tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post5116026792658787289..comments2024-01-02T22:01:12.976+00:00Comments on Avedon's Sideshow: Roll on thunder, shine on lightningAvedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04702100335744054401noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-5339547721202589662012-11-11T15:40:51.367+00:002012-11-11T15:40:51.367+00:00The strike-out is a long-respected fannish traditi...The strike-out is a long-respected fannish tradition.Avedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04702100335744054401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-60898114074366188702012-11-07T20:57:22.444+00:002012-11-07T20:57:22.444+00:00The Daily Caller, of course being "A conserva...The Daily Caller, of course <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Daily_Caller" rel="nofollow">being</a> "A conservative/Republican news spin organization founded by conservative reporter Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney aide Neil Patel." and hence an excellent source of truth...in Bizarro World. <br /><br />Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04761044906837521471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-10469547118640330792012-11-07T19:45:57.425+00:002012-11-07T19:45:57.425+00:00Off topic, but this punk rules. [Link]Off topic, but this punk rules. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs8X1RzQ1Gw" rel="nofollow">[Link]</a>CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-20901025829791025052012-11-07T19:37:40.490+00:002012-11-07T19:37:40.490+00:00Avedon, you crossed out an accurate descriptor of ...Avedon, you crossed out an accurate descriptor of Hans van Spakovsky. I'm sure it's accidental.<br /><br />You said, "Cliff says parties have been changed from within and we can do it again." This has been my point all along. Dems have always been terrible, except for the moments when they rose to the occasion, like in the Great Depression and (at the congressional level) post-Watergate. <br /><br />If people want to replace the major parties, they should start running for the state legislature or the city council. Prove that you can get the garbage picked up on time and voters will trust you with the larger issues. That's how Bernie Sanders got his start, as mayor. But as long as the Greens or Labor can't win local seats in California or northern New Mexico or Boston or the other ultra-liberal districts around the country--and do such a sterling job that people raise them to higher office-- why should anyone take them seriously? <br /><br />I'm not <em>for</em> the Democrats. But I am for the best person actually <em>winning</em>. Winning higher office does not start from lofty statements. It starts from picking up the garbage or getting property taxes right or being a good prosecutor or, like Elizabeth Warren, spending years researching a topic no one cares about or... whatever draws public interest and approval. Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04761044906837521471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-37414452380325051622012-11-07T14:52:16.607+00:002012-11-07T14:52:16.607+00:00Nate Silver should seriously contemplate shoving h...Nate Silver should seriously contemplate shoving his infallible crystal ball up Dick Morris's and Karl Rove's fat asses.<br /><br /><a href="http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com/2012/11/meanwhile-at-romney-campaign-hq-in.html" rel="nofollow">Here's my thumbtack analysis</a> of the elections that should tide you over until I can properly respond to last evening's historic night.jurassicporkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673461210301442978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-10490425733108044722012-11-07T03:31:32.188+00:002012-11-07T03:31:32.188+00:00From the department of you couldn't make this ...From the department of you couldn't make this shit up:<br /><br />"Clinton asks Philadelphia crowd: ‘Who wants a president who will knowingly, repeatedly tell you something he knows isn’t true?’"<br /><br />http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/06/clinton-asks-philadelphia-crowd-who-wants-a-president-who-will-knowingly-repeatedly-tell-you-something-he-knows-isnt-true-video/Bilejoneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15426920337506809987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-26176102566205090032012-11-06T16:39:54.287+00:002012-11-06T16:39:54.287+00:00Interesting to see Occupy Sandy taking on a secula...Interesting to see Occupy Sandy taking on a secular version of the Muslim Brotherhood role in poorer parts of NY.ksixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15406854618914127269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-47453773061167686542012-11-06T01:42:36.311+00:002012-11-06T01:42:36.311+00:00Good on ya SZ. If this Naderite trash was cast out...Good on ya SZ. If this Naderite trash was cast out merely for entertaining thoughts of abstention/a 3P-vote, I can hardly imagine what your apostasy would inspire. You may as well drop a load on their koran. But if Brooks spooks you into voting for BO all will be forgiven.<br /><br />Thank heaven my flight doesn't land in Versailles until 10 days after the dust settles. Cheers and keep that baby warm. Read Cormac's The Road since becoming a dad? Whoa boy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-40304429378647668492012-11-05T17:55:37.941+00:002012-11-05T17:55:37.941+00:00Thanks, Orgegon JC.
Sure, I just told Michael Sch...Thanks, Orgegon JC.<br /><br />Sure, I just told Michael Scherer that Brooks has just about talked me out of voting for Romney: http://fyre.it/HWtA19<br /><br />It's not an argument that the Swamp folks are terribly accustomed to hearing, but of course they should be exposed to such lines of thinking.stuart_zechmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14817215761981204304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-63399834763390770392012-11-05T09:44:06.845+00:002012-11-05T09:44:06.845+00:00I think Stoller was just frustrated that Seder wou...I think Stoller was just frustrated that Seder wouldn't address any issue but his hobby horse, i.e., voting third party in swing states is a vanity vote that throws the election to Romney, who will deliver the country to the worst of the worst.<br /><br />As I read his article, Stoller presents voting third party as a kind of organizational tool - a psychological leap away from "letting malevolent political elites do what they want" and means of identifying those willing to build an alternative power base with the clout to back up their threats come the next elite-created crisis. As I heard him on the show, he was more reacting to Sam's missing the point than trying to claim his call for third party voting wouldn't come at Obama's expense.<br /><br />Now, I don't agree with that part of Stoller's analysis but it should at least be challenged on its merits. Sam is great at interviewing people he agrees with but he hasn't got the mental agility to address the fallacies of an argument he disputes.<br /><br />I feel much more optimistic about an Obama 2nd term after the Chicago teachers' strike - people are catching on and resisting, even when there's an election at stake. (Left a comment saying same as "xx" before realizing that I could change the username of a blogger profile I inadvertently created and couldn't get rid of a year or so ago). As for a Romney presidency, I used to make light of the idea that a vote for Romney was a vote for Hindenburg, but, looking at his policy advisors, I think it just might be.ksixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15406854618914127269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-37376240029782815452012-11-05T05:01:18.910+00:002012-11-05T05:01:18.910+00:00Wonderful to hear Nari Emeline isn't one of th...Wonderful to hear Nari Emeline isn't one of the 40,000 New Yorkers Mayor Bloomberg thinks is in need of temporary shelter. That's good news about SZ and his LB, too.<br /><br />And now, on with the wanking...<br /><br />To whom it may concern,<br /><br />"This is no time to go wobbly."<br /><br />In a related matter, it was disappointing to hear Matt Stoller pull a <i>Ralph Nader 2000</i> on Sam Seder's show and pretend, if it is to have any traction at all, his call to everyone to vote third party will not be at the expense of the Democratic Party candidate. You see this type of playing it too clever by half by people on the left too often in my opinion. The whole <i>Occupy</i> thing has come and, apparently, gone with its most avid supporters having insisted throughout its brief manifestation that no one could speak for the movement nor state what its agenda was. CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-58014172236870070662012-11-05T04:30:39.513+00:002012-11-05T04:30:39.513+00:00Ten Bears -
I've been calling him Witless Rom...Ten Bears -<br /><br />I've been calling him Witless Romney on my show. "Myth Romney." Damn. Wish I'd thought of that. :-)Lotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-77759655650921866022012-11-05T04:24:43.305+00:002012-11-05T04:24:43.305+00:00Susan -
I wholeheartedly agree that the power of ...Susan -<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree that the power of 3rd parties comes during election time precisely because that is when they are a threat. I've long argued that the role of most 3rd parties in the US has been just that: become strong enough to threaten the position of one of the majors, which then must shift to take into account the positions of the outsiders. (A good example would be that the New Deal was a watered-down version of the Socialist Party platform.)<br /><br />But there still has to be the work between the elections because that's what will establish the basis for being a true threat come election time. So, yeah, both.Lotushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-47338696715632698062012-11-05T03:28:43.929+00:002012-11-05T03:28:43.929+00:00Shorter bo-bo: give us what we want or we'll s...Shorter bo-bo: give us what we want or we'll shoot the hostage.Ten Bearshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594307610015584119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-1102831790498694142012-11-05T03:25:36.071+00:002012-11-05T03:25:36.071+00:00I had to chuckle a bit over that remake of Reagan&...I had to chuckle a bit over that remake of Reagan's 'first time didn't hurt at all' kerfuffle because... it didn't hurt a bit, was really quite pleasant.Ten Bearshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594307610015584119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-50525377987722257512012-11-05T03:00:19.290+00:002012-11-05T03:00:19.290+00:00Good to hear you and la familia are OK, Zech. BTW,...Good to hear you and la familia are OK, Zech. BTW, have you mentioned the thought of voting Romnoid to the Swamp faithful?<br /><br />And JFC what Stoller said. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-83058122544265116822012-11-05T02:59:55.111+00:002012-11-05T02:59:55.111+00:00(cont.)
So that's basically the opposite of t...(cont.)<br /><br />So that's basically the opposite of the story that the Democratic center-wing has been selling the Village about Obama.<br /><br />There are some basic flaws in that argument, though, chief of which would be the yarn about how the popular right wing --the House caucus members the center-right Brooks disparages as "the most intransigent element"-- would somehow kneel to Romney when they've told Boehner and Cantor time and again to fuck off. That's the sort of intransigence that says "get the government's hands off of my Medicare!"<br /><br />That Brooks can make the claim that Romney can exercise Obama-esque shame-n-blame power over the popular right (the way Obama partisans easily manipulate the popular left) is a testament to that columnist's capacity to shamelessly shill. <br /><br />I mean, come on. Does anybody really believe that Romney can move the House rightists to go along with the establishment center-wing? What is Romney going to do to get honest-to-God Tea Party Republicans to fold and go along with Brookings' agenda for "reform" --imply that they're racists for opposing Their President? Good Lord, it's not like these are terrified liberal Democrats.<br /><br />But...if this sort of influence were likely, if that's a plausible outcome, it's something to consider. What's even more important to consider, and even more plausible, is the first scenario outlined by Brooks, the one in which Obama is re-elected, yet fails to "do the big stuff" of Evan Bayh's Third Way dreams.<br /><br />The plausibility of that scenario alone --that Obama is nowhere near competent enough to get the New Deal-destroying Grand Bargain past a populist right-wing shared House-- is worth my vote, probably. If Obama is as much of a colossal failure at selling the centrist Democratic agenda as Brooks makes him out to be, then I'd better suck it up and vote for him, with the optimistic, yet realistic expectation that Obama should miserably fail for the next four years.<br /><br />It's possible. Obama may only be successful at passing "historic," incredibly bad, Third Way policy regimes when he's got a House majority that includes symbolism-driven, liberal Democrats to shame, bribe and bamboozle. It may be that the worst of what an Obama Administration can do to the country is over, now that we have precious gridlock. The best case scenario is that either way --Obama loses, Obama wins-- the "big stuff" agenda the center has inflicted on the country comes to an end, at least for the next term.<br /><br />We can only hope, I suppose, which is why I'm voting at all.<br /><br />Brooks makes a somewhat reasonable case that a vote for Romney is a vote for an effective Grand Bargainer. Maybe, if I just forget for a few days how utterly, catastrophically wrong David Brooks has been about "the New Economy," post-invasion "progress" in Iraq, and pretty much everything, I can see things Brooks' way --and vote <i>against</i> Romney.<br /><br />I've still got a couple of days to mull it over, though. I'm still undecided.<br />stuart_zechmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14817215761981204304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-262787237993361682012-11-05T02:57:51.463+00:002012-11-05T02:57:51.463+00:00(cont.)
"Now let’s try to imagine the world ...(cont.)<br /><br />"<i>Now let’s try to <b>imagine</b> the world if Mitt <b>Romney wins</b>. Republicans would begin with the premise that the status quo is unsustainable. The mounting debt is ruinous. The byzantine tax and regulatory regimes are stifling innovation and growth.<br /><br /><b>Republicans</b> would like to take the <b>reform agenda</b> that Republican governors have pursued in places like Indiana and take it to the national level: <b>structural entitlement reform; fundamental tax reform</b>. These reforms wouldn’t make government unrecognizable (we’d probably end up spending 21 percent of GDP in Washington instead of about 24 percent), but they do represent a <b>substantial shift to the right</b>.<br /><br />At the same time, <b>Romney would probably be faced with a Democratic Senate</b>. He would also observe the core lesson of this campaign: Conservatism loses; <b>moderation wins</b>. Romney’s prospects began to look decent only when he <b>shifted to the center</b>.<br /><br />To get his <b>tax and entitlement reforms through the Democratic Senate</b>, Romney would have to make some serious concessions: <b>increase taxes on the rich</b> as part of an overall reform; abandon the most draconian spending cuts in Paul Ryan’s budget; reduce the size of his lavish tax-cut promises.<br /><br />As President <b>Romney made these concessions</b>, conservatives would be in uproar. Talk-radio hosts would be the ones accusing him of Romnesia, forgetting all the promises he made in the primary season. But <b>Republicans in Congress would probably go along</b>. They wouldn’t want to destroy a Republican president. Romney would champion enough conservative reforms to allow some Republicans to justify their votes.<br /><br />The bottom line is this: <b>If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform.</b> Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has <b>more influence over</b> the most intransigent element in the Washington equation: <b>House Republicans</b>. He’s <b>more likely to get big stuff done</b>.<br /><br />New York Times columnist David Brooks may be contacted through nytimes.com.</i>stuart_zechmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14817215761981204304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-90225172648927510882012-11-05T02:57:02.850+00:002012-11-05T02:57:02.850+00:00I'm OK, finally. Heat, hot water, electricity,...I'm OK, finally. Heat, hot water, electricity, refrigeration, fresh food, drinkable water, connectivity --the East Village is back. It's on to the election!<br /><br />David Brooks may have finally talked me out of voting for Romney:<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20121101-david-brooks-why-romney-is-more-likely-to-get-big-stuff-done.ece" rel="nofollow">link to David Brooks' selling Romney's malleable persona as useful to the centrists' agenda</a><br /><br />Published: 01 November 2012 09:08 PM<br /><br />"<b>Why Romney is more likely to get big stuff done</b>"<br /><br />"<i>Let’s try to <b>imagine</b> what the world would look like if President Barack <b>Obama is re-elected</b>.<br /><br /><b>Washington over the next four years would probably look much as it has over the last two</b>: Obama running the White House, Republicans controlling the House and Democrats managing the Senate. Despite a change-hungry electorate, we’d end up with pretty much the <b>same cast of characters</b>.<br /><br />Obama would probably try to <b>enact the agenda he laid out most clearly in his recent interview with The Des Moines Register</b>:<br /><br />Obama said he would try to <b>re-create the Obama-Boehner budget deal</b> of two summers ago, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Then he’d try immigration reform. Then he’d cut corporate tax rates as part of corporate reform. Then he’d “weed out” unnecessary regulations. All the while, he would implement Obamacare and increase funds for infrastructure. This is a <b>moderate</b> and sensible agenda.<br /><br />The <b>first order of business would be the budget deal</b>, averting the fiscal cliff. Obama would go to Republicans in the Senate and say, “Look, we’re stuck with each other. Let’s cut a deal for the sake of the country.” He would <b>easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with a version of a Grand Bargain</b>.<br /><br />Then Obama would <b>go to the House</b>. He’d ask Eric Cantor, the majority leader, if there were votes for such a deal. The <b>answer would probably be no</b>. Republican House members still have <b>more to fear from a primary challenge from the right</b> than from a general election challenge from the left. Obama is tremendously unpopular in their districts. By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain. <b>Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon B. Johnson</b>.<br /><br />There’d probably be a barrage of recriminations from all sides. The left and right would be consumed with ire and accusations. <b>Legislators would work out some set of fudges and gimmicks to kick the fiscal can down the road.</b><br /><br />The <b>ensuing bitterness would doom any hopes for bipartisan</b> immigration reform. The rest of the Obama <b>second term</b> would be about reasonably <b>small things</b>: some new infrastructure programs; more math and science teachers; implementing Obamacare; mounting debt; a president increasingly turning to foreign affairs in search of legacy projects."</i>stuart_zechmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14817215761981204304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-50938925217354845522012-11-05T01:31:00.727+00:002012-11-05T01:31:00.727+00:00I'm in a safe blue state, and I also registere...I'm in a safe blue state, and I also registered a protest vote, but only for President--the Republican alternatives for everything else were toxic and might actually win. But it was very odd to vote and hope that the candidate I voted for either wouldn't win or else won in a landslide.<br /><br />We've got to get to work on electoral reform!Raven Onthillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634556869209594389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-20157540859847412592012-11-05T01:02:08.825+00:002012-11-05T01:02:08.825+00:00I meant that more in terms of Stoller-type elector...I meant that more in terms of Stoller-type electoral broadsides than advocating bold policies. I agree the "big ideas into conventional wisdom" approach on policy.danpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11315015113883743485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-28731808189765483512012-11-05T00:58:27.611+00:002012-11-05T00:58:27.611+00:00Susan, I think third parties should be built up be...Susan, I think third parties should be built up between elections. Election day should be the result of a lot of hard work, not an isolated event. And they need to be built up down ballot before up.<br /><br />Increasing support for them needs to start at the local level. A presidential run should be the result of a whole string of successes that build up from that, not something that happens in a vacuum.<br /><br />It's something that seems obvious to the left when an ideologically opposed group tries it - witness all the snickering over Americans Elect. Well if the Greens are going to not just de-emphasize but ignore grassroots party building then I don't think they are so different.danpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11315015113883743485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-29469631665233001822012-11-04T22:04:45.719+00:002012-11-04T22:04:45.719+00:00You may be right, Raven, but for third party to su...You may be right, Raven, but for third party to suceed somepne has to vote for it. All politics are local, eventually. My vote - paper, w/double super secret secuity envelopes, in the box - was/is a straight Paciific Green with Working Families (Oregon) endorsements, only deviating to Dem vote in the House, where current "representative" is a particularly reprehensible little trust-funder punk who's never done a day's work on its life: Oregon's own Myth Romney.<br /><br />Someone has to do it. Rest assured had I the least inkling Willard could "win" this I would have voted for the O. And I don't discount the possibily of another theft, which render whatever vote I had cast moot in the accepted vernicular.<br /><br />Not that I give a shit, anymore. Cascadia!<br /><br />No fear...Ten Bearshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594307610015584119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-56265488910317085162012-11-04T20:16:01.608+00:002012-11-04T20:16:01.608+00:00You might be correct, but the time to increase the...You might be correct, but the time to increase the power of third parties is during election season, when they are a threat to the two main parties. Perhaps there are two ways to look at this: increase power before elections by gaining and organizing supporters, and increase power during elections by threatening to withhold support for appropriate the main parties. When the third party is strong enough, take on the two parties directly.<br /><br />What do you think?Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-71533138740637968232012-11-04T20:00:44.796+00:002012-11-04T20:00:44.796+00:00It occurs to me that the "vote third party, e...It occurs to me that the "vote third party, even though it risks a Republican victory," position is the progressive version of shared sacrifice. :-( Avedon, I don't think it works.Raven Onthillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634556869209594389noreply@blogger.com