The analysis piece accompanying the latest New York Times/CBS News election poll — taken in conjunction with the questionnaire – is fairly obvious about the angle the Grey Lady intended to pursue from the outset:
Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
The results of the poll, conducted against the backdrop of a campaign in which race has been a constant if not always overt issue, suggested that Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations.
The poll was constructed to allow for this narrative, or the alternate narrative where electing Obama would usher in a new era of Hopeyness and Changitude. However, as Allahpundit notes, the glow of Obama’s halo has dimmed, with about half of registered voters now believing Obama says what they want to hear, as opposed to what he believes (though the numbers are not much better for Maverick John McCain).
Although the NYT labors to paint America as still as riven by racial divisions as it was eight years ago, the fact that 76% of respondents (and 59% of black respondents) opine that America has made a lot of real progress getting rid of racial discrimination since the 1960s tends to contardict the NYT narrative of a “sharp divide,” as much as we might strive to do better.
Indeed, the racial breakdown on the topline head-to-head numbers also tends to undercut the narrative:
Among black voters, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, Mr. Obama draws support from 89 percent, compared with 2 percent for Mr. McCain. Among whites, Mr. Obama has 37 percent of the vote, compared with 46 percent for Mr. McCain.
Compared to the 2004 exit poll numbers, the NYT/CBS numbers suggest that Obama is currently poised to do at least as well or better with both whites and blacks than John F. Kerry. So whatever the NYT/CBS poll might show about various racial issues, Obama is doing about as well with whites as the pasty guy the Dems nominated four years ago. (The interesting question not addressed by the poll analysis is whether race might explain why Obama is underperforming the generic Democratic Congressional candidate in the current poll averages.)
Having raised the 2004 election comparison, I must note that the sample for this new poll is unusual, especially for a NYT/CBS poll. This is a poll which historically tends to oversample Democrats. However, in this poll, the 69% who said they voted in 2004 also said they backed Pres. Bush over Kerry by 9 percent (37%-28%). If I did the math right (not a safe bet, given that I’m doing it very early this morning), that becomes a 13% margin for Bush among the 2004 voters, as opposed to the 3% margin Bush actually got in 2004. Either way, it seems highly suspect. Indeed, it would have been more plausible had people overstated their support for Kerry, given Bush’s current record low approval ratings.
Accordingly, while many of the internals of the poll are roughly smilar to other recent poll results, this is a poll that should be viewed with a degree of caution.
Given thirty to forty years of continuous control of the voting process, the mechanical systems, the processes, and procedures, and the centralness of the outcome to the life experience of its members, that the historically black districts will have the most efficient, effective voting systems in the nation.
Oh … right.
They’re overwhelmingly Democratic.
nevermind.
You sorta have to stop reading when you’re dealing with people that think hey let’s co-brand with CBS. Savvy.
#3: hf,
Hillary also tended to win on that question during the primaries. Maybe the general electorate gives that more weight than the Dem base, but one of O!’s big innovations has been to cast experience as a negative.
Did you say BLACK voters? BLACK respondents?
RAAAAACCCIIIISSSTTT!!!onetwo12!!!
but one of O!’s big innovations has been to cast experience as a negative.
He’ll be hostage to events that way I think. The Katrina media can’t calibrate its crisisificational impulses anymore. Baracky is really going to have to ramp up his lack of experience to stay ahead of that I think.
What, pray tell, can the African-Amurrcan community to improve its collective image among the people who really matter(white colored people)? Everyone knows that Africa-America has lost so much prestige that she is hated all around the world because of her offal office.(Jackson, Sharpton, Farra khan, McKinney, etc.)
What can this noble nation do to earn back her international cred?
Funny how it appears that the only people who care to keep race front and center are the media and the left.
They are framing the election in such a ways as to say:
“If you don’t vote for this little twit because he IS a little twit, then you are a de facto RACIST!
I would think that if Barracky loses, we had all better duck. When (according to the left and the media) the only possible reason to vote against O! is racism, the AA community is going to go ballistic when he does lose.
Happy trails…
Hey Karl, this is totally OT but I thought you and the rest of the PW mob would find it interesting. The LAT proclaimed the death of the free market on its front page today:
The comment box would not take the link, but this was literally a front page headline. Of course as some of their evidence they point to the failure of Fannie and Freddie Mae, as if these are laissez faire institutions.
ALsdo, every so often, generationally, intellectuals get up off their water closets, wipe themselves, and then rush off to seminars to conclude that their world is in an intellectual crisis. Then they polish up their credentials, such as they are, and describe what must be done to save the intellectual ether. Communism was the rage until maybe 1950; pseudoCommunistic love-generation Beatles Imagine drug-besotted veneral-disease afflicted me-generation stewed in the juices of its own ruin until a true conservative, Ronald Reagan inspired Americans to trust themselves again. The LAT is pumping the latest government-induced mortgage disaster in an attempt to bring back the good old collectivist 1930s. It’s just the latest fad.
That reminds me: if MSM ejaculations are now shaking Stalin’s casket – just as a guest editorialist in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal propped up FDR’s dusty and legless cadaver to remind us just how good the New Deal was – I must call my broker. We must be in the nadir of this “slump”.
Will he abdicate at 1:00 p.m. EST on January 20, 2009, since by then he will be (gasp!) experienced?
Geezer’s right. Just as every war is another Vietnam, every little economic hiccup is another Great Depression.
America’s Left: always ready to embrace a future that looks just like the worst of the past.
Of course as some of their evidence they point to the failure of Fannie and Freddie Mae, as if these are laissez faire institutions.
Of course, Clinton Administration flunkies Gorelick, Raines and others embezzling* tens of millions from said institutions never entered their calculations, either.
*Yes, cooking the books so they could pay themselves massive bonuses IS embezzling, as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t worry Geezer, the LAT didn’t leave out dusty ol’ FDR:
I wonder if you get paid extra to put your byline on death of the free market stories. It’s like if your boss made you get dumbass tattooed on your head I think. But for real, proposals about government subsidies to newspapers are nigh I think. Probably call it “transitional assistance” or something. The poor LA Times building is so empty and sullen it’s got to be really distorting their worldview though. How could it not, really.
Does “Maverick John McCain” mean that, during the 5% of the time that his votes didn’t match the republican group vote, he was really angry?
Wait, he is famous for being angry all the time, as long as camera isn’t whirring. Maybe somebody else can tell me what the word “maverick” signifies when applies to Mr. Cindy Moneybags.
aw, he found the front page.
Why can’t we ever get any smart trolls here? Jeff? Could we do some kind of a trade, where we give Ace 5 of our dumbass trolls for a smart one?
Do no-bid contracts for cheney’s company constitute a free market?
How about 11 figure bailouts for insurance and airline industries after 911?
Or maybe cost-plus contracts to defense industries do?
I’m so confused. Maybe some of the intellectual heavyweights that post here can let me know how those examples obey free market rules.
perhaps you could explain what that has to do with this post?
Do no-bid contracts for cheney’s company constitute a free market?
um…Taking your example at face value, government corruption would seem to undermine the concept of a government-run economy, rather than a free market.
I think Whiney forgot to take his medication this morning. He’s unable to focus.
My free market question was merely a follow up to post #15. Maybe you should ask that fellow why he brought up free markets.
I’m hoping obvious things like that don’t need to be mentioned, but maybe I hope too much.
How about 11 figure bailouts for insurance and airline industries after 911?
Another example of government interference with the market. If you support a government-run economy I suppose you would need to justify it.
“Taking your example at face value, government corruption would seem to undermine the concept of a government-run economy, rather than a free market.”
Yeah, I was making an ironic point, not a serious point.
I’m hoping obvious things like that don’t need to be mentioned, but maybe I hope too much.
“this post”, the latest bookmarked entry into the ‘lost because black meme’ folder. Prepping the battlefield for a loss is a weird thing, ain’t it?
“Another example of government interference with the market. If you support a government-run economy I suppose you would need to justify it.”
I agree. We should really remove government from the economy. Look at how responsibly the mortgage companies have acted in their lending practices recently.
First you typed this
I’m so confused. Maybe some of the intellectual heavyweights that post here can let me know how those examples obey free market rules.
Then you typed this
Comment by Whiney Gramm American on 7/16 @ 10:48 am #
“Taking your example at face value, government corruption would seem to undermine the concept of a government-run economy, rather than a free market.â€Â
Yeah, I was making an ironic point, not a serious point.
I’m hoping obvious things like that don’t need to be mentioned, but maybe I hope too much.
So basically you came in not to ask a question but just make an ass out of yourself? Mission Accomplished.
Or maybe cost-plus contracts to defense industries do?
I support the right of competent parties to freely enter into contracts with any terms that are mutually agreeable. If you believe that cost-plus contracts are a prima facie example of government corruption then you would seem to have a good counter-example to use against the people who want a larger role for the government in managing the economy, not against those of us who want freer markets.
If you believe this though, you need to do a little more research into cost accounting. The way that costs are allocated in defense contracts can sometimes create examples that seem counter-intuitive on their face, but are in fact legitimate and understood by both parties to the contract.
For fuck’s sake really. “Maverick” means he’s the nominee. He a lot overindexes “average Republican” among average Republicans. It’s the same as tv programming really. Counterprogramming sounds easy but to do it really effectively you have to start early in the development process. Usually no one has the patience for that really. Mostly they just look at whatever they have that the guy that was just fired greenlighted and do the best they can to find places in the schedule where it has a chance. This is the way Republicans did their primary. They weren’t targeting a particular Democratic show to counterprogram, so they counterprogrammed Bush with whatever they had at hand. This is why McCain. Democrats started earlier in the development process. They counterprogrammed Bush by designing a show built specifically for that purpose. You can do this when the media cooperates with you.
“If you believe this though, you need to do a little more research into cost accounting. The way that costs are allocated in defense contracts can sometimes create examples that seem counter-intuitive on their face, but are in fact legitimate and understood by both parties to the contract.”
Thanks for the explanation. In other words, it is very complex, and I have to go research your claim.
I will have to remember this, since it is a good way to “win” any argument.
erm, the argument ain’t over. unless you’re choosing to give up.
[…] that I wrote much the same early this morning, I obviously agree with the Obama campaign’s […]
What is your argument Whiney? Is it that somewhere out there in a proggressive’s fart we can find the government mandated solution to an economy that never has any recession, downturn, or crisis? Tell me more.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac really stand out. And the Federal Reserve has been completely clean hands on this one.
““Maverick†means he’s the nominee.”
??? First time I’ve heard that. Are you running his campaign?
“They counterprogrammed Bush by designing a show built specifically for that purpose.”
No, I think it was their choice of the letter D after their name, and the letter D after their policies, and, last but not least, the hope that America will finally wake up and realize that for the last 30 years republican policies guarantee economic misery – if not immediately, like for the bushes, later, as in the case of reagan deficits.
Whiney, be very, very careful trying to out-irony happyfeet.
You’ll drown.
the hope that America will finally wake up and realize that for the last 30 years republican policies guarantee economic misery – if not immediately, like for the bushes, later, as in the case of reagan deficits.
Ohhh … Whiney needs a tour of Michigan! We’ll start with Detroit.
Do you leave President Bush and Reagan’s names in lower case so you feel superior and witty? Tell us the one about ChimpyMcHitlerBurton next.
Thanks for the explanation. In other words, it is very complex, and I have to go research your claim.
Um..no. You tossed out the phrase “cost-plus contracts” and expected us to simply assume that such things are prima facie examples of corruption in defense contracting. In fact, cost-plus contracts are a very commonplace and legitimate practice in many industries.
Although you have not proved your claim I will generously agree to accept your premise that corruption is common in government defense contracting since this premise happens to reinforce my wariness about allowing the government to manage the economy.
Did you have any actual arguments against, you know, free markets? I would be happy to entertain them, unless management wants us to stop the threadjacking.
“Is it that somewhere out there in a proggressive’s fart we can find the government mandated solution to an economy that never has any recession, downturn, or crisis? Tell me more.”
Those crises seem to happen a lot more after republicans run things for a while, and then a democrat has to step in and fix things. FDR did it for the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover free marketeers, Clinton did it for the Reagan/Bush free marketeers, and Carter got blamed for trying to fix the mess that Nixon/Ford policies caused.
Although, I understand how Republicans combat the problems they cause:
Nixon imposed wage-price controls, which did nothing.
Ford said we all needed to wear WIN buttons to get rid of inflation.
Bush I said no new taxes.
Bush II said “go out and spend” after 911, and in the current morass, mentioned psychology.
Now we hear from leading republicans that we are whining too much.
Maybe you are.
Please explain how Clinton cleaned up after Bush I and Reagan? The line about Carter taking blame can you explain that one too? They both seem like OPINIONS, not facts. Just an observation.
“Did you have any actual arguments against, you know, free markets? I would be happy to entertain them, unless management wants us to stop the threadjacking.”
Let’s start with the multi-trillion dollar meltdown in derivatives and mortgage underwriting. Maybe you read the papers and have heard about them.
Of course, we can always go back a bit in time to more established history and read any of Sinclair Lewis’s books about the glorious free markets 100-odd years ago. If you’ve never heard of Sinclair Lewis, try googling “gilded age corporate crime”
Whiney Gramm American
No one in the Federal Government does contracts better than the DoD. No one. Which leads me to wonder if you have the first clue what you are talking about.
Contracts
“Please explain how Clinton cleaned up after Bush I and Reagan?”
I’ll go slow here so you can understand.
Clinton proposed new taxes on the wealthy in 1993. Every single republican said that would cause a recession; I guess they weren’t ready to acknowledge that we were already in one, because that would mean republicans taking the blame for the then-current recession caused by Reagan-Bush policies.
The tax increase barely passed Congress, and this was just one of the changes Clinton made.
I’m assuming you were alive in the mid to late 90’s – do you remember the economy then?
LOL
So what your telling me is taxes on the wealthy spur the economy? Go really slow I am having a hard time absorbing this wisdom.
Yeah, Clinton sure was a genius to be lucky enough to be POTUS during the .com boom.
well, you know, when you increase taxes on rich people, they invent stuff.
“No one in the Federal Government does contracts better than the DoD. No one. ”
Very persuasive argument. I’ll take your word for it. It doesn’t address my point in the least*, but nevertheless, a very persuasive argument.
* (quality of contracts has nothing to do with their content like cost-plus provisions)
what exactly is wrong with cost-plus provisions?
“Yeah, Clinton sure was a genius to be lucky enough to be POTUS during the .com boom.”
So, do you know what percentage of the economy as a whole the dot-coms were in 2000? (hint: under 5%)
Do you know when the dot-com boom really got legs (hint: a drop in the prime rate in 1998)
Further, the dot-com boom had almost NOTHING to do with the economy in 1995-1997, and those were pretty good years, since the hangover from reagan-bush policies had finally worked itself out of the economy.
The reasons why DoD chooses the types of contracts they choose are laid out quite nicely in that link I included. Why not tell us what your particular problem is with that type of contract?
“what exactly is wrong with cost-plus provisions?”
Nothing if you hate free markets.
why?
Sinclair Lewis was a novelist. Dropping the name of a novelist is not an argument against free markets. Are you thinking of Upton Sinclair, the muckracking journalist? In any case, you would get a better perspective on that “gilded Age” by reading this excerpt from Jonah Goldber’s Liberal Fascism which Karl quoted in one of his posts on July 13th:
“So what your telling me is taxes on the wealthy spur the economy? Go really slow I am having a hard time absorbing this wisdom.”
It is a very complex subject, hard to reduce to the simple black/white binaries so beloved of republicans.
However, history does tell us that periods of growth seem to coincide with higher taxes, while periods of recession seem to correspond to lowered taxes. Naturally there are other factors.
I won’t make fun of the fact that you asked for me to go slow after misspelling “you’re”.
Wait a minute, I think I just did. Sorry.
California is about to raise taxes on the wealthy a whole whole bunch. This should be very educational I think.
However, history does tell us that periods of growth seem to coincide with higher taxes, while periods of recession seem to correspond to lowered taxes.
If you do not mind me asking what do you do for a living and how much do you make?
Whiney Gramm American
I see, so you aren’t really interested in explaining why you are making the claims you are making, you are just interested in showing your asshole bona fides. Mission accomplished.
Very persuasive argument.
Hah, you think you are making arguments. Perhaps you shouldn’t drink so much so early in the day.
“In any case, you would get a better perspective on that “gilded Age†by reading this excerpt from Jonah Goldber’s Liberal Fascism which Karl quoted in one of his posts on July 13th:”
Thanks for correcting me on the Sinclair name….kinda funny that no one else had yet….or maybe not too funny. It has been a while since I read either of them, and juxtaposed their names.
Liberal fascism is an interesting book. It makes the link between Liberals and fascists, among other ways, by stating they both have a preference for organic food.
That kind of argument is too deep for me.
As for the quote you provided from the book, the statement “The problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact Sinclair freely acknowledged.” isn’t supported – at all – by the following quote from Sinclair.
And it doesn’t do ANYTHING to disprove the efficacy of government inspections. They were done to help people’s health, not protect small meat producers!
These kinds of extremely simple lapses in logic is what makes Goldstein’s book so hilarious.
um…
LOL Maggie. ;)
“If you do not mind me asking what do you do for a living and how much do you make?”
If you can tell why it is important to know the particulars of an anonymous poster, who can just pull inbformation out of his butt anyway, I will.
Oh, and before I tell you, you have to tell me what answer I should give so as to make you believe my points more.
LOL LOL LOL
So, do you know what percentage of the economy as a whole the dot-coms were in 2000? (hint: under 5%)
Got a link?
– As Ric has pointed out on any number of ocassions, the only thing that produces wealth is a product of some sort of use. A service, a product, an idea. Thats it. No product, no wealth.
– Government produces nothing, save ostensibly to support civil stability, which it all to often, through ineptness, (congress at 9, administration at 22%), undermines instead.
– As soon as governmebt gets into an enterprise, through regulation, lobbying, political financial support of candidates, organizational envolvment, ect, that enterprise losses value direct;y proportional to that involvement.
– Non-critical industries, or marginally critical industries, can be allowed to follow a free market.
– Critical industries, oil, housing, food, medical, need to be regulated to a specific limited degree, because outside interests will always try to game the system, so they are not “pure” free markets.
– The problem is in the degree, not the fact, and the government has a totally free hand, with little or no electorate oversight.
– Thats the problem. The critical industries become a ploitical free for all, which is exactly what has happened with the oil industry, a critical market if eber there was one.
– For 27 years Congress, mainly the Democrats, driven by the Eco-nutz in their base, and campain financing, have set the rules on homeland resource access.
– when was the last time you voted for hands off our own resources?
“Hah, you think you are making arguments. Perhaps you shouldn’t drink so much so early in the day.”
Implying a poster is drinking to disparage their arguments is really ancient now. Maybe you should try to read some USENET posts from 1987 or so to get some new material.
I liked him better when he was commenting on month old posts. but you can trust his “facts” no citation needed. ;D
“- As soon as governmebt gets into an enterprise, through regulation, lobbying, political financial support of candidates, organizational envolvment, ect, that enterprise losses value direct;y proportional to that involvement.”
Proven oh-so-brilliantly by the current mortgage and derivative meltdowns. Those rascally mortgage bankers and hedge fund managers waited until regulations were loosened on them to lie so much in their paperwork.
Wait a minute ….
Comment by Whiney Gramm American on 7/16 @ 11:51 am #
“If you do not mind me asking what do you do for a living and how much do you make?â€Â
If you can tell why it is important to know the particulars of an anonymous poster, who can just pull inbformation out of his butt anyway, I will.
Because it would be extremely beneficial to me, financially and for your argument to make sense to me, if I could know what job out there pays so much money that I would ever say “Higher taxes lead to a booming economy.” All the while you are ridiculing a politician for saying that Americans are whining about a recession when there is none, yet you are advocating for higher taxes. I just can not parse your argument it is a contradiction. Higher taxes=Less money in my pocket, Recession=Less money in my pocket. So if you are whining about a recession that would mean you would be whining about higher tax rates. What job do you have where that is not the case?
PS You misspelled information idiot.
Implying a poster is drinking to disparage their arguments is really ancient now. Maybe you should try to read some USENET posts from 1987 or so to get some new material.
– You don’t have any arguments, economically. Just ankle biting political rhetoric, advocating for one side of the problem.
– You can spend all day, all year, all decade, going back and forth with the “your guys are more crooked than mine” screeds, and absolutely nothing changes, or gets accomplished.
– Partisan political bickering is precisely why nothing ever changes.
Implying a poster is drinking to disparage their arguments is really ancient now. Maybe you should try to read some USENET posts from 1987 or so to get some new material
Also not capitalizing the President’s name and typing LOL in all caps to signify what a douche bag you are is about as played out as Will Smith’s rap songs.
Economically speaking things are always changing though, aren’t they Big Bang? How much was Clinton’s admin budgeting to hold back the Soviet Horde poised to pour through the Fulda Gap? Oh, wait, things had changed. And the economy didn’t notice? Oh. Wait. Yes it did.
People are foolish.
There are stories on the local news of people refusing treatment for heat exhaustion as they wait in line at Pasadena’s IndyMac, because they are afraid they’ll lose their place. One guy drove in from Nevada yesterday to wait in line.
People are standing in line for hours to get their money out of the bank, when for most of them their money is guaranteed by the government right now.
– Yes. Economies do change, with government following its normal mish-mosh knee jerk approach, envagling more and more into free enterprise markets until things get so out of whack so badly the the pendulum swings the other way and the electorate is fed up. Then theres generally a “throw the bastards out” movement where the government is forced to retreat for awhile, mainly through the voting booth, where the pols that are hopelessly bought and paid for just can’t get elected.
– But its a slow and painful process, and totally unpredictable, depending so much on external events.
– FDR had a profitable war to bail him out. So far the WOT has been anything but profitable. at least not in any meaningful or lasting way so far. You have many “interests” that have no incentive to kill the sources of ebergy for the WOT.
– Energy independence is a dirty word in the halls of some corporations.
The media hasn’t really done much to destupid these people though.
“- You can spend all day, all year, all decade, going back and forth with the “your guys are more crooked than mine†screeds, and absolutely nothing changes, or gets accomplished.”
You can, but you have to fight the weight of history to disprove that times are better under Democrats and worse under Republicans. One measure is that since 1930, nearly 100% of the rise in the DJI has happened during Democratic administrations. For example, since Jan 1950 the S&P 500 has had an annual return of 8.1%. Under W, -0.24%. Under Clinton, 19.56%
I have to run for now – have to go get my welfare payment – but I’ll come back to this funny site soon.
“Also not capitalizing the President’s name and typing LOL in all caps to signify what a douche bag you are is about as played out as Will Smith’s rap songs.”
Maybe you should talk to Aldo, at post #64.
Although, I wouldn’t want to start a fight between you guys. Lots of times those end up in gun fights. I hate violence and prefer talking a disagreement out.
Really now, I gotta run. The Cadillac needed a minor repair that my gov’t-supplied servant did, and now I really have to run. Toodles.
You’re right, haps. I don’t think Channel 4 will be satisfied until they’ve created a Convention Center-type atmosphere over there. Maybe some bodies having to be kept in the freezer or something.
“You can, but you have to fight the weight of history to disprove that times are better under Democrats and worse under Republicans.”
– You can sit around all day whacking off too, or any other distraction that peaks your interest.
– But if you want to make inroads into “fixing” some of America’s financial woes, you have to really do some critical thinking and refuse to buy into the political bickering which is the pols favorite form of voter distraction.
– The only role of governement in the free market is specific regulation, and only then exactly limited, and only because theres no other easy way to accomplish protection of booth the consumer and the resources. If there were even that would be way down the list.
– Notice the words “Democrat” and “Republican” are irrelevant to the description of the problem. If you find that surprising, you’re in good company.
– The electorate has been thoroughly distracted.
Well at least his arguments are bullet proof and well sourced. From what appears to be a student paper from MIT I did manage to find this:
But I’m sure that had nothing to do with the .com boom. Nothing. I mean, what is a third of productivity growth?
Crap, that last was me.
I’m sure that S&P figure is not only solid as a rock, but has entirely to do with which party was in office. BECAUSE REPUBLICANS SUCK.
I am still trying to rap my mind around the idea that me having less money due to a recession is horrible and all the fault of the evil Republicans, but me having less money in my pocket because of higher taxes is terrific and stimulates the ecomomy.
um, you care to clarify this? or was Carter a Republican?
Why do you hate poor people Mr. Pink?
– maggie, its called “lying by omission”, and its still just another political talking point of exactly the sort I mentioned.
– As long as we’re willing to look at the hole and not the donut, both parties will be more than happy to play that game.
– WGM is an example of why it works so well.
There’s a toggle switch on Jason Furman you can throw that’ll cause him to perform much as WGA here. The essential bifurcation is party. Remember that above all things. Oh, and that LBJ guy? Forget him. Nothing to see there. Move along.
– All I know is ita disgusting to watch people being used.
[…] today. Had I seen the ABC News/WaPo poll last night, I could have included it in my post on the NYT/CBS poll, but there are some nuggests to be gleaned here beyond the […]
I don’t know. He wanted to debate someone about free markets, and promptly offered three examples of what he took to be government corruption/economic mismanagement. I feel like I stepped into the boxing ring with him and watched as he sucker punched himself in the kidneys.
– The good news is, this sort of problem, like the oil mess, is self adjusting.
– Both parties get a wake up call eventually when they play the party card too often.
– Thinking even the most dyed in the wool sycophant will put party above wallet is a losing proposition.
You might want to look at the phase relationships there; which leads and which lags?
Clever to dismiss the voluminous evidence by simply stating “among other ways”. Those “other ways” include direct quotes from leading progressives expressing their admiration for fascism — and vice versa. But it’s obvious you’ve not read the book, just the dismissals by the folks you get your thoughts from, so what can we really expect?
– Just ask any of the people lined up in front of the INDYMAC bank today what they think of Congress, the administration, either party, and either candidate right now.
– Three days in a row now oil is down, presently something like 14 bucks a barrel, and all thats happened is there were some signs that the Dems were caving on homeland drilling.
– Yet those same Democrats, bought and payed for by the climate change industry, have been talking relentlessly on how it would take a minimum of ten years before we’d see any effects on world oil prices. Pelosi was out there just yesterday sewing pearls of wisdom, directly off a script from her Eco-masters. It hasn’t even taken a week, and we haven’t actually done anything yet, other than Bush removing the executive freeze on oil exploration.
– As I said yesterday, these are the people charged with leadership, people who have a working knowledge of critical markets to the extent they know vaguely that the stock market is located somewhere in Manhattan.
– Unbelievable.