TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Gore/Bush - 62/35
Kerry/Bush - 53/44
Obama/McCain - 67/31

Not really a trend, just a data point.

I know that some anti-immigrant conservatives argue that Bush's 44% is unreliable, and somehow draw from that premise the conclusion the Republican party shouldn't embrace Bush-style reform.

do they want to permanently become the party of white guys and momma grizzlies?


side note, i think if there was a race between that guy and mr green i would shoot myself because it would mean one of them would win. sad thing is, plenty of people feel the way he does, that we should discriminate against fellow citizens because they can get a good tan going.

dajafi wrote:Until recently, I thought that it was possible to reverse the anti-government thrust of American politics over the last forty years or so, and I specifically believed that Obama, as a rational-seeming guy who distrusted grand schemes and bought into behavioral economics and all that, might be the guy who pulled it off. But I'm starting to think we're beyond that point--in which case a competent, relatively minimalist government that doesn't wreck the economy might be the best option.

Even that, though, presumes an essentially rational (dare I say Werthless-ish) dislike/distrust of government; we're not remotely there. We kind of hate government, but ferociously "refudiate" any hint that spending on Medicare, "defense" or most anything else of significance be reduced.

In a nutshell, this is why I'm so glum about politics these days.

The anti-government thrust of American politics must refer more to rhetoric than action. Both parties seem quite willing to expand government influence in their preferred spheres. I'm actually optimistic that some Republican leadership will emerge in the next 5 years to cobble together a set of politically feasible positions centered around constraining the growth of government influence. We'll see. I hope (and expect) to see more serious politicians like Paul Ryan gain national prominence. Sarah Palin-ites will not last long in the party.

The AFA says:

It's also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That's why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial.
His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He'd have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

So who should sit? An asexual? Are they the only ones able to judge on these matters?

This is a travesty of justice. The majority of Californians — and two-thirds of black voters in California — have just had their core civil right to vote for marriage stripped from them by an openly gay federal judge who has misread history and the Constitution to impose his San Francisco views on the American people. The implicit comparison Judge Walker made between racism and marriage is particularly offensive to me and to all of us who remember the reality of Jim Crow.

- Some black DC pastor said this. How dare this judge strip the civil rights of some people to deny civil rights to other people!

So, here's something small government folks might actually be able to accomplish in Congress--winding down Fannie and Freddie. Is there any pending legislation to that effect? I just read a pretty persuasive editorial in last week's Economist to that effect.

Social security and Medicare are fine:

The new health care law has significantly improved the prognosis for Medicare, extending the life of its trust fund by 12 years until 2029, and thereby delaying any need for dramatic changes in benefits or revenues, according to a new report.

The annual check-up from government actuaries overseeing the nation's two central safety-net programs also found that Social Security continues to be much less of a problem than Medicare, and will remain in strong financial shape at least through 2037.

Greenspan calls for repeal of all Bush tax cuts

Meanwhile I've started seeing commercials for local Republican candidates who pledge to "cut taxes, create jobs and reduce the deficit." And Sarah Palin keeps talking about the need to reduce the deficit by extending the Bush tax cuts and repealing "budget-buster spending programs" like (deficit-positive, per CBO) Obamacare. Strangely, nobody on Fox News points out the... let's say gaps, in this logic.

Again, this basically is why we're fucked.

An overzealous federal prosecutor appears to have maybe killed Ted Stevens

*gives middle finger to Google and Verizon*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aar ... 76194.html

jerseyhoya wrote:That's why I was saying that's the thing I'm worried about, not Mississippi's state flag.

You understand that I suggested the state flag not because it is the problem but because a Republican-led movement to change it would have a kind of symbolic significance that few other things the Republicans could do would, right?

You're the one going to grad school for political theory, I would think you would appreciate the idea that changing something like that flag can act as a broader symbol of who the Republican Party is - and more importantly isn't. I said repeatedly that it doesn't HAVE to be the flag - it could be immigration reform (the one that the Republicans themselves scuttled when their own President proposed it) or whatever... the flag was the first thing that leapt to mind, and I thought it was a good choice because it would have national implications for the party, but only cost them significant votes in one state.

I think that if you took a poll of Hispanics you'd quickly find that they are not much less suspicious of Confederate-flag wavers than blacks are, and, to the degree that the Republican Party is associated with the type who wave it, the party ain't for them.

The Republicans need to send two messages to stay a nationally viable going forward: No openly racist members (against whomever), and no trying to turn this place into a theocracy.

Deliver them however you like, but deliver them you must: not only to the people who wave crosses (Confederate or otherwise), but, just as importantly, to the moderates and growing number of "minorities" out there who are deeply suspicious of those who do, and the party that embraces them.

The Republicans ignore this TRUTH at their own peril.

<embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:114548' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>



We've lost a pair of legends in the past few months

Just watched the Rangel half hour speech. He made a few decent points about how an ethics charge is enough to bankrupt a member's campaign account/get him defeated, but then again usually the process is secretive until evidence is confirmed.

He went off the rails around 20 minutes in, talking about how the Democrats who wished he went away should remember that he raised money for them to help them win, and talked about expecting leadership to help him (I guess w/ legal costs). Then tells his critics to fire their best shot to expel him if he can't get his dignity back.

*AMAZING*

jerseyhoya wrote:

I was yelling out bits of this earlier today, eventually shortening it to just "TUBES!" before deciding, y'know, shouldn't disrespect the dead.

I kinda like what Gibbs said - and Greenwald is SUCH a sanctimonious douche

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html

so many damned updates in stories online now. can't we wait to give our opinions?

Scenes from Charlie Rangel's birthday party:

It was a dramatic but fitting start to an evening that brimmed with political defiance. About 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, as guests began strolling into the Plaza Hotel to celebrate Representative Charles B. Rangel’s 80th birthday, former Mayor David N. Dinkins turned to confront a heckler.

“You know you are attending a party for a crook,” the man yelled.

At that, Mr. Dinkins, a paragon of statesmanship and dignity, raised his middle finger at the man, displaying it for all to see, witnesses said.

Somehow I think I'm actually good with both parts of this exchange.

discover the political affiliation of friends and neighbors

http://voterfactory.com/Result.aspx

That might be the most poorly designed web page ever.