Monday Open Thread
It’s Cyber Monday today, supposedly the biggest online shopping day. I suppose you’re all back at work ready to go?
Well, it’s also open thread time and it’s time to tell us your thoughts.
First, congratulations to Chelsea Clinton on her engagement:
Chelsea Clinton is engaged to her longtime boyfriend Marc Mezvinsky, a spokesman for former President Clinton told ABC News.
People magazine got a hold of the couple’s email to friends and family sharing the news. They’re planning to wed next summer.
Devilstower at Daily Kos caught my eye with his own version of Democratic purity test. He also points out that at least 7 of the 10 GOP purity test issues are just opposing and none actually propose any policy. I guess they’re writing a Contract With No.
Still, the purity test does provide a convenient check list. You too can be accepted as a Republican if you promise to hate gays, poor people, immigrants, and the environment (which, come to think of it, has been the Republican standard for decades). Out of pure bullet-point envy, I propose that Democrats must also have their own list. Ten litmus tests which every potential Democratic candidate should be able to ace before they ever hope to put (D) after their names. In fact, I’ll go so far as to be more pure than the Republicans. If you can’t pass every one of these tests, don’t bother to sign on.
(1) We support the rights extended to Americans extended under the Constitution. All the rights. For all Americans.
(2) We support thoughtful, pragmatic solutions that protect American lives, American standards, and American pocketbooks. This includes finding solutions that don’t require bombing anyone.
(3) We support an America that has diversity in race, thought, background, and religion not out of some hazy idealism, but because it is our nation’s greatest strength.
(4) We oppose torture in any form, in any place, at any time, for any reason.
(5) We support American business, and recognize that an unregulated market is an unfair market, an unstable market, and a market doomed to failure.
(6) We support American workers, and know that when workers are allowed to organize they make their jobs, their companies, and their nation stronger.
(7) We believe that the reputation of our nation is valuable and must be zealously guarded against those who place expediency ahead of law.
(8) We believe in spreading democracy and human rights to the rest of the world by vigorously upholding those ideals here at home.
(9) We believe that access to our government is not for sale. Not in the courthouse, not in the White House, and not in the legislature.
(10) We believe that the health of our planet is not a zero-sum game, not a game of “you go first,” and not a game.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with these 10 principles?
Comment by Brooke on 30 November 2009 at 12:12 pm:
Well, I think it’s swell, but, personally, I could use stronger wording (policy specifics) on 9.
I wanted to post an RIP for Mike Penner.
Comment by gecko on 30 November 2009 at 12:21 pm:
Niall Ferguson: Even Krugman Admits The Deficit Is Unsustainable
The Business Insider ^ | 11/30/09 | Joe Weisenthal
Now, who said the following? “My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the [fiscal] crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar.”
Seems pretty reasonable to me. The surprising thing is that this was none other than Paul Krugman, the high priest of Keynesianism, writing back in March 2003. A year and a half later he was comparing the U.S. deficit with Argentina’s (at a time when it was 4.5 percent of GDP). Has the economic situation really changed so drastically that now the same Krugman believes it was “deficits that saved us,” and wants to see an even larger deficit next year? Perhaps. But it might just be that the party in power has changed.
Comment by John Manifold on 30 November 2009 at 12:53 pm:
With Biden-Castle race looming, in a season with an overflowing in-box of issues, one might have hoped for something more than horse-race fluff.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009911300343&template=printart
Comment by anon on 30 November 2009 at 1:04 pm:
Has the economic situation really changed so drastically that now the same Krugman believes it was “deficits that saved us,” and wants to see an even larger deficit next year?
Yes.
A deficit caused by a stimulus is temporary and goes away when the stimulus ends, as opposed to the permanant structural deficit created by Bush.
Comment by El Somnambulo on 30 November 2009 at 1:07 pm:
Here’s a fascinating story on nano-technology and promising results in using magnets to break up cancer cells:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091129/ts_afp/healthnanotechnologycancer
I’d love some feedback from the scientists among us.
Comment by MJ on 30 November 2009 at 1:42 pm:
Chelsea marrying a nice, Jewish boy. Oy, I’m kvelling!
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 30 November 2009 at 1:42 pm:
Short term vs. long term, you do understand the difference gecko? The logic is we have to spend to rescue the economy (and it’s working but slower than we’d like) in the long term we have to reduce these deficits that Bush left us with.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 30 November 2009 at 1:46 pm:
‘Bulo, my feedback on the nanotechnology story is that it’s nice if it works but the tests were not in vivo. There’s actually a lot of nice work going on right now regarding nanotechnology and medicine. There’s really not a lot of info in that article to judge the science behind it. My question would be – is it targeting the tumors and if so, how is it doing this?
Comment by Brooke on 30 November 2009 at 1:53 pm:
Those Clinton girls need therapy for rescuing. I’m just sayin’. But he’s cute, and we all know that’s what matters in a man.
Comment by El Somnambulo on 30 November 2009 at 1:54 pm:
MJ wrote:
“Chelsea marrying a nice, Jewish boy. Oy, I’m kvelling!”
I guess this means that the boxers vs. briefs question for the Twenty-teens will be:
Circumcised or uncircumcised?
Comment by John Manifold on 30 November 2009 at 3:13 pm:
The Right Wing is going after union protections. Right to work, Davis-Bacon. An excerpt from Charlie’s just-arrived weekly spam:
http://www.caesarrodney.org/index.cfm?ref=30200&ref2=59
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 3:19 pm:
One thing you have to admire about Charles Lammot du Pont Copeland, he doesn’t mind being unelectable.
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 3:32 pm:
The News Journal has taken sides in Biden v. Castle. (Pssst…Guess what. They love Castle.)
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091130/NEWS/911300343/The-Biden-Machine
The normally good Cris Barrish gives Castle a regular Celia Cohen style blow job in this baby.
Comment by Geezer on 30 November 2009 at 3:57 pm:
And rightfully so, because otherwise it looks like the paper is in the tank for the Bidens — are they still peddling the book they put out on Joe II? Let’s face it, that makes it pretty easy for Republicans to claim the opposite of what you’re claiming.
The lopsidedness of the story could have been avoided by the Biden camp if they simply came clean and admitted Beau is running. Blame them, not TNJ.
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 4:23 pm:
Well, to the NJ’s credit, they do seem to have changed their style book policy when it comes to mentioning Castle’s voting record.
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091118/NEWS/91118003/Plouffe-Castle-s-independent-profile-will-be-challenged
Hurray for the first mention of Castle’s voting record in the News Journal EVER!!
Comment by John Manifold on 30 November 2009 at 4:45 pm:
It’s nonsense to “blame the Bidens” because Barrish chooses to lip-synch GOP talking points.
Lazy substance-free article. 4 paragraphs on the insipid fire-dinner dustup?
Comment by cassandra_m on 30 November 2009 at 4:52 pm:
Really — this was pretty weak and if the excuse is that Barish didn’t get Biden talking points to include, that doesn’t help it much. It just says that it would have been a EEO talking points piece, rather than Castles talking points and a pretty weak rehash of some political history.
Comment by cassandra_m on 30 November 2009 at 4:56 pm:
The Supreme Court says that the abuse photos sought by the ACLU do not have to be released.
Comment by anon on 30 November 2009 at 5:12 pm:
Just took a look at the CRI blog. Half the content is gun-nut press releases. WTF?
Comment by gecko on 30 November 2009 at 5:15 pm:
some of them snuck out:
http://wwww.examiner.com/ExaminerSlideshow.html?entryid=795360&slide=2
Comment by anon on 30 November 2009 at 5:17 pm:
@5:12 … CRI’s “investigative reporter” is a gun nut. There’s a photo of him online somewhere just happy as a clam firing away.
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 6:03 pm:
Speaking of gun nuts. I’m just catching up, but being armed didn’t seem to help those cops in Seattle. So much for the gun nut talking point that if everyone was armed to the teeth, this country would be a courteous and tranquil paradise.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 30 November 2009 at 6:45 pm:
I totally called it! Glenn Beck said his remarks about Palin were just a joke and that liberals just don’t get the funny.
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 7:00 pm:
When Beck is lying in a gutter and his assholery posing as political commentary has run its course, I’m sure he will say that he was only kidding.
Comment by Geezer on 30 November 2009 at 8:51 pm:
“Barrish chooses to lip-synch GOP talking points.”
Which ones did he not attribute? I just re-read to make sure I didn’t miss something the first time. Not one thing in there that’s not attributed to someone. So once more we get John Manifold fondling his stiffie over the Bidens by smearing someone else. Peddle your horse manure among the morons, John. There’s not a word in there that isn’t true, including the little bullshit move Joey II pulled at the fire-company dinner, and you know it.
And let’s not make this about the fact that I can’t keep a civil tongue around rectum-massaging whores like you. You’re full of shit, and it’s tiring to have to correct you every time you open your mouth and more spills out.
Comment by Geezer on 30 November 2009 at 9:03 pm:
Now that my spleen is vented, a couple of points of journalistic background to better understand the motives of the article:
1) As noted previously, it’s pretty easy for the Castle people to charge that the newspaper is in the tank for the Bidens. There’s lots of sales of that book to prove it. It behooves the newspaper to cover the race from both sides, even if…
2) One side decides to play coy and refuses to make any of the little cloister of Bidens available for an interview. This is the sort of chickenshit the Bidens have pulled for years, but they’re not going to get away with it under current newsroom leadership. The current executive editor is not a career Gannettoid with ambitions of going up the ladder — he’s an actual journalist-turned-editor who has been around the block both in and out of the company. At root, Joe Biden is a Hicksville back-slapper trying to prove he’s not dumb just because he couldn’t finish in the top half of his law-school class, and will never really live down that he got caught lying about it. That’s why his reputation as a “straight talker” is out-and-out laughable. Half the time he doesn’t even know the truth, let alone speak it.
In a battle of Joe Biden and Valerie Owens vs. David Ledford, I would take Ledford and the points. He showed why by running the article despite the lack of access. Maybe next time they’ll decide to be straight with the public. But probably not, because they’re nothing if not arrogant.
Comment by cassandra_m on 30 November 2009 at 9:20 pm:
Via Twitter (I can’t believe I just wrote that) the PPP people said that they are in the field now with their Delaware Biden vs Castle poll and so far their results don’t look much different from their March poll when Castle was up by 8.
Comment by jason330 on 30 November 2009 at 10:42 pm:
Geezer,
I now have hope that the current newsroom leadership will not lazily report that Mike Castle is a “moderate.”
Comment by John Manifold on 30 November 2009 at 11:06 pm:
Sigh. Geezer erupts in defense of his drinking buddies. Let us start where a decent teacher, editor or other form of adult supervision might.
1. Biden machine? Please describe. Joe Biden won 7 statewide elections; Castle’s won 12. What is this “machine” and of what is it made? The old man has not faced serious opposition since 1984. One might say that the “machine” has been more apparent than real.
2. Castle faces a “monumental battle?” The last standing member of the Greenville Gang running an uphill battle? What source other than Ferris Wharton? There might be a good article about the state of the GOP, which has a declared candidate. How popular is Castle with “the base?” How many years since he held an in-state fund-raiser? Has his voting record moved to the right?
3. Cris wants to write an issue-free horse-race article on an undeclared candidate [Any mention of the Stupak Amendment? Castle's votes on anything?] and he’s upset that “the Bidens and their inner circle won’t talk about how a race might unfold.”
4. Why won’t Wharton run against Biden? [Hint: he's lazier than Barrish.]
5. Any analysis of fund-raising? Voting records? Who’s been getting support from which interest groups?
A minor league article from a minor league newspaper.
Comment by gecko on 1 December 2009 at 10:06 am:
does knowing that Chelsea’s fiance is a Goldman Sachs investment banker temper your joy?
Comment by Geezer on 1 December 2009 at 10:07 am:
I could post a point-by-point response, but it would bore too many people (I already wrote it, and that’s my judgment after re-reading it). But let’s just say this: The only valid sentence in your post is the last one. Which is a far cry from saying that some sort of malicious intent was involved.
You want input into the end result, involve yourself in the process. The newspaper is under no obligation — despite your apparent belief — to treat Beau differently because he hasn’t declared himself. Nor is it under any obligation to carry your water by taking up your suggestions for an article critical of Castle. You want the advertising department, not editorial. What’s wrong, can’t find a union to pay for a page? Don’t worry, you will.
The question you should be asking is why Barrish is the third reporter to write basically the same article? Gibson wrote one, Montgomery wrote one, now Barrish is apparently on the beat. The story is thin, exactly as you’d expect if someone were suddenly tossed into the beat. It’s pretty standard in such a case to do a round of interviews to introduce yourself to the campaigns, and at what’s left of TNJ, the editors would want to produce an article from that process. I grant you it’s a thin article and probably not worth the ink spent to print it, never mind the paper.
If you want the full response to your persistent pro-Biden progaganda, let me know.
Oh, for the record: I have never, to my recollection, ever gone out (or in) drinking with Cris Barrish, unless you count our mutual presence at bars in Wilmington 25 or so years ago.
Comment by anon on 1 December 2009 at 10:23 am:
“Joe Biden won 7 statewide elections; Castle’s won 12.”
That’s just the difference between the Senate and the House – 6-year-terms vs. 2-year-terms.
Comment by Geezer on 1 December 2009 at 10:25 am:
“I now have hope that the current newsroom leadership will not lazily report that Mike Castle is a “moderate.”
Let’s see if they take JM’s suggestion and quote “the base” calling him a RINO.