Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

A Senator Walker would also be an insult to reason, rationality, and decency.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Eh, that’s media spin. biden’s health is fine and he’s doing a good job.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

You are here: Home / Archives for Steve M.

Steve M. cross-posted on Balloon Juice from 2011-13, from his own blog No More Mister Nice Blog.

Twitter: @nomoremister

Steve M.

So Much for the Republican Party Being in Its Death Throes

by | 169 Comments

This post is in: 

The key finding in this Quinnipiac poll isn’t Chris Christie’s 74% approval rating in New Jersey, or his commanding lead in this year’s governor’s race — it’s how well he’d do in supposedly solid-blue New Jersey as a presidential candidate:

In an early look at the 2016 presidential election, New Jersey voters go 49 percent for Hillary Clinton and 45 percent for Christie…..

The Garden State’s native son tops New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo 54 – 36 percent. Christie … wins 45 percent of women to Cuomo’s 42 percent….

We think the Republican Party is in dire straits because its core voters are old and white and male and Southern, and because its overall approval ratings are low. But if you analyze any poll, you’ll see that the GOP’s low standing comes in part from Republicans, who nevertheless vote for the party on Election Day, which tells me that they’re telling pollsters they disapprove of their own party because it’s not crazy and right-wing enough, and then they vote for the party because they absolutely feel it’s better than the Antichrist Democratic Party.

And as for non-Republican voters, they say they don’t like the GOP, but that sense of disgust is a mile wide and an inch deep — even in the bluest states, they’re willing to suspend that sense of disgust for any Republican who seems to deviate in any way from Republican stereotypes (or, perhaps, just because they kinda-sorta feel it’s time for a change after a few years with, say, a Democratic governor). Why else would there be states that are reliably blue in presidential elections — Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan — under all-GOP control at the state level?

No Democrat could possibly win the presidential race in Mississippi or Utah or Alabama or Oklahoma in 2016, but against a sufficiently uninspiring candidate — Martin O’Malley? — there’s no telling how many states could be won by a Republican who’s successfully concealed his fealty to his party’s agenda, as the Koch lackey Christie has. That’s because the Republican brand is still not box-office poison, or even close. Democrats and liberals still haven’t tarnished the GOP’s reputation enough. And nothing will change in this country until that changes.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

So Much for the Republican Party Being in Its Death ThroesPost + Comments (169)

The Things You Think Are Precious I Can’t Understand

by | 71 Comments

This post is in: , ,

You’ve seen that Lena Dunham “first time” ad for the Obama campaign. On Twitter, right-wing media personality and former Richard Nixon amanuensis Monica Crowley calls the ad “super-gross”:

Crowley’s taste in campaign films is a bit different:

A new “documentary” alleging that President Obama’s real father is actually communist writer Frank Marshall Davis was enthusiastically promoted by Fox News contributor and O’Reilly Factor guest host Monica Crowley on her radio show last month.

Dreams from My Real Father … was written, directed, and produced by conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert … its premise [is] that Obama is a “red diaper baby” born to the communist Davis…

Dunham’s allusions to sex upset Crowley, but this is apparently just fine:

In Dreams From My Real Father, … photos of a naked woman wearing leather gloves, boots and a corset in a suggestive pose are featured. The film claims the woman in question is Obama’s mother Ann Dunham.

Nothing “super-gross” about that!

And while we’re on the subject of Crowley, let’s not forget this choice moment from 2008:

On The Laura Ingraham Show, guest host Monica Crowley stated that “according to this genealogy — and again, because I haven’t done the research, I can’t verify this — but according to this guy Kenneth Lamb, Barack Obama is not black African, he is Arab African.” Crowley continued: “And yet, this guy is campaigning as black and painting anybody who dares to criticize him as a racist. I mean, that is — it is the biggest con I think I’ve ever seen.”

Yup — Crowley questions whether Obama is actually black. In a tasteful, non-sexual, way, of course, so it’s OK.

(Adapted from a post at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

The Things You Think Are Precious I Can’t UnderstandPost + Comments (71)

My Money’s on the Hologram

by | 301 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

The Wall Street Journal reports that Republicans are trying to gin up some excitement with a stunt:

Buried deep in the convention schedule released Monday is a vague reference to a mystery speaker scheduled for the event’s final evening. “To Be Announced” has a prime speaking slot late in the Thursday program.

…The only other speakers to follow “To Be Announced” will be Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mr. Romney himself, suggesting that the unnamed guest may appear during the 10 p.m. hour when the networks all will be broadcasting the convention.

… The line-up features a long list of governors and senators, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. Former presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are on the agenda, as are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush have said they won’t be attending, but a video from Mr. Bush is on Wednesday’s program.

So who’s left? Stay tuned….

A survey follows asking for a vote on several possibilities: Zell Miller, Ted Nugent, David Petraeus, Nancy Reagan, Chesley Sullenberger, Sarah Palin.

National Review‘s Jim Geraghty really thinks it might be Palin:

The more you think about the idea, the more it makes sense — whatever controversy and intense reactions Sarah Palin may bring to whatever she does, if there is one thing we know she does exceptionally well, it is give convention speeches! This wouldn’t mean turning her into an official Romney surrogate or putting her in a Romney cabinet or anything like that — just giving one of the Republican figures most beloved by the grassroots — or at least a large and vocal segment of the grassroots — a chance to fire up the base and discuss why it is so important that everyone pull out all the stops for Romney.

If God existed, She wouldn’t love me enough to do this. Seriously — on the last night of prime time, you’re going to utterly destroy any good feeling you’ve engendered with swing voters by putting up a Sarah Palin speech?

I don’t see why there’d be secrecy about any of the other names of the Journal‘s list. I suppose the speaker could be Ron or Rand Paul (whose name might be withheld to keep the Paulbots from bouncing off the walls for the next couple of days). Maybe it’s a flipped Democrat. (Yeah, Artur Davis is speaking at the RNC, but he’s canceled out by Charlie Crist speaking for the Dems, so perhaps Repubs will put up someone like Joe Manchin or Jim Webb in order to win 2-1. Or, God help us, maybe it’s Lieberman again.) Could it be a masked SEAL going McCarthyite on Obama?

And then there’s this possibility, cited by Geraghty:

… Nick Schultz came up with the only idea that could excite the crowd even more: “Hologram Reagan a la Tupac?”

(If you don’t understand the reference, the deceased rapper appeared to “perform” at the Coachella Valley Music & Arts festival through the use of a hologram. Details here.)

Now, that sounds utterly plausible, coming from these folks.

My money’s on the hologram.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

My Money’s on the HologramPost + Comments (301)

Romney Claims to Sidestep Abedin Controversy, but Meets with a Pro-Bachmann McCarthyite

by | 70 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

Mitt Romney was asked to weigh in on Chick-fil-A and on the McCarthyite campaign against Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and he refused, telling reporters, “Those are not things that are part of my campaign.” However, I see he’s hanging out with some folks who aren’t quite as shy about expressing opinions on these issues:

Mitt Romney took time on Thursday during a trip to Denver to meet with a group of well-known social conservatives, including Gary Bauer, James Dobson and others, POLITICO’s Jonathan Martin reports.

The group assured Romney they are firmly behind him, according to a source familiar with the conservation.

… Thursday’s meeting … also included former Sen. William Armstrong and Lt. General William Boykin….

Boykin? I expect a Republican presidential candidate to meet with Bauer and Dobson, who are bad enough, but Jerry Boykin? Seriously?

You probably know this about Boykin:

A Pentagon investigation in 2004 concluded that Boykin had violated “internal regulations” by giving speeches marked by fiery religious rhetoric while in his U.S. Army uniform….

In one instance, Boykin mocked a Muslim adversary in Mogadishu for believing he would be protected by Allah. “I knew that my God was bigger than his,” Boykin said. “I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”

… Despite the controversy, Boykin remained deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and retired in 2007.

But he was recently one of the signers of a letter to House Speaker John Boehner endorsing Michele Bachmann’s call for an investigation into Muslim Brotherhood influence in the U.S. government.

… If our country and its people are to be spared potentially grave harm, it is essential that we establish the nature, extent and impact of … influence operations aimed — to borrow the Brotherhood’s own words — at destroying us from within, by our own hands.

We urge you to acquaint yourself with the background and status of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad in America. Should you do so, we are confident you will agree with us that the requests for formal inspector general investigations into this matter by Reps. Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney are both warranted and needed….

And no, these aren’t just a couple of blemishes on an otherwise exemplary record.

Boykin has maintained that “Islam is evil” and a “totalitarian way of life,” and therefore its adherents should not receive First Amendment protections. Boykin even wants the U.S. to ban mosques, telling fellow mosque-banner Bryan Fischer, “no mosques in America.” But his conspiracies don’t end there. He believes that a “cabal” led by George Soros and the Council of Foreign Relations is trying to “create a global government,” and that Obama, who may or may not be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood himself, is using the health care reform law to build his own version of the Brownshirts to impose Marxism on America. He also seems to think that the only difference between Islam and Marxism is that Muslims believe in a God.

… Boykin in an interview just this week on TruNews with Rick Wiles praised McCarthy and said he wishes “we could find a McCarthy-like individual today that was willing to stand up and proclaim very boldly that we do have a problem with a Marxist cabal in America, which are now in powerful positions, influencing our policies and the direction of our country,” including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Wiles: Little Leon Panetta, he’s got some Marxist relationships in his closet too, if you go back far enough, Mr. Panetta, he’s palled around with no communists.

Boykin: That’s right. He certainly has, as have a number of the people who are in the administration right now….

Boykin went to agree with the host that Joe McCarthy “was a great American.”

Why is it acceptable for a major-party presidential candidate to meet with a guy like this, and to accept his endorsement? Why isn’t this a scandal? It would be scandalous if Romney met with Orly Taitz or Alex Jones or some other conspiratorialist. Romney gets grief when he hangs out with Donald Trump. Why isn’t this on par with that?

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

Romney Claims to Sidestep Abedin Controversy, but Meets with a Pro-Bachmann McCarthyitePost + Comments (70)

Putting Goldman Sachs in Charge of an Anti-Crime Program? Hey, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

by | 36 Comments

This post is in: ,

Obviously, all decent and right-thinking people hate government, right? So now we’re trying this:

Goldman to Invest in City Jail Program, Profiting if Recidivism Falls Sharply

New York City, embracing an experimental mechanism for financing social services that has excited and worried government reformers around the world, will allow Goldman Sachs to invest nearly $10 million in a jail program, with the pledge that the financial services giant would profit if the program succeeded in significantly reducing recidivism rates.

The city will be the first in the United States to test “social impact bonds,” also called pay-for-success bonds, which are an effort to find new ways to finance initiatives that might save governments money over the long term.

… Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday that Goldman Sachs will provide a $9.6 million loan to pay for a new four-year program intended to reduce the rate at which adolescent men incarcerated at Rikers Island reoffend after their release.

…The Goldman money will be used to pay MDRC, a social services provider, to design and oversee the program. If the program reduces recidivism by 10 percent, Goldman would be repaid the full $9.6 million; if recidivism drops more, Goldman could make as much as $2.1 million in profit; if recidivism does not drop by at least 10 percent, Goldman would lose as much as $2.4 million….

I’ll go for the obvious joke: Hey, if you’re looking for expertise in staying out of jail, you probably can’t beat the people at Goldman. (Though really, what’s the plan for keeping these offenders from going back to prison? Millions of dollars in lobbying? I don’t think so.)

Governments elsewhere are trying this approach, though so far only Bloomberg is using Goldman. Here’s what another government official says:

In Massachusetts, Jay Gonzalez, the secretary of administration and finance, is a proponent of social impact bonds. “We’ve got to change from the idea of, ‘We just pay for stuff and hopefully get the results,'” Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview. “The beauty of this is if they perform to get the results, then we pay. If they don’t, we don’t pay.”

In New York, though, does anyone think it’s even theoretically possible that Goldman won’t be paid? Does anyone think it’s even theoretically possible that Goldman won’t find a way to make the numbers add up so Goldman wins, even if New York’s crime rate begins to approach that of Sinaloa?

Wait, I take that back. I can see a scenario under which Goldman might admit its program failed — it could happen if Goldman has created another financial instrument that gives the firm a bet against its own recidivism program. Can’t you see that happening? Goldman hedges on its own social do-gooder program, so it wins if the criminals stay clean and it wins if they don’t? Wouldn’t that be just like Goldman?

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

Putting Goldman Sachs in Charge of an Anti-Crime Program? Hey, What Could Possibly Go Wrong?Post + Comments (36)

How to Get Your Op-Ed Published in a Big Mainstream Paper

by | 48 Comments

This post is in: ,

OK, the headline is somewhat misleading — Craig Whitney used to write for The New York Times and he has an op-ed in the Times today titled “A Way Out of the Gun Stalemate.” But despite the fact that Whitney has an in at the Times, his piece is instructive, because it’s custom-made in a way that would get it accepted at any mainstream paper in the country.

His secret? His hook is: both sides do it.

THE national conversation about guns, since James E. Holmes shot 12 people to death and wounded 58 others at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., has been a dialogue of the deaf. Unless gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters stop screaming at each other and look for common ground on how to deal with gun violence, the next massacre is only a matter of time.

Liberals have to deprive the National Rifle Association of its core argument, that the real aim of all gun control measures is to strip Americans of their right to have and use firearms. Gun-control supporters must make clear that they accept that Americans have had this individual, common-law right…. Liberals should accept that the only realistic way to control gun violence is not by keeping guns out of the hands of as many Americans as possible, but by keeping guns out of the hands of people we all agree should not have them.

Gun owners and their advocates must, in turn, stop insisting that gun ownership is an absolute right. The Second Amendment is not a law unto itself. Before and after 1791, the right to keep and bear arms has been inseparable from civic responsibility….

Do you think “the only realistic way to control gun violence is not by keeping guns out of the hands of as many Americans as possible”? Is that your goal? Is that your non-negotiable demand?

It isn’t mine. It probably isn’t yours. So there’s the first problem — Whitney has replaced you with a figure made of straw.

A bigger problem is that, a few paragraphs later, Whitney tells us this:

show full post on front page

How to Get Your Op-Ed Published in a Big Mainstream PaperPost + Comments (48)