The Sexist “Alliance For A Better Minnesota”
By Mitch Berg
The party that stood four-square behind Representative Ryan Winkler for calling Justice Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom“…
…has the vapors over two of the most innocuous jokes…
Nov. 16, 2012: “Poor Susan Rice. She’s the first woman in Washington to get in more trouble opening her mouth for a president than Monica Lewinsky.”
Nov. 18, 2012: “I keep hearing about this fantasy football thing. I don’t get it. My idea of fantasy football is where I am the quarterback and Angela Jolie is the center.”
They’re from Craig “Captain Fishsticks” Westover, an advisor to MNGOP gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson. And the first one is accurate to a journalistic fault.
And, uh, note the dates.
So they – in this case, “Sam Jasenosky”, who would seem to be an undergrad journalism major (what else) – have been reduced to digging through advisors’ twitter feeds for any sign of political incorrectness to be tortured out of context.
I can hardly wait to see the ABM TV ad next year.
Here’s the fun part, though; ABM are the real sexists: from yesterday’s post about the GOP candidates:
Julianne Ortman: A genie.
And lest the reader mentally compare Ortman – a graduate of U Penn law school and a former adjunct professor George Washington U – to the “Djinn” of Arab mythology, they helpfully included video of Barbara Eden playing a jiggly, bubbleheaded blond piece of eye candy:
Because when you’re a Democrat, it’s only sexism if you’re one of the bad guys.
And because that’s what female conservatives are to Carrie Lucking’s little troupe of howler monkeys.
If Paul Wellstone really had all the integrity people said he did, he’d puke.
November 1st, 2013 at 9:12 am
Those comments are too damn silly to get that worked up about. I mean what do they justify, endorse, or excuse, really? Can you sound that goofy and affect ANYTHING in ANY way?
November 1st, 2013 at 10:07 am
TFS, when 35% or more of the population is indoctrinated to the extent that they might as well be brain-dead, yes, they do have a lot of influence.
November 1st, 2013 at 10:17 am
TFS,
I agree – the comments are silly and – in a normal world – inconsequential.
But ABM is spending a lot of time and money trying to frame (!) Republicans, jointly and severally, as “sexist”, “evil”, etc.
And I’m pointing it out, on the off-chance we can save at least someone…
November 1st, 2013 at 10:30 am
Not everything is about point-scoring the Democrats vs. the Republicans.
The challenge for the Republican part is to make government smaller by making it better. Simply rolling back the gains of the social democratic policies of the last 70 years is a political non-starter. The public decided long ago that while they may dislike many aspects of their implementation, they very much like the comforts and safety that the welfare and regulatory state offer, and fear their removal. This requires a return to the intellectual pursuit of new and better ways to deliver what is best about the regulatory and welfare state.
The Tea Party wishes to stand in opposition to the path of history and cry NO! That caricature of Conservatism is and has always been a concession of incremental failure, as history will eventually move forward around obstacles, but never backwards. The only path to success is through the embrace of an innovative re-imagining of government.
November 1st, 2013 at 10:37 am
We live in a pathetic system on the road to collapse.
November 1st, 2013 at 10:39 am
QUOTE: The only path to success is through the embrace of an innovative re-imagining of government.
I am begging everyone to listen to this http://bit.ly/17BHW4e
Mitch: this is a must get guest IMO.
November 1st, 2013 at 10:44 am
The other thing is Winkler was bringing up a sensitive subject with someone who has been through some real difficult shit. I mean just awful.
Rice was just a political whore acting like a political whore. The other comment is just so goofy.
November 1st, 2013 at 10:53 am
That caricature of Conservatism is and has always been a concession of incremental failure, as history will eventually move forward around obstacles, but never backwards.
Yes, but not because of any legislation, program or government effort.
The only path to success is through the embrace of an innovative re-imagining of government.
I reject the premise that “success” to the larger society is something government – re-imagined or not – will bring.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:02 am
I hear that word “reject” too much when it comes to politics. There are good ideas to be poached from both parties.
It is hard to remember now, but the Republican party in the 1980s was the party of ideas (whether you liked them or not). That was the genesis of their success, and that is what they have lost.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:04 am
We allocate way too many resources politically with Alinsky tactics. This is going to look very, very foolish when the bond market implodes.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:05 am
QUTOE: I hear that word “reject” too much when it comes to politics. There are good ideas to be poached from both parties.
I used to think that.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:10 am
Seriously, at this point I think libertarianism is the only path to maximum “social justice” , opportunity, and prosperity. The Fed has to be completely overhauled as part of it.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:29 am
I hear that word “reject” too much when it comes to politics. There are good ideas to be poached from both parties.
But I think – and this blog was founded, in part, to state the case – that the political process is one of the worst possible paths to “good ideas”.
Disagree if you will – you’re welcome to state your case.
Color me unconvinced.
It is hard to remember now, but the Republican party in the 1980s was the party of ideas (whether you liked them or not). That was the genesis of their success, and that is what they have lost.
And one of the most successful ideas they sold was “government is not the answer”.
Reagan turned “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help” into a national punchline – by way of selling the idea that government is best when it’s limited.
November 1st, 2013 at 11:51 am
The success of Reagan was not a rolling back of the welfare state. He succeeded in changing the way the welfare state was delivered. He also changed the structure of taxes (he did not reduce them) to encourage innovation and business. He de-regulated what did not need regulation (and went too far in some areas like finance). Reagan shrank the behemoth by privatizing government owned assets, forcing them to be at least partially subject to market forces. A return to the days of Reagan requires a return to the intellectual pursuit of new and better ways to deliver what is best about the regulatory and welfare state.
November 1st, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I thought we had seen the destruction of the argument that “Reagan did not reduce taxes” on these pages previously ……..
November 1st, 2013 at 12:31 pm
ABM is going after Fishsticks because he’s effective. If Carrie Lucking were a figure skater, she’d be Tonya Harding.
November 1st, 2013 at 12:32 pm
QUOTE But I think – and this blog was founded, in part, to state the case – that the political process is one of the worst possible paths to “good ideas”.
Read Kevin Williamson’s book. There is ZERO doubt about this. I mean it isn’t even debatable. http://amzn.to/1aZRZxu
November 1st, 2013 at 12:42 pm
QUOTE ABM is going after Fishsticks because he’s effective. If Carrie Lucking were a figure skater, she’d be Tonya Harding.
Boy, no shit.
I actually met Tonya Harding. It was surreal.
November 1st, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Government sucks http://bit.ly/18KkePk
Fees aren’t in the CPI and they WILL get their graft even though the economy sucks.
Too bad if you are poor or middle class.
Too bad if you are young.
We are doomed.
November 1st, 2013 at 3:23 pm
If Wellstoned! had 1/2 the integrity lefties say he did, he’d still be alive.
He would have been back teaching Marxism at whatever lefty hellhole it was he came from because he had promised not to run for office more than twice.
He paid for his hubris and lack of integrity by providing food for the worms….pity, I guess.
November 1st, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Emery, I’m intrigued by your suggestion. How would a conservative re-imagination of government look in 2013? What should we keep and what should we dump?
November 1st, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Tax dividends, interest, and capital gains at equal rates with wages above a lower limit. Tax the profits of capital lower for those holding less than, say, $500K to encourage broader capital holdings and retirement savings.
Couple that increase in ownership taxes with an elimination of most corporate profit taxes. And harmonize corporate taxation systems to avoid leakage to tax havens (easier when the taxes are on capital ownership). Force corporations to disburse retained earnings to ownership or tax them to keep the money moving.
Tax estates — society owes nothing to the successful businessman’s children.
Tax all benefits as wages. Force businesses to pay people only in cash. Let people buy their own benefits. Basic healthcare that is effective should be available at an affordable price for all from a common risk pool. Subsidize child and elder care for those making less.
Structure unemployment insurance so that it smooths income for all workers, including part-timers and the self-employed. Make it into a state-mandated individual rainy day fund.
The economic future is bright for those who work in tandem with automation and intelligent machines to augment their productivity. This need not be restricted to those with engineering and computer science degrees. Sponsor more applied research to improve interfaces to intelligent machines and databases. Accustom students to working alongside intelligent machines and databases in schools. When (not if) intelligent machines become easier to work with, the productivity gains going to computer-enhanced workers will be broadly spread, growing the middle class. This will come, but we should seek to accelerate the process. It was only after the average worker could work with machinery that the productivity gains of the industrial revolution spread to a broad middle class; we need that history to repeat, but faster.
The shrinking share of profits going to labor is a function of technology, and of the labor force in the capitalist world growing from 1 billion to 5 billion in a single generation (too much unskilled labor, not enough skilled capital on the market). The appropriate solutions are not those of 100 years ago (high marginal income taxes and labor unions), because this is the early computer revolution, not the late industrial revolution. Governments and safety nets play an important role, but they must not impede economic change. The faster we grow and change (and encourage business to grow and change) through this transition, the faster we can bring a broad middle class into a more productive and prosperous era.
November 1st, 2013 at 5:30 pm
“Tax estates — society owes nothing to the successful businessman’s children.”
Destroy formed capital and turn it over to the government. Marxist waste. Forget it.
Tax it ONCE.
November 1st, 2013 at 5:33 pm
Estate taxes don’t raise jack, either.
We have terrible wealth disparity but you can’t use taxation or other government force to equalize a problem caused by the Fed. We are already in THAT death spiral. Look around.
November 1st, 2013 at 5:44 pm
“Tax estates. Society owes nothing to the successful businessman’s children.” So “society” is getting that tax money? Silly me thought the government would get it. Either way, the government’s done the least to deserve it.
November 1st, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Emery, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I need to study this before I respond. Maybe it should be a separate post? Mitch, can we think about opening up a place for SITDers to plug their advice to the GOP?
November 2nd, 2013 at 10:52 am
The strength of the American republic is that it has a constitutionally weak federal government, and a constitutionally weak executive. It is very hard to pass federal legislation, requiring something approaching consensus for anything major. This has prevented all sorts of extremism over the years, but it makes action slow. Due to its size and power, America suffers little in the way of external constraints. It is wise to keep the internal ones.
The proper venue for reform is state government, and always has been. We look to the federal government for reform because the Roosevelt era growth in federal programs and taxation make Washington the place where all the money is. Well that was a mistake in Roosevelt’s time; it’s a mistake now, and the money’s all gone. If you want a high tax social democratic economy, pass it through a state legislature. If your best and brightest businesses and individuals leave, then I guess you have to make social democracy more attractive (we’re often told Europeans think it’s worth it).
Transfer all of the big entitlements to the states. Allow the states to expand or contract them as they wish. Let each state experiment with health care reform by giving them all of the Medicare and Medicaid money collected in that state, together with the power to change those taxes. That will solve your gridlock. If you want transfer payments from rich to poor states, write a bill that explicitly does that and get it passed.
Yeah, they gave those powers away to the president. I think never before in history have government officials been less interested in power than the contemporary U.S. Congress.
November 2nd, 2013 at 3:48 pm
If we block granted as much as possible of the central government back to the states and did everything this guy says, http://www.thepurpleplans.org it would be PERFECT.
November 3rd, 2013 at 8:44 am
“It is very hard to pass federal legislation, requiring something approaching consensus for anything major.”
Written with smug sincerity even as Obamacare continues to divide the legislature and the country. Nice one Dik.
November 3rd, 2013 at 9:15 am
Portrait of a troll
http://tinyurl.com/mqpzlxk
November 4th, 2013 at 10:37 am
Facts and reality, swiftee, are for little people! Shut up, he said!
November 4th, 2013 at 7:18 pm
I’ll give you credit jpa, for not posting your smiling face on the Internets like swiftee. ;^)