Honestly, that concerns me less than the 57% of Republicans who believe Obama is a muslim.

Wow that's a screwed-up situation, Greg. I appreciate the posts you've made now and in the past about your local school board, in part because I've recently been volunteering for my local district (the K-8 district) and it's great to get ideas about what's being done elsewhere.

You saw Ten Commandments, right? So you know how that went down. Charlton Heston gave us a great visual aid. :D

SI

Considering the frenzy some of the really unhinged were whipped into, I'm going to go with "first but definitely not last" in the pool.

Liberals would just move to Canada or get high, right? ;)

SI

Palin's Facebook page is charming. It has gun sights over districts that went to the GOP in 08 but have Dems in the House that voted for HCR.

Who had March 25th for the first act of retaliation from the other side?

House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Who's to say it's from the other side and not from a tea-partier upset about his comments yesterday that the violence and vitriol were unacceptable (he went futher than Boehner in condeming them).

Glad to finally see both sides of Congress admitting what a disaster the loan program has been thus far. Over a year ago, one economist after another mentioned how stupid it was to use the funds to make payments rather than reduce the principal on some of these underwater loans. Amazing that it takes a full year to finally start applying money to pricipal rather than the other backwards way they've been doing it that failed so drastically.

Surprised you didn't post this, MBBF, since you've been so keen to highlight congressional incumbents who find themselves in danger due to the current political climate:

Political Tide Could Wash Away Republican Utah Senator - NYTimes.com

Who had March 25th for the Republicans to take a non-story and try to make themselves the victims.

The Associated Press: Bullet that hit Va. congressman's office random

Not sure what's so surprising about that. The guy voted for the bank bailout bill. Not many Republicans are going to support a representative dumb enough to vote for that cow pattie of a bill. The party of the representative won't change in that race, but the person in that position likely will.

Interesting days ahead for Iraq. This would be a litmus test for "peaceful" (okay, there will probably be some violence) transfer of power.

Iraq: Challenger wins most seats - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

These are your Tea Party protesters - seems like many of them could use a little more "soshilist guvmint education"

Teabonics on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

When you don't want to attack the argument go attack the arguers.

:lol:

Yeah imagine if someone would have posted ghetto talk because some of Obama's supporters are uneducated. It would be an offense not known to mankind... but no problem picking on the uneducated whites. Forget that the overall message transcends both the Democratic and Republican parties and is about a bankrupt government that is out of control. Back to partisan bickering 101...

No mention of Obama's 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' policy? Another policy that I certainly agree with. Glad to see more oil fields opening up.

Obama's Offshore Drilling REACTIONS: Plan Brings Flood Of Responses (PHOTOS)

Yeah- I was surprised we didn't see anything here about it. I'm not all that keen on it. I don't think most of the areas opened up are that big of a deal as it's 125 miles out in the Atlantic and the "less fragile" parts of the Arctic. But, I hate the precedent that in 4 or 8 or however many years, there's going to be the line of thinking of "well, it's been opened up before, so we can open up a lot more areas". I think he actually took some care as to what was opened up but I don't think future decision makers will do that.

SI

Stopped clock principle at work, yadda yadda, etc etc.

:+1:

I have a feeling the point is to accomplish two things:

1. Makes it easier, in a few years, when the GOP and/or energy companies (but I repeat myself) want to open up more areas, to say "but we already did you greedy bastards!"

2. IIRC, they're working on a new energy bill. I'm going to assume it'll involve concessions from the energy industry. So it's probably a bit of "if you scratch my back..."

How come it can't just be because...it makes sense given the time to market for large scale alternative energy sources and we cannot allow ourselves no alternative if/when the (oil-producing) Middle East becomes a war zone?

I enjoy how utilizing our natural resources to reduce our reliance on other countries for energy is now termed 'greed'. If so, let there be greed throughout the land.

I was under the impression that the oil we can get from drilling in the arctic and gulf was like a year's supply for our over-consumptive society...has that changed?

Sure, it's probably that as well. I, however, was responding specifically about the political rationale of the decision.


Yeah, I'm sure the first thing on the mind of oil executives is how to make American less reliant on foreign oil. In your world, profits are somewhere around #10 on their priority list, AMIRITE?

I could care less about the oil executives, though I know it's a convinient way to demonize the topic for those opposed to it. I care about what's best for America and what's best is to supply as much oil as possible within our own borders. I'd rather our money be going to the oil execs in North America than the Arab oil execs overseas. At least we can collect 39.5% of that money on April 15th to pay for Obamacare if it stays here.

You're making the assumption that now that they'll have these drilling rights, they'll drill and add considerably to America's domestic oil supply.

An incorrect assumption, as it turns out.

No, I'm not making any assumption in that regard. The opportunity is there. Worst case, the lease rights are paid and the oil is still there. Best case, they take out oil. There's zero downside to opening up more land for leasing rights.

Worst case scenario is actually an increase in dependence on foreign oil.

Most of these leases won't be developed right away (if at all) because they're in deep water and the oil will be more costly to extract. So the oil companies will likely continue to import cheaper foreign oil.

But now added to that we have a guaranteed cushion of domestic oil availability should the price of oil get high enough to justify drilling in these new leases. Thus there's now less of an impetus to a) curb oil consumption and b) develop new and innovative alternative energy sources.

Given the vast number of leases that are proven but currently unused (as opposed to these new ones which are both unproven and obviously unused), opening up these leases is pretty pointless in all but the very long-term and mainly symbolic in nature (hence my original post about the likely political rationale).


On a related note, let's drop the red herring about dependence on oil from the Persian Gulf. It's roughly 12% of our total oil consumption, and already dropping. You want to worry about a foreign oil producer, worry about Soviet Canuckistan.

flere wins again!

So in other words, you're upset with Obama that he's truly implement no change in this regard in contrast to his campaign promises and is turning to 'business as usual'?

Uh-oh, you're going full retard...

did one of the liberals hijack MBBF's account?

lmao

How did you come to that conclusion?

That's the wrong Palin for this context.

:eek:


:popcorn:

They call me "Classy Jeff".

Well, spending freezes and a growing economy would certainly make a dent.

If I was a psychologist though, I'd publih a paper discrediting these types of polls. I can't quite articulate why they're "off" - but I don't think you can come to meaningful conclusions about peoples' opinions on things by asking them seperate questions and then comparing the results. (And that's assuming that the same group of people were asked all of these questions).

When someone says something shouldn't be cut, but they want the federal government to run more efficiently, or that the deficit should be reduced, those things aren't necessarily inconsistent. And if they are, so what - it just shows us that the poll is flawed or people are stupid.

Instead, we see this type of poll show up here all the time, always posted by the huge government people, and I think their point is that the government doesn't need to be efficient, because we clearly all want this stuff. Which doesn't make sense to me as a premise. We might want all sorts of things, that doesn't mean we should buy everything.

Also, people are selfishly optimistic in hoping that federal cuts won't impact THEM. I think a lot of people (correctly) assume that the federal government could save billions simply if it was run more effectively.

Couldn't find an angry one and thought it best to avoid the path you so subtly suggested. :)

It appears that the health care honeymoon barely lasted two weeks. His numbers are trending down again. We noted this before and the public continues to pound it home. The health care bill isn't going to make much difference for Obama if he doesn't reverse the job and economy downward trends.

Poll: More blame Obama for poor economy, unemployment - USATODAY.com

which apparently is happening.

March jobs jump could lift Obama - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com

We can only hope. It's badly needed. Much of it may be short-circuited by a problem that should have been reformed already.....oil speculation. It's causing problems again as gas prices continue to drive back up.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/0...ces-again.html

I do love how $3/gallon gas (saw my first in a long time the other day) doesn't merit nearly the news story it did when Bush was in office.

seriously. common sense.

The black helicopters are preventing the news orgs from running stories about gas prices.

Expensive gas is a good thing.

I think it is a story, but is not the story because we became desensitized to it the first time around. It will probably take a new, greater threshold ($5? $7.50?) before it becomes a headliner again.

I see the point, but I just remember 8 years of being slammed with info every time the prices started climbing in the summer. Now, not a peep.

Of course I may be sensitized to this since I'm dealing with a pretty blatant liberal media bias locally.

The glib answer is that it could be that less people care about gas when they have no job to go to.

But, really, c'mon, it's because we're not breaking record highs.

SI

In the grand scheme of things for this country, it really is. It will make for a couple of really bad years for a lot of people but in the end it would be for the best.

SI

Numbers are in for jobs. There were jobs added, though fewer than was forecast. Unemployment rate and underemployment rates both remained basically unchanged.

Unemployment Rate - U.S. FINALLY Added Jobs In March, But Unemployment Rate Won't Budge

I thought he was suggesting Michael, to be honest. :)


Didn't you recently suggest in this thread that this health care bill would be a big deal in the 2010 and 2012 elections? As opposed to, say, the economy & jobs?


We've been at $3 before, so it's not as big news.

If it makes you feel better, NPR did a story on it recently, and they are, of course, a bastion of liberal bias. :D

Absolutely and I'd still say it is a big deal to many people. But I never said 'as opposed to' the economy and jobs. The health care issue will be a blip on the radar if the economy and jobs don't improve. That affects everyone regardless of class.

Oh look - the jobs are improving - albeit more slowly than everyone would like (obviously).

She looks like a Sesame Street character. Like a Tickle-Me-Elmo or something.

I'm assuming you saw where I already posted that information earlier in the day. That was the whole start of this discussion.

nope i didn't. been busy. or rather i saw that you posted a link to something, didn't have a chance to check out the substance of it.

Another nice piece on the GOP from David Frum's blog. This is long time Republican Chris Currey.

I wouldn't particularly disagree with the basic contention that Currey & I don't really belong in the same party. But much of the party he describes nostalgically isn't one I ever supported either.

Perhaps his party of old has left the building in much the same way as the Democrats abandoned anything I could support. Political evolution maybe {shrug}.

I really like this quote and think is is appropriate:

I'd be interested to see a comparison of Democratic standards over the decades like he did for the Reps in this piece.

I'm betting the Dems haven't changed nearly as much or as pathetically.

There's pretty much nothing recognizable left in the Dem party I was once associated with, or at least nothing of any particular value.

You've obviously never heard of a Dixiecrat.

It's interesting to go to Wikipedia and look at the list of governors for southern states like Mississippi and Alabama during the 50s and 60s...

(hint: they were all Democrats)

Give your age, I have to ask if the Democratic party with which you once associated was the party of Carter, Mondale & Dukakis?

Because if so you've changed more than the Democratic party has (and I think the Democratic party has changed plenty in the past 50 years).

If I remember correctly, it was the Democrats that were against the abolition of slavery and segregation.

Yes, the democrats of the civil war if I remember more or less moved to republican and the dems became the Republicans.

I dunno. Talk to my parents, who are on the bobo side of the yuppie-bobo divide. She talked about how her gen was a little miffed at how Gen X turned out- after they fought for women's rights, racial equality, and an end to war, nothing substantially liberal has really happened in the last 30 or 40 years despite having control for a decent amount of the time.

SI

Somewhere along the way many of them decided that complaining about things was way easier than changing anything.

Gen X's attitudes are more based on what their parents did during the 80s and 90s than what they did in the 60s and 70s.

Research shows that voting patterns are largely determined by the feelings for the president when the person was growing up. Negative feelings for Carter and positive feelings for Reagan built a solid foundation for Bush2. Likewise, if the economy turns around the combination of negative feelings for Bush2 and positive feelings for Obama will make a good foundation for Dem X twenty years from now.

So Stupak serves us this shit sandwich of a health bill and then decides it's going to be too tough of a reelection race and decides to retire? Thanks for nothing, you moron. Must be tough making that decision while collecting your pension and full health care coverage.

Stupak is a fuckwad

CNN nor Fox have posted it online yet but ajc.com "breaking news" headline on the website says Justice Stevens is retiring.

Kind of saw that coming I guess, figured I'd throw it in here anyway.

I doubt Ginsburg will stay through 2012, so we could likely have two confirmation battles coming up.

It will be interesting to see if the GOP would be willing to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee.

There's zero chance of that happening because they are philosophically opposed to filibustering judicial nominees.

:lol:

Called it, bitches! (And Souter. See page 4, I think.)

Except didn't all the polls show he was quite likely to win in November?

SI

I'm quite liberal and really dislike a lot of what the Tea Party has done, but I really hate how legitimate (or, at least, semi-legitimate) publications, journalists, and TV personalities continue to call them teabaggers.

It was a little funny the first time we all heard it, even though most folks had probably already come up with it on their own, but after a year + it has gotten stale. It is similar to how conservatives seem to get off on calling the Democractic Party the "Democrat Party."

I don't know about quite likely. He was elected in a district that was 53% for Obama. We also didn't have a change to judge a long-range effect of the health care bill and his decision to switch sides on his popularity. He was facing some heavy backlash both publicly and nationally. And while he wouldn't admit it, his wife all but came out and said that the efforts of the Tea Party movement (for better or worse) played a major role in his decision not to run for reelection.

We'll obviously never know for sure, but he faced an uphill climb to say the least.

what does "all but came out and said" mean to you? i haven't been following this at all, but i'm curious...

Missed this last week amidst one thing or another

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127262/De...ecord-Low.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in a late March USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18-year history of this measure. Favorable impressions of the Republican Party are now at 42%, thus closing the gap between the two parties' images that has prevailed for the past four years.

Gallup last measured party images in late August/early September of last year. At that point, the Democratic Party enjoyed an 11-point favorable image advantage over the Republican Party. Now, the favorable ratings of the two parties are essentially tied.

The images of the two major parties have particular significance in a midterm election year. For example, the favorable rating of the Democratic Party exceeded that of the Republican Party by 52% to 37% just prior to the 2006 midterm elections, in which the Democrats gained 31 House seats.

Americans' current 41% favorable rating of the Democratic Party is five points lower than the party's previous low, recorded twice in 2005.

For those around here who like the whole "independent voters" thing, I'll note that one year ago Ind. had a 47 favorable for D's & 33 favorable for R's. This March? 30 for the D's and 37 for the R's.

R favorable for D's? Down from 11 to 8.
D favorable for R's? Pretty much steady between 12-15 since May '09.

FYI - if nothing else, that was a shoddy piece of reporting by Gallup. The margin-of-error should have been up there in the body of the piece, not buried halfway down the page.

or "quite likely" which should go in the file with "vast" in the MBBF dictionary and "uphill climb" with numbers that show the opposite to be true. Its like he's the anti-nostradamus.

Yep.

Meaning that the gap could be as much as 9 points in favor of the poor, but only, hope we've got.

You say that, I say 7 points the other way.

*shrug*

Y'know, you really aren't telling me anything, there's not any new "I", I wrote stories like that for years.

And yes, I looked for the margin of error in the body but at the same time it isn't uncommon for it to be absent from the body text of the results listing, it's included in the Survey Methods section of this poll same as it is on every other Gallup poll release. This was straight from Gallup, not from wire copy, which is where you typically find the margin of error included in the body text.
Why? Because the link I saw referencing it sent me to Gallup's site not to a news article. If it had been the other way around then it would likely have shown up when I posted it.

Oh no - I wasn't trying to accuse you of shoddy reporting. I was saying that the writeup (which admittedly was on Gallup's site and not a wire-service site) was poor because it buried the margin-of-error. But maybe that's how Gallup's site always does things...I don't know.

Something like this........

Stupak Retires, Hints At Successor | TPMDC




Good to see your back. I missed these personal insults with no rebuttal related to the actual discussion. :D

I don't quite read that as "all but came out and said" MBBF.

That's also not something that we should be encouraging as part of our civilized political discourse (the personal harassment of Congressmen's families), as much as Tea Party folks seem to be embracing it. It makes us seem like some war-torn Central African nation.

Which is exactly why I noted 'for better or worse' in the original thread. I never endorsed the behavior.

When your wife calls out political pressure from the opposition in your retirement speech but doesn't allow that opposition to have the satisfaction of knowing that their efforts broke down that individual, that's the definition of 'all but came out and said'.

Ahem ... whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If that means going after their support structure as well then so be it.

You know - ideologically i figured you would say that, but as an avowed family man I would have thought you'd be against such tactics.

So I take it you were okay with those Tea Partiers who almost blew up the brother+family of that Congressman by fucking with his gas line?

You really have no shame. I know...I know...big surprise. I should know this by now. Thought there might be a shred of humanity left somewhere down in there though.

While realizing where you usually stand in regards to this discussion, I do agree that government needs a major kick in the pants right now. There's a shocking amount of stupidity on both sides of the aisle right now and I think that Congress needs a major clean-out at this point. I don't approve of some of the methods, but I continue to be floored at the number of Congress members who act surprised at the outrage coming from both sides. People are pissed off right now.

Felt like pointing out your spin....again. It isnt about rebutting. When you make a statement citing a statistic or fact, and it isnt so, then there isnt much to rebut other than to point out the spin.

That depends ... who was the Congressman?

More importantly (although it isn't nearly as good as a one-liner), what was the brother's role in the Congressman's life & what were his (this brother) positions on the various key issues?

Except that there wasn't any spin. But still, nice to have you back. :)

Right, you dont even know when you spin anymore.