MyDD :: Open Thread - Holiday Links

Open Thread - Holiday Links

by Josh Orton, Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:19:09 PM EST

What's going on this Saturday night?

A few things in my RSS reader:

Hertzberg, back in 2001, on the too-late Jesse Helms
Mark Leibovich (he wrote that stinging Chris Matthews profile) examines one of John McCain's greatest electoral challangers: the teleprompter.
Rumor is that Obama might give a speech at the same Berlin location where Ronald Reagan called on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."
Maybe we should calm down about Obama's recent late-term abortion statements.
Russ on FISA:

Tags: Open Thread (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Why is Obama legitimizing Reagan? (2.00 / 3)

by paying homage to the overrated "tear down this wall" speech? That speech didn't do SHIT to end the cold war. The wall didn't even come down under his Presidency. Most decent historians don't rate Reagan too high. Its mostly the conservatives who are trying to give him a good name in the history books. But Obama is helping the cause. I don't mind most triangulation, but not only did Obama's move on abortion irk me, but helping Reagan's legacy, as he did by talking him up in front of that editorial board, and is now about to do really angers me.

by Lakrosse on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:31:10 PM EST

I have no friggin' clue... (2.00 / 2)

Why does Barack praise Raygun like he's some superhero... Yet hardly ever has a good word to say about the only two-term Democratic President since FDR? Come on, Barack. The primary's over. It's time to get on the phone with "Big Dog" WJC and arrange a campaign tour.

No way, no how, no McCain! :-)

by atdleft on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is Obama legitimizing Reagan? (none / 0)

Let's withhold judgment about whether the speech pays homage to Reagan until a) the location is actually confirmed, and b) we actually hear the speech.

by Josh Orton on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And btw... (2.00 / 1)

This is totally unrelated, but b/c this is open thread...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/5/18563 7/3540

PLEASE show me some love! Aren't you all tired of the troll diaries and the flame wars? I'm making an effort here to bury the nastiness... The rest of the community should as well by NOT giving the trolls attention and focusing on positive stuff instead...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/5/18563 7/3540

Like this.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/5/18563 7/3540

Just sayin'... ;-)

No way, no how, no McCain! :-)

by atdleft on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

JFK gave one of his best (2.00 / 1)

speeches there too. It isn't about Reagan.

by puma on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Josh (none / 0)

Maybe we should recognize that Obama's position on abortion is as or more progressive than Russ Feingold. Russ Feingold in 1997 opposed a broader "serious adverse health consequences" exception to the so-called "partial-birth" abortion bill.

Obama clearly favors some health exception. It's just unclear how broad an exception he favors.

by Brad G on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:06:50 PM EST

Feingold is not the arbiter here (none / 0)

he has no right, to undermine long held and long sustained views by the prochoice community itself that health has always included mental health.

Feingold is not the stndard...nor is Obama's good advisor tom Daschle who voted for the 2003 abortion ban. Bill Clinton vetoed 2 versions in the 90's; Hillary /clinton voted against the 2003 ban which George Bush signed.

So effing waht Russ Feingold voted for

by debcoop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feingold is not the arbiter here (2.00 / 1)

saying long held and long sustained views of the pro-choice community implies that the pro-choice community is complete agreement on these things; which it is not.

ENOUGH!

by JDF on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The prochoice community (none / 0)

by which I mean those who have spent decades working at prochoice organizations fighting to keep abortion safe and legal with a history and a deep understanding of the issues. That community has worked knowlledgably for abortion rights and I am proud to be a member.

It does not include everyone who has some general feeling that in some circumstances for some people it's okay to have an abortion.

by debcoop on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HILARIOUS NYT article about McCain (none / 0)

in tomorrow's newspaper.

MCCAIN BATTLES A NEMESIS, THE TELEPROMPTER

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/us/pol itics/06mccain.html?hp

"Senator John McCain was performing relatively smoothly as he unveiled his energy plan.
He managed to limit the mechanical hand chops and weirdly timed smiles that can often punctuate his speeches. He delivered his lines with an ease that suggested a momentary peace with his longtime nemesis, the teleprompter. (He relied on a belt-and-suspenders approach, with text scrolling down screens to his left and right, and on a big TV set in front of him.)

But when Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, came to the intended sound bite of his speech -- the part about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil -- he hit a slick.

"I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lex-eegton Project," Mr. McCain said, drawing a quick breath and correcting himself. "The Lex-ing-ton Proj-ect," he said slowly. "The Lexington Project," he repeated. "Remember that name.""

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AND WATCH THE VIDEO!

FREAKIN' HILARIOUS!

by puma on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:20:32 PM EST

When are you going to stop reflexively defending (1.50 / 2)

every awful thing he says. What he said has ramifications. You are really into Kool Aid here on this blog...the man can do or say no wrong even when he does.

You know NOTHING about abortion, its politics or its history from what I can tell. NOTHING

I have been involved for decades....and I am a boardmember of a prominent prochoice group. Roe did not regulate 1st and 2nd trimester abortions, it did not demand that a woman give reasons in order to have one.....In the third trimester Roe allows REGULATION of abortion as long as the women's life and health are safeguarded ( mental health has alwys been part ot the defintiion of health)

The post you link to is wrong. Late term has an amorphous general meaning and can begin at 18 weeks, the second trimester. Medically it is not confined to the third trimester. Amniocentesis is done from the 15th to the 20th week...Second trimester. Second trimester when the woman needs to give no reason in order to want or to get an abortion. ...This is the point at which fetal abnormalities are discovered....ones which may not cause death or harm to the mother ...but the mental distress of bringing such a child to term may be great indeed.

Basically Obama is agreeing with part of the 2003 abortion ban...the one he spoke out against when the Supreme Court upheld it....surprising he said nothing about this before to prochoice audiences

This is not a minor clarification. This is one which can be walked back into earlier trimesters and further undermine Roe. And WTF is he is calling into question a woman's motivations for having an abortion...oh the context was an interview with a anti abortion group!!!! And of course Obama must do that in order to win....After all what are a few rights here and there that are undermined on his way to the Oval Office?

Stop and think...You have no spine anymore....Being an apologist can become very wearying.

YES WHAT HE SAID HAS RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND WHAT YOU THINK.

by debcoop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:48:50 PM EST

As a neonatologist who takes care (2.00 / 1)

of babies in the NICU at >22wks (babies in which late term abortions are typically done on), I totally agree with Obama's position on this but I would argue that the law needs to be revisted.

Obama is NOT a physician so he may not know that TECHNOLOGY of 2008 allows for babies >22wks to survive. As a result, why should there be ANY abortions after 22wks? If the mom's health (mental or physical) is at stake, all the obstetrician needs to do is induce labor so the mom delivers the baby or in the case of an emergency, perform a c-section.

I really think that this law needs to be revisited since the TECHNOLOGY has changed. If the baby can survive outside the womb why do an abortion? Just deliver the baby if mom's health is at stake.

by puma on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Roe does not ban 2nd rrimester aboritons (2.00 / 1)

"Obama is NOT a physician so he may not know that TECHNOLOGY of 2008 allows for babies >22wks to survive. As a result, why should there be ANY abortions after 22wks"

You are obviously coming at this from your own point of view which is about saving babies....not about women.

The answer is simple....the woman is having an abortion because she didn't want the baby.

What you are saying is because people like you create technology to let undveloped fetuses survive that women should be forced to have them.

Who is taking the baby home after you "save" it even though the woman wanted an abortion? Are you taking it home? Do you expect the state to care for it? Or do you think the the woman should be forced to care for what is usually a compromised baby even though she wanted an abortion?

What yo are saying here is you do not believe in the woman's right to make decisons about her own life. You are going to substitute your own judgement over hers.

by debcoop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You just may not be aware of the technology (2.00 / 1)

It is A LOT easier on the mom to actually deliver the baby or perform a c-section than to perform a late-term abortion. Performing a late-term abortion puts a mom at FAR MORE RISK than inducing labor or doing a c-section. Thus if this is the case, than just deliver the baby and the baby can be taken care of in the NICU.

If the mom doesn't want the baby than fine, she can give it up for adoption. As a neonatologist, I take care of these premies.

Have you ever been in an NICU to see these 22wk infants? If you have you would definitely understand my position.

I strongly believe that if a baby can survive outside the womb than just deliver the baby if the mom's health is at risk. An abortion is NOT needed.

by puma on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should know perfectly well that c sections (2.00 / 1)

are not recommended for early in a pregnancy. They cause problems for the women down the road in carrying a healthy baby to term.

The other way to is to induce labor with laminaries...which is a procedure also with greater risk for the woman.

Your concern here is with the fetuses not the women. You are not addressing the health risk and reproductive risks to the woman. You have your priorites wrong.

And you think it is so easy to give up a baby once you gave birth...

This arguemnt you are making is no different than the ones the made by the preselected doctors whom the Republicans brought to testify in 2003 to their trumped up hearing when they too said abortions were not necessary to protect the life and health and future reproductive capacity of the mother.

by debcoop on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Would a physician do a late term (2.00 / 1)

abortion on a term infant if mom's health was at risk? Nope they would not. A physician would just do a c-section or induce labor.

Why because the baby can survive outside the womb. A 22 wk infant can survive outside the womb thus an abortion is NOT necessary. Just delivery the infant if mom's health is at risk.

Obviously you are not a physician so you don't know what you are talking about. Performing a late-term abortion CAN cause problems for the women down the road in carrying a healthy baby to term and has a GREATER risk than a c-section.

by puma on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Would a physician do a late term (none / 0)

I am not a medical professional, but I have trouble understanding how an invasive procedure focused on the health of the foetus rather than the woman (or even an invasive procedure that splits it's focus between the woman and the foetus) is safer for the woman than a procedure in which the health of the woman herself is the only concern.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Open Thread - Holiday Links (none / 0)

Josh, I like the way you word these open threads and rescue diaries. Thanks for bringing them to our attention.

"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:51:41 PM EST

Russ: leader; Barack: corporate water carrier (2.00 / 1)

How striking, that contrast.

Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.

by neaguy on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 11:34:54 PM EST

Re: Russ: leader; Barack: corporate water carrier (none / 0)

Good then that the one staying in the senate is the one we need there.

Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.

by Endymion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Open Thread - Holiday Links (none / 0)

I just wanted to check and see if this was still a democratic blog or if it had become a Mos Eisley type place where mcrusty trolls, never submit or surrender Clintonites, and eternally depressed/pessimistic liberals congregate to fling poop at each other. Because if it is, count me in baby!!!

by Xris on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 03:03:11 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.