That video is why I generally don't like political "entertainment" TV.

"Nattering nay-bobs of negativism." (2:50) I wonder if that was a prepared line.

So Daggett is getting a lot of positive ink out of his debate performance last night. Given how craptastic the Corzine and Christie mudslinging has gotten, it wouldn't surprise me if Daggett got some Minnesota esque 15% number in the general.

And I think that number = Corzine reelected

jerseyhoya wrote:So Daggett is getting a lot of positive ink out of his debate performance last night. Given how craptastic the Corzine and Christie mudslinging has gotten, it wouldn't surprise me if Daggett got some Minnesota esque 15% number in the general.

And I think that number = Corzine reelected

Unfortunately I think you are 100% correct. I guess it is entirely possible that Corzine wins re-election with support from no more than 42% of the popular vote. THAT is a ringing endorsement! My wife told me that she was leaning toward voting for Daggett and I told her that she might as well vote for Corzine.

Everybody (including Daggett) knows that Daggett has absolutely no shot at winning the election. I just hope that people don't vote for Daggett expecting Corzine to "get the message". Corzine's smugness makes Amaro's smugness look like it is still in diapers.

Did anybody actually watch the debate? I DVRed it and will try to watch it over the weekend.

Werthless wrote:"Nattering nay-bobs of negativism." (2:50) I wonder if that was a prepared line.

It was lame--that was Spiro Agnew's line, I think written by the just-deceased Bill Safire.

Chicago eliminated in the first round of Olympic voting.

Oprama fail

jerseyhoya wrote:Chicago eliminated in the first round of Olympic voting.

Oprama fail

Chicago hosting the Olympics would have been Al Michaels "Do you believe in miracles?" worthy.

hahahahaha

great day for the white house coupled with the jobs news

Rococo4 wrote:hahahahaha

great day for the white house coupled with the jobs news

So you're happy that your country lost the bid?

Honestly, Obama should have had nothing to do with the Chicago Olympic bid--it's a no win situation. Hosting an Olympics is a very risky proposition, and there are always going to be people from the proposed host city who are opposed to it for good reason.

Yeah I can see why people from Chicago wouldn't want the hassle. I just don't understand the delight expressed by some simply because Obama pitched for it and lost.

kopphanatic wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:hahahahaha

great day for the white house coupled with the jobs news

So you're happy that your country lost the bid?

yep. just like democrats would have wanted it if this bid was for dallas 2012 and bush had gone to speak.

i didnt care either way before obama got involved.

Rococo4 wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:hahahahaha

great day for the white house coupled with the jobs news

So you're happy that your country lost the bid?

yep. just like democrats would have wanted it if this bid was for dallas 2012 and bush had gone to speak.

i didnt care either way before obama got involved.

I root for my country, no matter who is President. The country is much more important to me than George W. Bush or Barack Obama.

Word on the street is that Rio de Janeiro anonymously sent a video of the Victorino beer shower to all committe members

As such things go, the Olympics suck. I worked at the Atlanta Games in '96, and I was thrilled when NYC didn't get it for 2012. Truly great cities don't "need" it for prestige, the crowds foul up transit and parking, and no other civic business gets done for a year or two beforehand because all resources must go toward making sure that the city isn't "embarrassed."

Much as it sickened me to have the Republican convention in New York City in 2004--basically dancing on a mass grave their incompetence helped bring into being, and enjoying a city their vicious and stupid domestic policies had hung out to dry--at least that was a clear revenue win for the city. In most cases, that doesn't prove to be the case with the Olympics.

Rio should get it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Madrid wins. Samaranch is the former head of the IOC and is now in charge of Madrid's bid. He isn't exactly the picture of honesty and scrupulousness.

Rococo4 wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

Rococo4 wrote:hahahahaha

great day for the white house coupled with the jobs news

So you're happy that your country lost the bid?

yep. just like democrats would have wanted it if this bid was for dallas 2012 and bush had gone to speak.

i didnt care either way before obama got involved.

Your reasoning is stupid and trivial for the Olympics and cold-hearted and generally crappy for the unemployment numbers. Quite simply, you should know better.

Bloomberg, breaking records:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has already spent $65 million in his campaign for a third term, according to the latest financial disclosure report, released on Friday afternoon.

The spending shattered Mr. Bloomberg’s earlier record, which was $46 million at this point in his 2005 campaign.

And it is double what he spent on his 2001 campaign, which at the time was the most expensive municipal campaign in American history.

The vast majority of the spending was devoted to a blizzard of television advertisements, which the mayor has run nonstop since April, even though his rival, William C. Thompson Jr., has run only one ad, starting two weeks ago.

Mr. Bloomberg’s fortune has taken a hit this year, falling to about $17.5 billion from an estimated $20 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

But he still managed to outspend Mr. Thompson, the Democratic nominee for mayor, by a rate of 20 to 1.

I have friends and colleagues who think that the advertising barrage shows that the mayor is "running scared." Personally, I think it's more that he's built up this mammoth campaign operation--he bought off most of the best Democratic political talent in the city--and it's taken on a life of its own.

The polls don't move in this race--he's always 12 to 16 points ahead, and that's the margin he'll win by. Nobody is excited about it--most of us are pissed that he broke his word on term limits--but Thompson is so transparently a go-along-to-get-along Dem careerist that he's not an appealing option either.

I'm about 85 percent to vote for Bloomberg, despite my sense that his third term is going to be unpleasant for all concerned. (They pretty much always are in NYC or NYS.) But unlike in 2001, when I was absolutely certain that his election would be a disaster, and 2005, when I was even more certain that he was God's gift to the mayoralty, I have no particularly strong feeling about the race.

dajafi wrote:Bloomberg, breaking records:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has already spent $65 million in his campaign for a third term, according to the latest financial disclosure report, released on Friday afternoon.

The spending shattered Mr. Bloomberg’s earlier record, which was $46 million at this point in his 2005 campaign.

And it is double what he spent on his 2001 campaign, which at the time was the most expensive municipal campaign in American history.

The vast majority of the spending was devoted to a blizzard of television advertisements, which the mayor has run nonstop since April, even though his rival, William C. Thompson Jr., has run only one ad, starting two weeks ago.

Mr. Bloomberg’s fortune has taken a hit this year, falling to about $17.5 billion from an estimated $20 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

But he still managed to outspend Mr. Thompson, the Democratic nominee for mayor, by a rate of 20 to 1.

I have friends and colleagues who think that the advertising barrage shows that the mayor is "running scared." Personally, I think it's more that he's built up this mammoth campaign operation--he bought off most of the best Democratic political talent in the city--and it's taken on a life of its own.

The polls don't move in this race--he's always 12 to 16 points ahead, and that's the margin he'll win by. Nobody is excited about it--most of us are pissed that he broke his word on term limits--but Thompson is so transparently a go-along-to-get-along Dem careerist that he's not an appealing option either.

I'm about 85 percent to vote for Bloomberg, despite my sense that his third term is going to be unpleasant for all concerned. (They pretty much always are in NYC or NYS.) But unlike in 2001, when I was absolutely certain that his election would be a disaster, and 2005, when I was even more certain that he was God's gift to the mayoralty, I have no particularly strong feeling about the race.

At least part of the campaign barrage can be explained by ego--it seems that much of Bloomberg's political activity is oriented in that direction--recall our conversations concerning his possible run for the Presidency.

Seeing themselves all over tv is something megalomaniacs like.

TenuredVulture wrote:At least part of the campaign barrage can be explained by ego--it seems that much of Bloomberg's political activity is oriented in that direction--recall our conversations concerning his possible run for the Presidency.

Seeing themselves all over tv is something megalomaniacs like.

Yeah, absolutely. When I was hugely into Bloomberg, I thought that his egomania was channeled into a socially positive direction. I'm less sure about that now.

I was interviewed this morning for a possible forthcoming piece in a little online publication called "City Hall" about workforce development as an issue in the campaign. Hopefully I didn't say anything that'll get me into too much trouble.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:At least part of the campaign barrage can be explained by ego--it seems that much of Bloomberg's political activity is oriented in that direction--recall our conversations concerning his possible run for the Presidency.

Seeing themselves all over tv is something megalomaniacs like.

Yeah, absolutely. When I was hugely into Bloomberg, I thought that his egomania was channeled into a socially positive direction. I'm less sure about that now.

It's a pretty common phenomenon in politics. Power corrupts, blah, blah, blah. But with guys like Bloomberg, they aren't corrupted by money. And it's not really power (as that's the means, not the ends). It's something less tangible.