Wednesday, 7/28/10, Public Square


Filed under The Public Square

67 responses to “Wednesday, 7/28/10, Public Square

  1. Happy birthday to yooouuuu♪♫•*¨*•♥*¨*•♫♪ Happy birthday to you♪♫¨*•♥•*¨♫♪Happy birthday ♪♫•*♫♪Deeeeaaaarrr 6176…♫♪ Happy birthday♪♫•♥*¨*•♫♪♪♫•*¨*♥¨*•♫♪!

    • Happy Birthday from me as well. (And thanks to fnord for letting the cat out of the bag.)

    • Perhaps 6176 will share that with us, if he doesn’t all I’ll say is this is a milestone birthday. 😉

    • Thanks, guys. I ‘preciate these posts. Now, I have some brief prepared remarks for the occasion to post (will a 500 page pdf be OK, fnord? I’ve really worked hard to edit these down….) 🙂 (with tongue inserted firmly into cheek).

      • indypendent

        Happy Birthday!

      • If you translate that brief into English it will be shorter.

      • fnord,

        no it won’t; it will be longer.


        Tis the beginning of my 7th decade on the planet as a separate organism. In other words, do the arithmetic. 🙂

      • but, but, but, people who don’t speak legalese will understand it…

        If you continue speaking your native language you could be confused by some as an ILLEGAL who is refusing to learn English which is, of course, some kind of proof that you are a real American. Or something like that. The arguments have never made enough sense to me to actually pay attention to the details. 😉

  2. he Massachusetts Legislature has voted for legislation aimed at ensuring the winner of the popular vote wins presidential elections, making the Electoral College irrelevant; under the new law, Massachusetts will give its 12 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The bill now goes to the governor’s desk; he’s said in the past that he supports the measure. Supporters of this plan have been campaigning state by state for its passage, and so far Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have approved the law, which goes into effect once enough states have passed it to make it work. (Once states accounting for the majority of electoral votes pass the law, winning the popular vote would guarantee winning the Electoral College.) Critics said bill supporters were messing with a “tried and true” system, but enthusiasts say the Electoral College causes huge chunks of the country—non-swing states—to be ignored during the election.

    • itolduso

      Talk about voter nullification. The entire state of (whichever) could vote for one candidate, and the electoral college vote (which actually decides the presidency) of the state goes to the other.

    • I agree. Although I think there is a better way than the electoral college, this doesn’t seem to be that better way. Nebraska and Maine have better ideas than this.

      • itolduso

        I think the Dictrict method, as employed by Nebraska, and I think Maine (but I am not sure about that one) is okay. I also think that a percentage allocation method would be okay also. Perhaps a percentage for winning the state, and then the rest split the way the percentages fell within the state.

        It may or may not be time to eliminate the electoral college, but amending the intent badly is worse than either trying to eleminate it by Constitutional change, or amending the way the states allocate their electoral votes it in a proper manner. It is interesting that “Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington” are all heavily Democratic leaning states (again, I am not sure but at least the blue/red map often published agrees). I don;t know what that means, I just found it interesting.

      • As I recall the Maine system, the electoral votes (4, in its case) are cast in the following manner: if a candidate wins the popular vote in both congressional districts, s/he would receive all 4 votes. If the popular vote is split, i.e., Candidate A wins the First District, Candidate B the Second, then the candidate carrying the state receives 3 electoral votes (2 representing the number of Senators plus 1 for the district) with the other 1 vote.

        I think the Electoral College makes sense, even today, if it is desired that every state has (potentially) a voice. Otherwise, the danger perceived by the Founders, that a President could be elected by a few populous states, still exists. I’m not too sure of the exact formula, but if a candidate carries New York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan along with a few others by a comfortable majority, s/he wins if the presidency is to be determined solely by who gets the most popular votes overall, there not being a sufficient population base to otherwise overcome these states.

        A proportional division of electoral votes seems to me to make sense; it gives the popular vote a bit more clout than today along with seeking a majority of states (at least in theory) to favor a particular candidate for President.

      • I am with 6176 on a proportional method. Winner takes all is no good and it doesn’t even make sense. If we are going to have this Electoral College, which I don’t like so much, we should at least let it represent the will of the people in each state and not the will of the majority in each state. I would have liked to have seen a proportionate share of Kansas’ electoral votes go to Obama rather than the non-representational ZERO that he got. And maybe it might make BOTH parties more interested in the needs and desires of the State of Kansas.

    • My son and daughter-in-law live in Mass. They say the state is approx. 60 / 40 split. So, some years they’ll nullify as much as 60 percent of the voter’s expressed wills. Of course, any percent is too high. Also, this ‘split’ represents voters and like most states that is a small percent of the actual residents who would be illegible voters if they only cared enough to accept the responsibility and right.

  3. Another piece of the Democrats’ agenda went down in flames Tuesday when Senate Republicans united to filibuster campaign-finance-reform legislation. In the face of GOP obstructionism, should the Democrats consider losing the filibuster altogether? Ezra Klein lays out how they can do so with only 51 votes: The Constitution requires the Senate to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings” at the opening of each session. That means, assuming the Democrats still control the Senate next year, they could declare the filibuster out-of-bounds—and the GOP couldn’t filibuster the elimination of the filibuster, since doing so would prevent the Senate from considering its own rules and would therefore be unconstitutional. This step has never been taken before by the Senate, though it was frequently discussed in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

  4. david B

    They (the Rs) did not vote down the measure, they voted to not debate it, thus killing it for now. It was not a great bill – with the special interest carve-outs, Still that is no reason to not allow it to floor for debate.

    72% of Americans surveyed thought the Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision was bad for democracy.

    Those who flog popular opinion polls are ignoring this one, since if is favoring them for this election cycle. Pandering, cynical pigs.

    • indypendent

      Weren’t Republicans the ones always yelling for a up or down vote? How can a vote be taken if there is no debate?

      I guess that only concerns them when THEY determine it to be a political point for their side.

      • itolduso

        I think in general there ought to be an up or down vote. However, if they want to continue the fillibuster (and both sides only want to eliminate it when it’s in their way) then they need to have a real fillibuster, like in the old days. No namby pamby threat, no cloture vote, a full blown, continually talking, fillibuster, with the cloture vote actually meaning shut the hell up and move on. If they want to fillibuster, make the bass turds pay

      • Well said! I agree completely!

      • indypendent

        I remember the last time those sleeping cots were brought out for all the members to see. That quickly brought a resolution to the current fight.

        I think that was during the health care debate – but I’m not sure.

        I agree – we need to make our elected officials on both sides of the aisle stand up and do their jobs.

        Personally, I would like to see the Party of NO be made to close down their congressional offices and phone their votes in.

        Because, the Party of NO has told us from day one of Obama Adminstration they plan to vote NO on everything. And it seems they are doing just that. So why should taxpayers have to cover the costs for their congressional offices?

        I know,it’s a pipe dream.

  5. What does everyone think about the Utah Supreme Court overturning the conviction against Warren Jeffs?

    For me, it is sometimes difficult to take the emotions out and look only at the laws. Happens often when children are involved. I think the man is a monster. I think the laws must be followed and if they weren’t the next time they won’t be followed against someone who is innocent.

    I am interested in your thoughts. As you can see, I’m not thinking very straight.

    • indypendent

      Isn’t it ironic how those who set themselves up to be so pure and godly are all too happy to use the justice system’s technicality side to get off on their own troubles with the law?

      Kinda reminds me of Rush and his love affair with the ACLU when he needed their help to keep his butt out of jail.

      • itolduso

        Everybody hates lawyers, and thinks they are crooks and liars……Until they need one. Same with the ACLU, Supreme Court, etc, etc, etc.

      • indypendent

        I don’t hate lawyers simply because they are lawyers.

        And, unlike Rush, I don’t sit on a talk radio program for 3 hours a day and bash the ACLU after they helped me get my butt out of trouble.

        It is one thing to be against ACLU and use them when you need them – but it is an entirely different thing when Rush sits and bashes them consistenly and constantly as being the spawn of the Devil himself.

        It just strikes me as hypocritical of Rush to like the Devil’s spawn when he needs his own butt taken off that proverbial hook.

    • itolduso

      We are a nation of laws. While I don’t know the particulars of the case, the law must be followed. We may not always like the outcome. If the law needs changing, then that is what needs to be done. And, in doing so, we must always look out for the “unintended consequences” Just my opinion.

    • WSClark

      Right about that, Told You.

      Reminds me a bit of the “Hippie Years” Cops were “pigs” until you needed one. Then it was “Yes, Officer.”

      I has harassed by the police a lot in those days, but I never resorted to the “pig” mentality.

    • I knew this was the input I would receive — ’cause you’re all smart people and it’s the only way to see it. I am often too emotional but even then I see what I don’t want to accept.

      • indypendent

        I view things like this in the same light as the OJ Simpson trial.

        While we may not like the verdict that jury came out with, we have to respect that verdict because that is how our justice system is set up.

        But then there is such a thing as karma…….

        Ahh, sweet karma. She is a beautiful thing to watch (if we are lucky enough to be there).

  6. itolduso

    Good humor for the day. And some historical reflection….

  7. tosmarttobegop

    I read it in a Government 101 college text book, that the electoral college was set up because the founding fathers had no faith in the common sense of the common man.
    That on occasions the voters will make a dumb decision and it will need to be corrected.

    Enough said on that since every thing I would say is what anyone else would have said.

  8. U.S. Judge Blocks Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

    A federal judge has stopped key parts of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect, including the section that would authorize police in the state to ask about immigration status of individuals they stop for other reasons.

    • From the NPR link above —

      The court has now provided a link for the opinion but so many people must be trying to access it that the server is overwhelmed.

      Here’s a Scribd link to the judge’s opinion.

    • itolduso

      too bad.

      ANd this part

      “The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times” from the link….As I understand it, that is already Federal Law.

    • Where can I get a copy of my papers since there is a good chance that one of the authors of this bill is going to be holding office in my state in the near future?

      I’ve never had papers before, so I’m not sure if I even belong here.


      • indypendent

        What happens when the theocrats take over and then determine that nobody is a ‘real’ American citizen unless they attend a certain church denomination?

        And let’s make sure the church demonination does not split into two different groups because we surely would not want the unclean side to mix with the clean side – now would we?

        This is what happens when fear and hatred take over – mob mentality with mob tactics.

        I’m with Paula – I don’t have all my papers. What about all those older Republican white voters – do they have all their papers?

        And let’s not just stop at having papers – let’s require ‘certified papers’. You know, like the birthers demand from Obama?

        Where does all this madness stop?

  9. itolduso

    And the beat goes on.

    • WSClark

      Thank you for coming by, I Told You! While we may not all agree with you, you have been respectful and have provided another point of view.

      That is important. That is VERY important, and I would like to personally thank you for your input.

      We learn by seeing different perspectives on issues. While Pop Blog is primarily progressives, there is room for everyone.

      Thank you again for visiting with us and respecting our rules.

      You should be commended.

      Thanks, again.

  10. This ruling is what I expected. Now! Federal government: GET BUSY doing your job!

    • indypendent

      I just read where the Obama Administration have been deporting illegal immigrants in record numbers – mainly the ones with criminal records.

      So, maybe Obama HAS been doing his job but the Arizona politicians are only pulling out their proverbial whipping boy to get their base all riled up again?

      I suspect after the election, this poor whipping boy will be put back into the dungeon until he is neededagain to get their base all riled up again.

      I wonder when their base will finally figure out they are being duped?

    • What, if any, impact might this have on Kris Kobach’s campaign? He’s the guy who wrote the Arizona law and is running for Kansas Secretary of State on the lie that we have some gigantic problem with voter fraud.

      • indypendent

        His followers will continue to worship him and label this judge as an activist judge who needs Pat Robertson and his followers to pray into having a heart attack.

        Remember that crazy statement from a good Evangelical Christian leader?

        BTW – Kris Kobach is reported to be a birther – I wonder, does Mr. Kobach have his certified birth record?

        I would like to see it – in person – none of this Photoshopped nonsense on some website.

    • First branch of the Federal government that needs to do its job is the Executive by enforcing existing law not only against the illegals but also against those who encourage them, the employers who hire them. The latter seems to be lacking. Then, the Congress needs to provide more realistic, perhaps onerous, penalties to be suffered by those who knowingly employ such that the cost of noncompliance so greatly exceeds the short-term benefits of employment at “bargain rates” of those seeking work to support their families that the risk is not worth assuming (especially with increased enforcement action increasing the chance of being caught).

      To itoldyouso; we were discussing some of this the other day. An objection you had to my thoughts on forfeiture is that “innocent people would get hurt” or words of similar effect. IMHO, there are no truly innocent people to be hurt. The owners and their families have arguably enjoyed a higher standard of living than might otherwise have been provided. The stockholders have enjoyed a greater dividend, increase in stock value, or both as the result, making them enablers at best. Plus, by forfeiture of the stock as a possibility, stockholders (who have the power ultimately) might not be as willing to turn a blind eye to the actions of management.

      Remember: An innocent person cannot be the victim of a con game. If the person is truly innocent, there will be no greed; and greedy people are the easy victims of a con man.

      • indypendent

        I will concede that polticians on both sides of the aisle have been bought and paid for by the very same Big Business that loves to exploit cheap labor.

        And I agree with your assessment about the greedy people are easy victims of a con man.

        Case in point – Bernie Madoff. How many o fthis victims stated that Bernie promised higher returns than anyone else on their investments?

        Greed can usually be found at the bottom of any stinking sewer pond.

  11. From Jean Schodorf: “The negative campaigning is getting out of control. A new radio ad crosses the line.This new radio ad refers to Jean by name as a RINO (republican in name only) and asks what happens when you KILL a RINO….followed by … “they go clump clump squish squish”

    I don’t know yet if the radio ad discloses who paid for it, I haven’t heard it. I do think this goes all the way to dangerous. I am so ashamed of whoever is this profoundly hateful.


    *Correction to the new attack ad* A new radio ad refers to Jean by name as a RINO and states they want to “bag a RINO”. ” What do RINOS sound like when you catch them? They squeal a lot and then go squish squish.”

    • indypendent

      Why was it even aired – that is another good question.

      But what is expected of this crowd that sat and laughed at a young Chelsea Clinton for being the White House dog?

      If I remember correctly, alot of those same people call themselves the Religious Right Republicans.

      Now isn’t that a fine representation for THEIR god?

  12. indypendent

    What is the talk radio call letters? If it is a radio station that leans towards conservative Republicans – then that may just be their true feelings.

    If that is the case, then it is time for moderates in both parties and independents stand up and tell these bullies to sit down and shut up.

    There is a line of decency that has been crossed too many times on the conservative Republicans side and they may just be doing more harm than good for their cause.

    One thing though – if they get their butts whooped this year, can we please send their leaders to Russia (hopefully Siberia) along with BP’s ex CEO Tony Hayward?


    • Well, KNSS airs Rush, among others. KFH used to have its share of talk radio “stuff”, but its now primarily a sports station. Both are owned by Entercom.

  13. indypendent

    fnord – I would have to laugh if Jean Schodord beats both Hartman and Pompeo – and to make it really hurt them – by just a few votes.

    That would wipe that smirky grins off both of their pompous faces.

    These two men – plus Moran and Tiarht – have turned alot of people off.

    But like I said on the other thread – people may say one thing but when they get into that voting booth – they will pick the one they think is on ‘their side’.

  14. Well, out I go to run a few errands and then dinner with 6c70 to celebrate another turn of the odometer. Later, all.

  15. 6176, have a great evening! Celebrate!

  16. It would make me very happy if both Pompeo and Hartman lost. It’s not what I expect, but it sure is what I’d like!

    I’m gonna go see if I can find out both who paid for the radio ad and who accepted the money and aired it.

  17. david B

    Kobach’s Law is stopped by the judge for now!

    • indypendent

      And this is helping Kobach and supporters to get even more donations as we blog to ‘fight the evil liberals’.

      I wonder what they would do if all illegal immigrants were rounded up and deported. What would the Republican Party do about their corporate masters who demand cheap labor exploitation?

      Maybe that is when these ‘real’ Republicans will lower the boom on the middle class conservatives who are currently unemployed that they are expected to take the places of that cheap labor?

      Then I guess we’ll see how these folks feel about the unemployed being lazy and not wanting to work?

      I know alot of unemployed middle class Republicans who are demanding illegals to be deported. I wonder if they have thought about the big picture and their intended place in that big picture?

  18. Jean answered my questions: “The ad is being aired on KFDI and is paid for by Common Sense Issues.”

    Common Sense Issues is a tax-exempt group registered in Delaware whose organizers have acknowledged the use of controversial telephone polling tactics to promote Huckabee’s presidential bid—and allegedly to trash the campaigns of the former Arkansas governor’s rivals. The nonprofit also helped set up and run, a Web site that was involved in front-line efforts to recruit and mobilize Huckabee supporters to turn out for the Iowa caucuses.

    • indypendent

      Isn’t Huckabee an Evangelical Christian preacher?

      It’s things like this that might make a person go hmmmmmm about those Evangelical Christian Republicans and their true motives in the political world.

  19. A predecessor organization, Common Sense Ohio, created quite a ruckus in 2006. That operation — which shares some leadership with Common Sense Issues — ran radio ads and controversial robocalls supporting GOP candidates in that year’s hot Senate races. It was bankrolled by Ohio investor and steadfast Republican donor Carl Lindner and Massachusetts anti-abortion, pro-abstinence advocate Raymond Ruddy.

  20. indypendent

    As I stated earlier today, any non-profit group can promote whatever cause they want.

    But I think that the money source and the people behind any non-profit group needs to be disclosed and it needs to be said loud and clear at the time of any public advertising.

    And that should go for all non-profit groups – on both sides of the political spectrum.

  21. I’m still digging. I’ve learned that this organization is still fighting against women making their own private decisions about their health care, but am trying to find names of individuals.

    The one thing this tells me — if this is ONLY a national organization — they are scared of Jean Schodorf! She is getting too much attention and gaining too much strength. They aren’t spending their money where it isn’t needed!

  22. Common Sense Issues was created earlier this year, according to IRS records, by Harold “Zeke” Swift, who had used an earlier group called Common Sense Ohio to conduct similar activities in the 2006 U.S. Senate election. Swift recently was listed as a co-host for a fundraiser for Huckabee late last month in Ohio.

    Patrick Davis, the executive director for Common Sense Issues, described the calls as “personalized educational artificial intelligence calls” and that they are being made across the country, not just in Iowa. “Primarily these calls are to deliver a positive message about the issues that are important to us,” Davis said.

  23. VERY IMPORTANT! Remember if you get anonymous robo-calls, report it to AG Six.

    That is one of the tactics of this “Common Sense Issues” group. Nail em!

  24. indypendent

    Correction to the new attack ad* A new radio ad refers to Jean by name as a RINO and states they want to “bag a RINO”. ” What do RINOS sound like when you catch them? They squeal a lot and then go squish squish

    “Primarily these calls are to deliver a positive message about the issues that are important to us,” Davis said

    If this Common Sense Issues group thinks they only deliver positive messages about the issues – then exactly what is so positive about the statement above about bagging a RINO and hearing them squeal alot and then go squish, squish?

    If this is the best Huckabee and his kind can do for positive message – then no wonder he never even came close to winning last time out.

    I don’t like people who use snarky names and who then try to half-way apologize in the next breath to demonize others they don’t agree with politically. And I don’t like people who make jokes about bagging a RINO.

    Both of these actions are nothing but the cowardly actions of bullies. And the last thing we need at this time are more bullies!

    I must confess – I have used snarky names for certain talk radio entertainers/Republicans but I don’t half-way apologize for using the snarky name. When I am snarky, I am not afraid to stand up and say I am being snarky about it.

  25. tosmarttobegop

    “Everybody hates lawyers, and thinks they are crooks and liars”

    That reminds me 6176 Happy birthday!

  26. indypendent

    Since we are talking about Huckabee, I thought you might like to read this article I just found on Huffingtonpost about the ‘positive messages’ Mr. Huckabee finds himself spreading these days.

    Tell me again why I am wrong to think religion and politics should never mix.