by Neef, Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 04:52:48 PM EDT
by Neef, Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 04:25:47 PM EST
Ouch. On the heels of Steele following Rahm's script to a tee, Tim Kaine taps in:
I was briefly encouraged by the courageous comments made my counterpart in the Republican Party over the weekend challenging Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party and referring to his show as `incendiary' and `ugly.' However, Chairman Steele's reversal this evening and his apology to Limbaugh proves the unfortunate point that Limbaugh is the leading force behind the Republican Party, its politics and its obstruction of President Obama's agenda in Washington. Just this weekend, Rush Limbaugh repeated his claim that he is rooting for the President to fail. The last time Rush Limbaugh said he wanted the President to fail, virtually every single Republican in Congress followed his lead and voted against the President's plan to create or save 3.5 million jobs.
Translation: Your elected leaders were cowed into obstructionism by a loudmouth talk show host.
"As Congress works to pass the President's budget, Republicans need to stop following divisive figures like Rush Limbaugh, stop apologizing to him and put aside the failed politics of the past so we can put our economy back on track, reform our health care system, break our dependence on foreign oil, improve our schools, and lay the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st Century."
Translation: The next time they vote "no", you'll know why.
Frankly I didn't know Kaine had it in him, this release hits pushes the Rahm meme, then pivots smoothly to the budget talking points. They put this thing together in hours, which implies an amusing level of attention to the Rush/Steele debacle.
I'm beginning to think this isn't so much about Obama versus Rush, as much as amplifying the "party of no" meme. The way they keep pounding "he wants the president to fail" plays exactly into that narrative. From the McCain campaign, we know Obama can build a long-term narrative and successfully drive that into the public psyche. During the entire election, he essentially never deviated from a single message ("more of the same failed policies").
A year from now, will Americans simply assume Republicans are obstructionists?
by Neef, Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:11:36 PM EST
"The chief characteristic and strength of the submarine is its invisibility due to its ability to submerge. As a consequence, the submarine is distinguished, at the same time, by another special feature, the advantage of surprise. "
-- THE SUBMARINE COMMANDER'S HANDBOOK, 1943 Edition
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting take on the Obama strategy:
Every single symbolic act has been inclusive and sober. From that speech in Grant Park to the eschewal of euphoria on Inauguration Day; from the George Will dinner invite to the Rick Warren invocation; from meeting the House Republicans on the Hill to convening a fiscal responsibility summit; from telegraphing to all of us Obamacons that he wasn't a fiscal lunatic to ... unveiling the most expansive, liberal, big government reversal of Reagan any traditional Democrat would die for.
by Neef, Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:06:41 PM EDT
I was talking with a few of the wingnuts at work, and they are really REALLY frustrated with how things are going. They think McCain has been too soft, and are frustrated that he has (and I quote) "kept Palin bottled up". Now all this is understandable, until they start going on about tonight's debate. To a man, and I mean every one of them, they are looking forward to it. Why?
They think Palin is going to come off her leash. They think she is going to go full attack, and rip Joe a new one. They WANT her to.
And that's baffling.
by Neef, Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 08:09:12 PM EDT
First, two caveats: This is a somewhat mathematical diary, so if that sort of thing makes you snooze, be warned. Second, this is not "THE WAY TO PICK THE BEST POLL", just a useful trick that can provide some insight given conflicting data.
Watching and evaluating polls is a big part of the fun in an election cycle. Often the polling outfits produce results that don't jibe with each other, or are in some cases wildly inconsistent. We have ways to evaluate polls ("Zogby sucks", "SUSA is gold standard", verifying internals, etc.) but many of these ways are fairly subjective. Not that that's bad, what would we argue about otherwise, but it's also nice to have some objective grounds for believing that one poll is "superior" to another.
Given a set of polling results, and no other information, we can make some objective judgements about which poll is the one to trust most. These judgements are at least loosely grounded in accepted statistical theory, and can be fairly defended. The "trick" is based on the chi-square test:
by Neef, Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EDT
Interesting article in the Politico, "Why McCain is going so negative, so often":
The Cliffs notes version of "why so negative?" is:
a) things weren't working before
b) they're working now
c) we're going to keep doing it
d) f**k off
by Neef, Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:22:41 AM EDT
by Neef, Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 07:03:16 AM EDT
The case has been made that Sarah Palin energizes the Right.
The idea is that she gets the base fired up, in possibly game-changing ways. I submit that if this is true (and I tend to believe it is), it exposes huge structural flaws in McCain's campaign. Why?
by Neef, Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:51:06 PM EDT
This is a cute video, more to lighten the mood than anything else. There's only 30 people here (roughly) but I suspect Obama can now count on 31 more votes.
Yeah, 30. 31. You'll see:
by Neef, Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 08:49:42 PM EDT