Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Huckabee less so.

Per the exit polls, as reported in an reader email posted on the Corner:

"Huckabee took 14% of the vote and came in fourth in the Iowa caucus among non-evangelicals according to the NBC Republican exit poll [other polls come out about the same]. Huckabee's principal voting block was female born-again Christian Republicans living in non-urban rural areas with a population below 10,000. I dearly love such people, but demographically in the country at large there aren't that many of them.

When Huckabee moves out of caucus Iowa and into primary state America, he's going to get killed."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
They must be doing something right, because right now there are baying hordes of them milling around New York, roaming from Canal Street to upper Fifth Avenue, buying up everything in sight and laughing when they get their bar tabs. And I am not even mentioning the Canadians.

just show a Canadian a really big schlong and they'll blanch. I mean, that advice won't help you, but some others might benefit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
And what's worse, parts of Europe are reconsidering their positions on mindless excess.

• [I]t may be last call for drugs, sex and live-and-let-live in the Netherlands, one of the most famously broad-minded countries in the world.
  
  Prostitution, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and magic mushrooms have long been legal here, and soft drugs such as marijuana are technically illegal but are sold with official sanction in small amounts in "coffeehouses." In recent years, however, uneasiness over an influx of Muslim and black immigrants as well as a lifestyle that many believe has gone too far have shifted the Dutch mood away from tolerance and infinite permissiveness.
  
  In 2006, parliament stopped coffeehouses from selling alcohol if they sell marijuana; now, legislators are negotiating to have them located at least 250 yards from schools. This year, a ban on the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms goes into effect.

LAT

can you still kill people there if they write something bad about Islam?

[SlaveNoMore]

Why The Netroots Aren’t Rejoicing Over Obama’s Caucus Win

It finally happened. The droves of young voters motivated to ‘change’ Washington finally showed up in large enough numbers to give a ‘movement’ candidate with a surprising and convincing electoral victory. If this was 2004 and the candidate was Howard Dean, the netroots would be ecstatic. Instead, prior to last night’s results, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas wrote: “Not rooting for any of these candidates, election day isn’t as exciting. Then again, I won’t have to relive the pain of Dean’s crushing defeat again. That’s a definite ‘plus’ for maintaining a cool detachment.”

So what gives? Considering the deep mistrust between Hillary Clinton and the netroots, why isn’t Obama’s victory a reason to rejoice? The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder provided a clue when analyzing Obama’s closing message to Iowa voters: “Obama’s closing argument is more audacious than it seems; it’s an end-run around the established interests of the Democratic Party. He is angering — often deliberately — some of the party’s core constituencies.” Specifically, the community is upset that in the closing week of the campaign, Obama ran right on health care and social security, attacked trial lawyers, and suggested that John Kerry and Al Gore were divisive.

But Obama’s troubled history with netroots has a longer history. Obama once insinuated that Daily Kos was boring, and many in the community feel as though he has triangulated on Iran and Iraq since coming to the senate. Others believe Obama has cultivated his centrist appeal by avoiding controversial votes. More recently Obama issued a press release attacking progressive movement icon and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on social security.

The Krugman dust up is particularly illuminating because Krugman’s broader criticism of Obama (that his “different kind of politics” are really just “Big Table Fantasies”) hits on a core belief of the modern progressive movement: Fundamental change can’t be accomplished by a politician who shuns partisanship. Open Left’s Chris Bowers writes: “If Obama really believes that he is somehow post-ideology, post-partisan, and capable of bringing contemporary Republicans to actually engage in real compromises over legislation in good faith, then I can’t help but think that, despite his background, he is oddly naïve.”

But Obama’s naiveté isn’t their deepest fear. As the Des Moines Register’s pre-caucus poll shows, the majority of Obama’s support comes from independents and Republicans, not registered Democrats. This is the progressive movement’s second worst nightmare: a Democratic President, elected by independents and moderates, who rhetorically rejected progressive elements to get elected. Ezra Klein blogged: “Obama’s comfort attacking liberals from the right is unsettling, and if he does win Iowa, it will not be a victory that either supporters or the media ascribe to the more progressive elements of his candidacy.” Bowers has similar thoughts: “Obama just isn’t using the same arguments or rhetoric that the progressive blogosphere uses about Republicans and Democrats. He is also … building his own, in-house activist movement instead of working with the existing progressive movement. And so, even though he is clearly at least the second favorite in the progressive blogosphere, if he wins, it will be in spite of the progressive blogosphere, rather than because of it.”

And that’s why the progressive movement is wary of an Obama victory. They fear that an Obama win will be remembered as a victory for some kind of fuzzy Obama-ism founded on bipartisan compromise and not the first victory of what they hope will be an enduring progressive coalition.

http://theheritagefoundry.org/2008/0...sed-community/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Per the exit polls, as reported in an reader email posted on the Corner:

"Huckabee took 14% of the vote and came in fourth in the Iowa caucus among non-evangelicals according to the NBC Republican exit poll [other polls come out about the same]. Huckabee's principal voting block was female born-again Christian Republicans living in non-urban rural areas with a population below 10,000. I dearly love such people, but demographically in the country at large there aren't that many of them.

When Huckabee moves out of caucus Iowa and into primary state America, he's going to get killed."

The latest polls show him in first in South Carolina, second to Fruitcake in Florida, and two percentage points behind Romney in Romney's home state of Michigan.

We'll see, but I think you're underestimating Huckabee.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
For the slavery as current issue quip, see http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...23/532376.aspx

It would be outrageous if it weren't true.

From what I can see, Paul is indeed getting shunned by the GOP establishment. Huckabee less so.

I thought he was supposed to be against government spending.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
They must be doing something right, because right now there are baying hordes of them milling around New York, roaming from Canal Street to upper Fifth Avenue, buying up everything in sight and laughing when they get their bar tabs. And I am not even mentioning the Canadians.

That'd be the Irish, right? I think you and I are both eligible for Irish citizenship.

A family friend just moved over there to work and he's doing well. I wonder how the hell he did it. Is it easy to get permits?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
If someone ever said this phrase to me in real life, I would laugh in his/her face. Maybe it is good that I am not a litigator. Do people actually talk like this, or is that just on Law & Order*?




*I don't watch Law & Order. But I assume some currently-striking-writer for that show at some point put pen to paper and came up with "Nonresponsive, counselor." I could be wrong though.

Just L&O, and here, for rhetorical/campy effect.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
For the slavery as current issue quip, see http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...23/532376.aspx

It would be outrageous if it weren't true.

From what I can see, Paul is indeed getting shunned by the GOP establishment. Huckabee less so.

you read this as he supports slavery? or are you just being realistic and realizing the dems would never have let the government phase it out.

ps, can you find the speech where lincoln declared the civil war to eliminate slavery?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you read this as he supports slavery?

Find where I said that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you read this as he supports slavery? or are you just being realistic and realizing the dems would never have let the government phase it out.

ps, can you find the speech where lincoln declared the civil war to eliminate slavery?

I suppose as a committed lieralist, you might not be able to see it, but here's the speech:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, to stand here, we here be dedica-ted to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I suppose as a committed lieralist, you might not be able to see it, but here's the speech:

i was focused on "START" a war to eliminate slavery. he didn't eliminate it until he could see his side would almost certainly win the war.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why The Netroots Aren’t Rejoicing Over Obama’s Caucus Win

http://theheritagefoundry.org/2008/0...sed-community/

Hmmm. Who exactly do the DailyKos crazies want to win? Kucinich?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I suppose as a committed literalist

Consider that stolen.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hmmm. Who exactly do the DailyKos crazies want to win? Kucinich?

I bet ty's name comes up at the convention. motherfucker can toe a party line,