jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwvCYBibdBM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

There are few things in life I like more than a well executed attack ad. Of course the key is to have a good line to hit with, and man this is a beauty.

I gotta tell ya, that's among the dumbest damn things I've ever seen.

Do you really believe the typical viewer of that too-brief-to-be-clear ad concludes the reason for the positive endorsement of candidate B - is it even Martinez's current opponent? - was to gain 'revenge' for prosecutor martinez putting her old man in the slammer, so isn't credible? And even if she isn't, so what?

It's like Martinez's message is, "anyone who's against me, I should probably look into prosecuting"

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:[youtube]super cool ad[/youtube]

There are few things in life I like more than a well executed attack ad. Of course the key is to have a good line to hit with, and man this is a beauty.

I gotta tell ya, that's among the dumbest damn things I've ever seen.

Do you really believe the typical viewer of that too-brief-to-be-clear ad concludes the reason for the positive endorsement of candidate B - is it even Martinez's current opponent? - was to gain 'revenge' for prosecutor martinez putting her old man in the slammer, so isn't credible? And even if she isn't, so what?

It's like Martinez's message is, "anyone who's against me, I should probably look into prosecuting"

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion as her message. She prosecuted this guy in the past, got him convicted for a 23 year sentence, then his wife appeared in an ad as a concerned teacher condemning Martinez's plan for education in New Mexico. The prosecution wasn't the resulting action from the ad, the ad is alleged to be the product of the prosecution.

She's running as a non partisan prosecutor in a Democratic state that has been plagued by corruption. She's emphasizing her prosecuting bonafides and marginalizing the effectiveness of an attack against her by blowing up her attacker's credibility all in thirty seconds.

kruker wrote:America’s public servants are now its masters

An awful lot of articles like this have been hitting the presses lately.

I can't get in to read it.

I'll just go ahead and guess it focuses on the 10,000 public jobs lost in August (in addition to the thousands of census jobs).

swishnicholson wrote:

kruker wrote:America’s public servants are now its masters

An awful lot of articles like this have been hitting the presses lately.

I can't get in to read it.

I'll just go ahead and guess it focuses on the 10,000 public jobs lost in August (in addition to the thousands of census jobs).

Pretty sure ft is free to register and read online. They have good stuff there on occasion too. Not that this article is so awesome that I'd go out of my way to register for it.

no, it's about how we suck and are stealing your monies, laughing all the way to our million dollar homes in our porsches while screwing our mistresses and smoking cubans. real. live. cubans.

pacino wrote:no, it's about how we suck and are stealing your monies, laughing all the way to our million dollar homes in our porsches while screwing our mistresses and smoking cubans. real. live. cubans.

Oh. Well that makes more sense.

Shame on you.

jerseyhoya wrote: The prosecution wasn't the resulting action from the ad, the ad is alleged to be the product of the prosecution.

you get that, and I get that - though that angle seems inordinately self-aggrandizing to me - but how many viewers of that brief clip will get it?

She's running as a non partisan prosecutor in a Democratic state that has been plagued by corruption. She's emphasizing her prosecuting bonafides and marginalizing the effectiveness of an attack against her by blowing up her attacker's credibility all in thirty seconds.

It's not all that clear from the Martinez ad that the candidate who ran the other ad is her current opponent.

At the beginning, Martinez asks if the viewer "remembers" the Denish ad - Denish is a dame of course. I'm presuming the Denish ad is running right now - if the viewer DOESN'T remember the ad, they probably don't know anything about EITHER opponent. Martinez has just encouraged the viewer to go learn something about her opponent. Too bad I guess if they learn something they like.

At the 23 second mark, Martinez asks the viewer whether they want 4 more years of the same - while over her left shoulder is a picture featuring some stout old white guy in the foreground. Her opponent? Her opponent's husband? Her opponent's boss? Some random guy from central casting?

And then the finish with the kids: what do THEY have to do with what's gone before? Looks like she's caught one of them - is Martinez gonna jail her, too?

You're a pro, an insider, someone who's up on this crap. The base might get some yuks from the thing, and sure, they deserve a good laugh. That marginal voter you're looking for? They won't get it.

kruker wrote:America’s public servants are now its masters

An awful lot of articles like this have been hitting the presses lately.

"The private sector has eviscerated middle class pension and health care benefits, and suppressed salaries to make up for it for over a decade. The government should do this to people too, because it's such a good idea."

Fuck you Financial Times.

mozartpc27 wrote:

kruker wrote:America’s public servants are now its masters

An awful lot of articles like this have been hitting the presses lately.

"The private sector has eviscerated middle class pension and health care benefits, and suppressed salaries to make up for it for over a decade. The government should do this to people too, because it's such a good idea."

$#@! you Financial Times.

Moz, while your uncharacteristically concise summary of the FT writer's view (accurate, too, in my judgment) provides a nice counter to the self-satisfied tone of that piece, doesn't it also recall larger questions about what forces conspire to produce a viable middle class in the first place? You've pre-emptively poked a hole in what would probably be the FT writer's assertion - that a 'proper' middle class only emerges from a robust private sector, that then vestigially 'allows' some level of public sector participation. But surely the opposite - the middle class is anchored first by a robust mandarin class - is no more adequate a formula?

drsmooth wrote:Moz, while your uncharacteristically concise summary of the FT writer's view (accurate, too, in my judgment) provides a nice counter to the self-satisfied tone of that piece, doesn't it also recall larger questions about what forces conspire to produce a viable middle class in the first place? You've pre-emptively poked a hole in what would probably be the FT writer's assertion - that a 'proper' middle class only emerges from a robust private sector, that then vestigially 'allows' some level of public sector participation. But surely the opposite - the middle class is anchored first by a robust mandarin class - is no more adequate a formula?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The middle class can't be anchored in the private sector, or in the public sector, so...?

Watched Maddow and the Daily Show earlier today...not sure I care about Meghan McCain but hoo boy, nice.

That Jon Runyan ad about him, his house, and trying to get it declared a "farm" is a good one.

jerseyhoya wrote:Kudos to Obama

Leniency for drug addicts convicted of possession: Good.
Leniency for child pornographers: Very, very, very bad. Granted, that's not what the current bill was about, he best be careful intimating that child pornography sentencing guidelines should be relaxed.

Maybe the definition of what constitutes child pornography should be relaxed in the various states and at the federal level, but that's a differnet matter.

Honestly, there probably should be leniency for some so-called white collar crimes.

Forget anything I've said previously about the Islamic Interfaith Center, they should build it right exactly where they plan. People are behaving abominably in this country right now. Should be ashamed of themselves.

Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds

Entertaining read

jerseyhoya wrote:Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds

Entertaining read

That certainly explains my thoughts traveling through Greece this summer. It's like nobody is in charge and people just do what they want. I got the same feeling in Italy.

PPP has O'Donnell up 3 on Castle

ygtbfkm

Good times...

Signs in the crowd reflected the anti-government ethos of the movement, calling for spending cuts, an end to the “Marxist income tax,” and quoting the libertarian icon Ayn Rand. “Redistribute my work ethic,” read one sign. Others called for a Fair Tax — a national sales tax to replace the income tax — or to repeal the health care bill passed in March. “Down our throats on March 21st,” one sign said, “Up Yours on Nov. 2nd.”

But others reflected anger about illegal immigration — “Uncle Sam wants you to speak English,” read one — and the controversy over the planned mosque at ground zero, which many Tea Party supporters have rallied against. “Obama Creates Jobs at Ground Zero,” read one, over a picture of a mosque.

Speaker after speaker complained about portrayals of the Tea Party movement as extremist.

But signs in the crowd did not shy away from outright anger. “By ballot or bullet, restoration is coming,” read one sign, held over a yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

And as much as many Tea Party leaders have disavowed the “birthers” who question whether President Obama is a citizen, other signs in the crowd cast doubt on the validity of his birth certificate. “Undocumented worker” read one, over a picture of the president. “We don’t want a Kenyan reject,” read another.