Max

Supposedly the GOP is the party of hate, but MSNBC is now in trouble for the third time in recent months, because of the comments made by one of its of a wacko hosts. This time, the problem stems from the vile comments of Melissa Harris-Perry, a racist witch who (along with her panel of guests) poked fun at a dark-skinned child adopted by the Romney family:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/12/msnbc-uses-romney-grandson-in-comedy-segment-180345.html?ml=bp

Harris-Perry, of course, made headlines recently when she stated that ObamaCare was essentially code for the N-word (a sentiment that has been shared by some on the internet). But if we want to use this "logic," then how come nobody ever made idiotic arguments that Reaganomics, HillaryCare, and RomneyCare were all code for "I hate old people, women, Mormons" (respectively).

Just to show that I am consistent, I do not want MSNBC to fire Harris-Perry immediately (just as I did not want A&E to ban Robertson immediately). Instead, I would like for the network to keep her show on for the next several months (so that its reputation can continue to suffer) before cancelling her show due to low ratings. (And of course, vile speech is free speech, so Harris-Perry had a constitutional right to say what she said, even though her comments were reprehensible).

I actually was watching some 2009 AMC on SoapNet and was surprised at how good (by today's standards) it was (albeit still flawed). I thought that many fans were dissatisfied with the show at the time. I watched very little of AMC from 2009, but saw quite a bit from 2011, and thought it was horrendous (with the obvious exception of the final month). What happened to the quality of this show after moving to Los Angeles? (Certainly, losing David Canary was a huge blow.)

Because my previous post was so long, I want to continue my thoughts in a second post.

All My Shadows wrote (in the Status Updates):

Louisiana is a shithole, too, Max, and I have more of a right to say that than you do because I actually live here. Goodbye.

Again, a liberal hating LA actually makes sense, and expressing such sentiments won't harm future Democratic presidential candidates. I live in NJ, so I suppose that "I have more of a right" than you to say that NJ is a shithole (despite the fact that gay marriage is legal). NJ, of course, is one of the most Democratic states in the country, and we have massive corruption and sky high taxes and unemployment. Of course, we did elect Chris Christie--every liberal's favorite Republican (until he actually became a serious presidential contender)--but (despite the hype) he has accomplished very little. Part of this is due to the fact that the legislature is controlled by Democrats, and the other part is that Christie has been running for president ever since he became governor (thus taking time away from the job he was elected to do).

I am not at all surprised that liberals have turned on Christie now that he is a serious threat. (After all, the exact same thing happened with John McCain, and you can bet the very same thing would happen with Jon Huntsman.) Perhaps some need to be reminded at just how gushing the left's praise for Christie once was. For instance, take a look at this article, in which Jennifer Granholm stated that Christie was her new favorite Republican:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83119.html#ixzz2AzRAqXKS

I also remember Chris Matthews being "so glad" that Hurricane Sandy occurred:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/chris-matthews-hurricane-sandy-storm_n_2089216.html

Christie has really disappointed me. I thought he was a different Republican, but the George Washington Bridge scandal paints him in an extremely ugly light. He is willing to use the government to settle personal scores. Just what we need, another Nixon.

Juppiter, I'll be honest with you and say that it would not surprise me in the least if the GWB scandal accusations against Christie were true, given that he is such a vindictive SOB. (Since there is no concrete proof, however, this scandal won't currently hurt his chances, which obviously is also the case with Hillary and Benghazi.) To be consistent--in as much as a pattern exists whereby Christie acts with the bests interest of himself in mind--I really believe that he acted so over-the-top with Obama during Sandy so as to boost his chances in 2016 as well. (I would have had no problem if he had shaken President Obama's hand and thanked him for his help, but the hug was uncalled for, and certainly not needed to get federal aid to hurricane victims. Furthermore, Christie's no dummy; he knew that the optics would really help the Obama campaign.) The hug boosted his presidential chances in two ways: First, it killed any remaining chance of Romney winning the election. (Given the final election results of a Romney four point loss, Mitt would have lost even without the hug. However, I believe that the huge positive press Obama got from the hug and lavish Christie praise boosted his victory by 1.5 to 2 points.) And secondly, the Obama photo-op turned Christie's 50-something approvals into over 70%, resulting in a 2013 landslide re-election victory.

I waited a long time to state my belief that Christie's Obama/Sandy behavior was deliberately designed to hurt Romney and help Christie, but I knew if I stated it earlier (back when Christie was a "good Republican") it would immediately be dismissed. I know that even now some will dismiss my critique (as perhaps a "paranoid" belief that the right holds), but I have also stated my belief that Christie may very well have sought revenge against the Fort Lee, NJ mayor (who refused to endorse him for re-election) by ordering lane closings on the George Washington Bridge (which may be a "paranoid" belief that the left holds). My underlying belief is that Christie is a self-serving piece of s#it who should be trusted by neither the right nor the left.

For those of you who don't know, this is a continuation of a conversation that began on the Status Updates. Wingwalker thought it looked bad for UT to legalize gay marriage before MI, and sarcastically wondered if AL would do the same. Marceline then trashed her home state of OH for being homophobic and then called it a "shithole." I responded that it made little sense to be so critical towards a state that voted for Obama twice. Marceline then stated:

Max: "I thought the definition of a backwards state was one that did not vote for Obama."

You thought wrong. Again.

The problem with people like you is that you are singularly obsessed with your hatred for Obama and instead of owning that you project that garbage onto the rest of us.

I have friends and family who are treated like second class citizens because of the homophobia codified in this state's laws. That has nothing to do with Obama and the......fact that you try to make it about him is what is a perfect example of what is wrong with the right.

First of all, before the left talks about how bad hatred of Obama is, maybe they need to stop the hypocrisy, since they also hate plenty of politicians from the opposite party (e.g., Bush, Cheney, Romney, and Ryan). Anybody who rises to such a high level will be hated by the other side, and it's because of his views (and possibly because of his tactics/personality), not his race. For instance, the hatred against President Clinton was so intense that people accused him and Hillary of murdering Vincent Foster (a charge much worse than the birtherism absurdity). (Note: I just want to make clear that Marceline did not say anything about race in our heated disagreement. I am mentioning it though because there seems to be a belief that Obama is subject to extra intense hatred because of his race.)

I have no problem with people believing that banning gay marriage is a form of homophobia. What I have a major problem with, however, is the tremendous double standard that let Obama and every other Democrat off the hook for opposing gay marriage (prior to "evolving" in 2012) while demonizing Republicans for holding the same views on the matter.

Marceline, I am sorry about my point about OH twice voting for Obama was lost for you (in fairness to you, there wasn't much room for me to elaborate), but here's why I (1) don't understand why a liberal should criticize such a state and (2) think it is a bad idea for progressives to do so. First off, from a liberal perspective, there should be such gratitude to OH for giving its many electoral votes to Obama (regardless of the states other "flaws"). States like OH, FL, VA, and PA are absolutely critical in presidential elections. Second, it is an awful idea to criticize such a state, because it could be easily interpreted as an insult to independents (in OH) who voted for Obama in 08 & 12. I know that you're just one person on a message board, but if there is enough criticism from the liberal base, it will make it so hard to win OH in future elections. Obviously, hardcore progressives prefer the politics of states such as CA, MA, NY, and VT, but those states don't add up to 270 electoral votes.

Given the above logic, I am all the more puzzled why Wingwalker would criticize MI. Yes, I know the state doesn't pass the progressive purity test, but MI is still a solidly Democratic state and hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. It at least makes sense for a liberal to condemn UT and AL (just as conservatives do the same for the ultra liberal states), but it does stand in contrast to a certain stirring speech given at the 2004 Democratic National Convention where a politician said he was about bridging the red state/blue state divide.

So is Hillary B. Smith only producing? I thought she was going to appear in the series.

I thought it was a mistake for B&B not to ask HBS to reprise her role full-time. (Although perhaps she doesn't want to have a full-time job in CA.) B&B needs a character without any drama who can advise the rest of the dysfunctional characters.

So, Max, I wondered if you had any thoughts on the Rob Ford stuff which has gotten lots of breathless coverage in the US.

DRW, I only wonder if the voters in Toronto will be as stupid as those in DC (who elected Marion Barry to another term despite the fact that he smoked crack cocaine).

Remember all the hysteria over "liberals" who made fun of Christie's weight, and how dare they?

I wonder if we will hear any of that now that Palin is joining in.

I could care less if Christie was offended by that Time Magazine cover. What upsets me is that there are a couple of minorities (e.g. fat people and Mormons) that society still deems acceptable to ridicule. Despite the lame excuse given by the Time editors that "The Elephant in the Room" is an idiomatic expression, we all know that there would be a crippling backlash if Time ever assigned the labels "a dark horse candidate" or "a flaming liberal" to any black or gay politician, respectively.

It all matters so little. I post on politics message boards, and the conservatives keep coming at us like we are on the defensive with the ACA. But the hardcore liberal base never supported the ACA to begin with. To me, this is our transition to single-payer. We must keep it for now, but it doesn't mean I like it.

I think that liberals are defensive about Obamacare when it is compared to the prior health care system. (Liberals obviously also prefer Obamacare over the prior system.) However, I do agree with you that the ACA was never the endgame amongst hardcore liberals; in my opinion, it was a first step. After Obamacare (according to prediction) became so popular (Remember how people on the left stated that Americans would fall in love with the ACA?), the hope among liberals was that there would be enough support to push through single-payer.

This is why you need Bill and Hillary. Bill would have explained it all and sold it successfully. And if Obama does manage to see his way through this crisis it will be because Bill pushed him into doing it.

Qfan, I will never understand why liberals chose the unqualified Obama over the experienced Hillary in 2008. If the Iraq War (which is the one thing they bring up most) made Hillary so unacceptable, they could--and should--have lobbied for a more experienced anti-war candidate to run for POTUS. (And for that matter, if being against the Iraq War from the start meant that Obama had the necessary "wisdom" to be president, then tens of millions of other Americans were also qualified back in '08.)

But many of those who said that Obama deserved to be president instead of Hillary (because of Iraq) have proven to be hypocrites. That's because these folks had no problem when Obama chose Biden (who also voted for the war) as his running mate, and even had zero objections when Obama picked Hillary to be his SOS! And now, many of these same people want Hillary as POTUS in '16!

So since Iraq doesn't wash as a plausible excuse, what acceptable reason was there for picking Obama over Hillary?

Looks like the Senate will be abolishing the filibuster. Given that it's looking increasingly likely that the GOP will win the Senate in 2014, I'm a little surprised. I guess they decided they had to push through as many judges as they can.

I was shocked that Reid did this, and believe that it is a very stupid and short-sighted thing for the Democrats to have done. The GOP does have a decent chance of getting the Senate next year (they would have a much stronger chance of getting it if they don't repeat the mistakes of the last two cycles), but regardless, they will get it eventually. And because the Democrats broke over two centuries of precedent with this move (i.e., axing the filibuster for judicial appointments made by the POTUS), the GOP will then go even further to coalesce their power once they control the Senate. Specifically, it has now become so much easier for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster altogether (which, of course, means that only fifty votes will be needed to repeal the ACA).

One thing is amazing, however: given all the vile, anti-Mormon bigotry on display during the 2012 campaign, the far left sure has no problem when a Senate Majority Leader who wears "magic underwear" and who belongs to a "racist cult" makes such a naked power grab. Therefore, I am not sure if the ultra-liberals really hate Mormons (but make an exception for Reid), or if they just hate Romney (and only feigned anti-Mormon bigotry in order to hurt Romney and help idol Obama).

McCauliffe's main job at the DNC was to get them out of debt. They had huge debt and he cleared that up.

Cuccinelli's moral crusades extended far beyond sodomy. For one thing, he would have pushed hard to ban any protection for gay faculty or gay students at schools and universities in Virginia. This was one of his pet causes.

Sarvis was extremely liberal on some issues. No one ever thought he was just taking votes from Cuccinelli.

McAuliffe did succeed in getting the DNC out of debt, but Democrats did poorly in the 02 & 04 elections, and liberal morale was very low.

DRW, Cuccinelli is totally crazy on the gay issues, but I still don't believe that he would discriminate against gays, because that would hurt his popularity too much in a purple state, which in turn would cripple the rest of his agenda. It would be a completely different story if he became dictator (as opposed to governor) of VA. Of course, I fully understand why it is a no-brainer for a homosexual to choose the shady McAuliffe over Cuccinelli.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that Sarvis took votes only from Cuccinelli. Some of his votes came from McAuliffe, and others came from those who otherwise would not have voted. However, Cuccinelli was hurt as the result of Sarvis in the race (though--as exit polls show--Cuccinelli would have still lost if it were just a two person race).

I haven't been thrilled with Obama despite voting for him and I blame him for not doing a better job of selling the Affordable Care act to Americans, but I wish people would quit harping on aspects of the rollout that really are irrelevant. He didn't lie. I don't even get how this is comparable to the weapons of mass destruction nonsense, which we know was not true. The law as written allowed people who had policies in place that were effective before the Affordable Care Act was passed, to keep them.

Jane, I put the word "lie" in quotation marks (in my above post) because I honestly have no idea whether he knew that the ACA would result in the cancellations of insurance plans. But, many liberals became absolutely hysterical when no WMD were found, despite Bush giving his word otherwise. It has never been conclusively proven that Bush doctored the intelligence and intentionally misled the people (so we didn't always know that the WMD "nonsense" was false); in fact, Tony Blair's own intelligence told him that Hussein that WMD. Regardless, if we go by the liberal standard that says a "lie" occurs when a president says something that turns out to be false (regardless of his intention), then President Obama "lied."

I am not so sure that the law as written does allow all people who have polices in place to keep them, because I am going to lose my Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield NJ insurance (which I had prior to the passage of the ACA). The problem is that the ACA is a whopping 2,700 pages, so no one person fully understands it. While it would have been nice to have had a more thorough look at the ACA back in 2009 and 2010, Nancy Pelosi advised the Congress to pass the ACA first, and find out what was in it later:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/09/nancy-pelosi-on-health-care-we

I think he was probably an idealist who believed he could make a difference and maybe he still does believe that in some way, but the politcal machinery is bigger and stronger than anyone who thinks he or she can change Washington or any state house. Either you play the game or walk away with your soul intact. Or maybe you find your soul again once you leave office.

I agree with the points that you are making, Wales, especially with the fact that Obama was once a liberal idealist. But even if I were a progressive, I would have been reluctant to support Obama in 2008 because of his terrible inexperience. Changing Washington is so difficult for anyone, especially for somebody who has only spent one term in the Senate.

Hillary is a great elder stateswoman, she is a brilliant mind, she had played the game (she voted for the Iraq War for god's sake and supported the troop surge) but she is not a brilliant politician. She cannot sell [!@#$%^&*] with a smile the way Bill could

This is a great analysis, Juppiter.

The Republican base....the absolutely wild fringe is absolutely fed up and unless they're still retarded and split between the 3 above mentioned tea party candidates I don't see Christie getting the nomination. IF (and I truly believe that will be a huge IF in 2016) he does somehow eke it out then he's going to implode in the debates. He'll implode on television. He'll find someway to come across as completely arrogant and reveal himself to be all show and no substance....

While Christie's temperment has been a problem for him, he has always done very well in the debates, and has never exploded. This is true not just for this past cakewalk, but also for his first race, in which the odds were against him.

It's certainly true that some of Christie's brashness is just for show, but I am surprised an Obama supporter would ever want to use the phrase "all show and no substance," given that then-Senator Obama epitomized that premise better than anyone.

His victory in New Jersey is not impressive. If not for Sandy and Sandy aid he'd be toast. Combine that with this horrible Democratic candidate he really wasn't challenged....at all.

It's still pretty damn impressive, given that the liberal voters in the state don't agree with him on most of the issues. (And even prior to Sandy, his approval rating was greater than 50%, so there was no guarantee that he would have lost re-election anyway.) Granted, he ran against a total nobody, but so did Hillary in her 2006 Senate re-election. (Her opponent in that race was even more obscure than Rick Lazio). In 2006, Hillary got 67% of the vote, and Christie just got 60% of the vote on Tuesday. How on earth is a Democrat getting 67% of the vote in a deep blue state more impressive than a Republican getting 60% of the vote in a deep blue state (when both have nobodies as opponents)? When they each won their first terms, Hillary defeated another nobody by 12 points (the same day Gore defeated Bush by 25 in NY), while Christie defeated a wealthy incumbent governor by about 3.5 points. The evidence clearly speaks for itself: Christie is the superior politician.

On a final note, you do have a point regarding your frustration with the lack of a serious Christie opponent. Unfortunately, no prominent Democrat had the courage to run against Christie (because they knew they would lose, albeit not by 22.5 points). To make matters worse, the national Democratic party provided Christie's opponent with zero help (perhaps believing that Christie could never get the GOP presidential nomination), a decision they are now coming to regret.

There is no excuse for Obama repeatedly lying to the people regarding the fact that they would be able to keep their policies. (And he did "lie" even if he was totally clueless about the possibility of insurance cancellations, since liberals called Bush a "liar" after no WMD were found, despite the fact that intelligence suggested otherwise.) I will give the president a bit of credit for his belated apology; it doesn't help matters, but it is still better than nothing.

My predictions in the NJ race were pretty good (a 25 point Christie win vs. his actual win of 22.5 points), but the rest of my predictions were way off. I knew de Blasio would win big, but not by 49 points!! (He is far to the left of any Democratic mayor in NYC in recent history, so the 35 point victory I predicted would have been absurd enough. It doesn't even make sense how so many New Yorkers can go from voting for Bloomberg to voting for de Blasio in a four year period.)

All the polls were way off in VA, and so was my prediction that McAuliffe would by 5. A 2.5 point win was pathetic, especially given that the Libertarian candidate took more votes away from Cuccinelli. This will not be popular, but I would have voted for Cuccinelli as the lesser of two evils; the chances of him outlawing oral sex would have been zero (because--even disregarding the zero chance that such a law could have passed in the legislature--outlawing oral sex would have crippled his popularity, and in turn, the rest of his agenda). On the other hand, I have a strong feeling that McAuliffe will be a miserable failure as governor: just look at how he failed miserably when he was Chairman of the DNC, when he was one of the Chairmen of Hillary's 2008 Campaign, and when he ran for governor back in 2009. (He would have failed in this race too, had he not run against Cuccinelli.) And let's not even get started over all the sleazy ethical allegations that this man has faced.

Rand Paul is the new Joe Biden, minus the heart and the decency...

I am disappointed in Rand, who was somebody I once admired.

I apologize, but we'll have to agree to disagree about Mr. GOP will "put y'all back in chains" having heart and decency.

Aside from the AG race, the most interesting contest tonight will likely be the primary in AL-1, to replace Jo Bonner. Bradley Byrne is very conservative but also very much of the establishment - big money and business. Dean Young is even more conservative, and firebreathing. In spite of huge money going to Byrne, and all the establishment support. there's a good chance Young will win the primary.

DRW, the VA AG race will be close, but I think the Democrat will win, simply because the 5% margin of victory I predicted for McAuilffe will have enough of a coattail effect in the AG race. If McAuilffe wins by only a couple of points, then the GOP AG candidate will win.

I would be shocked if the establishment candidate defeats the Tea Party candidate in AL-1, but it sometimes happens (e.g., John McCain and Orrin Hatch).

It appears that the crazies aren't confined to just Cruz supporters:

Liberals too soft, actor-singer-activist Harry Belafonte declared at the rally to describe what he said was the most exciting political moment in his life in New York. Radicals. Its time for radicals.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/new-yorks-progressive-experiment-tees-up-99334_Page2.html#ixzz2jkV2lNTr

Wow.

The biggest complaint I hear from liberals is that moderate Republicans can't win GOP nominations, but if Joe Lhota isn't a moderate Republican, who is? My goodness, he's not only pro-choice, he also supports gay marriage. He is to the left of other Republicans whom the left has called "moderate," such as Dick Lugar, Jon Huntsman, John McCain, and Chris Christie. (Yes, I know that partisan Democrats no longer think of the latter two men as moderates, but that was what they were called until the moment they became formidable presidential contenders.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Christie wins by "only" 20 percent tomorrow, but I don't think the confrontation with the teacher will hurt him much (because many people, for whatever reason, find Christie and his bullying to be "refreshing"). If he wins by only 20 (which some liberals might try to spin as a failure), the major reason is simply the fact that NJ is one of the most Democratic states in the country. I still think such a victory would be damn impressive, and something I highly doubt another Republican will ever achieve in NJ during my lifetime.

I predicted a 25 point win to "hedge by bets," because it's possible that he could win by 30.

I'm too busy right now to respond to the insightful conversation regarding 2016. I will respond later. I just wanted to make my election predictions:

VA Governor: McAuliffe wins by 5 points

NJ Governor: Christie wins by 25 points

NYC Mayor: de Blasio wins by 35 points

Since the NJ and NYC contests are so lopsided, the exact margin of victory is almost impossible to predict. Really, Christie could win anywhere in the neighborhood of 20-30 points, and de Blasio could win by a margin of around 30-40. I know that at least one poll showed McAuliffe leading by only 2 points, but that is a clear outlier; nevertheless, the race has tightened a bit in the last 30 days, which is why I would be surprised if he won by 8 points or so.

Didn't Guiliani try this strategy too?

No, DRW. Giuliani made the mistake of skipping NH completely. He also had the misfortune of having McCain in the race, who also attracted the mainstream wing of the party (but was able to do a much better job in this regard than Giuliani because McCain--like Christie--is pro-life).

Upon further thought, I am not so sure that Christie will do terribly in IA or SC. While he probably has little chance of winning these contests, a third or even second place finish (which would be viewed as big victories by the political class) might be possible. That's because Christie can emphasize his pro-life and anti-gay marriage views, which have great appeal to the Huckabee/Santorum values voters.

I think Hillary would chew Christie up in an election. She would have the entire democratic party behind her, he would have half the republican party behind him. The guy can't even get invited to republican conferences because they don't like him. The joke is on them though because as they insist he is not conservative enough, he is just conservative enough to win 70% of the vote in his state while they watch their electoral stock plummet in the name of philosophic purity.

Qfan, the only conference that I can recall Christie not being invited to was this year's CPAC; they were upset at him for his hug with and lavish praise for Obama (which I did feel were over-the-top, but which most Republicans really don't believe cost Romney the election), for criticizing the NRA, and for criticizing House Republicans over Sandy relief. The amount of anger directed at Christie has dissipated at a surprisingly fast rate, and I would be shocked if he wasn't invited next year. Conservatives now hate Marco Rubio far more than Christie, because Rubio broke with them on immigration. (Thus, unless something changes, I fully expect that Rubio will not run for president in 2016.)

Christie will probably not have the entire party behind him, but the vast majority of the party will vote for him (if for no other reason than to stop a Hillary presidency.) Hillary will also have the vast majority of the Democratic party behind her, but she won't have the entire party behind her. That's because--unlike Obama how was in 2008 and 2012 (and unlike how Warren is today)--Hillary is not the progressive savior. Of course, many Democrats do love her, but the fringe left is very suspicious of her (and Bill) because of ties to big business, hawkish foreign views (e.g., she voted for "Bush's War"), and the fact that she ran an allegedly "racist" campaign against Obama in 2008. Furthermore, while not a very PC thing to say, the level of African-American turnout in 2016 is very likely to be closer to 2000/2004 levels than the historic highs of 2008/2012.

Since Hillary won't be able to enthuse the base the way Obama did, she will need to rely far more on independent voters. But on this score, I believe that Christie will do better, because he is the better politician of the two: while I've already explained Christie's ruthless political genius, I should state that Hillary really isn't a master politician. Of course, everyone knows how Hillary blew the 2008 race, a nomination that everyone originally thought would be a shoo-in. But, we should also look at 2000: on the same day that Al Gore won very Democratic NY by 25 points, Hillary defeated the extremely weak Rick Lazio by only 12 points.

A lot of people mistakenly believe that Hillary is a great politician, but that is because they interchange Bill's skills with those of Hillary. Indeed, if the 2016 race could be between Bill and Christie, Bill would win. But it won't be, and Christie is the most talented politician since Bill.

I'm not assuming any such thing. I don't consider Hilary the default candidate. A lot can happen between now and 2016.

My comment was simply geared at the fact that you seem to consider the fact that "Christie will be the GOP establishment favorite" to be a good thing when the last two elections show that it isn't and that was before the GOP started eating its own.

I am sorry for upsetting you. I honestly wasn't sure exactly want you meant by that comment, so I therefore used the awkward phrase "I am assuming that you are assuming." I do know that there are people who think that the GOP shouldn't nominate an establishment candidate, because it worked out poorly for the party in 2008 and 2012, and I wanted to point out that Christie was a far better politician than either McCain or Romney.

I don't consider Hillary the sure-fire nominee either (even though I gave the opposite impression). I just mentioned a Hillary vs. Christie match-up because she is the strongest candidate for the Democrats in a general election. (This is off-topic, but if she runs, Elizabeth Warren could get a lot of votes in the primary, although odds are against her defeating Hillary.)

Regarding the GOP eating its own, that started in 2010 (which was obviously before Romney's nomination). Of course, I concede things have since gotten worse.

Giuliani won his NY elections and was hugely popular with NY, establishment and the media. He couldn't win a single delegate. Chris Christie has to win caucuses in places where Michelle Bachmann is considered a legitimate politician, and Ted Cruz is welcomed with open arm at victory dinners celebrating the government shutdown. How will Christie win there?

Christie won't focus on the Iowa caucuses or the South Carolina primary (where he knows he will do poorly). Instead, he will focus like a laser beam on winning sizable margins of victory in New Hampshire and Florida. Then comes Super Tuesday, and Christie should do well because (as the establishment favorite) he will have by far the most money.

Giuliani would have done much better, but a pro-choice candidate has no chance to win the GOP nomination. Michelle Bachmann did terribly when she ran for president; she dropped out after getting about 5% of the vote in Iowa.

Yes. Let's look back at the McCain and Romney Administrations. Those were some halcyon days.

I am assuming that you are assuming that--in the event he wins the nomination--Christie cannot defeat Hillary Clinton. To be honest, the "dance" Christie will have to do will be little different than what McCain and Romney did. But, the latter two are poor politicians, while Christie is an immense political talent (evidenced by the fact that he is the only Republican who has won a statewide election in NJ in the past 15 years). You can bet that Christie won't do stupid things like choose Sarah Palin as his running mate or say the term "self-deportation." Instead, he'll "act like a moderate" (by continuing his pretend friendships with Democrats) while doing things (below-the-radar) as governor that only the GOP and Democratic bases will take notice of; things like confronting the teacher's unions, making women go through more steps before getting abortions, etc.

Hillary Clinton will be a very formidable opponent, but she nowhere near as good a politician as her husband; her political skills are also lower than those of Obama. On the other hand, Christie is the best--and most ruthless--politician I have seen since Bill Clinton. This man leaves nothing to chance: he bullies a Democratic legislature to get want he wants, and he wasted $24 million on a special election for a U.S. Senate Seat. (This was the seat to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Frank Lautenberg. The expensive special election was held only three weeks before the gubernatorial election, and really the only reason why Christie made this decision was because he was scared that his margin of victory would have fallen by a few points if he had shared a ballot with Cory Booker. When a reporter asked Christie why he was wasting taxpayers' money like this, he even stated that he didn't care.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/nyregion/christie-sets-october-special-election-for-lautenberg-seat.html?_r=0

As you can tell, I am not Christie's biggest fan. However, I am just pointing out my opinion that he is more likely than anyone else to become the next president. Honestly, the biggest obstacle I see for him is actually staying alive until the next election. This is obviously a taboo topic, but the concerns over his weight are legitimate and extremely serious.

I think that the national Democrats made a big mistake when they decided to provide Barbara Buono with zero help in her race against Chris Christie. For that matter, NJ Dems made a big mistake when they decided not to field a stronger challenger. (Though had both state and national Democrats not abandoned her, Buono would not be losing this badly.)

I'm sure the thinking among Democrats was that Christie couldn't have been defeated, and that he can't get the GOP nomination in 2016. Regarding the former, it would have been hard to beat Chrisite, but he actually was vulnerable on many fronts, most notably on the fact that NJ has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. If Democrats had actually made an effort, Christie's margin of victory would have been modest, instead of the anticipated landslide.

And now, because of the upcoming landslide in a very Democratic state, Christie will be the GOP establishment favorite. Democrats are kidding themselves if they think the GOP is too far right to nominate him; just look back at how McCain and Romney won their nominations. All the big money will flow to the establishment candidate, while the far right (who hates McCain/Romney/Christie) will have their votes split among many different candidates.

It's really astonishing if it's true, that the U.S has spied on the German Chancellor since 2002!

These allegations are very disturbing, Swede. There is quite a bit of outrage on this, but I imagine that the outrage would have been so much greater if these charges were leveled against the Bush Administration.

EXACTLY. Republicans kept carrying on about how Obama needed to "negotiate" with them before the shutdown. He ALREADY negotiated when the law was being written!

Republicans did not feel that they were being involved in the ACA negotiations, since there was no need for Obama to talk to them (as the Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate and a large majority in the House.) Despite the oft-repeated narrative of Obama being a bi-partisan leader, Olympia Snowe (hardly a Breitbart conservative) tells a different story:

If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1978, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/frustrated-senator-olympia-snowe-gives-obama-f-101657433.html

I know progressives are upset that there is not a single-payer system, but that failure was solely due to the objections of moderate Democrats. Far be it from me to defend the president, but even he can't be blamed for that. (Does anyone honestly believe--if the Constitution had been established in a way that gave the POTUS absolute power--that Obama wouldn't change the U.S. health care system to single-payer?)

But it all just boils down to greed. A PERFECT example in my own life. One of my former customers has a granddaughter that was just diagnosed with Leukemia. The child is 8 years old, and it is very sad. HOWEVER.... the child is on Medicaid because her mother doesn't make enough money, and she qualifies for it. But her grandparents are RABID Tea Partiers, and are posting things on facebook all the time about personal responsbility, and not letting the "Nanny state" take care of you, all the while their own granddaughter is on Medicaid, and their church is organizing a fund raiser for her care... all the while, these grandparents own TWO million dollar homes, and are sitting on a net worth of 3-4 million dollars. So you see how THAT works.

Alphanguy, you are entitled to make generalizations if you wish. But the problem is that liberals who make generalizations about certain things then get upset when conservatives make such generalizations. (Please note that I am not necessarily referring to you here.) For instance, just like many liberals generalize that conservatives are greedy, many conservatives generalize that government bureaucrats are incompetent. The terrible problems that the Obamacare website has been experiencing is just the latest piece of evidence that supports their generalization.

I ordinarily might have some sympathy for the left over the horrendous website launch, but one has to remember that it was the Obama supporters who were gloating endlessly over how superior their get-out-the-vote technology was, while ruthlessly trashing Romney's disastrous Project ORCA. In fact, prior to this launch, Team Obama was widely recognized by even its opponents for being technological wizards; that is what makes this experience all the more embarrassing for this administration.

While others are blaming the failure on solely "racist" Republicans, it was refreshing to see Robert Gibbs not spin the situation:

As badly as Obama and his administration botched this website up, there is one piece of information I found out that makes me almost feel sorry for Kathleen Sebelius:

Her explanation for why the Obamacare website doesn’t work is that she couldn’t possibly have been expected to make it work in the mere 3½ years since the law passed. She told The Wall Street Journal the website ideally needed five years of construction and one year of testing and instead had only two years of construction and almost no testing.

That means with the proper development time, HealthCare.gov would have had a flawless launch … on Oct 1, 2017. Needless to say, had Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) suggested a four-year delay in Obamacare as his fallback in the defunding fight, he would have been scorned as an unbending fanatic, although he just might have been giving Sebelius the breathing room she needed.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/heckuva-a-job-sebelius-98761.html#ixzz2imKk0tvH

While Cruz's desire to shut down the government was crazy, it looks like his desire to push Obamacare back a year was a modest request, given that Sebelius want to push it back four years. But, whatever Sebelius wanted to do (and what was really in the best interest of the website) did not prevail, because President Obama chose to cave into the base (as he had already been on their bad side with Syria and Larry Summers) by giving them the website on October 1. We all know there would have been hell for him to pay if he said the website wasn't ready on October 1 and therefore had to delay it.

The one thing that I agree with the progressive base on is that these glitches will eventually be fixed. However, that it itself does not vindicate Obamacare, because the website (which again, should never have been launched until it was ready) is the most basic thing to get right. Obamacare will be vindicated when/if premiums don't rise, the program doesn't add to our national debt, nobody is ever forced to change insurance plans (although many people, including myself, are already being forced to do just that), small businesses are able start hiring more than 50 full-time workers (without incurring fines), etc.

This sentence made me sad for you, Max. Truly, deeply, genuinely sad.

Marceline, I appreciate that you responded to me in a thoughtful manner. If you feel that the Clintons and President Obama currently have more influence over the Democratic base than Warren and Sharpton, I would love to read your articulate response. (I'll admit that because of the dumbo Tea Party, Democrats have rallied around the president in recent weeks, but prior to that his influence had been on the wane with progressives, because of Syria and because of his controversial choice to lead the Fed.) While Sharpton's appeal doesn't really extend beyond African Americans, one has to remember that they are the most loyal part of the Democratic base. He is so beloved by many in the black community (and to his credit, does eloquently give voice to the major black concerns, despite all his other flaws), that no white Democratic politician wants to look at his past and ignore him. Elizabeth Warren has become the progressive champion of the party, because she articulates the frustrations of many in the base who feel that the president hasn't been progressive enough (whether it is in regards to health care or consumer protections or wall street regulations). On the other hand, Obama's influence is a lot less than it once was (a phenomenon that happens to all presidents in their second terms). The base seems to only rally around him when the GOP attacks Obamacare or does something senseless like shutting down the government. The Clintons may be beloved by all Democrats, but their policy influence mostly extends to the moderates, and not to the progressives. The fact that progressives are supporting Hillary's candidacy is most likely due to her electability, as they were strongly opposed to her campaign in 2008.

I may disagree with it, but I can understand why some may feel that Warren and especially Sharpton are not as influential among the base as are Obama and the Clintons. However, I just think it is beyond debate that Sharpton and Warren play a highly influential role in the party.

Max I think you're delusional if you think Al Sharpton is the leader of the Democratic Party. He most certainly is not. Perhaps the die hard dyed in wool liberals consider them a leader but I think if you polled today he wouldn't even get 6%. So that's just nonsense. Al Sharpton is completely unrealistic and has no kind of claim on the party.

As for Senator Warren I love her but she's barely polling at 10% in all the primary polls for 2016. Even WHEN you take Hillary Clinton out she's still trailing Joe Biden. Don't get me wrong she's amazing and I do suspect that a lot of the Democratic Party respects and definitely would get behind her as a candidate but that's not for many years. She's not going to run. She knows that and you know that.

It's Hillary's turn. And I'm down for the ride so I cannot wait

I think that Sharpton and Warren are the "thought leaders" of the Democratic base in a way that the Clintons and Obama no longer are. Sharpton has pretty much become the spokesman on issues of importance to the African American community over the past year, whether it is the Zimmerman verdict or stop-and-frisk. (He has essentially been embraced by the mainstream progressive leadership at the very moment he got his show on MSNBC.) While I am certain that he cares deeply about these issues, he is so offensive to many people, not only because of bigoted comments he made in the past, but also because of the whole Tawana Brawley fraud (which I think is far worse than the bigotry) that happened to make him a household name.

In spite of his influence, you're correct that Sharpton could never win a Democratic presidential primary. I really feel differently about Elizabeth Warren. I do think that she would be unlikely to beat Hillary, but it is possible because many in the base (despite feeling deep personal affection for the Clintons) are less than enthused about Hillary's politics. (And although it is "Hillary's turn," that type of thinking sometimes creates a backlash among the liberal base.) However, if Hillary doesn't run, the race becomes a whole new ball game; the three main players will be Andrew Cuomo (who will represent the moderate, Clinton wing of the party; he won't run if Hillary enters the race), Joe Biden, and Warren. You mentioned that Biden is ahead of Warren in the current polls (which are very early in the game); the problems for him are (1) that his base of blue-collar, white voters play a much smaller role in Democratic politics than they did thirty years ago and (2) a good portion of his lead is due to better name recognition. Warren has only been in Washington for a year and is within a couple points of the current Vice President. She has progressive enthusiasm on her side and (I believe) has already raised more money than Biden; if Hillary isn't in the race, she will raise even more money. (Regarding Cuomo, it certainly can be said that he will raise a lot of money. However, I think that he is too moderate to win the nomination, and his ideology isn't counterbalanced with deep personal affection or being next in line, the way it is with Hillary.)

Regrettably Ted Cruz is the leading thought leader among the GOP base, but I at least see some mainstream Republicans publicly stating that they are opposed to the government shutdown. Among them are John McCain, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, and Peter King. (Rep. Devin Nunes, who is not nearly as well known as the others I listed, has gone on record stating that 200 GOP House members are pissed with the extreme wing of the party and oppose shutting down the government.) It's highly unfortunate that more people aren't speaking up, but I just don't see any Democrat confronting Sharpton or Warren. (Well, Democrats once didn't want to be associated with Sharpton, but those days have long since passed. And the president withdrew his own choice to run the Fed--Larry Summers--once Warren led the charge to replace him with somebody more progressive, Janet Yellen. What is so ironic about this is that Obama caved into his base even though that is the exact same thing that Democrats alleged McCain and Romney would do if they were elected president.)

I'm also sick and tired of the Breitbart fringe suggesting that those who oppose the government shutdown are RINOs who support Obamacare. The truth is that because of the government shutdown craziness, the flaws of Obamacare are being put on the news backburner. It had a very flawed rollout (full of glitches) on the first day. And, of course, we have companies (such as UPS) dropping health care for their own workers. (Of course, many progressives have brushed this criticism off by saying "greedy companies were going to drop health care anyway.") Small business are hurt even more than big ones; they are already looking for ways to reduce their workforce to less than fifty people. Furthermore, individuals are being forced to switch their existing insurance plans. (This includes myself; I received a letter from Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey stating that I can no longer be in their plan because Obamacare "requires [all] health insurance plans to meet certain minimum requirements based upon deductibles, copayments and maximum out-of-pocket limits.")

Some in the GOP need to realize that the way to amend or overturn the Affordable Care Act does not involve shutting the government down, but rather means that we have to elect a Republican Senate and president. And I am tired of of the president saying the Republicans have no health care plan of their own. Congressman Tom Price recently proposed his own plan:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/president-disingenuous-when-he-says-gop-has-no-alternative-obamacare

And if one wants a truly bi-partisan plan (which Obamacare never was, as even the most moderate Republicans such as Dick Lugar, George Voinovich, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins couldn't even support it), then the health care reforms proposed by Senators Ron Wyden and Robert Bennett should be re-considered. (I'm sure that many progressives wouldn't care for these plans--as some progressives have stated that even Obamacare isn't progressive enough--but to suggest that there are no Republican ideas is unfair.)

This is hardly a surprise, but it's Elizabeth Warren--and not Hillary Clinton--whom the far left really wants as its 2016 nominee. (Warren says that she won't run in 2016, but that means nothing, as Obama said the same thing regarding 2008.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/us/politics/warren-is-now-the-hot-ticket-on-the-far-left.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

In Democratic circles, disappointment in the promise of the Obama presidency and unease over a possible restoration of the Clintons have made the senator, who was sworn in just 10 months ago, the object of huge interest and the avatar of a newly assertive, fervently populist left eager for a more confrontational approach to politics.

The interest in Ms. Warren, who was a Harvard professor of bankruptcy law and oversaw the creation of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is swelling as some Democratic activists worry that Mrs. Clinton is too close to Wall Street a major source of her fund-raising in previous campaigns and is insufficiently committed to challenging the economic status quo.

I'd argue that Senator Warren (along with Al Sharpton) is already the de facto leader of the Democratic party. It was beyond humiliating for President Obama to have his choice of Larry Summers (for Fed Chairman) be rejected by Senate Democrats (because Warren and company felt he wasn't a "true progressive"); now, Obama will be forced to name Warren's choice of Janet Yellen as Fed Chair.

I've always had a very hard time buying the love amongst liberals for Hillary; I think a lot of it is just for show. To convince oneself of this, all one has to do is remember how viciously she was attacked by progressives in 2008. I think the major reason for the faux enthusiasm is because she is the "next in line" and is seen as the "most electable." (This is similar to how the GOP runs its primaries.)

If Warren runs against Hillary, I think that Warren will do better than expected. (She probably won't win, because it took Obama-like hoopla to defeat Hillary, and Warren doesn't have that. I predict that Warren will be the nominee in a post-2016 election, and then get decimated by the GOP nominee.) Although Hillary looks to be in a solid position to win the 2016 election, her problems will grow so large once she gets to the Oval Office. Think about it: if Obama is struggling to hold on to his own coalition (because he is not progressive enough), how will Hillary possibly hold on to Obama's coalition? She could very well receive a primary challenge from Warren in 2020, which would split Democrats and lead to an easy Republican victory.

Thanks for those links, DRW. As much as I felt badly for Quinn, I was really perplexed as to how tone deaf she was. Specifically, she should have known--from the moment Bloomberg won his third term by a much smaller amount than expected--that the term limits deal would come back to haunt her. While there was nothing she could have done about the past (i.e., she couldn't have taken back her decision to help Bloomberg get a third term), she should have immediately distanced herself from the mayor on most other policy issues. Instead, she arrogantly and stupidly assumed she'd be a shoo-in for 2013, and didn't try to separate herself from Bloomberg until her campaign was plummeting.

Wales, thanks for your eloquent response.

Try to imagine how you'd feel if your neighborhood experienced a crime wave and the police decided to stop every male "to keep the neighborhood safe" and as a result, you ended up being stopped and frisked three times in less than a month. Would the approach seems as logical to you then?

If I lived in a high crime neighborhood, I would be pissed off if I was stopped-and-frisked. But I would also most likely accept it as a "necessary evil" if it would help police prevent crime. The fact that NYC is one of America's safest cities speaks volumes in regards to the fact that their policing tactics are working (and it wasn't always this way, as crime was out of control twenty years ago). I understand and respect differing viewpoints, but I'd far prefer to be embarrassed/humiliated/angered as a unfair target of stop-and-frisk as opposed to being a victim of the crime wave my neighborhood was experiencing. Of course, it would be nice if we could have low crime without such controversial policies, but I personally believe such a scenario is not possible.

Obama's speech was terrible, as are so many of his speeches. "We have to send a limited response to discourage the use of chemical weapons". Yeah, that sounds like a rousing speech FDR or Churchill would have given...

I will never understand how he got this rep as a great orator. His speaking style is like a limp fish, he has no passion in anything he says, and he just blabs away in this monotone delivery.

Obama gave one great speech (at the 2004 Democratic Convention). As a result, the press, the liberal base, and his handlers took that dynamic moment and turned him into a cult figure, so that resulted in people being mesmerized by his every word. I have yet to see him give a second blockbuster speech.

After months of breathless media coverage on how scandal-plagued politicians can still thrive, Weiner (to no one's surprise) and Spitzer are both down. Mark Sanford lucked out being in a district with people who didn't care about his past.

It embarrasses me as a Republican that Sanford and Vitter survived their scandals while Weiner and Spitzer were defeated. However, I am fed up at how some Democrats (not you, DRW, but others) are acting like they are superior to Republicans when it comes to rejecting womanizers. Democrats have no right to gloat until the very moment when they stop idolizing Jack Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton and start treating them like pariahs.

I have to say that I feel sorry for Christine Quinn. I strongly disagree with her politics (and the underhanded deal she made with Bloomberg to overturn the term limits law), but she was humiliated beyond belief, having lost the women's vote, the LGBT vote, and her own City Council district. I really have no idea how the gays could turn their backs on her, given her lifetime of involvement in LGBT causes. Many gays are extremely liberal, but the anger they (and a lot of heterosexual liberals) had at her for her alliance with Bloomberg was over-the-top. Such a reaction would have only been justified if she had aligned herself with the likes of Michele Bachmann. (And the fact that in a course of a decade the personification of evil has changed from Bush/Cheney to Bloomberg/Quinn really tells me a lot about how much to the left the Democratic base has moved during this time.)

Bill Thompson is another person who is being thrown under the bus by the far left. All throughout 2000, the Gore/NAACP mantra was that every vote needs to be counted. But that line is a bunch of bulls-hit, since tens of thousands of votes remain to be counted, and a decent man like Thompson is being told to concede "for the good of the team." (I am not at all surprised that the far left doesn't really believe in the "count every vote" mantra, since they had no problem in 2008 disenfranchising Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan in order to help Obama.) Ironically, given what an anti-Bloomberg election this has turned out to be, nobody seemed to even care that Thompson was the only prominent Democrat in 2009 who had the courage to run against the mayor (because everyone else was too chickens-hit to lose by a big margin; meanwhile, Thompson was left for dead, yet he lost by less than five points).

Now I come to Bill de Blasio, the man who will likely be the next mayor of New York City despite literally being the flavor of the month. The ad featuring his son (with the afro) was very exploitative, to say the least. I wouldn't go so far as to call it racist as some did (racist is when Joe Biden tells a black audience that the GOP wants to put them back in chains), but there is no question that it won him the election. Being the most liberal candidate on stop-and-frisk is also very smart politics, but those who think critically about the issue know that it is not black-and-white (pardon the pun). The fact of the matter is that such a policy is employed more in minority neighborhoods simply because that is where a disproportionate amount of crime takes place; the dramatic crime drop caused by Giuliani/Bloomberg benefits minorities the most. Unfortunately, such nuanced ways of thinking don't seem to come naturally to people who adore Al Sharpton.