Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you look at the polls since the Dems took back Congress, you see that the numbers have dropped because more and more Democrats are disappointed by Congress, which makes sense, because Republicans in Congress have blocked it from doing what most Americans want to do about Iraq, which is by far and away the issue of the day.

Yes, denizens of the party in power are always disappointed that the other party is preventing them from having their way. That's democracy, right? But now its the republicans' fault (again) because they're not in power, but not sufficiently out of power? Maybe the D's should have worked a little harder to get a bigger majority. Is that the R's fault too?

I'm worried, Ty, because I think Slave's criticisms of your biases are appearing to be accurate.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, denizens of the party in power are always disappointed that the other party is preventing them from having their way. That's democracy, right? But now its the republicans' fault (again) because they're not in power, but not sufficiently out of power? Maybe the D's should have worked a little harder to get a bigger majority. Is that the R's fault too?

I'm worried, Ty, because I think Slave's criticisms of your biases are appearing to be accurate.

Yeah, but Ty's criticism's of Slave's biases are also accurate, so doesn't it balance out?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, but Ty's criticism's of Slave's biases are also accurate, so doesn't it balance out?

I should ignore them both!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you look at the polls since the Dems took back Congress, you see that the numbers have dropped because more and more Democrats are disappointed by Congress, which makes sense, because Republicans in Congress have blocked it from doing what most Americans want to do about Iraq, which is by far and away the issue of the day.

LMAO

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I should ignore them both!

You only just figured this out? This is nearly as disappointing as Ty not being able to figure out that free shipping is likely to be less reliably fast than shipping you pay for.

[Replaced_Texan]

It turns out that John Culberson isn't actually on the transportation committee anymore! Hasn't been on it since January 11, despite comments like March 29th's, "I have a responsibility to the Houston region to help improve our entire transportation network as the only Texan on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee."

Ciro Rodriguez, it turns out, is the only Texan on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

He's been a thorn in everyone's side about light rail expansion (big car dealership money, I suspect), and he's been throwing his weight around at town hall meetings and the like about his importance on the matter. The "No Rail on Richmond" folk have stupid signs that say stuff like "Thank God for Representative Culberson."

Ha! He's just one of 64 members of the Appropriations committee. A small, insignificant fish in a very large pond.


Carry on.

[Gattigap]

Following in the tradition of PJ O'Rourke and his Harper's essay 25 years ago about a bunch of Nation readers on a cruise up the Volga river, TNR does its bit on today's National Review cruise, nominally named by the author, "The Muslims are Coming Cruise."

Sure, O'Rourke was funnier, and there's a good bit of effete sneering going on in this article, but the surprising thing to me was the degree to which readers treat the magazine's own founder so poorly.

• A fracture-line in the lumbering certainty of American conservatism is opening right before my eyes. Following the break, Norman Podhoretz and William Buckley--two of the grand old men of the Grand Old Party--begin to feud. Podhoretz will not stop speaking--"I have lots of ex-friends on the left; it looks like I'm going to have some ex-friends on the right, too," he rants--and Buckley says to the chair, "Just take the mike, there's no other way." He says it with a smile, but with heavy eyes.
  
  Podhoretz and Buckley now inhabit opposite poles of post-September 11 American conservatism, and they stare at wholly different Iraqs. Podhoretz is the Brooklyn-born, street-fighting kid who traveled through a long phase of left- liberalism to a pugilistic belief in America's power to redeem the world, one bomb at a time. Today, he is a bristling gray ball of aggression, here to declare that the Iraq war has been "an amazing success." He waves his fist and declaims, "There were WMD, and they were shipped to Syria. ... This picture of a country in total chaos with no security is false. It has been a triumph. It couldn't have gone better." He wants more wars, and fast. He is "certain" Bush will bomb Iran, and "thank God" for that.
  
  Buckley is an urbane old reactionary, drunk on doubts. He founded National Review in 1955--when conservatism was viewed in polite society as a mental affliction--and he has always been skeptical of appeals to "the people," preferring the eternal top-down certainties of Catholicism. He united with Podhoretz in mutual hatred of Godless Communism, but, slouching into his eighties, he possesses a worldview that is ill-suited for the fight to bring democracy to the Muslim world. He was a ghostly presence on the cruise at first, appearing only briefly to shake a few hands. But now he has emerged, and he is fighting.
  
  "Aren't you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?" Buckley snaps at Podhoretz. He has just explained that he supported the war reluctantly, because Dick Cheney convinced him Saddam Hussein had WMD primed to be fired. "No," Podhoretz replies. "As I say, they were shipped to Syria. During Gulf war one, the entire Iraqi air force was hidden in the deserts in Iran." He says he is "heartbroken" by this "rise of defeatism on the right." He adds, apropos of nothing, "There was nobody better than Don Rumsfeld. This defeatist talk only contributes to the impression we are losing, when I think we're winning."
  
  The audience cheers Podhoretz. The nuanced doubts of Bill Buckley leave them confused. Doesn't he sound like the liberal media?

Cruisegoers hold a similarly dim view of Rich Lowry, and the man is the current editor of the magazine.

• Then, with a judder, the panel runs momentarily aground. Rich Lowry, the preppy, handsome 38-year-old editor of National Review, announces, "The American public isn't concluding we're losing in Iraq for any irrational reason. They're looking at the cold, hard facts." The Vista Lounge is, as one, perplexed. Lowry continues, "I wish it was true that, because we're a superpower, we can't lose. But it's not."
  
  No one argues with him. They just look away, in the same manner that people avoid glancing at a crazy person yelling at a bus stop.

It's these sorts of exchanges that make me want to warn Buckley not to take any vacations at his country dacha anytime soon, or he'll find himself exiled in the Hamptons while Stormin' Norman moves on to wield the NR like a fiery neoconservative sword against the growing waves of unwashed masses.

Gattigap

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes, denizens of the party in power are always disappointed that the other party is preventing them from having their way. That's democracy, right? But now its the republicans' fault (again) because they're not in power, but not sufficiently out of power? Maybe the D's should have worked a little harder to get a bigger majority. Is that the R's fault too?

I'm worried, Ty, because I think Slave's criticisms of your biases are appearing to be accurate.

My point was only that to the extent that Congress's approval has dropped lately -- which is what Slave brought up -- it's because peopel increasingly don't think Congress has been far left enough. I was describing, not blaming.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
LMAO

You brought the polling data up, and then you laugh when I tell you what it says? Pollster.com:

• The polling here is thin, with approval of the parties only asked occasionally, so it is hard to track short term change. But the evidence we have is that Democrats are suffering declines in support relative to their January numbers. There is some evidence that this loss of support comes significantly from their base among liberals, who are unlikely to shift to support of Republicans. But an unpopular Congress has been the undoing of majority parties before and it seems Democrats should pay attention to the decline in approval of Congress, not whistle past the graveyard by pointing out that Republicans are worse off still.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point was only that to the extent that Congress's approval has dropped lately -- which is what Slave brought up -- it's because peopel increasingly don't think Congress has been far left enough. I was describing, not blaming.

I think you're right. You guys should move hard left for the next election. It'll be a shoe-in for you.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
You brought the polling data up, and then you laugh when I tell you what it says? Pollster.com:

• The polling here is thin, with approval of the parties only asked occasionally, so it is hard to track short term change. But the evidence we have is that Democrats are suffering declines in support relative to their January numbers. There is some evidence that this loss of support comes significantly from their base among liberals, who are unlikely to shift to support of Republicans. But an unpopular Congress has been the undoing of majority parties before and it seems Democrats should pay attention to the decline in approval of Congress, not whistle past the graveyard by pointing out that Republicans are worse off still.

Exactly where in this quote does it say anything remotely like your suggestion that the abysmal approval rating of Congress has anything to do with the actions of the minority party?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Exactly where in this quote does it say anything remotely like your suggestion that the abysmal approval rating of Congress has anything to do with the actions of the minority party?

I don't think voters are upset with Republicans in particular. I think voters are upset with Congress because they thought they were electing a Congress that would do something to bring the war to an end, and that hasn't happened. If you (you the voter) want to be upset at anyone about that, be upset at the Democrats, because the Republicans are doing exactly what you could have predicted, which is stand by their man.

Since Bush was bound to veto anything he didn't like, and the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority, this was not unexpected, but apparently voters are disappointed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If you can bear to watch, Coulter gets the worst of this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews.

[sgtclub]

• House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.
  
  Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
  
  
  
  They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.
  
  But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed.
  
  “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  
  The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you can bear to watch, Coulter gets the worst of this exchange with Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews.

When DOESN'T she get the worst of an exchange?