Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* GOP leaders have renewed their vow to repeal health reform, but a new Post analysis finds their chances of actually doing this are slim to none, though they can still gum up the works with a bit of creativity.

* Robert Gibbs dismisses the idea that GOP leaders will be able to get their repeal pledge anywhere near Obama's veto pen.

* Interesting read: Jonathan Bernstein says Dem chances in 2012 may turn partly on whether they can avoid getting into a serious funk about last Tuesday. Good luck with that!

* There is no chance whatsoever, zip, zilch, nada, that Howard Dean will primary Obama.

* Check out this very useful guide to the incoming members of Congress, with profiles of the newcomers that are full of useful info.

* Steve Benen flags a really interesting moment from Mitch McConnell's speech today: He attacked, of all things, the bailout of the auto industry, which is widely seen as a success.

* Jay Newton-Small assures us that John Boehner is keenly aware of the perils of overreach and that he's no bomb-throwing Gingrich type, though the new Tea Party caucus is going to do all it can to make sure he does overreach.

* But Boehner did go out and throw some bombs at Dems today, claiming that they're "in denial" about the meaning of the elections. Keep an eye on how aggressively Dems respond.

* With the 2012 cycle shaping up as a very dangerous one for Senate Dems, is it time to bring Chuck Schumer back as DSCC chair?

* Tuesday was a very good day for neocons who take pleasure in falsely smearing Dems as anti-Israel.

* A Soros in every liberal pot: Big Journalism falsely claims George Soros funds Talking Points Memo. Seeing Soros's shadow everywhere really does wonders for the credibility of Breitbart's empire, which is already doing so well in the wake of the Shirley Sherrod and ABC News fiascos,

* And Sarah Palin's "morning in America" video actually features footage of a sunset in reverse.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | November 4, 2010; 6:21 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Happy Hour Roundup, House GOPers, Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Progressives and centrists battle over meaning of indy vote
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Still waiting to see what role - if any -- Howard Dean is going to have in the Dem Party as we move towards 2012.

And, will Tim Kaine be replaced?

And can we please get rid of Steny Hoyer (not that it matters much now).

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 4, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"There is no chance whatsoever, zip, zilch, nada that Howard Dean will primary Obama."

Russ Feingold also said today that he has no intention of doing that either. No link, but I saw it on Morning Joe before work this morning.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Howard Dean is looking for a cabinet position with Obama - now that Rahm is gone.

If he doesn't get that, there might a primary challenge.

But until that issue is settled, you won't hear the word primary from Dean.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Story headline over at TPM: "Why Did Tim Geithner Hold An Undisclosed Meeting With Jon Stewart Last April?"

Perhaps Geithner was seeking a personality transplant?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Morning Joe had a blurb this morning of Russ Feingold saying he had no intention of trying to primary Obama in 2012, either.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

And Sarah Palin's "morning in America" video actually features footage of a sunset in reverse.
++++++++

And she can get us out of this recession by turning the graphs upside down.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "He attacked the bailout of the auto industry, which is widely seen as a success."

I guess it depends on how one defines success. It is my understanding that the auto bailout is the least "successful" portion of TARP.

"In a report released on Tuesday, the administration said it expected a $17 billion loss from its investments in General Motors, Chrysler and the auto finance companies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/economy/06tarp.html

Posted by: sbj3 | November 4, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

* And Sarah Palin's "morning in America" video actually features footage of a sunset in reverse.


SNORT! This is just so like her, isn't it?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

I found it amusing, particularly in light of all of the Republican "elitism" bombs they've thrown at Democrats, that Boehner would reject a Slurpee and opt for merlot.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44716.html

Does it get any more "elitist" than that? LOL

Surely, Boehner will have to answer the media's incessant questions about his elitism and how out of touch he is with the American people. Oh, wait... Never mind. IOKIYAR.

Posted by: associate20 | November 4, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

When Sarah Palin says she wants to "take our country back," she literally means backwards, to reverse all of the gains of the last 40 years.

Sarah Palin: It's sunset in America!

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 4, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

So what about the Palin video

They could have easily gone out and gotten a sunrise from the opposite direction

But the reverse was a perfect solution

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey all, good to see you regulars still here. I've been informed this blog has got some staying power around here. So we have lots more to look forward to.

:)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 4, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Dean and Feingold know the score


They both realize that if the did get the nomination from Obama, he would still be the President going into the General election 2012

AT that point, what position on health care would Dean or Feingold have? Continue to support Obama's health care plan???

The democrats are in a horrible position - they have to go through another election set of defeats in order to get rid of health care -

The American People want to get rid of the health care bill - Obama going to Asia right now doesn't help at all - 23 Senators are up for re-election for the democrats - they will be seen as blocking the Repeal of Health Care - the democrats are truly in a terrible position - they still have Obama in there and they are stuck with the health care weighing them down for a long time.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

"I've been informed this blog has got some staying power around here."

No doubt due to the high quality of your conservative commentors.

Good job, Greg.

Posted by: sbj3 | November 4, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Schumer? Perfect--a NY Jew with his head up the a$$ of Wall Street. Bad "optics"--not to mention the reality. At least he won't be majority leader.

Posted by: joeff | November 4, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Do the math yourself - it is not difficult

21 Senate democrats are up for re-election in 2012, plus the two Independents

Take a solid look at the list - 14 of those seats are in States in which the Republicans have a viable chance to win - vs. two states of Republican-held seats.

Of those 14, it appears that 10 have a high probability of switching to Republicans.

It is pretty simple. This is not the Congress for the Senate to take difficult votes in support of Obama. Those days are long, long, long, long GONE

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

"Hey all, good to see you regulars still here."

I'm just going to say it once more for good measure, thanks to Kevin, Greg.

And congrats on the blog.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"And Sarah Palin's "morning in America" video actually features footage of a sunset in reverse."

I wonder if this is somehow related to her breasts getting higher?

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "I'm just going to say it once more for good measure, thanks to Kevin, Greg."

Aw, shucks.

But, no, seriously. It's all due to me.

:P

Gotta go try and do the treadmill. Regular exercise is good for the gout. And also the fatness. ;)

Later 2nite, everybody.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 4, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

"I've been informed this blog has got some staying power around here."

As someone who wandered over after the demise of Weigel's blog, I'm pleased to hear that. You're stuck with us, Greg.

"No doubt due to the high quality of your conservative commentors."

After all, what's a sundae without some good nuts? ; )

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

As wrong as he is about most everything else, Kevin's the only reason I even bother in the comments section any longer.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

OMG, Kevin you rock! What sue said above (and many other commenters have been saying for the past few days) the Troll Hunter is *awesome*. Thanks very, very much. . . and Greg's Overlords owe you a big one. Glad to hear that the blog is growing and surviving; and I'll second bearclaw's comment about the nuts. But who's the cherry on top??

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

"I've been informed this blog has got some staying power around here."

Congrats, Greg. I'm not a regular commenter, but I look forward to reading it when I can, and to the (usually) interesting and informative conversations.

And Kevin, in case you missed it on the prior thread, thanks for your work. How does it feel to be a hero on a "lefty" blog?

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 4, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"But who's the cherry on top??"

Well, at this point I'd have to nominate Kevin for making the comments section tolerable again.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 4, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Ethan (from an earlier thread):

"I'm against ALL outside groups spending money to influence elections."

Except for those whose spending you are not against, like the WaPo and NYT, right?

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I'll second Schrodingerscat. Getting rid of STRF makes all the difference in the world. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Kevin also gets my vote for "cherry on top."

And he gets added credit for a "nonregulatory solution," which burnishes his conservative credentials. Everyone gets to make their own decisions about using the "troll hunter" and when and how to deploy the "ignore" button.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

And he gets added credit for a "nonregulatory solution,"
--------------------------------
He also gets credit for a free market solution. The market wanted solutions and Troll Hunter filled the need. 310 installations and counting.


Who're ya going to call?
Troll Hunter

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

When Sarah Palin says she wants to "take our country back," she literally means backwards, to reverse all of the gains of the last 40 years.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 4, 2010 6:39 PM
---------

What gains precisely? If you mean the "gain" in our national debt, more power to her.

Posted by: Brigade | November 4, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

"Who're ya going to call? Troll Hunter!"

They should make a song and/or a movie out of that!

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

In earlier conversations here re a Palin run for the Presidency, I suggested that the obvious pitfall for her would be interviews with media who aren't FOX or other rightwing media outlets.

But I also said that she might actually continue her present strategy of simply not appearing anywhere other than rightwing media. Even for a Presidential run. There's no historical precedent for this and it would be a rejection of fundamental notions of American politics. But the model has been created and many others used it as well.

Shep Smith has the courage to put this to her and here's Sullivan's comment:

"Shep Smith dares to ask the question that made Chris Wallace sigh so deeply on The Daily Show: will Sarah Palin ever take real questions from the open press when she begins her run for president? That's one of those questions to which we already know the answer: no. She remains a Fox propagandist, and if she runs, she will remain a Fox-only propagandist, unless Fox's handful of actual journalists, such as Smith and Wallace, are prepared to enrage their viewers.

So 2008 - the first time a vice-presidential candidate never held an open press conference - was the new normal. No candidate need from now on to be grilled by an open press conference. It's all about targeting vague, content-free identity politics through direct media to those already sympathetic. Anything else is "lamestream." "
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/the-palin-model-ctd.html

But it isn't Palin who has the real power here. It's Ailes and Murdoch. If they decide it not in their interest to advance her, she'll be toast.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, Clinton got rid of that, remember?

Until your boy Georgie and his pals ran it up again.

Thanks for playing, though.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 4, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

@michgoose: "They should make a song and/or a movie out of that!"

Actually, they have:

http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/39832/mind-blowing-clips-troll-hunter

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 4, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

To Kevin, the new Dr. Peter Venkman:

We came, we saw, we kicked its A$$!
-Dr. Peter Venkman

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, I would argue that the power is also in the people--but they have to exercise it. Ailes and Murdoch can bring her down simply by refusing to go along with her game, but if the electorate rises up and says "Wait! Why should we vote for a candidate who does nothing but run away from real reporters?!?" she'll/they'll *have* to "submit" to a real interview or ten. And, really, getting through the primary season is the real pitfall for candidates who are so afraid of questions; if they can't handle day after day after day of meeting with people and answering their questions along with editorial boards and other "unfriendly" media I really don't think it will fly. It worked for Sarah during the VP run because she wasn't the top of the ticket. I honestly don't think it would work for a Presidential run, and I'd like to think that it's part of what kept Sharron Angle from pulling it off in Nevada.

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

@michigoose,

One of the problems in running away from tough interviews, is that the pol doesn't sharpen his message. Sharron Angle spent more energy avoiding, than if she had minded her tongue, sharpened her message, thought it through and avoided insulting whole demographics. She probably lost some voters by running away from reporters, but I'll bet she chased a lot more away by putting her foot in her mouth nearly every day.

Can you imagine thinking that you've mollified Hispanics by saying they look Asian? Now, she had two p*ssed off groups.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

bernie wrote:

"In earlier conversations here re a Palin run for the Presidency, I suggested that the obvious pitfall for her would be interviews with media who aren't FOX or other rightwing media outlets."

Palin has no intention of running for the presidency unless the economy collapses again. However if she says anything definitively, she loses much of her relevance. Look for the flirting and the dance to continue right up through eary 2012.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

It worked for Sarah during the VP run because she wasn't the top of the ticket. I honestly don't think it would work for a Presidential run, and I'd like to think that it's part of what kept Sharron Angle from pulling it off in Nevada.

Posted by: Michigoose
++++++++++

Agreed. It is hard to imagine how anyone campaigns in those early states (New Hampshire, Iowa) while trying to keep tight control over the media. Entering the 2008 race at the Convention, she never had to do "retail politics" -- it was mostly speeches to large (and adoring) audiences. In New Hampshire and Iowa, she has to go into diners and shake hands, and answer the questions the citizens (not the media) ask. (Some crusty old man or woman in New Hampshire is going to hit her with, "You quit as Governor of Alaska. Do you think being President is going to be easier? Why in hell should I vote for you?")

And you can't keep the media from going into the diner with you. (And even if you could, several people in the diner will whip out their phones, and record it all anyway).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

54465446,

Interesting perspective. Her fan base will clamor long and loud for her to run ("Mama Grizzly, please save America!).

And though I don't doubt she likes the money she is making now, I wonder how her ego will allow her to say "no" and stay out of the race.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 4, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

"In New Hampshire and Iowa, she has to go into diners and shake hands, and answer the questions the citizens (not the media) ask. "

And, it's important to note, she doesn't react kindly to being challenged - by anyone. Everyone remember how she confronted the teacher who hung up the "worst governor ever" sign? That woman is seriously thin-skinned.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 4, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

"In New Hampshire and Iowa, she has to go into diners and shake hands, and answer the questions the citizens (not the media) ask. "

And, it's important to note, she doesn't react kindly to being challenged - by anyone. Everyone remember how she confronted the teacher who hung up the "worst governor ever" sign? That woman is seriously thin-skinned.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 4, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Ah, yes, the eye-roll with Bristol. Fine specimens of American womanhood there, I'm telling you. They're both the kind of mean girls that make me glad I'm pushing 50 now and don't have to waste my time worrying what their opinion of me is anymore. I'm sure it's quite as low is mine is of them.

It will be interesting to see how she handles the cries for her to save us all in 2012. I'm betting that somebody in her family will persuade her to give it a miss at the last minute, but she'll be giving Rich Lowry starbursts right up until then.

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 9:03 PM | Report abuse

bernielatham,

Since you're citing Sullivan, do you believe that Sarah Palin is the biological mother of Trig Palin?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

@Michigoose - Yes, the voters could reject her and surely would (under any circumstance I find imaginable). And I agree that the primaries would kill her, though she presents a unique problem for opponents in that if they go after her too hard and openly, they'll loose a lot of Palinites who will read the attacks (with her help) as DC insiders versus victim Palin.

And the Politico piece from last week on Republican strategists trying to stop her from running (because of all the above) was surely right on the money. They're not that stupid and there are billions of dollars at stake so the Republican choice isn't a frivolous one.

We're just starting to witness the internal fight among conservatives/Republicans. Rove v Palin is the most visible tip of it but there's the DeMint/Bachman circle now colliding with the old machine and that's going to cause problems. Essentially, this is a brewing war between the Christian Right and the corporate right (there's overlap, but that's the main breakdown).

I don't think Palin will run because it is in no one's interest for her to run, even her own though she's perhaps too crazy to understand that. If she does, it will be because she and a small circle of advisers feel victimized by the Republican "machine" (her term) and believe they are competitive and right. But there will be enormous pressure on her no to. The importance of Ailes/Murdoch here is that if she loses the support of FOX, she won't have any chance and that will be immediately apparent to her and her circle. I think it ought to be understood that if Ailes/Murdoch reach such a conclusion, Limbaugh and the WSJ and NRO will be part of this decision-making process and subsequent strategy.

But the other profoundly important aspect here is the evolution of a rightwing media machine that can and will promote only rightwing candidates AND a rightwing consensus (after 30 years of propagandizing their base) that only this entirely partisan and extremist media has any credibility, fairness, or accuracy. To these people, a candidate not putting herself or himself up to scrutiny in the traditional media mode is just jim-dandy. That's really dangerous for the nation.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I seriously don't care - the Republicans won the election.

You all want the Republicans to work with Obama now - but look at your personal attitudes right now.


Seriously - you all should grow up

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I think she will run. I don't think she can help herself. She is primarily driven by her psychology. Had she been a strategist, she never would have quit the governorship.

Because she does not listen to advice, she will think she can be the first-ever to run for the Presidency, appear only on Fox News, and keep all her money-making activities, in tandem.

Mrs. Palin is a combo-Caricature. She part victim and part heroine. Sort of a Joan of Arc character. And I think she believes it deep in her bones.

I doubt she will be able to resist playing out her self assigned roles.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to make another argument on a different matter.

If you've been reading Teixeira, Yglesias and others who dig down into the numbers and who've been studying poli sci for a long time, you'll get a different take on this election than what pundits and a lot of us here are saying. Essentially, the point is that structural matters (like the economy, the number of reddish seats held by Dems, etc) explain this election result far better than "Obama wasn't liberal enough" or some such. Take a look here...
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/stuff-doesnt-matter-very-much/

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"That's really dangerous for the nation."

Sanderson Reed: "The empire is in peril."

Allan Quartermain: "You're probably too young to know, but the empire is always in some peril."

[League of Extraordinary Gentleman]

Posted by: tao9 | November 4, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse

@Troll - Have no opinion about it and have never been curious. It's irrelevant unless it turns out she lied but I don't think it is worth anyone's time to bother with it.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

bernie,

Does it bother you that Sullivan believes it? Is his (Sullivan's) credibility in question because of his extraordinary belief in this, for lack of better phrases, "birth conspiracy" or "Trig trutherism"?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I understand a measure of defiance from the liberals.

But this is different from most elections - this is the American People telling the democrats that their agenda is dead -

Dead for a generation or more. The nasty behavior has not help the liberals' cause, by the way.


;

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 4, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"I think it ought to be understood that if Ailes/Murdoch reach such a conclusion, Limbaugh and the WSJ and NRO will be part of this decision-making process and subsequent strategy."

And this decision will be made at a Montana hideaway mansion known as The Hawk's Den, accessible only by helicopter, where a quarterly planning meeting involving Ailes, Murdoch, Rich Lowry, Paul Gigot, and Bill Kristol has been held on the 18th of every February, May, August, and November since 1998.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

For those of you keeping track, Patty Murray has been declared the winner in WA.

Yay!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues--

"I think she will run. I don't think she can help herself."

I agree and I hope we're right, because I think she'd be a disaster for the GOP. But I can't help the niggling thought--what if she's actually able to fool enough people? Too many of us are foolable :) But that's just me, feeling negative.

Posted by: carolanne528 | November 4, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

And Rossi just conceded, so Patty Murray is re-elected. I don't think she qualifies as merely a soccer mom in tennis shoes anymore, but she's turned into a darn good legislator.

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

ScottC3,

Don't forget, they symbolically eat the body of (our dark Lord) Cheney prior to the start each meeting. And just prior to adjournig, they "re-ink" the horned goat tattoo that they each have on their RIGHT butt cheek.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Rossi just conceded in Wash.

@tao - Careful now. There's much more I could tell you about the bumpy and wrinkled waves traversing Sharron's red buttocks haning over that velvet swing as the table-tennis racket makes loud and spicy contact.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Also, there's the bi-annual "dove hunt" where they shoot an old lawyer in the face.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

"they "re-ink" the horned goat tattoo that they each have on their RIGHT butt cheek."

Their very own version of the Dark Mark no doubt; can they use it to signal Lord VoldeCheney, too??

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Troll asked: "Does it bother you that Sullivan believes it?"

Nope. He could be right. I just don't care about the issue. You're doing an ad hominem and ought to better understand why fallacies aren't going to make you smarter.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 4, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

"And just prior to adjournig, they "re-ink" the horned goat tattoo that they each have on their RIGHT butt cheek."

Journolist right?

12Bar

Of course she's running, we saw her first campaign ad tonight didn't we? I visit her facebook page periodically and believe me no one with such a narcissistic personality disorder could possibly resist all those adoring fans. She'll be "forced" to run just to satisfy her "constituents" call to arms.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious about something, although I don't know if any of you will answer. Are any of the conservative/libertarians here using the Toll Hunter to ignore any posters and whom are you ignoring?

It would be interesting if we could see some sort of a tally sheet of who's being ignored and by how many of us wouldn't it?

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

bernie,

What are you talking about? I asked you if Sullivan's conspiracy theory involving Sarah Palin, Trig Palin and either Willow or Bristol Palin, effected, in your opinion, his credibility. How is asking this question, and pointing out Sullivan's belief in the process an "ad hominem'?

What was "fallacious" about my question?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca,

I do not use Kevin's Troll Hunter.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

McWing:

"And just prior to adjouring, they "re-ink" the horned goat tattoo that they each have on their RIGHT butt cheek."

Now, now that is just a rumor...never been confirmed, as far as I know. But that would explain the story I heard about Lowry not being able to sit down for a week after he was appointed editor of NR. His initiation right into the cabal, perhaps?

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

IMO the auto companies (GM & Chrysler)should have gone the route of Delta Airlines a few years ago and filed for chapter 11. Delta is a much stronger company now. Their labor costs are much lower. The auto bailout was as much a payoff to the UAW as anything else. Chapter 11 would have reduced wages, benefits and union dues. But Obama and the Dems had to protect the unions that pay so much into their campaigns.

Posted by: actuator | November 4, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"He attacked, of all things, the bailout of the auto industry, which is widely seen as a success."

Of course - that's Karl Rove 101: attack the strength.

Posted by: Maezeppa | November 4, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

actuator, McConnell and Boehner shouldn't have begged the Republican caucus and even Boehner cried on the floor of the House to bail out the banks. They all should have filed for Chapter 11. It would have reduced wages, bonuses and made them stronger.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

lms:

There are several posters which I regularly ignore, but I do it the old fashioned way. I do not use Kevin's Troll Hunter.

You may have heard me mention this before, but I am fascinated by the apparent inability of people to simply ignore the people/posts that bug them. The fuss made over STRF is quite remarkable. Even after the introduction of Troll Hunter, which was designed to make ignoring him easier, the number of posts focusing on STRF is amazing. People just can't seem to resist reminding him/everyone else that "Hey, I'm ignoring you. Are you listening? I'm ignoring you!" It would make for an interesting psychological study, I think.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Bernie has fully taken leave of his senses. That conspiracy fantasy was downright comical.

And please learn what an ad hominem fallacy is, Bernie.

lms,

I'm not using Troll Hunter. I usually use a notebook from work. Despite the fact that our IS people who provision us with these things technically work for me, I am subject to their whims and never ceasing efforts to limit the functionality of the machines. I only have IE and haven't even tried to download TH.

But I honestly don't find scrolling past trollish drivel that big a deal. I just find increasing amounts of what is posted to be trollish drivel.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

actuator: "IMO the auto companies (GM & Chrysler)should have gone the route of Delta Airlines a few years ago and filed for chapter 11."

Ummm...they both did go through Chapter 11. How'd you miss that?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 4, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Mike the Republicans were incredibly duplicitous in the bailout panic of 08-09.

Posted by: actuator | November 4, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Jeeze Scott

I never do "Hey, I'm ignoring you. Are you listening? I'm ignoring you!"

I was quite successful at ignoring him on my own, lots of times by disappearing myself. I will admit to giving Kevin props for cutting down on the noise factor around here though. I was just curious if any of you guys were ignoring anyone now that the option is available.

No need to answer my question though if it's not worth your time.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Ooops, sorry Scott, just realized you did answer my question, LOL.

You guys should install it anyway just to see what it looks like with the ignore button and names at the top. It's much more interesting looking than the old Plumline. :)

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

The chapter 11 reorg of Delta put everything on the table. Did that happen with GM & Chrysler? Don't think so.

Posted by: actuator | November 4, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Bern,

"@tao - Careful now. There's much more I could tell you..."

I don't exactly know where you were going with that, or what I posted that ties back to it or why.

You're definitely telling us something...but it's definitely not what you think you're telling.

Posted by: tao9 | November 4, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Agree with Scott. The obsession over STRF is nearly on a level with the obsession with Palin, and very similar to it.

Equally entertaining is reading the unending posts about how self-regarding and thin skinned Palin is, from folks who generally see no such flaws in BO. That really amazes me. (Notice how I used one of his favorite words -- folks, which he likes to use to refer to the nameless and no good people who are always out to get him and stop him from "moving this country forward.")

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm a scroller.

Posted by: tao9 | November 4, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

haha.

Nate Silver's New article today.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

lol

No surprise Scott Rasmussen took Nate Silver's quote complimenting his polling off his web site from two years ago.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

qb

I have two computers in my office at home, one with one without TH. I'm not terribly technical although I know my way around a computer and lots of programs. I'm just sort of amazed that someone can go into someone else's website and change the look and features. I love problem solvers.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I use Troll Hunter which will surprise no one. What I watch for, as I read the posts, is who people respond to. If I saw responses to our favorite troll, I would be inclined to unblock him. That has not been a problem, since almost no one, even conservatives, respond to him or riff off his comments. That says something.

The other interesting thing about TH, is the idea that everyone may have blocked me and I may be talking to myself. This whole Troll Hunter thing has some comical aspects.

Well, I like it. I like the formatting better, even if I blocked no one.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

qb

My obsession with SP reminds me of your obsession with BO. I think it was O'Reilly who started the whole "folks" thing, except he added the word "regular" in front of it I think.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"I never do "Hey, I'm ignoring you. Are you listening? I'm ignoring you!""

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't accusing you. I was making an observation about the board in general.

"No need to answer my question though if it's not worth your time."

I think I did answer, didn't I? If I missed something, let me know. Answering you is always worth my time. Sincerely.

(For some reason you often interpret my answers to you as being hostile or accusatory, and I am not sure why.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"That has not been a problem, since almost no one, even conservatives, respond to him or riff off his comments. That says something."

Exactly 12Bar. And the comments section is more interesting looking too.

I noticed there was a bit of a discussion of lying earlier, I wonder if any of you guys are engaging in that to show how tough you are, haha. We don't need no stinkin' Troll Hunter.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"You guys should install it anyway just to see what it looks like with the ignore button and names at the top. It's much more interesting looking than the old Plumline."

I have to admit that having the names at top is appealing. A good idea from ruk.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"The other interesting thing about TH, is the idea that everyone may have blocked me and I may be talking to myself. This whole Troll Hunter thing has some comical aspects."

Had the same thoughts.

lms,

I give Kevin great credit, too. I wouldn't have the first clue how to devise something like TH, let alone distribute it. But I probably wouldn't really use it much even if I could download it.

As for SP and BO, he is President. She is a former VP candidate. She has no power over my life. BO does.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 4, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I'm using Troll Hunter now largely because it formats with the poster's name at the top of the comment rather than the bottom. Makes the scrolling easier. Since I can ignore/un-ignore people at any time by simply pushing buttons I've cleared the Troll List a couple of times to see what it looks like/reads like. When I find myself scrolling past someone for the third time I've just hit the "ignore" button for them. I just like the look/feel of it better with TH than without.

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"I think it was O'Reilly who started the whole "folks" thing"

O'Reilly's "the folks" schtick has always irritated me.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 4, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "There are several posters which I regularly ignore, but I do it the old fashioned way. I do not use Kevin's Troll Hunter."

You oughta give the final version a try. You don't actually have to block anybody. You get a clearer call out of the poster's name, over the comments, plus a running total of how many posts that poster has contributed to this thread. You don't have to block anybody--I don't, except for testing.

@TrollMcwingnut: "I do not use Kevin's Troll Hunter."

You know, I didn't think about that. That name is kind of insensitive, isn't it? I didn't mean to offend you and your people, Troll. Perhaps I should have called it "Spam Eliminator" or something like that.

That being said, I use the Troll Hunter for the formatting and message counts, which I like, but I don't actively block anybody unless the thread is a total wreck. Then I just turn it off once I'm done there.

That being said, I was hoping to blow all my political capital and goodwill that I've built up, and invite those of you with more time than sense to read some of my short fiction:

interstitiums.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/rain-on-mars/

Warning: the protagonist is a Christian. Scary religious stuff!

Or my unfinished, extraordinarily slow-moving sci-fi novel (that reflects my unrepentant 80s nostalgia), Book of Magic. I just realized there are several chapters that aren't up. I should fix that.

book-of-magic.blogspot.com/2008/12/chapter-1.html

Or, some of my music (so-called), such as what's on The Journeyor . . .

www.kevinwillis.net/wooteam/contents.php?album=The%20Journeyor

If that doesn't alienate everybody, there's more where that came from. :P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 4, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

The stock market hit a two year high today, and oil hit a high for the year, and all everybody wants to talk about is TH???????

Navel gazing in the extreme again. I thought we had stopped this.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 4, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

Kevin,

I'll let the name you used, the so called "troll hunter" pass. It's enough that you finally acknowledged it's innate insensitivity. We shall speak of it no more.

Am I the only one now saying "ahhhh, it makes sense!"? Computer work and/or enthusiasm? Sci-Fi enthusiasm? Sci-fi writing?

What's next, a slide show of your latest Comic-Con adventure? A discussion of D&D rules? ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 4, 2010 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Meh. Everybody's recovering; the Right from their raucous celebrations and the Left from their despair. Navel gazing will end soon enough. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Interesting Silver article about Rasmussen. WaPo had an interesting article on Scott Rasmussen several months back. He was talking about how his poll results drive conversation. That seemed kind of strange, to attempt to reach poll results for the conversation rather than to accurately ascertain the status of a race.

But I guess Rasmussen has just jumped on the bandwagon of right-wing profitability. If you pander to conservatives, you can become very rich. It's like FOX News, talk radio, and how seeming every conservative book seems to sell billions of copies. Why not have a conservative leaning poll? It will drive conversation and he can become very rich.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 4, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Meh. Everybody's recovering; the Right from their raucous celebrations and the Left from their despair. Navel gazing will end soon enough. . .

Posted by: Michigoose | November 4, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

@numbers,

Well, I'm in equities, so today was an excellent day. I'm even starting to look at charts again, since the political situation for the next two years will be like a California weather forecast. Unchanging.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

54465446

Do you think the market high will hold, I sort of have the feeling we're still on the brink with the banks. I sold at the end of 07, bought back in when the DOW was in the 7000-8000 range gradually, then sold about 60% of my stock again a couple of weeks ago.

You're right though, we all get sort of goofy here in the evenings sometimes. I'm still sorting through all the election info and trying to figure out what I think it means going forward on some of the policy I'm interested in.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

This blog sure is becoming boring.

I'm not sure what is being dicussed but there seems to be some kind of obsession with trolls or trolling or something like that. Very strange stuff.

Anyhow, I just want to thank B.O. and his hapless 'crats for being such dipsticks for the past two years so that socialism thing could get aborted before it went full term.

Looks like all them so-called moderates finally admitted they are really conservatives after all. It took the Obamanation to scare them back to their common senses.

Barack Hussein is just what the Republicans needed to reinvigorate their party and get back in victory lane again.

Too bad the Senate didn't flip but the silver lining is having hapless Harry Reid to kick around for a few more years. He's like a smiling, rubber clown. What a doofus.

The show to watch now is Obama trying to do a Clinton to avoid becoming a Carter.

I just don't think Obama can do Clinton. You need a personality to do Clinton.

A tele-prompter will not do.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 4, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

Kevin

I bookmarked your short stories and will work my way through them. I'm too tired tonight but I'll look forward to it. I'm also reading wgbonne's book right now which is quite good. wbgonne's Boston is a bit like Mars to me. I'm a west of the Rockies girl with one foot in the ocean at all times.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

@lms,

I must say you have remarkably good market timing. Any secrets you'd like to share?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

From Rush's backside to battlegrounds fingers.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | November 4, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

"Meh. Everybody's recovering; the Right from their raucous celebrations and the Left from their despair. Navel gazing will end soon enough. . .

Posted by: Michigoose"

I can't speak for all of the left, but I find myself in a lot less despair than say 2004. Republicans just hold one branch of the legislature and will be under pressure to actually do something. Maybe I'm just naive and optimistic, but this might force them to actually compromise. And I still think the punditocracy will stupidly suck the d*ck of the Tea Party (Erickson is already talking about a primary challenge to Scott Brown). Obama is still Obama and I think the Democrats will probably make up some of their losses when he is on the ballot again. Also, I'm still at a stage in my life where six years has added quite a bit of perspective and these things cna change quickly. As for policy, Republicans might slow the economic growth of the US to a standstill, but I'm still in good shape personally. It's very little consolation, but it's better than none.

As for troll hunter, I think it's getting 37th to behave. Just a few posts in this thread. I didn't even bother to block him. His goal is to disrupt conversation and now that he can't do that anymore, he'll either attempt to join it or just leave.

And as for Palin, the Tea Party forces that vaulted people like Angle and O'Donnell might do the same for Palin in 2012. And if they do, the rest-of-the-country forces that smacked down Angle and O'Donnell will definitely do the same to Palin, no matter how many polls Rasmussen comes out with.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 4, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

12Bar, just got lucky really. I read an article in the WSJ the end of 07 that gave me the heebie jeebies re the housing market. We also talked our son into selling his house and renting for a year and a half. He started his business and had enough left over for a huge down payment on a foreclosure last year.

I think I sold too early this time though, although I'm happy with what I have right now, we're more cautious than we used to be.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 4, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Well, the problem with market timing is regrets. I have the opposite issue. You can't shake me out of the market with a 500 lb bomb. I move into a sector, then move out to another, but I don't get out entirely. There are times I have severe regrets about that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 4, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Prediction:

Obama will try to do a Clinton but he will not be able to pull it off and will be fatally weakened by 2012. He will become like Carter and one or two big name Democrats will challenge him for the presidential nomination just as Ted Kennedy did to Carter back in 1980.

History has a way of repeating itself that is spooky. It's like the ghosts of the past coming back to haunt us.

Anyway, the fighting and backstabbing by these, Democrat, presidential wannabes will cause so much chaos in the party that a Republican will cakewalk into the White House. It's all so clear.

Democrats will also take another "shellacking" in the House and Senate finally flipping the Senate Republican. Triple Crown for some lucky Republican/Tea Party person.

Could that person be Sarah Palin??

Could it be destiny??

Stay tuned, soap opera fans!

Posted by: battleground51 | November 5, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

12Bar, what I have left in there now is in generics and energy, that's it. My husband's still in health care though.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm out, have a good night all.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

@544: "The stock market hit a two year high today, and oil hit a high for the year, and all everybody wants to talk about is TH???????"

Look at me! I'm *beautiful*!

Two-year high, eh? I'm mostly out of the market, and will probably never return. Lost too much money. I'm just not smart enough about it, so I'm stayin' out.

Unless we privatize Social Security. Then I'll be in.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

health care, we are all in health care

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

imsinca:

My stock advice is worth what you pay for it, don't forget! Do you ever use options to protect yourself instead of selling? If you have good companies, maybe try this OR sell half of your particular holding.

I use ETF's to trade as a hedge against my companies. I have been buying dollars this week on the dips as a short term trade. I may be a little premature on that one.

The Fed is guaranteeing inflation so I would hold any and all commodities indefinitely, but use options to protect against a big sell off day that will no doubt come occasionally and then buy on any significant dips.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

battleground51, let's hope so.

Posted by: clawrence12 | November 5, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Just play poker. There are only 52 cards. Makes investing very easy.

And that's my financial advice for the night. Goodnight.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 5, 2010 12:18 AM | Report abuse

@Troll: "Am I the only one now saying 'ahhhh, it makes sense!'? Computer work and/or enthusiasm? Sci-Fi enthusiasm? Sci-fi writing?"

Yeah, geeks online. What are the odds?

"What's next, a slide show of your latest Comic-Con adventure?"

I'm married with children. And have not won the lottery. Thus, no Comic-Con for me. Although I would have dearly loved to hit Flynn's Arcade at the last two San Diego Comic-Cons. No geek cruises. Although I'd love to do one. Ah, well.

"A discussion of D&D rules?"

You know, I never played D&D. I listen to a podcast called "Big Kev's Geek Stuff" (and appropriate title, though it t'aint me) and sight (and sometimes try to fast forward) with the D&D section comes up. That whole phenomenon just passed me by, somehow.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The Fed can not guarantee inflation. It ceased to be all powerful some time ago.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

kevin:

You don't have to be in the market as a trader per se, BUT inflation is coming, perhaps BIG TIME inflation if the Fed gets it's way. You will probably see oil break over $100 by year's end or early in 2011.

You need to figure out how to best prepare for that scenario. Anybody who is on fixed income or holding long term bonds and Treasuries could find the 20-teens mighty unpleasant.

Uncle Ben is going to pare down the deficit by monetizing the debt and calling it fixing the economy. Don't believe for a second this is being done to help unemployment. That's the smoke screen. It's a race to the bottom, last country to debase their currency loses!

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

shrink;

We agree on some things, but not on this. It already has!

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm mostly out of the market, and will probably never return. Lost too much money. I'm just not smart enough about it, so I'm stayin' out.
-----------------------------
This is the biggest tragedy of the recent stock market action. Obviously, the market did not anticipate the financial crisis and all the web of interrelated failures. Add to that the flash crash in May, and I wonder sometimes why there are ANY retail investors left in the market.

Now that equities are too frightening to the average investor, and fixed income is ridiculous, and the always reliable real estate market is now scary, I don't know what people are going to do to save for retirement.

My personality is to hang on, and also I'm a technician, so it gives me something else to evaluate. I can stand the ups and downs, but only barely.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 5, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "I bookmarked your short stories and will work my way through them. I'm too tired tonight but I'll look forward to it. "

I look forward to what you think. Just an indulgence, really. And I end up spending more time working on music. With instrumental music, there's less of an obligation to make it narratively coherent. Not that I actually manage that when writing but . . . it's a good exercise. When I was 18 I was sure I was going to be a novelist. That didn't happen!

@battleground" "He will become like Carter and one or two big name Democrats will challenge him for the presidential nomination just as Ted Kennedy did to Carter back in 1980."

You know, it's hard to remember, but Carter wasn't actually like Carter until after the debates with Reagan. Carter was still in pretty good shape until the final stretch. Had the hostages come home, things might have been different. But I suspect that if you're right, and there are 3rd party challengers, that's what's going to weaken Obama. Any Democrat who thinks a primary challenge is going to do anything but deliver the presidency to the Republicans needs to spend some time studying history.

Without a credible primary or 3rd party challenger, it's actually pretty likely that Obama wins in 2012. When no coattails, however. He may even lose a few seats. That's my prediction, two years out, at any rate.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"The Fed is guaranteeing inflation so I would hold any and all commodities indefinitely."

Yeah I was thinking the same thing with Bernanke's latest move. Use options occasionally and sell off half quite often. Right now I'm in take a breather mode. I'm getting too old for this stuff. Thanks again.

DDAWD, I play cards too.

Goodnight again all.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

12bar:

It sounds stupid, but CNBC is the greatest MBA school in the world. I tell everybody who has any interest in money at all to watch 5-10 minutes a day in the beginning. It's like learning a foreign language by total immersion.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 12:31 AM | Report abuse

@12Bar: "I don't know what people are going to do to save for retirement."

Well, I don't know about retirement, but I'm prepared for my senior years. I've already got a career in mind.

"Welcome to Wal-Mart!"

I should be able to manage that. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

As a side note, the other night I left a comment responding to bernie, and in it I directed to you the quote: "You know who this helps don't you?" And you wondered what the heck I was talking about.

The thing I was responding to was a quote attributed to the Hugh Hewitt show. On AOSHQ it was a running gag (and still is) that whenever something good would happen in the 2008 Republican Primary, Hewitt would always relate it to helping Mitt Romney (he had written a book about him). For example, if, say, Huckabee mispronounced a word during a speach, or Duncan Hunter's fundraising number wasn't up to par, Hewitt would say it helped Romney. It became such a go-to phrase for Hewitt, and such reliable fodder for joking, that Hewitt himself had to comment on it on air and laugh about it.

Anyway, long (frankly rather geekily "inside baseball") story for a very little (if any)payoff. Just thought, since you frequent Ace of Spades, you might be familiar with it.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | November 5, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

This is the big question. WE don't get to decide whether we have inflation. Isn't that strange? All the kooks talking about Weimar Germany...we don't get to just devalue and everyone else goes along. If interest rates all over the world go to zero (they have) then printing money is not relevant. Anyone with a credit rating can borrow money for free now, but what would you do with it? I can, I won't.

We used to all be Berliners, now we are all Florida speculators. Who wants to borrow money if there is nothing you can do but lose it?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

@numbers,

I used to watch CNBC day and night. I used to trade full time when the market action was fast enough to justify it. I had a partner who was more interested in fundamentals and I was more technical, so we had an interesting partnership. Sometimes, it really worked out well. Other times...

What I found with CNBC is that it was stimulating me to trade faster than I should be, based on my technical system. But, I would agree that it is a daily classroom and is part of the education for every investor.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | November 5, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

Consider PERHAPS the opposite scenario. This is the greatest time in the world to borrow because interest rates cannot realistically go lower, and the money you pay back on your loan will be worth far less than you borrowed.

Posted by: 54465446 | November 5, 2010 12:40 AM | Report abuse

When borrowed money is free, you have to speculate or not borrow money. The Fed is telling seniors and disabled people (and losers) to drop dead.

But so long as we don't care about that, sure, I just refinanced a condo I own but don't live in for nothing, I get free money, no joke. Who knows why.

It works for some people, I have cash flow. The whole system is rigged, the more you have the more you get.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 12:51 AM | Report abuse

@Troll: "Anyway, long (frankly rather geekily "inside baseball") story for a very little (if any)payoff. Just thought, since you frequent Ace of Spades, you might be familiar with it."

I didn't hit Ace much during the 2008 elections. Not sure why. Stopped going. Came back. Usually hit Ace at least once a day, these days.

I enjoyed my flaming victory pudding (complete with simulated skull) in honor our the Republican's find showing on Tuesday.

I guessed it was something like that, and I was just missing it. And I was right!

Night all. The bed calls.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

It's come to this:

Electoral politics, in California, is being held hostage by the "hispanic" vote.

It's time to give that trainwreck of a state back to Mexico. It's hopeless!

Build the danged WALL and miliarize the southern border, NOW.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 5, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

"Electoral politics, in California, is being held hostage by the "hispanic" vote."

Interesting phrasing there. More interesting was the conversation on The Last Word tonight (Lawrence O'Donnell's new gig) with the Maria Teresa Kumar from Voto Latino.

Turns out, the Hispanic vote is growing and fast. Voto Latino is projecting that there will be 1.5 million new Hispanic voters by the time the 2012 elections roll around, most of them young people. The Hispanic vote pulled Harry Reid over the finish line. The Hispanic vote was also very influential in Colorado with Tancredo running for Governor.

Nationally, the Hispanic vote broke a bit over 60% for Democrats. Marco Rubio carried a good portion of Hispanics, but only the Cubans. He only got about 40% of the rest of the Hispanic voters.

The bottom line is that the Hispanic voters are going to be a bigger bloc and more influential in a lot of areas of the country, not just in CA.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 5, 2010 2:03 AM | Report abuse

These comments are HILARIOUS


Do you people have anything of substance to say???


No wonder I decided a long time ago to talk past you all - and just state the position of the Tea Party and let you all be in your miserable selves.


.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 3:12 AM | Report abuse

Dorchester and Congress RULES.


I can't believe you all, I really can not believe this blog tonight. A guy can't even go out with his friends without being the subject of such discussions.


The corner of Dorcheaster and Congress is the location of the first Tea Party in 1773. I think what happened was a bunch of guys got drunk at the Masonic Lodge and they decided to dress as Indians (native Americans) go vandalize a ship by throwing the Tea overboard.

That is about it.


The first guy to wake up (who still had the hang over) he said it was a TAX PROTEST. That is HILARIOUS.


.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 3:20 AM | Report abuse

"Nationally, the Hispanic vote broke a bit over 60% for Democrats. Marco Rubio carried a good portion of Hispanics, but only the Cubans. He only got about 40% of the rest of the Hispanic voters. "

There's nothing the Dem party does better than identity, grievance-based race politics. No doubt about it. Nor could they be any more brazen and shameless about it, even to the point of ceding our national sovereignty. It's an upside down world when we literally have the federal government siding with Mexico and other Latin American countries to sue a state in federal court to prevent enforcement of federal immigration laws, and denouncing the state and our country as racist to the U.N.

Punish your racial enemies. That's the Dem way. We'll see in the next 30 years or so whether the country can survive it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Hispanics were probably also a part of Obama's gains in NM and CO. I think Obama would have had a decent shot at AZ if it weren't McCain's home state.

The GOP seems intent on alienating them, though. It's one thing to discuss the topic, but it's another to be so patently racist.

That's fine with me. If the GOP wants to try and win every election with nothing but uneducated white men, that's their prerogative.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 5, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

"The GOP seems intent on alienating them, though. It's one thing to discuss the topic, but it's another to be so patently racist."

Dems have done a fine job of equating opposition to illegal immigration, racial entitlement politics, and welfare state growth to racism, as well as stupidity, lack of education, etc. No doubt they have. It cynical and terrible for the country, but those are not Dems' concerns. Their concern is "transforming" the country from something they despise to something different.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

@ddawg "... with nothing but uneducated white men..."

I'm sure you're educated up the a$$...but you don't seem to possess much sense of your own country.

Or charity.

Or wisdom.

Posted by: tao9 | November 5, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Dems have done a fine job of equating opposition to illegal immigration, racial entitlement politics, and welfare state growth to racism, as well as stupidity, lack of education, etc. No doubt they have. It cynical and terrible for the country"

Depends what you mean by "cynical". If you're suggesting they are insincere, I think that's only very rarely the case. I've had arguments where the opposing view was, quite literally, tax cuts=racism. And it wasn't ironic or cynical. It was sincere.

And, of course, self-congratulatory: "I've cracked the code. I understand how tax cuts or the War on Terror or No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D or almost anything is in fact racist, and because uneducated white people (who aren't liberals) are scared of brown people.

On the other hand, the Angle ads took chutzpah. Sort of a, "You think just talking about securing the border is racist? Wait until you see this."

But, agree, re: the democrats expertise in identity politics. It is not sufficient to be Hispanic--you must also be a Democrat or a liberal to be truly "Hispanic". It's not enough to be African American--you must also be a liberal and/or Democrat, or you are, in essence, a race traitor. Okay, maybe some of that is cynical.

But for most folks on the left, it's a sincere belief. Opposition to, say, affirmative action (even though color-blind propositions seem to pass everywhere they're tried) is racist. While having lower expectations because of historical victimhood is, somehow, not. That's a sweet deal when it comes to securing votes for aggrieved votes. Often done, ironically, by threatening with images of scary white people. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

@DDAWD: "If the GOP wants to try and win every election with nothing but uneducated white men"

We're not uneducated, just insufficiently indoctrinated.

You should have tried harder. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Kevin,

Plumbing the depths and meanings of sincerity and cynicism of leftwing race hustlers is probably more complicated a subject than can be done any justice here.

When I say cynical here, I suppose I mean something more like manipulative, but really it also means that they impute bad or selfish motives. So one could probably ask whether they are sincerely or insincerely cynical. Sort of angels on the head of a pin. I think some people who engage in this racial politics are completely "insincere" in their slurs and accusations, but they believe that is just fine because they are serving a greater good, as perverse as that "good" may be.

But I also believe that for many people these behaviors overlap with what we were discussing last night re people's lying, including lying to themselves, etc. I think many people convince themselves over time of things that are just plain nuts, because they fit the ideological agenda and ends that they set out to serve from the start. So while many people seem to "sincerely" believe that tax cuts, opposition to affirmative action, and everything else is motivated by "racism," they mostly didn't start out that way.

To me, this is the very state of delusion we find most of these people to be in. It is abnormal political psychology; it is supposed to be complicated. But at some point, you just have to say, these people have come to believe things that are crazy and often wicked. How they got there is an interesting question, but not one we can probably answer.

How's that for a provocative morning start?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD: "The GOP seems intent on alienating them, though. It's one thing to discuss the topic, but it's another to be so patently racist."

On the whole, though, I don't think the GOP is racist, but they sure are ALIENATING of minorities, and particularly of Hispanics. The rhetoric leveled at Hispanics in the last few years has been horrid. QB can deny it as he prefers, but polling shows it, and now there are even more concrete results (i.e. Angle, Buck, and Tancredo). If QB and other conservatives think that Dems are panderers, why don't they attempt to counter it with outreach to Hispanics rather than demonization? It's odd to me that this doesn't occur to them.

Also interesting is both winning GOP Hispanic governors-elect (NV and NM) DID NOT carry the Hispanic vote in their respective states, which in an indication that Hispanics don't vote by race necessarily, but by policies. Smoke on that a while.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 5, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

What's this about a troll hunter? Did I miss an announcement or something?

Posted by: cao091402 | November 5, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Golly goodness! Who'd have guessed it?

"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued." http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/?hp

The function of propaganda (if we properly differentiate it from normal PR or marketing) is to create or foster a consensus that X is real or truthful when it is neither. It is done purposefully, in an organized manner, and in the service of some entity for that entity's gain.

Posted by: bernielatham | November 5, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_125.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 5, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Race and identity politics have never been about racial solidarity in the sense raised by suekoo. That's nothing new. Just look at Dems' treatment of any black conservative who dares raise his head. That is part of what is most cynical and disbonest about it. One can't be an authentic member of an approved, aggrieved minority without strictly adhering to leftist political ideology.

The leftwing propaganda machine has been working that beat for decades.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

I guess that's why Ras was the most accurate in 2008. Must not have had his propaganda plan very well executed way back then.

What a laugh.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

"The function of propaganda (if we properly differentiate it from normal PR or marketing) is to create or foster a consensus that X is real or truthful when it is neither."

At last, we have something of a definition of propagand from bernie. And now we see why he has never wanted to define it, because, as some of us said, his definition is plainly one that is subjective based on his own views of what is "real" or "truthful."

But up until now, he has always met questions about this with evasive declarations that what Rove/Fox/Kristol et al. are "up to" is something "different" from what his side is doing. Never an explanation; just a dismissive declaration. "You'd have to read my library to understand."

But now we finally know, and we know the only difference is based on what bernie believes is "true" and what isn't. Otherwise, PR and advertising and propaganda are all the same thing.

As for Rasmussen, he must be a pretty stupid propagandist, given that a pollster's only stock in trade is credibility, which would quickly be dissipated by repeated inaccuracies. But Bernie is just doing propaganda, so I understand.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

@bernielatham: "The function of propaganda (if we properly differentiate it from normal PR or marketing) is to create or foster a consensus that X is real or truthful when it is neither. It is done purposefully, in an organized manner, and in the service of some entity for that entity's gain."

But in this case, it arguably did no good. It may have even done harm, if the goal was to get Republican's elected, as it removed any sense of urgency in those races. Why do I have to stop commenting on blogs all day, when I know the Republican is going to win anyway?

I've gotta agree with qb. "As for Rasmussen, he must be a pretty stupid propagandist, given that a pollster's only stock in trade is credibility, which would quickly be dissipated by repeated inaccuracies."

This isn't propaganda, this is poor modeling, and it's going to hurt Rasmussen's reputation as a pollster. Chances are, as often is the case with these things, they thought they were too clever by half and could "time the market", so to speak, and ended up getting their azzes handed to them.

Although I know that doesn't match the appealing, quasi-religious narrative of a dark shadow government being orchestrated by the Koch bros. and the Bilderbergs to establish a one world currency . . . which will then, inevitably, lead to everyone having a UPC tatooed on the back of their neck and implanted with RFID chips.

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that Bernie has never, to my knowledge, warned us about the earthquake machine, by which the CIA--but really the One World Shadow Government--engineered the earthquake in Haiti. Either you really want to inform the people, are you don't. That's what I always say. /snark

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"It is done purposefully, in an organized manner, and in the service of some entity for that entity's gain."

The charge you are making, presumably, is that Rasmussen deliberately skewed its poll results in order to aid Republican electoral chances. (I say presumably because, in typical fashion, you are implying rather than being explicit.) Of course, the charge begs the question of how, exactly, deliberately skewing poll results aids anyone, and in particular how a single pollster among many skewing its polls can do so. I have a strange suspicion that Bernie will find this question "uninteresting" and will refuse to provide an answer, as he so often does when his premises are questioned.

qb:

"I guess that's why Ras was the most accurate in 2008. Must not have had his propaganda plan very well executed way back then."

That was all part of the plan. Since '08 was a lost cause anyway, Ras accurately predicted the outcome in order to gain credibility. That way, when it really mattered, his lies would be more believable. Never underestimate the fiendish cleverness of right-wing propagandists.

Posted by: ScottC3 | November 5, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "Plumbing the depths and meanings of sincerity and cynicism of leftwing race hustlers is probably more complicated a subject than can be done any justice here."

Very true. And a good start. I liked everything you said. I would just also add that when I talk to people who may use some racist language, or in other ways fit the "racist" stereotype, they aren't racists. Racism is a misnomer, because people of the same race can have completely different cultures, and the wedges are driven between groups on cultural issues, not genetic ethnicity or skin pigmentation. If you hear a stereotypical racist (not the 50 or so remaining members of the KKK) complaining about a given minority, the complaints are cultural, not based on genetics or skin color or facial features.

And it works both ways. That's why it's commonly said that a given minority, if conservative or Republican, is not legitimately of that minority.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

Of course. Makes perfect sense.

I was struck by that same line you were, since it unequivocally asserts that Rasmussen deliberately skewed his results, and does so without citing a shred of evidence. This is pure bernie: he asserts whatever he wants based on his own authority and nothing else, even to the point of a specific accusation like this. If anyone else made such a claim, we need have little doubt how he would react.

At least we now have verification that, per Bernie, everything that the right says is propaganda, and nothing the left says is, because it turns out his definition has nothing to do with means or methods but merely whether or not it is "true." No wonder he finds any questions about his analyses of propganda uninteresting.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

qb: "Race and identity politics have never been about racial solidarity in the sense raised by suekoo. That's nothing new. Just look at Dems' treatment of any black conservative who dares raise his head."

Then please explain the disparity in voting habits of the Cuban community compared to the rest of the Hispanics. Do you really not think that policy towards them has not allowed them to vote they way they do? Yes, they are conservative, as are a lot of other Hispanics, at least socially. But Cuban immigrants, once they make it here legally or otherwise, have been protected by both Dems and Repubs, have they not? When is that last time you've seen anyone threaten a Cuban with deportation, or being demonized?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 5, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo,

I really don't understand your argument now. As I understand it, Cubans often have not been given the same "protection" as other Hispanics. But I'm not sure what your point is.

Dems have always followed the nBO did in telling Hispanics (and other minorities) that Republicans are their enemies and need to be punished. Thus, they make it by definition illegimate and treasonous to one's race/ethnicity to be other than a liberal. As bernie would say, their propaganda has a good success rate.

Cubans, on the other hand, typically have been treated as not "true" or deserving Hispanics, because they are somehow considered too privileged and are refugees from communism, which tends to make them both more conservative and unpopular with much of the left. I don't see what is puzzling to you about any of this.

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

qb, most Hispanics are socially conservative, and would have a natural fit in the GOP, if they were welcomed, and their issues were addressed. But they are not, save the Cubans.

Any Cuban who arrives on US soil is protected from deportation. It's the "wet foot/dry foot" policy. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_feet,_dry_feet_policy

Posted by: suekzoo1 | November 5, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

No, I don't think that Rs should adopt liberal Democratic policies and positions -- surrendering their principles -- to appeal to Hispanics. I gather that is your suggestion here. Why bother, if it means surrendering one's principles?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 5, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company