Max

Did Eileen Fulton ever have plastic surgery?

Sadly, Don Hastings' first marriage ended in divorce.

Weiner's campaign manager resigned.

I once was willing to forgive Weiner, as I thought what he did in 2011 was not as bad as Sanford's sins. But these new revelations have completely changed my mind. I now think he is worse than Sanford, because at least Sanford only sinned once, did not continue to mislead the public, and did not remain in a sham marriage.

It does not look like anybody in this field will meet the Koch/Giuliani standards of greatness. Sadly, while a great mayor, Giuliani is scum as a human being. Koch, on the other hand, had a sterling personal reputation that matched his public life. I miss him so much.

Anthony Weiner admits to sexting even after resigning:

http://www.politico.com//story/2013/07/anthony-weiner-apology-94626.html

How can anyone vote for him (stating he deserves forgiveness). This pervert will never change.

I am not so sure that Liz Cheney will win the GOP primary. Mike Enzi got a huge boost upon receiving Rand Paul's endorsement.

Spitzer and Weiner lead in New York City:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/15/spitzer_weiner_lead_in_nyc_polls_119225.html

Given her freefall, I don't know why Quinn insisted upon leaving her political team intact.

Even though I strongly disagree with them, I applaud Juliajms and Marceline for holding the highly unpopular belief that legalizing marriage for polygamists is based (IMO) on the same logic and reasoning as legalizing gay marriage. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but I just don't see how somebody can be in favor of one and opposed to the other.

Marriage between man and animal or between adult and child are nowhere near the realm of gay marriage and polygamy (and I cringe when conservative Christians broach these subjects in an attempt to explain their stances on gay marriage). Since animals and children (of course) don't have the cognitive capabilities that adults have, banning such marriages is not a violation of the libertarian argument that consenting adults should have the right to marry whom they please.

I'm not sure what Christian conservative causes means, and if it is a good thing. Doesn't he believe women should stay at home? Not only is that unrealistic in today's economy, it's also something that as a man, I do not believe he has any right to speak about. I see him as an opportunist. He endorsed Arlen Specter, who was pro-choice and pro-stem cell research, in 2004. That's not very family values.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I think that conservative Christian causes are good things. These causes/beliefs include opposition to abortion, opposition to premarital sex and adultery, permitting school prayer (provided that the prayer is voluntary on the student's part), and believing that pornography has a harmful effect on our nation's culture. I know that Rick Santorum's wife stays at home, but I believe it's so she can homeschool her children. If he has said something along the lines of "women should stay at home," I would be curious as to the context of the entire comment. While there is, of course, a gender gap between the ideologies, many women comprise the Christian conservative movement (so they obviously don't feel it is sexist). The Specter endorsement no doubt hurt Santorum in the GOP primary. It was opportunist, but in the same type of way as it was opportunist for liberals to endorse Democratic candidates who opposed gay marriage or gun control. There still is no excuse, however, for not endorsing Toomey (even though he probably would have lost) and for that he should be criticized. Though I disagree with them politically, I would like to see the progressives become much more emboldened when it comes to holding Obama's feet to the fire (because, if not, it looks like their votes are just being taken for granted). While I am now getting off-topic, I think that the Democratic rush to nominate Hillary is opportunistic (as she is perceived as the most electable, even though progressives raised major doubts about her during her first run). In 2016, both of the bases--the Christian conservatives and the progressives--need to "follow their hearts" when selecting their nominees, instead of succumbing to the desires of the worthless establishments.

Al Sharpton has nothing to do with this at all, I'm talking about how conservatives have a big racket going on to make money. There was a guy selling website subscriptions who claimed all through the election that every poll was biased against Romney and he turned to be wrong. Glenn Beck was spokesperson for gold companies with sketchy practices and let's not forget Christine O'Donnell using campaign funds to pay her rent. The list goes on and on, but there is plenty to suggest that conservatives run games to make money by playing off conservative views.

If you weren't attacking Rick Santorum directly--when all of the other politically related comments in that thread dealt with Santorum--then I don't understand why you didn't originally post your thoughts in this thread. I never argued with your premise that there are some phony conservatives out there who are in it to enrich themselves, but you seemed to imply that Santorum was taking that job solely for that reason. I'm sure monetary concerns are part of it, but so is the ability to spread his message. I'm sure that both of those factors were reasons why Sharpton took his MSNBC gig. Al Sharpton has a lot to do with this issue, because when you gleefully brought up the topic of politicians looking to cash in, you threw stones without pointing out the rotten apples on your own side. Hypocrisy and corruption exist on all sides of the political spectrum, but since you have started this game of "can you top this," here is a list of just some African-American liberal politicians with ethical issues: Marion Barry Roland Burris John Conyers Alcee Hastings Jesse Jackson, Jr. Sharpe James William Jefferson Kwame Kilpatrick Carol Mosley-Braun Charlie Rangel Harold Washington Maxine Waters

I'd like to address some of the political comments made in another thread.

DRW wrote:

It's not about gay marriage, really. Santorum opposes everything - gays in the military, job discrimination laws, and more. Not even getting into his other views, which are as bad, or worse. If this is what his studio stands for, then I won't be watching it.

I think that Santorum should be judged in his totality, even if there are some issues that I don't agree with him on. He has lived a pious life, and done so much to advance Christian conservative causes.

Discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace is not to be tolerated, but some people have opposed ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) on solid ground because it goes too far to the left concerning bathroom privileges for the transgendered. I can't speak for the specific case of Santorum, but a lot more Republicans (including myself) would be supportive of ENDA (which has many positive provisions) if certain amendments (proposed by Senator Alexander) were added to the bill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/310111-enda-passes-help-committee-15-7

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) promised to introduce three amendments to the ENDA bill when it hits the Senate floor. According to his office, Alexander thinks the bill needs to give more guidance to employers.One amendment says that an employer is not required to alter existing bathroom facilities. The amendment also lets an employer assign an employee transitioning from one gender to another to either a men's or women's bathroom or a shared bathroom as long as the assignment is meant to be as least disruptive to the office place as possible.

The second amendment defines an employee that is "transitioning" from one gender to a different one. The bill offers rights for individuals transitioning but does not definite when an employee is transitioning.

The third amendment strikes a provision in ENDA that allows sexual discrimination lawsuits to proceed even when the employer proved a legitimate reason for an action and proven that action would have been taken regardless of gender.

DaytimeFan wrote:

Exactly. Stoning a woman to death is legislatively sanctioned in Saudi Arabia due to its theology...so let's not go into how stealing, assault, murder go back to the 10 commandments because using that argument sanctions every religiously based law and that's absolute nonsense.

I don't blindly follow what the Holy Bible tells me, but its word heavily weighs on my conscience. What is considered morally acceptable does change over time, but many who are deeply Christian still believe that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman. Like I stated earlier, when we as a society say that marriage between three or more people is wrong, we are also looking to moral and religious guidance upon making that judgment. So if one isn't entitled to use theology to define marriage a certain way, then it is unfair and hypocritical to say that we can redefine marriage to accommodate one group of people but can't also redefine it to accommodate another group.

(Please note that I was not calling you a hypocrite. The hypocrites I was referring to are the large portion of those in American society who support gay marriage but oppose polygamy. Since the standard of marriage has been redefined to allow any two people who are deeply in love with one another to marry, then what right do those individuals have to impose their moral judgments on three or more people who are deeply in love with each other and want to marry? In general, if one has the libertarian attitude--which is one I respect--then all adults should be free to marry whichever partner(s) they please.)

ReddFoxx wrote:

Another racket by a conservative, nothing more. The right-wing is easily parted with it's money by "leaders" who are pushing an agenda. Being a conservative leader or personality is actually very lucrative, so much so, I'm surprised real scammers haven't gotten in on the act yet.

While there are some conservative Christian leaders who have become wealthy, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that this is an exclusive phenomenon to that community. We can take Al Sharpton--who is revered by many liberal African-Americans--as just one counterexample. He has done several despicable things on his way up, including supporting the vicious lies told by Tawana Brawley and making disparaging remarks about Jews. But regardless of my own personal feelings towards him (which likely mirror your thoughts about Santorum), I will acknowledge that he--like Santorum--deserves credit for being authentic when it comes to the causes that concern his community.

I'm really impressed with Anthony Weiner's campaign. One poll showed him leading, and I think the odds favor him becoming the next mayor of NYC. I obviously don't agree with a lot of his views, but I think it's a great thing that there is another prominent moderate Democrat in the Koch/Lieberman mold.

Twister founder Charles Foley died today. In his honor, here's a clip of Bo and pre-psycho Alex playing Twister:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-Pb8SGC8grE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Anthony Weiner launches his mayoral bid with a polished ad:

 

http://<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yDhL4g8IZBM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I honestly would not be surprised if he won.

 

Here is some insight into how his entry affects the race:

 

http://<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CkV-FQVNqKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Love Potion Number Nine - The Clovers (later covered by the Searchers)

Statewide isn't the same as a district. SC is also a very Republican state and has been for the last decade in particular.

Oh, I most definitely realize that the gerrymandering doesn't come into play when dealing with statewide elections. But, many states have now become so politically lopsided that they are just as partisan as gerrymandered Congressional Districts (which was a major point I was trying to make.) As mentioned earlier, the gerrymandered SC-1 District was a place where Romney got 58.3% of the vote. Yet, the statewide results in WV and MA were more partisan: 62.3% Romney and 60.7% Obama, respectively.

Very poor understanding of electoral politics. Jim Matheson's family name is gold in Utah and he's an incumbent. plus Romney got a huge boost there. McIntyre and Rahall are incumbents in rural ancestrally Democratic areas. Incumbency played a role in Massachusetts, too, Brown was never going to lose by double digits. SC-1 is a wealthy, Republican gerrymander, Democrats don't win those sort of districts. If North Charleston wasn't racially gerrymandered into SC-6, Colbert Busch would have won. There is way would Sanford had won a 52-46 Romney district, which is what it would be if it wasn't gerrymandered. It's not a swing district, never has been.

Is WV--the state where Joe Manchin won by a landslide as Romney was also winning by a landslide--also a Republican gerrymander?

Redd, I also seem to recall you predicting (in the Status Updates)--like I did--that Sanford was going to lose (especially after he debated a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi). Everybody gets an election wrong now and then, so there's no shame in admitting you were incorrect (especially in an election that many conservatives thought was a lost cause). Other than Carl, I don't recall any liberals saying (until after the election) "this election was hopeless, it's too Republican." (The National Democratic Party certainly didn't think it was hopeless--even though they also knew about the district being made even more conservative due to gerrymandering--or else they would have wasted tons of money on Colbert Busch.)

IMO, a "golden" family name means a lot less than it is hyped up to be. (For instance, the Kean name is golden in NJ, yet Tom Kean, Jr. lost badly when he ran for Senate in 2006. In NY, Andrew Cuomo badly lost a 2002 gubernatorial primary. And some still believe that the Romney name is magical in MI, though not only did Mitt lose there in 2012, his mother lost a Senate primary there in 1970.) Jim Matheson is a very conservative Democrat, and that (more than anything) explains how he gets elected in such a Republican district. Joe Manchin was first elected to the Senate (in part) by running against Obamacare and "cap and trade." While Colbert Busch claimed to be a Matheson/Manchin type of Democrat, voters in that district were unwilling to believe her, due to a variety of factors: her lack of a public track record, her support of abortion rights and gay marriage (during her debate with Sanford), her being seen with Vice President Biden on the campaign trail, and her being the brother of Stephen Colbert (whom conservatives dislike because of the very progressive audience he attracts). (Now, I agree that the last factor--about her famous brother--was not a fair thing to hold against her. But, it was the truth that her name hurt her, in much the same way that Bill O'Reilly's brother's name would be used against him in a heavily Democratic district, even if he turned out to be a moderate Republican.)

I think that a Matheson/Manchin Democrat would have defeated a flawed Sanford. If Democrats can nominate somebody that conservative, he will be an endangered incumbent in 2014 (or, as predicted by Carl, Sanford could be defeated in a primary).

I've been so busy that I haven't had the chance to comment on the Mark Sanford election until now. I want to first state that it is not adequate for liberals to dismiss Sanford's victory simply because it was a district that went 58.3% for Romney. Sure, it makes it hard (though running against Sanford makes things a lot easier than normal, which is why so many liberals were obnoxiously gloating before the election took place)--and I give Carl credit for being one of the few people who correctly predicted all along that Sanford would win--but Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC), and Nick Rahall (WV) all represent districts where Romney won 67.2%, 59.2%, and 65.0% of the vote, respectively. Furthermore, Senator Joe Manchin of WV won re-election in a landslide the very same evening that 62.3% of that state's voters selected Romney for President. On the flip side, progressive darling Elizabeth Warren defeated Scott Brown as Obama carried MA with 60.7% of the vote. Yet, I've never once observed a Democrat remark that Obama's crushing defeat of Romney in MA played a huge role in Warren's 7.6% victory over Scott Brown (which is a smaller margin than Sanford's 8.8% victory over Colbert Busch).

Given his ethical flaws, I would not have voted for Sanford. But, I wouldn't have voted for Colbert Busch either; her legal history is also far from perfect, given that she was arrested in 1988 for contempt of court (as she was in a divorce trial with her first husband). And even some Democrats have remarked that she ran a poor campaign: she seldom gave interviews, was foggy on some issues (e.g., she couldn't identify what Manchin/Toomey was), had Vice President Biden campaign for her (in a place where she needed to put as much distance from herself and the national Democratic party as possible), and (unlike Sanford) didn't do any election day events. But even I must confess (in part because the press seldom mentioned her arrest) that I thought Colbert Busch was going to win until the last 24 hours or so. She blew it, and a better Democratic candidate--who both had more experience in politics and more credibility in distancing himself from the national party--would have won.

What do you folks think about the likely possibility that Anthony Weiner will run for NYC mayor?

While I dislike Weiner personally (because of his combative personality and the fact that he was a camera whore), I have no problem with him running. I was wrong when I joined the drumbeat of people who demanded his resignation from Congress. For me personally, a big reason why I was so insistent for Weiner to resign was due to anger over Chris Lee's senseless resignation for posting a shirtless picture of himself on Craig's List. (While a higher moral standard must apply to Republicans--as they are the party of conservative Christians--Lee's sin was totally inconsequential, and his resignation was the silliest thing I have ever witnessed.) But in hindsight, what Weiner did was nothing compared to what David Vitter (whom the GOP reprehensibly continues to support) or Bill Clinton did.

Of course, I would not vote for Weiner (if I lived in NYC), but--like I stated earlier--I have no problem with him running. And while he has little chance of winning, I do believe that he will shake up the race.

I am struck by the lack of enthusiasm by the current crop of candidates. If elected, the current front runner--Christine Quinn--would be the city's first openly LGBT (and first female) mayor. Yet, the amount of excitement that her candidacy is generating among gays and lesbians seems to pale in comparison to what Tammy Baldwin received last year, or to what Barack Obama and David Dinkins got among African-Americans.

Just a Dream - Jimmy Clanton

Brian

I had mistakenly believed that the role was cast yet again, so I appreciate the correction. Thanks also for the explanation as to why Reed's tenure was so brief, because I always found that odd.

I've only heard of it because Douglass Watson was part of its cast. As Carl mentioned, it was filmed in Toronto. I am speculating that this was the only American soap to ever be filmed in another country (although I believe that this series also aired in Canada as well).

This is really fascinating.

I think that NTY is an historically underrated soap, because it really was the first soap ever devoted to targeting a youth audience. This is a distinction that Y&R incorrectly receives. (I believe that going after a younger audience was not embraced by network executives in 1965-66, so NTY was ahead of its time.)

Larry Sabato's website already addressed where he saw the Democtratic nomination at this early stage, and here is the article that was written about the Republicans:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/16-for-16-part-2-an-elephant-rises-from-the-heartland/

 

Sabato actually makes a surprising prediction as to who he things is the #1 front-runner: rather that Rubio or Christie (as most people think), he thinks that designation belongs to Scott Walker.

 

Here's a table (from that article) summing up the strength's and weaknesses each candidate would face in a nominating contest:

 

First Tier
Candidate		Key Advantages	Key Disadvantages
	Scott Walker Governor, WI	•Midwest GOP gov. in Obama state •Heroic conservative credentials •Shown political durability	•Too bland? Next Pawlenty? •Might not deliver home state •Would highly motivate left/labor
	Marco Rubio Senator, FL	•Hispanic •Dynamic speaker and politician •From most electorally valuable swing state	•Future tough votes in Senate; has and will have federal record •Vetting issues regarding family •Could he really deliver more Hispanic votes?
	Chris Christie Governor, NJ	•Dynamic speaker •Shown ability to pursue conservative agenda in Blue state •Proven crossover appeal/populism	•Superstorm Sandy fallout •Not conservative enough for base? •Loose cannon
Second Tier
	Rand Paul Senator, KY	•Tea Party favorite •Strong support from libertarian GOP wing •National ID and fundraising network	•Too libertarian? •Association with out-of-mainstream father •Too dovish/eclectic for GOP tastes?
	Bobby Jindal Governor, LA	•Brings diversity •Southerner in Southern party •Extensive state/fed. experience	•Controversial governorship •Not nationally vetted •Not a dynamic speaker
Third Tier
	Rick Santorum Fmr. Senator, PA	•Strong support from social conservatives •2nd place finisher in ‘12 – next in line? •Been around primary track	•Too conservative for general election? •Lost last Senate race by 17% •Foot-in-mouth troubles
	Paul Ryan Representative, WI	•2012 VP candidate – next in line? •General election experience •Strong conservative record	•May not want to run •Couldn’t help Romney carry WI •Not a dynamic campaigner
	Rick Perry Governor, TX	•Strong conservative credentials •Texas fundraising •Extensive executive experience	•May lose ‘14 TX GOP primary •Ran very poor 2012 race •”Oops,” we forgot the rest
Wild Card?
	John Kasich Governor, OH	•Swing state •Long conservative record •Ohio’s unemployment below national average	•Supports Medicaid expansion •Legislative resistance to budget •Abrasive personality

 

Never Too Young, Morning Star, and Paradise Bay were all produced in LA.

Thanks for the response. I always thought that NTY was one of the few pre-1980 soaps (aside from GH, DOOL, and Y&R) produced in LA. Morning Star and Paradise Bay are not surprising either, given that they were Corday soaps.

I know that The Clear Horizon was also filmed in LA. I'm guessing that Bright Promise was as well, though I am not sure about that one.

Was this soap filmed in NY or CA?

Max, Sabato's website used to give reasons for his predictions in House/Senate/Governor races, you could toggle your mouse over the map and see writeups. Last I checked, you can't.

Thanks so much for telling me, Carl. I have only followed Sabato's site for about a year, so I was unaware of that unfortunate change.