Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Creative Capital Winners: Sutt... »

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

That Swearing Ban, and Hillary

posted by on January 9 at 8:46 AM

That story about a town’s attempt to ban swearing in taverns was misreported by the AP. Mark Brown of the Sun-Times was all over it today, and it turns out that Missouri law already bans swearing in taverns, but the law isn’t enforced. Richard Veit, the lawyer behind the issue, is a tavern-goer, but is not happy that there is no way to shut down out-of-control bars. He went looking into the law, and found many things are illegal in taverns, including profane language. Money quote:

“I did not expect it to get this attention,” Veit admitted, explaining he was focused on other restrictions. “I thought the story was we were cracking down on underage drinking.”

So you don’t have a particular concern with swearing?

“Absolutely not,” he said.

I hope he really said “Absofuckinglutely not” but no self-respecting, little-old-lady-subscriber-fearing newspaper could print such a thing.

Speaking of fucking profanity, how come none of the whoopdedoo political pundits considering the Deeper Meaning of Clinton’s “victory” in NH haven’t had bullshit called on them for failing to notice one obvious thing: more Democrats voted against her than for her. If Edwards wasn’t there, would his voters have gone for Clinton or Obama? My money’s on Obama.

RSS icon Comments


If I ever receive a "swearing ticket", I swear to Tim Gunn I'll never pay it.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 8:50 AM

So you're saying Edwards is just a high class Ralph Nader? Yeah, probably.

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 8:52 AM

"more Democrats voted against her than for her"

The same can be said for every democratic candidate. In fact, it's even worse for the remaining candidates.

Posted by Brian | January 9, 2008 8:53 AM

That logic makes absolutely no sense. You could say that about any candidate, including Obama, who, surprise, really did lose. She won. Get over it.

Posted by huh? | January 9, 2008 8:55 AM


agreed. even in the iowa polls, more than half of democrats did not vote for obama.

Posted by ray ray | January 9, 2008 8:56 AM

What #4 said.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 8:57 AM

It's doesn't just depend on Hillary getting less than 50%. The theory also depends on the assumption that the second choice of the Edwards voters is Obama. Probably based on what we know happened in Iowa. If you think that's true, then it's a good theory.

I noticed there's like a thousand commends from the middle of the night last night. Was everybody up too late to think this morning?

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 9:02 AM

The logic is this: when the field is narrowed, who will the voters who chose neither of the two front runner go for? My instinct is that if a Dem wants Clinton to win, they're not voting for Edwards in the primary, they're voting for Clinton. But if voters in later states who would have voted for Edwards and have to choose between Clinton and Obama, they'll take Obama.

Posted by Chicago Fan | January 9, 2008 9:04 AM

Chicago Fan,

your Democrat thing is kooky. It was crowded primary. Of course more Ds voted against her.

Here's the stat you need to note: Hillary won among
self-identified Dems 45-34%. The majority of the remaining primary states don't allow independents to vote in the dem primary. This helps Hillary.

Posted by Josh Feit | January 9, 2008 9:04 AM

Most creative explanation yet for why Hilly won (from ABC News): Hillary's name was near the top of the ballot, Obama's was near the bottom. (Ballot position was determined ay a random drawing.)

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 9, 2008 9:12 AM

I'm pretty sure that New York and California will both go to Clinton on 2/5 and really, those are the only states that matter.

Posted by and | January 9, 2008 9:15 AM

Why does Chicago Fan get to post anything here? The point about Hillary wouldn't even make it into the Seattle Times.

Posted by i dont get it | January 9, 2008 9:18 AM


Because he's Dan's brother and occasionally posts about sports. Not that any of us give a shit about sports, but whatever.

Posted by NaFun | January 9, 2008 9:39 AM

And ALL the Republicans voted against the Democrats! Oh nos!

Posted by SPOILER ALERT! | January 9, 2008 9:53 AM

yeah, hillary got more dems and mccain got more independents. so much for obama's stronghold on liberals and moderates. and women.

Posted by kim | January 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).