Subscribe via RSS Feed

Election Day Linkage

[ 37 ] November 6, 2012 |

Share with Sociable

Comments (37)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Greg Sanders says:

    Aw, man, I didn’t realize that Hard Times Cafe owner meant the name of his restaurant chain as a reflection of his political agenda. That’s depressing to learn.

    • Cody says:

      I was waiting for them to say “77-yr old Jim Bob, who is currently living off Medicare and Social Security, said that if Obama won it would be because of people who don’t pay taxes”

      But alas, no such striking example of irony was present.

  2. TT says:

    I skimmed the Walsh colon cleanse over at DeLong’s shop. That’s a dude who appears to have some….issues? Is “issues” even the right word for whatever produces that kind of weapons-grade insanity?

    The only thing that makes conservatives even angrier and more bitter than losing is winning.

    • Uncle Kvetch says:

      Not wishing to visit NRO I checked DeLong’s excerpt, and boy howdy, you ain’t kidding:

      and now, so close to realizing the ultimate expression of “critical theory” — that everything about America stinks — they and their media allies are doing their best to swing one last election for Obama

      Chest-thumping machismo meets rampaging paranoia. Two great tastes that taste great together!

    • parrot says:

      for some types of written insanity, the ‘rhetoric’ will make more sense if you screw on your inner jesse ‘the body’ ventura voice as you read …

  3. NBarnes says:

    Goddess, I loathe Andrew Jackson. I’m glad that Walsh’s ideas have negative predictive value, but it’s still offensive.

  4. Nice Todd Snider reference to a great song (disregard if “knows who Republicans will like to blame” is just a coincidence).

  5. rea says:

    Michael Walsh prediction–After the Democrats lose, they will force Elizabeth Warren to walk to Oklahoma . . .

  6. mark f says:

    From NRO:

    MICHAEL MEDVED
    In The Graduate (1967), protagonist Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman) receives a one-word piece of precious advice for his future. “Plastics!” whispers a friend of his parents, and the Republican future in 2012 could easily turn on another mysterious p-word: “Pennsylvania!”

    Smart analogy.

    I get the feeling Medved will spend tomorrow hiding at the bottom of a swimming pool.

  7. Erik Loomis says:

    Glad to see that the NRO is embracing the Panic of 1837 as its economic policy.

  8. I want to know how Rick Venema of COLONIAL HEIGHTS, VIRGINIA is spending this election day.

  9. Karen says:

    I read at the WaPo website that early voting was down well below ’08 numbers, meaning we’re screwed no the polls were all wrong. Can anyone make me feel better about this?

  10. Halloween Jack says:

    I like Jen Sorensen. Her explanation of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize makes perfect sense.

  11. Murc says:

    “Mandate” is a Latin term meaning “bullshit.” One thing you have to give George W. Bush (first term) credit for — you have a “mandate” to the extent that you have the votes in Congress, the end.

    I put this on ‘list of nice things that we can’t have anymore because of Republicans.’

    I always interpreted ‘mandate’ to mean ‘you campaigned on a specific set of issues and legislative priorities, and won. Not only won, but won with an impressive margin and possibly impressive coattails. Therefore, the various institutions of our country, including the media, will regard your agenda as having been blessed by the American people. You will be given the benefit of the doubt as you pursue it and it will have the presumption of legitimacy.’

    This is a perfectly good way of doing things that I support, because it dovetails nicely with the idea that if you win, you get to govern.

    But that’s not how it’s used these days.

    These days when people say ‘mandate’ what they often mean is ‘I am worried we might lose, so I’m attempting to pre-emptively de-legitimate my opponent by claiming that they won’t win a mandate even if they win the election, regardless of whether or not its true.’

    This isn’t ALWAYS bullshit. If you run on one agenda and suddenly pivot to a different one, you can be said to not have a mandate. If you win in a weak or manner (losing the popular vote, winning a tiebreaker in the house because of malapportionment, the Supreme Court steals the election, etc.) there’s an argument to be made that your mandate is weak.

    Basically Republicans took a perfectly useful concept and ruined it.

    • mark f says:

      How does that differ from “your mandate is what Congress will agree to”?

      • Murc says:

        … because what Congress will and will not agree to can potentially change depending on if the legislative agenda of the President is perceived as having broad popular support and legitimacy, which is reinforced by other major institutions perceiving this as well?

        Granted, that’s not as much the case these days as once it was, as there seems to be a much higher number of congresscritters who don’t give a shit about things like that, but its not NOTHING.

        • mark f says:

          This seems tautological. If the president has coattails then the new congress will reflect that “mandate.” If not, what’s his claim? It just sounds like George Bush’s “political capital” talk to me. Sure, the president just by being president sets an agenda of sorts — Congress is going to proceed according to how he’s going to act on it sends to the White House, though not necessarily with getting his signature in mind — but how often does an opposing congress acquiesce to his priorities? How would that work in practice?

    • Wido Incognitus says:

      Man, it’s good to have as many people voting for your candidate as possible. That’s really the only reason to vote, because there’s is simply no chance that your single vote will matter, even if you live in a swing state.

  12. Davis says:

    I remember the geniuses at NRO just before the 2006 midterms predicting the Republicans not only retaining the House, but gaining seats. Of course, their credibility with their readers is undimmed.

  13. Anonymous says:

    ” A vote for Romney tomorrow is a vote for a restoration of the old Jacksonian — Andrew, that is…”

    Versus what, Michael or Tito?

  14. Anna in PDX says:

    Wow, the Perlstein article on fleecing the rubes was TERRIFIC. I really had no idea that the right wing noise machine continues to get people to buy into weird get rich quick schemes and find miracle cures for cancer for just 23 cents a day. It was very interesting how he tied these things together and connected them to Romney’s ability to lie so seamlessly.

  15. Thlayli says:

    It’s great that Miami decided to give a truckload of money to one of the biggest assholes in the known universe….

    … but enough about LeBron James.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.