My Photo

« De-booking | Main | Your post-election thread »

November 06, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2017d3d57cdea970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Your election thread:

Comments

the Angry Redistributionists are gonna eat your children totally dominate!

lj, could you at least tell me today's closing price on the NYSE.

LOL.

In the piece cleek cites, Volokh asks the musical question:

"What Drives Views on Government Redistribution and Anti-capitalism: Envy or a Desire for Social Dominance?"

Instead of "envy" or "desire for social dominance", perhaps he should consider "they are hungry".

I already know what happened

You must live in some kind of time warp, lj.

Instead of "envy" or "desire for social dominance", perhaps he should consider "they are hungry".

Or, "A desire to feed the hungry, even if we ourselves are not." Is that so hard to fathom, so unlikely a justification?

Long lines here in upstate South Carolina. But Obama was never going to carry this state, Romney is just bouncing the rubble here.

Long lines in Florida, but that could have more to do with the fact that there are the usual elective offices up for vote, plus 11 state ballot amendments and another half-dozen county ballot amendments, than anything else.

If we could just toss out the ballot initiatives, 75% of the people could just go vote straight ticket like they always do.

As a (perhaps) point of interest, I was surprised to find not one, but two, marijuana-related questions on the ballot here in MA.

The first was to allow marijuana for medical use.

The second was to eliminate all federal laws banning marijuana, and send the question to the states.

The second was non-binding.

The big deals in my district are going to be the Warren/Brown Senatorial race, and the Tierney/Tisei knife-fight for the Congressional seat here in the newly-drawn 6th.

Tierney, the (D) incumbent, would normally be pretty much a shoo-in, but his in-laws are notorious crooks and felons, and his wife recently did time for laundering their illegal gambling winnings.

It's put him at a disadvantage.

Here's my sample ballots:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

It took me a while to fill it out, and I had researched everything pretty thoroughly and filled in my sample ballot in advance. For people who had not done that, it was going to be a long time in the polling place, unless they simply answered "No" to all of the ballot amendments. Which is sort of my natural impulse, but I looked anyways.

Only four county ballot amendments, not six.

I'm curious about the eventual political fallout of marijuana legalization initiatives.

Personally, though I'm not a user, I'd like to see it legalized nationwide solely on the basis of the enormous monetary and human cost of enforcing drug laws.

But, say, marijuana is broadly legalized and then regulated and taxed like liquor and cigarettes, will the dirty hippies who fought for its legalization turn out to be liberals or libertarians when we see the first round of marijuana tax hike initiatives on ballots in coming years?

Will they react to marijuana excise tax hikes by declaring that they would prefer the good old days when you tooks yer chances and might get 20 years for anything over a pound in possession?

In other words, will we be treated to the likes of Grover Norquist forcing the signing of no-marijuana-tax pledges among Federal and State Republican officeholders, with perhaps billboards and internet ads featuring the lot of them lighting up gigantic blunts in protest of tax initiatives?

Will we see Texan Republicans in the House of Representatives, a big cloud of reefer vapor back lit behind them, railing against oppressive marijuana taxes from the floor (actually lying ON the floor, surrounded by empty bags of Doritos) of the House of Representatives?

Will they add, "but hey man, (talking while holding reefer smoke in their lungs), we still want to outlaw birth control"?

We could see a realignment of sorts, you know, if the political future is as f*cked up as the political past?

A Tea Party uprising.

Vote by mail in WA...no lines, but anti-climactic. I always like taking the kids with me to the polls.

I got to vote for pot legalization and gay marriage, which was pretty cool, and I think both will win. Plus I got redistricted and my new district is now likely to go democrat, whereas my old district had never elected a democrat as a representative.

So, very much looking forward to the results, and can't wait to see what happens when the state legalizes pot: what will the feds do?

jrudkis: So, very much looking forward to the results, and can't wait to see what happens when the state legalizes pot: what will the feds do?

The feds will continue to raid large and small scale MJ producers as they have in areas that have legalized MJ for medicinal purposes.

A major difference in Washington's case will be that the raided producers (i) are likely to be former/current illicit producers as they have the know-how and MJ production will still be illegal federally and in all other states; (ii) will continue to have a huge financial incentive to produce MJ due to such illegality and thus will fight back; and (iii) will be very well armed.

While I would be happy to be wrong as MJ should generally be legalized, if Washington goes down this path it's likely in for a rough couple (or several) years, until either the rest of the country catches up or things get so bad that the state reverses the policy.

also, Politico's election returns map has Obama ahead of Romney in the popular vote, 28 to 14.

IT'S A LANDSLIDE!!!!

they haven't made any electoral vote projections yet.

That's probably a headcount at Politico.

Ugh,

I am sure you are correct that the feds will try to continue to go after the producers. Our Governor is concerned that the state workers who issue licences could be at risk of federal charges.

I think the big difference though is that the state and local law enforcement officials could not participate, and the state jails and prisons can't be used. There really are not that many federal cops to enforce pot laws.

If the federal government wants to put a lot of its resources toward this issue, I am sure it can. But I am glad that the State of Washington will no longer be paying for it (I hope).

No lines at all here in CA. A half dozen people voting; another dozen booths available. It took a while, but only because we had our usual 10+ state initiatives on the ballot. Plus a couple of local bond issues, three local boards and commissions, etc. Ah, democracy!

Ugh: The feds will continue to raid large and small scale MJ producers as they have in areas that have legalized MJ for medicinal purposes.

They have certainly done so thus far. But their resources are limited, and the more states that go the legalization route, the less viable that becomes. Plus, the more states that legalize pot, the more likely it becomes that the Congress will figure out that continued Prohibition is not a vote winner.

Will Washington and Colorado prove to be the tipping point? Perhaps not. But the longest journey consists of single steps. Likewise this one.

jrudkis/wj - I certainly hope the Washington (and Colorado) legalization approach leads to a more sane drug policy nationally down the road.

I'm just saying that in the short term, WA/CO are likely to become magnets for what will still be an illicit drug trade, and that the feds will thus have an incentive to engage in high-profile raids to "show" that MJ is still illegal nationally.

While in the long run if more states legalize perhaps the feds will be spread too thin, but I doubt that's the case in the short run. Heck, they might just give up on the whole "F" in the acronym in light of recent SCOTUS decisions and shift all those resources to MJ.

At bottom, IMHO, it only takes a couple high-profile raids/jail terms to pretty much make state-legal MJ production too big of a risk for those that aren't already producing under the current prohibition regime. And the current producers are not the least violent folks.

Again, happy to be wrong, just making a prediction.

It's pretty ridiculous that Jack Daniels, Jose Cuervo and Absolut are perfectly legal, but the Humbold County stuff and BC bud aren't. What's more dangerous - a bar fight or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? (Not that I'm offering an original or unique thought here, but that strengthens the point I think. Policy is lagging the pronouncements of Captain Obvious.)

I have a good friend who did some serious federal time for growing marijuana. Not in Humboldt, but over more by Shasta Mountain.

I don't know all the gory details, but I can assure you it was not an uplifting experience. The jail time, I mean.

And he's certainly not the only one.

And yet, folks continue to grow the lowly herb.

I can see the point of state regulation of pharmaceuticals, particularly dangerous and/or addictive ones.

The marijuana laws, however, are a stupid, harmful waste of resources, human and otherwise.

Smoking dope is not my thing, I have no vested interest, it's just palpably stupid.

This is a very interesting development.

An Arizona group was scrambling late Sunday to keep secret the individuals behind its $11-million donation to a California campaign fund after California's Supreme Court, in a rare and dramatic weekend action, ordered it to turn over records that could identify the donors.

That's gonna leave a mark...

via Hullabaloo:

http://thegrio.com/2012/11/05/romney-florida-gop-gov-hold-rally-in-town-trayvon-martin-was-killed/

Youda thunk Romney had the Enos Slaughter/George Zimmerman vote sewn up already.

Looks like that Mourdock creep is going to lose in Indiana. It also looks like the Democratic candidate for governor will win, which would be an upset.

The ironyis that Rmoney, in terms of how he would have governed, is every bit as much of an exgtremist nutcase as Mourdock. I guess he conned some folks into thinking he would shapeshift into a moderate if he won the Prez.

BREAKING...I'm about to call Oklahoma for Romney.

I don't own a television, so I'm happy to not be watching the execrable Wolf Blitzer.

But I found him on Youtube calling tonight's Presidential returns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq2kv-QQhIE

May I just say, too, that I hate live blogging ... of debates, of elections, of just about anything.

Except for the live blogging of my daily stream of semi-consciousness.

That's for all of you to hate, as well you should.

Warren wins MA ?

wow. nice.

Agreed, glad to see Warren win.

I'm back!

I have now had a bacon cheeseburger and french fries, and am on my second can of Young's Double Chocolate Stout. I put some arugula on the cheeseburger so you know I'm a healthy eater.

My day was, of course, very long, but good. Turnout was heavy, which is what we pollworkers like best. Considering how many people in the district still don't have power, turnout was *very* heavy, especially when you add in the many people who voted by mail or over the weekend, in emergency early voting -- including by email and fax.

The very best thing about being a pollworker in a tense election is that it's illegal to talk politics in the polling place. It makes the day very .. not relaxing, exactly, but not *stressful*. We work extremely hard, but we don't have time or energy to worry about the outcome.

Is it really illegal to post a pic of your ballot on flickr?

Tammy Duckworth rid us of that asshole Joe Walsh.Thank you, Tammy.

Well, that was exciting.

They're starting to call Ohio -- and thus the election -- for Obama.

I'm pleased, but not surprised -- Nate Silver and Sam Wang had reassured me a couple weeks ago, and I have no reason to doubt their wonkery.

Well that sucked. But it was going to. This way just sucks slightly more.

Have a primal scream on me. Starting tomorrow, Obama can no longer blame anything on Bush, he has now officially inherited the mess from himself.

I briefly switched over to Fox News to watch Sean Hannity pout. Alas, no Sean. Instead, I see "Barack Obama Re-elected President" across the bottom of the screen, and Karl Rove doing his 2012 version of "THE math", claiming that Ohio is still up for grabs. Heh.

--TP

Brett:

Out of curiousity, is this the result you *expected*, rationally speaking?

Of course, Ohio now looks like its back to Romney. Wheee.

And neither the Times nor Post has called he race. Romney has not conceded.

Yeah, pretty much. I thought the polls were unreliable, with a larger error bar than was being acknowledged, but always figured Obama was the favorite to win. No reason to suppose that error bar wasn't centered, after all.

He's a lousy President, but campaigning is his one strong point. And having most of the media in your pocket is a pretty huge advantage. And, ultimately, Romney failed to capitalize on some of his weak points, lacking an instinct for the jugular.

Can we all agree on one thing? Our election machinery needs a major, fundamental overhaul.

Yeah, so far, I think Obama's second term is a total failure.

I'm deeply disappointed in the man.

Erick Erickson of Redfaced just reached his desired orbit of 50,000 feet.

And we thought pigeon droppings were bad.

I've been trying to find a brief video Moe Lane made two or three years ago in which he sneers smugly in his little punk voice, to Obama, "No, you can't!"

I guess he's scrubbed it from the internet.

For the sake of the country, I hope the rest of you are better winners than I am and better losers than Brett.

Gun and ammo sales, the most important economic indicator for the 27%, should spike tomorrow.

Plink.

Wow. Brian Williams is quizzing the Governor of Colorado on MJ legalization. Maybe I'm too cynical.

Remember, Nate Silver is a man of small stature and quite effeminate.

That from Dean Chambers, of the whackjob Unskewed Polls, who TBogg subsequently called a human gravy manufacturing plant (Google Chamber's photo and check out his stature).

"Gun and ammo sales, the most important economic indicator for the 27%, should spike tomorrow."

Hope so, I'm planning on selling mine in the coming weeks, need the money for a down payment on a house. Anybody want an "assault weapon" with hundred round clips? I've got a Hellfire trigger for it...

Whew.

Still no concession from Romney.

No, here's his concession speech:

Watch at home, volume down. Not at work.

Though if your company CEO is a Republican, you'll be fired tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhRBmyjlRkg

No, sorry, that video was of Karl Rove trashing the FOX news set a little while ago over the Ohio results.

Brett, with cooly-named weaponry like that why not just move into the house and see if anyone dares collect the down payment.

P--p--pl-please sign the note here Mr. Hellfire.

Donald Trump has tweeted a call to revolution to reverse this election.

Really. Can you imagine someone suggesting that?

Meanwhile, his hairpiece, which had broken along with the Democratic permanent wave at the last minute in yet another change of direction, washed up in Battery Park.

Trump's limo driver was spotted holding his place in line at Tiffany's newly-opened all-night weapons emporium down near Wall Street.

He's in the market for grenade launchers and the recently unemployed Dinesh D'Souza volunteered to be one.

Sleep tight, all.

What fresh Hell awaits us in the morning?

Will Netanyahu launch?


Here's one that took me completely by surprise: while I don't think it's 100% certain yet, it appears that Puerto Rico just passed a statehood referendum.

Unless the Tea Partiers in Congress decide to shoot it down for some deranged reason (Romney said he'd support statehood if the referendum passed, but with Obama reelected who knows what they'd do), we could be getting a new star in the flag.

I think there has been some legal decision that the flag will stay as it is even in the case of more states joining.
---
I think this was in essence an anti-Romney and in part anti-extremism (e.g. Akin, Mourdock) election not a pro-Obama one.
---
My expectations: The GOP will proceed with its total obstruction tactics. If you are lucky this will prevent Obama's preemptive cave-ins from causing too much damage because the GOP will not take 'yes' for an answer. Obama will nominate some moderately conservative judges and we will see a new and taken-up-to-13 kabouki about it. Hopefully Obama's enacted reforms will have time to take firm enough roots to survive the loss of the senate in the midterms and the presidency in 2016.
---
I expect a rise in domestic terrorism primarily aimed at abortion providers (real and imagined) and minorities (ethnic and religious).

Really? I think it would be an outrage if another state joins, and they didn't add a star to the flag. A complete outrage. Why should Puerto Rico get different treatment in this regard from every previous state? Damn it, if it's true, I'll sew another star on my flag anyway, and encourage everybody else I know to do the same.

No second class statehood!

I certainly hope the GOP will proceed with "total obstruction". Which I suspect we all understand means that legislation still gets passed, but only if it's approved of by both parties. Why is it "total obstruction" that a Republican House won't pass Democratic bills, but not "total obstruction" that a Democratic Senate won't pass Republican bills?

Speaking of passing bills, do you suppose in the coming year the Senate will make at least a nominal effort to enact an actual "budget"? Or are budgets just too embarrassing when you're running trillion dollar deficits in perpetuity?

So, what's the latest? Anything momentous happening these days?

McCaskill shut Akin's whole thing down, legitimately.

Unless the Tea Partiers in Congress decide to shoot it down for some deranged reason (Romney said he'd support statehood if the referendum passed, but with Obama reelected who knows what they'd do), we could be getting a new star in the flag.

I believe that statehood for Puerto Rico is built into both party platforms, Matt.

what i'm most pleased about is that it's a solid electoral result, and we won't have to spend the next month waiting for the legal knife-fight to play out before we can move on.

there's a lot to do, i'm glad we can tie a bow on election 2012 and get on with it.

Over the cliff, gentlebeings, then we can talk actual proposals! But there is also a new filibuster record to break (and the same broken record will be played round the clock. Mitch already put it on).

I think I am in agreement with you, russell.

It's the "it" that we'll be getting on with that now concerns me, but that's pretty much the same "it" we've been dealing with (or, more accurately: not) for the last 5 years or so.

Still, a dollop of surety is a plus. I'll take it.

Governor Perry just announced the secession of Texas from the Union, so Betsy Ross can stand down with the 51rst star.

If we're lucky, by noon, we can whittle the star count to something in the mid-40's, what with Fort Sumter being fired on and all.

I'm replacing those stars on my flag with smiley faces. Or maybe I'll just replace them with bullet holes.

Quote of the day, courtesy of Erick Erickson, as he performs his first bowel movement from his new orbit above it all at 50,000 feet:

"As long as the GOP keeps relying on the usual hucksters, charlatans, and con artists it’ll keep getting the same results."

Hey Scarlett, Richard Lugar on line three for you.

Allen West lost in Florida. Let's hope he does the right thing and uses that ammo on himself and spares the innocent bystanders this time around.

I see that the welfare state lives, what with George Will, Peggy Noonan, Dick Morris, Michael Barone, and a cast of way too many still secure this morning in their sinecures.

To be fair, I'm giving Obama until noon today eastern time to erase the effing deficit and bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

does this mean we'll stop hearing about "uncertainty"?

that would be nice.

Life is so uncertain.

So after a lot of thought
I'd like to reconsider
Please
If it's not too late
Make it a cheeseburger

Ready to hoist the flag of secession? ;-)
Photobucket

Unless the Tea Partiers in Congress decide to shoot it down for some deranged reason

adding two probably-D Senators and 4 or 5 D House members would be enough for them to kill it.

i'd love to see them do it, too.

imagine what such a move would do for the Hispanic outreach!

I'm not sure "Come back when it passes an up/down, binding, stand alone vote." actually counts as deranged; Has any state ever been admitted on the basis of a vote as razor thin as just took place in Puerto Rico?

You can't exactly say they're enthusiastic about becoming a state.

2012 GOP platform:

We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a State, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.

2012 DNC Platform:

Puerto Rico. As President Obama said when he became the first President to visit Puerto Rico and address its people in 50 years, Boricuas every day help write the American story. Puerto Ricans have been proud American citizens for almost 100 years. During that time, the people of Puerto Rico have developed strong political, economic, social, and cultural ties to the United States. The political status of Puerto Rico remains an issue of overwhelming importance, but lack of resolution about status has held the island back. It is time for Puerto Rico to take the next step in the history of its status and its relationship to the rest of the United States.

The White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico has taken important and historic steps regarding status. We commit to moving resolution of the status issue forward with the goal of resolving it expeditiously. If local efforts in Puerto Rico to resolve the status issue do not provide a clear result in the short term, the President should support, and Congress should enact, self-executing legislation that specifies in advance for the people of Puerto Rico a set of clear status options, such as those recommended in the White House Task Force Report on Puerto Rico, which the United States is politically committed to fulfilling.

The economic success of Puerto Rico is intimately linked to a swift resolution of the status question, as well as consistent, focused efforts on improving the lives of the people of Puerto Rico. We have made great progress for Puerto Rico over the past four years, including a sharp, historic increase in Medicaid funding for the people of Puerto Rico and fair and equitable inclusion in the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act. Going forward, we will continue working toward fair and equitable participation for Puerto Rico in federal programs. We support increased efforts by the federal government to improve public safety in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands, with a particular emphasis on efforts to combat drug trafficking and crime throughout our Caribbean border. In addition, consistent with the task force report, we will continue to work on improving Puerto Rico's economic status by promoting job creation, education, health care, clean energy, and economic development on the Island.

I don't think there's any question that both parties support statehood. If any individual representatives/senators oppose, they should be dragged out into the light of day where flames can consume them.

'does this mean we'll stop hearing about "uncertainty"?'

Maybe, but that groaning you hear is the asteroid-sized kidney stone of certainty passing through the previously occluded epistemic duct.

I will quote the Constitution of the United States in full on admitting states into the Union (bear with me):

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union

Historians have spent the last couple centuries trying to puzzle out the meaning of this novel-length portion of the Constitution.

So, by a single vote in the House and Senate, PR could be a state, like, tomorrow. From a Constitutional standpoint, PR voters have fnck-all to do with it.

"the fact will remain that the GOP is both an asylum run by its inmates and a den of authoritarian and/or totalizing religious figures who reject the central premise of democracy: that society self governs through itereative decisions, and not from some set of revealed rules or via some charismatic Dear Leader." That's from Tom Levinson at Balloon Juice.

There was a whole series of quotes froom Repubicans on my husband's CNN feed last night. It seems that this election, for a few Repubican pols anyway, was a come to Jesus moment. The old tactic of playing one American off against another to screw both didn't work. What will the Republicans do?

I'd like to believe that the Repubican party willb e come genuinely moderate, a party focused on idetifying and addressing in a practical way real problems. But I can't see that happening. There are basically three kinds of Repubican politician: the cynical ones like Rove who only care about locking in power for the oligarchy, the genuinely sincerely stupid and mean ones with religous overtones like just about every Repubican in the House and the genjuiely stupid and mean ones with ideological overtones like Ryan.

They might be capable of looking a demographics and thinking that their old tactics aren't working, butthat doesn't mean a change to being better people with better ideas and a commitment to respecting facts and people and the democratic process. It just means they will be lookig for new ways to con people into voting for them.

I'm pretty sure a memo has gone out that says, "No matter what you think God wants for rape babies, LIE AND CLAIM YOU SUPPORT CHOICE ON THAT ISSUE."

Has any state ever been admitted on the basis of a vote as razor thin as just took place in Puerto Rico?

a majority is a majority, right?

make it so!

Did I say "asteroid-sized"?

I meant Chris Christie-sized.

I'd like to believe that the Repubican party willb e come genuinely moderate, a party focused on idetifying and addressing in a practical way real problems. But I can't see that happening.

I can, actually. It's not a given, but it's possible.

The (R) party wasn't always like it is now. It became what it is now, over time, by adapting to changing reality. Some of the choices made along the way were, IMO, not so good, but they're not irreversible.

Adapt or die. Isn't that the lesson of Darwin?

I'm not a political or economic conservative, but I certainly recognize that there is a place at the table for folks who identify as such.

What I would hope the (R) party would take away from this would be:

1. get the haters out of the house
2. recognize that "my way or the highway" is not a strategy with legs

In any event, I'm not, remotely, a (R), so it's sort of academic to me. There is a contribution they could make, it's up to them if they want to clean house and get their sh*t together.

It will be a good indicator, whether Chris Christie becomes the scapegoat or the saviour of the Party. Not that I like the guy very much but he has shown to be capable of putting pragmatism above ideology and not just for his personal benefit. And he seems to be able to take a longer view than many other GOPsters. If he gets purged for that, either the GOP is toast or the country will be when the mutant party it has become takes over again. If his type prevails, the Dems will have a major problem in the future.

ISTM the primary problems with today's GOP leadership at the national (and many state) level(s) are:

1. A distinct lack of empathy, bordering on wanton cruelty; combined with
2. No recognition that they, when in power in Congress/Presidency, have a country to govern (and a responsibility to compromise when not in power), and
3. Selfishness.

Basically, it's as if we elected rich College Republicans who are resentful and bitter at being "marginalized" as undergrads to run the damn country at age 22.

In Iraq we had literal examples of CollGOPs taking over major administrative functions. Few believe that that was a good idea (even when not excacerbated by making knowledge of Arabic a disqualifier).

A distinct lack of empathy, bordering on wanton cruelty;

Is this a problem with Republican officeholders or Republican voters?

It seems like we have exactly the sort of Republican politicians that match the conservative portion of the electorate.

does this mean we'll stop hearing about "uncertainty"?

that would be nice.

Yes, it would have been nice. Unfortunately, from today's New York Times: "Business leaders and investors on Wall Street reacted nervously to President Obama’s re-election Wednesday, as the focus shifted quickly from electoral politics to the looming fiscal uncertainty in Washington. A gloomy economic outlook in Europe also prompted selling in markets worldwide." ...

"While many executives on Wall Street and in other industries favored Mitt Romney, many had already factored in the likelihood of Mr. Obama winning a second term.

"Still, continued divided government in Washington and little prospect for compromise unnerved traders."

I wonder if Wall Street might better have spent some of its corporate political money getting rid of some of the tea party Republican Congressman. Maybe there would be less uncertainty with them out of the picture.

Via Balloon Juice, another one is saying they want a revolution:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332872/times-david-gelernter#

Sincerely,

Don'tyouknowthatyoucan

"While many executives on Wall Street and in other industries favored Mitt Romney..."

Is that because they managed to profit from the last bust in the cycle under relative financial deregulation and are looking for their next opportunity to bring the world economy to near collapse after betting against it, not to mention wanting to pay less tax on any future ill-gotten gains? Or is that line of thinking just my going too Occupy Wall Street?

by a single vote in the House and Senate, PR could be a state, like, tomorrow.

Actually, no. First, Puerto Rico has to formally petition to become a state. Which means the commonwealth government has to send in the paperwork. Second, both the House and Senate, by simple majority, have to pass a resolution approving. Third, the President has to sign it.

So not quite as fast as tomorrow. But pretty quickly.

It may be worth noting that, while both parties support statehood, for a lot of years (like back to the early 1960s) the Republican Party in Puerto Rico was the big enthusiast for statehood. So this may be the start of the Republican Party becoming seriously interested in the Hispanic vote.

Maybe it will be Castro's final revenge to persuade the GOP to let in Cuba making them believe that the average Cuban is like the organized exiles in Miami and not a well-educated person that would like some social democracy without either commie or neocolonial overlords. ;-)

The best thing about this election is watching Jeffy Goldstein and his adherents go into full Jonestown-mode.

It's truly amazing to watch a bunch of fat, middle-aged white guys threaten to leave their Lockheed Martin jobs to start their utopias in Costa Rica.

It's truly amazing to watch a bunch of fat, middle-aged white guys threaten to leave their Lockheed Martin jobs to start their utopias in Costa Rica.

vaya con dios. bon chance. may the road rise to meet them.

who knows, maybe it will work out for them.

Years and years ago--1970, to be exact--I read a book about the Nixon/Humphrey election. That election was my intro to politics and, even though I was only fifteen, I was pretty obsessed. I can remember the final paragraph of the book where the author summarized the outcome of the election" he said that the party of the unyoung, the unfemale, and the unblack had just enough votes to win.

This year the party of the unyoung, unfemale, and unhispanic lost. I'm sure that the Repubicans will be trying to figure out how to up their percentage of those groups, and maybe they will figure aout a way. I hope not because I think a more accurate way to describe the parties is the Repulicans are the party of the unpoor, unworking class, and unmiddle class regardless of gender or ancestry.

There was an election? I do note a significant drop in email traffic in my "in-box". Barbara Boxer has stopped sending me pleas for money.

A temporary routing the forces of reactionary fascism is nice, but priorities, please.

My sense of relief is palpable.

Sturm Ruger and Smith and Wesson common stocks up big again since the election.

Apparently the only thing that's not going to get shot down is the perception that Obama has already confiscated the weapons, so you'd better watch out and buy replacements.

These folks are so aimless that if you give them a target that has the perception that Obama is going to take their guns as the bulls-eye kill-zone and ask them to shoot it down, they miss the target completely and shoot the neighbor's bull standing in the field behind their house.

Brett, I realize, likes a seller's market at the moment.

I see a political convergence emerging between the folks who will be possessing marijuana is my state of Colorado and those who believe in unfettered possession of firepower.

I can see it now.

Federal agents, ignoring the new state law, show up to confiscate marijuana and are met with guns-a-blazing and instead of demanding through the bullhorn "throw out your guns", because, you know, there is no intent to further regulate guns, the agents demand "throw out your weed", and everyone has to interrupt getting high to shoot each other when we coulda had, if we was a civilized society, unarmed straight Federal agents taking unarmed high civilians into custody without the inconveniences of gunfire and the Federal agents could use the confiscated pot to get high themselves in the evidence room, and well, Arlo Guthrie's your uncle.

No sirree, instead we have Federal agents forcing health insurance on folks and NOT confiscating guns like they oughta be so we have the spectacle of unhealthy armed whackaloons showing up at the local hospital emergency rooms bleeding from gunshot wounds at taxpayer expense instead of just taking the damned health insurance and using their bullets to bite in during surgery because they don't like subsidized anesthesiology on account of principle.

I'm glad to see the "legitimate rape exceptionalists" went down to defeat on Tuesday, pretty much across the board.

Polls conducted among convicted rapists in prison had Akin and company up big, which come to think of it, might have been the basis for Dick Morris' outsized Electoral College, umm, miscalculation.

Me, I'm thinking Akin's and Mourdock's campaigns were on the ropes from the get-go when their campaign phone-bank push-calls to woo female voters starting with the question; "What are you wearing?"

Sheldon Adelson's Israeli newspaper says the U.S chose Socialism on Tuesday.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/sheldon-adelsons-paper-runs-headline-america-cho

via Washington Monthly.

The socialist leadership on the kibbutz checked their universal health cards and their universal military conscription status and the Israeli state-imposed forbidding of Palestinian statehood and thought to themselves, "If I were a rich man, and I am under Socialism, I'd take 60 million dollars and throw them down the capitalist slot machine/toilet called the Republican Party and call it a deductible capital loss."

Along the "U.S. chose Socialism" lines I witnessed a sour grapes attitude I had never imagined today. I was checking out at Costco, when the Cashier asked the little old lady in front of me if she would like to add a donation to the Red Cross for Sandy relief to her check. Her reply was "NO! Let Obama take care of them."

Sure enough, as I followed her out to the parking lot I saw she had Romney/Ryan stickers platered to both sides of her Mercury Mountaineer's bumper.

Count, Sheldon Adelson is probably just unhappy because he spent millions of his own money pushing 6 candidates (including Romney) in this election. Of whom, exactly zero won. Return On Investment -- not good at all!

But he'd no doubt rather blame others than accept that he made a really poor business decision.

And then she wheeled over, powered by her Medicare-supplied artificial hip, to the buck fifty hot dog and drink stand (the government slyly and nefariously but ever so slowly replacing real hips, and you know what that means), subsidized by the hot dog makers low wage scales, and by my impulse purchases of the 700-inch wide flat screen TV, the trawler trap-sized special on crab legs for one, the 16-foot-long Genoa salami, the 225-count-sized pack of AAA batteries in the human proof plastic packaging (for the salami), the triple bandalero of AK-47 ammo (to assist in opening the package of batteries which, if you recall, will power the salami's vibrations in honor of Peggy Noonan), three pallets full of toilet paper to meet the personal needs of most of Denver and its suburbs, and a 2000-gallon aquarium full of snapping turtles.

I'm often asked at my grocer's check out counter if I would like to donate for breast cancer.

"FOR breast cancer?" I ask. "Not today, thanks, but if you start a campaign AGAINST breast cancer, I'll take the offer under advisement pending consultation with my tax attorney".

"In the meantime, let Paul Ryan take care of those FOR breast cancer."

Return On Investment -- not good at all!

What I hope is that the big rollers figure out that money spent in the political process is not some kind of venture capital deal.

If they want to spend their money on political speech, that's fine. In our brave new Citizen's United world, that's their prerogative.

But being pissed because you spent a lot of money and didn't get the votes reveals a profound misunderstanding of how things work. Or, at least, how they ought to work, and apparently somehow still do work.

If you have the biggest microphone in the world and folks don't like what you have to say, you still lose.

Read'em and weep, Sheldon.

And all those billionaire frogs who were hoping the scorpion named Karl Rove were going to ferry them across the river in the good ship GPS Crossroads will do well to remember their experience this time around.

Take your money, piss it away, and give you nothing in return?

He can't help it, it's his nature.

Hey, lay off Rove, he has a government subsidized mortgage to pay too.

It's tough running a business out of an unmarked U.S. post office box, and don't say the words "post office" again.

The nice thing about pissed-off anonymous donors is that you don't know who they are, for reporting purposes.

When they show up at his unmarked office in a foreclosed suburban home and demand "Lemme talk to Karl Rove! We're here for the "'return" on our investment!", he can go all innocent-faced and ask "Do I know you?"

And now, something a little exactly the same from the other hate speech wing of the Republican Party:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Obama-re-election-sends-US-down-path-of-destruction-says-Franklin-Graham--177838431.html

It's once again necessary to ask: "How's that hopey-changey thing going for you, Obama?"

I'm telling ya, elections are too good for these people.

They don't observe the proprieties.

Read'em and weep, Sheldon.

Hear, hear.

I try, but I can't come close to Charles Pierce:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/republican-problem-14582852

What I can do, now that I'm developing a raging case of perfectly unwarranted hubristic schadenfreude, is take a break from blogging altogether for some unspecified period of time (I do this after elections until the headache goes away) and retire into my usual self-loathing with accompanying self-hating thought/speech for a time.

Catch up on the reading. Monitor that visibly throbbing vein in my temple. Pay attention to what's really important if i can figure out what that is. ETC.

Like Mitt Romney must be by now (and Barack Obama), I'm sick of the sound of my own voice.

Good health and sanity to all of you until we meet again.

See you in the funny papers.

You know, countme-in, I think Atkins is an idiot, first for being so ignorant of biology, and second for being so stupid as to say something that easily misconstrued. But I suspect you are aware that, by "legitimate" rape, he didn't mean that it can be legitimate to rape somebody. But rather that some claims of rape are genuine, and some false.

Mind, biology cares not a whit about the distinction, but it's still a real distinction. Ask Tawana Brawley if you doubt me on this.

He said that if the claim of rape was genuine, the sperm would realize that and back off.

That's just insane.

You are making excuses for insane people.

Iirc there has been a single species found where it actually works like Akin believes it does in humans but I have forgotten which it was (ducks?).
Brett is (probably) right about 'legitimate' being just confused with 'genuine' but it also fit a bit too smoothly into the despicable discussion about the redefinition of rape (which included inventing the new legal category of 'forcible rape') that had blown up into GOP faces not that much time earlier. It would have been pure political malpractice on the Dem part not to exploit it to the utmost.

"forcible rape" means that if a woman doesn't have defensive wounds, it was consensual.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast