When the body of the young Rutgers student, Tyler Clementi, was fished out of the water north of the George Washington Bridge last Thursday, it was soon learned that he had jumped a week before after his sex life was exposed by his roommate in video form on the web. Amid the grief and shock that followed this revelation, the discussion has begun all over again about what legal consequences are appropriate for cyber harassment that results in tragedy.
In Sunday’s New York Times reporter John Schwartz has laid out some of the complexities of the issue in a thoughtful manner.
Here’s how the article opens:
Tyler Clementi may have died from exposure in cyberspace. His roommate and another student, according to police, viewed Mr. Clementi’s intimate encounter with another man on a Webcam and streamed it onto the Internet. Mr. Clementi, an 18-year-old violinist in his freshman year at Rutgers University, jumped off of the George Washington Bridge, and now the two face serious criminal charges, including invasion of privacy.
The prosecutor in the case has also said that he will investigate bringing bias charges, based on Mr. Clementi’s sexual orientation, which could raise the punishment to 10 years in prison from 5.
But the case has stirred passionate anger, and many have called for tougher charges, like manslaughter — just as outrage led to similar calls against the six students accused of bullying Phoebe Prince, a student in South Hadley, Mass., who also committed suicide earlier this year.
What should the punishment be for acts like cyberbullying and online humiliation?
TEEN GETS 12 MONTH SENTENCE FOR LYING TO POLICE WHILE HER COURT RAPIST GETS PROBATION
If anyone finds away to explain this vomit-worthy story in the NY Daily News please let me know.
Here’s the link: Just read it.
The story doesn’t go into enough detail for anyone to have an opinion on if the girl should have been in custody but the judge’s decision on her rapist is crazy. Lawyers become judges and the whole system suffers.
The DA in this case only wanted a year? Good example as to why there are very few judges and lawyers that the law enforcement community truly respects.
Public Outraged At No Jail For Teen Rapist
Posted on Monday, 4 of October , 2010 at 9:43 am
MANHATTAN—-Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Cassandra Mullen is in the hot seat for her sentence of a city worker who sexually attacked three teenage girls who were in his care.
Tony Simmons, 47, a 16-year employee of the NYC Juvenile Justice Department who worked with troubled teens, had admitted raping a 15-year-old in the elevator at Family Court, forcing a 16-year-old to give him oral sex and molesting a second 15-year-old in the courthouse. The victims were all in court custody.
But with the consent of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, the judge sentenced Simmons to probation, allowing him to avoid any jail time despite his egregious crimes.
Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance Jr. held a news conference, calling the sentence “outrageously lenient”, claiming that prosecutors want Simmons to serve at least a year in jail but that court records dispute Vance’s assertion, showing that the assistant district attorney from Vance’s office consented to the plea deal. 10-4-10
I wonder if Gloria Allred will be representing these victims.
I believe cyber bullying should be a crime when it’s a child being bullied, but not for adults. If it were a crime to bully adults online, Sure Fire would be pressing charges against everyone in here.
Sure Fire Says:
October 4th, 2010 at 8:57 am
…there are very few judges and lawyers that the law enforcement community truly respects.
…………..
Is this what they’ve told you?
We better think LONG AND HARD before we make ANYTHING that is merely said…in print or verbally a crime.
There is this little thing called the 1st Amendment.
After 23 years in juvenile court, I believe that teenagers often learn from the experiences of their peers, not just from being lectured by those in authority. Consequently, “Teen Cyberbullying Investigated” was published in January, 2010.
Endorsed by Dr. Phil on April 8, 2010 [“Bullied to Death” show], “Teen Cyberbullying Investigated” presents real cases of teens in trouble over their online and cell phone activities. Civil & criminal sanctions have been imposed on teens over their emails, blogs, text and IM messages, Facebook entries and more. TCI is interactive and promotes education & awareness so that our youth will begin to “Think B4 U Click.”
Thanks for looking at “Teen Cyberbullying Investigated” on http://www.freespirit.com [publisher] or on http://www.askthejudge.info [a free website for & about teens and the law].
Regards, -Judge Tom
Answering the Question, according to your logic it should be ok to yell “bomb” in an airport, or “fire” in a crowded theater, etc. The 1st amendment has never allowed absolute free speech. I don’t know the specifics from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I’m pretty sure language that incites rioting could be considered illegal in certain places, too. Ask a cop what an “outside agitator” is. Maybe Sure Fire can ask one of his cop friends after he gets off work at the mall tomorrow, or is done chasing stray dogs, or whatever generic cop-like security job he has. So, we protect the system by regulating free speech, obviously. But you don’t want to protect some kid from being tormented? Is it because tormenting and bullying kids being outlawed would rob you of most of your social life?
Rob,
There is a huge difference between yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater or “bomb” in an airport and ridiculing specific people.
“Fire” or “bomb” IS HIGHLY LIKELY to incite a riotous exit from either locale that is highly likely to result in injury/death to the general public.
Maybe you can understand it if it’s put like this:
If the right wingers are in charge (and they will be again at some point in your life) would you be okay with making it illegal for you to use the following offensive hurtful language:
Retard (Offensive and hurtful to Sarah Palin)
War Monger (Dick Cheney)
Right Wing Wacko (Bill O’reilly)
Fascist(GWB)
Nazi (Daryl Gates)
Insane (Every repubic politician)
Racist (Jan Brewer…and everybody else you disagree with)
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You better think about it. It’s a slippery slope, VERY SLIPPERY when you start making ANY speech not designed to cause a riot illegal.
Those in charge (politicians) then decide what words are or aren’t illegal.
DANGEROUS. Have a little bit of foresight on this issue and remember how you felt two years ago concerning the Patriot Act.
If you disagree, and advocate the criminalization of offensive language…consider the possibility that in the future the word “redneck” could be outlawed. Or “religious freak”…..etc. etc. etc.
WHO DECIDES WHAT’S OFFENSIVE AND WHAT’S NOT?
Those currently in charge will not always be in charge.
And what about burning the flag? How offensive and hurtful is that to some people? Should we make that illegal?
Or should we leave the 1st Amendment alone?
Here’s where I stand on this issue.
Celeste Fremon/Witness LA has the right, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to post the things that are posted on this blog, AND IT’S COMMENTS, even if it’s highly offensive and hurtful to some people.
If we start legislating against language that hurts people’s feelings, how many blogs will disappear?
ATQ, you’re pointing out exactly why this issue is so difficult. I pointed out the very same thing to my students.
“Is it because tormenting and bullying kids being outlawed would rob you of most of your social life?”
No. That’s not it you antagonistic person. I’m trying to to protect your right to insult people and say things like the above to those whom you disagree with.
Get a clue.
You see Rob, you insinuated that I am a bully, simply because I disagree with you. How hurtful and offensive is that to me considering that kids are killing themselves from being bullied?
It’s typical bullshit like this that shows you constantly apply a double standard to your ideology.
“Double standard” is a little less offensive of a term than “hypocritical”.
Should it be illegal for me to call you a hypocritical myopic antagonistic prick?
ATQ, don’t take the bait. I don’t want to start deleting comments on this thread because I believe the topic is important.
Celeste,
With ALL due respect, are you suggesting that I allow Rob to accuse me of such vile things without retort?
ATW, it’s obvious you’re threatened by cyber bullying laws because if they were enforced, you’d have nothing to do with your spare time. The only adjustment I’d have to make is leaving Sure Fire alone. And believe me, it would be hard. But I could adjust. I’d just find a new hobby, something more productive. And of course it would be illegal for him to bully others, as well, which is the only reason I bully him in the first place. I bully those who bully others. Just my style. Anyhow, back to you, free speech maven. Do some research on the constitution and free speech and look at all of the court cases that have modified what is and isn’t free speech. You’re acting as if the 1st amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want. It’s never been that way. Ever. You’re basically making up your own definition of the first amendment.
“You’re acting as if the 1st amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want.”
Well, I’ll just put it like this.
Regarding the spoken word in public:
ALL of the racist bullshit the KKK assholes spout in public at their demonstrations? Nope. Not illegal.
ALL of the homophobic bullshit that asshole Fred Phelps spouts in public? Nope. Not illegal.
How about this?
“I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ’em.” “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
Nope. Not illegal.
So there is the best examples of the leniency of the 1st Amendment when applied to the spoken word in public.
And, sadly for Rob and those like him who don’t have the ability to discertain SCOTUS decisions, I’ll use his very own words to explain it to him.
Making that type of speech illegal? Here’s his own words:
“It’s never been that way. Ever.”
Now, who is it exactly that’s attempting to define the 1st Amendment according to their own definition?
The internet? i.e. Facebook et al;
Rob,
Care to give us the SCOTUS decision on whether or not it’s public or private?
IMHO cyberbullying among teens could be effectively sanctioned without the government passing any new laws. First of all it’s legal for various social networks to ban certain activities on their service. Nor does the first amendment give anyone the right to free and especially malicious use of images or videos of another (private) person for public distribution. And teens are subject to various authorities – more directly subject, in effect, than they are to law enforcement – that have the right to control their behavior as minors, students, etc. I’m also – inexpertly – guessing that there are civil charges that can be brought by victims families in the case of threatening behavior leading to a death – even if its suicide. But ultimately, this is the kind of behavior that can most effectively be dialed down if peers begin to reject it as unacceptable and dangerous, rather than funny or simply a prank. I don’t think sanctions against such behavior is an “either/or” with regards to the First Amendment or new laws. Certainly name-calling and offensive speech is covered by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t limits beyond yelliing “Fire” in a crowded theater (like libel laws) or that sanctions, firewalls and effective punishments for dangerous behaviors can’t be meted out by means other than the criminal code in the case of minors and even college students using commercial social networks.
Celeste,
Should the 1st Amendment be restricted with the caveat that “offensive, derogatory, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic or any other type of hurtful language shall be illegal” we are then opening a literal Pandora’s box. If that should happen, when the next right wing regime comes in, stand by.
As a blog administrator/journalist Celeste, you have the most to lose of anyone involved in this discussion. You have the biggest dog in this fight.
IMHO,
WE SHOULD LEAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALONE.
Unless we want to expose ourselves to the possibility of those politically opposed to us regulating our speech.
Those who can’t see the obvious possible future perils of messing with the 1st Amendment to protect certain groups of people are incredibly shortsighted.
That paves the way for the “religious right” to quell any opposing speech. Considering Rob’s obvious fear and loathing of the “born agains” and all of the power they wield, I would think he could understand this. Perhaps he hasn’t REALLY thought about it in depth.
A little foresight combined with a little pragmatism and logic makes it a no brainer.
Leave it alone. Don’t gamble that a short term gain won’t turn into a long term loss.
The 1st Amendment is waaaaayyyyyy too important to gamble with.
IMHO cyberbullying among teens could be effectively sanctioned without the government passing any new laws.
Agreed. 100%.
Libel/Slander laws are among the most difficult to prosecute, because of the 1st Amendment. There are very certain specific elements that must be met when bringing suit for these offenses.
Were that not the case, with all of the muckraking going on in every election year, you would see the courts doing nothing else but prosecuting these suits. lol
Or worse yet, all of the false accusations that have been levied against people on this blog.
Imagine that?
ROFLMAO.
“You’re acting as if the 1st amendment gives people the right to say whatever they want.”
Pretty much. More so than not…by a looooong shot.
Hate speech is legal. That’s why orgs. like the Southern Povert Law Center exist…to expose hate groups.
Nuff said.
I’m not a lawyer, but while I know that generic slander is difficult to prosecute and has a heavy burden of proof, much of the “grey” is generated in the case of individuals with a public persona, which limits their rights in the media. That’s less the case with these kids – but part of the issue is that the charges aren’t fabricated, so much as violations of personal privacy. Not sure what statutes might already cover some of that, other than the right not to be recorded without consent. I’m guessing there is a complement of civil law recourse that could be used effectively by families in these high profile cases that have led to tragic results. Generating some heat – including extra-legal penalties such as expulsions from school, etc. – against some of these high profile offenders would have an impact without states or the feds passing some near-impossible-to-adjudicate legislation that tried to fuzz up the First Amendment in cyberspace.
ATQ, not sure why you’re arguing with me. I happen to agree with you (and reg).
I’m not arguing with you Celeste. Not at all. The comments are for Rob’s benefit/rebuttal.
You, reg and myself are in indeed in agreement.
I also agree with reg that there very well could be some CIVIL legal recourse for the families of these high profile victims. When the media gets behind victims, “puts the heat on” so to speak, lawyers jump at the chance to represent them without a retainer just for the publicity.
Then of course, there’s that big payday at the end if you win the case. Which you usually do in a high profile case when the public and media are both outraged.
It’s pretty much a no brainer for a lawyer.
As far as video’s being shown on the internet….well, now we’re in to the whole YouTube debate.
It may well come down to 4th Amendment issues, and the courts may again visit this.
Answering The Question Says:
October 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
when the next right wing regime comes in, stand by.
……………….
Probably won’t happen for a couple of generations. So it’s ok.
Answering The Question Says:
October 5th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Or worse yet, all of the false accusations that have been levied against people on this blog.
Imagine that?
………
Actually, I could imagine you suing someone for insulting you on the internet, or using your screen name.
This type of case was already in the news when a 49 year old woman used MySpace to pose as a young boy, to harass a young girl who later committed suicide.
http://a.abcnews.com/TheLaw/Technology/story?id=6338498&page=1
That woman was sick, WTF. Between her and these guys who stalk female gang members’ myspace pages and cry over the fact that they like cholos, I think it’s a good idea for people over 40 to just avoid the whole social networking thing altogether. Bet horses or something.
You don’t bother me at all Rob, I’m going to be the new board Nikki Diaz. I’ll make statements but refuse to take questions.
“Probably won’t happen for a couple of generations.”
Then again, it could happen in 2012. It looks like the reps. are going to take the house in Nov. They have an outside shot at taking the senate also. If they get the White House in 2012, stand by.
Answering The Question Says:
October 5th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
“Probably won’t happen for a couple of generations.”
Then again, it could happen in 2012.
……………
LOL. Name one GOP hopeful, rumored to run in 2012, who you think would beat Obama. I can use the laugh.
If his approval ratings don’t come up significantly, it won’t matter.
Remember the “ANYBODY but Bush” motto/theme/slogan?
You think it can’t happen to the current CIC? We’re still in an unpopular war and the economy still sucks, and it doesn’t show any signs of a significant recovery any time soon.
You must communicate in a vaccuum. Check things out from a realistic viewpoint. Reps. are making significant gains in the house and senate. You think this is not a barometer of the political climate and a reflection on BHO?
Wake up and smell the coffe. Or don’t.lol. You can remain in denial of the current political climate if you choose.
I knew you couldn’t name one GOP hopeful that you think would beat Obama. Even you know they’re all too extreme, and/or too stupid (Palin). That’s why you didn’t want to embarrass yourself by naming anyone. Discussion over. Obama’s a 2 term president, and you know it.
“Check out things from a realistic viewpoint”
Good advice…
If you seriously think the GOP is presenting a credible national alternative to Obama and the Democrats, you truly do live in LaLaLand. The President whose approval ratings most track with Obama’s is Ronald Reagan in his first term. The economic crisis is a reflection on the GOP and their childish economic and political ideology that sank us – as is the fact that we’re mired in Afghanistan with no good choices after Bush-Cheney engaged in the most half-assed “national security” response to 9/11 one could possibly imagine – outside of bin Laden’s cave, where the applause for the Iraq debacle rang louder than at the American Enterprise institute.
GOP fankids, the angry old white people who drool in front of FOX News and the Tea Party loons are truly the most credulous, childish people on the planet. This crowd is trying to sell us a crazy mix of Sharon Angle, Joe Miller, Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, Orange Man, Paul “Can’t Do The Math”‘ Ryan, a “Pledge” pamphlet that’s the same old crap that tanked the economy and drove up deficits in the first place, and you’re seriously suggesting they’ve got a future past mid-term madness. The worst thing that could happen to these loons is to get a share of power – because next time around they’ll get their asses kicked even worse than they already have. Mid-terms will show some short-term gains, based on exploiting anger and stupidity. But you can only fool some of the people all of the time. No GOPer can touch Obama in ’12. His approval numbers – having inherited the deepest economic crisis since the great depression – are still a few points better than Reagan’s were in ’82. The Dems will take a hit – primarily because of the hysteria generated among “likely” GOP voters and a low turnout of Dems. But that will NOT be the case in ’12, when Dems will not only be out in full force, but the country will see once again what a dumb move it is to give GOPers the keys to anything. By ’12 the congressional GOP will be the most hated political cohort in the country and the Tea Parties and PalinoConservatives will be a complete joke because their “ideas” are patently contradictory and rooted in a childish unreality. (Read Matt Taibbi’s RS article on the Tea Partiers – he catches the drift perfectly. These really are the kind of self-absorbed, resentment-driven, blitheringly “low information” idiots who want to “keep the governments hands off my Medicare.” The GOP has no future. They can make noise but they can’t govern responsibly or even generate policy coherently. But the Koch brothers, the Chamber of Commerce and Dick Armey will use them to foul the waters and slow essential legislation to get the economic priorities and taxation in balance as much as they can…
The folks in denial are the ones who think the actually existing GOP has been or possibly could be anything other than a toxin in our political life in the foreseeable future.
From RealClearPolitics (definitely not a right wing org)
Here are their current projections after the Nov. elections:
House:
Dems. 188
Reps. 210
Toss Ups 37
Senate:
Dems. 49
Reps. 46
Toss Ups 5
Governors:
Dems. 14
Reps. 27
Toss Ups 9
Anybody who ignores these numbers has their head in the sand and is choosing to see things for what they wish they were, not as they are.
There’s a mean-spirited part of me that would love to see Obama-Palin debates in ’12.
That election could truly divide the country into the utterly credulous developmentally-disabled and the normal folks. Brutal. We’re seeing the cartoon version right now in Delaware.
“The GOP has no future.”
Well, if you bet somebody that they aren’t going to make significant gains in November, just hand them the money now.
Becaue it’s unpleasant and troubling doesn’t make it untrue.
Reg, for all of ATQ’s observations and stats, notice he’s incapable of naming one single GOP candidate who he thinks can beat Obama. Just ask him to name one, and he’s done. He just runs along.
Current numbers:
Senate:
Dems. 57
Reps. 41
Inds. 2
House:
Dems. 255
Reps. 178
Vacancies 2
“The GOP has no future.”
If ANY of the current polls are even close to being correct, they will be MUCH better off in 30 days than they are now. It can’t be denied. Well, I guess it can.
The cheerleaders keep cheering, even if the team is getting beaten severely. lol
You might as well get used to hearing this now.
“Ladies and gentlemen, Speaker of the House Boehner”.
The poll that matters is on November 2. There’s a hell of a lot that will occur between now and then and most of it will not be helpful to the GOP, as people get a closer look at the national agenda and the candidates. Dems will lose some seats, but frankly the more seats they lose, the worse it will be for the GOP on the next round – because their agenda doesn’t make any sense in the realm of policy and because their political style is purely negative and obstructionist at a time when the country needs the best governance possible. Beyond waving polls at us, you’ve got nothing. If you want to assess the GOP’s agenda and their legislative strategy over the last two years, I’d be more than happy to -because they’ve got nothing that makes sense to anyone who isn’t pathetically low-information or driven primarily by resentments. The GOP appeals mostly to a narrow cohort of aging white people. And they’re dead men walking in terms of the country’s future – even in the relatively near term. Obama got handed several large bags of shit by Bush, and it’s a tough patch – but objectively he’s done an incredible job, even with all of the assholes in his own party like Ben Nelson. Let John Boehner be speaker of the House for 2 years and the GOP will be deader than they were in ’08. He’s a shill and the country will loathe him and his crap, empty, incoherent, dishonest agenda in a way that will make Pelosi seem like she was Oprah. I actually don’t think that will happen, because the political advantage is shifting dramatically to the Dems as the GOP candidates implode and the national party prostitutes itself to both the far-right crazies AND the big money establishment, but even if it does I’m not worried about where the country is actually going. “Real Clear Politics” is far from a “reality check” – it’s ephemera.
Again, for those in denial:
Currently:
Dems. 255
Reps. 178
Projected after Nov. 2nd
Dems. 188
Reps. 210
Toss Ups 37
That means if we win EVERY toss-up race we will still lose seats in the house.
If we win every toss-up race in the senate, we will still lose seats there also.
The GOP has no future?
Dangerous outlook. VERY dangerous outlook. Overconfidence has been the key to more than one downfall.
reg,
There’s a reason why Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar and the most popular President of our time paid attention to the polls.
The real question you should ask yourself is, “I’m I so out of touch with reality that I buy into this GOP horseshit they’re trying to sell?”
This argument doesn’t interest me at this point – I can read polls and I know Dems are taking a hit because of the economy. It’s pretty elementary, since a cohort of voters are knee-jerk and short-sighted. And, frankly, the “left” Democrats are childish in their own way – expecting miracles out of Obama without doing any of the hard political work themselves. But I would hate to be in the GOP camp. It’s a total no-win over the longer term. And their policy is some of the most ridiculous, contradictory nonsense I’ve ever heard. Obama’s biggest mistake was attempting “bi-partisanship” with toxic assholes far longer longer than they deserved. Bring the GOPers on! They’ve got nothing. What’s to fear ? Boehner? If that’s their big gun, I’m not worried. Elections have consequences. Even ones you win, as we’re finding out among Dems. Speaker Boehner isn’t exactly a fear-inducing thought.
There is something called demographics that has a long-term impact on stuff like polls – and the GOP is on the wrong side of all of the curves. Simple fact. I’m not over-confident at all – I know the Dems will lose seats. But the conventional wisdom of 24/7 news cycle hysteria is also a form of “overconfidence” in some remarkably shallow analysis by a bunch of self-absorbed hacks who don’t do any of the harder forms of homework.
The GOP might reform itself and come back as some sort of responsible Tory party that isn’t laughable and hopelessly corrupt, but I know for a fact that Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney – or certainly a lazy hack like Boehner – are NOT the political future. The Dems have a much broader coalition of moderates to liberals and, not to put too fine a point on it, a much larger cohort of intelligent and responsible pols who actually have a glimmer of a clue about coherent, realistic policy and governance. The contemporary GOP is in deep crisis politically. If they want to become the party of Sarah Palin and FOX News, that’s fine with me. But it won’t secure anything remotely resembling a long-term governing majority.
There’s an old adage that rings true here reg. In coaching sports AND in politics.
Don’t look down the road. WIN THE GAME YOU’RE PLAYING!!!!!
If we lose the house, and the GOP gains in the senate are enough to severely hamstring BHO, he will be made to look like an innefectual leader. Considering his numbers now, we can’t afford that.
Don’t kill the messenger reg.
USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama Doesn’t Deserve Re-election
Hardly a right wing hack org.
Latest Gallup poll: Barack Obama will need a miracle to avoid Jimmy Carter’s fate
Definitely not good news.
I wouldn’t exactly consider Gallup and USA Today as in the tank for the GOP and trying to sell me their “horseshit”.
They told us BHO was going to win back in 2008.
You seem to believe that we should continue doing things as we are. The other team has the momentum right now. The worst thing BHO could do is be like the coach who refuses to make adjustments at halftime.
Midway through his 1st term, he needs to take a page out of Bill Clinton’s playbook.
MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS.
Funny that I can’t find that scare headline on the Gallup website with Obama’s latest poll numbers.
You pay too much attention to your TeeVee. If you pay attention, you’ll find that Obama is tracking Reagan more closely than any other President. I don’t pretend to know what that means. But all of this clucking over polls is the least interesting “news” out there. Obama’s fate won’t be determined by pollsters or polls. It will be decided partly by externalities – like the financial markets that are still under-regulated and hold a gun to the country’s head in a dozen different ways, as even people totally in denial about concentrated economic power run amok found out disastrously two years ago – but more by his actions. And if he decides to take actions that are right – like health insurance reform or a complicated strategic approach to Afghanistan that doesn’t win quick approval among an exhausted populace – at the expense of his poll numbers, he’s the better man. I refuse to let pollsters or USA Today govern how I see the political landscape. It’s ephemera. Of course it matters at critical junctures – and I know the Dems are going to lose seats – but I’m out working to maximize the Democratic vote in my district and making phone calls. The last person I need in my life is some clown like Mark Halperin telling me what I should be thinking in terms of “who won the week” politically. Poll-driven political analysis is inherently shallow. I pay attention to Gallup – but I also pay attention to context and – more important – I believe that the key element in politics is “what are you contributing to inch things in the preferred direction in your community or district?”, not “What are they saying on my TeeVee?” I’ll give the loons in the Tea Party that…and I fault the Democrats who were so excited about electing Obama – including myself – for letting such remarkably ignorant hordes begin to drive the debate in the media once we won. A lesson for all of us.
The “horseshit” I was referring to wasn’t the poll numbers – which have been all over the place, incidentally, and are based on some calculations that CAN backfire in a volatile political climate – but GOP policy, which is so half-assed, tricked-out, contradictory and dishonest, the mind boggles when you actually contemplate it below the sound-bite surface. They’ve got “nuthin’.” And I don’t see that changing, which is disastrous to their long-term chances at actual governance. Not to mention, nominating enough certifiable loons in high-profile slots to allow the Democrats to do a final national media push painting the GOP as even worse than you remembered it under Bush/Rove. That could change the “likely voter” dynamics, which is what the election actually hangs on – not some massive shift of support to the GOP (since that doesn’t exist.) Which is why the poll I’m concerned about is November 2nd.
What was so great about Clinton’s playbook ? We got financial deregulation that nearly destroyed the country. If anything, Obama started out with too many pages from Clinton’s playbook. The GOP is a toxic swamp – where was Olympia Snowe when Obama was proposing a health care plan that was indistinguishable from the one Mitt Romney advocated as governor ? Obama has already pushed huge middle-class tax cuts as part of the stimulus and will retain the Bush cuts for everyone but the very top slice of earners. This glib suggestion – totally out of any context other than TeeVee Speak – is such a wrong-headed way of looking at the world – totally unrealistic – the mind reels.
And the sad fact is that if you did work with the GOP to build up a surplus, they’re going to destroy it with more tax cuts that do nothing to promote job creation. Their goal – as has been stated since Reagan – is to make government dysfunctional so people turn against it. Obama has put a deficit commission into place AGAINST the congressional GOP. They don’t want compromise or good governance, they want power. That’s it. Plus, their ranks are even more full of Ayn Randite kooks like Paul Ryan than they were when Clinton was dealing with them. The solution is for Democrats to fight back aggressively on the ground and show these toxic assholes, loons, Beltway parasites and corporate shills for what they are. Which happens to be a danger to the country at this juncture when problems have mounted to crisis levels.
ATQ, have you come up with anyone yet? Who do you think could beat Obama in 2012?
Ezra Klein makes the key point about GOP “resurgence”:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/the_bears-and-sneakers_theory.html
I just can’t think of a GOP candidate who can beat Obama, reg. Obviously, Answering the Question can’t think of one, either. Guess that’s one question he’s not answering. And I don’t blame him. There is no answer. And that’s why Obama’s going to be a 2 term president. Who knows what’s going to happen with the house and senate? A lot of Dems there were conservative Dems anyway. So I don’t think we’ll see much of a difference in the house agenda even if it does go Republican, except for in rhetoric. The results won’t be much different. That health care bill might as well have been written by the health insurers themselves. It started off with a public option, and look how far to the right that bill went sense. It’s DINO city in Washington today. Obama’s not popular, but he’ll have no problem winning again in 2012 because the GOP is clearly incapable of producing a viable candidate. They’re probably going to end up nominating the momma grizzly. How embarrassing.
They have two years to find somebody. Two years. Because there’s not anyone now doesn’t mean there won’t be in 2012. My god, could you possibly be any more shortsighted?
Two years ago, they didn’t have candidates that could beat us to win the house either.
You’re waaaayyyyyy too confident considering the political landscape right now. That’s the worst mistake you can make.
Answering The Question Says:
October 6th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
They have two years to find somebody.
……………..
Well there’s a ringing endorsement for the Republicans rumored to run now! Not even some love for Jindal? Anyhow, don’t let the Palin folks hear you say that the search is still one…
Also…most presidents were at least rumored to be running 2 years before they were first elected. Obama, Dumbya, and Clinton were all well discussed prospects 2 years before they ran, so 2 years is certainly close enough to speculate.
Good luck with the search. I hope you guys find someone to make it interesting. Two intelligent candidates is good for the country, raises good debate, regardless of who wins. But I think the extremists are going to have their say and you guys are going to be stuck with Palin.
In polls Romney trails Obama by just a little, pretty much a dead heat. But Nikki will wait to see what happens with Chris Christie over the next two years.
Romney will either have to distance himself from Bushonomics and Wall Street in general, and alienate his base in doing so, or go the extreme route and label Obama a socialist. Ask John McCain how well that plan worked. I don’t see him getting the nomination, anyway. The Republican Party has gone from “low taxes and family values” to “Obama’s a Kenyan terrorist Muslim!!!!”. I don’t think Romney has the extremist flare they’re looking for.
I don’t see Christie getting the nom either, for the same reasons. But if he did, I see Obama/Christie coming down to Florida, where the Latino vote will be huge. Has Christie done enough to distance himself from the minutemen types? Frankly I don’t know of any Republican who has.
It’s not 1980 anymore, Sure Fire. And your prospective challengers to Obama aren’t exactly…how should I put this? Cultured?
The first rule of thumb in politics is this.
When somebody is committing suicide, don’t take the gun away.
You think Obama’s unbeatable. You’re saying Obama CAN’T be beat by the other side. That is THEE definition of overconfidence. That’s what our party is suffering from right now. That is why we’re going to lose the house, and maybe the senate too.
Wake up. HELLO?
Overconfidence and refusal to read the writing on the wall may make make you feel good. It isn’t reality. The reality is we are in trouble.
Leftist arrogance, demonstrated on this board by liberals on a daily basis, will be the cause of Obama’s defeat as well as many others on that side of the aisle. You people are doing the work for us.
“The poll that matters is on November 2. There’s a hell of a lot that will occur between now and then and most of it will not be helpful to the GOP, as people get a closer look at the national agenda and the candidates. Dems will lose some seats, but frankly the more seats they lose, the worse it will be for the GOP on the next round – because their agenda doesn’t make any sense in the realm of policy and because their political style is purely negative and obstructionist at a time when the country needs the best governance possible. Beyond waving polls at us, you’ve got nothing”.
This is pretty much psycho babble. The more seats the dems lose the worse it will be for the GOP? Because the GOP is negative and obstructionist? The polls apparently don’t count though I would think people would understand they usually play out to their predictions. It’s funny, if the GOP had “nothing” they would lose more seats, not take them.
The arrogance of the left makes me ill, and they’ll probably claim victory even as they get their asses kicked in November. I don’t know if the G.O.P. will take the house or senate but they certainly will come close and in 2012, with two more yaers of the public abandoning the president, it will be all over for the left.
ATQ, your lecturing tone is not going to make me forget that you’re still incapable of naming a Republican hopeful who you think could beat Obama. I’m still waiting, if you want to cowboy up and take a crack at it.
Sure Fire/Nikki Says:
October 7th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
it will be all over for the left.
……………
LOL. Just like it was in 1968, 1980, and again in 2004. If every American was given a dollar for every time a Republican said it was “over for the left”, we’d never have another recession.
John Gotti (1940-2002) A throwback to the old street smart gangsters of the days of Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky, John Gotti seemed for a time to be
untouchable by the hands of law enforcement. Walmart
offers bank accounts and credit cards in Mexico.
Castellano had recently been arrested on multiple racketeering charges.