Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So you don't think anyone in DC should ever strategize about what the best timing is for blowing up issues? I believe I issued a memorandum on this board perhaps a month or so ago outlining precisely the same timing.

But, a nice move for the R's to find the memo and get it to Fox. I'll bet they had trouble convincing more reputable outlets that this was news.

Not when it comes to national security issues. But frankly, the portions that have been released do not seem that damaging to me, other than the timing issue, which is hedged because it says something like "if we can't cooperate with majority."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are not contradictory at all, and this comment shows me that you really do have no concept of economics. The market has spoken in that it has decided that this show is not a show that should be broadcast on network television free to television viewers. The market has also decided that this show is appropriate for Showtime, a pay television network. Those that have Showtime will be able to watch. Those that don't have to make an economic decision - is my desire to watch this particular film worth the cost of getting Showtime (or as I suggested, finding someone who has it).

You pull a classic Ty bait and switch again by equating "optimal result" with the majoriy being able to view the film or, as I understand you, "consumer welfare." The market's purpose is not to maximize consumer welfare, though it often times has that effect. The market's purpose is to divide labor (the "invisible hand") on an efficient basis.

You're right. I'll have to look into this economics stuff that you're talking about -- it sounds fascinating. But so complicated!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'll have to look into this economics stuff that you're talking about -- it sounds fascinating. But so complicated!

its applied math, and as Barbie herself has said, "math is hard."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay. does the Senate Dems' memo suggesting timing an investigation into pre-war intelligence and its alleged misuse to co-incide with the run up to the election sicken any of the Dems here?
I mean, if an investigation is in order, and the Pres. did do bad, shouldn't the investigation happen just as soon as possible? If the Dems are acting to investigate something they should as guardians of our democracy, it just seems that playing with the timing is not keeping with their supposed duties.
At long last, will this cause some of the Dems here to vote Republican?

I would rather live in a world where foreign policy wasn't politicized, but since the President and the GOP crossed that Rubicon a long, long time ago, I'm glad to see the Democrats fighting fire with fire.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not when it comes to national security issues. But frankly, the portions that have been released do not seem that damaging to me, other than the timing issue, which is hedged because it says something like "if we can't cooperate with majority."

On national securities issues you still have to pick your fights and time your battles; if you believe the issue is not whether we should be getting out of Iraq but rather how we got in to Iraq and how the President and the White House behaved in getting us into Iraq, then the issue is how do you properly disclipline these people and bring them to task. You hit them where it hurts, which is in the election. We are not going to change the fact that we went in, and so finding a timing that displines the guilty more effectively is part of the Dem's job.

If this were instead about how to wage the battle we are now in, or when to get out, I would agree with you, electoral timing would be a very poor consideration, and delaying the issue while soldiers are at risk and a poor policy continues would be inappropriate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
You're right. I'll have to look into this economics stuff that you're talking about -- it sounds fascinating. But so complicated!

You probably should not. Otherwise you would vote Republican.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On national securities issues you still have to pick your fights and time your battles; if you believe the issue is not whether we should be getting out of Iraq but rather how we got in to Iraq and how the President and the White House behaved in getting us into Iraq, then the issue is how do you properly disclipline these people and bring them to task. You hit them where it hurts, which is in the election. We are not going to change the fact that we went in, and so finding a timing that displines the guilty more effectively is part of the Dem's job.

If this were instead about how to wage the battle we are now in, or when to get out, I would agree with you, electoral timing would be a very poor consideration, and delaying the issue while soldiers are at risk and a poor policy continues would be inappropriate.

I tend to agree with you, so long as it does not affect, in any material manner, the war on terrorism. The real issue the Right has is when these investigations or policy quarrles look to the rest of the world as a divided rather than unified front, which emboldens our enemies. If it doesn't go down that road, fine. But if it does, I think it borders on sedition.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You probably should not. Otherwise you would vote Republican.

Nice one-liner. You should make some FB appearances.

Too bad the Republican's have been sponsors of some of the most simple-minded economic theories of the last half-century. Voodoo economics never dies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• BOLINAS, Calif. (AP) -- Residents of this quirky coastal town north of San Francisco decided overwhelmingly to declare their love of nature, skunks and a few other things perhaps not as easily understood.
  Sponsored by a local woman known for wearing hats made of tree bark and newspaper, Measure G won 314 to 152 in the town of 1,200, where residents are so protective of their isolated way of life that they regularly remove highway signs pointing into town.
  
  The text of the measure, in its entirety: "Vote for Bolinas to be a socially acknowledged nature-loving town because to like to drink the water out of the lakes to like to eat the blueberries to like the bears is not hatred to hotels and motor boats. Dakar. Temporary and way to save life, skunks and foxes (airplanes to go over the ocean) and to make it beautiful."

link

Another article a few days ago quoted a local resident as saying he was going to vote for this because he didn't want to hurt the woman's feelings.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I tend to agree with you, so long as it does not affect, in any material manner, the war on terrorism. The real issue the Right has is when these investigations or policy quarrles look to the rest of the world as a divided rather than unified front, which emboldens our enemies. If it doesn't go down that road, fine. But if it does, I think it borders on sedition.

Personally, I don't think our primary focus is fighting the war on terrorism anymore, and that this is a very bad thing. I think the war is now focused on different and not particularly well-defined (or at least expressed) geo-political goals. Afghanistan was a part of the war on terror. Iraq was a massive diversion of attention and resources away from the war on terror.

BUT, I think we are committed to Iraq now and that there is no easy way to refocus resources on the war on terror in the short term. A longer term focus and probably a change in administration are needed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Personally, I don't think our primary focus is fighting the war on terrorism anymore, and that this is a very bad thing. I think the war is now focused on different and not particularly well-defined (or at least expressed) geo-political goals. Afghanistan was a part of the war on terror. Iraq was a massive diversion of attention and resources away from the war on terror.

BUT, I think we are committed to Iraq now and that there is no easy way to refocus resources on the war on terror in the short term. A longer term focus and probably a change in administration are needed.

And this is the central difference these days. Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/989481.asp?vts=110520030830

“[The Confederate flag is] a racist symbol but I also the Democratic Party has to be a big tent,” Dean said Tuesday night, refusing to recant his statement that the party must court Southerners who display the symbol of the Confederacy in their pickup trucks.
“Poor white people need to vote their economic interest,” he said.

So ... the Dems need to make more of an effort to embrace racists, and those people he is trying to encourage to vote for him are called po' white trash.

Ya know, I've thought all this "Dean can't open his mouth without screwing up" stuff is a bit overplayed, but, damn.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The text of the measure, in its entirety: "Vote for Bolinas to be a socially acknowledged nature-loving town because to like to drink the water out of the lakes to like to eat the blueberries to like the bears is not hatred to hotels and motor boats. Dakar. Temporary and way to save life, skunks and foxes (airplanes to go over the ocean) and to make it beautiful."

I'm on the fence. I'm still waiting for the Legislative Analyst's Office report on the fiscal effects. And to see who Chris Daly appoints.

Dakar! <-- Pronounced as I presume Ricardo Montalban would pronounce it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
So ... the Dems need to make more of an effort to embrace racists, and those people he is trying to encourage to vote for him are called po' white trash.

I think the GOP is just upset that the Dems are finally trying to poach from their core base.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
http://www.msnbc.com/news/989481.asp?vts=110520030830


So ... the Dems need to make more of an effort to embrace racists, and those people he is trying to encourage to vote for him are called po' white trash.

Ya know, I've thought all this "Dean can't open his mouth without screwing up" stuff is a bit overplayed, but, damn.

Scary stuff.

The unholy democratic alliance of northern white ethnics and northern blacks would almost certainly be damaged further if anyone in the Dem party tried to make too much of this. Which is to say, I'll be mildly surprised if any of the candidates tries too hard to exploit this.

Does the national DNC have any real authority to silence any of the candidates if they do raise this issue? Seriously, this is the kind of thing that could drive one or other of the core constituencies away when the Dems can least afford it.

Then again, if the Dems had to choose a poison, I'd bet they'd "toss" the minorities overboard in the popularity contest. Specifically, its probably easier to offend the minorities than the ethnics etc, at least because they perceive that the minorities cannot turn to the other party.

Along those lines, right now would be a great time for Bush to reach out to minorities, if Rove can even imagine a way to do so.

Hello