| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Postcards From the Pledge | ||||
| ||||
Hmm...maybe it might be a good thing for President Obama in 2012 if they do win.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
What to Expect
If the GOP wins either or both House in the fall, I can't think of a better summation of what they are going to offer than this.
Hmm...maybe it might be a good thing for President Obama in 2012 if they do win.
Hmm...maybe it might be a good thing for President Obama in 2012 if they do win.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Why They Fail
Take a look at this video.
Obviously it is edited and staged but that's not the real reason why this is bad PR for the Democrats. Where's the bile, fear, anger, and hatred? It's a feel good story with a happy ending and many Americans in 2010 simply don't like that.
One would think this is something that Democrats could point to and tout as a success. I certainly think it is and I point to it as a chief reason why I voted for Barack Obama. He said he would bring affordable health care to people like this woman and he did it. Under the old law, her family would've gone bankrupt and died. It's just that simple.
Sadly, many of us thrive on the WWE like circus. This is why the folks at MSNBC will never cover a story like this. It's bad for ratings. Chris Matthews laments the Tea Party and their insanity but is actually one of their biggest helpers along with everyone else on that network. Stories like the one above don't fit into the media meme of "Obama sucks, Dems are Gonna Lose Big" so they won't be seen.
And this would be why they fail.
Obviously it is edited and staged but that's not the real reason why this is bad PR for the Democrats. Where's the bile, fear, anger, and hatred? It's a feel good story with a happy ending and many Americans in 2010 simply don't like that.
One would think this is something that Democrats could point to and tout as a success. I certainly think it is and I point to it as a chief reason why I voted for Barack Obama. He said he would bring affordable health care to people like this woman and he did it. Under the old law, her family would've gone bankrupt and died. It's just that simple.
Sadly, many of us thrive on the WWE like circus. This is why the folks at MSNBC will never cover a story like this. It's bad for ratings. Chris Matthews laments the Tea Party and their insanity but is actually one of their biggest helpers along with everyone else on that network. Stories like the one above don't fit into the media meme of "Obama sucks, Dems are Gonna Lose Big" so they won't be seen.
And this would be why they fail.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Yep, Pretty Much.
Before there was Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, there was The Onion.
Nation Once Again Comes Under Sway Of Pink-Faced Half-Wit
This particular pink-faced half-wit is at the height of his persuasive powers," Ellington said of the bloated, hateful multimillionaire. "By exploiting citizens' greatest anxieties during an uncertain time in our nation's history, the pink-faced half-wit has been able to promote his own vain, avaricious self-interests under the guise of standing up for the very disenfranchised people whom he himself is fleecing.
I don't think I've read a more accurate assessment of the machine that drives the GOP.
And why do I keep talking about the "party out of power?"
According to scholars, pink-faced half-wits have had remarkable staying power throughout history despite their outlandish, easily debunked claims, shameless self-promotion, and complete lack of credentials. More often than not, experts said, these pasty, shallow dullards skillfully manage to control debate on the most important social and political topics of the day.
That's why.
Don't think for a moment, though, that The Onion is playing favorites.
In recent years, there has been a new breed of equally vociferous, foaming morons who espouse opposing viewpoints but use identical tactics: the prime example being that pink-faced Michael Moore half-wit.
What's amazing to me is how similar the mouth foamers are even if they are at ideologically opposites. Compare any left wing blog to a right wing one. They are basically the same. They use the same language, the same insults, suffer completely from cognitive dissonance, and claim "the truth."
Sadly and more importantly, many of these people have lives which are not very fulfilling for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are being hit by tough economic times or aren't very socially comfortable. It's probably a combination of both. So, they feed upon this sickening arena that has been slowly raised to onyx level importance and feel better about their lives.
I suspect, though, that it is an empty feeling. And, like many addicts, they keep going back to sate themselves with a tool (pink faced half wits) that will never be enough. Meaningful change is never going to occur in this country as long as our perception of these important social and political are warped to fill this pathetic urge.
In the final analysis, the cause of all of this is simple. The real pink faced half wits are the ones we see in the mirror every morning.
Nation Once Again Comes Under Sway Of Pink-Faced Half-Wit
This particular pink-faced half-wit is at the height of his persuasive powers," Ellington said of the bloated, hateful multimillionaire. "By exploiting citizens' greatest anxieties during an uncertain time in our nation's history, the pink-faced half-wit has been able to promote his own vain, avaricious self-interests under the guise of standing up for the very disenfranchised people whom he himself is fleecing.
I don't think I've read a more accurate assessment of the machine that drives the GOP.
And why do I keep talking about the "party out of power?"
According to scholars, pink-faced half-wits have had remarkable staying power throughout history despite their outlandish, easily debunked claims, shameless self-promotion, and complete lack of credentials. More often than not, experts said, these pasty, shallow dullards skillfully manage to control debate on the most important social and political topics of the day.
That's why.
Don't think for a moment, though, that The Onion is playing favorites.
In recent years, there has been a new breed of equally vociferous, foaming morons who espouse opposing viewpoints but use identical tactics: the prime example being that pink-faced Michael Moore half-wit.
What's amazing to me is how similar the mouth foamers are even if they are at ideologically opposites. Compare any left wing blog to a right wing one. They are basically the same. They use the same language, the same insults, suffer completely from cognitive dissonance, and claim "the truth."
Sadly and more importantly, many of these people have lives which are not very fulfilling for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are being hit by tough economic times or aren't very socially comfortable. It's probably a combination of both. So, they feed upon this sickening arena that has been slowly raised to onyx level importance and feel better about their lives.
I suspect, though, that it is an empty feeling. And, like many addicts, they keep going back to sate themselves with a tool (pink faced half wits) that will never be enough. Meaningful change is never going to occur in this country as long as our perception of these important social and political are warped to fill this pathetic urge.
In the final analysis, the cause of all of this is simple. The real pink faced half wits are the ones we see in the mirror every morning.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Bril!
There's been a never ending drone in comments about why I "don't talk about the Democrats accomplishments" on this blog. Setting aside the nausea that I have in thinking I have to "prove myself" again (aka fucking with Mark and making him dance like a monkey), I think their accomplishments speak for themselves. If you don't like them, go vote for the GOP candidates on November 2nd. There is little or nothing I could do to change anyone's mind who is pathological in their holy war against the government.
What I can do, however, is point out (as I see fit because it's my blog) the blatant lies that the GOP tell on a daily basis. Take, for example, this recent analysis of Michelle Bachmann's statements by Politifact.
Bachmann has scored five Pants on Fire ratings, plus six False ratings. After 11 encounters with the Truth-O-Meter, Bachmann continues to hold the rare distinction of an all-False/Pants on Fire record.
See the link for the blatant lies she has told.
Now, the reason why it's important to talk about her is that....MANY PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER. It might be a vain hope on my part but perhaps a few will stop and listen. Case in point, a very conservative friend of mine the other day was shocked to hear Newt Gingrich's bizarre theories on President Obama that I wrote about the other day. "Why isn't he talking about fiscal responsibility?" she asked me. Well, here's why.
The GOP thinks that we must cut spending. Fine. Where? I want three specific examples of where you are going to cut spending, conservative commenters. For example
I am going to cut social security, medicare, and veteran's benefits.
Next, I'd like you to go down to your local VFW and tell everyone there that is what you want our leaders to do. Let me know how it works out. This would be the real reason why Newt Gingrich is talking about Luo tribesman. He's full of shit.
Talking about the party "out of power" (amusing considering how much power they do have) is important because I think people need to hear what they are going to do which is nothing. They have no fucking plan at all. For example, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress had a plan and they have carried some of it out(health care, fin reg reform, college loans, consumer protection). All of these actions are going to help the middle class which, in my opinion, means the economy. The stimulus they passed helped us out of the recession, now officially declared over (more on that later this week).
See, they have actually done something. And the GOP answer is...?
What I can do, however, is point out (as I see fit because it's my blog) the blatant lies that the GOP tell on a daily basis. Take, for example, this recent analysis of Michelle Bachmann's statements by Politifact.
Bachmann has scored five Pants on Fire ratings, plus six False ratings. After 11 encounters with the Truth-O-Meter, Bachmann continues to hold the rare distinction of an all-False/Pants on Fire record.
See the link for the blatant lies she has told.
Now, the reason why it's important to talk about her is that....MANY PEOPLE LISTEN TO HER. It might be a vain hope on my part but perhaps a few will stop and listen. Case in point, a very conservative friend of mine the other day was shocked to hear Newt Gingrich's bizarre theories on President Obama that I wrote about the other day. "Why isn't he talking about fiscal responsibility?" she asked me. Well, here's why.
The GOP thinks that we must cut spending. Fine. Where? I want three specific examples of where you are going to cut spending, conservative commenters. For example
I am going to cut social security, medicare, and veteran's benefits.
Next, I'd like you to go down to your local VFW and tell everyone there that is what you want our leaders to do. Let me know how it works out. This would be the real reason why Newt Gingrich is talking about Luo tribesman. He's full of shit.
Talking about the party "out of power" (amusing considering how much power they do have) is important because I think people need to hear what they are going to do which is nothing. They have no fucking plan at all. For example, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress had a plan and they have carried some of it out(health care, fin reg reform, college loans, consumer protection). All of these actions are going to help the middle class which, in my opinion, means the economy. The stimulus they passed helped us out of the recession, now officially declared over (more on that later this week).
See, they have actually done something. And the GOP answer is...?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Truly Wonderful
I just found out that this guy is now the subject of new documentary film. I remember VHS tapes of this floating around 20 years + ago. The first viral video? So hilarious...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Seriously...WTF???!!?
It's been a few days but I still don't understand Newt Gingrich. What does this mean?
What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?
Newt thinks that this is "the most accurate, predictive model" in analyzing President Obama. Apparently, the explanation is that this is some sort of redux of Dinsesh D'Souza's recent piece (see: gibberish) in Forbes but I just can't believe that Newt said it. I don't agree with the guy on most issues but for him to move this far right into birtherville is simply shocking. I mean, he is a smart guy, right?
Besides, I thought that President Obama was akin to King George with the Tea Party hoping to take him down. Now he's anti-colonial? I can't keep up...:(
What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?
Newt thinks that this is "the most accurate, predictive model" in analyzing President Obama. Apparently, the explanation is that this is some sort of redux of Dinsesh D'Souza's recent piece (see: gibberish) in Forbes but I just can't believe that Newt said it. I don't agree with the guy on most issues but for him to move this far right into birtherville is simply shocking. I mean, he is a smart guy, right?
Besides, I thought that President Obama was akin to King George with the Tea Party hoping to take him down. Now he's anti-colonial? I can't keep up...:(
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Liberal Media Watch
In looking at the media coverage from the last two days, one would think that the Tea Party has stormed the castle and is about to kick the anti colonial Kenyan out of the White House. The "liberal" media has been played perfectly by the supposed haters of it (Palin, O'Donnell etc) in playing non stop footage with one general theme: INCUMBENTS BEWARE!!!
One problem, though...as always....are the facts. From CQ Politics.
Through Tuesday’s primaries, more than 98 percent of House and Senate incumbents seeking re-election won their primaries.
Numbers don't lie, folks. So while we do see that more incumbents have lost than in recent years, the media (surprise, surprise) has massively exaggerated the victories. Here are some pretty pictures that further illustrate this fact.
Even in 1994, the re-election rate for incumbents was 90 percent in the House. I'd expect something between that and 94 percent this year. The races that will more likely swing GOP are the ones with no incumbent. Now that we are in the general, it's going to be much harder than people think to topple incumbents.
The numbers show it's easier to do in the Senate which is why the certain victory in Delaware (now a near certain loss for the GOP) would've helped a lot. There's no incumbent there. Add in candidates like Sharon Angle and it's even tougher given that Reid is an incumbent.
Odd, that the Right has fallen for the media's narrative considering how much they loathe the "MSM."
One problem, though...as always....are the facts. From CQ Politics.
Through Tuesday’s primaries, more than 98 percent of House and Senate incumbents seeking re-election won their primaries.
Numbers don't lie, folks. So while we do see that more incumbents have lost than in recent years, the media (surprise, surprise) has massively exaggerated the victories. Here are some pretty pictures that further illustrate this fact.
Even in 1994, the re-election rate for incumbents was 90 percent in the House. I'd expect something between that and 94 percent this year. The races that will more likely swing GOP are the ones with no incumbent. Now that we are in the general, it's going to be much harder than people think to topple incumbents.
The numbers show it's easier to do in the Senate which is why the certain victory in Delaware (now a near certain loss for the GOP) would've helped a lot. There's no incumbent there. Add in candidates like Sharon Angle and it's even tougher given that Reid is an incumbent.
Odd, that the Right has fallen for the media's narrative considering how much they loathe the "MSM."
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
So Long to the Senate
With Christine O'Donnell's win last night, the GOP's hopes at gaining back the Senate went from slight to virtually nonexistent. I've stated many times on this site that moving further to the right doesn't get them anywhere with independents. This is especially true for a very blue state like Delaware. It may even be true for a red state like Nevada. If you don't want to take my word for it, how about this guy?
Former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove told Fox News Channel, "This is not a race we're going to be able to win."
If he says it, what does that say about the current state of the GOP?
This was left in comments recently.
After O'Donnell's big win last night, I think both Dems and Repubes should be deathly afraid. The Tea Party has spoken.
Well, GOP stalwarts should be afraid. The Dems? Maybe in tossup states like Colorado or Wisconsin. But Delaware? I don't think so. This was a primary, folks, with only 55,000 people turning out. 29,000 of them voted for O'Donnell. In many ways, this was a glorified nominating convention. With the national GOP not spending any money on this state, Ms. O'Donnell is going to have a tough time winning in a general. Explaining her views on abortion and masturbation will be even tougher.
In fact, we already know how she would do in a general...poorly. She was the party nominee in 2008 and lost to Joe Biden (260,000 to 140,000). So, deathly afraid? Not so much.
All eyes should be on the House now. With so little polling and many Tea Party candidates vying for seats, it's certainly going to be an interesting 48 days!
Former George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove told Fox News Channel, "This is not a race we're going to be able to win."
If he says it, what does that say about the current state of the GOP?
This was left in comments recently.
After O'Donnell's big win last night, I think both Dems and Repubes should be deathly afraid. The Tea Party has spoken.
Well, GOP stalwarts should be afraid. The Dems? Maybe in tossup states like Colorado or Wisconsin. But Delaware? I don't think so. This was a primary, folks, with only 55,000 people turning out. 29,000 of them voted for O'Donnell. In many ways, this was a glorified nominating convention. With the national GOP not spending any money on this state, Ms. O'Donnell is going to have a tough time winning in a general. Explaining her views on abortion and masturbation will be even tougher.
In fact, we already know how she would do in a general...poorly. She was the party nominee in 2008 and lost to Joe Biden (260,000 to 140,000). So, deathly afraid? Not so much.
All eyes should be on the House now. With so little polling and many Tea Party candidates vying for seats, it's certainly going to be an interesting 48 days!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Welcome Back, Mr. Kotter
Juris is back from his travels and left an interesting comment below that I wanted to bring out front in its own post.
I suspect there are two reasons the Dems are painting such a bleak picture: 1) fire up the base by scaring them (classic Repub tactic, no?), and/or 2) the worse the run up looks - anything short of annihilation and they can claim a victory of sorts.
Regarding his first point, I agree. Let's take a look at some numbers.
Here are the results from the 2008 election (popular vote)
Barack Obama-69,456,897
John McCain-59,934,814
Generally, there are more people that vote in presidential election years. So, in 2008 we have around 130 million. Estimates for this year will be around 80 million. Now, of the 60 million that voted for McCain, I'm betting that around 40 million are hard core GOP base folks who vote in every election. Of Obama's 70 million, the hard core Dem base is less than that...maybe 35 million. In 2008, the hardcore GOP base is manageable because of all the independents and the "every 4 year voters" that the Dems swayed. But in an off year? It's devastating. That's why the Dems are in trouble.
The conservative base is the largest minority voting bloc in this country (copyright: Jerry Falwell). Add in the Tea Party folks and the scales are tipped (assuming 80 million turnout) in favor of the GOP. If independents flip or don't show up like they did in 2008 and the Dems can't spark their base, the losses will be significant. So, this may be why they are using this tactic and will continue to do so for the next 49 days.
Regarding your second point, if they lose either House, it's a loss. And, after John Boehner was spanked into shape yesterday, we know what a GOP run House is going to look like: Fuck you, Mr. President. The GOP are going to disagree with him on everything. The Dems might be able to claim a victory but they will be completely wrong. The loss of the House will be a disaster for the party and nothing will get done.
The other thing to consider in all of this, which ties in to my point above regarding turnout, is the difference between likely voters and registered voters. With the likely, the GOP has the edge. But the registered voters are split down the middle with each party in a dead heat.
So who is going to turn out?
I suspect there are two reasons the Dems are painting such a bleak picture: 1) fire up the base by scaring them (classic Repub tactic, no?), and/or 2) the worse the run up looks - anything short of annihilation and they can claim a victory of sorts.
Regarding his first point, I agree. Let's take a look at some numbers.
Here are the results from the 2008 election (popular vote)
Barack Obama-69,456,897
John McCain-59,934,814
Generally, there are more people that vote in presidential election years. So, in 2008 we have around 130 million. Estimates for this year will be around 80 million. Now, of the 60 million that voted for McCain, I'm betting that around 40 million are hard core GOP base folks who vote in every election. Of Obama's 70 million, the hard core Dem base is less than that...maybe 35 million. In 2008, the hardcore GOP base is manageable because of all the independents and the "every 4 year voters" that the Dems swayed. But in an off year? It's devastating. That's why the Dems are in trouble.
The conservative base is the largest minority voting bloc in this country (copyright: Jerry Falwell). Add in the Tea Party folks and the scales are tipped (assuming 80 million turnout) in favor of the GOP. If independents flip or don't show up like they did in 2008 and the Dems can't spark their base, the losses will be significant. So, this may be why they are using this tactic and will continue to do so for the next 49 days.
Regarding your second point, if they lose either House, it's a loss. And, after John Boehner was spanked into shape yesterday, we know what a GOP run House is going to look like: Fuck you, Mr. President. The GOP are going to disagree with him on everything. The Dems might be able to claim a victory but they will be completely wrong. The loss of the House will be a disaster for the party and nothing will get done.
The other thing to consider in all of this, which ties in to my point above regarding turnout, is the difference between likely voters and registered voters. With the likely, the GOP has the edge. But the registered voters are split down the middle with each party in a dead heat.
So who is going to turn out?
Monday, September 13, 2010
MSNBC News Staff=Pikers.
"You pick you narrative and the news doesn't fit your narrative, change your fucking news!"
No shit.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Nine Years
Nine years ago this morning, he kissed his wife and three children goodbye and went to work as a cook at Windows on the World. All that remains of him is his leather wallet, an ID card, and some coins. His name was Abdoul-Karim Traore. Nine years later, the prayers of his wife Hadidjatou and their three children are not welcome on or near Ground Zero.
They, along with the scores of American troops of Islamic faith in Afghanistan who are currently putting their lives on the line for Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Terry Jones and Newt Gingrich as well as everyone else in this country, are effectively being called baby killers.
Land of the free, eh? We have come nowhere since 9-11-01 and somewhere in a cave the inexplicably still alive Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are having a good chuckle.
Because they are still winning.
They, along with the scores of American troops of Islamic faith in Afghanistan who are currently putting their lives on the line for Sarah Palin, John Boehner, Terry Jones and Newt Gingrich as well as everyone else in this country, are effectively being called baby killers.
Land of the free, eh? We have come nowhere since 9-11-01 and somewhere in a cave the inexplicably still alive Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are having a good chuckle.
Because they are still winning.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Searching For Answers
In the last couple of days, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and John Boehner have all compared the burning of the Koran by Pastor Jones to the building of the Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero saying that both are bad ideas.
To equate these two things as both being "bad ideas" is completely ridiculous and unbelievably offensive. How these three people and their supporters think that the malicious act of burning a religious text is anywhere near the construction of a place for people to gather in play, study and worship is beyond me. I don't get it. Anyone care to fill me in on what I am missing?
I've written quite a bit on here about my prejudice against Muslim men but I have to say that the backlash to the building of the center in New York has shown me how truly awful this bias is and has more or less extinguished it. There were around 60 AMERICANS of Islamic faith that died on 9-11 and they have every right to grieve and pray at Ground Zero, near Ground Zero, or anywhere else for that matter.
We must show ourselves to be a more tolerant and accepting nation. It was not Muslims that attacked us on 9-11...it was a collection of psychotics that twisted Muslim faith into something it is clearly not. If we continue protesting the building of this community center, we reveal ourselves to be no better than them...succumbing to intolerance, hate, anger, and fear.
Our country is better than this and we have much bigger problems (see: our economy) to tackle than this garbage.
To equate these two things as both being "bad ideas" is completely ridiculous and unbelievably offensive. How these three people and their supporters think that the malicious act of burning a religious text is anywhere near the construction of a place for people to gather in play, study and worship is beyond me. I don't get it. Anyone care to fill me in on what I am missing?
I've written quite a bit on here about my prejudice against Muslim men but I have to say that the backlash to the building of the center in New York has shown me how truly awful this bias is and has more or less extinguished it. There were around 60 AMERICANS of Islamic faith that died on 9-11 and they have every right to grieve and pray at Ground Zero, near Ground Zero, or anywhere else for that matter.
We must show ourselves to be a more tolerant and accepting nation. It was not Muslims that attacked us on 9-11...it was a collection of psychotics that twisted Muslim faith into something it is clearly not. If we continue protesting the building of this community center, we reveal ourselves to be no better than them...succumbing to intolerance, hate, anger, and fear.
Our country is better than this and we have much bigger problems (see: our economy) to tackle than this garbage.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Full Swing
The fall election season is now officially in full swing. I urge all of you to click on the icon to the left (electoral.vote.com) and check out Andy's site. It is chock full o' great data and info. He will be updating it pretty much every day from now through November.
His algorithm has the Dems keeping the House but being more in danger of losing the Senate which is interesting. He bases this on the fact that 94 percent of House district's don't have any polls out. So how does Chris Matthews know that the House is "gone?" Good question. Also interesting is that Andy has pointed out that three seats (DE-AL, HI-1, and LA-2) are nearly certain to go blue. That would mean that the GOP needs 42 out of the others to flip.
If the House does go GOP, Andy's got an interesting take on what could happen.
Also worth considering is the difference between 218 seats in the House and a working majority. A number of new representatives are probably going to be tea partiers who are running on a platform of cutting the federal deficit. If the first thing a new Republican-controlled House does is bring up a bill to cut taxes--without cutting spending, which is always difficult to do because every line in the federal budget has supporters--then passing this bill would increase the deficit. Some of the people who ran on cutting the deficit may not be too keen on increasing it as their first official act. So in practice, to actually get anything done, the Republicans may have to pick up 45 to 50 seats, a much more difficult task than getting 39 because it requires winning some of the "landslider" seats, which the Democrats-who have more money than the Republicans--will fiercely defend.
While I don't want the GOP to take over the House, it would be interesting to see what might happen if this were to occur. The old school GOPers aren't going to cut spending....even though they say they are going to..which puts them in a fight with the new TP backed folks. These folks may end up voting with the Dems on bills but for opposite reasons.
Something else to look at is this article from the Times today.
Republicans are within reach of gaining control of eight or more chambers in state legislatures this fall, according to interviews with Republicans, Democrats and independent political analysts. That would give Republicans the power to draw more Congressional districts in their favor, since the expected gains come just as many legislatures will play a major role in the once-a-decade process of redrawing the boundaries of those districts.
As the saying goes, all politics are local. This is the real story of the Election 2010. With the census being done this year, new CDs are going to be drawn for 2012 that will have sweeping consequences. Pay attention to how these local state houses turn out and if many stay blue, the GOP taking the House back for two years might not be the end of the world for Democrats.
His algorithm has the Dems keeping the House but being more in danger of losing the Senate which is interesting. He bases this on the fact that 94 percent of House district's don't have any polls out. So how does Chris Matthews know that the House is "gone?" Good question. Also interesting is that Andy has pointed out that three seats (DE-AL, HI-1, and LA-2) are nearly certain to go blue. That would mean that the GOP needs 42 out of the others to flip.
If the House does go GOP, Andy's got an interesting take on what could happen.
Also worth considering is the difference between 218 seats in the House and a working majority. A number of new representatives are probably going to be tea partiers who are running on a platform of cutting the federal deficit. If the first thing a new Republican-controlled House does is bring up a bill to cut taxes--without cutting spending, which is always difficult to do because every line in the federal budget has supporters--then passing this bill would increase the deficit. Some of the people who ran on cutting the deficit may not be too keen on increasing it as their first official act. So in practice, to actually get anything done, the Republicans may have to pick up 45 to 50 seats, a much more difficult task than getting 39 because it requires winning some of the "landslider" seats, which the Democrats-who have more money than the Republicans--will fiercely defend.
While I don't want the GOP to take over the House, it would be interesting to see what might happen if this were to occur. The old school GOPers aren't going to cut spending....even though they say they are going to..which puts them in a fight with the new TP backed folks. These folks may end up voting with the Dems on bills but for opposite reasons.
Something else to look at is this article from the Times today.
Republicans are within reach of gaining control of eight or more chambers in state legislatures this fall, according to interviews with Republicans, Democrats and independent political analysts. That would give Republicans the power to draw more Congressional districts in their favor, since the expected gains come just as many legislatures will play a major role in the once-a-decade process of redrawing the boundaries of those districts.
As the saying goes, all politics are local. This is the real story of the Election 2010. With the census being done this year, new CDs are going to be drawn for 2012 that will have sweeping consequences. Pay attention to how these local state houses turn out and if many stay blue, the GOP taking the House back for two years might not be the end of the world for Democrats.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Ah, the burning of books...again....
I'm having a hard time figuring out how Terry Jones, pastor of the ironically named Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, justifies a Koran burning ceremony on September 11th. The entire proceeding plays right into the hands of the hirabis...giving them yet another propaganda tool for recruitment. Thankfully, General Patraeus agrees.
Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence ," Gen. David Petraeus said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
That doesn't matter to Jones, though, The burning will go ahead as promised. So much for religious tolerance.
And we're back to book burning....again? Sheesh....
Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan -- and around the world -- to inflame public opinion and incite violence ," Gen. David Petraeus said. "Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
That doesn't matter to Jones, though, The burning will go ahead as promised. So much for religious tolerance.
And we're back to book burning....again? Sheesh....
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Score Card
Ah, I see. Apparently, there were NOT any headless bodies in the Arizona desert.
So, let's see now...no headless bodies....illegal immigration down....arrests by the Obama administration up...and violent crime down in Arizona.
By my count, that makes FOUR things the GOP have wrong about regarding the immigration issue.
So, let's see now...no headless bodies....illegal immigration down....arrests by the Obama administration up...and violent crime down in Arizona.
By my count, that makes FOUR things the GOP have wrong about regarding the immigration issue.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Wow
"The House is gone."
----Susan Page, USA Today, commenting on the Chris Matthews show, 3 Sept 2010
I know it's cold outside here in MN (55 degrees) but my calender says Sept 3, not November 3rd.
Never in my life have I seen so many people, including Democrats, conceding defeat for an election so far off. Perhaps there is some truth to the jibes of lily livered, spineless and weak.
What a bunch of fucking pussies....
----Susan Page, USA Today, commenting on the Chris Matthews show, 3 Sept 2010
I know it's cold outside here in MN (55 degrees) but my calender says Sept 3, not November 3rd.
Never in my life have I seen so many people, including Democrats, conceding defeat for an election so far off. Perhaps there is some truth to the jibes of lily livered, spineless and weak.
What a bunch of fucking pussies....
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Why Sarah Does So Well
A couple of days ago, I put up that quote from Saul Alinksy regarding his warning, in 1972, that the middle class of this country would be driven to conservatism. Go to any conservative rally today and you will hear from Beck, Limbaugh etc.. screaming about "taking our country back." Alinsky saw this perfectly when he saw quite clearly that the white middle class was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically-active citizens. This is exactly what has happened since the election of Barack Obama and quite ironic considering that Alinksy is now required reading for FreedomWorks people.
This is also why Sarah Palin is doing as well she is right now.
Arianna Huffington has a wonderful piece called Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzlies, Carl Jung, and the Power of Archetypes. In it, she details the appeal of Sarah Palin and why she is so effective.
We are awash in crises right now -- crises that require smart and creative policy fixes. So why is somebody who so rarely deals in policy fixes so popular? It's because Palin's message operates on a level deeper than policy statements about the economy or financial reform or health care or the war in Afghanistan.
Clearly, this is true. Look at her supporters.
It's not Palin's positions people respond to -- it's her use of symbols. Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young? That's straight out of Jung's "collective unconscious" -- the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung's words, "universal images that have existed since the remotest times." Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are "inborn forms... of perception and apprehension," the "deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity."
Alinksy spoke of this archetype as well and not only correctly predicted the coming of Ronald Reagan but the shift of large swaths of the the middle class to conservatism. In fact, Palin's use of the grizzly bear is not unlike Reagan's use of it in the 1984 campaign when he alluded to a frightened Walter Mondale not standing up to bear known as the Soviet Union.
I've heard many people say that voters in this country have now "seen the light," are becoming more conservative, and will take their country back. With the advent of the Tea Party, they are convinced that voters have now adopted their ideology and will send many packing come November 2nd. I contend that it's more that the movement's leaders (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich) know very well how to use symbols to tap into the collective unconscious and manipulate those inborn forms of perception and apprehension. How can they do this?
Alinsky...
The middle class actually feels more defeated and lost today on a wide range of issues than the poor do. And this creates a situation that's supercharged with both opportunity and danger. There's a second revolution seething beneath the surface of middle-class America -- the revolution of a bewildered, frightened and as-yet-inarticulate group of desperate people groping for alternatives -- for hope.
Their fears and their frustrations over their impotence can turn into political paranoia and demonize them, driving them to the right, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Sadly, he died in the same year that he gave this interview and his stated goal, which follows, was never realized.
But we're not going to abandon the field to them without a long, hard fight -- a fight I think we're going to win. Because we'll show the middle class their real enemies: the corporate power elite that runs and ruins the country -- the true beneficiaries of Nixon's so-called economic reforms.
Never in a million years would Alinksy imagine how fulfilled his prophecy would be regarding corporate power and how it became a stark reality with the 2007-2008 economic crisis. It's not that people are shifting to conservatism, it's that they are frustrated by their economic situation which was brought on largely by this corporate power elite.
But they don't see this because the people that stand to benefit the most from maintaining this power are extremely adept at channeling Jung and swaying them, as Alinsky predicted, to their views. In essence, they are supporting the people who fucked them over in the first place. How ironic it will be when they see that most, if not all, of the "taking this God Damned country back" will, more than likely, result in their situations becoming worse.
And the Democrats, whose policies aren't perfect but at least they are attempting to steer things back in the right direction, are completely terrible at using images and archetypes.
Maybe it's because they are too busy trying solutions that have practical application in reality.
This is also why Sarah Palin is doing as well she is right now.
Arianna Huffington has a wonderful piece called Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzlies, Carl Jung, and the Power of Archetypes. In it, she details the appeal of Sarah Palin and why she is so effective.
We are awash in crises right now -- crises that require smart and creative policy fixes. So why is somebody who so rarely deals in policy fixes so popular? It's because Palin's message operates on a level deeper than policy statements about the economy or financial reform or health care or the war in Afghanistan.
Clearly, this is true. Look at her supporters.
It's not Palin's positions people respond to -- it's her use of symbols. Mama grizzlies rearing up to protect their young? That's straight out of Jung's "collective unconscious" -- the term Jung used to describe the part of the unconscious mind that, unlike the personal unconscious, is shared by all human beings, made up of archetypes, or, in Jung's words, "universal images that have existed since the remotest times." Unlike personal experiences, these archetypes are inherited, not acquired. They are "inborn forms... of perception and apprehension," the "deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity."
Alinksy spoke of this archetype as well and not only correctly predicted the coming of Ronald Reagan but the shift of large swaths of the the middle class to conservatism. In fact, Palin's use of the grizzly bear is not unlike Reagan's use of it in the 1984 campaign when he alluded to a frightened Walter Mondale not standing up to bear known as the Soviet Union.
I've heard many people say that voters in this country have now "seen the light," are becoming more conservative, and will take their country back. With the advent of the Tea Party, they are convinced that voters have now adopted their ideology and will send many packing come November 2nd. I contend that it's more that the movement's leaders (Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Gingrich) know very well how to use symbols to tap into the collective unconscious and manipulate those inborn forms of perception and apprehension. How can they do this?
Alinsky...
The middle class actually feels more defeated and lost today on a wide range of issues than the poor do. And this creates a situation that's supercharged with both opportunity and danger. There's a second revolution seething beneath the surface of middle-class America -- the revolution of a bewildered, frightened and as-yet-inarticulate group of desperate people groping for alternatives -- for hope.
Their fears and their frustrations over their impotence can turn into political paranoia and demonize them, driving them to the right, making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday. The right would give them scapegoats for their misery -- blacks, hippies, Communists -- and if it wins, this country will become the first totalitarian state with a national anthem celebrating "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Sadly, he died in the same year that he gave this interview and his stated goal, which follows, was never realized.
But we're not going to abandon the field to them without a long, hard fight -- a fight I think we're going to win. Because we'll show the middle class their real enemies: the corporate power elite that runs and ruins the country -- the true beneficiaries of Nixon's so-called economic reforms.
Never in a million years would Alinksy imagine how fulfilled his prophecy would be regarding corporate power and how it became a stark reality with the 2007-2008 economic crisis. It's not that people are shifting to conservatism, it's that they are frustrated by their economic situation which was brought on largely by this corporate power elite.
But they don't see this because the people that stand to benefit the most from maintaining this power are extremely adept at channeling Jung and swaying them, as Alinsky predicted, to their views. In essence, they are supporting the people who fucked them over in the first place. How ironic it will be when they see that most, if not all, of the "taking this God Damned country back" will, more than likely, result in their situations becoming worse.
And the Democrats, whose policies aren't perfect but at least they are attempting to steer things back in the right direction, are completely terrible at using images and archetypes.
Maybe it's because they are too busy trying solutions that have practical application in reality.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Take a look at this video that was sent to me a while back.
So, let's see if I have this right...Detroit sucks because it's run by leftists and entitlements. And Mr. Crowder would like to know how that is working out?
Apparently, better than he wants to say in this video.
Jobs are growing. Factory workers are anticipating their first healthy profit-sharing checks in years. Sales are rebounding, with the Commerce Department reporting Friday that automobiles were a bright spot in July’s mostly disappointing retail sales.
What? Really?
The improving mood here reflects real changes in how Detroit is doing business — and a growing sense that the changes are turning the Big Three around, according to industry executives and analysts tracking the recovery.
Certainly they have a long way to go. But here are the facts.
Ford made more money in the first six months of this year than in the previous five years combined. G.M. is profitable and preparing for one of the biggest public stock offerings in American history Even Chrysler, the automaker thought least likely to survive the recession, is hiring new workers.
GM? Don't you mean "Government Motors?" It was my understanding from my colleagues on the right that this was destined to fail. And yet we have this news.
GM said Thursday that it made $1.3 billion from April through June, its second straight quarter in the black and a complete reversal from last year, when it was forced into bankruptcy and the U.S. government took a majority stake.
The federal government got a 61 percent stake in GM in exchange for $43 billion in aid to keep it alive. It could sell some or all of that when GM makes its public stock offering perhaps as early as November.
The proof is emerging in dealer showrooms, where customers are buying more of Detroit’s cars and paying higher prices. In July, G.M., Ford and Chrysler sold their vehicles at an average price of $30,400 — $1,350 more than a year ago and higher than an overall industry gain of $1,100, according to the auto research Web site Edmunds.com.
But why is all this happening?
Many of the excesses of the past — overproduction, bloated vehicle lineups, expensive rebates — are gone. All three carmakers have shed workers, plants and brands. And a new breed of top management — the three chief executives are outsiders to Detroit, as is the newly named G.M. chief executive — says it is determined to keep the Big Three lean, agile and focused on building better cars that earn a profit.
And this was all done at the behest of the government...a supposedly socialist one who is now poised to sell back their shares and let the big three continue on their merry capitalist way.
Of course, the image isn't completely rosy and they do have a long way to go but it certainly is working out much better than Crowder's heavily biased and over generalized piece makes it out to be. Just as FDR told GM to turn out a plane an hour, President Obama told them to restructure their companies to be more profitable.
It's like I've been saying all along. He's not a socialist...he's trying to save capitalism.
So, let's see if I have this right...Detroit sucks because it's run by leftists and entitlements. And Mr. Crowder would like to know how that is working out?
Apparently, better than he wants to say in this video.
Jobs are growing. Factory workers are anticipating their first healthy profit-sharing checks in years. Sales are rebounding, with the Commerce Department reporting Friday that automobiles were a bright spot in July’s mostly disappointing retail sales.
What? Really?
The improving mood here reflects real changes in how Detroit is doing business — and a growing sense that the changes are turning the Big Three around, according to industry executives and analysts tracking the recovery.
Certainly they have a long way to go. But here are the facts.
Ford made more money in the first six months of this year than in the previous five years combined. G.M. is profitable and preparing for one of the biggest public stock offerings in American history Even Chrysler, the automaker thought least likely to survive the recession, is hiring new workers.
GM? Don't you mean "Government Motors?" It was my understanding from my colleagues on the right that this was destined to fail. And yet we have this news.
GM said Thursday that it made $1.3 billion from April through June, its second straight quarter in the black and a complete reversal from last year, when it was forced into bankruptcy and the U.S. government took a majority stake.
The federal government got a 61 percent stake in GM in exchange for $43 billion in aid to keep it alive. It could sell some or all of that when GM makes its public stock offering perhaps as early as November.
The proof is emerging in dealer showrooms, where customers are buying more of Detroit’s cars and paying higher prices. In July, G.M., Ford and Chrysler sold their vehicles at an average price of $30,400 — $1,350 more than a year ago and higher than an overall industry gain of $1,100, according to the auto research Web site Edmunds.com.
But why is all this happening?
Many of the excesses of the past — overproduction, bloated vehicle lineups, expensive rebates — are gone. All three carmakers have shed workers, plants and brands. And a new breed of top management — the three chief executives are outsiders to Detroit, as is the newly named G.M. chief executive — says it is determined to keep the Big Three lean, agile and focused on building better cars that earn a profit.
And this was all done at the behest of the government...a supposedly socialist one who is now poised to sell back their shares and let the big three continue on their merry capitalist way.
Of course, the image isn't completely rosy and they do have a long way to go but it certainly is working out much better than Crowder's heavily biased and over generalized piece makes it out to be. Just as FDR told GM to turn out a plane an hour, President Obama told them to restructure their companies to be more profitable.
It's like I've been saying all along. He's not a socialist...he's trying to save capitalism.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Whither Alinksy
Usually around once or twice a week, I'll get an email or comment that ties the teachings of Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama. Certainly, Alinsky was an influence on President Obama in terms of his philosophy on community organizing. The intimation, though, was that it was much more than that. By tying Obama to the "known radical" Alinsky this proves how "radical" our current president is in his viewpoints.
So, imagine my surprise when I read this article on the Tea Party in the New York Times and saw this line.
New employees receive a required-reading list that includes “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky, the father of modern community organizing,
Huh. That's interesting. The entire article is very illuminating regarding this "grass roots" movement.
Even more interesting is that Alinksy, in one of his final interviews before his death in 1972, worried that the middle class (Nixon and Agnew's "Silent Majority) would be driven to the right "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday" whose stated motive would be "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
Eight years later his prophecy proved all too true. And if you listen to the Koch Foundation sponsored FreedomWorks, they are saying the same thing.
So are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
So, imagine my surprise when I read this article on the Tea Party in the New York Times and saw this line.
New employees receive a required-reading list that includes “Rules for Radicals,” by Saul Alinsky, the father of modern community organizing,
Huh. That's interesting. The entire article is very illuminating regarding this "grass roots" movement.
Even more interesting is that Alinksy, in one of his final interviews before his death in 1972, worried that the middle class (Nixon and Agnew's "Silent Majority) would be driven to the right "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday" whose stated motive would be "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
Eight years later his prophecy proved all too true. And if you listen to the Koch Foundation sponsored FreedomWorks, they are saying the same thing.
So are Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Again...so what?
There's a lot of liberal outrage out there after the big rally in DC yesterday. I still don't get it. Don't people on the left understand that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin choose their words to provoke anger? And this anger leads to a strengthening of their fan base and positions which ultimately means more power?
Take, for example, this quote.
You have the same spine and moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
Why are people outraged by this? It's a compliment. and should be lauded. And if Ms. Palin and her followers want to embrace the philosophy espoused by Dr. King, that's fantastic! They can start with an economic bill of rights and social justice.
Take, for example, this quote.
You have the same spine and moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King.
Why are people outraged by this? It's a compliment. and should be lauded. And if Ms. Palin and her followers want to embrace the philosophy espoused by Dr. King, that's fantastic! They can start with an economic bill of rights and social justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)