Thanksgiving Open Thread
Happy Thanksgiving! Today you’ll stuff yourself with turkey and watch football while figuring out which sales to go to tomorrow. It’s the most American of holidays!
A Minnesota legislator with a loaded gun was found near a Planned Parenthood clinic. Don’t worry though, he was just looking for his girlfriend!
A Minnesota lawmaker is trying to explain why he showed up at a Planned Parenthood with a loaded gun. He says he just happened to pick that parking lot.
Surveillance cameras at the Planned Parenthood in St. Paul spotted Representative Tom Hackbarth of Cedar, Minn., parking his pickup and getting out with a .38 Smith and Wesson on his right hip.
At the link you can see the surveillance photo of Mr. Hackbarth getting out of his truck carrying the weapon. His explanation of what he was doing was bizarre. He wasn’t paying a visit to Planned Parenthood he just happened to park there. He was looking for his girlfriend.
Hackbarth was apparently on the hunt for his girlfriend whom he’d recently met online.
“She gave me some line of baloney, and I thought, ‘well, she’s fibbing to me.’ You could tell, and I thought, ‘well, I’m going to check it out.’ and I went there to see if she was around and her vehicle was not there. And I was just checking on her,” he said.
The police report says he may have been jealous about another man, which is something Hackbarth denies.
Police say Hackbarth exhibited the behavior of a stalker: angry, looking for a woman, with a fully loaded gun.
I guess some of his story checks out because police gave his weapon back (he has a carry permit). If he was really “looking” for his girlfriend I hope she has filed for a restraining order at least.
Alex Pareene, who writes at Salon‘s War Room has put together a list called the “Hack 30”. The Hack 30 is described this way:
The War Room Hack Thirty is a list of our least favorite political commentators, newspaper columnists and constant cable news presences, ranked roughly (but only roughly) in order of awfulness and then described rudely. Criteria for inclusion included writing the same column every week for 30 years, warmongering, joyless repetition of conventional wisdom, and making bad puns.
The list:
The Hack Thirty
1. Richard Cohen
2. Mark Halperin
3. Thomas Friedman
4. David Broder
5. Marty Peretz
6. Marc Thiessen
7. Jonah Goldberg
8. Maureen Dowd
9. Laura Ingraham
10. Peggy Noonan
11. George Will
12. John Fund
13. Roger Simon
14. David Ignatius
15. Mort Zuckerman
16. Michael Barone
17. Bill Kristol
18. Tina Brown
19. Joe Klein
20. Howard Fineman
21. S.E. Cupp
22. Tucker Carlson
23. Howard Kurtz
24. Dana Milbank
25. Mickey Kaus
26. Jeffrey Goldberg
27. Pat Caddell
28. Andrew Malcolm
29. Matt Bai
30. David Brooks
It’s hard to disagree with most of the list but William Kristol is only #17? No Charles Krauthammer? Bobo only #30? Controversy! Reading each entry is pretty fun, though. Each pundit has his own representative quote. Here’s #1 Richard Cohen:
Repeat offenses: Awful attempts at humor, clueless sexism, shameless use of lazy Op-Ed clichés, warmongering, generally being The Worst.
Representative quote:“First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to “say something funny” — as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.”
Here’s the entry on David Broder (who would have been my pick for #1 Hack):
Repeat offenses: Radical centrism, repetition of conventional wisdom, pathological need to demonstrate that “both sides do it,” hatred of partisanship/democracy.
Representative quote:It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don’t be astonished if that is the case.
Happy Thanksgiving! Remember to wear stretchy pants and don’t overdose on pie.
Tags: Open Thread
George Packer wrote an interesting review of Bush’s memoir at the New Yorker. A taste:
The Hack 30 is an awesome list. I’m delighted that Mark Halperin made the top three and especially delighted to see someone get Tina Brown on the list.
Happy Thanksgiving, DL. Hope everyone has a wonderful day.
Chutzpah:
“Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a former Khmer Rouge torture house in Cambodia on Monday and urged the nation to proceed with trials of the former regime’s surviving leaders in order to “confront its past.””
I wonder when the Cambodian Secretary of State will visit a former or current U.S. torture house and urge the same thing of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton.
I crack myself up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/world/asia/02cambo.html
Not to brag, but I confronted two of the people on the hack list about their dumbass punditry.
Joe Klien at the Obama rally in Wilmington & Tom Friedman near the coat check at Sardi’s on 44th street.
Here is a link to the Tom Friedman post.
nope I have Chutzpah for ya:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/25/rush-limbaugh-obama-thanksgiving_n_788515.html
maybe Rush ought to remeber that not only does “driving and Oxycontin not mix – but neither does doing your show and doing Oxycontin mix.
“Limbaugh punctuated his pre-Thanksgiving show with shots at Native Americans, joking that Obama had said their “rich culture continues to add to our Nation’s heritage … at their casinos and on their reservations.” He immediately made it clear he was making that last bit up.
The host also argued that more people have been killed from lung cancer, “thanks to the Indian-invented custom of smoking tobacco,” than from the arrival of Europeans and their wars and diseases. “Where are our reparations?” asked the well-known cigar smoker.
And despite his problems evaluating the recent Manhattan real estate market, Limbaugh had another look at the one from 1626. “We got shafted when we bought Manhattan,” he claimed, saying that European settlers initially paid a Long Island tribe that didn’t own the land, then had to repurchase it from the actual owners. “We got scammed … we got hosed … we paid for Manna-hata twice because a bunch of Native Americans scammed us.”
I really do think he is insane…………..
Comment by Dirty Girl @ 9:52 pm:
“I really do think he [Limbaugh] is insane…………..”
No Dirty Girl, Limbaugh is not insane. He’s evil.
There’s a difference.
OK, the verdict is in. At Thanksgiving dinner, my Democratic family members from around the country think “Obama is not a fighter” and are not happy with him. These are just regular Democrats who aren’t bloggers or political junkies. Nobody is going to vote for Nader or a Republican, but the mood was clear.
What about your families? Anybody else care to report? Perhaps there could be a thread to report dinner conversations about politics. It would be a good barometer.
The mood is changing and DL’s impulse to shut down and ridicule criticism of Obama is beginning to look a bit musty and out of touch.
Jack Markell has a “pro” corporate column in the Washington Post? Whats up with that pro corporate bent Jack?
“The mood is changing and DL’s impulse to shut down and ridicule criticism of Obama is beginning to look a bit musty and out of touch.”
Can’t find the link at the moment, but a polling story from last week highlighted the fact that 9% of Obama’s disapproval rating comes from those who think he isn’t liberal enough. You can look at that two ways — that’s a lot of people, or that’s nowhere near enough people to force him leftward.
@anon 9:29 When confronted with an uncomfortable truth, people move from denial to anger at different speeds. Most of the DL writers are in these two stages, as can be discerned from their comments.
The sooner that lIberals move to accept that Obomba is a bust, the sooner somebody will step up to challenge him, but that might not be soon enough to defeat him and his corporatist police state agenda.
Not to worry, even if he gets his ‘full corporate puppet’ on, our Governor will still have the unquestioning support of most of the “regular” Democrats.
“What about your families? Anybody else care to report?”
Deep fried a turkey in peanut oil. Nobody was shot or seriously injured, and the number of fights and arguments were negligible this year. Much politics were discussed. The Liberals were outnumbered 7 to 1, and were to embarrassed (or scared) to engage.
The usual good times.
“his corporatist police state agenda.”
A1 I think you are a bit ahead of the curve.
9% of Obama’s disapproval rating comes from those who think he isn’t liberal enough. You can look at that two ways — that’s a lot of people, or that’s nowhere near enough people to force him leftward.
Most of that 9% will still vote for Obama. That is the difference between a disgruntled Democrat and a Naderite (DD still incorrectly identifies both as “purists.”)
But some of them will vote R, or I, or just stay home.
The political problem is, now Obama has to fight for the support not only of Independents, but of 9% of his base. That is a losing proposition for any politician.
Nobody can force Obama leftward except himself by keeping his own campaign promises (some of which it is too late for). If he doesn’t move leftward he will be moving out. The only thing that can save him is colossal stupidity and arrogance on the part of Republicans, of which there is a pretty good possibility.
But if Obama stays where he is or triangulates further right, he will meet Truman’s dictum: “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time”
The enthusiasm gap in the base already cost us the House, does it have to cost us the presidency too?
If a Democrat with some gravitas and a national following, such as a Dean, Gore, or Feingold, start making trips to Iowa and begin to speak openly against Obama’s policies, that 9% number will skyrocket upward.
Unfortunately, we don’t have anybody like that speaking out right now, and all Obama has done is to lie to and trash the liberal base of the Democratic party while urging that liberals cut funding to third party groups and send all their contributions to him.
Obomba appointee Simpson calls US seniors the ‘greediest generation’
Maybe his grandma ate all the marshmallows off the sweet potato pie.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/deficit-commission-chair-seniors-greediest-generation/
speak openly against Obama’s policies
If a credible Democrat showed up in Iowa with Obama’s 2008 campaign platform, I’d support him. And if that candidate were to debate President Obama, there would be substantial policy differences. It would be an interesting debate, complete with Youtube flashbacks of Obama 2008.
I hope Obama changes course before it comes to that.
Miscreant just described every TV news panel show:
“Much politics were discussed. The Liberals were outnumbered 7 to 1, and were to embarrassed (or scared) to engage.”
Just change “liberals” to “conservative Democrats”
anon @11:50- who, other that John Boehner, does not hope the same thing?
Heads Boehner wins, tails Obama loses.
The only way Boehner loses is if President Obama gets off his knees and moves left (toward 2008 Obama).
… I misread your comment. I thought you were saying Dems who speak about primaries are playing into Republican hands. That is debatable.
“Truman’s dictum: “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time” ”
I believe Bill Clinton rewrote that one.
“Nobody can force Obama leftward except himself by keeping his own campaign promises”
I disagree. If that number were 20% — if his approval rating drops below 40 for any length of time — I think it will get his attention.
I believe Bill Clinton rewrote that one.
Clinton passed his economic agenda in his first year. He didn’t wait until Dems lost Congress. And as a result he ran on a rising economy in his second term. Obama has few options to repeat the Clinton model. If the tax cuts for the rich are extended, there will be no revenue options for fighting the deficits. It’ll be two years of arguing with Republicans over spending on their terms.
There are two main reason liberals like myself are slow to break with Obama, in spite of a lot of prima facia evidence that he is not interested in winning my vote;
1) Every possible alternative is FAR worse. There is simply no argument that any Republican is a better choice than Obama and all leftward choices simply help Republicans.
2) It is impossible to make a fair assessment of Obama’s record in this media environment. In other words, how much of my disappointment with Obama is legitimate and how much is just me being worked constantly by ahole naderites and ahole Fox newsies? Even a discerning news consumer like myself can’t help but be swayed by the constant naderite/fox news harping from the far left and the far right.
1) Every possible alternative is FAR worse. There is simply no argument that any Republican is a better choice than Obama and all leftward choices simply help Republicans.
Agreed. Unfortunately, that was also the losing argument for Carter and Dukakis.
The problem is, our current direction ends up with the far worse alternative.
2) It is impossible to make a fair assessment of Obama’s record in this media environment.
Disagree. You can get plenty discouraged just reading White House transcripts directly.
Fair points. In the end it will come down to Obama. He either wants to be President through 2016 or he doesn’t. There is nothing you or I can do about it. So I plan on sitting this one out.
Every possible alternative is FAR worse.
Nonsense. Gore, Feingold, or Dean would be FAR better, just to name 3.
It is impossible to make a fair assessment of Obama’s record in this media environment.
More nonsense. In fact, maybe the dumbest thing you ever wrote. The unfiltered facts and numbers speak for themselves.
The economy is stagnant. The massive foreclosure fraud is a ticking time bomb. In spite of Obomba’s promises to help main street, Wall Street is doing great, while main street is suffering. The numbers don’t lie: Record profits and bonuses versus 10% unemployment and sinking wages. That is by design, not chance.
A repub like Romney running as an outsider against Obomba can carry the “change” mantle and has a better chance of winning in the general. If the Dems get smart and nominate a real progressive instead of Obomba, that takes the “change” argument away from the republican (because now both the R and the D would represent “change”). Then the Dem wins because the Dems have better and more popular policy positions than the repubs. So advantage Dems.
There is nothing you or I can do about it. So I plan on sitting this one out.
That attitude worked real well for liberals and dems this year, didn’t it?
Idiot – No democrat is a viable alternative while there is a Democrat in the White House. Are you really this stupid or just pretending? Crack a book for godsakes. Get some fresh air.
Bottom line: We have no options right now, but will just have to wait for Obama to decide if he wants to be President.
“The numbers don’t lie: Record profits and bonuses versus 10% unemployment and sinking wages. That is by design, not chance.”
By design? What are you smoking? You’re saying Obama engineered this precisely so his popularity would plummet?
“If the Dems get smart and nominate a real progressive instead of Obomba, that takes the “change” argument away from the republican (because now both the R and the D would represent “change”). Then the Dem wins because the Dems have better and more popular policy positions than the repubs. So advantage Dems.”
Wrong again. Before Obama, the last time a Democrat won an election against a non-incumbent Republican was JFK. Do you really think Democrats can win over independents with a change candidate one election after promising change and then failing to provide it? Not to mention that none of the candidates you mention could raise anywhere near enough money to unseat Obama as the Democratic nominee.
The more you type, the less connection with reality you seem to have. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Your wishes are more like unicorns.
“In Search of Bigfoot” was a really cool “In search of…” hosted by Leonard Nimoy.
No Democrat will beat Obama in a primary – pretending that it’s going to happen is foolish. What do you think the reaction of some of the base will be? He’s still quite popular with most Democrats. A primary challenge will only hand the presidency over to Romney or Palin. The best shot is to work with Obama instead od against him. BTW, criticizing Obama the same way Republicans do is least likely to get him to do what you want. I’m sure the way Obama’s team sees things, some peoplen who claimed to be allies started kicking him in the teeth almost as soon as he took office.
Well put. Geezer, UI, …I think we’ve done some really good work here. I’m sure anonone gets it now.
No Democrat will beat Obama in a primary – pretending that it’s going to happen is foolish.
You are missing the point. You don’t need to “beat” Obama to win. All you need to do is pressure him into fighting the Republicans. That will win over most of the 9% and give Democrats a chance to avoid certain defeat in 2012.
Right now Obama is responding entirely to pressure from the right. He needs to feel some pain from the left to get his attention. A primary is the logical pressure point to push on – that is how the system works. And you don’t need a lot of money to do it.
Obama has proven to be thin skinned about criticism from the left. He took the time in Asia to respond to a HuffPo post, of all things, accusing him of “caving” on tax cuts to the rich. An accurate accusation, based on Obama’s own words, but he denied it anyway.
But Obama still thinks that the people who supported him and still believe in his 2008 promises are fucking retards who need to be drug tested. That needs to change.
Yes, it was by design – look at Obama’s economic team, starting with Geithner and Summers. Who’s interests did they put first: Main Street’s or Wall Street’s? Wall Street’s, of course. Was there any throttle on Wall Street bonuses? Was the stimulus package big enough? Was it slanted too much toward non-stimulative tax cuts? How’s the foreclosure crisis going?
Obama got the results that were predicted by his liberal critics – Wall Street profited while Main Street continues to suffer. How can he possibly argue for deficit reduction NOW when unemployment is sky-high, our infrastructure is failing, corporate profits are at a record, and money is cheap? But that is where Obama is heading next.
And if you want to wallow in self-defeating thinking like “No Democrat will beat Obama in a primary,” then you will remain defeated. 3 years ago the common wisdom was “No Democrat will beat Hillary in the primaries” and then “Obama will never beat the republican.”
As Jackson Browne wrote, “Don’t think it can’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”
BTW, how do you think Obama is going to win running on his record when unemployment is still close to or over 9%, benefits have run out, Wall Street is still making a fortune, and the war in Afghanistan is still raging? America is going to want change and Obama ain’t going to be it this time.
Obama sucks. You know he does. His approval ratings continue to sink. The longer progressive Dems stick with him, the worse off it is going to be for our country and our chances to elect a real progressive anytime in the next 12 years.
Besides – a primary challenger to Obama will have plenty of money, as long as you aren’t too picky about where the money comes from 🙂
Remember Republicans accusing us of idolizing and worshiping Obama. I didn’t agree with that at the time, but maybe now they have a point. Obama now takes us for granted. He needs to feel some pain from the left instead of more worship.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ll continue to be guided by logic and assert that a primary throws the election to Palin, and ultimately only Obama can make Obama want to win this next election. You continue to chase unicorns and pretend that the mighty left (that Obama appears to hate) can have some impact.
FTR I think A1 is asking for too much. All I want is to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and to use maximum Presidential power to motivate the Senate to fight the Republicans with all the tools at its disposal. And stop offering up compromises before the damn bills are even on the floor.
Good luck with that.
Yes, I get it Jason. Keep supporting Obomba. After all, his political brilliance and deference for bipartisanship only gave the Republicans the House this year. Wait until 2012 when he causes the Dems to lose the Senate and the Presidency, too.
You’d rather drown in the sinking lifeboat you’re in than try a different one that might float. Yeah, I get it.
I’ll continue to be guided by logic and assert that a primary throws the election to Palin,
Agreed. The idea is to move Obama to the left by credibly threatening a primary without actually having one. If Obama doesn’t move left and fight, we are screwed with or without a primary.
I remember when people who were guided by logic asserted that nominating Obama instead of Clinton would throw the election to McInsane.
Accept the futility of your position.
While I recognize that you’re vastly more experienced than me in accepting futility, I reject your advice to do the same.
Really? Commenting here, and allowing your tone deaf comments here to be the extent of your activism, is a kind of acceptance.
We are not so different. Just two dry leaves blowing down an empty street. Our blog comments full of sound a fury signifying nothing.
One never knows which piece of dried grass will snap the spine of the camel.
That story is more fair tale than parable.
Just two dry leaves blowing down an empty street.
Have a carafe or two of absinthe.
I will find that hidden camera, I promise you.
With all due respect, I think anonone is engaging more in wishful thinking than analysis. “We’ll do this, and the result will be that, which will force Obama to do what we want” is not reasoned analysis.
The notion that Obama faces “certain defeat” in 2012 is a premise with little to support it. Your notion of what will happen once a challenge comes from the left has even less to support it. Cite an instance from recent American history in which events have played out as you propose and I’ll start listening. Otherwise you’re pissing into the wind and trying to convince the rest of us it’s raining.
Your notion of what will happen once a challenge comes from the left has even less to support it.
We know what happens when you fail to exert pressure from the left.
Cite an instance from recent American history in which events have played out as you propose
Have you heard of the “Tea Party?”
“In Search of Bigfoot” was a really cool “In search of…” hosted by Leonard Nimoy.
Geezer, I never said that Obama faced “certain defeat.”
The circumstances for each presidential election in recent history are so different that citing two instances from recent American history that are close to similar is impossible.
For example, using your criteria, predicting the 2008 election of an African-American as President in 2006 would have been utterly ridiculous because there was no “instance from recent American history.”
If the economic circumstances have not improved significantly by 2012, Obama’s re-election is very questionable against a repub candidate such as Romney.