Werthless wrote:I just read the transcript, but this is a good podcast about torture, politicization of the media (into 2 factions), and the resulting reality we live in now, where journalists view themselves more as reporters of opinions (ie. spokesmen).

I also read the transcript last week and agree--this is very worthwhile.

The sad thing is that in comparable terms, Todd isn't even that bad. It's to the point where I can't watch more than a minute or two of a show like "Meet the Press," on which David Gregory really couldn't be more obsequious and pathetic if he tried.

Christie picks Monmouth County Sheriff Kim Guadagno as his LG. So the law and order ticket for the GOP. Both are pro choice, so NJ RtL is pitching a fit. As if abortion is going to be outlawed in NJ at some point in the next eight years.

As if abortion matters anymore? Would they rather field a candidate more likely to lose the state than one probably more sympathetic to their overall views?

pacino wrote:As if abortion matters anymore? Would they rather field a candidate more likely to lose the state than one probably more sympathetic to their overall views?

They'd rather lose on principle than concede ideological purity.

There has to be a breaking point though where one's futile attempt to spit into the wind has to stop. They'd really let the 'other side' keep on winning so they can continue to do whatever it is the RTLers think Democrats do with abortion. Instead, I'd think they'd like to chip away at it by conceding the major issue while whittling down the little stuff. Guess not.

edit: Let's be honest, that's what's going on at the federal level with Democrats and single payer. They basically gave up the issue and instead took a much milder approach

Bakestar wrote:

pacino wrote:As if abortion matters anymore? Would they rather field a candidate more likely to lose the state than one probably more sympathetic to their overall views?

They'd rather lose on principle than concede ideological purity.

New Jersey conservatives have convinced themselves that losing on principle is a perfectly acceptable result. If they hadn't, they'd probably be pretty upset by now considering one has never won statewide in modern times.

To be fair, if you believe abortion is murder, then its not really something you're going to compromise on.

Right. But if option a is all abortions legal and option b favors things like banning partial birth abortion, approving parental notification, and appointing a Republican senator who might vote for conservative SC nominees when Lautenberg finally dies, then maybe you should go with option b. Especially when you consider the state GOP nominates someone who is pro life about 1/3 of the time. And those folks have won about 0/3 of the time.

jerseyhoya wrote:Right. But if option a is all abortions legal and option b favors things like banning partial birth abortion, approving parental notification, and appointing a Republican senator who might vote for conservative SC nominees when Lautenberg finally dies, then maybe you should go with option b. Especially when you consider the state GOP nominates someone who is pro life about 1/3 of the time. And those folks have won about 0/3 of the time.

These guys have a different time frame than the next cycle though. They see themselves as akin to abolitionists. They're playing a different game.

And they also believe, reasonably in my opinion, if Republicans are pro-choicers win, it doesn't really help their cause.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _on_itself

A good article about the ultra-orthodox riots in Jerusalem.

In my experience, New Jersey Republicans are Texas Democrats - the Republican's I've met in New Jersey are basically one issue voters - they're sick over the outrageous cost of running NJ's government (which is different than "all gubmit is bad", the only people I don't hear complaining about the state budget, Dem or Rep, are state government employees). Even if they are against gay marriage or abortion (I'd argue that a good chunk aren't or just don't care), they don't seem all that gung ho to make a political issue out of it.

Maybe that's just Gloucester and Camden Co's, and I don't have perspective on the rest of the state.

This would have been an amusing piece of satire had Holdren meant it to be satire.

[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

That's been my experience by and large as well, Vox.

Making the hissy fit thrown by NJ Right to Life more amusing is Christie actually says he's pro life, but he was pro choice when he was first elected as a freeholder back in the early 1990s, so NJ Right to Life doesn't believe him.

VoxOrion wrote:In my experience, New Jersey Republicans are Texas Democrats - the Republican's I've met in New Jersey are basically one issue voters - they're sick over the outrageous cost of running NJ's government (which is different than "all gubmit is bad", the only people I don't hear complaining about the state budget, Dem or Rep, are state government employees). Even if they are against gay marriage or abortion (I'd argue that a good chunk aren't or just don't care), they don't seem all that gung ho to make a political issue out of it.

Maybe that's just Gloucester and Camden Co's, and I don't have perspective on the rest of the state.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and am really not that afraid of a Republican governor because honestly, how "conservative" could he be? You can't be much to the right of Barack Obama and win statewide in NJ.

This state's real problems are so serious, and the statewide perspective on social issues is so engrained, that I can't imagine they're going to come up in any meaningful way.

The first paragraph of an op-ed from Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H., in the Manchester Union-Leader: "The [cap and trade] bill cuts the deficit by $24 billion over the next 10 years."

The third paragraph of the same op-ed from Shea-Porter: "The analysis from the CBO states that "enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

In the second paragraph of the same op-ed from Shea-Porter: "There is a lot of misinformation about this bill on the Internet and in the press."

Indeed, Congresswoman. Indeed.

Werthless wrote:This would have been an amusing piece of satire had Holdren meant it to be satire.

[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

We'll really discourage teenage pregnancy and get the votes needed to pass desirable measures like this if we require these pregnant teenagers to marry the first male senior citizen willing and able to financially support the mother and child.

jerseyhoya wrote:That's been my experience by and large as well, Vox.

Making the hissy fit thrown by NJ Right to Life more amusing is Christie actually says he's pro life, but he was pro choice when he was first elected as a freeholder back in the early 1990s, so NJ Right to Life doesn't believe him.

And why should they? Right to Life is about belief and emotion and not to be trusted to a politician who makes his decision based on the district in which he is running for office. This is the same reason Gillibrand (sp?) is not getting a lot of trust from liberal NYC Dems or there is some doubt about the loyalty of the D - R - D Senator Spector.

allentown wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:That's been my experience by and large as well, Vox.

Making the hissy fit thrown by NJ Right to Life more amusing is Christie actually says he's pro life, but he was pro choice when he was first elected as a freeholder back in the early 1990s, so NJ Right to Life doesn't believe him.

And why should they? Right to Life is about belief and emotion and not to be trusted to a politician who makes his decision based on the district in which he is running for office. This is the same reason Gillibrand (sp?) is not getting a lot of trust from liberal NYC Dems or there is some doubt about the loyalty of the D - R - D Senator Spector.

New Jersey has not elected someone who is pro life statewide since Roe. Christie is only the third GOP statewide nominee for governor or senate to be pro life in the last thirty years. If it was a switch "based on the district in which he is running for office," it was a pretty stupid one. The phrase beggars can't be choosers comes to mind for the NJ RtL. Otherwise they end up marginalizing themselves even more than they already are.

the video of that Delaware lady holding up her birth certificate makes me a little sad to be in the Delaware Valley. And the whole crowd cheers her, then they do the pledge of the allegiance. Poor Mike Castle

Palin's resignation speech; the edited version








more in the link