Super Duper Tuesday
For those of you in SSS-land that swing a little to the left and are in the 24 states coming up 2/5 (or any remaining thereafter, for that matter), here are your choices:


I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'....
My name is thatshortkid and I approve this message.
Update [2008-1-31 3:41:6 by The Cheat]: About the only rule on SSS -- besides don't be a complete jackass -- is no politics. It's not written down anywhere, and I don't think I've ever had to enforce it, but this thread has the possibility to get there. I'm leaving it open because I trust you guys to keep it civil. We're all Sox fans, remember. We're on the same team. Let's keep it that way.
Carry on.
SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.
0 recs |
148 comments
Comments
Lol
by Tdogg on Jan 30, 2008 5:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i vote on hotness of wife
by larry on Jan 30, 2008 6:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
For that to work out...
by rhythm on Jan 30, 2008 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kucinich's wife
by hitlesswonder on Jan 30, 2008 11:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that sounds hilarious
by colintj on Jan 31, 2008 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't realize Uribe had put on THAT much weight!
by rhythm on Jan 30, 2008 6:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.. I'm disappointed
Maybe he can latch onto Barack as the VP if he wins the nomination.
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 30, 2008 6:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
and yes, Larry
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 30, 2008 6:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You'd have to write him in.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080130/OPINION02/801300314
by Hazymania on Jan 30, 2008 7:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
umm...
by Toonderstrook on Jan 30, 2008 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
to be fair, toonder
by thatshortkid on Jan 30, 2008 8:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh?
by Toonderstrook on Jan 30, 2008 8:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
bad joke, hastily written
by thatshortkid on Jan 30, 2008 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What of us who lean the opposite
Post a pic of Kucinich's better half - I am unfamiliar with the gnome's spouse.
SC, your Southern is showing.
by winningugly on Jan 30, 2008 7:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
i thought adults were independents...
by Toonderstrook on Jan 30, 2008 7:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Is"moderate" in your lexicon, T-man?
by winningugly on Jan 30, 2008 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
moderation is my middle name.
by Toonderstrook on Jan 30, 2008 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
'protest' vote?
also in the vastness i call "between here and vegas", but, well, yeah.
by thatshortkid on Jan 30, 2008 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
McCain is a kook
by ChicagoPete on Jan 30, 2008 10:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, Pete, getting personal already
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 7:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
His mind is broken
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 8:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, he's good enough to sponsor
(I also love that he used the "F" bomb when pushed by his fellow Senator.)
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
mccain's the guy bush purported to be
by colintj on Jan 31, 2008 5:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Toonder!
FWIW, it seems to me that you say a lot more with your vote by voting for an independent, ie someone outside of the two party system. If you are not happy with the state of the political system, you are throwing your vote away by voting for the major parties instead of taking the opportunity to voice your displeasure with them by voting for someone else.
If you're happy with the status quo, then my argument doesn't hold much water.
I realize that's a bit of an idealistic notion, but it's something I think more people should consider since I hear a lot of complaining about the state of American Politics.
I also think that you vote with where you spend your money and that this form of voting has a much more immediate, and possibly larger, effect on what's going on around you.
by rhythm on Feb 2, 2008 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
huh????
Seriously... you worry me old man. I have to doubt your judgements from here on out :)
But how is my Southern showing? The South is almost entirely 'Red'. I go against the beaten path and vote Democratic. Have so since I was able to vote in 2001. (I voted for Edwards in 2004, then again for Kerry/Edwards for the presidential)
Now, if Hillabeast wins the nomination... I'll still vote Democratic... but I will grimace when I hit that button. She's a better vote IMO than any Republican not name Giuliani but she is far from the best Democratic candidate in my book.
I hope Obama wins the nom. And Edwards gets on his ticket.
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 31, 2008 11:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Gore? Kerry?
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 11:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
why have him wait till 2012?
by The Wizard on Jan 31, 2008 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
when you were in kindergarten,
by Toonderstrook on Jan 31, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
hehe
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 31, 2008 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To add my two cents
In addition, Kerry's campaign wasn't managed very well and he did nothing to distinguish himself. IMO, if he would have gone after on any number of issues (especially the environment and education) he could have distinguished himself, although I think this is the kind of thing Political Science textbooks are written about - not my area of specialty.
Not that it's important, but I didn't vote for Bush either time.
by rhythm on Feb 2, 2008 7:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WU, given your location and conservative stance
I enjoyed what pieces of his environmental rhetoric I have heard. Seems like an interesting fellow, but I thought it may be wise to check with someone who has a front row seat.
by rhythm on Feb 2, 2008 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Crist is an interesting cat
Bottom line - folks still like him here, but the next hurricane that blows through FL, he's up a creek re: public opinion, and the budget for the state is going to get hammered with the real estate market in the tank, and folks will forget he's not in control of that.
by winningugly on Feb 2, 2008 9:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True dat
"That's not an endorsement. He's not my favorite person, but he's a fascinating character."
by ChicagoPete on Jan 30, 2008 9:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't want our President
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 7:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On top of that
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bastard, you are, St. Petersburg
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 11:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wire man, Sox fan
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Senate Floor Statement
I rise today as a U.S. Senator, as an Illinoisan, and as a proud resident of the Southside of Chicago, to congratulate the Chicago White Sox for winning the 2005 World Series. As my fellow Southsiders know, it has been a long time coming.
Founded in 1900 as the Chicago White Stockings, this year's team reached the World Series for the first time since 1959. Over a century of White Sox fans have cheered for superstars such as Luke Appling, Nellie Fox, Carlton Fisk, Luis Aparicio, Harold Baines, and of course Big Frank Thomas. But we haven't savored the sweet taste of a World Series championship since 1917 - until now.
Back then, Woodrow Wilson was President, and the Great War was raging in Europe. The White Sox were a bright spot in tough times.
The Sox won last night the way they have won all season--by playing aggressively, scrapping for every base and every run. When Juan Uribe threw to Paul Konerko for the final out, it was fitting that the ball beat the runner by only half a step. The four games against the Astros were decided by a total of six runs. Win by the skin of your teeth. Win or die trying, that's our motto this year.
Jermaine Dye is the World Series MVP, and I congratulate him for that, but I'm sure he'll be the first to say that everyone on this year's team deserves a part of that award. This is a team with so many great players, but no undisputed leader on the field. I don't claim to be a baseball expert - or particularly unbiased on this matter - but this is one of the most selfless, balanced teams I've ever seen. A team of unlikely heroes.
Scott Podsednik, who hadn't hit a home run all season, stepped up and hit two in the playoffs, including the walk-off winner in Game 2 on Sunday. Willie Harris, who barely played in the playoffs, got a pinch hit to get on base and bring home the only run last night. Geoff Blum, a former Astro, who got a pinch hit homer in the 14th inning to give us the margin of victory in Game 3. And the pitching--four complete games to close out the American League Championship Series. An 11 and 1 record in the playoffs. 15 scoreless innings to finish the World Series.
Before the season started, the Sox were a consensus .500 team. Even as we built and maintained the best record in the American League all season, there were many doubters. Towards the end of the season, we hit a rough patch, and the doubters got louder. They said Cleveland had more playoff experience. They said even if we held on to make the playoffs, we would get embarrassed in the first round. But during the stretch run, manager Ozzie Guillen and his "kids," as he calls them, were calm and relaxed. Even as Cleveland came on strong and our lead in the Central Division dwindled, Ozzie's kids continued to play pranks on each other in the clubhouse, and continued to run hard on the basepaths.
Once the playoffs started, there was no looking back. That difficult September was gone in an instant. We silenced the doubters by sweeping the World Champion Boston Red Sox. We silenced the Angels during the ALCS in five games. And we swept the Astros in four games.
I had the privilege of attending game one of the World Series on Saturday, and the fans in and around the park were a cross-section of the city. There were plenty of folks old enough to remember the '59 team. Almost everyone remembered the 2000 team that made the playoffs. A few were even alive in 1917. A staffer of mine, a Southside Irishman and a Sox fan all his life, mentioned a 92-year-old woman at Saturday's game. She was jumping and cheering so much with every hit and every run that my staffer worried for her health!
I would like to congratulate the entire White Sox organization, in particular Jerry Reinsdorf, Kenny Williams, and Ozzie Guillen. We will be celebrating this victory for a long time on the Southside, around the city of Chicago, and around the entire state of Illinois.
Later today, Senator Durbin and I will be introducing a resolution honoring the White Sox, and we will be asking for its immediate consideration and adoption. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
I don't think you'll see him running around with a Cubbies hat if they get to the WS this year.
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 8:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing against Obama...
by The Jerry Royster Experience on Jan 31, 2008 9:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, no
"If during the crosstown classic, if the Cubs beat the White Sox, I have to wear Cubs garb," Obama said, stiffling a laugh. "I have to parade around and say Dusty Baker is my Daddy."
"Fortunately," he added, "this will not happen."
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 10:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
I hope he wins the nom.
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 31, 2008 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
As do I
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 5:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
by The Wizard on Jan 31, 2008 6:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why only the "rich", "white",
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 7:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It amazes me
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 8:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pete, I can say with the greatest
You ought to read Finacial Times' columns today and get the perspective of folks outside the US who sees our middle class for what it is - one of the true "middle classes" in the world. Most of the universe outside the US is represented only by the have's and the have not's. One Indian gentleman writes about it rather eloquently in today's paper.
No doubt Georgie is a buffoon personally and professionally. But to imply the tax cuts only benefitted a select few is inaccurate and irresponsible.
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 8:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
re
I wish we could say the same about our country
get the perspective of folks outside the US who sees our middle class for what it is
I have conversations with people that have lived both in and out (Europe) the US on our middle class among other topics
the word that best describes their opinion is 'joke'
by The Wizard on Jan 31, 2008 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
spare me please
If you want I can break out graphs and statistics showing where the great bulk of all these tax savings have accrued. Sure there's been some sops to the (rapidly shrinking) middle classes, but in the main they've gone to people who didn't need the money in the first place (myself included). To argue otherwise is myopic.
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 9:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pete, the last time I looked,
And wiz, tax cuts can be financed with debt or increased revenues. The cuts actually increased tax receipts far above any govt. projections. They worked. There are other forces at work (globalization, consumption, demographics, entitlements) that help squeeze the middle class, but lower taxes ain't one of 'em.
My last post on this, really. It'd be great to have a beer or two and discuss this but that's not what I come to the site for, so I'll let go and, as Hazy says, listen for your answer.
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 6:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing how over the last 7 years
I'm with Buffet on this one: there's something wrong with a system that has his secretary paying a higher % of her wages in taxes than he does:
"Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.
Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was "poisoning democracy". He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.
Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world's most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: "I'm making $80 million a year - God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
by Chiburb on Feb 1, 2008 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
shield your eyes

There's plenty more graphic evidence like this for the other components of the tax cuts, the charts all skew like this. Did some middle class people benefit? - of course they did. Did the lions share of the benefit accrue to the extreme end of the income spectrum? - of course they did.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 9:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wing-nut Welfare
by Chiburb on Feb 1, 2008 9:47 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Tax cuts and increased revenue
It's difficult to figure out the truth here, because lots of people's jobs are actually to produce reports and numbers justifying certain policies. You only have to head over to the Heritage Foundation website to learn that tax cuts do pay for themselves...at least according to their economists.
by hitlesswonder on Feb 1, 2008 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Do we have any economists here?
Anyway, here's hoping this isn't the post that gets this diary closed.
by hitlesswonder on Jan 31, 2008 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
This is weak sauce in comparison.
by Shoeless In SC on Jan 31, 2008 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't Ron Paul an economist?
I tried reading a few political threads over at Soxtalk, and I see the discussion there isn't really a whole lot different (better) than the discussion that takes place on the baseball part of it. And for a person like myself who isn't very politically informed (I'm trying to get better, I really am! I'm taking a PolySci class and am trying to add The Daily Kos to my daily blog-glossover), it sucks not knowing who's got a respectable opinion and whatnot.
So seriously... Ron Paul -- just a kook, or a guy who's called a kook just because his ideas appear to be separate from everyone elses?
by CWSKeith on Jan 31, 2008 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ron paul...
by Shoeless In SC on Feb 1, 2008 6:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, kook
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 9:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not an economist, but read something recently
Probably enough knowledge to make one dangerous, but thought it might be interesting to you. I would recommend the book as I thought it was a pretty good read despite the subject matter of personal finances.
by rhythm on Feb 1, 2008 5:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just like us, bro
And Pete, you SOB (I say it with love) when 1% of the population pay 30+% of the tax, I think that's somewhat equitable. (Actually, not - I'd like the nice Forbesian flat 17% tax meself.)
Damn, I wish I were going to be there in March hearing your caterwauling about the financial inequities of he world.
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 6:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by March 15 the nominees
I suspect politics won't be discussed, though you will be for sure.
:-)
by Chiburb on Feb 1, 2008 7:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
godwin! WU wins.
by thatshortkid on Jan 31, 2008 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And funny pictures they are
by hitlesswonder on Jan 31, 2008 10:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ah, nothing like politics to stir things up
by larry on Jan 31, 2008 11:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Pusses
Emphasis on "healthy debate". But to each his/her own.
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
true
by larry on Jan 31, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
deemed a retard? not even close.
by Toonderstrook on Jan 31, 2008 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
O-kaaaay
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
by larry on Jan 31, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see it, either
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sitting out too...
Yep, the Great Orange Satan himself!
I believe he spent some years in Chicago before moving to California, though I don't know for whom he cheered.
by Chiburb on Jan 31, 2008 1:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting piece in the WSJ
Decline of the Angry Left
By DAN GERSTEIN
February 2, 2008; Page A11
Last Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary will probably be remembered as the day when the party's emotional dam burst and many of the personal grievances and tensions that have built up over the past generation spilled out into the open -- unleashing a cascading series of freighted squabbles starring a who's who of post-Reagan Democrats (Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, John Kerry and of course Bill Clinton).
That's a shame, not just because it undermined the feel-good storyline of party unity, but more because it overshadowed a fateful statement South Carolina's Democrats made by embracing Barack Obama and exiting John Edwards out of the race. Indeed, at the exact moment their party leaders were loudly replaying the psychodramas of the 1990s (and to some extent the '60s), voters of both races were quietly resolving the pre-eminent conflict of the party's present -- between the politics of hope and the politics of Kos. (That being the Daily Kos, the nation's most influential liberal blog and the left's poster child for partisan pugnacity.)
This conflict is not about ideology but about style. The truth is, over the past several years Democrats have bridged or buried most of the major issue splits that hobbled the party in the past, as evidenced by the absence of big policy debates in this campaign. That's left us to stew, particularly in the wake of John Kerry's embittering loss in 2004, over how we fight the other side. There is a clear generational split.
The Kossacks and their activist allies -- who skew toward the Boomers -- believe that Republicans are venal bordering on evil, and that the way Democrats will win elections and hold power is to one-up Karl Rove's divisive, bare-knuckled tactics. Their opponents within the party -- who skew younger and freer of culture war wounds -- believe that the way to win is offer voters a break from this poisonous tribal warfare and a compelling, inclusive vision for where we want to take the country.
The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).
With a discredited Republican candidate in the race, the choice came down to two Democrats who actually agreed on most issues outside of Iraq, but differed on the kind of change we need in Washington. Mr. Lieberman called for a new politics of unity and purpose; Mr. Lamont mostly called for Messrs. Bush's and Lieberman's heads.
The hope candidate soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. More importantly, Mr. Lieberman won independents (the biggest voting bloc in the state) by 19 points, which is all the more remarkable because they opposed the war by a margin of 65%-29%.
This year's Democratic nominating battle is a far better barometer of the respective generational approaches within the party. That's because it is happening within the context of a true intra-party competition, there is no real disagreement on Iraq or any other core issue, and there is no incumbent. Not least of all, the two young attractive change candidates (Edwards and Obama) running against the establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton) have been offering opposite conceptions of change.
Mr. Edwards, after running as the sunny son of a mill worker in 2004, returned last year as the angry spear carrier of the hard-line left, running on a dark, conspiratorial form of populism and swapping in corporations for Republicans as the villain in his us-versus-them construct. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has not just been selling possibilities and opportunities, but reconciliation and unity -- and, god forbid, promising to work with Republicans to meet the country's challenges. (Not surprisingly, throughout 2007, Mr. Edwards was the runaway favorite in the regular Kos reader straw poll -- besting Mr. Obama by 21 points as late as Jan. 2, 2008.)
Now that Mr. Edwards has formally dropped out of the race, we can say it's official -- hope and unity crushed resentment and division.
Iowa was perfectly set up for Mr. Edwards -- caucus format instead of primary, tilted heavily left, overwhelming white and rural, and a two-year head start in building an organization. But he lost by a healthy eight points to a black candidate, who, despite his rhetorical gifts and Oprah endorsement, came in less tested and less known. In New Hampshire, another overwhelmingly white state, he lost to Mr. Obama by 20 points.
The outcome in South Carolina was the most telling -- and arguably put the last nail in the coffin of Kos-ism. This was the state where Mr. Edwards and his drawl were born. This was the state he won by 15 points in 2004, even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire to John Kerry. And this was a state that was ostensibly most amenable to his arguments about being the most electable Democrat in red states. Yet Mr. Edwards was rejected by voters across the board, failing to win even a majority of the white vote (40%).
There is no question that Mr. Obama's margin in South Carolina was due in part to the racial makeup of the electorate. But to judge the relative strength of their respective messages, it pays to look at how the candidates did with voters of the other race.
Mr. Obama won 24% of white voters in this former bastion of the Confederacy -- 12 times the 2% share of black voters Mr. Edwards claimed. And the clear majority of those white Obama voters were under 30, a sign that the tide is turning toward Mr. Obama's cross-cultural politics even in the Old South.
Moreover, it bears noting that as late as mid-December, Mr. Obama was running even with Mrs. Clinton among black voters in South Carolina. He ended up beating her 78%-19%. That kind of seismic shift does not happen because of a few off-putting remarks by Bill Clinton or because Mr. Obama is a "celebrity" (Mr. Edwards's favored rationalization). Mr. Obama had to affirmatively sway a good chunk of that vote.
This analysis will likely be seen as a bit of grave-dancing on my part, given that I have been an occasional target of the wrath of Kos. But while I am troubled by their hostile, hyper-partisan tendencies, I think the Kossacks have at their best made enormous contributions to the party over the last few years -- most noticeably by stiffening the Washington establishment's spine in confronting President Bush and energizing and organizing the base. One could credibly argue, in fact, that Mr. Obama would not be in the position to inspire the base if Kos and his allies had not first helped to get them "fired up, ready to go."
In this, you might say that Mr. Obama did not kill Kos-ism so much as co-opt it -- by harnessing its most powerful forces and channeling it in a more constructive, convincing direction for a new political moment. He recognized early on that the primary electorate was changing in the wake of Mr. Bush's departure, and that it was hungry (post-Boomer voters in particular) for something bigger and better than the same polarization wrapped in a blue ribbon.
The signs of change are unmistakable. Over the last year, the Kossacks themselves seemed to be waning -- the number of monthly page views on the site is down dramatically.
Moreover, in the last few weeks they and their avatars have been flocking to the great reconciler. First Ned Lamont endorsed Mr. Obama, a mentee of Mr. Lieberman in the Senate. Then on Wednesday, in the first Daily Kos straw poll after Mr. Edwards left the race, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by 76%-11% (a result inflated by the Netroots' unbreakable contempt for Hillary). Just yesterday, MoveOn.org gave its formal blessing to the "post-partisan" candidate.
The best evidence that Kos-ism is about kaput, though, comes from Kos's mouth himself. Yes, the most delicious irony of this campaign is that the supposed hatemonger is supporting the hopemonger.
Seeing the writing on the wall, as well as on his own blog, Markos Moulitsas -- Kos himself -- rejected the candidacy he himself helped spawn and announced (albeit grudgingly) on Dec. 12 that he would be voting for Mr. Obama via "a process of elimination."
Not exactly the most graceful concession, but the import is undeniable: Hope trumped Kos for Democrats. Now let's see what it will do for the rest of the country.
Mr. Gerstein, a senior adviser on Sen. Joe Lieberman's vice presidential and presidential campaigns, is a Democratic strategist and political commentator based in New York.
by winningugly on Feb 2, 2008 9:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
Please. I know this is the WSJ, but that's just silly (and their journalism is usual very level-headed although the editorial page is not so much IMO). Yes, Edwards ran as a populist, but it's not like his stump speech was a spittle-flecked tirade that concluded with him and Hugo Chavez burning CEOs in effigy. I'm sensing some defensiveness here. In any case, I'd be careful about pronouncing populism dead if the US is on the verge of a recession.
by hitlesswonder on Feb 3, 2008 11:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
a dan gerstein article!
(example: CT-Sen: Gerstein still stupidest man in politics)
by The Wizard on Feb 4, 2008 2:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Topps slipping political cards into packs
by The Cheat on Jan 31, 2008 2:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
hmmmm
by larry on Jan 31, 2008 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by The Cheat on Jan 31, 2008 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, WTF?
When you's da boss, you make da rules, I guess...
;)
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I left it open
by The Cheat on Jan 31, 2008 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Caution, or penalty?
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
fair and balanced
by ChicagoPete on Jan 31, 2008 5:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
All of the options suck...
by SSH2005 on Jan 31, 2008 3:50 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
you don't have to
by larry on Jan 31, 2008 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I know that you can write-in yourself...
by SSH2005 on Jan 31, 2008 4:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What are your chances of victory?
by winningugly on Jan 31, 2008 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
sabermetric taxes, shield your eyes again
Read down the column for average federal tax change. Read down the column for percent change in after tax income. If you're in the top 1% is it really necessary to milk an extra $44,622/yr from the government teat at the cost to society of running a $500bn annual federal deficit? Do you need that extra BMW sitting in your driveway that bad?
I watched that Obama/Clinton debate last night. For obvious reasons they're not talking straight on about raising taxes. At least Obama had the balls to say that he'll oppose the extension of these Bush tax cuts.

by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 9:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
holy sh*t.
by Shoeless In SC on Feb 1, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
the argument
most sane and nonpartisan economists will tell you the above is likely true to a point. there is, of course, some point where lowering taxes will no longer serve to increase revenues. the true problem with the tax cuts - the recent ones are a perfect example - is that the government doesn't freeze or cut spending. they just go on spending. we don't have any particular problem with raising enough revenue.
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 11:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
and, to expand on the point
the cleave on this issue probably comes regarding what you think the purpose of government is. if it's to do things like provide a wide range of social services (a, broadly speaking, democratic position), you're going to think those tax cuts are probably not so good. if you think the government should stay out of the way and just let the economy do its thing (republican), these tax cuts are great.
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 11:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
think these tax cuts are the reason the U.S.
by Shoeless In SC on Feb 1, 2008 11:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
no
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well put (both posts)...
That's why it makes me crazy when people say government is "too big" without explaining what they mean by that. Awhile back some pollster asked people if they thought government was doing "too much" or "not enough." Most people were true to their conditioning and said "too much." But too much of what? Not enough of what? Seems to me the government is doing way too much that it shouldn't be doing but not enough of what it should be doing.
I think large parts of the American public might agree with the argument that we should be using our tax dollars to invest in ourselves rather than burying it in the sand of Iraq. Instead of vague promises to cut taxes and spending (the latter of which never seems to happen) Democrats should be telling people "We're going to see to it that you get value from your tax dollars." Then deliver lower college education costs, better infrastructure, universal health care. I'd like to see it tried, anyway.
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/05/14/bogeyman-taxes/
by Chiburb on Feb 1, 2008 11:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
the problem, of course, is that it's much easier politically to lower taxes than to lower or "freeze" (adjusted for inflation or a nominal freeze) spending. a perfect example will be the spending for the iraq war. when that begins to really wind up, that money isn't all going to just not be spent by the government - they'll just find new things to spend most/all of it on (and this is either party).
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Let's just hope it isn't funneled into blowing up
I don't have a problem paying high taxes so long as my money is being used efficiently and reasonably towards programs that better the nation.
by Hazymania on Feb 1, 2008 12:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
Then Bush pushes through a tax cut that completely wiped out any surpluses, while simultaneouly conducting a completely unnecessary and incredibly expensive war to, as you say, "blow up a desert." The result of these policies is $5 trillion in federal debt added during this administration - which is basically how much this stupid war has cost to date.
When Bush took office you could buy one euro for $0.90. After seven years, it now costs you a $1.50 to buy one euro. This is all the result of the huge amounts of debt that we've flooded the world markets with. We are a now a massive creditor nation, and if Asia and the Middle East stop taking our IOU's we are in deep shit. The same thing happened to Great Britain after WW I and II.
This Bush administration will go down as the WORST presidency ever. It's just sad.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 12:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 12:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yes, I agree that's a simplistic analysis
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 12:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i fold those in together
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 12:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ah yes
This is the infamous "Laffer Curve", a suspect economic theory made famous during the Reagan Administration when it was used to justify another massive tax cut. The first president Bush eloquently referred to this as "Voodoo Economics." Apparently his son sacrifices chickens.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 12:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
or you can call it
there is little to no doubt that this theory works when tax rates are at a "punitive" level like they were when kennedy made the cuts (we're talking tax rates that are double what they are now). the trickier question is whether it still works when the rates are at the levels they are at now/were at when bush made his cuts.
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 12:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
by the way
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
George Santanyana
Yes, it was LBJ - another one who pushed through big tax cuts (always popular and a sure fire way to win a re-election) while simultaneously conducting an expensive war. This eventually completed fucked up the U.S. economy, leading to the stagflation of the '70s and Jimmy Carter's "our long national malaise".
But, we get the government we deserve. Everyone bitches that their taxes are too high, and the great unwashed were thrilled to shit to have a few extra hundred in their pocket and were eternally grateful to the President who spoke directly with The Lord.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
you sure do like to draw direct lines between things, don't ya pete. the economy is a touch more complex than that.
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 1:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,yes,yes - simplistic again
The result was the highest period of inflation in U.S. history, an intractable problem through the entire decade of the '70s (with the petroleum crisis throwing gas the fire, sorry couldn't resist). It wasn't until Paul Volcker took the drastic step of curtailing the money supply and raising interest rates up to 20% that the problem was solved. I'd say it was all related, and it all started with fiscal malfeasance on the part of the federal government.
DJ, I love snow days.

by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 1:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
it's obvious
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Macroeconomics
It's nothing magical, it's the same as household finances. If your income goes down, and you simultaneously wildly increase your spending your only option is to live on credit. If your credit is good you may be able to continuing living large and impressing the neighbors for a few years, but unless you take steps to address the income/expense imbalance the shit will eventually hit the fan big time. Especially if someone abrubtly decides to stop extending you credit.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 2:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
what's magical
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Methinks an economic argument
But I like your logic - and the fact that you do like to debate with facts in hand.
Baseball, anyone?
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well
by larry on Feb 1, 2008 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To bring it full circle
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the latest big-name endorsement for Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, lending his gravitas in the financial world to a presidential candidate whose biggest hurdle is to convince voters he is experienced enough to be president.
"After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance," Mr. Volcker said in a statement today. "However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach."
He concluded: "It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world."
by ChicagoPete on Feb 1, 2008 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
Triple wow. That has rocked my little world.
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait - he was appointed by Carter?
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought that was made famous
by The Cheat on Feb 1, 2008 1:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good call, Cheat
"You will all remember the roll-call scene were Ben Stein is going down the roll name by name looking for Ferris Bueller... later in that scene, Ben Stein is teaching about the Laffer Curve and has a line like "what was described by Vice Presidential Candidate George HW Bush as "something" economics. Anyone.. Anyone? "something"-doo economics."
Best part about that scene is that it wasn't scripted.
Ben Stein doing economic ad-libbing!"
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 1:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Recent data, kid:
Two Americas, or One?
A new study of income in America shows it's still a land of opportunity
By J.T. YOUNG
THERE'S NEWS FROM THE FRONT IN THE CLASS WAR. The Department of Treasury recently released an important study on economic mobility and income growth that refutes a great deal of conventional wisdom about America being two unequal countries.
The study shows that there's been a great and continuing degree of income mobility and income growth over the last two decades. By undercutting the case for progressive taxation and interventionist spending, it argues strongly for the free-market policies needed to sustain America's economic vibrancy.
The Treasury study examined the cash-income changes reported on almost 100,000 income tax returns covering people aged 25 to 64 who filed for tax years 1996 and 2005. The study excluded those just entering or exiting the workforce, when income would dramatically increase or decrease, and adjusted for inflation, so that it reflected only real income changes.
The study is available on the Treasury Department's Website (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/incomemobilitystudyfinal.pdf), but here are some highlights:
Almost 58% of those in the lowest income quintile (the lowest 20% of returns) in 1996 were in a higher quintile by 2005. Almost half of them had moved up two or more quintiles, and 5% had moved into the top quintile.
The middle quintile also did well. One-third stayed there, and 42% moved up, almost 13% to the top quintile. Just 7% moved to the bottom.
The top quintile from 1995 saw almost one-third of its members drop to a lower income group. (And 58% of those in the top one percent had fallen to a lower income quintile in 2005.)
Overall, 56% of the studied returns changed income quintiles in 10 years.
Absolute and Relative Gains
Households didn't just move relative to each other. Incomes increased 24% overall and increased across the income spectrum -- except at the very top end. The increases were most dramatic in the lowest quintile. Their median real income increased by 90%, almost doubling in ten years. In the top quintile, median real income increased by 10% and decreased by almost 26% for the top one percent.
We might ask how this most recent period compared with the previous 10-year period:
"The basic finding of this analysis is that relative income mobility is approximately the same..."
What did not stay the same was median real-income increases between the two periods. Every group's median income increased more than in the previous decade -- going up 30.2% from 1996-2005 versus a gain of 11.1% from 1987-1996.
As welcome as the income statistics are, they actually understate the improvements in the lower income ranges. This is because the study doesn't include tax-exempt income and the refundable earned-income tax credit, which are aimed at lower-income earners.
Even without these, the U.S. has been and continues to be very income-mobile and has experienced better income growth across the income spectrum over the last decade.
Economic Prescriptions
Important conclusions for the U.S. economy arise from the Treasury study.
There is no need for a redistributive tax system. Income redistribution is already being accomplished -- not by government, but by earners' own mobility.
America is not a nation in stasis. Individuals are not permanently placed on the income ladder as a matter of luck, justifying high taxes on the luckiest. The movement of individuals between income classes is not the exception but the rule.
Higher taxes discourage the natural and necessary movement of individuals on the income ladder. Earnings naturally rise, peak, and decline over the course of an individual's lifetime, following the worker's productivity. Attempts to manipulate these natural changes misallocate resources.
Income inevitably follows productivity. There are no jobs that command high wages; there are jobs that require high productivity, from which high wages follow.
Society benefits most when people maximize their productivity, which they will do if the economic system encourages them to do so. Societies with manipulative economies, ignoring productivity, press individuals to maximize nonproductive opportunities-seeking additional leisure, early retirement, delayed workforce entry, and tax-favored forms of remuneration.
Today, the top 50% of income earners pay all the total federal income-tax burden, and pay some more besides to offset the cost of refundable tax credits for low-income people. We have been conditioned to be comfortable with this because we accept the argument that the more stratified and ossified the wealth, the more justified the burden of progressive taxation.
There is thus a loudly articulated sentiment for our most productive people to "give back" to society. But the Treasury study shows that what they received from society was opportunity, despite the best efforts of those seeking a redistributive tax system. The individual pays back society by taking advantage of opportunity.
America remains a land of opportunity. Treasury's recent study indicates great economic mobility and growing income across all income groups.
There are indeed two Americas, but not the two we often hear about. One America is the land of opportunity, the other is a land of unequal taxation. Fortunately, the first is still stronger than the second.
by winningugly on Feb 2, 2008 9:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At least one good thing has come
You obviously read the Journal, I suggest you pick up a Sunday NY Times every week to get some input from the other end of the spectrum. Then make your own decisions instead of just lapping up the demagoguery of one party. Uncritical thinking on the part of the electorate is what's gotten us into this current mess. It continues to escape me how you get a blue-collar guy scraping by in Ohio voting Republican by the simple trick of arousing his homophobia and saying you're the party of Jesus. But after seeing OSU fans up close and personal, maybe it's not so mysterious.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 3, 2008 6:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Already read the NYT on Sundays
by winningugly on Feb 3, 2008 8:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The WSJ is actually a really good paper
What I've found interesting with regards to some of the political stories and columns regarding the Iraq war is that the stories on the front page contradict the analysis given in the middle pages of the front section. If you take the front page stories with a grain of salt, avoid the OP/ED section, and read the stories in the middle pages of the first section, you get well written stories that give a pretty good idea of what's going on in the nation and world.
I agree that getting news from multiple sources is the best way to cut through the crap, but find it odd that no one mentions the BBC. I would argue that the outside perspective is better than the stories we get that are, in part, chosen due to political pressure and pressure from advertisers.
Just my perspective.
by rhythm on Feb 3, 2008 2:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're coming off
by colintj on Feb 3, 2008 5:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Whaaaaaaaaaat!?!?!?
by ChicagoPete on Feb 3, 2008 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
don't you have some unbuttered toast
by colintj on Feb 4, 2008 10:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No, say it ain't so Joe
by ChicagoPete on Feb 5, 2008 7:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
pshaw, course not
by colintj on Feb 5, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a perfect example of critical thinking
You have two completely different tax systems in place, pre-Bush 2001 tax cuts and after. This study conveniently overlaps the both of them. You can slice numbers however you want to make an argument, pay attention to who is making the argument (Barron's in this case, very right) and then take it with a big grain of salt.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 3, 2008 7:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that 2 differing systems
I hear ya, Pete. Since old jokes about Republicans are being told, here's one about both:
If you are 20 years old and not a Democrat, you have no heart.
If you are 50 years old and are not a Republican, you have no brains.
(PS I'm 50. You're not. We're where we need to be, according to the joke.)
by winningugly on Feb 3, 2008 8:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, it's Barron's
This is Barron's you're reading. Who are they writing for, what's their audience? This article is totally preaching to the choir, they're not trying to change anyone's thinking. They want you to remain warm and comfortably numb, smug in your righteous belief that Republican policies are fair and egalitarian.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 3, 2008 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bravo ChicagoPete
I also agree with your view of an ill-informed electorate. Candidates speak in catch phrases and distortions, until people start to really think about who's pulling the strings they aren't going to end the viscous cycle of deception and actually get good candidates that represent them. Actually, I'm not sure that is even possible given that politicians, as far as I can tell, will say anything to get into power.
To illustrate this point, in CA television commercials, Hillary Clinton is championing herself as the representative of the people and not special interests. Contrast this with recent fund raising figures, according to the SJ Mercury News and Investors Business Daily, that show Obama has recently been raising more more money because of donations from small donors (ie individuals). The majority of Hillary's donors have been large money donors (ie corporations and other special interest groups). My point being that Hillary is deceptively advertising herself. Not a big surprise given that this is a political dogfight. I would give another example of deception by Obama just to be fair, but my purpose is not to advocate for either candidate, only to illustrate why people need to do a little research / thinking when bombarded by this much advertising.
Another great example comes from the gaming agreement propositions in CA, but since few of us live here, I will spare the majority.
by rhythm on Feb 3, 2008 2:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i don't know about you, rhythm
the fact that the governator is crying poor right at this time gives it a nice fishy smell, to boot.
by thatshortkid on Feb 3, 2008 3:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Still trying to figure that one out
On the flip side, the potential for rampant environmental destruction in an ecosystem as fragile as the desert in addition to sticking it to all those people that put the Governator in office because Gray Davis isn't an exciting personality (or, if you believe their schtick, cause he couldn't balance the budget in time) makes voting the measures down appealing as well.
I actually think that the Governator has done pretty well over all, so I have nothing personal against him. I suppose I should make a decision soon though since tuesday is coming fast.
by rhythm on Feb 3, 2008 9:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i obviously don't disagree
and you may wish to actually click on the link and read the study. you can, of course, say that the authors of the study may have a bias, as well (this is a republican admin.). but going to the source is still better than reading it via a filter. you'll note that one of their findings was that income mobility was unchanged from the prior decade. so now we're looking at a period of 1987-2005 where income mobility has not increased or decreased.
you can't just throw out periods of economic expansion, just like you can't throw out periods of recession. that makes no sense. and using smaller periods makes no sense either because it tells you less, not more.
by larry on Feb 3, 2008 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
1996-2001 was the most
A. A Republican Congress who actually curtailed spending.
B. A moderate Democratic President who believed in free trade and (practically) abolished welfare.
Balance is the key to life, my man. These resentments you seem to spew will only cause you grief in the long run - use that passion in a positive sense, not just to rail against "the Establishement". The informed, cogent points you make can be obscured by your disdain for an opposing opinion. (Read the article above about The Daily Kos - I'd try and follow a different path in presenting opposing ideas.)
PS Purdue is in 1st Place in Big Ten basketball! Eat it!
;)
by winningugly on Feb 3, 2008 3:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Slightly on topic
by hitlesswonder on Feb 3, 2008 11:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My wife would laugh
You want to solve Social Security and Medicare funding? Stop cutting off the FICA and Medicare contribution at the ~$80,000 and ~$100,000 cap. Or cap it between $100-250k and then have it kick back in over $250,000. This is a pay-as-you-go system anyway, so might as well end the pretense that you're funding something like a defined contribution plan. As it is, current funding is completely regressive.
by ChicagoPete on Feb 5, 2008 7:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Should've quoted the whole piece -
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 1:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The BEST description of Republicans
If the Goverment is a car setting out to give every one a ride to work, then for 40 years the Republicans have been puncturing the tires, pouring sand in the gas tank, stealing the distributer cap, and, whenever they can get their hands on the wheel, driving it straight into the nearest ditch and then, pointing to the wreckage as the tow truck backs up to it, saying, See, this proves that people were meant to walk.
And they do this so that they don't have to chip in on gas.
Courtesy of the author:
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2008/02/government-as-a.html?cid=99615236#comment-9961 5236
by Chiburb on Feb 1, 2008 3:13 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
No apology necessary -
by winningugly on Feb 1, 2008 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Monday is super duper too!
by Toonderstrook on Feb 4, 2008 7:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
awesome, enjoy the show!
by thatshortkid on Feb 4, 2008 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing says "change"
Have a good time, and remember, they drug test federal employees, Toonder. And you can't use the old "hey, it was a contact high" excuse.
by winningugly on Feb 4, 2008 8:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I find it amusing
Did I say amusing? Perhaps "disturbing" is more appropriate.
by tailgater on Feb 5, 2008 9:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Turnabout is fair play...
by winningugly on Feb 6, 2008 5:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 




















