I'm going to quote you out of sequence, just easier to say what I'm trying to say that way I think, no harm intended, hopefully no foul perceived.
We agree on the latter point, I don't particularly believe someone in DC (or wherever) sat down and said "hey, let's invent this"



This is where we take different paths.

I believe it's entirely plausible that there have been conversations -- not saying WH level, just somewhere in the food chain, starting almost certainly in the intelligence community -- along the lines of "let's not squash this, it's still small, let's see if we can turn it into an asset at some point". I think it probably got stronger faster than expected (perhaps with some hidden U.S. assistance aiming toward the "possible asset" theory), I think once it reached a certain point it was like "well that didn't work out so well ... what else could we make out of this sow's ear?".

At that point it isn't a tinfoil hat that I put on, it's a Stovepipe of Raging Cynicism I don.

I don't believe for a moment there's anybody in the administration who gives a damn about the victims -- U.S. or otherwise -- of ISIS beyond how they can be manipulated for political and p.r. purposes. I believe this is considered much more of an opportunity than a crisis ("see, we don't hate Christians or babies, we'll use the military to help them protect the missionaries & the children"). I believe every decision made on ISIS at this point is based on those sorts of political & marketing considerations, not anything involving national security nor a vague notion of "right vs wrong" or anything else.

I'm not suggesting that this administration or any other created ISIS in order to wag some dog. I'm saying that I believe it's extremely plausible (and fairly likely) that every action taken beyond a certain point is along those lines.

And I'm not attempting to suggest that the current administration is the first in history to do so, nor that you wouldn't have similar situations arise with a 180 degree administration in office.

Not sure why we are striking in Syria vs more in Iraq but let's hope this seriously degrades ISIS.

U.S. airstrikes hit ISIS targets inside Syria - CNN.com

CNN talking heads are saying good participation by other Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE and Bahrain.

If they are really up in the air and participating in air strikes, this would be great news and showing they are all-in.

Exactly, and I really want to echo the use of the word "plausible". I'm not saying this actually happened. I think it's entirely likely that the Shiites are simply using the CIA as a useful bogeyman.

But given the way the CIA has operated througout its entire history, and given the multiple, multiple known occasions when they have done exactly what Jon describes above (and even more), if it came out tomorrow that this indeed happened in this case, well, I wouldn't be surprised either.


But back to the original point. Let the Shiites blame the CIA for ISIS. I'm fine with that, and I'm sure the CIA doesn't care either. Iraq finally gets "peace" when it's partitioned along "original" sectarian lines (going back centuries), with a Shiite client state of Iran, a Sunni client state of, let's say, Saudi Arabia, and an independent Kurdistan. Oh, and with all the oil revenues figured out.

Sure, it'll never happen, but that's how you get peace, and that's about as hopeful as I am for peace in the area.

Well said, Jim.

(he probably has me on ignore and won't see this, but this was an excellent summation of the root causes of ISIS)

"All-in" is more than firing bullets from hundreds of miles away.

So, to catch up on that illegal immigration crisis we talked about several pages ago:

Pretty sure that was a CIA plot to to force the immigration issue to the top of the political food chain.

If so, it's nice to see the CIA do something with competence, for once.

Interesting read on the journey to bomb ISIS. Seems as if it was Kerry who drove it.

For Obama, a swift leap from no strategy to a full battle plan for Islamic State - The Washington Post

I'm not sure how valid this straw poll is but my gut tells me neither of the top 3 vote getters have enough support to get to the GOP finish line.

Don't think GOP is ready for Jindal (maybe as VP) so that leaves Santorum, Paul, Christie and Rubio.

Cruz wins Values Voter straw poll again, Biden finishes ahead of Christie | Fox News

60 minutes interview recapping what I thought Obama had already conceded to.

Log In - The New York Times

The Boehner comment is somewhat surprising. I can't believe the GOP believes boots on the ground is a winning proposition. Maybe its just to sound tough.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/177263/sl...t-actions.aspx

Then he continued saying, "But of course we won't actually vote on this and have any responsibility. We'd prefer to bitch no matter what happens."

I'm not an isolationist, but I just wish politicians could be honest about our foreign policy. They intend to kill us? Who cares. If that was the worry we just would stop visiting Iraq and Syria. China doesn't even have the ability to invade us, I'm not worried about ISIS. I realize people aren't ready to hear complex foriegn policy decisions, but the fact that we always explain things in these stark terms isn't helping the populace be able to understand why we choose to do what we do.

I wonder about their strategy of not voting for spending unless there are equal cuts when it comes to boots on the ground. We won't fund the fighting of Ebola for 50M, which is likely a more plausible threat, but hey, let's spend another trillion fighting terrorists.

I would like to see Jon in a stovepipe hat (a cigarette hanging out of his mouth, natch)

SI

Ok, I'll bite: so why did the numbers plummet?

SI

The numbers seem to rise each year (of the three, of course) in March, which I assume is due mainly to weather.

The questions of why the spike this year and then why the sudden drop are good questions it would be great to have sane and thoughtful answers to. I don't have those answers, but I'd love to see them.

But bear in mind, the rhetoric over the summer was that this was an increase that wasn't going to stop, therefore a "crisis". Well, it's not that, clearly.

So this happens every February, March, April, May, June, and July?

So in reading up why (no one really has an answer), I read the reason why Honduras (who had double the amount of undocumented children reach the US) has had such a dramatic increase in homicide in the last 5 years. Wouldn't you know it, another US backed coup. This would be the one that Hillary Clinton admitted to doing a few days ago (and Kerry agrees with her that it was the 'right' thing to do). Are we ever going to learn?

I really hope the Democrats don't nominate her for president, because with all the goons the Republicans have she'd probably end up winning.

Like anyone else on the Democratic side with a chance of winning is any better?

I'm not sure who else in the Democratic party is in play at this point for the nomination. Biden maybe?

Sadly, I think the Republicans are going to do what they're been exceptionally good at - trot out a clusterfuck of a candidate that's utterly unelectable.

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

Romney: Certainly electable. Not a great candidate, but with a couple fewer gaffes, and a little better PR he could have made it closer, even won.

McCain: Perfectly electable except a) wasn't helped by Bush Fatigue and b) went full crazy around the time he selected Palin (fully manifested by the time the financial crash happened and he started acting like an idiot).

Bush II: Obviously electable.

Dole: Certainly electable, but didn't have the charisma and Gingrich blew it for him anyway.

Etc....


I think what you're reacting to is that the current bench has a bunch of guys who look pretty unelectable pretty quickly: Cruz, Jindal, Christie, etc....

As a Republican unhappy with the party, it would take an awfully bad candidate to get me to change my mind away from "vote for whoever is running against Hillary".

Is Biden a serious candidate? That seems like a terrible idea.

Here I disagree. Obama was infinitely beatable by a stronger candidate in 2012. If Romney's the best you can come up with (and from that crop, he was probably the best pick of a wide variety of idiots), you got problems.


Yes, this is more of a comment on the last few years. I just can't see anyone who has the slightest chance in hell at flipping the purple states back to red.

Strangely, probably the strongest mainstream candidate is Jeb Bush, who is doomed from his name alone.

Are Cruz, Jindal or Christie bad enough candidates? Serious question.

If Clinton gets the nomination (which seems likely), the choice of the GOP candidate will matter more than usual, given that Clinton is so very well known by now that who is voting for and against her should be solidified even at this very, very early juncture.

The GOP will start with a sizable group who will be voting against Hillary. If they nominate a candidate that doesn't alienate that group, then they'll have a real chance. But go too milquetoast (Romney) and the tea party sympathizers might decide it's pointless to vote against Clinton to get Romney instead. Go too tea party (let's say Cruz, for argument), and you've got a repeat of the Senate races they've lost, only on a national scale, so essentially a guaranteed loss.

It's a tough one, as I don't see a national candidate who fits the "sweet spot" and doesn't have serious baggage (Christie probably fits the sweet spot, but once a national campaign gets underway he'll just be overcome by corruption investigations).


A sitting VP is always a serious candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden runs to make a race of it, but I think even he knows he's going to have an uphill battle against the Clinton machine.

The only other Democrat I've heard in the mix is former Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, but I very much doubt he can take on Clinton.

I certainly agree. I was responding to "electable", which Romney surely was. But "electable" doesn't equal "strongest".


Were Bush and Clinton to get their nominations, does the electorate finally say "fuck it, we're done"? :D

It'd be amusing, to say the least.

If minorities turn out in 2016 the Dem will win. The GOP has narrowed their base to the point that in a high turnout national election they won't win.

Now we'll still have to endure months of process and campaign stories, but the decider in 2016 is turnout.

One more on this.

If Clinton decides not to run and Biden does (and Clinton deciding not to make it much more likely that Biden does), then I'd say Biden becomes a very formidable candidate, unless Clinton was stepping aside to throw her weight behind an acolyte (Gillibrand or Booker?).

Biden would have a significant fundraising, organizational and GOTV advantage over any GOP candidate in this instance with combined backing from the Clintons and, presumably, Obama. The GOP would need to nominate a candidate whose universal appeal and organization could eclipse this. A very tall order, IMO.

I would put Christie at the same low level as Clinton (Christie's bridge stunt was very Clinton-esque), and I've seen what Hillary is like at the national level, so I'd give him a shot to see if he can do better.

Cruz is an idiot, I'd be shocked if he got nominated. He might be bad enough to get me to pull a libertarian protest vote, or vote him for President but then vote Democrat in the House and Senate to limit the damage.

I don't know a lot about Jindal, you'll have to point me to the descriptions of things he's done that are worse than the kind of stunts Hillary has pulled, aside from him being a religious conservative (he's not getting evolution pushed through the schools nationally no matter how much he believes in it, for example).

If Christie vs. Clinton ends up being Bridge-Gate vs. Benghazi, I think Clinton wins. For one, Benghazi's pretty much run its course and very few Democrats aren't going to vote for her because of it. Bridge-Gate hasn't quite finished, by comparison, and the risk to Christie here is that tea party-types view it as the kind of corruption from a guy who's already weak on the issues (to them) enough that they pull their votes.


Yeah, I've yet to see a convincing argument for how a Cruz nomination is a success for the GOP. I don't even think he could beat Bernie Sanders.


Well, Jindal just dropped himself into the middle of the Common Core debate (he's currently against it, after having been a big proponent earlier on), so he's more or less created a lose-lose situation for himself. He also is on record as being earnestly in support of exorcism. And his biggest national exposure, giving the GOP "response" to the SOTU a few years back, was a colossal bomb. He may yet be a decent candidate, but he's operating at a big handicap right now.

Hillary certainly isn't my ideal president, but I'd love to see her win if only because:

1) It would drive the Republicans crazy, probably crazier than Obama ever has.
2) It would be funny to see all the people who randomly view Hillary as some sort of progressive princess (and Obama as a weak compromiser) finally come to their senses when Hillary makes compromise after compromise.

It would make 3 straight democratic presidents who are portrayed as "evil far-left liberals who will bring ruination to our great country" who rule from the right of Richard Nixon.

SI

Jindal's voice makes him unelectable nationally. He'll be a laughung stock well before election day.

Hillary has a MUCH longer list than Benghazi. I brought up the bridge because of its political retaliation angle, whereas Benghazi is a straightforward incompetence / CYA scandal they all have tons of.

But it's not really a point I presented to debate, I just threw out there that as a Republican who could be swayed to vote for a moderate candidate no matter what party, Hillary is the type of candidate who would drive me back into the fold quicker than most. Maybe Pelosi and her hypocritical ideas about wealth (take it away from everyone else, but she needs hers so she can continue to fight for the masses) would drive me faster.

I mean, yes, it's 2 years away, but it seems like the only Republican who can actually beat Hillary Clinton is probably Jeb Bush. And even then, Jeb has his issues with the Tea Party, causing a potentially raucous primary.

It's become a curious thing - the Dems were known for their crazy ass primaries and the Reps would get behind the leader once he emerged. It seems to have flipped.

I just can't wait to hear about White Water and Vince Foster again.

I completely understand the point you're making, Greg, but my counter-point is that pretty much everything on that list has been litigated in the court of public opinion already. I know the GOP thinks they're going to get a lot of mileage out of bringing up all the old Clinton skeletons, but I really don't see it, to be honest.

Not to mention that she simultaneously gets to say "that was Bill" and enjoy the impact of Bill's 60% approval rating.

It's like they didn't learn anything from the 1990s (if they bring up Whitewater and all that silliness again).

Again, I could not care less about the public at large, I was telling you how I'm thinking leading up to this election. I've seen enough bad out of the Republican party that I could be talked into voting for a different candidate (I'm actually seriously considering voting for Kay Hagan for Senate as I can't stand Tom Tillis, for example), but I just can't envision a scenario under which I personally would vote for Hillary.

And Clinton skeletons are the gift that keeps on giving, as in we keep finding new ones. If you think I'm limiting myself to Bill's terms in office, then you are wrong.

Sorry, I misunderstood you, then.


If they're "giving", they're not giving a lot. The family's been in the public spotlight for over 2 decades. Unless there's something truly spectacular, it's diminishing returns, IMO.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting that minorities don't enjoy the two-party system as much as us white folks do. Still looking forward to the day when minorities have not only a vote, but a choice.

Easy. Look at the percentages, Blacks, Latinos, and Asians all vote heavily Dem. If the GOP would stop going after minorities all the time I have no doubt they could get more votes.

edit: Look at an electoral map. I'd say the Dems have a very high chance at 242 votes while the GOP has 191. If the Dems turnout, which is always a question, getting the last 29 is a whole lot more likely than the GOP getting the last 80.

I'm curious, Dutch. Why do you think minorities don't vote GOP as much as they vote Democratic?

The GOP goes after minorities? Maybe they should stop cheering when things like the Voting Rights Act gets neutered.

Umm ... I think he meant "go after" as in attack, not as it "try to attract".

Note to self:

Drink coffee before posting.

Racism.

Good news for us.

I'm still wondering how they got all their hostages back without a military action or ransom (or so they say). If not, I would have thought they made a deal with ISIS to stay out of the conflict ... which means they are reneging on it.

Turkish lawmakers OK military action against ISIS - CNN.com

We have an entry for the Stupidest Thing Ever Said.

I wonder if she has any data / evidence / examples to back that up.

Edit: Because, it's certainly "truthy"! :D

uh isn't protecting our lives against an ebola outbreak something govt should be doing? (if you follow what that idiot is preaching?)

Can we have our resident Libertarians chime in, I wonder?

Because when your whole family is dead the fact that the airline is liable for "damages" (if you can rustle up the $$ to fight their army of lawyers) will be such a comfort.

Seriously, it's shit like this that makes it really hard to take the libertarians at all seriously.

And I mean, this isn't even a fringe-nutto...it's the national party's political director.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. I agree, that kind of talking from someone in the mainstream of the party is a killer.

Government is bad, compensation culture and suing when something wrong happens is good. Got it.

The whole Libertarian party is basically fringe-nutto. So it doesn't surprise me a central party figure said something stupid.

The only reason the airline can be sued is because of the government!

Sssh ;)

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and engage in rational discussion with folks like panerd, but when the national party's visible spokesperson (wasn't she a candidate last election even?) comes out and says something like this...it's tough.

Individual D's and R's say crazy things too, but they're somewhat shielded (although not totally as we've seen recently in cases with R's) by the veneer of respectability that the party has built up over time.

I think you're assuming that libertarians self-identify with the Libertarian party. Most consider it an embarrassment, or at best an easy way to get ballot access.

That's fine, but it doesn't really matter whether they self-identify with it as much as it matters whether the population at-large identifies it with them - that's what hurts.

And in that regard, you can't really hope to educate people 1-on-1 that the party doesn't represent them, that's not efficient. For better or worse, the national party is the "mouthpiece of the party" in the mind of the "average voter."

And another nominee. This is from a member of the Colorado State Board of Education.

I wouldn't extend this to all libertarians as I try not to group people by labels. I would, though, say that any libertarian that thinks private industry is a better approach to epidemics than government is a candidate for stupidest person in the world.

That whole Colorado education thing (that's the Jefferson thing right?) is a trainwreck of stupid.

Yeah. This was on a Facebook discussion between parents, teachers and administrators.

She has no business on a school board when she obviously has no understanding of the meaning of voluntarily.

With all the other drama going on in the world and domestic, this probably won't help Obama or the Dems much. But good to see it continues to trend downward.

Unemployment rate falls below 6% for first time since 2008 - Oct. 3, 2014

There's not really much you can do about it. It's the standard way to attack anything outside of the two party system. Find some nuts, assert they represent everyone. It happened to the Tea Party. It happened to Occupy Wall Street. It's the way our country is set up.

I don't think it really matters though. Despite their best efforts, America is moving in a libertarian direction. On gay marriage, the war on drugs and a lot of other social issues we're winning. Economic issues are less clear. There seems to be a general consensus building in this country that limited government is preferable. This is partially outweighed by the way each major party has ramped up corporate welfare and built up a crony-capitalist system in the last 6-7 years.

The problem with the Libertarian party is political. I don't care about politics; I care about ideas. Will we ever have a Libertarian president? Probably not, the party is a disaster. Will we ever have a president with libertarian ideas? It's becoming more and more likely.

Nobody should be happy that it took six years to get unemployment under 6%.

But thank God we didn't spend money on our crumbling infrastructure and put people to work.

Well, we did, just not in the United States.

Joe entertains again:

Joe Biden makes colorful joke on being a VP - CNN.com

The percentage in the labor force has dropped from 65.7% when Obama took office to 62.7%. Those outside of the labor force are not counted as unemployed.

The unemployment rate was 7.8% when Obama took office, peaked at 10.0% in October 2009 (percentage in the labor force was 65.0% then) and is now at 5.9%.

I can't think of a way to look at these numbers and see anything for this administration to celebrate.

On the labor force participation, lots of debate around the root causes and here's one viewpoint

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-1...d-workers.html

Admittedly, for everyone one of these there are others that talks about discouraged workers not entering the workforce etc. due to the economy, policies etc.

There's probably a combination of factors and I would not attribute all the blame to Obama.


The stock market crashed in second half of 2008. I don't see how you can blame Obama for the unemployment rate in 2009.

Re: Libertarian lady and Ebola

There really isn't any way to explain or defend what she said as the philosophy of very limited government does often lead people into those black holes. Rand and Ron Paul are often guilty of trying to take the philosophy to the extreme instead of just being pragmatic about some situations. They do explain how I feel a lot of the time about endless war and endless spending but arguing the civil rights act just destroys your message no matter how philosophical you are attempting to be.

I also find it funny that the Libertarians are now joining the other politicians and politicize this years swine flu. Shit at the gym yesterday CNN basically had an RIP USA 1776-2014 banner going the whole time with these 2-3 US Ebola cases. Maybe it's a sign that the Libertarians are becoming more mainstream? :-)

Dola: I miss popping into these treads every once in a while. My work has completely blocked this site and my time at home is becoming more limited. I was complaining to my IT guy about the filter and he said maybe my employer wanted me to actually get work some work done. :-)

Dear minorities: The bolded part is RACISM, so therefore you are ineligible to consider this party either.

Baby Boomers born in 1945 (the start of the cohort) started turning 65 in 2010. While not all of them are retiring at that age, I think you ignore this factor at your peril.


5.9% unemployment is lower than any yearly average during the Reagan Administration.

5.9% was the unemployment rate in 2008 before the Great Recession.

Source: United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com

Admit it, you're just a glass-half-empty person, aren't you?


Quite.


Have you tried osatwork.com/fofc?

This is a peculiar windmill you have chosen to tilt at, my friend.

Yeah. I don't think it has to always be this way, but the voting percentages are pretty clear that blacks, Hispanics and Asians are all heavily in the Dem category right now.

How so?

It just seems you're trying to create a construct around racism that isn't necessarily there.

I didn't check the math but are they using the same metric from the 1980s, 2000s as they're using today? Haven't they changed the formula a couple of times? I have always believed such figures have ever given the true employment/unemployment picture. Truth and objectivity should always trump optimism/pessimism and bias.

Right, it's clear white voters have a much healthier choice. The point is that currently minorities are still facing discrimination and this lack of options in government is slowing progress down. When you have to vote for somebody because they "aren't racist" vs "because I like their spending strategy or jobs strategy", you simply aren't enjoying the same choices that white Americans have.

I would more than welcome adjusted figures, if the ones I posted are not such.

This reads like an argument to get rid of the GOP and create two (or three?) parties out of the current Democratic party, to give people the choices they need.

Except we know that won't work.

GOP still views minorities as either problems or novelty friends.

But the point that you are missing (and supporting my point) is that 99% of all decisions made have nothing to do with race. But if Ferguson, MO (for example) decided that maybe they will listen to what the Republican had to say and let those two parties fight over their votes then politicians might be more pressed to make due on some of their promises. Maybe that community could see some tangible difference over the last 50 years than what they have seen. I mean, it works for white people, why not give it a go?

And since when did minorities decide it was best to wait until white people fixed the problem for them? If America is a two-party system and minorities predominately vote for only one party (and the same party) every-time, why isn't there a big push to infiltrate and incorporate themselves into both parties?

We fight over things like whether or not to go to war. Or how much welfare we should support. Or how much taxes we should raise or cut. Could you imagine if all white people voted Republican every time? First of all, that would indicate the end of the two-party system, it would reduce us to a single party, and eliminate a fairly significant check and balance that we enjoy in this nation. Now, back to minorities...and my point being...politicians need some competition to really make a difference. You can call Republicans racists all day long, but most Democratic leaders are white people too but more importantly, they are politicians...if they already have a vote without so much as lifting a finger for it, they don't really have a motivation to pitch new ideas...the status quo is working just fine, so long as they keep up the mantra that all Republicans are racist.

What % of the percentage leaving the labor force was baby boomers ageing out??

Or were you just not going to mention that??

It makes up about 20-25% of the difference. Significant (and it will become much more significant over the next decade or so), but not that significant yet.

Civilian labor force participation rates by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In fact, older people are working more than they did in the past, which counters the effect entirely. The problem is that younger people, especially men, are leaving the labor force.

Unemployment rate, as reported by the government, tells only a small part of the labor force story. Unfortunately, that number seems to be about all the media can handle.

But there are real issues at play here. The GOP really did embrace a Southern strategy with Nixon that courted Dems angry about the Civil Rights Act. The GOP really does want to deport family members of millions of Hispanics. Certainly not every Republican is racist, but minorities aren't making it all up either.

As for why there isn't more minority representation, blame gerrymandering and corrupt bargains by both parties that make lump minorities together and dilute potential power.

Well, 1% of white people....


Well, that's the first time I've heard someone call 25% "not that significant". The more you know....

Indeed. So when someone is actually somewhat incredulous that minorities aren't voting for the GOP, I have the feeling they are being deliberate obtuse. Another example - while George W. Bush handled this issue admirably, current GOP members can be incredibly anti-Muslim in their rhetoric (though Bill Maher is really wanting to turn that into a bipartisan hate issue ;)). Is it any surprise if Muslims start shifting to voting for the Democrats (when, IIRC, before 2001, it was even, if not more GOP leaning). These type of positions matter - and people will remember what stand you took and they won't forgive you for them unless you actually make real changes.

The Supremes have declined to hear any of the same sex marriage cases, which leaves the lower court rulings to stand.

Here are two charts that point out the dynamic I'm talking about. Minorities are making up a greater share of voters and they are increasingly voting Dem. I'm really struck by the shift in Hispanic and Asian voters from 2004 to 2012.

I'm shocked any reasonably intelligent person can question why minorities are voting dem. That's not to say dems have the better platform for minorities, it's just that the GOP can't stop their (mostly southern) elements from supporting things that minorities oppose. When you are actively trying to close polls early, ban early voting, require special IDs...things that minorities feel are against their interest, you are going to lose that vote. In one side the republicans are courting the minority vote and the other side trying to suppress it because of the discrepancy.

As for the Hispanic vote, when your biggest mouthpieces are shouting about how to kick all the "illegals" out while at the same time potentially targeting legal folks, you are not going to look good. They refuse to target corporations, the entities mostly responsible for the rise in illegal immigration, but would rather just use the folks and kick them out. That and when the immigration reform is on the table, has passed one chamber and has the votes to pass the house, yet the house won't bring it for a vote, you are going to lose that vote. Not to say it's a good bill, I'm just going on perception.

The fact that anyone is surprised that the minorities are voting like 90/10 dem/republican is shocking given the rhetoric from the sides.