Michelle, Steyn, Hollywood - Academy Awards 2013

[Shady]

Your original point was nothing to do with "leftists" and "dictators" and "the collective", it was a the proposition that the Republicans could succeed if they just "told the truth".

And now to illustrate your idea of how successful politicians "tell the truth", you provide examples of politicians who are arguing for their values better than their opponents argue for competing values.

Thanks, you've made my case for me.

Perhaps if the Republicans had a Margaret Thatcher to argue for conservative values, they'd do better. But it's not a question of "telling the truth", it's a matter of explaining to voters why your values should matter to them too. The Republicans have become terrible at explaining why their values should matter to anybody outside their base of rich-guys, old-people, and Bible-thumpers.

-k

Perhaps you mean they'd do better in federal elections. Because they've never held more governorships, and more majorities in state legislatures in history.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps you mean they'd do better in federal elections. Because they've never held more governorships, and more majorities in state legislatures in history.

Good point...I don't know why this keeps getting ignored. I guess they just choose to ignore 'bad news'.

Going broke for 'progressive' policies is not popular at state and local levels.

Edited March 16, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

Good point...I don't know why this keeps getting ignored. I guess they just choose to ignore 'bad news'.

Going broke for 'progressive' policies is not popular at state and local levels.

Well, it's probably ignored on this forum because most of the people that post here are clueless. They just like to think they know the goings-on of American politics. It's whatever their latest leftwing blogs tell them. However, as in most cases, reality tells a much different story.

But beyond the Beltway, things aren’t so bad for the GOP. Just look at the following chart from the Pew Center on the States, which illustrates how much power the Republican Party currently wields at the level of state governance, where many major policies that have burst onto the national radar began:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/04/the-republican-partys-big-state-level-advantage-in-one-chart/

As the graphic shows, 30 states have Republican governors, and in all but five of those (Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico and Nevada) with the GOP also controls the state legislature. (Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan legislature.)

What’s more, Republican state legislative majorities in 14 states (including two with Democratic governors, Arkansas and Missouri) are strong enough to override gubernatorial vetoes.

[kimmy]

Good point...I don't know why this keeps getting ignored. I guess they just choose to ignore 'bad news'.

Going broke for 'progressive' policies is not popular at state and local levels.

The irony of that comment is that with the exception of Texas, the "Red States" are the biggest beneficiaries of progressive policies. The deadbeat states of the old Confederacy are the biggest recipients of federal largesse. Florida's large seniors population had Willard campaigning there on the promise of uncutting $700 billion from Medicare and assuring them that only young people would pay for Medicare reform. The rural folk of the great plains believe in rugged individualism and hate government handouts... except when it comes to agriculture subsidies. "Everybody else gets too many government hand-outs, except me... mine are completely deserved!"

Your red state people aren't "going broke for progressive policies". Progressive policies are keeping them from going broke.

-k

[Shady]

The irony of that comment is that with the exception of Texas, the "Red States" are the biggest beneficiaries of progressive policies. The deadbeat states of the old Confederacy are the biggest recipients of federal largesse. Florida's large seniors population had Willard campaigning there on the promise of uncutting $700 billion from Medicare and assuring them that only young people would pay for Medicare reform. The rural folk of the great plains believe in rugged individualism and hate government handouts... except when it comes to agriculture subsidies. "Everybody else gets too many government hand-outs, except me... mine are completely deserved!"

Your red state people aren't "going broke for progressive policies". Progressive policies are keeping them from going broke.

-k

The only person that cut $700 billion from Medicare was Obama, to fund a new entitlement. Right now the states in the best fiscal shape, with the lowest unemployment are red states with Republican governors. Those are facts. Your post is mostly leftwing talking points. Progressives policies are bankrupting blue states. See California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island as examples.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/03/11/illinois-settles-sec-fraud-charge-over-pensions/iX6Nr04clPOWY5216yGFxI/story.html

Willard has nothing to do with it. Stop trying to use him as a foil. Start holding your man Obama accountable.

[roy baty]

Well, it's probably ignored on this forum because most of the people that post here are clueless. They just like to think they know the goings-on of American politics. It's whatever their latest leftwing blogs tell them. However, as in most cases, reality tells a much different story.

This is the most factual statement in this forum, Careful though Shady, the progressives hate any media outlet that has not been hijacked by their ideology and immediately discard them as sources of hate and lies. I would say that progressives are more in denial than clueless however. In short, the truth hurts too much so they choose to ignore or talk around what the end result of their failing policies will be and live only for today. Unfortunately they elected a man who thinks the same way. Sad times for what once was a great nation..

Edited March 17, 2013 by roy baty

[Black Dog]

Well, it's probably ignored on this forum because most of the people that post here are clueless. They just like to think they know the goings-on of American politics. It's whatever their latest leftwing blogs tell them. However, as in most cases, reality tells a much different story.

Post of the year candidate here and not for the reasons its author would hope.

[The_Squid]

Right now the states in the best fiscal shape, with the lowest unemployment are red states with Republican governors. Those are facts. Your post is mostly leftwing talking points. Progressives policies are bankrupting blue states. See California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island as examples.

Not true... The Feds dole out more benefits to the "red states" and "blue states" are the ones paying for it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Here’s a list of the top 10 states that got the most back in terms of federal benefits, followed by the bottom 10.

_{1. New Mexico Indian reservations, military bases, federal research labs, farm subsidies, retirement programs}

_{2. Mississippi Farm subsidies, military spending, nutrition and anti-poverty aid, retirement programs.}

_{3. Alaska Per capita No 1 recipient of federal benefits; infrastructure projects, DOT and pork projects.}

_{4. Louisiana Disaster relief, farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, military spending.}

_{5. W. Virginia Farm subsidies, anti-poverty and nutrition aid.}

_{6. N. Dakota Farm subsidies, energy subsidies, retirement and anti-poverty programs, Indian reservations.}

_{7. Alabama Retirement programs, anti-poverty and nutrition aid, federal space/military spending, farm subsidies.}

_{8. S. Dakota Retirement programs, nutrition aid, farm subsidies, military spending, Indian reservations.}

_{9. Virginia Civil service pensions, military spending, veterans benefits, retirement, anti-poverty aid.}

_{10. Kentucky Retirement programs, nutritional and anti-poverty aid, farm subsidies.}

Now consider the bottom 10, i.e., the ones that give more to the

federal government in taxes than they get in return. From 1 to 10, they

are:

^{New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, Colorado.}

Anything strange about that list? Yes, they are all blue states (or the deepest of purple).

[kimmy]

Careful though Shady, the progressives hate any media outlet that has not been hijacked by their ideology and immediately discard them as sources of hate and lies.

Yeah, Shady knows what's up because he's plugged into the best sources, like Breitbart and Fox News.

Quick impression: "Romney Landslide! Romney Landslide!"

-k

[GostHacked]

Yeah, Shady knows what's up because he's plugged into the best sources, like Breitbart and Fox News.

Quick impression: "Romney Landslide! Romney Landslide!"

-k

He predicted Obama winning his first election. Got that one right. Then predicted Romney winning, got that one wrong. But at least he refrained from posting for two weeks after his boy lost ... so it's worth something.

[kimmy]

He predicted Obama winning his first election. Got that one right. Then predicted Romney winning, got that one wrong. But at least he refrained from posting for two weeks after his boy lost ... so it's worth something.

I'm not making fun of Shady for being wrong about the election. I'm making fun of the premise that living inside the Breitbart/Fox/WND echo-chamber makes Shady better informed than the rest of us.

I mentioned the election because it drew such a sharp distinction between the people who get their information from the echo-chamber and people who go to "the lame-stream media".

-k

[Pliny]

Not true... The Feds dole out more benefits to the "red states" and "blue states" are the ones paying for it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Statistics can be made to say a lot of things. Better get Obama on this because it's not "fair".

Are these statistics provided considered to be on a per capita basis? The bottom States, with the exception of Nevada, are among the most densely populated. On a per capita basis federal taxes would come from the most populated areas and appear to be flowing to the less populated. I would bet that the greater percentage of revenues overall are going to the most populated States. We know why Nevada is different because it is a haven for vices that are heavily taxed.

But the question is, what States are bankrupt and what States are fiscally more sound without asking why or how.

[Pliny]

I'm not making fun of Shady for being wrong about the election. I'm making fun of the premise that living inside the Breitbart/Fox/WND echo-chamber makes Shady better informed than the rest of us.

I mentioned the election because it drew such a sharp distinction between the people who get their information from the echo-chamber and people who go to "the lame-stream media".

-k

Bob Beckel is on Fox news and he was pretty spot on with his election predictions. Of course Fox fans would have hoped he was wrong.

I don't see too much of Dick Morris on Fox anymore. He was way out in left field. Karl is still there but he put up more of a good statistical analysis as to why he thought Obama would lose and so managed to hang onto some modicum of credibility.

The "lame stream media" did everything it could to get Obama re-elected - including ignoring the Benghazi incident and white-washing the economy.

I keep seeing the same points from Democrats and the left that come from the Obama administrations statistics and their faulty analyses to make things look rosy.

[GostHacked]

Bob Beckel is on Fox news and he was pretty spot on with his election predictions. Of course Fox fans would have hoped he was wrong.

I don't see too much of Dick Morris on Fox anymore. He was way out in left field. Karl is still there but he put up more of a good statistical analysis as to why he thought Obama would lose and so managed to hang onto some modicum of credibility.

The "lame stream media" did everything it could to get Obama re-elected - including ignoring the Benghazi incident and white-washing the economy.

I keep seeing the same points from Democrats and the left that come from the Obama administrations statistics and their faulty analyses to make things look rosy.

It's the same lame-stream media that allowed Bush to get in a second term and ignore the lies of the Iraq War.

The Benghazi thing will be a stain on Obama's record in my view. Handled horribly right from the start. Not that he had a stellar record before, ..in my view.

[Pliny]

It's the same lame-stream media that allowed Bush to get in a second term and ignore the lies of the Iraq War.

The Democrats weren't really against the war in Iraq at the time. And if you remember there was some resistance from the

press on this. The war on Iraq was a monumental blunder. Even if they had WMD they should not have been attacked. Sadly,

probably the same number of Iraqi's would have died and Saddam would still be in power.

The Benghazi thing will be a stain on Obama's record in my view. Handled horribly right from the start. Not that he had a stellar record before, ..in my view.

If the press ever gets around to the story it won't look good on Hillary's 2016 run either.

[roy baty]

The Democrats weren't really against the war in Iraq at the time. And if you remember there was some resistance from the

press on this. The war on Iraq was a monumental blunder. Even if they had WMD they should not have been attacked. Sadly,

probably the same number of Iraqi's would have died and Saddam would still be in power.If the press ever gets around to the story it won't look good on Hillary's 2016 run either.

The problem still is that the major networks and newspapers are so far in the tank for the Democrats, they'll never get around to covering it if they want Hillary in in 2016 and my bet is that they still will should she become the Dem's ticket. People can diss Fox News as much as they want and gloat in the fact that Morris, Baird and others were out to lunch on their predictions but when it comes down to it, these guys who predicted Romney counted on voter trends in the past that saw a guy like Obama out on his butt because of the economy alone let alone the scandals the media party ignored. They were also wrong because they underestimated how little the average US voter cares about the state of their economy and union as did many other political analysts that weren't left leaning. Voters aren't the same today as 20 years ago and many found that out the hard way,

[Pliny]

The problem still is that the major networks and newspapers are so far in the tank for the Democrats, they'll never get around to covering it if they want Hillary in in 2016 and my bet is that they still will should she become the Dem's ticket. People can diss Fox News as much as they want and gloat in the fact that Morris, Baird and others were out to lunch on their predictions but when it comes down to it, these guys who predicted Romney counted on voter trends in the past that saw a guy like Obama out on his butt because of the economy alone let alone the scandals the media party ignored. They were also wrong because they underestimated how little the average US voter cares about the state of their economy and union as did many other political analysts that weren't left leaning. Voters aren't the same today as 20 years ago and many found that out the hard way,

I believe that you are correct about the press. They had a lot to do with covering for Obama.

Romney lost for two reasons, the press, and his expression to compromise which left 3 million Republicans

disenfranchised and disenchanted enough to stay home.

[kimmy]

People can diss Fox News as much as they want and gloat in the fact that Morris, Baird and others were out to lunch on their predictions but when it comes down to it, these guys who predicted Romney counted on voter trends in the past that saw a guy like Obama out on his butt because of the economy alone let alone the scandals the media party ignored.

The Breitbart/NewsMax/Fox/etc right-wing media outlets had access to the same polls and information that everybody else did. They went to great lengths to convince their readers that these polls were unreliable. When an outlier poll showed their guy gaining ground or winning a battleground state, they put it on their front page.

This was not just a matter of some people getting it wrong, this was a willful attempt to deceive their audience, for purposes of propping up their political allies.

Dick Morris explained his landslide prediction on the Hannity show after the election. Morris was working for Romney (a fact never mentioned on Fox; they billed him as "former Clinton advisor Dick Morris") and said that "the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was chance of victory, and I thought that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said." It wasn't a guy who just got it wrong, he was trying to give his employer's campaign a boost.

Fox is a media arm of the Republican party; Breitbart is deeply involved in the Tea Party faction, yet you guys seem to think they're objective sources of information. Why is that?

Romney lost for two reasons, the press, and his expression to compromise which left 3 million Republicans

disenfranchised and disenchanted enough to stay home.

I hear this "3 million" figure a lot, always from Tea Party types who are trying to make the claim that they need to be "more conservative" to get Republican voters out to the polls. But does it actually hold water?

Where does that 3 million figure actually come from? At one point, people spoke of Romney bringing in 3 million fewer votes than McCain did (although by the time all the votes were counted Romney actually had slightly more votes than McCain). Is that the source of the 3 million?

One reason I am skeptical that they can get 3 million more votes by being more conservative is that the core audience for that kind of message-- white evangelicals-- turned out in record numbers in the last election. They might not have been excited about getting out to vote *for* Mitt Romney, but they were damned sure excited to get out to vote *against* Barack Obama.

The second reason I doubt that they can get 3 million votes by being more conservative is that this sort of thinking neglects to consider how other voters might react. Tea Party types think 3 million conservative voters felt "disenfrachised" and "disenchanted" because they thought Mitt Romney was too moderate. Maybe they're right. Maybe if they had picked a hard line social conservative like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, those 3 million people would have felt "enfrachised" and "enchanted" and gone out to vote. But how many people who voted for Romney would have stayed home if the Republican nominee had been a hardline social conservative? Furthermore, it also fails to consider how many people who stayed home might have gotten out to vote for Obama if faced with the possibility of an extreme conservative president.

Anyway, whatever. While the current Tea Party mythology holds that they need to go far to the right to get real conservatives out to the polls, I doubt it's a winning strategy. I guess we'll see.

-k

[Pliny]

The Breitbart/NewsMax/Fox/etc right-wing media outlets had access to the same polls and information that everybody else did. They went to great lengths to convince their readers that these polls were unreliable. When an outlier poll showed their guy gaining ground or winning a battleground state, they put it on their front page.

This was not just a matter of some people getting it wrong, this was a willful attempt to deceive their audience, for purposes of propping up their political allies.

Boy they were sure stupid. Didn't wind up propping up their political allies much.

Dick Morris explained his landslide prediction on the Hannity show after the election. Morris was working for Romney (a fact never mentioned on Fox; they billed him as "former Clinton advisor Dick Morris") and said that "the Romney campaign was falling apart, people were not optimistic, nobody thought there was chance of victory, and I thought that it was my duty at that point to go out and say what I said." It wasn't a guy who just got it wrong, he was trying to give his employer's campaign a boost.

It didn't help him much did it. I hardly see him around any more. He was way off. But he did submit three possible

scenarios, a landslide for Romney, a squeaker for Romney or a squeaker for Obama. After the 2010 mid-terms it didn't

look that bright for Obama. And as I said other names are on Fox news that expressed the opinion that Obama would win.

Karl Rove and Dick Morris aren't really representative of the tea party. They're more establishment Republicans.

I don't know if the campaign was "falling apart" or not, I think Romney, after the first debate decided it was over and he would glide the rest of the way to the White house. The media killed the Bhenghazi story and instead focused on

Hollywood support and pro-Obama demogoguery and rhetoric about the rich paying their fair share.

Fox is a media arm of the Republican party;

Fox is editorially biased towards the right. The mainstream media is editorially biased to the left. Fox

provides some balance.

Breitbart is deeply involved in the Tea Party faction, yet you guys seem to think they're objective sources of information.

So you're suggesting all that is on Breitbart is entirely propaganda? Similar to Republicans wanting to

throw Granny over the cliff.

Why is that?I hear this "3 million" figure a lot, always from Tea Party types who are trying to make the claim that they need to be "more conservative" to get Republican voters out to the polls. But does it actually hold water?

Where does that 3 million figure actually come from? At one point, people spoke of Romney bringing in 3 million fewer votes than McCain did (although by the time all the votes were counted Romney actually had slightly more votes than McCain). Is that the source of the 3 million?

One reason I am skeptical that they can get 3 million more votes by being more conservative is that the core audience for that kind of message-- white evangelicals-- turned out in record numbers in the last election. They might not have been excited about getting out to vote *for* Mitt Romney, but they were damned sure excited to get out to vote *against* Barack Obama.

The second reason I doubt that they can get 3 million votes by being more conservative is that this sort of thinking neglects to consider how other voters might react. Tea Party types think 3 million conservative voters felt "disenfrachised" and "disenchanted" because they thought Mitt Romney was too moderate. Maybe they're right. Maybe if they had picked a hard line social conservative like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, those 3 million people would have felt "enfrachised" and "enchanted" and gone out to vote. But how many people who voted for Romney would have stayed home if the Republican nominee had been a hardline social conservative? Furthermore, it also fails to consider how many people who stayed home might have gotten out to vote for Obama if faced with the possibility of an extreme conservative president.

Anyway, whatever. While the current Tea Party mythology holds that they need to go far to the right to get real conservatives out to the polls, I doubt it's a winning strategy. I guess we'll see.

-k

Mitt Romney, had a few things against him, Romneycare in Massachusetts and the suggestion that Obamacare

had some points of merit that he would consider keeping. Another big thing, at least in the minds of the

media, was he tied his dog's kennel to the roof of his car to take the dog on vacation with the

family - that was huge.

As you say it may not be a winning strategy, we'll have to wait and see. The Republican party may have to split from the likes of McCain and Graham and form under the Rand/Cruz brand of conservatism.

But I would like to point out that that Tea party ilk are not the far right. They are for limited

government. The far right is generally associated with fascism and Barack Obama's crony capitalism is pretty close to that. His big government ideology is beginning to meld the right and left socialist extremes

which is why it confuses the general public. It is more easily understood from the view of a

no government/total government political spectrum.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Pliny

[kimmy]

Boy they were sure stupid. Didn't wind up propping up their political allies much.It didn't help him much did it.

The point isn't whether it worked or not.

As you'll recall, the premise we have been discussing is the hilarious notion that people who are plugged into the right wing media bubble are better-informed than everybody else.

But the extent to which those media outlets were flat out wrong during the election, and especially the extent to which they intentionally misled their viewers, is ample evidence that living in the right wing media bubble doesn't make you better-informed.

Karl Rove and Dick Morris aren't really representative of the tea party. They're more establishment Republicans.

I didn't say Dick and Rover were part of the Tea Party. I said that Breitbart is deeply involved in the Tea Party faction. They are.

As for your analysis of why Romney lost, I think it's bad and you should feel bad. I won't spend much time on it, because the election is long over and all of this has been rehashed ad nauseum. I mentioned the election coverage because it was such a graphic example of how disconnected the right wing echo-chamber is from reality.

One thing I'll point out, though, is that I think it's hilarious that you mentioned the "dog on the roof of the car" thing, but didn't mention the "47% video" thing. That speaks for itself; I don't need to add anything.

As for the Tea Partiers being about limited government... well, maybe once upon a time it was the place for good libertarian kids like yourself. But now it's the place for Todd Akin and Paul Broun.

-k

[Argus]

Fox is editorially biased towards the right. The mainstream media is editorially biased to the left. Fox

provides some balance.

No, that's simply not true. The 'mainstream' media is not biased. Individuals within it are. The culture, if you will, of upper middle class urban Americans, who make up the media, tends to be fairly liberal, and that tends to get reflected in their coverage. That is not the same thing as a deliberate editorial decision on the part of management to slant all news coverage towards the Republican party, and to push stories which show government is bad, unions are bad, big business is good, public health care is bad, deregulation is good, etc. These are not biases. This is propaganda by definition. It is corporate propaganda designed to win support for corporate policies which will enhance their profits and power at the expense of ordinary people.

Kimmy is wrong about FOX being the "media arm of the republican party". FOX is a corporate propaganda enterprise, and its support for the Republican party is only due to the fact the Republicans are the political arm of corporate America.

As you say it may not be a winning strategy, we'll have to wait and see. The Republican party may have to split from the likes of McCain and Graham and form under the Rand/Cruz brand of conservatism.

As I recall it, Romney only started surging in the polls when he abandoned the strict conservatism and started acting as if he might actually be reasonable. Pushing a hard line conservative stance is not going to get you more votes, but far less. The Republican party will simply continue to shrink to a hard core of ultra-right wing zealots who don't believe in government and who hate minorities and 'furiners'.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Argus

[Shady]

Actually it's MSNBC that's the media arm of the Democrat party, in association with the mainstream media. And Romney started to surge in the polls after the first debate when he utterly destroyed Obama.

[Shady]

Anyways, who cares? Like I said before, it's time to start holding accounting a president going on his fifth year in office. Not blaming things, and going over deficiencies of an unelected, private citizen holding no office whatsoever. Stop giving this affirmative action president a pass. Start treating him like every president that came before him.

[BubberMiley]

And Romney started to surge in the polls after the first debate when he utterly destroyed Obama.

And what did he do in the first debate? He disavowed his conservative principles and positioned himself as a reasonable centrist. Exactly what Argus said he did.

[GostHacked]

Anyways, who cares? Like I said before, it's time to start holding accounting a president going on his fifth year in office. Not blaming things, and going over deficiencies of an unelected, private citizen holding no office whatsoever. Stop giving this affirmative action president a pass. Start treating him like every president that came before him.

Yeah we should be treating him like George Bush.