Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 22:08:21

It looks as if former U .S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R.,Pa.) wants to attempt a comeback in the Bucks County-centered 8th congressional district.

Republican sources say that Fitzpatrick has scheduled a Saturday "announcement about his political future" for Saturday at 1 p.m. at a school in Langhorne, Pa.

He would take on U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D.,Pa.), an army veteran of Iraq, who wrested the seat from Fitzpatrick in 2006, the year of voter revolt against congressional Republicans.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 22:37:13

Rococo4 wrote:
drsmooth wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:It hurts my head to think how rococo/cshort are patronizingly pointing out what they might find acceptable in an HC deal.

don't get too concerned. Those points aren't what they think; they haven't really thought about it, really. Those points are straight from the party playbook.

They mean well. If they thought about those points - if they looked at data on the impact of tort reforms that have been implemented, for example - they might think differently about the merits of those proposals in terms of their own interests vs those of Rove/Norquist/others among their political/economic masters. Tip, guys - their bread-and-butter interests do not line up with yours.

But it's neither fair nor realistic to expect everyone to show much interest in these details. Hell, I'm not even that much interested in them.

They are what I think. I know, impossible right. All of us Republicans take marching orders right, while people on the other side are all independent thinkers.

HC tort reform ... red herring.

Of the states that have inacted tort reform, none of them have had HC costs decrease (nor a lower or slower rate of increase than non-tort-reformed states). Nor have malpractice insurance rates declined. Nor has the rate of "unnecessary" tests... docs in the tort reformed states order as many or more tests, specialist referrals, etc., not because of the threat of malpractice suits, but to make more monies.

Couple of articles to peruse at your leisure...

linky 1

linky 2

by **CalvinBall** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 22:41:44

TenuredVulture wrote:Which pundit speculated that the new Republican Senator elect from the great Commonwealth (not state) of Massachusetts might kill an intern?

Glen Beck

by **drsmooth** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 23:12:42

jerseyhoya wrote:Huffington Post is proper stupid if they think Scott Brown only spent 1/5 of $4 million dollars

what kind of stupid is it that ignores the broad-as-a-barn main point of that HP quote to mince around with what the candidates spent?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 23:16:26

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Huffington Post is proper stupid if they think Scott Brown only spent 1/5 of $4 million dollars

what kind of stupid is it that ignores the broad-as-a-barn main point of that HP quote to mince around with what the candidates spent?

philliesphhhhan?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jan 21, 2010 23:21:20

I understand what they're saying but when they say he spent $800k to win the race, and he probably spent something like $8-10 million, it makes them look like ruhtards and detracts from their overall point, like any time people write something with a blatant, large error in it.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:12:38

CalvinBall wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Which pundit speculated that the new Republican Senator elect from the great Commonwealth (not state) of Massachusetts might kill an intern?

Glen Beck

You are correct sir!

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:14:49

jerseyhoya wrote:I understand what they're saying but when they say he spent $800k to win the race, and he probably spent something like $8-10 million, it makes them look like ruhtards and detracts from their overall point, like any time people write something with a blatant, large error in it.

Fair point, and I dare say you solved the riddle your own self: the reporter dropped a zero from whatever notes s/he had, and no one caught it, and eventually the scribe or an editor said "wow, that's odd, look how little Brownie spent", and they embroidered their boner.

I don't recommend doing that at home.

Well actually, if you must do it, PLEASE do it at home, in private, and don't tell us about it.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:19:23

I don't think it was a dropped zero. I think people were just looking at the raised/spent reports from the 4th quarter of 2009, and neglected everything Brown raised in spent this month, which was 90% of his campaign expenditures.

by **pacino** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:20:02

TenuredVulture wrote:
CalvinBall wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:Which pundit speculated that the new Republican Senator elect from the great Commonwealth (not state) of Massachusetts might kill an intern?

Glen Beck

You are correct sir!

he also wondered out loud whether 'the left' may assassinate the President. He's just asking questions.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:34:35

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't think it was a dropped zero. I think people were just looking at the raised/spent reports from the 4th quarter of 2009, and neglected everything Brown raised in spent this month, which was 90% of his campaign expenditures.

that sounds right, since the woman probably didn't raise much in Jan. But at the same time, there was quite a bit of noise about the mils that rolled in for Brownie in Jan, so wouldn't that have been hard even for lazy reporters to ignore?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 00:39:08

The FEC filing has Brown Net Dist at $852,927 through 12/31/2009. That's pretty clearly what the HuffPo moron ran with. It would take a pretty good bit of effort in ignoring major campaign finance news, historic fundraising totals for a week, considering this person is writing about campaign finance stuff.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 01:45:54

jerseyhoya wrote:The FEC filing has Brown Net Dist at $852,927 through 12/31/2009. That's pretty clearly what the HuffPo moron ran with. It would take a pretty good bit of effort in ignoring major campaign finance news, historic fundraising totals for a week, considering this person is writing about campaign finance stuff.

agreed. But in fact it looks like that is exactly what they did.

So now, how about the supreme corruption of democracy that the "Citizens" United (Incorporated, whatever) decision represents?

by **kopphanatic** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 03:13:38

So much for Roberts, Alito, Crazy Clarence and Scalia being strict constructionists? Amirite??

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 08:57:24

hoya, I realized this AM that our exchange yesterday models what political speech will look like post "citizens": while your focus on the HuffPo reporter's error in totting up Brownie's spending was technically accurate - true, and 'useful' as far as it went - it blithely ignored the larger, more fundamental, more encompassing point made in the reporter's post.

But this is not about whether the reporter was right, or wrong, or a banana.

Suppose for a moment we went back & counted up the posts you & I each made on the topic; counted the words; counted the characters. Most of them, from each of us, went to the subject of the Brownie spending miscount. We really didn't type much about the larger, more significant issue at all.

Now imagine that you had been able to hire 10 or 20 people to basically chime in on our conversation, posting variations of the same emphatic concern for what Brownie did or did not spend vs the implications of allowing spending for messages placing disproportionate emphasis on particular subjects at the expense of either the whole or, on issues of greater import to, y'know, board posters everywhere. Imagine 10 or 20 others typing away on the same misdirected, disproportionally considered aspect of the Huffpo story, not because they believed it, but because that was where their bread was to be buttered.

Many an onlooker would probably conclude that since so many people had used so much of their valuable time to peck away about Brownie's campaign coffers that THAT must be the central point of the story. Even at my bloviating best I couldn't hope to out-type 10 or 20 industrious, well-compensated scribes. (Well, I could hope to but probably couldn't do it. Anymore. Most days). Readers would react as much to their perception of 'truthiness in numbers' as to the truth in proportion. We're practically teaching the wisdom of crowds in classrooms these days. No, what readers would probably have missed in this imagined exchange is that one person's amplified disproportionate view, in the end, muddied their own interpretation of the Huffpo story.

Of course I've significantly oversimplified the upstream & downstream implications of the matter in my little parable. That should cause you and anyone reading some concern. We're all 'bought' in one fashion or another; now we're about to get bought in whole new ways, at whole new prices that mean the pool of buyers who can place successful bids has shrunk considerably.

You know from your own experience people's susceptibility to influences of this kind; you may even be familiar with all sorts of experiments that have dwelt on the phenomenon and its implications for social behavior, of individuals, groups, polities. Of course that sort of narrow-issue distortional effect has always played some part in the grinding of political machinery. The Court's self-styled literalists have simply chosen to make it the centerpiece of the game - rather than a worrisome but collateral matter.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:28:49

If I've read that right, you're implying a focus on trivial matters has not been the center of campaigns in the past, but will become the norm in the future? I think competitive campaigns already are decided by people focusing on stupid crap more often than not.

I don't know how much this decision is going to change things. A little bit at the margins, sure, but there were a lot of different ways for rich people and corporations to influence elections before yesterday. It's like if someone built a cool interstate that went straight to Philly from my house. I could already get there on Rt. 70, but that involved traffic lights. The money did get there eventually though, just like I get to Philly just fine without the hypothetical interstate.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:07:20

jerseyhoya wrote:If I've read that right, you're implying a focus on trivial matters has not been the center of campaigns in the past, but will become the norm in the future? I think competitive campaigns already are decided by people focusing on stupid crap more often than not.

I don't know how much this decision is going to change things. A little bit at the margins, sure, but there were a lot of different ways for rich people and corporations to influence elections before yesterday. It's like if someone built a cool interstate that went straight to Philly from my house. I could already get there on Rt. 70, but that involved traffic lights. The money did get there eventually though, just like I get to Philly just fine without the hypothetical interstate.

you got the gist, and I believe you're right that the upshot is it's a matter of degree. Sort of like the difference between a puff of 70's quality homegrown and mainlining battery acid. Unfair just got unfairer; inequality just got more unequal. End of the world? No; best direction for a representative government to move? You tell me.

by **traderdave** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:19:52

jerseyhoya wrote:If I've read that right, you're implying a focus on trivial matters has not been the center of campaigns in the past, but will become the norm in the future? I think competitive campaigns already are decided by people focusing on stupid crap more often than not.

I don't know how much this decision is going to change things. A little bit at the margins, sure, but there were a lot of different ways for rich people and corporations to influence elections before yesterday. It's like if someone built a cool interstate that went straight to Philly from my house. I could already get there on Rt. 70, but that involved traffic lights. The money did get there eventually though, just like I get to Philly just fine without the hypothetical interstate.

I agree that, overall, this won't change things drastically as the rich have been getting their two cents (both literally and figuratively) into policy for a long, long time by hook or crook. My big problem is that the Supreme Court essentially established a legal bake house (to stick with the drug reference) and said "Have at it, boys".

It is like prostitution; we all know it exists even though women don't line the streets anymore. With the ruling yesterday, the whores are going to be lining Pennsylvania Avenue in broad daylight (or would they be the pimps? :lol:

).

by **kopphanatic** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:01:05

For your consideration:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gUWiz_MUS4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UMHXTXvWSA[/youtube]

by **swishnicholson** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:01:17

Air America is going off the air, which raises the significant question, It was still on?

Archived

Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread