Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark » Rupert Psmith

Wonkiest Bitchslap Ever: Nate Silver Demolishes Scott Rasmussen

Rupert Psmith — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:39:00 +0000

For those of us that have been complaining about the obvious Republican bias in Scott Rasmussen’s polls since Obama was sworn in, all while the mainstream media called us hyperbolic, we now finally have the definitive takedown by numbers guru Nate Silver following the 2010 elections.

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

In the past, Rasmussen ‘s goal was to use his biased polls to help shape the media narrative for the Republicans (well, mission accomplished). The trick though was to fix his methodology as the actual voting approached so he wouldn’t look like such an outlier, but apparently he got too cocky this season. Can we all now agree to ignore Rasmussen forever?

6 comment(s) for this post:

Gherald:
05 Nov 2010
| Can we all now agree to ignore Rasmussen forever?
No... it's a bit more complicated then that.... Observe: Notice the R 3.9 Bias? For the 2012 cycle, we can agree to adjust their topline numbers by 4 points, which is pretty much what Nate Silver's model implicitly does. And given the high 5.8 average error, we should weight them less than polls from other sources. (again pretty much what Nate Silver's model implicitly does) And given that they poll so prolifically (over twice as much as PPP, for instance) we should also apply some calculus that simulates what would happen if every pollster polled every race an infinite number of times (again, Nate Silver's model does this). Long story short, the bottom line is we should pay about 1/8 th as much attention to individual Rasmussen polls as we do to individual polls from other sources, and we should adjust their topline results by 4 points. But, this is what we have Nate Silver for! He crunches the numbers so we don't have to : )
Rupert_Psmith:
06 Nov 2010 Finally you post something again I can agree with completely. :P
Gherald:
06 Nov 2010 Hmm, my 1/8th is probably a bad estimate. I was thinking they're 1/2 as accurate and poll 4x as much than others ( so should be weighted 1/2 * 1/4 less). But, when looking at individual polls (rather than taking aggregates for pollster ratings as Nate does) it actually shouldn't be a mark against them that they poll so frequently. After all, they're giving us some information that we can't get from other pollsters. So, we still need to adjust their results by 4 points of course--but maybe paying 1/2 as much attention to them as other individual polls of that area/race/date is a better weighting. (though, of course, we won't have to look at individual polls much once Nate starts aggregating them in the summer of 2011 or so.)

Add a comment | View 3 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Understanding the Tea Party

Rupert Psmith — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 22:33:00 +0000

Hope this hasn’t been posted here yet. I just saw it and adore it.

1 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
02 Nov 2010 lol, i saw that around but never took the time to watch it till now. i love how the software rendered fucktard to fuckturd. i'll have to use that.

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Conservative Group Mailer Warns of "Obamavilles"

Rupert Psmith — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:59:00 +0000

Greg Sargent at The Plum Line reports on a lovely piece straight out of the Minitrue RecDep. A shadowy conservative group called the 60 Plus Association is sending out mailers warning Virginians that they may soon end up in an “Obamaville” if they don’t vote out the Democrat, Rep. Gerry Connolly. Connolly, they point out, supported the dreaded stimulus.

Greg Sargent:

What’s particularly interesting about this mailer is that the “Hooverville,” of course, was a symbol of government inaction in the face of the poverty and widespread misery of the Great Depression. But the 60 Plus Association, which is devoted to free enterprise and less taxation, is warning that “Obamavilles” will result if we don’t roll back government.

What’s the other big issue for the 60 Plus Association, you ask? They want the extension of the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% … presumably so the Koch brothers don’t have to join a bread line.

9 comment(s) for this post:

dandalion:
21 Oct 2010 OMG! Are they joking? You know what the scary thing is? people will actually fall for this. Its so hard to counteract ignorance and stupidity.
Rupert_Psmith:
22 Oct 2010 And notice all the dog whistles to teatards -- "our country" , "our prosperity" , "our children" -- they might as well be screaming like that woman, "I want my country back!" [youtube 9V1nmn2zRMc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc youtube]
Metavirus:
22 Oct 2010 its funny how obvious their shitty dogwhistles are to people attuned to listen for them. OUR country, OUR murka, etc. [where darkies knew their place] i really hope this doesn't last for too long.

Add a comment | View 6 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Church v. State, Take Two — O’Donnell Says She Won

Rupert Psmith — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:16:00 +0000

A quick update on one of the more amusing stories of the week. Talking Points Memo and ABC News report the latest spin from Christine O’Donnell after her belly flop on con law on Tuesday.

“It’s really funny the way that the media reports things,” O’Donnell told ABC News this morning. “After that debate my team and I we were literally high fiving each other thinking that we had exposed he doesn’t know the First Amendment, and then when we read the reports that said the opposite we were all like ‘what?’”[...]

O’Donnell told ABC News “her line of questioning to Coons was not because she didn’t know the First Amendment, but to the make the point the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.” (As ABC’s Jon Karl and Gregory Simmons point out in their report, “the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment’s declaration that Congress ‘shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’ as a legal separation between government and faith.”)

Based on our earlier discussion on Library Grape, this line of defense isn’t at all surprising, but reviewing the video again I never hear her actually say “where is the phrase separation of church and state.” A reminder of what she actually said:

Coons quotes the language of the establishment clause and O’Donnell sits there smugly, saying nothing, while the audience gasps and chuckles. They discuss it further and at no point does she articulate this abstruse conservative argument that “the phrase” separation of church and state isn’t present so it’s not valid to interpret it that way, regardless of Thomas Jefferson’s Danbury letter explaining the intent of the clause and two hundred years of legal precedent — no, she demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge, period. No points awarded.

Speaking of this narrow argument from the right regarding the establishment clause, Steve Benen makes some excellent points:

One can obviously read the Constitution and see that the literal phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t there, but a basic understanding of history and the law makes clear that the phrase is a shorthand to describe what the First Amendment does — it separates church from state.

Indeed, a variety of constitutional principles we all know and recognize aren’t literally referenced in the text. Americans’ “right to a fair trial” is well understood, but the exact phrase isn’t in the Constitution. “Separation of powers” is a basic principle of the U.S. Constitution, but it isn’t mentioned, either. More to the point, you can look for the phrase “freedom of religion” in the First Amendment, but those three words also don’t appear.

Ultimately, if you’re relying on extremist candidates and right-wing media personalities for constitutional scholarship, you’re going to be deeply confused.

1 comment(s) for this post:

ChristopherTK:
22 Oct 2010 Speak, stutter, fail, smile and finish. Damage control enters right on cue and declares victory. Is it November 3rd yet?

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Fence Straddlers vs. Demagogues

Rupert Psmith — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:15:00 +0000

In the afterglow of yesterday’s monumental ruling on Prop 8 I’ve begun to see the stirrings of anger among progressives towards the overly careful Obama position on gay marriage. It’s unquestionably a fence-straddling position and a disappointingly outdated circa 2007-8 one at that. One hopes Obama will find some courage on this issue (we all know where he actually stands and is simply unwilling to engage this issue now for political reasons), but in the meantime advocates for marriage equality should be focusing their ire at the forces of reaction and retrenchment not obsessing on the caution of our allies (I’m looking at you John Aravosis).

The GOP has in recent months embraced every conceivable bogeyman in order to scare their base to the polls and many do so cynically for political advantage. From African American revanchists, communism, Islam, anchor babies and a general off-white menace, they’ve now once again begun to activate one of their old favorites — those afflicted with The Gay. I think hearing Newt Gingrich this last week demagoguing both the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Prop 8 decision (while cutely tying it in with the vote on Kagan today) put me over the top on this. Gingrich doesn’t really care about either of these issues, but he cynically knows it will energize the reptile brains of the Republican base for the fall elections.

Let’s stay focused on the true enemy and not tie ourselves in knots when our politicians act like politicians. There is no moral equivalence between our side being pussies and their side being evil. And, yes, Nate Silver is right when he tweets, “In 30 years time, the fact that the Barack Obama was opposed to gay marriage is going to look really silly.”

PS-I’m not against pressuring Obama from the left on this and tons of other issues, but I think some on the left lose all sense of proportion when their leaders are too cautious.

5 comment(s) for this post:

Gherald:
05 Aug 2010 While we should obviously welcome the judicial ruling, as pertains to the executive we should note that there are many other battles Obama has to fight today which are more pressing and that won't become easier with time. Thus the time for Obama to start taking a more liberal position and spending political capital on these kind of social/personal issues (gays, drugs) is December 2012. Because this stuff only becomes easier with time, and at the beginning of a second term he'll be free from electoral fence straddling considerations.
Rupert Psmith:
06 Aug 2010 I agree, but with the small caveat that these things often take on their own momentum and a good politician will know when they need to move their position and that might very well be before the 2012 election. Certainly, there's no reason for him to make the move on marriage equity before the elections this fall. Right now he needs to put fire under the congress, after the recess, to get DADT repealed.
Metavirus:
06 Aug 2010 i agree generally that a key opportunity to push for some of the more controversial issues is when he is no longer worried about being re-elected. it's too bad that politicians can't take the hard stances, or speak out without a filter, until there is no chance of them being in public service any longer (see, e.g., former congressman Bob Bennett)

Add a comment | View 2 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Republican Answer to the Debt: No More Recovery Act Signs

Rupert Psmith — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:39:00 +0000

Suspiciously fashion-conscious and single Republican Congressman Aaron Schock of Illinois came out to Morning Joe today to inform us he has finally decided what he wants to cut to get a handle on the deficit. Recall Schock was on months earlier and was challenged by Scarborough to tell him what he would cut (since he wouldn’t shut up about the budget deficit) and he didn’t really have an answer. Months have passed and Aaron is now ready to educate us on the path to fiscal sanity.

Even Pat Buchanan laughed at this. The worst part of this flimflammery, besides the point it does nothing to deal with debts or deficits (less than a sneeze to either) is the transparent cynicism of the Republican Study Committee trying to take away the signs that show Americans what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act actually funded while going around the country saying the stimulus did nothing. I’m still not certain if Schock is dumb or cynical or a nice mix of both, but I do understand why he might want those ARRA signs taken down since they might be embarrassing the next time he shows up at a ground-breaking or ribbon-cutting in his district with the voice of Rachel Maddow ringing in his ears.

4 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
16 Jul 2010 they really don't have a shred of shame or decency left in them. i mean, i have a healthy disdain for politics and politicians generally but i have never been this disgusted with an entire wing of the spectrum (and i used to be a republican back when democrats were in their super-pussy days!) that said, i would still roger that aaron schock rotten. pent-up closeted self-haters like that are fun
Rupert Psmith:
16 Jul 2010 LOL, yes, he is very cute. And I'm with you on the amazement on the state of Republican politicians. I think a lot of the forces that moderated them have been ousted in the last two cycles so you are left with a pretty hardcore Right running that party. Have no idea what Schock's true beliefs are, but he's clearly onboard with the dissembling as he wants to make a name for himself.
Metavirus:
17 Jul 2010 hahaha, every time i look at that picture of him mincing down a dc street, i am like "wow, that is one of the gayest photos EVER"

Add a comment | View 1 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Muppet Guitarist Wants You to Vote Glenn Beck in 2012

Rupert Psmith — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:08:00 +0000

Apparently Janice of Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem wants you to help recruit Glenn Beck for President in 2012, if this video from Main Street Bites Back is any indication.

With this, their war on the NAACP, and their loses last night in Alabama in both the 2nd district and gubernatorial races, could it possibly be that the Tea Party movement has jumped the shark? They were the crazy, scary people of 2009, but it seems more and more they are the crazy, funny people of 2010.

3 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
15 Jul 2010 the quality of the opposition is truly eye-popping
ChristopherTK:
16 Jul 2010 Um, what was that?
skip7712:
18 Jul 2010 WHAT !!!!!! surely you jest....Here is a high school drop out with a motor mouth being considered for the leader of this country,,,,,,tell me it aint so. What a clown....what a buffoon......He's an entertainer not a leader or politician. Give him a Captain's hat and put him before a TV .....wall la...you have Captain Kangaroo.......This doesn't surprise me that he is suggested for President by another cartoon character..........Why would this motor mouth give up his job of 30 to 50 million a year for the Presidents job of about 250,000 dollars ??? ........This has to be a joke.

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

His Armies Didn’t Gather: Teabagger Loses Tonight in Alabama

Rupert Psmith — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:06:00 +0000

YouTube celebrity and Tea Party favorite, Rick Barber, apparently didn’t have a firm enough commitment from Presidents Washington and Lincoln to get the Republican vote out in Alabama’s 2nd Congressional district runoff today. Maybe his supporters were too busy LARPing to make it to the polls. It wasn’t even close — Councilwoman Martha ~~Washington~~ Roby defeated him 61% to 39%. Maybe Barber can play dress up and do a Dodge Challenger ad.

Here’s one of Barber’s ads, filmed in his basement, to jog your memory.

3 comment(s) for this post:

majii:
14 Jul 2010 This is great news. Thanks! I was hoping he'd lose. That he lost by such a wide margin is even more satisfying. Maybe his army couldn't cross the Delaware!
Metavirus:
14 Jul 2010 and the ants go marching off the cliff, hurrah hurrah. thank jeebus this fucktard did come anywhere near congress
Rupert Psmith:
14 Jul 2010 Yes, I saw his appearance on Hardball a couple weeks ago and he was a total fact-free zone. Tweety had a good line when Barber said the phrase "gather your armies" and all of the military paraphernalia was just a metaphor, Tweety shot back: " Are you a metaphor for a guy running for office? Or are you a real candidate?" Nice. Just one small clarification on my original post -- with 97% of precincts now reported the margin of course has changed. Roby won by 60% to Barber's 40% (lest I be accused of not being good with numbers). ;)

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Annals of Stupid, June 9th edition

Rupert Psmith — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:45:00 +0000

Via Buzzfeed, we now have incontrovertible logic that the president is to blame for the Gulf oil spill.

Quod erat demonstratum, McShitforbrains.

16 comment(s) for this post:

LeeAnn:
09 Jun 2010 OMG I'm laughin way too hard! Where were these people hatched?
Metavirus:
09 Jun 2010 i am telling you, we need STUPID TRAPS. i.e., strategically placed traps that will lure the stupid in and thin out the gene pool. examples: -- dig a really big pit; put spikes at bottom; and put sign in front saying "JUMP IN, IT'S SAFE" -- put a cage full of wolverines near a walmart entrance with a sign saying "PETTING ZOO"
TehHawt:
09 Jun 2010 W. T. F????? I think I see Alex Jones' next film project........

Add a comment | View 13 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Goodbye, Blanche

Rupert Psmith — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:45:00 +0000

Fingers crossed. Let’s face it, we need a symbol. We need some catharsis after being screwed during the health care debate by Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and other Conservadems. None of the others are up this cycle, but we have Blanche and she is awful. Here’s hoping that the senator from Walmart will finally leave the good people of Arkansas alone so they can have a chance to be represented by a real Democrat. Her future, on Fox News or K Street, awaits her.

15 comment(s) for this post:

anon:
09 Jun 2010 Hope she gets the financial reform work done before she's ousted, if she's ousted. It looks like she's the only one pushing on the derivatives side.
Metavirus:
09 Jun 2010 omg, i am so praying-in-a-way-that-is-totally-not-religious for this to come to pass
Rupert Psmith:
09 Jun 2010 Damn, it looks like she's pulled it out. Still, if she wins it will be by a whisker and one hopes the lesson Conservadems learn is they can't take the base for granted without a costly primary fight that they very well might lose. She's almost certainly toast this time come November. Regarding her work on financial reform -- from what I'm hearing, that's all going to be watered down during conference.

Add a comment | View 12 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

You’ll Never Convince Your Crazy Uncle, So Why Waste Time Trying?

Rupert Psmith — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:10:00 +0000

A brief rant. I am generally loathe to link to that fetid abyss of Washington media insider-ism known as Politico, but this article really appalled me more than usual and my object of derision isn’t the reporter so much as the whole point of this event and the White House staff/president that orchestrated it.

President Barack Obama battled with Senate Republicans in a tense closed-door meeting Tuesday, facing tough criticism from his GOP adversaries — including John McCain — on issues ranging from health care to border security.

Senators and other sources inside the meeting described the gathering as “testy” and “direct” — and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) accused Obama of acting two-faced by asking for GOP support on regulatory reform only to push forward with a bill supported mainly by Democrats. Others felt that the meeting may have made already tense relations between the two parties even worse.

“The more he talked, the more he got upset,” Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said. “He needs to take a valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans and just calm down, and don’t take anything so seriously. If you disagree with someone, it doesn’t mean you’re attacking their motives — and he takes it that way and tends then to lecture and then gets upset.”

The White House said that Obama made a plea for bipartisanship on some of the country’s most pressing issues — and he urged Republicans to stand up to their base and compromise with the Democratic Party.

Assuming the president’s time is valuable, what is the point of attending an off-the-record, or at least media-excluded publicity event with your political opponents in an election year? Honestly, I’m looking for answers here. Does it help Obama? It’s not televised, so we don’t get to see him dissect his opponents as he did the House Republicans previously or even have a substantive public debate as was done (at times) at the Health Care Summit in February (or as is done almost daily with members of Congress inside the White House). Does it allow Republicans to leak to their media accomplices like Politico who write stories about how testy and “thin-skinned” Obama was? Check. Does it let John McCain pretend he’s still running for president? Check. Even McConnell, while he seemed to enjoy lunch and appreciated that the head of the executive branch had to trundle down to the Senate to visit the minority caucus on their own turf, admitted nothing was agreed to or could be agreed to at this meeting. Will it stop Republicans or creatures of the Washington media from saying Obama isn’t trying hard enough to work with Republicans? You are hilarious.

Look, I’m not against the parties having dialogue and as I mentioned they do so every day, but in an election year where the benefits of compromise for your opponents are near zero and the opposing party’s base thinks you are the Anti-Christ, it would seem one could find a more productive use of the president’s time. Instead of trying to make Republicans comfortable with you, why not spend more time trying to get your base excited about voting in November?

1 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
25 May 2010 well said. the best as i can figure it, obama still actually believes his stuff about being able to someday find something that the republican party with agree with him on publicly. good luck with that :)

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Craziest Utterance of the Week Award

Rupert Psmith — Wed, 05 May 2010 16:16:00 +0000

This has been a remarkable week for the crazy and it’s only Wednesday. Just in the last two days we’ve seen John McCain and Peter King decrying the Mirandizing of American suspects (sadly, but not surprisingly, the media isn’t pointing out that Miranda is about the constitutional protections afforded everyone regardless of nationality under US jurisdiction); we’ve seen Joe Lieberman suggest that law enforcement be empowered to strip an accused (merely an accused) of their American citizenship. But the award has to go to Michael Brown, former FEMA director. Brownie has a theory about President Obama and the BP rig oil spill:

This is exactly what they want, because now [Obama] can pander to the environmentalists and say, ‘I’m gonna shut it down because it’s too dangerous.’

Brownie believes Obama wanted a spill like this — delayed acting on it (Brownie of all people is accusing Obama of delaying his response to an environmental emergency) — simply because he wanted to score points with environmentalists and stop offshore oil production forever. Chris Matthews, and Anderson Cooper have called Brownie out on this madness, but he’s sticking to his guns. This crazy theory might have a little less of the crazy stink to it if President Obama in April hadn’t both opened up large portions of the East and Gulf Coasts to future drilling and mentioned in a town hall how safe this drilling was, much to the annoyance of environmentalists. But maybe that was his plan all along, to do a reverse double fake?! It might also help Brownie if Obama was now foursquare against new drilling … but unfortunately he’s not there yet.

I have a crazy theory of my own. It involves a disgraced former Bush official hoping to endear himself to the teabagger crowd in order to goose his talk radio ratings.

2 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
05 May 2010 if ever there was a definitional example of "unmitigated gall", tis brownie. the fact that this guy has any ability to get any airtime just disgusts me. fucking msm...
Gherald:
05 May 2010 Especially crazy given how much this is setting back the administration's climate/energy agenda

Add a comment

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

More Proof Conservatives are to Blame for Everything

Rupert Psmith — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:52:00 +0000

Via Ezra Klein, a very interesting academic paper by J. Lawrence Broz, political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. Professor Broz finds some striking correlations between financial collapses and the politics of the governments that bring them. Fancy that? And conservatives have been telling us for decades that it’s just a natural cycle. Cycle? Yes. Natural? Not so much.

Financial cycles of boom and bust are as old as finance itself — a fact that has led some observers to infer that human nature may be a fundamental cause of financial cycles. But “politics” also influences financial cycles by way of government policies and regulations. I argue that policies and regulations vary predictably with the partisan character of the government, creating a partisan-policy financial cycle in which conservative, pro-market governments preside over financial booms while left-wing governments are elected to office after crashes.

This is something I think most people who have been around awhile feel instinctively, so it’s nice to see research backing it up.

6 comment(s) for this post:

Chunzilla:
21 Apr 2010 The Robber Barons vs. the Robin Hoods who have to clean up their messes. Geesh...Time for a new kind of cycle??
Gherald:
21 Apr 2010 How about blaming leftists governments for all the lost growth during their recession-free years? Creating wealth involves market risks and dynamism. Unchecked by a conservative right, the left would have us stagnate with things like increased unionization, social welfare, and a Jimmy Carter era 90% top marginal tax rate. I'll take a freer market economy with periodic recessions over that crap any day.
Metavirus:
21 Apr 2010 Yeah. The economy did great under reagan and Bush II

Add a comment | View 3 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Rupert Psmith — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:29:00 +0000

by Rupert Psmith

Kim Strassel managed to get under my skin Sunday morning. Somehow she landed on the This Week roundtable and tossed a smoke grenade on the topic of violent, anti-government rhetoric on the Right.

(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/roundtable-financial-regulation-10406844 about 1 minute, 30 seconds in.)

The question was raised following former President Clinton’s remarks about how all of this reminded him eerily of the anti-government rhetoric of the ‘90s (which of course led to the Mura Federal Building bombing). Strassel’s ‘argument’ was that liberals seemed to think it was fine when Code Pink interrupted congressional meetings and back then it was just “public discourse” and “considered good.”

Just a small pet peeve. If one of the central arguments you dust off whenever someone argues a principled point with you is, ‘well the other side was bad once too,’ then you represent a not so serious political perspective. And if your points of comparison are substantially dissimilar, then don’t expect anyone to consider your perspective serious at all.

Look, I’m not arguing liberals are inherently morally superior when it comes to overheated rhetoric versus people on the Right. America has seen violent, anti-government rhetoric from the Left in the past, but now, as in the ‘90s, it’s primarily from the Right and the troubling thing is that conservative politicians are embracing these folks rather than distancing themselves. When Congressman Steve King sympathizes with the nut who flew his plane into the IRS building or suggests the Tea Party come to DC and take over the place and prevent the elected government from functioning, he should be ostracized by others on the Right. They should be coming forward to say this is unacceptable. Instead we hear crickets.

PS-I have yet to find a liberal that has a positive thing to say about the antics of Code Pink. No congressperson I know of thought their interruptions of hearings were a good thing. And as annoying as Code Pink was/is, I don’t recall them ever calling for a violent revolution.

4 comment(s) for this post:

Metavirus:
19 Apr 2010 you are precisely right in two important respects. first, the lunatic fringe on the left is just that, a fringe that is not embraced by any substantial portion of the democratic mainstream. code pink is a sideshow and most everyone views them that way. i guess if you really wanted an extreme example, you could go for the PETA burglars or eco-terrorists, but to find anyone who supports these extreme views, you're probably looking at a few thousand second, there is just no equivalency when it comes to the RESULT of heated rhetoric on the left when as compared to the kind of wink-and-nod murder and violence that comes out of heated rhetoric on the right. anti-government militias, racist sons of the south, oklahoma city, militia compounds, etc. are a unique province of the extreme right. the sad part about the whole false equivalency bullshit is that it is treated as if most dems sort of wink and nod with the silly code pink and eco-terrorism stuff like the republicans do with teabaggers and glenn beck dehumanizing obama as illegitimate and like hitler. even if they did, it wouldn't matter! the fire and vitriol on the right side of the country (ok, the South) is serving to thrum people into an unthinking state of perpetual fear and a sense that the only legitimate government is a conservative government. this is ANTI-DEMOCRACY, ANTI-REPUBLIC, and ANTI-AMERICAN. the susceptibility of ignorant rubes to the lies and dehumanization scares me more and more every day. after all, if you were convinced that the president is going to turn the US into Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? I think you know the answer
Rupert Psmith:
19 Apr 2010 Absolutely. And as if to make our point:http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/...
Metavirus:
19 Apr 2010 Just to emphasize the import of that article, that is a [edit: FORMER] MEMBER OF CONGRESS saying: Send Obama Back To Kenya! the founding fathers weeped

Add a comment | View 1 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark

Grave Robbers

Rupert Psmith — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:10:00 +0000

This week, if you were to meet a Republican time traveler from the 1860s or 1980s, you would discover them more shocked than usual. They would stumble on notables of their party, officially celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Confederacy in the state of Virginia. A governor of the Grand Old Party saying, before finally relenting after a chorus of criticism, that mentioning the role of slavery in the conflict was “not significant” enough to be included in the original proclamation.

They might be confused to find a black Democratic president who considers himself an inheritor of their legacy, and who began his long path to the White House from the same old granite steps in Springfield that gave rise to President Lincoln’s career, being pilloried by members of Lincoln’s own party with terms of “secession”, “interposition” and “nullification.”

In fairness, they would also find a comically out of his depth leader of their party who was also black and while not knowing the details of how he came to that post and how he remains there, they may reassure themselves for a moment that their party has made some racial progress.

The 1980s time traveling Republican would be delighted to arrive the week of the largest nuclear arms control agreement since the 1980s, but to the startling awareness that such agreements are no longer proudly bipartisan consensus. Rather they would learn that the leading lights of their party are now against the very idea of nuclear arms reductions and consider those who are, dangerously weak and naive (all while continuing to fetishize the Reagan name, if not his actual foreign policy principles). Reagan would be more confused than usual as to why we hadn’t reduced these unusable weapons even further, given the absence of the Soviet Union the last 20 years.

What are they and we to make of this? Nixon’s grand project is now complete. Congratulations GOP, you are now proud owners of the legacy of the Confederacy. Enjoy that. Continue to court the intemperate, red-faced crowds with their misspelled signs and see how history will judge you.

You have also this week betrayed your beloved Ronnie. And as divisive a figure as he remains, you‘ve managed to abandon his one issue that previously all sides had agreed upon. You are now the party of Bolton and Cheney, Fox News and Palin. I guess you can now stop trying to put Reagan on the $50 bill (although I’m sure you would still love to stick it to that Union general).

You’ve managed to scare off the icons you worship. They’ve gone back through that wormhole, glad to be rid of you.

4 comment(s) for this post:

Gherald:
10 Apr 2010
| as divisive a figure as [Reagan] remains
Hah. He was divisive in the sense and to the extent that Obama is divisive today. Both drove their opposition bonkers. To your broader point, yes Republicans and Democrats have largely switched positions from where they were in the 19th century. Much of this switch came about a century later when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, he told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against his party.
Metavirus:
10 Apr 2010 great post!
chunzilla:
10 Apr 2010 Truly! For those of the older generation, who now play tennis in the "masters" division; who are just awakening from a political hangover coma, check it out. The Democrats, who we commonly thought of as the party for the working guys/gals, for Joe the Plumbers; and the Republicans, who we thought of as the rich smart stodgy William F. Buckley types, or the "what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of my damn business" Barry Goldwaters....Good morning! The earth flipped on its polar axis while you slept. Now, "you're bad" means you're good; "get outta here" means its unbelievable; valuing intelligence and reason means you're a Democrat or Independent (maybe Libertarian of the Dr. G ilk), and valuing ignorance means you're a Republican. Better find a chair and sit down while you reorient....and sign up for a new voting party.

Add a comment | View 1 more comment(s).

by Rupert Psmith @ Library Grape - The Best in Politics, Culture and Delicious Snark