Missed this story yesterday, but:
Al Franken’s campaign is as close to declaring victory as it has throughout the weeks-long recount in the Minnesota Senate race.That would be a 35-50 point lead after withdrawn challenges are reconciled in the state's totals, a process that will certianly result in a net gain for Norm Coleman -- but not enough, it seems, to place him back ahead of Franken. For that, he'll need to have some luck with either the counting of absentee ballots (unlikely -- those are more likely to help Franken) or the un-counting of potential duplicate ballots.
Franken’s campaign attorney Marc Elias said he expects Franken to be leading Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) by “between 35 and 50 votes” when the Canvassing Board finishes counting all the disputed ballots on Tuesday.
“On Tuesday, I will stand before you with that work completed. Al Franken will have a lead of between 35 and 50 votes. And, at some point not too long after that, Al Franken will stand before you as the senator-elect from Minnesota,” Elias said at a press conference Saturday.
Should we take the Franken campaign's claims seriously? In this case, I think so. Number one, they'll have a lot of egg on their face if they're wrong, at a time and place when credibility actually somewhat matters. Number two, Franken's range is more conservative than the Star Tribune's guess of a 78-vote lead for him. And number three, the Coleman people aren't really pushing back on the specifics of Franken's claim. They say they'll have a lead once the recount is "fully completed" -- what else are they going to say? -- but not that they're leading now, or that they'll be leading after the withdrawn challenges are added to the totals. In other words, they need to find votes somewhere (or find some way to take some of Franken's votes away from him).
Still, it's at least moderately good news for Coleman if Franken's lead is only 35-50 votes, rather than the 78 that the Star Tribune projected. Coleman's path to victory at this point is pretty much that (i) the court mandates a review of duplicate ballots, and that (ii) identifying and removing the duplicates -- which as far as I can tell are going to arise essentially at random during the counting process -- just so happens to help him. The way that the math tends to work out for this stuff, a lead of 35 votes is much easier to overcome than a lead of 70 votes, in somewhat the same way that you're much more likely to have a coin come up heads 4 times in a row than 8 times in a row.

170 comments
Is it actually feasible that the Duplicate ballots thing stands up in court?
oh and first for the first time ^_^
I guess, then, that Franken will win by 27 votes. If Franken wins, by any number of votes, Nate will have predicted the outcome of Senate elections 100 per cent accurately, which is nice.
Picayune to pick at typos/small word choice errors I know, but "35-50 point lead" should probably be "35-50 vote lead."
Thanks for keeping up the work on a great site.
Same coin face four times in a row is one in 16 chance. I'll take those odds. 8 times in a row is 1:256 if anybody is counting ;-)
Since the Court will probably rule on Wednesday, here is my early prediction of the ruling.
The erroneous counting of duplicates is like the erroneous failure to count absentees. Under Minnesota law, the returns can be amended only if the election officials and the candidates agree that there was an error. Thus, the counties will have another obligation added to their duties over Christmas which will be to double check this issue with the parties again required to act under threat of sanctions for frivoulous failure to consent to the correction of a clear error.
As to what will happen during any examination of the duplicate ballot issue (either as part of the precints looking at them now or as part of an election contest), there are three different ways it can play out in an individual precinct.
Option 1 -- Ignoring the "unmatched" ballots, the remaining counted ballots equals the number of people who voted in the precinct (as shown by the poll book and absentee ballot envelopes). If this is the case, the poll workers failed to mark the "matching" ballot and the "matching" ballot has been counted. It would be double counting to include the "unmatched" ballot and such ballot should be excluded.
Option 2 -- The remaining counted ballots is short of the number of people who voted and, if you include the unmatched ballots, it would then equal the number of people who voted. In this case, the "matching" ballot was lost and was not counted. If the unmatched ballot is not counted, that vote would never have been counted and it would be error to exclude the unmatched ballot.
Option 3 -- The remaining counted ballots is short of the number of people who voted, but, if you include the unmatched ballot, it would then exceed the number of people who voted. If this is the case, some of the matching ballots were not marked but others of the matching ballots were lost. Whether you include all of the unmatched ballots or exclude all of the unmatched ballots, your count will be wrong. (I just don't know a way to make it right or what Minnesota law says about this problem.)
I suspect the Franken campaign may be engaging in some lowering of expectations here. The seventy-something margin that's being thrown around isn't very much, but this way you come out and say you're expecting to be ahead by thirty-five votes, then the counting finishes and wow! You're up by twice that much! Landslide!
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR COLEMAN!!!
Nate, could you please post some NFL projections? Papa needs a brand new bag.
Is the 35-50 vote margin for Franken based on the supposed 136 duplicate ballots being counted?
Will Coleman go to a Federal or State prison?
The feds are investigating Coleman, so if they have enough to charge him for the money (bribes) paid to his wife, it will be a Club Fed.
@ STepper
The feds are investigating Coleman, so if they have enough to charge him for the money (bribes) paid to his wife, it will be a Club Fed.
Maybe he can share a cell with Blago and Ryan.
am i the only one who didnt know that al was the cousin of bob franken the news guy? is EVERYONE related to somebody in politics? isnt normy related to someone too?
nate needs to do an analysis of this related thing
yup, it would leavenworth for Normy!
You forgot Number 3. Franken campaign statements regarding post-11/4 events have been limited, specific and reality-based. The same cannot be said for those of the Coleman campaign. Reminds me, repectively, of the Obama and Clinton/McCain campaigns pre-11/4.
LIVE
from WIKI:
Coleman was born in New York to Beverly and Norman Bertram Coleman, Sr. He was a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York, and Hofstra University on Long Island.
New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, attended high school with Coleman; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both graduates of the James Madison High School.
[6 degrees of Kevin Bacon...]
During his time at college, Coleman was an active member of the 1960s counterculture, he celebrated his 20th birthday at the Woodstock Festival.
[THAT trumps Franken on SNL...]
In 1993, Coleman was elected mayor of St. Paul as a Democrat. Coleman had also run for mayor in 1989, but he dropped out when Jim Scheibel won the DFL endorsement. In 1996, he joined the Republican Party[8] and was reelected in 1997 as a Republican.
[a carpetbagger & a turncoat to boot !]
In 1998 while serving as Mayor he lost a bid for Governor of Minnesota against former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura, a member of the Reform Party of Minnesota, and Democratic Farmer Labor candidate Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III.
[Norm has NEVER received a majority of the votes cast in his 3 statewide races]
Coleman is married to Laurie Coleman (née Casserly), an actress. They have two children, Jacob and Sarah. Two other children died during infancy (Adam, 1983; Grace, 1992) from a rare genetic disorder known as Zellweger syndrome.
Coleman is also a Freemason, having been made a Mason at sight in 2003 by then GrandMaster of Masons in Minnesota, Neil Neddermeyer.
[wow - another 'late' Mason for the alleged political edge since they are the masters of the universe...]
I cannot wait until his entry has to be updated to include more about his budding 'scandal' ala Ted Stevens including FBI probe & potential looming indictment !!!
such a swell fella
dcm-
thanks for the much entertaining "This is Your Life Norm"!
- however how did he get those chompers? no bio would be complete without them. that dentist should lose their license
maybe they are waiting for
indictments and convictions before updating the wiki...
Regarding concerns that Coleman (and Franken) could try to game the process of determining the count of improperly rejected absentee ballots in separate county-by-county determinations:
Why not require that the county election authorities bring their stacks of absentee ballots to a centralized location and conduct their absentee determinations there?
'Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration'
@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech
hhmmm...the hypocritical bigot agains opens his mouth & doth protest too much
aint buying what he is trying to sell
wraps his discrimination & prejudices in a pretty 'religious' wrapper, but it is still ugly & unchristian
hopefully Al Franken will get into the senate & help push back against this intolerance & inequality from the rightwing & evangelicals who want to deny liberties to all
LIVE
lol...well we shouldn't really point out a politicians physical defects, should we ??? so shallow...
but besides Norm's toothiness issues, what is going on with his HAIR ???
ok, he might not be quite as bad as Blago with the hairbrush issues - but that style & how much product does he requyire to coif it like dat ??? gawd, it is creepy, and he makes Al look good in comparison which is not easy to do btw...
T-Paw was a severe hair fashion victim also until late summer when he obviously got a style advisor when he ran for VP - at least the mullet got trimmed... maybe MN is stuck in a retro hair bizarro world
[I grew up in the TC & went to the U of M]
BUT Norm wants to take credit for hockey in MN apparently according to those campaign ads, eh ? yah, you betcha
dcm-rofl thanks.you're on a roll today- severe hair fashion victim. these guys should take a lesson from yul brenner-less is more
btw i am shallow-sorry-i blame that on my family's long membership in the masons!
LIVE
thanks for playing.
wish I was a freemason these days...
teach me the secret handshake & the other mysteries that get one in the 'club'
do they all wear funny hats too like the shriners [what ever happenned to them anyway]
the econ is so bad here in central FL that unemployment #'s are now already at the highest on record & headed higher
plus that doesn't count all the people leaving the area or those taking minimum wage jobs or gave up looking...
foreclosures also at highest rates ever
meanwhile Charlie Crist takes a luxury $500K vacation in Europe on our dime... and he actually went ahead & 'married' his beard [I mean his lovely str8 wife]
George Calloway RIPPING Coleman apart
http://snipurl.com/8ypv2
Maybe I missed this explanation earlier, but can anyone tell me just how long this thing can go on before someone HAS to be declared the winner? January 20th?
@loner,
thanks for your #3 comment, you beat me to it. The fact that mediapost, AP, and now reality have validated Elias's claims of a tiny lead in the post 11/4 days, ought to carry a lot more weight.
Norm's people, meanwhile, keep being caught in one lie after another: 1) INTENT (their going to court to stop the certification, their going to court to stop counting the absentees, etc) - they always seem to be stating, "oh, we are not seeking to stop the recount..." etc. 2) The very going to court (seems to me, they have indicated time and time again, it'd be the other guy suing, 3)Norm's 11/5 speech, which he since has retracted (Al should concede and let the healing begin).
@ DCM, yeah, thanks from here too, for putting a smile on my face, reading the very best of Nohm.
~ Latte
DJ Dickmutt—
The Minnesota Supreme Court set a deadline for filing amended reports, etc. of 4:00 PM on 12/31 in their decision this week. Right now the State Canvassing Board can certify a result as soon as that deadline passes. The Coleman campaign is back in court trying to get an order to prevent the SCB from certifying a result until a date uncertain when all issues are resolved. In the unlikely event that that happens, it could go on indefinitely. Otherwise, the winner certified by the SCB will be sworn in when the Senate convenes on 1/6.
MNLatteLiberal—
What's the general feeling as to why Norm switched parties? Was it seen more as an issues (abortion, taxes, etc.) thing or a political ambitions (it looked like Minnesota was trending Republican) thing?
I would argue with the credibility deal. Since they already claimed to be ahead by 4 votes going into the challenges stage; everyone knows that they won more challenges than Coleman... they would run into a very large credibility issue if they suddenly stated that they were behind.
In other words, it still goes back to whether or not you feel that the +4 number was credible going in.
If they end up behind by 30 votes or so, they can simply argue that their internal numbers were flawed to some degree. To be off by only 50-60 ballots out of 3 million could be chalked up to human error... since their internal numbers relied on 100's of volunteers keeping track of the numbers in a completely unknown situation.
If they are behind by anymore than that, then they run into a credibility issue.
Therre has always been the possibility that this has been a sideshow. They felt the need to convince their supporters that they were ahead, so that they could argue that legal issues were justified for them (or an act of desperation by Coleman). But in reality they were never ahead...
loner-until all issues resolved? seems like an invitation to the US Senate to pick a candidate on their own.
dcm-sorry to disappoint but i was a Job's daughter (the group for daughters of masons)as teenagers we ran around in white robes trying to look like vestal virgins*, singing Onward Christian Soldiers, selling candy trying to make money for vacations to Disneyland.
shriners are mason-sort of a different level. dont know the handshake, but they do wear funny hats!
* well we LOOKED virginal, i guess at some point we were...
Loner
Norm is an opportunist & a schmuck IMHO
I am familiar with him bevause I have roots & family in MN
Norm was a very 'progressive' DEM until the late '90s when his unbridled political ambitions rotted his very soul...
in fact, hideous as it now sounds, Norm is THE poster boy for turncoat:
as posted on wiki: Ironically, prior to becoming a Republican and running against [Wellstone] in 2002, Coleman chaired Wellstone's Senate re-election campaign in 1996. While making the Wellstone nomination speech at the 1996 state DFL convention, Coleman stated: "Paul Wellstone is a Democrat, and I am a Democrat."
------------
BUT then the GOPers grabbed ahold of power nationally, so Norm blithely jumped to the enemy camp & embraced them completely - a real charlatan 'lizard person'...
and now he is as corrupt as they come in every way - including the graft
hence the voter's ballot made infamous in the MN recount
Maybe it'll be 47 like Nate predicted.
LIVEMILD
thanks. that is a hoot about the vestal virgins & masons
did you get enough $$$ to go to Disneyland ?
"It's a small world afterall..."
and now all the Disney parks & others have Gay Days...
show me the $$$, now THAT is what it is all about
dcm-sadly dumb me got the dates wrong and they left for disneyland without me! one of my life's biggest disappointments;) actually i lived in CA and had been a few times... but still the jerks left without me
do you know how much candy i had to eat? ill never feel the same about almonds in chocolate
UPDATE:
'Lawmaker says `no' to Rev. Warren at inauguration'
@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_el_pr/obama_warren_1
Keep the heat up on this bad decision by Obama...
I emailed my newly elected DEM congresswoman Kosmas yesterday to ask her to also let Barack know he was making a big mistake choosing Warren for this honor
let Warren lead a prayer breakfast in the WH instead later in the week
C'mon people. Enough with hi-jacking every single thread to moan about Reverend Warren.
You cannot and will not put anywhere near enough pressure on Obama to make him back down on this decision. It's not going to happen. It's a done deal, Warren is in.
Have you seen the reaction to this choice from the right-wing windbags? They are livid. This is exactly what Obama wanted, he wants to undercut the wing-nut preachers who put their Republicanism massively ahead of their faith.
I don't like Warren either, but he's not the typical wingnut Republican preacher. Obama wants to reward the evangelical preachers who actually do something to help the poor and make social justice their platform. In choosing Warren, he cuts a scythe through the disingenuous Christian evangelical leaders who use faith as a tactic to get Republicans elected.
At a guess, the odds of Warren not giving the convocation are 0.00001. The only reason its not 0.00000 is because any high profile pick runs the risk of a scandal popping up. Were that to happen, Obama wouldn't have to ask him to back out, he'd go on his own.
The chances of Obama subsiding to pressure from the left and telling Warren not to show are 0.00000. There is no way in hell Obama is going to un-invite him.
Pick a battle worth fighting, Warren isn't it.
If you still want to fight it, fair enough. But you don't need to hi-jack discussions having absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
@CH Truth:
The STrib number (F ahead by 78 if the withdrawn challenges , mostly no-brainers, fit the STrib vote)
and
the AP number (F ahead by about 12 in no-brainers, with a tendency to pick up more in the pool of questionables)
are each 100% independent of the Franken-released +4 number.
You may have some legitimate grounds for hope (double-count challenges, more uncertainty than many acknowledge about the discarded absentee vote).
Why do you instead impugn Franken's honesty on the part of the story where he has strong independent corroboration?
Cloudy Day
hijack a thread ? get a clue...
BUT IF you are oppressed you fight the good fight even if there is little apparent chance to win this particular battle
the intention is to win the WAR - which again is to end the discrimination & prejudice that Warren represents.
PS - it is the lead on MSNBC right now at the top of the hour - the the battle continues on all fronts.
will we win this battle today ? perhaps not
do we have Obama's attention not to take the LGBT & anti-abortion/woman's right to choose & anti-war constituencies for granted ???
think so - and then some
give Warren & his hateful preaching a 'pass' when Obama appears to endorse it by putting him in OUR inauguration ???
think again - this will not go away until justice prevails for all
btw - actually the right-wing evangelicals are not putting up nearly the objection that they should under the circumstances
you are correct that Obama is trying to game them - but this is the wrong place & time to play such a strategy imho
WV - dencess
those who accomodate Warren are 'dencess' if they think we should just keep quiet & let this slap in the face slide by for short-sighted political gamesmanship
this is our rights & our lives you are talking about
just take a stand & say NO because it it the only right thing to do
When is the Secretary of State going to get everyone together to agree on how to count absentee ballots? If they start by letting the precincts finish their sorting, that will take a couple of days - with Christmas day it might use up this week.
Then if the campaigns want to decide on which wrongly rejected ballots to count, that could take a couple of days next week. And if CB has to make a final challenge ruling, they will be right up against the Dec 31 deadline.
I was hoping that the SOS would force some kind of agreement this weekend so the sorting could resume Monday morning. Was anything done this weekend?
@ DCM in FL
You ARE hi-jacking this thread. And, from my quick look, damn near every single thread on this board since the announcement.
As I said, if you want to fight a battle that even you admit is completely and totally un-winnable, go for it. Have a great time tilting at windmills.
I'm not completely happy with Obama either. For instance, some of his recent cabinet picks have a lot to be desired. I'm not talking about those issue on FiveThirtyEight, I'm talking about them where threads actually exist for those specific discussions.
Just because this is a liberal leaning site doesn't mean we should hi-jack every single thread with off-topic discussions about things we don't like.
Frankly, I think Obama's move regarding Warren will turn out to have been a political master stroke. A bit Machiavellian, but a master stroke nonetheless, and I'm a died in the wool lefty-liberal. The point being, none of my Democratic friends are worked up about this either. This battle is already lost.
How can DCM be hijacking a thread when his points are relevant?
He can't, so welcome DCM.
As for the post at hand - fuck Norm, he is a turncoat and a felon-to-be
Did you vote for Norm? Are you as dumb as George? Are you as dumb as Cheney today who proved he can't read the Constitution?
As for Warren - it is a master stroke. The lefties hate Bush, but they forget that 40% of the freakin' idiots in theis god-damn countrty think Plain has a clue.
FRED
thanks for the props, and you are correct on all your points.
I do not even argue that choosing Warren just might be a smart purely political move [in game strategy terms]
BUT the card that Obama is bluffing with is MY life & liberties so there will be a price paid for him to cash out our chips
even more so than trying to marginalize the evangelicals, I actually believe that Obama went that route at this time to deflect attention from the whole Blago senate seat & IL corruption mess...
a clever sleight of hand, granted - but again Obama must be held to account so he will not use & make political hay off the backs of woman's choice & LGBT & other groups in the future
on the thread topic at hand, this all ties in 'CloudyDay' simply because this is one more reason that we all should not allow the GOPers include Norm to bully the electorate & obsfucate the recount so that he will be able to stymie Al.
we need true progressive voices & dependable votes in the senate [like Franken] even more these days to represent our interests and to counterbalance the 'blue dawgs' who WILL sell us out for personal gain imho
each & every vote in MN should count including the wrongly rejected absentee ballots [that issue was common again here in FL again this election btw]
beware the Lizard People - they crawl amongst us [it could be YOU they go after next time...]
Has Al Franken released a statement about Obama's selection of Warren for the Inaugural address?
He hasn't?
Well then, time to burn Franken at the stake and support his opponent.
If Al Franken doesn't have the stones to stand up and DEMAND that Obama replace Warren, well, then he's obviously just another hater and traitor to the cause.
WHAT could be MORE important AT THIS VERY MOMENT in time, than for Al Franken to come out and STRONGLY criticize Obama for his HATEFUL choice of Warren?
NO ONE should support Franken if he doesn't condemn Obama's choice of Warren. Anything less means Franken's nothing but a hypocrite. If he won't fight for marriage equality at this PIVATOL moment in history, then how he be counted on later to support it if he gets in office? And why would we even WANT his support later, when clearly he had sullied himself.
No no no, it's TIME for Franken to either fish or cut bait. There is NO middle ground on this. You're either with us, yeah you, Al Franken, or YOU'RE AGAINST US, AND A HATER!
Oh, and another thing, Al, the LGBT community support you to the hilt. There will be HELL to pay if you don't condemn Warren and Obama's choice. You'll NEVER see another DIME from the LGBT community!!! You DESERVE to lose if you won't speak for human rights at this time of CRISIS!
And you'd better be fasting about this issue too. NO decent person could EVER THINK ABOUT EATING another morsel whilst this travesty of justice is happening at this very moment.
I disagree with those angered over the choice of Warren. Let me explain..
I am a liberal and find that one of the most important aspects of being a liberal is tolerance and acceptance. Does this mean tolerance of ideas? NO - if Warren gets up there and starts bashing gays I will be just as mad as anyone here. BUT - it does mean tolerance and acceptance of people, first and foremost. Warren is a person and has the right to speak whether you see eye to eye with him on every issue or not. es, I may find some of his opinions reprehensible. But I've met many people in my short lifetime that I disagreed with adamantly with on certain issues, and still accepted and enjoyed as a person. I don't think it's right to fight this, though of course there's nothing wrong with protest or dissent.
And sorry for the offtopic-ness, but maybe the only thing I find more tiring than talk about Warren is talk about the MN senate race! :X
@ MNlatteliberal
I don't know how to read posts beyond number 200. I basically posted on the other thread that I was apparently more wrong than right about whether these missing duplicates represent double counted ballots.
Max, Green, all the rest
I live in the same city David Duke is based in. If my college were to ask him to deliver an invocation at the graduation ceremony, the entire world would be in an uproar.
It's okay to have a homophobe to deliver an invocation at the Presidential Inauguration, because homophobia is acceptable to you.
Racism, however, is not.
Your double standard reveals what you really think about GLBT people, when you claim that hate speech directed at them is acceptable, when it is not acceptable to deliver hate speech toward others.
Your Freudian slip is showing. Might want to cover that up before somebody sees you.
MAXWELL
at least your post tries to follow a rational arc, and you are entitled to your opinion.
clearly though the issues do not impact you directly or rate highly on your list of outrages...
but your summary is accurate "I don't think it's right to fight this, though of course there's nothing wrong with protest or dissent."
anyone calling for Obama to be impeached or killed over this ?
it is a protest as well as a strong dissent
same as when the blacks were told 50 years ago to keep quiet & wait for times to change rather than fight for their rights & equal protection
ya gotta start somewhere to make your point felt or else you really do not care
as for GREEN, you are a major schmuck who can't even make a satirical argument so STFU and wait und=til it is YOUR liberites that are dissed [like under Bush - which btw was who Warren strongly supported TWICE as well as McCain in '08]
plus, Franken has done nothing reprehensible, so your lame attempt at satire 'fails' moron
and Obama is gonna vacation in Hawaii over the holidays in a private 9 million dollar home on an very exclusive beach where short-term rentals are 'illegal' - maybe they have gone tone-deaf since the election cuz that is just not good PR with all the failing econ & unemployment & foreclosures IMHO
WTF
What nobody here seems to understand is that Obama's style has always been to bring in contrary viewpoints and allow them the stage. Even those he vehemently disagreed with. He may not give them positions of power (say, in his Cabinet), but he's going to allow them to speak, even when he disagrees with them.
And here it's good politics, too. And Obama's reaching out to those with whom he disagrees, and honoring them, is his way of trying to exert change. You can't change their hearts and minds if they're not listening to you. (Charles Colson had a similar sign on his wall in the Nixon White House.)
If you don't like it, then you weenie progressives should never have voted for him. Being a proud liberal I voted for Obama and fully expect him to continue to confound the weenies and the right wingnuts.
For the record, I think Obama is a very cautious liberal who will govern from the center, but with liberal leanings. A lot better than Clinton, who was a conservative with a big D after his name.
And, yes, at some point Obama will try to changer attitudes about how this country treats GLBTs. But he's not going to do it in his first 100 days, and squander whatever mandate he has, as Clinton stupidly did. So, all the GLBTs should chill out. Change is coming. It's not going to happen on January 20th. But it's coming. We will have a more tolerant society.
@ecarlson -- As for seeing posts beyond 200, the interface that Nate set up for this site is pretty archaic. You have to go to "Post Comment" and view through the interface of that page. Nose around on older blogs and you'll see how to do it. it's also in the FAQs.
STeopper,
Okay. Then have him invite a racist.
You definitely have a point, and I'll think about this more, but I am in no way a homophobe and find it hard to take you seriously when ad hominems are your first resort..
STEPPER
it is a shrewd political choice but only for short-term benefit to pick Warren
as I said before, I believe that his team did this to intentional change the meme from all about IL corruption to 'gay' and 'choice' baiting as well as poke a stick in the eye of the intolerant religious right [including Warren who got played here as pay-back for Saddleback when Warren played Obama by giving stacking the deck + giving the Q's & advantages all to McCain]
Strategically ? brilliant - BUT at what cost to some of his core constituencies ?
BTW - it is not only LGBT that finds this deeply offensive to play games with our lives for political gain - Obama may squander his capital IF he continues to play one side against the other for a such an illusory minor advantage....
WV - invibil [seen but not heard]
Max,
Just answer the question. Why is homophobia something you can reach out to, but racism is not?
Statler -
Because we've pretty much won the racism battle, but we haven't won the homophobia battle. Grossly oversimplistic, but there you are.
And for fucks sake, the original point wasn't that you shouldn't be against Warren's involvement on the day, but that discussing it in an article *specifically* about the MN Senate race is massively off-topic.
Now all of you be quiet or I'll bang your heads together :D
WARREN is a leader in the right's fight to prevent stem cell research also
he has done a few admirable things like AIDS in Africa & global warming
but that does not fully justify his push to marginalize 'others' [he claims he can cure gays] as he wants to preach that his god says it is right to legalize discrimination against women, gays & many others - and he does not deserve this honor on Jan 20th
Warren should be part of the outreach & discussion in a different time & place of course
oh, but this is OK with you I guess since it does not directly impact your liberties [yet]
First of all, I am a bisexual. Second, I see this as a pragmatic decision to 'reach out' as you've said to these people and grant Obama's candidacy a little more legitimacy in their eyes so progressive politics coming from him will be more readily accepted. It's hard to make an omelette without breaking some eggs first. The more mainstream liberal politics bcome the closer we are to seeing civil unions or gay marriage nationwide someday, and if that requires letting some douchebags up on the national stage for a litle while I can accept that.
David,
The reason why the racism battle was won is because people challenged institutionalized racism. I am attempting to challenge institutionalized homophobia.
Now, if you don't mind, could you please get out of the way?
Haha, I'm not in the way, I'm by your side brother.
We pions do what we do, and Obama does his bit too. Part of that is "breaking the eggs" (I liked that).
Now I answered your question directly, now answer mine: isn't the fact most of the posts are now about Warren rather than Franken a mite silly?
Max,
Break this egg. Invite the KKK to the inaugural, and claim that you're doing it to strengthen your legitimacy. Because you're 'reaching out' to the other side.
Why is homophobia okay, but racism is not?
David,
Are some Americans more equal than others?
DAVID
'off-topic' ???
how long have you been around 538 ?
Nate & Sean's posts have not ever been only intended to be on-point
they have been like Linda Richman's 'talk amonst yourselves' threads from day one
as long as it is tangentally relevant to the political undercurrents, these are open for broad discussion - not a lecture
and this is all about 'politics done right' [or wrong in this case...]
one of the reasons it is so important to get a progressive like Franken in the senate to knock some heads [figuratively]
you expect us to leave it to people like Cheney [gay daughter] and Gingrich [gay sister] who diss their own flesh & blood and expect them to do the right thing for us ???
also, if you feel that defending our dissent against the choice of Warren is inappropriate here [which is your right to be wrong]...
then simply DNFT-LGBT
poke us with a stick & we will react angrily though
happy holidaze - GO AL ! gosh darn, people LIKE you...
Because by giving people a voice you make it easier for them to respect you and your opinions in the long run. The simple fact is that many americans do not believe in gay rights and shutting them out accomplishes little. Is it 'right' to let Warren speak? Perhaps not. I am more interested in the end than the means. But like I said, I see where you are coming from and may reconsider some of my opinions.
In the end, I just want to see rights granted. The fact that 2 states out of 50 allow gay marriage pains me much more than seeing someone against it speak.
There are alot of Americans that do not believe in equal rights for Black people, Why do you not invite them, so you can give them a voice as well?
Nobody 'grants' you rights. Rights are not yours to give. You're not God. You can acknowledge the rights of human beings, but you do not give them.
I am not some lesser being that you can bestow equality upon.
It is just a word I used. Whatever you want to call it, I want it to be legalized.
Bloody hell.
Statler- no I don't believe anyone is more equal than others. Although, as a Brit, I lost some respect when you Yanks elected Bush - twice :P
And stop comparing racism and homophobia, it's apples and oranges for the reason I said before
DCM- Ive been around awhile, and things always seemed fairly on topic. This one was before you (or someone) started on about Warren
MAXWELL
a good post above
analogies for this issue:
on election night what did Norm Coleman say ???
He tried to intimidate Al to concede the race for the good of the people - did you see his lizard tatic [which he now claims he has withdrawn but...]
IF Al had allowed himself to be dictated to, then the fight was lost [ala Gore conceding to Bush prematurely in 2000]
Al is fighting for what ihe believes is right - count ALL the votes
now move to CA after the passing of Prop 8 as supported by the Mormon church & Warren
the CA AG [Jerry Brown] said he would enforce the people's vote & Prop 8...
now as of this week, Jerry has seen the light & admitted he was wrong and is joining the fight to legally dump Prop 8
would that have happenned without strong dissent & pressure from LGBT & their civil rights allies ???
no way - but change is achieved one step at a time through blood, sweat & tears.
Jerry did the right thing; we can only hope that Obama will see the light & make ammends in some reasonable manner for this political/strategic slight.
this issue will not 'go away' or be dropped until there is a resolution or ???
The word you used betrays the meme behind the thought. And that meme is that you are somehow superior and therefore capable of dispensing equality to your inferior.
Words do matter darling.
If you want GLBT people to be equal, then modify the laws to reflect the equality that is inherent in every American. You cannot modify people. Nobody is asking you to change the way people think abbout GLBT people. You couldn't even if you wanted to. The laws of this country are what we seek to change.
Sadly, your decision to chose Rick Warren reflects your unwillingness to change those laws. If he truly represents you to the point where you would invite him to deliver the opening salvo of your regime, then you don't see us as equal partners within that regime.
Anymore than if David Duke were to deliver the invocation of a regime that claimed that Blacks were equal partners in it.
I am superior to myself? It being legalized is in my own self interest, thank you.
David
Why, is it because one form of hate is better than another?
Hate is hate. Homophobia is no different than racism or sexism. If this is to be a meritocracy, you cannot judge anyone on any basis other than merit.
So, why is homophobia more acceptable to you than racism? Why is one hate better than another?
Max, I was using the second person plural
Yo seem to think I am endorsing homophobia while I am trying to look at this from a logical standpoint and get something accomplished.
You are inviting a man who is known primarily for being homophobic to deliver the invocation at a Presidential inaugural.
If you believe this is not an endorsement of homophobia, invite David Duke.
Statler- you're either being stupid or pig-headed. Homophobia is not more acceptable than racism to me. But it is to a lot of others, and so requires different solutions. From what Ive read by you you know what your talking about, don't say such silly things.
And you still haven't answered my question: whichever of us is right, why are we doing this on an article about MN-Sen?
David.
Watch the ad hominem attacks, and just answer the questions.
Racism si very acceptable to alot of Americans. If you think inviting a homophobe to deliver this invocation prayer is going to cure homophobia, invite a racist so you can cure racism.
When the Prez of Iran spoke to the UN recently, many people were outrages & took to the streets, etc.
While I did not diss them, I thought that in MY OWN reality that it was an over-reaction since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is little more than a sock-puppet front man for the religious leaders/clerics who really run the show over there.
BUT I respect their opinions & their right to protest even if I thought it was sorta counter-productive
after all, we need dialogue with our enemies after all these neo-con years of Bush/Cheney
BUT there is a time & place for that - maybe this was the wrong venue
still for other constituencies this was a make-or-break issue which they are entitled to oppose tooth & nail [life or death]
homophobia & anti-semitism are other hateful religious enforced prejudices are all worth fighting & putting truth to power in opposition whenever it rears it's hideous head
Inviting a racist goes nowhere toward accomplishing anything. Again, this is not about my personal thought on the issue, I feel that letting our oposition towards Warren's views goes farther toward civil rights than pulling a switcheroo and telling him he is no longer welcome.
meant showing our oposition towards Warren's views, not letting
If you believe that inviting a racist will not cure racism, then inviting a homophobe will not cure homophobia. You can therefore retract your earlier claim that 'reaching out' to the homophobic community will bring about GLBT equality through subtle means.
When did I say it would make anyone less homophobic? I said it will give Obama more leverage to pass a progressive agenda.
MAXWELL
Obama could pull a fast one & have 2 people deliver the invocation [like they do in a wedding ceremony across 2 religions]
balance Warren with a female episcopal priest perhaps, or better yet a muslim or rabbi
I still would like him to put the episcopal bishop of DC who preaches to every POTUS at the cathedral there [Chane] at least up on the steps with them in some capacity
he is a real christian...
Max,
A progressive agenda that excludes GLBT civil rights, yes.
Statler, once again you ignore the difference between racism and homophobia. But you're not going to admit you're wrong, and you're not going to answer my point about being off topic.
I'll tell you what, I'll lay of the ad hominim if you lay off the OT posts.
Or even better, I'm just going to bed. It's 3am here, and you're refusing to answer my primary point, so meh
David,
I don't negotiate with errorists, sorry.
Now, explain to me why one form of hate is better than another.
Homophobia is not more acceptable than racism to me. But it is to a lot of others, and so requires different solutions.
Homophobia is not more acceptable than racism to me. But it is to a lot of others, and so requires different solutions.
Homophobia is not more acceptable than racism to me. But it is to a lot of others, and so requires different solutions.
Do you get it yet? Or are you just to keep accusing me of homophobia while not responding to my point about being OT? Hmmmm?
And to yet others, racism is completely acceptable. Therefore, because we speak of acceptability in relative terms (for me, X is as bad as Y, for you X is worse than Y, for another person, Y is worse than X), we cannot speak of what 1 segment of the population thinks and base the solution upon that one segment when others differ.
Hate is hate. You should solve institutionalized hate itself.
I don't believe it will exclude them.
I am of the opinion that this gesture will increase O's political capital to enact something in the vein of nationwide civil unions. Much like everything else he is doing - trying to come off as a centrist so that advancements can actually be made. And avoid a repeat of 1994. You can fight tooth and nail without thinking pragmatically or you can take small steps toward the finish line. If you're of the belief that I'm a homophobe and secretly derive pleasure from seeing one give the invocation, what else can I say to you?
Max,
then invite a racist to deliver the invocation,a s doing so will not exclude Blacks.
I do not want a civil union unless every American has to settle for a civil union.
At the core of it, Max and David asset that their agenda includes a lesser status for GLBT people vis a vis the law. They assert further that GLBT people will just have to accept that.
I will not. This will not change. You can post things claiming I should until your fingers fall off, but you will never convince me that I am inferior to you. Ever.
Statler,
President-elect Obama opposes gay marriage and favors civil unions. Essentially (to borrow your analogy) he supports a "separate but equal" policy when it comes to gay rights.
So I'm guessing you didn't vote for him.
And if you did... Why?
Yet again you ignore (or fail to understand?)my point. LOL, I am sure inviting a racist would really bring both sides of the aisle together for the dems!
You want nothing until you reach the goal, I see it as a journey somewhere. Civil unions are better than what we have (nothing).
Excuse me? did I say you need to accept being inferior in the eyes of the law? No, I think we need to work toward equal rights. You aren't even making sense anymore.
Keep claiming that I want LGBT to have a lesser place in society when I clearly want equal rights for every person. You're not going to convince me that I find myself superior to any group of people either.
Harv,
Do you want to hear something interesting about patterns of history?
For some reason I've never been able to understand, major upheavals generated from within a specific group never occur during times of extreme repression. Usually, what happens is a period of reduced oppression follows one of extreme repression, and it's during that period that major upheavals occur.
Surprising, isn't it? You would logically think that civil unrest would erupt when things are the worst they can possibly be, as a last act of desperation, but they never do. Look at Czarist Russia for an example of what I mean. Prior to Alexander III, serfs had zero rights at all. They had to endure things that are practically unspeakable. Then Czar Alexander III comes along, and loosens things up just a little bit. Not a huge amount, but he opens the door just a crack.
That's when the kettle started boiling. Czar Alex died shortly after this, and his son, Nicholas II took over. In case you're not familiar with how his reign worked out, let,s just say the word 'Bolshevik' and leave it at that.
I knew when I voted that if McCain won, there would be severe oppression like what we saw under Bush, and therefore nothing would change. Obama would open the door just a crack.
Now, I'm not calling for a Pink Army revolt or anything insane like that. I am at my core a pacifist. Bull headed and not afraid to stand up to anyone, but a pacifist nonetheless. I'd rather have a Ghandi-style form of social unrest than anything involving guns or bullets.
But I do want civil disturbance that will ultimately lead to my full inclusion in American society as an equal partner in it.
I voted for the crack in the door, knowing that it will be easier to blow the door off it's hinges.
You may want to get out of our way on this.
I just emailed my new congresswoman Kosmas - she beat the evil Tom Feeney here in FL] & put her on the spot.
-DCM in FL
So why shouldn't we be BOMBARDING soon-to-be Senator Franken with emails and letters DEMANDING that he tell Obama to ditch Warren?
Surely, a soon to be Senator has FAR more clout than some soon to be Congress-critter in Floretha.
And why didn't you demand the same of your Senators?
Max,
The journey goes faster when you're not dragging your ass.
Enough with Rick Warren and back to the Minnesota Senate race. PLEASE!
The Star Tribune just announced that the challenge results will NOT be decided until Tuesday. SOS says that it is taking a lot longer to allocate the withdrawn challenges so the CB won't meet until Tuesday. This also when the Supreme Court will hear about duplicates. So I hope Tuesday is a terrible, awful, no good, very bad day for Norm Coleman.
STILL no word from the SOS about a meeting of agreement on absentee ballots.
Obsessed Observer
The reason why the racism battle was won is because people challenged institutionalized racism.
Racism's been defeated? Phew.
@Statler- On the last thread (I think) you cited Patton's plan to invade the USSR after WW II as a positive example for the type of liberatory strategy you're advocating. How many tens of millions dead? You sure you're making your best case?
wv: disesder
ab-thanks
darn i was hoping for a little more clarity.
odd we went from one al to another al(exander) the III. weird thread.
Nicholas the II was a autocratic nut, with a nutty wife and a sick son. not helped by the spread of the industrial revolution, food shortages, and wwI. just for fun throw in an guy named lenin.
bad leader,at a bad time -kind of sounds like bush
Yes, if only Ike had been a tank commander, and the psychopath Patton Supreme Allied Commander, it would have been painless to betray our ally and march all they into Moscow.
No Cold War.
See?
michael- would patton invading USSR have stopped the stalin in his purges where supposedly millions died?
just asking i dont know
green- you make it sound so easy-lol
just like Napoleon and hitler thought when they took that "painless" walkabout to moscow!
@livemild
No, invading the USSR in 1945 would not have stopped purges which occurred primarily in the 1930's, unless causation can work backwards in time.
Phil,
Point well made and taken.
Michael,
Do you understand what an analogy is, and do you comprehend that strategic lessons applied in one way (war) can also be applied in another (peace)? For example, if I told you that you that understanding your opponents strengths and weaknesses helped in a time of war, would you be able to comprehend that the same idea can help you in a time of peace? Or would you be so hung up on my having pointed out that it worked once in a war that you'd just assume anyone who referred to comprehending their opponent must only be talking about war?
livemild,
Yes, and that did contribute to things. It was not the sole stimulus, as there have been many crazy rulers throughout history who never engendered civil unrest. However, it is consistent throughout history that periods of reduced oppression following periods of extreme oppression are the time when civil unrest is most likely to occur.
Statler,
So, after all your protestations that you will accept nothing less than full rights, it comes down to a crack in the door?
What a hypocrite you are. You cannot justify your vote for a man who thinks homosexuals are second-class citizens without pissing all over everything you've said in this thread.
Have you ever read Dr. King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Statler? If not, you should. He was speaking to people - not racists, but moderate people - who wanted to "open the door just a crack" too.
He recognized a fact you fail to see, Statler: It's not the extremists who keep oppression alive. Extremists are, more often than not, a small minority within a society. It's the moderates - the ones who don't necessary hate the oppressed group but are either too timid or too complacent to fight the oppression - who enable extremism to persist.
A majority in this country thinks that homosexuals don't deserve equal rights. You voted for one of them when there were several candidates on the ballot who supported full rights.
But none of them could win, right? So you made a pragmatic decision.
And you then have the unmitigated gall to call others who endorse the same pragmatism "homophobes."
I believe Obama's opposition to full gay rights will come to be a stain on his record in the same way that FDR's refusal to push for robust civil rights laws is a stain on his.
And you're shocked by the Warren pick? You helped make it happen.
@Statler- I don't want to overdo this exchange, but yes I absolutely understand that analogies from war are useful in thinking about peaceful conflicts. That's why it makes me nervous when someone says their peacetime strategy is modeled after what would have been an insane counterproductive grotesquely inhumane strategy in war.
You could have picked Sherman to make the same point, without sounding crazed.
livemild said...
green- you make it sound so easy-lol
just like Napoleon and hitler thought when they took that "painless" walkabout to moscow!
December 21, 2008 10:03 PM
Oh, did I forget my sarcasm emoticon?
My bad.
That is VERY dissappointing news, that the withdrawn challenges will not be added back in until Tuesday. What the hell is the delay about?
I had decided to ignore the numbers floating around until that was done. Now another delay. Cripes.
Harv,
If you have to resort to ad hominem attacks to cover up for a lack of critical reasoning, you'll fool no one.
FYI, prior to brown v. Board of Education, the Civil rights movement in America floundered. And not for a lack of good leadership. It's not like Black people didn't realize they were being screwed until MLK came along and told them. Marcus Garvey was an extremely charismatic leader, but he didn't get nearly as far as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr did after the door was opened just a crack by Brown v. Board of Education and later the reforms of JFK and LBJ.
What I am suggesting is that the crack in the door will create a situation where GLBT people will be more likely to stand up for their rights than they would if McCain had been elected and continued the policies of Bush.
How you derived that i wanted things to end with the crack in the door, I don't know. Why did you think I was going on about civil unrest, just to fill out the post a little more?
Whoa. Harvey just kicked some internet ass!
Michael,
Actually, i did discuss Sherman in the same post. Re-read it.
Now, can you explain to me how knowing your opponent in a peaceful argument would result an 'insane counterproductive grotesquely inhumane strategy'?
Or how taking advantage of the moment's opportunities while they last would be?
michael )mbw)
you're right. i had the same problem with roman history too. correct dates just allude me
i am much better at revolution russia. really, i am.
got to admit though it SOUNDED like a good question, for a second anyway
Green,
The USSR was not our ally. They were the enemy of our enemy, which is not the same thing as your friend.
the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Balts, Estonians, Bulgarians and Romanians all suffered a great deal because of your 'wartime ally'. East Germany was a 'socialist paradise'? Yeah, and that's why people risked their lives trying to run away from it.
FYI, if you have to build a heavily fortified wall around your country just to keep peopel from running away, you're seriously fucking up.
Just for the record, I am moderately left of center, but I am extremely anti-authoritarian. I would never endorse the USSR or any repressive regime. And that's true whether it's a British colony like what India was, the USSR, Burma, Jim Crow, or the Belgian Congo or South Africa under Apartheid. To me, authoritarianism is all the same, no matter if it's leftist, rightist, centrist, racist, capitalist, communist or terrorist. Swear to God, I don't know the difference.
To me,t he enemy is neither the proletariat or the capitalism. It's the iron fist. You can choose whatever kind of glove or flag you want to wrap around that fist, but it's all dirt from the same hole to me.
Well I am fairly far left person, Kucinich is barely left enough for me, but I am also practical, and the libertarian side is VERY wary of concentrated power of any sort, government, corporate, or other.
In case you hadn't noticed, in WORLD WAR II, the Soviets WERE our ally, and they took, BY FAR, the greatest hit in defeating Hitler. Thousands and thousands more US casualties would have been incurred had Germany not had to fight on the eastern front. Had psychopath Patton had his way, many thousands, 10's of thousands at least of US casualties would have ensued, and maybe a million Russians.
In foresight and hindsight, the western allies made the RIGHT decision not to take on the Russian Bear.
And, saying so, if one is logical, DOES NOT imply an affection for the brutal form of totalitarianism that the Soviets practiced.
Fact of the matter is, true socialism has NEVER been tried in any nation-state of significance. The totalitarianism of the Soviets had NOTHING to do with socialism.
True, socialism has never been tried, but lets not try it. It is against basic human nature developed through evolution and is thus likely to fail.
As forPatton, he was right. We needed to go into Germany sooner, and race the Russians to Berlin. If we had the whole Eastern bloc might have been free. The U.S. politicos did not understand the danger of the Russian bear, how the hell they missed that is a troubling, but, they did.
Yeah, yeah, tell that to the Poles. Maybe you can explain the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact to them as some sort of misunderstanding.
The Soviets were not angels in WW2.
I never said socialism had anything to do with totalitarianism. There are totalitarian regimes that were capitalist. Look at South Korea up until the 1980's, or China under the Kuomintang. An economic system in and of itself does not predetermine whether it will be totalitarian or not.
And again, my enemy is totalitarianism. I really don't give a damn if it's totalitarian rule by corporations, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', apartheid, Jim Crow, colonialism, or what. To me, that's just window dressing. The problem is whether your style of government observes the basic rights of human beings or not.
No, the Soviets were not our ally. They incurred heavy losses, and so did everyone in the Eastern Hemisphere. So what? the fact that they took heavily losses fighting Germany does not diminish what they did to their own citizens or the citizens of Eastern Europe or Central Asia, it does not reduce the suffering of the Koreans, it does not let them off they hook for creating a society based on fear and suspicion. In Romania, at the time of their revolution, 1 out of every 3 Romanians was a spy for the national Security forces. In East Germany, they kept files on people so complete, they would collect sweat samples from each citizen and train dogs specifically to hunt them down in case they ever tried to get away. In Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they replied to the populace rising up and demanding that they be allowed to choose their own course with Soviet Tanks rolling through the streets of Prague and Budapest.
That is no ally I would want.
Some peopel become so blinded by rhetoric they forget that a human life means something. They willfully blind themselves to human suffering and turn a deaf ear just so they can go on worshiping their ideological heroes. With such people it is impossible to reason. They are like religious fundamentalists, only they worship men instead of gods. Men that demand human sacrifice the way Stalin did.
wait a minute...are you saying Stalin was a bad guy?
Woah. I hadn't heard that one before.
LOL, topsy.
Patton was right about the USSR, and MacArthur was right about the PRC.
We did not finish the job in either WW2 or Korea. Had we, the peoples of Eastern Europe, Tibet, Korea, Cambodia and Central Asia would never have had to suffer the horror show they had to endure for so long.
It is best in life to avoid fighting wherever possible. There are a few instances where it is not possible, such as in defence of one's self or one's own. Once engaged, it is important to know when to stop, which is not always the same or easy in every circumstance. the effects of staying too long can be seen in Iraq. The effects of withdrawing too early can be seen in WW2 and Korea. The wisest strategists understand this, and aspire to improve their sense of when to go home.
One positive thing to come from picking Rev. Warren for this honor will be that it will force him to shut up the worst of his blather after the inauguration. Don't believe me? Read up on what Billy Graham was like before he became the darling of presidents.
Obama knows what he is doing, and he is super-smart not to get involved in the dog-fights being played out in the media over his actions and decisions.
Pragmatus,
Maybe so. But I didn't join this bandwagon because I believed in the man. I joined up because I believed in the message.
It may be that the man will benefit from this. but the message suffers, and that is why I feel betrayed.
Pragmatus
point well made above with the comp of Warren to Graham as 'minister to the nation via the POTUS'
we understand that tactically the move is intended to marginalize Warren to a great degree - and that is stategically brilliant in game theory terms
BUT the card he plays with impacts real human lives & had tangental costs involved for which a price will be extracted [from both sides perhaps]
someone above said this choice would gain capital for Obama - I tend to believe that he is already spending his capital in this game he is playing
a bluff actually, but will he win or lose his stake ? time will tell - short-term this is a loss imho
EXCEPT that I still maintain it was done to change the storyline from IL corruption, etc - and that did work in spades
when Warren further realizes he has been played, perhaps he will bow out to save face or ???
compare this to Hagee when he endorsed McCain...
Mac did not ask Hagee to be his minister-in-chief, he only accepted an endorsement & he got slagged bigtime
why ??? cuz the catholics & other religions felt offended BY AN ENDORSEMENT - end of daze my arse
so then Hagee bowed out to save face... but his endorsement was far less offensive than Warren giving the invocation at the one & only first Inauguration
regardless, pro-choice & LGBT & others got marginalized so that Obama could step on the corruption meme & marginalize Warren
perhaps smart personal politics for Obama only, but bad public policy for his constituents who will extract a cost for being taken for granted [sound familiar ?]
peace out
GREEN
I should not feed a troll like you
BUT phool, you asked the question
why did I contact my new DEM Congresswoman [who you call a critter you spineless creep] ?
Because I know Suzanne Kosmas & helped get her elected. She is a local who used to be in the state legislature. And it was important to get Feeney out too.
Kosmas is my rep, and she will have influence in the new congress. and I can actually make an impact locally, idiot.
Franken would represent MN you moron, and he hasn't even won anything yet. Plus I know his politics on these issues - do you ???
learn how to make a rational argument before you bloviate in the future, please.
you want me to contact Mel Martinez ? a retiring right-wing GOPer... Bill Nelson ? he is not up for election for 4 more years & he is much harder to get to - but I met him during the campaign when he was stumping here for Biden & Obama.
not going nuclear here - but fighting the good fight to make a point that no one should be ignored, discriminated against or further marginalized without consequences...
pick your fights & your poison
@ DCM
the CA AG [Jerry Brown] said he would enforce the people's vote & Prop 8...
now as of this week, Jerry has seen the light & admitted he was wrong and is joining the fight to legally dump Prop 8
I'm a California resident and I can assure you Jerry Brown never wavered in his opposition to the vile Proposition 8.
The internet is such fabulous bullshit, isn't it? Fake outrage over real world events expressed impotently against those who would banally seek to justify and rationalize the unjustifiable and irrational. Smoke and mirrors that let you see anything you want to believe is there, a real show. And you're always the star.
You know, masturbation is more productive than this. At least then you do something to improve your chances at beating prostrate cancer when you're old.
I think I've had enough of this fantasy world. Will anyone with the means to do anything ever see these posts? Not likely. Will they impact anyone's life in any meaningful way? Hardly.
No, I've spent hours jerking off to politics all year. And now I see that the candidates I fantasized about were never really there. What a waste of time and money.
People are so full of shit. Nothing we ever do will ever amount to anything. A million years from bow, archaeologists will dig up our bones and wonder what we were like. But they needn't wonder for long. Nothing ever changes except the names and the languages. We are, as a species, unique from other animals only in this respect: We waste formidable portions of our lives on things that have no value whatever, and then obsess over them as if they were the only things that ever did. And then we have the arrogance to claim that this makes us more intelligent than they.
Do you wonder if the fact that we have lawyers makes us smarter or stupider than the animals? I vote the latter.
@DCM: Opus is correct. To clarify, the only reason Jerry Brown ever said he would defend Prop 8 is because, as Attorney General, it's his *job* (just like your personal lawyer would defend you, even though he knows it was really a bad thing for you to go out on the highway after an all-night kegger). Once the Yes on 8 side hired a different lawyer (Ken Starr, of "stained blue dress" fame), because they doubted Brown would argue their side with much enthusiasm, Brown was freed to file a brief saying what he really thinks.
@Statler: please don't go. You often say what I don't have the patience to. I know you're down, I'm depressed too.
guys, you are depressing me mightily. My experience of this site has been that the people who post are well-informed, engaged with progressive issues, prepared to argue with facts and evidence and to discuss differences - with a few exceptions whom I won't name so as not to tempt them to start posting again but I think we know who they are. And what do we have on this thread? It's like junkies coming down from a high.
You can all shout at me when you've read my thoughts!
1 Invading the USSR in 1945 WAS NOT POSSIBLE - the Allies could have used the nuclear option but that was about it. The Russians had a huge army and most of the Allies (probably excluding the US) were at the end of their resources. Remember Napoleon anyone? It's a very very long way to Moscow. And what the hell would the Allies have done if they had won? We can't even manage to run Iraq properly, let alone a country the size of the USSR. Patton was a good fighter but if he really wanted to march on to Moscow he was a political idiot, like a lot of soldiers. Maybe it would have saved the Cold War (actually, not that many died) and more importantly, years of misery for the Eastern Bloc countries, but a) probably it would have been worse (see Iraq) and b) it wasn't possible to do it anyway.
2 Warren. Right, cards on the table. I am straight and British, so not directly involved in this. BUT I have an opinion on this. My opinion is that as someone who is opposed to any form of discrimination, Warren does not sound like someone I would want speaking at the Inaugration. I can understand why asking him to speak might be a smart political move but I can also see that it stinks if you are TLBG (that set of initials is deliberately in a different order - why shouldn't transexuals come first for a change?). But please don't forget that while Obama may not move ahead on gay rights as quickly as you would like, at least he is not likely to be taking rights away, unlike the GOP. By all means push for more rights, lobby, march and fast. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face. The right don't splinter, they stick together. The left has to learn to do that too, so that we can keep things moving forward, even if the pace isn't as fast as we want. BTW that isn't an argument for not doing anything to fight homophobia - if you look at history, usually something pretty big had to happen to change minds: slavery, women's rights, racism. And those battles aren't won yet either. You just need to plan and pick your fights. There are more effective ways to influence people into agreeing with you than punching them in the face.
There, now I'll stand back and wait for the shouting to start.
PS If it helps, my much loved brother in law was gay and died of AIDS in 1991. His mother was too embarrassed to tell the neighbours. That was the bit that upset us more than anything else - to have to deny who someone was because of fear of other people's prejudice. So I do have some idea how much this matters.
Two things bug me about this thread. The first is that is was so easy to derail it, and turn a thread about Franken into a thread on Prop 8/Warren. I get it, it's a real issue that is bugging people, but it's not what this thread is about. The second, and much more confusing is that there are people here arguing against the discrimination of gays (good) by making the point that we made a mistake by not allowing Patton to extend WWII by pushing our armies into the Soviet Union (huh?!)
Take a breath people. I fundamentally dislike many of the public stands that Rich Warren has taken. I find them offensive. But in the end, Obama is a politician, and his battleground is a political one. That political battleground has real, measurable impact on the social, economic, and ideological tenor of our country. If there's one thing that Barack Obama has proven, it's that he knows how to fight political battles. I want him to fight those political battles because I've seen how that impacts the rest of this country, and I've seen that he's good at it. I wish the invocation was being given by someone else, I really do. But I get the calculus involved, and what this can accomplish.
There are people out there that simply don't trust Obama to fight for them on this issue. It's a wound that's been festering since the early days of the primary, and Donnie McClurkin. It's unfortunate, especially in light of Prop 8's passage and the "black people hate gay people" storyline that filtered from that, but it doesn't mean that Obama is betraying progressive interests. We'll see how he governs, but I think we'll see a practical progressive in office in every sense of the words.
wv - enisma: the process of forgetting and subsequently flushing out any sense of a common long-term political movement in the pursuit of short term goals.
@ Mrs. B: A shout-out for sanity.
Statler N Waldorf and DCM in FLA:
Don’t get me wrong—I have no use for Rick Warren at all. What he stands for is about as far from my philosophy as it is (ironically) distant from the teachings of Christ. But it makes no sense for Obama to invite Warren to give the invocation simply to aggravate or repudiate his own base; therefore the move must have some subtle political purpose. In my view Obama has neither betrayed nor contradicted his principles.
In the early days of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln once contemplated arresting the entire Maryland legislature en masse, because he was fearful that they were going to pass an ordinance of secession. Such an act would have been unprecedented in its illegality. Did this mean Lincoln didn’t care much for Constitution and the principles upon which the Union was founded? No, it was simply a recognition of an almost impossible situation. If Maryland seceded, the North could not hope to prosecute a war with its capital deep in enemy territory. Further, when questioned about the legality of his suspension of habeas corpus Lincoln merely said, referring to the war, “I will not quit this game leaving any card unplayed.”
But by all means, protest against the naming of Rick Warren to this high honor. I personally don’t think he belongs on that podium either, but I’m willing to let this hand play out completely before I decide whether or not it was such a good maneuver. I’m sure Obama is on the right track, and will remain so, although I’m not sure I will be happy with all his detours.
@MrsB: "But please don't forget that while Obama may not move ahead on gay rights as quickly as you would like, at least he is not likely to be taking rights away, unlike the GOP"
The thing is, at the federal level there AREN'T any rights to take away. The GOP can't repeal nondiscrimination laws, because none have ever passed; can't undo recognition of same-sex couples' status, because there is no recognition, etc. If Obama is going to do nothing, that's the same as the GOP.
@D: we haven't had a thread specifically for Warren, or about Prop 8 since early November. If there was, then I could see you complaining that we should keep it on the thread dedicated to it.
@Pragmatus: "But it makes no sense for Obama to invite Warren to give the invocation simply to aggravate or repudiate his own base"
I think it more likely indicates that he DOESN'T THINK ABOUT US AT ALL.
Happy holidays to the Gay community. Fwiw, my activism politically in gay issues is pretty much in refusing to view gays as different than anybody else.
OTOH, I will look for opportunities to boycott the Mormon church or it's supporters. Intolerant pricks get under my skin.
Eric G., MD
"1 Invading the USSR in 1945 WAS NOT POSSIBLE"
Exactly.
And illustrative of the illogical statements uttered by those who suggested such, which corresponded with their numerous attacks upon us who dared to condemn the vile Warren and Obama's choice, while noting there might be something more to it, politically. For that, we were termed homophobes.
The Progressive agenda would be much father along in the country if we weren't constantly infighting.
One might note for learning purposes what Melissa Etheridge who just met with Warren, has to say about the matter.
Of course, she does have a new album she's hawking, so perhaps she's just another "sell-out".
Well, I've been sitting on the sidelines viewing this, but I do want to express my opinion as well since so much ink has been spilled on Topic B.
Personally, I am a bit bothered by the selection of Warren to give an invocation. I think a wiser choice would actually be to just select someone highly respected and far less visible or have two invocations or have a poet laureate who provides a surprisingly accepting and challenging verse to show a truly diverse message from the proceedings.
However, I don't equate Warren to a Nazi. Sorry, I think that's just foolish and unproductive.
I do find a silver lining in the fact that he shows himself to be a silly fool twisting himself into pretzels trying to explain his views on the matter. For example, do we really care that he walks around lusting after random women on the street, as he intimated during one of his highly arced explanations? (Get help, Warren, that's really not me and my partner's issue - we're thinking more about health care and retirement funds - but thanks for sharing your own personal and unrelated angst . . . it means a lot to us - not).
I think the reality is GLBTs need to start forcing feet to the fire on one essential issue. We pay taxes like everyone else, damn it. We support schools, hospitals, the military, tax relief for churches, fire trucks, cross walks, roads, highways (and now the auto industry and the banking system) JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TAX PAYER IN AMERICA!
I don't give a flip how bothered someone might be about my relationship, I want my family protected JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER TAX PAYER IN AMERICA!
If the word marriage causes someone so much angst, then I challenge them to put their money where their mouths are and support the fundamental issues of equality. I mean, since supposedly its not gay relationships that concern them but some vague and convenient religious principal. Marriage is a sacred right after all, to be preserved for Britney during an earlier bi-polar episode or teenagers who get pregnant while home "recovering from mono" in Alaska.
But, finally, in closing. I won't be bothered at all if people line up in mass to toss shoes at Warren. I say if it is a bit "inconvenient" too all the people - including myself to a degree - who really don't want this to be a bother or distraction, then BOO to us. It is important, and sometimes democracy demands a little yelling and monopolizing conversation.
You want the din to subside, then fix the issue. Or expect to hear the commotion until someone else does.
There, I'll go put my soapbox away now.
Go Franken ; )
On the question of marriage I would like to see it become a purely religous matter without *any* attached civil rights. Couples who want to be married can surely find a sect that accommodates them.
JOSEPH
I like your shoe toss for Warren idea...
wonder if that might happen on Jan 20th???
OK, I changed my mind - put that bigot up on the steps & let those shoes rip !!! lol
It would seem to me like while these duplication errors happen at random in one sense, you've underestimated the probability they could turn the election. Specifically, I would assume that there are some individuals/precincts who are more or less likely to be sloppy and create these duplication errors. So the expectation of the change in votes due to dealing with duplication errors is still 0, but the standard deviation of your estimates should be much greater if the precincts are differently sloppy and that sloppiness is distributed randomly with respect to how the the precinct voted.
Thus I think Nate's estimate probability of this changing the election result are too low and that looking at these overvotes from a precinct level (or modeling them like that) would be more accurate.
Joseph your post hits the nail perfectly.
I am not interested in special rights, thank you, EQUAL rights will do fine. I simply want what EVERY OTHER TAXPAYER IN AMERICA already has.
Sure Warren's a jerk, but the right-wingers could use a little sip of their kool-aid after the whupping they took. Maybe the next one will sting a little less.
Alot of people were touched by Warren's book "The Purpose Driven Life" - excuse me I just threw up a little bit into my mouth - so I think Obama is probably doing the right thing throwing a bone.
I do hope to see a flying shoe or two on the 20th though.
Cheers, Jonathan
Back to the main thread: We can make some reasonable guesses about the duplicates, and they're a bit more pessimistic than those of either Nate or Ryan B. These errors are more likely to have affected F votes, for the same reason that we knew ahead of time that a recount picking up poorly marked ballots, missed counts, etc., was more likely to benefit F. It's just in the nature of our busy precincts , etc. A reasonable guess is that the duplicate errors broke about 60-40 for F, since that just seems like the ballpark number for the ratio of other more correctable errors affecting F (or generally D) voters. If we assume that C has a nearly complete set of duplicate challenges, taking about 100 votes from F, we would guess that when F comes up with his set (assuming that he's allowed to include Dakota Co...)it might have about 67 take-aways from C. So C might net 33 (+/- 20?) from the process. F says he's now up 35-50. If the court allows the duplicate subtractions, either one could be ahead, but I think the odds would still favor an extremely small F lead. In that case the absentee margin would most likely be decisive, so some less crzy rules would be needed for that counting process.
Fox News has a story now that includes images of MN ballots:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html
I wish there was some way to counter this garbage.
1sunnyday,
Amen!
To answer "Jonathan the lurker" quickly, John Lott's story violates the principle that mouths should not be shot off until one has the ability to check the SoS's own data. This seems to be still incomplete here---I see only the reviewed challenges, which did not include the dupes. I speculate that the STrib's data may be mixed up by some "off-by-one" errors while joining two databases. The fact that Lott's initial blog entry has a big note complaining that the STrib has been changing links around is prima-facie evidence that the STrib has been...changing links around.
In the first example in the Fox story, the ballot is correctly listed by the STrib as being Hennepin-Minneapolis W-4 P-08 Challenge 3. In the SoS four spreadsheets, this precinct appears only in Coleman's original challenge list, and the spreadsheet says that challenges 4 and 6 were ruled votes for Franken. Furthermore, as Lott's story itself notes, this ballot's image itself says that it was challenged by Franken on the grounds of "No Dup". I don't see the "dupe" challenges listed as being resolved in the SoS spreadsheets. The STrib's info on this ballot doesn't list who it was "Challenged by", and I don't know whether the "X" in the Franken column across from "Canvassing Board" is a report, an inference, an off-by-one error from perhaps challenge 2 or 4-as-above, or even a misplacement of that X.
I'm not doing anything more than raising possibilities, because there's no more information to go on. My main point is that the STrib, besides not having permanently "resided" this data, is not in the business of being the first provider of official MN government data. I admonished Lott with a comment about checking one's work and getting informed about identifying marks, also saying he owes an apology, which does not appear among his items' comments. (BTW, I've worked closely with two professors at his university, one a close friend who passed away of cancer.)
The retreat from "upwards of 70" and "66" to "35-50" is another indication of how confusing it is to keep score on this---in terms of my comment here I guess "all in the same ballpark" means 35--78!? I did think "70" was too high based on my own run of the same way of working from Elias' "+4" and the information from TheUptake. Moreover in my own personal STrib Ballot Challenge box, the projected total numbers have consistently been Franken 1,211,993 to Coleman 1,211,915, but on my home computer (Mac) the "Margin" box said "Franken by 40" all weekend, while my office (Red Hat Linux) has "Franken by 78". This may be an issue of page-refresh policy on different OS-es/Firefox-es, since I saw "Franken by 40" a week ago (when I thought I could infer the total # of views by seeing how many times skipping Franken ballots and only doing Coleman could move that # to 39 and then 38---I gave up after just 4 skips, by which point I was projecting Coleman something like "Coleman +816 with error bars of +/-734"!). Returning to my first point, this may be another indication that for reasons of other factors what the STrib is showing you may not be concrete.
KWReagan,
You explained one ballot, but what about Lott's claims on inconsistent rulings on "X" marks. I checked a few of them and they match up with the SoS site.
I was trying to keep my reply "quick" (responsibility to be clear and measured and to cite things took care of that:-), so I haven't gone into the other issues. When I first went thru Lott's site last week (Fri.?) after seeing David Brauer's item on it via TheUptake, there were several "clearly for Franken/Coleman's" that checked out as "NO ONE/..." in the SoS spreadsheets. The "X in oval" critique may have a point---indeed, I started jabbering about that and how it relates to "contextuality" in programming-language practice long before the CB and even the STrib's expert panel got started! Here I'll add that the insta-Internet naturally always jumps the gun on deliberative bodies---just note how the CB's delay until tomorrow was felt by some!
Other issues I didn't go into are the FoxNews version of Lott's item saying:
() "Yet, the additional 270 votes picked up by Franken from the Canvassing Board’s decisions..."---this is a careless mis-inference of what the STrib's projections mean, one we know to be false. [For those who haven't been following: if Coleman had made 100 more frivolous challenges, Lott based on this mode of reasoning would be saying Franken picked up 370 additional votes from the CB's decisions.]
() Selective information on the "133 missing ballots" and "171 Maplewood ballots". They are "contrasted" as apples-to-apples, when they are not---nothing is said about the "1/5" envelope, for instance.
MPR just reported that SoS has apparently finished the assignment of all of the withdrawn ballots and Franken leads by 44. (It was forty something, and afaiheard 44, but could be 46 or 48).
I will go try to dig up a link, but wanted to post this ASAP. Now sure if that includes the rest of the blue folder or not, but am leaning to not, since CB decided to do the rest of that folder tomorrow.
~ Latte
here is the link to the MPR story. The number is obviously 48.
~ Latte
I just took a closer look at Lott's ballots and found Lott didn't look at the entire ballot (also posted at his website, if he allows it):
your franken "Xs with ovals" have "Xs with ovals" in other races. your coleman "Xs with ovals" do not. franken gets his, coleman does not - totally proper.
Your Coleman "oval"/Franken "X" case, had only "Xs" in all other races. It's properly Franken's vote.
Your Coleman "oval", other "X" case, had some ovals and some Xs in other races. That's properly an overvote.
Your Franken "oval", Barkely "oval/X" linked to a Coleman "oval with X" that properly went to Coleman (there were ovals with Xs in other races). I strongly suspect in the ballot you meant to link to, there were no Xs in other
@just_looking,
sorry for the late response to your correction on my take of the Trimble consistency. I saw Nate's link to the Coleman campaign exchange in that .pdf file. My take is, yes, you are correct, they are not asserting quite the same thing (missing duplicates vs missing originals), but in my defense, I am not 100% convinced that was the email that Elias read to the Canvassing Board at 5:20PM last Thursday. What I heard sounded more convincing and definitive. Of course, I could've been hearing what I wanted to hear, an overenthusiastic dude that I am.
Oh, and btw, fwiw.
FIRST (on the news that matters as per above) :))))
~ Latte
Latte, super!!! And the story includes a link to a PDF update. It is titled, "DRAFT - FINAL DISPOSITION OF MOST CHALLENGED BALLOTS AS OF 3:00 p.m. DECEMBER 2[obscured, undoubtedly '22']". Moreover, the URL resides it at MPR, not SoS, so this is unofficial though evidently by express-release permission. NB: the PDF looks generated from Excel and has zillions of blank pages at the end---because that's what Excel gives you ef ya don't watch out! So don't print it, at least not without a page range!
Hennepin-Minneapolis W-4 P-08 Challenge #3 shows up in that sheet (as I've said before, blind ASCII collating order makes W-10...W-13 show up before W-2...W-9). And it is ruled for Coleman, so (modulo my above caveat about residence), John Lott dispositively got that one wrong!
WV "vencing": duelling shown in the movie "V for Vendetta".
Wow on the 48 number! By my count, Franken had won 115 challenges to Coleman's 71. That's a net pickup of 44, meaning if all challenges had been rejected, Franken would lead by 4!
I'll hire Elias.
Oh, honorable mention to Mister 24 (that would Nate, not Keefer).
To roger what I wrote above on how the STrib's window displays on my computers, I'm back home on my Mac, on which I also have 2 Windows virtual machines going. The third line now has "Franken by 78", so now I surmise it was not a refresh issue---rather that either () they revised the page in a way that put it past my cookie, or () it really was saying "Franken by 40" this morning. The "Current recount totals" now include the withdrawals---I wish I'd listed the numbers in my first comment, but I can say now that they're
Coleman 1,211,890; Franken 1,211,938
while the bottom totals are unchanged from before:
Coleman 1,211,915; Franken 1,211,993
Which would add +25 to Coleman and +55 to Franken, so this is some combination of the meaning of "MOST CHALLENGED BALLOTS" and double-listing discrepancy or etc. Finally, it still gives my projection as "Coleman by 816", and the error bars are (and were) +/- 723 not 734.
And I meant to say the SoS page did indeed change after I linked it in my first comment, just 10 above!
(Hit submit too soon)---And, the Excel Spreadsheet is identical to the MPR PDF file, and clearly resides with the SoS. The rest of the title after "December 22, 2008" follows with the words "SUBJECT TO REVISION", however!
Hi all,
How do you create those nifty links?
FYI - It looks like the Fox site has removed the first ballot that they presented as evidence that the CB is trying to steal the election for Franken (the one that was obviously a Coleman ballot but was incorrectly attributed by STrib to Franken). Nice that someone over there has some integrity. They better be careful though, if they keep up the fact checking pretty soon the entire article will be gone!!
MEDIA
it is quite simple...
follow the link below where it will explain how to construct an 'absolute hyperlink' & try it out for yourself...
@ CREATE MY OWN HYPERLINK
WV - terrif !!!
THis is a test
here
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment