Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

smh and for that matter smham

Sorry I tried to talk to you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hank thinks

not to be a timmy but since I have more actual political experience than any of you, why do you dismiss my analysis? People have paid for those in the past.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sorry I tried to talk to you.

I know

I apologized to club and sebby via PM. I won't try to engage you substantively again. I hope they don't either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hank thinks independents are more important to Obama's reelection than progressives/young people. He's probably right.

Obama won because of both effects. Given the realities of governing, only one of those effects is likely repeatable. ETA: Especially for a man who, as I have always said, is essentially a pragmatist.

I'm not inclined to argue about which is more important because it's rarely an either/or choice. Effective politicians often nail down their base and then have the freedom to move to the center because the base trusts them and understands. If he does a good job, Obama will find ways to speak to both his base and the center. E.g., if the economy improves, both will be more inclined to back him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not inclined to argue about which is more important because it's rarely an either/or choice. Effective politicians often nail down their base and then have the freedom to move to the center because the base trusts them and understands. If he does a good job, Obama will find ways to speak to both his base and the center. E.g., if the economy improves, both will be more inclined to back him.

I know this is "substantive posting" but to me it reads like empty truisms. Can someone help me understand the difference so I can become a non-troll?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not to be a timmy but since I have more actual political experience than any of you, why do you dismiss my analysis? People have paid for those in the past.

You know I agreed with you, right?

Also, I once worked for a political consulting firm whose owner managed the statewide campaign for governor of a guy who I think was from your town. Can't remember the guy's name though. This would be like 1997-1999, and he lost. ETA: Last name mighta been Ross.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not to be a timmy but since I have more actual political experience than any of you, why do you dismiss my analysis? People have paid for those in the past.

I remember bumping into Hank in the Salt 'n Pepper Diner back in NH, when he was up in Berlin with the Harvard Republicans stumping for his hero, Bob Dole, and I was up there with the Clinton campaign. I asked why he was backing Dole, and he said, well, I think his wife is kind of hot and I'm going to put this on my resume as a high level political and policy position. Really, I said, knocking on doors? He told me he didn't plan to knock on any doors, just hang out and drink hot cocoa in the HQ and see if he could make time with one of the wealthy Republican women.

Hank: the free hot cocoa doesn't count as "pay".

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So he was savaged on the local news last night. Even the Fox affiliate used the phrase "flip flopper" a couple of times.

I think it was the worst evening of press he has ever gotten.

[Replaced_Texan]

This is the most disturbing thing I've seen in the wikileaks cables thus far.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh, come on, cut the military another 10% - as long as we don't have to figure out which 20%.

Why should I have to figure out which 20%? Next, you're going to insist that I account for the reduction in tax revenues to which cutting the military budget would directly lead, and look only at net savings. That's way too complicated. Deficit-cutting is EASY.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I really don't get the purpose of this exercise. No one on this board, I'll venture, likes farm subsidies. That's not surprising, since most Americans probably do not want to pay more taxes in order to provide farm subsidies. The problem is that they don't feel strongly about it, and some Americans really like farm subsidies and feel really strongly about it. (And, farm each states get two Senators.) Which is a regular problem. Most Americans don't support tax cuts for the super wealthy, but the super wealthy really do, and spend a lot of money on the issue.

Any one of us could surely design a balanced budget without too much trouble. But that's not politics. Politics is about finding a way to balance all of the competing views and differences in preferences. No one will find the outcome more attractive that all other possibilities.

Great post. Let's stop talking entirely. What's the point of expressing opinions when the rest of the country doesn't agree with them?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This is the most disturbing thing I've seen in the wikileaks cables thus far.

Nicely done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Great post. Let's stop talking entirely. What's the point of expressing opinions when the rest of the country doesn't agree with them?

The way you extracted my point there was just uncanny.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So he was savaged on the local news last night. Even the Fox affiliate used the phrase "flip flopper" a couple of times.

I think it was the worst evening of press he has ever gotten.

Good. Fucker.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why should I have to figure out which 20%? Next, you're going to insist that I account for the reduction in tax revenues to which cutting the military budget would directly lead, and look only at net savings. That's way too complicated. Deficit-cutting is EASY.

Easy-Peasy.

I say we just stop paying the Chinese. What are they going to? Foreclose?