bmags

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 06:57 AM) We'll see, I suppose that is possible. But I think if they had the goods on this, why not include it in the article? Maybe they are just getting desperate and think going the Drudge route could help boost sales. Even if they believe the story, they still need something substancial (which the article did not contain). Hell, Dan Rather was even sure his GW report was right, even after getting busted going on air with forged documents. It was almost like he never really understood why it was such a big deal, because he truly believed what he was reporting. Thing is, even if it IS true, you still can't just go with a big story like this with no proof or false evidence. What a HUGE shot to the Times credibility if they got busted in a Dan Rather like scandal. the rather story was pushed by the 60 minutes producers who have since been fired. I've read that the producers sat on some info questioning it but didn't act despite resistance in the mail room. And the thing is, it says his aides "fearing a sexual rel'ship", not explicitly saying he's having one. That's a tap dance around libel, but even so, the suit is still expensive as hell. I bet they have something.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 06:03 AM) What a great time for the New York Times to have this come out now. Supposively they've had this story for a while. Hey if a couple of Democrat presidents have had relationships with others in office, why not a Republican hopeful 8 years before. I'm not condoning any of this one bit though. I don't know, I think the times has to worry about libel in a time like this. Any expensive lawsuits like that would be can really hurt a paper now that they are all strapped financially

damn it, i come in for just 5 minutes and here I'm here for 30 when I should be studying!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:03 PM) Just saw a guy from the Obama campaign giving an interview. He was asked to give one Obama accomplishment, the guy just blabbed about change or something stupid... interviewer said "No, give me a specific accomplishment". Guy from Obama campaign was like "we can't really give anything specific". actually, I believe you are talking about the chris matthews interview with a TX state sen. and former mayor of Austin? Yeah he actually wrote an apology on his web site for that. He said he froze up.

he's the new Brian Giles!

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 10:25 PM) He didn't break any of the regulations, but somehow this is a scandal? Seriously, you guys are really stretching on this issue. If thats all the major "scandal" with McCain, he is in good shape. Well the thing is it's a hell of a strategy. Remember, this was made back in december, so if he dropped out of the race, he would've been paying off the debts with public funding. Obviously it paid off, but I mean this is the guy that created the campaign finance reform, if anything this just kind of proves it's not a reality. They are just going to circumvent it. Has any change really happened? the races have become more expensive at just as high a rate.

balta, do you just scan different news sites...or what do you read to get linked all over the place? Any favorites?

not trying to start anything, and but I did find this interesting, branching from what balta posted, because it seemed to add an additional element: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ked_on_taxp.php "As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing. It's an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain’s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists’ influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts." Here's the back story. As of December, McCain was still enrolled in the public financing system, but had yet to actually receive any public matching funds. The Federal Election Commission had certified that the campaign would be receiving $5.8 million in public funds. But they wouldn't get that money for a couple more months. In need of even more cash beyond the $3 million loan he'd already secured from a Maryland bank (he'd taken out a life insurance policy as collateral), the McCain campaign was stuck in a bind. They needed more money, but the bank needed collateral. The promise of those public matching funds (to the tune of more than $5 million) was the only collateral the campaign could offer. But there was a problem with that. Using that promised money as collateral would have bound McCain to the public financing system, according to FEC rules. And the McCain camp wanted to avoid that, because the system limits campaigns to spending $54 million in the primary (through August). That would mean McCain would get seriously outspent by the Democratic nominee through the summer. (McCain has separately pledged to enroll in the system for the general election; that would give him $85 million in taxpayer funds for use after the party convention through Election Day but bar other contributions.) So here's what the McCain campaign did. They struck a deal with the bank that simultaneously allowed his campaign to secure public funds if necessary, but did not compel his campaign to stay in the public system if fundraising went well (i.e. if he won the nomination). As McCain's lawyer told the Post, "We very carefully did not do that." He was not promising to remain in the system -- he was promising to drop out of the system, and then opt back in if things went poorly. In that event, the $5.8 million would still be waiting for him. And he'd just hang around to collect it, even if he'd gotten drubbed in New Hampshire and the following states. You can see the agreement here. The relevant paragraph is on page two. Sizing it up, Mark Schmitt writes at Tapped: What we know is that McCain found a way to use the public funds as an insurance policy: If he did poorly, he would use public funds to pay off his loans. If he did well, he would have the advantage of unlimited spending. There's a reason no one's ever done anything like this. It makes a travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between public funds and unlimited spending. " I quoted talkingpointsmemo because they explained it the best, but obviously some colorful language. They did win a Pulitzer though, for their excellent reporting on the attorney scandal.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 03:21 AM) Anyone like The Cool Kids? If so, is there anywhere I can download "88" and "Mikey Rocks"? I can only find "Black Maggs" (excellent and kind-of funny music video, BTW). honestly if you just google the cool kids totally flossed out EP link you could get it.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 08:24 PM) I would attribute low GOP voting turnout to a massive dept, unpopular war, and slumping economy under a Republican president. Republicans just aren't as fired up as the Dems are, and it's obvious when you look at voter turn out in the primaries. I don't think McCain is going to run into problems of getting support from the GOP if he is president. But this is definitely a big opportunity for the Democrats to get some of their programs in place. If they can't beat the GOP in the current atmosphere, they really have some problems. I think you are right about a turn in direction for a while, but a big issue is going to be if these Democrat programs actually work or not. The Democrats last political dominance was coming off a big WWII win, which left much of the world in shambles and the US basically untouched and ready to take the lead in the world economy. It will be interesting to see if these new big social programs end up working. True, but it also depends on how well they build their party or how charismatic Obama ... or clinton, can establish it the party anyways. I'm looking at Jackson, whose policies weren't that effective (looking at the bank) but his party kept power largely because of him for decades. edit; good show, this might help me on my test.

well, i think it's certain she will lose Hawaii and Wisconsin at least.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 07:12 PM) Which brings me to a question. If you think about it, the "superdelagates" is the epitome of old school. These were put in place after Goldwater got his ass blown out by Nixon. It is to basically fly in the nose of the voter block and give the "superdelegate" the power to overthrow a more popular candidate should the need arise. Well, it looks like the Clintons are about to denonate the nuclear bomb, even if Obama is more popular by delegate count. You know damn well they will, because this is all about Hillary getting her due. It really cracks me up (read: it's hypocritical as hell) when all I heard back in 2000 "LET EVERY VOTE COUNT" to watch this whole superdelegate thing come up in the Democrat arena now. Or am I totally missing something here? I'm not trying to throw stones, I'm being serious when I ask this. See, I just really disagree that a primary is the same as a general election. The party has the right to choose their own candidate in a situation this close. The primary is nice and lets the party see who can engage the voters to vote, but right now you have 2 candidates who are doing that, and they have the right to decide which will be leading their party. This is different than an election, this wouldn't be like 1824, primaries help the party pick a candidate that people will like in the general election, this isn't the government deciding the president based on politics after the people voted in plurality between 3 presidential candidates. After this, they still have another election to choose their president, it isn't handing over power to another person for 4 years.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) McCain pretty much has the GOP totally with him. The main split is with the radical neo-cons on the radio and stuff (who admittedly have a lot of pull with certain voting blocks of the party). The Dems seem a lot more split, with Obama and Clinton running neck and neck, in what could turn out to be the nastiest primary in history (super delegate controversy). Even with the long primary battle, I think this will be a good year for the Dems at the polls. It's going to be really hard for them to blow this election. I don't mean to look like I'm giving legitimacy to Rush Lumbaughs and they must be a voice of the Republicans, but I think there is some truth to it in the low Republican voting for McCain, but I don't doubt that Republicans are going to vote and fight full force for McCain in the face of a Clinton or Obama ticket. It's just I believe that liberalism can take the offensive right now in a way that conservatism is not (not to say that conservatism has no agenda, it's just they aren't seen as proactive like in the past). With a dem. congress, Obama/Clinton can make the fight for more control of the banks with the mortgage crisis, fight for health care, ending war v. fighting war, etc. These goals seem like they are going to do something, as opposed to the Democratic candidates of past where their only goals were "Stop doing what they are doing". I'm not going to argue it's merits because I don't care to, I'm just looking at the situation of the Republicans and it seems after about 2 decades their policies have become outmoded, and you are starting to see them say "we're going to bring it back to Reagan", Reagan, new party founder and builder, but McCain doesn't have the charisma or respect IMO in the party to lead it in any real way. Looking at it like this, I wonder if the democrats realize how much is at stake with their election. The goals and policies of this next president will likely guide the party for probably the next decade at least, if that is indeed where we are at.

I suppose I only have 2 lecture halls this year but none are of the 500 kid variety.

sit up front. I thought about this stuff today though.

I'm reading this theory about looking at presidency's in political time. I'm not sure I can see where we stand right now. Either George Bush is the end of the Reagan political dynasty, and with Clinton you can argue he would be the Eisenhower sandwich during a democratic political reign, or or if Clinton brought this new party of democrats. I don't really see that with clinton b/c he didn't really institutionally change anything, (imo), so that means we could possibly be on the cusp of a new democratic dynasty or an even more official end to the Reagan Republicans, their party is too fragmented in fiscal conservativism and domestic issues. But that said if Obama wins, I can see him as more of a Jackson, one who has some institutional changes (immigration/health care), but is more effective as a party builder. With Clinton, i could see her doing more institutional changes in the ilk of FDR, but fragmenting her party's conservatives (and yes there are those). But if McCain wins, he's really be in for a tough presidency, imo, there'd be lines drawn in the party in addition to major issues in the country that he'd be fighting to get whatever policy he has through. Was just thinking about this. Largely based off of Skowronek's model. I'm studying too much actual stuff so I figured I should waste time theorizing in the Texas Primary thread.

as someone with freckles this thread is a blow to the ego.

There was a huge AP story that got quite a bit of press that set the record straight on Jena 6 myths, but while he (i believe the author was a he) came to the conclusion there was exaggerations in the reporting, he didn't come to the conclusion of Pat Buchanon, that it was all a hoax. They came to the conclusion that no, this was not the storybook white v. black case it had been touted and painted up to be, but this was one more example of harsher consequences for blacks than whites. He walked up to the steps of an old lady who had lived there a long time and just chatted with her about the realities and she had great insights to the problem. I hope I can find it.

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 02:28 AM) Yeah, that was what I was referring to. I guess it was hard to determine since our actual win total matched their projection last year. That is why I think a 5 win increase on their projection seems a little bit on the low side when they project a +104 run differential. Also, not having to face Johan should be 2 wins right there, and like Balta said, just replacing Gonzalez, Erstad, and Pods with league average players brings us a couple of wins. I think the loss of Garland will be the worse decline, but that should be offset by the bullpen. see that's what I'm struggling with/excited with in my expectations for the sox. In addition of just swisher I think would be an addition of 5 games. But it's who he was replacing. Last year some of our lineups were terrible even if dye and konerko weren't having poor seasons and thome being injured. Andy Gonzalez, Luis Terrero, Molina, Uribe, Pablo at 3rd. Cabrera and Swisher basically ensure that will never happen again. And I'm wondering how much improvement they really provide. I don't think we are a playoff team, but hell, this is baseball, I'm not gonna complain if we play over our heads this year and have a great season. Good things happen, bad things happen. I think we'll be at least fun to watch

just during a throwing session?

I could care less about these projections.

The world series will be renamed The U.S. Cellular Series in part of a huge block from google against microsoft. Thome will hit a ball into the lights, causing sparks and mass mayhem the sox have not seen since disco demolition night.

btw st. louis style pizza is so stupid.

Maybe this is untrue for you, but I think we are constantly discussing pretty heated things in here that would draw those reactions. I think it's easier to discuss these topics on computer because you can argue but also just walk away by clicking. You don't have to deal with the awkwardness of a political debate with a friend face to face.

yeah I was writing it and missed your last post. If I may have one final discourse, the constitution is very vague about the supreme courts role. Early on in the countries history, it was actually the presidents who would decide on a bills constitutionality. That's how they used their vetoes pretty much until Jackson. Now they rely on the courts for that. Pretty interesting.