...it's kind of like asking whether you'd rather be fried or boiled.

Fried! At least then maybe I'll give them a heart attack.


Ayn Rand : Paul Ryan : Liberals :: Saul Alinsky : Obama : GOP/TPs.

I am 100,000% sure far more people know about Rand than Alinsky.

Who the #### doesn't like Pride and Prejudice? Do you like sex? Pizza? I can't think of anything easier to like unless you're a complete retard.

There's sex AND pizza in Pride and Prejudice? Guess I didn't read far enough!

If Ryan doesn't want the Democrats to define him in a cement block to be thrown off Pier 16, he's going to have to begin going beyond platitudes about "reform", and begin addressing the question of what those fixed dollar vouchers are going to mean for those whose medical insurance expenses far outstrip those allocated amounts. He's going to have to explain why he wants to transfer those costs to those least able to afford them. He's got a lot of explaining to do to those not in the comfort zone of the "anyone but Obama" base.

It was a terrible pick for Romney, who should have picked someone as noncommital and pliable as he is. The last thing he needed was someone whose policies affirmatively scare away independent voters. His path to victory is, "The economy sucks and we need a new president."

Because no one cares how much Paul Ryan was influenced by Bob Ryan. Or Frank Ryan from the local deli.

If Bob or Frank were racists, I think people would care.

[reads robinred's 2344]
Get out of my head!

There have been some differences - I was surprised that he spent as much political capital as he did on health care reform, that he's been more interventionist than I expected, and that he wasn't a bit more aggressive on economic matters (nod to politics there). But all in all, things have gone about how I thought they might.

Who the #### doesn't like Pride and Prejudice? Do you like sex? Pizza? I can't think of anything easier to like unless you're a complete retard.

There's sex AND pizza in Pride and Prejudice? Guess I didn't read far enough!

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good slice, must be in want of extra cheese.

As for the idea that southern fundamentalists might resist the R ticket ... I can assure you, based on conversations, that that is very much not an issue. "Anyone but BHO" is the theme there...

Who the #### doesn't like Pride and Prejudice?

I liked Pride and Prejudice and Zombies a lot better. Without the zombies, that would've been a really boring book...

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good slice, must be in want of extra cheese.

Gonfalon is a national treasure. Well, maybe not, but that's pretty damn good.

Ayn Rand : Paul Ryan : Liberals :: Saul Alinsky : Obama : GOP/TPs.

Maybe. Maybe even probably. But that's not the point. The point is that liberals, who hate Ayn Rand (and rightfully so; ##### was a quack) also hate Paul Ryan, so they are going to use his association with Ayn Rand to further cement their hate for Ryan. And they're going to speak loudly and without interruption to anyone and everyone they can pin in a corner about how Ryan's relationship to Rand's theories (I will not call that #### a "philosophy") disqualifies him and his ticket from any reasonable consideration. Anyone who fails to grasp the obviousness of this Ryan:Rand:Disqualified logic will have signaled to the bully pulpit that he or she is incapable of basic reasoning and thus unworthy of true, honest consideration as a source of opinion.

It's the same game the GOOPers and Teahats have tried to play with Alinsky (or the Weather Underground guy that was supposed to be his secret handler, or that professor he hugged that one time at a rally in college) and Obama. While the connection between Rand and Ryan is stronger than any of those, and while Rand is more well known and actually influential with real world power brokers (Greenspan, etc.), the purpose of these "conversations" is not to relay information or have open discourse and dialogue with someone else. It's to effect a stance where you identify who recognizes the secret nefarious Satanic desires of Politician X, and thus is either good or evil, home team or away, vs who fails to recognize the obvious Satanic influences at work in the nefarious doings of Politician X and thus prove that the other guy is Totally Other, Evil Empire, Wearing Pinstripes in Fenway, Jew At A Polish Soccer Match "not of my tribe" guy.

Who the #### doesn't like Pride and Prejudice? Do you like sex? Pizza? I can't think of anything easier to like unless you're a complete retard.

This is true. I mean, I could understand if you read it when you were 15 or something (and you were male). But ####, it's one of the archetypal plots. It's really pretty brilliant.

Yep. I also don't like some of the stuff that Obama and Duncan have done with education, but that is to be expected. I am not surprised, though. I still like Obama, but he really has been pretty much what I expected across the board--including Guantanamo.

Things I am disappointed in Obama in:

1. The civil liberties ####. I really did believe that he was someone who believed in the Constitution as a protector of freedom.
2. Not aggressively appointing people to the FED Board of Governors sooner. To a lesser extent, the same with district court judges.
3. War on Drugs/Immigration ####. Don't be raiding legal medical marijuana places, Obama.
4. Not breaking Mitch McConnell. McConnell has this weird ability to say exactly what he means and not suffer a price for it. I'm reasonably confident that Obama and his team should be better at politics than McConnell. They should have been able to break the filibuster. The Maine sens, Murkowski, Grassley, even Coburn--they're all squishy on some stuff. Why couldn't Chicago wedge them?

Nothing's worse than Oliver Twist.

Tess of the d'Urbervilles would have been my pick.

This is from the well known books category. I've actually started much worse (some early Star Trek fan fiction for instance) that were much, much worse. Still, I read a lot on a lot of different topics and just could not read more than a few pages of Tess.

Speaking of Mitt and terrible ideas, what in the world could possibly be in his taxes that is worth the continuing disaster that is his handling of the issue? Can you hide a dead hooker in your tax returns?

I mean, how could his campaign actually think his latest, "You can totally believe me, I swear on my magic underwear I paid at least 13% in effective tax rate every year of the last 10" is a good idea?

All that does is reinforce the idea that there totally must be something he doesn't want exposed hidden in the returns, because, on the face of it, his campaign has already taken the hit on the issue of the effective tax rate that he pays, so if that's all there is, there's actual upside in releasing them at this point, just to be able to point to them and go "See??? There really wasn't anything in there!"

Speaking of Mitt and terrible ideas, what in the world could possibly be in his taxes that is worth the continuing disaster that is his handling of the issue? Can you hide a dead hooker in your tax returns?

Some speculation that since 2009 was the amnesty year for anything in a Swiss account that he took advantage of that. Probably looks really bad as a guy running for president to declare things that were potentially illegal 10 years ago. Would also explain why McCain's people said there was nothing there.

One thing is true: His thing yesterday was really, really stupid. It brought it back into the news, and it probably relied on a pretty mealy-mouthed definition of taxable income. We know he declared capital losses from 2009 on his 2010 tax returns. Given that he didn't have another source of income in 2009, it's very, very likely that he paid less than 13%. If he didn't, why bring forward the capital loss into 2010?

Nothing's worse than Oliver Twist.
Tess of the d'Urbervilles would have been my pick.

Jane Eyre FTW. Or is it FTL? Whichever, it sucks.

Tess of the d'Urbervilles would have been my pick.

I read about five Thomas Hardy books while I was travelling around Europe last summer. They were all fairly similar in their way, though I think Far from the Madding Crowd was my favourite rather than Tess. The beginning of Tess can be a bit of a chore, with all that drunk dad/ancestor backstory, but it gets better.

I realize it has importance beyond literature, but Uncle Tom's Cabin was so annoying it almost had me rooting for the slave owners.

I think I just don't have the literary palate. I'm really having trouble coming up with books I didn't like. I suppose Finnegan's Wake might qualify as I have failed on multiple occasions to get very far with that. But I think that's more a failing on my part than Joyce's. For whatever it's worth Ulysses is probably my favourite all time book.

Tristram Shandy is another one that I often hear people disparaging, but I found it very entertaining (though I didn't ever finish it so I suppose that says something).

Some speculation that since 2009 was the amnesty year for anything in a Swiss account that he took advantage of that. Probably looks really bad as a guy running for president to declare things that were potentially illegal 10 years ago. Would also explain why McCain's people said there was nothing there.

Ah, interesting. That would certainly hint at why the Obama campaign publicly offered to drop the issue if Mitt released a mere 3 years worth of returns preceeding 2010.

There have been some differences - I was surprised that he spent as much political capital as he did on health care reform, that he's been more interventionist than I expected, and that he wasn't a bit more aggressive on economic matters (nod to politics there). But all in all, things have gone about how I thought they might.

I think once health reform was legitimately on the table, he didn't really have much choice but to go all in... The Clinton failure hung around Clinton's neck for the rest of his first term.

Personally, I think it was naivete on Obama's part, at least to some extent... I expect all of our dear friends on the right to disagree, but I really do believe that Obama thought it would be possible to have a reasoned debate, reach a compromise, and pass something Dems would like "more", but would at least have enough things the GOP liked to keep the grumbling to a dull roar, with the howls confined to the far right flanks. This is the way it had worked when he was in the Illinois Senate, and in the short time he was in the US Senate, things had worked similarly. Thing is - the IL Statehouse is a fundamentally different body. The Illinois GOP is from the moderate branch of the party, and it's the reasonable, suburban Republicans like Kirk Dillard and company that set the right-side of the debates. The few downstaters who are to the right of that get no oxygen and they know it. In the US Senate, 2004-2006 was holding pattern time, while the flip in 2006-2008 wasn't big enough to even consider getting by a Bush veto.... so really, it was only small, relatively uncontroversial things that would go anywhere.

What I think he underestimated is that by 2008 post-election, most of the moderate, deal-making Republicans had either lost their purple districts and the few remaining were running scared of the DeMint/Tea Party set. In different circumstances, I would have expected -- based on past statements and voting records -- perhaps a half dozen Republican Senators to at least break party ranks on a filibuster, even if not all of them voted yes on the final bill.

His former Senate colleagues on the D side didn't help him much -- Reid should have been more threatening with Lieberman and Nelson, Baucus kept playing Charlie Brown with the Grassley and Snowe Lucying the football in his committee. Pelosi, I think, handled the House masterfully. The rules are different and she had the numbers, of course, but every time bits and pieces of reform that liberals held dear got yanked away, she dutifully got the votes from her caucus to pass increasingly watered down bills.

Where I think Obama excelled was snatching passage from the jaws of debacle -- him going before the House GOP caucus and answering questions on TV really sparked flagging Dem spirits and ultimately, convinced them to just use reconciliation after all.

In the end, by fall of 2009 - he was in for a penny, in for a pound. There was no choice but to pay the full bill of political capital because if he hadn't, interest on what he had already spent would have cost just as much.

Jane Eyre FTW. Or is it FTL? Whichever, it sucks.

I'll second this. Bleargh.

When Ayn Rand wrote "Atlas Shrugged," the top tax rate was 91%. Makes you wonder why she bothered.

Speaking of Mitt and terrible ideas, what in the world could possibly be in his taxes that is worth the continuing disaster that is his handling of the issue? Can you hide a dead hooker in your tax returns?

I mean, how could his campaign actually think his latest, "You can totally believe me, I swear on my magic underwear I paid at least 13% in effective tax rate every year of the last 10" is a good idea?

All that does is reinforce the idea that there totally must be something he doesn't want exposed hidden in the returns, because, on the face of it, his campaign has already taken the hit on the issue of the effective tax rate that he pays, so if that's all there is, there's actual upside in releasing them at this point, just to be able to point to them and go "See??? There really wasn't anything in there!"

His real problem at this point is that he CAN'T release them, even if there's really nothing more than "rich guy paid a much lower rate in taxes than you because his income was 'special'" -- it's become a matter of wills at this point, so he'd look really weak in doing so.

I think it's precisely why plenty of Republicans in the media were months ago saying publicly that he ought to just release them and take whatever hit was to be taken.

It's a real catch-22 -- the questions won't stop, but it's probably too late to release them. We're less than 3 months out - and with the conventions coming up, there's just no more room to waste time on defense.

I can almost guarantee that any time Team Romney answers a question on his tax returns, no matter what the answer, Team Obama counts it as a win.

On the subject of bad books ... AND Mitt Romney, Mitt's favorite book is Battlefield Earth.

My least favorite "acknowledged canonical work" is Henry James's The Golden Bowl. Sweet mother of christ that was a bore.

Also don't understand the Dickens hate. Reading David Copperfield is an unforgettable experience, sappy parts and all.

Mitt's favorite book is Battlefield Earth.

That might be more damaging than his tax returns. I mean, we all want to be rich and pay as little taxes as possible, he's just doing what most of us would. But Battlefield Earth? That's morally reprehensible.

I think I'd concur with Henry James as my least favorite canonical author - Turn of the Screw is about the only thing of his that didn't give me hives... and I agree on Dickens. His characters are cardboard, his plots are heavily deus ex machina, but he's a fine storyteller, I think.

That might be more damaging than his tax returns. I mean, we all want to be rich and pay as little taxes as possible, he's just doing what most of us would. But Battlefield Earth? That's morally reprehensible.

Seconded.

I mean, saying The Bible or Rich Dad, Poor Dad would make me feel more comfortable about him...

I can almost guarantee that any time Team Romney answers a question on his tax returns, no matter what the answer, Team Obama counts it as a win.

Why? Has Romney been on the "increase everyone's taxes" bandwagon? Are people looking for hypocrisy here by demanding he release his tax returns? Or just fishing? Or just demanding he release them because just asking the question makes it an issue.

(Not that I think the demand is unreasonable. I'm kind of surprised candidates aren't required to release them, much as I was surprised that Obama didn't have to release his lf birth certificate. And I didn't care about the birth certificate thing, but just figured it was required of candidates to show them.)

That might be more damaging than his tax returns. I mean, we all want to be rich and pay as little taxes as possible, he's just doing what most of us would. But Battlefield Earth? That's morally reprehensible.

only a filthy mananimal could be so primitive as to have that point of view.

I can almost guarantee that any time Team Romney answers a question on his tax returns, no matter what the answer, Team Obama counts it as a win.


Why? Has Romney been on the "increase everyone's taxes" bandwagon?

Because he's not talking about the economy. The Republicans are in the position Democrats were in in 2004. The Onion headline said it best by then, something like: "Polls Show Bush Losing to Generic Democrat; Democrats in Desperate Search for Generic Democrat." Romney's strategy was the right one, simply stay on message, stay bland, and stay out of the way, and make people vote up or down on Obama. The more he defines himself, the worse shape he is in, not because he's especially loathsome but because there's a core of voters who would vote for a generic candidate over Obama but dislike the Republican Party enough that they won't vote for a well-defined Republican over him.

Every day Romney spends talking about himself is a lost day.

Every day the conversation is about anything other than the economy is a lost day.

The last three weeks have been about budgets--a mixed bag since voters like deficit reduction but dislike entitlement cuts--and his tax returns. Even if Romney "wins" those discussions, he's losing since he's not getting out the main message.

I don't have any least favourite books, because if I don't like them I just quit reading. My leisure time is far too valuable to waste on something I don't enjoy. In relation to the subject though, I tried reading John Updike once (I think it was Rabbit, Run but I don't know). Anyways, I gave up very quickly because I found the characters all repulsive.

And I don't know why, but I fell in love with Mia Wasikowska after seeing her in the most recent Jane Eyre film.

Why? Serious question: Has Romney been on the "increase everyone's taxes" bandwagon?

Two reasons:

1) First and foremost, anytime Team Romney is talking about something other than 'jobs/Obama', they're off message

2) Obama very much IS waging a class warfare campaign... and every time Romney talks about taxes, it's inevitably going to lead to two general themes... First is the inherent 'unfairness' of the current tax code, the idea that Romney's income was 'special' and able to pay a lower tax rate on his income than the vast majority of people who make their income via earned income; and second, that Romney's ideas to 'fix' the economy are heavily weighted towards giving more freedom to the people who earn this 'special' income.

It's a no-lose proposition for the Obama campaign's larger message -- either they've got Romney on the defensive just by the conversation taking place, or, they're talking about 'fairness' (whether people agree with that or not).

Why? Has Romney been on the "increase everyone's taxes" bandwagon? Are people looking for hypocrisy here by demanding he release his tax returns? Or just fishing? Or just demanding he release them because just asking the question makes it an issue

Because most voters, and especially anyone still legitimately in the "undecided" category, find Mitt Romney's extreme wealth to be off-putting, find his refusal to release tax returns to be damning (in the sense that he's hiding something about how he manages all of that extreme, off-putting wealth), and will eventually vote for the guy they identify with most (or perhaps fail-to-identify-with least.) You may not like that, but very few people actually run your logic calcs on how to vote for a given candidate. Every squishy moderate that turns to Obama because Romney keeps playing the too-good-for-all-that toff is an obvious win for the Dems. Every "Reagan Democrat" working class white guy that says \"#### it, I'm going fishing" or "I'm done with these guys, I'm voting Libertarian" is a win for the Dems. And every day the tax returns story is in the news cycle is a day where 2 or 3 of those guys on either side do exactly that.

In relation to the subject though, I tried reading John Updike once (I think it was Rabbit, Run but I don't know). Anyways, I gave up very quickly because I found the characters all repulsive.

Interesting; I had a hard time with the Rabbit books, but couldn't not finish them. Something about Updike's writing (and plotting, actually) was just terrifying and irresistable. Afterwards, I read a review which contained a line along the lines of 'Updike's writing describes a glorious backdrop against which the action takes place, and which completely fails to be noticed or remarked upon by his characters', and I think that's a really good sentiment against which to check oneself every so often in one's own life.

The literal worst book I ever read was something my then-girlfriend gave me after I mentioned that I had finished the book I had brought on the train to see her, and didn't have anything else to read on the way back. It was free with a women's magazine, and was called 'The Love Hexagon'. At the time I was struggling to make ends meet in my job, and I was much re-assured by the atrocity of the book: I knew if things ever got bad, I could presumably scrape by churning out crap like that.

But probably Roger Scruton would go down as the author I enjoyed reading least. I quite enjoyed 'The Fountainhead' - at least, the bits and pieces about architecture - without buying at all the underlying sentiment. Then again, I rather enjoy elements of modernist and brutalist design.

I am interested in the theory that Huntsman Sr is the source of Reid's allegations, and that the two of them are playing a kind of internal Mormon trick on Romney, one in which he feels forced to respond to other Mormons. It may be well calibrated to save his reputation with them but obviously is at cross-purposes with his need to convey a different message to we gentiles.

I get that the Huntmans deeply hate Romney and have for decades but I do wonder what Huntsman Jr's strategy is. Maybe he knows he's finished in the Republican Party and is angling for Cabinet or something?

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

Because you're categorically incapable of seeing anything that creates doubt in your little monkey mind, Joe.

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

August 1984:

"If drafting Sam Bowie was so dumb, why are all our fans renewing their season tickets?"

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

Since you've been touting Rasmussen as the most reliable pollster, you might want to check his tracking polls over the past week. Not that you will.

Friday, August 17, 2012

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows President Obama attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 45%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

This is the first time in 10 days that Obama has had the lead.

There's plenty of room for statistical error, but whatever bump Ryan's given Romney is pretty much now dead in the water.

Here's a link Real Clear Politics' tracking polls.

RCP is, of course, a conservative polling house, founded in order to cut through perceived "media bias." So I'm sure Joe will find a reason for why they're wrong too.

And when did Nate Silver secretly take over Gallup?

"Mitt Romney's standing in the presidential election campaign has not changed materially in the immediate days after his announcement... the lack of an immediate increase for Romney is consistent with Sunday's USA Today/Gallup poll that found a generally tepid reaction to the Ryan pick, especially in comparison to past vice-presidential choices."

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

Two different issues and timelines. On tax returns, every model shows Romney faltering in August. It might not matter in the long run but he had a bad stretch in polls until Aug 11-12 and it seems likely--though not assured--that the tax returns were a part of it. He just brought it up again yesterday so it's newly back on the front pages, and it'll be a while before we see if it had any impact on the polls.

In between Romney bounced up somewhat after the Ryan pick. What's less clear is whether that bounce is normal, below average, or above average for a VP bounce. We'll see. If, say, the average VP pick bounce is 4 points, and Ryan has caused a 2-point bounce, that's obviously not evidence that Ryan was a great tactical choice. But the jury is still out.

Because you're categorically incapable of seeing anything that creates doubt in your little monkey mind, Joe.

Fell off the wagon already, huh?

After writing that long, pompous "farewell to political threads" screed last Saturday, you couldn't even stay away for a week. LOL.

If the tax-returns issue is hurting Romney so much and the Ryan pick was dumb, how come the numbers have been trending toward Romney, so much that Nate felt compelled to reassure the liberal masses with a (mostly speculative) "I'm not buying the trend toward Romney" column last night?

Because VP bumps are inevitable. Romney named a VP, so he got a bump (but a small one, historically). The question is probably more why Romney named a VP now -- and I think it's pretty clear that he needed to arrest the trends which were moving away from him. The Rass and Gallup trackers hadn't been -- but every other poll had shown Obama widening a lead.

I am interested in the theory that Huntsman Sr is the source of Reid's allegations, and that the two of them are playing a kind of internal Mormon trick on Romney, one in which he feels forced to respond to other Mormons. It may be well calibrated to save his reputation with them but obviously is at cross-purposes with his need to convey a different message to we gentiles.

The Huntsman Sr idea was speculation from a liberal blogger... but given what we know, it makes sense. Huntsman Sr has had a number of business connections with Romney and he's also relatively close to Reid (his family actually donated regularly to Reid).

If it's Huntsman Sr -- I suspect it's one of two things:

1) It was just idle chitchat with Reid and Huntsman Sr is none too pleased with Reid yapping...

2) Huntsman Sr secretly wants Obama to win in 2012 because Jr's 2012 run was a "save my spot in line" for 2016, and that "spot in line" is a LOT more valuable in an open WH race than it is in 2020 (assuming Romney wins, no GOP primary in 2016).

After writing that long, pompous "farewell to political threads" screed last Saturday, you couldn't even stay away for a week.

I'm impressed you could spell pompous. That's improvement for you. Good job. Keep working and one day you'll ride the regular bus.

Since you've been touting Rasmussen as the most reliable pollster, you might want to check his tracking polls over the past week. Not that you will.

Rasmussen also has Romney up 2 in Florida, up 1 in Wisconsin, and tied in Ohio.

I will bet a Babe Ruth, Cy Young, or Mickey Mantle BBREF sponsorship on the outcome in Wisconin...

Because VP bumps are inevitable. Romney named a VP, so he got a bump (but a small one, historically).

It's kind of funny that people were expecting a bigger Ryan bump given that Ryan was one of the least-known VP picks in decades and that most polls have been showing 6 percent or less are "undecided."

The story is and remains that Obama is a highly known quantity in a highly stratified electorate and, just ~75 days to Election Day, he can't get to 50 percent in the national polls or the battleground-state polls. If Mitt Romney's tax returns are the best Obama has to offer, he should start packing.

All this slavish attention to the polls is starting to creep me out.

1) It was just idle chitchat with Reid and Huntsman Sr is none too pleased with Reid yapping...

Obviously this is possible but Huntsman Sr (when he denied he was the source) went out of his way to say Romney should release his returns, which doesn't suggest he was outraged about Reid's statement. Post story

It's kind of funny that people were expecting a bigger Ryan bump given that Ryan was one of the least-known VP picks in decades and that most polls have been showing 6 percent or less are "undecided."

The story is and remains that Obama is a highly known quantity in a highly stratified electorate and, just ~75 days to Election Day, he can't get to 50 percent in the national polls or the battleground-state polls. If Mitt Romney's tax returns are the best Obama has to offer, he should start packing.

Perhaps we should just cut to the chase --

I will gladly place whatever straight-up wager you like the outcome of the Presidential election...

I rode the short bus as a kid. The biggest reason why was because as a toddler my babysitter would constantly feed me cough syrup to put me to sleep instead of actually bothering To watch over me. Anyway, lost my ability to speak, both Cambodian, and English for at least two and a half years. I was 1 and a half at the time, and my parents were concerned enough to put me in preschool, and I was put in a special ed program because I was basically a mute until I was 4 years old. I did ride the short bus for two years. Odd experience at the time, odd reflecting back on it.

Have you been to Cambodia as an adult, Tripon? I loved every instant I spent in Southeast Asia as a traveler. I am strongly considering retiring there someday.

Perhaps we should just cut to the chase --

I will gladly place whatever straight-up wager you like the outcome of the Presidential election...

MGL, is that you?

Sadly I don't have a vote in the US Election, but I would definitely vote for ##### Riot.

EDIT: I was censored! Putin's arm is long!

Because most voters, and especially anyone still legitimately in the "undecided" category, find Mitt Romney's extreme wealth to be off-putting,

I say this with all seriousness: I pity the people who go through life having this outlook.

After repeated denials, Paul Ryan has admitted he requested stimulus cash even after sharply criticizing the program.

As recently as Wednesday in Ohio, Mitt Romney's running mate told ABC's Cincinnati affiliate, WCPO, he did not.

"I never asked for stimulus," Ryan said. "I don't recall… so I really can't comment on it. I opposed the stimulus because it doesn't work, it didn't work."

Two years ago, during an interview on WBZ's NewsRadio he was asked by a caller if he "accepted any money" into his district. Ryan said he did not.

"I'm not one [of those] people who votes for something then writes to the government to ask them to send us money. I did not request any stimulus money," the congressman answered.

But as we've now learned, Ryan did write letters. He did request stimulus funds.

"The Olympics may be over but Paul Ryan could have gotten a gold medal in hypocrisy," a senior administration official told ABC's Jake Tapper. "As someone who spends all day every day railing against government spending, but then secretly seeks millions in funds for pet projects, he is as Washington as it gets."

In 2009, Ryan wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis asking for stimulus money to cover costs on two energy conservation projects in his home state of Wisconsin. In the letter, Ryan said the funds would help create jobs and reduce "energy consumption" in the state. At least one of the companies received the requested cash.

Link.

EDIT: I was censored! Putin's arm is long!

And the liberals want to cut defense spending. Can you believe it?

Perhaps we should just cut to the chase --

I will gladly place whatever straight-up wager you like the outcome of the Presidential election...

MGL, is that you?

I take it that's a no?

Dueling Six Strings!!!

We haven't even finished our coffee this morning and stupid has already found its way into the news cycle by way of Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine who told concert-goers in Singapore that the mass murders in Aurora, Colorado and at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin were actually part of President Barack Obama's plan to ramp up support for a gun ban. This comes via TMZ, which has the video (below) of Mustaine telling an audience in Singapore on August 7:

Back in my country, my president ... so he's trying to pass a gun ban, so he's staging all of these murders, like the 'Fast And Furious' thing down at the border in Aurora, Colorado, all the people that were killed there ... and now the beautiful people at the Sikh temple ... I was saying where I'm going to live if America keeps going the way it's going because it looks like it's turning into Nazi America ..

Paul Ryan says he's a big fan of the band Rage Against the Machine, but not surprisingly, it's an unrequited love.

Rage guitarist Tom Morello penned a 467-word rant in Rolling Stone against the Republican vice presidential candidate Thursday night:

Paul Ryan's love of Rage Against the Machine is amusing, because he is the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades. Charles Manson loved the Beatles but didn't understand them. Governor Chris Christie loves Bruce Springsteen but doesn't understand him. And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.

Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics. Well, I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage.

I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of \"#### the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!

Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions

"The Olympics may be over but Paul Ryan could have gotten a gold medal in hypocrisy," a senior administration official told ABC's Jake Tapper. "As someone who spends all day every day railing against government spending, but then secretly seeks millions in funds for pet projects, he is as Washington as it gets."

Yep.

The mystery is how, at this late date, with 32 years of modern political history as a guide, people actually believe there are principled politicians not looking to buy votes with other peoples' money.

I say this with all seriousness: I pity the people who go through life having this outlook.

People think this about you and your outlook on pets. Tell us how much you think you should care.

I say this with all seriousness: I pity the people who go through life having this outlook.

While I'm not unsympathetic to your sentiment here, Romney strikes me as someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. THAT can be off-putting.

The mystery is how, at this late date, with 32 years of modern political history as a guide, people actually believe there are principled politicians not looking to buy votes with other peoples' money.

Ryan shouldn't have said he declined stimulus funds if he had, in fact, requested them, but it wouldn't have been hypocritical for him to oppose the stimulus and then request funds. The people of Ryan's district don't get to opt out of obligations (i.e., they were partly on the hook for paying for the stimulus), so why should they opt out of receiving funds that every other district in America was getting?

"I never asked for stimulus," Ryan said. "I don't recall… so I really can't comment on it.

Good Lord! How do patently ridiculous non-answers like this not generate follow up after follow up? He doesn't recall if he asked for stimulus money? That's downright absurd! Either he recalls perfectly and is a blatant liar, or he is too incompetent to hold a job with any responsibility.

While I'm not unsympathetic to your sentiment here, Romney strikes me as someone who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. THAT can be off-putting.

Ten years ago, Barack Obama's credit cards were being declined. Now he's worth an estimated $8 to $12 million — all from "public service." I find that to be off-putting.

with 32 years of modern political history as a guide,

I'm not following how modern politics began in 1980 ... ?

Ten years ago, Barack Obama's credit cards were being declined. Now he's worth an estimated $8 to $12 million — all from "public service." I find that to be off-putting.

Fair enough.

So, uh, this has what to do with what ASmitty said?

Ryan shouldn't have said he declined stimulus funds if he had, in fact, requested them, but it wouldn't have been hypocritical for him to oppose the stimulus and then request funds. The people of Ryan's district don't get to opt out of obligations (i.e., they were partly on the hook for paying for the stimulus), so why should they opt out of receiving funds that every other district in America was getting?

I agree with this.

Ten years ago, Barack Obama's credit cards were being declined. Now he's worth an estimated $8 to $12 million — all from "public service." I find that to be off-putting.

He's written a couple of books. You might have heard of them?

Because most voters, and especially anyone still legitimately in the "undecided" category, find Mitt Romney's extreme wealth to be off-putting,

I say this with all seriousness: I pity the people who go through life having this outlook.

Not unanimously, but in general, much of the public draws distinctions between the extreme wealth of some people such as Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey or J.K. Rowling, and the extreme wealth of some other people, like Mitt Romney.

I think I missed the "Good! Rot in hell, oligarch!" reaction to Steve Jobs' death.

So, uh, this has what to do with what ASmitty said?

People are claiming undecideds find Romney's wealth to be off-putting. I'm saying the same should be true of the massive wealth Obama has accumulated from "public service."

Because most voters, and especially anyone still legitimately in the "undecided" category, find Mitt Romney's extreme wealth to be off-putting,

I say this with all seriousness: I pity the people who go through life having this outlook.

I don't think it's that they find Romney's wealth off-putting as much as they find Romney to be the prototypical rich suit.... and that's offputting.

I certainly won't deny that there's a strong element of 'jealousy' - but it's also the way that most people in the country interact with the hyper-rich. They're used to being sort of 'scenery' -- they walk the dogs, fix the toilets, sweep the floors, serve the drinks, bring out the dinner, etc -- but there's no real human connection. They're just numbers...

I don't run in an especially rich crowd regularly, but inevitably, you meet people, you end up at events where you're at the lower end of the strata of guests -- and you notice things.

I was at a posh, blacktie wedding in the Hamptons a while back -- college friend, marrying into a very posh family -- and I still remember the pre-dinner cocktail hour... I was just making idle chit-chat with a couple other guests, as the server with champagne came by, I took another glass, he took my empty - and I had the temerity to actually look at him and simply say "thank you". The two guys I was talking with (and actually, the server himself) looked at me like I had a daffodil growing out of my forehead (and conversation completed, I overheard the one guy tell the other something to the effect of "I wonder if he'll be thanking his chair when he sits down for dinner, too").

Of course, there are exceptions... but once you reach a certain level - and I think Mitt's definitely of that level - people remember plenty of little anecdotes like the one above that have happened in their own lives. Doesn't matter if it was the executive they've never met who slashed their entire department, costing them a job or the guy that tossed a fit when they were waiting tables over a minor trifle or what.

I certainly don't know if Mitt's like that -- but I think he definitely comes off like that whether he is or not. George W Bush was from every bit the old money family as Mitt and was ALSO of that class... but whatever his faults as a President, W did not come off like that as a person. Doesn't matter whether it was a finely tuned act or not - he came off as the guy who could at least fake looking at you as a person, rather than furniture or figures on a spreadsheet.

Ryan shouldn't have said he declined stimulus funds if he had, in fact, requested them,

He lied about it because he's trying to pretend he really wants to cut spending. He may want to cut spending outside his district and spending that goes to Democratic voters, but big deal. He's not going to cut where it hurts, so he's no different than anyone else. He's pretending to be, but no one should buy it.

The people of Ryan's district don't get to opt out of obligations (i.e., they were partly on the hook for paying for the stimulus), so why should they opt out of receiving funds that every other district in America was getting?

You're mischaracterizing this, too. There's nothing wrong with his constituents asking for the money, but Ryan is hypocritcial in lobbying for it.

I agree with this.

That's no fun!

***

He's written a couple of books. You might have heard of them?

He was a back-bench Illinois legislator who wrote his memoirs. The market for those books would have been zero but for Obama's higher ambitions in "public service."

I'm saying the same should be true of the massive wealth Obama has accumulated from "public service."

You find it off-putting that the President of the United States is worth $8-$12 million?

You must HATE A-Rod.

You're mischaracterizing this, too. There's nothing wrong with his constituents asking for the money, but Ryan is hypocritcial in lobbying for it.

Nonsense. Once the stimulus was law, Ryan, as his district's representative, would have been committing malfeasance by not securing his district's share of the stimulus funds.

Not unanimously, but in general, much of the public draws distinctions between the extreme wealth of some people such as Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey or J.K. Rowling, and the extreme wealth of some other people, like Mitt Romney.

I think I missed the "Good! Rot in hell, oligarch!" reaction to Steve Jobs' death.

This shouldn't be hard to comprehend regarding Mitt Romney. He distinctly contrasts even with his own father in this regard.

Not unanimously, but in general, much of the public draws distinctions between the extreme wealth of some people such as Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, Bill Gates, Will Smith, Oprah Winfrey or J.K. Rowling, and the extreme wealth of some other people, like Mitt Romney.

I think I missed the "Good! Rot in hell, oligarch!" reaction to Steve Jobs' death.

I think the key is whether the "rich person" has actually built something people can know and understand... I've read that Speilberg can be an enormous #########, but then, he's made movies people love and appreciate. I've heard stories of Oprah being less than friendly with staff, but yet again - she had a show people can love and appreciate. Jobs and Gates? Who hasn't at least used a computer? The Warren Buffetts are rarer - but he has a way of explaining his wealth accumulation in a way that people understand. Doesn't hurt that when Buffett talks about, for example, the fact that it's wrong for his secretary to pay a higher tax rate than him -- people hear a guy who A)understands that he has a "secretary" who is a "person", B) That he knows enough about her and her situation to understand that she's paying a higher tax rate than he is, and C) that he thinks that's wrong.

You find it off-putting that the President of the United States is worth $8-$12 million?

I find it off-putting that people become multimillionaires by running for office. Becoming a millionaire after being president is one thing; becoming a millionaire as an Illinois legislator or first-year U.S. senator is another.

People are claiming undecideds find Romney's wealth to be off-putting. I'm saying the same should be true of the massive wealth Obama has accumulated from "public service."

And I should be able to flap my arms and fly to Venus. So?


He was a back-bench Illinois legislator who wrote his memoirs. The market for those books would have been zero but for Obama's higher ambitions in "public service."

Also, Jupiter.


EDIT: In case I'm not clear, your ability to equate Romney's and Obama's respective fortunes is positively DiPernesque.

You're mischaracterizing this, too. There's nothing wrong with his constituents asking for the money, but Ryan is hypocritcial in lobbying for it.


Nonsense. Once the stimulus was law, Ryan, as his district's representative, would have been committing malfeasance by not securing his district's share of the stimulus funds.

I agree with this too. My problem is with the "I don't recall..." Just how stupid does he think the public is? I won't claim it was the biggest or most remarkable action he did while in office, but it's got to be at least in the top 10. And he expects us to buy "I don't remember" is an adequate explanation for denying he did it?

Regarding Ryan and Rand, cute post by Conor Friedersdorf

If Paul Ryan were an Atlas Shrugged Character, He'd Be a Villain

Once the stimulus was law, Ryan, as his district's representative, would have been committing malfeasance by not securing his district's share of the stimulus funds.

Except Ryan himself doesn't actually believe that's the principle, since, until he was caught in the lie, he said that he didn't lobby -- thus admitting what you term "malfeasance."

Nonsense. Once the stimulus was law, Ryan, as his district's representative, would have been committing malfeasance by not securing his district's share of the stimulus funds.

Huh, that's an odd way of saying that he is a coward for betraying his principles to make a politically beneficial move.

"The Olympics may be over but Paul Ryan could have gotten a gold medal in hypocrisy," a senior administration official told ABC's Jake Tapper. "As someone who spends all day every day railing against government spending, but then secretly seeks millions in funds for pet projects, he is as Washington as it gets."

Yep.

The mystery is how, at this late date, with 32 years of modern political history as a guide, people actually believe there are principled politicians not looking to buy votes with other peoples' money.

The other big mystery is, of course, why news organizations are still putting anonymous slam quotes straight into their stories, with no reason given for keeping the speaker's identity secret. This is not how "reporting" is supposed to work, Jake Tapper. "Anonymous person who works for one side says bad thing about other side" is not news.

The other big mystery is, of course, why news organizations are still putting anonymous slam quotes straight into their stories, with no reason given for keeping the speaker's identity secret. This is not how "reporting" is supposed to work, Jake Tapper. "Anonymous person who works for one side says bad thing about other side" is not news.

Fully agree.

I'm saying the same should be true of the massive wealth Obama has accumulated from "public service."

You find it off-putting that the President of the United States is worth $8-$12 million?

That's not what he said at all.

Except Ryan himself doesn't actually believe that's the principle, since, until he was caught in the lie, he said that he didn't lobby -- thus admitting what you term "malfeasance."

I don't know what Ryan did or didn't do. All I'm saying is that if he *didn't* work to secure stimulus funds for his district, it would have been malfeasance, whether he admits it or not.

Huh, that's an odd way of saying that he is a coward for betraying his principles to make a politically beneficial move.

I admire the stand people like Jeff Flake have taken against earmarks and other government spending, but long-term unilateral disarmament is dumb. It makes no sense for districts to keep sending money to D.C. year after year while getting $0 back. It's the equivalent of going to dinner night after night, ordering only a water, and agreeing to split the check with a person who ate a $100 steak and had a $200 bottle of wine.

That's not what he said at all.

I also agree with this.

That's not what he said at all.

Not in so many words. But the "public service" he throws in quotes includes four years of serving as POTUS. I do not find anything off-putting about someone who has done that being worth $8-$12 million. And that excludes the other work he has done in the past and the two best-sellers he penned.

If you've been president for four years, and you're worth a few million bucks, I don't care. More power to you.

EDIT: And yes, I am aware of the salary he makes. Count me among the people who think the position is underpaid.

EDIT: In case I'm not clear, your ability to equate Romney's and Obama's respective fortunes is positively DiPernesque.

I'm not a fan of inherited wealth, so I'm not thrilled with that part of Romney's background. But I have a lot more respect for someone who makes $100 million in the private sector than I do for someone who makes $8 to $12 million via "public service."

Nonsense. Once the stimulus was law, Ryan, as his district's representative, would have been committing malfeasance by not securing his district's share of the stimulus funds.

Except Ryan himself doesn't actually believe that's the principle, since, until he was caught in the lie, he said that he didn't lobby -- thus admitting what you term "malfeasance."

Huh, that's an odd way of saying that he is a coward for betraying his principles to make a politically beneficial move.

also, if he's claiming there's absolutely no benefit to government stimulus, what does it matter if he forgoes stimulus funds?

it's not just that he's lying to journalists, it's not just that his actions are hypocritical, it's that the underlying reason for him doing those things is that he knows that his political beliefs (in this case that government stimulus is a waste of money) are pure fantasy.

and that's a major problem. not just because it's a fantasy, but also because it is a litmus test for republican politicians that they buy in wholeheartedly to this fantasy.

I'm not a fan of inherited wealth, so I'm not thrilled with that part of Romney's background. But I have a lot more respect for someone who makes $100 million in the private sector than I do for someone who makes $8 to $12 million via "public service."

Obama made his money by selling books and doing speaking engagements. He basically made money off of his popularity, which a lot of people in show business do. He's famous for being the president, and at one time making a damn good speech at the 2004 DNC.

Its not like he made that money based on kick backs and bribery.

I'm not a fan of inherited wealth, so I'm not thrilled with that part of Romney's background.

What in the world does this mean?

it's not just that he's lying to journalists, it's not just that his actions are hypocritical, it's that the underlying reason for him doing those things is that he knows that his political beliefs are pure fantasy.

and that's a major problem. not just because it's a fantasy, but also because it is a litmus test for republican politicians that they buy in wholeheartedly to this fantasy.

Well, obviously not a valid litmus test. Might be more accurate to say that it's a litmus test for Republican politicians to pretend to buy in wholeheartedly to the fantasy.

also, if he's claiming there's absolutely no benefit to government stimulus, what does it matter if he forgoes stimulus funds?

They would still pay for the stimulus, so even if you believe it has no net positive effect or is a net negative, forgoing it is a bigger loss.

What in the world does this mean?

George Romney had a few nickles.