I don't know if TPM has been right to suggest that the Senate Democrats have been playing Kabuki with Lincoln's derivative reform amendment in order to boost her chances in the primary (their contention was that Dems are letting her put forward this really tough amendment to look anti-Wall Street, and they're going to wait until the day after the primary to kill it), but if they're right, I guess the game is up.
You're obviously arguing just to argue. It seems clear from your first comment that what really displeases you is that someone likes a candidate other than the one President Obama has endorsed, which seems like a silly thing to care about, really. Halter would be a more consistent vote for Obama's agenda than Lincoln so I really doubt the President would be tremendously displeased either way.
The truly unfortunate part of a Lincoln victory would be that she seems to be a dead duck in the general election, whereas a fresh face would at least stand a chance. I guess we'll see. By the way, after you said in your first comment that "citizens of Ohio" are the ones who have a say in this Arkansas primary, maybe you should ease up a little on the Internet cheap shots about how well I perform mental exercises.
I think the message that "it is important to have a Democrat in this seat" is always going to be the winning position in a Democratic primary. For someone like Sestak, who is running on electability (among other things), it is a great opportunity to pivot to the argument that nominating Sestak is the best way to keep the seat in Democratic hands.
Talk about criticizing just for the sake of criticizing. Gosh, I think the word "unfortunately" is somewhat less dramatic than "an epic failure that will jeopardize the entire future of the human race."
I assume you weren't happy at all that Obama defeated McCain, because after all, the only really important part is that either way there was an election and the will of the majority prevailed.
It's a shame you weren't around here in 2004 to slap the wrists of all those people silly enough to say it was unfortunate that Bush defeated Kerry.
In the case of an anonymous sperm donor this doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
In the case where the biological father is known, I feel like it might actually be helpful to follow some sort of legal process. How does this work in the case of married couples? If my wife and I have a child using, say, my drinking buddy's donated sperm because my own boys can't swim, do we just enter my name on the birth certificate and go about our business? What happens down the road if my buddy decides to assert paternity?
Once upon a time it was actually suggested that I might help a couple lesbian friends of mine have a child in this way. Say I participate in that process but then, maybe before the baby is born or maybe after, I have second thoughts. There's no question I'm the biological father, so what happens if I try to assert parental rights? The advantage of a legal process is that it helps avoid messes like this.
Is it more likely that Mandela couldn't find any candidate for the Constitutional Court aside from a mass-murdering hangman apartheid judge... or that you've gone overboard with this snap conclusion you've drawn? I mean, your logic is that Goldstone was a judge under the apartheid regime, he sentenced some people to death for murder, ergo HE MUST HAVE BEEN A MASS MURDERER. That's not the most elegant syllogism I've ever seen.
Sure, I saw that. But since you're repeatedly calling him a MASS MURDERER I wondered if you had any idea whether he actually sentenced innocent men to die.
Matt Yglesias noted yesterday that Goldstone went on to play a very important role in South Africa's transition to democracy and that Nelson Mandela himself appointed Goldstone to South Africa's Constitutional Court in 1994. Like Yglesias, I find it hard to believe that Mandela would have installed Goldstone on the highest court in the land if he had truly been a racist mass-murdering executioner for the apartheid regime. Can you argue with that proposition?
The Democratic electorate in West Virginia is unlike that in any other state, except perhaps Arkansas. Show me ANYWHERE else that the anti-HCR and anti-Pelosi candidate can win a Democratic primary. There isn't even a data point here.
Did any of the black South Africans whom Goldstone sentenced to death actually, you know, murder the person they were accused of murdering? I am just wondering because you seem to skip right over that question and it seems pretty important in terms of, you know, figuring out whether Goldstone unjustly sentenced them.
She didn't call military tribunals "fundamentally lawless." She said it would be fundamentally lawless if Congress passed Lindsey Graham's amendment to strip federal courts of the jurisdiction to review detention by the Executive Branch.