The occasional open thread: Cantankerous old fool edition

Posted on September 21, 2012 by Dr. Conspiracy

Post your Obama conspiracy comments here not related to the other current articles. Comments will close after two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Open Mike and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

293 Responses to The occasional open thread: Cantankerous old fool edition

  1. Joey says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:11 am  (Quote)

    Orly files lawsuit against the Republican Secretary of State in Kansas. An “emergency hearing” has been scheduled for October 3rd in Topeka.
    Anybody know how many birther suits Orly has lost?

  3. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:39 am  (Quote)

    Can’t wait for the flipside of all this. The rapid fire sanctions/counter suits, which I imagine will have a fairly high success rate. Waste the court’s time? You pay up! With any luck Ocrazy will be bankrupt by this time next year.

  4. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:51 am  (Quote)

    Barnett v. Obama (CA)
    Taitz v. Obama (DC)
    Taitz v. Astrue (DC)
    Taitz v. Ruemmler (DC)
    Taitz v. Astrue (DC) (again)
    Taitz v. Fuddy (HI)
    Taitz v. Obama (NH ballot)
    Taitz v. Obama (HI)
    Taitz v. Gardner (NH)
    Taitz v. Nishimura (HI)
    Taitz v. Obama (IN)
    Taitz v. Indiana Elections Commission
    Taitz v. Sebelius
    Farrar v. Obama (GA)
    Cook v. Simtech (GA)
    Cook v. Good
    Rhodes v. Gates
    Lightfoot v. Bowen

    That doesn’t count appeals and motions to reconsider after losing. Perhaps some more.

    Joey:
    Orly files lawsuit against the Republican Secretary of State in Kansas. An “emergency hearing” has been scheduled for October 3rd in Topeka.
    Anybody know how many birther suits Orly has lost?

  5. Keith says:
    September 21, 2012 at 1:02 am  (Quote)

    OK. I figure its hard to hijack an open thread, but I’m about to give it a try.

    This is a (relatively) non-partisan blog, but this story caught me off guard and really ticked me off.

    Senate Republicans Shaft the Vets

    So yesterday, in one final vile act before adjournment for the elections, Senate Republicans used a point of order to block passage of the Veterans Jobs Corps proposal that would have provided a modest $1 billion to hire veterans to tend federal lands or gain priority in hiring at police and fire departments. The bill was crafted with bipartisan support. 58 Senators supported the bill, but Republicans put together the 40 votes needed to block its passage.

    Why shaft the very veterans whose service politicians sanctimoniously celebrate at every occasion?

    Is it because unemployed veterans are part of Mitt Romney’s scorned 47 percent?
    …
    These are the same Republicans who squandered over three trillion dollars on the unfunded “war of choice” in Iraq. And now spending a billion on the veterans who risked their lives in that folly imposes too big a burden on our grandchildren. This is disgraceful politics.

    ‘disgraceful’ is not a word I would use to describe this but I figure I’m already imposing on Doc’s good will.

    Every time I think these M*****F****** A**H***s have gotten as low as they can go, they prove me wrong again.

    Remember this act of treachery when these pieces of s*** come slinking to your town to ask for your vote and start preaching about how they respect and honor the service the veterans have given their country.

    And especially remember it when you go to the polls.

  6. jayHG says:
    September 21, 2012 at 1:19 am  (Quote)

    Sooner or later this orly foolishness has to stop… seriously.

  7. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 2:43 am  (Quote)

    Yeah, that really angers me too. Last time I was this angry about the GOP blocking legislation, was when they fought against benefits and health coverage for 9/11 first responders that got ill from handling the debris.

    Thankfully, Jon Stewart’s outrage on that situation brought the much deserved attention it needed and it was eventually addressed.

    Keith: This is a (relatively) non-partisan blog, but this story caught me off guard and really ticked me off.
    Senate Republicans Shaft the Vets

  8. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 2:49 am  (Quote)

    Sadly, it will only stop when the crazies have been reduced to too small of a minority to still do damage…

    There are a lot of reasonable conservative folks out there, who still support this corrupt plutocratic and crazy-dominated party…naively thinking it will just be a passing phase.

    I disagree with that position emphatically – zealous movements do not tend to self-correct on their own. Instead they tend to just keep pushing the boundaries of extreme behavior further and further. Supporting them only encourages them and gives them power. Same with ignoring them.

    They need to be allowed to self-destruct and implode…so something reasonable can rise from the ashes. That process is currently being delayed, while they still retain such a position of power and influence. They need to lose badly, over several consecutive cycles, before there is serious hope of sensibility returning…

    jayHG:
    Sooner or later this orly foolishness has to stop… seriously.

  9. The Magic M says:
    September 21, 2012 at 3:54 am  (Quote)

    G: There are a lot of reasonable conservative folks out there, who still support this corrupt plutocratic and crazy-dominated party…naively thinking it will just be a passing phase.

    Well, sooner or later the sane conservatives will “take their party back”. It’s bound to happen, it’s inevitable if the numbers are in their favour, it’s logical if the crazy has failed to succeed.

  10. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:01 am  (Quote)

    I’m not so sure they can. The moderates (sane conservatives) have NO power. The Tea Party types were very successful in filling a lot of the grass roots and lower level positions and in winning primaries and getting seated in office. The other part of the power structure is the cynical plutocrats, who totally own the purse strings.

    They have left reason and reality behind. Doubling-down when they are wrong, instead of introspection and changing course, is inherent in their nature.

    At this point, the only role “sane conservatives” have in their party is enabling and propping up their existing problems, with their support. I don’t realistically see how they gain the GOP back. I think it has to continue to spiral downwards and implode first and go the way of the Whigs.

    Only then can the sane voices build a new structure from its ashes.

    The Magic M: Well, sooner or later the sane conservatives will “take their party back”. It’s bound to happen, it’s inevitable if the numbers are in their favour, it’s logical if the crazy has failed to succeed.

  11. Keith says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:04 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: Well, sooner or later the sane conservatives will “take their party back”. It’s bound to happen, it’s inevitable if the numbers are in their favour, it’s logical if the crazy has failed to succeed.

    I am not so optimistic as you, sorry to say.

    Where is Bill Buckley when you need him?

  12. Slartibartfast says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:44 am  (Quote)

    I think our best chance is for the Republican party to implode resulting in a split of the Democratic party into a progressive faction and a conservative “blue dog” faction (that disagree but don’t hate each other and are willing to work together). As I understand it, this is the sort of thing which has happened in the past.

    The Magic M: Well, sooner or later the sane conservatives will “take their party back”

  13. Sudoku says:
    September 21, 2012 at 5:02 am  (Quote)

    I think Klayman is despicable. His “Appellant’s Initial Brief” is filled with misrepresentations. Orly is just nuts. The following is a quote from her latest in Kansas:

    “Taitz advised Kriegshouser and Kobach that if the Objection board places Obama on the ballot, while possessing all this evidence of fraud, each and every member of the Commission will be liable and criminally complicit in aforementioned fraud and forgery and may be added as an additional defendant in the ongoing Federal legal action for racketeering and fraud Judd et al v Obama et al 12-cv-1507 Central District of California.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/106500226/2012-09-20-KS-Walters-v-Kobach-Motion-for-Stay-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

    If you have the stomach for it:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/106519938/Voeltz-v-Obama-Florida-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Appellate-Brief-9-20-2012

  14. Sam the Centipede says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:14 am  (Quote)

    Sudoku: Orly is just nuts.

    Orly is not just nuts, she’s thoroughly nasty too. Her spittle-flecked, bile-soaked, hate-filled screeds of mendacity show how her personal morality is completely despicable.

    I’m no psychologist, so I don’t understand how she – and other birthers too – can be so unaware of what they are doing and the absurdity of their arguments, their tactics and their co-seditionists. Even if a sane person agreed with the political views of Arpaio, surely anybody can see he’s a scumbag? Even if one thought Zullo or Zebest’s conclusions might be correct, surely it’s obvious they’re idiots?

    And can they see the absurdity of continuing their campaign of harassment in the courts when (a) they lose again and again and again but still try the same old, same old arguments that have been thoroughly debunked on the web and dismissed firmly by the courts, and (b) they claim that the whole system is corrupt. Each time they think they have found “an honest judge”, they find their case kicked out as usual and cannot see how unlikely it is that they have been unlucky so many times.

    Nor can they see that the correct method of removing a sitting President is via democratic elections. You don’t want X as president? Then vote for Y.

    Personally I think there’s a good argument for saying that there should be no additional restrictions on who can be President – if The People want a particular person as President, shouldn’t they be allowed to elect him/her? That’s democracy – trusting the people!

  15. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:27 am  (Quote)

    Well, if anybody else is missing the Saturday Birtherfest, I went ahead and did a Virtual Birtherfest, with singing and speeches and dancing and drama.

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/a-virtual-birtherfest-or-a-ticket-to-deride/

    I was really looking forward to it. My stuff is probably mild compared to what the real one would have been.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  16. Majority Will says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:44 am  (Quote)

    Sam the Centipede: Even if one thought Zullo or Zebest’s conclusions might be correct, surely it’s obvious they’re idiots?

    Speaking of Zullo and idiotic, despicable things . . .

    Joe Arpaio’s “Birther” Chief Gets Cops Called on Him During His Pursuit of 95-Year-Old Woman in a Nursing Home

    (excerpt) Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “birther” chief Mike Zullo has no shame in telling his story of getting the cops called on him because he spent hours at a Hawaii nursing home in an attempt to badger a 95-year-old woman.

    In fact, after being asked not to return to the nursing home again, Zullo insists someone must have scared this 95-year-old woman out of talking to him. (Our guess is that his name is Mike Zullo.)

    http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/09/joe_arpaios_birther_chief_gets.php

  17. RuhRoh says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:48 am  (Quote)

    Zullo says he was thrown out of Verna Lee’s nursing home repeatedly. Why am I not surprised? http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/09/joe_arpaios_birther_chief_gets.php

  18. jayHG says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:03 am  (Quote)

    I notice this among birthers. Everything, every wacky opinion and wild speculation or conjecture is called “evidence.”. Orly and her roving gang (cold case posse, et al) constantly scream “evidence” as if they’ve shown all sorts of irrefutable proof of whatever popped into their heads re President Obama and seemed stunned when they are thrown out for the 100000000 time!

    burrerdezellion says that they sent some letter from Klayman to all 50 SOS and so now they are “on notice” as if that was some sort of official document to which ecretaries of state are bound.

    The crazy…..I swear it burns….

  19. jayHG says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:16 am  (Quote)

    RuhRoh:
    Zullo says he was thrown out of Verna Lee’s nursing home repeatedly. Why am I not surprised? http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/09/joe_arpaios_birther_chief_gets.php

    Repeatedly???? What… Did he go multiple times disrupting the place? I feel about these folks the way I feel about folks who commit domestic battery….they change ONLY when there are consequences to their behavior….oops…forgot about Orly’s $20,000 sanctions…nevermind’

  20. US Citizen says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:28 am  (Quote)

    From this article:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/orly-taitz-birther-sues-kansas_n_1902366.html

    … I found this comment to be an interesting angle on Orly:

    “There is some deep psychological dynamic at work here or this wouldn’t be going this far. Could it have something to do with a white woman’s cognitive dissonance with her unconscious attraction to a powerful, tall, good looking, black man? ”

  21. The Magic M says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:06 am  (Quote)

    Sam the Centipede: Personally I think there’s a good argument for saying that there should be no additional restrictions on who can be President – if The People want a particular person as President, shouldn’t they be allowed to elect him/her? That’s democracy – trusting the people!

    Especially today when the chances of “foreign royalty running for President”, let alone “foreign royalty sneaking into office” are precisely 0%.

    Who really believes some Iranian mole could run for President and not be caught before he even makes it through the primaries?

    (Not to mention that I don’t see problems in all those countries who have no laws against naturalized citizens running for every office, like mine.)

    jayHG: burrerdezellion says that they sent some letter from Klayman to all 50 SOS and so now they are “on notice” as if that was some sort of official document to which ecretaries of state are bound.

    Always a tell-tale sign of desperation. If all you have left is writing whiney letters, you really have nowhere to go. It’s the equivalent of a child stomping its feet.
    Apart from that, didn’t birthers send such “notices” to just about everyone in government 4 years ago? Coming full circle is never a good sign for any movement.
    Back then they were still hoping for that “one honest Congressman” who would “kick off the investigations/impeachment hearings”. But today? This is nothing but, to put it mildly, self-pleasuring about how threaty they feel.

  22. Scientist says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:55 am  (Quote)

    The Magic M: Who really believes some Iranian mole could run for President and not be caught before he even makes it through the primaries?

    The NBC restriction would do nothing to stop an Iranian mole, if they were an American (let’s say the child of American parents) who was on the payroll of the Iranian government.

    Sam the Centipede: if The People want a particular person as President, shouldn’t they be allowed to elect him/her? That’s democracy – trusting the people!

    There are those who say we should only trust 53% of the People.

  23. RuhRoh says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:17 am  (Quote)

    Head of the AL GOP recommends movie “Dreams From My Real Father”, saying, “I verified that it is factual, all of it.” http://blog.al.com/live/2012/09/alabama_gop_chairman_recommend.html

    Seems someone fails to understand the definition of “factual”.

  24. RuhRoh says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:55 am  (Quote)

    Seems to be a new trend developing in the far-right fringe: lynching empty chairs that represent Obama. So far, it’s being reported in TX and VA.

    http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/12759/update-republican-adds-american-flag-to-lynched-chair-display

    http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/7662/photos-symbolic-lynching-of-nobama-at-bull-run-park-this-weekend

  25. RuhRoh says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:11 am  (Quote)

    I did a little search on these chair lynchings. Apparently Michelle Malkin encouraged her audience to display empty chairs following Clint Eastwood’s performance at the R convention, although I can find no evidence that she recommend lynching them.

  26. Majority Will says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:18 am  (Quote)

    RuhRoh:
    Head of the AL GOP recommends movie “Dreams From My Real Father”, saying, “I verified that it is factual, all of it.”http://blog.al.com/live/2012/09/alabama_gop_chairman_recommend.html

    Seems someone fails to understand the definition of “factual”.

    Simple minds confuse factual with fatuous.

  27. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:20 am  (Quote)

    Agreed! Orly’s filings match up with the kind of insane legal rants that originate out of prisons and mental wards.

    Klayman is certainly despicable and his appeal is quite the contemptable joke. I found his section demanding “discovery” to be particularly laughable. There is no excuse for someone with his legal background not to know that courts are not designed for “fishing expeditions”.

    Sudoku: I think Klayman is despicable. His “Appellant’s Initial Brief” is filled with misrepresentations. Orly is just nuts

  28. Lupin says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:24 am  (Quote)

    I’ve been away for a few days on family stuff.

    This below is hilarious:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/

  29. donna says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:27 am  (Quote)

    regurgitate, rinse repeat

    LA Times Reaffirms It Will Not Publish Mysterious Obama, Khalidi Recording

    [Update: On Thursday, Breitbart announced it was doubling the reward, to $100,000.]

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/in-wake-of-secret-romney-vid-los-angeles-times-reaffirms-it-will-not-publish-mysterious-obama-recording/

  30. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:31 am  (Quote)

    Wow. Zullo is quite the sleazy stalkerish creep! Shame on him for harassing a 95-year old woman. Of course they called REAL cops on him… I would too! Are the folks of his county on the hook for this latest unauthorized HI trip as well?

    *sheesh* This is pathetic and shameful.

    RuhRoh:
    Zullo says he was thrown out of Verna Lee’s nursing home repeatedly. Why am I not surprised? http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/09/joe_arpaios_birther_chief_gets.php

  31. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:43 am  (Quote)

    The entire Birther movement is equivalent to a child stomping its feet. It is nothing but a non-stop baby tantrum by a bunch of malcontent sore losers that can’t face reality.

    Yes, the Birthers started their whiney and often threaty, letter writing campaigns nearly 4 years ago. But that wasn’t a one time deal back then either. A lot of them have been writing, faxing, emailing, calling and otherwise harassing every official they can find on this silly issue, on nearly a non-stop basis since then.

    So yeah, I find it hilarious that they are crowing about this latest batch of misbegotten missives…

    …as if it is anything different than what they’ve been doing along…and as if these same officials haven’t already seen and discarded thousands of these same angry Birther rants.

    Pure futile insanity.

    The Magic M: Always a tell-tale sign of desperation. If all you have left is writing whiney letters, you really have nowhere to go. It’s the equivalent of a child stomping its feet.
    Apart from that, didn’t birthers send such “notices” to just about everyone in government 4 years ago? Coming full circle is never a good sign for any movement.
    Back then they were still hoping for that “one honest Congressman” who would “kick off the investigations/impeachment hearings”. But today? This is nothing but, to put it mildly, self-pleasuring about how threaty they feel.

  32. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    Another prominent state-level GOP official outed as a Birther.

    When a Birther claims “I verified that it is factual”, it simply means “I read about it on a Birther blog”…

    RuhRoh: Head of the AL GOP recommends movie “Dreams From My Real Father”, saying, “I verified that it is factual, all of it.” http://blog.al.com/live/2012/09/alabama_gop_chairman_recommend.html
    Seems someone fails to understand the definition of “factual”.

  33. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:15 am  (Quote)

    There is no question that these displays are crude metaphors for the lynching of President Obama. It is threatening racism symbolism on full open display. No doubt about it at all.

    RuhRoh:
    Seems to be a new trend developing in the far-right fringe: lynching empty chairs that represent Obama.So far, it’s being reported in TX and VA.

    http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/12759/update-republican-adds-american-flag-to-lynched-chair-display

    http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/7662/photos-symbolic-lynching-of-nobama-at-bull-run-park-this-weekend

  34. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:17 am  (Quote)

    Wow, they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel if they are now trying to dust off that ancient failed smear rumour from last cycle…

    Their desperation is palpable and the air is thick with it.

    donna:
    regurgitate, rinse repeat

    LA Times Reaffirms It Will Not Publish Mysterious Obama, Khalidi Recording

    [Update: On Thursday, Breitbart announced it was doubling the reward, to $100,000.]

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/in-wake-of-secret-romney-vid-los-angeles-times-reaffirms-it-will-not-publish-mysterious-obama-recording/

  35. bgansel9 says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    I just wanted to update everyone on Orly’s Fictitious Business License status:

    Orly is now officially DELINQUENT: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=6971&P_LTE_ID=707

  36. ask esq says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    Sam the Centipede: I’m no psychologist, so I don’t understand how she – and other birthers too – can be so unaware of what they are doing and the absurdity of their arguments, their tactics and their co-seditionists

    As I’ve said before, and I hope I’m using the term correctly, the birthers all exhibit confirmation bias to the extreme. They are all sure that they are 100% right. Anything or anyone that supports their position is, therefore, also 100% right. Anything or anyone that goes against their position is, therefore, 100% wrong. Any judge or elected official or legal expert that goes against them does so for reasons other than the birther position being faulty. Any debunking of their position is either ignored or claimed to be wrong. It just goes on and on. They have too much invested to ever admit that they could be wrong on any part of it.

  37. Lupin says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    bgansel9:
    I just wanted to update everyone on Orly’s Fictitious Business License status:

    Orly is now officially DELINQUENT: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=6971&P_LTE_ID=707

    The way I read it — I could be wrong — her business license has expired & not been renewed, but her personal license was renewed.

  38. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:42 am  (Quote)

    Wow…so she really didn’t address this issue in time, did she?

    Then again, when does she have time for teeth anymore…she’s too busy Birfin…

    bgansel9:
    I just wanted to update everyone on Orly’s Fictitious Business License status:

    Orly is now officially DELINQUENT: http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=6971&P_LTE_ID=707

  39. Lupin says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:43 am  (Quote)

    RuhRoh: Seems to be a new trend developing in the far-right fringe: lynching empty chairs that represent Obama. So far, it’s being reported in TX and VA.

    The key word here is “lynching”.

    This is appalling.

  40. donna says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:39 pm  (Quote)

    Attorney Larry Klayman Appeals Florida Obama Ballot Access Lawsuit (Voeltz w/Arpaio Affidavit)

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/attorney-klayman-appeals-florida-obama-ballot-access.html

    Orly Taitz, Birther, Sues To Remove Obama From Kansas Ballot

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/orly-taitz-birther-sues-kansas_n_1902366.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

  41. bgansel9 says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    Lupin: The way I read it — I could be wrong — her business license has expired & not been renewed, but her personal license was renewed.

    I said “her fictitious business license status” – she is still licensed to practice dentistry, just not licensed to do it in an office. 😛

  42. bgansel9 says:
    September 21, 2012 at 12:48 pm  (Quote)

    G: Then again, when does she have time for teeth anymore…she’s too busy Birfin…

    One is an honorable business choice that brings in honest and well earned income. The other is a trip into heavy sanctions, fines, ridicule, embarrassment and begging for continued financial support, not to mention the huge legal losses she’s managed to rack up. What monetary advantage has Orly received from these lawsuits? When she’s begging for frequent flyer miles, are we sure she’s actually even managing to grift from her fans all that successfully?

  43. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 1:09 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, it just boggles the mind.

    While we all know that she has a certain pool of suckers that throw their money away on her, I can’t see how those meager grubbings can match up to all her travel expenses on this, let alone the rest of the associated costs.

    In the posts that came out from CEL3 and that crowd back in the day, it showed that Orly had expensive eating habits too and seemed to fritter money away recklessly.

    I suspect she’s been running quite the net negative, but can get away with it, do to Yosef’s deep pockets.

    bgansel9: One is an honorable business choice that brings in honest and well earned income. The other is a trip into heavy sanctions, fines, ridicule, embarrassment and begging for continued financial support, not to mention the huge legal losses she’s managed to rack up. What monetary advantage has Orly received from these lawsuits? When she’s begging for frequent flyer miles, are we sure she’s actually even managing to grift from her fans all that successfully?

  44. Majority Will says:
    September 21, 2012 at 2:46 pm  (Quote)

    G: In the posts that came out from CEL3 and that crowd back in the day, it showed that Orly had expensive eating habits too and seemed to fritter money away recklessly.

    Eye makeup cost alone would probably match the GDP of the Republic of Moldova.

  45. Thrifty says:
    September 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm  (Quote)

    Looks like Obama is leading Romney by 3.9 points average according to RCP. And Intrade bumped Obama’s odds up to 72.4%. Wow. Also heard that Obama is pulling even with Romney on fundraising, which had been the one area Romney was leading.

  46. bgansel9 says:
    September 21, 2012 at 3:04 pm  (Quote)

    Arizona Republic is reporting that Mitt Romney is losing his hold on Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/Brahm1700/172296

  47. Thrifty says:
    September 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm  (Quote)

    Some pundits are trying to downplay this lead with some fairly odd rationalization. It usually goes something like “no incumbent has ever won re-election with less than a 4 point lead in the polls 44 days before the election on a year that ended in the number 2 when the challenger’s last name contained fewer than 3 vowels”. It’s this odd sort of tortured logic that says that because event A never happened under conditions W, X, Y, and Z, it won’t happen now under conditions W, X, Y, and Z. It’s silly. In 2008 we could have said “John McCain will win; America has never elected a black man President.”

    You know, it’s been 4 years and I still can’t believe we elected a black president. It’s surreal. I used to joke “I don’t know who the next president will be, but I’ll bet it will be a rich white guy.” I can’t really use that joke any more.

  49. Scientist says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty: Looks like Obama is leading Romney by 3.9 points average according to RCP. And Intrade bumped Obama’s odds up to 72.4%. Wow. Also heard that Obama is pulling even with Romney on fundraising, which had been the one area Romney was leading.

    I think the clincher was Pawlenty resigning as Romney’s national co-chair yesterday. I have never heard of the co-chair of a winning campaign resigning 6 weeks before the election. Yes, I know he got a cushy lobbying job, but, really, I’m sure they would have let him start in November if he had asked…..

  50. donna says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist:

    speaking of pawlenty, today he said banks should “self-regulate”

    his predecessor was paid $1.8 MILLION

    2 of the conditions were that he wouldn’t leave to run for office nor would he take a position in a (GOD FORBID) romney administration

  51. Joey says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:55 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: Barnett v. Obama (CA)
    Taitz v. Obama (DC)
    Taitz v. Astrue (DC)
    Taitz v. Ruemmler (DC)
    Taitz v. Astrue (DC) (again)
    Taitz v. Fuddy (HI)
    Taitz v. Obama (NH ballot)
    Taitz v. Obama (HI)
    Taitz v. Gardner (NH)
    Taitz v. Nishimura (HI)
    Taitz v. Obama (IN)
    Taitz v. Indiana Elections Commission
    Taitz v. Sebelius
    Farrar v. Obama (GA)
    Cook v. Simtech (GA)
    Cook v. Good
    Rhodes v. Gates
    Lightfoot v. Bowen

    Thanks Doc! Whew, that’s a whole mess of losing!

  52. Joey says:
    September 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    Looks like Obama is leading Romney by 3.9 points average according to RCP.And Intrade bumped Obama’s odds up to 72.4%.Wow.Also heard that Obama is pulling even with Romney on fundraising, which had been the one area Romney was leading.

    Obama just broke the all-time fundraising record for a month in August. The following is from today’s US News and World Report article: “The president’s campaign committee raised $85 million in August, beating by more than $20 million the previous record for the month, which he set in 2008.”
    According to opensecrets.org, Obama has raised a total of $432,197,459 and Romney has raised $279,343,000.
    Where Romney has a fundraising advantage is through Superpac spending, not campaign spending.

  53. Sudoku says:
    September 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm  (Quote)

    I agree. Poor word choice on my part. I don’t think Klayman is crazy, Orly is as you described, plus crazy.

    Sam the Centipede: Orly is not just nuts, she’s thoroughly nasty too. Her spittle-flecked, bile-soaked, hate-filled screeds of mendacity show how her personal morality is completely despicable.

  54. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm  (Quote)

    I’m quite skeptical about that particular poll, so don’t get overly excited yet.

    Purple Strategies, run by Alex Castellanos [R] and Steve McMahon [D] is NOT the honest bi-partisan brokers that they wish to portray. These party operative pundits and CNN talking heads are simply trying to push a narrative for a media horserace.

    They did not exist before this cycle and their clouded methodologies for polling are severely in doubt and under quite a bit of questioning by all serious poll analyst followers. Their results so far have almost always turned out to be contrarian outliers to all other serious polls for a same state in a similar timeframe.

    They also have a very questionable and uneven timing of when they conduct and report polls. Whenever a certain campaign polling milestone arrives or a certain breakaway trendline is developing, all of a sudden Purple Strategies polls start popping up all over, showing the opposite of what everyone else is doing.

    This serves to dampen any surge narratives and also to skewer the trendline polling reports, as they throw off the aggregated averages. Everything they’ve done so far has been extremely questionable and only matches up with an intentional push-poll job to try to manipulate and shape the media narrative.

    In summary, I think they are a bogus propaganda outfit to shape and push media narratives and should be taken with a grain of salt.

    So I’ll wait to see some other AZ polls come out, from well-known and well regarded polling firms, before I buy it.

    Enough polling has been done in CO to believe that the race has tightened and is very close there at the moment. But AZ? All the prior polling and demographic info means that AZ is likely to still be SAFELY in Romney’s column at this point.

    For Obama to be viewed as seriously competitive in AZ in this cycle, that would mean the winds have shifted so in his favor that we’re looking at a landslide election.

    Sorry to rain on the parade, but I try to be objectively critical on the statistical analysis elements of the race.

    bgansel9:
    Arizona Republic is reporting that Mitt Romney is losing his hold on Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/Brahm1700/172296

  55. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:12 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, there is a lot of desperate twisting and spinning on the conservative side in regards to the polls. I try to follow those things fairly closely, so when I see such convoluted arguments, I just laugh.

    Fortunately, the race and the EV stats have favored my candidate fairly consistently throughout this cycle, so following the trendlines and analyzing the stats has been fun…especially over the last few weeks, as we are seeing a true breakaway in Obama’s favor across the board (as well as negative coattails from Romney to the GOP downticket).

    However, if the reverse was true, I would still report it factually and not try to spin it. I would be glum and pessamistic, but I’d still be backing my choice of candidate.

    But on the other side…wow, these RW folks don’t want to face reality at all and so easily deceive themselves in their heavily spun bubbles…and take comfort in the bumper crop of RW propaganda push polling firms that have arisen to provide “comfort food” outlier results to them.

    The biggest GOP cheerleader joke out there right now is Dick Morris on Fox News. He’s become the Baghdad Bob of polling predictions in this election cycle.

    Thrifty:
    Some pundits are trying to downplay this lead with some fairly odd rationalization.It usually goes something like “no incumbent has ever won re-election with less than a 4 point lead in the polls 44 days before the election on a year that ended in the number 2 when the challenger’s last name contained fewer than 3 vowels”.It’s this odd sort of tortured logic that says that because event A never happened under conditions W, X, Y, and Z, it won’t happen now under conditions W, X, Y, and Z.It’s silly.In 2008 we could have said “John McCain will win; America has never elected a black man President.”

    You know, it’s been 4 years and I still can’t believe we elected a black president.It’s surreal.I used to joke “I don’t know who the next president will be, but I’ll bet it will be a rich white guy.”I can’t really use that joke any more.

  56. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:19 pm  (Quote)

    Rats fleeing a sinking ship…

    But yeah, for it to start happening THIS early on… wow…

    Especially when Pawlenty has been such a devoted suck-up sycophant to Romney, ever since he dropped out in July of 2011. Then again…I think he was sorely disappointed to be passed over for the VP nod. There has been a lot of insider-campaign talk that he was at the top of the list for a Cabinet position in a Romney administration and was really gunning for that, since he couldn’t be VP. I find those rumours to be quite believable.

    So, for Pawlenty to cut bait and bail now… that means he no longer believes that Romney has any shot of pulling this off…

    It really is a HUGE development and reveal of the sense of DOOM that is internally spreading through the GOP, despite the false bravado face spin they try to pull off on these things…

    Scientist: I think the clincher was Pawlenty resigning as Romney’s national co-chair yesterday.I have never heard of the co-chair of a winning campaign resigning 6 weeks before the election.Yes, I know he got a cushy lobbying job, but, really, I’m sure they would have let him start in November if he had asked…..

  57. Slartibartfast says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:23 pm  (Quote)

    This is nothing to apologize for—it’s the only thing that keeps statistics from turning into dammed lies. At 538, Nate Silver’s map has over a 92% chance of Romney winning Arizona—which is entirely consistent with what you said—Arizona is not going to go blue unless it turns out to be a landslide for President Obama.

    G: Sorry to rain on the parade, but I try to be objectively critical on the statistical analysis elements of the race.

  58. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    Well, Pawlenty’s future in politics is toast now. (Unless the Plutocratic wing of the GOP retains dominance).

    Pawlenty is taking a very controversial top position as a Wall Street lobbyist. So yeah, he will be pushing the “self-regulate” type of irresponsible Wall Street attitude that caused the crash in 2008 in the first place.

    Quite shameful, if you ask me. He’s not just becoming a lobbyist, but the WORST possible type of lobbyist for the health of America’s future…

    Fortunately, he’s such a wimpy loser that I don’t see him being that effective as a high stakes lobbyist. Maybe we should count our blessings that the fat cat bankers will be saddled with such a lightweight wallflower as one of their key pushers and strategy spokesmen.

    donna:
    Scientist:

    speaking of pawlenty, today he said banks should “self-regulate”

    his predecessor was paid $1.8 MILLION

    2 of the conditions were that he wouldn’t leave to run for office nor would he take a position in a (GOD FORBID) romney administration

  59. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:00 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, AZ in an interesting case. For all the Arpaio and Jan Brewer anti-immigrant crazy areas, full of RWNJ birthers, Tea Party types and communities of scared old white people, it also has quite a large latino population and also quite a lot of backlash sentiment towards the RW overreaches and craziness.

    So, in theory, it would make for a good “toss-up” state (although a deeply divided one). In 2016, it could easily be part of that cycle’s battleground map.

    However, the GOP top-of-the-ticket in both this cycle and last, has put it squarely in the GOP’s favor.

    In 2008, AZ was the home state of Senator McCain and he had been held in high regards as a Senator by them, up through that point in time. So Obama didn’t stand a chance there…although he still ended up getting a decent 45%. (McCain received 53.4% of the AZ vote).

    Now in 2012, the Mormon population of AZ becomes a critical factor. AZ is the 5th most populous Mormon state. The opportunity to see the first Mormon get elected to the highest office of the land is quite an appealing sentiment of pride for that community, so no matter how much of a lame putz his candidacy is, expect the Mormon community to zealously back him to the bitter end. I consider THIS to be the primary factor for why AZ is out of reach to Obama again this cycle.

    NOTE: Yes, there are quite a few Democratic Mormons out there too. However, the majority of them are Conservatives and this is a particular religion in which the church leadership can excert quite a controlling influence over its members’ lives.

    In fact, there are some alarming indications appearing which shows how far their church leadership is going to ENFORCE support for Romney by their flock.

    Check out this disturbing story of a Mormon who is faced with excommunication just for criticising Romney…!

    http://reason.com/24-7/2012/09/21/mormon-writer-critical-of-romney-faces-e

    Slartibartfast:
    This is nothing to apologize for—it’s the only thing that keeps statistics from turning into dammed lies.At 538, Nate Silver’s map has over a 92% chance of Romney winning Arizona—which is entirely consistent with what you said—Arizona is not going to go blue unless it turns out to be a landslide for President Obama.

  60. donna says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:05 pm  (Quote)

    G: Check out this disturbing story of a Mormon who is faced with excommunication just for criticising Romney…!

    what will his church EXPECT from him?

    Mormons and Mitt: The Myth About Separation of Church and State

    When LDS church leaders issue directives, their members listen and immediately mobilize. And when it involves a political agenda, their army is ready to roll.

    (remember ca’s prop 8)

    Mr. Romney has said repeatedly that his religion would not get in the way of his presidential responsibilities, but the simple fact is that his presidential responsibilities would get in the way of his religion.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-shore/mormons-and-mitt-the-myth-about-separation-of-church-and-state_b_1898659.html

  61. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:50 pm  (Quote)

    I’m getting a serious happy, because soon it will be too late to file ballot challenges, and then the dark moist corner of the interwebs, that the birfers inhabit will be full of moaning.

  62. donna says:
    September 21, 2012 at 7:51 pm  (Quote)

    G:

    i just remembered that buried in mitt’s “secret” speech to donors is:

    “And my recommendation would be clean house, immediately. The SEC, the CFTC are disaster areas,” an attendee tells Romney in the video. (two agencies that serve critical roles in regulating the financial sector)

    combine that with wall st lobbyist pawlenty

    what a team

  63. Thrifty says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:22 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t see how that could happen. The hard right base will never abandon them, and they will never believe they are at fault. Republicans practically get to create their own reality.

    Okay so the hard right is probably a vocal minority. But when the Republicans are so good at stonewalling Obama and the Democrats, that’s gonna lead to a whole lot of things not getting better which is gonna get the moderates and independents to turn on the Democrats.

    People bring up the Whigs as an example of what could theoretically happen to the Republicans. But the Whigs, it seems, were undone by their lack of leadership (following the deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster) and a lack of party unity on the issues of the day. Well the Republicans don’t seem to be putting all their eggs in as few baskets as the Whigs did, and party unity seems to be their strong point. It’s the Democrats who have a harder time reaching consensus among themselves, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out in her “this is a cup” statement in that interview earlier this year.

    I don’t see how a political party with the unity and ability to manufacture their own reality can be in danger of falling apart, unless there’s something I’m not seeing.

    G: They need to be allowed to self-destruct and implode…so something reasonable can rise from the ashes. That process is currently being delayed, while they still retain such a position of power and influence. They need to lose badly, over several consecutive cycles, before there is serious hope of sensibility returning…

  64. Slartibartfast says:
    September 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty,

    It’s not internal stress, but external stress which could marginalize the Republicans on the national stage. The “southern strategy” is dying (literally) and demographic change (if the Republicans continue on their present course) will be doing things like making Arizona a battleground and making Florida solidly Democratic. The Republicans may be able to win local elections in some places, but if they lose their ability to win the presidency or a majority in either the House or the Senate then they are done as a national party. As I see it, the only way for them to avoid this fate is to take back control of the party from the fringe and they may have used so much propaganda on their base that this is no longer possible. Just my $0.02.

    Thrifty: I don’t see how that could happen.

  65. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:22 pm  (Quote)

    Reading that article carefully, it was not JUST criticizing Romney. He also talked about online some things that Mormons are bound not to talk about regarding temple ritual. He also participated in a web site that had a scholarly view on church history, and Mormons don’t encourage objective scholarship on church history because the Mormon church founders were not all saints (pun intended).

    It could be that criticism of Romney was the real issue and the rest was an excuse, but maybe not.

    G: Check out this disturbing story of a Mormon who is faced with excommunication just for criticising Romney…!

  66. Arthur says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    The boys at ORYR are getting more loathsome. Check out this exhange:

    —————————————

    Death Angel said…
    Jerome Corsi stated that Obama was a Russian intelligence operation. And I believe him.
    Next time the Russians should actually find someone with some intelligence. From the second this moron opened his mouth I knew he was a communist. America and Communism are diametrically opposed. And I won’t have any problem tossing all of the traitors and co-conspirators into mass graves.

    ————————————–

    Ralph Swain said…@Death Angel”America and Communism are diametrically opposed. And I won’t have any problem tossing all of the traitors and co-conspirators into mass graves.”

    Great post! H*tler couldn’t have said it better.

    ————————————–

    CanTone said…@Death Angel –
    well said and thank you for not using the cowardly “anonymous” like most others here do. They use that name in fear that someone might redicule them. Isn’t that what the problem is with most of these judges? Afraid that they might be rediculed by the rediculas media. The media is the biggest problem. Fox encluded.

    —————————————

    vonRas said… @Ralph Swain
    He could. He was a demi-god and a genius.

    —————————————

    Covert Informant said…
    Even H*tler didn’t have the audacity to put a ‘H’ on the German flag compared to Obama putting a ‘O’ on the American flag like he has been doing lately.

  67. G says:
    September 21, 2012 at 11:45 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, the Plutocrats’ agendas almost scare me more than the fundamentalist zealots. The want to become untouchable and beyond the laws and taxes of governments. A world under the Plutocrats would usher in a new age of indentured servitude and extreme segmentation of weath between an increasingly small band of obscenely wealthy and powerful “haves” and a vast swath of “have nots” who become subject to the will of the Plutocrats, in order to work and survive.

    Their selfish future vision for America (and the rest of the world) is a dystopian nightmare for the rest of us…

    donna: i just remembered that buried in mitt’s “secret” speech to donors is:
    “And my recommendation would be clean house, immediately. The SEC, the CFTC are disaster areas,” an attendee tells Romney in the video. (two agencies that serve critical roles in regulating the financial sector)
    combine that with wall st lobbyist pawlenty
    what a team

  68. Thrifty says:
    September 22, 2012 at 12:19 am  (Quote)

    ORYR Weirdo: Even H*tler didn’t have the audacity to put a ‘H’ on the German flag compared to Obama putting a ‘O’ on the American flag like he has been doing lately.

    That must be some super-secret flag that is never displayed anywhere in public. It’s weird how they’ll make such grandiose and obviously false claims. Next they’ll be saying that Obama carved his name on the moon using a series of powerful magnifying glasses and a flashlight.

  69. Arthur says:
    September 22, 2012 at 12:54 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: That must be some super-secret flag that is never displayed anywhere in public.

    I think this is what that guy was referring to:

    http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/20/the-obama-campaigns-redesigned-flag-clever-and-creative-or-downright-disrespectful/

  70. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 1:43 am  (Quote)

    I disagree. Here is what I think you are not seeing.

    Reagan’s “big tent” GOP is gone. The Democratic Party is now where the “big tent” resides. I actually blame Newt Gingrich for the beginning of the GOP’s slide into divisiveness and the trend to push out moderates as RINOs really started back in 1994…but has really accelerated at what seems like an exponential pace in the 21st Century, particularly over the past 4-6 years.

    The Democrats are currently more unified, under the concepts of inclusiveness, equality and fact-based policy . Thanks to Obama, the Democrats are now achieving the high ground on national defense for the first time as well. Additionally, an increasing number of people are beginning to wake up from the long-held misperceptions of the GOP being a party of “fiscal responsibility”. Plus, the Democrats retain their traditional high ground on supporting “New Deal” types of social policy and the social safety nets.

    The GOP has run out of new ideas and seems to offer no solutions besides endless tax cuts and a desire to prove that government can’t do anything, except promote wars. They have been running on nothing but the cynical Rovian “50+1” strategy of encouraging entrenched tribalism via ginning up and playing upon any fears and hatreds within their base. Hence, why they’ve increasingly turned off more and more groups of minorities (and now women) and are shrinking to be increasingly a party comprised of older, WASP men (and their submissive wives). The changing demographics of this nation alone show that strategy is a long term disaster for the GOP.

    The GOP has an ever increasing fissure between their old power structure (the “Establishment” – comprised of those that care about protecting big money interests and neocons) and their surging “true believers” (the “Activist Base” the Tea Party, Libertarian and Evangelical wings). The fissures and cracks between the two are increasingly apparent. The “Activist Base” now has control of more of the low level ground power structure – precinct captains, delegates, caucuses etc. Other than the office of President (which requires the most resources and money to win Primaries on a national scale), the Activist Base has already risen to dominance in many of the state offices and federal congressional positions. It is their candidates that are winning over Establishment preferences for even Senate level offices now. In essence, the Establishment has spent the past 30+ years cynically manipulating and feeding a cancerous monster that is increasingly beyond their ability to control.

    If the race follows its current trajectory and Romney ends up losing big; with negative coat tails that significantly hurt the down ticket races for the GOP; then things will get awful messy for the GOP. This will also mean that the Establishment’s overwhelming money power is no longer that effective – which will further weaken their argument for retaining control over the GOP power structure. The party will predictably not learn its lessons from these failures and will instead point the blame on Romney being castigated as a RINO. The Activist Base already holds similar resentments against McCain as the reason they lost in 2008 and retroactively, they view GWB’s failures in the same perverse light. A landslide defeat of Romney can easily be the last straw for the Activist Base to even more openly try to overthrow the Establishment and push to further “purify” the party … and I don’t see where the Establishment retains enough power to prevent that.

    So I can easily see the GOP doubling down on going even further extreme after this and just further shrinking and marginalizing their own total size and national power in the process.

    I don’t see ANY realistic scenario in which moderate voices are able to assume control from inside the party anymore. They are more aligned with the Establishment, but they are not really part of them. Nor do the moderates retain control over any of the levels of party power. All they still do is serve to prop up the party with their support and votes. But they have NO voice. So I don’t see how they become anything but casualties in the ensuing power struggle between the ascendant Activist Base and the Plutocratic Establishment. That seems like a recipe for a party imploding to me.

    Thrifty: People bring up the Whigs as an example of what could theoretically happen to the Republicans. But the Whigs, it seems, were undone by their lack of leadership (following the deaths of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster) and a lack of party unity on the issues of the day. Well the Republicans don’t seem to be putting all their eggs in as few baskets as the Whigs did, and party unity seems to be their strong point. It’s the Democrats who have a harder time reaching consensus among themselves, as Nancy Pelosi pointed out in her “this is a cup” statement in that interview earlier this year.
    I don’t see how a political party with the unity and ability to manufacture their own reality can be in danger of falling apart, unless there’s something I’m not seeing.

  71. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 1:50 am  (Quote)

    You are correct about those other issues also irritating the church leadership.

    However, what you described in your last sentence, is what I too suspect is really happening here.

    It is similar to what I’ve seen in a lot of big business outfits over the years – where they have certain policies that can lead to discipline or termination (particularly around internet usage), but they are often really used selectively to cover for getting rid of people, due to “political reasons”…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Reading that article carefully, it was not JUST criticizing Romney. He also talked about online some things that Mormons are bound not to talk about regarding temple ritual. He also participated in a web site that had a scholarly view on church history, and Mormons don’t encourage objective scholarship on church history because the Mormon church founders were not all saints (pun intended).

    It could be that criticism of Romney was the real issue and the rest was an excuse, but maybe not.

  72. Slartibartfast says:
    September 22, 2012 at 1:56 am  (Quote)

    What G said.

    G: I disagree. Here is what I think you are not seeing.

  73. Lupin says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:29 am  (Quote)

    IMHO, the best pollster/analyst right now is Nate Silver. His performance in the past has never been less than astonishing.

  74. Lupin says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

    G: The party will predictably not learn its lessons from these failures and will instead point the blame on Romney being castigated as a RINO. The Activist Base already holds similar resentments against McCain as the reason they lost in 2008 and retroactively, they view GWB’s failures in the same perverse light.

    As I saw it mentioned, the mantra seems to be “Conservatism cannot fail; only you can fail conservatism.”

    At this point the GOP is hostage to a tribal cult whose usefulness to the oligarchs is rapidly turning into a handicap.

    I still see the US slowly veering into a Putin-like scenario as I can’t imagine the oligarchy relinquishing its hold, and a revolution or civil war appears unlikely today — and I also can’t imagine amending the Constitution to create a more representative multi-party system like in Europe. So the only thing left is a potemkin-type democracy la Putin.

    Time will tell, of course.

  75. Slartibartfast says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:39 am  (Quote)

    I agree. I think it is interesting what Nate thinks the most impressive achievement of his model in 2008 was—not getting the popular vote to within 0.1% (after all, he had all of the polling to work with) or predicting 49 states correctly (since 46 or 47 were easy and getting 3 out of 4 would be possible just by chance), but determining that McCain’s goose was cooked less than 48 hours after the collapse of Lehman Brothers (a 25% drop in his chances).

    Lupin:
    IMHO, the best pollster/analyst right now is Nate Silver. His performance in the past has never been less than astonishing.

  76. Keith says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:54 am  (Quote)

    bgansel9:
    Arizona Republic is reporting that Mitt Romney is losing his hold on Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/Brahm1700/172296

    Wow! Down in the 3% range! He been over 10% for months. Arizona is in play!

    But I’m still not holding my breath; Once upon a time a 50-50 split in Maricopa county would just about guarantee a Democratic win in Arizona, because Pima and Santa Cruz counties would go about 80% Democrat. Flagstaff, in the north, tended to lean Democrat too. Alas Southern Arizona is more balanced these days.

  77. Keith says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:58 am  (Quote)

    G: I’m quite skeptical about that particular poll, so don’t get overly excited yet.

    Every party needs a pooper, that’s why we invited you. Party Pooper

  78. Thrifty says:
    September 22, 2012 at 7:50 am  (Quote)

    G,

    I agree with your analysis, and like all your analyses, I find it very well articulated and thought provoking. I agree that it makes a great case for the Republican party going further to the right. But I still don’t see how this equates to the party falling apart or losing elections.

    Money and propaganda have limited effectiveness. Sure you need money (and lots of it) to be elected to a high public office, but you can’t just buy a seat in office (despite what the plot of Timecop will tell you). As per propaganda, Fox News I think really only preaches to the choir: most people I know who aren’t already obnoxiously hard right are turned off by Fox News.

    The way I see it, they are in a great position to use their single greatest tool: stonewalling. See, we have 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus 50 governors and I don’t know how many state legislators. But we have 1 President, and it seems like most people view the success or failure of the government in terms of him. Republicans can stonewall the president, forestall economic recovery, deficit reduction, immigration reform, you name it, then say “Barack Obama is a failure!” It’s like that game where a bully grabs another kid’s fist and hits him in the face with it, saying “why you hitting yourself?”

    I guess what I’m saying is that Congress is largely not held accountable for the failures of government, except by the really politically engaged who I’m not sure represent a big enough majority. Republicans really only face backlash when they have the White House; this is what I think led to McCain’s defeat in 2008. It would probably also be leading to Obama’s defeat now, if the Republicans had put up a half decent candidate.

    I can see the ratcheting effect of the Republicans leading them to put up another weak candidate in 2016. The Democrats will be in a weaker position then too, when they can’t run an incumbent. So maybe the direction of the Republicans is gonna lead them to lose the ability to take the White House, but let’s be honest, the Presidency is not where the power lies. It’s the Congress.

    But on the other hand, you may be right. I keep thinking of 2010 Senate races in Alaska, Nevada, and my home of Delaware, where races that could have been easily won by Republicans were won by the Democrats because the Republicans nominated Tea Party backed candidates. Harry Reid’s popularity was in the crapper; he’d have lost if they hadn’t nominated that Sharron Angle lunatic. The guy in Alaska lost to a write-in campaign (that both cracks me up and astonishes me). Mike Castle would have trounced Chris Coons in a landslide in Delaware, so instead they nominated Christine O’Donnell.

    Maybe it’s too soon to make any prognostications for sure. We’ll see what happens in the Congress in November. Electionprojection.com predicts a modest +1 gain for Republicans in the Senate and a -8 loss for them in the House.

    I guess we’ll just wait and see. Maybe I’m not giving the average American enough credit in my assumption that they’ll let the Republican Congresscritters fly under the radar without consequence. Let’s just say I’ll maintain my skepticism of the Republican party being in decline until at least the 2014 midterms.

    G: I disagree. Here is what I think you are not seeing.

  79. Thrifty says:
    September 22, 2012 at 7:51 am  (Quote)

    Holy cow that turned out longer than I expected.

  80. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 9:50 am  (Quote)

    I agree that Nate Silver is good, but there are legitimate criticisms of his methodologies as well. For one, there is a sense that despite his weighting efforts, he still allows too many garbage push-polls into the mix and that alone skews his results.

    He is also perceived as bending to media pressure this cycle to keep this looking like more of a competitive horse race than it really is and therefore being extremely hedging on the conservative side in his forecasts. So there is a sense that he’s put his thumb on the scale a bit this cycle, as the saying goes.

    Just pointing this out to you, so you realize that there is a school of scholarly challenging criticism out there to even Nate Silver. So he is certainly one of the best in his profession and has earned a great deal of respect, but he is not perfect nor infallable.

    This cycle, there is another emerging scholarly poll analyst who carries a lot of weight and who has been challenging Nate Silver for the top title of who is the best in the business.

    His name is Sam Wang over at Princeton. He’s become an additional must-read source for any who look to follow serious election poll analysis.

    http://election.princeton.edu/2008/08/04/on-a-flaw-in-fivethirtyeightcom/

    http://election.princeton.edu/

    Lupin:
    IMHO, the best pollster/analyst right now is Nate Silver. His performance in the past has never been less than astonishing.

  81. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:36 am  (Quote)

    I understand your valid concerns, but I remain hopeful that they will not come to pass.

    Unfortunately, with increasingly weak regulations and protections, those with Plutocratic, Corporatist and Randyian leanings have obtained too much power and influence over all the levers of our government. Major regulation reform, lobbyist reform and election financing reforms will be needed in order to reverse this trend.

    The Democrats are not without blame in this either. But as an overall party, they at least still make an attempt to fight back against these corrupting influences and to call for better protections, while the GOP unfortunately has become completely beholden to them these days.

    It is one of the bigger long-term meta-themes for control of America’s vision and future that has been going on behind the scenes for at least the past 40 years. For most of that time, especially recently, the Corporatist interests have been winning big time. That really is the reason why middle class mobility has stalled and is shrinking and why income disparity has increased so dramatically over the past few decades.

    It is also another key reason why this 2012 election cycle is so important and can be a game changer. If Romney & the GOP wins decisively, there is a scary liklihood that their policies will breach the tipping point and Corporatist domination and manipulation will be hard to overturn, despite upcoming demographic shifts in the electorate.

    However, there are encouraging signs that this will be another wave election cycle and that the headwinds are against Romney and the GOP. These headwinds are picking up speed and it will take a major turnaround to stop their effect.

    If we end up with another landslide victory by Obama and the Democrats, they could regain control of all three branches of government. This will at least (in theory) put the brakes on Corporatists’ ability to increase their power and also is the best chance and hope for pushing through needed regulatory and oversight reforms, to reduce their influence and the amount of damage they can cause.

    Even if lobbying efforts or a divided Congress bog down the ability to move forward on such reforms under a second Obama administration, this is still vastly better than the alternative of full-throttle support they would receive under a Romney administration.

    Merely preventing the GOP from regaining power this next cycle is an important victory in this larger meta-struggle for America’s destiny. That, in and of itself, buys time for other voting shifts that are taking place in the electorate (with the inevitable demographic changes we are experiencing) and makes the math increasingly difficult for a pathway back to power for the GOP and their Plutocratic interests.

    2016 is still likely to be remain quite competitive, because there is only so much demographic change that can take place over the course of 4 years. But if a 2nd Obama administration can preside over a restored economy and a nation that feels safe, then they go into the 2016 cycle as a vindicated party and the blame for the economic crash will remain a memorable stain on the GOP, due to the GWB administration. So, as long as the Democrats don’t botch their selection of a new standard bearer, they could find themselves in a really strong position to win again in 2016 and continue to keep the Randian influences at bay. But if the next 4 years go badly, the opposite can happen too. So 2016 is likely to remain a very important and competitive battle for the future direction of America as well.

    However, if Obama wins in 2012 and the Democrats win again in 2016, then there is a good chance that America’s trajectory for the 21st century will be set in favor of the Democrats vision. By 2020 (and especially 2024) the demographic shifts will be extremely noticeable and even TX will start turning blue. If the Democrats win this cycle and next and the GOP doesn’t moderate to appeal to minorities (which I don’t see them doing), then the GOP could cease to be a national party by 2020.

    Lupin: I still see the US slowly veering into a Putin-like scenario as I can’t imagine the oligarchy relinquishing its hold, and a revolution or civil war appears unlikely today — and I also can’t imagine amending the Constitution to create a more representative multi-party system like in Europe. So the only thing left is a potemkin-type democracy la Putin.
    Time will tell, of course.

  82. bgansel9 says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:37 am  (Quote)

    G: For Obama to be viewed as seriously competitive in AZ in this cycle, that would mean the winds have shifted so in his favor that we’re looking at a landslide election.

    Sorry to rain on the parade, but I try to be objectively critical on the statistical analysis elements of the race.

    Hey, I understand. It surprised the hell out of me too. I’m just reporting what our local paper is saying.

  83. bgansel9 says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:48 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: This is nothing to apologize for—it’s the only thing that keeps statistics from turning into dammed lies. At 538, Nate Silver’s map has over a 92% chance of Romney winning Arizona—which is entirely consistent with what you said—Arizona is not going to go blue unless it turns out to be a landslide for President Obama.

    This is still where I am at too, and I just thought it strange that the Arizona Republic (a paper that I am independently contracted to deliver btw) would put out such a strange article. I have no idea what internals they are using that they see a possible swing to the left. Weird.

  84. RuhRoh says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:51 am  (Quote)

    Blast from the past Larry Sinclair is trying to get his second book published before the election. With typical Sinclairian efficiency, he’s already missed several previously scheduled release dates but thinks he can get the book published by October 23rd. He has suspended hosting his internet radio program in an effort to publish what’s most likely a pamphlet regurgitating his previous claims sometime prior to the 2016 election. Does he have much of a following these days? I tend to doubt it.

  85. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:52 am  (Quote)

    😉 LOL!

    But seriously,I’m hardly that. I’ve remained quite (and increasingly optimistic) of Obama’s chances to win re-election for a full year now, despite what the real “Debbie Downers” in the media have been saying for most of this time. Ever since the GOP candidate field congealed last September, I’ve been optimistic that none of the challengers could offer a truly competitive alternative, despite the economic conditions.

    I’ve always viewed Romney as a weak and uncharismatic candidate and opportunist, who merely had Establishment support, because they had no better alternative and who would never be truly accepted by the base. I’ve always also seen Romney as someone who becomes less likeable and less impressive, the more you see and hear him… But never in my wildest imagination did I realize just how starkly true that would turn out to be! Nor did I expect his campaign structure to be so bumbling and inept.

    So I’m extremely bullish on this being another landslide wave election, in favor of the Democrats. But I stick to logic, common sense and empirical data and careful analysis to weigh my desires against reality and to keep me grounded. So far, the news and the data have been mainly encouraging and I see very little reason for those trends to shift in the other direction.

    But regardless of how encouraging the emerging picture is, no one can afford to be complacent in their comfort. It is imperitive that everyone votes and does whatever they can to encourage those around them to actually vote as well. No matter how good the polls look, it all comes down to GOTV and THAT remains the true concern and challenge here.

    Keith: Every party needs a pooper, that’s why we invited you. Party Pooper

  86. donna says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:57 am  (Quote)

    g et al:

    great conversation – i have written about this before but i think the far right republicans are giving it their “last ditch effort” – they will be gone in a generation and there are only 6% of young people to replace them – they have lost from giving women and african americans the right to vote, to interracial marriage, to griswold to roe to the repeal of dadt, to (soon) marriage equality and on – and dare i mention the end of quotas which has given us more women with college and advanced degrees than men – now, according to conservative bill bennett, the finger is put on the scale to accept men ….. women are overpowering them on the application alone

    people scream the loudest when they are losing which is why we got to transVAGINAL probes/state sponsored RAPE – the world hasn’t ended with progress nor with progressive policies but the far right is still saying ….. any day now – we only have to look back at what republicans predicted about the repeal of dadt ONE year ago ….. never happened

    what scares me most about romney is “secrecy” – mormonism demands it; he was raised in it and became their “priest” – we saw what the mormons (quietly) did with ca’s prop 8 – with him, we would get norquist’s “we only need someone with enough digits to hold a pen”; a (adelson) zionist who (haaretz) had romney’s voice but spoke netanyahu’s words and a mormon who, according to their church, will do as mormons do ….. listen to the directives of the church and “immediately mobilize” –

    the people who will vote for him are the obama haters not the romney lovers – he has no core of his own – would we also get the “white horse prophecy” which expects “the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

    as g said, we need the party to implode and to take with them the fat, old, white males – we have the least productive congress since 1947 and that’s where republicans reside …. 1947 – the plot to destroy obama was born on inauguration eve when frank luntz amassed a group and, as newt said at the end, “You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.” – although 15 attended, the only “young” people of note at that dinner were paul ryan, cantor and hensarling –

    implosion is what we need – the only question is when it will happen –

  87. Lupin says:
    September 22, 2012 at 11:25 am  (Quote)

    G: This cycle, there is another emerging scholarly poll analyst who carries a lot of weight and who has been challenging Nate Silver for the top title of who is the best in the business.

    His name is Sam Wang over at Princeton. He’s become an additional must-read source for any who look to follow serious election poll analysis.

    Thank you! I wasn’t aware of him — I’ll check it out.

  88. Lupin says:
    September 22, 2012 at 11:27 am  (Quote)

    G: However, if Obama wins in 2012 and the Democrats win again in 2016, then there is a good chance that America’s trajectory for the 21st century will be set in favor of the Democrats vision. By 2020 (and especially 2024) the demographic shifts will be extremely noticeable and even TX will start turning blue. If the Democrats win this cycle and next and the GOP doesn’t moderate to appeal to minorities (which I don’t see them doing), then the GOP could cease to be a national party by 2020.

    From your mouth to God’s ears, as the saying goes.

    I could see a case scenario where the oligarchs (or plutocrats) will desert the GOP sinking ship and infiltrate/corrupt the Democratic Party — which isn’t so pure to begin with. Hence you end up with a virtual one-party system like in Russia.

  89. bovril says:
    September 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm  (Quote)

    Whilst I do feel the overall tones of the polls are generally on track, I do have a concern around the demographics and voting patterns of the R’s vs D’s.

    As has been seen time and again, a substantial general breakdown of the R’s is what can be best described as the Bitter Geriatric White Folks Party.

    I admt this is a broad brushstroke but has substantial roots in reality.

    The issue is these categories of folk have a luxury and a mind set that many of the D’s have less of, TIME and BIGOTRY

    They have the time and bitter energy to get to the polls and crank up the rest of the crankies with BS about how THAT BOY is gonna take MY MEDICARE/SS !!!!!! DAMN COMMIE SOCIALIST MOOSLEM !!!!

    A single mother working 2 jobs to keep her head above water and her kids fed and clothed has no bandwidth for either and may well just miss out on voting not thinking that her vote will make a differenec PARTICULARLY if the media keeps on going on about a 4% this or a 5% that lead.

    The issus is getting that vote out, EVERY ONE WILL COUNT this time around and if folks don’t get out there and help each other to get to the polls we will end up with the party that regards 47% of the populace as dirt

  90. G says:
    September 22, 2012 at 1:10 pm  (Quote)

    Well said Donna! I agree with all of your well stated points as well.

    I will have more to say on this later. I want to give a good response back to Thrifty after all of his excellent effort and points, but I’ve got a day full of fun family obligations that will take up most of my time until I suspect late evening.

    Some of what I’ve already replied to earlier this morning, particularly in response to Lupin, will hopefully address some of Thrifty’s concerns in the meantime. But what you just wrote Donna goes a long way too.

    donna:
    g et al:

    great conversation – i have written about this before but i think the far right republicans are giving it their “last ditch effort” – they will be gone in a generation and there are only 6% of young people to replace them – they have lost from giving women and african americans the right to vote, to interracial marriage, to griswold to roe to the repeal of dadt, to (soon) marriage equality and on – and dare i mention the end of quotas which has given us more women with college and advanced degrees than men – now, according to conservative bill bennett, the finger is put on the scale to accept men ….. women are overpowering them on the application alone

    people scream the loudest when they are losing which is why we got to transVAGINAL probes/state sponsored RAPE – the world hasn’t ended with progress nor with progressive policies but the far right is still saying ….. any day now – we only have to look back at what republicans predicted about the repeal of dadt ONE year ago ….. never happened

    what scares me most about romney is “secrecy” – mormonism demands it; he was raised in it and became their “priest” – we saw what the mormons (quietly) did with ca’s prop 8 – with him, we would get norquist’s “we only need someone with enough digits to hold a pen”; a (adelson) zionist who (haaretz) had romney’s voice but spoke netanyahu’s words and a mormon who, according to their church, will do as mormons do ….. listen to the directives of the church and “immediately mobilize” –

    the people who will vote for him are the obama haters not the romney lovers – he has no core of his own – would we also get the “white horse prophecy” which expects “the United States to eventually become a theocracy dominated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

    as g said, we need the party to implode and to take with them the fat, old, white males – we have the least productive congress since 1947 and that’s where republicans reside …. 1947 – the plot to destroy obama was born on inauguration eve when frank luntz amassed a group and, as newt said at the end, “You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.” – although 15 attended, the only “young” people of note at that dinner were paul ryan, cantor and hensarling –

    implosion is what we need – the only question is when it will happen –

  91. Rickey says:
    September 22, 2012 at 3:20 pm  (Quote)

    G:

    But regardless of how encouraging the emerging picture is, no one can afford to be complacent in their comfort.It is imperitive that everyone votes and does whatever they can to encourage those around them to actually vote as well.No matter how good the polls look, it all comes down to GOTV and THAT remains the true concern and challenge here.

    The other day I read an interesting article (I forget where) which suggested that Romney’s campaign has made a critical tactical error by spending most of its money on television ads, whereas Obama’s campaign has been emphasizing GOTV efforts. There is a theory that television ads are losing their punch because so many people now have DVRs, which allows them to watch their favorite shows while skipping over the commercials.

    Another significant factor is that early voting is beginning already, and early voters were overwhelmingly Obama supporters in 2008. Polls show that at this point 94% of voters have already decided who they are going to vote for, which makes it exceedingly difficult for the candidate who is behind to catch up.

    Incidentally, Bill Maher did a very funny riff on undecided voters last night. His point is that there is such a stark difference this year that only a political ignoramus could be undecided.

  92. Slartibartfast says:
    September 22, 2012 at 3:29 pm  (Quote)

    Most likely the article was based on a single outlying poll—probably from a pollster with a Democratic-leaning “house effect”—which indicated that the state was in play. It doesn’t strike me as at all odd that a paper would try to make the race seem more competitive that it really is—after all, that sells newspapers…

    bgansel9: This is still where I am at too, and I just thought it strange that the Arizona Republic (a paper that I am independently contracted to deliver btw) would put out such a strange article. I have no idea what internals they are using that they see a possible swing to the left. Weird.

  93. Slartibartfast says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:49 pm  (Quote)

    G,

    You are absolutely right that one should never become focused on a single analysis to the exclusions of all others (especially one with as many “moving parts” as Nate’s) and Professor Wang makes some good points. Personally, I also understand that I have a bias towards Nate (we’re from the same hometown—East Lansing, MI) as well as a professional one (there are some similarities in our preferred modeling methodologies), so, for me in particular, reading the analysis of people who disagree with Nate is good—I wouldn’t want to end up like the birther Mikhail Godkin. That being said, quite a bit of the difference between the two is apples and oranges—Professor Wang is perfectly justified in liking oranges better, but that doesn’t mean that Nate is wrong to prefer apples. I mentioned above that Nate considers the most impressive prediction of his model to be realizing almost immediately (within 48 hours) that the collapse of Lehman Bros. basically ended McCain’s chances. Professor Wang’s meta-analysis could not have done this as it wouldn’t have changed until polling conducted after the collapse (and the realization of how serious it was) was available. My (professional) opinion is that if you want to know where things are right now, look at Professor Wang’s work (which is probably better than Nate’s “Now-cast”), but if you want a good guess regarding how things will play out in November, Nate is still your best bet. Your milage may vary.

    G: His name is Sam Wang over at Princeton. He’s become an additional must-read source for any who look to follow serious election poll analysis.

  94. Thrifty says:
    September 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking of DVRs and skipping commercials, I recently realized that if I’m watching the episode of Jeopardy I recorded, and Alex says it’s time for a commercial; pressing the “skip 30 seconds” button on my remote fast enough pretty much deletes commercials all together. A rapid 7 button presses at the first commercial break and 5 at the second and 7 at the third zooms past all that political crap in an instant.

    The Romney ads seem to have disappeared, but the PA Senate race is heating up. Republican Tom Smith is running against Democratic incumbent Bob Casey, who is running for his 2nd term. Smith is running A LOT of negative ads. I skip past them during Jeopardy, but I see them on the TVs at the gym. There’s one at every commercial break it seems, and since the TVs at the gym are tuned to 9 different channels (there are 18 TVs and you can listen to them through a radio transmitter mounted on some of the equipment), I see a ton of them. I’m particularly annoyed since, being a Delawarean, I can’t vote for EITHER candidate.

    Rickey: There is a theory that television ads are losing their punch because so many people now have DVRs, which allows them to watch their favorite shows while skipping over the commercials.

  95. Slartibartfast says:
    September 22, 2012 at 5:07 pm  (Quote)

    Hi bovril!

    I think that you point to one of the most serious biases amongst the high-information, Democratic-leaning folks (like many of us here)—the idea that others with their politics know (and care) enough to understand just how bad the current Republican party is. In my opinion, if every voter was well-informed as to the facts regarding all of the candidates, an overwhelming majority would hold their noses and vote for the Democrats (the Democrats stink, but, for anyone who hasn’t bought into the Republican propaganda, the vile stench coming off of the Republicans cannot be blocked). Most voters (Democratic and independent, anyway) don’t, in my opinion, see the matter in such stark terms. Personally, I tend to go with the sentiment expressed by Robert Heinlein:

    The difference between bad and worse is much more important than the difference between good and better.

    bovril:
    Whilst I do feel the overall tones of the polls are generally on track, I do have a concern around the demographics and voting patterns of the R’s vs D’s.

    As has been seen time and again, a substantial general breakdown of the R’s is what can be best described as the Bitter Geriatric White Folks Party.

    I admt this is a broad brushstroke but has substantial roots in reality.

    The issue is these categories of folk have a luxury and a mind set that many of the D’s have less of, TIME and BIGOTRY

    They have the time and bitter energy to get to the polls and crank up the rest of the crankies with BS about how THAT BOY is gonna take MY MEDICARE/SS !!!!!! DAMN COMMIE SOCIALIST MOOSLEM !!!!

    A single mother working 2 jobs to keep her head above water and her kids fed and clothed has no bandwidth for either and may well just miss out on voting not thinking that her vote will make a differenec PARTICULARLY if the media keeps on going on about a 4% this or a 5% that lead.

    The issus is getting that vote out, EVERY ONE WILL COUNT this time around and if folks don’t get out there and help each other to get to the polls we will end up with the party that regards 47% of the populace as dirt

  96. US Citizen says:
    September 22, 2012 at 5:12 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t have enough money to donate to Obama’s campaign, but perhaps I could still get them $250…. 🙂
    (and yes, Orly has $21 coming too… 😉

    http://scoweb.sco.ca.gov/UCP/PropertyDetails.aspx?propertyRecID=20862385

  97. Rickey says:
    September 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:

    The Romney ads seem to have disappeared, but the PA Senate race is heating up.Republican Tom Smith is running against Democratic incumbent Bob Casey, who is running for his 2nd term.Smith is running A LOT of negative ads.I skip past them during Jeopardy, but I see them on the TVs at the gym.There’s one at every commercial break it seems, and since the TVs at the gym are tuned to 9 different channels (there are 18 TVs and you can listen to them through a radio transmitter mounted on some of the equipment), I see a ton of them.I’m particularly annoyed since, being a Delawarean, I can’t vote for EITHER candidate.

    I sympathize. Here in New York Senator Gillibrand will win in a landslide, but we have to put up with lots of ads for the closer Senate race in Connecticut.

    I rarely watch live TV anymore, other than sports and breaking news. If there is a hour-long show on which I want to watch and it starts a 8:00 p.m., I will DVR it and start watching it at 8:15 and I can still finish watching at 9 by skipping over the commercials.

  98. Thrifty says:
    September 22, 2012 at 9:15 pm  (Quote)

    Growing up, I remember that we got a lot of ads for the candidates in various New Jersey elections. There were a lot of them, often for offices ranging from Senator down to state legislature. And they were all really nasty. Like “Clarence McVog will murder you in your sleep and have sex with your corpse if elected. Also he will raise your taxes. Do you really want that?”

  99. richCares says:
    September 23, 2012 at 12:12 am  (Quote)

    National Review Online has a story “I see the Obama campaign has redesigned the American flag, and very attractive it is too.”, see it here.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/328163/bowing-mob-mark-steyn

    This story complained about the “O” Obama flag, However, that flag is the official flag of the State of Ohio, designed in 1902, way before Obama was born.
    see it here: http://www.50states.com/flag/ohflag.htm

    I posted a correction notice to NRO, it was not allowed through, scared of the correction I guess.

    Why are right wing sites afraid?

  100. Keith says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:50 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: The Romney ads seem to have disappeared, but the PA Senate race is heating up.

    I have it from my friend in Arizona, well placed in the national GOP ‘structure’ that they have quietly given up on the Presidential race (just as they did 4 years ago) and are now concentrating on the Senate, and a few specific House seats. They’ll keep up appearances to keep Obama honest, but basically they have no doubt that Obama has won this election and they see no reason to waste their ‘ammo’ on a lost cause.

  101. JPotter says:
    September 23, 2012 at 9:21 am  (Quote)

    I had a dream (premonition?) last night …. of a tearful Ann rMoney whining and crying about how unfairly her husband has been treated, how she knew they couldn’t possibly win, and they just wanted to be left alone, and to be allowed to put all this behind them.

    I’m fine with the result, but not the sentiment. Nuts will never learn so long as they’re allowed to toss their failure down the memory hole.

  102. JPotter says:
    September 23, 2012 at 9:24 am  (Quote)

    Keith: they have quietly given up on the Presidential race

    I thought it was clear they were never seriously contesting it? Why none of their more serious members with perceived political futures were running? Which yielded the nuttiest, most inept primary lineup in history, obscurities and has-beens. rMoney himself has nothing better to do, and nothing to lose but other people’s money.

  103. Thrifty says:
    September 23, 2012 at 11:30 am  (Quote)

    That can’t be right, that the Republicans weren’t even trying, from the get-go. Didn’t one of the high up Republican Congresscritters say that their number one priority was to make Obama a one-term president? And with the economy the way it is, they could have pulled it off with a half-decent, likable candidate that had an actual, articulated plan.

    JPotter: I thought it was clear they were never seriously contesting it? Why none of their more serious members with perceived political futures were running? Which yielded the nuttiest, most inept primary lineup in history, obscurities and has-beens. rMoney himself has nothing better to do, and nothing to lose but other people’s money.

  104. bovril says:
    September 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm  (Quote)

    Well, accoring to Freak Republic, Mitens and his people have access to he REAL polling numbers and they PROVE that Mittens has at least a 15 point lead over the Ebil Commie….

    Oh and vice versa where Obama has access to same and is in total despair…..Yes, they really believe this ’cause all polls (except of course the perioidic Rasmussen oulier are fixed/rigged/outright lies….

  105. Majority Will says:
    September 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm  (Quote)

    Giant panda cub dies at US National Zoo

    Will Romney blame Obama?

  106. Rickey says:
    September 23, 2012 at 2:48 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: I thought it was clear they were never seriously contesting it? Why none of their more serious members with perceived political futures were running? Which yielded the nuttiest, most inept primary lineup in history, obscurities and has-beens. rMoney himself has nothing better to do, and nothing to lose but other people’s money.

    The recent history of losing candidates for President is that they get one chance to win, and one chance only. The last losing candidate for President to be nominated a second time was Nixon, and he had to sit out one election.

    I’m convinced that Jeb Bush and Chris Christie decided that it would be unwise to take their only shot against an incumbent. Assuming that Obama wins re-election, I expect both Bush and Christie to be candidates in 2016.

  108. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm  (Quote)

    With the dynamics of our political system, it is unlikely that a one-party system would last beyond perhaps a cycle or two. No political coalition here is monolithic. Anything that would result in one-party dominance would be quickly followed by rifts and an eventual split, resulting in some alternative coalition option to fill the vacuum. You might see several alternatives emerge and compete for awhile, but eventually the dust would settle to establish two main competing forces.

    Lupin: I could see a case scenario where the oligarchs (or plutocrats) will desert the GOP sinking ship and infiltrate/corrupt the Democratic Party — which isn’t so pure to begin with. Hence you end up with a virtual one-party system like in Russia.

  109. Keith says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:42 pm  (Quote)

    JPotter: I thought it was clear they were never seriously contesting it? Why none of their more serious members with perceived political futures were running? Which yielded the nuttiest, most inept primary lineup in history, obscurities and has-beens. rMoney himself has nothing better to do, and nothing to lose but other people’s money.

    Personally, I cannot disagree. I believe they gave up the day Palin was picked for McCain and decided to aim at 2016 then. However, I get the impression that that was just the power broker elite that worked on that assumption, but the people that actually do things in the party (my friend is one of those) had at least some optimism that the economy might give them some leverage. It seems that RMoney has succeeded in knocking sense into even the most optimistic of them.

    They will be trying their hardest to hide it of course, but they know they are gone.

    Frankly I don’t know how the GOP is going to be competitive in 2016 either if their talent is at the Ryan and Santorum level. Christie is in meltdown, and I don’t see any other Governors of any substance. Maybe Jeb? Maybe they’ll do an X-Factor series for GOP contenders?

  110. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm  (Quote)

    Bravo!!! This point cannot be emphasized enough.

    No matter what margin of lead emerges for Obama and the Democrats in the polls, that is NOT an excuse for anyone to get complacent and stay home. The reality of an election can only happen when ACTUAL VOTES are cast.

    Whether you are in a battleground state or not, nobody should shirk their duty to cast their vote!!! It matters – period.

    bovril: The issus is getting that vote out, EVERY ONE WILL COUNT this time around and if folks don’t get out there and help each other to get to the polls we will end up with the party that regards 47% of the populace as dirt.

  111. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:47 pm  (Quote)

    SNL did a great skit about that last night too…

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227

    Rickey: Incidentally, Bill Maher did a very funny riff on undecided voters last night. His point is that there is such a stark difference this year that only a political ignoramus could be undecided.

  112. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm  (Quote)

    Speaking of which, if you missed the Thursday SNL special (8pm-8:30pm on NBC for the next month or so), then you missed this hilarious spoof on both Romney’s 47% comments and the Fox and Friends team…

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/fox-and-friends-on-romney-cold-open/1418062

    G:
    SNL did a great skit about that last night too…

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/undecided-voter/1418227

  113. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    It was not from a Democratic leaning pollster, it was from Purple Strategies, which is a consulting firm comprised of two professional political spin doctors that are also CNN contributing political anaysts (Democratic Party strategist Steve McMahon and GOP strategiest Alex Castellanos).

    Their agenda appears to be about keeping a “horse race” narrative going by flooding periods of trend-shifting in the polling with contrarian poll results that counter that effect. All of their polls should be viewed as propaganda push polls to drive a false narrative and suspect.

    Slartibartfast:
    Most likely the article was based on a single outlying poll—probably from a pollster with a Democratic-leaning “house effect”—which indicated that the state was in play.It doesn’t strike me as at all odd that a paper would try to make the race seem more competitive that it really is—after all, that sells newspapers…

  114. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:10 pm  (Quote)

    Excellent points. I agree with the differences in capabilities of their two methodologies and the bottom line point to never rely on a single analysis or methodology, in order to get a broader perpective. I like Nate Silver’s work and also Sam Wangs. As well as many others. But I try to keep their respective strengths and weaknesses in mind in forming my own analysis of what is happening in the big picture.

    Slartibartfast: You are absolutely right that one should never become focused on a single analysis to the exclusions of all others (especially one with as many “moving parts” as Nate’s) and Professor Wang makes some good points. Personally, I also understand that I have a bias towards Nate (we’re from the same hometown—East Lansing, MI) as well as a professional one (there are some similarities in our preferred modeling methodologies), so, for me in particular, reading the analysis of people who disagree with Nate is good—I wouldn’t want to end up like the birther Mikhail Godkin. That being said, quite a bit of the difference between the two is apples and oranges—Professor Wang is perfectly justified in liking oranges better, but that doesn’t mean that Nate is wrong to prefer apples. I mentioned above that Nate considers the most impressive prediction of his model to be realizing almost immediately (within 48 hours) that the collapse of Lehman Bros. basically ended McCain’s chances. Professor Wang’s meta-analysis could not have done this as it wouldn’t have changed until polling conducted after the collapse (and the realization of how serious it was) was available. My (professional) opinion is that if you want to know where things are right now, look at Professor Wang’s work (which is probably better than Nate’s “Now-cast”), but if you want a good guess regarding how things will play out in November, Nate is still your best bet. Your milage may vary.

  115. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:12 pm  (Quote)

    Excellent quote!!! I will try to remember that one. Great advice!

    Slartibartfast: Personally, I tend to go with the sentiment expressed by Robert Heinlein:
    The difference between bad and worse is much more important than the difference between good and better.

  116. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    I suspect that the Romney’s will become most hated by their own party, after the election is over. They will be treated as pariahs and blamed for the loss and the party’s woes, especially if they end up doing significant damage to the down-ticket races as well…

    JPotter: I had a dream (premonition?) last night …. of a tearful Ann rMoney whining and crying about how unfairly her husband has been treated, how she knew they couldn’t possibly win, and they just wanted to be left alone, and to be allowed to put all this behind them.

  117. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    I share this assessment of both the 2012 and 2016 races…

    I also expect Santorum to run again and be a strong 2016 contender.

    I’m not sure what Rubio will do – from what I’ve heard, his big hurdle is that he’s connected to a lot of the FL GOP financial scandals that are just starting to bubble up tot he surface and those ties and skeletons were the biggest factor keeping him from being seriously considered for VP this cycle. I don’t know how he can keep that from coming out in any future aspirational run…

    It will be interesting to see if Huckabee remains fat and content with his Fox gig money or decides to make another go at it in 2016 too…

    I hear that Rick Perry wants to try again in 2016 too…lol…

    Rickey: I’m convinced that Jeb Bush and Chris Christie decided that it would be unwise to take their only shot against an incumbent. Assuming that Obama wins re-election, I expect both Bush and Christie to be candidates in 2016.

  118. Thrifty says:
    September 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm  (Quote)

    I was at the supermarket this afternoon and saw some woman who looked exactly like Orly Taitz. I’m still a little shaken up by the experience.

  119. Thrifty says:
    September 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm  (Quote)

    I loved some of the corrections at the end of the sketch.

    “LIBOR is not a giant praying mantis.”

    “Cat Fancy is a magazine, not a man\cat dating web site.”

    “Lobsters are not ‘ocean spiders.'”

    “Al Jazeera is not the host of ‘Tool Time’ ”

    G:
    Speaking of which, if you missed the Thursday SNL special (8pm-8:30pm on NBC for the next month or so), then you missed this hilarious spoof on both Romney’s 47% comments and the Fox and Friends team…

  120. Thrifty says:
    September 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm  (Quote)

    This is what happened when the Federalists fell apart in the early 19th century. We were 1-party for a decade or two, but then the Whigs sprang up in opposition to the Democratic-Republicans, though mainly they were born out of opposition to Andrew Jackson, who was a real son of a bitch. The Whigs then evolved into the Republicans around the 1860s with Lincoln’s rise to power.

    Of course, if you’re not familiar with American history and just want to take pot shots at America whenever you can, it’s easy to miss this.

    G:
    With the dynamics of our political system, it is unlikely that a one-party system would last beyond perhaps a cycle or two.No political coalition here is monolithic.Anything that would result in one-party dominance would be quickly followed by rifts and an eventual split, resulting in some alternative coalition option to fill the vacuum.You might see several alternatives emerge and compete for awhile, but eventually the dust would settle to establish two main competing forces.

  121. Rickey says:
    September 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm  (Quote)

    bovril:

    The issus is getting that vote out, EVERY ONE WILL COUNT this time around and if folks don’t get out there and help each other to get to the polls we will end up with the party that regards 47% of the populace as dirt

    Absolutely. In 2008 I volunteered to drive voters who needed a ride to their polling places. It was good to help out and it also made the day go by more quickly,

  122. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, those were great! LOL! They went by too quickly when I first saw the skit on TV, so I had to look it up again online, just so I could keep pausing and get to read all of them.

    Here is the complete list:

    The Bible was not a movie first.
    Stalactites is not a childhood disease.
    Iowa City never elected Mayor McCheese.
    Allegra is not a religion.
    Jeremy Lin was traded, not deported.
    The sun and the moon do not high-five as they pass each other.
    Vaginas don’t look like that.
    A dead person’s skull does not contain their memories.
    Ron Paul is one person.
    Not all cats are gay.
    The Atlanta Hawks are a team, not an infestation.
    Ellen DeGeneres never married a car.
    Benedict Arnold was not a character on Diff’rent Strokes.
    A wind turbine has never cut off the head of a pretty girl in a convertible.
    The Tasmanian Devil is not the president of Tasmania.
    Star Wars is essentially a work of fiction.
    Al Gore never claimed to invent Nintendo.
    Hawaii does not rotate every six months.
    Neil Armstrong was not the first person to moon someone.
    The Keystone Pipeline is not filled with Keystone Light.
    Swiss banks are not “full of holes.”
    Camp David does not have a sister camp called Camp Denise.
    Oogielove is not a sexually transmitted disease.
    They did not name Mars after the Mars Rover.
    Monica Lewinsky was never in an internment camp.
    Six comes after five.
    Kim Jong-Un is not the CEO of Yahoo.
    Left-handed people cannot read your thoughts.
    Lobsters are not “ocean spiders.”
    Cat Fancy is a magazine, not a man/cat dating website.
    The U.S. Postal Service never released a Kesha stamp.
    “F” is not a blood type.
    Parsley is not one of the Spice Girls.
    Usain Bolt is not a new action movie starring John C. Reilly.
    LIBOR is not a giant praying mantis.
    Old Navy is not one of the armed forces.
    The letters in “Massachusetts” cannot be rearranged to spell “same-sex marriage.”
    Crabs don’t breastfeed.
    Animal Planet is not an acceptable nickname for Telemundo.
    Marco Rubio does not play for the Timberwolves.
    Al Jazeera is not the co-host of “Tool Time.”
    Babies never “skipped ahead” to being 10.
    Angela Merkel is not a palindrome.
    You can’t outrun polio.
    The Negro League is not “back and better than ever.”
    Latin Inches is not the Mexican metric system.
    The Russian national anthem is not the U.S. national anthem played backwards.
    Rocky never fought Lassie.

    😉

    Thrifty:
    I loved some of the corrections at the end of the sketch.

    “LIBOR is not a giant praying mantis.”

    “Cat Fancy is a magazine, not a man\cat dating web site.”

    “Lobsters are not ‘ocean spiders.’”

    “Al Jazeera is not the host of ‘Tool Time’ ”

  123. Slartibartfast says:
    September 23, 2012 at 10:36 pm  (Quote)

    Did you mean this?

    “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term”—Mitch McConnell

    There was a video clip of him this sometime last week on the Daily Show—I’m guessing that it came after the midterm elections, but I don’t know for sure.

    Thrifty:
    That can’t be right, that the Republicans weren’t even trying, from the get-go.Didn’t one of the high up Republican Congresscritters say that their number one priority was to make Obama a one-term president?And with the economy the way it is, they could have pulled it off with a half-decent, likable candidate that had an actual, articulated plan.

  124. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 10:37 pm  (Quote)

    There were always some lesser parties around too…which did have influence on the various platforms, changes and merges that happened between the major parties and were important in influencing the makeup and shakeups that led to new coalitions, during transitional periods in American politics.

    I’ve always liked this graphic visual chart for how it portrays those changes and cross-overs:

    http://www.historyshots.com/Parties/index.cfm

    Thrifty:
    This is what happened when the Federalists fell apart in the early 19th century.We were 1-party for a decade or two, but then the Whigs sprang up in opposition to the Democratic-Republicans, though mainly they were born out of opposition to Andrew Jackson, who was a real son of a bitch.The Whigs then evolved into the Republicans around the 1860s with Lincoln’s rise to power.

    Of course, if you’re not familiar with American history and just want to take pot shots at America whenever you can, it’s easy to miss this.

  125. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm  (Quote)

    Here is Mitch McConnell making public statements to that effect:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU

    He originally made those statements 10/27/2010

    Asked what that “job” was, McConnell explained that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

    That remark drew the ire of several White House officials. At his daily briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the last thing voters will want after this hard-fought campaign is more non-stop politics in Washington.

    Let’s not forget that was the GOP plan all along, initiated by GOP talking-point generator, Frank Luntz and cobbled together with prominent House & Senate GOP members, such as Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint and Jon Kyl – one that they conspired to put in place from the moment Obama was inaugerated in 2009:

    New York Times Magazine contributor Robert Draper reported that Luntz orchestrated a 2009 meeting where prominent Republicans formulated a plan to win back Congress and the White House.

    In his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives, Draper reported that Luntz “organized a dinner” on Obama’s inauguration night featuring a handful of “the Republican Party’s most energetic thinkers.” The attendees — which included current vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan — reportedly emerged from the nearly four hour dinner “almost giddily” after having agreed on “a way forward.” According to Draper, the Republican plan involved showing “united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies,” with an eventual goal of defeating Obama and taking back the Senate in 2012:

    Luntz had organized the dinner – telling the invitees, “You’ll have nothing to do that night, and right now we don’t matter anyway, so let’s all be irrelevant together.” He had selected these men because they were among the Republican Party’s most energetic thinkers – and because they all got along with Luntz, who could be difficult. Three times during the 2008 election cycle, Sean Hannity had thrown him off the set at Fox Studios. The top Republican in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner, had nurtured a dislike of Luntz for more than a decade. No one had to ask why Boehner wasn’t at the Caucus Room that evening.

    […]The dinner lasted nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward: Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day: “Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it – please?”)

    Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies. (Eight days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama’s economic stimulus plan.)

    Begin attacking vulnerable Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)

    Win the spear point of the House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.

    “You will remember this day,” Newt Gingrich proclaimed to the others as they said goodbye. “You’ll remember this days as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.” [Do Not Ask What Good We Do, pp. xvi-xix]

    The inauguration night dinner was also reported in Election 2012: The Battle Begins by Real Clear Politics reporters Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon.

    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/politico-cbs-news-hires-frank-luntz-e

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/27/news/la-pn-obama-mcconnell-20101027

    Slartibartfast:
    Did you mean this?

    “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term”—Mitch McConnell

    There was a video clip of him this sometime last week on the Daily Show—I’m guessing that it came after the midterm elections, but I don’t know for sure.

  126. G says:
    September 23, 2012 at 11:50 pm  (Quote)

    Hi Thrifty, Thanks! I wanted to get back to giving you a good reply on your points, in case any of your questions were not addressed in my other statements above. So here we go..

    Thrifty:
    G, I agree with your analysis, and like all your analyses, I find it very well articulated and thought provoking.I agree that it makes a great case for the Republican party going further to the right. But I still don’t see how this equates to the party falling apart or losing elections.

    I agree. For one, people seem to be finally “wising up” to the tactics of negative ads – at least to an extent. I think the tactic has become overused and people are starting to get sick of it. They will always have a certain amount of appeal to impressionable minds, but with everything, there is a limit as well as a point of diminishing returns. That is what we seem to be experiencing this cycle. Plus, there is not much that money can help do to help, when you have a weak, uncharismatic, unlikeable and untrustworthy candidate. Now you are just throwing away good money at a bad product. The expensive and failed efforts of Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and Linda McMahon from 2010 are examples of that.

    Particularly in such a strongly divided electorate – there is little room for the needle to move much. As you aptly pointed out, Fox News’ propaganda act has pretty much saturated the market for the RW noise machine all on their own and beyond their own choir, most everyone else has wised up and tuned them out by now. There isn’t much that the GOP can sling that Fox hasn’t already been muttering about endlessly, for four years.

    Thrifty:
    Money and propaganda have limited effectiveness. Sure you need money (and lots of it) to be elected to a high public office, but you can’t just buy a seat in office (despite what the plot of Timecop will tell you). As per propaganda, Fox News I think really only preaches to the choir: most people I know who aren’t already obnoxiously hard right are turned off by Fox News.

    Good analogies and points.

    Thrifty:
    The way I see it, they are in a great position to use their single greatest tool: stonewalling. ee, we have 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus 50 governors and I don’t know how many state legislators. But we have 1 President, and it seems like most people view the success or failure of the government in terms of him. Republicans can stonewall the president, forestall economic recovery, deficit reduction, immigration reform, you name it, then say “Barack Obama is a failure!” It’s like that game where a bully grabs another kid’s fist and hits him in the face with it, saying “why you hitting yourself?”

    Maybe. I think an increasing number of the electorate is starting to grasp that Congress has a big role in the problems here… particularly after the Tea Party folks promised to focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs” in 2010 and then did nothing but obstruct, obstruct, obstruct… oh, and try to pass lots of really alarming controversial social issues legislation that garnished a lot of angry public attention. There is a huge reason why Congress is at one of its lowest popularity measurements ever…and there seems to be an increasing awareness that the finger mainly points to the GOP for this.

    Thrifty:
    I guess what I’m saying is that Congress is largely not held accountable for the failures of government, except by the really politically engaged who I’m not sure represent a big enough majority. Republicans really only face backlash when they have the White House; this is what I think led to McCain’s defeat in 2008. It would probably also be leading to Obama’s defeat now, if the Republicans had put up a half decent candidate.

    I disagree that the Democrats would be in a weaker position in 2016. Of course, we can’t predict what events will take place over the next 4 years and what the political, economic and international climate will be like, when that arrives. However, in terms of the economy, as most economists have been pointing out, those 12 million private sector new jobs that Romney keeps talking about are likely to happen regardless. Boomers are retiring. The recovery, slow as it is, is taking place. If government does NOTHING, these 12 million new jobs are projected to still emerge. Plus, when the housing market crashed in 2008, most knowledgeable analysts said it would not recover until 2014. Speaking of 2014, that is when the troops will come home from Afghanistan too – which also means that huge monthly expenditure will be reduced significantly. The Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of this year. The Democrats are in a good position for once, to not renew the cuts for anyone over the $250 K a year mark. All of these factors will be helpful in improving the debt and financial situations.

    So, even in a scenario where very little gets accomplished legislatively, there is good reason to believe that the economic situation will still see significant improvement in four more years. So at the worst, the Democrats would be able to claim the mantle of stewardship over an improved economy and still be able to blame the GOP for any obstruction and gridlock that prevented further accomplishments. Plus, they would be able to say that this is proof that things improve under a Democratic administration and still emphasize that the economic collapse and wars happened as a result of the GOP being in power. It makes for a powerful argument to remind people that they don’t want to switch gears and go back to repeating past failures. So, I would argue that such a situation, even when there are no incumbents, would favor the party in power at that point – which in this scenario is the Democrats under a second Obama term.

    Thrifty:
    I can see the ratcheting effect of the Republicans leading them to put up another weak candidate in 2016.The Democrats will be in a weaker position then too, when they can’t run an incumbent. So maybe the direction of the Republicans is gonna lead them to lose the ability to take the White House, but let’s be honest, the Presidency is not where the power lies.It’s the Congress.

  127. Slartibartfast says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:04 am  (Quote)

    Apparently Chuck Todd at MSNBC is saying that Clinton donors are being quietly told to start warming up in the bullpen—I don’t know if this is true, but, if so, the Republicans might be looking at W as the omega to Lincoln’s alpha—it’s hard to see how they could beat Hillary and by 2024 demographic changes will be making things very difficult at the national level…

    G:
    I share this assessment of both the 2012 and 2016 races…

    I also expect Santorum to run again and be a strong 2016 contender.

    I’m not sure what Rubio will do – from what I’ve heard, his big hurdle is that he’s connected to a lot of the FL GOP financial scandals that are just starting to bubble up tot he surface and those ties and skeletons were the biggest factor keeping him from being seriously considered for VP this cycle.I don’t know how he can keep that from coming out in any future aspirational run…

    It will be interesting to see if Huckabee remains fat and content with his Fox gig money or decides to make another go at it in 2016 too…

    I hear that Rick Perry wants to try again in 2016 too…lol…

  128. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:12 am  (Quote)

    Good examples. I agree. If the GOP just continues to further double-down on extreme candidates and positions (which I suspect they will, as they will blame this cycle’s loss on Romney (and the Establishment) as RINOs and insufficiently pure to their conservative causes), then expect to see them continue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this manner. What will win a GOP primary contest and what can win a general election contest are increasingly out of synch…

    Thrifty:
    But on the other hand, you may be right.I keep thinking of 2010 Senate races in Alaska, Nevada, and my home of Delaware, where races that could have been easily won by Republicans were won by the Democrats because the Republicans nominated Tea Party backed candidates. Harry Reid’s popularity was in the crapper; he’d have lost if they hadn’t nominated that Sharron Angle lunatic. The guy in Alaska lost to a write-in campaign (that both cracks me up and astonishes me). Mike Castle would have trounced Chris Coons in a landslide in Delaware, so instead they nominated Christine O’Donnell.

    A lot of the models have shifted over the past few weeks and now have the Democrats favored to retain the Senate, with the possibility that they could even end up gaining a few seats. If this trend line does lead to another wave election, then the Democrats have a really good chance to regain the House back as well. That will be particularly true if this period of hyper-partisanship means that more folks are committed to simply vote a straight party-ticket (at least as far as the federal positions are concerned). The selection of Paul Ryan to the VP spot really helps the Democrats connect the Ryan Budget plan and GOP obstructionism together with the Romney/Ryan campaign and the GOP as a whole. So I think it will be harder than typical for other GOP candidates running to disassociate themselves with the perceptions and fate of their top-of-the-ticket. Plus, the GOP congressional decisions this month to block needs for Veterans and Farm relief issues seems to be another inexplicable bit of political malpractice with elections being mere weeks away….

    Thrifty:
    Maybe it’s too soon to make any prognostications for sure. We’ll see what happens in the Congress in November.Electionprojection.com predicts a modest +1 gain for Republicans in the Senate and a -8 loss for them in the House.

    Here is a fair compromise I suggest for us – let’s both revisit this issue, once we get the results in November and see how the playing field has altered. Then we will all be in a much better position to not only analyze and reflect what happened, but reexamine the calculus of what can be accomplished and what it could mean for both 2014 and 2016…

    Healthy skepticism can be a good thing. Just don’t let it turn into unproductive pessimism, nor lessen your commitment to vote and encourage others around you to get out and vote as well.

    Thrifty:
    I guess we’ll just wait and see.Maybe I’m not giving the average American enough credit in my assumption that they’ll let the Republican Congresscritters fly under the radar without consequence. Let’s just say I’ll maintain my skepticism of the Republican party being in decline until at least the 2014 midterms.

  129. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:26 am  (Quote)

    Well, the DC chattering class has endlessly pushed the meme that HRC will run again, even though she and Bill have said that she wants to retire from politics. So I’ll continue to take any such rumours with a grain of salt, until HRC herself starts giving indications that she wants back in.

    I agree that if she does run again, she will be the immediate frontrunner and in a much stronger position than she was even in 2008. I don’t see how the GOP could defeat her then, particularly after they spent the past 4 years helping to re-hab the Clintons image and popularity…

    I would like to see her run. She would get my support. But I also respect her decision if she choses to enjoy a well-earned retirement from politics as well.

    I realize that Joe Biden also wants to make a go at 2016, but I don’t think he should. I like Joe, but there are a lot of legitimate concerns about candidates of a certain age running for President…more so when the candidate is male; the life expectency differences between men and women make this less of a concern if HRC wishes to do a 2016 & 2020 run.

    Slartibartfast:
    Apparently Chuck Todd at MSNBC is saying that Clinton donors are being quietly told to start warming up in the bullpen—I don’t know if this is true, but, if so, the Republicans might be looking at W as the omega to Lincoln’s alpha—it’s hard to see how they could beat Hillary and by 2024 demographic changes will be making things very difficult at the national level…

  130. Slartibartfast says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:41 am  (Quote)

    I completely agree—I had been assuming that she meant it when she said she didn’t want to run, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it turns out she did—after all, Bill has become one of President Obama’s most important surrogates (if not the most important) and, if Hillary did want to run, it’s hard to see President Obama not being willing to return the favor. As for Joe—I love Joe and I think he’s a great Vice President and wouldn’t worry if he had to take over the big chair, but I don’t really want him campaigning at the top of the ticket… How’s this for a dream scenario: the Clinton-Biden ticket wins in 2016 and in their first term appoints President Obama to the SCOTUS (this would be worth it just to see every birther’s head explode 😛 )

    G: I would like to see her run. She would get my support. But I also respect her decision if she choses to enjoy a well-earned retirement from politics as well.

  131. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:07 am  (Quote)

    LOL!! 😉

    Slartibartfast: How’s this for a dream scenario: the Clinton-Biden ticket wins in 2016 and in their first term appoints President Obama to the SCOTUS (this would be worth it just to see every birther’s head explode )

  132. Lupin says:
    September 24, 2012 at 6:55 am  (Quote)

    Personally, I think both Ms Clinton and Mr Biden will be too old in 2016 — I would much prefer to see a younger candidate.

    Also, it seems everyone here assumes that the Democratic Party are and will remain the “good guys”. I’m not convinced of this.

    First, we’ve seen how the once-sane GOP was taken over by the plutocrats with the help of a coalition of right-wing lunatics; that coalition now threatens to disintegrate, but I see no major impediment to the plutocrats taking over the Democratic Party as well — considering how much of it is already pro-business/wall street.

    So in the end a Democratic victory(ies) in 2016, 2020 etc, may not be what you’re hoping for.

  133. Keith says:
    September 24, 2012 at 8:15 am  (Quote)

    G: The Bible was not a movie first.
    Stalactites is not a childhood disease.
    Iowa City never elected Mayor McCheese.
    Allegra is not a religion.
    etc

    Christmas Spirit is not what you drink.

    …. Jethro Tull

  134. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 24, 2012 at 9:04 am  (Quote)

    Our framers didn’t want political parties at all, although even Madison quickly became partisan.

    There has essentially been a two-party system since almost the beginning and it’s hard for me, and for any American I think, to imagine anything else. I personally would love to see a Green party of some sort and for the Tea Party to really be a party on its own. It seems to me that the more parties there are, the better the chance for creative compromise.

    Lupin: First, we’ve seen how the once-sane GOP was taken over by the plutocrats with the help of a coalition of right-wing lunatics; that coalition now threatens to disintegrate, but I see no major impediment to the plutocrats taking over the Democratic Party as well — considering how much of it is already pro-business/wall street.

  135. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 24, 2012 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    The Ten Commandments is not the Cliff Notes version of the Bible.

    Keith: The Bible was not a movie first.

  136. Keith says:
    September 24, 2012 at 9:51 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast:
    Did you mean this?

    “Our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term”—Mitch McConnell

    There was a video clip of him this sometime last week on the Daily Show—I’m guessing that it came after the midterm elections, but I don’t know for sure.

    The GOP has been doing this since at least the 1960’s; against Johnson/Humphrey, Carter, and Clinton.

    An argument could be made that Nixon’s job on Johnson/Humphrey and Reagan’s job on Carter were tantamount to treason. At least this time Congress/Romney isn’t interfering with the war.

    Or are they?

  137. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 24, 2012 at 9:58 am  (Quote)

    While birther head explosions technically, sounds like a social good, I don’t think Mr. Obama is qualified for the Chief Justice job. It’s not unprecedented, though. President Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    Taft,writing for a unanimous Court said:

    The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

    Ex Parte Grossman – 267 U.S. 87 (1925)

    Slartibartfast: How’s this for a dream scenario: the Clinton-Biden ticket wins in 2016 and in their first term appoints President Obama to the SCOTUS (this would be worth it just to see every birther’s head explode

  138. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 10:15 am  (Quote)

    Well said!

    I too am not a fan of the inherent weaknesses of the two-party system and wish that there were more legitimate alternatives. However, I undertand and accept the realities of the two-party structure too.

    In order to have a broader multi-party structure that was viable in our system, you would have to change the voting structure to some mulit-tier runoff format, requiring a majority vote to win instead of just a plurality.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Our framers didn’t want political parties at all, although even Madison quickly became partisan.
    There has essentially been a two-party system since almost the beginning and it’s hard for me, and for any American I think, to imagine anything else. I personally would love to see a Green party of some sort and for the Tea Party to really be a party on its own. It seems to me that the more parties there are, the better the chance for creative compromise.

  139. Scientist says:
    September 24, 2012 at 10:57 am  (Quote)

    G: In order to have a broader multi-party structure that was viable in our system, you would have to change the voting structure to some mulit-tier runoff format, requiring a majority vote to win instead of just a plurality.

    I’m not sure that is true, G. Many countries with winner-take-all voting, like the US, have very viable 3rd parties. I think the biggest faling of US 3rd parties is that they tend to find some well-known figure, like Ralph Nader, and run them for President. All they can hope to do is play spoiler, as Nader did in 2000, and that just discredits the entire party. But suppose one actually won and became President. How would they get their ambitious agenda through a Congress where there were no members from their party? They would have to laboriously cobble together a different coalition on each issue. It would be a nightmare and would likely discredit 3rd parties for generations to come.

    The way a 3rd party needs to go is to focus on a few states where they are strongest. For the Greens that would probably be the Pacific Northwest and northern New England. Try to win state legislatures, governorships and run some good candidates for Congress. Prove you can do a good job running those states.

    This was the strategy used by the NDP in Canada. They started as the CCF in Saskatchewan in the 1930s and ran that province for many years. When they became a national party, they had credibility and were key to many of the most important advances in Canadian history,incuding universal health care and pensions, which were enacted by minority governments that depended on the NDP to stay in power. Now, after last year’s election, the NDP is the #2 national party and the official opposition in Parliament and has a real shot at governing when people tire of the Conservatives, as they will.

    The key though is to start at the state/local level and build your credibility. Unfortuntely, Americans tend to be impatient and none of the 3rd parties have tried to go that route.

  140. RuhRoh says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:15 am  (Quote)

    FYI: Orly Taitz has two media appearances schedule this week: “On Friday, September 28, Taitz will be appearing for an hour on the Stephanie Miller Show on television at 8:00 a.m. PDT. Miller has both a television and radio show. Taitz will be a guest on Jeff Rense’s radio show at 8:00 p.m. also for an hour on Friday.”

    http://aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-1.newsvine.com/_news/2012/09/24/14068873-walt-part-2-lady-liberty-3-scotus-victory

  141. donna says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:46 am  (Quote)

    new from birtherstan

    NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE U.S. GOVERNMENT KNOWS NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS A CLASSIFICATION TO ENSURE LOYALTY TO THE NATION

    The Judiciary and government agencies comprising the National Security apparatus of the United States including the FBI and the NSA know that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. They also know that not being a Natural Born Citizen is a threat to national security. Why he has been allowed to usurp the Office of the Presidency of the United States by our nation’s national security apparatus has yet to be determined.

    Now, newly discovered evidence proves all three branches of our government are complicit in compromising our national security by allowing the Constitution to be subverted.

    http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2012/09/breaking-evidence-emerges-fbi.html

  142. donna says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:53 am  (Quote)

    Mississippi Ballot Challenge: Hearing Today

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=23511#more-23511

  143. Thinker says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:57 am  (Quote)

    Update on Mr. House’s ballot challenge in Kentucky–according to @Joe_Gerth on twitter, the case was continued for a week at plaintiff’s request, apparently because plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss. What a waste of the court’s resources.

  144. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm  (Quote)

    I agree with everything you said. We are talking about two different, yet related components to what a viable multi-party system would require in order to break through.

    You are absolutely right that the current structure only provides opportunity for a Nader or Perot type at the top…but at the same time, would require a bottom-up approach to obtaining lesser offices for that party, which translate into a coalition of support, should their top candidate achieve his/her goals.

    At local levels, there have been a number of Libertarian and I think even some Green candidates that got into office… but nothing at the state or federal level, which is what they are critically missing despite being major-minor 3rd party options for several decades.

    In one way, you could say that the Tea Party insurgency has succeeded – and their model might be the only one that is actually effective under the current structure: they are attempting to take over an existing major party from within. Regardless of what any of us think about how “independent” the Tea Party ever was from the GOP in the first place, their people have swooped in and taken over much of the lower level party machines and have obtained numerous state and federal office positions. They are a huge sway on the GOP Primaries, with only the Presidential contest beyond their current reach.

    But again, what they are doing just shows that the 2-party system here is hard to compete with and that where coalitions form and change is really still contained within merely shifting the internal dynamics and composition of those two major parties.

    Scientist: I’m not sure that is true, G.Many countries with winner-take-all voting, like the US, have very viable 3rd parties.I think the biggest faling of US 3rd parties is that they tend to find some well-known figure, like Ralph Nader, and run them for President.All they can hope to do is play spoiler, as Nader did in 2000, and that just discredits the entire party.But suppose one actually won and became President.How would they get their ambitious agenda through a Congress where there were no members from their party?They would have to laboriously cobble together a different coalition on each issue.It would be a nightmare and would likely discredit 3rd parties for generations to come.

    The way a 3rd party needs to go is to focus on a few states where they are strongest.For the Greens that would probably be the Pacific Northwest and northern New England.Try to win state legislatures, governorships and run some good candidates for Congress.Prove you can do a good job running those states.

    This was the strategy used by the NDP in Canada.They started as the CCF in Saskatchewan in the 1930s and ran that province for many years. When they became a national party, they had credibility and were key to many of the most important advances in Canadian history,incuding universal health care and pensions, which were enacted by minority governments that depended on the NDP to stay in power.Now, after last year’s election, the NDP is the #2 national party and the official opposition in Parliament and has a real shot at governing when people tire of the Conservatives, as they will.

    The key though is to start at the state/local level and build your credibility.Unfortuntely, Americans tend to be impatient and none of the 3rd parties have tried to go that route.

  145. donna says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:25 pm  (Quote)

    me thinks that the autopsy of the 2012 election will provide for a revolution between the tea party and the establishment

    the 2 factions needed each other to form a coalition against obama – alone they were too small and, looking at demographic trends, they will be even smaller on the future

  146. donna says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:31 pm  (Quote)

    Illinois Ballot Challenge–OVERRULED

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=23543

  147. Scientist says:
    September 24, 2012 at 12:53 pm  (Quote)

    G: Regardless of what any of us think about how “independent” the Tea Party ever was from the GOP in the first place, their people have swooped in and taken over much of the lower level party machines and have obtained numerous state and federal office positions.

    I don’t think the Tea Party was ever anything but a wing of the Republican party. I happened to have CNBC on when Rick Santelli gave his rant from the trading floor iin Chicago in Februry of 2009. My thought was, “A populist movement led by bond traders? Weren’t they part of the structure that made the mess in the first place?” The whole thing seemed pre-planned. And I have read later that it was.

    And then lo-and-behold, within a couple of months, up pops Dick Armey, Republican House Majority Leader during the Bush years, who is sort of coordinating the whole thing. So, no, I don’t see them as ever having been a real 3rd party. And what in their platform was ever different from the GOP? Damned if I know.

  148. gorefan says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm  (Quote)

    While waiting for the Mississippi results, AnitaMaria at the fogbow has posted this story about the Vermont Ballot Challenge:

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120924/NEWS03/309240014/Request-to-get-Obama-off-Vermont-ballot-denied?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

    The judge noted that there is no evidence that President Obama is not a natural born citizen.

  149. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm  (Quote)

    Another one goes down in instant flames. That makes the 10th straight loss for Mario Apuzzo.

    gorefan:
    While waiting for the Mississippi results, AnitaMaria at the fogbow has posted this story about the Vermont Ballot Challenge:

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120924/NEWS03/309240014/Request-to-get-Obama-off-Vermont-ballot-denied?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

    The judge noted that there is no evidence that President Obama is not a natural born citizen.

  150. Arthur says:
    September 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm  (Quote)

    G: Another one goes down in instant flames. That makes the 10th straight loss for Mario Apuzzo.

    And how interesting that Mario hasn’t updated his blog since August 8th. Now that’s two failures he’s going to have to spin.

  151. G says:
    September 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm  (Quote)

    He was too busy crapping his same bloviated talking points across other sites. He infested NBC’s site for awhile and Squeeky was having quite a bit of fun with easily ripping apart a lot of his other “gems” that were turning up on various blogs too…

    He seems to go through these bizarre manic phases. Orly seems to have her own periods of manic activity. Although they manifest a bit differently, I think both are signs of underlying psychological and mental problems…

    Arthur: And how interesting that Mario hasn’t updated his blog since August 8th. Now that’s two failures he’s going to have to spin.

  152. bovril says:
    September 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm  (Quote)

    Foolish G…. 😎

    If you had been folowing the epic continuing Mario Fest over at Amazon you would have seen how according to The Putz, every loss is in fact A WIN…..

    Quite terminally sad…..

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R21QR4ZLQBQ2NN/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg112?ie=UTF8&asin=0578086646&cdForum=Fx17ZI2ION56WNC&cdPage=112&cdThread=TxOS1MU339U7Q8&store=books#wasThisHelpful

    (at 1,116 posts this may well be the longest post thread on such an inconsequential tome in Amazon history)

  153. Rickey says:
    September 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm  (Quote)

    Mitt Romney, quoted today in the L.A. Times:

    “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.”

    Really? He doesn’t know why the windows in airplanes don’t open?

    He was talking about the incident where his wife’s plane had to make an emergency landing, but – really?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922,0,2317962.story

  154. MattR says:
    September 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm  (Quote)

    Rickey:
    Mitt Romney, quoted today in the L.A. Times:

    “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.”

    Really? He doesn’t know why the windows in airplanes don’t open?

    He was talking about the incident where his wife’s plane had to make an emergency landing, but – really?

    Nor does he seem to understand what happens when you add oxygen to a fire. Also, I am no expert, but it is my understanding that the oxygen masks on planes have a separate source that would not have been affected by the fire and could/should have been deployed if the oxygen levels in the cabin got too low (it would not shock me if there were sensors that did this automatically)

  155. MattR says:
    September 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm  (Quote)

    Scientist: The key though is to start at the state/local level and build your credibility. Unfortuntely, Americans tend to be impatient and none of the 3rd parties have tried to go that route.

    I definitely agree with this. I would say the impatience is the biggest obstacle and not just in terms of a 3rd party. I really wish I could remember who I heard on Bill Maher’s show in 2004 (ish) defending his Nader vote in 2000 and pointing out that we will never reap the benefits of long term change if we are not willing to suffer a little short term pain to get there.

  156. Tarrant says:
    September 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm  (Quote)

    I don’t believe the Republican Party will survive as it is beyond one or two more cycles – I know many people who might vote for their candidates were it not for their general stances on social issues.

    I believe a Goldwater-style Republican would be very attractive to the independent electorate these days – a “Let’s tackle fiscal policy” person with a “Live and let live” approach to the social issues such as gay rights, women’s issues, faith, etc.

    Unfortunately the base has no interest in that – Romney as governor of Massachusetts did an OK job on that front, but he’s prohibited from running on that record by his base, which forces him to recant and apologize whenever he brings up his previous governing style. There was a time when leading “establishment” Republicans saw the religious right as a group to take advantage of for their votes while shutting them out of real decision making…now they run large sectors of the party and said former “leaders” are clueless as to how to resolve the problem – I know a lot of people who were flat-out scared of sepne like Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry taking the nomination because of their stance on social issues.

    America’s views on many of these issues have evolved over time, and as time goes on the Republican Party will either have to adapt to the new social realities or fade into a Southern party. If the base won’t let them, the moderates are going to have to either take control or find themselves in a party that independents would vote for if only they didn’t think the priority would be to change science standards and define “legitimate” rape.

  157. Arthur says:
    September 24, 2012 at 10:47 pm  (Quote)

    You’ve got to read the article about this ill-informed Republican who just happens to be one of his party’s representatives in the Electoral College:

    “Jim Grinols subscribes to Ronald Reagan’s motto: trust but verify.

    “That’s why the Woodbury man is seeking something he believes has never been requested before in American history. Grinols, one of 10 nominated Minnesotan electors for the Republican Party, is requesting the original birth certificates from GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and running mate Paul Ryan.

    “‘Each elector has the particular responsibility to assure that the candidate of his or her party is constitutionally eligible,’ Grinols wrote in a letter mailed this week to Romney.

    Grinols said he has no suspicion to believe neither Romney nor Ryan meet the criteria for office, “but I’m into trust but verify.”

    “He said the issue was crystallized recently when he took his son to get his driver’s license. Grinols’ son was turned away after supplying the state with a print-off of his birth certificate he obtained on the Internet.”

    Rest of the article is here:

    http://www.woodburybulletin.com/event/article/id/41958/group/homepage/

  158. RuhRoh says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:30 pm  (Quote)

    Arthur: Grinois then reverses himself in the comments at WND and says of course he will vote for Romney. He WAS demanding that Romney and Ryan supply their BC’s to his attorney, MARIO APUZZO.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/eligibility-challenge-arises-in-electoral-college/

  159. RuhRoh says:
    September 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm  (Quote)

    You should all come over to WND and argue with Grinols. My goodness he is dense. He thinks that by refusing to vote for Romney, he will force an investigation of Obama in the Electoral College. I kid you not.

  160. Arthur says:
    September 25, 2012 at 12:21 am  (Quote)

    RuhRoh: You should all come over to WND and argue with Grinols

    Nah, I’m done with arguing. First off, I don’t really have a command of the facts that other people do, and second, it just doesn’t seem to do any good. The courts are much better than I am at separating right from wrong, winners from losers.

  161. Keith says:
    September 25, 2012 at 2:12 am  (Quote)

    G: In order to have a broader multi-party structure that was viable in our system, you would have to change the voting structure to some mulit-tier runoff format, requiring a majority vote to win instead of just a plurality.

    Or a preferential system, like in Australia, and a few other places. Wikipedia calls the Australian preferential system an “instant runoff voting”

    When you vote, you rank all the candidates, from first preference to last. Then they count all the first preference votes. If no one candidate has a majority, they take the eliminate the last place candidate and distribute the second preferences from his ballots. This then repeats through each preference ‘tier’ until some candidate gains a majority.

    I personally don’t like it, but I grew up used to the two-party system and plurality voting. I’m used to it, I comfortable with it. But I understand that different systems exist, and they aren’t better or worse, they are just different.

  162. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 2:15 am  (Quote)

    Good points. The preferential model is another possibility…

    Keith: Or a preferential system, like in Australia, and a few other places. Wikipedia calls the Australian preferential system an “instant runoff voting”

    When you vote, you rank all the candidates, from first preference to last. Then they count all the first preference votes. If no one candidate has a majority, they take the eliminate the last place candidate and distribute the second preferences from his ballots. This then repeats through each preference ‘tier’ until some candidate gains a majority.

    I personally don’t like it, but I grew up used to the two-party system and plurality voting. I’m used to it, I comfortable with it. But I understand that different systems exist, and they aren’t better or worse, they are just different.

  163. Slartibartfast says:
    September 25, 2012 at 2:48 am  (Quote)

    Personally, I like the “instant runoff” system—but I’m biased towards more interesting dynamics (as you say, it’s not really better or worse [I would say that it’s better at some things and worse at others, but that’s a whole other discussion… ;-P ]).

    I think that the suggestion about a third party starting at the local level was a good one—work your way up from school boards and city councils to state legislatures and eventually governorships and Congress. As soon as you can, start running presidential primaries in as many states as possible, but always have your candidate endorse one of the major party candidates at some point before the election (probably before their name is printed on the ballots). After a candidate endorses one of their opponents, they should (as much as finances allow) keep campaigning for that person (or themselves if they decide not to endorse an opponent—the point being to prevent a Nader-Gore situation unless the candidate had a legitimate chance to win or honestly had no preference between the two alternatives). As your party becomes a significant minority in Congress, you keep moving back the endorsement—developing a voting block that the candidate essentially has a proxy for. This seems like a way to get your platform heard and give the mainstream candidates incentive to support your policy goals while you built the kind of organization it would take to win the presidency. This model could be used on smaller scales as well.

    Can anyone tell me why it wouldn’t work?

    Keith: I personally don’t like it, but I grew up used to the two-party system and plurality voting.

  164. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 3:43 am  (Quote)

    I like what you suggest. It makes sense and helps grow and develop coalitions within office to effect the change that 3rd party is advocating for.

    I’m not a fan of our entrenched two-party system and I have a lot of sympathy for independent and minor-party involvement in our system. But I’m also a pragmatic realist. So I like what you propose. Personally, even in the limits of today’s structure, I wish that the 3rd parties had more of a voice, visibility and financial support during the entire process.

    I would actually love to see Gary Johnson or some of the other larger scale 3rd party contenders in some form of televised debate (right now, based on ballot access, I would say that would also include Virgil Goode, Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson). I think the pollsters should be including their names as well.

    While I understand well the argument made about “spoilers” within a two-party system, I also hold to the ideal of people getting to vote for the candidate of their choice and realize that there are folks out there who wouldn’t otherwise vote, if they didn’t have these additional options that more closely suit their personal political interests. I am against any type of voter suppression and that includes what I’ve always perceived as a widespread suppression against allowing a voice for these lesser parties to be heard and grow on their own merits.

    If we truly had a more level playing field during the whole process, including public awareness, then maybe our two-party structure wouldn’t always end up with the same two dominant parties as the top-two tier contenders for each race. Woudn’t it be nice if they each came down to the best two candidates for that particular race, where the combo of which two parties provided the candidates choices for the general election might vary by race? Wishful thinking, I know.

    Slartibartfast:
    Personally, I like the “instant runoff” system—but I’m biased towards more interesting dynamics (as you say, it’s not really better or worse [I would say that it’s better at some things and worse at others, but that’s a whole other discussion… ;-P ]).

    I think that the suggestion about a third party starting at the local level was a good one—work your way up from school boards and city councils to state legislatures and eventually governorships and Congress.As soon as you can, start running presidential primaries in as many states as possible, but always have your candidate endorse one of the major party candidates at some point before the election (probably before their name is printed on the ballots).After a candidate endorses one of their opponents, they should (as much as finances allow) keep campaigning for that person (or themselves if they decide not to endorse an opponent—the point being to prevent a Nader-Gore situation unless the candidate had a legitimate chance to win or honestly had no preference between the two alternatives).As your party becomes a significant minority in Congress, you keep moving back the endorsement—developing a voting block that the candidate essentially has a proxy for.This seems like a way to get your platform heard and give the mainstream candidates incentive to support your policy goals while you built the kind of organization it would take to win the presidency.This model could be used on smaller scales as well.

    Can anyone tell me why it wouldn’t work?

  165. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 4:00 am  (Quote)

    You make very valid points here and I agree – the Tea Party was never truly an independent 3rd party – they were mainly a part of the disgruntled GOP base that wanted to pretend they didn’t have the taint of GWB’s failures on them, by calling themselves something different.

    Sure, they’ve attracted a few conservative Libertarians and Constitutionalists… but they were mostly ultra-conservative GOP base voters all along.

    What they do represent, however, is an activist faction of the “true believer” base that found a way to obtain actual power within their party structure, instead of just serving their Establishment masters that conveniently always use and rile them up, but otherwise only pay lip service to them…

    …unfortunately, the Tea Party is one of the craziest wings in the GOP tent… so their getting into power is only bad and embarrasing for the country. They truly are an angry mob of mislead and delusional ignorants who would burn the house down…

    But their method of sweeping into power should be looked at and studied by the real third-party movements out there, if those groups want to have a serious voice in our system of governance.

    Scientist: I don’t think the Tea Party was ever anything but a wing of the Republican party.I happened to have CNBC on when Rick Santelli gave his rant from the trading floor iin Chicago in Februry of 2009.My thought was, “A populist movement led by bond traders? Weren’t they part of the structure that made the mess in the first place?”The whole thing seemed pre-planned.And I have read later that it was.

    And then lo-and-behold, within a couple of months, up pops Dick Armey, Republican House Majority Leader during the Bush years, who is sort of coordinating the whole thing. So, no, I don’t see them as ever having been a real 3rd party.And what in their platform was ever different from the GOP?Damned if I know.

  166. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 4:17 am  (Quote)

    I agree that such an administration would have its work cut out for itself cobbling different coalitions together for different issues, but I’m not so sure it would end in the result you suggest. We simply don’t have a test at that level of government to be sure.

    Frankly, there are a lot of times where good policy is hindered in getting passed, simply because a President can’t go against their own party… or where the reflexive obstructionism to the administration is merely about not wanting to give the opposing party a victory (in other words, the entire GOP playbook against Obama 1st term). So, I can also see an argument where an independent administration might have an easier time and even be able to keep the public (via the bully pulpit) on its side, by seeming to be above the fray of the bitter dual-party partisanship in Congress.

    Besides, a number of states have successfully had independent governors in the past and have been able to manage navigating these same pitfalls with their legislatures.

    One additional point to add to that mix – there are a lot of positions that have to be filled in an administration. An independent or third-party candidate who won the Presidency would probably end up having quite a few appointed positions filled with folks from one or both of the main two parties, simply due to wanting qualified experience for those positions. So those experienced voices, with their own history of whichever major party affiliation, would be helpful surrogates in navigating that process of coalition building too.

    Bottom line, I don’t agree with the assumption that “It would be a nightmare and would likely discredit 3rd parties for generations to come”. I think a talented leader and administration could pull this type of scenario off and in some cases, might even be less hamstrung than what we see under the current dynamics.

    Scientist: But suppose one actually won and became President. How would they get their ambitious agenda through a Congress where there were no members from their party? They would have to laboriously cobble together a different coalition on each issue. It would be a nightmare and would likely discredit 3rd parties for generations to come.

  167. Scientist says:
    September 25, 2012 at 6:45 am  (Quote)

    G: Bottom line, I don’t agree with the assumption that “It would be a nightmare and would likely discredit 3rd parties for generations to come”. I think a talented leader and administration could pull this type of scenario off and in some cases, might even be less hamstrung than what we see under the current dynamics.

    I am going to do something Mike Godkin has probably never done in his entire life- agree that I might have been wrong and that you have a point. A very talented leader could probably govern successfully as an independent President. I still feel, however, that building a true thrid party with lasting impact would be best accomplished by beginning at the state and local level, and moving on to win seats in Congress from those states before tackling the presidency,

  168. Lupin says:
    September 25, 2012 at 6:52 am  (Quote)

    At the risk of repeating myself, political parties are only as good as the people pulling their strings.

    My “fears” (as it were) are not that the Democrats won’t prevail and the GOP is breaking up, but that the Democrats will (even more than they are now) become an arm of the plutocrats.

    The real battle isn’t between Dems and GOP but between the % and the rest of you (us).

  169. Keith says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:09 am  (Quote)

    The HuffPo electoral map shows Obama with 371 ‘strong’ electoral votes, and another 60 ‘leaning’. (370 to win). That puts him on target for a bigger win than in 2008.

    A ‘strong’ rating seems to mean a 6% lead or more. Arizona is currently listed as strong Romney with a 6% lead. Two weeks ago Romney’s lead in Arizona was 11% by HuffPo’s reckoning. At this rate Arizona will be in play in two weeks, in four Romney South Carolina and Georgia might be in play too.

    I have to start looking at the House now. That is going to be the story of the election. How long are Obama’s coattails.

  170. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:12 am  (Quote)

    Absolutely.

    Scientist: I still feel, however, that building a true thrid party with lasting impact would be best accomplished by beginning at the state and local level, and moving on to win seats in Congress from those states before tackling the presidency,

  171. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:33 am  (Quote)

    Correction, Keith. They have Obama with 271 ‘strong’ electoral votes and 61 ‘leaning’.

    That comes to 332 total, out of 270 needed to win (not 370 as you said). He received 365 EV in 2008, so all the current forecast models still have him projected for a smaller win than 2008.

    It looks like Huffpo’s model is starting to mirror what electoral-vote.com has been showing. When I see more of these forecast models start to mirror each other, I take that as another indicator of the trends really solidifying.

    My own personal forecast since summer has been similar, with my target EV goal for Obama being 347 EVs, which is all of the states he won last time, minus IN. The only difference between the HuffPo & electoral-vote models and the 347 is that NC is still leaning red at this time. I am still predicting that Obama and his ground game will get that one over the top and put it into his column too, by election day.

    The key thing here is that HuffPo is declaring 271 as “safe” for Obama…considering that only 270 are needed to win.

    Then again, their ratings here are quite a bit more “bullish” than the other model forecasts. For instance, electoral-vote only puts 215 EVs into the “safe” column (or as they call it, “strongly”) for Obama, with another 113 EVs that would fall under leaning (what they call “likely” (45) and “barely” (68)).

    Quite a few of the other major forecasts (CNN, etc.) are showing even smaller numbers than that…but I think some of those others are remaining too bearish for news cycle “horse race” purposes…just as HuffPo’s results are on the bullish end. I look at a lot of the models, but my own analysis has most closely mirrored electoral-vote.com’s results this cycle.

    Keith:
    The HuffPo electoral map shows Obama with 371 ‘strong’ electoral votes, and another 60 ‘leaning’. (370 to win). That puts him on target for a bigger win than in 2008.

    A ‘strong’ rating seems to mean a 6% lead or more. Arizona is currently listed as strong Romney with a 6% lead. Two weeks ago Romney’s lead in Arizona was 11% by HuffPo’s reckoning. At this rate Arizona will be in play in two weeks, in four Romney South Carolina and Georgia might be in play too.

    I have to start looking at the House now. That is going to be the story of the election. How long are Obama’s coattails.

  172. Slartibartfast says:
    September 25, 2012 at 11:10 am  (Quote)

    Scientist,

    While this statement from you is unsurprising, I find it very sad that neither Commie Mikhail nor any birther will likely ever be willing to do this very simple thing which tends to increase everyone’s perception of one’s integrity.

    Scientist: I am going to do something Mike Godkin has probably never done in his entire life- agree that I might have been wrong and that you have a point. A very talented leader could probably govern successfully as an independent President.I still feel, however, that building a true thrid party with lasting impact would be best accomplished by beginning at the state and local level, and moving on to win seats in Congress from those states before tackling the presidency,

  173. sfjeff says:
    September 25, 2012 at 1:26 pm  (Quote)

    RE: Obama likely to win

    How can this be? WND/Corsi has reported that Obama is buying a 35 or 40 million dollar home in Hawaii because he has secret polls that convince him he will lose.

    And its in WND. So it must be true- right?

  174. donna says:
    September 25, 2012 at 1:52 pm  (Quote)

    MN – Strange Ballot challenge.

    A challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president is forming within the Electoral College process, WND has confirmed.

    James Grinols, one of 10 presidential electors chosen by the Republican Party of Minnesota, is asking GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to provide his legal counsel, Mario Apuzzo, with their “paper, full form official certificate of birth with raised seal from the place of your birth.”

    Grinols told WND that if Romney and Ryan were to win his state, but they ignore his request to provide verification of their eligibility, he might not vote for the Republican candidates in the Electoral College.

    [NBC: Minnesota has not been red for quite some time and Nate Silver gives it a 95% chance of going with Obama]

    […]

    In an interview with WND, Grinols acknowledged he could not force presidential electors for Democrats in Minnesota or Republican presidential electors in any other state to join him in demanding to see the original birth certificates of presidential and vice presidential candidates.

    WND: Eligibility challenge arises in Electoral College

    Love those ‘birthers’, setting themselves up to lose time after time…

    Legal counsel Mario Apuzzo… Yes, that figures… Oh Mario… You do make us laugh…

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    will this be #11 lost for apuzzo

  175. Tarrant says:
    September 25, 2012 at 2:03 pm  (Quote)

    I like how WND is reporting an elector requesting documents from Romney and not mentioning President Obama at all as a challenge to Obama’s eligibility.

  176. MN-Skeptic says:
    September 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm  (Quote)

    donna:
    MN – Strange Ballot challenge.

    WND: Eligibility challenge arises in Electoral College

    Love those ‘birthers’, setting themselves up to lose time after time…

    Legal counsel Mario Apuzzo… Yes, that figures… Oh Mario… You do make us laugh…

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/

    will this be #11 lost for apuzzo

    Count on Apuzzo to hook up with an impotent birther. You’d think he’d at least have the brains to find a birther from a red state!

  177. Slartibartfast says:
    September 25, 2012 at 4:44 pm  (Quote)

    G,

    I’m not just thinking about avoiding a “spoiler” situation (although, as I said above, I see the difference between “bad” and “worse” as very significant), but also as a way of leveraging votes. Consider the following “Prisoner’s dilemma” Let’s say that a third party candidate is polling at 10% while her opponents are both between 40 and 50%. Let’s also say that her constituency has demonstrated that they will vote for the candidate she endorses rather than automatically voting for the candidate herself. The candidate has two options: to endorse an opponent or not to endorse an opponent. If she selects the latter, she has a voice (albeit a minor one) in the national discussion until the election—after which she’s got squat. It should also be noted that the front runner (who wins if she doesn’t endorse) is likely to be the candidate with positions farthest from her own, so a choice not to endorse is, in the minds of her constituents a choice of “worse” over “bad”. On the other hand, if she indicates that she plans to endorse one of her opponents, she still retains her voice (until she makes her endorsement), but it’s power is magnified enormously. Now the other candidates are in a prisoner’s dilemma of their own—woo her successfully or lose. Let’s say, in addition, that (having built the party from the ground up) her “day job” is US Senator (I know, it’s kind of stretching the imagination that a first-term senator would run for the presidency 😛 ). In that case, her endorsement would carry with it (most likely) an agreement to caucus with the endorsee’s party—which could come with, for instance, a powerful position in an important committee. At the very least, an agreement to pursue some of the candidates policy goals more vigorously that would have otherwise been done seems certain. In other words, she’s gone from also-ran to kingmaker—sacrificing (in my opinion) narcissism and ego, for wisdom, power, and concrete benefits. I’m not normally a one-issue voter, but this one seems pretty clear-cut to me. Do you think we would have been better or worse off if Ralph Nader had endorsed Al Gore in exchange for, say, a cabinet post and some policy concessions? I have no doubt that it would have swung the election to Vice President Gore. Exactly what did Mr. Nader’s constituents get because he was unwilling to sacrifice ????? (I’m not sure what, exactly, Mr. Nader got from staying in the race… but, according to the underpants gnomes, it leads to profit) and in doing so choose “worse” over “bad” for everyone?

    G: While I understand well the argument made about “spoilers” within a two-party system, I also hold to the ideal of people getting to vote for the candidate of their choice and realize that there are folks out there who wouldn’t otherwise vote, if they didn’t have these additional options that more closely suit their personal political interests. I am against any type of voter suppression and that includes what I’ve always perceived as a widespread suppression against allowing a voice for these lesser parties to be heard and grow on their own merits.

  178. LW says:
    September 25, 2012 at 5:03 pm  (Quote)

    Will Lena now include Madge on her subpoena list, or just add “Material Girl” as a bonus track on the DVD?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/madonna-obama-black-muslim_n_1912400.html

  179. Keith says:
    September 25, 2012 at 6:28 pm  (Quote)

    G: Correction, Keith. They have Obama with 271 ‘strong’ electoral votes and 61 ‘leaning’.

    Oops. Must have been something went wrong between eye and finger tip.

  180. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 7:01 pm  (Quote)

    Absolutely *loved* your entire post here, Slarti. A lot of excellent points for me to ponder and reflect upon!!! Especially this:

    Slartibartfast: Do you think we would have been better or worse off if Ralph Nader had endorsed Al Gore in exchange for, say, a cabinet post and some policy concessions? I have no doubt that it would have swung the election to Vice President Gore. Exactly what did Mr. Nader’s constituents get because he was unwilling to sacrifice ?????

    I really like the idea of that “noble compromise” tactic – support of an outside faction in exchange for a “seat at the table”, when there is some overlapping common goals between a minor-party competing faction and a major one. That is a good coalition building strategy you just suggested, in order to help these third-parties actually accomplish something, by having advocates end up in useful positions in an administration…

    The pragmatist in me is all for it!

  181. RuhRoh says:
    September 25, 2012 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    Bob over at the Fogbow found this case, in which Larry Klayman is revealed to have repeatedly inappropriately touched his children, refused to cooperate with the investigation, dragged out the litigation and ended up being ordered to pay his ex-wife’s legal fees of $325,000. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2012/2012-ohio-3354.pdf

    Birthers are the nicest people, eh?

  182. John Reilly says:
    September 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm  (Quote)

    I’m told the proper greeting this evening for our colleagues of the Jewish faith is “Have an easy fast.”

    So from this Roman Catholic, on this site run by a Lutheran, to our Jewish friends,

    Have an easy fast.

  183. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm  (Quote)

    Woah…that was quite the read.

    What a vexatious sleaze Klayman is! …I really was sickened to see the evidence of his inappropriate sexual touching of his own children too…

    The other interesting thing for me was seeing the Cleveland attorney firms listed. As I’ve done a lot of work downtown, those are names I’m aware of.

    RuhRoh:
    Bob over at the Fogbow found this case, in which Larry Klaymanis revealed to have repeatedly inappropriately touched his children, refused to cooperate with the investigation, dragged out the litigationand ended up being ordered to pay his ex-wife’s legal fees of $325,000. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2012/2012-ohio-3354.pdf

    Birthers are the nicest people, eh?

  184. Thrifty says:
    September 25, 2012 at 8:54 pm  (Quote)

    Joe Arpaio came up as one of the correct responses on Jeopardy today. I hate that I stumbled in finding the answer.

    On another note, I recently stated that while the Mitt Romney ads have disappeared from the Pennsylvania airwaves around here, they have been replaced by some very aggressive and frequent campaign ads for Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith. Smith is challenging Democratic incumbent Bob Casey. And I can see why he’s campaigning so aggressively: Casey leads by 11.6 points on average, and by as many as 19 points in one poll.

  185. Slartibartfast says:
    September 25, 2012 at 9:02 pm  (Quote)

    That’s bad news—President Obama can compete with the SuperPACs (they have a serious diminishing returns problem in the presidential race), but many down-ticket races cannot.

    Thrifty:
    Joe Arpaio came up as one of the correct responses on Jeopardy today.I hate that I stumbled in finding the answer.

    On another note, I recently stated that while the Mitt Romney ads have disappeared from the Pennsylvania airwaves around here, they have been replaced by some very aggressive and frequent campaign ads for Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith.Smith is challenging Democratic incumbent Bob Casey.And I can see why he’s campaigning so aggressively: Casey leads by 11.6 points on average, and by as many as 19 points in one poll.

  186. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 25, 2012 at 9:38 pm  (Quote)

    Thrifty:
    Joe Arpaio came up as one of the correct responses on Jeopardy today.I hate that I stumbled in finding the answer.

    Was the answer on the board “This racist, blustering sack of crap is best known for being a poor man’s Joe Don Baker.”?

  187. Slartibartfast says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:06 pm  (Quote)

    G:
    Absolutely *loved* your entire post here, Slarti.A lot of excellent points for me to ponder and reflect upon!!!Especially this:

    I really like the idea of that “noble compromise” tactic – support of an outside faction in exchange for a “seat at the table”, when there is some overlapping common goals between a minor-party competing faction and a major one.That is a good coalition building strategy you just suggested, in order to help these third-parties actually accomplish something, by having advocates end up in useful positions in an administration…

    The pragmatist in me is all for it!

    Same here. It also serves as a test for excessive ego—something we could use a lot less of in Washington.

    Here’s my $0.02 on what you said…

    G:

    I think one of the problems here, which I fault the third-parties themselves for, is that they don’t seem to take enough initiative to try to compensate for the stacked-deck set against them.

    Yeah—it’s okay to lament that the playing field isn’t level, but if you really want to change it, you got to play the game as best you can anyway. As the birthers continuously demonstrate, stomping your feet and crying and pouting doesn’t get you anywhere and any. day. now. never really happens. If a half dozen or so random people on a blog can come up with a bunch of good ideas on how to start from the grass roots and leverage any power you can get along the way, then anyone who isn’t doing something to compensate for their unfair disadvantage isn’t really trying. 😉

    If I were a serious third-party, I would hold my primary process much earlier than the others, and fight immediately after that to get ballot access, demand to be added to polling lists and try to seriously gather whatever funding and media attention they can get.

    I would submit that if you weren’t doing all of that you couldn’t really be considered a serious third party…

    They should realize that they need a larger lead-time, if they wish to seriously have a chance to introduce themselves and build up support.

    Not only do you need a larger lead time, but a different pacing as well—you’re essentially trying to convince people to give you their proxy rather than convincing them to vote for you. In other words, you need to show people that your values and goals are the same and convince them that you are capable of deciding the best way to advance your shared goals. I think that a long, slow “soaker”-type campaign filled with substantive policy positions would work best, but in any case you would have to realize that it isn’t a standard campaign so it calls for different tactics.

    They also need to not make stupid moves, like refusing to take donations larger than $200…. in their situation, whether their principles disagree with the current campaign financing environment or not, they need to take whatever they can get to legitimately compete, even if they wish to reform the system in principle.

    That’s right—you don’t try to repeal Citizen’s United by limiting the size of your contributions to what you think should be right, you start a superPAC of your own and start wooing billionaires. If you are completely open with your finances (while scrupulously obeying the letter of the law) and completely honest about your intent (to prevent just this sort of distortion of the political process) it becomes a positive and illustrates the hypocrisy of your opponents. Win-win.

    They can’t improve the system if they can’t win…or at least accomplish what Slarti has suggested under the Open Forum – angle for trading their support for an administrative position that might be able to affect change.

    Even just being a kingmaker builds power for the future—the value of your endorsement rises and if the decisions you’ve made turn out well then people start thinking that you are good at making those decisions and start wondering why they don’t vote for you instead of their guy… It’s like using all of a plant or animal—take every scrap of advantage you can get out of a situation and eventually they will start reinforcing each other. That’s how virtuous cycles are built.

    But the polling organizations and the media are also a big hurdle here – they need to start including these potentially legitimate underdog contenders as choices on a consistent basis and start the process much earlier on.

    So develop low cost alternative polling methods (data mining the web, for instance) and build your party infrastructure from the grassroots. Once you start to have a significant impact on the races that are being polled, pollsters will have to include you or clients wont want their inaccurate results and as for the media, you just have to present them with a compelling story line that they can sell—David and Goliath isn’t a bad one… 😉

    How can one register support levels, if their name doesn’t even come up?How can one build support if the system is conspiring to keep from letting them be heard?

    That’s why it has to start from the grassroots—the media and polling (for the most part) don’t exist at those levels. Eventually, enough local representation in a region forms a wedge to move to the next level and once your support at that level reaches a point where you can affect the election your voice becomes significant. Besides, if the system is rigged to prevent you from being heard, there is this thing called the interwebs, which, if I understand correctly, is a series of toobz, which has been used, upon occasion, to magnify the voice of individuals or groups enormously. 😛

    I think that the most important thing to realize is that you are not playing the same game as your opponents (who are merely out to win the election). You cannot succeed by their victory conditions (at first), but if you can achieve tangible, if modest, successes you can begin to lay the foundation for eventually getting to their level.

    I’m just throwing out some possible solutions—and if there is one solution then there is probably a better solution out there—but it seems to me that while all of these problems would need to be addressed (in due course), none of them are insurmountable.

  188. G says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:20 pm  (Quote)

    EXACTLY!!!

    Slarti, maybe you and I are in the wrong line of work… maybe we should consider teaming up and forming a consulting firm to help third party movements get their acts together…

    Slartibartfast: That’s right—you don’t try to repeal Citizen’s United by limiting the size of your contributions to what you think should be right, you start a superPAC of your own and start wooing billionaires. If you are completely open with your finances (while scrupulously obeying the letter of the law) and completely honest about your intent (to prevent just this sort of distortion of the political process) it becomes a positive and illustrates the hypocrisy of your opponents. Win-win.

    …

    Slartibartfast: I’m just throwing out some possible solutions—and if there is one solution then there is probably a better solution out there—but it seems to me that while all of these problems would need to be addressed (in due course), none of them are insurmountable.

  189. john says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:37 pm  (Quote)

    Mike Zullo showed up at the Tri-County Tea Party last night in Lady Lake, Florida. Zullo spoke about the birth certificate. Zullo has said he has extended an open invitation to any Obot (I guess that would include Doc C and John Woodman) who can debunk the CCP investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. That is, Zullo offers an open invitation for any obot to come to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and show how the anomilies found in Obama’s birth certificate can be replicated by scanning a Hawaii birth certificate into a PDF file as was done with Obama’s BC.

  190. john says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:44 pm  (Quote)

    Zullo indicated no Obots have made the challenge yet. Zullo explained his personal opinion about Obama’s forged birth certificate. Here it is:

    Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate is a FAKE – Period.

    Zullo believes Obama is immune to the crimes of forgery due to plausible deniability.

    Zullo believes a birth certificate does exist within the Hawaii DOH.

    Zullo believes Obama did receive 2 copies of of his Birth Certificate on behalf of Perkins Coi Law Firm.

    Zullo believes the forgery was necessary because Obama’s BC is AMENDED or ALTERED and is indicated as such.

    Zullo believes the forgery was necessary because Obama couldn’t show his birth certificate that had been amended or altered.

  191. john says:
    September 25, 2012 at 10:50 pm  (Quote)

    Zullo believes that Obama probably amended or altered the birth certificate sometime in 2008 probably when he was to Hawaii to visit his dying grandma. Zullo’s theory is very plausible.

    It explains why a forgery was necessary.

    It explains why Hawaii will never show the original or the microfilm.

    It explains why Alvin Onaka wouldn’t verify the PDF BC as being a “True and Accurate” representation merely that it only matched as asked by AZ SOS Bill Bennett.

    It explains why Alvin Onaka wouldn’t verify the PDF BC as being “Identical” merely that it only matched as asked by Kansas.

    The big question now remains – If Obama’s BC is amended or altered then what was changed on the BC and why.

  192. Keith says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:42 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast: G:
    Absolutely *loved* your entire post here, Slarti.A lot of excellent points for me to ponder and reflect upon!!!

    G: EXACTLY!!!

    Slarti, maybe you and I are in the wrong line of work… maybe we should consider teaming up and forming a consulting firm to help third party movements get their acts together…

    Will you two get a room?

  193. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:50 am  (Quote)

    Altered from what to what? In 1961 Hawaii only issued certificates for people born in Hawaii. (Zullo lied about this not being the case — read the law). Utter nonsense with the word “plausible” scribbled on it in ballpoint pen.

    john: Zullo believes the forgery was necessary because Obama couldn’t show his birth certificate that had been amended or altered.

  194. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:52 am  (Quote)

    Hardly a serious offer since he knows from the start that no Obot has an original birth certificate for President Obama to run the test with.

    john: That is, Zullo offers an open invitation for any obot to come to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and show how the anomilies found in Obama’s birth certificate can be replicated by scanning a Hawaii birth certificate into a PDF file as was done with Obama’s BC.

  195. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:56 am  (Quote)

    Wouldn’t you agree, John, that I have thoroughly and completely debunked the part of the CCP investigation dealing with the penciled codes on the birth certificate? I think anyone, no matter what their overall opinions on the subject of Obama’s birth would agree that this is done.

    And I would further say that I and others have thoroughly and completely debunked the part of the CCP investigation dealing with the assignment of certificate numbers, showing that in no way are they assigned in the order of the time of birth. Wouldn’t you agree?

    What say you?

    john: Zullo has said he has extended an open invitation to any Obot (I guess that would include Doc C and John Woodman) who can debunk the CCP investigation into Obama’s birth certificate.

  196. Loren says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:22 am  (Quote)

    john:
    Zullo offers an open invitation for any obot to come to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and show how the anomilies found in Obama’s birth certificate can be replicated by scanning a Hawaii birth certificate into a PDF file as was done with Obama’s BC.

    What an excellent idea! Someone could go and prove, to Zullo’s subjective satisfaction, that the anomalies he perceives are explicable. That’ll resolve everything!

    Oh, except that Zullo *already says* that even if the long-form wasn’t created by a computer, that still doesn’t prove that it’s an authentic copy of a real Hawaiian document.

    So one could try to prove that too. Except Zullo *already says* that even if it’s an authentic copy of a Hawaiian document, that still doesn’t prove that Obama was born in Hawaii due to supposed fraud.

    Even then, Zullo *already says* that even if you prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, that still doesn’t prove who Obama’s parents are.

    And lest you think that settles it, Zullo *already says* that Obama’s Selective Service card is fraudulent (even though he’s admitted that the one he’s looking at was produced by the Selective Service itself in response to an FOIA request), so he still has a whole separate mass of theories unrelated to Obama’s birth.

    So yeah, visiting the Sheriff’s office sounds like it would be SUCH a productive use of time.

  197. Lupin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:48 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: Of course, if you’re not familiar with American history and just want to take pot shots at America whenever you can, it’s easy to miss this.

    You can’t stop being an a**hole, can you?

    While I hope G is right, I don’t entirely think that the future can be patterned after the past, in this case.

    Take England, for instance. We’ve reached a stage where many of my British friends find the Blair-incarnation of Labor nearly indistinguishable from the Conservatives; they voted LibDem last time, only to see them swallowed up by the Conservatives. It’s very disheartening to them because, while they have three parties they can vote for, they all substantially offer the same policies.

    Your Democrats are arguably already to the right of Richard Nixon in several substantial areas. Yes, hypothetically, you may end up with another party to replace a fractured GOP, but I’m not convinced that you’d end up with a real choice either. As much as I love and admire Bill Clinton, let’s remember that he the architect of a sharp turn to the right for the Democratic Party.

  198. Lupin says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:02 am  (Quote)

    G: maybe we should consider teaming up and forming a consulting firm to help third party movements get their acts together…

    I found this article by the always excellent and thought-provoking Matt Taibi excellent and pertinent to the discussion:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

    Why is your political process NOT adequately representing your population? According to Taibi ” the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio”

    Food for thought.

  199. The Magic M says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:16 am  (Quote)

    > In an interview with WND, Grinols acknowledged he could not force presidential electors for Democrats in Minnesota or Republican presidential electors in any other state to join him

    In related news, Kim Jong Un acknowledged he cannot force Americans to join the festivities proclaiming him Supreme Leader of the World.

    Well, sometimes certain wordings are making me scratch my head. It seems it shows at least the desire to be able to “force” others to do his bidding. Petty little wannabe-dictators, those birthers, all of them…

  200. ballantine says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:34 am  (Quote)

    And Zullo is just trying to change the burden of proof. He can’t prove it’s a fake so he challanges someone to prove he is wrong. Not how things work. Apario is smart enough to know any prosecutor would laugh at his evidence as it is not evidence at all.

  201. G says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:38 am  (Quote)

    THAT was an awesome article…! Spot on!!

    My favorite part:

    To me the biggest reason the split isn’t bigger is the news media, which wants a close race mainly for selfish commercial reasons – it’s better theater and sells more ads. Most people in the news business have been conditioned to believe that national elections should be close.

    This conditioning leads to all sorts of problems and journalistic mischief, like a tendency of pundits to give equal weight to opposing views in situations where one of those views is actually completely moronic and illegitimate, a similar tendency to overlook or downplay glaring flaws in a candidate just because one of the two major parties has blessed him or her with its support (Sarah Palin is a classic example), and the more subtly dangerous tendency to describe races as “hotly contested” or “neck and neck” in nearly all situations regardless of reality, which not only has the effect of legitimizing both candidates but leaves people with the mistaken impression that the candidates are fierce ideological opposites, when in fact they aren’t, or at least aren’t always. This last media habit is the biggest reason that we don’t hear about the areas where candidates like Romney and Obama agree, which come mostly in the hardcore economic issues.

    He is spot on about the extent that the media deserves blame and also on how the plutocrats are screwing the rest of us…

    That article didn’t say anything that any thinking person didn’t already know…but sadly, it so rarely gets pointed out….so just publishing that article became a breath of fresh air…

    Lupin: I found this article by the always excellent and thought-provoking Matt Taibiexcellent and pertinent to the discussion:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

    Why is your political process NOT adequately representing your population? According to Taibi ” the power of our propaganda machine, which has conditioned all of us to accept the idea that the American population, ideologically speaking, is naturally split down the middle, whereas the real fault lines are a lot closer to the 99-1 ratio”

    Food for thought.

  202. The Magic M says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:40 am  (Quote)

    john: The big question now remains – If Obama’s BC is amended or altered then what was changed on the BC and why.

    You are free to come back when you’ve come up with answers (supported by actual evidence, not speculation) to your questions. 😉

    john: Zullo indicated no Obots have made the challenge yet.

    I will gladly provide Zullo with a similar challenge:
    I will provide a JPG of a photo taken of Zullo at one of his press conferences.
    Then I will ask him to duplicate that JPG using whatever means he sees fit.
    If he fails (the photo does not have exactly the same angle, or lighting, or the JPG is encoded differently or has a different file size), I will declare the photo a forgery and therefore Zullo a non-existing person.
    I mean, it’s common sense, who would forge a photo of Zullo if Zullo really existed and was present at the press conference?
    How about that?

    And I don’t like that someone who allegedly works for law enforcement plays a game of “shift the burden of proof”. Zullo still hasn’t proved zilch w.r.t. “birth certificate forgery”. The best he has done, in any world, is attack a PDF representation of a scan of a certified copy of a birth certificate. That’s a far cry from proving anything even with regard to the certified copy, let alone the original.
    But he is playing a game of “prove that no crime was committed”. And is using a refusal to indulge to such shenanigans as somehow “proof” that his “evidence” is irrefutable.
    How charming. That’s what you expect from a crank, not from law enforcement.

    What’s next, is he going to invite us to go to a crime scene, shoot some bullets in precisely the way that he found the holes and projectiles? And all that to “prove” that the accused did not commit the murder he is being accused of without any evidence? And then he would claim “no-one took us up on the challenge, therefore the guy is guilty”?
    How would you consider such an invitation, john? Would you think that is how law enforcement operates? Would you want to be on the receiving end of such “law enforcement operation”?

  203. Scientist says:
    September 26, 2012 at 12:03 pm  (Quote)

    Poll: Romney Ahead in Presidential Race, Say Replacement Refs

    NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—G.O.P. Presidential nominee Mitt Romney finally got some good news today as he found himself ahead of President Obama in a poll of N.F.L. replacement referees.

    The survey, which immediately lifted the spirits of the Romney campaign, was taken among replacement refs on the field during N.F.L. games that they were supposed to be officiating last Sunday and Monday.

    According to the poll, if the election were held today the replacement refs would have Mr. Romney beating President Obama by a score of 14-12.

    By a wide majority, the replacement refs “strongly agreed” with the statement, “I’m pretty sure I’m right about this but I need to talk it over with some other people first.”

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/poll-romney-ahead-in-presidential-race-say-replacement-refs.html#ixzz27amfwbcy

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/poll-romney-ahead-in-presidential-race-say-replacement-refs.html#entry-more

  204. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 12:18 pm  (Quote)

    john:

    Zullo believes…

    Yes, but if the only evidence you have that Zullo believes something is that Zullo said he believes it, how do you know that it’s indeed true that he does? The only thing Zullo’s ever proven is that he can lie with ease and confidence, and spontaneously. Oh, and that he has some rudimentary skill as a forger.

  205. bob j says:
    September 26, 2012 at 12:44 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    Zullo indicated no Obots have made the challenge yet.Zullo explained his personal opinion about Obama’s forged birth certificate.Here it is:

    Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate is a FAKE – Period.

    Zullo believes Obama is immune to the crimes of forgery due to plausible deniability.

    Zullo believes a birth certificate does exist within the Hawaii DOH.

    Zullo believes Obama did receive 2 copies of of his Birth Certificate on behalf of Perkins Coi Law Firm.

    Zullo believes the forgery was necessary because Obama’s BC is AMENDED or ALTERED and is indicated as such.

    Zullo believes the forgery was necessary because Obama couldn’t show his birth certificate that had been amended or altered.

    Usually I leave the john crazy alone, but this is a beautiful piece of ERRR?!?!?!

    Am I to understand the conspiracy involving Barack Hussein Obama II ascending to the presidency is unknown to him. Is that the plausible deniability you write of?

    And when you state that the President received his birth certificates on behalf of the law firm, how do you explain the process involved? To whom did Perkins Coie need to show a birth certificate? Who had the foresight for such an operation?

    And you have been very vocal of what Mr. Zullo believes; what can he prove?

    I believe he can prove nothing he believes.

    I really hope this is a leg yanking act john.

  206. John Potter says:
    September 26, 2012 at 12:58 pm  (Quote)

    So we go over to Zullo’s for some PDF’n goof times, demonstrate how such results could be produced (described on the pages herein about a trillion times) and then Zullo says, “Well sure, it could have happened that way, but that doesn’t mean it did. I mean, possibilities are not proof.”

    And then, the universe implodes.

  207. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm  (Quote)

    That calls for a corollary to Corsi’s law of evidence, which states “Corsi’s inability to find evidence constitutes evidence.” I reckon Zullo’s Corollary could be “Possibilities are only proof when there’s no proof they’re at all possible.”

    John Potter:
    and then Zullo says, “Well sure, it could have happened that way, but that doesn’t mean it did. I mean, possibilities are not proof.”

    And then, the universe implodes.

  208. Rickey says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    Mike Zullo showed up at the Tri-County Tea Party last night in Lady Lake, Florida.Zullo spoke about the birth certificate.Zullo has said he has extended an open invitation to any Obot (I guess that would include Doc C and John Woodman) who can debunk the CCP investigation into Obama’s birth certificate.That is, Zullo offers an open invitation for any obot to come to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and show how the anomilies found in Obama’s birth certificate can be replicated by scanning a Hawaii birth certificate into a PDF file as was done with Obama’s BC.

    Did Zullo explain why he refused John Woodman’s offer to meet with the CCP during the CCP’s so-called investigation?

  209. MattR says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm  (Quote)

    john: That is, Zullo offers an open invitation for any obot to come to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and show how the anomilies found in Obama’s birth certificate can be replicated by scanning a Hawaii birth certificate into a PDF file as was done with Obama’s BC.

    You can check out any time you’d like, but you can never leave.

    Yeah, I’m probably being paranoid in thinking that Zullo and Arapaio would find a way to get even with any person who comes into their jurisdiction and makes them look like liars and fools. It’s not like Arapaio has a history of abusing his power or anything.

  210. john says:
    September 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm  (Quote)

    “Altered from what to what? In 1961 Hawaii only issued certificates for people born in Hawaii. (Zullo lied about this not being the case — read the law). Utter nonsense with the word “plausible” scribbled on it in ballpoint pen.”

    Unless a family member lied and said he was born in Hawaii to get him US citizenship. Anyway, it’s possible Obama altered his BC to make appear he was born at Kapaloni Hospital and was delivered by a doctor. This could have come from some sort of information that he added later to BC to match up with his nativity story. This was probably done after 2007 because to COLB (issued in 2007) indicates no updates or amendments to it. The long form birth certificate if it has been altered or amended under Hawaii Law has no Prima Facia value. Therefore, Obama could not show a BC that was indicated as amended or updated. Therefore, a forgery had to be made to keep this hidden. Based on Butterdezillion’s research, Hawaii has in a number of way indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC is updated or amended. If true, Obama’s BC is legally nonvalid and he has no “real” birth certificate. The birth certificate would have to be validated in court with coorborating evidence.

  211. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 3:19 pm  (Quote)

    There are a lot of things wrong with this scenario.

    Birth certificates can be altered to correct mistakes, for example I could with some effort, expense and documentation, get my birth certificate corrected so that my father’s name is spelled correctly. But no amount of documentation is going to change a home birth to a hospital birth. The former Republican Director of the Department of Health personally viewed the original document and said that it was signed by a doctor.

    You use the curious phrase “Obama altered” but Obama is not the chief of vital records of Hawaii and he has no ability to alter anything.

    This whole scenario is wildly implausible requiring a massive conspiracy, while there is zero evidence Obama was born outside the US except for mistakes made by people who had no direct knowledge of where he was born in the first place.

    john: it’s possible Obama altered his BC to make appear he was born at Kapaloni Hospital and was delivered by a doctor.

  212. LW says:
    September 26, 2012 at 3:25 pm  (Quote)

    john: Zullo’s theory is very plausible.

    I strongly dislike the neologism “LOL,” but — I laughed out loud when I read this. Guffawed, actually.

  213. Sudoku says:
    September 26, 2012 at 3:32 pm  (Quote)

    Zullo’s theory is very preposterous.

    FIFY

    john: Zullo’s theory is very plausible.

  214. JoZeppy says:
    September 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm  (Quote)

    john: Unless a family member lied and said he was born in Hawaii to get him US citizenship.

    If that were the case, the BC wouldn’t have been signed by a doctor.

    john: Anyway, it’s possible Obama altered his BC to make appear he was born at Kapaloni Hospital and was delivered by a doctor. This could have come from some sort of information that he added later to BC to match up with his nativity story. This was probably done after 2007 because to COLB (issued in 2007) indicates no updates or amendments to it.

    And how exactly would he have done that? The information on the long form has been verified by the state of Hawaii as matching their records. President Obama has no access to the records of the state of Hawaii, so he couldn’t change the originals. If he did some sort of legal amendment to them, the state would just put in amended information, not change the original to make it appear like what it would have looked like if those changes were done originally. Your claims, like usual, make no sense what so ever.

    john: The long form birth certificate if it has been altered or amended under Hawaii Law has no Prima Facia value. Therefore, Obama could not show a BC that was indicated as amended or updated.

    Do you enjoy being wrong all the time? Completely false. If you alter your paper copy of a birth certificate, that particular piece of paper is invalid. If you go to a state and have a document amended or corrected, an amended document is just as valid as any other issued BC.

    john: Therefore, a forgery had to be made to keep this hidden.

    Except of course, the document has been verified by the state of Hawaii…

    john: Butterdezillion’s research, Hawaii has in a number of way indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC is updated or amended.

    And the man that lives by the dumpster outside my office building thinks the CIA is monitoring his thoughts….I tend to ignore the insane claims of the mentally unhinged. But yes, if we ignore the actual words that various people from the state government of Hawaii, and interpret them to mean the exact opposite of what we said, we have before us the theories of Butterhead.

    john: If true, Obama’s BC is legally nonvalid and he has no “real” birth certificate.

    And if my aunt had b@lls she’s be my uncle….your point?

    john: The birth certificate would have to be validated in court with coorborating evidence.

    Well, the President would produce the copy with the raised seal at his press conference, the court would admit it as a self authenticating document, and the case would be dismissed….but sure…what you said.

  215. gorefan says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:31 pm  (Quote)

    JoZeppy: not change the original to make it appear like what it would have looked like if those changes were done originally.

    There is a good example of that in the Virginia Sunahara death certificate. She was originally listed bys her father’s name (Tomiyo). This is struck out and the name Virginia was added with a notation that the change was made on August 29, 1961. She was born August 4th and died August 5th. The standard procedure for medical records is that when a change is made the original entry has a single line strike it out and the new information is then added.

    Her death cetificate along with her COLB can be viewed here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2933132/posts?q=1&;page=51

    Post # 70.

  216. Judge Mental says:
    September 26, 2012 at 4:37 pm  (Quote)

    Unless a family member lied and said he was born in Hawaii to get him US citizenship.

    I feel as if I’ve wandered into a time warp. You are suggesting the family committed a serious crime for which there is no conceivable credible motive.

    Why in the name of the flying spaghetti monster would the family of a hypothetical Barack Obama born in Kenya to Stanley Anne Dunham need to lie about anything to get him Us citizenship? A baby could be born in Kenya to a US citizen mother in 1961 and that mother could have very easily obtained at the very least naturalized US citizenship for that baby on her return to USA. There would be absolutely no need for the family to commit a very complicated fraud crime to obtain US citizenship for him.

    Arguably, that hypothetical baby Obama born in Kenya would actually even be a citizen at birth, depending upon so far untested interpretation of whether the law possibly making her too young to convey citizenship to her son at birth would have actually applied to her as someone who had not moved overseas on a permanent basis.

    I refuse to commit allow my common sense to commit hari-kiri by seriously entertaining the notion that the family of a half caste child in the 1961 social environment were prepared to commit serious fraud simply to remove the very slight possibility that the child born in those overseas circumstances might not be considered a NBC as a grown up and thus be ineligible for the Presidency, but eligible for everything else that a US citizen is eligible for.

    It’s absurd…you are suggesting a motiveless crime. It’s the thinking of a moron.

  217. gorefan says:
    September 26, 2012 at 5:35 pm  (Quote)

    Judge Mental: It’s absurd…you are suggesting a motiveless crime. It’s the thinking of a moron.

    It also assumes that in the days immediate after the birth, the grandparents researched US citizenship laws, realized that he was not automatically a US citizen and then researched Hawaii birth registration laws to know that they could in fact register him in Hawaii without actually having to produce a baby as evidence that there was a birth.

    If the grandparents had done such research they would know that upon returning to the US, his mother would be able to petition immediately for his naturalization under Section 322 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarron-Walters Act)

    Child Born Outside if the United States; Naturalization on Petition of Citizen Parent; Requirements and Exemptions

    Sec. 322 (a) A child born outside of the United States, one or both of whose parents is at the time of petitioning for the naturalization of the child, a citizen of the United States, either by birth or naturalization, may be naturalized if under the age of eighteen years and not otherwise disqualified from becoming a citizen by reason of section 313, 314, 315, or 318 of this Act, and if residing permanently in the United States, with the citizen parent, pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, on the petition of such citizen parent, upon compliance with all the provisions of this title, except that no particular period of residence or physical presence in the United States shall be required. If the child is of tender years he may be presumed to be of good character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

    BTW, notice that the parent has to be a US citizen by either “birth or naturalization”.

  218. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:03 pm  (Quote)

    Hey, the upper-class twit of the century (so far) is doing that sciency- thing again. He’s run the numbers and come up with a 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000 chance that President Obama’s really eligible.
    He says “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound.”

  219. Slartibartfast says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm  (Quote)

    Did he publish his method? If so, I’d like to take a look at his numbers… 😉

    Link, please?

    (by the way, it is inconceivable that he could be overtaken in the twit-of-the-century rankings—just the fact that I know who you are talking about is evidence of that…)

    Dave B.:
    Hey, the upper-class twit of the century (so far) is doing that sciency- thing again.He’s run the numbers and come up with a 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000 chance that President Obama’s really eligible.
    He says “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound.”

  220. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm  (Quote)

    He’s over at the Whirled Nut Deli.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-eligibility-odds-1-in-62-5-quintillion/
    He need not fear that persons of sound mind will be misled by the simplicity of his method.

  221. John Potter says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm  (Quote)

    Dave, thanks for that link! A crackup from the beginning (“Entire books have been written about the problems with the ‘birth certificate’ ” …. which naturally links to WND’s WTBC? page LOL (so, that’s one book, which was not entirely about any birth certificate, and which predates the LFBC and PDF madness … ) to the end, a list of 13 completely BS factors.

    Masturbatory math at its finest.

    Probabilistic cluelessness has cost old Goggle Eyes dearly once, yet he keeps dabbling.

    Anything to avoid honest work!

  222. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm  (Quote)

    I’d bet that Monckton really is a Sacha Baron Cohen character before I’d bet against President Obama’s eligibility. And I’m starting to wonder about Orly, too.

  223. John Potter says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm  (Quote)

    John Potter: a list of 13 completely BS factors.

    …. 3 of which aren’t even about the birth certificate! To give him credit he doesn’t deserve, he states those are the odds of Obama being eligible …. but Mustache Joe presents it as the odds of the BC being legit (which BC are we even talking about, Joe?).

    Taking this screamer of a presentation and managing to make it even dumber is an achievement. LM • JF =Stupid

  224. Slartibartfast says:
    September 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    That really pisses me off. What a complete and total wanker!

    Dave B.:
    He’s over at the Whirled Nut Deli.
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-eligibility-odds-1-in-62-5-quintillion/
    He need not fear that persons of sound mind will be misled by the simplicity of his method.

  225. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm  (Quote)

    True enough. As a matter of fact, I think that’s going to be a featured event at Fulham this year.

    Slartibartfast:
    What a complete and total wanker!

  226. LW says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:41 pm  (Quote)

    Use of “African” … 20 years before the term came into common use

    I think even Sarah Palin would say that Africa was already a country long before 1981. (She’d probably think that a “demonym” was a kind of tiny devil, though.)

  227. Dave B. says:
    September 26, 2012 at 10:01 pm  (Quote)

    You’d think a guy in the habit of quoting the poet Horace, in Latin, would know that.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w833cAs9EN0

    LW: I think even Sarah Palin would say that Africa was already a country long before 1981.

  228. RuhRoh says:
    September 27, 2012 at 7:30 am  (Quote)

    Terry Hurlbut has penned a piece spoon-fed to him by Mario Apuzzo over at examiner.com. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-eligibility-and-constitutional-law

  229. Keith says:
    September 27, 2012 at 8:02 am  (Quote)

    In Re the 3rd Party discussion.

    Here’s a couple of beautiful posters with the complete history:

    David Walbert’s Timeline of U.S. Policical Parties

    History Shots: History of the Political Parties (the image here is zoomable, Click on it to get started)

  230. The Magic M says:
    September 27, 2012 at 9:03 am  (Quote)

    Dave B.: He says “Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method.

    Of course that is a required warning for the conspiracy audience. After all, simple explanations (like “Obama was born in Hawaii”) are “of the devil” to them. Anything that doesn’t require twisting one’s brain into a pretzel and reading the opposite of the literal meaning into anything is highly suspect to any conspiracy believer.
    He wouldn’t have needed the boilerplate if he had calculated the probability of Obama being eligible from the combined weather forecasts of Jakarta and Mombasa since Obama took office. “There’s less than a 1 in 190 corsillions probability that the weather was exactly like this unless Obama is an usurper.”

  231. G says:
    September 27, 2012 at 11:19 am  (Quote)

    YES!!! Those are both awesome visual maps of the parties that I like to use. To add to your second link, which mainly brings up the first part of that timeline, here is the second half poster, that takes it up to the present:

    http://www.historyshots.com/parties2/

    Keith:
    In Re the 3rd Party discussion.

    Here’s a couple of beautiful posters with the complete history:

    David Walbert’s Timeline of U.S. Policical Parties

    History Shots: History of the Political Parties (the image here is zoomable, Click on it to get started)

  232. RuhRoh says:
    September 27, 2012 at 12:11 pm  (Quote)

    A store in NYC is selling Birth Certificate Trays. http://www.fishseddy.com/browse.cfm/4,4396.html

    I found it on this blog, which also includes a photo of the window display consisting of a HUGE replica of the BC: http://urbaninfidel.blogspot.com/

  233. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 27, 2012 at 7:31 pm  (Quote)

    I added a new polling widget to the site from YouGov.com. I think this is a cool site for sharing and viewing opinions. I don’t know what the methodology for the widget is, so this is not an endorsement of the numbers.

  234. G says:
    September 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm  (Quote)

    My favorite part of it is that it has a tab for tracking Congressional generic ballot trendlines, something that I don’t see much mention about in other places.

    Personally, I’d love to see you add the map widget for electoral-vote.com, as the EV tracking is really what the Presidential Election comes down to.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I added a new polling widget to the site from YouGov.com. I think this is a cool site for sharing and viewing opinions. I don’t know what the methodology for the widget is, so this is not an endorsement of the numbers.

  235. Rickey says:
    September 27, 2012 at 8:40 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I added a new polling widget to the site from YouGov.com. I think this is a cool site for sharing and viewing opinions. I don’t know what the methodology for the widget is, so this is not an endorsement of the numbers.

    The numbers seem to be out of whack with the latest polls.

    Gallup Daily Tracking: Approve 50% Disapprove 44%
    Bloomberg: Approve 49% Disapprove 46%
    AP-Gfk: Approve 56%, Disapprove 40%
    NBC/Wall Street Journal: Approve 50% Disapprove 48%
    CBS/New York Times: Approve 51% Disapprove 42%

    http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

    The widget is showing the latest breakdown as 48%-48%, but 13 of the last 14 published national polls have Obama’s approval/disapproval advantage ranging from a low of 2 points to a high of 16 points, with the average spread 5 points.

  236. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    I added a Twitter widget just for funsies, showing the search term “birther”. You can reply to them if you have a Twitter account.

  237. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 28, 2012 at 7:30 pm  (Quote)

    OMG!!! Birthers set up SECRET Obot Tracking Group!!!

    http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/very-interesting-but-stupid-or-a-white-rose-by-any-other-name/

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  238. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 28, 2012 at 8:35 pm  (Quote)

    It doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: OMG!!! Birthers set up SECRET Obot Tracking Group!!!

  239. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm  (Quote)

    I really don’t know what the YouGov methodology is. It’s just a pretty widget.

    Rickey: The numbers seem to be out of whack with the latest polls.

  240. Slartibartfast says:
    September 28, 2012 at 9:04 pm  (Quote)

    Even if it did, one would assume that it would exhibit the competence characteristic to birther efforts.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It doesn’t pass the smell test.

  241. john says:
    September 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm  (Quote)

    Important Note: OK Senator Tom Coburn responds regarding plea for him to speak to Sheriff Arpaio about his investigation……

    Senator Tom Coburn refuses to listen – To Quote Coburn – “I do not support a congressional investigation into President Obama’s birth certificate at this time.”

    However Coburn does state that is is the STATES’S JOB and NOT CONGRESS’S job to resolve Presidential Eligbility questions for state ballots – To Quote Coburn – “It is the job of each individual state to determine whether a presidential candidate can appear on the presidential ballot, not the federal government.”

  242. Northland10 says:
    September 28, 2012 at 9:26 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It doesn’t pass the smell test.

    As quickly as butter pulled it back down, I wonder if she picked this up in an email she received. She put it up only to have somebody suggest that she was being pwnd.

  243. Thrifty says:
    September 29, 2012 at 4:24 am  (Quote)

    Slartibartfast:
    This should result in an amusing amount of birther cranial rupture…I believe that they are physically incapable of even thinking that someone could be worse than President Obama.

    Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad To Obama

  244. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 29, 2012 at 10:54 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It doesn’t pass the smell test.

    It does have a “fantasy” aura to it, but I would not put it past them to hire Susan Daniels to run checks on some of the opposition. This is not one of my creations, because I would sure have picked a better name than “White Rose.” Something like Birther Underground Truth Team. Then, the press releases would start off with: “We just got this from our BUTT!”

    From my copy, it looks like it originated with Butterdezillion. It was posted at her site at 4:01 PM, September 2012. We The Peeps has it at 5:48 PM, same day, and links back to BZ’s page.

    Plus, Pat at Bad Fiction found it at The Obama File where he attributes it to Butterdezillion:

    http://theobamafile.websitetoolbox.com/post/show_single_post?pid=1275144554&postcount=29

    Where he ends the piece with:

    “If Butterdezillion says it, you can take it to the bank.”

    Yeah, but will the bank take it??? That’s the question.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  245. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm  (Quote)

    I just made up a new name for Larry Klayman:

    Loser Suit Larry

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  247. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 29, 2012 at 10:13 pm  (Quote)

    Thank you! Feel free to use it. I hope it catches on.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  248. Slartibartfast says:
    September 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm  (Quote)

    Is that a homage to Leisure Suit Larry?

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
    I just made up a new name for Larry Klayman:

    Loser Suit Larry

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  249. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm  (Quote)

    I thought I saw Klayman on “Tim & Eric Awesome Show Great Job!”, but it turns out that it was just that two-bit Larry Klayman impersonator, Ed Begley Jr.

  250. Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter says:
    September 29, 2012 at 11:13 pm  (Quote)

    Slarti:

    Yep. Good old Larry “Laugher” is what Wiki said.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  251. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 7:37 am  (Quote)

    New Quote of the Day:

    Got email from birther re: Obama’s birth certificate. I responded with, “Floripng blinginghoop? #FightNonsenseWithNonsense

    — John Hlinko on Twitter

  252. Thrifty says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:05 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    New Quote of the Day:

    Got email from birther re: Obama’s birth certificate. I responded with, “Floripng blinginghoop? #FightNonsenseWithNonsense

    – John Hlinko on Twitter

    I’ve done that before on some other forums. When some lunatic starts crazying all over the board, I start responding with quotes from MegaHAL.

  253. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:10 am  (Quote)

    My articles are now Tweeted with the #birthernews and #birther tags.

  254. Majority Will says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:46 am  (Quote)

    Thrifty: I’ve done that before on some other forums.When some lunatic starts crazying all over the board, I start responding with quotes from MegaHAL.

    “COWS FLY LIKE CLOUDS BUT THEY ARE NEVER COMPLETELY SUCCESSFUL”

    Brilliant!

  255. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 30, 2012 at 10:02 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    New Quote of the Day:

    Got email from birther re: Obama’s birth certificate. I responded with, “Floripng blinginghoop? #FightNonsenseWithNonsense

    – John Hlinko on Twitter

    He can speak Bill Cosby? That’s AMAZING!

  256. john says:
    September 30, 2012 at 10:08 am  (Quote)

    If voters really want to Mitt Romney to win, then I encourage all GOP and Independent voters to start marking their money bills which whatever message they want to convey. Using our money bills to carry our political message across the nation is one of the potent political weapons around but everyone must do it.

    So mark your money bills today with “Vote Romney/Ryan on 11/06/2012!”

    Some say that marking money bills is iilegal but it is only illegal to deface or mutilate money WITH THE INTENT of making it unfit for circulation.

    We certainly don’t want the bills pulled from circulation. Free Speech would seem to prevail.

  257. G says:
    September 30, 2012 at 11:18 am  (Quote)

    LOL! I got a kick out of MegaHAL… conversing with that AI program is a cross between Theater of the Absurd and snippets of conversation from an insane asylum…

    Thrifty: I’ve done that before on some other forums. When some lunatic starts crazying all over the board, I start responding with quotes from MegaHAL.

  258. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm  (Quote)

    Reminds me of this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/marked-bills/

    john: So mark your money bills today with “Vote Romney/Ryan on 11/06/2012!”

  259. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm  (Quote)

    john:

    So mark your money bills today with “Vote Romney/Ryan on 11/06/2012!”

    And I’ll be sure to pocket any that pass my way, and spend them AFTER the election. Maybe buy a bread maker.

  260. G says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:45 pm  (Quote)

    Yeah, that clown is still at it with his marked bills strategy. He’s still a regular feature over at ORYR, touting this.

    Hilariously, he thinks his little gimmick means something…

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Reminds me of this:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/01/marked-bills/

  261. bgansel9 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm  (Quote)

    Transcript of Orly Taitz v Democratic Party of Mississippi (9/24) – Hilarious!

    Hey birthers. Wanna know what REALLY HAPPENED in Mississippi? Orly won’t tell you. Read it here (the really interesting part starts at page 19). Have fun!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/108284226/MS-Taitz-v-MDEC-et-al-2012-09-24-Hearing-Transcriptr

  262. JPotter says:
    September 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm  (Quote)

    john: If voters really want to Mitt rMoney to win,

    … and you lost me there.

    Someone get John a calendar? Next he’ll be urging a patriotic, landline-only, phone-in for Mitt.

    I’ll volunteer to begin installing rMoney shrines in public restrooms.

  263. G says:
    September 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm  (Quote)

    Quite the read! The transcript really reveals the judge’s ability to try to break down the issues into a step-by-step process in order to obtain answers from Orly and also explain reality to her. I was very impressed with the transcript…but it is clear that Orly is only making things worse for herself here.

    I expect that this will end in big sanctions and fees for Orly when this is all over…

    bgansel9:
    Transcript of Orly Taitz v Democratic Party of Mississippi (9/24)–Hilarious!

    Hey birthers. Wanna know what REALLY HAPPENED in Mississippi?Orly won’t tell you. Read it here (the really interesting part starts at page 19). Have fun!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/108284226/MS-Taitz-v-MDEC-et-al-2012-09-24-Hearing-Transcriptr

  264. bgansel9 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 4:17 pm  (Quote)

    G: I expect that this will end in big sanctions and fees for Orly when this is all over…

    Can we put that on speed dial? 😛

  265. donna says:
    September 30, 2012 at 4:18 pm  (Quote)

    G:

    PRICELESS: you can ignore the ditz and just read the court

    I have asked you for your authority in opposition to these points, and I’m still waiting.

    So they made this argument, they cited cases in support, and I asked you here what’s your response to these same arguments, and I’m still waiting on a response. You don’t have one.

    Okay. I’ll take that response, then. Thank you very — because you’re not saying anything new, and you’re not providing me any case authority or any statutory
    authority like the other side did. All you’re doing is repeating something which is not founded in the law.

    And they have pointed that out in briefs, and you have not responded to that.

    Do you wish to respond to it now or you just want to repeat an argument?

    and that’s not even the good stuff which begins around page 70

  266. bgansel9 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm  (Quote)

    john: Some say that marking money bills is iilegal but it is only illegal to deface or mutilate money WITH THE INTENT of making it unfit for circulation.

    But, that WOULD make it unfit for circulation, in my opinion. I won’t spend it. I’ll hold onto it and make sure it doesn’t get “redistributed” until long after the election.

  267. bgansel9 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 4:25 pm  (Quote)

    donna: and that’s not even the good stuff which begins around page 70

    There’s a lot of entertainment in that document.

  268. donna says:
    September 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm  (Quote)

    bgansel9:

    PRICELESS:

    THE COURT: Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. Hold it. I run the courtroom.

    i want a dollar for each time the court said “Hold it.”

  269. Thrifty says:
    September 30, 2012 at 6:24 pm  (Quote)

    Brilliant idea! Too bad nobody ever invented bumper stickers, buttons, T-shirts, or signs before. And it’s so convincing too. I know that I base my entire voting decision on which candidate’s name I most recently saw written down somewhere.

    john:
    If voters really want to Mitt Romney to win, then I encourage all GOP and Independent voters to start marking their money bills which whatever message they want to convey.Using our money bills to carry our political message across the nation is one of the potent political weapons around but everyone must do it.

    So mark your money bills today with “Vote Romney/Ryan on 11/06/2012!”

    Some say that marking money bills is iilegal but it is only illegal to deface or mutilate money WITH THE INTENT of making it unfit for circulation.

    We certainly don’t want the bills pulled from circulation.Free Speech would seem to prevail.

  270. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    September 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm  (Quote)

    One has to wonder why the judge told Orly to write the order. Why but a way to get her screwing up in writing?

    G: I expect that this will end in big sanctions and fees for Orly when this is all over…

  271. Rickey says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:18 pm  (Quote)

    john:
    Using our money bills to carry our political message across the nation is one of the potent political weapons around but everyone must do it.

    Really? I am 64 years old and I have never seen a political message on a dollar bill. Apparently the political parties have never gotten the word about this “potent political weapon.”

    Indeed, the use of paper money has been dropping by an average of $35 billion/year, and that pace is expected to accelerate as the use of debit cards and credit cards continues to increase.

  272. Slartibartfast says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:40 pm  (Quote)

    I had a friend who used to write a word bubble for George Washington saying “I grew hemp” on $1 bills, if that counts… 😉

    Rickey: Really? I am 64 years old and I have never seen a political message on a dollar bill. Apparently the political parties have never gotten the word about this “potent political weapon.”

    Indeed, the use of paper money has been dropping by an average of $35 billion/year, and that pace is expected to accelerate as the use of debit cards and credit cards continues to increase.

  273. Thrifty says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:48 pm  (Quote)

    I once bought a bagel and soda from my favorite bagel place. I got a couple $1 bills for change. One of them said “THE NEXT ENDANGERED MINORITY IN AMERICA? WORKING WHITES.”

    I was almost too embarrassed to spend it. Luckily, vending machines don’t pass judgement.

    There was a period in 2009 when I was really into the website wheresgeorge.com It’s a site where you register your cash by serial number, then see if it turns up anywhere. If someone else gets your bill and registers it, you get notified, and find out where your bill is. It’s kinda cool, but registering every bill got real old, real fast. I personally had some rubber stamps made up that said “Track this Bill. Go to http://www.wheresgeorge.com” Just to build interest in the site and inform people that they should register the bill if they want.

    There’s also this really fun independent movie with a great ensemble cast called “Twenty Bucks”. It follows the path of a 20 dollar bill from rolling off the printing press to being torn up and thrown away.

  274. bgansel9 says:
    September 30, 2012 at 9:56 pm  (Quote)

    Dr. Conspiracy: One has to wonder why the judge told Orly to write the order. Why but a way to get her screwing up in writing?

    Honestly, he spent a lot of time giving her a lesson in trying to help her understand why the 30 day statute was 30 days to file before the date rather than filing being effectuated at the end of 30 days. I think he realizes she’s in way over her head and trying to give her a chance but I don’t think he’ll be able to maintain that posture. Especially after he had to warn her that he runs the court.

  275. G says:
    September 30, 2012 at 10:21 pm  (Quote)

    I hear ya! I understand bgansel9’s points as well, but to ask her to write the order after the clear incompetence she demonstrated…

    …I’m not sure if that is trying to coach a novice to learn how to do their job… or setting her up to fail… or both!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    One has to wonder why the judge told Orly to write the order. Why but a way to get her screwing up in writing?

  277. Northland10 says:
    October 1, 2012 at 8:05 pm  (Quote)

    I was looking through the recent SCOTUS order list and saw, part-time birther Montgomery Sibley had a case dismissed. (SIBLEY v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT et al). Having sued the Supreme Court, that made it a little more difficult for the conference so the denial contained:

    Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U. S. C. �1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U. S. C. �2109, which provides that under these circumstances �the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.� The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition

    So, though not a birther case, I looked it up out of curiosity. Out of it, I see that Orly v the World is going to have some difficulty with having Judge Land as a defendant. In the original trial court decision of Sibley v. SCOTUS, the trial court states:

    “Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge’s judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.” Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). “A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 662 (1978)

    More citations show are made from various Sibley v “the Judges who said no” cases.

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv01696/144384/68/

  278. donna says:
    October 1, 2012 at 8:10 pm  (Quote)

    birtherstan is all aflutter

    U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment

    “Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

    “Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

    “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/judge-sullivan-rules-14th-did-not-repeal-article-ii.html

  279. Northland10 says:
    October 1, 2012 at 8:40 pm  (Quote)

    donna: birtherstan is all aflutter

    U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan Rules Natural Born Citizen Requirement Not Repealed By The 14th Amendment Or The 5th Amendment

    The stupid, it burns.

    With their comprehension fails, I would have loved to see their standardized tests answers:

    Plane is to air as Ship is to______

    CHOCOLATE!!!

  280. Marion says:
    October 1, 2012 at 8:57 pm  (Quote)

    Just curious if anyone has a definitive debunk to the Dunhams lived in Beirut based on Stanley Ann’s school uniform. It’s so silly it probably doesn’t deserve a debunk, but I’m wondering if there is anything documenting where the Dunhams were living in the 1950’s and where she went before Mercer High School.

  281. Tarrant says:
    October 1, 2012 at 9:20 pm  (Quote)

    Donna – I saw that birtherstan is all excited about this case…but they completely ignore the fact that it makes it quite clear – as so many cases have before – that there are two types of citizen.

    Naturalized, and natural born. Two. No “citizen” different from those. No Apuzzo-like “Citizen of the United States” as a third style. Two. If you aren’t naturalized, you must be natural born.

    On the Freep thread birthers are celebrating like “We got him now!” and I keep thinking…how? Anti-birthers have not argued that the 14th changed the requirements, only that it definitely stated the law as it was with respect to citizenship. The fact that none seem to get that this decision again makes front and center the fact that there isn’t some mystical third citizenship residing between “Two parent natural born-ness” and “naturalized” goes over their heads.

    (Perhaps once they realize it they’ll revive the “Jus Soli w/o two citizen parents = Naturalized at Birth” meme).

  282. donna says:
    October 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm  (Quote)

    marion: according to wiki

    After World War II, Dunham’s family moved from Wichita to California while her father attended the University of California, Berkeley. In 1948, they moved to Ponca City, Oklahoma, and from there to Vernon, Texas, and then to El Dorado, Kansas. In 1955, the family moved to Seattle, Washington where her father was employed as a furniture salesman and her mother worked as vice president of a bank. They lived in an apartment complex in the Wedgwood neighborhood where she attended Nathan Eckstein Junior High School.

    In 1956, Dunham’s family moved to Mercer Island, an Eastside suburb of Seattle. Dunham’s parents wanted their 13-year-old daughter to attend the newly opened Mercer Island High School.

    their sources

    http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=9808991

    http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2009/feb/15/barack-obamas-mother-spent-time-in-vernon-as/

  283. Dr. Conspiracy says:
    October 1, 2012 at 11:21 pm  (Quote)

    From David Maraniss’ book Barack Obama: The Story

    Sixth grade in Texas, seventh grade back in El Dorado (her father was selling furniture on the second-floor showroom of the Farm n’ Home on Central Avenue), eighth grade at Nathan Eckstein Middle School in Seattle, and ninth grade at a bright new building in the Seattle suburbs, Mercer Island High.

    Maraniss, David (2012-06-19). Barack Obama (p. 122). Simon & Schuster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

    Maraniss is an associate editor at The Washington Post, fellow of the Society of American Historians, and winner of the Pulitzer Prize.

    Marion: Just curious if anyone has a definitive debunk to the Dunhams lived in Beirut based on Stanley Ann’s school uniform. It’s so silly it probably doesn’t deserve a debunk, but I’m wondering if there is anything documenting where the Dunhams were living in the 1950′s and where she went before Mercer High School.

  284. gorefan says:
    October 1, 2012 at 11:51 pm  (Quote)

    Marion: Stanley Ann’s school uniform

    That is Chris Strunk theory and it involves the Vatican Bank andthe Jesuits and a bunch of other nonsense.

    The insignia on her uniform doesn’t even look like what Strunk claims it’s suppose to be.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/36075657/Strunk-Supplemental-Declaration-w-Exhibits-in-Opposition-to-Summary-Judgment-DCD-08-Cv-2234

  285. John Reilly says:
    October 2, 2012 at 12:22 am  (Quote)

    Dr. Taitz has filed an application with Chief Justice Roberts for a stay of counting votes in the Taitz v. Astrue cse.

    Now if I understand that case, it was her attempt to obtain Pres. Obama’s social security application. I do not recall her asking to enjoin the election in that case; perhaps she did. She seems to think the Supreme Court issues injunctions. News to me but, hey, I’m an electrical engineer, so what do I know. And I was so stupid I actually had to attend school, I was not bright enough to get my degree in the mail.

  286. donna says:
    October 2, 2012 at 9:12 am  (Quote)

    California Ballot Challenge: ‘Perfect Standing’

    Judd v. Obama “who has a perfect standing, as number of other parties” taitz

    taitz: This is the most comprehensive elections challenge to date with 109 pages of pleadings and 154 exhibits, 30 defendants, 14 causes of action. A number of media networks and news men were named as defendants as well in causes of action for defamation and Racketeering scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs ans to defraud the nation and aid and abet Obama to get on the ballot with forged IDs and a stolen SSN. Among media networks are: CNN, MSNBC, Clear Channel and others.

    from the docket: 09/29/2012 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff

    A Legal Lohengrin at The Fogbow is pleased:

    I must congratulate Orly again.

    Yet again, she has managed to fuck up a case beyond all recognition, in a way that I doubt anyone has managed to screw the pooch in all history. Brilliant legal minds are boggled at what exactly is to be done with this procedural clusterfuck, since I doubt anyone has ever conceived that someone could do something as incompetently, as sheerly bugfuck, as what Orly has done.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=23268#more-23268

  287. John Potter says:
    October 2, 2012 at 10:44 pm  (Quote)

    If Mitt Romney Had a Kickstarter

    Absolutely OT and not even that funny, but what the heck. Not a single birfer reference. Drat.

  289. donna says:
    October 3, 2012 at 1:57 pm  (Quote)

    Obama At Occidental

    Margot Mifflin, a college friend of the President’s, has a New Yorker piece up, accompanied by a slide show of new-to-me photographs taken in their time at Occidental College.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/barack-obama-at-occidental-college-photographs.html#slide_ss_0=6

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=23889

  290. John Potter says:
    October 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm  (Quote)

    donna: AK – Epperly v Obama – Motion for reconsideration denied – Case Closed

    Poor Epperley, he is my favorite crazy.

    Are their cases ever really closed? Always another bench to address, another court to clog … another empty chair to lay down for … LOL!

  291. donna says:
    October 3, 2012 at 5:54 pm  (Quote)

    John Potter:

    BEST giggle of the day

    grazie mille

  292. John Potter says:
    October 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm  (Quote)

    thanks … but I should have said bench to press—ha!

  293. donna says:
    October 3, 2012 at 6:16 pm  (Quote)

    to continue with the theme, i hope the “bench” of over 20 defendants hits orly with $23k in sanctions EACH (one defendant is judge land who smacked her with $20k)

    CA – Judd v Obama – Proof of service

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/ca-judd-v-obama-proof-of-service/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.