● Poll One: Racism. The first poll comes from Rasmussen, and it’s about racism. Check out these numbers:
● 37% of Americans think “most blacks are racist.”Further, conservatives are more likely to see blacks as racist (49%) and more likely to see whites as racist (18%). Liberals are more likely to see whites as racist (27%) and less likely to see blacks as racist (21%). Surprisingly 31% of blacks also think that most blacks are racist, while only 24% consider most whites racist. These are fascinating numbers.
● 18% of Americans think most Hispanics are racist.
● 15% of Americans think most whites are racist.
First, it’s interesting that so few people see “most” people as racist. If you listen to the liberals in the MSM or in Hollywood or in the Democratic Party, you hear a constant drumbeat that all whites are racist and that everything is about race. Based on the numbers above, only two in ten Americans buy that garbage. Even among liberals only three in ten buy this stuff. That’s a strong indication that we’re headed toward a colorblind society. Why? Because it shows that very few people see the various racial groups as monoliths who are or should be motivated by race, and it shows that few people see the issue of race being wrapped into everything. Without that, the institutions of racism and race baiting die.
Secondly, it’s fascinating that blacks not only see blacks as racist, but actually see them as more likely to be racist than whites. This again flies in the face of race-baiter rhetoric which holds that blacks cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority. It is even more fascinating that they see more racism in the black community than the white community. This is another good sign because it suggests that the public is holding the black community accountable for the open racism many within the community have displayed and it suggests an understanding that whites are not the problem black leaders have tried to sell them as. That is a necessary step to fixing race relations in this country, when everyone is held equally responsible for their attitudes toward everyone else and no one is excluded from acting properly.
● Poll Two: Rubio-ism. The second poll involves Latino support and the immigration bill. According to a poll from Latino Decisions, 54% of Latinos would back Rubio in 2016 because of his efforts to pass immigration reform. That would include half of the Latinos who voted for Obama. That goes away, however, if the immigration reform bill doesn’t pass. In that event, Rubio gets only 30% support -- 3% more than Romney and 1% less than McCain. It is also worth nothing that Romney and McCain both lost each of the following increasingly-blue, increasingly-Hispanic “swing-states”: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Virginia. Bush, on the hand, won 40% of Latino voters in 2004 and he carried each of those states. Unlike McCain and Romney, Bush tried to fix the immigration system... like Rubio.
And lest you think we can make up the difference with white turnout, as talk radio continues to claim, several groups have studied the last election and they have found that it would have been impossible for Romney to win merely through white turnout because he would have needed 90% of the “missing” whites. Want proof? Ok, think of it this way. There were an estimated 4-6 million “missing” white voters. Romney lost by 5 million votes. IF there are the full six million and IF they all showed up AND IF they were ALL conservatives, he might have won. But they aren’t all conservatives. In fact, there’s no reason to think they don’t mirror the population at large. In that case, consider that Romney won whites by 59% to 40%. To make up the 5 million vote difference at the rate that Romney won whites would require that 26 million more whites vote -- four times the maximum pool of “missing” whites. The idea of winning with a white party is a delusion.
● Poll Three: More Debunking. While we’re at it, let’s debunk a myth Sarah Palin and talk radio are pushing hard all of a sudden. They are telling their followers that “the overwhelming majority” of Americans oppose the path to citizenship. Palin even claimed that Hispanics oppose the path to citizenship and that it was somehow insulting to suggest they didn’t. Oh, you betcha! Only, as is so often the case these days with conservative talkers, this is total bullship.
Exit polling data from November 2012 (reported by Fox News) found that 65% of Americans (and 77% of Hispanics) believe illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship. Only 29% opposed that. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal poll from April 2013 found that 64% of Americans (and 82% of Hispanics) favor a path to citizenship. Three in ten is not an overwhelming majority... unless you’re dealing with the new math. So don’t believe this when you hear it.
53 comments:
I'll probably have more to say about the rest as more comments roll in, but I just wanted to put a bug into the topic of black racism. I think it is highly possible that when blacks identify other blacks as racist, they might actually mean that those blacks are racist against other blacks.
I don't know if this odd phenomenon exists in any appreciable way, but discussion of it seems particularly widespread amongst my black acquaintances. It also comes up rather frequently in online discussions. NPR wrings hands about it occasionally. And Dave Chappelle even had a sketch about the black white supremacist, so the idea is common enough for comedy.
Just something to mull over.
tryanmax, That could well be. But on the other hand, they aren't accusing whites of being racist, which is the really big bit of news to me.
What I think this all means is that like every other community/group, it means that blacks follow the bell curve. The ends are engaged in race theory in one form or the other, and the vast majority in the middle go about their lives without accepting the minority position.
I do ultimately think that's a good sign because it suggests that the vast majority of blacks are a-political on the issue of race, which is not something you would expect listening to the MSM. And that means that we could well achieve the idea of a colorblind society, which is not possible if the majority maintain an identity politics worldview.
The only thing enlightening about the "Latino Decision" poll are the people who run it - left wing racial studies professors. So
1.The pollsters have a vested interest in attempting to swing the Republican legislators to vote for the immigration bill.
2. The pollsters are leftists which historically have lied through their teeth to achieve their political aims.
Therefore, the poll contains no reliable information.
Regardless, every poll by every organization, including those on the right, indicates that Americans overwhelmingly support immigration reform. Figures range from 2/3 - to 3/4, but regardless of the spread, the consensus is clear. (And before anyone drops any snark about global warming--apples and oranges. Politics is all about consensus.)
The only honest wrangling at this point is in the details, and really only one detail at that: what measure of border security should act as a trigger to the pathway to citizenship? That is, unless you listen to talk radio, where they're still barking about building the Great Wall of Texas.
Nice evasion K. Now explain the exit polling data, and the history of how the Republicans could get 35-40% for years until they started screaming about deportation, and how they keep getting 40% in Texas where they also aren't holding their breath until they turn blue.
tryanmax, That seems to be the consensus with polls -- 2/3 to 3/4 support for comprehensive immigration reform including path to citizenship depending on how it's phrased. Only in talk radio land do "a vast majority of Americans oppose this."
But hey, don't worry about it, I'm sure there are 26 million whites hidden out there just secretly waiting to vote for us if only the Republicans would finally listen and stop supporting Obama's agenda!!!! LOL!
BTW, check out this quote from Rush Limbaugh about evil Fox News after they censored him to save the Republicans:
“You need to stop watching these people, because they’re not going to change. Your blood pressure is going to suffer if you keep watching these people. I mean, they’re designed to tick you off. They’re designed to make you question your sanity. You’re going to watch these people [and] you’re going to say, ‘How in the world can we have such idiotic people?’ And you’re going to think maybe they’re not and you’re crazy.”
Now ask yourself:
1. What reputable thinker has ever warned his followers not to read what "the other side" says? "Don't listen to them, you might get ideas... stay with the cult!"
2. Doesn't this sound like Rush is describing himself? It should.
Poll #1 doesn't really surprise me, except perhaps in the number of blacks who believe the black population is more racist.
As for the other two, I find their results hard to square, at least on the surface, with another poll that found 60 percent of Hispanic voters want an "enforcement first" border security plan, with no citizenship or benefits for illegals until that is achieved; and that immigration reform is actually on the low end of Hispanic voters' interests. Someone must be wrong.
T-Rav, I'm a little surprised by the first poll actually because all you hear in the media (left and right) is obsession with race. So I was surprised and pleased to see that the public isn't buying it.
Who did the poll you're talking about? I haven't seen it.
Andrew, off topic, but I'm sorry I didn't respond to your comment on yesterday's thread. I called it a night early yesterday. But I'd like to answer in the active thread.
Honestly, I'm trying hard not to copy anything in my posts. (As a guy with a history degree- which really means little more than I went to college- nothing stings more than accusations of plagiarism.) I'm juggling about six different tomes, some that focus on certain subjects and time periods, and others that veer off. That's what I was trying to reconcile when I mentioned the various interpretations in yesterday's post.
But to reassure you that I'm not copying, here's my bibliography:
(continued...)
Andrew, I guess to clarify, I'm not surprised that liberals would see whites as more racist than blacks, with conservatives thinking the opposite. But yes, that a plurality of blacks would see members of their own race as more racist than whites--that is fairly surprising.
As for the poll, now that I ran through the details, it was conducted by a GOP pollster, John McLaughlin, but comes from the same Latino Opinions group you cite above. Frankly, some of the results in the poll look blatantly contradictory.
-"World War I" (1964) by S.L.A. Marshall. Considered one of the best works on the war, Marshall was also one of the first Americans (and WWI vets) to write a comprehensive work on the war. He does, however, gloss over the July crisis in just a just a few pages.
-"A World Undone" (2006) by G.J. Meyer Similar to Marshall's, but with greater emphasis on individuals, IMO, and includes novel-style backgrounds on the countries involved
-"Myth of the Great War" (2001) by John Mosier Almost a strict military history, it only outlines war plans for Germany and France and then goes right to the outbreak.
-"The Guns of August" (1962) by Barbara Tuchman Probably one of the best-known works on WWI. Gives excellent background on the belligerents, but then skips the July Crisis and picks up on August 1st.
-"July 1914" (2013) by Sean McMeekin This was just published, so I'm reading it for the first time. It's closer to a day-by-day account and, according to the author, is based on dispatches from various countries' national archives.
-'July Crisis' -an online timeline LINK
Rustbelt, I'm definitely not saying you plagiarized. No worry about that. I was just curious if you were copying something or if this was your own work. It's very thorough and quite an impressive collection. Nice work! :)
P.S. I have the Marshall book and I've read it several times. I also have "Guns of August" though I only read that one once.
T-Rav, I haven't seen it, so I can't say much about it. But the numbers above are consistent with the exit polling data.
I'm surprised that blacks that see other blacks as racist, though tryanmax makes a good point that they could be seeing blacks as racist against blacks. I suppose that's possible. In either event though, I think it's good news that the overall numbers are so low. That suggests to me that the country is becoming more race-neutral.
And on the topic at hand, a few thoughts just hit me.
First, the polls don't shock me at all- especially the poll about blacks seeing other blacks as racist. I honestly think there's a schism of sorts going on in the black community: those who are genuinely trying to move past the act of using race as an excuse for everything- and those who cling to it because it's what they grew up with and can't see past it. Seriously, so many (of the controversial) black leaders thrive on racism, they need it to stick around. Hypothetically, if racism was completely wiped out from the American mind this evening, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be at the front of the line at the unemployment office tomorrow morning.
Still, it's good to know that fewer and fewer Americans on the whole are buying the idea of racism and identity politics.
On the latest Rubio litmus test...
I just checked the headlines over at Breitbart. A Tony Lee article is citing Politico, saying that immigration reform will die in the House. Yet, just below that, is an article claiming Politico falsely reported that Limbaugh told a viewer not to watch Fox News. Selective...
Also, Joel Pollock writes that "WSJ Buys AstroTurf on Immigration." Is that in any way similar to how Pollock bought the AstroTurf on the thoroughly-debunked Heritage report?
If you'll excuse me, I need to groan.
T-Rav, Different groups -- Latino Decisions v. Latino Opinions. I found the McLaughlin poll (LINK) and it actually supports the above polls. It found:
• 86% support immigration reform (64% do so strongly - 8% oppose)
• 85% support "legal status" (63% do so strongly, 11% oppose)
• 90% support a pathway to citizenship (66% strongly, 8% oppose)
• 77% support a comprehensive bill with a pathway to citizenship (17% oppose)
So it is impossible to use this to claim Hispanics oppose or don't want a pathway to citizenship as Palin and others are claiming.
There is one data point that appears to provides some support to House Republicans, which is that 60% support waiting to grant legal status until the border is 90% secure (30% oppose).
But, I have doubts about that question. First, it's a complex question that involves many moving parts and that makes it hard to tell what they were responding it. Secondly, support for the 90% border security issue is higher in this question than it is where the 90% border issue was asked straight up (54% favor that level). That suggests that the focus of this question was not the border security issue. Moreover, they were never asked, as far as I can tell, if they preferred the same thing without the border condition. So this question is largely ambiguous in the answers it obtains.
In any event, let me also add some ominous other results:
• 65% believe the Republicans Party discriminates against Latinos.
• 62% say the Republicans want to stop immigration reform because they don't want more Latinos to come to the US.
Those are ugly numbers. And then there's this, which supports the point made in the other poll about Rubio:
• 46% do think that "there are new forces in the Republican Party like Senator Marco Rubio who are fighting for immigration reform and fair treatment for Latinos." That's consistent with the poll numbers above.
Moreover,
• 56% said they would consider voting for a Republican for Congress. And the issues most likely to cause that were: immigration 21%, economy 11%, help Hispanics 6%, health care 5% and stop discrimination 4%. So immigration is easily the most important issue to them.
All told, I would say there might be some play in terms of delaying a path to citizenship, but fighting the path to citizenship is a disaster in the continuing.
Rustbelt, I don't got to Breitbart anymore because they've lost their collective minds. They are in witch hunt mode and no lie too obviously false to use to whip up the minions into a frenzy. And not only that, they spend about 90% of their time tearing down conservatives now and 10% focused on long dead issues related to Obama. Basically, they have become Huffpo's wet dream... a conservative site dedicated to the absolute destruction of all but the fringiest, most paranoia-bound of conservatism.
Whether or not immigration will die in the House is not yet clear. They are meeting today to discuss it. There is a good chance it will die and that will finish the Republicans as a national party. Oh well, how bad can Democratic rule be?
On the race stuff, I find it interesting because it flies in the face of so much of what is talked about regarding race these days. All the talking heads on both sides have thoroughly bought into the idea that everything is about race and this really blows that out of the water. I find that very encouraging.
Andrew, thanks! I do what I can.
Also, I couldn't agree more on Breitbart's descent into madness. As ScottDS has noted, BH went from insightful to tabloid. Even their new sports page is a mess. It still favors the same markets that ESPN narrowly focuses on. Heck, in some ways it's ESPN on steroids.
Hm...Democratic rule..."Why Do Anything When the Other Side is Just So Suicidal?" I can easily so it next year...the right will destroy any electable candidate in favor of an outsider who sole qualification is...being an outsider! They'll also go out of their way to praise certain states/regions as thoroughly American (euphemisms are being used to protect the innocent), while others are denounced as having become French and being peons to the Democrats, all the while waiving their fingers at these states/regions to behave and vote as they're told to. (These people will then act shocked the morning after election day when said states/regions give them a collective middle finger.)
Ah, well.
Hey! Dick Morris is also discussing these polls and what it means for the GOP. LINK.
Whoa, bad spelling. Let me correct that: "...I can easily SEE it next year..." "...of an outsider WHOSE sole qualification..."
Rustbelt, The problem with Breitbart, from a fundamental standpoint, is that they are just a blog. They don't report anything. They have people with limited or no qualifications who spout whatever opinions are on their mind. And there is a premium on being first and being most obnoxious... there is no premium on being right or informative.
The end result is that you get flooded with poorly informed group-think articles, each of which is trying to outrage you, and each of which is doing little more than responding to something they read at an MSM site.
That's why something like their sports page is pointless because it's just someone writing about what they saw at ESPN.
That's not how I would have set up the place if I wanted credibility.
In terms of the right, they are busy planning a series of primary challenges against pretty much everyone. I've seen more than a dozen already discussed against such hardcore RINOs like Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, and others. They're trying to get Alan West to run against Rubio and Palin is pushing hard to get primary challenges against several dozen Republicans. It's the Great Purge of 2013.
They're also setting up their excuses for their failure in 2010. I've seen several articles telling us why we will lose in 2010, and they're all basically delusional. They tend to be either allegations of things that haven't happened or allegations of failing to do things that actually were done. No hint is made that the real problem might be the insane level of hate and infighting coming from these very people.
Frankly, I'm tempted to vote for Rick Santorum just to shut these idiots up when he loses by 52%, but they'll find some reason to blame everyone but themselves.
I don't think you're going to find any useful information on people's attitudes regarding legal status vs. border security b/c that is where all the confusion lies. Any response is going to be built on differing assumptions regarding the following questions:
- Does the path to citizenship begin with provisional status or with a green card?
- Is one of those incumbent upon securing the border? Which?
- How do we define securing the border?
The last of those three is most prone to change, but there really shouldn't be any confusion about the other two. Rubio's roadmap has consistently been 1) provisional status, 2) border security, 3) green cards and onto citizenship. The logic being that you draw people out of the shadows first b/c it is indecent to leave them there, but you put off the benefits of citizenship until the root problem is addressed.
Talk radio has done a lot to muddle those points, feigning confusion over the sequence of events and claiming they were lied to about provisional status coming first. Their hardline stance seems to be that illegals should continue to dwell in shadows until absolutely everything else is sorted out first. This despite the fact that their main gripe against illegals is that they dwell in the shadows doing shadowy things. Confoundingly, they also scream about immigration reform "throwing the doors wide" as if they weren't open already.
On Morris, I think he is largely right, though I disagree with his adjectives. The McLaughlin survey says Hispanics will agree to close the border and exclude the "legalized" from benefits -- which is what Rubio does.
Where I think Morris is downplaying the role the current conservative position on immigration has in creating the numbers on why Hispanics don't like or trust us. The trend is clear. And unless you want to believe that Hispanics just happened to have an epiphany at the same time conservatives started screaming about deporting them, then the two are clearly related.
He also sidesteps the number that shows that the issue is key for Hispanic voters.
In any event, I do agree with his conclusion. Immigration reform won't solve the issue by itself, but it removes the poison and covers the wound and lets people like Rubio go out and win them over on other issues -- things that can't happen in the current environment.
"Frankly, I'm tempted to vote for Rick Santorum just to shut these idiots up when he loses by 52%..."
Andrew, please don't do something you know you won't be able to live with later on. Don't let the maniacs get to you.
tryanmax, A couple points:
1. On the poll, the problem as I see it with the question is that it's incomplete. I've done marketing surveys in the past and I can tell you that this is a dangerous question to rely upon because it doesn't give you a real sense of "why" they answer the way they do -- from either the yes or no side, especially as there is no second question to compare the results to. It's like asking, "Do you like cake and ducks and apples and horses and other things?" And they using the "yes" votes to claim people like horses. You run a real risk if you make business decisions on that conclusion.
2. On the confusion, talk radio has bathed this issue in confusion because they need to to maintain the outrage. Rubio's bill called their bluff on immigration reform and included things to address everything they always claimed was a condition before they would support such a bill, so they've had to lie and distort their way through the debate so they could continue to claim their purity by opposing this thing.
3. The reason Rubio gave for legalization first is that we want to know who's here. If we wait until everything is certified, then we end up creating a race for people to get here over the next couple years -- something conservatives initially tried to claim Rubio's bill did... except it doesn't.
Moreover, once they are in legal status, that ends the shadow issue, it gets them paying taxes, it lets them take real jobs, and it makes them ineligible to get benefits. Not getting them into this status means they stay hidden, they keep working illegally, they don't pay taxes, and they keep getting benefits. Not smart.
Rustbelt, Don't worry, I know better. I've seen this game before among liberals and it doesn't matter how liberal their representatives act, they always blame their failure on not going far enough. Ditto here.
Seriously, look at how they treat Boehner. Since 2008, Boehner had been a monkey on a string for the far right and yet they hate him and point to his "constant betrayals" as the reason for the mess we are in and why he needs to be ousted. People like that will never do honest self-evaluation.
Rustbelt, P.S. I meant "they're setting up their excuses for 2014" not "2010." I've seen numerous articles already suggesting that the cause has been betrayed by ____.
Good point on Boehner, Andrew. To be honest, between the budget 'talks' (I use that word loosely in this context) of late last year and this year's sequester cuts, I think Boenher's learned a lot about his position and how to use it effectively. He's figuring out how to play the Washington game in the long run- not the short-term revenge against the traitors that hardliners are calling for. Even though diplomatic language can be frustrating, being effective at Washington's* political game doesn't include breathing fire and using pitchforks.
On that note, you have to feel sorry for him. Anyone who has negotiate (another word I have to use loosely here) with Barack Obama, well... let's just say I'd probably need therapy for a very long time.
*- Am I the only who's tired of our first President's name getting dragged through the mud solely because it's also the name of the capital? I understand the symbolism and the show of reverence for George, but given the muck of politics, couldn't it have been named after someone more deserving- like Aaron Burr?
No problem, Andrew. With my typos, I'm in no position to judge. :)
And tryanmax, I think there is a strong consensus on those questions actually -- around 60-80%:
1. People want the "border" secure. They don't want more people coming here.
2. They want a path to citizenship to end the issue with the current crop of 11 million.
3. They want that path to be lengthy and include some form of punishment as retribution for breaking the law to get here.
4. They don't want these people to be able to collect benefits.
That's pretty much the consensus. They may or may not accept the border being secured first. But we'll never know because the way that is being pushed is a nonstarter.
Rustbelt, LOL! Arron Burr, D.C.! Nice. How about Benedict Arnold, D.C.? :D
Boehner is in a really hard spot. He's dealing with two huge weasels on all issues, Reid and Obama, neither of whom has the slightest integrity. Making it worse, Obama is a fool and a lazy one at that. So negotiating with him is like talking to a wall. Meanwhile, Reid is awash in dirty dealing so you never know what exactly he wants or who he will sell out. So dealing with him is like talking to a conman.
Then it gets worse for Boehner because his right flank is in meltdown. They will find fault with anything he does and they have no concept of how negotiations or politics works. If they were generals, they would be screaming our plans at the top of their lungs while whining about the invincible, evil genius fighting on the other side and how our side is nothing but a bunch of traitor who want the other side to win. That makes it impossible for Boehner to do anything.
The best advice I can give Boehner is to call their bluff. Make them vote on his leadership. And when they lose, which they will because they're only about 20% of the party, strip them of all privileges and power and then lead the party according to his own beliefs. That's the only answer when you are surrounded by the perpetually disloyal.
That said, he has done a fantastic job so far of stymieing everything Obama wants. The ultimate problem though is that he has yet to create an agenda that will win over the public. So his victories are basically just draws.
Andrew, certainly there is consensus on each of those issues. Where the consensus is confused is, as you say, on the order of those items. And I haven't seen a poll that effectively addresses that confusion.
tryanmax, True. There is no consensus about the order. But the problem is that the border-first crowd has basically defaulted by using that claim as a poison pill rather than negotiating for it. As a result, everyone else has now rejected that position. That's the danger of not negotiating in good faith -- your concerns get ignored.
Keep in mind that politics is like a huge game of bluffing... will you or won't you, who will support you, who won't. When you stake out an extreme position, you show your cards and you force everyone else's hand. And once they see that they can continue without you, they do. At that point, they ignore you concerns because you're no longer relevant to maintaining the coalition. That's the problem.
Careful, Andrew....if too many people vote like you do, Santorum will be elected President and then you'll have to flee to a distant galaxy.
T-Rav, LOL! That sounds like the plot of a movie... "Everyone voted for him as a joke, now Rob Schneider is President! We are doomed!"
Also, I didn't realize the polls were from two different groups. The names looked similar so I just assumed.
All I will say about the McLaughlin poll for now is that the wording made it pretty clear what the question was about, and responders gave positive or at worst mixed feedback about border security. In any case, I still have trouble believing that the "naturally conservative Hispanic demographic" is based at all in reality.
FYI, House Republicans have ended their meeting and issued this statement:
They will continue "step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken (immigration) system."
We'll see what that means. It sounds like a draw.
T-Rav, I don't buy the "naturally conservative Hispanic demographic" either. But that's not important. What's important is getting them back up to 40% support instead of 20%. 20% is permanent Democratic rule. 40% is permanent Republican rule.
Okay, this has little specifically to do with these polls, has been on my mind lately, and is to be taken semi-tongue-in-cheek instead of as contentious, but I think I need a scorecard to keep up these days...
By all means, correct me if I'm wrong here:
Obama (and his administration): Very bad, but a total failure, despite what people on both the left and far right say.
Democrat politicians, leftist media figures & organizations, in general: Very bad, poisonous & stupid (but mostly more politically savvy than the GOP).
Rick Santorum: Bad (twas always thus), poisonous & stupid.
Michelle Bachmann: Always bad, poisonous & stupid.
The late Andrew Breitbart: ?
Breitbart (the sites): Used to be good, now bad, poisonous & stupid.
Most/all of the big conservative bloggers: bad, poisonous & stupid (whether any of them used to be good is on a case-by-case basis).
Rush Limbaugh: Used to be good, up until a few years ago, but is now bad, poisonous & stupid.
(Conservative) Talk radio: Bad, poisonous & stupid (probably always so).
National Review: Maybe used to be good, now bad.
Wall Street Journal: Ditto above.
Dennis Prager: ?
David Horowitz: ?
Jonah Goldberg: ?
George Will: ?
Charles Krauthammer: ?
Thomas Sowell: ?
Walter Williams: ?
Greg Gutfeld: ?
Glenn Beck: Bad, poisonous & stupid + looney/cultist.
Sarah Palin: Used to be good (maybe), until her failed Veep run and post-gubernatorial career, now a bad, stupid & poisonous media whore.
John McCain: Bad.
Lindsey Graham: Bad.
Mitch McConnell: Good.
George W. Bush: Meant well, but mostly bad.
Mitt Romney: Good, meant well, but too bland to be elected + crippled by the suicidal 'Real Merican' conservatives in 2012.
Marco Rubio: Good (gold standard, Reagan's heir).
Rand Paul: Good.
Paul Ryan: Good.
Ted Cruz: Good.
Bobby Jindal: Good.
John Boehner: Good.
Allan West: Bad, poisonous & stupid.
Tea Party: Good, although with a few looneys mixed in.
Occupy Wall Street: ... Stupid, stupid, bad & stupid (and served with an extra helping of stupid to help wash the mess down, prior to vomiting).
Liberals/Leftists/Statists: Bad.
Moderates: Moderately bad.
Libertarians: Good, but misguided on a few points.
Independents: Good.
Conservatives: Good.
Fiscal Conservatives: Synonym for above.
'Real Merican' Conservatives: Bad, poisonous & stupid; often bigoted (and are mainly white trash, old).
Social Conservatives: Synonym for above.
RINOs: A fantasy creation of the 'Real Merican' conservatives.
American public: Generally good, smart & apolitical... would vote republican in a majority if not for bad P.R. via 'Real Merican' conservative dinosaurs poisoning the well, so are forced to mainly elect democrats, against their better judgement.
--what do you think, sirs? :^)
(and a belated 'Happy Birthday', Andrew! Ditto for all of you other June/July birthday-ers!)
Backthrow, Thanks!
I realize you are being tongue in cheek, but let me respond seriously because this is an important point: no. That is not correct.
Our goal should not be to label groups of people good or bad - not liberals, not conservatives, not socons or libertarians, not Mexicans, not the unemployed, not moderates, etc. What we need to do is point out good, bad and "bad for us" conduct.
The problem is that people have come to see everything as adversarial because that is what the talking heads talk about. If you're in Group A, then you hate Group B and anyone who doesn't toe the Group A line. That's destructive and it's a hopeless way for attracting the public. The public wants solutions to problems, not pointless squibs tossed back and forth... and they hate infighting.
We need to break the cycle of thinking this way.
Backthrow, Let me give you some examples...
Bad conduct:
1. Lying to your audience to outrage them.
2. Spreading conspiracy theories.
3. Putting personal profit ahead of party good.
4. Infighting... Eleventh Commandment.
5. Insulting the public.
6. Playing the purity game... I get 100% of what I want or I tip over the table.
7. Intentional blindness.
8. Throwing a tantrum.
These are things we would not accept even from children and we should never accept them politicians and talking heads
Good:
1. Trying to find new voters to close these gaps.
2. Staying positive.
3. Producing ideas.
4. Working to shift public attitudes toward our side.
5. Working to overcome the negative stereotypes with which we've been saddled.
Whoa, just got out of a summer monsoon. This one was a little aggressive.
Andrew, that's sounds like quite a move for Boehner to make. I don't think he'll do it (he might actually understand how that will look in the eyes of the media), but it couldn't be harder than dealing with the heads of two of the DNC's 'families.'
On the announcement, maybe cooler heads prevailed and they decided not to commit suicide (for at least one more day). Well, at least give the hardliners a chance to debate so they can't claim it's being rammed through- which they've been doing for some time.
Hm...Rob Schneider frightening people away after being elected president. That's scary. But imagine how scary it would be if- instead of Schneider as president- it was...no, no. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to say her name. I want to live.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 10, 1914 (99 years ago today…)
German Ambassador to Austria Tschirschky reports to Berlin that the Austrians are making progress in dealing with Serbia. He adds several details from the July 7th meeting.
Also in Vienna, Doctor Friedrich von Wiesner, the chief council of the Ballplatz is ordered to go to Sarajevo. The investigation into the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife is moving at a glacial pace, and officials in Vienna want to know what’s been uncovered so far.
In Belgrade, the Austrian Ambassador to Serbia, Baron Wladimir Giesel von Gieslingen, returns to the Austrian legation. (He was in Vienna the day Franz Ferdinand was murdered, and this is first day back at the legation.) Around nine o’clock, he’s visited by Nikolai Hartwig, Russia’s ambassador to Serbia.
Hartwig is a long-time enemy of Austria and international rabble-rouser who occasionally acts without consulting the Russian Foreign Office. Two years earlier, he helped form the Balkan League- an alliance between Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro. The League then opened fire on the Ottomans, (the First Balkan War), and drove the ancient empire completely out of Europe for the first time in more than 500 years. (The real, long-term goal, however, was to ally Balkan states against Austria.) He also encouraged Serbian territorial demands, a factor leading to the Second Balkan War. (Bulgaria, Serbia’s former ally, wanted more territory than it got in the first conflict. It attacked its former allies, and was crushed in the process.) Hartwig’s influence is so great that Emperor Franz Joseph calls him “the real boss in Belgrade,” and he is an extremely popular figure among the Serbian population.
After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, Hartwig refused to lower the Russian flag at his embassy and even held a bridge party that night where he practically celebrated.
This evening, Hartwig tells Giesl that the stories aren’t true, and offers his condolences. Just then, no more than twenty minutes after arriving at the legation, Hartwig suffers a massive heart attack, collapses, and dies.
In order to deflect suspicion, Giesl orders a carriage to bring Hartwig’s daughter to the Austrian legation. After arriving, Ludmilla Hartwig immediately suspects foul play and rummages around where she can. (She believes her father may have been poisoned.) Giesl says the ambassador didn’t eat or drink while he was there- he only smoked two cigarettes. After Miss Hartwig leaves, Giesl turns away a Serbian policeman (who’d come to investigate), on grounds of diplomatic immunity.
Rustbelt, Glad you survived the monsoon! :)
On Boehner, the thing is that there are only two ways to be a leader. One is to win the respect of the people following you. That's very, very hard to do, especially in our system where individuals don't necessarily have the same incentives as the party as a whole. The other way is the use of raw power. What Boehner has been trying is third option that never works: he's trying to be liked by pandering. That's why things have gotten so far out of control for him. He needs to rein that in.
On the announcement, that could well be. It wouldn't surprise me if either (1) the plan is to make some noise and then produce the Senate bill in parts and jam them together and pass them with Democratic votes, or (2) write a couple small bills on border security and then try to sell the idea that the Democrats tanked reform. But we'll see. The problem with Plan A is that it lets Obama shift credit. The problem with Plan B is that it's suicidal.
On "she who shall not be named but got a new haircut today,"... sigh. Right now, she has to be the odds on favorite for 2016 because the Republicans seem determined to kill their own candidates... all of them.
Andrew, I also wanted to reply to Daniel's post from yesterday.
Daniel, I think Berchtold- along with most of the names involved in the start of the war- are often ignored because when most people think of WWI, they automatically think Western Front- US, Britain, France vs. Germany. (And Russia on the Eastern Front.) After things blow up between Austria and Serbia, the scene shifts to northern and western Europe, with the two countries that started the whole thing barely factoring in. I think most people just want to get to the big names and the fighting as soon as possible.
Even several of the books I mentioned above skim over this part in just a few pages. I think the opening should be better studied, if for no other reason than it shows how one or two bad decisions can quickly lead to things getting much, much worse.
Rustbelt - That makes sense. A lot of time people do want to cut to the chase, after all. The buildup and the intrigue involved is fascinating, though. I've always liked stories involving these sort of deals and schemes, which is why history is often so interesting for me.
As far as the other things go, I'm still worried that the whole thing is going to end in Republican political suicide, and then what happens? I'm not sure if I see Rubio and the others trying to reform the party giving up that easily, but if enough damage gets done here, well... I'm just not seeing any good way out of this.
- Daniel
Daniel & Rustbelt, I'm enjoying it too.
Daniel,
I've been reading about the meeting and I am more hopeful. I think there is a deception afoot. It sounds like they will wait until the fall -- which defuses the primary challenge issue to a large degree.
Then they will submit a series of bills so they can claim they only voted for certain things but "never supported" others. Those bills will then be jammed into one comprehensive bill, aka the Rubio bill, by the House/Senate negotiating team. Then it will be sent to the House and the Senate for a yes/no vote.
The Senate will vote yes. The House will vote yes with the Democrats and half the Republicans supporting it. The other Republicans will get to rail against it and how they were betrayed and how they never would have supported this if they had known it would turn into one bill blah blah wink wink. Then they can go home and run against Boehner in their own districts while the national guys lay claim to the bill.
That's what it sounds like to me at the moment. I could be wrong, but that's what it sounds like right now.
Andrew and Daniel,
Glad you guys it! I promise the quality will not slip!
Side note: I double-checked a few sources just to make sure today's info was accurate. Talk about a diplomatic nightmare! (Who needs soap operas when you have real life?) Imagine- strictly hypothetical- if a high-ranking Republican went to the Oval Office to discuss the immigration bill with the president and suffered a stroke? Let the conspiracy theories begin!
(Prior post deleted due to typos)
Rustbelt, I would say the results would be a little something like this:
21% would suspect Obama killed him.
20% would assume he faked his own death and now lives with Elvis in Decatur, Ill.
19% would think Lizard people killed him.
15% would not know the incident in question.
10% would blame al Qaeda.
10% would blame Israel.
9% would blame the CIA.
8% would blame an organization above the CIA.
8% would blame Mexico.
3% would blame chemicals used in the manufacture of office furniture.
2% would think it was a natural death.
1% would notice this adds up to more than 100%.
Backthrow, nothing wrong with Goldberg, Will, Krauthammer, Sowell, Williams and Gutfeld. Nor would I call National Review "bad". It covers a wide spectrum. by the way, I´m on Goldberg´s mailing list and this guy has such a sick sense of humor, you just know he´s a good guy.
Some of you may want to check out the 40 minute Peter Robinson interview with Rand Paul. It´s fascinating and on youtube:
http://youtu.be/5ZR0QsJsGQA
Nothing like a long, indepth talk to give you a sense of the man.
Of course there are some points where I disagree with him but I don´t really care. He is undoubtedly smart and has real convictions. Would he be a good executive (you know, most good presidents are governors)? No way to know. I think having someone like him in the White House would be a great corrective to ... so many things.
By contrast, they also did an interview with Jeb Bush. He´s a good man. I have fewer disagreements with Jeb than with Rand. Everything he says is correct, and he comes across as sincere and likeable, as well as very conservative. But as a candidate? He wouldn´t be a corrective to anything. He´d be a great punching ball for the left though.
Going off topic, but do you ever think that if Bush had lost in 2004, we might be better off?
Bush tried some good things in his second term but nothing came of them (no thanks to the conservative base). Yes, he got Iraq under control but Obama pissed that success away. In the end, his second term just set the stage for Obama.
Not that Kerry deserved to win, but he deserved to be President when the crisis broke in 2008 and to be associated with failure. I think Kerry would have been incompetent and a figure of fun in a way Obama never will be. He would also have been more conventional and, dare I say it, pragmatic. Conservatives wouldn´t have gotten quite so, uh, worried about him.
Meanwhile, Obama would have had to wait, and people might have gotten a less saintly view of him.
Or Obama might have become Kerry´s vice president in 2008, and successor in 2012. We will never know. The lesson is, we don´t know. I thought a Bush loss would be the end of the world in 2004, but in retrospect it´s hard to see why.
Andrew, if you're right that's pretty devious of them and a good sign of things to come. I half-suspected it would end up being the Option A you mentioned earlier, but this sounds like a pretty good way to handle it. Let's hope they pull it off.
- Daniel
Post a Comment