Major respect goes to to the first reader who can clearly explain what this is all about.
Archives for 2009
Open Thread
I have nothing to say.
*** Update ***
30 Rock: “Tracy, a lot of people are calling you a fearmonger today, and, I am quoting, an ‘idiot.'”
I’m dying.
Zombie lies and the liberal media
Sheryl Gay Stolberg in in the liberal New York Times pimps the marsh mouse myth:
Mr. Gingrich sees the stimulus bill as his party’s ticket to a revival in 2010, as Republicans decry what they see as pork-barrel spending for projects like marsh-mouse preservation.
Update: I’m late to the party, I see. Greg Sargent has more:
It turns out, however, that earlier drafts of the story did describe the claim as “misleading” — but Times editors removed that description from the copy, leaving the assertion to stand on its own. An email from the author of the story to a reader confirms this.
Well, That Sucks
Rats:
The Senate voted Thursday in favor of an amendment to the District of Columbia voting-rights bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which critics say would decimate conservative talk radio.
The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
Nothing drove these guys crazier than the Fairness Doctrine, and I thought it would be a useful bogeyman to distract them every now and then. I was kind of looking forward to every couple of weeks for the next four years having some lefty mention the Fairness Doctrine in an interview, have the right freak out, and then a week or so later have a White House staffer make a vague dismissal/denial.
But then again, I am malicious and entertained easily.
You say you want a revolution
The Stupid Party
Daniel Larison once again points out the obvious:
It seems to me that conservatives and Republicans have assumed the GOP is the natural governing party, at least regarding the Presidency and to some extent as it relates to Congress since ‘94, which is why so many have continued to insist that America is a “center-right nation” in face of mounting evidence that it is not and hasn’t been for a while. Symbolic gimmickry does stem in part from a lack of confidence, but it is more the product of a movement and party that have ceased to understand, much less address, most of the pressing concerns of working- and middle-class Americans. The party assumes that all it needs to do is show up, push the right pseudo-populist buttons and reap the rewards, and for the most part the movement cheers. See Palin, Sarah.
The GOP settles for offering “symbolic, substance-free BS” because enough conservatives are already persuaded that Republican policies obviously benefit the middle class, so there is no pressure to make Republican policy actually serve the interests of Republican constituents. It is taken for granted that this is already happening, but voters have been showing for several cycles that many of them do not believe this. Politically Democrats have been gaining ground in such unlikely places as Ohio and Indiana, which would be inexplicable if the GOP obviously and reliably represented working- and middle-class Americans. Of course, lately these voters don’t see it that way, but instead see the right’s pseudo-populists denounce workers for being overpaid, reject measures that would direct some spending to American industries that their free trade zeal has helped gut and even talk about a spending freeze in the middle of a severe recession.
Republicans are having trouble getting middle class votes because Republican policies have not only hurt, but eroded the size of the middle class. He continues:
As we all know, income stagnation is something that most conservatives and Republicans have spent years pretending was not happening, because it did not fit in with the assumption that working- and middle-class Americans were thriving as part of the “greatest story never told.” It is the failure to acknowledge and address all of these things along with the preference for using symbolic gimmickry that begin to account for the lamentable states of conservatism and the GOP. There is also the war, but movement and party have become so invested in it that I have my doubts whether they can ever recognize its role in discrediting both with the public.
I honestly think that is the first time I have ever seen anyone right of center admit to wage and income stagnation. Seriously. But you know what will fix that? Capital gains tax cuts! You betcha!
Meanwhile, what is the conservative brain trust doing at CPAC? Watch and see:
With all the world melting down around them, in between posing with life size cut-outs of Sarah Palin and attending Joe the Plumber book signings, speakers at CPAC are spending their time suggesting that Obama is a communist and is not an American.
The irony of all of this is what we are actually seeing is not the meltdown of the Republican party, but something bigger than that. The Grover Norquist troglodyte right is drowning themselves in the bathtub before our very eyes. It is truly a sight to see.
They try to make them do a revote, I say no, no, no
A few days ago, Washington Post reporter Shailagh Murray suggested — on the basis of nothing — that there should be a revote in Minnesota. Apparently, that’s what Coleman is shooting for now:
But five weeks into the election contest trial, the court has repeatedly issued rulings that narrow Coleman’s chances of either collecting enough newly counted ballots or throwing out already counted ballots — or some combination of the two. So in recent days, the Coleman legal team has become increasingly shrill in its attacks not just on the court but on the entire electoral process in Minnesota, getting closer every day to outright calling for the Nov. 4 election be declared null and void and a whole new election be held between Coleman and Franken. And now Coleman himself has suggested that a do-over election may be necessary.
Washington Post reporters do seem to like the idea in general for some reason (from today’s chat):
Paul Kane: As for a do-over election, there is precedent for it. 1974, New Hampshire Senate race. The US Senate ultimately decided it could not seat anyone, it was unable to determine the winner, therefore a do-over election in the fall of ’75 was held.
[…..]
N.H. Senate Race 1974: That race was much closer than the Franken/Coleman race — at some points in the process less than ten votes. There were a couple of recounts, and the leader changed back and forth in each recount. So finally a new election was held. The Minnesota gap is much wider and Coleman hasn’t come close to getting back in the lead since he lost it. No basis for following the NH example.
Paul Kane: I remember emailing a bunch of coworkers at almost 4 am election night, er, morning. With a subject line of: Franken is trailing by 75 — YES, SEVENTY-FIVE — votes out of nearly 3 million cast.
Sorry, but this race has been incredibly close, and the lead has switched. The New Hampshire example does apply, get over it.
Shorter Paul Kane: I wrote an email about how close the Minnesota race was, therefore there should be a revote.
These guys are nothing if not self-absorbed.
They try to make them do a revote, I say no, no, noPost + Comments (129)