The Great Rejection
The election means exactly what you think it means.
Of the many awful features of post-election punditry, perhaps the most irritating is the requirement that every writer find a new, heterodox angle on the previous night's results. Click around a bit and you'll doubtless find a depressingly large number of columns making a series of clever, original, and dubious claims—why [insert accepted narrative] is wrong and why the counter narrative I just thought up deserves your attention. But last night's results are, alas, fairly straightforward. They could be summed up, if one needed to do so in a sentence, as "The Tea Party candidates were a mixed bag and voters were angry about the economy." So rather than hectoring you about everything you know being wrong—because it's likely untrue, provided you didn't get all of your election analysis from Ed Schultz—I offer selected thoughts on last night's bloodbath, many of which adhere to conventional wisdom.
Nice job, South Carolina: Alvin Greene, performance artist, pornography aficionado, and shock winner of South Carolina's Democratic Primary, managed to pull in an astonishing 28 percent of the vote against conservative Republican Jim DeMint. While there are more than enough issues on which one can criticize DeMint, Greene has apparently been living off-planet—with his mother. But despite a series of media appearances that could charitably be called disastrous, Greene still managed to pick up 361,912 votes and carry 10 counties.
Christine O'Donnell is awesome at losing elections: Why, a friend once asked me, is Pat Buchanan still allowed on television? The answer might sound conspiratorial, I said, but it always struck me as plausible that MSNBC extended Buchanan's contract because he represents what that network wanted people to associate with conservatism: A get-off-my-lawn curmudgeon, waving his fist about immigration and, when times demanded it, defending former concentration camp guards. In a television studio last night, preparing to discuss the media's impact on the election, the host asked me why Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell was, according to a Pew study, the media's most covered figure during the election cycle. Perhaps O'Donnell—who was so stunningly mediocre, always good for a dumb quote, and set to become the Senate's most powerful anti-onanist—is another Pat Buchanan. It was an uninteresting race, one that the so-called RINO hunters bequeathed to her opponent, but also one that underscored the idea of the Tea Party as home to fringe characters and goofy former Wiccans.
Cap and trade: What more can one add to this Politico lede: "House Democrats who voted for the 2009 bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions—dubbed cap-and-tax by GOP opponents—had a terrible night." Did they ever. According to Politico "over two dozen lawmakers who favored efforts to clamp down on heat-trapping emissions" were given their walking papers. It's an important data point to remember when your partisan chums sputter that last night's elections may have been a bloodbath, but it was one motivated by anti-incumbent sentiment, not anti-Obama anger.
Alan Grayson crawls back under his rock: America's most loathsome politician is unseated. With all the mania about negative campaigning and excessive nastiness, it is good to see that there is a limit to how much embarrassment the people of Florida's eighth district are willing to endure. Grayson, who appeared on MSNBC an amazing 61 times this year, took negative campaigning to an astonishing low (see the "Taliban Dan Webster" ad) and the voters punished him for it, pulling in a pitiful 38 percent.
False consciousness: It was something I heard over-and-over at Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity, from well-meaning attendees who, having previously read Tom Frank's book What's the Matter with Kansas, believed that Tea Party types were stumping for causes that "were against their own interests." Marxist intellectuals call this "false consciousness," and explain that a revolution of the workers is inevitable once those workers understand how badly the managerial class is screwing them. After accusing voters of having a tantrum, Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson hissed at those "voters who lost jobs in the economic collapse and are trying to rework mortgages the bank can't find the paperwork for, aligned itself with the party that will add $3 trillion to the federal debt over 10 years to keep tax cuts for the wealthy, without specific offsetting spending cuts to speak of." Expect more of this nonsense in the coming weeks.
The Rand Paul victory: Nothing surprising about this, nor was there anything surprising about the hyperventilating reaction of MSNBC host Laurence O'Donnell who, after Paul's victory speech, warned that civilization would end when Paul was seated in the Senate. Meanwhile, The Root, a black issues magazine owned by The Washington Post, thought Paul's celebration of divided government and gridlock was a harbinger of the extremism awaiting America: "Rand Paul is at it again, being his normal, insensitive, extremist self. Senator-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky says government gridlock isn't necessarily a bad thing, signaling that cooperation with Democrats isn't high on his agenda…After last night's elections, we can certainly look forward to no change in the future. What do you expect from a man who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act? And yes, America voted for him anyway." If by "America" you mean Kentucky and if by "wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act" you mean does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, then I suppose The Root is right.
The voters of California are the worst people on Earth: Back in 2003, they elected (and then reelected) an Austrian action hero that turned out to be as awful, if not worse, than the governor voters recalled. And now those very progressive, wheat grass-drinking Californians managed to elect Jerry Brown (insert Dead Kennedy's reference here) and prolong the career of Barbara Boxer, while voting against the legalization of marijuana. And if that weren't bad enough, the San Francisco city council yesterday approved a measure to ban Happy Meals, to be replaced by Sad Meals featuring Lori Berenson trading cards and tofu sticks in the shape of Cuba. But remember, their auras smile and never frown.
Money doesn't buy you voter love: Every election it is demonstrated that piles of cash doesn't assure one a seat in Congress, as it doesn't assure the Yankees a spot in the World Series. Using a bunch of different metrics, Democrats did a mighty job of outspending Republicans and, nevertheless, to quote President Obama, were delivered a shellacking. So yes, Meg Whitman is the Michael Huffington of 2010.
MSNBC completes transformation: Watching MSNBC's nauseating, petty, smug election coverage was like watching a live stream of a Park Slope dinner party. And it made it official. The network, which has adopted a piecemeal strategy of partisanship—the evening schedule seems to add a liberal firebrand every six months—has now completed its transformation into the left-wing version of Fox News. Prior to the election, one could hear Chris Matthews comparing the brief and isolated outbreak of violence at a Rand Paul event to—you guessed it!—Germany in the 1930s. Not to be outdone, Ed Schultz popped up an hour later declaring that it reminded him too of Nazi violence. A few days later, Matthews would praise Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity, which called for the media to tone down the hyperbole, as "a positive thing." Last night he was to be found making dick jokes on television as his party was being driven off a cliff.
Exit question: How long before Alan Grayson is offered a job as an MSNBC contributor?
Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Prior to the election, one could hear Chris Matthews comparing the brief and isolated outbreak of violence at a Rand Paul event to?you guess it!?Germany in the 1930s."
He must have misspoken. It is the National Socialists who lost in this election.
+100 for evoking the "National Socialists" on a Moynihan thread.
Hyperbole is the new Irony!!!!
Matthews never mentioned the Nazis by name. He just inferred in a weaselly way that Rand Paul supporters were like a "certain" European power in the 1930s.
Maybe he was talking about the French. Paul supporters would probably support a Maginot Line at the southern border.
As long as it's as easy to get around as the real Maginot Line.
Luckily I am not Matthews and can breathlessly call Obama our Hilter.
Hopefully to the consternation of Moynihan.
Prior to the election, one could hear Chris Matthews comparing the brief and isolated outbreak of violence at a Rand Paul event to?you guess it!?Germany in the 1930s. Not to be outdone, Ed Schultz popped up an hour later declaring that it reminded him too of Nazi violence. A few days later, Matthews would praise Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity, which called for the media to tone down the hyperbole, as "a positive thing."
In fairness Moynihan did point out Matthews hypocrisy which is not the same thing as his prior critiques here of the use of hyperbole in general.
Nah. Obama's much more like Mussolini. I'm expecting Barry to add a bunch of medals and big shoulder pads to his wardrobe from this point forward.
I'll worry when Barry starts shaving his head.
That would give Barry the Avery Brooks look, but he'd need to grow a goatee to complete it. Maybe wear some of Richard Belzer's old Law & Order: SVU wardrobe.
And he'll make the high-speed trains run on time!
As I read somewhere else, it's not accurate to compare Obama to Hitler. Obama would have never turned on Stalin.
False consciousness would be the thing where objective relations in the external world that are antithetical to your well-being in some way are internally, like, scotomized and shit, right?
well-meaning attendees
...who objectively didn't storm the stage and kill Cat Stevens.
So it was a Nazi rally. Objectively.
MSNBC is NOT the leftwing version of Fox. Fox is the house of reason and sanity compared to MSNBC, or by itself, without comparisons. FOX is not conservative. It is moderate, which is now called conservative. The sentiment Fox expresses is that the US is good and Americans are good people, that able bodied people should not be on government support, that, on the whole, millions of people should not be able to just walk across the border, that the majority religion of judeo christianity is fine and should not be nastily derided, that taxes should be low, and other things that Walter Cronkite used to express. Now all these sentiments have become uber conservative thinking, according to the chattering classes.
Fox News is a mixed bag. I certainly prefer it to MSNBC and CNN.
I love the Glenn Beck Program and Fox News Watch. I enjoy Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch and Stossell when I get a chance to see them [on the Fox Business Channel]. But they also have a few truly wretched programs like "Fox & Friends" in the morning and they truly awfull "Huckabee". I also can only stand to watch "Hannitty is very small doses".
But overall, I DO much prefer Fox to MSNBC and CNN.
EDIT: I can only stand to watch "Hannitty" in very small doses.
Hannity is a partisan hack.
O'Reilly is just your garden variety asshole.
Glenn Beck is diet Alex Jones (NTTIATWTT)
If i have to watch a random of hour of cable news though, I'd have to vote for FOX though too.
EDIT: I can stand to watch "Hannity" only in very small doses.
I don't like watching grown men cry on national television...over and over and over.
I love Stossel and Napolitano and their shows would not exist elsewhere.
Stossel is Fox Business... You can't compare CNBC and MSNBC...
(I really don't know you, maybe you can)
I should say much, the only thing I could watch on FoxNews was RedEye... and now I only watch when "The Jacket" is on.
I don't like watching grown men cry on national television
When do you like watching grown men cry?
As they writhe beneath my stilettos and whip!
You cane somebody in the nuts again?
How can you stand to watch any of them? Even Stossel and Napolitano's shows, the few minutes I have caught of them, still have that "24 hour news" format that I so detest. It's just painful.
Better a shitty dose of those ideas than no presentation at all.
Hopefully people who become interested can go to the intertubes for some more in-depth learnin'.
That's right. Sanity prevails in the blogs.
There is no "judeo-christian" religion. The last 2000 years of European and Middle Eastern history have mostly been about demonstrating that fact. I'm sure most Jews find the notion fairly insulting as well (certainly the Ultra-Orthodox do). It makes as much sense as talking about the "christian-islam" religion.
Jews for Jesus would beg to differ with you, little Ivan.
Jews for Jesus are Christian. There are also Christians that have converted to Islam.
My brother uses the term "judeo-chrislamic" when referencing the Abrahamic religious ethos.
Jews and Christians don't try to kill you when you attempt to leave the faith. I think that's enough to separate them from Islam.
Buddhists don't kill you either, nor do Shintoists or Ba'hai. Are we just lumping all religions that don't kill you if you leave into one fuzzy pot?
No one who goes Quaker ever leaves.
I say "Jehovistic", but including Zoroastrians and whatever miscellaneous gentile Jehovists might still exist.
I prefer "The Sunstroke Trilogy." All that hot sun and desert produces some mighty wacky lit!
Do you think Jews for Jesus is what most people who use the term "judeo-christian" mean by it?
The only sense I can make of "judeo-christian religion" is as a pretentious term for Christianity. Judeo-christian culture makes more sense.
Judeo-christian culture makes more sense.
Pretty sure that's what he meant. Culture, values, etc.
In that case, we should stop referring to Christianity as there are quite stark and basic doctrinal divides between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodoces on basic issues.
I dont know if i buy that. There are differences, sure, but i think its a stretch to call them stark.
"There are differences, sure, but i think its a stretch to call them stark."
Are you dissing my work?
No. Anyone who can nail feces to a door is a-ok in my book.
Just imagine nailing up ninety-five of them!
we should stop referring to Christianity
Yes, let's do!
Christianity is basically European polytheistic agrarian religion with an overlay of nomadic religion from the Middle East. Islam is the straight nomadic monotheistic stuff, and Judaism is somewhere in between, but closer to the nomadic. Protestants bring out the monotheistic Middle Eastern stuff more.
+1
How do the Cylons fit in?
It's also funny that the largest Jewish communities in the world during, say, 1400 - 1900 were found in Christian countries. Hard to believe that if Christians were uniquely hostile to them.
I live in a community which is, or was, mostly Jewish and Italian immigrants. The Jews who can afford it, send their kids to the Catholic school, Sacred Heart (which is most of them).
Conservative minded (socially, I mean) Jews and Protestants / Evangelicals in areas without good public or affordable private schools have for many years sent their kids to Catholic schools. Historically, they are good AND affordable schools, and most of them allowed opt-outs from openly religious activities for parents who could prove their allegiance to another religion. (On average, of course, and there always have been and are exceptions to each of my statements)
This is also one of the reasons why Catholic schools thrive in non-Catholic (and even non-Christian) countries, unlike other faith-based schools.
That's not strictly true - the Jewish populations in Baghdad and Alexandria were huge (of course, there were Christians in those cities as well in those days).
vanya, you would never say there is no Islam. Stop putting down the religion and culture of your forefathers (if they are that). Judeo christianity is part of western civilization. Get over this reflex to insult it and pretend it does not exist.
"FOX is not conservative. It is moderate, which is now called conservative."
You don't really believe that, do you? Fox isn't conservative? That's objectively false. Murdoch would even disagree with you. They are conservative, and proudly so.
Your point is well-taken that conservatism is not a bad thing, but don't say Fox isn't conservative. That's just lazy.
FOX News has a decided political slant. So does every other cable news network as well as CBS, NBC and ABC. FOX is different from MSNBC in that they have a little class. Yesterday Rachel Maddow complained about someone at a rally holding a sign that inferred MSNBC was in the tank for Democrats. She was indignant. I think she really believes her own pointy-headed nonsense.
The sign was something like "how's your thrill now Matthews".
Maddow has no sense of humor. Matthews and co still refuse to admit how absurd it was for a grown man to admit feeling a quiver up his thigh during a stupid political speech.
It wasn't a quiver! It wasn't a tingle! It was a THRILL! Jeez! It's like the 1930s up in this shit!
"Rachel Maddow complained about someone at a rally holding a sign that inferred MSNBC was in the tank for Democrats. She was indignant."
I thought that was a very telling moment also. She seems actually innocently naive. Talk about living in a bubble.
Yeah. Maddow proves the point that people can indeed be born "a certain way," and that lefty intellectualism is not a lifestyle "choice" that can be "cured."
Fox News is moderate because, even though most of the popular hosts are conservative, they are more balanced in the guests they have on than, say, MSNBC.
I'm not sure that's true. Fox, like Rush and most of talk radio, evolved to fill a niche that was empty. That niche was the traditionalist American viewpoint. Rush and talk radio quickly became partisan--and FOX featured commentary shows that followed that partisanship(though opposing views were sought on those shows--in much the same way as talk radio puts opposing views ahead of 'dittoheads'), but the news segments 'tilt' was simply back towards the actual center. There was an open 'affection' for the US--not a party, or an ideology, but an acceptance that the US was not a monster(believe it or not, disdain for the US is not an objective stance in journalism). The 'troops' when referenced, were 'our' troops. Things that happened to or in the US happened to 'us'. The stance underlying everything at FOX that made everything about them seem 'right-wing' to the MSM and the left is that they are part of the US, and that this is not a bad thing.
Consider that, at the time this started--and even now--this basic stance--that one's country is not a menace to the world--is not regularly found in the MSM.
Much of FOX' commentary shows tilt right, but their basic stance is smack in the middle. We've just been away from that middle for so long that it's hard to see.
Nobody can honestly look at the lineup that MSNBC had for election night compared to the panel on Fox and say it's the same thing.
The Fox panelists had plenty to argue about because, well, there have a wider range of political viewpoints. The MSNBC crew was one big monolithic pity party for the Left.
I hafta be honest, maybe 'cuz I'm Canadian, but I listen to Rush from time to time and I really don't see why the left goes batshit on what he says.
You're new here, aren't you?
Well, the problem is that people tend to view the center as closer to their side than it actually is, so their attempts to balance things get stupider and stupider.
So...
Say the old-school media liberal bias was quantified as 3 (with positive numbers being leftward bias). Moreover, say that team red sees the center as two points too far right, and team blue sees it as two points too far left.
Fox viewers see that 3 as a 5, so they establish what they think is a -5, but which is actually a -7.
MSNBC viewers see the -7 as a -9, and so establish a 11. And in three steps, human cognitive flaws crank the stupid up to 11.
Well, the problem is that people tend to view the center as closer to their side than it actually is
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
the world is libertarian
the world is libertarian
the world is libertarian
the world is libertarian
the world is libertarian
the world is libertarian
the world is....
.....
...
..
.
It's alright JC, show us on the doll where the bad poli-sci professor touched you.
No, the world is socialist, and sometimes literally out to get you.
Collectivist thinking isn't going to get you out of a gang bang.
"Collectivist thinking isn't going to get you out of a gang bang."
It might let you join the party though.
No, the world is socialist,
I tend to agree. So many (most?) people seem to want someone else to take care of them, often at the expense of others, and are just looking for some way to rationalize that stance.
MSNBC is much better at blatant GOTV appeals and using their network as part of organized political strategy in specific races.
I hope Fox News gets as good as MSNBC does. FOX gave Republicans the chance to defend themselves and a forum but MSNBC highlighted specific candidates to oppose, smear, and raise money against.
FNC needs to be more focused politically then they'll be the equivalent of MSNBC.
FNC needs to be more focused politically then they'll be the equivalent of MSNBC.
If your claim is true then wouldn't yesterday's election results favor Fox's strategy rather then MSNBC's
Maddow did a couple of good hitjobs on Rand Paul (who won) and Art Robinson (who lost). The rest of the media runs with her poop flinging.
I don't know why anyone non-Democrat would go on the show. She avoids debating important issues, instead focusing on character attacks and controversies.
I don't know why anyone non-Democrat would go on the show. She avoids debating important issues, instead focusing on character attacks and controversies.
Most people, politicians included, do not have encyclopedic knowledge of cable news staff like we do.
Plus politicians, if they do know, have huge egos and think they can talk their way through a trained experienced hack reporter's, who has access to the editing room, questions.
"Most people, politicians included, do not have encyclopedic knowledge of cable news staff like we do."
That's right. Nor do their staffers, apparently, even after so many of their colleagues have been ambushed.
Marsha Blackburn was like a deer in the headlights last night.
Maddow and Olbermann have soiled their own nests, having to rely (mostly) on fellow travelers for guests. It makes for a tedious and often nasty echo chamber.
FOX certainly tilts to the right. That said, MSNBC is much more a heady mix of party-line politics and paranoid/bitter outbursts.
FOX puts on (at least a somewhat OK facade) of straight news reporting mixed with popular Righty blow-hards giving color. Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc. These guys are classic right/populist circus masters, like a Rush Limbaugh. They are on the Right, but they are primarily entertainers out for themselves.
MSNBC, by contrast, features the classic liberal 'Beta Bully'. Not less partisan than their Right-counter parts, but much more party-line oriented. And much, much more thin-skinned and nasty/juvenile in temperament.
Neither model is great in my book, but at least the Righty blow-hards know how to roll with the punches. The lefty Gentry-Bureaucracy TV hosts are most often a secular version of social conservatives. Knee-jerk, bullying holy-rollers.
You make a good point. Conservative blowhards tend to be self-promoters more than team-boosters. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the others seem to enjoy bashing Republicans for being too moderate. In actuality, they probably don't care either way who wins, only how many listeners they can bring in.
Maddow seems to not give a damn about how many viewers she has, but boy does she really work herself silly for team blue. She talked herself short of breath on team blue's behalf on this one meet the press I saw.
A better analysis of Fox vs. MSNBC I have yet to find here on the Hit & Run comments section. Bravo.
I hate fox news. I am glad that they exist though because some news stories would never get covered if they didn't. The hot babes are a plus.
So why do you hate them, jack wagon?
"Americans are good people"
Even the ones who spend all their time watching MSNBC and despise anyone who watches FOX.
Meant to add a questio mark at the end.
Fox is conservative in as much as that's the best-selling news. NewsCorp is in the news/entertainment industry, and must have viewers to make a profit. MSNBC/NBC is liberal because it promotes GE's ability to rent-seek. GE's business model relies heavily on big government, and MSNBC/NBC promotes big government for Mama GE. They don't need enough viewers to be profitable in the news business. They just need enough viewers to ensure that the legislation that benefits GE is put into public conversation.
They were sold to Comcast, how does your theory add that up?
We'll find out once Comcast takes over. Still, GE will retain a 49% share, so I'd imagine that they still want their interests promoted.
I'm an FNC watcher, and even I'm willing to admit that it has a conservative lean, but not nearly as much as what MSNBC is to the left. It's more of a conservative mirror to the somewhat liberal CNN. There is nothing to compare the wing-nut rantings of the MSNBC hosts to.
Many people think Bill O'Reilly is a right-winger, but that's mostly because Keith Olbermann and the bloggers at the Huffington Post said so. Bill can be a sanctimonious jerk, but he's an equal opportunity sanctimonious jerk. Unlike, say, Olbermann, Matthews, et. al.
I used to like Glenn Beck back when he was on radio. Since he's been on FNC, and since Obama has been in office, he's completely gone off the deep end. His paranoid rantings, most notably when he was trying to convince the country that Cars.gov was an Obama plot to take ownership of our personal computers (backed up by FNC legal analysts including Napolitano), are outright frightening. The guy claims to be a libertarian, but he's only a couple of rants shy of his own fully stocked bomb shelter somewhere in the Michigan woods.
One of FNC's biggest mistakes was taking Alan Colmes away from Hannity. I'll admit that Alan never seemed to have an opinion of his own and just spewed talking points wired to him straight from DNC HQ, but at least he was an attempt to balance Hannity out, thus allowing people to make up their own minds how they feel about the issues. Now Hannity's hyperbole goes unchecked, but the good news is he's still nowhere near as deranged as Olbermann.
I enjoy watching Fox and Friends, but it is the most politically biased national morning show in television history.
Gretchen isn't nearly as hot as Ed Hill, show sucks now.
Yeah. I like Gretchen okay, but I did like E.D. better.
But for really hot, they need to bring back the old midday show they did with Mike and Juliet. Juliet was mouth-watering.
I would love to see a strong Liberal and Conservative show on primetime on FOX. Colmes was often destroyed by Hannity. He looked like Golum next to Captain America. However, Colmes radio show is much different. He often destroys crackpot Conservatives. A show with perhaps Juan Williams and Mary Catherine Hamm would be great.
Back when I was a liberal college student, my father used to say he knew more about the left's point of view from watching Fox News than any liberal could learn about his point of view from watching any of their own news programs. Years later, I can see that he was right. That doesn't mean Fox doesn't have its bias, but it is far better at presenting the other side's viewpoint than the other news networks.
Kind of my point. Yes, FNC has a conservative lean. But they're closer to center than most liberally biased outlets are. I read all the libs whining about the FNC biased, I just want to say, "Pot ... meet Kettle ...."
The generous explanation for why O'Donnell got so much coverage - Delaware is only 2 hours from DC or New York by car/train, very easy race for lazy pundits to cover.
The false consciousness explanation is perfectly reasonable. Most people probably don't vote their own best interests - that includes most people who pull the Democratic lever as well. 99% of voters, including the most intelligent well informed ones, can't really know which parties policies will benefit them personally over the short or long term. The world is too complex - the best you can do is make a semi educated guess and don't vote for Nazis or Communists. If you want to call that "false consciousness" that's fine.
Pennsylvania had two much tighter races for Senate and governor, and we're also close to the Bosnywash.
O'Donnell got so much coverage because shes hot and interesting. Her stupidity and odd past gives the media a good excuse to run stories about her which people watch because shes cute.
That and shes everything the left loves to hate, a brainless, christian rube, she is every stereotype that the left wants to believe about the non-elite, wal-mart set.
Holy shit, someone who realizes the future is uncertain!
In Illinois, the Green party got more votes than the Libertarian party. There's your 1% all in one state.
A fun read for anyone who hasn't checked this out is "The Myth of the Rational Voter". People frequently vote in ways that don't align with their optimal economic self interest.
Though the election of Jim DeMint was called early on, as a South Carolinian I nervously watched Greene as he steadily gained more and more votes. I can only hope this was due to straight-party voting and not conscious decision making. Thankfully I do not live in a predominately Democratic state or we could have sent even bigger knucklehead than Joe Wilson in Washington.
I would dearly love to see some post-election interviews with some of Greene's supporters. I suspect they would resemble the worst racial stereotypes of a bygone era that maybe isn't so bygone.
Unfortunately, not many of them showed up. Check this out:
http://www2.wspa.com/news/2010.....r-1045941/
Yikes. That's painful to watch. There's nothing funny about mental illness. But how in the bloody hell did he get 361,912 votes?
When can I expect to be able to buy some of those comics? And do they have Jim Lee on the pencils?
Not soon enough, but hopefully this teaser will tide you over:
http://newsone.com/nation/wash.....-election/
To quote a friend: "[H]is character is named 'The Ultimate Warrior.' WCW circa 1992 is going to be irritated."
This is a guy who knows how to bring the awkward in a big way. Greene's got to be the schizoid personality with the most votes ever.
That reporter came off as a total dick.
No irony vote? I mean, you might as well since DeMint was a shoo-in.
Why the fuck do you morons keep re-electing Lindthy Graham? Outside of South Carolina he's like a Republican Teddy Kennedy to conservatives.
As a South Carolinian who migrated westward, I'm guessing it was more like "anyone but Jim DeMint." He is loathed for his views on homosexuality and unchaste women. Most probably figured DeMint wouldn't win anyway, so they were making a statement. Well, also Green is black and SC is about 35% black IIRC. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of his supporters by race and household income.
If you're a true libertarian you would pull the lever for Greene. He is the very definition of "limited government."
Didn't reason cover the O'Donnell race more than any other race as well, with the possible exception of Rand Paul? O'Donnell got a lot of coverage because she's attractive and kooky, which means high ratings.
fuck no, they covered Prop 19 all day every day.
Prop 19 ran for Senate? The analysis was that Christine O'Donnell was the most covered figure not issue.
Oh, shit you got me. I'm such a piece of shit for not getting the precise implication of the original post. Fuck, I should just shoot myself now for misreading the post.
My point was that H&R ran a post at least once a day about prop 19. They covered that much more than any other election item.
Alvin Greene, performance artist, pornography aficionado, and shock winner of South Carolina's Democratic Primary, managed to pull in an astonishing 28 percent of the vote against conservative Republican Jim DeMint.
Not really astonishing at all. 10 seconds of googling got this fact about South Carolina: Blacks also make up more than a quarter of the population in Louisiana (32 percent), Georgia (31 percent), Maryland (30 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent).
MS is well over 1/3 IIRC
FYI, Map of African-American population density by county.
Note that the only parts of the South that don't have large black populations are the Appalachians.
*queue banjo playing
I wish they had listed all ten of the counties that voted for Green. Allendale and Bamberg are both rural, don't know about their race profiles.
It was the same way pre-Civil War...
When people vote for an obviously bad candidate just because he's the same race as they are, is it only racism when it's white people?
Asians also
Yep
...and male.
Then who the hell votes for the morn Maxine waters? Dumb, black and woman? She is an affirmative action wet dream.
It's not necessarily racism if blacks, who vote around 90% Democratic regardless of the ethnicity of the candidate, vote that way even if the candidate is a sorry-ass loser. Clueless is not the same thing as racist.
The way to tell if it is racism is if a black Republican runs against a white Democrat in an area heavily populated by blacks, and picks up most of the black votes, but since black Rs are few and far between, that test case may not happen.
Didn't blacks throw OREO cookies at Michael Steele when he ran for governor or something?
mmmm... Oreos.
Steele did come close when he ran for the Senate in 2006, in a state where Democrats have a huge registration advantage over Republicans and during a year where Democrats in general did better than average.
A lot of it had to do with the black vote. A non-black Republican nominee that year in that state would have lost by double digits.
What proportion of the black vote did Star Parker get?
The black population of SC used to be more like 35%. It's probably Hispanic immigrants changing the state's racial profile.
How else would you vote against DeMint? That's what party nominations are for -- to coalesce around a figure. Once that choice is made, how else can you vote in a way that won't be scattered? No single other figure could concentrate the anti-Republican vote, so it doesn't matter how nuts the nominee was.
I watched a bit of the MSNBC coverage...smug only begins to describe their work.
Chris Matthews asking Barbara Bachmann if she was in a trance (for staying on message and not answering his stoopid question about whether she would use her subpoena powers to investigate un American dems); Rachel Maddow somehow making the case that Rand Paul's acceptance speech wasn't very original; and Ed what's his name suggesting that even if Harry Reid won, the repubs would see the answer as ratcheting up their campaign spending (presumably with nefarious contributions).
First class entertainment...if you enjoy watching crazy people 🙂
Even keeping the majority, there's no way Harry Reid stays majority leader, is there?
Barbara Bachmann?
I vaguely remember that movie
Damn!@
Don't tell Ringo
First class entertainment all the way. Watching those hateful lefties squirm was a delight.
If I were a journalist with a camera, I'd love to cut in on Maddow and just ask her, "Rachel, it looks like, as you love to smirk and snidely call them, 'teabaggers' just got done teabagging everything you stand for? How long has it been since you've had a set of fat, hairy balls on your chin like this? "
"Rachel Maddow somehow making the case that Rand Paul's acceptance speech wasn't very original"
That appears to be the Journolist v2.0 line about Paul's acceptance speech--I read that laughable assessment in The New Republic this morning, too.
Rather ironic that left-wing pundits complaining about a lack of originality all seem to have the same talking points.
The BORG not only assimilate cultures and races they are all programmed and well versed in turnspeak.
+1
Chris Matthews said the people cheering was for him, and not Bachman. I don't think he was kidding.
I was live at the interview and can tell you we were not cheering for Matthews. Repub HQ in Bloomington, MN. MN House and Congress flipped Repub. Awaiting Governor recount but 9K votes will be tough to overcome. As it is, the retarded, trust fund baby Dayton can't really hurt us in MN as he has been neutered.
Thanks for your comments on California. Who and what California voted for and against reflects that we have little hope. Before long, everything but breathing will be banned and the state will be so weighted down by debt it will break off the continent and fall into the Pacific Ocean.
Good riddance.
Doesn't sound like you have much to be thankful for.
Maybe she owns property near Arizona Bay. I won't comment on Nutrasweet luring a self-googler here.
I won't comment on Nutrasweet luring a self-googler here.
Huh?
Self-googling....wasn't Christine O'Donnell against that?
No matter, I did it twice to make up for her.
Wasn't he linking to Jezebel complaining about one of her articles yesterday morning?
In Missouri, the Tea Party threw its support (begrudgingly) behind the establishment Republican's establishment Republican, Mr.Roy Blunt. He trounced the Democrat. I think this is a sign of two things.
1. Voters aren't just necessarily interested in change (Blunt was a Rep. before becoming a Senator), they want the far left out.
2. This 3rd party stuff is total bullshit. A "limited government" organization throwing its support to a man who supported Bush's bailout, the PATRIOT ACT, etc., IMO is not really a promoter of smaller government.
I don't think the Tea Parties started up the same way in every state. States like Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska where the voters are already hard line republicans didn't really need a Tea Party to be mad at the Democrats. Any Tea Party support in states where a Republican easily could win was auxiliary at best.
Any Tea Party support in states where a Republican easily could win was auxiliary at best.
I agree with you. Did Rand Paul really win because of the Tea party? I don't think so. I think he won because he is a refreshing choice compared with the people who came before him. Kentucky's a pretty conservative state anyways.
I've often thought that if these Tea Party folks were such promoters of small gov't, why did Ron Paul do so horrible in the 2008 primaries? I think he got AT MOST 16% in one state. Who exactly were these folks supporting back then? McCain? Romney?
Kentucky could probably be thrown into the group where Republicans were going to win easily. I think the Tea Party wave helped him win the Primary over Trey Grayson, but even if he won I think the state would have gone Red.
But I agree with you about the poor showing for Paul. I think more people were keen on his fiscal policy ideas, but unfortunately a couple loopy conspiracy theories got tied to his campaign and doomed him in the primaries. Also, in that election (although it didn't turn out to be the case) a big thing was Republicans being for the Iraq War and Democrats being against it, which is something Ron Paul just wouldn't get in line for.
America also hadn't yet had the bailout at that time.
correct - in Nebraska's case, we have Democrats who like to ride the line very close to the middle like Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson. The only potential chance Nebraska has of putting something really blue up is in the second district (omaha) that tends to be far more liberal than the rest of the state. It's still pretty red, but the district did go to Obama in a split electoral.
I don't think cap and trade was an issue. 211 Dems voted for it and 30+ lost (14%). 25 of the 42 Dems (60%) that voted against cap and trade lost. They lost because they were Democrats, not because of the cap and trade bill.
It sounds like your "data point" is a bit more important to remember than Mr. Moynihan's. I suppose that actually checking the results was too difficult for Mr. Moynihan or the professional "journalists" at the Politico.
There are confounding variables all over the place in those stats. Dems in safe seats were more likely than Dems in vulnerable seats to vote for cap and trade, so your analysis is no more convincing than Moynihan's.
I didn't say that voting against cap and trade caused the Dems to lose. I said that voting for cap and trade doesn't appear to be the reason. Dems got killed overall, so of course a bunch of Dems that voted for it got voted out. You could pick any random bill that the Dems passed and say that a shitload of Dems that voted for X bill lost yesterday because a shitload of Dems lost yesterday.
Making a claim like "cap and trade caused Dems to lose" is meaningless without comparing it to those that voted against it. If I brought my boss an analysis that said, "Company X is getting killed, their revenues are down 10%," I'd get thrown out of the room if I didn't know how the rest of the market did.
But the ones who won didn't lose. When we say "the democrats got killed" we are talking about the Democrats who lost. Of the Democrats who lossed, how many of them voted for cap and trade? That is the fair question.
To put it in corporate terms, I just lost ten percent of my customers. If I hired you to find out why, answering my question with "the customers you still have like product X" wouldn't answer the mail. I want to know about the customers I lost and what product they don't like.
You can't ignore the relative sizes of the population. For example, let's say you're Starbucks and you test a new customer service method in 25% of your stores. After a year you find that you lost 25% of your total customers. Let's say you lost 45% in your test markets and 20% in the control market*. That means 57% of your losses came from the control market, but ceteris paribus it does not mean the methodology in the test markets is superior, it means the exact opposite because the test markets lost at a higher rate.
However, in this case, all was not equal. So in this case you can't say that voting against cap and trade caused them to lose seats, but unless you show compelling evidence, it doesn't mean that cap and trade cost them votes.
Note that Mike Castle was the only Republican that voted for cap and trade that lost an election.
"Dems got killed overall, so of course a bunch of Dems that voted for it got voted out. You could pick any random bill that the Dems passed and say that a shitload of Dems that voted for X bill lost yesterday because a shitload of Dems lost yesterday."
Sure you could. And some or all of them has to be the reason. To say otherwise is to say they lost for no reason. They clearly did something to piss off the voters. And Cap and Trade seems like a pretty good candidate.
Why is cap and trade a good candidate? Because you didn't like it? Only one Rep was punished for it and the Dems that voted for it lost at a lower rate. There are lots of other issues and bills that actually passed that people cared about, like health care, the stimulus package or the unemployment rate.
It means libertarianism is dead because the greatest issue (prop 19) was defeated.
Or maybe Reason could stop obsessing about drugs for a while.
A comedian in every crowd.
It means libertarianism is dead because the greatest issue (prop 19) was defeated.
The election results say that 46% of California voters voted yes on prop 19.
If you think libertarians greatest issue can get 46% of the vote and be dead because of it then I suggest you look harder at the decades long sting of catastrophic defeats libertarianism have suffered prior and explain how it survived the 1980s let alone be alive enough today to die.
Or maybe Reason could stop obsessing about drugs for a while.
Well it's better than their usual obsessions of a positive right to government marriage and a Mexican-only immigration policy.
Yes, the dealers want to enjoy their victory in private. Shhh!
Prop 19 was a mixed bag for libertarians. Sure, it would have legalized recreational marijuana use to some extent, somewhat libertarian. But the proposal was largely about deriving state revenue from marijuana taxes, very non-libertarian.
Then you, like too many libertarians, focus on the wrong thing: size and thruput of gov't, rather than "size" of freedom.
A change from prohibited to taxed is very non-libertarian only if you're all about spiting the gov't.
How about this: instead of being subject to taxation, they make income illegal. Yeah, illegal to make money. Less revenue for gov't, so...libertarian?!
Drugs are fine. I'm just fucking sick of hearing about the failed state of California.
Thanks for the Dead Kennedy reference, that made my day!
News (all formats) is entertainment to sell advertising, nothing more. Please don't forget that when you complain about one channel's/newspaper's news entertainment bias. It found an audience and is marketing to that audience.
I am not sure why that is in italics.
If MSNBC is the Fox News of the left, Reason is the Socialist Worker (Maoist) of the right.
I don't think you meant to say what you think you said.
Yes I did, you asshole. Haven't you ever heard libertarians called the marxists of the right?
Since Joshua doesn't talk to the nomes who live in your dishwasher Max, no he probably hasn't.
No, I have never heard that.
I've heard it. It usually comes right before someone says something extremely stupid.
I guess libertarianism does have its Utopian dreams of being deterministic.
ie freer (both socially and economically free) nations, societies, cultures tend to out compete less free alternatives.
Marx was also deterministic....no idea if this is what you meant.
FTFY
Stop projecting your bigotry, Max
*slurp* *slurp* *slurp*
Oh Christ that's so good!! Dont ever stay away for so long!!! MORE!@!!!!
Hey Dude the car is still in the ditch!
Isn't the Socialist Worker Trotskyite?
Yes, of course. I just threw in maoist to underscore the extremism.
Greene's highest percentage of the vote was recorded in Allendale County. He garnered 69 percent of the vote to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's 28 percent. Allendale is primarily an agricultural rural county. Its primary products are cotton, soybeans, watermelon and cantaloupe.
I flipped back and forth between FOX and MSNBC last night and MSNBC was WAY beyond the "left-wing version" of FOX. FOX was hosted by a Hot Girl and a Handsome Dude, who were clearly rooting for the home team, but the panel was Karl Rove, Juan Williams, a dude who worked for Howard Dean, and Britt Hume. Right-centric, sure, but there was debate and give-and-take among them with the analysis.
MSNBC was exclusively a panel of rabid left-wing attack dogs who spent the night making personal attacks on the Rep candidates, with no pretense of reportage whatsoever. They went from ripping (R) Boehner's tearing up to watching (D) Sestak's at-first-adorable-but-eventually-shut-up-brat daughter with no comment. And how much of a festering scumbag does Ed Schultz have to be if even THAT crew can't stand him and have to shuttle him across the continent.
Bernie Goldberg on the O'Reilly show just made the same point. Five lefty partisans covering a major political story with no pretense of objectivity or neutrality. Only two years ago Olbermann was banished from the set during the election for his overtly partisan commentary. Now it's the accepted norm at MSNBC.
It's much easier to be magnanimous when you're winning. A better comparison would be Fox News coverage of the 2008 elections vs. MSNBC coverage of this year's.
+1
That's a fair point if you've never seen the networks. The MSNBC full retard started when Abrams was fired. Rattigan and Shultz sealed the deal.
I'm frightened that anyone pays such close attention.
There's pros and cons to having a TV in your office.
Sidd,
I don't know you, but for the sake of my mental health, I would ditch the TV in the office.
I've worked in an office like that before and it is like Chinese water torture.
I went for a model with a remote, so I'll be okay.
Just make sure the tech guys don't block ESPN. That's what happened in my old office. Prior to that block it was hella sweet being able to watch the entire March Madness while answering the phones
Fox seems to make at least a token effort to include Democrats when they have discussion panels.
MSNBC does have a whole morning devoted to a former Republican Congressman.
co-hosted by a liberal with mostly liberal guests
Joe Scarborough may have been a Republican at one time, but no one can work at MSNBC for so long and remain untainted. He's now a RINO at best.
That's funny because I watched FN during 2008 and MSNBC now.
FN's rightward talking heads seemed more mopey than anything in 2008, like a little league team that just lost in the playoffs. Brit Hume seemed a little more irritable than usual.
MSNBC this year had their purely lefty panel howling in the flames, interrupting each other with their angry outbursts. I figured Chris Matthews would be excited about so many news developments, but he seemed just plain pissed off and ready to unload.
Did Fox News have extended discussions about how stupid the American people were and how they were voting agianst their own interests? If not, they are not on the level of MSNBC.
A better comparison would be Fox News coverage of the 2008 elections vs. MSNBC coverage of this year's.
Fox's coverage in 2008 was not notably different from its coverage last night.
It's called youtube, dude. You can search there, too.
Short version: Fox News was rather magnanimous about Obama winning.
Fox frequently make me cringe or want to change the channel. MSNBC makes me want to paint half of my face blue and start killin folks.
The "61 times this year" link under Alan Grayson is linking to a local file. Just FYI
Good fuckin' riddance fuckin' Alan fuckin' Grayson. I guess my prayers for a swift death for him got misinterpreted as a swift political death.
Grayson's rhetoric was over the top but some of his proposals I liked. For instance, his "War is making you poor" bill that would eliminate all income taxes for incomes under $30k.
His answer to the health care bill public option was to allow people to buy into Medicare, but pay full premium with no government/taxpayer subsidy.
The more people you exempt from taxes, the more people you have who don't care how high they are.
Sorry, had to look up the bill.
This bill would eliminate $154 billion of supplemental war funding from the 2011 budget and use the savings to give all U.S. citizens an income tax credit. According to Rep. Grayson, the savings would be "enough to eliminate federal income taxes for the first $35,000 of every American's income." Beyond the tax credit, $15 billion would be left over for paying down the federal deficit.
So everyone would get a tax break, if that makes you feel better.
I'm not a fan of tax credits for non-business entities. For businesses, it can be a nice incentive for hiring to be able to get back some money or have to pay less taxes as a whole.
But for individuals and households tax credits are not the same as tax cuts and they allow the system to be gamed even more for people trying meet the requirements for the credit.
Yep--a tax credit is really nothing more than re-allocated spending. If you have to pay for a tax credit by selling interest-bearing bonds (see the payroll tax credit from the stimulus bill), for instance, then in the long run you're actually taking even more wealth from your citizens than you originally gave to them with the credit.
A simple cut in the rate or even a deduction in filing would have been a lot more efficient and wouldn't have obligated further spending down the road.
But the bill would also cut spending. $154 billion in spending per year.
I guess I'm reading tax credit as tax cut.
Loosing the election is a fate worse than death for Grayson.
Now he has to move back into his roach infested van down by the lake. Unless MSNBC manages to save him.
You're a fucking idiot. Grayson co-founded a Fortune 500 company (IDT) and is one of the top entrepreneurs in Congress.
He is a populist all the way so I don't really care for him - especially his co-sponser of the absurd Ron Paul "audit the Fed" bill which was pure political hackery.
I can't tell if your a liar, an idiot, or some amusing crossbreed of the two.
Howard Jonas is the founder of IDT. Now put your dunce cap back on and go sit in the corner.
Ol' shrike is only upset that Ron Paul wanted to audit the Fed - *because* Ron Paul wanted to audit the Fed. Science forbid we actually look into how bad the books REALLY are.
Oh, and fuck Alan Grayson. I hope he's as unemployable as Rick Sanchez. To the soup kitchen with the both of 'em.
Shrike's been acting really butthurt today--I can't imagine why.
He's always on the tweak. Liberals are like that on a regular basis.
I hope he's as unemployable as Rick Sanchez. To the soup kitchen with the both of 'em.
I expect he's got a healty pension, paid be everyone else.
I feel so unwashed since I don't know what a Park Slope dinner party is.
It's a racist term for a picnic.
Maybe this is overly Byzantine, but ...
I think one reason why the Coons-O'Donnell race got so much coverage by the MSM was so that they'd have a high-profile loser to tout on election night and the day after. Anyone who was paying attention knew that O'Donnell didn't have a snowball's chance of actually winning. But by continually focusing on the race while carefully avoiding the fact that it was a gimme for Team Blue, the media created a frame in which her ultimate, inevitable loss could be made to seem like a significant accomplishment by the Dems.
It's as if Team Redsters were high-fiving each other today because "we beat Al Greene! Boo-yah!"
Not sure about this. FOX gave her a lot of coverage; I don't think they wanted to make her loss an accomplishment for the Dems.
I think O'Donnell's knocking out of Castle was a good case of the Tea party really taking down the "establishment," sory of like Joe Miller and Murkowski. That Sarah Palin was so adamantly behind O'Donnell brought publicity too. Lastly, the media probably liked the rift that the O'Donnell situation brought to the conservative side. I remember people like Rove and O'Reilly expressing doubts about her months ago.
Rove is no conservative. He is an overrated, self-serving weasel.
^^This^^
Rove and his undeserved rep as a "political genius" because his guy just barely beat Gore and Kerry.
Circumstances. Had 9-11 not happened. Bush is a one termer. Rove benefited from the complete inability of the Democrats to have a coherent strategy on terrorism.
They had a coherent strategy to fight terrorism - raise taxes.
They had a coherent strategy to fight terrorism - raise taxes.
Brilliant idea, actually. Raise taxes on terrorists so they'll move someplace else.
Rove is the man most responsible for changing Texas from blue to red in a few years. And getting W elected mayor of Wazoo would be a hell of an accomplishment.
To be fair, Rove didn't have much to work with, but still he's as overrated as a campaign wizard as Obama is as a credit to his race.
He did a lot in Austin that you're unaware of. His direct mail stuff revolutionized campaigning.
Rove had Bush, when he was governor, giving speeches to LULAC saying things like, "I oppose English-only education because we shouldn't be making immigrants feel unwelcome". Unprincipled pandering jackass.
His unprincipled jackassness has nothing to do with his campaigning abilities.
Actually, it does. Because he is unprincipled, he had Bush speaking to a radical, race hustling Marxist organization like LULAC using the talking points of the political fringe. Rove's starting point is always the political presumptions of the left. It never occurs to him that candidates can win by challenging those presumptions. He is part of the problem, not part of any kind of solution.
Why don't you conservatives go finger-fuck each other at Free Republic?
Whatsamatta, shrike? Mouth still hurting from that tea-bagging you leftards received?
Ha ha!
Why doesn't shrike go hang out at a CPUSA message board, where he would feel more at home than on here?
Yeah, I think there's plenty to make that story interesting. Attractive (I would say was), full of dumb things to say, yet she beats the Republican favorite and almost inevitable winner in an actual election, just to have the seat go to the Dems. It makes good political theater, little more. There's probably not some left or right conspiracy behind snickering at "I am not a witch" ads.
She also had been on a few talk shows. She is cute. They all no doubt knew her. She was part of the media club, if only a junior member. Reporters are totally narcissitic and love reporting on other media members.
Think - banks. That's right, banks. Downtown Wilmington is all corporate HQ for banks. Banks are important. Delaware is important. Can't have some whackjob representing all of those fucking government funded, ZIRP sucking banks, can we?
Damned straight
They'll all be mine some day.
Would it help if I fucked O'Donnell?
I loves me some milf.
I don't think she has kids.
I love me some (older women without kids)ilf?
She'd probably be considered a cougar, rather than an -ilf.
Now, Kristi Noem, that's a milf
She is smoking hot.
All those GOP former CEOs lost. I guess voters aren't simply looking for a more efficient big government after all.
According to her date who wrote to Gawker she has a hairy snatch though.
That is kinds MILFy.
Not that he'd know, since he's a eunuch; kind of like you, shrike.
Ha ha!
Politcial cults are very amusing. Thanks for the laughs, you dickless twits.
So Max, how has your week been going?
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
*slurp*
Max's prediction:
Max|10.29.10 @ 10:43PM|#
Shitstains will be dissapointed when you wake up Wednesday morning and find out the next Speaker of the House is Nancy Pelosi.
For full disclosure, mine was +58 GOP House (close), +9 GOP Senate (not so good)
I'm surprised Max was even able to type anything out today considering the two forkfuls of crow he's had to continually shovel in his mouth.
The people of Kansas don't vote their economic interests. As opposed to the people of California who voted to destroy what is left of their economy begining in 2012 in the name of a cargo cult.
The cargo cults actually got cargo once.
Baked Penquin made a hillarious point on another thread. It is just a matter of time before lefties start building paper mache office buildings and factories thinking that jobs will come. And when you think about it, that is pretty much what all the green jobs initiatives are.
Last night on MSNBC they brainstormed things to spend money on, random trains mostly, for at least 10 minutes. It culminated with Chrissy exclaiming "This government has got to start building ... something!"
What can you say? That is just amazing.
Roads perhaps?
*puts that in back pocket for political discussions*
+5
Democrats did a mighty job of outspending Republicans
You wouldn't know it listening to some pundits and news outlets. According to them Citizens United caused a tsunami of corporate and foreign money to pour into Republican coffers allowing them to outspend everyone else in history.
Normally, the only way for a crazy person to receive 360K votes is to run as the Presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket.
Harry Reid and Schumer are saying that the burden is now on the Republicans to pass the Democratic agenda. It wasn't just South Carolinians who cast votes for the insane.
http://thehill.com/homenews/se.....egislation
That's hilarious. They think the Republican opposition will be weaker now that the margin of seats in the house is 6 instead of 20.
Thank God these assholes are still around. Imagine if someone likeable and seemingly competent was the public face of Congressional Democrats.
I think the Dems are wishing that Reid has lost. One Senate seat is not a big deal. And they would be a whole lot better off kicking around Angle than they will be with Reid as the face of the Democratic Senate.
Feature not bug.
I think it's bullshit Alan Grayson got more votes than Alvin Greene. What the fuck is wrong with Florida, huh?
Same thing that was wrong with South Carolina, except more so: Democrat voters. You don't know what retarded looks like until you've seen leftards.
The idea that MSNBC "just" made the conversion is fucking ridiculous. Fox is certainly right leaning, but MSNBC is fucking nuts. Most of their shows wouldn't work WITHOUT Fox. I am personally impressed with the perpetual right wing extremist narrative, as if Barbara Boxer, Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Corrine Brown, Maxine Waters, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Patty Murray, and a whole host of others are just everyday run of the mill average joe, reasonable, common-sense Dems.
I would highly recommend watching Barney Frank's concession acceptance speech. It'll bring all of your Hope and Change back to life.
Fox at least has people like Brit Hume and Stossel who are sane. Who on MSNBC isn't nuts? And Fox is more tabloid than conservative. They love got blonds in short skirts and covering missing white girls and Lindsey Lohan as much as anything. They are the New York Post on cable news. Their status as some kind of right wing bogey man is completely the product of leftwing lunacy and paranoia.
I actually agree that they are much more like the NY Post on TV. It's no coincidence Murdoch owns them both. But the Post is pretty biased too.
It doesn't help Fox that they are run by a long time GOP operative. I mean, Ailes is not some guy who leans to the GOP or something, he had a long career working with them. It would be like if Carville ran a network.
They slant right. But they are not fanatically biased. They will cover any story if it will bring viewers. If you are biased, you will ignore an otherwise interesting story if it hurts your side. Fox doesn't do that. They are too shameless for that.
I think all the networks cover mostly the same stories, they might offer a slant, but they cover it. MSNBC tends to cover much of the same stuff Fox does actually. It's when the prime time shows that they both turn on their propaganda machines (and even then they often cover the same "news" but with their respective spins).
And the shows are all supposed to be slanted. I don't see the big deal either way. If you want a crank populist slant, you watch O'Reilly. If you want a crazy leftist slant you watch Olberman. It is not like anyone thinks those guys are anything other than what they are.
I am always confused at Olbermann. He seemed fairly cool on ESPN, but he's such a goofy propagandist now. I imagine he just sees it as a gig.
He started off cool but ended up openly hating athletes. The downfall was pathetic. And he's a Kos Kid. There's no way it's just a gig for him.
I think the personality Olberman shows now is basically who he always was. At ESPN he could not be openly hateful to keep from driving off half the audience. When he got to MSNBC he realized he could be as offensive as he wanted because this audience was looking for those antics.
I do not have cable....was the Fox coverage of the election like MSNBC's room of crazy?
Hannity and Beck are the biggest two nuts outside Kong's ballsack.
And completely uneducated too.
You are such a fucking partisan hack.
Shrike, take your meds or get some help. Seriously. You seem to be getting worse lately.
Projecting again, shrike?
Ha ha!
I'd like to go on the record and say that I actually like Sheppard Smith. I think he's the best news show host in the business today.
"Jon Stewart's Rally for Sanity, which called for the media to tone down the hyperbole"
I'm really kinda tired of hearing this crap. Talk about hypocrisy. Stewart's show is nothing but hyperbole. I give him some credit for treating his conservative guest with some respect, but seriously he's just as bad as any of the news shows with his lefty rhetoric. I don't really have a problem with that but don't spew that stuff and then act like you're above it all.
He tries to have it both ways. He gets all serious and talks about the need for civility. Then when someone points out what a jerk he often is, he claims to be just an entertainer. It is really annoying.
To use Treacher's phrase, clown nose on, clown nose off. I don't mind the Daily Show and Jon Stewart is a funny guy. And to his credit he mocks his side plenty, too. But he really would be better served by giving up the charade that he's A)a centrist, down-the-middle fellow and B)some kind of gentle voice of reason. He's neither.
1. I'm not sure why Greene's count is so remarkable. It was the protest vote for S. Carolinians who don't like DeMint. And it's not suprising that a lot of folks who don't like Demint in that state are black.
2. I think O'Donnell got the attention she did because of her outlandish comments. Witches, human-mice hybrids and masturbation are not usual topics in Senate races.
3. I watched MSNBC's election coverage, and it was way over the top. But as a network I find them pretty equivalent to Fox in their bias. Both have their hacks in the prime time slots, both have their somewhat more objective news-readers. I will give MSNBC this, they have GOPer Joe Scarbough for the morning show. I'm not aware of any liberal Democrat with their own show on Fox.
4. I can't understand why Reid wouldn't be replaced as leader. Under his leadership the Senate was nearly lost. He should be replaced.
But firing Reid means admitting that some mistakes were made in the last two years. No one in the Democratic Party seems to keen on doing that.
Bushy-boy just said he was always against the Iraq War.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....hp?ref=fpb
You really are delusional. Remind me when Reid kills 4500 US soldiers for nothing.
STFU. You are worse than lonewacko. And those wars continue and have been escalated because of the party that you voted for and still support. So how many soldiers did you kill today? You crazy fuck.
shrike is, as often the case, over the top here, but I will say I think starting wars is worse than "maintaining" them. And iirc shrike has always opposed our two wars while you supported them.
On the other hand, you have a good point about the hypocrisy of the left working so hard to end these conflicts when Bush was in compared to their tepid efforts now.
"On the other hand, you have a good point about the hypocrisy of the left working so hard to end these conflicts when Bush was in compared to their tepid efforts now."
Somebody here made the comment that if Team Red took both houses, maybe antiwar protests would start to come back into fashion again. I guess we'll have to wait until 2012 to see if that's the case.
The only reason the left was against the Iraq war was it was a convenient excuse to bash Bush.
As to soldiers killed, there were more Americans killed in one day on Omaha Beach then in the entire Iraqi war.
The death of one soldier or one civilian in an unecessary war is one too many.
or 58,000
Starting wars IS worse than maintaining them. The Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies started the war in Afghanistan, and Saddam Hussein started the Gulf War. Did anyone voice support for these people?
People seem to forget that one of our legitimate reasons for being back in Iraq was Saddam's violation of the cease-fire. Since the Gulf War ended in cease-fire, the violations of that cease-fire technically re-started the original Gulf War. Even Clinton saw that.
And is 'maintaining' the wars okay when you campaigned on ending them?
There had long been plans to overthrow Saddam. Saddam breaking a cease fire or Saddam's nonexistant WMD were just excuses to start up a war that had long been planned largely for the sake of Israel.
Saddam also financed terrorist attacks against Israel.
So, was Bush planning on attacking saddam with the TANG? Were the Dems making these plans?
But, see, Saddam broke the cease-fire initially when Clinton was president--so no neocon had to make that up. It happened. And is a valid reason to respond to re-initiated hostilities.
...start up a war that had long been planned largely for the sake of Israel.
So the Zionist Boogeymen are after you, huh? At least come up with some more credible conspiracy.
He's on the way there in Afghanistan, n'est-ce pas?
MSNBC used to be the equivalent of FOX. They're way past that now. And the morning show is a holdover from the Abrams days. It gets decent ratings, but if it didn't do you really think they'd replace it with another con and lib co-hosts style show?
Well, yeah I expect them to stick with shows that do well in the ratings for them. In the end Fox and MSNBC are businesses dude.
Your hypothetical is just that. The fact is they currently have a show by a former GOP congressman and I'm not aware of any Fox equivalent to that.
But look, you'll get no argument from me that MSNBC is crazy biased to the left. I only state that the same is true for Fox. Both are tedious, but take a look at how boring CNN which seems to want to try to take the middle road is. It's a snorefest over there.
MSNBC didn't used to be left. Rembember Ashley Banfield back in 2000? They just went left because their ratings were horrible and they figured there was a niche for a lefty Fox.
Again, the pretense of the major networks being objective has long since ended. Now that it is out in the open and everyone knows MSNBC is left, it is no big deal.
I guess no outlet is free of bias, but I maintain that one can readily discern less bias in some outlets than others. CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS seem to me to try much harder to not be propaganda tools compared to Fox and MSNBC.
Oh, I agree that they try much harder to be less obvious than Fox or MSNBC or the New York Times. But it wasn't just MSNBC that decided that they had to cover Christine O'Donnell more than anything else. The other networks tend to fall into the Washington Post level of bias. (See the Post run hundreds of stories about "macaca" or McDonnell's college thesis, never mention that James Webb has given speeches and written books defending the Confederacy and keeps the speech up on his website-- something that, while defensible, they'd never stop mentioning if he were still a Republican.)
For instance, it was obvious for months that Ron Johnson was putting Feingold in trouble, but no one cared about that.
Where can I find a 1960s era typewriter?
It's not that they're crazy biased. It's that they're fucking crazy. Dylan Rattigan is an afternoon anchor ferchristssake. Olberman was the anchor for election coverage last night.
The point of the hypothetical is that there's a lot of holdovers who only watch MSNBC for that show. If they lost those viewers and stick with their current model, the next show wouldn't resemble the current.
I don't watch anything but the actual game most of the time, but I am glad Olberdouche is off of SNF. It'd be like having that jackass "I want my medicare and ss" Hannity doing pre-game for Fox.
But no one can say Fox has more partisan hacks than MSNBC. Fucking Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'donnel are fucking every bit as crazy as Alvin Greene.
Is this directed at me or MNG?
It has no direction. More of a reaction to Olbermann doing the election coverage. Hell, I don't remember which reply I hit, but probably yours since you mentioned Olberdouche.
Second paragraph is just an opinion, but true.
OK, I agree completely.
How about a former republican governor and presidential candidate.... Moron.
re: #3.....I'm not sure about this and politics isn't really her thing, but isn't Greta at least mildly Dem-leaning?
Today, me and a group of my co-workers were talking. One of my co-workers (a known democrat) made a reference to how "WE lost last night", as if he presumed that everyone agreed with him on the election outcome. The conversation was non-political to begin with, and his comment was out of context, so everyone just kind ignored it and the conversation went on.
Of course, this situation could be completely reversed, and it could be a conservative making this presumption, but...how do I put this?
Whether the perception is accurate or not, I think there is a perception amongst conservatives, independents and libertarians that Left-devotees, in particular, have a somewhat arrogant and presumptuous tendency to walk around with their political views on their shoulder, just daring someone to try and knock them off. And since most people generally walk around internally prepared to engage in a political debate, the people who do this constantly get away with it.
For instance, I've heard people using the term "tea bagger" in mixed company, as if it is a term they hope to insist into regular usage by behaving as if it has no pejorative or controversial connotation.
Whether this perception of left-arrogance is accurate or not, I certainly do believe the perception exists. And other people do, too, and whether they're politically ignorant or well-read on politics, I think they feel that they've allowed the table to be run on them because they feared in the past that they'd get into a confrontation they didn't want to have.
Perhaps I'm way off. If so, fine, but I think that people saw this election as a way of "Fuck off" to politically correct restraints. While the Tea Partiers wrapped themselves in the flag of fiscal responsibility, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they were largely an expression of that very sentiment.
What befuddles and disturbs me is that the Tea Party movement has been ripe for the libertarian-pickings in its trouble with defining itself. So, what did many libertarians, including some here at Reason, do? They climbed up into their ivory towers and tried to prove how "moderate" and "outside-the-fray" they are by getting busy writing the umpteenth article criticizing the Tea Party. Then, after the window of opportunity closed, they got busy criticizing the Tea Partiers for having been hijacked by the same-old-same-old-right-wing base.
Talk about screwing up a wet dream...
I have said that to. If Libertarians weren't such fucking elitist dicks, the social cons would be sitting around bitching about how the Tea Parties were coopted by the Libertarains instead of the other way around.
You can't get this right either.
Its LIBERALS that are the elitist dicks. I should know.
Wow, you making sense Shirke. But Libertarians, at least the Reason variety, are just liberals who can't admit it.
Person at libertarian door: "Hi! I'm interested in libertarianism!"
Reason: "Go away! We're busy espousing libertarianism!"
I can admit I'm a liberal. I favor greater choice and freedom for the individual. I think the cats at Reason agree with me here.
If so, then you're not a liberal. Liberals only say that they favor greater choice and freedom for the individual.
They certainly don't consider your individual freedom regarding guns, property, and your money.
No, it was the modern liberal-statists who co-opted the term "liberal". I'm using it correctly and consistently (and they only use it correctly when it suits their personal interests) and there's nothing shameful about the term.
Actually, the ones I know don't even say that.
Republicans pretend to care about freedom. Liberals just talk about equality.
I can admit I'm a liberal. I favor greater choice and freedom for the individual. I think the cats at Reason agree with me here.
But Libertarians, at least the Reason variety, are just liberals who can't admit it
John's style may be epitomized by the use of overly broad brush strokes.
John, are you sure you're at the right site? If you're not happy, and all your whinging gives that away, why don't you take your whiney bitch attitude to Townhall.
[blockquote]I think there is a perception amongst conservatives, independents and libertarians that Left-devotees, in particular, have a somewhat arrogant and presumptuous tendency to walk around with their political views on their shoulder, just daring someone to try and knock them off. And since most people generally walk around internally [un]prepared to engage in a political debate, the people who do this constantly get away with it.[/blockquote]
Everyone I can remember meeting who was like that has been of the "left". I think the perception is correct.
Just yesterday I was with a pushy one like that, the 2nd (or maybe 3rd) time I met her working the polls at an election. She keeps trying to get me to acknowledge all her policy preferences as good and unalloyed with anything evil.
Fortunately the great majority of people are not like that, but of the minority who are, yes, they do all seem to be of the same tendency.
Wrong brackets. But you can read it.
I have a fairly leftist friend (well actually most of my friends are leftists, come to think of it) who will fairly frequently just bring up something political in a conversation for no reason. Sometimes he'll even do it when it's just me and him talking and he knows I don't agree with him on a number of issues. It's almost as if he wants to provoke me into an argument. I don't usually give him the satisfaction, though.
I absolutely loathe Schumer, but the guy is clearly a better leader, from an organizational perspective, than Reid. His leadership of the Dem Senate Committee in 06 was a success.
But I really do hate that smug opportunist.
He is still bitter about serving as the Junior Senator under Cuomo for all those years and then when he got to be Senior, Hillary stole his thunder. He is just pissed the world never recognized his greatness.
I'm betting Murkowski is really savoring what appears to be her win over Palin's choice, especially given the history between her family and Palin. It's almost enough to make me take Palin's side.
Almost.
It's tough to discern Schumer's greatness behind such a large mansierre.
As for Schumer I see him as sort of a political equivalent of an ambulance chasing lawyer. He's like some character out of Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities.
He is still bitter about serving as the Junior Senator under Cuomo for all those years and then when he got to be Senior, Hillary stole his thunder. He is just pissed the world never recognized his greatness.
Try that again.
I think you mean he was junior to Moynihan, but that was only for two years.
All technicalities aside, Schumer is nauseating and a shit stain on U.S. politics.
Schumer was junior senator for all of two years.
Schumer is great. Back in the day, he used to try to gin up hostility against General Mills because they made obscene profits by selling major brand cereals at a much higher price than the store brands that they also sold. Gotta admire a guy who knows how to zero in on the most pressing issues like that.
Brilliant, dude.
I'm still laughing.
Uh, since no one else has said it, this might be the best post I've ever seen from Moynihan... good wrap up.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13
Sorry Tea Partiers. Pay up. Spread the wealth. You heard Jesus.
Jesus told me to take your money.
No dice, nutsucker. The legislators are our public servants, not our masters. We, the people, are the reigning human authority here, while the law is the reigning transcendent authority. Lex is Rex and Rex is not Lex. We owe a lot of respect and honor to the Constitution, but none whatsoever to bureaucrats, tyrants, usurpers, and traitors such as the Democrats.
Moreover, we vote with our feet as well as our ballots to avoid taxes by moving out of Satanically governed states and depriving the officials there of districts to represent and people to tax. We also vote with our money by moving our businesses out of those states and not bothering to make enough income there to be moved into higher tax brackets. In the end, we pay no more tax than we absolutely have to.
Now you public servants had better pay your due respect, honor, and revenue back to us. Pay up, and hand over the keys to the House because we, your masters, have decided you can't manage our accounts anymore. Jesus warned us about you self-righteous hypocrites who make a great show of your piety while devouring widows' houses.
Also, it's Paul who wrote the book of Romans, not Jesus; though presumably he did write it on Our Lord & Savior's behalf.
That's not Jesus, that's Paul.
Baby Jesus is in the manger crying because you are such a numbskull.
Romans 13
Sorry Tea Partiers. Pay up. Spread the wealth. You heard Jesus.
Everything Jesus allegedly said is contained in the four Gospels. The rest of the New Testament is from after his death.
Jesus did tell people to pay taxes. He pulled money out of a fishes mouth and told peter to pay the temple tax with it for both of them.
He pulled money out of a fishes mouth and told peter to pay the temple tax with it for both of them.
Where can I get a fish like that?
Forget Fox & MSNBC. The most interesting cable news story was that Headline News completely ignored the election, instead sticking with their usual lineup of crime panic shows, where the big story was "Was this teenage girl abducted by a vampire cult?!?"
HLN is what happens when the Women's Studies department of an insane asylum decides to put on a show.
baaahahahahaha......one of life's great mysteries is who are the people who have given Nancy Grace a career in television? I mean, there are obviously people who actually watch her - she's been on HLN for years now.
Don't forget angry/drunk/militant lesbian Jane Velez-Mitchell. She makes Nancy Grace look sane.
I think the Dems are wishing that Reid has lost. One Senate seat is not a big deal. And they would be a whole lot better off kicking around Angle than they will be with Reid as the face of the Democratic Senate.
If that's how they feel about it, the new Senate Democratic caucus in January can boot Reid out as the majority leader.
The SEIU should feast on Reid's shriveling carcass for what he's really done to The Cause.
asics running
fg
fhjk
f
fh
gfk
gk
gul;
gjll
When did the political landscape get so nambi pambi? I'm 27 years old and I'm afraid to ask the gas station clerk for a pack of matches for my cigars because some cop might stop me and make sure I'm not starting forest fires.
Not to mention the whole dieting, go green bullshit. I feel like the government in this state has been usurped by an old lady's sewing circle.
Since when did Americans let people tell them what to do?
"Since when did Americans let people tell them what to do?"
It goes back at least one generation. I've always found your mother to be compliant.
Again a crappy article by Michael C. Moynihan !
Christine O'Donnel didn't ran on banning masturbation has much has Barack Obama ran on forcing people to smoke.
I have seen this anti-streak in all the related article involving O'Donnel ... great piece of mental masturbation from the mediocre people of reason.
The part on Rand Paul is also plain dumb ! Will Libertarians, including Paul, might want to abolish the Civil Acts ... the true is that it is not in top of the priorities, so why Paul would lunch a stupid campaign to repeal something without consequence ?
Michael C. Moynihan is simply mediocre.
*barf*
I count at least ten spelling or grammatical errors in your post. There could be more, but I'm satisfied in my assessment that your English language skills are mediocre and feel no need to read your post another time. Is English your second language?
good luck
Fox News has always seemed to me to be trying to be CNN with a conservative editorial temperment. MSNBC is trying to be for the liberals what the Left thinks Fox News is, i.e. a hyperpartisan hacks.
Your second sentence is dead on.
Fox News is not what liberals think it is, but MSNBC is definitely the left's attempt to mimic it with their own biases.
As they did with Air America.
Right. MSNBC is Air America, but worse. Now we can see them.
Because CNN has something equivalent to Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, etc.
Fail.
Do you watch CNN? Even their newsreaders ooze sanctimonious leftism. Hardly a word is spoken on CNN that does not come firmly from the left side of the spectrum. FOX wishes it could do something like that--instead, they've got balanced news coverage with right-wing news 'analysis'.
You are deranged.
Of course I am. Can't you read my name?
Re: MNG,
They DID have Beck. And they have Joy-less Beyhar now. And Nancy "Nazi" Grace. And they had the anti-Mexican guy. And the suspenders guy. And a host of other very UNinteresting non-entities through the years.
At least Beck and O'Reilly are entertaining.
"Cap and trade: What more can one add to this Politico lede: "House Democrats who voted for the 2009 bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions?dubbed cap-and-tax by GOP opponents?had a terrible night." Did they ever. According to Politico "over two dozen lawmakers who favored efforts to clamp down on heat-trapping emissions" were given their walking papers. It's an important data point to remember when your partisan chums sputter that last night's elections may have been a bloodbath, but it was one motivated by anti-incumbent sentiment, not anti-Obama anger."
Actually, a much higher fraction of Democrats who voted AGAINST cap-and-trade lost. Whoops....
"...but also one that underscored the idea of the Tea Party as home to fringe characters and goofy former Wiccans."
Is not the idea that O'Donnell is a former Wiccan based on soemthing she said on a semi-comedic pundit show over a decade ago that was exaggerated to the point of absurdity? In other words, a pretty much flat-out lie?
You have to love someone who qualifies "flat-out" with "pretty much!"
"Is not the idea that O'Donnell is a former Wiccan based on soemthing she said on a semi-comedic pundit show over a decade ago that was exaggerated to the point of absurdity? In other words, a pretty much flat-out lie?"
Course, neither did she ever say she wanted to ban masturbation.
But that won't stop political hacks from hacking.
One would think liberals would be eager to court the Wiccan vote, instead of bashing them...
The issue is never the issue.
Let's not pretend like this was the only goofy thing about O'Donnell, or the only issue that perhaps gave a lot of voters pause in considering her a serious candidate.
Bottom line - she was a lousy candidate, period. Her professional career appears to be limited to unsuccessful runs for office and appearances on Fox.
It is rather scary to think so many voted for Alvin Greene. It says a lot about the mindset of Dem voters. Looking at the results from state Amendment votes it is rather clear that roughly 30% of the voters are totally clueless and just plain batshit crazy.
We had one Amendment that would have required Politicians face an election prior to them receiving the raises THEY GAVE THEMSELVES the previous cycle. This after they tried to pump up their salaries last year lead to revolt. Yet 30% of the people didn't think it was a good idea to not allow them to do this. Morons through and through.
Their only competition are the voters in Cuba, Ethiopia and North Korea.
Better to have Delaware have a taste of how a "bearded Marxist" votes like, than having a turncoat RINO (the one that lost to O'Donnell). So her "loss" is Delaware's victory, at least in an educational way.
And an education Delawarians will receive - good and hard!
What would you expect from a state populated by schizophrenics?
The victories of JB and BB are more data points, which the Republican establishment will ignore, that running ideological mush candidates is a losing stratedgy.
Maybe they can catch Obama getting a BJ from a young intern -- male or female -- get him to lie about it, move for impeachment and drive themselves into the ditch one more time.
"Watching MSNBC's nauseating, petty, smug election coverage was like watching a live stream of a Park Slope dinner party."
My God, can we give out awards for zingers? This one made me laugh out loud at work.
For all the non-New Yorkers out there:
Park Slope was named one of the "Greatest Neighborhoods in America" by the American Planning Association in 2007, "for its architectural and historical features and its diverse mix of residents and businesses, all of which are supported and preserved by its active and involved citizenry." In December 2006, Natural Home magazine named Park Slope one of America's ten best neighborhoods based on criteria including parks, green spaces and neighborhood gathering spaces...and environmental and social policy.
That sounds awful.
"There's white niggers too."
Thanks, MSM, for sweeping that under the rug.
And thank you for DOMA.
The voters of California are the worst people on Earth:
And Jerry Brown is how old? 72? Maybe we'll get a government Gavin Newsom yet.
"government"
Uh...*governor*
Moynihan should just commit suicide. Between him, Bailey and Chapman I'm always wondering if they actually get paid for this. Take them off the payroll please.
Viva Max Keiser!
I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks - you cleared up some things for me!
i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it ugg uk
with 'we leave it to you to decide'.
You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something ugg australia
which I think I would never understand.
Repost this if you agree,Bilderberger influence , IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// 1. .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?
2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!
3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece? 4, The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.
5. "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander
,TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT?..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets?..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement " what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?
2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!
3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
Repost this if you agree,Bilderberger influence , IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// 1. .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?
2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!
3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece? 4, The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.
5. "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."the commander
Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT?..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets?..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement " what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?
2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!
3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was "blindsided" by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. -
Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group's annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion's share of Bilderberg's 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before ? it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.The Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.
----- Bilderberg group in United States-------
George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997?2001
Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979?1987
Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993?1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
[edit] Presidents
Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
[edit] Senators
John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
[edit] Governors
Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? === The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.== The Bilderberg Group in which he accuses them of manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."
Repost this if you agree,
is good