Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here

by **Barry Jive** » Fri May 01, 2009 05:16:43

dajafi wrote:Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

I don't trust anyone who believes in "clutch." Get this bum outta here.

by **Bakestar** » Fri May 01, 2009 09:53:44

dajafi wrote:Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

I strongly suspect she's the odds-on favorite at this point; if Obama can't get a Hispanic woman through now, he won't ever be able to. She's highly qualified, and she's pretty young.

Demographically, a Hispanic Justice is pretty overdue as well (apologies to Benjamin Cardozo, who apparently was a Portuguese Jew).

If Midge gets it... the fix is in.

by **Werthless** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:21:11

This articlecontains some interesting analysis.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:17:58

Barry Jive wrote:
dajafi wrote:Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

I don't trust anyone who believes in "clutch." Get this bum outta here.

That was what I thought at the time, and said so. But three playoffs since then and he still hasn't delivered... she might have been onto something.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:23:34

dajafi wrote:
Barry Jive wrote:
dajafi wrote:Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

I don't trust anyone who believes in "clutch." Get this bum outta here.

That was what I thought at the time, and said so. But three playoffs since then and he still hasn't delivered... she might have been onto something.

Clutch may or may not exist. But choking surely does.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:29:38

So one of my friends relates that two of Obama's top potential choices, Kagan and Sullivan, are lesbians. Basically what this means is if one of them is the nominee, I will have popcorn ready for when Lindsey Graham questions them. Also, someone from my party will make a complete ass out of themselves somehow over it.

by **dajafi** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:29:52

Here's an interesting question:

[W]ould Specter have switched parties if he'd known that he'd have had a golden opportunity to obstruct an Obama Supreme Court appointee in order to shore up his right?

by **Bakestar** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:37:26

dajafi wrote:Here's an interesting question:

[W]ould Specter have switched parties if he'd known that he'd have had a golden opportunity to obstruct an Obama Supreme Court appointee in order to shore up his right?

On the other hand, how much would his obstruction of an ostensibly reasonable liberal nominee further alienate his eroding hold on the moderate Democrats in the Philadelphia suburbs? I think there'd be a lot more for him to lose by staying Republican and blocking. One less way for him to wave a flag and say "I'm a different Republican!"

Full disclosure: I worked against Specter in his last Senate campaign, so I'm not a big fan.

by **Werthless** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:50:03

Study:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

Article describing the study: Study finds conservative viewers of Stephen Colbert's comedy show think he's on their side

I highlighted the finding that matters. I think it's amusing that the article describing the study commits the same error that the study shows that viewers of Colbert make. The error, that ambiguous content is interpreted through a biased lens to support your own opinion, is a form of confirmation bias. Plus, people simply want to project certain opinions onto people that they admire. Frankly, it doesn't matter what Colbert feels deep down. His show's schtick isn't hidden... he jokes about ridiculous politicians, often making jokes at his guests' expense, and he loves taking the position of a hard-right person in interviews. It's a comedy show, and that's his angle, that's his material. The joke's on anyone that takes him too seriously.

by **Bakestar** » Fri May 01, 2009 12:21:45

If only Bill Clinton hadn't been, like, disbarred. How hilarious would that have been?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri May 01, 2009 13:46:06

dajafi wrote:Here's the pick I want to seein Souter's place.

She gave my wife and me a ride home from a party a few years ago, and declared that we were a good couple. Also, she was convinced in 2005 that Alex Rodriguez wasn't a clutch hitter, and told me as much.

(Oh, and she issued the injunction that ended the baseball strike in 1995. Good stuff, that.)

She is a longtime fan of the New York Yankees.

by **pacino** » Fri May 01, 2009 17:57:45

Gonna be honest here, I voted for Specter in 2004. I'm not sure I thought Hoeffel was going to be able to do anything of value. Now, I'm not so sure Specter's going to do anything of value and I damn sure know Toomey won't. What exactly is my option here?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 01, 2009 18:03:31

There will be a primary opponent.

by **pacino** » Fri May 01, 2009 18:08:34

Joe Sestak? I really don't care about many of the other names, and I don't think others could overtake Arlen.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri May 01, 2009 18:24:59

I dunno. Lots of time between now and then. Plenty of time for him to do something stupid, some ambitious liberal to step up, or him to die.

by **Rococo4** » Sun May 03, 2009 03:27:38

jack kemp RIP

by **allentown** » Sun May 03, 2009 15:39:11

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno. Lots of time between now and then. Plenty of time for him to do something stupid, some ambitious liberal to step up, or him to die.

Saw him on one of the morning talk shows today and he was not awfully appealing. He basically kept insisting that he was Arlen Specter, independent thinker and self-contained moral entity. Of course he never pledged to be a loyal Dem with this conversion. Of course he got no favors for this conversion. His retention of his years of seniority was an entitlement that he had earned, not a favor. Obama had pledged to campaign for him but nobody had promised to clear the primary field and Arlen was no opposed to, in fact he was up for, a primary challenge. This fully explained why he was not up for the Toomey challenge. He came across as quite arrogant and lacking in loyalty to much of anything. He seems more than capable of alienating enough Dems to lose.

by **dajafi** » Sun May 03, 2009 16:04:38

allentown wrote:He came across as quite arrogant and lacking in loyalty to much of anything. He seems more than capable of alienating enough Dems to lose.

Watching him on two shows, I thought much the same. But he also seemed to have a "senior moment" or two in there. (Though it's possible that the confusion was mine, pre-coffee.) Between his generally unappealing persona and age and health concerns, I wouldn't be shocked to see him draw a (serious) primary opponent or two, nor to see him lose.

Also interesting is the news that Tom Ridge might jump in on the Republican side, against Toomey. I don't know how that race would go--Ridge presumably wouldn't sway the true-believer righties, but I also can't imagine he'd trigger anything like the fury that Specter would have faced--but in a Ridge-Specter general election, pitting a real if relatively mainstream Republican against a very unconvincing Democrat, I would put my money on Ridge. Particularly considering that Specter's pro-choice trump card wouldn't apply against the pro-choice Ridge.

by **jeff2sf** » Sun May 03, 2009 16:14:15

Joining late here, and of course it's no surprise that partisans aren't big fans of Specter, but I voted for him in 2004 and it may be the vote I'm most proud of (though ultimately I think it was my Bob Casey for Treasurer vote, which lead to him ultimately unseating Santorum).

Look, Specter doesn't dance for nobody, and he's a jerk (the magic bullet is certainly not worse than the beloved Kennedy's Chappaquiddick, so I don't count it), but he's done some good things for us and tried to not just vote ideologically. He's a great American.

by **jerseyhoya** » Sun May 03, 2009 16:15:45

jeff2sf wrote:Joining late here, and of course it's no surprise that partisans aren't big fans of Specter, but I voted for him in 2004 and it may be the vote I'm most proud of (though ultimately I think it was my Bob Casey for Treasurer vote, which lead to him ultimately unseating Santorum).

Look, Specter doesn't dance for nobody, and he's a jerk (the magic bullet is certainly not worse than the beloved Kennedy's Chappaquiddick, so I don't count it), but he's done some good things for us and tried to not just vote ideologically. He's a great American.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Archived

Condescension, Flaming, Politics (in that order) Here