Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 55 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 > 
   5401. Tripon Posted: August 30, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4223066)
Flip
   5402. Guapo Posted: August 30, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4223069)
Everybody getting excited for Romneypalooza tonight?! Inspire me, Mitt!!!
   5403. Lassus Posted: August 30, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4223073)
I always wish for something completely batshit to happen more for the surreality of the moment than the outcome.
   5404. zenbitz Posted: August 30, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4223076)
But the bottom line is that no leader is going to sacrifice his own countrymen's lives in order to save those of the enemy, no matter how it plays in divinity school.


Of course. But leaders are not moral, and warfare is not moral. Even when it is, at times, Just. The only morally pure decision vis-a-vis the WW2 PTO in August 1945 would have been to either quit, or quit after liberating China/Indo china by attacking only military targets. And even that second one is on dodgy MORAL grounds (although it would have been Just).

You can't really perform the A-Bomb calculus BECAUSE THERE IS NO GUARANTEE that Japan surrenders and you won't have to invade/blockade/give up anyway.
   5405. Tripon Posted: August 30, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4223104)
I'm not sure if you want protests at your conventions to show how important the event is, or you want no protests at all to make it run smoothly as possible.
   5406. GregD Posted: August 30, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4223120)
I'm not sure if you want protests at your conventions to show how important the event is, or you want no protests at all to make it run smoothly as possible.
I would guess the Democrats are praying for big protests in hopes you get visuals of some crazy-looking people up on the news.
   5407. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 09:03 PM (#4223125)
Hey, you WWII nuts we're trying to get up an Axis & Allies game going via email. Anyone interested?
   5408. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4223134)
Oy...

I think it's a good thing for the GOP Jeb went early (or was he on the networks? I was watching on cspan.) I mean, I think everyone will give Jeb a pass on standing up for his brother - but I'm not quite sure a tribute to W is something that works for the GOP.

BTW - I know you can't compare 2008 to 2012 and I also won't dispute the idea that the GOP is more enthused than Democrats this time out (the RV vs LV screen numbers in polls bear that out)... but ratings for Paul Ryan's speech were down 17 million versus Sarah Palin's numbers in 2008 (from 37 million viewers to 20 million). That has to mean... something.
   5409. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 30, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4223137)
Hey, you WWII nuts we're trying to get up an Axis & Allies game going via email. Anyone interested?


I used to play online, about 12 years ago. I don't own the board game anymore.
   5410. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 30, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4223148)
I'm seeing a Romney ad, as well as one for Honda, on BBTF. A step up from the Asian Brides & Latin Ladies?

If campaigns are advertising on BBTF, maybe they do have too much money.
   5411. booond Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4223156)
If campaigns are advertising on BBTF, maybe they do have too much money.


they are likely on a run of network somewhere and you might be cookied to have the Romney ad follow you around.
   5412. GregD Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4223157)
BTW - I know you can't compare 2008 to 2012 and I also won't dispute the idea that the GOP is more enthused than Democrats this time out (the RV vs LV screen numbers in polls bear that out)... but ratings for Paul Ryan's speech were down 17 million versus Sarah Palin's numbers in 2008 (from 37 million viewers to 20 million). That has to mean... something.
I wouldn't read too much into it; everybody who cares can figure out who Paul Ryan is generally, for better and for worse. And Paul Ryan is many interesting things but he isn't likely to be a future celebrity. If he loses, he'll fade. Palin was both a complete unknown and self-evidently on pace to be famous for the rest of her life, whether she won or lost. People didn't turn in to hear her policy proposals; they turned in to watch a great performer. And in that narrow context, she was a great performer, and I suspect she could still deliver in that context again, if you paid her well enough. I loathe her but it was the most-electrifying TV speech of my lifetime, by a huge margin. And you had a sense going in that it was either going to be a homerun or an awful, awful failure, so there was real drama.
   5413. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4223158)
BTW - I know you can't compare 2008 to 2012 and I also won't dispute the idea that the GOP is more enthused than Democrats this time out (the RV vs LV screen numbers in polls bear that out)... but ratings for Paul Ryan's speech were down 17 million versus Sarah Palin's numbers in 2008 (from 37 million viewers to 20 million). That has to mean... something.

Most likely it just reflects the difference between an unknown and exotic female curiosity from an exotic locale and just another whitebread cookie cutter spokesman for the upper 1%. If anyone really doesn't know by now what this Ayn Rand clone** thinks, they wouldn't have been likely to be interested enough to tune in and start hearing him at the convention. He's more of a novelty than Romney himself, but he's just as likely to cost Romney votes as he is to win him any new ones.

**Though even Ayn Rand wouldn't be sick enough to want to have the government force a rape victim to bear a rapist's child. Only a religious fanatic of the worst sort would ever try to impose that perverse bit of legislation.

   5414. McCoy Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4223173)

I used to play online, about 12 years ago. I don't own the board game anymore.


You need nothing but access to a computer and the internet.
   5415. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4223175)
Had Clint on in the background and, sadly, he seemed to be stumbling around. I started to feel embarrassed for him, kind of like how people felt of Willie Mays at the end. But I wasn't watching closely. Did I miss something? And was he using the teleprompter?
   5416. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4223181)
re:5415 - Eastwood was doing a schtick with an empty chair representing Obama. It had a few moments, but didn't really click. Maybe the rambling delivery was intended, but it didn't seem that smooth. Probably doesn't matter though.
   5417. GregD Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4223183)
re:5415 - Eastwood was doing a schtick with an empty chair representing Obama. It had a few moments, but didn't really click. Maybe the rambling delivery was intended, but it didn't seem that smooth. Probably doesn't matter though.
ditto. a few moments of life, but a lot of stumbling and perhaps even some confusion. Not a success but irrelevant.
   5418. Guapo Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4223184)
This was not well planned out.
   5419. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4223185)
Clint's speech was bizarre. I have no idea what to make of it. At times he seemed to be following the teleprompter, and at other times it looked totally unscripted. The theme was pretending that Obama was sitting next to him in an empty chair refusing to answer questions and instead hurling obscenities. Then it ended with a "Make my day!" chant.
   5420. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4223187)
I have absolutely no sense that Romney and Ryan will win.

None at all. And this is during the RNC, where they're basically proclaiming victory before the fact. (Granted, I haven't watched this convention at all and tuned in simply to see Clint.)

Do these people here really Believe?
   5421. DA Baracus Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4223188)
YouTube of Clint.

Romney camp says he ad libbed a bunch of it. I hope so.
   5422. Chicago Joe Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4223190)
McCoy, I'd be into an A&A game online. Haven't played in years, but it sounds fun.
   5423. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4223191)
Twitter's having a lot of fun with Clint and the empty chair skit. Poor Clint. I'm glad I didn't see it.

Angels up 2-1. Greinke's maddening.
   5424. Guapo Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4223192)
Romney camp says he ad libbed a bunch of it.


If so, it was political malpractice letting him on stage.
   5425. Guapo Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4223195)
Romney's dad was a Mexican immigrant who accepted handouts from the federal government?!
   5426. Tripon Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4223196)
If anybody knew Clint Eastwood was doing this, at least they could do is have a cardboard cutout of Obama, or a hologram like 2pac.
   5427. DA Baracus Posted: August 30, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4223197)
If so, it was political malpractice letting him on stage.


I wonder if they even had something on the teleprompter for him (link):

The crowd cheered Eastwood's entrance and his famed shouted his famed catchphrase, "Go ahead, make my day." But backstage, stern-faced Romney aides winced at times as Eastwood's remarks stretched on.

On a night where virtually every moment was scripted, Eastwood was among the only speakers not reading from a teleprompter as he spoke.


If Eastwood went all Heartbreak Ridge in his speech, that would have been amazing. Opportunity lost.
   5428. Ron J Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4223199)
The southern states and Confederacy suppressed the rights of blacks;


Well no. Dred Scott was a federal decision and as far as I can tell it was a correct decision given the law of the land.

Hell, had the south not seceded there's zero chance Lincoln would have taken any action against slavery. He was absolutely clear that slavery was legal though he was equally clear that he found it abhorrent. And prior to the start of the war only a minority of Northerners were in favor of abolition. (Though it's fair to say that a plurality simply didn't have strong opinions and that abolitionists outnumbered those in favor of slavery. And that the anti=slavery movement was growing quickly)
   5429. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4223201)
This actually happened? I can't imagine an Eastwood appearance being anything but awkward, even if there were a few funny zingers. I'm sure he sounded better than Ron Zook as an analyst on the UCLA/Rice game tonight.
   5430. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4223202)
The Dred Scott decision is generally considered the worst Supreme Court decision of all time even from a purely legal perspective. Taney in his opinion went far, far beyond the case presented to him, and moreover completely ignored existing precedents? There was no Constitutional support for theidea that blacks could not be citizens, indeed free blacks had full civil rights in several states at the time of ratification.
   5431. Ron J Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4223204)
Let me also add that Unconditional Surrender was a horrid, horrid, immoral policy.


That's the way more than a few senior Allied officers saw. The way I see it though, an awful lot of people believed it was absolutely necessary for the aggressor nations to admit complete defeat. A second world war so soon after the end of the War to End All War made the vast majority of decision makers determined that there be no ambiguity, no blaming of some scapegoat. And after the news of the death camps, they were determined to have war crimes trials (they'd probably have insisted on those anyhow)

And you know what? There hasn't been a third world war. Yeah, decades of Poles, etc. got a raw deal, but all in all things seem to have worked out OK in the long run.
   5432. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4223205)
The Republican Party should've just ended the convention after last night. That's showmanship.

Tonight lacked last night's energy and enthusiasm, although I did find the latter part of Romney's speech somewhat interesting. I thought one section could be summarized like this: Boo science! Yay religion! Boo diplomacy! Yay war!

I can't figure out who they were trying to win over tonight.
   5433. zonk Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:23 PM (#4223206)
I'm partisan. It won't make or break Romney's chances.... But this convention really seems like a misfire. The bizarre Eastwood thing probably isn't as damaging as Buchanan's '92 speech, but even beyond that it just seemed flat and sometimes off tone. I mean, this was Romney's night to shine, but I can't imagine BBQ talk this weekend will discuss much about it besides Eastwood. I'm not saying Romney lost ground, I just don't think he picked up any.
   5434. GregD Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4223207)
Well no. Dred Scott was a federal decision and as far as I can tell it was a correct decision given the law of the land.
John Harlan disagreed!

Hell, had the south not seceded there's zero chance Lincoln would have taken any action against slavery. He was absolutely clear that slavery was legal though he was equally clear that he found it abhorrent. And prior to the start of the war only a minority of Northerners were in favor of abolition. (Though it's fair to say that a plurality simply didn't have strong opinions and that abolitionists outnumbered those in favor of slavery. And that the anti=slavery movement was growing quickly)
You should read this. If you mean what you wrote that Lincoln wouldn't have taken any action, that's just clearly and demonstrably false. He promised not to take any action to change the law of slavery in the states where it existed; he did not believe he had that power. He also, though, promised to eliminate slavery in the territories, establish limitations on the right of property in persons, appoint anti-slavery judges, permit the flow of anti-slavery literature through the mails into the South, and in many other ways use federal power to make it more difficult to maintain slavery, to hasten its demise. That doesn't make him an immediate abolitionist but the other alternative is not doing nothing.
   5435. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4223209)
Joe? Snapper? Do either of you have a strong feeling that Romney can win? There's obviously no right or wrong answer - I'm just curious.
   5436. hokieneer Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4223211)
they are likely on a run of network somewhere and you might be cookied to have the Romney ad follow you around.


I can't wait for the election to be over. For the past month, I haven't been able to watch a video on youtube without seeing an Obama or Romney ad. Now they are starting to filter out into other sites (including BBTF). I blame my lurking in this thread.


I have absolutely no sense that Romney and Ryan will win.

None at all. And this is during the RNC, where they're basically proclaiming victory before the fact. (Granted, I haven't watched this convention at all and tuned in simply to see Clint.)

Do these people here really Believe?


I said it was 65/35 Obama months ago, and to me it doesn't feel any different now. I don't think this is because of a large rally of support for Obama, it's just Romney is completely unlikable. It also doesn't help that the GOP completely threw the Paul supporters/delegates under the bus at the convention, removing whatever slim chance Romney/Ryan had at trying to absorb the 10-15% of the party that Paul was polling at during the primaries.
   5437. Ron J Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4223212)
I was listening to the CBC summary of Eastwood and the consensus was that he was very far off the reservation (speaking against foreign adventuring for instance). And that nobody was paying too much attention to the contents of his speech.
   5438. GregD Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4223214)
I thought Romney was just fine today. Not great but not bad. He had his message--we gave Obama a chance, now let's turn the page and try something new. That's a plausible message, even if it's a little too much like Kerry's 2004 message. It doesn't fit well with Ryan, who is more of a warrior and eager to draw sharp distinctions. Part of me thinks Romney was sticking to his let's be boring and just talk only about the economy strategy of the early summer, which is a reasonable strategy, but one that the Ryan choice made harder by defining Romney more clearly. Part of me thinks Romney was just leaving the negative work to his VP candidate, as presidential candidates usually do. It was interesting that he did not use Ryan's misstatements or errors, and I'll be curious what the tone is like coming out. But Romney didn't hurt himself with anybody. He didn't look nasty or unprepared; he didn't start any unnecessary culture wars. Can't say if he helped himself, either.

The obvious message that would fit him and come naturally to him is I'll be your dad. He likes talking about his father and about being a father, and he seems to want to say, come on, kids, trust me. But that message must play terribly in focus groups or something.

   5439. SteveF Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4223216)
I said it was 65/35 Obama months ago, and to me it doesn't feel any different now.


Given the economic data I would say Obama's chances have had to have gone up in the last few months, if only because now there's less time for the economy to tank (which seems to be Romney's only chance).
   5440. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:42 PM (#4223218)
During Eastwood's "performance", there was nothing on the teleprompters. He did that <a >completely unscripted and off the cuff</a>.
   5441. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4223219)
Sorry...that was supposed to be a link to this article:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_CLINT_EASTWOOD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-30-22-38-51
   5442. tshipman Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4223220)
I have all kinds of problems with Obama's fiscal and monetary policy in the wake of the crash of 2008, but so far as I can see, Romney is proposing precisely nothing for the short-term health of the economy. Effective stimulus like the auto bailout, he opposes. A tilt toward expansionary monetary policy, he opposes. Romney/Ryan are proposing the same old promises of upper income tax cuts combined with insincere pledges to cut spending that the Republicans trot out regardless of the state of the economy. There's no actual plan to deal with the recession or the labor market crisis.


Well, half the ticket has supported raising the federal funds rate. That'll fix things!
   5443. Darren Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:45 PM (#4223221)
Clint told them he was going to go on stage with the chair and they all thought he meant Reince Priebus.
   5444. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4223222)
of course the governor can win.

the experts like to say money cancels out but if someone spends a lot as in a lot of money then it can matter in a close race

that helps the governor

the analysis shows that in some states it's just a matter of getting the right counties to break your way

that helps the governor

he is running a disciplined campaign

that helps the governor

gonna be close and things could break late just as they did for the president in 2008

in fact what I described was the president's blueprint helped by a great ground game

that ground game doesn't have the zest this year

that helps the governor

i respect the president. he kept his campaign promises and did what he thought best

but it's the first half of that is the problem. and i do think he lacks the gumption to lead. trusting harry reid and other halfwits to carry your water is ridiculous

i do appreciate the effort. carrying the deadweight that is the dem leadership and being president is a colossal burden

if he led like he campaigned he would be a superhero as president
   5445. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:54 PM (#4223225)
Well, if it was unscripted - or at least off the teleprompter, as it seemed for much of it - then I can forgive some of the stumbling. Although you'd think an actor would be able to remember his lines.

But I'm not sure it was a great idea to let him go out there unscripted. Not that it matters. His appearance alone was symbolic, if that is worth anything (and I guess that it's not).

   5446. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4223227)
an elderly man accustomed to west coast time awake late in the evening is a recipe for some verbal meandering

know a bit about what can trigger that there meandering
   5447. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4223228)
Given the economic data I would say Obama's chances have had to have gone up in the last few months, if only because now there's less time for the economy to tank (which seems to be Romney's only chance).

People don't need a lot of help to make up their mind on the economy, they feel it every day - on the job, at the grocery store or gas station, and, unfortunately, in the unemployment line. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of bad economic news - new claims for unemployment were higher than predicted this week, continuing a trend, and it was reported that mean family income has declined 4.8% under Obama's "recovery". I would take the opposite position than the post quoted above - less time for the economy to recover cuts against Obama, not for him (which is not to say there'd be a recovery if Obama just had more time).
   5448. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 30, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4223229)
guarantee whoever had the idea of eastwood and whoever was tagged to handle him are already in the back of a van headed for the swamps

my party doesn't take failure lightly
   5449. Ron J Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4223233)
#5434 Lincoln's correspondence is extensive. It's clear that he was committed to stopping the expansion of slavery. And that he expected slavery to die a natural death if it couldn't expand.

He also knew that given the existing makeup of Congress he couldn't actually do anything about imposing an end to slavery in the territories.

Incidentally, here is a copy of the 1860 Republican platform. Note item 5 complaining about "the intervention of Congress and of the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest". There's no chance he could have done anything about the congressional side, and the courts wouldn't exactly be a reliable route as it was constituted in 1860.

Both Douglas and Lincoln wanted a local vote to determine whether they would be admitted as a free state (that's the issue the Southern caucus broke with Douglas over). That's not the way it works though. Congress has the say and there just weren't the votes (particularly in the Senate).
   5450. rr Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4223235)
The Eastwood thing doesn't matter. Much of mainstream America loves Clint, but I don't think he was going to change any meaningful number of votes even if his speech had been awesome. The guy is an icon and a living legend. I loved Unforgiven, and really liked Million Dollar Baby but that is a different thing than deciding who to vote for for POTUS.

Jonathan Cohn?@CitizenCohn

RT @jbouie This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama. || Winner
   5451. GregD Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4223236)
my party doesn't take failure lightly
This seems deeply true--Democrats recycled Shrum after his failures, and Republicans bury their losing campaign managers--but it is interesting to me that Republicans almost always (with the GWB exception) nominate people who have run for the office before and lost, usually soundly. That may be wise--it allows a longer vetting--but it does mean they're usually putting up people who have entered the national stage with a defeat. Democrats err the other way; they look for the fresh, unblemished face, again except in 2000 when they nominated a one-time primary loser and Republicans nominated a newbie.
   5452. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4223237)
ain't nothing gonna budge the econ needle not with eurodopes unable to play together and general election uncertainty making companies cautious with cash

something big would have to break and most big econ thIngs are bad
   5453. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4223238)
guarantee whoever had the idea of eastwood and whoever was tagged to handle him are already in the back of a van headed for the swamps

I didn't see the speech, and I like Eastwood, but that's a great image. And I agree with your earlier post that this election could easily go in either direction, based on unknown and unforeseeable events between now and November. The only thing that makes me feel somewhat good at this point is that the swing states are still pretty much all leaning towards Obama.
   5454. zonk Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4223239)
I'm sorry, HW, but I can't see how this is a disciplined campaign. A disciplined campaign does not make Clint Eastwood - at least, not ad libbing - as the prime time leadin. A disciplined campaign does not make the standard trip abroad and then end up saying "well, no cares anyway. It won't hurt him". This is a campaign pockmarked with missteps at all levels. The candidate has a habit of giving perfect quips for the opposition, they're having trouble controlling surrogates.... And that's BEFORE we get into silly stuff like like giving a speech in the middle of Ford Field that should have been in conference room 3C.

MItt Romney may win. Mitt Romney may end up being a great president.

But no way is this a disciplined campaign. It's Al Gore 2000 to a different beat.
   5455. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4223241)
zonk

only dc wonks and fretters know about the euro trip. irrelevant

and the president had his own issues in 08

the governor has solid ads running where they need to run he has folks working where they need to work when the president says anything off key it is an ad in 5 seconds

senator mccain had none of this and he was right there until kaboom at the end

the gop is coordinated and driven

that is the governor's doing
   5456. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4223242)
Joe? Snapper? Do either of you have a strong feeling that Romney can win? There's obviously no right or wrong answer - I'm just curious.

My position basically remains unchanged from back in the spring: I see Romney as a very slight favorite in November. I'm not betting the house or anything; I just believe that (1) people generally vote their wallets and (2) the polling and underlying metrics (right track/wrong track, voter enthusiasm, job approval, unemployment, jobless claims, etc.) are unfavorable to Obama and unlikely to get better over the next 70 days.

As for the convention, I thought it went about as well as could be expected. The focus was shifted back to Obama's failures and the bad economy, and there were no major gaffes or controversies. Condi, Martinez, and Ryan were great yesterday, and Rubio and Romney were great tonight. The GOP message was tough but upbeat, and it's going to be tough for Obama & Co. to counter it next week since the "Hope and Change" Obama of '08 has given way to a nasty, negative president whose economic track record is abysmal.
   5457. GregD Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4223243)
#5434 Lincoln's correspondence is extensive. It's clear that he was committed to stopping the expansion of slavery. And that he expected slavery to die a natural death if it couldn't expand.

He also knew that given the existing makeup of Congress he couldn't actually do anything about imposing an end to slavery in the territories.

Incidentally, here is a copy of the 1860 Republican platform. Note item 5 complaining about "the intervention of Congress and of the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest". There's no chance he could have done anything about the congressional side, and the courts wouldn't exactly be a reliable route as it was constituted in 1860.

Both Douglas and Lincoln wanted a local vote to determine whether they would be admitted as a free state (that's the issue the Southern caucus broke with Douglas over). That's not the way it works though. Congress has the say and there just weren't the votes (particularly in the Senate).
If you're saying Lincoln was hamstrung by political realities and the Constitution, we're fairly close together. Earlier I thought you were saying that Lincoln himself wouldn't do anything; that is different and I think demonstrably false.

I do think you're misreading the complaint about Congress. As the platform states over and over, slavery was a purely local institution; the Republicans believed that the federal government should never intervene to support it. This was not just a preference but a legal principle to them, derived from British common law. Freedom was the national default; slavery had to be constructed by local law. So the complaint isn't that Congress is meddling; the complaint is that Congress intervened to defend slavery, which it should never do. That principle would hardly have forestalled Lincoln. Lincoln, unlike Douglas, believed Congress should ban slavery in the territories. He did believe that when territories applied for statehood they could include slavery in their constitutions or pass laws for slavery afterward.

What Lincoln could have done if the Southern delegations stayed is a much thornier issue, and the very one that Upper South members raised. The only threat to slavery, Virginia newspapers wrote, would come if the Southern delegates left Congress. I wouldn't want to bet either way on what would have happened; the Senate certainly would have been a thorn in the Republican side in anything that depended upon congressional enactment.

Lincoln would not have needed congressional approval to lift the decades-long ban on anti-slavery literature moving through the mails in the South. This was a big deal to many white Southerners, who feared that the movement of those materials could lead the Upper South states toward gradual emancipation.

Would Lincoln have appointed anti-slavery postmasters in the South? That's a trickier question. On the one hand he offered the cabinet slot to Gilmer; on the other hand Gilmer read the tea leaves and refused the position.

   5458. tshipman Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4223245)
the governor has solid ads running where they need to run


Romney's current ad campaign is blatantly dishonest (the welfare attacks). I think at a certain point, the narrative of him being so casually dishonest will hurt him.

The fact that you describe a naked lie as "solid" is disgusting.
   5459. Tripon Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4223246)

Given the economic data I would say Obama's chances have had to have gone up in the last few months, if only because now there's less time for the economy to tank (which seems to be Romney's only chance).


Didn't the financial crisis happen right at the end of Sept? I thought one of the major issues wasn't just the severity of the crisis, but the fact that it happened so suddenly at a moment when people were ill prepared to respond to it.
   5460. asdf1234 Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4223247)
The crowd cheered Eastwood's entrance and his famed shouted his famed catchphrase, "Go ahead, make my day." But backstage, stern-faced Romney aides winced at times as Eastwood's remarks stretched on.

On a night where virtually every moment was scripted, Eastwood was among the only speakers not reading from a teleprompter as he spoke.


Politics as entertainment just reached a new peak. I'm torn whether that display was pathetic or brilliant.

If you mean what you wrote that Lincoln wouldn't have taken any action, that's just clearly and demonstrably false. He promised not to take any action to change the law of slavery in the states where it existed; he did not believe he had that power. He also, though, promised to eliminate slavery in the territories, establish limitations on the right of property in persons, appoint anti-slavery judges, permit the flow of anti-slavery literature through the mails into the South, and in many other ways use federal power to make it more difficult to maintain slavery, to hasten its demise. That doesn't make him an immediate abolitionist but the other alternative is not doing nothing.


He wasn't an abolitionist, immediate or otherwise. Garrison and his fellow abolitionists--marginal figures that they were--despised Lincoln. Lincoln himself had no use for blacks--a point that he made clear for decades in public speeches--and was obsessed with the idea of forcibly relocating them to another continent. His expressed interest in stemming the spread of slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the slaves, but of the poor whites who would be displaced by slave labor.

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories.
   5461. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4223249)
If you read a transcript of Eastwood's remarks (which is the only way I've taken in this appearance, as well as remarks here) I have a vision of a guy working the lounge of a Holiday Inn in Stevens Point, WI. very strange, though I suppose it will simply be a trivial footnote a week, month, year, decade from now.
   5462. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:35 AM (#4223250)
the governor has solid ads running where they need to run

Romney's current ad campaign is blatantly dishonest (the welfare attacks). I think at a certain point, the narrative of him being so casually dishonest will hurt him.
They're not solid because they're truthful, they're solid because they work. Truth ain't got nothing to do with it.
   5463. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4223251)
Romney's current ad campaign is blatantly dishonest (the welfare attacks). I think at a certain point, the narrative of him being so casually dishonest will hurt him.

There's nothing wrong with raising the welfare issue. Obama opposed welfare reform and appointed opponents of welfare reform to policy making positions. The Administration stretched their authority in ways many consider beyond what the law allows to potentially weaken the work requirements. A legitimate issue.
   5464. rr Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:38 AM (#4223252)
   5465. rr Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:43 AM (#4223253)
though I suppose it will simply be a trivial footnote a week, month, year, decade from now.


Sure. The Dems will get some jokes out of it at the DNC, and so will the late-night talk show guys, and the Twitterati, like the one I posted. But the jibes will be mostly gentle, since Eastwood is 82 years old and is more popular than either Obama or Romney. And that IMO is all it amounts to.
   5466. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4223256)
Obama opposed welfare reform and appointed opponents of welfare reform to policy making positions. The Administration stretched their authority in ways many consider beyond what the law allows to potentially weaken the work requirements. A legitimate issue.
From WaPo:
A more nuanced view comes from Ron Haskins, who was instrumental in crafting the original law. He told our colleagues at Wonkblog that the concept of the waivers is a good one, though the process used by the administration was unfair. “It might not be illegal,” he said. “But [HHS] didn’t even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that.”

In other words, we are mainly talking about a process foul and poor coordination with Congress. One of the main critics of the waivers, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), conceded as much when the Salt Lake Tribune noted that the administration said it was responding to a request from the Republican governor of Hatch’s state. “Hatch does not believe that HHS has the legal authority to waive TANF work rules,” Hatch spokesman Matt Harakal told the Tribune. “This is a completely different issue than giving states flexibility through a regular reauthorization of TANF.”

It is also important to note that no waivers have yet been issued. The Romney campaign ad goes much too far when it suggests Obama has already taken action to “drop work requirements.” The ad further states that “under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and you wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”

Here, the Romney campaign is asserting an extreme interpretation of what might happen under these rules, but it is certainly not based on any specific “Obama plan.” (The Romney campaign often cries foul when Obama offers his own interpretation of still-vague Romney plans.) What really matters are the plans submitted by governors — and, as our colleague Greg Sargent noted, the two Republican governors seeking waivers issued statements saying they were not planning to weaken work requirements.
The Team Romney spin got 4 Pinocchios... but we do have to consider that these are fact checks, and not to be taken seriously when criticizing Team Romney.
   5467. GregD Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:51 AM (#4223257)
He wasn't an abolitionist, immediate or otherwise. Garrison and his fellow abolitionists--marginal figures that they were--despised Lincoln. Lincoln himself had no use for blacks--a point that he made clear for decades in public speeches--and was obsessed with the idea of forcibly relocating them to another continent. His expressed interest in stemming the spread of slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the slaves, but of the poor whites who would be displaced by slave labor.
I'm a little confused by this. Whether or not he was an abolitionist doesn't answer the question of what he intended to do with the powers he believed he had.

Defining abolitionism has been tricky; at times people define everyone to the right of Garrison as just anti-slavery, a position that makes Frederick Douglass' abolitionism suspect. Once you step beyond that, the lines get more and more complex. You can end up in endless debate that doesn't illuminate much. Was Salmon Chase an abolitionist? Democrats thought so! You end up with politicians who say they are just anti-slavery while their opponents call them abolitionists. In the end abolitionism went from an epithet to an epaulet over the generations, but in neither case was its meaning stable.

Besides, the claim that Garrison and his fellow abolitionists despised Lincoln is strange. Douglass endorsed him in 1860, though with major reservations. Garrison did not endorse him but followed him closely in 1860 and with a much more modulated tone than you suggest; later of course Garrison called him the man most responsible for emancipation and by 1864 refused to say a bad word about him. Lincoln was not in 1860 the candidate of those antislavery men who were closest to abolitionists; Salmon Chase was. But Lincoln was acceptable to them, in a way that Bates or Blair wouldn't have been. By 1864, he was a hero to many, though not all, of them.

Then you shift to Lincoln's view of race. But this tells us nothing about his view of either slavery or abolitionism. It's our tendency to assume the two tracked each other, and sometimes they did. But there were bitterly racist abolitionists. And more moderate anti-slavery politicians who were more committed to anti-racism.

Lincoln's own views were complicated and have been well studied. But a couple of the things you say are just untrue. He most emphatically did say, over and over, that slavery destroyed the welfare of slaves. He spoke less about the impact of slavery upon poor whites than Seward, for example, and much more about the unfairness of depriving people of wages for labor. To say his opposition to slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the welfare of the slaves is just not consistent with his voluminous public record.

And on colonization, he literally never endorsed or even tolerated the idea of forcible colonization. That's simply untrue. He did support voluntary colonization, and pushed his support to an embarrassing extent in an 1862 meeting with black Washingtonians, but he never thought forcible relocation was justified. And once voluntary colonization died, he didn't revive it. The idea that he had no use for blacks is also baffling. We sometimes want to work in binaries; if he wasn't John Brown he must be Bull Conner. He over and over said that blacks deserved legal and civil rights but that he was not sure they deserved political rights and that he did not think social equality was possible or enforceable by the government.

Lincoln isn't my personal hero. The celebration of the Great Emancipator can get cloying. But the inverse of it, the presumption that Lincoln was solely self-interested, has the disadvantage of being unrelated to reality.
   5468. rr Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4223258)
President Barack Obama's reelection campaign says Clint Eastwood's eccentric speech to the Republican National Convention was, well, surreal.

"Referring all questions on this to Salvador Dalí," spokesman Ben LaBolt said by email.
   5469. GregD Posted: August 31, 2012 at 12:59 AM (#4223259)
When wrestling with Lincoln, you have to take on a bunch of things, his colonization support, his crude jokes, his accession to social inequality, his caution, his sometimes excessive legalism, but you also have to take on things like :

I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."this
   5470. SteveF Posted: August 31, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4223260)
Didn't the financial crisis happen right at the end of Sept? I thought one of the major issues wasn't just the severity of the crisis, but the fact that it happened so suddenly at a moment when people were ill prepared to respond to it.


Each day that passes is one more day that such a financial crisis can't happen, at the very least. Romney is running out of innings for the opponent's bullpen to explode. I'm sorry, but I think I must be missing your point. Perhaps I didn't make mine clearly enough.
   5471. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 01:10 AM (#4223264)
As far as the economy goes, whoever is president or runs congress, it does not matter. The policymakers have no clues on either side. Carter hiring Volcker in 1979 was the most significant move in my lifetime. I don't know enough about Volcker to know whether he was on top of things, or just taking using fairly standard theory. Anyway, they spiked the interest rate early in Reagan's first time, and there was a recession Reagan blamed on Carter. Then we had three cycles of recession, lower interest rates to goose the ecomony.

That economy is done. I would not try to have an intentional recession now. Romney cutting taxes on the rich is just going to give them more money to not spend. I suppose he could make things worse if he actually raises taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts are inefficient stimulus at any level anyway. With Obama it will putter along as now for how long it lasts.

At some point it would help if the financial colossus could be broken up, but I don't see how. They can likely kill the career any politician that trys in the current climate. If it were possible I'd try incentives and taxes to get some investments moving, but again you have to be able to put it into place. I think any reform other than fits and starts is going to run into too much resistance.

Looking back at the Great Depression, you had some groups like labor and farmers that could put some pressure on the system. We don't have that any more. You can get real reform if you have a powerful oppositional force, but we don't now, unless China forces us to do some things. If that happens it probably won't be pretty. Best case might be a Japan-type stag for 20-30 years, at least. This might be a tougher solve than the Depression or stagflation.
   5472. SteveF Posted: August 31, 2012 at 01:23 AM (#4223265)
I would not try to have an intentional recession now.


Under what circumstances would you try to have an intentional recession? (That's a sincere question and not me trying to be a smartass.)
   5473. Zoppity Zoop Posted: August 31, 2012 at 01:38 AM (#4223266)

Under what circumstances would you try to have an intentional recession?


Presumably when a Republican is president.
   5474. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: August 31, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4223273)
David Tice is always ready for a recession.
   5475. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 02:14 AM (#4223275)
i respect the president. he kept his campaign promises and did what he thought best


Yeah, but people don't like that in their pols, mostly. The upside for Obama's style is probably Woodrow Wilson, not that I know that much about Wilson.

The most successful pols seem to be able to morph into multiple personalities Sybil-like, or are forever dancing around the center like Nixon and Clinton did. Romney's upside would probably be an Ike style, not that he would ever be that popular. The secrecy and lack of plans seems dominant, I think that's the only approach he could pull off. Ike never wanted to do anything.
   5476. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 02:25 AM (#4223277)
Under what circumstances would you try to have an intentional recession? (That's a sincere question and not me trying to be a smartass.)


Early in Reagan's first term Volcker raised the interests rate close to 20%. It was believed to be an intentional policy to help break the stagflation pattern present since the late 1960s, and it's usually credited with causing a sharp recession. Reagan blamed it on Jimmy Carter every chance he got, which made little sense since the recession didn't even start until Reagan was in office a few months. Like most things Reagan, people bought it.

We used to have a lot more recessions than we do now, when we were more of an industrial economy. It wasn't unusual to have one every two to three years. But often they were fairly mild recessions. Now we have long expansion periods marked by speculative bubbles. Well, there's no speculative bubble and not much expansion, but the last three times, yes. You had the Wall Street bubble in the late 1980s, Internet, and housing. All followed by significant recessions and struggles with jobless recoveries, which we have again now.

This is part of the reason I don't think presidents have much impact on the economy. I guess some of the regulations change, and that does matter, but the most novel thing was what Volcker did. It's been a while.
   5477. SteveF Posted: August 31, 2012 at 03:05 AM (#4223286)
Early in Reagan's first term Volcker raised the interests rate close to 20%. It was believed to be an intentional policy to help break the stagflation pattern present since the late 1960s, and it's usually credited with causing a sharp recession. Reagan blamed it on Jimmy Carter every chance he got, which made little sense since the recession didn't even start until Reagan was in office a few months. Like most things Reagan, people bought it.


When Carter took office the discount rate was 5.5%. When he left office the discount rate was 12%. The highest the discount rate got while Reagan was in office was 14%. The prime rate (which I think is set by banks, and not the Fed) did go as high as ~20% (likely what you are remembering-- edit: higher actually 20.5%), but that was a consequence of the extremely high (~10%) inflation at the time causing the banks to abandon the discount + 3% rule of thumb. (Edit: Actually, the reasons probably go beyond simply inflation. I don't know enough to comment intelligently on the matter. Maybe someone could chime in?)

I don't think Volcker raised the discount rate to 14% to intentionally create a recession under Reagan's watch so Reagan could then turn around and use the recession as a political weapon against the Democrats. (I'm also not saying this is what you are suggesting, but reading your reply as a response to my question suggests I interpret it that way.) Reagan certainly did use it as a political weapon (almost certainly wrongly for the reason you note -- presidents don't have much impact on the economy), but I think the intent behind raising the interest rates a further 2% under Reagan was largely a conscious decision to solve the inflation problem before attempting to solve the unemployment problem.
   5478. SteveF Posted: August 31, 2012 at 03:42 AM (#4223289)
I clearly need an economic lesson on the difference between the discount rate and the federal funds rate. Apparently the federal funds rate was raised to 20% under Volcker (apparently it got as high as 21.5%). So I apologize for my error and of course that explains why the prime rate got so high.
   5479. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 31, 2012 at 03:42 AM (#4223290)
Reagan certainly did use it as a political weapon (almost certainly wrongly for the reason you note -- presidents don't have much impact on the economy), but I think the intent behind raising the interest rates a further 2% under Reagan was largely a conscious decision to solve the inflation problem before attempting to solve the unemployment problem.
Reagan gets a ton of credit for not torpedoing Volker's work at the Fed like other Republicans wanted him to, and he gets credit for not replacing him when he could have. No one would have blamed him for wanting to push out Carter's guy — especially in the middle of a recession that many saw as Volker's doing — but Reagan let it play.
   5480. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 05:12 AM (#4223292)
President Barack Obama's reelection campaign says Clint Eastwood's eccentric speech to the Republican National Convention was, well, surreal.

"Referring all questions on this to Salvador Dalí," spokesman Ben LaBolt said by email.

Which is a doubly awesome comment, considering the Salvador Dali Museum is in St. Pete.
   5481. bobm Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:09 AM (#4223303)
Yeah, but people don't like that in their pols, mostly. The upside for Obama's style is probably Woodrow Wilson, not that I know that much about Wilson.


War and failure to compromise with a Congress controlled by Republicans? An incapacitating stroke during which the First Lady keeps the VP out of power? That's not a good upside. :)
   5482. bobm Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:15 AM (#4223307)
Irony in today's NY Times:

EDUCATION
Harvard Says 125 Students May Have Cheated on a Final Exam
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and JESS BIDGOOD
Published: August 31, 2012

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Harvard University revealed Thursday what could be its largest cheating scandal in memory, saying that about 125 students might have worked in groups on a take-home final exam despite being explicitly required to work alone.

The accusations, related to a single undergraduate class in the spring semester, deal with "academic dishonesty, ranging from inappropriate collaboration to outright plagiarism," the administration said in a note sent to students. ...

The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, reported that it was a government class, Introduction to Congress [Emphasis added]
   5483. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:17 AM (#4223308)
We used to have a lot more recessions than we do now, when we were more of an industrial economy. It wasn't unusual to have one every two to three years. But often they were fairly mild recessions. Now we have long expansion periods marked by speculative bubbles. Well, there's no speculative bubble and not much expansion, but the last three times, yes. You had the Wall Street bubble in the late 1980s, Internet, and housing. All followed by significant recessions and struggles with jobless recoveries, which we have again now.
I've bolded that because it seems to be your primary explanation of the change in the cycles of the economy. It seems almost entirely wrong to me, and on top of that disproven by history. Speculative bubbles and busts were extremely common in the industrial economy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What changed wasn't industrialization, it was the establishment of real central checks on capitalism, regulation of finance, and the creation of a safety net for the less well off. The boom-bust cycle of middle capitalism is returning now in late capitalism because the finance sector is once again unchecked and deregulated. This is what finance does to economies when it isn't highly regulated and prevented from destroying everything around it in 10-year cycles.
   5484. SteveF Posted: August 31, 2012 at 07:36 AM (#4223313)
The Harvard Crimson, the university's student newspaper, reported that it was a government class, Introduction to Congress


If they had really learned anything, they'd have turned in the exams a month late with three other take home exams from different classes attached.
   5485. Greg K Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:23 AM (#4223329)
That's awful.

Just more confirmation that Rory Gilmore made the right choice.
   5486. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM (#4223335)
Just more confirmation that Rory Gilmore made the right choice.
I dunno. I'd probably take cheating on one exam over three years of dating Logan Huntsberger.
   5487. Greg K Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:41 AM (#4223348)
I dunno. I'd probably take cheating on one exam over three years of dating Logan Huntsberger.

Oh that was clearly the wrong choice. But she was doing pretty good up until then.

With the talk of rooting interests in shows over in the other thread I think Gilmore Girls is a fascinating exercise in a show unintentionally turning a character into one you actively dislike. I know it wasn't intended to be, but I enjoy watching the last couple seasons of that show as a rather dark story of how young people of promise can fail to turn out as you'd hoped.
   5488. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:47 AM (#4223355)
I know it wasn't intended to be, but I enjoy watching the last couple seasons of that show as a rather dark story of how young people of promise can fail to turn out as you'd hoped.
I always took it as the writers' room being at war. You'd have an episode where Logan was rakishly adorable, where Rory had a good point that her mom was being unreasonable about the dropping out of Yale thing (sorry, spoilers!), and then you'd have two where Logan was callow and arrogant, and it was obvious that Rory was making this terrible mistake that seemed to signal her not quite having the sort of solid moral compass she was supposed to have. The last few seasons of Gilmore Girls are obviously not the show's best - April? what's an April? - but I totally agree that they were fascinating for the surprisingly dark place the show went, whether it was intended or not. I think at least some of the writers understood the story that way.

At least she broke up with him at graduation.

Have you watched Bunheads? Best new show of the summer, like Gilmore Girls but with ballet and four different Rorys.
   5489. Jay Z Posted: August 31, 2012 at 08:56 AM (#4223363)
I've bolded that because it seems to be your primary explanation of the change in the cycles of the economy. It seems almost entirely wrong to me, and on top of that disproven by history. Speculative bubbles and busts were extremely common in the industrial economy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What changed wasn't industrialization, it was the establishment of real central checks on capitalism, regulation of finance, and the creation of a safety net for the less well off. The boom-bust cycle of middle capitalism is returning now in late capitalism because the finance sector is once again unchecked and deregulated. This is what finance does to economies when it isn't highly regulated and prevented from destroying everything around it in 10-year cycles.


Your analysis is good. Yes, pre-Depression it was an industrial economy with boom-bust.
   5490. bunyon Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4223372)
but I enjoy watching the last couple seasons of that show as a rather dark story of how young people of promise can fail to turn out as you'd hoped.

This is what nostalgia and scotch are for.
   5491. GregD Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:38 AM (#4223390)
Your analysis is good. Yes, pre-Depression it was an industrial economy with boom-bust.
For confirmation of this, you might check on this new book which details the incredible panics of the 19th century US
   5492. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4223406)
But the jibes will be mostly gentle, since Eastwood is 82 years old and is more popular than either Obama or Romney.

As well he should be. I mean, who's a more accomplished and talented person -- Clint Eastwood, or Barack Obama/Mitt Romney? It really isn't close.
   5493. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4223409)
I have absolutely no sense that Romney and Ryan will win.


I have absolutely no sense of who will win at this point, none. I'm trying to recall if I ever had that lack of feeling I know who will win at this point before... Maybe 2004.



Regarding Clint, didn't watch, don't want to watch, I LOVE Clint, I figure this performance could do me no good.
   5494. Lassus Posted: August 31, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4223415)
Considering what's returning this weekend, this is not the Rory I expected to see here.
   5495. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:02 AM (#4223421)
I can't figure out who they were trying to win over tonight.

I was watching BBC World News this morning, they were, umm, BAFFLED, I mean it, they weren't attacking Romney, praising Obama, it was more like, "... I ummm, I guess we just don't get American issues..."

I mean given the situation in Europe and whatnot, Eurozone/Austerity, they get what Ryan's about, but Romney and Clint, juts baffled, had no idea what Romney was saying or trying to say or whether he was trying to say anything of substance
   5496. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:02 AM (#4223422)
I have absolutely no sense of who will win at this point, none.

Likewise. There's no way Obama would survive an economy this disasterous, distended, and hopeless if he was running against a normal major party politician but he happens to have the good fortune of running against an unlikeable, phony, odd stiff.

I sense that Obama is a slight favorite, but I wouldn't bet more than 10 bucks that he'll win.
   5497. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4223423)
I have absolutely no sense of who will win at this point, none. I'm trying to recall if I ever had that lack of feeling I know who will win at this point before... Maybe 2004.
I was sure it would be Bush basically through the entirety of 2004. I had two moments of hope - the first debate, when Bush nearly ran out of the room crying, and then the afternoon of the election and those ####### leaked exits. But the first debate won Kerry only enough points to make the election close, and he wasn't able to close the deal with equivalent trouncings in the following debates. And of course the leaked exits were a load of crap.

This year I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop. It's been "probably Obama" for almost a year, but I've been expecting the Event to happen which changes the equation for equally as long. The world economy is at best a wobbly top right now, and it wouldn't take that much of an event to get it toward tippling over.
   5498. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4223424)
I was watching BBC World News this morning, they were, umm, BAFFLED, I mean it, they weren't attacking Romney, praising Obama, it was more like, "... I ummm, I guess we just don't get American issues..."

They don't.
   5499. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:03 AM (#4223426)
I mean, who's a more accomplished and talented person -- Clint Eastwood, or Barack Obama/Mitt Romney?


Well becoming President of the US and running an Olympics/being Governor/amassing a huge fortune are actually bigger accomplishments than being a great actor and director.

Don't get me wrong I love Clint, but the fetish many have for entertainers is really silly. All three are talented. Clint has accomplished the least in terms of real world impact.

And again I love Clint, he is one of my favorites. He is very talented. One of the greatest Hollywood has to offer in terms of total package. His is top 50 all time in Hollywood (wild guess by me, don't hold me to it).

But more accomplished that the President of the US? That is just crazy talk.
   5500. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 31, 2012 at 10:08 AM (#4223432)
Well becoming President of the US and running an Olympics/being Governor/amassing a huge fortune are actually bigger accomplishments than being a great actor and director.

Nope.

But more accomplished that the President of the US? That is just crazy talk.


Clint Eastwood could easily have functioned effectively as President of the US. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney wouldn't have a chance in hell of competently directing a serious film the caliber of Eastwood's.

Page 55 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(135 - 3:35am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(82 - 3:11am, Oct 31)
Last: baxter

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(10 - 2:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Dan

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(52 - 2:35am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(630 - 2:05am, Oct 31)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1021 - 1:53am, Oct 31)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(108 - 1:49am, Oct 31)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4785 - 12:40am, Oct 31)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogThe Players' Tribune: Jeter: The Clean Up
(1 - 12:38am, Oct 31)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(17 - 12:33am, Oct 31)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(11 - 12:17am, Oct 31)
Last: bobm

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(9 - 10:22pm, Oct 30)
Last: Chris Fluit

Page rendered in 1.1055 seconds
52 querie(s) executed