| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Predictions page -- 2006 elections Posted by: Perm Dude - [46104428] Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 13:48 I'm going to go on record and say +20 Dems in the House, +4 in the Senate. Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball says the Republicans will not take one single seat away from Democrats in the House, Senate, or governor races. He's predicting +6 in the Senate, +27 in the House, and +7 Governor races. Seems too optimistic to me across the board. But there you go. Anyone else care for a prediction at this point? | |||||||
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] | ||||||||
| 179 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 09:46 |
November 9, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist The Middle Muscles In By DAVID BROOKS For decades, moderates have been the cowardly lions of American politics. You’d see them quivering in the corner as the anti-establishment left exchanged culture war mortar fire with the anti-establishment right. You’d see them passed over and dissed as the parties mobilized their bases and played to their primary voters. Well, somebody’s been on steroids, because on Tuesday the muscular middle took control of America. Say goodbye to the era of Rovian base mobilization. Say goodbye to the era of conservative dominance that began in 1980. On Tuesday, 47 percent of the voters were self-described moderates, according to exit polls, and they asserted their power by voting for the Democrats in landslide proportions. About a year ago, these angry moderates lost confidence in Republican rule. The tens of millions of dollars spent since then — the ads, the robocalls, the microtargeting — did nothing to change that basic decision. Their disaffection with the G.O.P. was not philosophical. It was about competence and accountability. It was about the accumulation of Rumsfeld, Katrina, Abramoff, the bridge to nowhere and the failure to quarantine Mark Foley. Bill Clinton captured the electorate’s central complaint about the G.O.P.: “They can’t run anything right.” So voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the left. For the most part they exchanged moderate Republicans for conservative Democrats. It was a great day for the centrist Joe Lieberman, who defeated the scion of the Daily Kos net roots, Ned Lamont. It was a great day for anti-abortion Democrats like Bob Casey and probably for pro-gun Democrats like Jim Webb. It was a great day for conservative Democrats like Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana. It was even a good day for some moderate Republicans, like Chris Shays in Connecticut, Deborah Pryce in Ohio and Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, who held on because they are independent. It was a terrible day for anti-immigration restrictionists on the right of the G.O.P., like J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf in Arizona. If you wanted to pick out a stereotypical swing voter in this election, it would be a white evangelical suburban office park mom in a blue state suburb. She’s part of the one-third of white evangelicals who voted Democratic this year, as did 20 percent of self-described conservatives. She supported the Iraq war once but believes it has been conducted terribly. She doesn’t have a lot of faith in government generally — 54 percent of voters believe government interferes too much, while only 37 percent want it to do more, according to a recent CNN survey — but she does think government should be able to accomplish its core missions. She embodies the message of E. J. Dionne’s 1991 book, “Why Americans Hate Politics,” which argues that Americans are sick of symbolic politics, dying ideologies and false choices. Most of all, she’s angry that politicians behave in ways that would be unacceptable in every realm of her life, and she thinks they’re endangering her country. In some ways, this election reminds me of the 1974 Democratic sweep. The Republicans have screwed up. Democrats have surged in. But the result leads not to a liberal tide but to Jimmy Carter, who in 1976 ran as a conservative anti-political reformer who won on fiscal discipline and with the support of Pat Robertson. This election didn’t define a new era, but it marks the end of an old one. If Democrats are going to take advantage of their victory, they will have to do two things. They will have to show they have not been taken over by their bloggers or their economic nationalists, who will alienate them from the suburban office park moms. Second, they’ll have to come up with ideas as big as the problems we face. Their current platform consists of small-bore tax credits and foreign policy vagaries about, say, “redoubling” our efforts to get Osama bin Laden. (Why not retripling or requadrupling?) Realignments are achieved by parties that define big new approaches to problems (see F.D.R.’s Commonwealth Club speech), and neither party has done that yet. In the meantime, if I were a Democrat I’d be like Lee Hamilton, the former Indiana congressman and serial commission member. The country is hungering for leaders like him: open-minded, unassuming centrists who are interested in government more than politics. If the Democrats are smart, this could be the beginning of a new Hamiltonian age. | ||||||
| 180 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 09:46 |
November 9, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist A Come-to-Daddy Moment By MAUREEN DOWD Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back. They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical. In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?) The defense chief got hung out to dry before Saddam got hung. The president and Karl Rove, underestimating the public’s hunger for change or overestimating the loyalty of a fed-up base, did not ice Rummy in time to save the Senate from teetering Democratic. But once Sonny managed to heedlessly dynamite the Republican majority — as well as the Middle East, the Atlantic alliance and the U.S. Army — then Bush Inc., the family firm that snatched the presidency for W. in 2000, had to step in. Two trusted members of the Bush 41 war council, Mr. Baker and Robert Gates, have been dispatched to discipline the delinquent juvenile and extricate him from the mother of all messes. Mr. Gates, already on Mr. Baker’s “How Do We Get Sonny Out of Deep Doo Doo in Iraq?” study group, left his job protecting 41’s papers at Texas A&M to return to Washington and pry the fingers of Poppy’s old nemesis, Rummy, off the Pentagon. “They had to bring in someone from the old gang,” said someone from the old gang. “That has to make Junior uneasy. With Bob, the door is opened again to 41 and Baker and Brent.” W. had no choice but to make an Oedipal U-turn. He couldn’t let Nancy Pelosi subpoena the cranky Rummy for hearings on Iraq. “He’s not exactly Mr. Charming or Mr. Truthful, and he’d be on TV saying something stupid,” said a Bush 41 official. “Bob can just go up to the Hill and say: ‘I don’t know. I wasn’t there when that happened.’ ” Bob Gates, his friends say, had been worried about the belligerent, arrogant, ideological style of Rummy & Cheney from the start. He fretted at the way W.’s so-called foreign policy “dream team” — including his old staffer and fellow Soviet expert Condi — made it up as they went along, even though that had been their complaint about the Clinton foreign policy team. A realpolitik advocate like his mentor, General Scowcroft, he was critical of a linear, moralizing style that disdained nuance, demoted diplomacy and inflated villains. In 2004, he publicly questioned the administration’s approach to Iran. While Vice went off to a corner to lick his wounds, W. was forced to do his best imitation of his dad yesterday, talking about “bipartisan outreach,” “people have spoken,” blah-blah-blah — after he’d been out on the trail saying that electing Democrats would mean that “the terrorists win and America loses.” “I share a large part of the responsibility” for the “thumpin’ ” of Republicans, he told reporters. Actually, he gets full responsibility. W. has stopped talking about democracy as a standard of success in Iraq; yesterday, he said that Iraq had to “govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself.” He was asked if his surprise at the election results showed he was out of touch with Americans. “I thought when it was all said and done,” he replied, “the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security.” So it was just that the American people were too dumb to understand? W. also managed to bash Vietnam vets, saying that this war isn’t similar because there’s a volunteer army, so “the troops understand the consequences of Iraq in the global war on terror.” Is that why W. stayed out of Vietnam? Because he understood it? An ashen Rummy was also condescending during his uncomfortable tableau with W. and Bob Gates in the Oval Office, implying that he was dumped because Americans just didn’t “comprehend” what was going on in Iraq. Actually, Rummy, we get it. You don’t get it. “Baker’s no fool,” a Bush 41 official said. “He wasn’t going to go out there with a plan for Iraq and have Rummy shoot it down. He wanted a receptive audience. Everyone had to be on the same page before the plan is unveiled.” They don’t call him the Velvet Hammer for nothing. R.I.P., Rummy. | ||||||
| 181 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 10:22 |
November 9, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor After the Thumpin’ By WILLIAM SAFIRE Washington WHY all the glum faces?” President Bush asked at the opening of yesterday’s news conference. Though the assembled reporters were hardly glum, conservatives of every stripe can console themselves by considering the limited scope of the Democrats’ midterm sweep. Despite the pervasive weariness with the war and the high tide of irritation at Bush’s steadfastness; despite the general disgust at the policy paralysis and ethical laxity in the wake of muscle-bound one-party control — the result was only the average loss of House and Senate seats of the party in power midway in the second term of a president. A political shakeup every dozen years is a necessary cathartic for the two-party system. What’s more, the rightward cast of many Democrats in the freshman class is hardly bad news for conservativism. And the heartening victory of Joe Lieberman over the angry far left in liberal Connecticut augurs a renewal of a brief period of bipartisanship at the water’s edge. Where does our renewed two-party nation go from here? First, leadership is never weakened by a little humility. After what he called “the thumpin’,” the president showed he got the voters’ message on Iraq: “I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there.” But in acknowledging that “they cast their vote for a new direction,” he didn’t wring his hands: “The people have spoken and now it’s time to move on.” Months ago, he had made provision for that “new direction” response — a phrase acceptable to hawks provided the direction is not out, quick — in the post-election report to be made by James Baker and Lee Hamilton’s Iraq study group. The report should give cover to increased pressure on elected Iraqi leaders to confront the urgent needs of nationhood. By placing Robert “Fresh Eyes” Gates, a former C.I.A. chief, on that panel, Bush paved the way for Donald Rumsfeld to absorb the need of opposition politicians for bureaucratic punishment. The loyal SecDef’s resignation after the poll results was Bush’s act of contrition. Now the president should take the Democratic leaders up on their fine post-election expressions of bipartisanship. He’s headed to Asia for an economic meeting in Hanoi. In its lame-duck session beginning next week, Congress should pass the $67 million earmark to Vietnam called for by Bush primarily for AIDS treatment. Then he should seize the initiative to get some cooperation on domestic progress during the final days of the outgoing, unlamented 109th Congress. In addition to the usual budgetary housekeeping between Thanksgiving and Christmas, both parties should make a concerted effort to deal with the most doable urgent domestic need: to resolve the fears of 12 million Hispanic “illegals” living in the United States. Bush has already proposed a comprehensive compromise: a guest worker program with earnable citizenship for those here now, as well as a border fence to stop the influx of Mexicans. But Republicans — fearful of nativist voters shouting “no amnesty” — passed only the harsh half, and that unfunded fence is a joke. Now Bush, with many Democrats already supporting his approach, should get recalcitrant Republicans to pass his fair-minded immigration package. It would be a test of both new Republican discipline and Democrats’ sincerity on bipartisanship. The window of bipartisan compromise can also fit a minimum wage increase tied to inheritance tax reduction; energy drilling tied to mileage standards and alternative fuels subsidy. But the window won’t be open long. That’s because the committees of the 110th Congress will be headed by the liberal Old Bulls eager to pass “one-house bills” useful only to provide hearings and make headlines. Committee chairmen like Charles Rangel of Ways and Means, John Dingell of Energy and Commerce, Barney Frank of Financial Services and others will crowd the airwaves with hearings grilling contractors and torturing accused torturers. After a few months of this posturing, a newly emboldened Bush, emulating F.D.R.’s derision of the isolationists “Martin, Barton and Fish,” will be moved to denounce “Rangel, Dingell and Frank.” This will be the signal for new Republican leaders, like Mike Pence of Indiana, to take up the tactic of Harry Truman by denouncing “the do-nothing 110th Congress.” At the same time, as the 2008 primaries loom, the Trumanesque Bush will measure his reduction of troops in Iraq by the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own defense. That’s when the new Democratic majority will suffer great stress. Senator Hillary Clinton evoked “the vital, dynamic center” in her victory speech, and Representative Rahm Emanuel was the model of non-hubristic responsibility during the delighted Democratic deluge. But it’s hard to imagine Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Kerry-Gore-Edwards campaigners and the whole loser left holding still into the snows of New Hampshire. Into that incipient split of the new Congressional majority will march John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and the other conservative, internationalist hopes. So cheer up, my fellow right-wingers, especially those of you who have grown too accustomed to winning every election night. Sometimes we have to suffer a loud, corrective slap before readying the political counterpunch. William Safire, a former Times Op-Ed columnist, is chairman of the Dana Foundation. | ||||||
| 182 | Tree ID: 1411442914 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 10:31 |
great posts Walk. i liked the line in the first one: The George W. Bush era, which will ultimately be seen as a fear-induced anomaly in American history, all but breathed its last on Tuesday night. It will be replaced by a new, less fearful and more hopeful period, led by a cast of characters that is astonishingly diverse by American historical standards. | ||||||
| 183 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 10:55 |
Thanks. I know many of these articles are just not available due to the NYTimes Select thing. Personally, I really enjoyed the harsh Dowd article (I like her clever rantings), and laud the diversity article from Herbert (himself an African American) with his acknowledgements of Bush's own accomplishments in this area. Saffire's article is like "disturbing" in a horror movie kinda way, but likely (?), and Brooks, the other conservative, gives a nice balanced view, IMO. - walk | ||||||
| 184 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 11:00 | Return of a Divided Gov't | ||||||
| 185 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 11:09 |
The George W. Bush era, which will ultimately be seen as a fear-induced anomaly in American history, all but breathed its last on Tuesday night. It will be replaced by a new, less fearful and more hopeful period, led by a cast of characters that is astonishingly diverse by American historical standards. I've said before and will continue to maintain, the "Bush Era" compares directly IMHO, to the "McCarthy Era" only worse. Worse due to the conjecture, that this is what may well have happened had McCarthy sat in the WH. How normal? Well, Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, who lives in New York, is due to have Ms. Pelosi’s sixth grandchild at any moment. When Ms. Pelosi’s phone rang early yesterday morning, an aide had to wake her. “Did we have the baby?” she asked. No, she was told. It was the president on the line, calling with his congratulations. Loved that little tidbit. | ||||||
| 186 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 11:10 |
Walk 174 I'll add one more note. I don't mind admitting that I was duped early on into supporting the President's march toward war in Iraq. I had soured on it by the time it happened in March of '03 but I very much supported the buildup and tough talk in late 2002 and very early 2003, siding primarily with the motive of forcing the UN to act on its Resolutions. I felt that Bush had earned my support with a evenly tempered and well managed campaign in Afghanistan. When I realized that regime change through war had become inevitable before it was truly our last option and without broad international support to boot, I quickly began to back off. And as always, thanks for the columns. | ||||||
| 187 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 11:49 |
Gotcha MITH. Understood on your views and thinking. My personal sissy-boy tendencies (fighting is really bad and should always be avoided, unless it's self-defense or like an action movie/video game -- tongue in cheek) led me to my own pre-Iraq war views -- "no, don't do it, they've not done enough to warrant an invasion." Yet, I was in favor of the Kosovo bombing campaign cos that ethnic cleansing stuff was way outta control -- and we had a combined NATO approach. For Iraq, I did not like this U.S.-only approach based on "what if" scenarios and now that you've brought it to my light, arbitary liberation of people (since there are many others that qualify). I guess the counter argument would be that there were a lot of legit reasons to invade Iraq, all stacked up together, that exceeded the threshhold to invade (violations of UN agreements, potential WMDs, evil dictator, unstable oil country, post-9/11 caution). Back to me, while I've never been in combat, war seems like just the worst of all real hell's, and just has to be the last, last, last resort (however that is defined, which varies by person). - walk | ||||||
| 188 | Perm Dude ID: 20104498 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 12:31 |
| ||||||
| 189 | KM ID: 319311512 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 12:37 |
PD, ever see this Santorum interview? I didn't think I could consider him any less nutso. Santorum describing liberals as anti-responsibility. | ||||||
| 190 | Perm Dude ID: 20104498 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 13:12 |
Yeah, I did see that. Sometimes people start really grasping at straws, trying to paint the opposition as anti-anything good. I think we saw that here in Pennsylvania, and it got a little loopy toward the end when nothing would stick to Casey. Casey is a genuinely nice guy, very straight shooter, honest to a fault. Santorum, in looking at Casey, saw what he himself would be if he hadn't sold his soul. I must admit to rather enjoying reading The Corner on NRO. Santorum was a real god to them. | ||||||
| 191 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 13:17 |
"the greater good!" - walk | ||||||
| 192 | soxzeitgeist ID: 188312511 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 14:26 | Allen concedes in VA | ||||||
| 193 | prefek ID: 247581719 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 15:21 |
If Courtney's (D) lead holds in CT-02 the Dems will have grabbed 29 seats from the GOP. The rest of the undeclared house races all look like narrow wins for the various incumbents. Anyone care to weigh in on the TX-23 House race? Henry Bonilla (R) won 60147 votes, which at 48.6% is just shy of the 50% he needed to avoid a runoff. 6 Democrats combined to win 60258 votes. If the result holds, Bonilla will face Ciro Rodriguez (D) in a runoff. Any chance the Dems take this to make it an even 30 gains? | ||||||
| 194 | Toral ID: 52621719 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 17:32 |
193 If Courtney's (D) lead holds in CT-02 the Dems will have grabbed 29 seats from the GOP. The rest of the undeclared house races all look like narrow wins for the various incumbents. 43 "House: DEMS +29 Senate: R 50 D 50 Reps win Tenn, Vir; Dems win Mo, NJ" I felt conflicted about VA, and changed that predik to Allen on E-Day. It did turn out to be the closest race in the nation. Just like in 2004 when I got only the nation's closest race (Iowa) wrong. I only wish that this year I could have used my powers for good, not evil. Toral | ||||||
| 195 | Perm Dude ID: 441045916 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 17:45 |
A split government is good, Toral. Put another way, getting those who would bloat government, expand government reach into private lives, and refuse to be bound by ethical rules out of office is good. | ||||||
| 196 | Tree ID: 491039916 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 17:47 |
btw - one of these guys is one of the new reps from NY State. can you guess which one?
| ||||||
| 197 | J-Bar ID: 371044917 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 18:57 | guess, second from left | ||||||
| 198 | Perm Dude ID: 441045916 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 20:09 | The man in the middle, of course. John Hall, baby! | ||||||
| 199 | KM ID: 319311512 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 20:27 | John Hall and Stephen Colbert sing the national anthem. | ||||||
| 200 | Tree ID: 331039920 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 21:40 | from one of the all time worst record covers, all the way to the House baby! | ||||||
| 201 | KM ID: 319311512 Thu, Nov 09, 2006, 23:35 |
It's a good thing he shaved the beard. People might have thought they were voting for this guy. | ||||||
| 202 | Boxman ID: 40103386 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 15:15 |
Mith: I haven't seen you attempt to define philosophical neoconservatism. then I don't have to read the PNAC's mission statement. Enough said. Enjoy Fantasy Land. | ||||||
| 203 | Perm Dude ID: 131052118 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 15:21 |
ROFL!! Is that all you can say, after getting thumped? Enjoy reality. | ||||||
| 204 | Boxman ID: 40103386 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 15:28 |
ROFL!! Is that all you can say, after getting thumped? The only thumping going on was the marble inside Mith's head. There's a lot more to say, but after reading Mith's own ignorance, even after I provided him the opportunity to look at the Project For A New American Century and he refused to look at it. You can bring the horse to water, but you can't make him _ _ _ _ _. | ||||||
| 205 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 15:37 | ^ another fine example of pointing one finger at someone else, while 3 of your own are pointing right back at you. | ||||||
| 206 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 16:36 |
Well this explains Boxman's position. Boxman firmly believes that an organization (such as PMAC) that subscribes to a particular ideology (such as neoconservatism) will effectively define that ideology through the pursuit of their own agenda. So, according to this "Boxman-logic" (heehee) Christianity dictates that God hates America and has punished us for our sins through 9/11 and the space shuttle explosion. After all, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians and through knowing about Fred Phelps and his organization's agenda, we learn all we need to know about Christianity! Boy, this Boxman logic (heehee) sure makes the world a simple place to understand. I wonder what other philosophies of various complexities we can whittle down to nitty-gritty with this approach. | ||||||
| 207 | Boxman ID: 40103386 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 16:55 |
So, according to this "Boxman-logic" (heehee) Christianity dictates that God hates America and has punished us for our sins through 9/11 and the space shuttle explosion. After all, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians and through knowing about Fred Phelps and his organization's agenda, we learn all we need to know about Christianity! Do you not see the difference between doctrine being teached by the pope (in this case, the President and his cohorts who lead the neo-conservative movement and are still in power) versus a fringe group of Christian radicals? Then do tell, if neo-cons are a fringe group, why aren't there the dominant amount of conservatives from yester-year (results of the recent elections notwithstanding) and instead we are left with the big government "conservative" types? On page 63 of this document, it says, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor. What happened on 9/11/01? Look at the signatories to this document. Names like Wolfowitz and Libby crop up on there amoungst others. All heavily directly involved with the Bush Administration. | ||||||
| 209 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 17:13 |
Do you not see the difference between doctrine being teached by the pope (in this case, the President and his cohorts who lead the neo-conservative movement and are still in power) versus a fringe group of Christian radicals? Oh, my mistake! By all means, substitute the Roman Catholic Church for Westboro Baptist Church. So we know that Christianity dictates that Christians must absolve themselves of their sins through the Holy Sacriment of Reconcilliation, which must be heard and performed by a Cathoilc Priest who received the Holy Sacriment of Holy Orders from a Catholic Bishop. Then do tell, if neo-cons are a fringe group... I've never made a case that neo-cons are a fringe group. I've also never denied that the Bush administration foreign policy has carried out a largely neocon agenda. You are all over the place and it is clear that you haven't bothered to take the time to consider my points at all. Do yourself a favor and stop and read through my posts on the topic again. | ||||||
| 210 | Perm Dude ID: 131052118 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 17:15 | Boxman: Don't even try to drag the Catholics into this. The Roman Catholic Church has been, far and away, one of the biggest critics of the war. | ||||||
| 211 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 17:17 | I also fail to see what that particular excerpt regarding the transformation and modernization of the American military has to do with the discussion or your gross misinterpretations of it and it subjects to this point. | ||||||
| 212 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 17:21 |
PD, Its very hard to tell but I don't believe he intends any operational association between the American foreign policy and the RCC. I think he just cites the Vatican as an authority on Christian ideology, analagous to PMAC, arguing that The Westboro Baptist Church is not a fair comparison to PMAC. But maybe I'm wrong. Like I said he's all over the place. | ||||||
| 213 | Boxman ID: 40103386 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 18:37 |
I've never made a case that neo-cons are a fringe group. You implicated such when you indicated that via the Westboro Baptist Church we learn all we need to know about Christianity. When you made that comparison with your sarcasm in #206, that is precisely what you did. are all over the place and it is clear that you haven't bothered to take the time to consider my points at all. I have read your points and you have now resorted to condensation and insults, so clearly, in my mind it is "case closed". You now have nothing to offer other than flaccid and meaningless insults. It is disturbing that you take that quote from Adelman ("the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world") when it contradicts everything the neoconservatives have done while in power. I imagine you taking the bait in Nazi Germany as well. | ||||||
| 214 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 18:55 |
Not really wanting to wade into a firestorm, but I have to ask Box... How does the quote you reference in 212, contradict anything the neoconservatives have done while in power? It certainly appears to this viewer, to affirm what they have done vs contradict it. | ||||||
| 215 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 19:23 |
I've never made a case that neo-cons are a fringe group. You implicated such when you indicated that via the Westboro Baptist Church we learn all we need to know about Christianity. When you made that comparison with your sarcasm in #206, that is precisely what you did. No. Neocons are obviously not a fringe group. You are totally lost. I wasn't citing the Westboro Baptists as a fringe group. I cited them as an organization that subscribes to a particular ideology - analogous to PMAC. Their level of prominance had nothing to do with the point. This should have been pathetically obvious to you when, after you clamored on about them being a fringe group, I subbed in the Rman Catholic Church as an equally apt example. But you obviously still can't figure it out. I have to wonder whether you really are this thick and stupid or simply prefer to play it off in favor of admitting that your own ideals for American foreign policy are very much neoconservative. If so, whatever gets you through the day. I have read your points and you have now resorted to condensation and insults, so clearly, in my mind it is "case closed". The case that is your mind was closed long before you ever started posting here. The hostilities started you. And you're the one who has substituted them for logic. I'll leave you with the point I have repeatedly made: An encompassing ideology is not accurately defined by the specific agendas of people who happen to subscribe to it. If you really do lack the intelligence to understand the meaning of that statement I don't know how to say it any more simply for you. All I know is that its been my point for two days now and through all of your posts on the matter you haven't acknowledged it. | ||||||
| 216 | Boxman ID: 40103386 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 22:10 |
I am not dense enough to not comprehend that there are bastardizers of every ideology on this planet. What I am telling you is that the neoconservative "concern" over human rights is a trojan horse, an excuse to accomplish other more nefarious goals. Reconcile the signatories to their documents, versus their ideal state (according to Adelman), versus what they have actually done. It cannot be done. You do not preach about being for "human rights", when the advisors to the President (who are signatories to PNAC documentation), do not trumpet and act upon the same ideology that they subscribe to. Are there other neoconservative groups in the world that truly care about Darfur for example? Probably. I'll leave that to you to actually find them. But with no power what good are they? I am referring to the power elite prominent figureheads in the neoconservative movement that are currently running this country. Like how the pope is the figurehead for Catholics, the President and his administration is the figurehead for the neoconservative movement. Sarge: How does the quote you reference in 212, contradict anything the neoconservatives have done while in power? It certainly appears to this viewer, to affirm what they have done vs contradict it. I judge the neoconservative movement based on the actions of those in power who subscribe to that ideology. They are the ones setting the agenda for the group and promoting the core beliefs. Just because someone or a group says they are for something does not actually mean they are for something. This is politics after all. Judge them based on their actions, not their words. The PMAC lays it all out. Please take the couple minutes and glance over their plans for this country via their website. Especially the .pdf file I have referenced. Then look at the signatories for that plan which was written in 2000 and look at their relationships to this administration. Then look at the world around you. We are into roughly year 6 of full bore neoconservative foreign policy which has not led the world anywhere close to the ideological state quoted by Mith's source (Adelman). It has taken us in quite the opposite direction in fact, when we, are the ones doing things that do in fact violate human rights. So not only are the neoconservatives in power not acting upon an alleged core belief, but they are going in the exact opposite direction with running shoes on. Therefore, I charge that human rights was never a goal of the main neoconservative movement to begin with. They care about expanding the American sphere of influence and imperialistic goals. Look no further than what the President says and what is being done. Would human rights hawks permit opium dens, wars for oil, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo? And who is whispering into the ear of the President these past six years? Those same people who are part of an organization who out of one side of their mouth say they are for human rights, but then out the other side of their mouth state that we need another Pearl Harbor as an excuse to buildup the military. | ||||||
| 217 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 374522815 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 23:29 |
I am not dense enough to not comprehend that there are bastardizers of every ideology on this planet. Why it has taken you since Wednesday to show an inkling of understanding of that point I have no idea. You have insisted on defining neconservatism by the prominent neoconservatives. Neoconservatism is an ideology. Often, ideologies are used and/or exploited to pursue selfish or sinister or (at the very least) ulterior agendas. This has obviously (imo) been the case in our Iraq war. I am not a neoconservative. Regarding foreign policy matters, I believe the ideology is flawed. I believe means by which neoconservatism seeks to realize ideals are often not worth the sacrifices they require. Occasionally I can go along with such an endeavor. Kosovo, for those who align it with neocon principles, may be an exception, for example. And the sacrifices there were not great, relatively speaking. And there is notable dispute over whether there is a specific neocon domestic ideology. Anyway, when I call you a neocon, Boxman, I do not necessarily associate you with the dubious agendas of the people who run and influence our foreign policy. I refer specifically to the ideology associated with the term, itself, summed succinctly by the definitions I provided earlier in this thread. Whether you believe current prominent "neocons" share those ideals at heart is irrelevant. The philosophy is what it is and how its ideals are warped by neocons today does not change that. As I've also said, you do yourself a disservice in succumbing to the connotations attributed to labels. Such things are always in a flux. The meanings of words only change when we allow them to. Do I believe Adelman's definition is his true or sole agenda? Almost certainly not. If it is, he's been sorely had by the political apparatus of which he is a part, and I don't think that's very likely. But I've not spoken on his personal agenda. Perhaps now you're coming around to see the difference. I'll add one more thing. While I haven't accused you in this thread of subscribing to the more devious agendas of the architects and administrators of our Iraq war (even as you support it), I will note that in the past you have shown yourself an explicit apologist of the war profiteering that has greatly contributed to failing the liberation of Iraq. To your credit, your more recent posts have backed far away from your previously apologist stance, but as someone who makes an effort to own up to my own mistakes, I will hold you to your words, as well. | ||||||
| 218 | Seattle Zen ID: 46315247 Sun, Nov 12, 2006, 13:52 |
Re 194 It's not hard to say Dems +29 on Tuesday, Toral, when the answer was available on Monday in post 13. I believe that Courtney (D) will win CN 2 and Barrow (D) will hold on in GA 12 for 231 D seats, or Dems +30. | ||||||
| 219 | walk ID: 259313119 Sun, Nov 12, 2006, 14:33 |
Frank Rich's editorial from today's NYT. Awesome. ************** November 12, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist 2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca’ By FRANK RICH OF course, the “thumpin’ ” was all about Iraq. But let us not forget Katrina. It was the collision of the twin White House calamities in August 2005 that foretold the collapse of the presidency of George W. Bush. Back then, the full measure of the man finally snapped into focus for most Americans, sending his poll numbers into the 30s for the first time. The country saw that the president who had spurned a grieving wartime mother camping out in the sweltering heat of Crawford was the same guy who had been unable to recognize the depth of the suffering in New Orleans’s fetid Superdome. This brand of leadership was not the “compassionate conservatism” that had been sold in all those photo ops with African-American schoolchildren. This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean. It’s the kind of conservatism that remains silent when Rush Limbaugh does a mocking impersonation of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms to score partisan points. It’s the kind of conservatism that talks of humane immigration reform but looks the other way when candidates demonize foreigners as predatory animals. It’s the kind of conservatism that pays lip service to “tolerance” but stalls for days before taking down a campaign ad caricaturing an African-American candidate as a sexual magnet for white women. This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion. Harold Ford did lose his race in Tennessee, but by less than three points in a region that has not sent a black man to the Senate since Reconstruction. Only 36 years old and hugely talented, he will rise again even as the last vestiges of Jim Crow tactics continue to fade and Willie Horton ads countenanced by a national political party join the Bush dynasty in history’s dustbin. Elsewhere, the 2006 returns more often than not confirmed that Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, are far better people than this cynical White House takes them for. This election was not a rebuke merely of the reckless fiasco in Iraq but also of the divisive ideology that had come to define the Bush-Rove-DeLay era. This was the year that Americans said a decisive no to the politics of “macaca” just as firmly as they did to pre-emptive war and Congressional corruption. For all of Mr. Limbaugh’s supposed clout, his nasty efforts did not defeat the ballot measure supporting stem-cell research in his native state, Missouri. The measure squeaked through, helping the Democratic senatorial candidate knock out the Republican incumbent. (The other stem-cell advocates endorsed by Mr. Fox in campaign ads, in Maryland and Wisconsin, also won.) Arizona voters, despite their proximity to the Mexican border, defeated two of the crudest immigrant-bashing demagogues running for Congress, including one who ran an ad depicting immigrants menacing a JonBenet Ramsey look-alike. (Reasserting its Goldwater conservative roots, Arizona also appears to be the first state to reject an amendment banning same-sex marriage.) Nationwide, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote fell from 44 percent in 2004 to 29 percent this year. Hispanics aren’t buying Mr. Bush’s broken-Spanish shtick anymore; they saw that the president, despite his nuanced take on immigration, never stood up forcefully to the nativists in his own camp when it counted most, in an election year. But for those who’ve been sickened by the Bush-Rove brand of politics, surely the happiest result of 2006 was saved for last: Jim Webb’s ousting of Senator George Allen in Virginia. It is all too fitting that this race would be the one that put the Democrats over the top in the Senate. Mr. Allen was the slickest form of Bush-Rove conservative, complete with a strategist who’d helped orchestrate the Swift Boating of John Kerry. Mr. Allen was on a fast track to carry that banner into the White House once Mr. Bush was gone. His demise was so sudden and so unlikely that it seems like a fairy tale come true. As recently as April 2005, hard as it is to believe now, Mr. Allen was chosen in a National Journal survey of Beltway insiders as the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2008. Political pros saw him as a cross between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush whose “affable” conservatism and (contrived) good-old-boy persona were catnip to voters. His Senate campaign this year was a mere formality; he began with a double-digit lead. That all ended famously on Aug. 11, when Mr. Allen, appearing before a crowd of white supporters in rural Virginia, insulted a 20-year-old Webb campaign worker of Indian descent who was tracking him with a video camera. After belittling the dark-skinned man as “macaca, or whatever his name is,” Mr. Allen added, “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.” The moment became a signature cultural event of the political year because the Webb campaign posted the video clip on YouTube.com, the wildly popular site that most politicians, to their peril, had not yet heard about from their children. Unlike unedited bloggorhea, which can take longer to slog through than Old Media print, YouTube is all video snippets all the time; the one-minute macaca clip spread through the national body politic like a rabid virus. Nonetheless it took more than a week for Mr. Allen to recognize the magnitude of the problem and apologize to the object of his ridicule. Then he compounded the damage by making a fool of himself on camera once more, this time angrily denying what proved to be accurate speculation that his mother was a closeted Jew. It was a Mel Gibson meltdown that couldn’t be blamed on the bottle. Mr. Allen has a history of racial insensitivity. He used to display a Confederate flag in his living room and, bizarrely enough, a noose in his office for sentimental reasons that he could never satisfactorily explain. His defense in the macaca incident was that he had no idea that the word, the term for a genus of monkey, had any racial connotation. But even if he were telling the truth — even if Mr. Allen were not a racist — his non-macaca words were just as damning. “Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia” was unmistakably meant to demean the young man as an unwashed immigrant, whatever his race. It was a typical example of the us-versus-them stridency that has defined the truculent Bush-Rove fearmongering: you’re either with us or you’re a traitor, possibly with the terrorists. As it happened, the “macaca” who provoked the senator’s self-destruction, S. R. Sidarth, was not an immigrant but the son of immigrants. He was born in Washington’s Virginia suburbs to well-off parents (his father is a mortgage broker) and is the high-achieving graduate of a magnet high school, a tournament chess player, a former intern for Joe Lieberman, a devoted member of his faith (Hindu) and, currently, a senior at the University of Virginia. He is even a football jock like Mr. Allen. In other words, he is an exemplary young American who didn’t need to be “welcomed” to his native country by anyone. The Sidarths are typical of the families who have abetted the rapid growth of northern Virginia in recent years, much as immigrants have always built and renewed our nation. They, not Mr. Allen with his nostalgia for the Confederate “heritage,” are America’s future. It is indeed just such northern Virginians who have been tinting the once reliably red commonwealth purple. Though the senator’s behavior was toxic, the Bush-Rove establishment rewarded it. Its auxiliaries from talk radio, the blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal opinion page echoed the Allen campaign’s complaint that the incident was inflated by the news media, especially The Washington Post. Once it became clear that Mr. Allen was in serious trouble, conservative pundits mainly faulted him for running an “awful campaign,” not for being an awful person. The macaca incident had resonance beyond Virginia not just because it was a hit on YouTube. It came to stand for 2006 as a whole because it was synergistic with a national Republican campaign that made a fetish of warning that a Congress run by Democrats would have committee chairmen who are black (Charles Rangel) or gay (Barney Frank), and a middle-aged woman not in the Stepford mold of Laura Bush as speaker. In this context, Mr. Allen’s defeat was poetic justice: the perfect epitaph for an era in which Mr. Rove systematically exploited the narrowest prejudices of the Republican base, pitting Americans of differing identities in cockfights for power and profit, all in the name of “faith.” Perhaps the most interesting finding in the exit polls Tuesday was that the base did turn out for Mr. Rove: white evangelicals voted in roughly the same numbers as in 2004, and 71 percent of them voted Republican, hardly a mass desertion from the 78 percent of last time. But his party was routed anyway. It was the end of the road for the boy genius and his can’t-miss strategy that Washington sycophants predicted could lead to a permanent Republican majority. What a week this was! Here’s to the voters of both parties who drove a stake into the heart of our political darkness. If you’ll forgive me for paraphrasing George Allen: Welcome back, everyone, to the world of real America. | ||||||
| 220 | R9 ID: 99392020 Sun, Nov 12, 2006, 15:06 | #219, Nice. :) | ||||||
| 221 | Tree ID: 1411442914 Mon, Nov 13, 2006, 10:10 |
Baldwin - you've still yet to really chime in on this election that saw the Dems sweep into power. i'm still curious as to your thoughts and opinions on these winds of change. | ||||||
| 222 | prefek ID: 247581719 Tue, Nov 14, 2006, 16:57 |
A [highly un-scientific] look at poll performances in Senate Election 2006: Based on the data posted yesterday on www.electoral-vote.com, I decided to analyze how all the major pollsters did for future reference. Positive numbers mean favoring Republicans, negative mean favoring Democrats. Shown are the average bias and standard deviations across all the states polled. I abbreviated the pollsters to fit it neatly into a chart. Average is an averaged index of all the polls, such as the one they use at electoral-vote. Maybe others with statistical backgrounds could do a better job of analysis than me. Zogby fared poorly, with his polls all showing varying degrees of republican bias. Research 200, Rasmussen and Mason Dixon all showed around a 2 point Republican bias. Polimetrix fared very well, having very small margins, along with Gallup and Survey USA. | ||||||
| 223 | Tree ID: 1411442914 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 16:17 | so, does anyone know what did happen to Baldwin? he's barely been around since the elections...did he crawl into a cave to lick his wounds to never return? | ||||||
| 224 | Perm Dude ID: 5810382010 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 17:39 | He's having trouble getting out of the suit... | ||||||
| 225 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 17:52 |
Doing his best to make good on his promise to retire, I'm sure. It'll last until his next bout with insomnia. It'll be 3:50am and he'll have read the latest Coulter column for the 6th time and completed his latest computer game. He'll reluctantly pull down the favorites menu, come across a post he can't help but respond to and call Tree a moron. | ||||||
| 226 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 49848118 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 17:55 |
Thats my only 2006 prediction in this thread. OK one more: The NY Jets will go 5-1 over the last 6 games and finish 10-6 on the season. | ||||||
| 227 | Sludge ID: 16109168 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 18:14 |
RE: 222 Looks good. The only thing I would caution is not to go saying that "Zogby fared poorly" while "Polimetrix fared very well, having very small margins, along with Gallup and Survey USA" without qualifying the statements a bit. Browsing through the data, it appeared that Zogby conducted no polls less than a week before the election, while Polimetrix's were conducted but three days before the election. It would perhaps be better to compare the polls spewed forth by a pollster to other polls conducted at or near the same time. | ||||||
| 228 | prefek ID: 4510572917 Wed, Dec 13, 2006, 15:24 |
Ciro Rodriguez (D) Upsets Henry Bonilla (R) in TX-23 Runoff This brings the total number of Dem pickups in the house to an even 30. Barring events in FL-13, the 110th congress will have 233 Dems and 202 Reps, an incrementally bigger majority than the GOP had in the 209th. Polls had been showing Rodriguez down, but closing, in the run-up to the election. My guess is a general dip in GOP support after the general election, and improved prospects of political clout with a Democrat proved a large factor. | ||||||
| 229 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Thu, Sep 20, 2007, 19:00 |
For some reason a couple of people who have written to me in the last few days, on matters unrelated to this post, have mentioned in passing that the Democrats won a “narrow victory” in 2006. Apparently this is conventional wisdom, what you get from reading or watching a lot of commentary. So I thought it might be worth pointing out that it’s absolutely not true. Paul Krugman | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||