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

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 18 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›
   1701. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4321138)
It should be criminal in the same way calling 911 is if there is no emergency.

So if you call 911 because you're convinced there's an emergency you are a criminal if - in an exteme circumstance - you were wrong?


I should have followed your lead and just not gotten into it, Lassus. But, one more response and after that, if you guys want to think me a rape-apologizing neanderthal, that's your business.

I was referring to changing of minds after the fact. Which is really another phrase for "lying". Girl consents or has drunk sex without saying no - any of that happens and she accuses someone of rape, yes, she is committing an immoral act that, in my opinion, should be illegal. If she in fact said no prior to the act, then, no, even if rape can't be proven, she isn't immoral or illegal in making an accusation.

I'm quite sure that more rapes are unreported than innocent men are falsely accused, though clearly no one has good numbers on this. As others have said, in a lot of these cases it will be he said/she said and that simply isn't enough to send someone to jail. Which is why, as I advise, guys should avoid being very drunk/high. The fact that it is extremely difficult to prosecute a sexual assault in a case where the victim can't be a reliable witness (drugs/alcohol) is a very good reason for girls to avoid being very drunk/high.

But, really, all this debate on detail is beside the point. Either you believe an event can have more than one cause or you don't.

   1702. Kurt Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4321141)
I don't see the problem. If one drunk driver hits and kills another drunk driver, it's the one who did the killing that gets run up for aggravated manslaughter. That's because one act (i.e. commiting sexual assault) is a crime, another (being sexually assaulted) isn't. In general, "I was too drunk to know better!" is not a defense for committing a crime.

You're making Morty's point for him. In your drunk driving scenario, drunk driving itself is a crime and you have a dead body. Drunk sexing is not in and of itself a crime; you seem to be assuming that if drunk sex occurs that (a) a crime has occurred, and (b) if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex then the man is the one who did the assaulting.
   1703. Nats-Homer-in-DC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4321149)
"Regarding the whole blame the victim sub-thread ... Why the need to blame the women?"

No one blames the victim. No one stares at a victim in tears and points a finger. What happens is that as the conversation turns to practical lessons from our dangerous world or establishing the legal culpability of the accused attacker, that the conversation gets taken over by libertine activists. The activists personalize the issue, stage their slut walks or gentrifying yuppie community meetings, and harp until they can shut down the conversation.
   1704. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4321163)
I may not (probably don't) understand how the speaker election works. I was under the impression a scenario had been put forward wherein no one won the election - two R candidates split the R vote and the Ds all vote for Pelosi. In that case, what happens? Vote again after negotiation? No speaker? Boehner keeps the seat?

I was thinking the Ds would benefit from voting for Boehner to get a speaker elected and to move forward. Having essentially no HOuse is not good. It would especially be not good for Obama but more for the country. But if it is as simple as having Cantor elected instead of Boehner, then, sure, he'd be as good for the Ds as Boehner would.


   1705. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4321174)
No one blames the victim. No one stares at a victim in tears and points a finger.


It's not about blaming the victim. It's about determining if there has been a victim under the law--the rules, the process, and the mindset for arriving at that determination. Is it really necessary that it become so personal? Or only personal? It makes you wonder how man (and woman) have ever come to terms on any system of laws at all. Everyone wants their side (or what they perceive as their side) to have all the trumps. After all, they know they, and only they, would never be unfair.
   1706. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4321179)

note i am not stating the speaker has been great or even good. just that your framework for assessment is not one that holds up.


Since you like farm metaphors, this is horseshit. John Boehner almost caused a default, pretty much because he was unable to control his caucus. He did cause a credit downgrade with his brand of brinksmanship. I don't have to consider his circumstances or unique particulars to evaluate that. The Debt Ceiling fiasco was his strategy and he lost control of it.
   1707. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4321185)
tship

you were comparing the speaker to the majority leader of the senate. that is a very different context. hence my comment that using that as a framework doesn't work

and i have written before that one of the biggest barriers to a deal is the speaker wanting to keep his job. if the speaker is not bothered by losing his job he could have a deal tomorrow by taking the combination of those loyal to him and what some here would term 'pragmatic' house members and get a majority of his caucus to pass what needed to be passed.

right now the speaker is counting the votes not just for any legislation but on him keeping his job. and he isn't going to cut a deal until those numbers are both in his favor
   1708. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4321187)
I should have followed your lead and just not gotten into it, Lassus. But, one more response and after that, if you guys want to think me a rape-apologizing neanderthal, that's your business.

You did say you didn't like presents or something similarly abominable. Following that, no amount of perceived abuse is my fault. :-D


I was referring to changing of minds after the fact. Which is really another phrase for "lying".

Ah, well, that to me is changing your story, not changing your mind. To me, changing your mind means you reconsidered what happened and decided maybe you were just wrong. That's what my response was drawn from.
   1709. spike Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4321194)
so they will strongly consider any option that sabotages a deal that includes an increase.

Tax increases are already going to happen without any deal. The cuts are going to expire. The only choice House Republicans are going to get is whether to vote to prevent middle/lower class rates from rising.
   1710. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4321202)
Tax increases are already going to happen without any deal. The cuts are going to expire.


The GOP seems to have trouble understanding this. I keep hearing about them compromising on "more revenue" which is less than what is scheduled to happen. I am still waiting to see an actual compromise from them, and I may be waiting in 2013.
   1711. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4321206)
spike

ok, you keep repeating the obvious so i will work to explain the muddled logic of a tea party congressperson

understood: do nothing, rates go up

not understood by some here: most voters in tea party districts do not associate the legislation that created the fiscal cliff with his/her congressperson. it just 'is'.

let me re-state again. the voters who elected tea party affiliated congressfolks do not tie that legislation to members of congress

ergo: it is way, way, way, way, way easier to explain voting for a tax cut in january than a tax increase of any kind in december

come election time any contender trying to convince voters that their congressperson created the situation to begin with will have a very tall hill to climb.

so voting for a tax cut has a million more times appeal that voting for anything that has a tax increase even if said increase will affect maybe 3 people in their district.

that and they avoid looking like they 'compromised' with the president

so doing nothing has all kinds of win

doing something has a lot of downside

and there you go

   1712. JL Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4321208)
I don't see the problem. If one drunk driver hits and kills another drunk driver, it's the one who did the killing that gets run up for aggravated manslaughter. That's because one act (i.e. commiting sexual assault) is a crime, another (being sexually assaulted) isn't. In general, "I was too drunk to know better!" is not a defense for committing a crime.

Why is the presumption that he committed the crime and not she? In the scenario where both are too drunk to consent, can't he claim assault just as easily as she could?

Coke to Kurt
   1713. Steve Treder Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4321209)
The GOP seems to have trouble understanding this. I keep hearing about them compromising on "more revenue" which is less than what is scheduled to happen. I am still waiting to see an actual compromise from them, and I may be waiting in 2013.

Whatever one thinks of his punditry, does anyone think that David Brooks has enough inside off-the-record contacts within the GOP that he can accurately predict what will happen? Because last Friday, Brooks was saying that the public rhetoric from Boehner and other party elders is just atmospheric grandstanding, and that behind closed doors they are seriously working on a deal that will pass both houses and that Obama will sign, and it will probably get done before Jan 1st. And that the deal will give Obama a win on over-$250K tax rates, and in order to get that Obama will give the GOP something meaningful on entitlements.

Is Brooks onto something, or is he wishcasting, or just FOS?
   1714. Kurt Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4321211)
Ah, well, that to me is changing your story, not changing your mind. To me, changing your mind means you reconsidered what happened and decided maybe you were just wrong. That's what my response was drawn from.

FWIW I would interpret "change of mind" the way bunyon did. Not from "what just happened now wasn't rape/sexual assault", to "hey, maybe what happened last night actually was rape/sexual assault" but from "yes I want to do this now" to "I regret having done that, and wish I hadn't". You're right that the former shouldn't preclude someone from pressing charges, bunyon is right that the latter scenario should.
   1715. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4321212)
Is Brooks onto something, or is he wishcasting, or just FOS?


If I had to bet I would suggest HW is right and there is more downside than up for the GOP and things will slide to January. Not the sort of thing I would bet on though.
   1716. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4321218)
steve

i cannot attest to david brooks contacts

i am fairly comfortable with my summary given that it's backed by logic and the pragmatic politics involved.

the folks who choose to do nothing will feel little or no repercussion for not doing a deal. so why deal?

and the really bizarre thing is that they come from districts who will feel the impact the most. at least in broad strokes
   1717. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4321220)
steve

we could both be true. if the speaker has counted the votes and knows he can keep his job and get this deal done then the deal will get done without all of his caucus involved

and if that is true the committee purging is just the beginning of the speaker kicking 8ss in his caucus. it's been a while since we had some good old fashioned lbj type payback.

edit: the speaker has always been a guy to deal. i cannot say for certain but it would not surprise me if he has been plotting for a long time for this moment knowing it was likely to happen. and don't be surprised if that weasel cantor also gets a comeuppance. the speaker hates that pr8ck
   1718. spike Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4321222)
Well we will see how much those Tea Party constituency-driven congresspeople respond when the tax rates on the overwhelming majority of their voters go up and they are presented with a bill to vote on to prevent middle class tax increases. If Harvey's is right, then the voters in those districts would rather pay more taxes than have their congressman capitulate by only allowing higher class tax rates to rise.
   1719. Steve Treder Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4321224)
the folks who choose to do nothing will feel little or no repercussion for not doing a deal. so why deal?

Because the grownups in the party persuade them -- by whatever means necessary -- that not doing a deal damages the GOP brand in terms of public opinion and positioning looking ahead to 2014 and 2016. In other words, the party displays some disciplined unity of purpose and coherent strategic direction.

And, of course, they could do enough vote-counting to give the holders of the most vulnerable seats permission to vote "no."

I'm not saying that this is what will happen. David Brooks is. But whether he's correct or not, that's how deals get made by parties that are exhibiting a viable command-and-control structure and a forceful Speaker.
   1720. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4321227)
spike

the language or framing will have to change

i don't know what clever dodge could be created to provide safe ground for voting for a tax increase
   1721. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4321229)
steve

2014 is a long ways away

the gop brand does little for a tea party member. the gop in a lot of cases opposed these folks in primaries

   1722. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4321230)
Nothing magical will happen on January 1. The economy isn't going to suddenly collapse. A giant meteor won't strike the country. So they might as well wait until mid-January and pass tax cuts for those making under $250K.
   1723. spike Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4321234)
I'm not framing anything, HW -

On Jan 1 taxes will go up for everyone if no bill is passed.
Sometime before that, Congress will get to vote on a bill that prevents some of these cuts from expiring, specifically on all but the highest rates
Assuming that bill fails, will a Nay vote have any repercussions for Tea Party congressmen from voters that would have been covered in said bill whose taxes go up?

I read your opinion as "no". Is that not correct?
   1724. Steve Treder Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4321235)
2014 is a long ways away

I would presume that the jockeying for donors and campaign organization basics will begin in, oh, about Janauary of 2013. The next election is never that long ways away in the modern era.

the gop brand does little for a tea party member. the gop in a lot of cases opposed these folks in primaries

No doubt. Which describes the very essence of a party in significant turmoil.

Party discipline was for so long a remarkable strength of the GOP, going back to Reagan's time. It's remarkable how little of it they'll be exhibiting if the Teaper faction is able to foil Boehner's attempt to exercise traditional Speakership.
   1725. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4321245)
spike

not 'your' framing. clever marketing folks in the party will have to come up with a cutesy phrase that could explain someone voting for a tax increase.
   1726. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4321253)
You did say you didn't like presents or something similarly abominable. Following that, no amount of perceived abuse is my fault. :-D


I saw you make reference to not liking presents and diabetes and wondered who the new diabetic was. Clearly, you have mistaken me for some lout that doesn't like presents (or, perhaps, I was rufied and mistyped). In any case, I assure you, I like presents. Love them even.




   1727. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4321259)
by the way, did you guys read about the chained cpi approach?

it's a sly approach that might be a backdoor to an agreement

   1728. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4321266)
ah, i see the guy on slate got a hold of it. i heard it last week and then saw it in the wsj which meant it had legs
   1729. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4321283)
the gop brand does little for a tea party member. the gop in a lot of cases opposed these folks in primaries


You also have to think that a lot of those same people actually believe that the GOP would have won had they been more conservative.
   1730. Steve Treder Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4321289)
You also have to think that a lot of those same people actually believe that the GOP would have won had they been more conservative.

Yes, and if the GOP is incapable of preventing these demonstrably destructive, um, deep thinkers from dictating party strategy, then the GOP is absolutely, positively up sh!t creek.
   1731. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4321290)

Latinos Favor Tax Increases for Wealthy to Solve Fiscal Cliff

Latino voters overwhelmingly support tax increases on the wealthiest Americans as a way to reduce the deficit and deal with the looming fiscal cliff.

According to a new impreMedia/Latino Decisions survey of more than 5,600 Latino voters, a whopping 77 percent favor increasing taxes on the wealthy. While the vast majority of Democratic Latino voters -- 86 percent -- fall into that category, so do 51 percent of Republican Latino voters.

Only 12 percent say they favor a spending cuts-only approach, according to the survey.

[...]

Independent Latino voters -- those not attached to either party and thus viewed by both Republicans and Democrats as valuable potential assets to be courted -- favor increasing taxes on the wealthy at a rate of 77 percent.

And, as political opinion research firm Latino Decisions co-founder Matt Barreto noted in a blog post, "Among self-described born-again Christians, a subgroup of Latinos that George W. Bush carried in 2004, 69% support raising taxes on the wealthy as part of a deficit plan."

Barreto also notes that 31 percent of Latino voters would be more likely to vote Republican in future elections if the party "took a leadership role and helped to pass comprehensive immigration reform." Among those potential Republican voters, only 13 percent support a spending-cuts only approach while 77 percent support taxes on the wealthy to reduce the deficit.

77 percent of Latinos want higher taxes on other people while less than 1 in 3 would be more likely to vote Republican even if the GOP "took a leadership role and helped to pass" immigration amnesty.

Latinos are "natural Republicans" like Fernando Valenzuela was a natural shortstop.
   1732. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4321291)
Okay Joe. You win this argument about Latinos being racist against the GOP and will never vote for them. You can stop arguing about it.

Wait, you won't? Okay.
   1733. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4321293)
joe

that is the situation now but that is after years of being ignored by the party

i will state very clearly that i have deep roots in that community dating back to working with the leaders of the migrant workers who came to wisconsin to work in the canning companies. their ideals, their principles, their social mores were all geared toward being republicanism.

(sorry matt, cannot provide any survey results from 1983 to back this up--and not, that's not snark. i just don't know what to provide that will prove what i am saying)

but once the minute men began showing up and nobody in the gop did a d8mn thing it began the slow road to alienation (no pun intended)

all the guys my age and a bit younger who could vote leaned gop. but their kids? democrat

and it's our own d8mn fault

and we should own up to it
   1734. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 10, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4321302)
@1642: bunyon, regarding that part of your post concerning domestic violence, it's way off in its assumption of who does what to whom.

This is the most comprehensive study of which I am aware

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

Last updated: June 2012


SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.


I just got back to the thread, but it's worth it imo to note that in discussing domestic violence, it's not remotely fair to describe it or imply it as something primarily that men do to women.

.
   1735. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4321306)
Okay Joe. You win this argument about Latinos being racist against the GOP and will never vote for them. You can stop arguing about it.

I've never hinted, let alone said, that "Latinos [are] racist against the GOP."

***

Harveys (#1733) — It seems like you're buying into the political marketing rather than the actual history. The last major immigration amnesty happened under Reagan in 1986, and the GOP actually got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote in the next election (1988; 30 percent) than it received in 1984 (34 percent) or 1980 (37 percent).

The trend from the 1980 to the 1996 elections was 37, 34, 30, 25, 21 percent. In other words, the GOP's reward for going along with the huge 1986 amnesty was an almost 50 percent drop-off in Latino support at the 10-year mark, when a lot of those amnestied were starting to vote.

Things might have been a little different 30 years ago, but Latinos aren't natural Republicans in 2012. In poll after poll, Latinos say they want "bigger government with more services."
   1736. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4321309)

I've never even hinted, let alone said, that "Latinos [are] racist against the GOP."


okay.
   1737. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4321311)
Things might have been a little different 30 years ago, but Latinos aren't natural Republicans in 2012.


I agree with this. Union households are a closer demographic target than Latinos.
   1738. Langer Monk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4321313)
1636:
Thanks, I guess. Where I fault you is your claim that I'm finding fault with the woman. Fault has nothing to do with it, nor am I suggesting that, by gum, she should abort.


1578:
We don't tell people who get into automobile accidents through no fault of their own, where their only contribution was leaving the driveway as a necessary and natural function of traveling, that they have no recourse after an accident which the other driver could well imagine was not an accident our driver wanted to have.


You were the one to bring up fault in 1578. Which is why the analogy was terrible. Assuming a consensual sexual encounter, the intended or unintended consequence of a pregnacy sometimes just happens. As such, common sense requires that the two parties deal with those consequences. You want to argue that since the man has no ability to convince the woman to abort the child, he should then be able to opt out of paying for 'her decision'.

Again 1578:
In conclusion: why does the woman get to substantively dictate the man's economic future and with it HIS choice of who to have a child and raise a family with? Paying child support for a child he does not want and was known not to want does indeed impair a man's ability to have the family of his choosing. By placing all the legal emphasis on a woman's right to choose, but by placing on the man the burden of supporting that choice, we've significantly damaged a man's rights.


His ability to choose who to have a child with, when and where to have one, and so on, starts at the very beginning. You don't want a family with this woman, don't have sex with her. This isn't morality. It's common sense. You want to advocate abortion as an intervening option to allow the man to opt out after the fact, and as such, if he doesn't get his way, he no longer is responsible. Abortion is the woman's choice because she's the one carrying the fetus for approximately 9 months. There aren't equal decisions or choices because they aren't equal situations.

1640:
Sorry I didn't pass your right wing political correctness test (people think I'm joking when I use that phrase, but this is a good example of it) on this one.


Not directed to me, but in case you were wondering, as a liberal Democrat, I don't pass the right wing political correctness test either. I'm an Italian from Jersey.

1636:
Shoveling ####? I kid!


Go #### yourself. I kid. You have yourself a nice day.
   1739. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4321321)
If only Joe would tell us how the Reagan amnesty affected the latino vote. I'm not sure it's been brought up.
   1740. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4321325)
If only Joe would tell us how the Reagan amnesty affected the latino vote. I'm not sure it's been brought up.

Ha ha. If only the "GOP strategists" who are filling the TV airwaves and websites were as familiar with the history. For the past 5 weeks, I haven't been able to turn on the TV without some "GOP strategist" moron telling me that Latinos are "natural Republicans" whose votes the GOP will win if only it passes a huge amnesty.
   1741. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4321327)
Lets assume Joe is right, and the Hispanic, (and I guess we can include the Asian demographic because Joe for some reason Asians are the same as Hispanics) demographic just won't vote Republican.

Fine, whatever. That just means that the Republican party is that much smaller. That's on the Republicans, not 'the' Hispanics.
   1742. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4321330)
Lets assume Joe is right, and the Hispanic, (and I guess we can include the Asian demographic because Joe for some reason Asians are the same as Hispanics)

No, Asians vote the same, at least right now, but they're not the same. The two demographics are almost polar opposites in many important respects (income, education, illegitimacy, etc.).

Fine, whatever. That just means that the Republican party is that much smaller. That's on the Republicans, not 'the' Hispanics.

It's not "on" either group; it's just the natural order of things vis-a-vis the GOP's platform and the average Latino's income, education level, net worth, etc., etc. The only real way for the GOP to attract large numbers of low-income, low-skilled people who have a lot of kids would be for the GOP to lurch to the left of the Dems when it comes to spending.
   1743. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4321335)
Are people seriously suggesting that if only the Republicans would support another amnesty, significant numbers of hispanics would suddenly shift their vote to Republican?

Why would they? Democrats already support another amnesty -- and then some, with free health care, handouts, etc. How would moving closer to the Democrats - or even flat becoming Democrats - help shift hispanic votes? It would seem Republicans would have to go _further_ than Democrats.
   1744. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4321336)
Okay Joe. If this is the natural order, then you can stop arguing against it, and accept it. Because you know, this is apparently the natural law of the universe.
   1745. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4321339)
Are people seriously suggesting that if only the Republicans would support another amnesty, significant numbers of hispanics would suddenly shift their vote to Republican?

On TV and the internet, a lot of "GOP strategists" are claiming this, but most of them are Latino and they're clearly wishcasting more than strategizing.

Here at BBTF, some lefties have been making the same claim, but I'm sure they know it's bunk. They're just saying it because (1) they know amnesty would be a huge win for the Dems, and (2) it gives them an opportunity to call anyone who's against amnesty a racist. It's win-win for them.

***
Okay Joe. If this is the natural order, then you can stop arguing against it, and accept it. Because you know, this is apparently the natural law of the universe.

No, no. The voting patterns are the natural order, but amnesty isn't. I'm not tilting against the voting-pattern windmill; I'm arguing against amnesty.
   1746. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4321341)
The only real way for the GOP to attract large numbers of low-income, low-skilled people who have a lot of kids would be for the GOP to lurch to the left of the Dems when it comes to spending.
This assumes that the GOP has been really good on spending over the last thirty years, which is hilarious. For the GOP to "lurch to the left" doesn't mean spending more or less, but spending differently.
   1747. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4321343)
On TV and the internet, a lot of "GOP strategists" are claiming this, but most of them are Latino and they're clearly wishcasting more than strategizing.

Here at BBTF, some lefties have been making the same claim, but I'm sure they know it's bunk. They're just saying it because (1) they know amnesty would be a huge win for the Dems, and (2) it gives them an opportunity to call anyone who's against amnesty a racist. It's win-win for them.
When wingers and lefties agree on somethings, wingers are just wishcasting, while lefties lie. That's all you need to know about Joe.
   1748. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4321345)
This assumes that the GOP has been really good on spending over the last thirty years, which is hilarious. For the GOP to "lurch to the left" doesn't mean spending more or less, but spending differently.

It didn't assume it, because I don't believe it.
   1749. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4321352)
I just got back to the thread, but it's worth it imo to note that in discussing domestic violence, it's not remotely fair to describe it or imply it as something primarily that men do to women.

Fair enough. But I'd say the same about a man who lets his wife beat him and doesn't leave.


I get that leaving is hard. I get that there is a lot of psychology. But Jeffrey Dahmer invites me to dinner I shouldn't be surprised to end up the appetizer if I go.

   1750. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4321358)
I don't recall a lot of arguments for a Republican-sponsored amnesty here or elsewhere. In fact - although you disagree with this as well - I'm pretty sure the main argument/concern trollery here to Republicans was to stop being such bigoted dicks to Latinos. Or, maybe, even stop APPEARING to be such bigoted dicks to Latinos. You'd think at least the latter would be somewhat possible.


But Jeffrey Dahmer invites me to dinner I shouldn't be surprised to end up the appetizer if I go.

If you credit that's it's difficult and psychology and emotions are involved, using a Dahmer metaphor isn't really accurate or fair.
   1751. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4321361)
I don't recall a lot of arguments for a Republican-sponsored amnesty here or elsewhere. In fact - although you disagree with this as well - I'm pretty sure the main argument here to Republicans was to stop being such bigoted dicks to Latinos. Or, maybe, even stop APPEARING to be such bigoted dicks to Latinos.

How exactly are Republicans supposed to thread this needle?

Are you saying that if the GOP announces that it opposes amnesty because the country already has high unemployment among low-skilled people, because there's wage stagnation among employed low-skilled workers, and/or because the U.S. economy is offering fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage, that there would be no charges of racism from amnesty supporters?

The whole amnesty issue is "heads Dems win, tails Republicans lose." The only thing the GOP can do is try to limit the damage.
   1752. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:57 PM (#4321366)
You guys are misreading Joe pretty badly, imo. He's stating that Latinos' view of government's correct size predisposes them to vote for Democrats. Latinos want a larger state, with more entitlement spending, not less. They strongly favor higher rates of taxation on the wealthy. The only thing that they have in common with the GOP's coalition is being strongly religious. But even there, they're overwhelmingly Catholic, which doesn't actually tilt for the GOP that strongly. Catholic social doctrine strongly supports a redistributionist state.

Joe seems to feel like amnesty is bad policy, and the only reason why GOP politicians would support it or allow it to pass would be for tactical reasons. He is trying to point out that the tactical reasons assumed by many on the Right are incorrect.

This is not a racist point.
   1753. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4321373)
How exactly are Republicans supposed to thread this needle?

Here's a suggestion: Trying taking a strong stance against illegal immigration while simultaneously loudly and repeatedly, for like three straight years, advocating legal immigration. Try actually telling Americans that maybe they should calm down about the strong and large latino population coming into the country because the country was built on strong, legal, immigration. Have more than one Republican leader make it a priority to speak frequently and publicly that they want to build America with workers and thinkers who are coming here - again, legally - for a better life from latin countries. Say nothing about amnesty (probably impossible for you), and if asked, keep it to "we do not support amnesty, but we support legal immigration from latinos at all times. No, we do not support. We invite them." Loudly. Often. And more loudly. Not in response to liberals, but as an actual policy, a drive. Nationally. Everywhere.

I think I'm more likely to get my warp drive first, but whining about how to get it done is the lamest crap ever. You have a problem with the latino vote. This is not in debate. Your response as been to a.) whine and b.) insult the latino vote, and c.) whine some more. You should all STFU with the crying and do something about it instead. Or give up. Although your current path, while tiresome to listen to, works just fine for me as well.


Joe seems to feel like amnesty is bad policy, and the only reason why GOP politicians would support it or allow it to pass would be for tactical reasons. He is trying to point out that the tactical reasons assumed by many on the Right are incorrect.

Which is fine, but he's arguing with an empty room. I've never once mentioned amnesty, and I can't really recall any of the lefties here banging that shoe on the lectern either. I certainly could be wrong, I guess.
   1754. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4321396)
How exactly are Republicans supposed to thread this needle?


Here's a suggestion: Trying taking a strong stance against illegal immigration while simultaneously loudly and repeatedly, for like three straight years, advocating legal immigration. Try actually telling Americans that maybe they should calm down about the strong and large latino population coming into the country because the country was built on strong, legal, immigration. Have more than one Republican leader make it a priority to speak frequently and publicly that they want to build America with workers and thinkers who are coming here - again, legally - for a better life from latin countries. Say nothing about amnesty (probably impossible for you), and if asked, keep it to "we do not support amnesty, but we support legal immigration from latinos at all times. No, we do not support. We invite them." Loudly. Often. And more loudly. Not in response to liberals, but as an actual policy, a drive. Nationally. Everywhere.

The only problem here is that most of the "what part of 'illegal' do you not understand?" base is just as opposed to increasing legal immigration as they're opposed to the illegal kind. This group may or not be a majority within the GOP, but they're certainly big enough to cause a lot of trouble for the leadership if the leadership ever adopted your suggestion. Their entire worldview is based on the thought that we've been "losing our country" for the past 30 years because of the influx of Latinos. You can call it racism or you can call it nationalism, but whatever it is, the bottom line is that the only immigrants they want are either PhDs with specific skills or those with enough capital to start a business. Pretty much any other type is considered to be a "taker".

Of course the craziest thing about Joe's position is that it doesn't stop with Latinos. He's essentially writing off every single group of Americans other than socially conservative and / or bigoted white people, along with a scattering of right wing libertarians and military or fiscal superhawks, and expecting to somehow have that add up to a winning coalition. Never mind that demographically nearly every component of that coalition is shrinking, whereas most of the key components of the Democratic base are expanding.

In an election year with nearly 8% unemployment and widespread reaction against the recent ACA law, that grand coalition of Joe's scraped together all of 47% of the vote. I wonder exactly how that coalition is supposed to expand in the event of a better economy, and when the specific benefits of the ACA begin to take effect.

Serious question for Joe: If in 2016 the economy continues to make progress, just exactly how do you think that the GOP is going to add another 4% to its vote total, when the demographic trends are going strongly against them in light of their current platform?
   1755. zonk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4321397)
by the way, did you guys read about the chained cpi approach?

it's a sly approach that might be a backdoor to an agreement


I pretty much accept that the 'chained CPI' is going to come to pass regardless -

It's pretty well accepted that the CPI formula currently used is flawed - and that the chained CPI makes better sense. Liberals - though not uniformly - oppose it, but that's more a matter of it de factor lowering the growth of benefits.

If that's the trade-off price - then Obama and the Dems are fools not to take it...

However, from a nonpartisan, objective perspective -- the big problem is that it (mostly) addresses the entitlement least in need of addressing (Social Security)... Without looking it up, I have a vague recollection that the CPI plays a role in CMS' calculation of geographic adjustments (GPCI), but GPCI is just one factor amongst many in overall Medicare reimbursement - I doubt changing the calculation is going to have any meaningful (as a percent of the overall program spend -- though, even pennies can add up to a hundreds of millions, I guess) change on program burn rates.

Still, like I said -- if the price of a deal on the entitlement side is the switchover from CPI to chained CPI -- show me where to sign.

EDIT: I should add -- if I'm right about that CPI to chained CPI and its role in Medicare's reimbursement formula, ought to add that ALL this impacts is the actual reimbursement rate to providers... it doesn't impact benefits at all. It just means that providers would get smaller checks. For Part A (hospitals) providers - that's fine by me... but Part B providers (outpatient/family docs) really can't afford the hit.
   1756. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4321399)
You also have to think that a lot of those same people actually believe that the GOP would have won had they been more conservative.
I think this was Brit Hume's point on Election Night after the race had been called. He seemed to be saying he believed the nation is solidly center-right, but that the GOP didn't have a candidate who appealed to them. (Yeah, it stands to reason that the Democrats had a candidate who appealed to them even less...)

- - - - -

If the GOP wants the Latino vote, they need to try to do things that appeal to Latinos. But ultimately, the GOP doesn't want to win Latinos; they want to win votes regardless of where they come from. I think we got on this point originally because of the notion that the nation is becoming more Latino and less WASPy, and that the demographic trends are thus working against a GOP that is not trying to "limit the damage" as Joe put it in 1751. But that misses the point that they need to do things that win votes. Focusing on Latino votes is misguided; they need to focus on votes in general.

If the GOP ground game had equalled Obama's ground game, would Obama have been reelected? Really, despite all the doomsday talk that the GOP must implode itself and bend to Latinos or whoever, doesn't it come down to the science applied by Obama's ground game, vs. the faith-based ground game of the Romney campaign?

I suppose there's an argument to be made that the ground game strength (or weakness) was a byproduct of the message, but I think there's a pretty good case that that didn't matter as much as the strategies and tactics of the respective ground games.

EDIT: Andy, as much as you describe Joe's coalition in ways that make it sound extra-wingnutty, 47% is a large number. It's not 50.000001%, but it's not a wingnutty number.
   1757. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4321405)
tshipman (#1752) — Excellent summary. Thanks.

***

Lassus (#1753) — On the surface, the first paragraph is reasonable, but:

1. The idea that low-skilled workers can come to the U.S. and make a better life for themselves and their families (and do so without substantial help from the government) is increasingly a 20th century fantasy rather than a 21st century reality;

2. If the GOP denies amnesty to 10 or 12 million Latinos who are in the U.S. illegally but allows them to stay, and then "invites" a similar number of Latinos into the U.S. legally, the population of low-skilled Latinos in the U.S. will double in size, leaving the GOP worse off electorally than it is now (while exacerbating the U.S.'s problems of low-skilled unemployment and low-skill wage stagnation); and

3. If the GOP "loudly and repeatedly, for like three straight years" emphasizes skilled immigration, that could be a winning issue on the whole, but it would still hurt the GOP with Latinos, because there simply aren't 10 million skilled Latinos waiting to enter the U.S., and skilled Latinos generally don't want to leave their home countries in the first place. This means these new legal immigrants are likely to be mostly Asians and Europeans and *not* Latinos, which brings us back to the inevitable allegations of "racism" — especially if amnesty isn't granted to illegal-immigrant Latinos before the switch to a skills-based immigration system.

I think I'm more likely to get my warp drive first, but whining about how to get it done is the lamest crap ever. You have a problem with the latino vote. This is not in debate. Your response as been to a.) whine and b.) insult the latino vote, and c.) whine some more. You should all STFU with the crying and do something about it instead. Or give up. Although your current path, while tiresome to listen to, works just fine for me as well.

You went off the rails a little here. I haven't been "whining about how to get it done"; I've been complaining about the fool's errand that amnesty would be.

Which is fine, but he's arguing with an empty room. I've never once mentioned amnesty, and I can't really recall any of the lefties here banging that shoe on the lectern either. I certainly could be wrong, I guess.

You must have skipped a lot of pages of the post-election discussion, because the GOP and Latinos has been a recurring topic. Andy has routinely been posting stories and calling me out by name for a response.
   1758. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4321423)
You must have skipped a lot of pages of the post-election discussion, because the GOP and Latinos has been a recurring topic.

Jesus, no ####. But you specifically cited calls for lefties made of the right's need for MOAR AMNESTY, that's what I was disputing. Or at least noting I hadn't heard.


You went off the rails a little here. I haven't been "whining about how to get it done"; I've been complaining about the fool's errand that amnesty would be.

Ah. You're not whining, you're complaining. Can't imagine how I mixed that up.

And your ideas other than the complaining?

Anyhow, stick with 1, 2, and 3. They're working great.


   1759. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4321426)
3. If the GOP "loudly and repeatedly, for like three straight years" emphasizes skilled immigration, that could be a winning issue on the whole, but it would still hurt the GOP with Latinos, because there simply aren't 10 million skilled Latinos waiting to enter the U.S., and skilled Latinos generally don't want to leave their home countries in the first place.
Calls for a middle class tax cut appeal to a lot of people who aren't in the middle class but think they are. I think an emphasis on skilled immigration could work even among the relatively unskilled who think they have skills.

However, an emphasis on skilled immigration won't work on skilled Americans - or relatively unskilled Americans who think they have skills. Increasing competition for your job via immigration isn't a winning message among your constituents.

But couple the message with job growth, and now you're talking... An opportunity for a better job for skilled Americans, with skilled immigrants backfilling old jobs, and it seems like a grand plan where everyone wins. There's your message:

1. Grow the economy, with skilled jobs. (Don't say how, just support it.)

2. Grow the labor force, with skilled immigration. (Don't define "skilled", just support it.)

EDIT: 2a. Include skills training as a condition of unemployment insurance, welfare, and SSI, after an initial period without conditions. Encourage states to do the same with permanent partial disability in Workers Compensation insurance. Privatize the training, funded at state level by employers in the state. (Funding credits offered to companies hiring the skilled workers, giving an incentive to ensure training meets their needs.)

3. In back channels with CEOs and the stereotypical GOP constituents, mention that in the short run population growth will likely outpace job growth (whether it's true or not, just assert it), thus increasing the supply of skilled workers, which will drop salaries for skilled workers, which will improve profits for companies without having to move overseas. Watch the donations roll in.

4. With those donations, build or buy the infrastructure for your ground game.

5. Offer details on all of the above at (or after) the convention, when it's too late to be picked apart by your own party, but early enough that you won't be torn apart for having provided no details.
   1760. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4321427)
The only problem here is that most of the "what part of 'illegal' do you not understand?" base is just as opposed to increasing legal immigration as they're opposed to the illegal kind. This group may or not be a majority within the GOP, but they're certainly big enough to cause a lot of trouble for the leadership if the leadership ever adopted your suggestion. Their entire worldview is based on the thought that we've been "losing our country" for the past 30 years because of the influx of Latinos. You can call it racism or you can call it nationalism, but whatever it is, the bottom line is that the only immigrants they want are either PhDs with specific skills or those with enough capital to start a business. Pretty much any other type is considered to be a "taker".

Disagree. The only prominent person or group I can think of that advocates for less legal immigration is the Center for Immigration Studies, and it does so on economic grounds rather than ethnocentric grounds. Even the much-maligned Lou Dobbs always went out of his way to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

It's neither "racist" nor "nationalist" to point out that it's dumb to keep "inviting" low-skilled workers into a U.S. labor market that offers fewer and fewer good-paying jobs for low-skilled workers. Mexico and Canada figured this out long ago; it's beyond time for the U.S. to do so as well.

In an election year with nearly 8% unemployment and widespread reaction against the recent ACA law, that grand coalition of Joe's scraped together all of 47% of the vote.

Yes, in a fine piece of strategery, the GOP got 47 percent with a candidate who has a car elevator and who implemented his own version of Obamacare a decade before Obama. The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.

Serious question for Joe: If in 2016 the economy continues to make progress, just exactly how do you think that the GOP is going to add another 4% to its vote total, when the demographic trends are going strongly against them in light of their current platform?

Elections are essentially a zero-sum game, so the GOP might only need to swing 2.0001 percent rather than add 4 percent. Either way, as I've said several times, I believe the U.S.'s fiscal problems are likely to cause a political realignment long before the slow demographic changes do so.
   1761. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4321429)
1. Grow the economy, with skilled jobs. (Don't say how, just support it.)

2. Grow the labor force, with skilled immigration. (Don't define "skilled", just support it.)

3. In back channels with CEOs and the stereotypical GOP constituents, mention that in the short run population growth will likely outpace job growth (whether it's true or not, just assert it), thus increasing the supply of skilled workers, which will drop salaries for skilled workers, which will improve profits for companies without having to move overseas. Watch the donations roll in.

4. With those donations, build or buy the infrastructure for your ground game.

5. Offer details on all of the above at (or after) the convention, when it's too late to be picked apart by your own party, but early enough that you won't be torn apart for having provided no details.



Man, political donations is a suckers game. If a regular corporation or person tried to run this scam, they would be sued and arrested 6 ways from Sunday for fraud.
   1762. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4321430)
Yeah, I think that serious immigration reform to support increased skilled immigration is pretty much just good policy. I don't even think that it's all that complicated, there's just no constituency for it. Who is made happier by a bunch of Indian software engineers having an easier time to get in to the country? Mostly people who aren't strongly attached to either party.

1. The idea that low-skilled workers can come to the U.S. and make a better life for themselves and their families (and do so without substantial help from the government) is increasingly a 20th century fantasy rather than a 21st century reality;


This doesn't have to be the case. Strong raises in the minimum wage would help with a more expansive immigration policy to raise wages in the aggregate.

Too many profits are accruing to corporations right now, and they don't really have good ways of spending it.
   1763. Tripon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4321435)

Too many profits are accruing to corporations right now, and they don't really have good ways of spending it.


But don't you get it! There's so much uncertainty in the market right now so they need all that profit and not reinvest in their companies in the form of labor and orders to expand their businesses! [/snark]
   1764. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4321436)
If the GOP wants the Latino vote, they need to try to do things that appeal to Latinos. But ultimately, the GOP doesn't want to win Latinos; they want to win votes regardless of where they come from. I think we got on this point originally because of the notion that the nation is becoming more Latino and less WASPy, and that the demographic trends are thus working against a GOP that is not trying to "limit the damage" as Joe put it in 1751. But that misses the point that they need to do things that win votes. Focusing on Latino votes is misguided; they need to focus on votes in general.

Exactly right.

Andy, as much as you describe Joe's coalition in ways that make it sound extra-wingnutty, 47% is a large number. It's not 50.000001%, but it's not a wingnutty number.

Ha ha. Andy rejects this premise.
   1765. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4321441)
1. The idea that low-skilled workers can come to the U.S. and make a better life for themselves and their families (and do so without substantial help from the government) is increasingly a 20th century fantasy rather than a 21st century reality;
David Brooks, last month:
The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.

Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.


2. If the GOP denies amnesty to 10 or 12 million Latinos who are in the U.S. illegally but allows them to stay, and then "invites" a similar number of Latinos into the U.S. legally, the population of low-skilled Latinos in the U.S. will double in size, leaving the GOP worse off electorally than it is now (while exacerbating the U.S.'s problems of low-skilled unemployment and low-skill wage stagnation);
At this point, you may have to accept that any GOP policy shifts that might win Latino votes is going to the next decade or so before seeing any results, but that'd be better than the alternative you've argued for, which is basically tread water and try to beat back the demographics.

3. If the GOP "loudly and repeatedly, for like three straight years" emphasizes skilled immigration, that could be a winning issue on the whole, but it would still hurt the GOP with Latinos, because there simply aren't 10 million skilled Latinos waiting to enter the U.S., and skilled Latinos generally don't want to leave their home countries in the first place.
Skilled, comfortable people everywhere else aren't the ones fighting to get into the United States.
   1766. madvillain Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4321446)
Skilled, comfortable people everywhere else aren't the ones fighting to get into the United States.


Really? There are literally hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of highly educated, bright Indians, Chinese and Japanese, among others, that are waiting on visas. In fact, the US Science and Computing industries would be pretty damn poor without the influx of skilled foreign labor.
   1767. zenbitz Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4321448)
Too many profits are accruing to corporations right now, and they don't really have good ways of spending it.


Just like China! Buy gold! And infrastructure!
   1768. BDC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4321449)
A couple of comments on dynamics I think are very important in terms of adding some nuance (French word, I know :)

The idea that low-skilled workers can come to the U.S. and make a better life for themselves […] is increasingly a 20th century fantasy

The key word here is "better," because it's relative. True, nobody comes from Switzerland to pick melons in the Rio Grande Valley. Guatemala, that's a bit different.

amnesty to 10 or 12 million Latinos who are in the U.S. illegally

There are about 11.5M illegal immigrants right now, and they're not all Latino: more than a million are Asian, and about another half million are from Europe or Africa.

In any case, the "amnesty" debate is largely centered on young people who came here as small kids and now are graduating from high school without legal status. Many are native English speakers and culturally American, and effectively have no country to go back to. Republicans (notably George W. Bush! who still does) used to support reasonable paths to citizenship for this demographic, but the national party has started taking a harder line since the Teapers came to the fore. "Amnesty" is a weird word in this sense, because these kids have done nothing wrong and frequently have done lots right. I'm sure I've taught quite a few of them at university here in Texas (for obvious reasons, they don't march up to me and identify themselves). They're like any other American kids; they're just technically stateless.

One could say "too bad, so sad" and deport them anyway, as so many Teapers would love to see. I reckon there's a sense that their parents' crime in coming to this country 12-15 years ago in hopes that these little kids would someday gain "amnesty" should be visited on them, but that's just weird and wrong.
   1769. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4321450)
There are literally hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of highly educated, bright Indians, Chinese and Japanese, among others, that are waiting on visas.
This is true, but they are not comfortable where they are. My parents, aunts, and uncles all had college degrees in China and Taiwan, but they were all staring at limited opportunities at home. Fortunately, all of them were able to immigrate here, and almost all of them were able to do so legally.*

This was over 30 years ago. Just for JoeK: Johnny Law can't touch them, thanks to amnesty. You'll be happy to know they voted GOP all the way up until this past election.
   1770. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4321452)
I'd be curious what Joe's definition of "skilled" is. Which latinos don't make the cut?


This is true, but they are not comfortable where they are. My parents, aunts, and uncles all had college degrees in China and Taiwan, but they were all staring at limited opportunities at home.

But nothing in what you quoted/agreed with SAID "comfortable". It just said "skilled". And was clearly wrong.
   1771. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4321456)
Yeah, I think that serious immigration reform to support increased skilled immigration is pretty much just good policy. I don't even think that it's all that complicated, there's just no constituency for it. Who is made happier by a bunch of Indian software engineers having an easier time to get in to the country? Mostly people who aren't strongly attached to either party.

This sounds about right. Par for the course in U.S. politics.

This doesn't have to be the case. Strong raises in the minimum wage would help with a more expansive immigration policy to raise wages in the aggregate.

But how would this work when unemployment is already high among low-skilled workers? I'm all for working-class people making more money, but it seems like the only way that can happen is if the supply of low-skilled labor is tight. Otherwise, absent a massive bureaucracy that audits employers' books and employees' immigration status, there will be incentives on both sides to work for or pay wages that are below the legal minimum.
   1772. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4321457)
Re-read #1765.
Skilled, comfortable people everywhere else aren't the ones fighting to get into the United States.
   1773. BDC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4321461)
And a PS to #1768: some significant number (how many is unclear) of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central and South America are indigenes who don't speak much English or Spanish. This further limits their options and puts them in the most marginalized of conditions, not far from debt peonage or outright slavery. Human trafficking is quite real. Not all the people coming over the border are some sort of lucky-ducky Latinos of the Teaper imagination, figuring that America must be the land of cushy social services. Frankly they'd be insane to think that in the first place.
   1774. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4321462)
David Brooks, last month:

The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. ...

[...]

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

This gives me a chance to recycle my joke from last month in reply to this same article: According to David Brooks, Latinos apparently want a heavier police presence and a reduction in low-skilled immigration.

At this point, you may have to accept that any GOP policy shifts that might win Latino votes is going to the next decade or so before seeing any results, but that'd be better than the alternative you've argued for, which is basically tread water and try to beat back the demographics.

No, not without some major changes upfront vis-a-vis chain- and low-skilled immigration, etc. Otherwise, it would be idiotic for the GOP to repeat the 1986 amnesty fiasco and hope things turn out differently this time, especially when Latinos are already telling pollsters they won't.
   1775. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4321463)
Is #1772 for me? I know what you said. I was talking about what you quoted, which didn't say anything about comfortable, just skilled.

There was amnesty in 1986? What was the reaction?
   1776. Gotham Dave Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4321464)
deleted for irrelevence
   1777. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM (#4321472)
Thanks for the reviews of The Signal and The Noise, y'all. Sounds very worth my while.

Yes, I've said this in this discussion in many ways. Where is the reciprocity? She can be too drunk to consent, even if her actions belie this, and the drunken guy is held to a standard of being able to know this, but he can claim the defense, hey, I was drunk, too. I didn't she didn't know she wouldn't really want to do it tomorrow. The system is so weighted against one class here that it amuonts to absurdity on the level of Catch 22.

I don't see this in practice much, though. It's rare when a man and a woman are so drunk that consent seems out of the question, but the woman's testimony is nonetheless, somehow, considered reliable enough to proceed. Prosecutors are reluctant to proceed with a case where the only witness was too drunk to say yes, but somehow knew what was transpiring.

Yes, I've said this in this discussion in many ways. Where is the reciprocity? She can be too drunk to consent, even if her actions belie this, and the drunken guy is held to a standard of being able to know this, but he can claim the defense, hey, I was drunk, too. I didn't she didn't know she wouldn't really want to do it tomorrow. The system is so weighted against one class here that it amuonts to absurdity on the level of Catch 22.


I don't see the problem. If one drunk driver hits and kills another drunk driver, it's the one who did the killing that gets run up for aggravated manslaughter. That's because one act (i.e. commiting sexual assault) is a crime, another (being sexually assaulted) isn't. In general, "I was too drunk to know better!" is not a defense for committing a crime.
Except, your example ends with such concrete evidence that it's like assuming we have photographic proof of what happened during the alleged sexual assault. We don't know that the sword of the penis even entered the delicate flower of the vagina. We don't even know a crime occurred. It's like claiming "x killed y while driving drunk", with the small problem that you haven't produced a body, or even a damaged vehicle by way of evidence.

"I was too drunk to know better" than... what, exactly? Too drunk to know that this equally or less drunk woman who was eagerly consenting didn't mean it?


   1778. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4321476)
In any case, the "amnesty" debate is largely centered on young people who came here as small kids and now are graduating from high school without legal status. Many are native English speakers and culturally American, and effectively have no country to go back to. Republicans (notably George W. Bush! who still does) used to support reasonable paths to citizenship for this demographic, but the national party has started taking a harder line since the Teapers came to the fore. "Amnesty" is a weird word in this sense, because these kids have done nothing wrong and frequently have done lots right. I'm sure I've taught quite a few of them at university here in Texas (for obvious reasons, they don't march up to me and identify themselves). They're like any other American kids; they're just technically stateless.

One could say "too bad, so sad" and deport them anyway, as so many Teapers would love to see. I reckon there's a sense that their parents' crime in coming to this country 12-15 years ago in hopes that these little kids would someday gain "amnesty" should be visited on them, but that's just weird and wrong.

I don't know that amnesty is "centered" on the so-called Dreamers; ever since the election, the debate seemed to shift toward the entire cohort of illegal immigrants.

As I've said before, I'm in favor of a narrowly tailored Dream Act, but it needs to have some real standards when it comes to education and criminal records, and it assuredly must not allow the Dreamers to turn around and sponsor any illegal-immigrant parents or other relatives for a green card or citizenship.

Frankly, the Dream Act has always had wide support. It would have passed easily in 2007 if the Dems didn't get greedy and try to hit a grand slam by trying to include all illegal immigrants in its doomed "comprehensive immigration reform" effort.
   1779. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4321477)
Man, political donations is a suckers game. If a regular corporation or person tried to run this scam, they would be sued and arrested 6 ways from Sunday for fraud.
The federal government controls the rate of legal immigration, so it's not much of a scam to loosen the requirements and open the doors wider. One could argue that the pipeline of legal immigrants is already primed, while the pipeline of skilled jobs is not. It's not a scam at all, really, to assert that the initial result will be lower salary costs per unit of work.

But if someone from the GOP wants to win a general election for President, using that platform, they can't publicly say the platform will increase competition for skilled jobs. They have to emphasize that job growth will have to fuel the demand, rather than emphasizing immigration fueling the supply. That's still not a scam, any more than any other political maneuvering.

But it's a lot better than the current GOP approach, which is essentially to propose things that seem obviously far less balanced and then say, "So? What's the problem with that?" At least with the above approach, you get more jobs, and job training, and legal immigration, all of which appeals to the left; more jobs, higher profits, and fewer opportunities for freeloading, which appeals to the right. If you're a lefty candidate you can set up the immigration pipeline to a trickle; a righty candidate, a deluge; and either one would appeal to their opponents.

That's how you win an election. You need to appeal to the other constituency.
   1780. madvillain Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:33 PM (#4321478)
I love the R messaging:

We lost because Obama gave everyone (including Latinos) gifts!

But we can't just expect offering amnesty for Latinos to solve our Demographic problem because polls say they'll still vote Democrat!

Wonderful logic.

   1781. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4321495)

Amnesty is a one-time gift, while politics is a "what have you done for me lately?" business.
   1782. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 11, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4321507)


Things might have been a little different 30 years ago, but Latinos aren't natural Republicans in 2012.

I agree with this. Union households are a closer demographic target than Latinos.
What's all this, then? If the way to win elections is by aiming at a demographic you're trying to murder in its bed, that'll be a new one.

The only real way for the GOP to attract large numbers of low-income, low-skilled people who have a lot of kids would be for the GOP to lurch to the left of the Dems when it comes to spending.

This assumes that the GOP has been really good on spending over the last thirty years, which is hilarious. For the GOP to "lurch to the left" doesn't mean spending more or less, but spending differently.
I'll see your hilarious and raise you a hoot-and-a-half. The GOP gave up fiscal responsibility as a credible plank in its platfrom with the fiscal depravity of the Reagan years. The Democrats should do a couple of things during the 2016 campaign. One of those things should be to feature the graph showing that the national economy inevitably does better with a Democrat in the presidency. Another is the graph showing the absence of any correlation between increasing top rates and increased unemployment.

re 1738: LM, you seem to think that changing contexts, distorting statements, and simple misreading is worthwhile. I don't. You're a rhetorically worthless degenerate, and no good will ever come of anything you ever do. Good luck with getting the buzzing in your head to go away.
   1783. Tripon Posted: December 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4321509)
The only real way for the GOP to attract large numbers of low-income, low-skilled people who have a lot of kids would be for the GOP to lurch to the left of the Dems when it comes to spending.


What? They already gotten the Southern Christian Evangelical vote down pat. [/snark]
   1784. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4321515)
EDIT: Andy, as much as you describe Joe's coalition in ways that make it sound extra-wingnutty, 47% is a large number. It's not 50.000001%, but it's not a wingnutty number.

47% is indeed a large number, but the more important points are:

---That 47% came in spite of an economy with an unemployment rate that stayed between 8% and 10% (or higher, if you go by Joe's "unskewed" metrics) for nearly the entire last four years. Just imagine what that percentage might have sunk to if unemployment had been closer to 5% rather than 8%. Right now the GOP's main electoral strategy seems to be rooting for an economic collapse.

---The components of that 47% are largely groups whose percentage of the population is shrinking. About the only exception there would be white fundamentalists, but they're almost exclusively centered in states that the GOP already has a lock on. They aren't likely to do much good in swing states, where they're getting overtaken by new Latino and other minority voters.

---The issues that excite the GOP base are more and more diverging from the issues that the majority of the country is interested it. Those wedge social issues are now starting to backfire, and if the Republicans keep pressing points like stepped up deportations, abortion restrictions, and anti-gay marriage, they're going to wind up doing little more than ensure that their share of the Latino vote, the gay vote, and the women's vote will keep eroding more and more. For some seriously unfathomable reason, none of that seems to concern Joe, who apparently thinks that you can overcome all these trends by goosing up the reactionary and resentful segment of the white vote, while somehow not further alienating everyone else.

Here's a simple fact that apparently hasn't completely sunk in in some quarters: The U.S. isn't just Mississippi, West Virginia or Oklahoma, and this is 2012, not 1980.

---The one structural advantage the Republicans have is the gerrymandered House of Representatives. That will be a sizable advantage for the next 4 election cycles, but when you look at Maryland you'll realize that gerrymandering is a two edged sword.
   1785. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4321529)
---That 47% came in spite of an economy with an unemployment rate that stayed between 8% and 10% (or higher, if you go by Joe's "unskewed" metrics) for nearly the entire last four years. Just imagine what that percentage might have sunk to if unemployment had been closer to 5% rather than 8%. Right now the GOP's main electoral strategy seems to be rooting for an economic collapse.

Wait, now who's "unskewing" Nate? I thought the main basis of Nate's early and consistent prediction of an Obama win was that the fundamentals of the race pointed to a 2- to 3-point Obama win despite the weak economy? And the 5 percent unemployment hypothetical doesn't tell us anything; any scandal-free incumbent should win in a walk if the economy is booming.

---The components of that 47% are largely groups whose percentage of the population is shrinking. About the only exception there would be white fundamentalists, but they're almost exclusively centered in states that the GOP already has a lock on. They aren't likely to do much good in swing states, where they're getting overtaken by new Latino and other minority voters.

The demographics aren't changing that quickly. The electoral demographics got a jolt in 2008 and '12 because a minority candidate was atop the Dem ticket, but the Dems have very little upside potential remaining among blacks and probably not all that much with Latinos (in terms of percentages; obviously the number of Latinos is growing). It's also entirely unclear if minorities will flock to the polls in the same numbers in 2016 if a non-minority (such as Hillary Clinton) is the Dem candidate.

---The issues that excite the GOP base are more and more diverging from the issues that the majority of the country is interested it. Those wedge social issues are now starting to backfire, and if the Republicans keep pressing points like stepped up deportations, abortion restrictions, and anti-gay marriage, they're going to wind up doing little more than ensure that their share of the Latino vote, the gay vote, and the women's vote will keep eroding more and more. For some seriously unfathomable reason, none of that seems to concern Joe, who apparently thinks that you can overcome all these trends by goosing up the reactionary and resentful segment of the white vote, while somehow not further alienating everyone else.

It doesn't concern me because it's not accurate. The idea that huge numbers of conservatives sit around all day plotting to deport Latinos and gays (and gay Latinos) is little more than liberal fantasy.
   1786. Lassus Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:43 AM (#4321538)
The idea that huge numbers of conservatives sit around all day plotting to deport Latinos and gays (and gay Latinos) is little more than liberal fantasy.

More extremity as if it was applicable. It doesn't take plotting all day to be a bigoted dick. It comes fairly easily and naturally.
   1787. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:51 AM (#4321539)
EDIT: Andy, as much as you describe Joe's coalition in ways that make it sound extra-wingnutty, 47% is a large number. It's not 50.000001%, but it's not a wingnutty number.
Yeah, it is. It really is, in the sense that both 47% is a large number, and there are tens of millions of wingnuts at large in the U.S.

We saw what happened when the GOP had the Presidency. W. wasn't some horrible fluke. He was the soul of the GOP, a party that has turned significantly more extreme since 2008. The party has no visible grasp of facts, no apparent ability to see and resolve problems, let alone crises. Bush's know-nothing, bloody, grasping approach to politics and foreign affairs wasn't an aberration, IT IS the party. His incredible mishandling of Katrina wasn't an unfortunate mistake, not to be repeated, but the inevitable outcome of three decades of contempt for government and the simple refusal to understand how it works, and to learn how to make it work, on behalf of the electorate.

I'm not an alarmist, I don't think, but from everything he's said since 2005, Romney has literally no grasp of macroeconomics. Regarding the most important numbers he'd ever crunch, he was completely inadequate to the task. If he had taken the White House and another economic crisis loomed that required any touch more deft than cutting taxes or deregulating, Romney never gave us any evidence at all during the campaign that he would have been up to it. We narrowly missed electing a man who would have been philosophically incapable of steering the country around a recession.

It's been linked to before in this thread so I won't do it again, but half of GOP voters don't think Obama was born abroad for any other reason than the inability to distinguish truth from falsehood. We're not right on the edge, but we're fairly close to it.



   1788. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4321540)
I don't recall a lot of arguments for a Republican-sponsored amnesty here or elsewhere. In fact - although you disagree with this as well - I'm pretty sure the main argument/concern trollery here to Republicans was to stop being such bigoted dicks to Latinos. Or, maybe, even stop APPEARING to be such bigoted dicks to Latinos. You'd think at least the latter would be somewhat possible.


Of course, "bigoted dicks to Latinos" is a fiction you invented. First, it's not "Latinos" some Republicans have a problem with but illegal immigrants, so there's no "bigoted." Second, it's _some_ Republicans; a lot of them support the amnesty push.
   1789. Steve Treder Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:53 AM (#4321541)
#1787 All too f@cking true.
   1790. Steve Treder Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4321542)
Ray, seriously: you're going with that?

   1791. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4321543)
More extremity as if it was applicable. It doesn't take plotting all day to be a bigoted dick. It comes fairly easily and naturally.

Even if true, so what? We live in a country where silly P.C. nonsense like this goes viral. If there was widespread oppression of blacks, Latinos, and gays by "bigoted" conservatives, the P.C. Police wouldn't have time to go nuts over a Whole Foods post on Facebook.
   1792. tshipman Posted: December 11, 2012 at 01:58 AM (#4321545)
Wait, now who's "unskewing" Nate? I thought the main basis of Nate's early and consistent prediction of an Obama win was that the fundamentals of the race pointed to a 2- to 3-point Obama win despite the weak economy? And the 5 percent unemployment hypothetical doesn't tell us anything; any scandal-free incumbent should win in a walk if the economy is booming.


This is obviously a counterfactual, but in a booming economy (3.5% GDP growth or better) with low unemployment, I think Obama likely wins by around 3 points more than in 2008 or about 10 points total. Some of this is due to candidate quality, as Romney was a worse candidate than McCain in my opinion. In addition to the obvious gimmies like NC, Obama would also win or be very competitive (less than a 2% loss) in states like Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and potentially Texas.
   1793. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 11, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4321546)
This is obviously a counterfactual, but in a booming economy (3.5% GDP growth or better) with low unemployment, I think Obama likely wins by around 3 points more than in 2008 or about 10 points total. Some of this is due to candidate quality, as Romney was a worse candidate than McCain in my opinion. In addition to the obvious gimmies like NC, Obama would also win or be very competitive (less than a 2% loss) in states like Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and potentially Texas.

Agreed, except for Texas. The idea that Romney would have lost by more if the economy was booming seems like a given rather than further evidence of the GOP's demise.
   1794. OCF Posted: December 11, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4321548)
I'm sure I've taught quite a few of them at university here in Texas (for obvious reasons, they don't march up to me and identify themselves). They're like any other American kids; they're just technically stateless.

I'm sure I've taught as many such students in California as you have in Texas. A tiny handful have identified themselves to me, or have said vague things to me about their immigration status that sound likely to be incompatible with any sort of permanent legal residency. Note that this includes some Chinese or Korean students as well as Mexicans and Salvadorans.
   1795. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: December 11, 2012 at 02:27 AM (#4321558)
n a fine piece of strategery, the GOP got 47 percent with a candidate who has a car elevator and who implemented his own version of Obamacare a decade before Obama. The death of the GOP is greatly exaggerated.

Topping out at 47% speaks to the dysfunction of the GOP's selection process, as well as a bench that's as deep and appealing as the Astros'. Demographics aside, if your team can't fix those two things, you'll be dreaming sweet dreams about how "close" you came for most Presidential cycles to come, while arguing about the dictionary requirements for a Democratic mandate.

And the death of the GOP isn't just exaggerated, it's a complete falsehood. But still, you might like to have a party that doesn't need to go 11-1 in the twelve things that decide a national election.
   1796. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: December 11, 2012 at 03:00 AM (#4321566)
Agreed, except for Texas. The idea that Romney would have lost by more if the economy was booming seems like a given rather than further evidence of the GOP's demise.

Would Romney even have been the nominee if the economy was booming? His entire platform seemed to be that he was the business expert who could fix the economy.
   1797. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 11, 2012 at 03:29 AM (#4321575)
Would Romney even have been the nominee if the economy was booming? His entire platform seemed to be that he was the business expert who could fix the economy.
Jesus--good point. McCain was their foreign policy, strong defense guy.

Who the hell could they have picked, and what would his imaginary strength have been?
   1798. Tripon Posted: December 11, 2012 at 03:32 AM (#4321577)
I'm still surprised a guy like Mitch Daniels didn't run. A popular midwestern Governor would have done very well this year.
   1799. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 11, 2012 at 04:37 AM (#4321581)
I've been persuaded on this board that any reasonably moderate guy, like Pawlenty or Huntsman (or Daniels), wouldn't have gotten out of the gate. To survive Romney, at least for a while, every Republican either needed a base, like Santorum had among evangelicals, or a billionaire, like Gingrich had with Adelson.

Daniels had neither; nor did Pawlenty; nor did Huntsman. Wiki says Daniels had called for a truce on social issues, and had talked about considering tax increases. Talk about two kisses of death.

I also wonder if being Bush's OMB guy wasn't the third kiss of death. It might have polled in negative numbers.

WSJ, May 23, 2011:

The Daniels decision to skip a White House bid has turned the attention of uncommitted Republican donors and activists to those candidates who actually are in the race, and some prominent Republicans said Sunday that donors who had been waiting for Mr. Daniels' decision will likely move into the Pawlenty camp.


If he would have been getting the votes Pawlenty got, where was the 20% of the primary vote that would have kept Daniels in the hunt?
   1800. BrianBrianson Posted: December 11, 2012 at 07:32 AM (#4321595)
I think 1799 is about right; the problem isn't that a Republican can't win the presidency, it's that the Republicans that could've won the presidency couldn't win the primaries.

And amnesty isn't the path to victory for Republicans, it's being actually good at the economy, rather than claiming they'll be good and then being ####. If they put the economic interests of the middle class (people earning $40k-$80k a year, for those of you with car elevators) ahead of the billionaire class, and kept the Jesus-freaks, they'd be a steamroller. But I don't see how to get there from where they are, either.
Page 18 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-29-2014
(32 - 12:09am, Aug 30)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogThe First Hundred PAs: The Curious Case of Cubs Rookie Javier Baez
(2 - 12:07am, Aug 30)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogIndians Sign Russell Branyan
(8 - 12:06am, Aug 30)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogRobothal: Tension growing between Astros' manager, GM
(37 - 12:05am, Aug 30)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogWatch a Japanese baseball player try to hit a 186 mph fastball (Video)
(18 - 11:56pm, Aug 29)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(15 - 11:47pm, Aug 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(801 - 10:58pm, Aug 29)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogRockies' Troy Tulowitzki bent on playing shortstop: "I will retire before I move"
(12 - 10:52pm, Aug 29)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(47 - 10:49pm, Aug 29)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogJonny Venters Tears UCL, Facing Third Tommy John Surgery
(18 - 10:29pm, Aug 29)
Last: BDC

NewsblogFG (Zimmerman): Alex Gordon, UZR, and Bad Left Field Defense
(43 - 10:22pm, Aug 29)
Last: BDC

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(61 - 9:51pm, Aug 29)
Last: SOLockwood

NewsblogAngels beat Athletics, Oakland protests game after obstruction call
(30 - 9:18pm, Aug 29)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6226 - 9:10pm, Aug 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(155 - 8:54pm, Aug 29)
Last: Jimmy

Page rendered in 1.0625 seconds
52 querie(s) executed