money to listen to them give speeches). There was zero chance that they would be beggars on the street. While "dead broke" gets into Mitt Romney territory, the problems are much bigger than that. Because--apart from resentment of the out-of-touch, wealthy elite--the major issue that the Democrats ran on in 2012 was attacking the GOP for being a "pro-rape" party. And so now a decades-old tape surfaces (whose authenticity no one has disputed) in which Hillary coldly brags and laughs about getting a rapist off. Predictably, Hillary defenders have come to her defense with the following three statements: *It was an event that happened a long time ago. - Perhaps this might be an acceptable excuse, but then we need to remember that Democrats brought up an incident (that occurred in 1965) in which Mitt Romney bullied a gay classmate in high school. The liberal media jumped on this and made it top news. *The rape victim still is choosing to remain anonymous. - This is an odd criticism coming from the left, because normally women's rights groups forcefully argue that rape is such a painful experience that its victims are often reluctant to come forward, even after a long time. *Rapists deserve legal representation. - From a constitutional standpoint, this is 100% true, but this defense is the stupidest one of the lot for Hillary supporters to suggest. Hillary is not running to lead the American Bar Association. Rather, she is running for the presidential nomination of supposedly the most pro-feminist political party there is. And despite the fact that rapists need lawyers, it doesn't excuse Hillary's heartless laughter about the situation. In regards to both "dead broke" and this rape case, I think everyone knows that if these blunders were made in 2008, it wouldn't have been Republicans leading the criticism of Hillary. Instead, the liberal Democrats would have objected the most strenuously.

Qfan, this is an excellent response. I acknowledged that some conservatives do hate Obama because of his race, and also acknowledged the intense hatred the right had for the Clintons. I mentioned the Bush hatred because you (incorrectly) seemed to imply that the hatred the GOP has for presidents of the opposing party was somehow unique. You also seem to contract yourself, because in one post you seemed to suggest that race wasn't the biggest reason for the Obama hatred (it was "just the frosting on the hate cake"), but now the opposite supposedly is true because the GOP hates Obama because he is "young, black, Democrat," and represents "a world where white men no longer call the shots." There are Tea Party members who are racists, but formation of the Tea Party goes beyond opposition to Obama. These people were truly pissed off at the bailouts of the banks and the auto companies, and oppose big government in all its forms. They feel betrayed by Bush (for doing these things, and for running up the deficit), and have developed a deep and destructive hatred of the Republican Party (which ironically has helped Obama). And far from hating all black people, they have eagerly embraced African-Americans such as Herman Cain who have touted their agenda. And as long as we are talking about race, we have to admit that there are two sides of the same coin: there are people who won't vote for Obama because of his skin color, and there are people who wouldn't otherwise vote for Obama if not for his skin color. I've already mentioned the substantive policy objections that the GOP has with Obama, so I won't spend time listing those again. If you're convinced that GOP opposition to the president is race based, nothing can be said that can change your mind. Of course Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for the Iraq War (which is why he has such a bad reputation), but Congress authorized that war, and all those who supported the war in the wake of 9/11 came to the conclusion that Saddam had WMD. However, back in 2008, a lot of progressives certainly did seem to care about the individual members of Congress who voted for the Iraq War. If they didn't care, Hillary would have been the nominee. It's only now that the anti-war left doesn't seem to care, because Hillary is the only electable Democrat in 2016.

Joe Biden has broken the barrier for all plagiarizers. After he became VP, nobody seems to care anymore if one has plagiarized. We can witness this by the fact that Rand Paul wasn't hurt after his plagiarism scandal. Nor will businessman Tom Wolf, the man who is favored to become the next governor of PA, be hurt by it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/tom-wolf-plagiarism-_n_5208267.html

Cruz, Paul, Hannity, Dean Heller, and a few others I never heard of do not constitute the entire party. A lot of Republicans were smart to avoid him, and they won't be hurt at all by this debacle. I think we all know that there are some people who don't like the idea of a black president and that there are also some people for whom the reverse is true. (This is why Obama lost 59% of the white vote in 2012 and also why African-American turnout was at an all-time high last election.) Obama pretty much admitted this in an interview: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick?currentPage=all But in many cases, race doesn't explain why certain people hate or love this president, even though there are people who want to assume otherwise. In any event, I am surprised that you want to point fingers at "racist" Republicans, Qfan, given that Roman has unfairly demonized you when you have previously criticized this president. I give you a lot of credit for acknowledging that Obama wasn't the first president subjected to immense hate from the other side. I remember the Clinton hate to be every bit as intense as the Obama hate. Although birth certificates weren't demanded, the Clintons were accused of murder on several occasions (which I think more slanderous than the birther stuff). And let's not pretend that Democratic partisans didn't show Bush the hate (which goes well beyond Florida 2000). To this day, some fringe nuts can't accept that Bush was legitimately elected in 2004 (as he won Ohio by over 100,000 votes). These nuts were the "tolerant" ones who mocked his (supposed) dyslexia and called him a chimp. And they were also the ones who wanted him to rot in a jail cell for "war crimes," even though Hillary, Reid, Biden, Kerry, and others all looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion as Bush did. I certainly don't want Elizabeth Warren as president. But I honestly can't understand this reasoning, as she can obviously accomplish far more of her agenda as president than as a member of Congress. (And the chances of her being replaced by a non-liberal are extremely slim, so her exiting Congress to become president shouldn't be a concern.) I think that Hillary is very popular, but only within the more moderate half of the party. IMO, the more stridently liberal half deeply distrusts her because of her allegedly racist campaign in 2008, her husband's legacy of triangulation, her neo-con tendencies, and her Wall Street ties. However, this activist wing of the party knows that Hillary is the only Democratic nominee who can win in 2016, so they'll hold back any serious reservations they have about her until after her election. Although I do think that chances favor Hillary winning in 2016, I just don't see how she can possibly keep the fragile, modern-day Democratic coalition in place through 2020. If she governs as a moderate, she will invite a primary challenge in 2020 (most likely from Warren), but if she moves too far the left in order to appease the Warren wing of the party, she'll lose her appeal to independents. I think that Warren would love to run for president in 2016 but knows that Hillary would be too difficult to beat in a primary. I am guessing that the purpose of this book is to keep her issues (as well as herself) relevant throughout 2016, and to force Hillary to pay attention to the progressive wing of the party. If Hillary loses in 2016, this book not only positions Warren well for a run in 2020, but also positions herself nicely as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party post-Obama.

A lot of people are questioning the value of a college education. It has little to do with being an "idiot." I personally spent over $100K and got a 3.9 GPA at a respected university, only to wind up with a yearly salary that I felt was lower than what I deserved. I then got laid off (as all overhead personnel did) after the company I worked for was acquired by a larger business. Upon looking for other jobs, I can tell you that my degree and GPA meant next to nothing to employers. So, I am soon going back to graduate school, and thus, my whole undergraduate time was a waste. (And the graduate degree may still not lead to a good job; in that case, I will have to study for the extremely difficult CPA Exam.) If instead, a person decided to skip the enormous cost burdens of college and decided to enter the workforce immediately upon graduating high school, they most likely would have a lot more money than me. Thinking that college is "the only way" is very much an elitist attitude (though I am not suggesting that you necessarily feel this way), and it is also highly outdated, since a college degree really doesn't mean what it used to. What is wrong with calling people "folks"? It is just a formal way of being polite (that I sometimes use in conversation). I never thought that it referred to rural America. And if it does, so what? Not everybody thinks that big cities are the ideal. Very little of FNC's airtime is devoted to talking about global warming. I personally disagree with the far-right position that states that global warming doesn't exist. But I also don't agree with the liberal position that seems to suggest that global warming is solely or primarily caused by humans. I personally think there is a middle ground, and that the human effects are combining with natural occurrences in the ecosystem to cause the current climate changes. Sorry if this makes me a simpleton.

Khan, you needn't apologize for anything. Thank you so much for your explanation. Rather than being stridently right-wing, I personally wish that FNC would just be a right-of-center network (to serve as a mirror image to the left-of-center mainstream media). However, I'm still glad that Fox News is around, because otherwise there would be no conservative news outlet on the air. I completely understand how you find FNC's stridency and vilification of the other side so repugnant, because that is exactly how I feel about MSNBC. We'll have to disagree about the concept of irrelevance. FNC's #1 raking is in itself enough to make the network relevant. The network's conservative bias also makes it relevant, because it gives a different perspective than elsewhere on television and because it is consequently hated by many others who disagree with the network's views (though I am sorry for assuming that you hated the network's views). The lower rated MSNBC is also relevant, because it serves as the biggest megaphone for the left. (MSNBC was once irrelevant: prior to Keith Olbermann, it was non-ideological and had very low viewership.) CNN is the cable news network struggling for relevance.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think that the anchor position on Fox & Friends is a lesser position than being a reporter doing fluff pieces for The Today Show (a position that is far from guaranteed to lead to a main anchor position on that show). And being a panelist on The Talk hardly seems like a step-up, either. (If anything, I think that her Fox gig is better than the other two jobs that you mentioned.) I am personally not a huge fan of Elisabeth's, even though I do agree with her politics. Nevertheless, she has proven to be a benefit to Fox & Friends: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/2013-ratings-fox-news-1-for-12-straight-years-sheds-viewers-too_b208937 When I brought up Stephanopoulos and Cuomo (and their elevation to status as the main anchors of morning news programs), I wasn't trying to compare their talents to those of Elisabeth's. Rather, I was trying to dispel this incorrect notion suggested by many here (though, in fairness, you have not suggested it) that the mainstream media has some sort of raging conservative bias.

Do you realize how snotty and elitist you sound when you dismiss conservative FNC viewers as "hicks"? How is this any better than Palin's insinuation that people in cities aren't "real Americans" (which is something that you have often complained about)? I would hardly call an interview conducted on liberal outlet NPR with liberal journalist Gabriel Sherman (whom I am assuming is the author of the book that you are referring to) to be an objective source of information on any business decisions made at FNC. I understand that you hate their conservative politics, but whatever Fox News is doing certainly seems to be working, as they are trouncing their competition. Would you instead recommended that FNC adopt the "highly successful" business practices of MSNBC and CNN? I'm sure that going to FNC is easier for Elisabeth as opposed to going to one of its competitors. However, Elisabeth should be cut some slack for this because she had a thankless job at The View for a great many years (as the person the liberal panelists and audience loved to hate). Regardless of how "pathetic" some feel her new gig at Fox & Friends is, it is a step-up from being a correspondent who does fluff pieces for the networks. Perhaps she did try to get an anchoring gig for a morning show at a "respectable" network, but the allegedly "conservatively-biased," mainstream media has a habit of only hiring Democrats for those types of jobs (e.g., George Stephanopoulos, Chris Cuomo).

I wouldn't be surprised if The View is cancelled within a few years (assuming that ratings fall after Barbara leaves). Losing Elizabeth and Joy have been big blows, and the show seems less relevant to the nation's political and cultural discussion. A cancellation will also allow ABC to expand GMA to three hours.

LOL! +1

I had totally forgotten about Baz until reading about him on another message board. Here's some typically dreadful RC dialogue: Definitely some of Baz's mannerisms and characteristics found their way into GH's equally terrible Felix. (For instance, Baz gloating about how great his music is reminds me of how Felix crowed over what a superb job he would do with the Nurses' Ball.)

"classicdaysof80s" has posted some great 86-87 AW episodes, such as these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFIjqFx8yN0 Comments: *After reading the synopses on the AWHP, I think that these two episodes aired around 5/15/87. *For those who care, Brad Pitt makes an appearance at around the 21 minute mark. *There are some really tense scenes involving Donna and the Hudson Brothers. A dark secret between Donna and John causes major tension. *It's too bad that Reginald wasn't on the show longer. While I usually don't like campy characters, I always thought that AW did a better job with such over-the-top characters than any other soap. (For one thing, AW's OTT characters were usually portrayed by really good actors. Also, AW often involved the likes of Cass and Felicia in many realistic storylines.) *M.J. was a boring character, but I enjoyed Adam. *The Sin Stalker attacks Felicia.

When conservatives talk about the free market, they mean that people are free to choose from among different alternatives, and that the company which puts out the best product should be the leader in a particular business segment. This is a far different idea than a group of people deciding to boycott a company because they disagree with the political beliefs of a CEO (who never discriminated against anybody in the workplace). Nevertheless, I'm glad that you brought up the "free market in action" argument, since I have seen that elsewhere on the internet. A huge problem with this "justification" can be illustrated with the Phil Robertson (who, unlike Eich, is a truly contemptible character) incident: liberal groups threatened a boycott of A&E if Robertson remained on air, so A&E banned him (not because the network actually cared about gays, but because it was concerned about its image), and the liberals said this was an instance of the free market at work. Then, the subsequent backlash was far greater, so A&E lifted the ban. How many liberals then stated that A&E's action (to lift the ban) was also a demonstration of free market principles? And if Mozilla later decides to reinstate Eich as CEO (to appease those who may later decide to boycott Mozilla as a result of their anger), will you be OK with that, because that too represents a case of the "free market in action"? I thought that Bill Maher's joke was in extremely poor taste, and was shocked that somebody so liberal would say such a thing. But I was also shocked that somebody as staunchly liberal as Maher would be offended at what happened to the Mozilla CEO. (And the fact that people such as Sullivan and Maher are upset screams volumes at just how extreme an overreach this was.) More from Andrew Sullivan: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/dissents-of-the-day-63/

From the language that OKCupid used (taken from that NY Times Blog), it certainly sounds like bullying (if not worse), to me (especially the part where the organization wishes "failure" to those who oppose gay marriage). Interestingly, OKCupid needs JavaScript (which was developed by Brendan Eich) in order to function. So apparently the hypocrites at OKCupid don't want Eich to be employed as CEO but have no problems using "homophobic" technology. There certainly were people in the company who didn't like him, but he also had supporters as well. If there wasn't a lot of outside pressure, it is highly doubtful that he would have been forced to resign, especially in light of the fact that he was CEO for only a couple of weeks. Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, so she has to reverse course on gay marriage for political reasons (and nobody really knows how she truly feels on the matter). If Eich were a Democrat running for office, or the leader of a gay rights organization, then he too would need to repudiate past opposition to gay marriage. But instead, he was the leader of a technology company, so the only thing that matters (apart from his qualifications) was whether he discriminated against homosexuals. And I have heard of no such evidence that indicates he did. (Besides, if Eich did flip-flop on gay-marriage in order to save his ass, I highly doubt that his detractors would believe him.) DRW, I believe that Sullivan's point was that Eich's $1,000 donation (which is still pretty paltry, and certainly did not mean the difference between Proposition 8's success or failure) had such minimal impact to gay couples when compared to the enactment of DOMA during the Clinton Administration. The fact that the Clintons have since recanted (for political reasons) doesn't undo the big setback that DOMA represented to supporters of gay marriage. I would think that passing ENDA and getting gay marriage approved in all 50 states would be far more pressing battles for the gay community than the ouster of a conservative CEO (which strikes many as petty and vindictive). I can also understand Sullivan's point that picking such battles does more harm than good for the cause of gay rights: for instance, this week also saw Mississippi enact legislation similar to that vetoed by Jan Brewer, yet almost nobody talked about it, because the egregious forced resignation of the Firefox CEO got so much more publicity. If CEO's need to take personal responsibility for a paltry (when you consider the total amount spent) $1,000 contribution to Proposition 8 and resign, then I fail to understand how this "logic" fails to apply to any CEO who ever donated that amount (or more) to a candidate opposed to gay marriage (and who still opposes it). And why stop at the CEO? The other senior officers also represent the company, so they too should resign if they ever made a donation that offended a certain group of individuals. The problem is that now that precedent has been established (for terminating somebody's employment as the result of an unpopular political belief), we have no idea how far this practice will go. (Yes, I know that the CEO technically wasn't fired, but he wouldn't have resigned unless he was coerced into doing so.)

I was really sickened by this news as well, Prince, especially when there was zero evidence that he ever discriminated against gays in the workplace. This was nothing less than a McCarthy-like witch-hunt.

I actually agree with Andrew Sullivan: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/03/the-hounding-of-brendan-eich/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/brandon-eich-and-hillary-clinton/

Because of the big headline, today is a good day for Democrats (in terms of perception) and a Republican shouldn't act otherwise. I am very skeptical about just how "good" this 7 million number is--such as whether all of these people have paid their premiums or whether that number includes some people who were previously insured but were kicked off their insurance due to the ACA--but we won't know the answers to these matters for some time. I certainly don't see how the GOP lost every ObamaCare battle "everywhere and in every way." As you alluded to, the GOP scores a victory every time Obama caves and delays the employer mandate. Also, the Republicans weren't the ones who lost when the disastrous rollout occurred, or when many became very upset over the president's broken promise that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. And yes, while not the only factor, the ACA did play an important role in the defeat of the Democratic candidate in a congressional district twice won by Obama. The issue of ObamaCare (and how drastically it will change) is an issue that I don't see getting resolved until the outcome of the 2016 election. (Today's news did not put an end to the debate, nor will the likely GOP takeover of the Senate later this year.) A GOP president will make major changes to ObamaCare (although full repeal probably won't happen), while a Democratic president will pretty much leave it alone. In my opinion, the desire to maintain the ACA goes a long way towards explaining why nobody from the far left is protesting the nomination of Hillary (because most know that she is the only Democrat who can win).

Roman, I've given up trying to change your view that my opposition to the president is "racist" in nature. But I was deeply disturbed to see you suggest that Qfan might disapprove of Obama for racial reasons. (At least that is how I interpreted your comments. Please correct me if I am wrong.) Qfan is a very fair person, and is also somebody who is quite liberal. If one thinks that a liberal who twice voted for Obama is some sort of "racist," then that is beyond sad. Dismissing those who voted against Obama as doing so "because they don't want a black man as POTUS" was bad enough.

If it were just Crimea, then it wouldn't be worth a major war over. But the thing is that Putin could have Hitler-esque potential (which Hillary seemed to allude to when she compared Russia to Nazi Germany). Once Putin seizes Crimea (which seems inevitable at this point unless troops are sent), he probably won't be appeased, but instead will want more and more. If he acquires too much of an empire, the result could be World War III. And, of course, far more bloodshed would happen then as opposed to a war in Crimea that would take place today. But yes, I understand that mostly because of Iraq (and also Afghanistan to a lesser extent), the public wants no troops in Crimea. Yet just because a preemptive war was a mistake once doesn't always make it the case.

DRW, thanks for sharing that article, but as it mentions, that Congressman thankfully was in the tiny minority regarding his views on Putin. If history is any indication, nobody that extreme could ever win the GOP presidential nomination, but if somebody like that ever did get nominated, he would lose the general election. This isn't going to be popular, but I actually think that the U.S. should send many troops to Crimea, because I think that is the only way to stop Putin. Few potential presidents (even those well to the right of Obama) would be willing to do this, however, because the American public is so against it.