Disqus - Latest Comments for casualobserver

Re: Minneapolis police release Chauvin’s personnel records, offering few more details

casualobserver — Wed, 03 Jun 2020 13:18:54 -0000

Prior to Chauvin really becoming involved, Floyd is in handcuffs and in the cruiser back seat.....isn't this the end of the process before driving to the station? Why would the opposite door (streetside) even be opened....much less pull Floyd back out?

Re: Dem Senate Takeover Probable, If Cruz or Trump Nominee

casualobserver — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 12:47:41 -0000

The article is long on subjective reasoning to argue for what must be the author's hope and when there are objective measures out there that argue against that, these are apparently deemed irrelevant.
First, how does the author dismiss the very low Dem turnout in the primaries? Do we just wish it irrelevant to the general election? History is not on the side of the author's premise.
And speaking of history, I guess it counts more when the elections are at least 35 years ago as opposed to 3 years+ ago....or the author considers himself a better political scientist than David Easton ever was.
And while general elections polls taken during the primary have their shortcomings, wouldn't those polls still have more objectivity to them than the author's personal opinion.........e.g., Cruz beats Clinton in the RCP average.
I respect the notion of political/ideological preference being expressed, I don't respect when that preference is the primary component of conclusions to be reached.

Re: Carly Fiorina is The Greatest Mystery of the 2016 GOP Race

casualobserver — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 21:32:25 -0000

Except for Trump, no other R candidate is exactly in an invulnerable/enviable primary position either as of today. The idea that garnering 11% (Bush, Cruz, Rubio) is somehow vastly superior to 4% is laughable. Kasich will now drop back to at least fifth in SC results.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I give the guy credit for correctly assessing the mood early on, moving to the hot issues as they pop and playing the free media like a virtuoso.
Fiorina stayed on the PP thing too long and lost the free media as the hot buttons moved on. She beat up HRC a lot, but should have directed some fire towards her rivals even if just to stay in the press coverage.
The only critique of her tenure at HP that I buy is when I know it comes from other CEO's who have attempted likesize mergers. If you haven't walked in those shoes and proven your own mettle and skill, what are your quals to offer critique? Hardware CEOs that went through the crash and have fully recaptured all the lost shareholder value can be counted on one hand and I doubt they are posting here.
Fiorina's flaw as a candidate was simply she did not effectively sell enough of what voters want to buy this cycle. And only a 74 year old Socialist and an egotistical real estate developer are.

Re: Why David French's "We're Not Democrats" Argument Isn't Very Reassuring

casualobserver — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 13:23:34 -0000

While it has been said polls before the first primaries are unreliable predictors, I still have to believe these have more insight than the personal opinion of any one person or pundit. Right now, Trump is just slightly behind in a head to head with Clinton (RCP average). Since Democrats outnumber Republicans in registered numbers, it has to mean Trump is pulling a goodly number of independents to get that close. He's not my first choice for nominee, but he has convinced me he has defied conventional prognosticating thus far.

Re: The Pathetic Republican Debate

casualobserver — Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:41:59 -0000

From what I have observed, the Trump backers (and Cruz backers) are the folks with the personalities that compel them to get their opinion out there. Not a surprise to me that these folks would be the most motivated to populate the overnight polls. Therefore, while the evangelical group is not a likely group to swarm computers at 11pm (or blab on blogs), I suspect their support of Carson is still there and will keep him even or above Trump.
In fact, I think the debates from now on will likely make little to no mark on the overall average standard polls (always excepting for some cataclysmic item). The candidates are now largely known and their positions (or lack thereof) are also known. I personally think nothing really happens now until the primaries start taking place and delegate counts start taking on more meaning than poll indications.
As for getting informative substance on Republican voter views, I tend to go reading places where they actually exist.

Re: A subtle milestone on the road to Single Payer, I hope (Guest Voice)

casualobserver — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:02:22 -0000

One hedge fund guy looking to make a short term strike should not necessarily be the sole reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Certainly, the DOJ can bring an antitrust suit........or the FDA could give a couple of existing European manufacturers of pyrimethamine a fast track approval.

Re: A subtle milestone on the road to Single Payer, I hope (Guest Voice)

casualobserver — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:38:49 -0000

Rcoutme has the best grasp of the facts. Pyrimethamine has been around for at least 60 years. Patents are long ago expired. And free market capitalism has the antidote for price gouging built in, because when there are no unreasonable barriers to entry, competitors would gladly ramp up the generic and undercut Daraprim sales price. However, there is an unreasonable barrier to entry called the US Government Food and Drug Administration. No sane person would pay the time nor price to manufacture a drug that had such small scale market demand because the resulting margins against the incumbent's normal pricing would not allow recoupment. So, which philosophy is really the culprit, free market or government interventionism? No need to reply, I already know the answer.

Re: A party in clear disarray

casualobserver — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:19:30 -0000

Since most commenters did not address your actual question, allow me to submit my conjecture. My observation(s) is/are that the Republican Party is more continually run at the local and state level. There is more engagement with retail politics on a continuous basis. Ergo, from local to county to state levels, Republicans build more candidates from the lowest level then up. With the exception of large cities, Republicans are more innately and continuously "grassroots" than Democrats, despite innuendo to the contrary. Conversely, Ds can do very well on POTUS elections because they drive from a national office more innately. Democratic constituents, true to the liberal philosophy, accept the "from the top" direction more readily and loyally. But once the blue cities/counties are delivered, they are generally non-competitive in collar and rural counties. Depending on the given state concentration of population between large city and other, it is simply a numbers game as to which party wins. I think the red/blue/purple maps out there are quite good forecasting tools.........and there is a lot more red out there encompassing local, county and when voter enthusiasm/dedication is factored in, more state red as well. Of course, all of this math and geography assumes a particular candidate does not shoot him/herself in the foot with ill-advised rhetoric when the cameras are on.

And of course, it may just be that the definition of dysfunction is predicated on the ideological prism of the viewer. Believe it or not, there are well-adjusted, contented and successful life forms ambulating the earth's surface who view lack of government activity, be it by policy or by resistance, as an acceptable state of affairs.

Re: What Unites Conservatives | Comments | RealClearPolitics

casualobserver — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 07:45:45 -0000

The conclusion as stated is much easier to state than to implement. If R candidates stuck to economic issues, it could likely be much more successful in keeping the grouping intact. But, there is a pretty big gap between social conservatives and libertarians on several headline social issues.

Re: The Key to Understanding the 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries | Comments | RealClearPolitics

casualobserver — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:32:16 -0000

Come on, Scott. How quickly you forget. Romney got bested by Obama and the vast majority of the analysis afterwards focused on how the GOP came across to the minority voter, women AND independent swing voters as the party which was way out of step on women's issues, immigration and the infamous 47% and 99%. The introspection was done in that context. So, if that context was wrong, all the people calling for more hardline conservatism on social issues must have sat out the 2012 election by the millions literally, if the suggestion is now that Trump will best Clinton or possibly Biden just by doubling down against the minority vote, women and people who live on or like the dole and erase the 6-7% margin of Obama over Romney. Personally, I'd like to see it happen, but I make a practice of not translating a high level of noise on one side into a general election outcome.

Re: Bob Barr Is Spot On About Kim Davis

casualobserver — Wed, 09 Sep 2015 13:19:41 -0000

I'm not following the rebuttal comments thus far. Seems to me Barr is raising a pragmatic argument to religious objections by public employees, not a specific legal argument.
And while you can personally disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, as a practical matter a public official cannot just say "a bunch of us folks disagree with it".
You would be better counsels to Ms. Davis by helping her construct an accommodation under Kentucky's RFRA.

Re: The Myth of "Faulty Intelligence"

casualobserver — Fri, 15 May 2015 15:37:51 -0000

While the author spends more paragraphs reciting his conclusions than presenting hard evidence of his theory (even the Cheney quotes are not actually admissible evidence that the entire system was biased, these just prove Cheney himself was), I do accept the neocon mindsets of the Cheneys and Rumsfelds were the drivers behind entering the Iraq War. As for Bush, as the guy on top, he can be faulted for letting this small cadre be his sole influence (but you can say the same exact thing about Obama now).
However, what the progressive mindset always fails to acknowledge is that the public opinion on the Iraq War and Bush was NOT because the war was commenced on lack of indisputable evidence of WMD. The "other voters" in the US nor the people of Iraq miss Saddam Hussein or lose sleep over the fact he was overthrown by external military force even with dubious evidence of WMD subsequently known. A few thousand dead Kurds was evidence enough for us. What did in public opinion was the prosecution the war itself. Had we packed up and left when the statue of Saddam was toppled, George Bush might likely be well-regarded by 80% of the electorate today. So, blame Bush for putting Paul Bremer in charge of things, blame Bush for buying into the idea of nation-building as a logical thing for the US to spend our hard earned tax dollars on, or blame Bush for thinking the US Armed Forces should act as policemen in foreign countries or blame Bush for risking US lives to try and get a bunch of sectarian-aligned, religiously-indoctrinated, 18th century-minded idiots to try and live together under one government and I and the rest of the country will agree with your disdain for his administration. And that is how a Republican POTUS candidate ought to answer the question to win the election.

Re: A few more bits and pieces about Hobby Lobby

casualobserver — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 20:28:28 -0000

Whether your legal and political sensitivities agree or not, it seems SCOTUS has become relatively set in the precedent that corporations are "persons". This ruling seems to be consistent with that view even though RFRA gives them an even more convenient federal statute to base their ruling on. I'm not getting this whole need within the media and blogosphere to either make this into some great watershed legal event (a la Ginsburg) or to cause a philosophical re-examination of the corporate form of enterprise as does this piece..

Re: Can Reid Get Re-Elected In Spite Of Himself?

casualobserver — Thu, 27 May 2010 15:13:02 -0000

Where is Paul Laxalt when you need him?

Re: Resurgent Racism

casualobserver — Fri, 21 May 2010 17:17:23 -0000

"Nobody can agree on how closely, and thinly, to draw the "line" between private and public, which limits government"

Good point........there's just too damned many of us, isn't there. Ok, next topic, world population control.

Re: Resurgent Racism

casualobserver — Fri, 21 May 2010 16:44:59 -0000

Sorry, nevermind. Would take too long to answer well.

Re: Resurgent Racism

casualobserver — Fri, 21 May 2010 10:35:55 -0000

I agree fully with you, DaGoat (as I do 95% of the time).

There is good and noble purpose to a nation of citizens to routinely question and debate the manner and protocol by which they conduct the nation. As a libertarian, Paul is philosophically predisposed to this ongoing debate and especially in a current time in this nation, historically founded as a collection of individuals is being now predominantly governed as individuals collectively. (Hopefully the juxtapositioning of the phrase conveys my gist.)

However, Maddow et al, not comfortable engaging in that actual intellectual exercise, would rather try to cherry-pick out one phrase of the conversation to press an emotional electioneering wedge to her ideological advantage.

Tidbits, in turn, is using the old courtroom tactic of bringing up the charge he can't prove, by saying he can't prove it, but just by airing it, he hopes the jury makes the leap anyway.

Re: CBO Puts Same Sex Benefits In Doubt

casualobserver — Wed, 19 May 2010 18:40:35 -0000

Hey, sorry to interrupt, but I think we need a post on the power supply cutoff to California. Roro, better stock up on batteries.

Re: Sex And The Supremes – Kagan Is Sixth “Maybe Gay” Nominee

casualobserver — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:37:56 -0000

Quizás que es verdad, mi senora liberal.

However, I still do not believe "shouting it down" is an effective cure. People learn to accept things over time, not on instruction. I know you don't want to settle for that, but it is reality. If there is latent anti-gay sentiment over a large segment of the population, I think you'll need to wait for it to die out....literally.

Re: Obama’s Exposed Left Flank

casualobserver — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:15:31 -0000

Enhorabuena en otro artículo bien escrito, mi amigo.

I find your analysis generally agreeable to mine. But, the blame certainly should not be laid at Obama's feet. He never lied about his resume (that was his running mate.) It was the liberal electorate that wishfully morphed a community organizer/college professor into the second edition of Winston Churchill.

If I happened to possess a lot of executive experience, I would be in a position to counsel that being an agent of change is a hands-on, grueling, 24/7 task.

Flooding the zone with policy ideas and then stepping away works OK only in a well-oiled enterprise.

If the liberals were looking to implement change, they should have drafted a Harry Truman, not a Gore Vidal. Yet the best candidate they had on deck they threw under the bus.

Re: Sex And The Supremes – Kagan Is Sixth “Maybe Gay” Nominee

casualobserver — Wed, 12 May 2010 15:45:22 -0000

The liberals are their own worst enemy on this matter........and hardly just the couple here.

The original fact is that a couple of anti-gay religious organizations threw out some predictable statements that likely would not have reached more than .2% of the population has now blossomed exponentially courtesy of the liberal-can-you-believe-what-some-conservative-is-now-saying megaphone.

The woman is now assured that whether or not she is gay or straight, she is now a question mark in about 50 million people's minds instead of 500,000.......for no other reason than there is now a vortex surrounding an intended-to-be-shoe-in candidate.

And if liberals continue to blame "someone else", they will assuredly repeat the same mistake again and again. I should start including liberals in my poker games. The food and beverage bill will always be assured of recoupment.

Re: Sex And The Supremes – Kagan Is Sixth “Maybe Gay” Nominee

casualobserver — Wed, 12 May 2010 09:09:27 -0000

If we had some evidence that Obama made the choice for PC reasons, I would definitely support your point. But, I don't know of any. He just seems oddly smitten with Rubenesque women!

Naturally, everyone wants the prior resume to determine if there is going to be some "bias" in any direction, so that's why the relatively blank slate is consternating.

However, we can't discriminate based on an affiliation with an inately non-political group. After all, the place is now lousy with Catholics and Jews.......and I fear for the continued legality of the Methodist Church!

Re: Sex And The Supremes – Kagan Is Sixth “Maybe Gay” Nominee

casualobserver — Tue, 11 May 2010 17:32:10 -0000

The history bit was an interesting read, but I suspect the political implications are being overplayed by the bloggers...for, as you say, readership trolling purposes. Sexual orientation no longer creates the play in Peoria as it once did. The socons are increasingly irrelevant in the power-broking circles of the R's. They now only compete with the similarly increasingly irrelevant liberals who look to cook up the pretense of offense over minutia as their way of trying to garner audience share. Had they only actually paid attention to the discussion of Obama's short list the first time around, they would realize that they now seem only badly underinformed and not scooping anything of significance.

The more interesting take is that of Stein.......that here we have Obama selecting his own resume.......perceived high intellect from Harvard, a person of carefully constructed oration, no readily discernable political trail and no actual functional experience in the position being applied for.

Re: Arizona – Silent Boycott Is The Real Fear

casualobserver — Fri, 07 May 2010 13:57:35 -0000

Since any debate over the "principles" involved here is ultimately sourced in your personal perception that the law is unconstitutional and will subject lawful citizens to harassment, we'll just have to wait and see if your perceptions are borne out by future events declaring that a piece of reality. While there is likely some degree of reality to the boycotting, nonetheless, these are also likely more words than real dollars at the moment.

"Boston has become the latest city to stop doing business with Arizona. It will pull Arizona investments, end Arizona contracts, halt Arizona purchasing and stop city employee travel to the state.".......ooooh, wow, seriously? Just exactly what does Boston buy from Arizona.....a couple of AZ G.O. bonds in the city workers pension plan? And, of course, Boston should stop sending employees to AZ for conferences......what kind of municipal stewardship allowed that even before this law was passed? So, I guess they'll have to trade the Boston School Board's winter teachers' day junket to the Tempe Hilton Gardens for the Bear Stearns Investor Conference at the Boulders.

Your historical references are emotionally moving, but pragmatically underwhelming......most of those other boycotts had something going for them that this one doesn't seem to......public support of the cause. Even the MLK deal......didn't that happen only once the citizens voted it in?

Re: Arizona – Silent Boycott Is The Real Fear

casualobserver — Thu, 06 May 2010 19:24:39 -0000

No doubt standing for principle sometimes extracts a cost. When the cost of boycotting changes the public support, please advise.

Then again, is there no cost currently to the citizens in absorbing costs of indigent medical care, incarceration, the toll that smuggled drugs take on lives, job displacements?