Dems Idiotic "Green" Convention Strategy

[dhyatt]

Sometimes political parties rush so fast to jump on the latest bandwagon that they forgo the slightest bit of common sense. The Democratic National Convention in Denver proves to be the latest example of this particular kind of insanity...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121434145793701111.html?mod=blog

[Wuptdo]

Homeless, what Homeless, there are no Homeless in Denver:

Hey buddy, can you spare a movie ticket? (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/15/homeless-hey-buddy-can-you-spare-movie-ticket-duri/)


Hundreds of Denver's homeless could be cooling their heels in a movie theater or museum while the Democratic National Convention is in town next month.

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless plans to get 500 movie tickets as well as passes to the Denver Zoo, Denver Museum of Nature and Science and other cultural facilities for the people it helps.

Bus tickets will be provided for events beyond walking distance, said John Parvensky, the non-profit's president. (more above)

Sort of reminds me of the Czar's "fake" peasant villages along the train track in Russia. I found this little jewel tucked under blog responses:



politwriter writes:

In 1968, Boss Richard J. Daley, the Democratic Party strongman of Chicago, erected large plywood fences along the routes from the airport to the convention center so that the Democrats wouldn't have to see the black squalor in his Democrat-run city.

If this isn't history repeating itself, I don't know what is.

So the Democrats in Denver, rather than build Potemkin Villages to hide the failure of their social programs, just shuttle the unsightly homeless off to museums or movies or some other -- out of sight -- out of mind -- place.

How benevolent these liberal Democrats.
Why not just shuttle them off to concentration camps for the interim? Stalin would have done as much without blinking an eye.

How evil and dissembling these liberals are.


Guess what, that same squalor in 1968 is still there today. So what ever happened to the $9 trillion dollars spent on the "Great Society?" Are the poor better off now, than they were 40 years ago? Same hypocrisies, different names.

OT: I wonder what the Chinese are doing with all the homeless in Peking during the Olympics?

[francejamie]

Sometimes political parties rush so fast to jump on the latest bandwagon that they forgo the slightest bit of common sense. The Democratic National Convention in Denver proves to be the latest example of this particular kind of insanity...

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121434145793701111.html?mod=blog


Ah, the clear and unbiased viewpoints we get on here from the Righties.
You forgot to include that the Republican's were engaging in the same insanity...

http://www.gopconvention2008.com/features/greenfactsheet.pdf

[Wuptdo]

It will one, big happy, "love feast," in Denver this year:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/17/protest-groups-have-big-plans-dnc/

What ever happened to real protesting?? And for those of you either too young, or selective "memory," this is for you.

1968 Demokratic Convention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt6gVO8MB30&feature=related)

I can remember watching this on TV and my grandfather laughing about all them worthless hippies getting beaten up. From folks I now know, when they talk about the "war/protest" movement of the 60's, it was more about "sex, drugs, and rock'n roll" than it was about protesting.

[chaboard]

So what ever happened to the $9 trillion dollars spent on the "Great Society?" Are the poor better off now, than they were 40 years ago?

What a silly, silly question. The "War On Poverty" slashed poverty rates overall and slashed them *dramatically* in the two age groups - the elderly and children - where most of the dollars were focused.
There are - proportionally speaking - one hell of a lot fewer poor people than there 40 years ago.
And that's in the face of massive societal trends - the hemoraghing (sp?) of good paying manufacturing jobs, pension losses, the slashing of the safety net, the relentless GOP redistribution of wealth upwards - that one would expect to dramatically increase poverty rates.

[chaboard]

Back with a few of the numbers. When LBJ launched the War On Poverty the poverty rate was over 19% - and the historical average ranged from 20-25%. Within 10 years (by 1973) the rate had fallen to 11%. Since then it's gotten no higher than ~15% (well below the historical average) and is currently around 12-13%....a good 30% below what it was before LBJ.

And it's no accident that the two groups targeted most by WoP programs have had huge decreases in poverty (elderly: 28.5% to 10.1%; under 18: 23% to 16.3%) while the age groups in the middle for which there have been few programs have remained mostly unchanged (age 18-64: 10.5% to 10.1%).

Hell, just take away ONE WoP program - Medicare - by waving a magic wand at midnight tonight and you can bet your sweet bippy that you'd have *millions* more people in poverty within weeks.

What this has to do with "Green" conventions, I have no clue....

[Wuptdo]

As geez, just when you don't think it will get any better in Denver.........

Parade for Hillary???? (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/06/group-plans-to-hail-hillary/)


Nationwide, Clinton's staunchest supporters refer to themselves as "PUMAs," short for "Party Unity My A$$."

What the frack, PUMAs? I thought all good dems where now doing the "Obama, 08" goose step to "change?"
8O8O

[BenP]

"Clinton is scheduled to speak at an Emily's List gala at the Sheraton Denver Hotel at 2 p.m. on Aug. 26. She will join Michelle Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the event, a celebration of women's suffrage."


those three sure have suffered alright.

[Wuptdo]

And they dare complain about Gitmo:

Denver defends secret Jail (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188)

How "proud" these demokrats must be:

Hypocrisy in Denver (http://www.webloggin.com/hypocrisy-in-denver-as-protesters-complain-about-once-secret-jail-cells-for-dnc-protesters/)

Maybe if these "proud demokrats" actually represented their "people" instead of their corporate masters, there wouldn't be anything to protest. deedeedee

[chaboard]

And they dare complain about Gitmo:

Denver defends secret Jail (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188)

How "proud" these demokrats must be:

Hypocrisy in Denver (http://www.webloggin.com/hypocrisy-in-denver-as-protesters-complain-about-once-secret-jail-cells-for-dnc-protesters/)

Maybe if these "proud demokrats" actually represented their "people" instead of their corporate masters, there wouldn't be anything to protest. deedeedee

So, where exactly did you get the idea that Democrats were responsible for this? Neither of your articles has the slightest evidence that that's so. As far as I could tell from 5 minutes of googling, Denver municipal elections appear to be officially nonpartisan so I can't even tell the party breakdown of the governing bodies. Can you?

(I do note that your article says that "civil rights advocates" are opposing it. And we all know which party "civil rights advocates" generally come from.)

Not that reality or getting your facts straight means a **** thing to you.

[dhyatt]

And they dare complain about Gitmo:

Denver defends secret Jail (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188)

How "proud" these demokrats must be:

Hypocrisy in Denver (http://www.webloggin.com/hypocrisy-in-denver-as-protesters-complain-about-once-secret-jail-cells-for-dnc-protesters/)

Maybe if these "proud demokrats" actually represented their "people" instead of their corporate masters, there wouldn't be anything to protest. deedeedee

So, where exactly did you get the idea that Democrats were responsible for this? Neither of your articles has the slightest evidence that that's so. As far as I could tell from 5 minutes of googling, Denver municipal elections appear to be officially nonpartisan so I can't even tell the party breakdown of the governing bodies. Can you?

(I do note that your article says that "civil rights advocates" are opposing it. And we all know which party "civil rights advocates" generally come from.)

Not that reality or getting your facts straight means a **** thing to you.

Denver's Mayor Hickenlooper is a Democrat. He is speaking at the DNC convention and the "containment" preparation would not have happened without his approval. Additionally, The Denver City Council has been majority Democratic since 1963, with at least a 60% Dem majority since 1975.

[chaboard]

And they dare complain about Gitmo:

Denver defends secret Jail (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=97741&catid=188)

How "proud" these demokrats must be:

Hypocrisy in Denver (http://www.webloggin.com/hypocrisy-in-denver-as-protesters-complain-about-once-secret-jail-cells-for-dnc-protesters/)

Maybe if these "proud demokrats" actually represented their "people" instead of their corporate masters, there wouldn't be anything to protest. deedeedee

So, where exactly did you get the idea that Democrats were responsible for this? Neither of your articles has the slightest evidence that that's so. As far as I could tell from 5 minutes of googling, Denver municipal elections appear to be officially nonpartisan so I can't even tell the party breakdown of the governing bodies. Can you?

(I do note that your article says that "civil rights advocates" are opposing it. And we all know which party "civil rights advocates" generally come from.)

Not that reality or getting your facts straight means a **** thing to you.

Denver's Mayor Hickenlooper is a Democrat. He is speaking at the DNC convention and the "containment" preparation would not have happened without his approval. Additionally, The Denver City Council has been majority Democratic since 1963, with at least a 60% Dem majority since 1975.

Thanks Don. But Wup didn't know that and doesn't care.

Now, do we REALLY want to discuss the silly question of whether this is really comparable in any meaningful sense to Gitmo or whether it's just a variaton on the (admittedly bad)
"protest-free zones" at the RNC conventions in NYC in 2004 and in Minneapolis in 2008?

Or can we agree that Wup was trolling with stinkbait and - as he admitted here not long ago - that the truth is irrelevant to him ad move along?

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Now, do we REALLY want to discuss the silly question of whether this is really comparable in any meaningful sense to Gitmo or whether it's just a variaton on the (admittedly bad)
"protest-free zones" at the RNC conventions in NYC in 2004 and in Minneapolis in 2008?

Or can we agree that Wup was trolling with stinkbait and - as he admitted here not long ago - that the truth is irrelevant to him and move along?

I don't think it's worth dwelling on but I do think it's worth noting that this is yet another example of elected officials lying about the existence of something they know would be unpopular and only admitting it when found out. I think it's way past time to have a national discussion on lies promulgated by politicians and their more rapid supporters. I just don't think it's healthy for leader after leader of whatever party to base their success on being a better public liar than the next one.

[francejamie]

I, personally, liked one commment from the story Wup gave.



Don't get sucked into this sensationalistic story. I would expect something like this from Fox, but not NBC. It has nothing to do with "who" this holding center is for or if its a "secret".

It's clearly a matter of public safety. Don't you think, if a city is about to host tens of thousands of people, there should be adequate planning as to where the people who cause disturbances should be held.

Jails (nationwide) are severely overcrowded. Cells meant for two people are holding four due to lack of space. It would actually be more of a "story" if people were retained alongside dangerous criminal offenders.

The same procedure was done in DC before the G8 summit and when the KKK came to march on Washington. It's not a partisan move - it's a public safety issue.


I don't know how this can remotely be compared to Gitmo. This is a holding cell where they can put people who break the law during the convention, but not have to house them with the rest of the criminal population (more hardened criminals). It would also appear that they would get the exact same due process they would get in the main prison, but just faster and easier on them.

Letsseee, Gitmo. Holding people without any rights for an indefinite period of time without any actual charges.

Yeah, sure, that's the same right. Riiiiiiiiight.

[JoeCiulla]

Same old stuff.... "Our" party hasn't sinned as badly as "Your" party, so their actions shouldn't be questioned or criticized. For as much as people bitch about partisanship in Washington, it continues to amaze me how people in our little town are no less partisan than the big boys (and girls).

[chaboard]

Same old stuff.... "Our" party hasn't sinned as badly as "Your" party, so their actions shouldn't be questioned or criticized.


You must be reading a different thread than I. I haven't seen anyone say anything remotely like that.

I had two problems with Wup's post:

1) Attributing actions to "the Democrats" without a **** bit of actual evidence that there was any reason to think the party or it's leaders were behind it. These particular actions were taken by officials elected in non-partisan races with no party affiliation on the ballot. Maybe they were acting in their perceived view of the benefit of their party anyway....but there's certainly been no evidence presented to support hat position. Indeed, those *fighting* it are more closely identified with "our party".

2) And - of course - the usual false equivalency. Murder is NOT the same as jaywalking and pointing that out is NOT - no matter how many times you try to claim it is - the same as saying that jaywalking shouldn't be criticized. Your logic is not only incorrect, it is self-defeating....when you argue that it is wrong to complain that jaywalking is not the same as murder you are debasing the deterrents and incentives against murder.





For as much as people bitch about partisanship in Washington, it continues to amaze me how people in our little town are no less partisan than the big boys (and girls).

You say that like it's a bad thing. Disasters such as the Iraq war are the direct result of a severe LACK of effective partisanship in Washington. We'd be in a whole lot better shape on a whole lot of fronts if a lot more votes over the last 8 years had been a lot LESS "bipartisan".

(Ironically, for example, the lack of partisanship on two confirmation votes has pretty much guaranteed pitched partisan battles over myriad issues for *decades*. Partisan battles that wouldn't be happening if the Dems had acted in partisan unity and forced Bush to name some conservative moderates instead of two blazing wingnuts. )

[JoeCiulla]

You must be reading a different thread than I. I haven't seen anyone say anything remotely like that.

I had two problems with Wup's post:

1) Attributing actions to "the Democrats" without a **** bit of actual evidence that there was any reason to think the party or it's leaders were behind it. These particular actions were taken by officials elected in non-partisan races with no party affiliation on the ballot. Maybe they were acting in their perceived view of the benefit of their party anyway....but there's certainly been no evidence presented to support hat position. Indeed, those *fighting* it are more closely identified with "our party".

My comment had nothing to do with Wup's original post. Read up a few posts and you'll see a comparison drawn between the "lockup" in Denver and Gitmo. Gitmo has absolutely nothing to do with Denver. If you think what they are doing in Denver is right, then say so. To say it is "more right" than what they are doing in Gitmo implies that you are measuring against a fluctuating moral standard as determined by the Republicans.



2) And - of course - the usual false equivalency. Murder is NOT the same as jaywalking and pointing that out is NOT - no matter how many times you try to claim it is - the same as saying that jaywalking shouldn't be criticized. Your logic is not only incorrect, it is self-defeating....when you argue that it is wrong to complain that jaywalking is not the same as murder you are debasing the deterrents and incentives against murder.

I'm not the one making comparisons to Gitmo, or using them to justify a Denver lockup. For the sake of argument, let's call what they're doing in Gitmo despicable. Does that make what they're doing in Denver right?



Disasters such as the Iraq war are the direct result of a severe LACK of effective partisanship in Washington. We'd be in a whole lot better shape on a whole lot of fronts if a lot more votes over the last 8 years had been a lot LESS "bipartisan".

If you mean had all the votes been in favor of the Democrats, then I can understand how you might see it that way. Personally, I see too many partisan witch hunts and fillibusters, and too many people who are more interested in protecting their party and their own jobs.
And the last thing the American people should be doing is encouraging this behavior.

[francejamie]

You seem to have missed Wup's original comment:



And they dare complain about Gitmo



Then, I said:



I don't know how this can remotely be compared to Gitmo.


I think we are actually in agreement that comparing this to Gitmo doesn't even make sense.

As far as if this is ok or not, I'm not sure what the laws in Denver are. Is this legal? Did it just look bad, or did it break the law?
Would people be treated better or worse with this holding cell than if they went to the regular prison?

[chaboard]

My comment had nothing to do with Wup's original post. Read up a few posts and you'll see a comparison drawn between the "lockup" in Denver and Gitmo.


You're contradicting yourself in these two sentences. It was WUP'S POST WHICH FIRST COMPARED Denver & Gitmo!!! The very first line of his post, at that. Post #9 in this thread. The only other posts to mention them both were jamie & I boyth pointing out how absurd the comparison was. So if you weren't talking about Wup's you must've been talking about jamie's or mine, right?



I'm not the one making comparisons to Gitmo, or using them to justify a Denver lockup.


Neither are Jamie and I. Wup, however, DID. Explicitly. Yet you claim you weren't responding to him.



For the sake of argument, let's call what they're doing in Gitmo despicable. Does that make what they're doing in Denver right?


Of course not!! Which is **exactly*** what jamie and I were saying in the posts that you seemed to be objecting to! WTF?

[JoeCiulla]

You seem to have missed Wup's original comment:



And they dare complain about Gitmo



Then, I said:



I don't know how this can remotely be compared to Gitmo.


I think we are actually in agreement that comparing this to Gitmo doesn't even make sense.

As far as if this is ok or not, I'm not sure what the laws in Denver are. Is this legal? Did it just look bad, or did it break the law?
Would people be treated better or worse with this holding cell than if they went to the regular prison?

You're right, I missed the original comment :oops: and I agree that "Denver" should be judged on its own merits.

[dhyatt]

You seem to have missed Wup's original comment:



And they dare complain about Gitmo



Then, I said:



I don't know how this can remotely be compared to Gitmo.


I think we are actually in agreement that comparing this to Gitmo doesn't even make sense.

As far as if this is ok or not, I'm not sure what the laws in Denver are. Is this legal? Did it just look bad, or did it break the law?
Would people be treated better or worse with this holding cell than if they went to the regular prison?

It looks bad because they originally denied its existence (lied) and the reason they built it because they don't have enough holding cells for what they consider the potential need. Not to put to fine a point on it but between the formerly secret prison, the "reminders" of free bus tokens (hopefully used for trips out of the city) and the free haircuts for the homeless, Denver is starting to look like Bejing West. I'm sure it's all an effort to "clean up" the city before the convention and maybe that's just nothing more than good manners but in this day and age it's become just more political fodder and kind of a silly distraction.

[chaboard]

Personally, I see too many partisan witch hunts and fillibusters,

Ok, I'll bite. Are you claiming that partisan witch hunts are a sin both parties are guilty of?
If so, please give an example of what you consider to be a partisan witch hunt by Dems in Washington in the last 20 years or so.

[dhyatt]

Personally, I see too many partisan witch hunts and fillibusters,

Ok, I'll bite. Are you claiming that partisan witch hunts are a sin both parties are guilty of?
If so, please give an example of what you consider to be a partisan witch hunt by Dems in Washington in the last 20 years or so.

Joe,
Don't take the bait. With 1000+ subpoenas served on the Clinton administration (even if you agree they were deserved), this is not a mathematically winnable challenge. A case could possibly be made for Gingrich, Delay, & Gonzales but they would be a bit of a stretch and easily countered.

The only *real* witch hunts that have taken place by Dems are those centered around outing gay Republicans and those haven't been (as far as we know) pushed by the main Dem leadership. As with Clinton & crew, most investigations are due to at least the appearance of impropriety and they don't qualify as a witch hunt in my book. Like or not, *any* seasoned politician should know better than accept special favors from lobbyists and supporters. Unfortunately, it seems many of them don't.

[chaboard]

Personally, I see too many partisan witch hunts and fillibusters,

Ok, I'll bite. Are you claiming that partisan witch hunts are a sin both parties are guilty of?
If so, please give an example of what you consider to be a partisan witch hunt by Dems in Washington in the last 20 years or so.

Joe,
Don't take the bait. With 1000+ subpoenas served on the Clinton administration (even if you agree they were deserved), this is not a mathematically winnable challenge. A case could possibly be made for Gingrich, Delay, & Gonzales but they would be a bit of a stretch and easily countered.


Just to be clear, I wasn't challenging him to show there were more than the other party...I was trying to think of even ONE pretty obvious witch hunt. Putting aside the plethora on the other side completely.

It's extremely possible Delay might qualify at he end of the day. But highly, highly unlikely since the guy is clearly a criminal through & through. ;)



The only *real* witch hunts that have taken place by Dems are those centered around outing gay Republicans and those haven't been (as far as we know) pushed by the main Dem leadership.


And your first setence here is my main point. There simply haven't BEEN any high profile witch hunts by Dems in the last 30 years. Quite the opposite, in fact - the Dems have gone too far out of their way to turn blind eyes to GOP crime and corruption in the name of "reconciliation" and "moving on".

I appreciate your honesty on this, Don.

Just out of curiosity - and fully recognizing it's a side point - what gay outings did you have in mind when you made that comment?

[chaboard]

More Denver policing silliness (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/denver_police_beware_of_bicycl.html)



Denver Police: Beware of Bicycles, Maps
Posted by Michael Scherer | Comments (86) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This

The Denver Police Department "is asking all police, ambulance and fire personal to be on the lookout for stock piles and caches of supplies that could be used by violent demonstrators at the up coming Democratic National Convention [sic]," according to an official release that has been obtained by the Colorado ACLU. (I can't find an online link to the document.)

In addition to clearly suspicious items like "chemicals" and "gas masks," the Denver PD lists these items of concern:

Maps: "Maps are frequently used by violent protesters to plan direct actions against conventioneers."

Bicycles: "Bicycles are used to blockade sidewalks, streets and can be used to slow down responding emergency vehicles."

Helmets: "Football, baseball, motorcycle and bicycle helmets are all used by violent protesters."

The document does not list other "supplies" that I have witnessed violent protesters use in the past, stuff like cell phones, shoes, pants, beards, peace sign patches, woolen beanies, ponytails, etc. etc. etc. The Denver ACLU has scheduled a press conference tomorrow to discuss the document. Also speaking at the press conference: a Denver activist and homeowner who was recently questioned by the police about bricks being unloaded at her house. Says the ACLU, "Although the bricks were acquired for masonry repairs, Denver police accused the activist of 'stockpiling' the bricks for the DNC."

Just a few hours ago, I walked down Denver's 16th Street Mall. A number of restaurants appeared to have stockpiled chairs and tables for patrons to sit at. The patrons themselves appeared to be stockpiling bottles of beer on the tables. I'm not sure what to think.

More seriously, there is no excuse or right for protesters to turn violent, and past conventions suggest that some people will probably come here next week to break the law. But the vast majority of protesters are certain to be peaceful and fully protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Denver Police Department, which has gotten in trouble in the past for being too aggressive in its investigation of political dissent, is walking a delicate line.

FOR MORE on the protest planning at the two conventions see my story here.

[francejamie]

It looks bad because they originally denied its existence (lied) and the reason they built it because they don't have enough holding cells for what they consider the potential need. Not to put to fine a point on it but between the formerly secret prison, the "reminders" of free bus tokens (hopefully used for trips out of the city) and the free haircuts for the homeless, Denver is starting to look like Bejing West. I'm sure it's all an effort to "clean up" the city before the convention and maybe that's just nothing more than good manners but in this day and age it's become just more political fodder and kind of a silly distraction.

I would tend to agree on all this. Maybe they will get rid of some child scheduled to come out in Denver, and replace her with a cuter child to put a better appearance on for the world. :)

[dhyatt]

[snip]


The only *real* witch hunts that have taken place by Dems are those centered around outing gay Republicans and those haven't been (as far as we know) pushed by the main Dem leadership.
And your first setence here is my main point. There simply haven't BEEN any high profile witch hunts by Dems in the last 30 years. Quite the opposite, in fact - the Dems have gone too far out of their way to turn blind eyes to GOP crime and corruption in the name of "reconciliation" and "moving on".

I appreciate your honesty on this, Don.

Just out of curiosity - and fully recognizing it's a side point - what gay outings did you have in mind when you made that comment?

I was mostly referring to the efforts of Michael Rogers and BlogActive which have made it a point to try to 'out' gay Republicans, especially those that reek of hypocrisy by publicly claiming to be anti-gay while privately being gay themselves. Rep. Barney Frank has more or less endorsed BlogActive's efforts but he's about (as far as I can tell) the only high-level Dem that has done so - publicly at least.

[Brent]

Democrats to kick off convention with 'One Nation' theme

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/25/dnc.day/index.html)

Is this just a ruse to make doubly sure that John "Two Americas" Edwards doesn't show up? :D

[chaboard]

Democrats to kick off convention with 'One Nation' theme

So all this time we thought all the "Clinton" talk was about Hillary or Bill, turns out it was George Clinton getting that "One Nation under a groove" thing on......

[Brent]

Now THAT'S funny!

So in the Olympics thread, I believe it was Charlie (apologies if I got it wrong, too lazy to go check) who noted how we can become absorbed in some obscure sport for a few days and then it is out of sight/out of mind for 4 years.

I was reminded of that in watching the Democrats convention last night -- I had forgotten about the absurdities of national party conventions -- and let me be clear, this applies equally to the GOP conventions, too.

The ridiculous hats and other getups. The scripted boring speeches by B-list party hacks. The people who introduce the people who introduce the people who introduce the speaker. The talking heads trying to fill the boring stretches (which are a significant portion of the broadcast), but they get tired and spout inanities, or they interview someone who happens to be passing by and, 5 minutes into the interview, discover that the person is a janitor, not a delegate.

Oh, and then there's the nomination roll call. "Mr. Chairman, the GREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAT state of East Virginia, the hissing cockroach state, the state with the most pink geraniums east of the Mississippi, birthplace of Alfred E. Newman, home to East Virginia City, the spackle capital of the world, home to Sara P. Schlobotky, 4th runner-up in the Miss Teenage American Accountant,

[insert 5 more minutes of mindless droning]

yes, Mr. Chairman, East Virginia, where Barack Obama's dentist has chosen to locate his vacation home [wild cheering], where Democrats are one of the top two parties in the state, yes, indeed, the GREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAT state of East Virginia, Mr. Chairman is PROUD....

to PASS.

[Repeat for next state]

Some of the best free entertainment around.

[chaboard]

[snip]

yes, Mr. Chairman, East Virginia, where Barack Obama's dentist has chosen to locate his vacation home [wild cheering], where Democrats are one of the top two parties in the state, yes, indeed, the GREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAT state of East Virginia, Mr. Chairman is PROUD....

to PASS.

[Repeat for next state]

Some of the best free entertainment around.


Yeah, great stuff. But then occassionally you get so much MORE than mere free entertainment. Last night, for example, Michelle Obama's speech was simply one of the most amazing home runs I've seen. Pure unadulterated magic.

"Uncle Teddy's" Willis Reed moment was no slouch either....though I was more fascinated by Caroline's introduction.

Meanwhile, McCain is doing the "noun-verb-POW" thing on Leno and sending his wife to be an international diplomat in a war zone. WTF is up with all that?

[dhyatt]

Uh.... any Dems care to comment on this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention


...Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.Have to love the hypocrisy on this one....

[francejamie]

Uh.... any Dems care to comment on this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention


...Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.Have to love the hypocrisy on this one....


So, a hotel in Denver filed a complaint with the police that someone was trespassing on "their" sidewalk and the police came and arrested that person? Um, I fail to see hypocrisy on this one.

[dhyatt]

Uh.... any Dems care to comment on this?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors
Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention


...Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.Have to love the hypocrisy on this one....


So, a hotel in Denver filed a complaint with the police that someone was trespassing on "their" sidewalk and the police came and arrested that person? Um, I fail to see hypocrisy on this one.

You can't trespass on a public sidewalk. Police were called because the ABC was trying to get dirt on the Dems and the Dems didn't like it. Seems like freedom of the press only applies when getting dirt of Republicans.


Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel. The only real unknown is did the hotel staff call the police or did DNC officials call the police.

I hope ABC does the same at the RNC Convention. It will be interesting to compare and contrast. I guarantee ahead of time that you will see more protest video on prime time news than you are seeing out of Denver. There's plenty of it there but the networks are downplaying it. They won't do so in Minneapolis. I also find it intriguing that a lot of protests in Denver are from radicals who don't think Obama and Biden are far left enough. And I find it downright amusing that House Leader Nancy "natural gas in not a fossil fuel and the Catholic Church doesn't know when life begins" Pelosi is getting beat up so bad. Did it ever occur to any of them that as Speaker of the House she has a bit more responsibility than simply leading the Bash Bush Brigade?

[Dharma]

...Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.Have to love the hypocrisy on this one....

Geeze Don, Could you be more partisan? I saw this today and was happy that:
a. someone was trying to report it and
b. that his arrest was all over the blogs.

Why? Because many of our congressmen screwed us over on this one. That "dinner" was a thank you dinner from AT&T to those Democrats who voted for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies because THEY SPIED on us. Those who voted against it were not invited. May I also remind you that almost every Republican senator voted for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. I'm betting there will be a huge dinner in Minneapolis next week. And I hope to hell this ABC reporter is there, too.

You're pretty deluded if you still believe our media is liberal.

[dhyatt]

...Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.Have to love the hypocrisy on this one....

Geeze Don, Could you be more partisan? I saw this today and was happy that:
a. someone was trying to report it and
b. that his arrest was all over the blogs.

Why? Because many of our congressmen screwed us over on this one. That "dinner" was a thank you dinner from AT&T to those Democrats who voted for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies because THEY SPIED on us. Those who voted against it were not invited. May I also remind you that almost every Republican senator voted for retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. I'm betting there will be a huge dinner in Minneapolis next week. And I hope to hell this ABC reporter is there, too.

You're pretty deluded if you still believe our media is liberal.

Sorry, the hypocrisy of elected officials (locally also btw) - and especially party leaders - is really starting to get to me. I don't understand why we let these clowns run the country. I wasn't aiming the comment at Dems in general, simply at those that have made a career bashing conservatives for the same sort of idiocy. I don't expect to see reporters arrested at the RNC but I guess we will have to wait and see. What's it going to take to put people in office that aren't propped up by some self serving group or another?

[francejamie]

You can't trespass on a public sidewalk. Police were called because the ABC was trying to get dirt on the Dems and the Dems didn't like it. Seems like freedom of the press only applies when getting dirt of Republicans.


Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel. The only real unknown is did the hotel staff call the police or did DNC officials call the police.

I hope ABC does the same at the RNC Convention. It will be interesting to compare and contrast. I guarantee ahead of time that you will see more protest video on prime time news than you are seeing out of Denver. There's plenty of it there but the networks are downplaying it. They won't do so in Minneapolis. I also find it intriguing that a lot of protests in Denver are from radicals who don't think Obama and Biden are far left enough. And I find it downright amusing that House Leader Nancy "natural gas in not a fossil fuel and the Catholic Church doesn't know when life begins" Pelosi is getting beat up so bad. Did it ever occur to any of them that as Speaker of the House she has a bit more responsibility than simply leading the Bash Bush Brigade?

Two can play the quote game...


Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later, he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.


I don't know the details of who owns what stretch of sidewalk in Denver, but you are being ridiculously partisan on this on. Some police in Denver arrest a reporter and you start calling Pelosi a hypocrite.

I am not saying that she is good and pure, but this incident really doesn't begin to prove anything.

It would be like my speculating how many US citizens have disapeared to lockups in Gitmo based on the Bush has a free hand against civil dissent law from a couple of years ago.

Also you are speculating that there will be more video of protest at the RNC. You assume that there is plenty of protest at DNC which isn't getting covered. Based on what? I agree that there will probably be more video of protest at RNC based, but I speculate that there will probably be more protest at RNC, thus it would make sense for more video covering it.
Republicans are primarily responsible for the Iraq war (along with most of the other problems in the world ;-) ) so of course there will be more protests at their convention right now.

[chaboard]

I don't expect to see reporters arrested at the RNC but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Posted without further comment other than to say that I find *both* incidents (as well as the crackdown on protesting that has happened at BOTH parties conventions and at campaign stops ) disturbing:

Homeland Insecurity In The Twin City (http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/08/26/homeland-insecurity-twin-cities.html)




August 26, 2008

Cameras, camcorders, cell phones, computer, notebooks – even clothes and a sleeping bag – were confiscated by Minneapolis police in the name of Homeland Security Monday night, according to a trio of young artist-journalists in town to report on the RNC.

Anita Brathwaite, age 20, had just arrived on the bus from Chicago late on August 25, ready to report on the RNC. Vlad Tichberg and Olivia Katz, fellow members of New York’s Glass Bead Collective had arrived earlier. They met her at the bus station, and the trio headed back to the home in Northeast Minneapolis where they planned to stay while reporting on the convention. According to their attorney, Bruce Nestor, they boarded the 17B bus, getting off at Washington and 27th Avenue, and walking the final two and one-half blocks at about 1:30 a.m. on August 26.

For additional reporting on police harassment related to the RNC, see Pre-RNC homeland insecurity: Police abuses of power ramping up as convention nears from the Minnesota Independent.



Then two Minneapolis squad cars stopped them. In the initial conversation, Brathwaite said, the officers asked them about robberies in the neighborhood. Then they were ordered to put their hands on the hood of the squad car and officers began searching them. When they asked if they were under arrest, the officers said no. They asked if they were free to go – no, again. At some point, a white SUV from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s department pulled up, but no one got out of that vehicle.

“We kept saying we do not consent to any search,” Brathwaite said, but the officers searched their belongings anyway. The three young people were questioned separately, photographed, and released, but police refused to return their belongings. They even took the backpack and sleeping bag that held all of Brathwaite’s clothing and personal belongings for the week ahead.

“To add insult to injury,” Tichberg said, “they refused to give us a receipt for our belongings. This is completely outside what I would call a law and order society.”

Attorney Bruce Nestor says that he was informed that police are now seeking a search warrant to search the items for evidence of trespassing in a railroad yard, a misdemeanor offense. In his fifteen years of practicing law, Nestor said, he has never seen confiscation of belongings under similar circumstances for investigation of a misdemeanor. The trio insist never went into the railroad yard, and that video from the squad cars will show that they did not.

The one-line police report says, “S1, S2 and S3 were observed walking out of the railroad yard at 26th AV and 6TH ST NE.” In a section labeled “Incident Details,” the report lists two offenses. Trespassing is a violation of 385.380. The other offense is called “Homeland Security Offense,” but no statute or description is given. None of the three have been charged with any offense at press time.

........[rest of article snipped]

[Dharma]

Yes. I'm not sure how we went from a reporter getting arrested to attacking Nancy Pelosi??

However, let's not forget the holding pens along the West Side Highway during the 2004 RNC convention in Manhattan. They rounded up many people on the street who had nothing to do with any protests. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/12/817/74186

You weren't too outraged about that when I posted it in 2005??

[dhyatt]

Yes. I'm not sure how we went from a reporter getting arrested to attacking Nancy Pelosi??

However, let's not forget the holding pens along the West Side Highway during the 2004 RNC convention in Manhattan. They rounded up many people on the street who had nothing to do with any protests. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/12/817/74186

You weren't too outraged about that when I posted it in 2005??

Who the heck remembers!? A lot's happened since then :-)

Fair point. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.

re Pelosi, It was just an aside based on some protest video I've seen of anti-war activists blasting her for not "stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)

Here's the video to which I've referred:

DNC Sights & Sounds (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3053555&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/)

[dhyatt]

I don't expect to see reporters arrested at the RNC but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Posted without further comment other than to say that I find *both* incidents (as well as the crackdown on protesting that has happened at BOTH parties conventions and at campaign stops ) disturbing:

Homeland Insecurity In The Twin City (http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/08/26/homeland-insecurity-twin-cities.html)

[snip]

Ridiculous. What is wrong with these people???? (The "enforcers" not the reporters) Maybe Denver and Minneapolis will have to share the title of Bejing West :-/

[Dharma]

"stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)

I think you've overdosed on Rush, Don. Could you provide me with documentation about how the war is over? Perhaps we should just define "won".

Would that mean being a trillion dollars in debt?
Does it mean our troops and permanent bases are leaving Iraq?
Does it mean all the Iraqi refugees can come home from Jordan?
Does it mean peace in Iraq?
Does it mean we can stop paying Blackwater and DynCorp for providing mercenarie services?

Just what does "the war is mostly won" mean?

[francejamie]

"stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)

I think you've overdosed on Rush, Don. Could you provide me with documentation about how the war is over? Perhaps we should just define "won".


I think he's been listening to McCain too much, not Rush, like in this example...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/mccain_asserts_return_to_presu.html

[Dharma]

I think he's been listening to McCain too much, not Rush, like in this example...http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/mccain_asserts_return_to_presu.html

Although McCain appears "confused" about troop levels, he still didn't say the war was won. That's only preposterous enough for Rush.

[dhyatt]

"stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)

I think you've overdosed on Rush, Don. Could you provide me with documentation about how the war is over? Perhaps we should just define "won".

Would that mean being a trillion dollars in debt?
Does it mean our troops and permanent bases are leaving Iraq?
Does it mean all the Iraqi refugees can come home from Jordan?
Does it mean peace in Iraq?
Does it mean we can stop paying Blackwater and DynCorp for providing mercenarie services?

Just what does "the war is mostly won" mean?

It means peace and prosperity for a formally impoverished majority due to a tyrannical dictatorship. It means an end to death squads. It means a democratic government even if it is a bit different than our own. It means 7 million more Iraqis now have access to clean drinking water than under Hussein. It mean girls can go to school - even if they aren't Bathists. It means 14 year old boys aren't locked up because they're Shiites. It does mean Iraqi refugees can eventually come home and it does mean peace. It means most of our troops will be home by the end of 2011 (at least that's the latest publicized date).

It is disturbing that Blackwater's contract to protect U.S. diplomats was renewed for another year. I'd have though after the fiasco last summer that they would be out of there by now. It seems like they've simply toned it down a bit but are still in business.

Clearly there is still work to be done - as long as we are allowed to stay around and finish cleaning up. "Mostly" is a perfect word given the situation.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/07/the-iraq-war-is.php

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-26-1341273101_x.htm

and my personal favorite...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/12/iraq-war-over-media-arent-telling-us

[chaboard]

her for not "stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)


Don, you mistakenly did not post this in the "Humor" section as must have been intended.
I presume you'll correct that mistake immediately.

But seriously...just what the heck have we "won"? There is quite literally no realistic way in which we are better off than we were in January 2002....*certainly* not enough better off to justify the thousands of lives (on our side), hundreds of thousands of lives (on the innocent civilian side), or several *trillion* dollars in accumulated costs (not even including indirect costs like the impact on the price of oil and its effect on our economy)

Even for a less grandoise and more limited definition of "won"....we have even failed to achieve almost ALL of the limited objectives Bush himself laid down as the standard against which success/failure of "the surge" should be measured.

Only by massively moving the goalposts can one even begin to deny the massive failure and incalculable "loss" we have achieved in Iraq. One has to be completely insane or thoroughly dishonest to try to claim a "win". You've been listening too much to McCain's fantasies.

[dhyatt]

her for not "stopping the war" (which now appears mostly won btw)


Don, you mistakenly did not post this in the "Humor" section as must have been intended.
I presume you'll correct that mistake immediately.

But seriously...just what the heck have we "won"? There is quite literally no realistic way in which we are better off than we were in January 2002....*certainly* not enough better off to justify the thousands of lives (on our side), hundreds of thousands of lives (on the innocent civilian side), or several *trillion* dollars in accumulated costs (not even including indirect costs like the impact on the price of oil and its effect on our economy)

Even for a less grandoise and more limited definition of "won"....we have even failed to achieve almost ALL of the limited objectives Bush himself laid down as the standard against which success/failure of "the surge" should be measured.

Only by massively moving the goalposts can one even begin to deny the massive failure and incalculable "loss" we have achieved in Iraq. One has to be completely insane or thoroughly dishonest to try to claim a "win". You've been listening too much to McCain's fantasies.

Would you prefer the word "salvaged" instead of "won". I admit it may be more accurate. Just didn't think of it before. But Iraq is not Vietnam redux no matter how some still desperately hope for that outcome. And it's already looking far better than Korea where we lost 50,000+ servicemen and women and achieved nothing more than a stalemate.

I choose to take the long term view on this and am quite confident the Iraqi people will have "won" in the long run even if it winds up being mostly a salvage for the U.S.

McCain should get full credit for the salvage IMO.

You want to blame Bush for following Truman's doctrine, go ahead but history will show Bush was successful whereas Truman and Johnson were clearly not. I sure wish someone other than U.S. would defend the free world for a change though... And I certainly wish Eisenhower was still around to let us know if military-industrial complex is exactly as he'd foreseen. Not that I see we have much choice any more. Having a military-industrial complex seems a necessity when there are so many enemies where the military is not just part of the government but is the government.

[francejamie]

It means peace and prosperity for a formally impoverished majority due to a tyrannical dictatorship. It means an end to death squads. It means a democratic government even if it is a bit different than our own. It means 7 million more Iraqis now have access to clean drinking water than under Hussein. It mean girls can go to school - even if they aren't Bathists. It means 14 year old boys aren't locked up because they're Shiites. It does mean Iraqi refugees can eventually come home and it does mean peace. It means most of our troops will be home by the end of 2011 (at least that's the latest publicized date).


You should tell that to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and tens of thousands of orphaned children, and the millions of maimed Iraqi civilians. I don't think they know we won.

Also, your answer was completely focused on the effect of the war on the Iraqi people. I guess you were trying to say they won.

How did we (the United States of America and it's citizens) win?
We have lost thousands of lives of our troops. Our military is stretched almost to breaking. We have spent trillions of dollars, which we don't have, driving us deeper and deeper into debt. Gas prices are through the roof. Our economy is shredded. We have squandered any goodwill other countries of the world ever felt for us.

btw, how can we say troops will be home by 2011? I thought we didn't do timelines?

[francejamie]

You want to blame Bush for following Truman's doctrine, go ahead but history will show Bush was successful whereas Truman and Johnson were clearly not. I sure wish someone other than U.S. would defend the free world for a change though... And I certainly wish Eisenhower was still around to let us know if military-industrial complex is exactly as he'd foreseen. Not that I see we have much choice any more. Having a military-industrial complex seems a necessity when there are so many enemies where the military is not just part of the government but is the government.

Like stopping countries from invading other countries without sufficient provocation and toppling their government? Oh wait... it was the US which did that.

[dhyatt]

You want to blame Bush for following Truman's doctrine, go ahead but history will show Bush was successful whereas Truman and Johnson were clearly not. I sure wish someone other than U.S. would defend the free world for a change though... And I certainly wish Eisenhower was still around to let us know if military-industrial complex is exactly as he'd foreseen. Not that I see we have much choice any more. Having a military-industrial complex seems a necessity when there are so many enemies where the military is not just part of the government but is the government.

Like stopping countries from invading other countries without sufficient provocation and toppling their government? Oh wait... it was the US which did that.

I guess you are one of the "Iraq and the world was better off under Hussein" crowd. Oh well, to each his own.

[MattD]

Are we forgetting the war in Afghanistan with the Taliban?

From the NY Time - written just two days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27kandahar.html_r=1&scp=2&sq=Taliban&st=cse&oref=slogin

"The failure of the American-backed Afghan government to protect Kandahar has rippled across the rest of the country and complicated the task of NATO forces, which have suffered more deaths here this year than at any time since the 2001 invasion."

[dhyatt]

Are we forgetting the war in Afghanistan with the Taliban?

From the NY Time - written just two days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/world/asia/27kandahar.html_r=1&scp=2&sq=Taliban&st=cse&oref=slogin

"The failure of the American-backed Afghan government to protect Kandahar has rippled across the rest of the country and complicated the task of NATO forces, which have suffered more deaths here this year than at any time since the 2001 invasion."

What do you expect with NATO running the show? ;-) I'm not sure any kind of near term victory ("salvage" or otherwise) is achievable in Afghanistan without major changes occurring in Pakistan first. Unless we are willing to decimate the mountain tribal areas (and I doubt anybody has the stomach for that), the Taliban is likely continue as raise its ugly head until they tire from having said head repeatedly lopped off. That will likely take quite a while.

[francejamie]

I guess you are one of the "Iraq and the world was better off under Hussein" crowd. Oh well, to each his own.

Nope - I'm one of the "Sadaam was neutralized and harmless anyways" crowd.

[dhyatt]

I guess you are one of the "Iraq and the world was better off under Hussein" crowd. Oh well, to each his own.

Nope - I'm one of the "Sadaam was neutralized and harmless anyways" crowd.

How is that any different? Do you think the Iraqi's were better off under Hussein or not?

[Dharma]

I guess you are one of the "Iraq and the world was better off under Hussein" crowd. Oh well, to each his own.

Nope - I'm one of the "Sadaam was neutralized and harmless anyways" crowd.

How is that any different? Do you think the Iraqi's were better off under Hussein or not?
Well, over 1 million dead ones probably were. I'll even go so far as to say the 2+ million refugees were as well. It still doesn't occur to you that the neocon's concerns were never about the Iraqi people, but oil, does it?

[dhyatt]

I guess you are one of the "Iraq and the world was better off under Hussein" crowd. Oh well, to each his own.

Nope - I'm one of the "Sadaam was neutralized and harmless anyways" crowd.

How is that any different? Do you think the Iraqi's were better off under Hussein or not?
Well, over 1 million dead ones probably were. I'll even go so far as to say the 2+ million refugees were as well. It still doesn't occur to you that the neocon's concerns were never about the Iraqi people, but oil, does it?

Sure it occurs to me but does it matter one way or another to the Iraqi's what the motivation was for setting them free? I agree it makes all the difference in the world to U.S. but I don't see where it makes much difference to them. And you didn't answer the question: Do you think the Iraqi people - as a whole - are better off now, or will be in the near future, than they were under Hussein?

[JoeCiulla]

Now THAT'S funny!

I was reminded of that in watching the Democrats convention last night -- I had forgotten about the absurdities of national party conventions -- and let me be clear, this applies equally to the GOP conventions, too.

The ridiculous hats and other getups. The scripted boring speeches by B-list party hacks. The people who introduce the people who introduce the people who introduce the speaker. The talking heads trying to fill the boring stretches (which are a significant portion of the broadcast), but they get tired and spout inanities, or they interview someone who happens to be passing by and, 5 minutes into the interview, discover that the person is a janitor, not a delegate.

Oh, and then there's the nomination roll call. "Mr. Chairman, the GREEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAT state of East Virginia, the hissing cockroach state, the state with the most pink geraniums east of the Mississippi, birthplace of Alfred E. Newman, home to East Virginia City, the spackle capital of the world, home to Sara P. Schlobotky, 4th runner-up in the Miss Teenage American Accountant,

[insert 5 more minutes of mindless droning]

yes, Mr. Chairman, East Virginia, where Barack Obama's dentist has chosen to locate his vacation home [wild cheering], where Democrats are one of the top two parties in the state, yes, indeed, the GREEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAT state of East Virginia, Mr. Chairman is PROUD....

to PASS.

[Repeat for next state]

Some of the best free entertainment around.

After spending the past 3 nights watching the convention, I must agree with you assessment. I'm sure next week won't be much different.

The shots of the crowds dancing during the musical interludes made one point abundantly clear: "Dancing With the Stars" won't be getting any recruits out of this group. Will the Republicans do better? America wants to know!

One point from Obama's speech last night that I'd like to hear more about... He promised that, if elected, he would free the US from demand for foreign oil in 10 years. He (and McCain) have talked up solar/wind/geothermal power and both have views on nuclear. Has anyone seen a specific roadmap from the Obama campaign on exactly what steps must be taken to achieve this ten-year goal? I mean something beyond rhetoric, a specific plan supported by data.

[Dharma]

Sure it occurs to me but does it matter one way or another to the Iraqi's what the motivation was for setting them free? I agree it makes all the difference in the world to U.S. but I don't see where it makes much difference to them. And you didn't answer the question: Do you think the Iraqi people - as a whole - are better off now, or will be in the near future, than they were under Hussein?

No, Don. I do not think that all of them are better off. I don't think 1 million dead are and I don't think those who fled to Jordan are. If you were one of them, I'm pretty sure you'd be in that camp. No pun intended.

There may currently be a few who are better off but I do not think that, as a whole, they are. But since Rush says they are, you believe they are.

It must be so nice to live in your world where the Republican sky is always blue and beautiful daisies line the roadways....

[francejamie]

Sure it occurs to me but does it matter one way or another to the Iraqi's what the motivation was for setting them free? I agree it makes all the difference in the world to U.S. but I don't see where it makes much difference to them. And you didn't answer the question: Do you think the Iraqi people - as a whole - are better off now, or will be in the near future, than they were under Hussein?

I think that Iraq probably will be better off long term without Sadaam than it was with him.

I also feel that China would probably be better off in the long run with Democracy than it is now. Should we invade China and topple their government and set them up with Democracy?

I, also, feel that the US would have been better off (long term) without Bush and Cheney in the White House for the last 7+ years. Would it have been acceptable for Sadaam to have sent in a team of death squad commandos and assassinated them? Or how about it they got a nuke and had blown up DC (to simulate a tiny fraction of the amount of chaos we've caused in Iraq) and took out Bush and Cheney at the same time?
Or how about for Russia to invade, imprison and execute Bush, and set up a new government, and some permanent bases in Virginia, California, Kansas, Florida, and NC?

[Dharma]

One more thing about the dirty tricks. Ths one is obvious.

From DK http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/28/233458/705/651/578032

AP's Babington wrote anti-Obama piece before Obama's speech was finished

Fournier outsources AP anti-Obama attack
by kos
Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:37:53 PM PDT
This time, it's Charles Babington.

Barack Obama, whose campaign theme is "change we can believe in," promised Thursday to "spell out exactly what that change would mean."

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.

Of course, no candidate can outline every initiative in a 35-minute speech - especially one that also must inspire voters, acknowledge key friends, and toss in some autobiography for the newly-interested. And Obama did touch on nitty-gritty subjects, such as the capital gains tax and biofuel investments.

He said he would "find ways to safely harness nuclear power," a somewhat more receptive phrase than he typically uses for that subject.

The piece is 603 words. So we are to believe, that Babington watched the speech, gave it due consideration, wrote it, turned it in, went through editing, when through copyediting, was then posted online -- all in 26 minutes?

This sounds like Fox M.O.

[dhyatt]

One more thing about the dirty tricks. Ths one is obvious.

From DK http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/28/233458/705/651/578032

AP's Babington wrote anti-Obama piece before Obama's speech was finished

Fournier outsources AP anti-Obama attack
by kos
Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 08:37:53 PM PDT
This time, it's Charles Babington.

Barack Obama, whose campaign theme is "change we can believe in," promised Thursday to "spell out exactly what that change would mean."

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.

Of course, no candidate can outline every initiative in a 35-minute speech - especially one that also must inspire voters, acknowledge key friends, and toss in some autobiography for the newly-interested. And Obama did touch on nitty-gritty subjects, such as the capital gains tax and biofuel investments.

He said he would "find ways to safely harness nuclear power," a somewhat more receptive phrase than he typically uses for that subject.

The piece is 603 words. So we are to believe, that Babington watched the speech, gave it due consideration, wrote it, turned it in, went through editing, when through copyediting, was then posted online -- all in 26 minutes?

This sounds like Fox M.O.

Nonsense. Ask any reporter and they will tell you that for big stories on a deadline they prepare two (sometimes more) rough drafts ahead of time and then pick one, polish it, and publish it. kos is just reaching to explain away a less than hoped for speech by Obama.

[dhyatt]

I thought it kind of absurd that the DNC had recycling gestapos directing attendees as to where to place their trash. Now, it turns out that they weren't nearly as concerned over what to do with the thousands of American flags handed out at the Invesco field for Obama's big night. The point of this post isn't so much over proper handling of the flag as it is the thought process behind it. Allowing the Republican's to harvest bag after bag of discarded American flags that were thrown out alongside pizza boxes and plastic water bottles is just stupid. It proves that the "green" strategy at the convention center was really nothing more than a show and that those in charge were more concerned about which compost pile to use than they were about properly disposing of the flags.

Flags get thrown away everyday, 98% of techically improperly, that's NOT the point here. The point is that the DNC leaders apparently didn't give a second thought about the flags and they will now be used against them. That's rather stupid on their part.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/

[chaboard]

Ithat's NOT the point here. The point is that the DNC leaders apparently didn't give a second thought about the flags and they will now be used against them. That's rather stupid on their part.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/

I think the larger point is that you were a little too quick to run with an unfounded smear:



According to a article just out from Huffington Post, the story about flags from the Democratic National Convention being thrown away is simply false. The story was jumped on and apparently authored by the McCain campaign. But the real tell is down in the Huffpo piece where it traces the story to none other than Fox News' Carl Cameron.

Longtime readers of TPM will remember that back in October 2004 this site caught Cameron publishing a series of fabricated quotes attributed to John Kerry on the front page of the Fox News website.

After I placed a series of calls to Fox News inquiring about the story, the story was eventually pulled, and Fox was forced to issue an apology and retract the fabricated story. Fox spokesman Paul Schur told TPM: "Carl [Cameron] made a stupid mistake which he regrets. And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor."

Why anybody would believe anything this joker says is difficult to fathom. But he's good enough for McCain.

--Josh Marshall


And I think the following response from the DNC is more than fair and more than deserved, don't you?



"It's disappointing that someone would take American flags without authorization and then falsely describe how they were being used. We have the utmost respect for the American flag, and it's sad to see them being used for a cheap political stunt."



Hear, hear.

[dhyatt]

Ithat's NOT the point here. The point is that the DNC leaders apparently didn't give a second thought about the flags and they will now be used against them. That's rather stupid on their part.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/06/mccain-camp-to-chastise-dems-for-discarding-american-flags/

I think the larger point is that you were a little too quick to run with an unfounded smear:



According to a article just out from Huffington Post, the story about flags from the Democratic National Convention being thrown away is simply false. The story was jumped on and apparently authored by the McCain campaign. But the real tell is down in the Huffpo piece where it traces the story to none other than Fox News' Carl Cameron.

Longtime readers of TPM will remember that back in October 2004 this site caught Cameron publishing a series of fabricated quotes attributed to John Kerry on the front page of the Fox News website.

After I placed a series of calls to Fox News inquiring about the story, the story was eventually pulled, and Fox was forced to issue an apology and retract the fabricated story. Fox spokesman Paul Schur told TPM: "Carl [Cameron] made a stupid mistake which he regrets. And he has been reprimanded for his lapse in judgment. It was a poor attempt at humor."

Why anybody would believe anything this joker says is difficult to fathom. But he's good enough for McCain.

--Josh Marshall
And I think the following response from the DNC is more than fair and more than deserved, don't you?



"It's disappointing that someone would take American flags without authorization and then falsely describe how they were being used. We have the utmost respect for the American flag, and it's sad to see them being used for a cheap political stunt."
Hear, hear.

ROTFL!!! :-) I'm supposed to believe they weren't being thrown out because of something on the Huffington Post??? That's rich!!! I'm surprised you didn't use the official DNC organizers response which is that they were stolen from them. I agree with the "cheap political stunt" part though. There's no doubt that's what it was. "Cheap" because the McCain campaign didn't have to pay for the flags and it was one heck of a political stunt. ;-) I stand by my original post which is simply that the DNC was stupid for allowing such an easy stunt to happen, especially after all the "care" they took with the rest of their trash.

I guess you're choosing to just ignore the photos of the trash on redstate.com (hey it's as good a source as HP) for which I don't really blame you given all the photoshopping that's going on. I especially like Obama's forged birth certificate.

I'll add fries to the bet (I hope you're keeping track 'cuz I might have a memory lapse, you never know) that McCain will be up on the RCP tracking poll by Wednesday. (SMALL fries, it's a risky bet ;-) )

[chaboard]

ROTFL!!! :-) I'm supposed to believe they weren't being thrown out because of something on the Huffington Post??? That's rich!!!


Not particularly. But the fact that the original source of the story has been caught just making stuff up before should at least get a pause.

Fact is you still have NO evidence for your side of the claim but you DO have a tarnished source. And *I'm* suppposed to go for that? No thanks. It's a smear. A particularly sleazy and un-American smear.




I'll add fries to the bet (I hope you're keeping track 'cuz I might have a memory lapse, you never know) that McCain will be up on the RCP tracking poll by Wednesday. (SMALL fries, it's a risky bet ;-) )

If I can substitute a pumpkin shake for the fries when I win, sure! Those pumpkin shakes are awfully good.

Forget RCP though - they're way too obvious about arbitrarily throwing out polls that don't look good for their candidate. More comprehensive and trustworthy compendium here:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Notice how RCP claims to be using polls from 8/29-9/5 but omits national polls from that period with Obama leads of 6,7 and 8 points. Including *Gallup*, fer chrissakes.

[dhyatt]

[snip]

Forget RCP though - they're way too obvious about arbitrarily throwing out polls that don't look good for their candidate. More comprehensive and trustworthy compendium here:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

Notice how RCP claims to be using polls from 8/29-9/5 but omits national polls from that period with Obama leads of 6,7 and 8 points. Including *Gallup*, fer chrissakes.

I think that's because they use a rolling average which is far more accurate than daily polls in spotting trends. I'm unfamiliar with pollster.com (must be a leftist polling outfit ;-) and let you know if I can agree.

[chaboard]

I think that's because they use a rolling average which is far more accurate than daily polls in spotting trends. I'm unfamiliar with pollster.com (must be a leftist polling outfit ;-) and let you know if I can agree.

Neither RCP or pollster.com are pollsters -neither conducts polls of their own.
Both RCP and pollster.com get their numbers by "averaging" the results of other polls.
Both look back about 1 week in their averages and both seem to weight the most recent polls very slightly higher than the week-old ones. There may be minor variations in their weighting algorithms, but if so they really are minor.

The big difference is in what polls they include RCP throws out data points, pollster.com includes data points. For example right now RCP lists their average covering the period from 8/29 - 9/06. They have five different polls included in that average. However, if you click on their detail page and go to where they list all polls....they themselves list another three that are NOT included in their average! For the same time period, pollster.com is incorporating thirteen polls in their average. When it comes to polling the key concept is "Sample size, sample size, sample size"...the same applies to polls of polls.

RCP was also famous in 2004 for arbitrarily using the screen that benefitted Bush. For example if the Likely Voter numbers were better for Bush than the Registered Voters were in the Gallup poll they would use the Likely Voter numbers in their average. If the numbers flip-flopped the next week and the RV numbers were better....they* would also
flip-flop and use the RV's. They were pretty shameless about it. I haven't paid enough attention to know if they're satill doing that, but you should keep their past tactics in mind
when using theirt numbers. ;)