tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37038192024-03-19T01:48:26.100-07:00uggabuggaPolitical flotsam and jetsam with commentary on same.Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08543124816916606452noreply@blogger.comBlogger5107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-36189692706054710482013-01-14T09:06:00.000-08:002013-01-14T09:06:03.680-08:00<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Headline of the day:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At Politico: <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/gop-looks-for-ways-to-stop-the-rape-comments-86082.html#ixzz2Hxljx4bF">GOP looks for ways to stop the rape comments</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes, that might help with the party's image.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com104tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-50861064166766162552013-01-07T06:20:00.000-08:002013-01-07T06:20:24.621-08:00<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bob Sehieffer doesn't understand what's going on in Washington D.C.:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which is why he hosts Face the Nation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On Sunday, January 6, there was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57562315/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-6-2013-pelosi-mcconnell-new-congressmen/?pageNum=2">this exchange</a>: (emp add)</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">SCHIEFFER: Well, let me tell you, here are the big dates that are coming. End of February, congress has to raise the debt ceiling to keep the country from going into default, as you say. On March 1, those draconian cuts in social programs and defense program goes into effect, unless you do something to put it off. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PELOSI: Unless we do something, yeah. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">SCHIEFFER: And then on March 27, the government basically runs out of money. <b>Why can't the congress solve these problems before we get up to those deadlines? Why do we go through this kind of exercise that embarrasses everyone? </b></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PELOSI: Well, you ask the Republicans because we always passed the debt ceiling when President Bush was president... </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">SCHIEFFER: <b>What has happened to Washington?</b> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PELOSI: I don't know. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">SCHIEFFER: <b>It simply did not used to be this way.</b> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PELOSI: Absolutely not, no. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660000;">SCHIEFFER: <b>What do you think is wrong here? What happened? And what needs to happen?</b></span>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Somewhat later there was Bob's opinion segment where he lamented the friendly relations between Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, among others.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's as if Schieffer is unaware of Mann and Ornstein's book ("It's Even Worse Than It Looks") detailing the radical rejectionism of Republicans in the last half-decade (at least). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Howard Kurtz is aware of the book, but he played the innocent <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/howard-kurtz-plays-innocent-mann-and-">in an interview</a> this same weekend. It was one of the very few times the duo have been invited to news programs since their book came out half a year ago.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com63tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-91357287306096695982013-01-01T11:20:00.000-08:002013-01-01T12:45:21.242-08:00<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>The proposed estate tax:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 15.933333396911621px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<div style="line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">During the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow" style="color: #003399; line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;" target="_blank"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1357067867_0" style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">Bush years</span></a> the estate tax was 45+% with an exclusion of around $2 million. Now Obama claims a win with a 40% rate and exclusion of $5 million. How? By saying that the rate goes up from 35%.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;" /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the 35% <i style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;">was Obama's policy</i> when he agreed to a two-year extension of the Bush cuts in late 2010. So we are actually seeing the estate tax raised from Obama's low number. The "Bush rate" was always 45% or greater (excepting 2010 when there was no estate tax).</span></div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 15.933333396911621px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br style="line-height: 1.2em; outline: none;" /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<div style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Talk about negotiating with yourself.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UPDATE: Here is how the <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/01/white-house-declares-a-victory-153090.html?hp=f2">White House</a> is putting it:</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 15.933333396911621px;">• Raises tax rates on the wealthiest estates: The agreement raises the tax rate on the wealthiest estates – worth upwards of $5 million per person – from 35 percent to 40 percent, in contrast to Republican proposals to continue the current estate tax levels.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 15.933333396911621px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; line-height: 15.933333396911621px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-40865189948979983592013-01-01T00:20:00.000-08:002013-01-01T00:59:50.412-08:00<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>Rewrite:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
Taking today's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/fiscal-cliff-deal_n_2348269.html">story</a> and replacing some elements, you might have a story from the future.</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Vice President Biden's principal argument to Democrats on Monday night appeared to be that this deal was the best that could be negotiated on a bipartisan basis and that while it might not be popular, it was better than <b>hitting the debt </b></span><b style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ceiling</b><span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660000;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #660000;">Coming out of the meeting with the vice president late Monday night, many Senate Democrats conceded they were displeased with aspects of the deal but agreed with the vice president's larger point.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660000;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #660000;">"The disagreement on this provision and that provision and other provisions are large and wide, but the number of people who believe that we should <b>hit the debt </b></span></span><b style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ceiling</b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #660000;"> rather than vote for this is very small," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's not that this proposal is regarded as great or is loved in any way, but it's regarded as better than <b>hitting the debt ceiling</b>."</span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Contrast with <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/dems-to-gop-no-debt-limit-negotiations----any-default-is-on-you.php?ref=fpb">this</a>:</span><br />
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To sell Senate Democrats on a controversial plan the White House negotiated with Senate Republicans to avoid the fiscal cliff, Vice President Joe Biden had to repeatedly reassure frustrated members of his own party Monday night that <b>President Obama</b> and Democratic leaders <b>will not negotiate with the GOP to raise the debt ceiling</b> in February or March.</span><br />
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“We also talked about something I feel strongly about is that we should tell the Republicans on debt ceiling we are not negotiating any political agenda in return for raising the debt ceiling,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters in the Capitol after a long Democratic caucus meeting during which Biden pitched his deal. “That if they start doing that, we’re saying, ‘We’re not discussing it. … If you want to let the debt ceiling lapse, and we don’t pay our bills, that’s on your shoulders.<b> We’re not negotiating cuts, revenues or anything else for the debt ceiling.</b> That should just be done automatically. Don’t come and tie the two together because we’re not going to talk to you about that.’”</span></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which will it be?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com420tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-79199156913187523362012-12-31T09:40:00.001-08:002012-12-31T10:23:13.123-08:00<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jonathan Chait is surprised at Obama's negotiating over taxes:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some weeks ago Chait argued that Obama had learned his lesson during the 2011 debt ceiling fight and would bargain tough with Republicans this time over the fiscal cliff (sorry, can't find the link to that essay).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the time, it seemed a little naive of Chait, since Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to "pre-concede" to Republicans. Frequently, the only thing stopping a bum deal from going through was Republican opposition - usually from hard-line Tea Party types.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now the focus is on the fiscal cliff and tax rates. Chait has written that Obama should take advantage of his tactical position, let the Bush rates expire, and work from there.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But that's not what we've been reading lately. Chait now reassesses:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Why Is Obama Caving on Taxes?</span></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Excerpt:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">The discouraging thing about the “fiscal cliff” negotiations is not that they have gone into the eleventh hour, or that they may go into the new year, or even that they won’t resolve the long-term budget deficit. It’s that President Obama has retreated on his hard line on taxes. ...</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #660000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 21px;">Now, by all accounts, Obama is prepared to extend the Bush tax cuts up to $400,000 a year. Or maybe more. ...<br /><br /><b>The erosion signals not only a major substantive problem in its own right, but it also raises disturbing questions about Obama’s ability to handle his entire second term agenda.</b><br /><br />The odd thing about the retreat is that Republicans had all but conceded eventual defeat on the issue. ...<br /><br />What happened? The administration’s line seems to be that Senate Democrats undercut, or were going to undercut, Obama’s position. ...<br /><br />... if Obama fears trying to hold a line that Senate Democrats have abandoned, it’s just as likely they fear the same about him. Obama’s history of foolish negotiating with the Republican Congress gave Democrats every reason to fear he might fail to hold firm on his own line — the burden lay with Obama to prove otherwise. And two weeks ago, when Obama made a concession to Boehner that he would let the Bush tax rates stay in place on income up to $400,000, he gave them every reason to doubt him.<br /><br />... the effect of Obama’s concession to Boehner — which of course went unrequited — was to reset the tax debate at a new, more GOP-friendly level.<br /><br />Worse, exposing Obama’s willingness to move his seemingly unmovable demand emboldened Republicans to demand even more. If they could push the line to $400,000, why not $500,000? Maybe cut Social Security too?<be br="br">The negotiating style Obama has displayed in these instances is what poker players call “tight-weak.” A tight-strong player avoids throwing in his chips, saving them for a big hand, which he plays aggressively in hopes of a huge win. A loose-weak player plays lots of hands, bluffing frequently. Tight-weak is the worst of all worlds — when you have a weak hand, you lose, and when you have a strong hand, you fail to maximize your position.<br /><br />... the tax cuts are the one area where he enjoys overwhelming leverage over the Republicans. Their only threat is to block extension of tax cuts on income under $250,000, a wildly unpopular stance countless Republicans have acknowledged they could not sustain for long without courting an enormous public backlash. This is the hand where Obama needed to collect all the chips.<br /><br />Instead he is allowing Republicans to whittle down the sum by essentially threatening to shoot themselves in the head. And this is the most ominous thing about it. <b>The big meta question looming over Obama’s term is whether he has learned to grapple with Republican political hostage-taking.</b> Hostage-taking is not simply aggressive or even irrational negotiating. It is the specific tactic of extracting concessions by threatening to withhold support for policies you yourself endorse, simply because your opponent cares more about the damage. Republicans agree that the debt ceiling must be lifted, but forced Obama to offer them policies he opposed because they believed he cared more about damage to the country than they did.<br /><br />Obama claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that he won’t let Republicans jack him up over the debt ceiling again. But if Republicans could hold the middle class tax cuts hostage, they’ll try to hold the debt ceiling hostage. Indeed, they will probably discover other areas of traditionally routine policy agreement that can be turned into extortion opportunities.<br /><br />
Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.</be></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This episode is not over yet, but it does appear that Obama's Ahab-like obsession with cutting a deal makes him a poor bargainer. There have been a number of theories as to why this is so. They are mostly psychological profiles, and somewhat speculative. But the bottom line is that Obama does not come off as a strong fighter for core Democratic party principles. It's been a source of frustration for liberals, and will likely be that way for the next four years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">UPDATE: Chait <a href="https://twitter.com/noamscheiber/status/285737177256714240">Tweets</a>:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="50446226" href="https://twitter.com/jonathanchait" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: initial;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jonathan Chait</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: initial;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jonathanchait</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
.<a class="twitter-atreply pretty-link" dir="ltr" href="https://twitter.com/noamscheiber" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: initial;"><s style="color: #66b5d2; text-decoration: initial;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">noamscheiber</b></a> I thought I had a good read on Obama, but this deal will make me admit I badly overestimated him.</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-19292777032956013792012-12-21T10:32:00.001-08:002012-12-21T10:32:44.693-08:00<b>What will the NRA do?</b><br />
<br />
These were Bob Schieffer's remarks on CBS This Morning on Thursday, Dec. 20:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">
I think one of the things this hinges on, what tact the National Rifle Association will take tomorrow when it holds its news conference. Somehow or another it seems to me this debate has to focus on putting common sense back into all of this. We don't ban cars, we have speed limits. There's a reason you can drive 75 miles an hour in the open desert and a reason we drive 25 miles an hour when we're in a school zone. It seems to me, if we could approach this in that way we could do something to at least make it harder for deranged people to get their hands on such weapons with such killing power. I'm waiting to see what the National Rifle Association will take tomorrow. If they bend somewhat I think they can play a very constructive role. But I think we're going to have to see what they say.</span></blockquote>
Now that the NRA has spoken out, calling for armed security guards in schools and decrying "gun free zones", let's see if ol' Bob Shieffer will say if that's a "common sense" approach to the issue or not when he interviews someone from the NRA this coming Sunday.<br />
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-21954300860923037952012-12-18T22:08:00.001-08:002012-12-18T22:08:37.305-08:00<b>Remember this:</b><br />
<br />
Rumblings about a potential deal Obama may strike with Republicans:<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
On Tuesday afternoon, HuffPost asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney what Democrats who promised not to touch Social Security would tell their constituents if they voted for Obama's proposal.<br />
<br />
"Let's be clear: This is something that the Republicans have asked for and as part of an effort to find common ground with Republicans, the president has agreed to put this in his proposal," replied Carney. "He has agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary to a balanced approach to deficit reduction."<br />
---<br />
<br />
They asked for something. Common ground.<br />
<br />
What emerges could end up being extremely volatile. Expect a war between the "establishment" and the rest of us.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com164tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-53273589792162089012012-12-16T09:29:00.002-08:002012-12-16T09:29:34.479-08:00<b>Bad logic:</b><br />
<br />
I have been following this closely, particularly the reaction and arguments from the "pro gun" side. They are literally insane, in that their reasoning is entirely fallacious. One of their favorite tricks is to examine a particular case (like the one in Connecticut) and either claim that gun restrictions could have been evaded, or alternatively, that there is a scenario where Rambo steps in and stops the crime. But in life things are rarely so cleanly cause-and-effect, which is why aggregate numbers (aka statistics) are the proper way to determine what works or not. The record is clear. In places (like Australia) where semi-automatic rifles and pistols are banned - along with a substantial buy-back program - homicides decline substantially.<br />
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com229tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-85994819596705225942012-12-14T13:28:00.001-08:002012-12-14T13:28:57.543-08:00<span style="font-weight: bold;">This was posted on July 20 of this year:</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/aurora-and-the-template-of-our-grief/260110/">Garance Franke-Ruta</a> on the recent news:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">The age of new media being now well-established, it goes a little something like this:<br /><br />First we get the shaky camera phone videos and the tweets. Then the distraught eyewitness interviews and 911 call recording. Quickly, the shooter is identified. Politicians issue statements of shock and sorrow. The shooter's parents, if interviewed, are confused and abashed or else hide. The social media forensics begin. People with the same or a similar name as the shooter are harassed. There is speculation he is part of a right-wing group, or an Islamic terrorist, or a former Army veteran. The FBI and the armed forces check their records and issue denials or confirmations. Calls for better gun control efforts are issued once again. Defenders of the Second Amendment fight back immediately, or even pre-emptively. The victims of the shooting are blamed in social media for being where they were attacked. More eye-witness interviews. The shooter's parents are castigated. Survivors speak. Warning signs are identified as the alleged shooter's past is plumbed. We ask if violent movies are to blame for his actions. Or cuts to mental-health services. And talk about what kind of country we are, if we have culture of violence. The death toll fluctuates. International voices from countries where guns are heavily regulated shake their heads at us. People leave piles of flowers and teddy bears at the shooting site. There are candlelight vigils, and teary memorials. Everyone calls for national unity and a moment of togetherness. Eventually, the traumatized community holds a big healing ceremony. It is moving, and terribly sad, and watched by millions on TV or online. A few activists continue to make speeches. The shooter, if still alive, rapidly is brought to trial. There is another wave of public discussion about our failures, and the nature of evil. Politicians make feints at gun-law changes, which fail. And then everyone forgets and moves on. Everyone, that is, except the survivors.</span></blockquote>
Until the country want's to push back against the NRA and others in that camp, this will continue.<br />
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-55602030778146846692012-12-12T14:43:00.000-08:002012-12-12T14:43:48.445-08:00<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Illinois ban on carrying concealed weapons overturned:</span></b><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">By the Seventh Court of Appeals. From the <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html">Sun Times</a>: (emp add)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (<b>which overall is inconclusive</b>) is consistent with <b>concluding</b> that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense," he continued.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The evidence is inconclusive, so let's conclude something!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br /></div>
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-75466139625926931412012-12-12T10:20:00.002-08:002012-12-12T10:21:35.927-08:00<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>No "false equivalency" at CBS Evening News:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No equivalency at all. In a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50136864n">report</a> on Michigan's Right to Work law, there was this graphic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI964i6IWmKyEOY0QIPBH_gj9rwnAnyGXKA8RP_V4_A-ZjXim8fg6ChB4KALlmMzzQs0mv4zjGVpx81a4Urrd475mhocoqmeq75c8QYPlI8ZYGtjM68L8BpgAI9-4cMfegPMc/s1600/cbs-screenshot-right-to-work.png" />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That came from the <a href="http://nilrr.org/">National Institute for Labor Relations Research</a>, a staunchly anti-union organization (and they say so on their website).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But no equivalent graphic of income or benefits from a pro-union outfit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-85053919056642960522012-12-11T20:02:00.000-08:002012-12-11T20:02:28.156-08:00<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Right wing radio on unions:</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Earlier this year (and the year before that) the right wing radio campaign was against public employee unions. The gripe was that those people were getting a lot "more" than they otherwise deserved to get because they could use union power to cut a favorable deal.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But today, in the wake of Michigan's Right To Work law, the argument is that <b>unions are bad for the people in the unions</b>, and that they shouldn't have to pay $200 in dues (or whatever amount), that the unions don't deliver the goods, etc.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the one hand, unions empower workers to get too much. On the other hand, being in a union means getting screwed.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-16198582130887179532012-11-29T09:52:00.002-08:002012-11-29T09:52:37.788-08:00<b>An insight to the Obama administration thinking about the economy:</b><br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/romney-is-wall-streets-worst-bet-since-the-bet-on-subprime/2012/11/28/de208c56-398d-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein">an interview</a> at the Washington Post: (emp add)<br />
<blockquote>
Ezra Klein: My experience is that the very rich are open to higher taxes in the context of a deficit deal....But they don't like the idea that their money should be redistributed simply because they have too much of it....And so that's part of the tension: They don't like why Obama is raising their taxes. And they certainly don't like the lack of admiration he's showing while trying to do it. They see it as punishing their success.<br />
<br />
Chrystia Freeland: I completely agree. <b>I think Obama and the economists around him have a very sophisticated understanding of both globalization and the technology revolution and the impact they're having on the world economy and the way they're creating these winner-take-all spirals.</b> The positive scenario, which I think is a bit pollyannaish, is all you need to do is improve the education system and change the skill set and all will be well. And even that takes a lot of investment and a lot of time. But <b>there's actually the possibility that in order to have a healthy middle class, you're going to need to have a more redistributive society</b>, at least for awhile.</blockquote>
<br />
If the Obama administration sees globalization contributing to winner-take-all and other pathologies, they are embarking on the wrong approach with redistribution. Their neo-liberal solution is to let the market work pretty much without restraint and at the end of the day provide financial assistance to the economic losers. This can, over time, lead to something called "<b>pity charity liberalism</b>" which is described as "[giving] some sort of ex post compensation for brute bad luck instead of giving workers agency or power". That is very bad politics, unsustainable, and wickedly hard to calculate.<br />
<br />
A better approach would include measures to wall-off those elements of globalization that diminish domestic labor's economic power. One is tariffs. That puts the compensation up-front in the process, with industries paying workers higher wages because there is no outsourcing/imports escape hatch.<br />
<br />
Regarding the "pollyannish" notion that all this country needs is a better educated workforce, that's been the common refrain for a couple of decades from people like Steve and Cokie Roberts, and has been show to be wildly off the mark as developing nations produce just as many skilled workers with which to compete.<br />
<br />
<br />
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-61612789460789377192012-11-21T13:53:00.002-08:002012-11-21T13:54:26.333-08:00<b>The 2012 election two weeks later:</b><br />
<br />
The re-election of Obama and the gain in Senate seats by Democrats has definitely shaken up conservatives. There have been many lamentations about how the country is headed for the toilet, that the voters were bribed - or stupid. And a casting around for a quick fix (e.g. immigration reform).<br />
<br />
The Republican party, by so securely tying itself to a diminishing demographic, is in trouble.<br />
<br />
Reading the remarks by prominent right wing bloggers and listening to various right wing radio hosts, they are, at least for now, totally unwilling to change their policies and politics. Yet it does seem as if their time is passing, if not already past.<br />
<br />
They come off much like monarchists lamenting the end of the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany.<br />
<br />
There were monarchists for a few decades after World War I, but they eventually dwindled to almost zero and never had a chance of getting their way.<br />
<br />
Unless the Republicans make a big move away from their current policy/demographic mix, they risk the same future.<br />
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-78645781744238764552012-11-12T11:06:00.001-08:002012-11-12T11:06:22.321-08:00<b>The 2012 election aftermath:</b><br />
<br />
It's still a little early to be making a full assessment, but the 2012 election seems to have really shocked Republicans and their conservative allies. Many of them are lamenting that the country is not center-right, as they had been led to believe, and is now center-left. Also, that the country is headed for severe decline with the "takers" now in control (and who will tax the "makers").<br />
<br />
Much of that is due to the fact that the election was incorrectly declared to be "the most significant of our time" and that Obama was hell-bent on bringing socialism - or worse - to these shores. That's nuts, since Obama is in the mold of a centrist Democrat or moderate Republican. But that doesn't capture audiences and so the extreme portrayal won out.<br />
<br />
A few days ago Peggy Noonan wrote that back in 2009, the Tea Party did Republicans a favor (!) by not starting a third party but this year they were a hindrance, what with candidates like Richard Mourdoch losing a safe senate seat in Indiana, and a general hostility to entitlements that many Americans support.<br />
<br />
The Tea Party was, and remains, bad news for the Republicans. Instead of starting a third party, which might have faded away, the Tea Party contingent (which is very connected with what David Frum calls the "conservative entertainment complex") took over the Republican party. Or at least has parity with the establishment/business wing. Their extreme candidates have lost at least four senate seats in the last two years. They have cowed other Republicans who are scared of a primary challenge, like the ones that unseated Robert Bennett of Utah and Richard Lugar of Indiana. They are ideological and cannot compromise on anything. The recent talk that what they do is "constitutional", and by implication what others want to do is unconstitutional and hence invalid-on-first-principles shows the contempt for the democratic process. Their notion of bipartisanship was to have Democrats concede everything.<br />
<br />
How much of this is a reaction to Obama, the man, is debatable. Racial animus does not appear to be the primary motivation, although there will always be Limbaugh and Drudge to use that angle on a subset of voters. But what is clear is that there was a last-gasp attempt to undo the New Deal and Great Society (the latter mainly civil rights and Medicare) while there was a chance. There was a chance this year, but it was always a bit of a long shot. And that effort failed.<br />
<br />
It's not clear what will happen next. There is the usual big talk about shutting down businesses or leaving the country, but for most of the Tea Party crowd, that's not an option. Instead, they will be watching Hannity and others push for immigration reform and other intensely disliked policies. That will further alienate them and it wouldn't be a surprise to see that they retreat from politics for a decade or more.Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-38359723773012123552012-11-05T21:21:00.001-08:002012-11-05T21:21:26.585-08:00<b>The picture says more than the title:</b><br />
<br />
Romney looks pretty worn out.<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdUvQhP7GKa-RHaCCRPe0S5H7YTG0upzjGCxFJcL9PUj27kmlX5PIL_p8mGS4NnUphubJweKf15HGSAUm3u6IratOR6qJMrl_6SAyJaUgaeQdUIgZz7r1cDabsJGtvr4B98fs/s1600/romney+internal+polling.png" />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-35256429314922461372012-11-05T20:46:00.000-08:002012-11-05T20:46:53.961-08:00<b>2012 Presidential election prediction:</b><br />
<br />
These look like the reasonably secure states for both candidates. Not sure about New Hampshire or Virginia (shown as undecided in map)<br />
<br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiu-fwfkBh-gYLI29TBc_uQJcZ2c4ScETX2k417ZQIPecUSGKts6Fl6YzR4yTUSjR44a9BL2WxxNczPEGSYvGHIbEaiGFRpflKD3e9m9rPJi5Cibsis5Z_skIo7Bw6QYYX9SV0/s1600/2012+election+prediction.png">
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-84467566829134960342012-11-02T15:35:00.002-07:002012-11-02T15:35:24.869-07:00<b>From Romney's speech today:</b><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">You know that if the President is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress. ... The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy.</span></blockquote>
When cooperation is required for essential government activities, and one party refuses to cooperate and blames the other party for that failure, it is politically effective if nobody is aware of the details.<br />
<br />
Two problems:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The press doesn't do a good job of informing the public.</li>
<li>A lot of the public gets their news from misleading sources (e.g. Fox News Channel).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-83819375638542360432012-10-31T13:26:00.000-07:002012-10-31T13:26:36.858-07:00<b>Chris Christie's positive statements about Obama on several television interviews yesterday:</b><br />
<br />
<br />
What Christie did was inoculate Obama from whatever minor screw-ups that take place in the next week. There will be a failure to get resources somewhere, which is inevitable in situations following a huge storm, but Christie's grand statement of praise speaks to the larger view.<br />
<br />
Christie also undercuts Romney's persistent charge that Obama isn't a leader. What does a leader do? One thing is help expedite lower-level agencies and set them on the right path. Christie said that's what Obama did.<br />
<br />
Right wing radio is countering by bringing up Benghazi: If he's so on the ball with Sandy, why did he mess up with Benghazi. That's not going to work with constant pictures of flooded subways, downed trees, boats on dry land, and damage along the shore. The visuals - and there are literally millions of them - will be the focus by the media for quite some time.<br />
<br />
Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-37067938727929014392012-10-31T01:02:00.001-07:002012-10-31T01:02:43.961-07:00<b>This has been obvious for some time now:</b><br />
<br />
Ezra Klein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/30/mitch-mcconnell-and-john-boehners-strategy-worked/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein&tid=pp_widget">tells us</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked<br />
<br />
I’ve spent the morning reading various endorsements of Mitt Romney for president, and they all say the same thing: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked. </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">
Okay, that’s not quite how they put it. But it’s precisely what they show. In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney!</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">
That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">
Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”</span></blockquote>
Klein goes on to cite other editorials that share that view. It has been abundantly clear that <b>obstructionism works if nobody calls attention to it</b>. And nobody does. The press has largely abandoned that role of informing people about why things are the way they are. The Obama administration hasn't complained all that much, given its peculiar obsession with bipartisanship and finding common ground.<br />
<br />
Of interest, the op-ed and book that came out in May of this year by Mann and Ornstein - two fair minded observers - made the case that what has happened in recent years is the ascent of a radical Republican politics. And after the book came out, were they invited to the Sunday shows? No. Are they cited anywhere? No. Part of that is because their book is an implicit criticism of the press' failure to highlight this change in the Republican party, and the press will ignore criticism of what they do.Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-65536139788176172782012-10-30T05:35:00.001-07:002012-10-30T05:35:20.579-07:00<b>David Brooks writes a column about why Romney is better than Obama:</b><br />
<br />
He says that because the Republicans in the House will oppose Obama, but Democrats in the Senate (and Republicans in the House) will work with Romney, that Romney should be president.
That's triggered a lot of responses. Kevin Drum says <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/david-brooks-says-we-must-allow-hostage-be-killed">it amounts to giving in to hostage-takers</a>. Over at Twitter, there is this slew of tweets from Jamelle Bouie (that also review Brooks' earlier endorsements):
<br />
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Shorter David Brooks: "We should elect Mitt Romney because he's actually lying to all of us."</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Also, you should believe my unsubstantiated claim that he will be the most wonderful, moderate president ever.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
David Brooks is paid a lot of money to develop ever more convoluted reasons for voting Republican.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
More Shorter Brooks: “Yes, congressional Republicans are holding the country hostage, which is why we should *give in* and elect Romney.”</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Dear New York Times — I can write the same inane endorsements of Republican politicians for a fraction of the cost of Brooks. Hire me!</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
If David Brooks is going to endorse a fictional politician, he might as well go with someone awesome, like Optimus Prime.</div>
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime">Optimus Prime</a> is is a character from the Transformers franchise.<br />
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Seriously, read Brooks’ column and replace all mentions of “Mitt Romney” with “Optimus Prime.” It sounds infinity times more plausible.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
“To get re-elected in a country with a rising minority population and a shrinking Republican coalition…”</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
“Optimus Prime’s shape-shifting nature would induce him to govern as a center-right moderate.”</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
“Optimus Prime is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama.”</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
Verbatim David Brooks in 2000: We should elect Bush because he is “a very nice guy who likes people.” <a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://www.salon.com/2000/08/02/bush_cover/" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/PlpnwB5m" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="http://www.salon.com/2000/08/02/bush_cover/"><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;">http://www.</span><span class="js-display-url">salon.com/2000/08/02/bus</span><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;">h_cover/</span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;"> </span>…</span></a></div>
<br />
This is the head for Brooks' Salon article:<br />
<br />
George W. Bush should be president<br />
Forget his image as a callous, empty-headed frat boy. People like him, and that means he'll attract and retain the best minds.<br />
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
And what is Brooks’ case against Gore, you ask? “He is a deeply un-nice man.” If only I could be so thoughtful and intelligent.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
In 2004, David Brooks thought that John Kerry’s flip-flopping was reason enough to mock and ridicule him.<a class="twitter-timeline-link" data-expanded-url="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html" dir="ltr" href="http://t.co/GEnLqg9X" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opinion/18brooks.html"><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;">http://www.</span><span class="js-display-url">nytimes.com/2004/09/18/opi</span><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;">nion/18brooks.html</span><span class="tco-ellipsis"><span class="invisible" style="font-size: 0px; line-height: 0;"> </span>…</span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
So, just so we’re clear: In 2000, Brooks wanted you to support Bush because he was a nice man with good advisors.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
In 2004, he wants you to reject Kerry because he is a flip-flopper with too many advisers.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
In 2008, we should go with Obama because c’mon, no one wants to side with losers.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #333333;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
And in 2012, we should choose Mitt Romney b/c he is a shameless, flip-flopping opportunist who might be lying to us about what he’ll do.</div>
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="14190948" href="https://twitter.com/jbouie" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Jamelle Bouie</strong> <span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">jbouie</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
For his 2016 endorsement, David Brooks will just shit on your doorstep. And tell you to vote for Chris Christie.</div>
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-7871181019820037072012-10-29T10:58:00.000-07:002012-10-29T10:58:15.789-07:00<b>Romney and charitable giving:</b><br />
<br />
This is a moderately <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html">complicated report from Bloomberg</a> about how Romney's "giving" to one particular charity was essentially a means of evading capital gains taxes. If the charitable trust is set up just right, and it appears to the case for Romney, then the end result is a complete payback to Romney of the gift plus whatever growth occurred. What does the charity get? Close to nothing.<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-52522259338878913352012-10-22T07:02:00.004-07:002012-10-22T07:02:36.284-07:00<b>Rupert Murdoch tweets:</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="stream-item-header" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">
<a class="account-group js-account-group js-action-profile js-user-profile-link js-nav" data-user-id="451586190" href="https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch" style="color: #999999; text-decoration: none;"><strong class="fullname js-action-profile-name show-popup-with-id" style="color: #0084b4; text-decoration: underline;">Rupert Murdoch </strong><span class="username js-action-profile-name" style="direction: ltr; font-size: 12px; unicode-bidi: embed;"><s style="color: #bbbbbb; text-decoration: none;">@</s><b style="font-weight: normal;">rupertmurdoch</b></span></a></div>
<div class="js-tweet-text" style="background-color: whitesmoke; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; word-wrap: break-word;">
What right do public figures have for privacy after parading their families everywhere to get votes? Public has rights too.</div>
<br />
<br />
Public figures can parade their families, automobiles, books they've read, and lots of other things. It does not mean that they have therefore surrendered the going's on within their household.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-82305726855645215172012-10-12T08:03:00.000-07:002012-10-12T08:03:32.658-07:00<b>Fox Nation goes <i>all out</i> against Biden:</b><br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSuXmE5fZ5SBOF41oPmv8ImpjHSxZgviQeM3313DFxjvdshn5iFWQs01uKcnQtEoLvii9DwQbFFFHPbtAH1Z-UKzFCeJL9B7tHUHhJ4KI1U3yoTYXjOYMeyF_kMa00vgUr6sM/s1600/foxnation-vpdebate-0a.png">
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKn0zcnO2StoCYHmGjTmGKV7gQfxok-_2dnfKtLhs5vkGzjexKk66kOH0dWpxQpZCI68ue5CPInF0IrdQWxoHLmRMuZTxg4EpGKw5f8m_muDctym9-bqo5Gi8SQIgccX-Bt5M/s1600/foxnation-vpdebate-1a.png">
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFx0CSh0PK0SbCdRLAJVAci9_60cLpobmc5URuyXBzLOJEY3QFeGfvhWXr2pqP5QRtjJmbzNh-BuAW8J2Pjdt2u_hnGFGixpfIczo80QdW7zFz6ayx9WK9GTuiisudB4HSpns/s1600/foxnation-vpdebate-2a.png">
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz2pxYeI4WV-HHhPJshgpvrmPJfhHBGd20nYSZ-PtxCOVBL2Dy1tgX34UIzCPx3_4oAtazYEp3zlscmUtm6fqaliysbs6dpe0Oiyi3Qopd7iwINXP0q-1VwowbcCEi1SMA9So/s1600/foxnation-vpdebate-3a.png">
<br />
<br />Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3703819.post-62156282308244740422012-10-07T01:20:00.001-07:002012-10-07T01:28:15.136-07:00<b>Remember when George W. Bush was criticized for not engaging the press?</b><br />
<br />
Many on the left did. Now it's time to acknowledge that our guy is just as bad. Case in point, Dana Milbank's column:<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-president-obama-doesnt-meet-the-press/2012/10/04/ac688c8a-0e78-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html?hpid=z7">Obama pays price for ducking the questions</a>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="color: maroon;">Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king.
In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<b><span style="color: red;">Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. </span></b><span style="color: maroon;">Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too.<br /><br />Towson University political scientist Martha Kumar, who keeps a running tally of Obama’s media appearances, tells me he has had 19 solo news conferences in the White House as of Sept. 30. That compares to 26 for Ronald Reagan at the same point in his presidency, 59 for George H.W. Bush, and 31 for Bill Clinton. Obama had more formal news conferences than George W. Bush (13), but Bush engaged in many more informal Q&A sessions with reporters: 340 at this stage in his presidency to Obama’s 105. (Clinton had 585 at this point, the elder Bush had 309 and Reagan had 135.)<br /><br />
Obama hasn’t held a full-fledged news conference at the White House since March. After a Cabinet meeting in July, a reporter tried to ask him whether new gun laws were needed after the Colorado shooting — and Obama brushed off the inquiry with a joke.<br /><br />
In lieu of taking hard questions, Obama has opted for gauzy, soft-focus interviews with the likes of “Entertainment Tonight,” gentle appearances on late-night comedy shows, kid-glove satellite hits with regional TV stations, and joint appearances with the first lady where questions are certain to be gentle. Tough questions are rare in one-on-one interviews, because Obama has more control over the topic — and the interviewer wants to be invited back.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Engaging with Republican lawmakers is a waste of time, especially after they declared 100% opposition to Obama's agenda. But dealing with the press is another matter.
<br />
<br />
Obama has received surprisingly little criticism from the left on his remoteness from anything other than set-piece oratory. Not that Obama would have changed, since he's demonstrated a stubbornness that will not be swayed (e.g. thinking that he can heal the partisanship and secure a Grand Bargain).Quiddityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12188352899455570833noreply@blogger.com3