Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Cruising the Web

Sean Trende explains why election models are, as GWB would have said, fuzzy math.

If OWS carries out their threat of shutting down the subways tomorrow in New York, how is that showing support for the 99%? Aren't they the people using the subway to get to work?

Do you think that Jerry Sandusky and his lawyer are bonding over how they abused minors?

Apparently, some Democratic politicians are trying to separate themselves from President Obama. That rarely works. If the leader of your party is on the ballot, it's difficult to convince that you're worth reelecting. And skipping his visits when he comes to your state just draws attention to your split, but not to your true independence. And if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid aren't popular among your constituents, will they vote to return or keep those people in leadership?

Another difficulty for Democrats is whether of not to vote for the repeal of the CLASS Act. The Obama administration has announced that they can fulfill its requirements and are dropping it, but do these Democrats want to vote to repeal a part of Obamacare. Heh.

This column that the NYT ran this weekend by Harold Bloom about the possibility of having a Mormon president was really rather despicable. Is there any other religious faith that the newspaper would run an essay warning that we shouldn't elect a president of that faith tradition?

Herman Cain might be flummoxed when asked about collective bargaining for public employees or the right of return, but he knows which flavor of ice cream his Republican opponents are. Mitt Romney is vanilla; Rick Perry is Rocky road, and Michele Bachmann is tutti-fruiti.

Gene Healy discusses again how Gingrich is not a conservative. I think that Americans are used to thinking of him as a foil for Bill Clinton and so assume that he is a true conservative, but those aren't the ideas that he's endorsed over his career. And if Romney is unendurable because of Romneycare, why should Republicans support a guy who wrote a book in 2008 endorsing an individual mandate for health insurance?

Doesn't this tell you what we need to know about China? In response to jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo getting the Nobel Peace Prize, China established the Confucius Peace Prize. And who will be the first to receive the award? Vladimir Putin. Enough said.

Although she's never worked in journalism, Brian Williams compares her potential to that of Tim Russert.

And why was Herman Cain in Wisconsin to be interviewed by the Milwaukee newspaper? He had scheduled a stop there so his staff could attend the Packers-Vikings game. Just more evidence that he isn't truly serious about running for president.

Even if the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, there are still glitches that could blow up parts of the program unless Congress votes to change them.

Why should the federal government be acting like a venture capitalist? The results we've seen from the Department of Energy's loans to favored green companies are the strongest argument of why we shouldn't look to the government to choose favored companies.

It will be difficult for Energy Secretary Chu to deny politicization of the Solyndra loans when they urged the company to hold off on layoffs announcements until after the 2010 elections.

Holman Jenkins is right. The scandal isn't what congressmen do with their own money, but what they do with ours.

Will Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline play well in Ohio which may be about to experience its own oil boom?

Explaining Obama's recent uptick in the polls: Americans like him best when they're distracted by other stories and not seeing him on a regular basis. That will be an atmosphere difficult to duplicate during the presidential election.


ic said...

Govt did not choose favored companies. Politicians used dummy companies to launder looted taxpayers' money to pay back the bribes to their 'donors', govt was the bagman to make sure legitimate businesses pay up.

tfhr said...

Harold Bloom's bigoted screed in the NYT shows just how low that once proud daily will sink to win the day for its candidate of choice.

Bloom has never lived a day of his life in the real world since he moved from student to faculty at Yale more than 50 years ago. There he was accused of inappropriately touching one of his students, Naomi Wolf, on her leg. Good thing he's not a conservative running for office or he'd be hounded relentlessly for that transgression but alas, he persists and lives the life of an academic quite safe, tenured, and comfortable with his bigotry.

mark said...

"Just more evidence that he isn't truly serious about running for president."

Careful, Betsy, you're in for a whiny scolding from tfhr for implying you know Cain's mindset on running.
Or maybe not.

tfhr said...


You're hyperventilating. Relax.

This is Betsy's Page, so naturally she can say anything she pleases but I would point out that she has not made any claims to actually know what Cain is THINKING, unlike you.

Your basis for your judgment was based on the notion that Cain is pushing his book and while I'm sure he'd like to sell as many as he can, I pointed out that Edwards, Obama, Hillary, et al, hawked books while running in 2008, but did that make them less than "serious"? It's simply a case of pot-kettle on your part, mark. Arrive at your conclusion with something a little more original, if not actually valid, and you'll probably catch a break. Enter into the debate with something insightful, as opposed to "inciteful", and you might even get some respect, for once.

mark said...

Saying that someone is not running a real campaign (depite claims to the contrary by candidate) is, in fact, insinuating what his thoughts are. It is also calling him a fraud, which is perhaps why you are so defensive about him.
I can reach the conlusion that you are an incompetent dope based on you 'OBL is dead because we just don't hear much from him anymore'
I can deduce that Jerry Sandusky is a twisted soul despite a lack of confession or conviction by a jury.
See, tfhr. Logic and common-sense.

tfhr said...


"Insinuation"? That is your process of "logic and common-sense"?

You've called a man a fraud. Fraud is a crime. Would you please list the crimes committed by Herman Cain in your next entry in this thread?

You have a bad habit of not backing up your claims, so try something new and tell us why one candidate is a fraud while another is not. You can disagree with a candidate but implying or "insinuating" fraud, is quite a leap of illogic. Slander or libel are wrong, mark, but I recognize that your debate skills, as well as your social skills, are so primitive that you cannot rise above, so tolerate we must.

Convicting Cain as you've done here and watching Sandusky get convicted in the media are both wrong. The latter certainly must be a "twisted soul" if he has done the things we've heard but we must withhold judgment about his criminality until he's had his day in court. You didn't do that for Cain, you called him a fraud. You could have chosen to respectfully disagree with him on a given topic but instead you jumped right to condemning the man as a criminal. I know you don't think much of The Constitution but it does exist to protect us all from abuse, political, criminal, and otherwise.

Do you remember the McMartin preschool trial? That was a travesty of justice propelled mainly by media hype that fed prejudices and hysteria. If you want to talk about logic and common sense, try displaying some. We've seen how the court of public opinion has influenced celebrated cases like Casey Anthony, OJ, etc. The jury pool is so thoroughly tainted by the time court convenes that the prospect of a fair trial is dim and the results are far from what we expected because we've been sold on information that his often beyond was is factual, legal, or relevant.

You've fallen into that pool head first, mark. In this case you have managed, through the use of Progressive mind reading super powers, to divine, or at least "insinuate", Herman Cain's thoughts. You don't need him to tell you anything because you can read his mind. Wow.

How did Obama block you out so that you couldn't see what he was really thinking?

mark said...

"we must withhold judgment"

Do you have another job working wtih the ACLU?
This is a blog. Not a court of law. People state opinions here all the time. Yes, I believe Cain got into this for self-promotion (selling his books, raising his speaking fees, etc.)
By all means, keep defending him (and Sandusky). They need all the support they can get.

tfhr said...


ACLU? That's low. I know of few other groups that routinely trounce on the liberty of others like the ACLU!

This is a blog, mark, and I commend you on displaying a grasp of the obvious. If only you could do that with other things....

Here's something obvious: You accused Cain of committing a crime. I find that bizarre, particularly when his conduct is like so many of his contemporaries on the left in 2008, at least if selling books simultaneously is something to be discouraged. (Personally, I'd like to see politicians currently in office drop their day jobs officially. Dole did it but lesser men like Obama and McCain hung on to the steady paycheck and preferred to neglect their Congressional constituencies when they ran. Obama ended up with a larger constituency but continues the neglect on a grand scale now.)

I'm not defending either Cain or Sandusky. I've not touted any of the candidates to date, I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy on the book sales of candidates and I'm calling you for libeling Cain with the charge of fraud.

I asked you some time ago why you thought Cain wasn't serious but you never came back with a reasoned response. I'm asking you to explain how Cain is a fraud when other book selling Dem - wannabe - Presidential candidates were not.

Stop running and take a stand - it's got to be easier than defending Obama.

mark said...

"A reasoned response"
Actually, I've cited many reasons already. Things that have also been said by many republicans, analysts and bloggers (including Betsy). That they have fallen short of your standards for "reasoned response" doesn't mean much, given you idiotic reasoning about OBL's early demise.

And yes, you did defend Sandusky:

but we must withhold judgment about his (Sandusky's) criminality until he's had his day in court

No we don't. He has admitted to showering on several occasions with boys, accused of raping a boy (by an eyewitness). Did you hear his radio interview?
What's the matter with you? You'll defend a child rapist just to disagree? You're an idiot, and a disgrace.

On the other hand, thanks for providing more fodder to mock you with. You're right, it is much easier than defending Obama.

tfhr said...


You must live a sad and painful life if the only outlet you have is these unbalanced outbursts you spew here.

You convicted a man for one of the worst imaginable crimes - before he's ever set foot in a court. What he admitted to is bizarre but not a crime. Why not wait until the courts have had their day? If convicted, I'd advocate a minimum of life in prison unless Pennsylvania has the death penalty for the crimes he has been accused of thus far. But once again you've become unhinged to the point where you're now claiming I'm defending Sandusky? I'll leave that to his attorney but I'll defend his right to a fair trial, if you don't mind. The Constitution is there to protect all Americans, even creeps and that should give you some comfort.

Then again with Obama's disdain* for The Constitution, I shouldn't be surprised that one of his loyal adherents would gladly deprive another of one of the most sacred rights, a fair trial.

(*see ObamaCare and mandated coverage)

mark said...

Amazing, tfhr. You've stayed silent during some of the most disgraceful attacks on other people. And you've made some disgusting attacks yourself. But when it comes to a child rapist, you're Mr. ACLU. I have not "convicted" him. Not my job. If I were somehow called to a jury for a trial (which he deserves), I would be honest about my opinion.
You've really outdone yourself here, tfhr. Quite bizarre. Quite pathetic. Perhaps you'll wake up tomorrow morning and be horrified by what you've written.

tfhr said...


For some reason you brought up Sandusky, I'm not sure why you thought he was germane to the discussion revolving around your slander of Herman Cain, but that was your choice.

You accused Hermain Cain of fraud. You've not provided any grounds to support your claim. When addressed in media reports, individuals are usually referred to as "alledged" or "accused" to protect the reporter from charges of libel or slander. My comments have been an effort to caution you about accusing others of crimes when you have no proof to offer and in the case of Sandusky, when the accused has not even been given a court date.

I see you like to respond in this thread though you still refuse to make any effort to delineate the reasons you believe that Cain is a fraud, other than your stated ability to read the minds of others. I also notice that you avoid the other threads where Obama is being torn apart by the very facts that you refuse to face:

1. Obama's cronyism has given us Solyndra other bogus "green" energy scandals. Couple that with the Obama contributor Ronald Perelman / Siga small pox drug scam and the pattern of Obama cronyism expands into the billions of dollars.

2. Obama has killed thousands of jobs to obstruct a much needed pipeline that would help the nation with energy independence just to keep left wing nuts in line for 2012. That pattern extends to the Gulf of Mexico where our oil production has been curtailed while taxpayer dollars go to help Obama contributor Soros make money, crony style, in Brazil.

3. ObamaCare is failing and soon to be declared in violation of The Constitution. The CLASS Act collapse is just a symptom of the flawed pipe dream you sad Progressives have and your refusal to see it for what it is displays your complete detachment from reality.

4. The American middle class is in decline while Obama destroys jobs through incoherent energy and economic policy. See the Henniger article - I'll help you with the big words.

5. Dem politicians are starting to distance themselves from the flailing Obama Administration. They refuse to be dragged down with his sinking ship.

Of more than a dozen congressional offices POLITICO contacted in the moderate Blue Dog Caucus, only a handful were willing to comment on whether they supported Obama’s reelection bid.

Others, including Reps. Tim Holden and Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Ben Chandler of Kentucky, Jim Costa of California, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Michael Michaud of Maine, declined repeated requests for comment on whether they will stump for the president or even support him in 2012.

Moderates are leaving the Obama fold and that leaves you to carry on the defense, a task beyond your ability. Instead you come here only to fling your vile accusations. That appears to be all you have left.