TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of $#@! on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

How is that? What did she say?

She's rejecting about 70% of the stimulus money for Alaska, or was going to.

Oh, I thought Alaska was a net contributor to federal funds, due to natural resource abundance, which explains why the state can effectively pay people to live in the state. I would expect that most politicians in that state would be against federal giveaways in general, specifically the stimulus, because Alaska is a major source of the money that funds the stimulus. It's a redistribution, and Alaska probably benefits the least. Additionally, the Alaskan economy is relatively insulated from that of the lower 48, I would guess, so the stimulus is probably needed much less there.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:There's probably an interesting paper to be written on the subject of Republican governors like Crist, Sanford, Palin, Pawlenty, and Perry (and I'm sure I'm missing at least a couple who staked out positions), presidential ambitions, and the politics of the stimulus.

Palin is so full of $#@! on the issue though, as Alaska receives far more federal dollars per head than any other state.

How is that? What did she say?

She's rejecting about 70% of the stimulus money for Alaska, or was going to.

Oh, I thought Alaska was a net contributor to federal funds, due to natural resource abundance, which explains why the state can effectively pay people to live in the state. I would expect that most politicians in that state would be against federal giveaways in general, specifically the stimulus, because Alaska is a major source of the money that funds the stimulus. It's a redistribution, and Alaska probably benefits the least. Additionally, the Alaskan economy is relatively insulated from that of the lower 48, I would guess, so the stimulus is probably needed much less there.

Nope, $1.84 in receipts for every $1 of taxes.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128474.html

The oil revenue goes into state coffers. They can afford to pay people to live there in part thanks to you and me.

Actually, much of the economy of the so-called libertarian pioneer west is based on federal subsidies of one kind or another. Same of course with the South, but we at least are honest about our love of pork.

Well, thanks, now I can be properly annoyed.

TenuredVulture wrote:Really interesting blog from Richard Posner.

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

Posner's analysis seems spot to me.

It's a shame that Posner is not a Supreme Court judge.

Rebranding, of a sort:

A RNC member tells Roger Simon that when committee members meet in an extraordinary special session next week, they will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the "Democrat Socialist Party."

RNC Chairman Michael Steele didn't want the meeting to be held, but members exercised "a rarely used party rule that allows any 16 RNC members from 16 different states to demand a special meeting" forcing Steele's hand.

Presumably, "Democrat Socialist Party" was adopted as a more moderate alternative to "Stinkyhead Poopyfingers Party."

Ron Paul hates Arnold Palmer.

“It is certainly nothing personal against Mr. Palmer. In fact, Congressman Paul admires him greatly. Dr. Paul opposes using public monies for any and all of these gold medals given to private citizens, just on principle. Not to mention, it is unconstitutional to use taxpayer dollars in this way. He even suggested on the House Floor before he voted against Rosa Parks’s medal that if it meant so much to the Members of Congress, why not fund the award out of their own pockets? He pulled $100 out of his own wallet, but had no other takers. At a time like this when all budgets are stretched so thin, it seems especially inappropriate to lavish gifts like this on private citizens, as much as he may admire the individual.”

I see your $30,000 bet of taxpayer money, and I raise you $100 of my own money.

All fold.

I just got a call from the Bloomberg campaign, a (live) guy reading a script about the Five-Borough Economic Plan and asking me if the Mayor could definitely count on my vote.

I responded, "We'll see." The guy asked what issue I was most concerned about for the election, at which point I said that I didn't really have time to talk right now and he graciously ended the call.

This is May 13. Bloomberg still has something like 62 percent approval, he doesn't even really have an opponent yet, and the most likely guy is our City Comptroller, who might well be the blandest individual I've ever seen in public life.

Must be nice to have that kind of dough.

Werthless wrote:Ron Paul hates Arnold Palmer.

“It is certainly nothing personal against Mr. Palmer. In fact, Congressman Paul admires him greatly. Dr. Paul opposes using public monies for any and all of these gold medals given to private citizens, just on principle. Not to mention, it is unconstitutional to use taxpayer dollars in this way. He even suggested on the House Floor before he voted against Rosa Parks’s medal that if it meant so much to the Members of Congress, why not fund the award out of their own pockets? He pulled $100 out of his own wallet, but had no other takers. At a time like this when all budgets are stretched so thin, it seems especially inappropriate to lavish gifts like this on private citizens, as much as he may admire the individual.”

I see your $30,000 bet of taxpayer money, and I raise you $100 of my own money.

All fold.

I have to agree with Paul on this. Why in a free society should we look to Congress or the President to bestow national honors on individuals, like the Queen's list of knighthoods. Often for dubious political purposes, as we saw with W knighting the disgraced. Republicans seem especially big on this. A lot of things named for Republicans, more than for Dems. They even ignored the rules not to name things after living ex-politicians. How many aircraft carriers carry the names of Dems?

Ahh, the benefits of not having a land line, no political campaign calls. I'm actually more interested in the other 2 citywide office races than the Bloomberg coronation.

allentown wrote:How many aircraft carriers carry the names of Dems?

Carl Vinson is the only one I know of. Problem is a lot of Democratic Presidents never served in the Armed Forces.

lethal wrote:

allentown wrote:How many aircraft carriers carry the names of Dems?

Carl Vinson is the only one I know of. Problem is a lot of Democratic Presidents never served in the Armed Forces.

I think there's a nuclear submarine named after Jimmy Carter (since that's where he served in the Navy).

lethal wrote:Ahh, the benefits of not having a land line, no political campaign calls. I'm actually more interested in the other 2 citywide office races than the Bloomberg coronation.

They should be more interesting, for sure.

Our local democracy is in pretty sad shape, though. I'm working on a short piece reporting voter turnout and other data in every Council district from 2005; about a third of those races were uncontested, and in most of the rest the Democrat won with upwards of 90 percent. In terms of competitiveness (and, some would argue, otherwise as well...) we're Moscow in 1974.

As one party as it is in New York, it is much worse in San Francisco. Actually, I guess out there, there are 2 parties. The Democrats and the further left of the Democrats.

lethal wrote:As one party as it is in New York, it is much worse in San Francisco. Actually, I guess out there, there are 2 parties. The Democrats and the further left of the Democrats.

Right--at least there's competition. That means the margin for tolerating corruption, as well as just lazy and inattentive officeholders, is much smaller there than it is here. I find it difficult to imagine the Republican Party coming back as a comprehensive political force in the city; they can win mayoral elections on the strength of charismatic and/or incredibly rich individual candidates, but nothing else, and even those guys can't truly govern as Republicans. (Giuliani tried in his second term, and before 9/11 he was reviled in the city.)

But whether it's a further-left Green Party or a reformist Independent Democratic Party (like the guys who ran against Tammany on Fusion tickets seventy years ago), we could really use any alternative to the Democratic machine.

lethal wrote:

allentown wrote:How many aircraft carriers carry the names of Dems?

Carl Vinson is the only one I know of. Problem is a lot of Democratic Presidents never served in the Armed Forces.

USS John F Kennedy (decommissioned in 07)
USS John C Stennis

Coste2Coste wrote:

lethal wrote:

allentown wrote:How many aircraft carriers carry the names of Dems?

Carl Vinson is the only one I know of. Problem is a lot of Democratic Presidents never served in the Armed Forces.

USS John F Kennedy (decommissioned in 07)
USS John C Stennis

USS Harry S Truman.

Aircraft carriers named after people/Commissioned/Decommissioned (-- = active)

USS Franklin D. Roosevelt/27 Oct 1945/1 Oct 1977 (Democrat)
USS Wright/9 Feb 1947/15 Mar 1956 (Airplane inventors)
USS Forrestal/1 Oct 1955/30 Sep 1993 (1st Sec Def/Democrat)
USS John F. Kennedy/7 Sep 1968/23 Mar 2007 (Democrat)
USS Nimitz/3 May 1975/-- (Sailor dude)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower/10 Oct 1977/-- (Republican)
USS Carl Vinson/13 Mar 1982/-- (Democrat)
USS Theodore Roosevelt/25 Oct 1986/-- (Republican)
USS Abraham Lincoln/11 Nov 1989/-- (Republican)
USS George Washington/4 July 1992/-- (Wooden teeth)
USS John C. Stennis/9 Dec 1995/-- (Democrat)
USS Harry S. Truman/25 July 1998/-- (Democrat)
USS Ronald Reagan/12 July 2003/-- (Republican)
USS George H. W. Bush/--/-- (Republican)

So yeah

All I know about Stennis is 1) he was a racist Dixiecrat and 2) he convened one of the key Watergate hearings. But I guess he was either a Navy man or funneled a crapload of money into the service, to get a ship named after him.

don't let the facts....

Okay, here we go:

During his Senate career he chaired, at various times, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and the Armed Services, and Appropriations committees. Because of his work with the Armed Services committee (1969–1980) he became known as the "Father of America's Modern Navy", and he was subsequently honored by having a supercarrier named after him. He is one of only two members of Congress to be so honored, the other being former Georgia Democrat Carl Vinson.