![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Tags:
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.
Harry Truman said this in 1948.
In 1948.
Did he build a time machine, come forward to our day, and go back to warn the country about them?
It's so refreshing [/sarcasm] to see they haven't changed in 65 years.
This jpg is a perfect snapshot of the election.
The President couldn't have orchestrated this any better if he and Nate were in the White House basement right now building a time machine, preparing to go back a year and lay the groundwork for this historic victory.
In 2008 Nate Silver called 49 out of 50 states correctly. This time he hit every single state(the last I heard, Florida still has about 200,000 votes to count, but Obama is up 47K or thereabouts, so I believe he'll get Florida), as well as the popular vote (50 to 48 percent). Turnout was very similar to 2008 levels, with higher numbers of women, African Americans, and Latinos.
Mother Jones has an article on the election and the awesomeness of President Obama's ground game. The ground game mattered greatly in Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Forbes also has an interesting article about this, written from a small-business perspective.
Also, need I say how immensely satisfying it is that all of Karl Rove's and the other SuperPAC money--literally billions of dollars--got flushed down the toilet? I do not envy "Turd Blossom" today, trying to explain himself to Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.
In short, we did it, motherfrakkers.
Not only the President, but the 20 women now in the Senate (including Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth, who I'm proud to report I contributed to). Marriage equality wins in four states. And a whole host of progressive ballot measures passed at the polls.
A pretty damn good night.
Sigh of relief. Nate Silver was right and Mitt Romney's ass got booted. Some on MSNBC were praising his concession speech last night, but all I saw was the same insincere, smarmy slimeball I've always seen.
Goodbye, Mitt. We hardly knew ye.
Thank God.
The President couldn't have orchestrated this any better if he and Nate were in the White House basement right now building a time machine, preparing to go back a year and lay the groundwork for this historic victory.
In 2008 Nate Silver called 49 out of 50 states correctly. This time he hit every single state(the last I heard, Florida still has about 200,000 votes to count, but Obama is up 47K or thereabouts, so I believe he'll get Florida), as well as the popular vote (50 to 48 percent). Turnout was very similar to 2008 levels, with higher numbers of women, African Americans, and Latinos.
Mother Jones has an article on the election and the awesomeness of President Obama's ground game. The ground game mattered greatly in Florida, according to the Miami Herald. Forbes also has an interesting article about this, written from a small-business perspective.
Also, need I say how immensely satisfying it is that all of Karl Rove's and the other SuperPAC money--literally billions of dollars--got flushed down the toilet? I do not envy "Turd Blossom" today, trying to explain himself to Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.
In short, we did it, motherfrakkers.
Not only the President, but the 20 women now in the Senate (including Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth, who I'm proud to report I contributed to). Marriage equality wins in four states. And a whole host of progressive ballot measures passed at the polls.
A pretty damn good night.
Sigh of relief. Nate Silver was right and Mitt Romney's ass got booted. Some on MSNBC were praising his concession speech last night, but all I saw was the same insincere, smarmy slimeball I've always seen.
Goodbye, Mitt. We hardly knew ye.
Thank God.
Tags:
More newspaper endorsements for President Obama keep rolling in. I particularly like this one, from the deep red state of Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (he of the infamous "our first priority is to make President Obama a one-term president" remark).
Separating rhetoric from reality is especially difficult when considering Republican Mitt Romney, because he has espoused so many conflicting positions. From abortion to taxes and trade with China, he has been all over the map.
Romney's a great salesman, but it's impossible to know what he's selling or predict what he would do if elected. This makes him a risky choice.
Barack Obama has a record as president, and though he has not led us to his post-partisan promised land, he has provided steady, principled leadership during an economic crisis.
I keep hearing people declare that Romney's going to win, but more and more I think that's pure fantasy. Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight blog, for example, puts the president's chances of winning the Electoral College at 73% as of today; this has held steady for a while, and the Romney "bounce" of last month appears to be over. Sam Wang of Princeton predicts 300 electoral votes of President Obama, while Drew Linzer, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, predicts a whopping 332 electoral votes for Obama. He also has an interesting state-by-state polling analysis.
The Huffington Post's electoral map puts the President at 277 electoral votes (270 needed to win), while the lowest poll tracker I've seen, at Talking Points Memo, has Obama at 265--five short. If you average all these out, statistically the President has it in the bag.
Of course, anything can still happen, especially with Hurricane Sandy the nasty power-line-downing monkey wrench. The Obama campaign, naturally, isn't letting up, and is pounding away at early voting, which may be the President's saving grace. Fake Noise (Fox News), meanwhile, is still screaming "Benghazi," which I believe is the ultimate red herring, since most Americans (who at the moment are concerned with a hurricane and an election, in that order) couldn't give a pink rat's ass. As illustrated by this cartoon.
Separating rhetoric from reality is especially difficult when considering Republican Mitt Romney, because he has espoused so many conflicting positions. From abortion to taxes and trade with China, he has been all over the map.
Romney's a great salesman, but it's impossible to know what he's selling or predict what he would do if elected. This makes him a risky choice.
Barack Obama has a record as president, and though he has not led us to his post-partisan promised land, he has provided steady, principled leadership during an economic crisis.
I keep hearing people declare that Romney's going to win, but more and more I think that's pure fantasy. Nate Silver's Five Thirty Eight blog, for example, puts the president's chances of winning the Electoral College at 73% as of today; this has held steady for a while, and the Romney "bounce" of last month appears to be over. Sam Wang of Princeton predicts 300 electoral votes of President Obama, while Drew Linzer, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, predicts a whopping 332 electoral votes for Obama. He also has an interesting state-by-state polling analysis.
The Huffington Post's electoral map puts the President at 277 electoral votes (270 needed to win), while the lowest poll tracker I've seen, at Talking Points Memo, has Obama at 265--five short. If you average all these out, statistically the President has it in the bag.
Of course, anything can still happen, especially with Hurricane Sandy the nasty power-line-downing monkey wrench. The Obama campaign, naturally, isn't letting up, and is pounding away at early voting, which may be the President's saving grace. Fake Noise (Fox News), meanwhile, is still screaming "Benghazi," which I believe is the ultimate red herring, since most Americans (who at the moment are concerned with a hurricane and an election, in that order) couldn't give a pink rat's ass. As illustrated by this cartoon.
But hey, as the saying goes, keep screwing that pooch and see how far it gets you.
I am cautiously optimistic. I also happen to be off work on Election Day, and probably won't get much sleep, since it very well may go down to the wire (in Ohio). But I just don't think whichever Mitt Romney is programmed to be on display this week is going to pull it off.
Tags:
The Real Paul Ryan is Bad For America
(Can I point out how much I love Joe Biden? I loves me some Unca Joe.)
Charlie Pierce mops up the little pieces of Paul Ryan left by Joe Biden after the debate. (This is also why I don't wear lipstick.)
(Can I point out how much I love Joe Biden? I loves me some Unca Joe.)
Charlie Pierce mops up the little pieces of Paul Ryan left by Joe Biden after the debate. (This is also why I don't wear lipstick.)
Tags:
By now, surely everyone has heard that Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan to be his running mate, so I'll turn the proceedings over to the irreplacable Charles Pierce.
We're not worthy, Charlie.
Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.
To add my two cents: I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he was the Last Presidential Candidate on Earth and God Hirself was holding a gun to my head. I cannot believe any rational American citizen would contemplate putting this sleazy, arrogant, dishonest, lying slimeball into the highest office of the land.
But his pick of Paul Ryan for VP only solidifies my contempt. Paul Ryan, after all, wants to dismantle Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system. No, make that a coupon system--you're given a fixed amount to purchase healthcare (just as a store coupon takes only fifty cents or a dollar off the actual cost of the merchandise), and if the annual cost of healthcare is rising beyond the value of your coupon, well, too bad, so sad, you have to make up the difference.
I didn't pay my Medicare taxes for all these years--fifty years by the time I retire--to have the system yanked out from under me just because Paul Ryan has some kind of juvenile Ayn Rand obsession.
Together, these two Twitrands constitute the worst Presidential ticket I have seen in my lifetime.
Vulture/Voucher 2012--"You People Are On Your Own"
Vote for them at your peril.
We're not worthy, Charlie.
Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.
To add my two cents: I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he was the Last Presidential Candidate on Earth and God Hirself was holding a gun to my head. I cannot believe any rational American citizen would contemplate putting this sleazy, arrogant, dishonest, lying slimeball into the highest office of the land.
But his pick of Paul Ryan for VP only solidifies my contempt. Paul Ryan, after all, wants to dismantle Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system. No, make that a coupon system--you're given a fixed amount to purchase healthcare (just as a store coupon takes only fifty cents or a dollar off the actual cost of the merchandise), and if the annual cost of healthcare is rising beyond the value of your coupon, well, too bad, so sad, you have to make up the difference.
I didn't pay my Medicare taxes for all these years--fifty years by the time I retire--to have the system yanked out from under me just because Paul Ryan has some kind of juvenile Ayn Rand obsession.
Together, these two Twitrands constitute the worst Presidential ticket I have seen in my lifetime.
Vulture/Voucher 2012--"You People Are On Your Own"
Vote for them at your peril.
By now, surely everyone has heard that Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan to be his running mate, so I'll turn the proceedings over to the irreplacable Charles Pierce.
We're not worthy, Charlie.
Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.
To add my two cents: I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he was the Last Presidential Candidate on Earth and God Hirself was holding a gun to my head. I cannot believe any rational American citizen would contemplate putting this sleazy, arrogant, dishonest, lying slimeball into the highest office of the land.
But his pick of Paul Ryan for VP only solidifies my contempt. Paul Ryan, after all, wants to dismantle Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system. No, make that a coupon system--you're given a fixed amount to purchase healthcare (just as a store coupon takes only fifty cents or a dollar off the actual cost of the merchandise), and if the annual cost of healthcare is rising beyond the value of your coupon, well, too bad, so sad, you have to make up the difference.
I didn't pay my Medicare taxes for all these years--fifty years by the time I retire--to have the system yanked out from under me just because Paul Ryan has some kind of juvenile Ayn Rand obsession.
Together, these two Twitrands constitute the worst Presidential ticket I have seen in my lifetime.
Vulture/Voucher 2012--"You People Are On Your Own"
Vote for them at your peril.
We're not worthy, Charlie.
Paul Ryan is an authentically dangerous zealot. He does not want to reform entitlements. He wants to eliminate them. He wants to eliminate them because he doesn't believe they are a legitimate function of government. He is a smiling, aw-shucks murderer of opportunity, a creator of dystopias in which he never will have to live. This now is an argument not over what kind of political commonwealth we will have, but rather whether or not we will have one at all, because Paul Ryan does not believe in the most primary institution of that commonwealth: our government. The first three words of the Preamble to the Constitution make a lie out of every speech he's ever given. He looks at the country and sees its government as something alien that is holding down the individual entrepreneurial genius of 200 million people, and not as their creation, and the vehicle through which that genius can be channelled for the general welfare.
To add my two cents: I would not vote for Mitt Romney if he was the Last Presidential Candidate on Earth and God Hirself was holding a gun to my head. I cannot believe any rational American citizen would contemplate putting this sleazy, arrogant, dishonest, lying slimeball into the highest office of the land.
But his pick of Paul Ryan for VP only solidifies my contempt. Paul Ryan, after all, wants to dismantle Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system. No, make that a coupon system--you're given a fixed amount to purchase healthcare (just as a store coupon takes only fifty cents or a dollar off the actual cost of the merchandise), and if the annual cost of healthcare is rising beyond the value of your coupon, well, too bad, so sad, you have to make up the difference.
I didn't pay my Medicare taxes for all these years--fifty years by the time I retire--to have the system yanked out from under me just because Paul Ryan has some kind of juvenile Ayn Rand obsession.
Together, these two Twitrands constitute the worst Presidential ticket I have seen in my lifetime.
Vulture/Voucher 2012--"You People Are On Your Own"
Vote for them at your peril.
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” ~George Orwell, Animal Farm
“The point is, there is no feasible excuse for what are, for what we have made of ourselves. We have chosen to put profits before people, money before morality, dividends before decency, fanaticism before fairness, and our own trivial comforts before the unspeakable agonies of others.” ~Iain Banks, Complicity
Scare-mongering?
Damn straight.
Joe Biden lays out Mitt Romney's dystopian Presidential horror show.
Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like after four years of Governor Romney. Imagine what it will act like. Imagine what it will mean for civil rights, voting rights, and so much we have fought so hard for. Imagine a Justice Department that supports, rather than challenges, continued efforts to suppress the right to vote. Because that’s what will happen if they win.
The Hunger Games, anyone? (Minus our female saviour, because she'll be perpetually barefoot and pregnant.) Yes, it's a good book, but I don't imagine Suzanne Collins wrote it with the idea of being a prophetess.
“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” ~George Orwell, Animal Farm
“The point is, there is no feasible excuse for what are, for what we have made of ourselves. We have chosen to put profits before people, money before morality, dividends before decency, fanaticism before fairness, and our own trivial comforts before the unspeakable agonies of others.” ~Iain Banks, Complicity
Scare-mongering?
Damn straight.
Joe Biden lays out Mitt Romney's dystopian Presidential horror show.
Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like after four years of Governor Romney. Imagine what it will act like. Imagine what it will mean for civil rights, voting rights, and so much we have fought so hard for. Imagine a Justice Department that supports, rather than challenges, continued efforts to suppress the right to vote. Because that’s what will happen if they win.
The Hunger Games, anyone? (Minus our female saviour, because she'll be perpetually barefoot and pregnant.) Yes, it's a good book, but I don't imagine Suzanne Collins wrote it with the idea of being a prophetess.
So this op-ed appeared in my hometown newspaper today, which rather surprised me; I was always under the impression that if my newspaper's editor ever printed something like this, s/he would be run out of town.
First, the writer lists his Republican bonafides.
Indeed, my first political act was passionately lobbying my fourth-grade classmates to vote for Reagan over Walter Mondale in a mock election in 1984. As an adult, I continued to be a rock-solid Republican- I helped run my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society and its Republican club. And after the election of President Obama in 2008, I served as an officer in my state Republican Party.
Then he lowers the boom.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible. The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose--one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's budget to see that.
He is not the first prominent Republican or moderate to say things like this, nor is he the first to leave the party over it. The comments to this article are instructive; of course some of the commenters get into fights, but many of them call the writer a "RINO"--Republican In Name Only--thus proving his point.
As far as I know, the writer didn't become a Democrat; I believe he registered as an Independent. Nevertheless, it's a sad and terrifying comment on a major political party that has gone completely off the rails, to the point where they drive away those who view themselves as sincere, honest conservatives.
First, the writer lists his Republican bonafides.
Indeed, my first political act was passionately lobbying my fourth-grade classmates to vote for Reagan over Walter Mondale in a mock election in 1984. As an adult, I continued to be a rock-solid Republican- I helped run my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society and its Republican club. And after the election of President Obama in 2008, I served as an officer in my state Republican Party.
Then he lowers the boom.
As a local GOP official after President Obama’s election, I had a front-row seat as it became infected by a dangerous and virulent form of political rabies.
In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change--a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world--is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans--the notorious birthers--believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change--a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world--is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans--the notorious birthers--believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible. The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose--one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's budget to see that.
He is not the first prominent Republican or moderate to say things like this, nor is he the first to leave the party over it. The comments to this article are instructive; of course some of the commenters get into fights, but many of them call the writer a "RINO"--Republican In Name Only--thus proving his point.
As far as I know, the writer didn't become a Democrat; I believe he registered as an Independent. Nevertheless, it's a sad and terrifying comment on a major political party that has gone completely off the rails, to the point where they drive away those who view themselves as sincere, honest conservatives.
So this op-ed appeared in my hometown newspaper today, which rather surprised me; I was always under the impression that if my newspaper's editor ever printed something like this, s/he would be run out of town.
First, the writer lists his Republican bonafides.
Indeed, my first political act was passionately lobbying my fourth-grade classmates to vote for Reagan over Walter Mondale in a mock election in 1984. As an adult, I continued to be a rock-solid Republican- I helped run my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society and its Republican club. And after the election of President Obama in 2008, I served as an officer in my state Republican Party.
Then he lowers the boom.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible. The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose--one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's budget to see that.
He is not the first prominent Republican or moderate to say things like this, nor is he the first to leave the party over it. The comments to this article are instructive; of course some of the commenters get into fights, but many of them call the writer a "RINO"--Republican In Name Only--thus proving his point.
As far as I know, the writer didn't become a Democrat; I believe he registered as an Independent. Nevertheless, it's a sad and terrifying comment on a major political party that has gone completely off the rails, to the point where they drive away those who view themselves as sincere, honest conservatives.
First, the writer lists his Republican bonafides.
Indeed, my first political act was passionately lobbying my fourth-grade classmates to vote for Reagan over Walter Mondale in a mock election in 1984. As an adult, I continued to be a rock-solid Republican- I helped run my law school’s chapter of the Federalist Society and its Republican club. And after the election of President Obama in 2008, I served as an officer in my state Republican Party.
Then he lowers the boom.
As a local GOP official after President Obama’s election, I had a front-row seat as it became infected by a dangerous and virulent form of political rabies.
In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change--a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world--is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans--the notorious birthers--believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
In the grip of this contagion, the Republican Party has come unhinged. Its fevered hallucinations involve threats from imaginary communists and socialists who, seemingly, lurk around every corner. Climate change--a reality recognized by every single significant scientific body and academy in the world--is a liberal conspiracy conjured up by Al Gore and other leftists who want to destroy America. Large numbers of Republicans--the notorious birthers--believe that the President was not born in the United States. Even worse, few figures in the GOP have the courage to confront them.
Republican economic policies are also indefensible. The GOP constantly claims that its opponents are engaged in "class warfare," but this is an exercise in projection. In Republican proposals, the wealthy win, and the rest of us lose--one only has to look at Rep. Paul Ryan's budget to see that.
He is not the first prominent Republican or moderate to say things like this, nor is he the first to leave the party over it. The comments to this article are instructive; of course some of the commenters get into fights, but many of them call the writer a "RINO"--Republican In Name Only--thus proving his point.
As far as I know, the writer didn't become a Democrat; I believe he registered as an Independent. Nevertheless, it's a sad and terrifying comment on a major political party that has gone completely off the rails, to the point where they drive away those who view themselves as sincere, honest conservatives.
Man. Andrew Sullivan is in an asshole-ripping mood today.
That last massive lie is at the core of Romney's political strategy. By removing that context (which is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentionng the iceberg), Romney is knowingly arguing that the spending and debt levels of the last three years were some kind of choice by a president who just loves to strangle the US economy by spending much more money than we have. But the only president who made that choice was George W. Bush - by crippling revenues, even as he fought wars with no budgets and new entitlements with no end (Medicare D), rendering us bankrupt even as we desperately needed a rainy day surplus to fight the depression.
Obama did not have a serious choice; he had a fate. That fate was to pick up the pieces of the most catastrophic presidency in modern times. The final bouquet - after emptying the public coffers with no serious boost to employment, profits or growth - was the financial collapse, which both shrunk the economy, decimated revenues to 50 year lows, and automatically increased spending for the unemployed and poor in desperate need of help. Once you account for that - and the Nutting graph indeed shows that this was baked in the cake by the time Obama was elected - Obama has been, like most modern Democrats, far more fiscally conservative than any modern Republican.
The President should put Sully in charge of Internet outreach.
That last massive lie is at the core of Romney's political strategy. By removing that context (which is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentionng the iceberg), Romney is knowingly arguing that the spending and debt levels of the last three years were some kind of choice by a president who just loves to strangle the US economy by spending much more money than we have. But the only president who made that choice was George W. Bush - by crippling revenues, even as he fought wars with no budgets and new entitlements with no end (Medicare D), rendering us bankrupt even as we desperately needed a rainy day surplus to fight the depression.
Obama did not have a serious choice; he had a fate. That fate was to pick up the pieces of the most catastrophic presidency in modern times. The final bouquet - after emptying the public coffers with no serious boost to employment, profits or growth - was the financial collapse, which both shrunk the economy, decimated revenues to 50 year lows, and automatically increased spending for the unemployed and poor in desperate need of help. Once you account for that - and the Nutting graph indeed shows that this was baked in the cake by the time Obama was elected - Obama has been, like most modern Democrats, far more fiscally conservative than any modern Republican.
The President should put Sully in charge of Internet outreach.
Tags:
Man. Andrew Sullivan is in an asshole-ripping mood today.
That last massive lie is at the core of Romney's political strategy. By removing that context (which is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentionng the iceberg), Romney is knowingly arguing that the spending and debt levels of the last three years were some kind of choice by a president who just loves to strangle the US economy by spending much more money than we have. But the only president who made that choice was George W. Bush - by crippling revenues, even as he fought wars with no budgets and new entitlements with no end (Medicare D), rendering us bankrupt even as we desperately needed a rainy day surplus to fight the depression.
Obama did not have a serious choice; he had a fate. That fate was to pick up the pieces of the most catastrophic presidency in modern times. The final bouquet - after emptying the public coffers with no serious boost to employment, profits or growth - was the financial collapse, which both shrunk the economy, decimated revenues to 50 year lows, and automatically increased spending for the unemployed and poor in desperate need of help. Once you account for that - and the Nutting graph indeed shows that this was baked in the cake by the time Obama was elected - Obama has been, like most modern Democrats, far more fiscally conservative than any modern Republican.
The President should put Sully in charge of Internet outreach.
That last massive lie is at the core of Romney's political strategy. By removing that context (which is like talking about the sinking of the Titanic without mentionng the iceberg), Romney is knowingly arguing that the spending and debt levels of the last three years were some kind of choice by a president who just loves to strangle the US economy by spending much more money than we have. But the only president who made that choice was George W. Bush - by crippling revenues, even as he fought wars with no budgets and new entitlements with no end (Medicare D), rendering us bankrupt even as we desperately needed a rainy day surplus to fight the depression.
Obama did not have a serious choice; he had a fate. That fate was to pick up the pieces of the most catastrophic presidency in modern times. The final bouquet - after emptying the public coffers with no serious boost to employment, profits or growth - was the financial collapse, which both shrunk the economy, decimated revenues to 50 year lows, and automatically increased spending for the unemployed and poor in desperate need of help. Once you account for that - and the Nutting graph indeed shows that this was baked in the cake by the time Obama was elected - Obama has been, like most modern Democrats, far more fiscally conservative than any modern Republican.
The President should put Sully in charge of Internet outreach.
Tags:
"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." ~C.S. Lewis
Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.
In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.
I know it's petty, but...
Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?
...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.
How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.
With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.
I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.
I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.
Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.
In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.
I know it's petty, but...
Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?
...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.
How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.
With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.
I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.
I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.
Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
Tags:
"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." ~C.S. Lewis
Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.
In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.
I know it's petty, but...
Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?
...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.
How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.
With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.
I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.
I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.
Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.
In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.
I know it's petty, but...
Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?
...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.
How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.
With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.
I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.
I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.
Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
Tags:
"Opposition may become sweet to a man when he has christened it persecution." ~George Eliot
After watching last night's CNN Republican debate, I can only conclude that the modern-day Republican Party is of besieged* white males, by besieged white males, and for besieged white males.
No one else need apply.
(*Besieged by whom? You decide.)
After watching last night's CNN Republican debate, I can only conclude that the modern-day Republican Party is of besieged* white males, by besieged white males, and for besieged white males.
No one else need apply.
(*Besieged by whom? You decide.)
"Opposition may become sweet to a man when he has christened it persecution." ~George Eliot
After watching last night's CNN Republican debate, I can only conclude that the modern-day Republican Party is of besieged* white males, by besieged white males, and for besieged white males.
No one else need apply.
(*Besieged by whom? You decide.)
After watching last night's CNN Republican debate, I can only conclude that the modern-day Republican Party is of besieged* white males, by besieged white males, and for besieged white males.
No one else need apply.
(*Besieged by whom? You decide.)
"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc." ~George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
The latest spin on Mitt Romney:
Voters Staying At Home Secretly Support Romney
Really? The sky was such a beautiful shade of green today, too.
Newspeak is alive and well. George Orwell would be proud.
The latest spin on Mitt Romney:
Voters Staying At Home Secretly Support Romney
Really? The sky was such a beautiful shade of green today, too.
Newspeak is alive and well. George Orwell would be proud.
"In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc." ~George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 9
The latest spin on Mitt Romney:
Voters Staying At Home Secretly Support Romney
Really? The sky was such a beautiful shade of green today, too.
Newspeak is alive and well. George Orwell would be proud.
The latest spin on Mitt Romney:
Voters Staying At Home Secretly Support Romney
Really? The sky was such a beautiful shade of green today, too.
Newspeak is alive and well. George Orwell would be proud.
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~Abraham Lincoln
This is just beautiful.
Why I'm Leaving the Republican Party and Endorsing President Obama
( Warning: Political rant ahead )
