• Am workin on it, too busy to blog lately and needing of a break from it.

  • on a comment on Jerome, you were right. over 3 years ago

    I'm barefoot.

    Just got back from an internet vacation for a couple of weeks.

     

  • on a comment on Fallout over 3 years ago

    wow, that's one hell of a bait and switch. And the thing is, there's nothing in here that limits the drawing to non-snake-like cd's either (which is exactly what people abhor). I can live with geographic continuity, but this is effective for socio-economic division.

  • Yea, they actually floated it:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/02/AR2010100201773.html

  • comment on a post Good thing Howard Dean is no longer DNC Chair over 3 years ago

    Saw Kaine on earlier, what a joke. Can't believe he will be replaced by Gibbs, ugh on the Dems.

  • comment on a post Election 2010 Thread over 3 years ago

    Toomey takes the lead in PA. Kirk takes the lead in IL.

    Was Chicago and Philly returning early.

  • comment on a post Election 2010 Thread over 3 years ago

    Out west, are we gonna see it go strongly one way or the other. Big night for Republicans, but not the massive swing yet.

    Rand Paul seems like he's been set free, lol. Quite the phenomenon.  Watching MSNBC during that was pretty funny.

  • comment on a post Election 2010 Thread over 3 years ago

    Indiana, Virginia, New Hampshire.

    Manchin wins. WV 1st very close. Looks like could be a bit lower numbers than what Gallup said overall, but big states to come.

  • on a comment on Gallup: 60 - 80 seats over 3 years ago

    Do you really believe that Obama still has "it" to win? I think people see his approval, and mistake the belief that it translates into anything. It clearly doesn't as the same poll with a 50 something approval will show a 39% re-elect number. A 'nice guy, but too bad he's not a good leader' is the translation.

    Or just go by the numbers for '12: CO & NV, no way; IN, OH, MI, PA, WI, I don't think so; VA, NC, FL not this time.

  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    I actually voted for Nader in '96 (Paul in '88), and voted for Gore in '00. Am really interested to see if 3rd Party votes inch up in these mid-terms. Recent polls show them doing so.

  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    I'm for radicalizing them both. The more they both get shook up with populism and radicalism, even if it is edgy, the more likely of something different emerging after the inevitable cycles of disillusion. I think the point of it is to check out of the partisan game --that I am no longer a part of all of that and its rules of inclusion-- and yet I will still stick around, continue developing and continue to participate. Like I said below, the post is spur, but its no surprise. Blogging at times is cathartic in that way.

  • on a comment on 99% there over 3 years ago

    I doubt it; I'm not a sidelines sort of person. But then again, when I go on campaigns I stop blogging too.

    And you are right, this is sorta ex post facto.

  • comment on a post 99% there over 3 years ago

    Its been a decision that I have been moving to for a while now. It was time to either get out of US politics all together, and just focus on working abroad, or evolve and change into having a perspective that was aligned with where I am personally.

    There's a thing that happens to consultants that work in politics in DC over many cycles-- they get cynical, and do anything just to win for the party they belong too, regardless of the principle or positioning it takes.

    Personally, I came from a 3rd party background of having voted for Ron Paul and Ralph Nader previously, and when I jumped aboard the Howard Dean train in 2002, turned into a partisan Democrat. We were building something a movement within the Democratic Party to transform the nation.

    There's a moment in Crashing The Gate, where near the end of writing the book, I realized, and shared it with Markos, that we had referred to "progressive" without ever even saying what that meant for Democrats. What I realized was that it was trust and hope that held it together. Trust that the Democrats, once they gained the majority, would put the people ahead of the most powerful. The movement got the majority.

    But once the Democrats decided that the banking cartel of Wall St. wealth deserved to be completly unhindered from any loss, by making the public carry their debt, and restore their credit by balooning the deficit with trillions, that trust was broken. Yes, it started with Bush, but the leadership of both parties has little different in those mis-placed priorities.

    And what Obama Democrats have done with Afghanistan, by accepting the Pentagon's demand of an occupying force of over 100,000 troops and a deep war, while sending daily bombing drones into Pakistan; I just cannot turn a partisan eye to that debacle.

    Nothing has changed in my personal outlook; I'm still interested in participating in politics by crashing down the gates with a revolution. I've just accepted that its bigger than the small-mindedness of thinking that Democrats are the only political solution any longer, and that its time to act different.

     

  • on a comment on Obama's re-elect a solid 39% over 3 years ago

    FOREIGN MONEY, lol.


    Yea, don't bother. I can tell you this, there is a revolt among the state-tier of democratic campaign consultants that the national consultants are so out of touch messaging with what is happening outside the DC bubble. And how anyone thinks that sending Gibbs to lead the DNC helps is beyond comprehension. Whatever.

  • on a comment on Obama's re-elect a solid 39% over 3 years ago

    I could be at 51 as well; WV and WA are the toughest calls.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads