Blumenthal, Paul and other idiots...POLITICS Thread

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 14:38:04

I honestly don't understand how anyone who has listened to Runyan try to form a coherent thought could even entertain the idea of voting for him.

I can't believe he won that primary.

by **Swiggers** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 14:48:16

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I can't believe he won that primary.

Probably the same reason Lynn Swann won the PA GOP gubernatorial primary a while back.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 15:04:20

The Nightman Cometh wrote:I honestly don't understand how anyone who has listened to Runyan try to form a coherent thought could even entertain the idea of voting for him.

I can't believe he won that primary.

1) He won the primary because he's 10x more qualified to be a member of the House of Representatives than Justin fucking Murphy, who is a first class moron, on top of being unemployed and having a horrendous mullet.

2) Because you don't have to be smart to be a member of the House of Representatives. I'd rather have a dumbass who votes the way Republican leadership tells him to vote than someone intelligent who votes for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker and votes for all sorts of programs I don't want.

3) I don't think Runyan is dumb actually. He's not a Rhodes Scholar, but he was pretty good on TV last night when he was talking to the reporter on NJN. He's getting more comfortable discussing policy and politics as the campaign moves along. It's not exactly shocking that someone who has played football all their life is undergoing a bit of a learning experience as the campaign moves along.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 15:46:35

jerseyhoya wrote:I'd rather have a dumbass who votes the way Republican leadership tells him to vote

what republican leadership cadre are you referring to? state-level? House leadership? Rush Limbaugh?

Could be confusing for the big guy to sort out the voices in his head

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 16:05:30

The Speaker of the House or House Minority Leader. Whoever is the highest ranking Republican official in the House of Representatives.

by **pacino** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 19:47:42

so NJ Republicans are trying to corner the fat vote. interesting strategy

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 20:11:38

Are you getting tempted to move here and vote Republican?

Oh snap

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 20:12:03

Senator Coburn Tackles Runaway Defense Spending

by **pacino** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 20:13:31

jerseyhoya wrote:Are you getting tempted to move here and vote Republican?

Oh snap

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 21:10:44

jerseyhoya wrote:Senator Coburn Tackles Runaway Defense Spending

If there was a republican in nj running on the platform of reducing military spending I would vote for him in a second. Assuming he would be closer to center on most other issues given NJ's leftist leaning.

Funny how things change huh.

by **dajafi** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 22:48:57

jerseyhoya wrote:Senator Coburn Tackles Runaway Defense Spending

In all sincerity, good for him.

This is politically brave; it would be nice if that proved contagious, as in Democrats being willing to publicly countenance benefit adjustments for entitlements that go to the elderly and Republicans conceding that, yes, there are times and transactions that justify acceding to the occasional tax increase.

The frame is right-sizing government. Force the anti-cut/adjustment, anti-tax absolutists to explain what they'd do in order to perpetuate the historically high entitlements/historically low federal tax burden, and watch the upper hand in the debate suddenly shift to the grown-ups.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 00:43:34

dajafi wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Senator Coburn Tackles Runaway Defense Spending

In all sincerity, good for him.

This is politically brave; it would be nice if that proved contagious, as in Democrats being willing to publicly countenance benefit adjustments for entitlements that go to the elderly and Republicans conceding that, yes, there are times and transactions that justify acceding to the occasional tax increase.

The frame is right-sizing government. Force the anti-cut/adjustment, anti-tax absolutists to explain what they'd do in order to perpetuate the historically high entitlements/historically low federal tax burden, and watch the upper hand in the debate suddenly shift to the grown-ups.

It's not that politically brave. For one thing, he doesn't give a crap if he gets reelected. He'd be happy to go back to delivering babies. For another, he doesn't face a competitive reelect.

Sometimes people who face no competitive pressures for reelection become lazy and go with the flow. Others, like Sen. Coburn, become "reckless" and attack the system.

I really, really love Tom Coburn. Over the past year I've had to watch a number of hearings he was involved with for work. He's always well prepared, friendly, and aggressive with witnesses. It's apparent he doesn't actually enjoy being a senator. He treats the job with an almost disdain, like he can't believe he's stuck in that government oversight hearing when he could be sipping lemonade back in Oklahoma.

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 09:20:45

jerseyhoya wrote:I really, really love Tom Coburn. Over the past year I've had to watch a number of hearings he was involved with for work. He's always well prepared, friendly, and aggressive with witnesses. It's apparent he doesn't actually enjoy being a senator. He treats the job with an almost disdain, like he can't believe he's stuck in that government oversight hearing when he could be sipping lemonade back in Oklahoma.

Curiously, he's not all that well-prepared on topics related to health care in the US. Opinionated, certainly.

He's like many doctors; arrogant, overconfident in his own stock of anecdotal experience.

That he came to medicine after an early career in accountancy is beyond peculiar.

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 23:14:22

John McCain and Snooki talking on Twitter about tanning bed taxes

Can we go back to the 1990s? Or the 19th century?

by **dajafi** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 14:11:53

A special for TV and jh:

What if political scientists covered the news?

Obama's job approval rating fell to 48 percent. This isn't really news, though. Studies have shown that the biggest factor in a president's rating is economic performance. Connecting the minute blip in the polls with Obama's reluctance to emote or alleged failure to send enough boom to the Gulf is, frankly, absurd.

Democrats have also slipped in their standing among "independent voters." That phrase, by the way, is meaningless. Voters may self-identify as "independent" but in almost all cases they lean toward one party.

Poll numbers also confirmed that Americans are in an anti-incumbent mood. … Ha! Just kidding. The anti-Washington narrative was concocted by dominant media outlets based on the outcomes of a statistically insignificant handful of largely unrelated races. Sorry.

Still, Democrats hope that passing health care and financial regulatory reform will give them enough momentum to win in November. Unfortunately, there's little relationship between legislative victories and electoral victories. Also, what the hell is "momentum"?

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 14:47:47

dajafi wrote:A special for TV and jh:

What if political scientists covered the news?

Obama's job approval rating fell to 48 percent. This isn't really news, though. Studies have shown that the biggest factor in a president's rating is economic performance. Connecting the minute blip in the polls with Obama's reluctance to emote or alleged failure to send enough boom to the Gulf is, frankly, absurd.

Democrats have also slipped in their standing among "independent voters." That phrase, by the way, is meaningless. Voters may self-identify as "independent" but in almost all cases they lean toward one party.

Poll numbers also confirmed that Americans are in an anti-incumbent mood. … Ha! Just kidding. The anti-Washington narrative was concocted by dominant media outlets based on the outcomes of a statistically insignificant handful of largely unrelated races. Sorry.

Still, Democrats hope that passing health care and financial regulatory reform will give them enough momentum to win in November. Unfortunately, there's little relationship between legislative victories and electoral victories. Also, what the hell is "momentum"?

It's why pundits mostly just piss me off.

Lots of other stuff too--no evidence that negative advertising works better than other kinds of advertising, little evidence that campaigning really matters, and so forth.

Oh, yeah--the big one--politicians in fact rarely lie and almost always at least try to keep their promises.

by **CrashburnAlley** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 15:57:53

Did I watch this video correctly -- does Glenn Beck compare the Black Flag movement (anarchists) to Marxists?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvFjB713EM

It's like Glenn Beck failed every history class he was ever forced to take, and still ended up with his own political talk show.

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 16:02:47

It's almost as retarded as comparing Republicans to Nazi's.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 16:07:44

VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as retarded as comparing Republicans to Nazi's.

I thought Obama was a socialist nazi. I can't keep anything straight.

by **VoxOrion** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 16:08:36

TenuredVulture wrote:
VoxOrion wrote:It's almost as retarded as comparing Republicans to Nazi's.

I thought Obama was a socialist nazi. I can't keep anything straight.

No, the Democrats are Communists (but you say Socialist if you're trying to avoid being too antagonistic) and Republicans are Nazi's (or Facists if you're trying to avoid being too Garafoloish).

Archived

Blumenthal, Paul and other idiots...POLITICS Thread