Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So who does Bloomberg get to be his running mate? Since it sounds like Ahnold is out, I assume the top of the shopping list is a maverick D to bookend the maverick R thing he's got going, and that there is no desire to subject Americans to listening to Joe Lieberman drone on any more than absolutely necessary.

Gavin Newsom

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Senators, you mean?

• I examine the differential responsiveness of U.S. senators to the preferences of wealthy, middle-class, and poor constituents. My analysis includes broad summary measures of senators’ voting behavior as well as specific votes on the minimum wage, civil rights, government spending, and abortion. In almost every instance, senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators’ roll call votes. Disparities in representation are especially pronounced for Republican senators, who were more than twice as responsive as Democratic senators to the ideological views of affluent constituents. These income-based disparities in representation appear to be unrelated to disparities in turnout and political knowledge and only weakly related to disparities in the extent of constituents’ contact with senators and their staffs.

link (an abstract of Economic Inequality and Political Representation, by Princeton poli sci prof Larry Bartels)

Neat, but to buy into the opaque concern he offers at the end, you have to buy into the notion that the goal is to have as close to a form of a utopian parity among all levels of voters as possible. I doubt anyone writing in the time of the Constitution or now or ever considers that a realistic or even worthwhile goal.

ETA: To be painfully honest, there are people who are simply too stupid or invested in redistributive facets of government to allow those sorts a parity of any sort. They'd have socialism if they could.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He's fiscally moderate. I dislike his smoking ban stuff because it signals a tendency toward interference in social behaviors, but otherwise, he's been a pretty solid cost-cutter. One could quibble with his initial property tax hike when he took office, but that was necessary. And he did pare down NYC's govt operational costs, which were given to him by Rudy. All in all, I think he's a fine candidate. My only concern is his strong support for public schooling. I think vouchers might be the better answer.

A fiscal moderate beats a fucking socialist like Hillary or Edwards, or knuckledraggers like Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback and Big Govt Conservatives like Romney any day.

It'd be hard for me to choose between Rudy and Bloomberg. I'd like to smash them together into one person and vote for him/it.

These days, being a Republican is about (a) the tribal aspect of being a Republican, which means that you have to stick it to Democrats and stick by other Republicans, especially the President, and (b) sounding manly, which used to mean getting tough on crime but now means being more ready than the next guy to use force on foreigners, be they terrorists, immigrants, or Iranians.

Bloomberg lives amidst a bunch of Democrats and hasn't tried to make up for that fact, a la Mitt Romney, by repenting to other Republicans for it. And he doesn't advocate nuking any Iranian immigrants being held at Gitmo. So he can't be a Republican.

His other policies are irrelevant to the question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Neat, but to buy into the opaque concern he offers at the end, you have to buy into the notion that the goal is to have as close to a form of a utopian parity among all levels of voters as possible. I doubt anyone writing in the time of the Constitution or now or ever considers that a realistic or even worthwhile goal.

No, most of the framers were landed gentry and thought that government of, by and for the landed gentry would work out pretty well.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, most of the framers were landed gentry and thought that government of, by and for the landed gentry would work out pretty well.

say the words Ty. I favor socialism. But understand you won't be able to afford trips to NYC anymore

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ezra Klein:

• So Bush calls Alberto Gonzales "Fredo." The Iraqi refugee who repeatedly misled US intelligence was code-named -- by us! -- "Curveball."
  
  You ever get the feeling this administration is just a particularly elaborate piece of performance art?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say the words Ty. I favor socialism. But understand you won't be able to afford trips to NYC anymore

I favor democracy, but sebby says it can't work.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I favor democracy, but sebby says it can't work.

I said it shouldn't work because if it did, we'd have socialism. Algebraically, this validates Hank's charge against you.

Don't hold me to the math. I went to law school.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
These days, being a Republican is about (a) the tribal aspect of being a Republican, which means that you have to stick it to Democrats and stick by other Republicans, especially the President, and (b) sounding manly, which used to mean getting tough on crime but now means being more ready than the next guy to use force on foreigners, be they terrorists, immigrants, or Iranians.

Bloomberg lives amidst a bunch of Democrats and hasn't tried to make up for that fact, a la Mitt Romney, by repenting to other Republicans for it. And he doesn't advocate nuking any Iranian immigrants being held at Gitmo. So he can't be a Republican.

His other policies are irrelevant to the question.

You're mistaking "idiot" and "chickenhawk" with Republican. I will always believe, even if it makes me a loon in the forest screaming to no one, that there is a moderate centrist GOP base that favors socially moderate and fiscally conservative positions. I NEED to believe that.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
....there is a moderate centrist GOP base that favors socially moderate and fiscally conservative positions. I NEED to believe that.

I think there are 28 of us, at last count.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I said it shouldn't work because if it did, we'd have socialism. Algebraically, this validates Hank's charge against you.

Except that Hank's the one who likes to point out that nothing's the matter with Kansas, where the unwashed masses elect Republicans.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're mistaking "idiot" and "chickenhawk" with Republican. I will always believe, even if it makes me a loon in the forest screaming to no one, that there is a moderate centrist GOP base that favors socially moderate and fiscally conservative positions. I NEED to believe that.

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Except that Hank's the one who likes to point out that nothing's the matter with Kansas, where the unwashed masses elect Republicans.

From my perspective, he's wrong. They are illogical.

But from say, Greedy's perspective - emphasizing principles - Hank's spot on. If the thing Kansans hold most dear are their social values, then their votes make sense. You could even say they are exceptionally principled, since they are sacrificing money for what they believe are social positives.

ETA: And Frank Rich is whining fucking horse's ass anyway. only a truly pompous effete imbecile would pen a book that obnoxious. I've seen him interviewed and read him for years. He's the third guy I'd like to slap, behind Krugman and Limbaugh.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I think there are 28 of us, at last count.

Good. I won't feel guilty about driving drunk anymore.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
These days, being a Republican is about (a) the tribal aspect of being a Republican, which means that you have to stick it to Democrats and stick by other Republicans, especially the President, and (b) sounding manly, which used to mean getting tough on crime but now means being more ready than the next guy to use force on foreigners, be they terrorists, immigrants, or Iranians.

Where I am, being a Republican isn't this at all. It's voting R strictly because of the perception (let's put aside whether it's correct) that the Dems will not be willing to do what it takes at home and abroad to protect our asses as much as an R. I know tons of people who fit that category. None want to sound manly (especially the women) and aren't into tribaling around with a bunch of anti-choicers and other assorted would be liberty-curbers.