Bonus points: another "family values" congressman cheated on his wife. I'm shocked.
I wouldn't say "shocked", but I admit I was mildly surprised that the staffer involved was a woman.
Heebie made me step on your post, Stanley. It is a fascinating election day!
And Brock wins the thread with a walk-off awesome. THREAD CLOSED!
2: No worries. I'm a fan of the at-least-two-posts-going-a-time model of Unofoggeding.
There's also the question of whether Dodd's fuck-up is going to let the WWE into the Senate, and the further question of whether that'll lead to STEEL CAGE FILIBUSTERS!
6: That Blumenthal story dropped my jaw when I heard it driving in to work. What the fuck was that guy thinking? He seems to have the worse-than-Bush Vietnam service record.
Unofoggeding
This is when you play that card game in San Francisco.
The family values congressman made a video with his mistress talking about the importance of abstinence: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rep_souder_and_mistress_recorded_video_on_abstinen.php
8 is hard to watch.
OT: For that program I just got into, they've added all the new fellows to an email listserv, with a welcome email saying, "You have been added to this listserv." This has prompted about fifteen people to write messages to the listserv that say ADD ME TO THE LISTSERV. Apparently reading comprehension is not among the skills I can expect to share with my cohort.
The Blumenthal story is one of those things that wouldn't be such disqualifying except that it's so stupid and hubristic that it calls the rest of the guy's judgment into question.
11: The story is so weird. He explicitly said that he didn't server "in" Viet Nam on any number of other occasions too. Lots of folks talk about their service "in" wars that they never actually got near, although they were in the military at the time, but it always seems sketchy. (For example, many of his minions stick up for Markos M. Z. by saying "He served in the Gulf War!" which he did. In Germany.)
But it's such an easy hook to work from, so the guy's probably doomed.
12: I think on its own it wouldn't be a huge deal, but combined with all the deferments it gets pretty bad.
12, 13: Wait, is the worst thing this guy did that he said in passing that he served "in Vietnam" when he meant "served in the military during Vietnam but didn't get sent to Vietnam"? I thought from the reporting that he'd made a fuss about what a hero he was or at least said concrete stuff about having been literally in Vietnam the country.
If he's getting pounded for the difference between "in Vietnam" meaning "in the military during the Vietnam War" rather than literally in the country, that seems ludicrous to me.
14: He says something about getting back from Viet Nam, when he could plausibly mean "the place he was sent to serve during the war," but folks didn't take it that way, and they didn't exactly rush to correct them. There is no story about saving his buddy in the jungle or something.
Man, looking at the NYT story, I'm not seeing much in quotes that he literally said that looks all that bad. This, from the Times:
But an examination of his remarks at the ceremonies shows that he does not volunteer that his service never took him overseas. And he describes the hostile reaction directed at veterans coming back from Vietnam, intimating that he was among them.
looks like whatserface, Nedra Pickler. "Does not volunteer"? Please.
Unless there's more stuff from him in quotes where he's clearly trying to deceive, this looks like an after-the-fact imposition of an invented standard of precision and full disclosure that applies to just this guy, just this time.
I don't know anything about him at all other than this story; I wonder if he's any use as a candidate.
17: I agree -- but "He lied about his service in Vietnam" is a really easy line to deliver and to understand, and it has effectively taken down people who were actual real life medal of honor winners in Vietnam.
They played a clip on the radio where I thought he said, "When I was in 'Nam...." . Which certainly makes it sound like he was located in Viet Nam.
18: Yeah, this is just the argument that keeps on coming around. Bullshit attack on a politician, and people like Jackmormon in 11 saying that while the substance of the attack isn't much, the politician's being in a situation where they can be attacked shows terrible judgment, so they should go down for it. And I hate that reaction a lot. People are imprecise, and if we expect our politicians to deserve everything they get every time they diverge from perfect precision, we're going to get beaten up all the time.
17: I disagree that it's an invented standard. All politicians who claim military service are held to a high standard of disclosure. Whether the press picks up on it is another matter. John Kerry basically lost an election over phony questions about his Vietnam service, and Bush should have been pushed far harder on his time in the military, and would have been if Kerry's advisors had any spine.
Which issues are elevated vary from one politician to another, but if the guy is implying his service was other than it actually was, that's a big deal and he should be held to account over it.
I'm not going to say it's a big deal in and of itself, but it's the kind of thing that makes me decide someone is fundamentally mendacious.
All politicians who claim military service are held to a high standard of disclosure. Whether the press picks up on it is another matter. John Kerry basically lost an election over phony questions about his Vietnam service, and Bush should have been pushed far harder on his time in the military, and would have been if Kerry's advisors had any spine.
Okay, look at what you just said. Kerry lost over phony questions, and Bush didn't get pushed over real ones. That's not an across the board "high standard of disclosure."
And "disclosure" is even a weird way of putting this. Blumenthal has a number of recent public statements that accurately reflect the nature of his service. The fact that he didn't go to Vietnam was certainly disclosed. To be deceived, someone would have had to have listened to only the speeches where he said "in Vietnam" where he should have said "during Vietnam."
22: And politically dim. Dude: don't lob that softball up there. They're gonna swing at it.
Further to 23: And I'm arguing harder than I should be, I don't have a full corpus of the dude's speeches to work with. But the NYT article is compatible with someone who disclosed everything about his military service clearly most of the time, and misspoke in passing three or four times over the past decade. That doesn't sound to me like "fundamentally mendacious" or "politically dim." Sounds like imperfect.
22: It doesn't help that Blumenthal is basically an empty suit. If he doesn't look honest, what does he have left?
This is the line that is being played on tv and radio and that is by all accounts the most damning:
"We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam," Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. "And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it -- Afghanistan or Iraq -- we owe our military men and women unconditional support."
That's the very worst. I personally don't have to do too much mental yoga to shrug and decide that he misspoke. He's still going to get creamed for it.
I could have sworn he said 'Nam. Maybe I was still half-asleep.
re: 25
Putting to one side whether fudging one's military record for political advantage is so "fundamentally mendacious" or "politically dim" that one becomes unelectable, if the article's quotes are right, I find it hard to believe that these were mere slips or misstatements. Someone who got a number of draft deferrments during the war in Vietnam and then served in the Marine Reserves doing Toys for Tots drives likely is very aware of the difference between "served in Vietnam" and "served" (in the reserves) "during the Vietnam war." He fudged the facts for political advantage and surely knew what he was doing.
This, like fudging the facts about combat awards, is the sort of thing veterans often feel very strongly about. But it is hardly the worst thing a politician ever did.
So has Blumenthal already won the Democratic primary?
(That is, are we going to have yet another northeastern Republican?)
Agree with 29. At a minimum, he's guilty of not paying close attention to a distinction that would matter a lot to a lot of veterans, where playing up ambiguity would help his political career. Not the worst thing in the world but a bit sleazy.
I still hope he wins!
29: My father always says he "served in Vietnam" (in the Air Force), but he was stationed in Thailand, and I don't think ever set foot in Vietnam proper. Does that also strike you as mendacious? I'm sure he doesn't intend it to be.
(That is, are we going to have yet another northeastern Republican?)
He means "served in Vietnam" as shorthand for "served in the Vietnam war".
My father always says he "served in Vietnam" (in the Air Force), but he was stationed in Thailand, and I don't think ever set foot in Vietnam proper. Does that also strike you as mendacious?
I think your father's characterizatrion in completely appropriate. He was on active duty during the war in the theater of combat. This is worlds apart from serving in the reserves stateside. [inter-service piss-taking] Heck, he was in the Air Force. Wearing clean clothes and drinking cold beer in a hanger in Thailand and wearing clean clothes and drinking cold beer in a hanger in Saigon is pretty much the same thing. [/inter-service piss-taking]
32: While I've been defending Blumenthal, I've been doing it mostly on the basis of what seems to be a small number of misstatements, accompanied by full actual disclosure of what his service was like at other times, not that 'in Vietnam' isn't a misrepresentation of where he served.
Your dad, on the other hand, was presumably either flying planes over Vietnam, or providing support services to people who were flying planes over Vietnam. Even if he never set foot in Vietnam the country, that's fighting "in Vietnam" the war, or at least I'd think so.
To set foot in a country, do you really have to set foot on the ground? Or can you just break the plane?
um "characterizatrion in" should be "characterization is". That was pretty bad even by my semi-literate standards.
37: I think if the plane breaks, you end up touching the ground pretty soon.
If the plane breaks, you're probably going to wind up on the ground.
Or can you just break the plane?
Certainly a pilot would say just break the plane. Bombing missions in the Gulf War and Iraq War sometimes were flown out of Germany or even the US.
do you really have to set foot on the ground?
No. You can also walk in on your hands, but it's a pretty rare talent.
On preview: glad I didn't go with my version of the broken plane joke!
Because I'm very committed to the idea that Brock's dad is a liar, but his story appears to check out.
What about all those drone pilots who are sitting stateside? Do they say they're serviing in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Seems a reasonable thing to say, but I wonder how they describe it.
I hope not. Are they in any danger?
What about all those drone pilots who are sitting stateside?
This is an interesting question to which I do not know the answer. My guess that this is a pretty sensitive issue among Air Force pilots. As, no doubt, are the inevitable cracks about how a teenager with a video game habit is probably the better qualified pilot.
46: Yeah, but that's not the line, I don't think. Brock's father was probably quite safe in Thailand.
It's a funny question. I'd say a drone pilot could say that they were in the Air Force in the Iraq War. "Fought in Iraq"? Dunno. I think you'd have to know AF culture to know what they were allowed to call themselves.
23: I'm not intending to suggest that everyone's service is going to be examined to the same degree, but service is most definitely fair game for examination. The established precedent is pretty clear that claims about military service are fair targets for close examination. Maybe the particulars of this case are such that his misleading claims can be explained away, but asking questions about them is completely fair and reasonable.
My grandfather was in the Air Force but he spent the whole WWII in St. Louis or somewhere doing logistics. My great-uncle was also in the Air Force and was in the Philippines outfitting paratroopers and moving supplies around. I don't think either of them actually literally "fought", but my great-uncle used that word to describe his experience. (And my grandfather just said "served in the military" or something)
50: Sure. But there's no indication that he's ever said anything false in response to a question about his service -- the Times went after him for the past misstatements.
I think you'd have to know AF culture to know what they were allowed to call themselves.
I don't think either of them actually literally "fought",
I think ths is partially a question of military tradition. If you are in the theater of combat, you can describe yourself as having been in the war, I think. While there is a huge difference between what I did in the First Gulf War (worked in a tent in Saudi Arabia and Iraq running an operations center) and what an armor officer who was involved in actual tank battles did in the war, I doubt anyone would question my entitlement to describe myself as having fought in the war. The majority of the people who "fight" in a war do not fire their weapons.
However, the distinction is pretty clear in some cases. If you were on active duty but never left the US, you would describe yourself as having served during the war, but not as having been in combat.
Yeah, I've never heard my dad say he "fought" in Vietnam, other than in describing one incident in a bar.
The majority of the people who "fight" in a war do not fire their weapons.
I'd think you'd have to either fire a weapon, or be fired upon. (Or fight hand-to-hand, which seems less likely.)
But you were in the military and I wasn't, so.
Throwing a grenade would also count. I'm not trying to be dogmatic about this.
The story of Blumenthal's unit, like that of the Texas Air National Guard, pisses me off. I guess it was inevitable that in a situation where you had a draft, privileged follks would try to game the system to get cushy assignments. Still, shouldn't the ceremonial pomp and circumstance in Washington brigade or whatever Blumenthal was in have been something reserved for folks who'd actually put in some time doing some real fighting during the war?
56. Dropping a load of bombs from 50,000 feet?
I'm trying to remember what my dad would say -- it certainly isn't anything he brought up. Erm, I guess if he were about to tell a story, he'd say something like "When I was in the service" (much better with ultra regional pronunciation of "service," too, heh) or more likely, "On Guam . . ." or whatever. He was a CB, and so far as I know, he was never even issued a weapon (no idea), let alone fired one. He was certainly bombed, etc.
My dad was in the Navy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was never issued a weapon, but he did have a holster. So I think he was basically in Vietnam.
62: I think he fought the empire on the Death Star.
I'd think you'd have to either fire a weapon, or be fired upon. (Or fight hand-to-hand, which seems less likely.)
Well then Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton did not fight in WWII. Nor, I imagine, did Rommel.
Putting leaders (or staff officers, like I was) to one side, an analogy that is often used for a combat force is a spear. Only the tip of the spear does the fighting. Most of the spear is not the tip. And even at the tip, there is ambiguity. My best friend growing up was in the Special Forces in the First Gulf War. He parachuted into northern Iraq and worked with the Kurds. He never fired his weapon. I think he would say that he fought in the war.
Anyway, I think the distinction you propose is not generally made by soldiers (or Marines--where is TLL?) (not to say that an infantryman would not point out to an artilleryman like me that I did not serve at the tip of the spear or that I might not make a similar commment to someone who served further back).
He was a SeaBee and he was certainly bombed, etc.
He was definitely in combat.
My dad has only one arm, so people always assume he lost it in Vietnam (he's approximately the right age to have served). But he always tells the truth: he did not serve. Therefore, my dad should be the new senator from Connecticut.
59 is fighting. 60 isn't really fighting unless there were anti-aircraft weapons (or enemy planes) firing at you, or at the very least looking for you and hoping to fire at you.
67: What if you were having a nasty argument with your co-pilot while dropping bombs? With someone in another plane over the radio?
67: Are you serious about your take on 60? Killing people doesn't count as fighting? Or at the very least destroying targets doesn't count as fighting?
Frankly, unless you've killed someone in a brutal hand-to-hand knife fight, you're a total pussy.
If Brock is serious (which is often not the case) he's got some screwy thinking going on. I think the chain of thought, if it's not pure comedy, is "Fighting in wars is brave and heroic"-->"Dropping bombs on people with no way to fight back is not brave and heroic"-->"Bomber pilots aren't fighting in wars."
69 raises a good point. I hadn't considered the possibility that the bombs might hit someone or something, and cause damage. I think that counts as fighting.
70: Knives? When I was growing up, we wished we had knives. I had to brutally murder people by personally chewing through their jugular veins, which was difficult because due to bad dentistry, I had no teeth at the time. Gumming someone to death takes forever.
due to bad dentistry, I had no teeth which was the style at the time
72.2: Don't ever change, Btock.
70: I knew I shouldn't have left that guy barely clutching to life. Now I have to go get in another knife fight.
Gumming someone to death takes forever.
Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom, Nom...Death.
Back to 6/33, while CT may get a former WWE CEO as a Senator, the Repub candidate for governor here is likely to be a former NBA center (the primary's today). Which would be great if only because his free-throw percentage was among the NBA's worst ever, so the attack ads write themselves. "'Chris Dudley wants to relieve the tax burden on the wealthiest Oregonians.' CLANG! 'Chris Dudley doesn't want to get tough about climate change.' CLANG!...."
75: believe it or not, 72 wasn't a joke. 67 was somewhat off the cuff, and not entirely well thought out. (I don't think my reasoning was as you laid out in 71, but I'm not exactly sure what I was thinking.)
OT: My job consists of being called in for an emergency which involves me sitting near someone working completely independently on a computer for several hours with no end in sight. They don't really need my help; they just like to know I'm here.
Then the administrator who "oversees" me and thinks I need to spend more hours sitting here doing nothing pops by and asks how many days I'll be holding office hours next week, during my last week on the job. Uh, none, I say? No one's here? Do you need me for something next week? Oh yes, it's very important. She'll be popping by "sometime" next week and expects me to be here. I was not planning to come in at all.
I hate hate hate hate my job.
I think it's very subjective whether you regard yourself as having fought in a war. My father was in a support unit in WWII, but he was attached to 7th Armoured Division, which was very much front line, and he was taken prisoner at the end of a siege. But he never spoke of fighting. If he had to talk about it at all, it was just, "during the war" or "in North Africa" or something.
78 reminds that, shit, I still have to vote today. It's a depressing thought, because I have no idea who to vote for in the mayor's race. The Democratic field consists of eight candidates, 7 of whom seem to be basically perfectly adequate (two of whom seem outstanding), and one of whom is, as far as I can gather, basically a Republican running as a Democrat (and a horrible person who would be a terrible mayor, but that's mostly repeating myself). Naturally, he's polling at about 30 percent, since he's got virtually all of the "conservative" Democratic vote, and everyone else is polling way behind, since the other 70% of the Democratic vote is split among the seven other candidates. Most Democrats I know hate the front-runner. I would probably vote for the front-running Republican over him in November. The whole thing makes me want to pull my hair out. It's really a situation that would have been improved tremendously if anyone with single-digit support had pulled out of the primary race a few weeks ago, since I guarantee that 90% of the supports of any of those candiates would have gone for someone other than the current front-runner. Gah.
83: Check the latest polls, and vote for the best-polling tolerable candidate, hoping everyone else does the same?
I don't think they begin reporting until the precincts close, which happens at the same time for all of them (6:00).
Oh, you said "polls". Yeah, that's probably what I'll do.
much better with ultra regional pronunciation of "service," too, heh
Maybe we should put a match to that spilled earl and watch it boin.
83: We don't have any particularly important races in my neck of the woods for people like me who aren't registered Republicans or Democrats. I'm halfway hoping the closed primaries will hurt the Tea Party momentum, but I've lived here too long to be optimistic.
the Repub candidate for governor here is likely to be a former NBA center
Our mayor is a former NBA player, but I have not been impressed with his mayorly performance. I regret that my advice must be not to elect politicians on the strength of their NBA credentials.
Bill Bradley is wonderful, but tragically, it turns out that not all former NBA players are Bill Bradley.
Screw the NBA. We need Meadowlark Lemon.
On the former NBA player mayoral front, Dave Bing is great too. President Charles Barkely is also going to be fantastic one day.
The Blumenthal thing is a big giant disaster -- he made a mistake, but front page above the fold center in the NY Times mistake? Blumenthal is (was) very popular in Connecticut and people were thinking it was assured that the Ds would hold that seat. If he loses there's an outside chance it could end up flipping the Senate (I hope not).
The Blumenthal thing is a big giant disaster -- he made a mistake, but front page above the fold center in the NY Times mistake? Blumenthal is (was) very popular in Connecticut and people were thinking it was assured that the Ds would hold that seat. If he loses there's an outside chance it could end up flipping the Senate (I hope not).
The NYT is tired of the Democratic congress. So uninspiring and yet vaguely scary. We need more gridlock.
Is the title of this post a pun? Did anyone get it?
I was thinking "Tinkers to Evans to Chance", but that doesn't really work.
Related (loosely) to the Thailand/drone discussion upthread - I see from Wiki that Eisenhower received the European-African-Middle Eastern campaign medal in WWII, which makes total sense because of his command role in North Africa and Europe. On the other hand, Marshall, Chief of Staff in DC, did not receive that medal, even though he was Eisenhower's boss and visited Italy and Normandy on inspection tours ('Course, Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize for his Plan after the war. And Ike was President! Pretty accomplished duo.)
Is the title of this post a pun? Did anyone get it?
Linking to ghosts makes him horny?
94.1 The Times did have a pretty stupid article on him a month ago, "Rough Start for Big Name in Conn. Senate Race". I read it as more of a "Wouldn't it be more fun (and lucrative) to cover a tight race kind of thing."
To further support my growing belief that the Times is just knifing this guy. We saw one quote where he said he served 'in Vietnam'. There's one more from 2003 where he referred to soldiers returning from Vietnam as 'we.'
Now, they've got a new story up reporting that he denies intentionally misrepresenting anything, with this paragraph in it:
The New York Times reported on Monday night that Mr. Blumenthal had addressed veterans' groups without saying that his service never took him beyond the East Coast. He also left the impression that he had been among veterans who returned from Vietnam to discover that the climate at home had changed while they were on the front lines. In 2008, for example, he told an audience in Shelton, Conn.: "I served during the Vietnam era," he said. "I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even physical abuse."
Come the fuck on. The quote there is literally true and not misleading about his service. And if he was in the military in the US, and there was anti-military feeling at the time, he was going to be exposed to it where he was, in the US. If they're pulling a quote like that out to beat him up with, that sounds to me as if they've got two actual misstatements in a decade to beat him up with.
That should be two and only two misstatements.
99: I wonder if this is just some reporter being lazy and trying to gin up controversy to inject some interest into the race.
Is the title of this post a pun? Did anyone get it?
Yeah, don't overthink it. It was early, and I was mildly amused that their names could be made into a seemingly grammatical sentence, even though that sentences didn't really make any sense. (Did I mention it was early?)
97: Too bad about the whole "no more masturbating" thing, then.
103: You mean the quote from Blumenthal, or the quote from the NYT?
The 2003 quote can easily, without being unduly charitable, be interpreted as referring to "returning" to civilian life, not "returning" from Vietnam.
104.2: the whole NYT block quote. It's disgusting, every word of it. Why do they hate him? (They obviously hate him.)
For his freedom? I understand that's usually the explanation.
I thought New Yorkers hated all Connecticuttians (Connecticutters? no, that sounds like they like The Cure a bit too much) by default.
My father was infantry in New Guinea and the Marshalls.
Got a purple heart, and personally captured prisoners, and ran out of food, so I assume he was near the point.
His brother drove a tank in North Africa. Being the guy at the wheel, I suppose he never fired his weapon.
My mother's brother-in-law was a fucking turret gunner on a bomber based out of South Italy (Sicily?). He may have known Heller.
My father running out of rations and shooting a Japanese prisoner (found in a foxhole and weighing like 60 pounds) is the one and only statement any of these three ever made about combat that was family knowledge.
I also knew a bunch of Vietnam combat vets who never talked much. One was in Hue during Tet, and my roommate forgive that guy everything, The roommate told me the rifle sucked, and that he carried a sawed-off with a banana clip. Another smoke buddy's job was to set up the claymores on the perimeter. I guess sometimes in the dark, all alone, on his belly. He had a thousand yard stare for a few years.
I also knew 3 REMF's.
One of the REMFs worked supply in Saigon, He had his dick cut off by s Vietnamese whore. It was sewn back on with an upward angle, and with his small size, he was very popular with women back in the states.
He eventually lost an arm exactly like the guy in Requiem for a Dream
may I get out of the van now, sir?
Oh, yeah, I forgot the tunnel rat. I knew a tunnel rat.
I think I once asked the sawed off guy about combat, and he said something like "WTF? Jungle starts shooting at you, you shoot the jungle until it stops shooting back. Wasn't a sniper and the only gooks I saw were corpses."
We were talking about this article on the way to work this morning. I expressed my belief that independent of the merits of this or other charges, the fact that he's a Democrat is the only reason this merited an article, much less front page above-the-fold.
117: 114 still has tears streaming down my cheeks. I was incapacitated.
119: I was getting weird looks at work, because I was snickering for minutes in my cubicle. That totally won the internet for the day.
I don't get 114. Standpipe's place?
This is all taking me back to the halcyon days of my youth. I can't remember tunnel rat's name. He used his experience to become a burglar. He was 25 and I was 20.
I was dealing ozs and lbs out of a house, and one June day tunnel rat shows up with a skinny girl. Long frizzy black hair and a bad overbite, she was 13 but looked ten. He wanted to use on of the bedrooms, but I knew her family. He was a wiry little fellow,, but he was trained, armed and very mean. Somehow while we were dancing carefully around my refusal, I managed to stare the girl into completely creeped out, and that got them to leave. She spent the rest of the summer at his place.
Two years later that cost me, because I was living at her place, and she fucked everybody but me. Maybe she loved me, I was seriously PCPed out at that time.
113: Why is having a small dick at an upward angle attractive to women? If that's not what you mean, could you clarify?
I assume 114 has something to do with the post title.
124 cont.: ...then we're in the same boat.
122: It's not a thing I've heard of, in the sense of being a "thing."
I'm sort of assuming that mysterious G-spot stimulating qualities are implied -- I can't think of anything else that could be going on there.
Maybe tastes were different back in the immediate post-Vietnam era? A generation gap, perhaps?
124-126 made me laugh, in a high-pitched, nervous way.
127: That's what I've figured, but from some non-scientific polling, not very many women are G-oriented, and even fewer would have sex with someone on the promise of a small, surgically-realigned member.
a small, surgically-realigned member.
What does a short MP who's undergone gender reassignment surgery have to do with anything?
125: then we're in the same boat.
The little man in the boat?
OK, I'm not willing to do any more google searches using terms relating to 13 year olds trapped in a van from my office computer, so somebody just tell me.
MY OPINIONATED 13-YEAR OLD COMPATRIOT IS TRAPPED IN BOB'S VAN LISTENING TO HIS DISTURBING REMINISCING, AND WOULD LIKE TO GO HOME NOW PLEASE BECAUSE MOM GETS WORRIED AROUND DINNER TIME.
I didn't get it either, and had to have it explained.
(114. Not that I get 113.)
I had a T-Ball assistant coach, Mr. P, who would tell very Bob-like Vietnam and drug use stories. And he drove a van. Apparently, half of the people here had a Mr. P like figure in their lives.
122:NSFW Sex Toys I couldn't find the exact glass toys I was looking for, but I didn't look real hard.
The idea is that his short L-shaped dick rubbed clit and g-spot.
and even fewer would have sex with someone on the promise of a small, surgically-realigned member.
Everybody had sex with everybody in my crowd and day. Some got seconds.
What you are not even curious about an L-shaped dick? Are you like repulsed by the Veteran's war injury? How unpatriotic of you.
Rand Paul is the projected winner, according to ABC thing that just hit my inbox.
Fucking Rand Paul. Not a surprise, but I'm almost afraid to go look at how overwhelming his win was in my county. Fucker. It's hard to imagine we'll have worse than Bunning unless Republicans will admit this dude is a serious idiot.
Rand Paul falls disappointingly short of his father's standard. I would love to see a true Ron Paul acolyte in the Senate, for civil rights and military spending reasons alone.
Since Rand Paul is winning, it's a good time to link to this awesomeness:
http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/12/rand-pauls-spokesperson-is-satanic.html
Which one of the Pennsylvanians here voted for Specter? It's all your fault, damn you.
I'm not sure. It looked like he did, but then I saw that only 1% of precincts were reporting.
Yeah, BG, 1% is in and Sestak is ahead in what I'm seeing.
146: Once they get to 2% reporting, then you can be sure.
Except now Specter is ahead! But still less than 1% reporting!
Where are you watching results, oud?
On the way out of the polling place, I signed a petition to get a Green on the general election for Senate. If it is close, I may have made my own contribution to a minor league Nader. On the other hand, the guy asked really nicely, so it probably wasn't a false front operation.
Plus the clipboard guy had the kind of beard that you can only get by loving nature.
OK, you heard it here first. I am declaring PA-SEN (D) "too close to call". Check back for updates.
NEWSFLASH 8:50 PM EDT: WITH
I predict a Specter win. Who wants to take a bet?
156 is what I believe they call a FAILURE.
64
Well then Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton did not fight in WWII. Nor, I imagine, did Rommel.
Rommel was wounded in France. I expect Patton came under fire as well.
It's now 50/50 Sestak/Specter with 30% reporting.
And most of the not-yet-reporting counties are rural, yes?
The primary doesn't matter. If Specter or Lincoln lose, Obama and the DNC will help them run as independents.
Like Lamont was a big whoop.
PROPELLED ON A CLOUD OF RADIOACTIVE METHANE, A BOLD NEW SUPERVILLAIN LAUNCHES HIS FIENDISH PLAN TO DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT FROM WITHIN. COWER BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT SPECTER, AGENT OF O.B.A.M.A.
County-by-count results. As of now Sestak is in the lead with 50.07% of the vote.
And most of the not-yet-reporting counties are rural, yes?
Since 64% of Philadelphia and 57% of Allegheny have reported, I guess so. But the four suburban Philly counties basically haven't reported yet and neither have the counties containing Scranton, Allentown, Reading, Bethlehem, and Harrisburg.
And most of the not-yet-reporting counties are rural, yes?
I thought urban precincts generally reported later. Do I have that backwards? Or am I missin' a funny?
Sestak will win with some room to spare. Sadly, all part of a monstrous plot so profound and disgusting that decorum prohibits describing it here.
But Specter's done well in Philly, huh.
Now Lincoln's situations sucks ass, becasue the not-Lincoln vote is greater than the pro Lincoln vote, but it's split.
167: Did Sestak take a few liberties with his female party guests?
If Specter or Lincoln lose, Obama and the DNC will help them run as independents.
You can't do that in PA.
169: THere has to be a run-off if she comes in under 50.
I've heard there's a plan for Obama to drill for oil in Wisconsin.
AP calls it for Sestak. I blame antisemitism.
174: I did not think that would be settled so early.
The lawyer who put Tommy Chong away for first degree bong selling just lost the Republican primary.
175: I can blame like the wind.
177: Ha ha.
Also, Murtha's seat will stay with the Dems. So says the Post Gazette in a one sentence story with no numbers.
Wow, Sestak is currently winning every county (out of...58 I think) except the one with Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. Specter is former Philly District Attorney.
In other southwestern Pennsylvania news, it is currently 53 in Pittsburgh. Overnight, it will get down to 47. The dew point is 49, so if you get up early, you'll be able to see some dew.
178.2: 54-44% with 76% in. Having a close Dem primary for Senate undoubtedly helped a lot.
OT Why are the ESPN commentators insisting on pronouncing Orlando Magic center Marcin Gortat's surname as GorTAT? It's MARcheen GORtat.
Toomey is winning every county except York. I don't see any connection between Peg Luksik, the candidate from the Catholic Church, and York County.
183: There are an awful lot of Hispanics (mostly Puerto Rican, and many very Catholic) in York. I don't know if the city has the same boundaries as the county, though.
Or maybe she's just from there.
182: I've been catching up on my Alan Furst reading, and now I am on Spies of Warsaw. I was thinking, while reading last night, that I needed you to tell me how to pronounce everything.
US sports announcers make no effort to pronounce European foreign names right. It's odd. They do well with Latin American names and if someone is named something like "Adewale Ogunleye" they learn it from a cheat sheet. But watch a Phoenix Suns game and you will see one announcer pronouncing "Goran Dragić" as "Goran Dragich" and the other one ADAMANTLY sticking with "Dragik". Look, the Suns actually went to the trouble of putting a ć on the back of his jersey. Why are you so CONVINCED that because you knew Polish and Slovak and German people in high school whose pronunciations were all Americanized, that means you instinctively know how to say any European name unless it has an unfamiliar consonant cluster?
99% of our listeners could give about 2/3rds of a fuck.
184: As far as I can tell she's from Alabama, lives in Murtha's district, and is actually a member of the Constitution Party.
no more comments from me
I hope I am not the only one who thinks of these guys when they read the name Sestack.
no more comments from me
I'm going to keep repeating things of local interest. For example, apparently if you leave your backpack on the bus, a subset of Pittsburgh bus drivers will now call the bomb squad.
Link for 190. In case you lost a backpack this morning.
Ganked from TPM: "Specter tweets: "Congratulations, Congressman Sestak. You have my support for the general election."
So weird he's not even going to vote for himself when he runs as an independent.
Then Plan B comes in affect, as used by Rahmbama in Massachusetts against Coakley.
Some poor kid's backpack got peppered with bullets in the soccer field after he left it lying around in a hallway in my school. The Libyans had threatened to bomb international schools and folks were paranoid.
So weird he's not even going to vote for himself when he runs as an independent.
Obama will vote for him!
I am feeling a tiny bit sorry for Blanche Lincoln. All this time I thought she was a corrupt member of a decadent political dynasty. That's Mary Landrieu. Lincoln is just owned by certain corporations. And her sister directed "Pet Sematary".
Then Plan B comes in affect, as used by Rahmbama in Massachusetts against Coakley.
What, give Sestak powerful sedatives so he decides not to campaign outside his hometown and wanders around looking helpless and uttering gibberish?
|| Sad story on the news -- in Ari's hometown! A woman was thought to be killed by her 140lb dog. The dog was killed, as a consequence. It now turns out that the woman had a heart attack in her driveway, and the scratches on her chest from the dog were likely the result of the dog trying to "help" its owner -- which is what her family argued all along. But too late for the dog. Sucks. |>
Ask away.
I have a Polish last-name question from a friend. E-mail me? (stanleysparks at google's popular e-mail service.)
197: I will note them! I find it hard to read if I am unsure how to make the noise in my head. As it were.
NYT email blast: "Senator Blanche Lincoln Faces Runoff in Arkansas Democratic Senate Primary."
"Halter topped Lincoln" would have made a better heading.
So why is there more turnout for the Democratic primary than the Republican one in KY? Is this good, bad, or neutral? I'm puzzled.
JMM:
8:32 PM: On higher Dem turnout in Kentucky, I was wondering whether registrations might still lean Dem in Kentucky, despite the state now being a strong Republican state. Apparently that's what it is, according to Chuck Todd.
Okay, okay tonight was very good news, and should help create the momentum and determination to topple Obama in the 2012 primaries. It is not too early to start building the narrative about why he must be denied the nomination.
For one thing he campaigned for Specter and Lincoln. We can spin that as Obama being a blue dog, anti-progressive, and very importantly, hurting electability down the ticket.
It still has a big registration edge for Dems. Don't get too excited, in 2004, the Senate Reps got 100K less votes than the Dems in the primary (not too much more than 1/3 of the total votes), yet Bunning one by 20k with greater than 4x the total votes cast. (it was close, however, I do wonder if Pauly Shore winning on the R side makes this a real contest?)
207: It is not too early to start building the narrative about why he must be denied the nomination.
Being history's greatest monster won't be enough, eh?
206, 208: I know there are many more registered Dems, I just expected a lot of them were people like my Glenn Beck-loving grandmother who've been registered Democrat for ages but no longer vote for Democrats or in Democratic primaries.
211: Well primary turnout in 2004 was barely 20% of the general so that can accommodate a lot of disgruntled grannies. I think it is hard to read much into the results, given the registration mismatch and the small overall Primary turnout. Most positive possibility is that a newcomer like Rand might really only appeal to a fairly narrow, but motivated, base.
Apparently, Rand Paul actually played a Rush song before his acceptance speech.
189: Nope, you are not alone.
213: Rand Paul is the first person associated with the Tea Party movement I've seen offer a plan for dealing with the deficit and the national debt that acknowledges reality. The fact that he's anti-imperialist and far out on the fringe of the Republican party in his respect for civil liberties is also a plus. We'll see if he turns into a knee-jerk authoritarian follower if he's elected, but I'm holding out hope that he'll buck party discipline.
I'd prefer a Democrat to win the General Election, but just because someone is a Randroid nutjob doesn't mean they're not a substantial improvement over the current crop of elected Republicans, is all I'm saying.
but just because someone is a Randroid nutjob doesn't mean they're not a substantial improvement over the current crop of elected Republicans, is all I'm saying.
But you understand that this is, if true, a dreadful state of affairs?
212 makes sense.
SO DOES 2112.
217: Oh, I think we're all as depressed about the state of American politics as you possibly can be. I almost can't let myself think about the big picture because it makes me want to step in front of a train.
217: But you understand that this is, if true, a dreadful state of affairs?
Oh yes. I think "dreadful state of affairs" is a pretty accurate description of the political landscape in the USA.
I thought Rand Paul was a Randroid nutjob, but *without* his father's vaguely mitigating anti-imperialism and civil libertarianism. I don't know why I thought this, and togolosh says it's not so, so I am quite likely wrong.
Things like this would bother me:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/crippling-delusion-nobody-should.html
The 'private security detail' reminds me of something ... it's on the tip of my tongue. Something to do with shirts ...
222: It's cheering me somehow to think that he clearly enunciated "as supposed to" and that it wasn't the transcriber's mistake.
Something to do with shirts ...
Very large shirts, from the look of them.
222: In fairness to Rand Paul (don't you wish it was RuPaul?), he is not officially affiliated with the militia nutjobs, just pandering to them.
I am completely unconcerned with those guys, having met and talked to quite a few of them. They are mostly harmless, as long as you don't mess with their fetish objects.
226: No, you are not alone, you hideous deviant.
I'm beginning to think Rand jettisoned all the politics of (er) Randianism and hung out to the outsize sense of self-importance and privilege.
Concerned citizens might want to consider donating to the Tim James campaign. (And the parody -- watch at least through 1:22.)
226: I was thinking along similar lines this morning, you sick bastard.
232: I've learned to never publicly admit on a forum like this that I had the exact same thought, you undisciplined Neanderthal.