The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/overlooked-trends-of-2013-101491.html?hp=t1

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/politico-obituaries-2013-why-they-mattered-101460.html?ml=m_a1_1?ml=m_mm

[quartermainefan]

I thought the only people who knew NJ was a shithole were NYers. To drive down the turnpike or look at the chemical plants along the Garden State Parkway will show the real NJ. Elizabeth, NJ is a particularly charming place, and I would not be surprised if cancer rates there were approaching 100%. Hoboken has its charms.

[ThePrinceOfSunspear]

Lol I don't know why but that comment is hilarious to me.....the way people talk about Christie and NJ you'd think he won re-election in a state that was a large as Texas and it was the land of milk and flowing honey....

Edited December 27, 2013 by ThePrinceOfSunspear

[DRW50]

RIP former Congressman Jacobs.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/andrew-jacobs-dies-81-congress

[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).

Edited January 2, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

The difference is, the distinction ignored by all republicans trying for this false equivalency angle is you don't see Bill Clinton defending Martin Bashir's right to say what he did with some bogus "free speech" argument because unlike her, Bill Clinton is not filled with hate.

Also, MSNBC is not comprised of elected officials, like the republican party is, that to use the queen of all republicans again as an example, gleefully mocked idealistic young people when she sneered "how's that hopey changey thing working for ya?" Oh sorry, she probably said "workin" since real americans don't pronounce their Gs.

[Max]

This obviously doesn't reflect your behavior, Qfan, but I can't believe that you forgot all the accusations of hate that the far left made against the Clintons. Do you remember how the MSNBC wing reacted after "fairy tale," Bill's comment that Obama won the South Carolina primary just like Jessie Jackson did, and Hillary's comment where she seemed to suggest that LBJ deserved as much credit for the Civil Rights Act as did MLK. This was all "proof" of the Clinton's racism.

Now that Hillary is Obama's heiress apparent, the far left is just sweeping all of this history under the rug.

And also, Martin Bashir did have the right to say what he said because hate speech is free speech. I don't understand why liberals get upset when conservatives say "hate speech is free speech," because liberals always (correctly) say that other disgusting acts like flag burning are also free speech.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

You just ducked the entire point, that your queen is filled with hate and because she is filled with hate she is the most popular women the republican party has seen in 20 years at least. Hate is her currency, and republicans embrace her for it.

Flag burning? I am not an evengelist or even a sham fraud of an evangelist like republican darlings Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell, but wasn't there something in the bible about god saying not to worship any false idols before him or something? At least I remember Charlton Heston being told that. And are you seriously trying to equate a flag, a piece of cloth, with the people targeted by republican hate? Cloth has no civil rights and hasn't had a history of abuse and dying.

[Max]

I know that this is a concept that some on the left don't seem to "get," but burning an American flag is seen by many as not just a way of saying "I hate America," but is also seen as a major sign of disrespect to the countless soldiers who were killed trying to defend the liberties that we all hold dear.

That's absurd to suggest that people can't be upset if a symbol is defaced. African-American's would be rightfully outraged if the Dr. King Monument was painted with graffiti. (It wouldn't be seen as just an attack on Dr. King, but instead as an attack on all black people.) Now, in this case, such behavior wouldn't be protected by the constitution, because the Dr. King Monument is government property. But, if somebody wanted to purchase a MLK doll and deface it, that would be legal (since that would be one's personal property), but it would still be incredibly offensive and disrespectful to African-Americans.

Sarah Palin is not the queen of the GOP, as her popularity is only limited to the Tea-Party wing. If she runs for president (which she did not last time, since she knew she had no chance of winning the nomination), she would do about as well as Michele Bachmann.

If you feel the GOP should be forever tarred-and-feathered for nominating her for VPOTUS, then there can't be a double standard: the Democrats then should forever pay for John Edwards, whose behavior is worse than Palin's.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Max

[quartermainefan]

Being jewish, history tells me a statue is just a statue and if someone writes grafitti on an MLK statue they can do what is done if someone scrawls a swastika on a synogogue: paint over it or clean it off. I still value humans more than any statue or piece of fabric. People can seek out--scratch that and make that "concoct"--reasons to be offended all they want but outside of some creative thought processes I don't see any connection to burning a flag and dead soldiers. I have no interest in burning flags but I never understood why this was an uproar since causing an uproar is the sole reason one would burn a flag. People give flag burners too much attention.

John Edwards and Sarah Paiin: the difference--again--is one is shunned by the democratic party and seen as the biggest creep to hit politics in a generation, and the other is a celebrated spokeswoman for conservative causes. Democrats are repulsed by Edwards, Republicans genuflect to Palin and her ilk. Isn't that why republican Ministry of Propoganda, FOXNews, puts her on TV on a regular basis?

[Max]

Qfan, we'll have to agree to disagree about flag burning, but I give you high praise you for your consistency on the matter regarding symbols/buildings/etc. (since I seem to be under the impression that you think people who actually say hateful things are worse than those who paint swastikas on synagogues).

While Edwards is indeed seen as an outcast, Bill Clinton (with the sole exception of when he attacked then-candidate Obama) and Ted Kennedy (who did things far worse than Edwards) are embraced by Democrats more than Palin is embraced by Republicans. There are at least some conservatives who don't worship Palin's every move, but Kennedy and Clinton have been idolized for decades by liberals.

[quartermainefan]

Bill Clinton? He never harmed a fly. He never says a bad word about anyone, he only reaches out to people, republicans included. The republican fantasy about Clinton that he is some horrible person guilty of the worst immoralities always strikes me as ridiculous and amusing at the same time. Kennedy had a moment of weakness and then spent his whole life in service to his country. Why would democrats ever shun Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy? Every ramp on every government building that allows people with wheelchairs access to their government is because Kennedy made it happen.

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, and while his wife didn't care the republicans who were cheating on their wives thought they had a way of getting rid of him by pretending to be outraged. At least Bill didn't dump Hillary on her death bed, that's a republican trick.

[marceline]

This. This is why the right wing can't be taken seriously Personally I don't care that Bill cheated. I don't care if anybody cheats. As long as you do what I put you in office to do then I don't care if you drop your whole paycheck on escorts and sex toys. But don't turn around and pretend to be the candidate of Christianity. Don't tell me how this country was founded on conservative Christian values then cut food stamps and unemployment benefits all while screwing around on your spouse. If the right-wing wants to play dueling douchebags, I'll take Bill Clinton over Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich any day.

[quartermainefan]

The thing about Bill Clinton is he was cheating. The government had no business asking him if he was cheating on his wife, and he was entirely in the right to lie about it. He's cheating on his wife, if he didn't lie about it it wouldn't be cheating. The republicans were supposed to be investigating Whitewater and they thought they had a home run getting him for cheating. He lied about it, as he was supposed to so as not to humiliate his wife and cause harm to his girlfriend, and then the republicans launched their nukes thinking they had him caught. It is amazing that to this day we see republicans still outraged that a guy would have the nerve to deny having an affair. Rightly, the county saw the whole thing as a farce, Newt got run out, Bill became more popular than ever, and republicans just cannot let go of the fiction that he actually committed a crime.

We saw last month an NSA official admitting lying to congress about a Snowden-related program. Not a single republican demanded perjury charges, in fact when a democrat did call the official a liar Rep. Pete King (R-NY) called the liar a hero who deserved an apology.

Edited January 4, 2014 by quartermainefan

[Max]

It wasn't the government who first asked Bill Clinton about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Rather, Paula Jones had filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the president, and in the deposition Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Lewinsky. (The question was perfectly relevant, because Jones' lawyers wanted to show a pattern of behavior on Clinton's part that involved inappropriate sexual relationships with his subordinates. In any event, the one being questioned doesn't get to decide which questions merit a perjurious response.) Clinton was later impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, not because he cheated on his wife. The great economy and the president's masterful spin (where he made Ken Starr and the GOP the real villains) were the main reasons why the public at large was against his removal from office. But apparently it wasn't just the GOP Congress who thought that Clinton did something awful, as Bill Clinton was later prohibited from practicing law for five years.

Bill Clinton did not run as a Conservative Christian who was pro-life, but he frequently used religion to his benefit. For instance, I certainly remember him regularly attending church (and letting others know it). But what should be far more upsetting to liberals is that Clinton supported DOMA and even DADT, despite the fact that his own marital/sex life was completely disgraceful. Where's the outrage on the left for Bill Clinton's hypocrisy on gay issues? Any Republican who opposes gay marriage and then has affairs is rightly called out for his nerve (over telling others how to live their lives when he himself can't abide by "proper" Christian values).

Perhaps it's true that Hillary didn't care and completely forgave Bill, but only she knows that. Likewise, perhaps she hates Bill and would like to leave him, but realizes that the two of them need to stay together because they have mutual political interests. (Again, no one other than Hillary knows for sure.) But how many people honestly believe that Hillary would have been Senator, SOS, and presidential contender if she dumped her husband?

Again, this does not include you, Qfan, but many on the left believed that the Clintons were racists during the 2008 campaign. So either they are racists or they are not. It can't be that Bill and Hillary are only racists when they are opposing the number one progressive idol of the modern era.

This goes beyond just a moment of weakness, or even beyond the responsibility of accidentally taking Mary Jo Kopechne's life. Kennedy didn't even bother contacting the police until 10 A.M. the next morning. For those who believe that Kennedy deserved to remain in the Senate for what happened at Chappaquiddick, let's all remember the mass hysteria that resulted when it was reported that Bush was arrested for a drunk driving incident (that killed nobody). This incident apparently showed his lack of fitness for the presidency, his immaturity, and was proof that he was such a disgrace to the entire Bush family.

I applaud Senator Kennedy's role in advocating for the Americans with Disabilities Act, but he didn't single-handedly make it happen. Other senators--such as Bob Dole and Tom Harkin--were eloquent advocates of the ADA, and President Bush-41 signed it into law.