Whatever this graph tells us, it certainly belies the notion that Reaganism has had a major impact on US public opinion.Â Currently, the public’s “mood” lies somewhere between 57 and 58, slightly above its level in 1972, and far above where it stood in 1981, the apex of the Reagan era.Â Indeed, if anything, it shows that as soon as the public got a taste of the Gipper, it turned sharply in the other direction, as it did when George W. Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court.Â That doesn’t mean that Reagan came from nowhere: the 70’s represented a sharp rightward shift.Â Ditto with Gingrich ascendancy, which essentially caught up with great conservatism in the 1990’s.
Note well, however, that current opinion is not even close to the heights of conservatism, and is closer if anything to the Great Society of the mid-60’s and Nixonian liberalism of the early 70’s.Â So this is a period when the public mood is somewhat sympathetic to progressivism.
Why during such a period the Right has been successful at framing and dominating the policy debate is an exercise left to the reader.
In the wake of the good political news last night, especially from Ohio, let us pause and consider these questions from Charlie Pierce over at EsquireÂ (penned before the results were in). Â Because at the end of the day, they are the ones that matter.Â And if we can’t answer them, then anything that happened yesterday will be less than a footnote.
Let’s assume that Kasich gets kicked around, the way it looks like he might, and the way he thoroughly deserves to be, god knows. What happens next? Is there really an actual movement building here, a parallel mobilization among the largely white middle class that would parallel the one taking place in the Occupy camps around the country? Or will the people on the lawn go back to sneering about the drum-beating hippies sleeping in the parks? Will they all leave the state capitol in Columbus and go back to listening to the hundreds of sub-Limbaughs on their local radio stations, telling them that teachers have it too good because they have summers off, or that firefighters are gaming the disability system, and that “government” is merely a way for all of Them to steal Our money, and that voting is just a waste of time? Do they all go back to worrying about The Deficit, which is merely convenient shorthand for all the things they don’t want to pay for? Do they all go home and prepare themselves, through ignorance and apathy, to vote for the next John Kasich who comes along?
What are the answers to these questions?Â And what are we supposed to do about it?
Really.Â Explaining why the Republicans are rejecting President Obama’s jobs package, which includes things like rebuilding schools and spending on infrastructure like roads, bridges, etc., Cantor said:
I think at this point Washington has become so dysfunctional that we’ve got to start focusing on the incremental progress we can make. Both sides have their desires to do the big bold things. The problem is they’re just vastly different.
Â Yes.Â Absolutely.
The Democrats want to preserve Medicare, and the Republicans want to end it.Â The Democrats want to protect the environment, and the Republicans want to destroy it.Â The Democrats want to rebuild schools, and the Republicans don’t.Â The Republicans, in turn, want to give very large tax cuts to people making more than $250,000 a year, and the Democrats don’t.Â The Republicans want to empower Wall Street and let the banks do anything they want, and the Democrats don’t.
There is a choice here.Â People disagree.Â To say that the politicians should “put aside their differences” and “work things out” ignores basic reality and is willfully blind.
It’s really just that simple.Â And it is what the campaign must be about.
Bad news from Ron Suskind, who strongly suggests that Tim Geithner and White House officials undermined her, and didn’t like interference from women anyway.
Well, there’s an obvious way to remedy any problems, and not-coincidentally move a sharp, excellent message for the 2012 campaign: make Elizabeth Warren the Democratic Convention keynote speaker.Â She’s excellent on television and incredibly articulate.Â
The keynoter does not have to be announced until shortly before the convention, and the Massachusetts Democratic primary is on March 6th.Â She’s obviously the strong favorite in the primary, and of course highly competitive for the general election.Â Her message of protecting and strengthening the middle class is clearly where the Party wants to be.Â Hopefully, that’s where the President wants to be, too.
Fervent Obama supporters face a basic problem that we’ve yet to come to terms with: we were fervent about different things. We were a standard political coalition that was fooled into thinking ourselves a movement.
What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Unitarian? Someone who knocks on your door for no particular reason.
I thought of that joke when reading James’ recent comment alluding to his (excellent) post from 2008 about how Obama’s grassroots movement was like the New Model Army. In both cases the movement’sÂ unprecedented breadth and power, once unleashed, was fearsome in battleâ€”but one couldn’t ride that Army into power and expect anything less than revolution. As James put it: “What [Obama] wonâ€™t be able to do is shelve his sweeping promises and govern from the technocratic, establishment centre like Bill Clinton. He will have to be a great reforming president or fail.”
I think this is half right, in the way the joke implies. Obama for America had the toneÂ of a movement: it relied on faith- and hope-based rather than instrumentalist motivations, adopted the cadences of the Civil Rights movement (much against Obama’s own personal inclinations), built a pretty successful ethos of fellowship and organization for their own sakes, and yes, could be very moralistic. But while the movement’s tone expressed zealotry, its purpose had no trace of Puritan precision.
Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says, â€œOf course we believe all these things; we believe in Social Security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.â€ Continue reading “A speech for our hard times”
President Obama would like to be Lincoln, but is not: that’s not a criticism. But he increasingly resembles one of Lincoln’s subordinates: a handsome, charismatic leader, brilliant at organizing, popular with the troops, but fatally passive and unaggressive on the battlefield:
General George B. McClellan (wartime photo by Matthew Brady, via Wikimedia).
Perhaps it’s time for American liberals to look for a scruffy guy with a rumoured drinking problem.
A couple of friends asked me whether the debt ceiling deal signalled a new Age of Extortion, in which we go through this mess every time we have to raise the debt ceiling.Â
Not to worry, I said.
In 2013, given President Obama’s steadfast refusal to do anything about jobs and economic growth, there will likely be a Republican President.Â If the Democratic Senate minority breathes a word of doing the same thing, President Bachmann or Perry or Romney or whoever will simply announce that the 14th Amendment gives the President the right to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally.Â The President will then release the OLC Opinion written by David Addington.
End of story.Â The GOP understands power, unlike some other Presidents I could name….
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.