Absolutely, never give a redneck clear liquor.

sorry to hear you are a candy8ss

If you want to aspire to American ideals you need to jettison the idea that simply being a member of your "group" is some sort of inherent mark of superiority to be championed above all else. At least, that's the way I see it, and the way such things were discussed in my grandparents' household where I grew up. I suppose this sort of mindset is why so many Jews supported the Civil Rights movement.

All you people thinking that the Republicans are dead probably have no idea that Bishop Rick is thinking of running again in 2016.

That did not, however, stop Jews from also supporting their own, and being tribal or clannish as the case may be. Jews supported charity, but they supported Jewish charities first and foremost. When I was growing up, the defining question with respect to any politician, issue or event was -- "Is it good for the Jews?"

Because choosing a charity to donate to is just like choosing political representation? Because "Is it good for the Jews?" is the same as "Is he Jewish?"

It's good for Asians-Americans to vote for Asian-American candidates precisely because, all things being equal, Asian-American candidates better represent Asian-Americans.

You might think it's racist for me to want to vote for Asian-Americans; I would argue the refusal to acknowledge the near-total exclusion of Asian-American representation at federal levels as a problem is more racist.

I think it's weird that you're treating Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and Philippinos as all the same. How does electing a Mongolian make a Taiwanese kid know that the process is open to him.

And here I was thinking that your devotion to nominees was solely based on their racial characteristics, when you've now clarified that this particular ethnic dedication is really more of a tiebreaker, all things being equal and all.

I think it's weird that you're treating Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and Philippinos as all the same. How does electing a Mongolian make a Taiwanese kid know that the process is open to him.

Like, it would be kinda weird to vote for an Asian man for San Francisco Board of Supervisors (even Mayor?) BECAUSE that person was Asian. But Congress? Senate? Governor? Sure, nothing wrong with that. It's a little arbitrary, but so it whole process.

Second, when I initially described the increase in HoR incumbency as "marginal," and your response is "well if it is SO POWERFUL, how do you explain X?" (see 10148) that is dishonest - you've mischaracterized me as taking the position that HoR incumbency is "so powerful." I don't mind explaining things like this over and over, because it makes you look silly. — BurlyBuehrle

That you can't even concede that 94 > 91 is one demonstration (among many) of your obtuse refusal ...

Suppose every congressman with a less than a 30 point lead in the polls chose to retire rather than take a small risk of losing. Would you then look at the 100% success of the remaining incumbents as proof of anything?

That figure would still mean exactly what it means -- that every single incumbent who chose to stand for re-election was, in fact, re-elected. Maybe we're talking past each other on what "incumbency" means. I take it to mean "if an incumbent stands for re-election, how likely is s/he to win?" The most pertinent figure in that analysis, for me, is not "how often has Congress flipped parties?" or "how many incumbents choose not to run?" but rather "how many incumbents win re-election when they run?"

The interesting part is why are more incumbents choosing to retire rather than risk losing (if this is indeed happening)? Are there fewer/less lucrative jobs in media and consulting and lobbying for incumbents who lost their final election?

It is an interesting thought experiment, but it isn't happening. Since at least 1940, the percentage of incumbent Representatives who have run for re-election has been constant in the high-80s/low 90s; it hasn't changed at all. You can look at the figures here http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-361_19950308.pdf, if you like.

So, the "choose not to run again" explanation doesn't really square with the facts.

I say this as someone who likes partisanship. I think parties should try to win the political argument. I think elections should have consequences. I am not advocating a mushy bipartisan centrism. But the relentless and poisonous hatred that leaks into how the country is governed is very unhealthy.

the private utilities had contractors pour into the northeast from everywhere and folks were still complaining. and it wasn't the government's fault nor the utilities. people had unreasonable expectations.

TGF: 10202 is a very good post. It is thoughtful and interesting.

Agree with others on 10002. Not that similar things haven't been said by others on the right. Any notion that the Republicans are doomed is stupid.

I agree. I've never articulated the idea that my "group" is superior and should be championed above all else. I just want my group to be considered an equal to everyone else's groups. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen in real life, and just shouting "Bad American!" isn't a very useful real world solution.

It's good for Asians-Americans to vote for Asian-American candidates precisely because, all things being equal, Asian-American candidates better represent Asian-Americans.

You're aware that The Good Face isn't a black woman, right?

But “Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim” admits he’d vote for candidates of the opposite party based solely on ethnicity, and he’s “giving a gift to his children,” or something — and his fellow lefties are "loath to judge."

To be fair, the debate on the merits of his stance is taking place within the lefty element on this thread.

How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?

All things being equal, do white candidates better represent white Americans?

But “Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim” admits he’d vote for candidates of the opposite party based solely on ethnicity, and he’s “giving a gift to his children,” or something — and his fellow lefties are "loath to judge."

How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?

This quest to out-idiot yourself on a daily basis must grow tiring after a while.

Or not, I guess.

Maybe The Good Face should add a point about the GOP figuring out a message for the youth (though it was sort of addressed if I remember right but some of the other points).

Perhaps we can discuss the topic of media bias again, so you can make a fool of yourself for the hundredth time.

He's not interested in a double standard - the perceived "racism" of any individuals on the left he is claiming is used to justify continuing institutional racism.

IIRC, that was the one where you demonstrated your inability to read an article more than 500 words long, and engaged in exactly the sort of confirmation bias the scholarship said you would. Bubble living at its finest.

The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.

Not to speak for him, but I don't think he was disputing the existence of "Media Bias", I think he was disputing whether seeing liberal ideology as the source of that bias is a useful perspective.

And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.

Most of those chortling over Tom Ricks’s highly unusual ninety seconds on Fox News this week were wowed by the way he spoke liberal truth to conservative power, informing his astonished interviewer, Jon Scott, that the Sept. 11 tragedy at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, had been “hyped” for political reasons, especially by … Fox itself. Then, for an encore, he apprised viewers that their preferred news source “functions as a wing of the Republican Party.” Out came the cane, and off went Ricks.

But that was no mere partisan smackdown; it was more subversive than that, and even more bracing. Because as it turns out, Ricks doesn’t want to play on either the red or the blue team, and has no loftier view of Obama-cheering MSNBC than of Obama-jeering Fox.

When I talked to him Tuesday, he said yeah, actually, he had had some other TV invites, but we shouldn’t waste too much time clicking around looking for his next appearance: “MSNBC invited me, but I said, ‘You’re just like Fox, but not as good at it.’ They wrote back and said, ‘Thank you for your candor.’”

On his way out of the Fox News studio, Ricks says he was asked by a Foxer whether he really thought that the network had overdone the Benghazi story. Affirmative, replied Ricks. “Two months of pretending this is like Watergate, compared to the fact that hundreds died in Iraq .?.?.,” Ricks tells this blog, summing up his logic. The story behind Benghazi, says Ricks, is a trend toward grassroots diplomacy, in which U.S. personnel immerse themselves more than ever in the day-to-day life of foreign countries. “We’re doing the type of diplomacy that puts our diplomats at risk and as far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t give a s___ about that,”....

Sam, when are you in NYC next? I'll introduce you to some good port.

You mean Poland. Having to deal with the Russians refined theirs with pain.

"The youth" is drowning in student-loan debt and can't find good jobs. At some point, being cool might not be enough for the Dems.

YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.

When in history have rich people not had it the best?

I consider Poland to be a province of Mother Russia.

YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.

Dude, he uses his super scientific ToughtPrint technique to 'read between the lines.' It's not like he's just making #### up.

For sipping - Hudson Baby is very good (but technically not made in Kentucky.) You can't go wrong with Woodford Reserve either.

And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.

And here I was thinking that your devotion to nominees was solely based on their racial characteristics, when you've now clarified that this particular ethnic dedication is really more of a tiebreaker, all things being equal and all.

It's your fault for assuming I'd be so stupid as to vote based solely on one criteria. All things being equal — the candidate being within a reasonable range of what I'd consider sanity — I'd happily vote for non-crazy Asian-American conservatives if given the chance even if their policy stances don't necessarily agree with my own. I would hate for you to think I was a good American

I wanted to note that I'm thrilled that the Asian-American vote is being discussed. We've been a politically irrelevant vote for pretty much my entire life. Even though the numbers are still small, the fact that we matter even a little bit is very exciting to me. And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.

No, actually it was the one where you made an inadvertent admission against interest:
The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.Hmm, what would we call it when certain stories are reported and others aren't, or when stories are "framed" in a certain way? Ah, yes: Media bias.

The story behind Benghazi, says Ricks, is a trend toward grassroots diplomacy, in which U.S. personnel immerse themselves more than ever in the day-to-day life of foreign countries. “We’re doing the type of diplomacy that puts our diplomats at risk and as far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t give a s___ about that,”....

And this is precisely why you're not worthy of serious engagement. I never claimed that there can't be specific instances of media bias-- I even provided you with links to studies that use more nuanced language to help you refine your thinking on the subject. What I disputed was the existence of a systemic liberal media bias. Again, you've shifted the goalposts, because you're more interested in point-scoring than you are in honest discussion.

Not to speak for him, but I don't think he was disputing the existence of "Media Bias", I think he was disputing whether seeing liberal ideology as the source of that bias is a useful perspective.

No, he was disputing the existence of media bias.

"Black Like Me" made a powerful impression on me when I first read it, but I have no idea how it would play out today. Particularly for a wealthy black man.

"Not worthy of engagement," "shifted the goalposts," not interested in "honest discussion" — not exactly full-blown Alinsky, but it was a decent effort.

The only people who need "refined thinking" on this topic are people like you who deny that there's substantial liberal media bias in the U.S.

All things being equal, do white candidates better represent white Americans? (Let me guess: It’s racist to even ask such a question.)

Yes, yes, Asian-Americans have been oppressed so much, they're the highest-educated and highest-earning demographic in America, despite generally having weaker roots in the U.S. than their black, white, and Latino counterparts.

Look, you shifted the goalposts. You said that I accidentally 'admitted' the existence of media bias, in spite of my denial. I told you I didn't deny it, but denied a very specific flavor of it.

And honest discussion: you're a naked partisan only interested in spin. This is plainly evident to everyone here.

There's a nuanced discussion to be had about media bias. By hand-waving away the scholarship on the subject, you've shown you're unwilling to engage in it.

"The youth" is drowning in student-loan debt and can't find good jobs. At some point, being cool might not be enough for the Dems.

Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.
However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.
Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

As I recall, the single link you posted in August was presented as the dispositive "scholarship" on the issue, while you hand-waved the links Good Face and I posted.

More importantly, the Yankees win more championships under Democratic administration.

So you're claiming that the "systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, etc.," do not involve liberal media bias in any way, shape, or form? If so, in what unbiased ways are the problems "systemic"? Do news outlets have incompetent assignment editors? Are reporters simply incompetent when it comes to framing stories in a neutral manner, but incompetent in a bias-free way?

Everything you referenced was about the political beliefs of journalists, rather than about the media content generated by the corporate media conglomerates who employ them. I linked to several studies that employed different methods for studying and coding media content. You claimed that there's a system-wide liberal bias in media content. Go on believing that, but it's a belief informed only by your own selective (biased!) perceptions, precisely as the social science has found.

And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.

So I'm subject to my "own selective (biased!) perceptions," but somehow all of those news reporters — over 90 percent of whom admit to voting for Dems — manage to set their "selective (biased!) perceptions" aside every day when they walk into work?

Joe, you realize there is more to life than money, right?

And for Ray -- what's your preference in ports? I've dabbled some here, and I've found it is certainly a case of getting what you pay for.

This pathetic hack was the D.C. bureau chief for Yahoo!, and was the political director at ABC News before that. Are you claiming his reporting, story selection, etc., was down the middle, despite his obvious inherent dislike of Republicans and the Republican Party?

Tawny 30 is my favorite, which is actually better than Tawny 40 - which costs more.

Instead find something I have written in the last few days that is stupid and argue with that. Heck if you want I'll say something stupid (stupider?) and let you win the argument. Media bias arguments bad.

I don't think it's wrong to want to support politicans who share my background and cultural outlook — that's how most people vote.

I don't think it's wrong to want more Asian-Americans in higher office. I'm not saying they should get some break for getting there, or even that other people should vote for them based on their race; it's just for me. Early black and women candidates didn't get into office without massive support from black and female voters, respectively. We're at that point in history where Asian-Americans are starting to become active in politics, and I believe that the movement in general is more important than most policy sticking points.

Tawny 30 is my favorite

Like the Panama Canal debate that made Ronald Reagan a hero, this is a defining moment. No GOP senator who agreed to the Carter-Torrijos treaty ever made it onto a national ticket.

Tawny" written on the label for £3.99.

Not according to that left wing network, Fox Business News.

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats