It's Pronounced BAY-ner (Politics Thread)

by **drsmooth** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:09:26

dajafi wrote:
Assume the dismantlers get dismantled in 2012: Obama wins a second term, Democrats keep/retake majorities, etc. The action for Republicans will shift, as it usually does, to the state level. If the economy rebounds, Christie wins a second term in 2013. He's a social moderate, pro-growth, tough-on-crime Everyman who's buddy-buddy with Cory Booker. And he's got Michelle Rhee, the CLIFF LEE of education policy. Doesn't that give him a good story to tell running against Hillary Clinton in 2016?

I may be wrong, but Christie's inherited some big-ass problems that may have him wishing all he had to deal with was a Gulf oil spill-type disaster between now & '16. Something's going to have to go very right for him in NJ beyond his bluster/positioning stuff for him to retain favor that long. Something substantive. The odds seem pretty long.

by **traderdave** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:27:46

Christie is certainly the hottest chick in school right now but I wonder if his constant full-court press will eventually wear thin both on a state and a national level. I think we are already seeing some hairline cracks in the foundation. I think if he really has national plans (as I'm sure he does) he needs to break his habit of treating everybody like they are sitting at the defendant's table. I'll tell you one thing, I would pay to see Clinton vs. Christie in 2016.

by **Swiggers** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:12:58

jerseyhoya wrote:Sestak up 44-41 on Toomey according to a Morning Call poll

I don't get that undecided number right now, at all, but Sestak clearly has the momentum

Think pacino called this comeback and I told him he was wrong, so kudos, sir

I'm not as good as analyzing this stuff as some of you guys are, but I thought the "Toomey is a creature of Wall Street" ads were quite effective.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:26:32

Bad copy/paste job by Meg Whitman spokesperson Sarah Pompei. Dropped the last letter from the url link, tweeting http://bit.ly/bNCAV instead of http://bit.ly/bNCAVr

:shock:

by **gpicaro** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 16:51:09

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Bad copy/paste job by Meg Whitman spokesperson Sarah Pompei. Dropped the last letter from the url link, tweeting http://bit.ly/bNCAV instead of http://bit.ly/bNCAVr

That dude can really play

by **pacino** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 17:42:46

what a mix! he'd get my vote if he wasn't a little anti-semitic

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 18:26:50

If I were Adler, I use every dime of my campaign money to buy footage of Michael Strahan beating Jon Runyan one of the millions of times that seemed to happen, and remind viewers that "Jon Runyan Never Won a Super Bowl."

Vote Adler!

by **dajafi** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 20:05:43

mozartpc27 wrote:If I were Adler, I use every dime of my campaign money to buy footage of Michael Strahan beating Jon Runyan one of the millions of times that seemed to happen, and remind viewers that "Jon Runyan Never Won a Super Bowl."

Vote Adler!

This is like me wanting Runyan to win and Strahan to move to the district and run against him in 2012, largely to make jh's mind assplode.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 01:25:47

For right leaning folk who like to talk about the liberal media, this NPR thing with Juan Williams is like manna from heaven.

by **Harpua** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 01:50:10

jerseyhoya wrote:For right leaning folk who like to talk about the liberal media, this NPR thing with Juan Williams is like manna from heaven.

Signing on just to respond to this? Why the fuck not. This was a terrible, terrible move by NPR, an organization which ought to know that Juan Williams is not the only person to have had this thought, and be willing to at least discuss it. I really think it's more of a PC freakout than Orchestrated Liberal Bias. But still.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 01:50:18

OMG THEYRE SO INTOLERANT OF BIGOTS

this country has moved so far right it doesn't even know what's left anymore. npr is not 'left', (and in no way is juan williams either)it's a news organization and that's really about it. i cringed when he came on npr anyway, he's a nothing really.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:31:20

Pacino, you couldn't be more wrong. Juan Williams simply is not a bigot.

The thing is, even if you are a Card Carrying member of the PC police, you should recognize the Juan Williams is more than entitled to the benefit of the doubt here. He has a long and distinguished track record on these issues. More the liberal bias, I fear this reveals that the NPR latte sippers ensconced in their de facto whites only enclaves driving through scary parts of town that aren't gated really have no interest in the realities of civil rights and instead are primarily concerned with feeling good about how tolerant and open minded they all are.

I don't know how many of you listen to NPR programming regularly--I do like Talk of the Nation, and I still think Nina Totenberg is an outstanding reporter who covers the Supreme Court and the Judiciary better than anyone else. But so much of it is now almost indistinguishable from "The Delicious Dish" that if it goes away I doubt many would miss it.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:35:03

On a whole nother topic--JH, here's a freebie idea for future research--I think the the increase of partisanship that has been observed in Congress over the last few decades has more to do with the fact that there is no permanent minority party. That is, if you were a Republican member of Congress while the New Deal coalition prevailed, you have every reason to work with Dems and compromise--if you didn't, you'd get nothing. Now, however, when you find yourself in the minority (whether you're R or D) you have every incentive to hold out because your minority status is unlikely to be permanent.

It seems so obviously a better explanation than Fox News or Glenn Beck, I'm sure someone has already done this.

by **traderdave** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:36:04

I'm sure you have all seen Runyan's Christine O'Donnell-style beaut from Tuesday night by now but here it is again anyway:

http://outofbounds.nbcsports.com/2010/1 ... 0.html.php

I have to admit that I cringed when I saw it on MSNBC last night. I also loved the O'Donnell exchange last night when she named Clinton as a Senator she would like to work with:

MODERATOR: Give me a name, Christine, of someone in the U.S. Senate, across the aisle that you're comfortable working with.

O'DONNELL: [Pause] Well, she's not a senator any more, but I would definitely have to say Hillary Clinton. [...]

Here is video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/2 ... 70861.html

There is no reality TV anywhere that can touch this stuff.

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:39:59

Better late than never (?)

In her Senate testimony, Hill, who worked with Thomas at two federal agencies, said that Thomas would make sexual comments to her at work, including references to scenes in hard-core pornographic films.

"If I used that kind of grotesque language with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me, or the other individuals who heard bits and pieces of it or various levels of it," Thomas responded to the committee.

McEwen scoffs softly when asked about Thomas's indignation, which has barely cooled in the 19 years since the hearings. In his vivid 2007 memoir, the justice calls Hill a tool of liberal activists outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe.

McEwen's memoir describes her own "dysfunctional" family in the District and, ultimately, a long legal career. She charts how she developed an "inner self" to escape the chaos of her childhood. Her story also includes explicit details of her relationship with Thomas, which she said included a freewheeling sex life.

Given that history, she said Hill's long-ago description of Thomas's behavior resonated with her.

"He was obsessed with porn," she said of Thomas, who is now 63. "He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting."

McEwen added that she had no problem with Thomas's interests, although she found pornography to be "boring."

According to McEwen, Thomas would also tell her about women he encountered at work. He was partial to women with large breasts, she said. In an instance at work, Thomas was so impressed that he asked one woman her bra size, McEwen recalled him telling her.

Presented with some of McEwen's assertions, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Thomas was unavailable for comment.

by **kopphanatic** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:43:04

Thomas is ethically and morally bankrupt, and not just because he likes pr0n.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 09:50:33

TenuredVulture wrote:Pacino, you couldn't be more wrong. Juan Williams simply is not a bigot.

The thing is, even if you are a Card Carrying member of the PC police, you should recognize the Juan Williams is more than entitled to the benefit of the doubt here. He has a long and distinguished track record on these issues. More the liberal bias, I fear this reveals that the NPR latte sippers ensconced in their de facto whites only enclaves driving through scary parts of town that aren't gated really have no interest in the realities of civil rights and instead are primarily concerned with feeling good about how tolerant and open minded they all are.

I don't know how many of you listen to NPR programming regularly--I do like Talk of the Nation, and I still think Nina Totenberg is an outstanding reporter who covers the Supreme Court and the Judiciary better than anyone else. But so much of it is now almost indistinguishable from "The Delicious Dish" that if it goes away I doubt many would miss it.

your characterization of the listenership of npr is quite ridiculous. I'm not going to get into why. Williams made a bigoted statement...it's impossible to deny it. That may float on fox, but it obviously doesn't for his former employer.

In any event, he can now fully becone a fake liberal on fox and will make his millions. Kudos, juan.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:59:05

TenuredVulture wrote:On a whole nother topic--JH, here's a freebie idea for future research--I think the the increase of partisanship that has been observed in Congress over the last few decades has more to do with the fact that there is no permanent minority party. That is, if you were a Republican member of Congress while the New Deal coalition prevailed, you have every reason to work with Dems and compromise--if you didn't, you'd get nothing. Now, however, when you find yourself in the minority (whether you're R or D) you have every incentive to hold out because your minority status is unlikely to be permanent.

It seems so obviously a better explanation than Fox News or Glenn Beck, I'm sure someone has already done this.

TV, Hoya could spark a cross-disciplinary game theory nerdfest with this. Are there practitioners/adherents at Rutgers?

by **drsmooth** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:01:50

TenuredVulture wrote:Pacino, you couldn't be more wrong. Juan Williams simply is not a bigot.

The thing is, even if you are a Card Carrying member of the PC police, you should recognize the Juan Williams is more than entitled to the benefit of the doubt here. He has a long and distinguished track record on these issues. More the liberal bias, I fear this reveals that the NPR latte sippers ensconced in their de facto whites only enclaves driving through scary parts of town that aren't gated really have no interest in the realities of civil rights and instead are primarily concerned with feeling good about how tolerant and open minded they all are.

I don't know how many of you listen to NPR programming regularly--I do like Talk of the Nation, and I still think Nina Totenberg is an outstanding reporter who covers the Supreme Court and the Judiciary better than anyone else. But so much of it is now almost indistinguishable from "The Delicious Dish" that if it goes away I doubt many would miss it.

JUST KEEP YOUR GUMMINT HANDS OFF MY CAR TALK

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:24:50

drsmooth wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:On a whole nother topic--JH, here's a freebie idea for future research--I think the the increase of partisanship that has been observed in Congress over the last few decades has more to do with the fact that there is no permanent minority party. That is, if you were a Republican member of Congress while the New Deal coalition prevailed, you have every reason to work with Dems and compromise--if you didn't, you'd get nothing. Now, however, when you find yourself in the minority (whether you're R or D) you have every incentive to hold out because your minority status is unlikely to be permanent.

It seems so obviously a better explanation than Fox News or Glenn Beck, I'm sure someone has already done this.

TV, Hoya could spark a cross-disciplinary game theory nerdfest with this. Are there practitioners/adherents at Rutgers?

It's a really interesting idea. I'm not entirely sure how to capture it quantitatively though. Maybe someone like Ross Baker could interview a bunch of current and former members about motivations, but I'm having a hard time of thinking of variables that could get past simple correlation.

Archived

It's Pronounced BAY-ner (Politics Thread)