Question Of The Day
[Program Note: Only a few days left in our Holiday Fundraising Drive! If you're sending your donation in by "snail mail," drop me an email and let me know the amount, and I will add it to our total. We're very close to reaching the goal we set, so get those last-minute donations in, folks!]
In lieu of a column today, we're going to throw the conversation open, with a question to get the ball rolling.
If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, what will the mainstream, inside-the-Beltway media do?
(A.) They'll suddenly discover Ron Paul, and give him the coverage and seriousness he deserves after winning the first Republican primary season contest.
(B.) They'll trot out the storylines they've been warming up all week to explain why "Ron Paul winning Iowa doesn't matter," and blame his win on (take your pick) the weather, the youth vote, the caucus system, the price of corn, or perhaps marijuana smokers.
(C.) They will totally and completely ignore Ron Paul and his victory, and go back to the Romney-versus-Gingrich storyline immediately.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
First, I doubt Paul will win Iowa. The opinion snapshots always lag the news cycle, and we're finding out that MSM inattention to him was actually a kindness.
Second, in the event he does win Iowa the GOP has an instant disaster on its hands. Ron Paul will become the poster-boy for racist newsletters and John Bircher wingnuttery in the Republican Party.
I read somewhere that up 30% of Paul's support was coming from "young and/or former Obama" supporters in Iowa. It seems weird to me, but since Paul previously was polling 15-18 and now appears to be polling 5-7 point higher ... ok, I'll buy it for the time being.
Having said that, in 2008 it was accounted a major (not minor) miracle that Obama pulled so many first time and first time young caucas goers. These are notorious for not showing up. I don't know if Ron Paul has the level of enthusiasm that Obama had in Iowa in 2008.
This whole thing could still hinge on the weather, and fair weather friends.
Parenthetic Note on B (above):
A better question would be not how the media will downgrade it, but whether or not the rest of the country will downgrade it by themselves.
We get all wrapped up in this stuff and forget that most people could care less about Iowa. As a point of fact, Nate Silver's 538 has the latest poll numbers for the next few primaries on the blogroll side of the page.
IA: 'Lil Newt is 3rd at 13%
NH: Newtie is 3rd at 16%
SC: Mr. Gingrich is 1st at 37%
FL: The Estimable Mr. Gingrich is 1st at 48%
I think it possible that the constant chaos in Iowa has relegated Iowa to Harold Stassen importance in the nominating process. With or without the media.
(can I be sent to jail for saying that?????)
I dunno if Paul is going to win the GOP Primary..
But I can tell you that Team Obama is shittin' bricks that Romney will win... :D
SHOCK POLL: ROMNEY 45% OBAMA 39%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
Michale
353
So if you discount the 6 - 7% R bias on Rasmussen polls, Obama is only ahead by 1-3%?
I agree, that doesn't seem to be exactly a ringing endorsement of Obama.
the 6% is from here
for some reason the comment above didn't take it?
So if you discount the 6 - 7% R bias on Rasmussen polls,
Translation:
You don't like and/or agree with polls that say things contrary to your belief/ideology..
:D
Michale
354
Well, we know at least one person doesn't bother to read references.
No surprise there, but what about the other people on the site?
I did read the reference...
TIME calls it a "conservative-leaning polling group"..
Whooopdeee sheets....
Of course, since TIME says it, it MUST be true, right???
I am sure if it had Obama leading Romney, you would swear by it.. :D
Michale
355
Ok, Michale, you've managed to confuse me.
MediaMattersis not the Times.
The Times currently supports the blog 538, but Nate Silver is a principled, honest statician (I know him. He's a good guy). The articles on Nate's criticisms of Rasmussen are easily available. You could read them and decide for yourself whether or not you think them valid.
Further, you could have found the same criticisms of Rasmussen by Nate prior to his going to the Times. You might even have found him defending Rasmussen in a previous incarnation.
You COULD have even found some countering comment.
Instead, you snark about the Times must be right?
Whatever.
Oh MEDIA MATTERS!!???
Seriously!!!!
The TIMES is the epitome of partisan objectivity compared to MEDIA MATTERS...
Why not just say, "HuffPo says Rasmussen is biased"..
THAT would be a more objective source than Media Matters..
Media Matters for America (MMfA) is a politically progressive media watchdog group which says it is "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
Nate Silver works for the New York Times..
Enough said on HIS objectivity...
I have read his articles... His opinions are very biased in favor of Left Wing stances..
But you have (inadvertently, I am sure :D) proven my point about polls..
They are useless because their results can be skewed to say whatever the pollster WANTS to say...
My only point in bringing up this poll is because I knew SOMEONE would argue the validity of the poll, simply based on the fact that it says something that Weigantians (in general) disagree with..
Had the exact same pollster said that Obama was favored to win, it would have passed without comment... :D
Michale
356
Totally off topic, because it's really kewl... :D
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2011/10/17/technology-then-and-now/?test=faces#slide=1
Michale
361
Chris,
I'm going to try to turn [2]-[11] into a blog entry. I think I'll call it something like:
The left is from VENUS ... The right from MARS
How do you want acknowledgement for your blog?
DerFarm -
"ChrisWeigant.com" is fine, with a link if possible. You can also link directly to each comment, by using the "Permalink" at the bottom of the comment's text area.
Michale -
CNN's recent poll found Obama beating Romney at 52-45. But I'm still more interested in his job approval poll numbers, which have been much better for Obama this month. I'll be writing my ObamaPollWatch article Monday, probably, so I'll have more to say about it then, but I'm thinking it's a combination of (1) 0.4% drop in unemployment number last month, (2) the boys (and girls) coming home from Iraq, which was heavily covered in the news (and also heavily favored by the American public), and (3) general Xmas goodwill.
I think the most important number for the team to reelect Obama right now is going to be December's unemployment number, which will come out next Friday. If it keeps heading down, good news for Obama's chances. If it goes up or stays the same, not so good news.
-CW
Mostly B.
I think employment is more important than unemployment. If net job creation is three million, and four million discouraged workers decide it's worth sending out resumes again, that's good news even though unemployment spikes upward by a million.
The problem with the Unemployment figures is that it's misleading..
If the Unemployment number goes down, that doesn't necessarily mean that more people are employed..
It simply means that more people are off the Unemployment dole..
Doesn't mean they found work...
You have to look at other numbers to determine if Unemployment going down is a good thing.
The only way that a falling Unemployment number is a good thing is if it is accompanied by higher Job Creation numbers...
To date, it hasn't been that way much.
On the other hand, it's likely that the current lower Unemployment numbers are the result of seasonal hires...
Expect the Unemployment to rise considerably in Jan and Feb...
But we don't have to worry. Obama promised us that, if the Porkulus was passed, Unemployment would stay below 8%... :D
Michale
361
Speaking of Ron Paul...
I don't understand why the Left has such a problem with Ron Paul..
He has to be a Lefties Dream Come True....
He believes that Al Qaeda terrorists caught in the United States should be treated as common criminals. Cuff'ed and Stuff'ed and taken downtown for processing.
He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled and he wants them tried and sentenced in civil courts rather than by military tribunals.
Ron Paul thinks that any American who throws in with Al Qaeda should be arrested and tried in civilian courts, not summarily executed..
Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that the US's foreign activities resulted in 9/11 and the US, in essence, got what they deserved...
Now, I don't really know for sure if Ron Paul believes all this... One opinion writer apparently does...
However, if these are really the beliefs of Ron Paul, then he should be the Democrat's Dream Candidate...
"This game's sooo confusing."
-Danny Bateman, THE REPLACEMENTS
:D
Michale....
362
I think employment is more important than unemployment. If net job creation is three million, and four million discouraged workers decide it's worth sending out resumes again, that's good news even though unemployment spikes upward by a million.
Looks like dsws made the point before I did.. :D
That's what I get for not reading all the comments first.. :D
Michale
363
Michale,
I dunno if Paul is going to win the GOP Primary..
But I can tell you that Team Obama is shittin' bricks that Romney will win... :D
Surely, you jest!
Either that, or you haven't been paying any attention to the debates. Romney needs a lot of work and he has less than a year to go. This poor guy won't know what hit him if he should ever have the misfortune of going up against Obama in a debate.
Romney can be thankful, though, that he wouldn't have to worry about debating the likes of Biden or Geithner ...
CNN's recent poll found Obama beating Romney at 52-45.
That's the problem with polls...
If you search around, you can find a poll that will support ANYTHING one wants to claim...
Polls are useless because they are subjective, susceptible to the whims, biases and prejudices of the pollster...
DF's reaction to the Rasmussen poll is a perfect example...
He wrote off the poll results because, in his mind, Rasmussen is a "conservative" leaning poll. To back up this claim, he quotes from a MEDIA MATTERS article/opinion. Media Matters being as Left Wing as they come... But it IS the choice reference for the Girl Scouts Of America.... :D
Having said all that, this in NO WAY diminishes your Obama Poll Watch series.. As you have stated, you use the POLL of polls and your usage has been completely consistent...
Now, pardon me while I wash this brown stuff off my nose... :D
Michale
364
Liz,
Either that, or you haven't been paying any attention to the debates. Romney needs a lot of work and he has less than a year to go. This poor guy won't know what hit him if he should ever have the misfortune of going up against Obama in a debate.
Yea, I would have LOVED to see Obama go up against Gingrich...
That ALMOST would be worth another 4 years of Obama to see Gingrich mop the floor with Obama..
Almost.. Not quite, but almost...
I am not a real big Romney fan, but if he is the best one to beat Obama......
Michale
365
Michale,
However, if these are really the beliefs of Ron Paul, then he should be the Democrat's Dream Candidate...
This character is getting far more attention than he deserves. It would be a lot of fun, though, to see him go up against Team Obama.
Michale,
If Romney is the best one to beat Obama, then the Republicans are in more trouble than even I surmised.
Liz,
If Romney is the best one to beat Obama, then the Republicans are in more trouble than even I surmised.
No argument from me on that score...
Except to say that you should replace "Republicans" with "this country" and it would be even MORE apropos...
Michale
366
On the other hand, Obama is the best choice if you want a "Centrist Republican" as president.. :D
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2011/12/barack-obama-the-sane-republican/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshcom+%28Taylor+Marsh%29
Michale
367
Really can't argue with much of what Taylor Marsh says above...
If Obama ran on his Counter Terrorism record, he might actually win..
The problem with that is his CT record really pisses off Democrats across the board...
Michale
368
Michale,
Would you agree that, while divided government may have had its benefits before, now it has become the equivalent of dysfunctional government.
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama/Biden/Geithner could operate along side effective Democrat control of both houses of Congress - which they have never had to this point, I hasten to add.
It's too early in the day to read Taylor Marsh.
It's always too early in the day for that sort of nonsense ... :)
Michale,
I’m off to work for now but I see that you only need about 30 thoughts put to writing today and another 50 or so both for tomorrow and to start off the New Year ... very easily achievable!
See you later today for more enlightened discussion ...
There's more to politics than foreign policy.
abortion -- Paul is for the personhood amendment. So much for the pill.
Gold Standard -- Paul wants to go back to the gold standard.
Immigration -- send 'em all home
Birthright Citizenship -- Get rid of it. So much for the constitution (14th amendment)
Civil Rights -- its a states rights issue. And we all know how protective Mississippi is of Civil rights.
and a host of other Fab issues for the JBS.
Nah, if Ron Paul is the answer, its a really right wing question.
Second, in the event he does win Iowa the GOP has an instant disaster on its hands. Ron Paul will become the poster-boy for racist newsletters and John Bircher wingnuttery in the Republican Party.
@OsbourneInk
I think you hit the nail on the head though part of me believes the disaster has already happened. The Economist has this to say about the current crop of candidates:
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
In other words, mainstream Republican thought is looking pretty extreme. And this is coming from the Economist.
Republicans have laid all their bets on their media machine- that is, they believe they can take just about anyone and turn them into a winner through the magic of marketing.
I think 2012 is going to test this theory.
-David
DF,
There's more to politics than foreign policy.
Very true...
If Foreign Policy was the only parameter, ya'all would have thrown Obama to the wolves long ago.. :D
Michale.....
369
Liz,
Would you agree that, while divided government may have had its benefits before, now it has become the equivalent of dysfunctional government.
I would completely agree..
Where we (likely) differ is on whose fault it is...
It's my assertion that BOTH Partys are to blame. They both only support compromise if it furthers their Party agenda...
If it doesn't, then compromise is a deal with the devil...
Michale
370
Liz,
I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Obama/Biden/Geithner could operate along side effective Democrat control of both houses of Congress - which they have never had to this point, I hasten to add.
If your key word there is "effective", then I would agree with you. Obama has never had an "effective" Congress when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress..
However, it's unlikley that Democrats would EVER have an "effective" Congress even if each and every member of Congress WAS a Democrat.. :D
But Democrats did have a virtual lock on all facets of government for almost two years..
And all they did was make things TONs worse..
Even Obama himself said Americans were better off under Bush... :D
Let the spinning, parsing and nuance'ing begin!! :D
Michale
371
David,
Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.
There are many true and valid statements within that excerpt...
12m Illegal Immigrants are a drain on our resources and are giving absolutely nothing back in the way of taxes etc etc. Why SHOULD we continue to put up with that??
As for Global Warming?? That IS a conspiracy as has been amply proven beyond any doubt. By the bi, it's called "Climate Change" now.. Gotta make sure it's marketed properly, eh?? :^/
As long as Palestinians resort to, support and condone terrorism and Israel herself does not stoop to terrorism, then that's a pretty accurate statement..
All the rest are negotiable..
So I guess I am not a very good conservative, eh? :D
Michale....
372
So I guess I am not a very good conservative, eh?
BTW, here's the link:
http://www.economist.com/node/21542180
It's a great article on the dilemma facing conservatives.
These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney).
In a nutshell, this is the issue facing the Republican party though at this point I think they're too caught up in how powerful their message machine is to notice.
I think at this point they're more interested in testing out if they're capable of electing even the most unelectable of candidates. And they might be.
-David
I think at this point they're more interested in testing out if they're capable of electing even the most unelectable of candidates. And they might be.
Keep in mind that many people thought Obama was "unelectable" due to have absolutely NO political record or leadership experience..
Michale
373
Michale [17] -
You're almost right. Ron Paul is indeed the dream Democratic candidate... for the Republicans to nominate.
Paul-v-Obama? Can you say "50-state Obama landslide!"
I knew you could!
Heh.
-CW
Here's a further question for everyone, one that has been on my mind of late:
Will Ron Paul go third-party in 2012?
Republicans already live in fear of this happening, since he'd then become the "Ralph Nader of the right".
Personally, I think the chances are higher than most think, but I'm not sure exactly how high.
-CW
You're almost right. Ron Paul is indeed the dream Democratic candidate... for the Republicans to nominate.
Yea yea, ha ha...
But I don't understand why Dems don't flock to Paul.. He is everything that Dems want in a wartime President...
Michale
374
Will Ron Paul go third-party in 2012?
If the gods are cruel and capricious, there will be a Paul 3rd Party run, thereby guaranteeing an Obama second term..
And gods help us all...
Michale
375
CW-
If Ron Paul wins Iowa, the media narrative that I'd guess at is B) Iowa doesn't matter; it doesn't accurately represent the Republican party.
Bloomberg is already ahead of the game:
http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2011/12/why_a_paul_win_in_iowa_wont_matter.html
I don't think Paul would declare third party. But I think there is a definite desire for someone other than Romney so it's hard to know.
-David
But I don't understand why Dems don't flock to Paul.. He is everything that Dems want in a wartime President.
Because in the words of the immortal Crazy Eddie, Paul's economic ideas are ... insane!
:)
-David
Because in the words of the immortal Crazy Eddie, Paul's economic ideas are ... insane!
So, I guess what ya'all are saying is that torturing terrorists, keeping Gitmo open and basically being the world's police force isn't as high on the Dems Priority List as the economy...
OK... Kewl.. Just want to get that on record...
Michale
375
OK, people... It's pucker time..
I got about 31 hours to do 120+change posts...
I can't do it alone!!! :D
Michale
376
So, I guess what ya'all are saying is that torturing terrorists, keeping Gitmo open and basically being the world's police force isn't as high on the Dems Priority List as the economy...
I would take a serious look at Ron Paul's platform before heading on your current tack...
On the other hand I do really like his idea of letters of marque. Sure the diplomatic back lash will grossly out cost any savings but just think of the entertainment value. Just 3 years of letter of marques would fuel at least a couple of decades of great action films!
Bashi,
I would take a serious look at Ron Paul's platform before heading on your current tack...
Your assuming that I agree with those things...
I don't...
I don't have a problem with torturing terrorists..
Democrats do.. Ron Paul does..
I don't have a problem with blowing up Americans who are stoopid enough to throw their lot in with terrorists..
Democrats do.. Ron Paul does..
I don't have a problem with treating terrorism as a military problem, rather than a civilian/LEO issue...
Democrats do.. Ron Paul does..
See where I am going with this??? :D
My only point is that, during the Bush years, ya'all treated the actions of Bush as if they were War Crimes...
Now that Obama is channeling his Inner Bush, all of the sudden the Priority Factor has gone way WAY down...
Michale....
377
So, totally off on a tangent...
Has anyone seen the new show GRIMM??? We kinda like it... It's not totally out of Left Field like SUPERNATURAL, so Betina (my lovely wife of 30 years) likes it... :D For me, it's a tad tamer than Supernatural, but it's also a "cop show" so that makes it good.. :D
Michale
378
To continue the TV Show discussion...
I have to say....
ONCE UPON A TIME is a really interesting show... It's an adult Fairy Tale (not porn, get ya'alls minds outta the gutter!!! :D) yet it also has a story line in the here and now..
In a TV world where nothing is really new, OUAT really stands out as a fun and interesting show...
It also features the awesome acting talent of Stargate:Universe's Robert Carlyle..
Carlyle is a phenomenal acting talent who can do SciFi (SGU's Dr Rush), Fantasy (Once Upon A Time's RUMPELSTILTSKIN) and Drama (Ms Hodgkis Dance Studio)..
If ya'all haven't seen ONCE UPON A TIME, you are missing a rare TV event..
An Original Show... :D
Michale
380
See where I am going with this??? :D
Quite clearly. Trying to link the democrats to Ron Paul without bring up the Lions share of his platform.
Ron Paul is a strong opponent of Obama's health care plan. Does that make you a Ron Paul supporter?
Bashi,
I am not a Ron Paul supporter and nothing I have said can be construed as indicating such..
I am simply pointing out the similarities between what Ron Paul believes in and what Democrats believe in..
For example, many people here have argued that terrorism should be treated as a Law Enforcement problem.
Ron Paul believes the same thing...
Is this not accurate???
Michale
381
But he is against Obama's health care plan therefore according the logic you are putting forth you must be a Ron Paul supporter...
I am simply pointing out the similarities between what Ron Paul believes in and what Democrats believe in..
And I am doing the same for you :-)
Ahhhhh OK, I see where you are going...
There is a flaw in your reasoning...
During the Bush years, Democrats were emphatic and incensed to the point of hysteria regarding Torture, Indefinite Detention, Rendition and Wire Tapping laws..
At the time, that was ALL the Democrats screamed about...
Therefore, it's logical to conclude that those issues were very very VERY important to Democrats..
Now, Flash Forward (another really good show with an unusual and refreshing premise) to today...
There is a candidate that feels the same things about those issues with as much urgency and hysteria as Democrats put forth...
And yet that candidate is scorned by Democrats and the man who is continuing and EXPANDING the programs that is oh so very very VERY important to Democrats is given a pass..
I KNOW you are an intelligent human being.. So I can only assume you are being intentionally obtuse about the very obvious point I am making...
Michale
382
I probably disagree with the likes of Cenk Uyunger and Glenn Greenwald as much as humanly possible and still be on the same planet..
But, at least they are consistent..
They feel torture is wrong, regardless of whether or not it's a Republican or a Democrat who is the head torturer...
I disagree completely with the sentiment, but I can at least respect their consistency...
That's all I am saying...
Michale
383
And during the Obama years you were emphatic and incensed to the point of hysteria regarding opposition to Obama's health care plan.
I'm still not seeing the difference :-)
And there lies the interesting problem with Ron Paul. Just about everyone regardless of their political leanings will find a few good stances from Ron Paul that they agree. The problem being the same people will also find the other 95% of his platform varies from completely unworkable to bat shit crazy...
I did warn you from this current tack.
And during the Obama years you were emphatic and incensed to the point of hysteria regarding opposition to Obama's health care plan.
Please point to ANY post I made that was "emphatic" or "incensed" to the point of "hysteria" regarding Crap Care..
You can't, cause it never happened.. All I have stated is that it is unconstitutional... Which, in a few months will be proven as fact... :D
Yet, I can find posts from people during the Bush years that were all consumed about rendition, wire-tapping and torture..
During the Bush years, the level of concern over those issues was 99.8%....
During the Obama years, the level of concern over those issues are about 10%.. And THAT's being generous...
Let's face the facts...
Ya'all seem to be OK with torture, rendition, indefinite detention and all that, as long as it's a Democrat who'se in charge...
Just read a few of Osborne's or Cesca's blogs... Matt's current one about Cyenk is especially entertaining...
:D
Michale
384
And how many quatloos do you want to lose that says, when we get a GOP president in office, all of the sudden torture, rendition, wire-tapping and summary executions of American Citizens will all of the sudden become 99.8% important again and the stuff that's labeled as "War Crimes"...
*I* know it's going to happen...
*YOU* know it's going to happen...
Michale
385
Please point to ANY post I made that was "emphatic" or "incensed" to the point of "hysteria" regarding Crap Care..
I would have to point to all of them. The length and frequency of your rants on Obama's health care plan could easily be construed as emphatic, quite incensed and probably hysterical...
I would have to point to all of them. The length and frequency of your rants on Obama's health care plan could easily be construed as emphatic, quite incensed and probably hysterical...
Assumes facts not in evidence...
But, it's a nice dodge regarding your support of Obama over torture, rendition, wire-tapping and summary execution of Americans w/o due process... :D
It's OK.. I understand completely Bashi...
Those things aren't as big a priority for you, as long as it's a Democrat making the call.. :D
Michale
386
Assumes facts not in evidence...
Actually I was referring to facts in abundant evidence. Mountainous, gigantic evidence. Evidence so long that if stacked end to end would reach the moon. OK, maybe not that long. Still your rants on Obama's health care plan taken together is in the Dostoyevsky novel range rather than pulp novelette range...
But, it's a nice dodge regarding your support of Obama over torture, rendition, wire-tapping and summary execution of Americans w/o due process... :D
Wait a minute, you are accusing me of a dodge while changing the subject? Were we not trying to pin Ron Paul on each other? What happened to that?
Michale,
If Foreign Policy was the only parameter, ya'all would have thrown Obama to the wolves long ago.. :D
Au contraire, my friend!
During the Bush/Cheney era, the Republican cult of foreign policy disaster dealt the US many serious blows to its credibility and capacity for global leadership.
Through the Obama doctrine, the US is just now beginning to regain its leadership role in the world.
Michale,
It's my assertion that BOTH Partys are to blame. They both only support compromise if it furthers their Party agenda...
If it doesn't, then compromise is a deal with the devil...
I would challenge you to provide examples ( one example per post, please!) of when any Democrat-controlled Congress (effectively or otherwise) wreaked as much havoc on a Republican presidency and nearly brought the country to its knees in the process as Republicans in Washington have tried to do to this presidency and to their own country.
Michale,
If your key word there is "effective", then I would agree with you. Obama has never had an "effective" Congress when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress..
Yes, you are very perceptive - my key word was "effective".
However, I sure hope you didn't write that bit up there with a straight face because I would dearly love to have witnessed such a sight. :)
Seriously, I have one hyphenated word for you ... filibuster-proof!
Michale,
I have a question for you and it's so easy that I'm not going to give you even the slightest hint as to what the answer is ...
Given that Republicans have notoriously believed that deficits don't matter (who first said that?) and that they have never really believed in paying for their pet projects like say, wars and tax cuts and the like, when was it - precisely - when Republicans in Washington became so obsessed with such matters.
Okay, I'll give you one wee clue ... you can nail it down to the very day that this strange obsession began.
I will also say that the answer gives political irony whole new meaning ...
Michale [48] -
It's OK. Better than the "Once Upon A Time" on the other network. But then fantasy isn't really my cup of tea, I'm more into harder sci-fi. I have to laugh, though at Grimm's theme of "everything sounds evil-er when you use the German word"... much like I laughed at the theme in Harry Potter of "if you use Latin, it sounds magical"...
(rolling eyes...)
-CW
Michale [49] -
OK, well, I hadn't read this one when I wrote my above response. Can't stand OUAT, it had great promise and was indeed an original concept, but it just seems... I dunno, there's something about it that's just way too hokey. Like I said, I file this under "Brilliant concept, not-so-brilliant execution" where I file a whole bunch of TV shows...
-CW
Michale [51] -
If the FL primaries were held tomorrow, who would you vote for if you voted in the GOP primary? I'm curious. Ron Paul, to me, is the personification of the inherent contradictions in the purist Libertarian stance. I've always been fascinated by the Libertarians I meet, because it is where the fringe of the right-wing meets the fringe of the left-wing. It's like that mythical planet Earth that is 180 deg. opposite the real Earth in our orbit -- so far out that both sides meet. In other words, Ron Paul.
I gotta give Paul credit, though, as other than on abortion, he pretty much consistently sticks to a libertarian platform, and will actually defend his positions to anyone who asks. On abortion, he's into "big gummint in people's lives" but then this is somewhat excusable by his previous profession... I guess.
-CW
BashiBazouk -
What amuses me about Paul is that his bugaboos are rooted so far in the past. I mean, seriously, "cross of gold" stuff? To say nothing of his refighting the battle of the Banks of the United States (both the first and the second -- Andy Jackson was the second, forget who was the first...). This is real nineteenth-century stuff! What a blast from the past!
Heh.
-CW
Michale -
You've actually got a good point on the torture/executive power thing vis-a-vis Obama and Bush. What I chalk it up to is battle fatigue from the Left. They've been fighting (and mostly losing) these issues for so long that the effort has gotten a little tired out. In other words, they've mostly just given up. I'm talking about rank-and-file lefties, here. You're right about certain pundits (Greenwald in particular) being consistent, though. And you're also right that if a GOPer makes it to the White House, the Left will likely bring it up again.
Pre-9/11 one of the worst offenders in wiretapping was none other than Bubba Clinton, who tried to foist the "Clipper chip" upon all our computers... how quickly we forget...
-CW
Michale [59] -
Sigh. OK, ask and ye shall receive.
At random, I went to the archives. I picked a month I thought might have a HCR article. I found "Health Reform Post-Mortem" -- the very first article I clicked on. The very first comment was yours:
I am really well and truly getting tired of hearing what a "historic" moment this CrapCare debacle is...
Let's face the facts...
Waterloo was a "historic" moment.
The Charge Of The Light Brigade was a "historic" moment...
9/11 was a "historic" moment...
And it's likely that CrapCare will do more harm to this country than a hundred 9/11s....
That is, indeed, "emphatic, quite incensed, and hysterical." Seriously, looking back, you still stand by those words? 100 9/11s?
Note it didn't take me long to find this example. First article I came across -- AT RANDOM -- first comment to the article.
Those, my fine feathered friend, are facts entered into evidence. Sorry.
-CW
BashiBazouk -
Yeah, Michale, what he said.
Mountainous. Reach to the moon. Dostoyevskyian. Totally.
-CW
Elizabeth -
You know, I read something interesting today. Righties are fond of saying stuff like "Democrats controlled the Senate for the first two years of Obama's term," when I always counted it as more like 6-7 months when they had a supermajority.
But some HuffPost blogger pointed out that they really only had 60 votes, effectively, for ONE MONTH. Al Franken was seated, they passed a bunch of stuff quickly, and then they adjourned almost exactly one month later. During the recess, Teddy Kennedy died. I've always dated the "60-vote majority" from when Al Franken joined to when Scott Brown was elected in the special election. But, in actual fact, Dems only had 60 for a brief moment in time: one single month.
Kind of a tangent, but your comment brought it to mind.
Also, I know it'll get under Michale's skin. Heh.
-CW
Chris,
Well, that does it, then ... Michale is a rightie, through and through.
I knew it!
By the way, is Obama considering a recess appointment of Cordray to head up the CFPB? I haven't been following the news much lately ...
OK this is going to be quick.. I should have been up 3 hours ago!!!
Liz and Bashi.
I promise I will get to yours later today.. Your questions require me to think and I am not ready for that yet. :D
Michale
387
CW,
I guess I am easily amused when it comes to TV shows. While I am not sold on Grimm or OUAT, I think their first seasons hold promise...
Michale
388
I'll have to get back to you on the FL Primary thingy.. See my post above to Bashi & Liz... :D
You've actually got a good point on the torture/executive power thing vis-a-vis Obama and Bush. What I chalk it up to is battle fatigue from the Left. They've been fighting (and mostly losing) these issues for so long that the effort has gotten a little tired out. In other words, they've mostly just given up. I'm talking about rank-and-file lefties, here. You're right about certain pundits (Greenwald in particular) being consistent, though. And you're also right that if a GOPer makes it to the White House, the Left will likely bring it up again.
I don't think it's about being tired or anything.. Most on the Left just don't want to be seen as being Anti-Obama..
I read one of Matt's commentaries where he was defending Obama's use of Summary Executions, Torture, etc etc and I was shocked (and very pleasantly surprised) that the very arguments that Matt was making were nearly verbatim to the arguments that I made TOO him (and ya'all) in defense of the Bush policies...
It's simply amazing how much that little '-D' after a persons name means to people... :D
Michale
389
CW,
OK, ya got me on that CrapCare post..
That does sound a little on par with the hysteria ya'all had over Bush's policies...
And yes, CrapCare is still on course to be very damaging to this country..
When we have a GOP government in 2013, it'll likely be repealed..
Michale
390
Michale,
I don't want you to think ... I just want quick, short responses from you that are easily rebutted.
:)
Is everyone OK!?
Michale,
I hope this New Year's Day finds you well.
I just wanted to take a moment to congratulate you on a job well done during this third annual CW.com Holiday Fund Drive. You almost doubled your comment total from last year - that is amazing!!!
And, guess what ... I'll just bet a big truck load of quatloos that next year will be a banner year for the fourth annual CW.com Holiday Fund Drive as we anticipate a second term for Obama/Biden with high expectations for a whole new ballgame in Congress!
Happy New Year, Michale, and all the very best in 2012!
If the Unemployment number goes down, that doesn't necessarily mean that more people are employed..
It simply means that more people are off the Unemployment dole.
Not exactly. "Unemployed" means you don't have a job and you're either looking for a job or waiting to be called back from what your employer declared to be a short-term layoff. It doesn't depend on whether you're receiving unemployment-insurance benefits.
On the other hand, it's likely that the current lower Unemployment numbers are the result of seasonal hires.
I'm pretty sure the unemployment number that's reported is seasonally adjusted.
He wants them read Miranda rights to which they are not entitled
The basis for the Miranda rights is the fifth and sixth amendments. They say "No person shall be" etc., and "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right" etc. Not "no citizen". Not "no person except those accused of doing something we really, really don't like". Not "no person except Muslims".
It's unconstitutional to just disappear people within US jurisdiction, no matter what. Outside US jurisdiction, our military is still subject to our law, but people on foreign soil have only whatever protection we choose to grant them in our law, or whatever protection their own government may provide.
Polls are useless because they are subjective, susceptible to the whims, biases and prejudices of the pollster.
They're not quite useless. One Rasmussen poll normally is roughly comparable to another: their idea of a "likely voter" is one who's likely to vote Republican, but it's roughly the same from one poll to the next.
On the other hand, they're pretty close to useless: during the struggle to pass Obamacare, an overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to having a public option, but a similar landslide margin was in favor of giving consumers the choice of a public option. I exaggerate slightly, but it was almost that stupid.
12m Illegal Immigrants are a drain on our resources and are giving absolutely nothing back in the way of taxes etc etc.
BS. They still get taxes withheld, but they're ineligible for almost all the benefits their taxes help pay for. A lot of them don't even dare claim the income tax refunds they're due, so they pay some of the highest tax rates of anyone.
CW wrote:
Will Ron Paul go third-party in 2012?
No.
dsws -
You're right, the number is "seasonally adjusted" to take Xmas hiring (and farm/harvest hiring) into account.
My point, however, is that aside from arguing about how the number is put together and what it really means, this is the one number that filters out to a very wide audience of Americans who don't normally pay much attention to the economic metrics, or to politics. Because of this, it carries a lot of weight -- but again, in a more background kind of way.
The Dec. number will be announced Friday.
If it is (just to use an example) 8.3%, that will be HUGE news and will be talked about extensively (the story will be "Has the economy truly turned the corner?"). On the other hand, if the number is (to pick another example) 8.8 percent, then the story will be "last month's number was an abberation, the economy is still stuck in neutral."
That will filter out to the large segment of America who aren't tuned in to politics much. And, by doing so, will be reflected somewhat in Obama job approval numbers. It's a minor influence, in the background, but it does exist.
-CW
this is the one number that filters out to a very wide audience
Agreed. That does matter. But so does the reality of people getting jobs or not. Eight months from now, the chatter will unambiguously matter more: there will be too little time for direct experiences to be sorted through and affect perception of the whole direction of the country. Eight months ago, the reality of employment was unambiguously more important than the chatter about the unemployment number. Somewhere in between, there's a point where the lines cross. I think we haven't quite reached it yet.