Tuesday Open Thread

Keep an eye out for jiggery-pokery.

28 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Canines says:

    The Guardian:

    What does the war on drugs have to do with the war on abortion? More than you’d think: the anti-choice movement has been successfully using drug laws to give fetuses legal personhood rights for years. Today, 18 states consider drug use while pregnant to be child abuse – a standard that not only punishes pregnant women who need help, but that has profound implications for reproductive rights.


  2. Zappatero says:

    Idiot Republicans………"the beginning of the end of Obamacare."


  3. BlueCat says:

    About that quote. Shouldn't it be … "Be careful with that jiggery-pokery. You could put an eye out."?

  4. FrankUnderwood says:

    Rumor has it the sponsors of the GOP debates have modified their rules again:  it's still the goal to seat those polling amongst the top ten on stage, but in the event chris christie should be amongst the top ten, they will only be able to fit eight on stage physically.


    • Davie says:

      Why do Governors unpopular in their own states (Walker, Christie, Jindal) run for the Presidency?  Maybe to avoid getting tarred and feathered if they stay?

      Something similar has happened in Louisiana. There the governor, Bobby Jindal, is the personification of contemporary Republicanism. He’s opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion rights, the teaching of evolution in the schools and, of course, a reasonable fiscal program. His state is about $1.6 billion in the red, his popularity has plummeted, and in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, he scored a zero as a presidential candidate. Perhaps he can carry Louisiana, where polls suggest most voters would like to see him somewhere else.


      The GOP seems to attract highly visible losers with big egos (see Trump, Donald and Fiorina, Carly, for example) that want to spread misery in their wake.

      • BlueCat says:

        To be fair, Christie isn't popular anywhere.

        • FrankUnderwood says:

          So true. With his announcement today, I haven't been this excited about a GOP candidate since Rudy announced his "Noun + Verb + 9/11" run eight years ago.

          • Davie says:

            Christie is running in mid-pack (3%, hee, hee!) of the current clowns.

            He has the rival GOP candidates licking their chops to sink their teeth into him:

            Longtime Republican operative Mike Dennehy — who is paving the way for Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s widely anticipated campaign in New Hampshire — suggested that while Christie remains a top potential candidate, his stewardship of New Jersey’s finances will be a major campaign issue.   

            Meanwhile, strategists for other rival campaigns are convinced that the lingering effects of Bridgegate, and not necessarily his economic record, will remain Christie’s Achilles’ heel. Whatever the outcome of ongoing investigations into the scandal, this line of thinking goes, Christie’s reputation has taken a permanent hit.

            Several of the strategists interviewed for this story suggested that perceptions of the governor as a bully will become more ingrained once he falls under the intense daily microscope of a presidential campaign.

            “A character hit is always more deadly than a policy hit because it’s easy for him to wiggle out of the economy thing — blame it on Obama or whatever,” said one Republican strategist who is helming the political operation of a likely 2016 contender. “What’s his way out of the bridge stuff? ‘I had no clue what the people on my staff were doing and created such a culture where people thought it was OK — not just rogue people, but my campaign manager.’ He’s basically saying the buck doesn’t stop here.” 

            Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/09/25/as_christie_gears_up_rival_16_strategists_lick_their_chops__124093.html#ixzz3ea3sypA0 
            Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

            Definitely a target-rich environment for Christie's rivals

  5. notaskinnycook says:

    I guess governors look good to people in other states.They don't have to live with that guy's policies. They've got their own idiot governor to hate 

    • FrankUnderwood says:

      Send them to Roy Moore in Alabama……postage COD.

    • DaftPunk says:

      As noted yesterday, a lot of these church/state separation cases are being decided on constitutional clauses inserted out of anti-Catholic bias more than a century ago.  Prejudice is a shame, but I can't say I mind the result.

      • Davie says:

        Mike Littwin agrees:

        Let’s be honest. If the Blaine Amendment was born of anti-Catholic bigotry, the Douglas County vouchers were based, in large part, on finding a way to allow public funds to be used for religious school tuition.

        Does anyone really think that this voucher plan is meant to improve public schools? Does anyone really think that, as public policy, this plan is meant to provide “choice” so that children can attend “better” schools?


        • Progressicat says:

          Sometimes laws come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

          • Davie says:

            Absolutely.  The wisdom of the Founding Fathers instituting the principle of separation of church and state is just as sound today.  That the Religious Right, despite all evidence to the contrary, justify their efforts to impose a racist, southern protestant (not worthy of the term “Christian”) theocracy on the nation based on an Orwellian redefinition of the Founding Father's words, is an abomination.

          • BlueCat says:

            And, even if the intent was anti-Catholic because it was almost exclusively Catholics who preferred private religious to public schools at the time, that has changed. Since they couldn't very well name Catholics specifically they accidentally created something that comports completely with the prohibition on government endorsing religion period, including theirs. It's good law regardless of the original bigoted intent.

            There is no reason why the tax payers of Douglas County should be subsidizing big fat discount coupons for affluent parents who want to send their kids to private religious schools. That's what these vouchers are.

            They aren't about choice in any general sense, something that public schools currently do provide with magnets and charters, but about religion. Almost every school in the voucher network is a religious school. Last time I checked there was only one that wasn't. And the vouchers don't come close to paying full tuition at these schools so they don't facilitate "choice" for middling income people who can't afford to make up the difference.

            Moreover, Douglas County schools are highly rated so this isn't a case of helping people escape a failing school system either. It's all about private religious preference which is fine but which should be the financial responsibility of the parents and/or religious institutions that may wish to help by offering scholarships and discounts. Middle and lower income tax payers should not be asked to foot a generous part of the bill for their more affluent neighbors who choose not to take advantage of good public schools for religious reasons, be they Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Pastafarians. In this case, "choice" is just a fig leaf for public financing of religious education.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.