To: Representative Betty McCollum, (D MN-4)
From: Mitch Berg, your “Constituent”
Re: Office procedure.
Dear Representative McCollum,
I realize that it might be easier to leave things be than actually deal with a constituent who differs from an approach you no doubt committed to take on the issue long, long ago…
…but would it kill you to clear out some space on your voicemail?
That is all.
MBerg
Talking with Twila Brase from the Citizens Council on Health Care.
Today, the Northern Alliance Radio Network brings you the best in Minnesota conservatism from 9AM-3PM.
(All times Central)
So tune in to all six hours of the Northern Alliance Radio Network, the Twin Cities’ media’s sole guardians of sanity. You have so many options:
Join us!
MN 7th District representative Collin Peterson will vote “No” on the House “Healthcare” bill this weekend:
Peterson says the bill doesn’t do enough to control health care costs, and that it continues unfair Medicare reimbursements that penalize Minnesota doctors and hospitals. Peterson says his biggest concern is the federal budget…
This is good news. There was some doubt on this one; while Peterson is one of the bluest of the blue dogs, and represents a fundamentally conservative part of Minnesota, his vote seemed to some observers (including Rep. Bachmann, whom Ed and I interviewed last weekend) to be a bit of a tossup.
Earlier today, CD1 Rep. Tim Walz indicated he’d vote for the bill.
Walz, in his second term representing a slightly less conservative district than Peterson, is no doubt paying back chits to the DNC. Someone check for strings above his arms.
And get on the phone – to thank Peterson, to tell Walz you’re not amused, and to tell Oberstar you are a pro-lifer who is not amused by the “healthcare bill”‘s affordances for abortion:
Jim Oberstar:
2365 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-6211
FAX: (202) 225-0699
Collin Peterson
(202) 225-2165
Tim Walz
Washington Office
1722 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-2472
This is for all the marbles, folks. Your healthcare, and your great-grandchildrens’ solvency.
The Twin Cities media glitterati are getting their yuks over this bit here today; Barney Frank on Michele Bachmann’s 10,000 interlopers:
Democratic Rep. Barney Frank took a dig Friday at the Republican lawmaker who organized a protest by conservatives against health care legislation.Frank, a Massachusetts liberal, told an audience: “Some of the people (at the rally) that wanted to engage me in conversation appeared to have been the losers in the ‘Are you smarter than Michele Bachmann contest?’.”
That’s right, hoi polloi. Stay out in flyoverland, where you belong. Let your Patrician Lords and Masters do all the thinking for you. That’s why they have the eternal sinecures; the club membership that never ever expires.
(It’s why they need the Deluxe Congressional Healthcare plan; dealing with all of you sluggards is so stressful, the mere prole “public” plan won’t cut it!)
Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., had organized Thursday’s rally attended by thousands of conservatives critical of the Democrats’ health care plan. Her spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment. Frank, who recently compared arguing with an angry voter to conversing with a dining room table, said this week’s protest was like being trapped inside a furniture warehouse.
How cool would it be if the voters of Massachussetts relieved Mr. Frank of the onerous duty of having to deal with all of us troublesome effing peasants for the rest of life?
A guy can dream.
Speaking of Instant Runoff Voting…
Who is it who actually “ranks” their choices, anyway? Maybe my point of view is skewed because I am a guy who has – and my social circle is a lot of politically-aware people who also have – strong opinions who know who they’re voting for and why, but I can’t remember a single election where I had a second choice for any office.
I went back through the last several key, contested elections, and entered “ranked choices” for each race.
Saint Paul Mayoral Election, 2009
First Choice: Eva Ng
Second Choice: My dog, Clu.
Third Choice: A jab in the eye with a sharp stick.
Minnesota US Senate Race, 2008
First Choice: Norm Coleman
Second Choice: My cat, Nosemarie.
Third Choice: Getting ripped apart by mice.
Minnesota Fourth District Congressional Race, 2008
First Choice: Ed Matthews
Second Choice: Being forced to sit in booth at Denny’s listening to Ken Weiner, Bill Pendergast and Eva Young frothing about Michele Bachmann for all eternity..
Third Choice: A “Spongebob Squarepants” marathon.
Minnesota Gubernatorial Race, 2006
First Choice: Tim Pawlenty
Second Choice: My other cat, Candy.
Third Choice: Gouging out my own eyes with a spork. (This was almost a tie for third, by the way; Candy has this habit of biting my nose at 4AM that has her on my schvitz list today).
Minnesota Fourth District Congressional Race, 2006
First Choice: Obi Sium
Second Choice: Drinking a fifth of my own fermented sweat .
Third Choice: Going to “Drinking Liberally” and drinking heavily.
Fourth Choice: Gargling with Drano
Fifth Choice: Going to “Drinking Liberally” and not being allowed to drink at all.
Sixth Choice: Any cast member from “The Hills”.
Seventh Choice: Betty McCollum.
US Presidential Race, 2004
First Choice: George W. Bush
Second Choice: Brussels Sprouts
Third Choice: Any random western European leader...
US Senate Race, 2002
First Choice: Norm Coleman
Second Choice: One of those gas-station burritos, after it’s been sitting on my car seat on a hot day.
Third Choice: Rick Kahn’s speech, on eternal loop, forever.
US Presidential Race, 2000
First Choice: Steve Forbes
Second Choice: Jack Kemp.
Third Choice: Steve Forbes.
Now, like most people, I do believe most people are like me. Or, rather, that most people who should be allowed to vote are like me.
Oh, that sounded so intolerant; what I mean is that I suspect most people who actually care enough about politics to care about their voting system at all, really don’t go into the polling place with any sort of “second choice” in mind. We go into the polls wanting victory for the candidate who represents our beliefs the closest, and not a lot more.
Who actually has some notion of “ranking” choices in elections? I’m curious.
So Eva Ng lost the Mayor’s race on Tuesday. And she lost it by a big margin.
I wrote my initial takeaways the other night; I think it’s huge that we actually got a Republican on the ballot at all; Eva is the first we’ve had in the 22 years I’ve lived in this city.
But I’ve had people asking me – what do you think Eva Ng should do next?
Well, the obvious response is “Ask Eva!” I mean, it’s totally her call – and she did a job well above and beyond the call of duty. She charged into the maw of the St. Paul DFL machine (motto: “Like Chicago, only more passive-aggressive”), and did a great job of articulating an opposition case. She didn’t win, but not for lack of merit.
Still, I’m going to offer this as a set of suggestions to Ms. Ng:
Take the rest of the year off. You earned it. But please think about it.
Think hard – but not too long. This next year is going to be a great year to hit the ground running as a conservative, even in a place like Saint Paul.
This next four years is going to leave this city a cold Flint; I think the 2013 election is going to be a whole ‘nother party than this last one.
It’s hard for me to know what to say about atrocities like Fort Hood, other than the obvious; I pray for the people of Killeen, the troops in the First Cav and the Third Armored Cav and the 41st Artillery and the other units stationed there. Getting shot at in a combat zone is something they train for and expect; getting shot at on home turf, allegedly by one of their purported own, is not.
Like I said, it’s hard for me – but it’s not for Victor Davis Hanson.
I think on the one hand we will see the familiar therapeutic exegesis, in which we hear of traumatic stress syndrome, justified and principled opposition to the Iraq and Afghan wars, generic mental illness, anger at being deployed overseas, or maltreatment from fellow soldiers due to his Muslim faith and various other efforts to “contextualize” the violence. (I am watching Major Hasan’s cousin on the news right now [I think], on spec, explain that the otherwise normal killer was a victim of bias and was ill at ease with firearms (after shooting over 40 victims and surviving the carnage). I cannot imagine the trauma of family members of the dead hearing such sentiments aired, or knowing that the killer apparently had voiced prior extremist sympathies.
There are times I think America’s fixation on the therapeutic culture is itself a disorder.
On the other hand, one could instead see Hasan in a long line of killers and would-be murderers of the last decade that in some loose way express an Islamic anger at either American culture or the United States government or both, as a way of elevating their own sense of failure into some sort of legitimate cosmic jihad.
“But wait – don’t be ripping Islam! It’s an isolated incident!”
I’m not – and it irritates me to have to clarify this, since if I don’t someone will accuse me of anti-Moslem bias – bagging on Islam. Many Moslems, including many of my neigbhors, are loyal Americans. Many serve this country, and not a few have died in action.
But it is, unfortunately, not all that isolated:
Prior to 2009, there have been at least 20 terrorist plots broken up after September 11, 2001—aimed at subways, malls, military bases, airports, bridges, and synagogues. Those foiled cabals are in addition to more common scattered murdering by freelancing angry killers, who in some very general way either evoked radical Islam, their own faith, the Palestinian cause, al-Qaedistic Islamism, or solidarity with worldwide Islam (from the Beltway sniper to the UNC and the San Francisco car murderers), and a number of lethal attacks on Jewish centers and temples resulting in numerous deaths (from the LAX attacks to the San Francisco and Seattle shootings)…In this year alone, aside from the recent mass murdering at Ft. Hood, there have been four more terrorist plots uncovered. Colorado resident Najibullah Zazi was recently indicted for conspiring to use explosives in the U.S., apparently as part of a plot to let off a bomb in New York on the anniversary of 9/11. In addition, North Carolina residents Daniel Patrick Boyd and Hysen Sherifi were arrested and charged with conspiring to murder U.S. military personnel at Quantico, Virginia. In Texas, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi—a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen who was in the U.S. illegally—was arrested and charged after he placed a would-be bomb near Fountain Place, a 60-story office tower in downtown Dallas.
Most recently in Boston, a Massachusetts man was arrested in connection with terrorist plots that included attacks on U.S. shopping malls and on two White House officials. Tarek Mehanna, 27, of Sudbury, Mass, was charged with plotting with other terrorists from 2001 to May 2008 to carry out overseas and domestic terrorist attacks— including killing shoppers and first responders at malls.
Read the entire piece. And send whatever your worldview calls for – prayers, hopes, karmic imprecations or whatever – to the folks at Fort Hood. And, while you’re at it, for the Moslems in this country who did come here for a better life, and found it, and are as loyal to this country and what it stands for as any of us, and who are going to put up with all manner of (I say this with clinical precision) raving bullsh*t today.
And of course, for the people out finding the real terrorists, of whatever worldview, at home and abroad.
In all things political, I urge you to remember Berg’s Seventh Law: whenever liberals attack or mock anything about Republicans or (especially) conservatives, they are projecting or distracting.
Two key Dem memes since the immediate aftermath of the 2008 elections have been…:
What does Berg’s Seventh Law tell us?
Yep. Projecting and distracting:
A few days ago, the left-wing activist group MoveOn.org began sending out emails seeking contributions to fund primary challenges against any Democratic senator who does not fully support “health care reform with a public option.” Now there’s an update: MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben says the group has raised $3,578,117 for the project and is thinking of new ways to punish errant Democratic lawmakers.
“It’s a huge sum, and the clearest signal yet that any Democrat who helps Republicans filibuster health care reform will face an enormous backlash from the grassroots,” writes Ruben. And now, working in conjunction with Howard Dean’s old organization Democracy for America, MoveOn is starting a drive to take away the committee chairmanships of any Democrat who fails to live up to MoveOn’s progressive standards. “Many of these senators hold coveted committee chairmanships that give them significant power within the Senate,” Ruben writes. “Our friends at Democracy for America have launched an open letter urging Senate Democrats to strip committee chairmanships from any Democrat who filibusters health care.” Ruben says that more than 66,000 MoveOn and Democracy for America members have pledged to contribute.
Look for a Kos vs. DLC (or whatever they call themselves today, if they even exist anymore) brouhaha sooner than later. Accompanied by lots of stories from Keith Olberman and Fast Eddie Schultz (the real hearts, souls and leaders of the Democratic Party) about how intolerant of dissent the GOP is.
For much of the past ten years, proponents of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) have pointed to a short list of cities that have adopted the system for their elections. These included four cities of any real size. San Francisco uses it for its city assembly elections; Tacoma Washington and a few other smaller cities (up until Minneapolis and Saint Paul adopted it in the past two elections).
I observed at the time that IRV seemed to work, sort of, in places with pretty monochrome politics, where elections were usually one-party blowouts with very little chance of needing IRV’s byzantine choice-ranking process, its lack of a paper trail, and its turning over of the counting process to an opaque, “black box” algorithm that is utterly unaccountable to people outside the election process. Places like, well, San Francisco and Tacoma Washington and Minneapolis and Saint Paul; hopeless one-party liberal cesspools.
I also observed, at some length, that I had plenty of vocational, non-partisan issues with IRV from my background as a usability guy. I’m hoping to download a ballot from the Minneapolis election sometime today and start taking a formal whack at that angle (although I suspect the worst parts of the process lie behind the scenes).
Those were my observations. They were, by the way, backed up by real-world experience:
Problems from complicating the ballot have been documented in IRV elections. In Cary, N.C., 22 percent of the voters polled admitted to not understanding IRV. In Pierce County, Washington, 63 percent of 91,000 voters indicated that they did not like using IRV. Several studies by San Francisco State University on San Francisco’s Ranked Choice Voting indicate that older voters, those with English as a second language, and those with less income and education were less likely to understand IRV.
You read it here first.
More importantly, though, are the observations from the people of Tacoma, Washington. While the people of Saint Paul were wafting to the polls on pungent little clouds of reassurance from their political masters and voting for IRV (sometimes called “Incumbent Retention Voting”), the people of Tacoma were going to the polls, yelling “This Sucks!“, and ending their experiment.
With extreme prejudice. By a 2-1 margin.
What do they know that we don’t that IRV’s slick, well-financed advocates won’t tell you?
Can you imagine the revulsion that would have swept the nation if George W. Bush had, say, mentioned a spree-killing after giving a “shout-out” to some bureaucratic conference?
I never did hear what percentage of active-duty soldiers voted for Obama, but I can’t imagine he’s converted a hell of a lot.
Note that I’m not bagging on what the President actually said. Just comparing and contrasting.
Remember six weeks ago, when the regional leftyblogosphere tried and convicted Rep. Michele Bachmann for the death of Census worker Bill Sparkman, due to her views on overweening government?
Not so fast, some of us said; law enforcement hadn’t even had a chance to look at the case.
And now that they have…?
(Echo echo echo echo echo)
Two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said no final conclusions have been made in the case. In recent weeks, however, investigators have grown more skeptical that 51-year-old Bill Sparkman died at the hands of someone angry at the federal government.
The officials said investigators continue to look closely at suicide as a possible cause of Sparkman’s death for a number of reasons. There were no defensive wounds on Sparkman’s body, and while his hands were bound with duct-tape, they were still somewhat mobile, suggesting he could have manipulated the rope, the officials said.
So, Matt Hoffman? Dusty Trice? Got anything to tell us?
One of the odd things I”ve observed in 16 years in one form of IT or another; many of the best programmers I have worked with majored in, of all things, music.
This seems counterintuitive to people whose primary background is engineering, mathematics, software or other stereotypically left-brain activities, who tend to think music is far-right-brain and emotion-driven. There’s something to that – but there’s much more to it.
Mastering an instrument, music theory, and especially any kind of serious composition, particularly jazz or “classical”, is a frightfully logical activity. Those who do any of the above really, really well often have many of the mental tools needed to be good software engineers – not that the academic mainstream of either discipline brags about it much.
One of the examples of this – a colleague of mine from a dotcom we both worked at back in the nineties – extends the idea, classifying programmers in classical music terms:
For example, some engineers are Beethovens. Driven perfectionists, constantly refining and revising their code, never content for it to be just “good enough”. Beethovens are utterly fearless about using “revolutionary” new approaches and techniques. They aren’t motivated by what’s fashionable or lucrative; their only concern is to blaze new trails and create radically innovative solutions that nobody has ever seen before.
I’ve known a few of these. In at least one case the programmer I’m thinkiing of (not the author that I’m linking to, just to be clear), like Beethoven, had no problem insisting it was everyone else’s duty to support him (in terms of organizational effort and project time rather than financially, in this case) as he worked on his grand transformation. The Beethoven analogy seemed particularly apt.
Other engineers are Mozarts. Great software just seems to “pour” out of them, as effortlessly as breathing. They’re not so concerned with breaking new ground, but their code “just works” and is elegant and easy to understand and maintain. They are masters of the tools of the trade. They’re not always reliable though, preferring to avoid work, and don’t like producing on a deadline.
Then there are the Haydns. Steady, dependable, consistently cranking out one app after another like a machine. While the Beethovens and Mozarts work best on their own, Haydns are great delegators and collaborators. Their code isn’t likely to change the world, but neither is it likely to crash or contain bugs, and you can count on them to deliver on time and under budget.
It seems like I’ve been running into a lot of Neil Diamonds and Desmond Childs lately. And I think at least one of the author and my mutual acquaintances might pass for Richard Wagner.
It’s too bad Music History isn’t taught in schools any more, because this would be a great software engineer interview question: “If you were a composer, which one would you be?”. I wonder how many recent computer science students could provide an intelligent answer?
Convinced as so many from both the “hard” sciences and the humanities are that never shall the ‘twain meet, mentally speaking, I’d suggest “zero”.
And “Agile” development is the equivalent of the Brill Building. And not in the Goffin/King sense of the term, if you catch my drift.
Anita Moncrief in the GreenRoom writes knows why the left – and the “elite” of the GOP – are so shaken up by NY23; it upsets the cozy system the parties had worked out amongst themselves:
Doug Hoffman’s candidacy was much bigger than him. It signaled the reemergence of the American citizen as “the ruler of the roost” and both parties have taken notice. Some career politicians find the notion of having to answer to “the people” galling, and continue to undermine the will of the people. However, politicians like representatives Steve King of Iowa, Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and of course, Sarah Palin. are continuing to shake up Washington.
And Washington doesn’t like getting shaken up!
Look at how the media, the leftymedia, and their subordinates in the lefty blogosphere are painting each of these events; count the number of times you saw Hoffman portrayed as a “Teabagger’s” candidate – har di har, lefties, another gay sex joke. If we admit you’re comic geniuses, will you let it drop?
The left’s canonical response to Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin is a matter of shameful record.
Someone left a quote in my comment section yesterday, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then yo win.
(Wikiquote says the sourcing is disputed; it may have come from a speech by unionist Nicholas Klein: “And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.” We’ll ignore the next step; he was with the United Clothing Workers).
So watch for those SEIU thugs. It’s a good sign.
I’m a white, Christian, straight male. According to current left-wing victomology theory, that means that’s all I’ll vote for.
In response, I’ve said for years that if a white, Chrsitian, straight liberal male were to face off in an election against a conservative black Taoist lesbian or a pro-growth, limited-government Uzbek Moslem, I’d vote for either conservative in a heartbeat; I’m electing a politician to represent my political beliefs, not a human security blanket for my social identity.
If I lived in Queens, I’d have been able to test that theory on Tuesday:
Republican Dan Halloran won the race New York City Council in Queens yesterday, despite a bunch of last minute articles focused on the fact that he practices Theodism, which involves Norse gods like Odin and Freyr. Says Halloran:
It is our hope to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples, within a cultural framework and community environment.
Score one for tolerance. Sure, it’s just the city council. And sure, it’s New York. But this guy is a full-on Pagan, for Odin’s sake, and he just got elected to a pretty important public office. As a Republican.
That’s because when push come sot shove, Republicans in general are more tolerant.
One of the biggest defeats in Saint Paul Tuesday night was the passage of Instant Runoff Voting.
“IRV” will bring endless resolutions, opaque unaccountable recounts, and – in the worst cases – elections where “Majorities” can only be reached by tossing ballots who don’t vote for any of the “finalists” in the byzantine counting processes – meaning winners will get “majorities” of ballots with preferences, but minorities of actual votes cast.
On the upside, “victory” parties will go on forever; Minneapolis likely won’t see official results from its various races until Christmas.
Christmas.
Jeff Rosenberg at MNPublius tries to explain last night’s Minneapolis election results. And I do mean “tries”. Jeff is a capable enough writer, and explains statistics as well as anyone in the Twin Cities’ ‘sphere. (They’re often as not wrong and out of context, but they’re explained well!).
To wit:
There were no major surprises, and few chances to really see ranked-choice voting come into play in Minneapolis last night. Joe Bodell has the complete results at MN Progressive Project [Sometimes called “Minnesota “Tragedy of Spyrochaetal Paresis” “Progressive” Project”]. There were a few races were 2nd-choice votes will be needed to officially put one candidate over 50 percent, but in all but one case the results are clear, with the leading candidate receiving 47 or 48 percent of the 1st-choice vote and the nearest challenger with under 40 percent. These races would all take miracles for the 2nd-place finisher on the 1st-choice votes to come from behind.
Which is a good thing, because recounts will be just plain hell.
There were two cases, though, where we’ll see ranked choice voting (i.e. Instant Runoff Voting) come into play, both involving the Park Board. In District 5, Carol Kummer and Jason Stone are nail-bitingly close. This one will be determined by 2nd-choice votes — in fact, it may even need to be decided by the 3rd-choice votes of those whose first choices were Barland and Looney.
Because Minneapolis voting machines could not be calibrated to tabulate anything other than the 1st-choice votes, the ballots will all need to be tabulated by hand, which means it will be some time before we know the winner of the Park Board race.
Is this reminding anyone of rotisserie league baseball yet?
I mean, that seems to be IRV’s main feature; it gives wonks stuff to chatter about. Forever.
Congrats, Saint Paul. You turned your electoral system into a friggin’ wonk’s parlor game.
One of the Democrats’ most irritating memes is the idea that there’s some “Moderate Republican” out there that, if the GOP would just send ’em to office, would unite with Democrats and, well, fix everything!
There’s a complementary meme, of course; that conservatism – government that favors the utterly Jeffersonian ideals of lower taxes and free markets and security – is “Extremist”.
Of course, this is never accompanied by the equal-but-opposite idea – that nationalizing a sixth of the economy, taxing achievement and subsidizing failure is equally “extreme”, as opposed to being just what people (wrongly, in this case) believe and how they differ from you.
In so doing, Democrats pine for the days before 1980 (2002, in Minnesota) when the GOP did nothing more than try to bring a little restraint to the statist fantasies of the far left that has been the mainstream of the Democratic Party, with a six-year break from 1994 to 2000, ever since 1972.
And after last night, as The Obama Dream staggers off to Wisconsin with a black eye, expect Dems to start pining for those days again – the days when Republicans had Stockholm Syndrome.
Jeff “Don’t Call Me Joel” Rosenberg of MNPublius gives the meme voice:
Once upon a time in American politics, there was a character known as a Moderate Republican. The defining characteristic of the Moderate Republican was his or her tendency to occasionally Compromise on Things. Very young political observers may not understand what I’m talking about, but there was a time when the occasional Republican would actually vote for a bill sponsored by a Democrat.
They’d have to be very young “political observers” indeed. John McCain was one of them.
So, for that matter, was George W. Bush; except for foreign policy and that whole “God” thing, he wasn’t far to the right of Jim Ramstad. He presided over a domestic policy that only a moderate-to-lefty could love; prescription drug subsidies, co-sponsoring an Education bill with Ted Kennedy, racking up a spending record to the left of Bill Clinton.
The problem is, once a “Moderate” Republican is in a position to threaten Democrat power, he/she is instantly labelled an “extremist”; see John McCain, whose lifetime ACU voting record of two points to the right of Jim Ramstad and “Maverick” label and history notwithstanding got branded by the Dems attack-PR machine and the media that basically spent the last two years working as their adjuncts as “an extreme conservative”.
The lesson all Republicans (and smart Democrats) should learn is that, when the chips are down, “the Moderate Republican” does not exist.
Today, however, Republicans fit into a much narrower band of ideologies. In fact, Newt Gingrich, a onetime leader of the conservative wing of the party, is now on the moderate side of his party.
{{facepalm}}
Now, Jeff is not by a long stretch a dumb guy. Indeed, in a Twin Cities leftyblogosphere dominated by the stupid and the depraved, he’s near the top of the curve. But this is just absurd.
Gingrich, in his capacity as both an intellectual and party leader, threw some institutional love to the party apparatus in a generally-insignificant, backwater upstate district. That apparatus hand-picked Dede Scozzafava, who is a textbook example of a RINO – a woman who ran to the left of the Democrats’ endorsed candidate. The endorsement is a sign that Gingrich didn’t think the race through, and that Palin and Pawlenty saw an opportunity and ran with it. Not that Newt turned into a hamster on us.
Anyone to the left of Gingrich is considered an America-hating communist
Oh, good lord, Jeff. Give it a rest.
It’s all well and good that conservative activists want to elect politicians who reflect their beliefs. What they’ve created, though, is a monster — a Republican party that votes en masse against any bill sponsored by a Democrat,
I’m sure Rosenberg is aware that the GOP controls neither house of Congress.
that’s more interested in fire-breathing political gamesmanship than participating in the legislative process.
Jeff: If you and I play a game of chess, and I actually move my pieces to try to put your king in check, it doesn’t mean I”m “not particpating in the chess process”. It means I’m doing what I set out to do at the beginning of the chess game; enact my agenda (by beating you).
The left’s meme (for Republicans) would have it that agreement is the end. It is not – or rather, it is not the end that any given elected official should seek as of election night. It is a means to the end.
And the truly amazing thing is, it’s going to get worse.
Where “worse” equals “present the left all of that scary cognitive dissonance that comes from having to defend your agenda, rather than get it for the asking”.
Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who upended the race in New York’s 23rd District, is just the tip of the iceberg. Right-wing extremists have big plans for replacing Republican to the left of Glenn Beck with “real” conservatives.
Notwithstanding Rosenberg’s invocation of boogeyman-du-jour Beck, as well as the absence of any commensurate move by the Dems to replace anyone to the left of Byron Dorgan with moderate Joe Lieberman clones to show the sincerity of their commitment to “compromise”, why would he care? I mean, if conservatism is truly “extreme”, and truly doesn’t reflect the electorate, then wouldn’t a good Democrat want the opposition to immolate itself?
Because, I suggest, Rosenberg (or the K-street spinmeisters he’s echoing, knowingly or not) knows it’s a bunch of baked wind.
When the Tea Parties can turn out millions of people in the shadow of the Obama Honeymoon, and when the best the left can do is call them naughty names in response, the left knows the “swing to the right” isn’t just a passing fad.
When the left has to demonize entertainers like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, rather than just let them do the voodoo they do (which, you’d think, would only help the left, if any of them were so “extreme” that they really did marginalize themselves and their followers, you know they’re scared of something.
When the left has to try to impart a patina of illegitimacy, depravity and even criminality on simple cognitive dissonance – everything from Janet Napolitano’s “enemies list” to the recurring slurs about the Town Hall meeting dissenters to Barbara Boxer’s “Nazi” references – you know it’s not because they think dissent isn’t self-abnegating.
On the bright side, this internal battle is going to make a mess of the 2010 election cycle for Republicans, who could have had a pretty good year in 2010. On the not-so-bright side, it’s going to mean even less cooperation from Republicans in Congress over the next year, if that’s even possible.
Um, Jeff? If the GOP has a bad year in 2010, building on our almost-negligible position today, then why is our cooperation even an issue?
Republicans will remember what happened to Scozzafava, and toe the conservative line lest someone challenge them, too.
That is the idea.
I’m sure that will strike hardline conservatives as major progress. The funny thing, though, is that in the long run this scorched-earth strategy is likely to do major damage to the Republican party. That’s what Gingrich warned conservatives about after Scozzafava withdrew from the race:
If we get into a cycle where every time one side loses, they run a third-party candidate, we’ll make Pelosi speaker for life and guarantee Obama’s re-election
And it’s there that Rosenberg gets close to a point, although he might not know it.
Gingrich was warning about the dangers of excessive purism, and of the Pat Buchanan approach of taking ones toys and leaving the sandbox. It’s a legitimate concern – ask Algore! – but should not be confused with what’s been his real message for 15 years now; selling conservatism to the middle, rather than running to the middle (the loathsome Scozzafava notwithstanding) like a $2 streetwalker to get some cheap votes.
And those are wise words indeed; which is why the left is working hard to try to portray all conservatism as “extremism”.
I”d hoped this story would turn out better: three women’s softball teammates from Dickinson State (in far western North Dakota) were found dead, in a jeep in a pond near the city:
Police said three missing North Dakota college softball players have been found dead in their vehicle, which was pulled from a pond northwest of Dickinson.
As I ponder sending my own kids off into the world, I pray for the families.
You know when I knew we were headed for a big night?
It was probably 6:30 last night. I was waiting for V to come on. And on Drudge, I saw that the MSM was claiming, mirabile dictu, that they had all sorts of polling to show that this election was not repeat not repeat not about Obama.
That’s when I knew we were going to run away in Virginia, and probably win Jersey.
Ecker on the Christie win:
It is easy to overstate the importance of this election, as it is after all a local race which centers around local issues and personalities just as much as it does higher issues. But voter attitudes towards their government in general can influence how voters approach those issues. In this case, Christie ran on the issue of property taxes and other economic issues, where voter opinions are certainly strongly influenced by the Democratically controlled Washington DC.
It’s also worth mentioning that Obama invested heavily in both races, stumping for both candidates a number of times, including in the final days before the election. It is a sign that his majestic holiness is no longer enough to sway voters with flowery speeches and hollow hyperbole.
Virginia – a traditionally Republican state – was a “must make a good showing” state for The One.
But Jersey? Not only have they not elected a Republican in sixteen years, but that “Republican” was Christine Todd Whitman, a woman who sent Rockefeller Republicans scampering for their Hayek.
Think that if Obama Deeds had won, or even kept it really really close, and/or if Corzine had won by the usual huge margin, we wouldn’t be hearing Katie Couric chiming that The Dream Is Still Alive this morning?
The most immediate effect of this will be in the outcome of ObamaCare/PelosiCare/etc. Already Blue Dog Democrats were feeling the heat of public opinion regarding the absolutely horrendous bill that is before Congress. Both Pelosi and Reid were already having problems convincing Democrats from swing districts to vote for the bill. This election is likely to reinforce that hesitation. If even an incumbent Democrats in a core blue state can lose, a Democrat in a swing or even a conservative district is officially on notice. Voters are not in a forgiving mood.
You listening, Tim Walz?
And I quote:
If Obama’s skin was any thinner, he’d have a reservoir tip on the top of his head.
From long-time friend of Shot In The Dark, Thorley Winston, at Megan McArdle‘s blog, via Kevin Ecker, who notes the comment was “in reference to Obama’s pitiful need to pick a fight with anyone that offers anything short of glowing praise for him.”
I’m waiting for the first Saint Paul DFLer to chuckle and say “Hah! We pwn this town!”
I’m ready. I’ll respond (with a nod to School Board candidate Chris Conner), “Yep. You own 42% tax increases, sclerotic services, the biggest public school achievement gap in the country, graduation rates south of 50-50, 4,200 vacant houses, rising crime and 30% vacancies downtown.”
“Congratufrigginlations! The bad news is, you have to try to fix your own mess for the next four years.”
Some people see a 30+ point loss for Eva Ng last night. I see something different.
In 2001, the Saint Paul GOP had to grit its teeth, say “Randy Kelly is a DFLer, but he’s as close as we’re gonna get to something who believes what we do”; compared to Jay Benanav, the longtime Eastside DFLer was the second coming of Reagan. (Four years later, we had to do the same; the flood of anti-Bush derangement scuppered the campaign; Ng did better than Kelly did four years ago).
The Saint Paul City GOP could have probably fit on the dance floor at Fabulous Fern’s back then.
In 1997, we had a Republican – Norm Coleman. He won – but the Republican Party in Saint Paul had as much to do with that as the “Reform Party” had to do with Jesse Ventura winning the governor’s office the next year; the DFL kicked Coleman out, and the incumbent came to, and pretty much was, the GOP in Saint Paul.
And four years before that, in 1993? Norm Coleman was a DFLer. Compared to Bob Long, he wasn’t nuts – quite the conservative, in fact. But no GOP candidate got within a mile of the final election.
1989? 1985? 1981? 1977? GOP? What GOP?
We didn’t win. But we got an actual Republican on the ballot for the first time that I can remember (other than Coleman, who got on through the back door, and thank God for it). It’s the best this party’s done in the run for mayor.
And we didn’t capture any school board positions – but we got three guys on the ballot. It’s a start.
From small things big things one day come!
What a great night!
In Virginia, the GOP didn’t just beat the Tics; we didn’t just beat them down; we didn’t just humilate them; we made them say “we’re not just your beeyotch, we are your bee-friggin-YATCH”. The Obama Revolution in Virginia had a half-life shorter than Milli Vanilli’s chart career. The Virginia election – in a state the Dems owned barely a year ago – made an eight-on-one prison shower-room beatdown look like a Japanese tea ceremony.
And in New Jersey? NEW JERSEY? I knew we were onto something when a third of the polls were in, Corzine trailed by seven, and Minnesota Public Radio’s utterly Republican-free “panel” spent a couple of minutes obsessing over “exit polls”. Which was at least better than CNN, which was running the “exit polls show New Jersey neck and neck” slide up until, I kid you not, the moment they called it for Christie.
Governor Christie.
Note to Dems; when even fat jokes fail you, you know you’re screwed.
Note to Hugh Hewitt: You were oh, so close to right on this one; if it’s not close, they can’t cheat (enough).
NY23 – well, there’s a lesson for the GOP: “Moderates” are death. Running to the middle to win moderates is the road to palookaville; Liberals want us to run moderates. Making the middle want to move to you is the way forward. The GOP flipped the Nassau County Commission, and the conservatives taught a lesson to the 23rd District’s GOP “elite”. While we lost the special election (cue Ms. Scozzafavva; ride into the sunset by any means necessary), we’re well-placed to beat Owens next year; the party might be over before they know what hit them.
Remember last year, when the left was tittering like a bunch of latte-addled grad students about the GOP and conservatism being dead?
Hah. We’re here, we’re conservative, and we’re not going away (Janet Napolitano’s enemy’s lists notwithstanding).
Bring on next year.
With 2% of the vote counted, Chris Christie is clobbering John Corzine in New Jersey by ten points.
Of course, I fully expect that the votes from Newark and Camden will put ACORN and Presiident Obama…er, I mean Governor Corzine, back in the thick of things.
I’ve seen no Saint Paul results so far. I’m off to the Eva Ng party. Fingers crossed.
POlls in Virginia have been closed for 20-odd minutes, and CBS is saying McDonnell is leading:
As the polls close in Virginia, CBS News estimates based on early exit poll results that Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is leading Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds.
The poll closing in Virginia is the first of several key votes tonight. Polls in New Jersey close at 8 p.m. ET and in New York close at 9 p.m. ET. Several mayors races and referendums are also up for a vote across the country.
Still 90 minutes until polls close in Saint Paul, and three months before Minneapolis’ Instant Runoff vote will be finally tallied.
UPDATE: CBS is running a prominent story about how this election really, pinky-swear, isn’t a remferendum on Obama after all. I figured there had to be a reason for that.
More than four in 10 voters in Virginia said their view of Obama factored into their choice on Tuesday, and those voters roughly split between expressing support for Obama and voting against him. People who said they disapprove of Obama’s job approval voted overwhelmingly Republican, and those who approve of the president favored Deeds, the Democrat.
Bonus question: how many “Black Panthers” will be hanging out at polling stations in Newark?
UPDATE 2: I know, they’re early results, with a small percentage reporting – but McConnell is currently up 30 points over Creigh “Dirty” Deeds. I know the gap won’t hold. But it’d be nice if a few points could waft to Saint Paul tonight, if only karmically.
I liked the original version of “V” which, back in the Reagan years, was pretty much a rockin’ good war story (as I recall it at the time).
I’ve been looking at the new remake with the usual trepidation one gets when something good gets remade.
But my trepidation is changing to something else:
Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.
The news media swoons in admiration — one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: “Why don’t you show some respect?!” The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader’s origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: “Embracing change is never easy.”
So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait — did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who’s come here to eat us?
Welcome to ABC’s “V,” the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it’s also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president’s supporters and delight his detractors.
OK, it’s worth a shot. I hope it’s on On-Demand.
I have a hunch that’s what I’ll need; writing aside (fingers crossed), here’s hoping it survives what will no doubt be a full assault from Obama’s faithful in Hollywood.
UPDATE: Dang. I’m remembering why I liked the first one so much.
You are currently browsing the Shot in the Dark weblog archives for November, 2009.
