How Much is That Politician in the Window?

Nate’s model continues to tighten and even show improvement for Republicans. He is forecasting a 48 seat gain in the House and even a small improvement in the Senate. However, he has a very wide margin of error for which he has caught some criticism. This begs the question: just what will things be like in a House so divided? Will it really be deadlocked for the next two years? Will Shepard Fairey have to print up lithographs that say ‘Same’ rather than ‘Change’?  Instead of ‘Hope’ he could use ‘Apathetic’. I’ll always remember this election as the one where change went to die.

I’m normally a big cheerleader for 538 but this is one instance where I hope Nate has been too cautious..

In other more local news, I owe Rachel Maddow a debt of gratitude for eviscerating the nut job who is trying to unseat my representative, Pete DeFazio.  It’s unlikely that anyone could unseat the well-loved DeFazio but I also had that feeling about Governor Kitzhaber. Nate is forecasting a slight probability that Kitzhaber will lose to Chris Dudley, a mediocre former basketball player.  Dudley has raised twice as much campaign money as Kitzhaber primarily; and not surprisingly, through timber barons and Nike founder Phil Knight

The best thing about the interview on Thursday with Art Robinson was exposing how kooky climate deniers are and show how ridiculous this Citizens United nonsense really is. The interview is painful to watch but it pretty much showed what a fruit loop Robinson is.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to How Much is That Politician in the Window?

  1. shiloh says:

    Watched the Art Robinson interview er encounter er confrontation on Thursday ~ quite entertaining. lolThen watched Rachel further eviscerate Robinson on Friday w/her opening segment.>Robinson’s hero, racist G. A. Henty would have been soooo proud!

  2. Monotreme says:

    The blog software has apparently decided I can no longer post at “Chicken Entrails”. My attempts just vaporize, no warning.So, I’m trying it here.@shrinkers, the comment about “Waterloo” was Sen. Jim DeMint:http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/audio-of-jim-demint-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/

  3. mclever says:

    I think we’ll see divided government and gridlock. It will (hopefully) remind people why they voted Republicans out two years ago, just in time for 2012. In the meantime…People who say they want gridlock and also complain about government costs must have forgotten how much it cost the last time the Republicans shut down the government for a few days. Shutting down the government is expensive!And, when we have real problems that need real solutions, the opportunity cost of gridlock and/or shutdown is almost incalculable. While I always remain hopeful, I have serious concerns about our country for the next two years.

  4. shrinkers says:

    I think we’ll see divided government and gridlock. It will (hopefully) remind people why they voted Republicans out two years ago, just in time for 2012. To the extent that the voting public is angry, the anger is coming mostly from the state of the economy.Regardless of whether the Republicans win a majority in either chamber of Congress, they’re going to crow and shout about how many seats they picked up, and how this is a “refudiation” of Obama/Democrats. Which means the next two years will be entirely on the Republicans’ heads.Gridlock — or even just continued Republican obstructionism — means that nothing will happen to improve the economy. We can expect things to get worse, possibly even achieving that “double-dip recession” that Bart keeps praying for.But this will, rightfully, be laid right at the Republicans’ doorstep. Especially since they will be shouting about how the public has “rejected” “Obama, Pelosi, and Reid” and embraced the Republican extremist idea of dismantling the gubmint.So yes, 2012 could well be a counter-revolt against the know-nothing do-nothing GOteaPers. Look for Obama to be reelected in a landslide, and for any Republican gains this year to be short-lived.After all — live by the roadblock, die by the roadblock. You stand in the middle of the highway shouting “NO!” for long enough, you’re going to simply get run over.

  5. shrinkers says:

    And as another indication that Teapers should not be allowed in front of cameras, everyone has heard about Paladino’s homophobic remarks the other day, right?

  6. Undeniable says:

    I came away from the interview with a different impression. That being that Rachel Maddow is the fruit loop.

  7. filistro says:

    I watched Art Robinson in open-mouthed amazement. I mean… Jeez. Stunning.Has there ever been a year when one major party has fielded a slate of candidates so totally WEIRD?How weird are they? At least half a dozen local races have gone national just because of the sheer batshit-craziness of the Republican candidate. Sharron Angle, Karl Paldino, Art Robinson, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Ken Buck… who am I missing?These people are all seriously a few fries short of a Happy Meal. And while it’s all exciting when we’re caught up in the down-to-the-wire, nail-biting minutiae of a an election, I truly do wonder what’s going to happen in that gritty sobering-up period when the party is over and in the harsh light of morning there’s nothing but scattered dinnerware and spilled drinks on the floor.What will the image of the Republican party be after the election madness has ended and sanity has begun to reassert itself?It will be fascinating, won’t it? Terrible for the country and the world, a dreadful train wreck, but nonetheless… fascinating.

  8. filistro says:

    @ Undeniable I came away from the interview with a different impression. That being that Rachel Maddow is the fruit loop.Why? because she tried hard to get him to answer questions about HIS OWN WRITINGS?Yeah, I guess that was pretty crazy, all right.

  9. Undeniable says:

    Hardly, filistro. She openly laughed at his campaign ad and immediately implied he accepted illegal campaign contributions. She also rambled about AIDS and hormesis. She was clearly trying to play *gotcha* and be combative rather than seriously ask questions about relevant topics. It’s slop journalism pure and simple and the kind of shit that makes Sean Hannity look like Walter Cronkite by comparison.

  10. Monotreme says:

    Yeah, cuz he’s a scientist. And a darn good one, too.And he has his talking points, and he sticks to them really gud.Whereas she’s just an Oxford DPhil who wrote her thesis on AIDS. So what does she know?

  11. shiloh says:

    She was clearly trying to play *gotcha* and be combative rather than seriously ask questions about relevant topics.~~~~~This is what happens when the interviewee won’t answer the questions er is combative! Robinson could have just said, he’s not going to answer or the question isn’t relevant, which would have still made him look bad, but by makin’ it all about Rachel and her ulterior motives Robinson looked even worse, eh.Rachel is not running for political office, Robinson is and if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.>One of the reasons Robinson probably chose to appear is ’cause he knew he had no chance of beating DeFazio regardless. His campaign is all about him and not the voters in his district.

  12. filistro says:

    From Wiki…Radiation hormesis has not been accepted by either the United States National Research Council[21], or the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.[22] In addition, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report:[23]… (followed by a lengthy, detailed, albeit polite debunking of “hormesis.”)But hey… ART ROBINSON believes in it! So the interviewer shouldn’t “ramble” about it… just accept it. In fact… let’s all get out there into the radioactive soup. Let the kids wade in it. It’s good for us! ART ROBINSON says so!And these people are probably going to be running the country again. The mind boggles.

  13. mclever says:

    For those concerned about proper usage, I should point out that the phrase “begs the question” is commonly misused to mean “raises the question,” which is technically incorrect.Begging the question refers to a logical fallacy where one’s premise is assumed true without proof other than the statement itself. The simplest examples fall in the form: “A is true because (paraphrase) A.” Begging the question.Because of widespread misuse of “begs the question”, the meaning can be understood in context. However, one should be aware that they are misusing the term, so they can decide if they wish to continue doing so or not.For those who don’t care about usage, feel free to ignore this post! I don’t want to ruffle feathers. I just saw this as a point of information/interest.:-)

  14. mclever says:

    BTW, for those concerned about proper usage, I should point out that the phrase “begs the question” is commonly misused to mean “raises the question,” which is technically incorrect.Begging the question refers to a logical fallacy where one’s premise is assumed true without proof other than the statement itself. The simplest examples fall in the form: “A is true because (paraphrase) A.” Begging the question.Because of widespread misuse of “begs the question”, the meaning can be understood in context. However, one should be aware that they are misusing the term, so they can decide if they wish to continue doing so or not.For those who don’t care about usage, feel free to ignore this post! I don’t want to ruffle feathers. I just saw this as a point of information/interest.Now back to the discussion at hand…:-)

  15. mclever says:

    My posts aren’t going through, but maybe I can turn off the bold…:-(

  16. filistro says:

    @mclever.. My posts aren’t going through,Damn! I hate the thought of missing ANY mcleverisms at all… It’s unforgivably presumptuous of me to give advice to somebody so much more tech-savvy… but when I couldn’t get my posts to go through, shrinkers told me to clear my cache and it actually worked…

  17. Undeniable says:

    “she’s just an Oxford DPhil who wrote her thesis on AIDS”And the best she can do with that is provide left-leaning op-eds on MSNBC?How is that supposed to impress me?

  18. mclever says:

    Aw, thanks, filistro. :-)Trust me, it’s no great loss to the thread if my post about misuse of the term “begging the question” gets lost in the ether. It’s probably good to censor me if I’m getting overly pedantic.Oh well…

  19. Undeniable says:

    I never said Maddow should just accept what Robinson says and move on but she’s rambling about topics that rank incredibly low on the country’s priority list. Let’s discuss jobs, taxes, the minimum wage, a smart energy policy, ending our military conflicts, and the like rather than get over the crap she brought up. And the fact remains that she implicated him in illegal activities with no evidence to back that up. Maddow is a clown.

  20. Undeniable says:

    Filistro, it can’t be any worse than the absolute fruitcakes and batshit crazy nutjob Democrats that are in power right now. David Axelrod’s comments on Face the Nation make it obvious that this administration has gotten drunk off of too much power.

  21. Mr. Universe says:

    “Maddow is a clown”If you think she is a bigger clown than Robinson then it sux to be in your circus.

  22. filistro says:

    @ mclever.. “overly pedantic” is, in my opinion, an oxymoron. At the least, an impossibility.When it comes to proper word usage, one simply cannot be… 🙂

  23. Undeniable says:

    The fact that she’s nothing more than a political junkie on a third-rate cable news sation says it all. Of course, there’s no sense in arguing logic with a bunch of babies since you all are too busy whining and crying or simply pissing your pants when you don’t get your way. Need a diaper changed, you annoying little shits?

  24. mclever says:

    I think Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest commentators on TV these days. Unlike the scream jockeys, she generally maintains a polite and good-natured demeanor regardless of the topic, which is conducive to better discussion. When she is able to engage with someone who also can intelligently and capably express their views, the conversation is usually enlightening and entertaining. (Consider most of Rachel’s exchanges with Pat Buchanan, for example.) There are times when I think she overstates her position, but when the other person is capable of calling her on it, she’s also generally willing to concede the point. I consider this a huge plus in her favor.Aside from his flawed ideas, Art Robinson’s problem seems to be that he wasn’t interested in engaging or discussing, only in making sure he got to say his talking points regardless of what she actually asked. He did a lot of shouting over her before she could even frame her question.:-)

  25. filistro says:

    @Undeniable… ***?

    Hi Muley! Took you long enough to get here… but welcome.

  26. shiloh says:

    @UndeniableIt’s slop journalism pure and simple and the kind of shit that makes Sean Hannity look like Walter Cronkite by comparison.~~~~~Coincidentally …Rachel Maddow Wins Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom AwardMSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has been named a Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award winner by The Interfaith Alliance.“Rachel’s passionate coverage of the intersection of religion and politics exhibits a strong personal intellect coupled with constitutional sensitivity to the proper boundaries between religion and government,” Interfaith Alliance president Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy says in a press release.Previous Cronkite honorees include Tom Brokaw, Larry King, and the late Peter Jennings. Maddow will receive her award at an October 24 dinner in Manhattan.~~~~~take care, blessings

  27. Mr. Universe says:

    Ooooh. Learning moment. ‘Begs the question’. How is that wrong?

  28. Monotreme says:

    @Undeniable,He accepted the guest slot on her show as an adult, in full knowledge of what he was getting into.It’s really a simple contract when you go on any TV show. You get to pound your message across and shill for your product (in this case, his candidacy), and in return, the guest asks you questions.They can be hardball or softball questions, depending on the show, but the contract is the same.It started off badly. Robinson didn’t even attempt to answer anything that resembled her questions, but rather began a disjointed diatribe on topics which, as you say, “rank incredibly low on the country’s priority list.” If you listen to the tape, I don’t think you’ll hear very much substantive discussion from his end of “jobs, taxes, the minimum wage, a smart energy policy, ending our military conflicts, and the like” … rather than the crap he brought up.She never implicated him in illegal activities. She asked if he knew the source of the $150K. When he claimed not to know, she asked him if he was concerned that it might come from activities he didn’t agree with or condone.However, I would submit that campaign finance reform and the source of his campaign funds are fair questions, and ones that he should expect to get during the course of his campaign.

  29. Mr. Universe says:

    Ooooh. Shiloh smackdown!

  30. mclever says:

    filistro, I suppose it’s good to know someone appreciates proper usage! Most of my pet peeves revolve improper usage of words or expressions, and when I’m guilty I like to be informed of such.Using “begs the question” to mean “raises the question” happens to be one of those pet peeves of mine. Aristotle defined begging the question as the logical fallacy of assuming the premise in one’s conclusion. (A is true because [paraphrase] A.) I’ve been hearing it more and more lately, mostly by people who I thought should know better.

  31. Monotreme says:

    @Undeniable,You’re crossing a line.If you don’t tone it down a bit, and at least make an attempt to avoid personal characterization of other posters, you’re going to find your comments disappearing into the bit bucket.This is a moderated blog. It’s lightly moderated, and we tolerate a lot of nonsense, but name-calling is over the line.

  32. Mr. Universe says:

    Actually, after the Rand Paul debacle I’m surprised anyone would take on a Rhodes Scholar like Rachel

  33. Undeniable says:

    I don’t know what part of her laughing openly at him and his campaign ad you people don’t understand. She’s just another liberal blowhard that represents a dark and depressing segment of American society.

  34. shiloh says:

    @FiliHi Muley! Took you long enough to get here… but welcome.~~~~~Was thinkin’ the same thought, but still not convinced.hmm, maybe your post is hopin’ for a gut you like a fish! reply lol>There’s a certain joie de vivre/je ne sais quoi 🙂 to Mule’s posts that Undeniable doesn’t have yet. ;)Just sayin’

  35. Undeniable says:

    “I’m surprised anyone would take on a Rhodes Scholar like Rachel”Again waiting on an intelligent explanation of why such a brilliant mind is going to waste as a political junkie at a third-rate cable news station.

  36. Undeniable says:

    Ooooooohhhh! You put the fear of god in me with a threat of moderation. How dare I come in and disrupt the echo chamber and get all five of you’s panties in a bunch! Moderate away. Be my guest. It doesn’t change the fact that Maddow is a clown and that most of you are clowns.

  37. mclever says:

    Mr. Universe,Begging the question is a translation from Latin, meaning to assume the premise without proof. It’s a logical fallacy where one’s conclusion is essentially just restating the original question. An example:”Republican policies are best for America because lower taxes, reduced regulation, and tougher social laws are good for America.”Basically, restating the premise as the conclusion does nothing to prove the truth of the premise.From the perspective of logic and philosophy, “begs the question” does not mean “calls to question” or “raises the question.”

  38. Undeniable says:

    Somebody referred this site to me saying it was an intelligent liberal blog. I figured it was bs, of course, because “intelligent liberal” is an oxymoron but I had to see for myself.

  39. Mr. Universe says:

    @mcleverInteresting. I used the phrase just as an offhand habit much like people misuse the word ‘mischeivous’ because it’s frequently misused. Good to know the Aristotle reference.

  40. shortchain says:

    Undeniable,Well, until you arrived to bring the level of discussion down, and simply assert your version of events as “undeniable”, it was pretty intelligent.If I simply assert, for example, that Rachel Maddow is, hands down, the most intelligent talk-show host on today, and that you are completely and ridiculously incorrect, does that mean you’ll go up in a puff of smoke (having been denied, and therefore proven not to have existed, in a reductio ad absurdem fashion)?

  41. Mr. Universe says:

    @Undeniably obtuseWhat took you so long, muley?

  42. mclever says:

    Mr. U, always pleased when I can teach (or be taught) something. To me, life is about learning.:-)

  43. Jean says:

    Undeniable Muley,re: Somebody referred this site to me saying it was an intelligent liberal blog. I figured it was bs, of course, because “intelligent liberal” is an oxymoron but I had to see for myself.———All of your rocket-science right-wing friends are over in Glenbeckistan.http://mediamatters.org/research/201010110002

  44. Undeniable says:

    You can assert all you want but the fact is that she isn’t all that popular compared to her peers in that time slot. Intelligent she may be, but what she’s sharing, not very many people want to hear.

  45. Undeniable says:

    Perplexed by the mule refernce. Is this hazing or some kind of inside joke? Or a political play on words, as in mules /= donkeys?

  46. shiloh says:

    @UndeniableAgain waiting on an intelligent explanation of why such a brilliant mind is going to waste as a political junkie at a third-rate cable news station.~~~~~As Jack Nicholson er Col. Jessep said in A Few Good Men, Please tell me that you have something more …btw, don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply to your ad hominem false premise, eh.>ok (3) posts in a row from Undeniable er MR lolWelcome aboard Mule! :DIndeed sad that Charles has more willpower than Mule. ;)>Perplexed indeed! as that has always been your M.O.Just sayin’take care, blessings

  47. mclever says:

    Undeniable: You can assert all you want but the fact is that she isn’t all that popular compared to her peers in that time slot.Which says more about the taste and/or intelligence of the average TV viewer than it does about the quality of what she’s offering. Britney Spears sells more CDs than the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, but that doesn’t mean her music is better. Popularity doesn’t define quality.:-)

  48. shortchain says:

    This thread is turning into a cornucopia of logical fallacy material. Begs the question, or its close relative, argument by assertion (Undie’s favorite, obviously), followed by argument ad hominem (at 12:08), and now by Argumentum ad numerum).He keeps repeating the same stuff, too, which indicates a belief in Argumentum ad nauseam).But my comment was to the effect that, now that you have been denied you will cease to exist. You don’t have to be wrong (although, in my opinion, you are) to be denied, hence deniable, hence … poof!

  49. filistro says:

    mclever… what fascinates me is the process by which a wrong usage manages to take root, burrow in deeply, spread widely and somehow become the norm.For example… at least half a dozen times in the past year, in national media, I’ve seen the execrable “flaunt” instead of “flout” at levels where such an error should never appear.As in, “These students have openly flaunted authority…” How does this happen? “Flaunt” is no easier to say than “flout”… it’s not more colorful, or vivid in any way…in fact the two words are almost identical. By what insidious process is the incorrect one gradually managing to supplant the other?Soon “flout” will go the way of “nauseated.” Nobody ever feels nauseated any more.. they are always “nauseous.” (A linguistic development I find both nauseous and noxious… 🙂

  50. shiloh says:

    hmm, a certain symmetry …Bartles is on vacation.Jeffrey has been makin’ a 24/7 fool of himself!and thenand thenand then Mule shows up. :)>The Apocalypse is upon us …

  51. mclever says:

    shortchain, With all the logical fallacies, we’re only missing reductio ad absurdum.:-)

  52. Realist says:

    @Undeniable,You did fine until your 11:43AM post, at which point you pulled out the ad hominems. People can respectfully disagree on much without resorting to personal attacks.If you would like to have intelligent discourse, I’d strongly advise you keep the personal stuff out of it.Now, I watched the interview, and I agree that she was looking to ridicule him, but he didn’t help his cause. I’ve known a number of Caltech people in my life who are in roughly the same vein…they have some odd notions that are loosely based on science, but it’s typically based on openmindedness (often, though not always coupled with application of hallucinogenic drugs). It’s certainly possible that we’re talking about such an individual there.Even if we are, I can assure you that I wouldn’t want one of them representing me in Congress. They have far better use in the lab than in making laws. Just like I wouldn’t want someone who’s a concert pianist to be performing brain surgery on me (assuming that the pianist weren’t also coincidentally a great brain surgeon).

  53. mclever says:

    filistro, I’m right there with you! 🙂

  54. mclever says:

    Undeniable, re: the “Mule” references, your style and perspective are reminding the other contributors on this blog of someone who frequently posted over at Nate’s original 538 site.They are assuming that you are their old “friend” and responding accordingly. While there are stunning similarities in phrasing choices and point of view, whether you are or are not, in fact, “Mule Rider” remains to be seen.I would remind the others that it’s probably best to ask rather than assume when a new identity begins posting here.

  55. filistro says:

    shiloh… remember how “shots” was always similarly puzzled by the “Mule” references… as in “who is this Mule person you all speak of?”LOL.

  56. Mr. Universe says:

    @Undeniable”Perplexed by the Mule reference”Of course you are. We can call you ‘shots’ if you like. And thanks for baiting me with the obvious opportunity to use the word ‘ass’.

  57. shiloh says:

    btw, Mr. U now has Mule’s email addy ~ unless Mule is using the local library. ;)be afraid, be very afraid!Too funny as you can never have enough winger troll comic relief! 🙂

  58. Undeniable says:

    You can call me a 4-eyed mongoloid fatass for all I care. If you prefer puerile nicknames to what I go by, I can’t stop you nor do I care to. Again, back to the quality of Ms. Maddown, I ask why she’s wasting her Rhodes Scholar and phD intellect as a follow-up noisemaker to Keith Olbermann? Surely someone of her intelligence has much more potential than that, no?

  59. shortchain says:

    I’ll take long odds on the bet that she makes more than all of us together. By the way, your argument there is another fallacy, the “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” one, AKA “Argumentum ad crumenam”.)But even if not, who are you to cavil at what someone else wants to do for a living? After all, you apparently have decided to throw your efforts down the toilet, for all they’re having any effect even moving anyone’s opinions a micron.

  60. mclever says:

    Undeniable, As to why Ms. Maddow is “wasting her Rhodes Scholar and PhD intellect”, perhaps she enjoys the TV gig. Not everyone can land one of those jobs, especially not your average academic.Frankly, that someone with such strong academic credentials can land a job requiring personality, charisma and conversational skills reflects very positively on her broad-ranging talents.

  61. shiloh says:

    One wonders how much time it took and what was the thought process 😉 in picking his new nom de plume ‘Undeniable’.Or not lolProbably the same as Above My Paygrade

  62. Undeniable says:

    It’s a valid question to ask why, if she’s as smart as everyone says she is, she’s stumbling along at MSNBC and not putting her gifts to better use? And I hardly see how my comments here are a referendum on what I’m doing with my life. By the way, I was under no false pretense that I would influence anyone with the things I say.

  63. filistro says:

    Rachel Maddow is #9 on Forbes List of the 10 Most Powerful Women in Media … and #50 on the Forbes list of the 100 Most Powerful Women in the World.Oddly enough… not many pure academics made either list 🙂

  64. Undeniable says:

    Alright, it’s lunchtime. That’s enough fun for one day. I’ll catch you squibs at some later date or possibly in a circus freak show or something.

  65. Undeniable says:

    Ranked below such luminaries as Sarah Palin and Chelsea Handler. That must be galling.

    That was it. Gotta run for real this time.

  66. shiloh says:

    For the record …Most, if no all of my begs the question(s): are sarcasm.Which begs the question:What does Aristotle have to say about sarcasm …

  67. Jeff says:

    For what it’s worth, here’s another interesting comment, from Stuart Gottlieb Director of policy studies, the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University :We all know politics ain’t beanbag. And we all know that campaigns can bring out the worst in everyone, especially in a campaign season like this one. And we all know that the idea that Obama was going to “transform American politics” was a myth, much like the Yeti, or its North American cousin, the Sasquatch.But Obama and the DNC’s baseless attacks on alleged foreign corporate donations to conservative political campaign organizations — as if private liberal campaign groups have not reaped in tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed corporate and other funding sources since 2006 — is simply astounding.Let’s put it this way: When the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News all declare the attacks to be without merit, something, somewhere, has gone very, very, wrong in Democratic Party Land.Take a look at this video clip from yesterday’s Face the Nation. When Bob Schieffer says to David Axelrod “three weeks out of an election … is that the best you can do?” tell me Axelrod did not look just like Dan Quayle after Lloyd Bentsen hit him with the “you’re no Jack Kennedy” line in the 1988 vice presidential debate.

  68. Realist says:

    @Jeff,I find it fascinating to watch this. You’re right, it’s all innuendo and baseless attacks, since it’s only possible, not certain that there’s foreign money involved.What I find fascinating about it is that it’s the same sort of attacks Republicans have used in recent years. I really want to know why it works so well when Republicans use it against Democrats, and so badly in the other direction.

  69. filistro says:

    Let’s put it this way: When the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News all declare the attacks to be without merit, something, somewhere, has gone very, very, wrong in Democratic Party Land.LOL… yes, the response has been instant, noisy and widespread, hasn’t it? And poor Karl Rove is practically incoherent with righteous indignation at this dastardly slur. Gillespie, ditto.It reminds me of tossing a handful of rocks over a brick wall into the hyena compound. If you hear an immediate cacophony of yelps, howls, whines and frenzied barking, you know you’ve hit a target-rich environment 🙂

  70. shortchain says:

    Jeff,Except that not even the GOP thinks that the money the Democrats have received came from overseas donors.While nobody knows where the Chamber of Commerce gets its money from. And they refuse to say, hiding behind legal disclosure statutes.Don’t you want to know?

  71. mclever says:

    Realist, that’s an excellent question.When Republicans use the same tactics, why are they embraced and successful, while the Democrats, not so much?

  72. Realist says:

    @shortchainExcept that not even the GOP thinks that the money the Democrats have received came from overseas donors.Oh, really? Do you remember this issue:http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/02/07/272816/index.htmThis is hardly a new topic.

  73. shortchain says:

    Jeff,Sure, taking in a few thousand bucks from Buddhist nuns (which donation wasn’t exactly a secret, now was it?) is completely equivalent to foreign entities about whom we know nothing — it could be the Saudi royal family or the Bin Laden family for all that we know.You know, you’ve got a severe case of inability to keep things in perspective. That log in your eye distorts the size of the mote in the other guy’s.

  74. shiloh says:

    @JeffreyFor what it’s worth,~~~~~hmm, the old everybody does it excuse er deflection when there’s no documentation showing this is true.Bottom line, Reps have always been better at scorched earth fear monger campaigns since the late ’60s, it’s just a fact. It’s what Reps do to win elections ie stoke the flames, misinform, 527 swift boat, Willie Horton campaigning. The LCD effect, as a rule, usually takes the prize.Again, deflection, deflection deflection and pay no attention to cheney/bush behind the curtain FUBAR’ing America. If the routine works lol stay w/it.It really is amazing Barack Hussein Obama got (69.5) million votes, but hey, after (8) years of cheney/bush all things were possible, eh. ;)>btw, this thread went from 63 posts to 47, then to 55, back to 47 lol as “we” had an old friend drop by. 🙂 carry on

  75. Realist says:

    @shortchain,You have a bit of a hair trigger there. It was me that posted the link about Al Gore. I posted it because I wanted to remind you that the GOP has, in fact, made such claims in the past.

  76. shortchain says:

    Ooops. Yup, that’s one of my personal faults. Apologies to you, and apologies to Jeff.

  77. Mr. Universe says:

    I haven’t moderated anyone. Must be Treme.

  78. Monotreme says:

    Mr. U said:I haven’t moderated anyone. Must be Treme.Some sort of glitch in the software, I’m sure.

  79. Mr. Universe says:

    Seriously, did somebody dump all of Undeniable’s comments? I promised I wouldn’t do that unless somebody made threats.

  80. Mr. Universe says:

    Hey Republicans have another nut running for office. This one is a Nazi re-enactor. Just double down on the crazy.

  81. shiloh says:

    @JeffreyLet’s put it this way: When the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News all declare the attacks to be without merit, something, somewhere, has gone very, very, wrong in Democratic Party Land.~~~~~Factually incorrect as The NYT and WP did not declare the attacks to be without merit: ~ NYT ~ “It is impossible for an outsider to know whether the group is following its rules” … WP ~ “The Chamber still hasn’t addressed in any detail the core allegation against it”>Jeffrey, please provide source documents re: The NYT’s, WP and CBS News saying the claims against the Chamber were w/out merit.Otherwise one should apologize for providing false information.btw, Ed Gillespie is never a good source for factual information.>And in the future it would be wise to provide source documents for your erroneous declarative statements as it would save you further embarrassment, eh.Just sayin’take care, blessings

  82. Number Seven says:

    Ok, Undeniable, what would you suggest Rachel do with her gifts?

  83. Jeff says:

    Re foreign money:From Factcheck: http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/Obama, Oct. 7: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources.New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.And to shiloh, who said: “And in the future it would be wise to provide source documents for your erroneous declarative statements as it would save you further embarrassment, eh.”===========shiloh, one of your problems is that you don’t seem to read the post before you go off on an off-kilter attack. If you actually went to the intellectual effort of READING, instead of scanning for the topic, then jumping in with an ad hominen attack that begs the question, you might have something to contribute.Following is what I wrote. You will note that I said “for what it’s worth” then quoted a Yale professor with a fairly distinguished background. Not quite the same as a declarative statement. You’d do better if you put brain in gear before engaging fingers (although it’s been my suspicion that engaging your fingers on the keyboard gets your rocks off):10/11/2010 2:35 PM Jeff wrote:For what it’s worth, here’s another interesting comment, from Stuart Gottlieb, Director of policy studies, the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University :We all know politics ain’t beanbag. And we all know that campaigns can bring out the worst in everyone, especially in a campaign season like this one. And we all know that the idea that Obama was going to “transform American politics” was a myth, much like the Yeti, or its North American cousin, the Sasquatch.But Obama and the DNC’s baseless attacks on alleged foreign corporate donations to conservative political campaign organizations — as if private liberal campaign groups have not reaped in tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed corporate and other funding sources since 2006 — is simply astounding.Let’s put it this way: When the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News all declare the attacks to be without merit, something, somewhere, has gone very, very, wrong in Democratic Party Land.Take a look at this video clip from yesterday’s Face the Nation. When Bob Schieffer says to David Axelrod “three weeks out of an election … is that the best you can do?” tell me Axelrod did not look just like Dan Quayle after Lloyd Bentsen hit him with the “you’re no Jack Kennedy” line in the 1988 vice presidential debate.

  84. shiloh says:

    @JeffreyLet’s put it this way: When the New York Times, Washington Post, and CBS News all declare the attacks to be without merit, something, somewhere, has gone very, very, wrong in Democratic Party Land.~~~~~Jeffrey, you still haven’t provided any source reference to prove your above statement.But you did provide a rather long, song and dance deflection that did not address my post.Congrats on being consistent! :)Still waiting on proof re: The NYT’s, WP which of course was the main point of my post.although we all know now Bob Schieffer is the official spokesman for CBS news.Indeed, reading comprehension deficit is still your problem, not mine.Also, it’s possible to discuss (1) section of a post where someone makes an undocumented statement and ignore the rest, especially when the rest is not relevant to said discussion, as was the case w/your post. Your song and dance deflection notwithstanding.take care

  85. Realist says:

    @shiloh,I think you’re missing the point. Stuart Gottleib, not Jeff, was making the claim that you quote. Perhaps Gottleib was making it up. But, frankly, I don’t think the attacks have merit, either. We’re talking about the possibility of foreign dollars. Sure, it’s possible. But you know as well as I do that there is no evidence, and cannot ever be any evidence absent a paper trail.

  86. shilohbuster says:

    Whoooooooooaaaaaa!!! shiloh jes got beyotch-slapped!! Take that you dumbASS!!! As Jeffy-doodle sez, pokin’ that keyboard is just like strokin’ that minimus clitoris you call a wee-nus!! Now shut yer effin’ mouth, mouth-breather!!

  87. shiloh says:

    @RealistSince there was no link provided, and Jeffrey’s er Gottlieb’s statement was not in italics or used parentheses one could not assume who got credit for said hyperbole, eh.Again Gottlieb or Jeffrey, the statement re: the NYT’s and WP is untrue until verifiable documentation is provided.>Indeed, it would help if Jeffrey knew the simple rules of posting at political blogs ie plagiarism. As I could quote any fool to prove my point and it still wouldn’t make what is contained that quote true …

  88. shiloh says:

    shilohbuster are you off your meds?Rhetorical question.take care

  89. Realist says:

    Well, shilohbuster, that was an incredible waste of ones and zeros.

  90. shilohbuster says:

    shiloh are you still reading at a 3rd grade level? rhetorical questionhugs and kisses

  91. shiloh says:

    @RealistWell, shilohbuster, that was an incredible waste of ones and zeros.~~~~~~~~~~Reminds me of USN Data Systems Technician school at Vallejo, CA in 1981.Had one instructor who could add/subtract base 16 er hex in his head!I digress.

  92. shilohbuster says:

    Realist? Pardon the Interruption?

    Talk about an incredible waste of oxygen! With a dying climate no less!!

  93. Housekeeping says:

    Just tidying up here…

  94. mclever says:

    I agree with Realist here, shiloh. While it’s important to provide sources and links where possible, we’re commenting on a blog, not writing academic dissertations, so it’s not unforgivable for us to miss a link or footnote or two or three. Although I might disagree with the conclusion he draws, I thought Jeff’s attribution was clear enough for me to Google it for myself if I really wanted to challenge him on it. I think such accusations distract from the real argument here.In the case of alleged foreign contributions, I think it’s a bunch of argument by assertion all around, with both sides accusing the other of wrongdoing. (And apparently the Republican’s assertions are getting more press attention from the so-called liberal media. Go figure.)The real problem, as you note, is that we *don’t* know whether any of it is true. From what I can tell, it looks like there’s more smoke-n-mirrors on the Republican side this cycle, but there’s no way to actually verify things because of the lack of oversight and accountability. That’s the real problem with allowing unrestricted contributions by these tertiary political groups that have no accountability and no vote.I’m all for campaign finance reform!

  95. shiloh says:

    @HousekeepingJust tidying up here…~~~~~lol it’s impossible to tidy up after shilohbuster er shots er Michael er Undeniable er Mule Rider er whatever crashes the party! :DApparently Undeniable was upset 😉 I made fun of his current name yesterday so Einstein spent all night thinkin’ of another name and Bartbuster entered his microscopic lobe and Eureka! …shilohbuster was born.Again, I am truly honored to have my own groupie.take care Mule 🙂

  96. filistro says:

    @shiloh… Again, I am truly honored to have my own groupie.I wish *I* had one. (Because if I did it would be filibuster… and that would be so cool 🙂

  97. shilohbuster says:

    LOL, you are too cute, shi-town!! Like a little limp-wristed jackal!! You flatter yourself calling me a groupie! As if I could disturb you in this little orgy of true believers!!

  98. shiloh says:

    @mcleverI thought Jeff’s attribution was clear enough for me to Google it for myself if I really wanted to challenge him on it.~~~~~Again, I was challenging the content of his post w/my reply more than the source be it Jeffrey er Gottlieb ~ I wanted proof!Whether it may or may not be true, ie where the money is coming from, basically is irrelevant to said discussion as my only point was that the NYT’s and WP did not declare an affirmative statement one way or the other re: campaign donations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.>Ah political semantics ad nauseam minutia …

  99. shilohbuster says:

    Soooooo, basically you have no point er leg to stand on, eh shiloh? Something we knew all along. Speaking of ad nauseum, that’s what comes to mind seeing your neverending petulant diatribes! So how bout keeping your Scrooge McSourGrapes act to yourself for a while and give the rest of us a breather! M’kay?hugs and kisses and burning pisses

  100. shiloh says:

    Mule, as mentioned previously it was too funny when Nate censored all your posts the last (2) wks at the old blog when comment moderation was turned on … after you had ridiculed Nate and 538 ad nauseam 😉 w/every expletive in the dictionary, going so far as to threaten to kill Nate!And in the final two months you kept deriding Nate and his move to the NYT’s sayin’ you were done for the umpteenth time and would never frequent the Nate’s new gig at the Times. Also sayin’ you would never appear at Mr. U’s new blog …and thenand thenand thenlike a winger troll lemming to the sea 🙂 you were one of the first to show up at The NYT’s and offer your tidbits of inanity.Shocking!Consequentially, after the initial rush at Nate’s new site has inevitably died down to a slight murmur, you have now found your way to Mr. U’s “new” blog to continue your childish ways.Can you hear me now!Indeed, there’s a lot to be said for consistency er lack thereof …take care

  101. shilohbuster says:

    Way to make me a seer with anonther ad nauseum petulant diatribe!!!Your predictability in sputtering nonsense – lather – rinse – repeat – makes me look like a prophet!blessings and curses

  102. filistro says:

    lather-rinse-repeatYup, definitely Muley. That’s one of his favorite phrases.Muley, be nice. You actually have some fans in here, you know.

  103. shilohbuster says:

    Now now fili. I can excuse a nonsense bot like shiloh for mistaking me as the infamous Mule Rider but you are much too keen to not recognize my writing skills to identify my former identity. Personally I’m insulted that you two think I’m as crass as he as you never heard me make threats or intimidate people back at the old 538 like he did nor am I doing it now. You get a couple more guesses. Not handing it to you on a silver platter!take care and share

  104. filistro says:

    @shilohbuster…(May I call you S.O.B? It’s shorter… ;-)Seriously, you DO remind me of somebody other than Mule Rider… but when I wrack my brain, I think it’s somebody I always suspected of being one of Muley’s doppelgangers.This might surprise a few in here, but I consider Mule Rider a VERY talented writer. He’s so good at characterization that he can create and then stay inside a persona long enough that it becomes a believable separate entity. It’s really quite a rare skill. However, all of Muley’s creations share a particular quirk you have already demonstrated in your brief visit… a tendency to frame insults with references to sexual organs or various types of human waste. So, lacking evidence to the contrary, I’m going with my first instinct.

  105. shiloh says:

    @FiliMuley, be nice. You actually have some fans in here~~~~~Please define “fans” ;)Did I mention liberals are often in disagreement re: a variety of topics …

  106. filistro says:

    Please define “fans” Well.. as stated, I’ve always admired Muley’s skill at characterization. And I know Jean likes him…and she’s a pretty smart cookie…And Mr U said the site members universally requested that Muley be allowed to post here as long as he didn’t threaten anybody…

  107. shiloh says:

    Did I mention liberals also have empathy.Speaking of peeps at the old blog who haven’t shown up yet, Dwight and I got into it a few times discussing the why’s and wherefore’s of Mule as Dwight tried unsuccessfully to defend him. He must have been soooo frustrated lol when right after Dwight would try to excuse his actions, Mule would shit on everyone including Dwight lol.>Indeed, it’s somewhat interesting how one minute Mule can appear sane and rational and the next schizoid shilohbuster easily changes from Dr. Jeckyll to Mr. Hyde.Paging Sigmund Freud …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s