What a terribly written article.

This. Melodrama alert!

I am firm believer in the idea that no idea is worth taking seriously if it is not delivered in good, measured prose.

BUT IT'S EMOTION! HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE EMOTION!?!?!

Yes. One of the long-running problems of American liberalism and left-wing politics is their tendency to confuse moralistic self-righteousness with intellectual correctness. It's the sentimental streak that runs through 'liberalism'.

     As opposed to the American conservatives, who confuse moralistic self-righteousness with moral correctness.

Well, everyone, including us libertarians, thinks that their political beliefs are self-evident.  That's why people can get so worked up over political debates, and so rarely change their minds due to said debates.

Collins, most likely.

Edit:

I've become more extreme (or maybe I've just labeled more issues as "critical").

Old:

Economic: +5.42
Social: -7.83

New:

Economic: +6.48
Social: -9.22

I've become more free-trade oriented.

Economic score: +7.61
Social score: -8.87

And I continue to march to the bottom right corner.

(I haven't really changed my mind about anything policy-wise - I suppose I'm just subscribing more and more to libertarian theory - what reading the Reason blog for a few months does to you . . .)

Economic score: +8.26
Social score: -9.57

E: +8.9
S: -9.57

I'd most prefer Ashbrook, but I voted McCloskey because I want Nixon to finish last.

- The NY GOP is basically the political equivalent of an abandoned corpse in the wilderness. It make his job so much easier. Seriously, can the NY GOP do anything right?

Even if they did everything perfectly, their ceiling is only about 52% IMO.  And that's perfectly executed statewide election game plan.

You think?  I'd estimate that the MAGOP, which is hardly the picture of competence itself, has a ceiling of ~70% (Bill Weld 71% in 1994) for gubernatorial races, ~60% for senatorial races (non-incumbent Scott Brown 52% in 2010), and ~50% for presidential races (Ronald Reagan 51% in 1984).

As a general rule of thumb, the more awful a president was, the better "history" treats him, and vice versa.

I'm only quoting personal income statistics.  Debt is another thing entirely, but Americans do not really have all that much debt by international standards.

Governor races do tend to even out after Labor Day, but it's certainly quite the stretch.

"Middle class" simply refers to some set percentage of the population - between the 30th and 70th percentiles, for example, deemed to be neither "upper-class" nor "lower-class."  Hence the oft-cited but nonsensical statistic that China now has the "world's largest middle class."  Nearly everyone classified as "middle-class" in China would be classified as "impovershed" in the US or any other first-world country.  China, by virtue of having the world's largest population, had the "world's largest middle class" when Mao Zedong was running the show.  If you are classifying "middle class" as "everyone earning between $40000 and $90000 in 2010 dollars," or something along those lines. you are obviously going to see a tremendous amount of growth almost every year until society reaches the point (as it has now) that many people are beginning to transition out of that bracket to the next higher one.

But let's go by the second definition.  Luckily for us, we live in the United States, which, as we all know, has always had a very socialized economy, especially when we were sailing past Britain as the world's top industrial producer.  Thanks to that very socialized economy, we had very high growth of a middle class!  Unfortunately, countries with even more socialized economies such as Germany and France had even higher middle class growth!  Russia, of course, had the highest middle class growth of all.  And those silly countries that decided to do it without government intervention?  Silly countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Estonia, and Ireland? Why, they haven't had any middle class growth at all!

US leads world in both mean and median disposable household income.

US rich are much richer, US middle class is much richer (see above), US poor are richer than Nordic countries:



Countries with smaller governments grow faster.



(Before you cry: "third world!" at that graph, note that it is only of OECD countries, which only included first-world, developed countries during the time period of that graph).

But let's be real here, do you think there would be the sort of middle class we have now without policies like the GI bill, unemployment insurance, the trust busting and workers rights legislation of the early 20th century, etc.? Of course not.

And yet somehow a middle class existed before all those things.  Funny dat.

Besides, it's still a little early to judge. In the 60s, people would've said that Boomers were defined by the anti-war movement and "hippies". Obviously, that didn't have a lasting effect.

Not really. Even during the 60s the amount of college republicans was huge.. Certainly they were more relevant in the long run than the SDS or 'clean for eugene' types. The idea that boomers were a 'liberal' generation and shifted 'conservative' (whatever that means these days) is basically a myth.

Ditto with Millenials.

The Greatest Generation was the most liberal.  The Lost Generation turned out more conservative than the Greatest Generation.  The Boomers turned out more conservative than the Lost Generation.  Generation X turned out more conservative than the Boomers.  If we go by the trend, the Millenials should turn out more conservative still.

"It doesn't line up with any internal polls or public polls that have come out recently," said Haley, who declined comment on the gender gap in the WHAS11/Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll, "Our internals show us dead even."

We can rest assured that Paul is ahead.

Former yellow-dogs, probably.

[CRAZY RIGHT-WING NUTCASE PARTY]

I am accepting write-in votes for the Northeast Assembly.  While I did not have time to certify on the ballot, I shall be running as a member of the

CRAZY RIGHT-WING NUTCASE PARTY

Our Manifesto:

1.  We shall put gold back on the money standard.

2. We shall conscript illegal immigrants and make them fight the terrorists until we run out of either.

3. We shall raise taxes on all those who decrease economic efficiency by not making sufficient money.

4. Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

5. Fight all attempts to create a New World Order through the National Geographic Society and related entities.

6. Crack down on Satanism in our schools and workplaces.

7. Outlaw Bolshevist tyranny.

8. There is no plank for number 8.

9. See number 8.

10. Outlaw all attempts to create a New World Order through the pyramid thing on the back of the one dollar bill.

11. We offer our prayers and thanks to Jesus, our true "Founding Father."

12. Scientology is compatible with Christianity and all other religions.  Scientology isn't just a religion, it's a new science discovered by L. Ron Hubbard!

13. CrAZy FOrmAtTiNG

Okay:

[1] Write-in: wormyguy (might as well be a bit vain since I'm already receiving support)
[2] FallenMorgan
[3] hantheguitarman
[4] justw353

That was Lew Rockwell, confirmed by inside reports and forensic analysis of the writing style.

Joke thread or troll thread?

Standard headline for any time between 1970 and 2070.

Having held out for a while . . .

wormyguy
Massachusetts
Unaffiliated (for now)

People eating too much and sitting on their ass contributes to the obesity "epidemic."

I'm going to go rob an old lady.  You see, the laws pertaining to robbing old ladies are really open to creative interpretation beyond their original intent.  After all, I have really good reasons to rob that old lady, and she's a cranky old coot anyway.

What are Miller's views on Afghanistan anyway?

http://www.ktva.com/oldlocal/ci_15367911?source=rss

As for foreign affairs, Miller served in Operation Desert Storm and says although the terror threat to the country is high, he's less certain about the effort in Afghanistan. "I did not sign up for the military to go out and be a Peace Corps representative. Or to impose democracy in a country that for decades, or for centuries or millennia, have never had democracy. That's not our role."

This guy sure seems qualified to be a senator.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/03/mcadams_shows_fight_in_ak_but_hesitates_on_policy__107005.html

. . . But in the interview with RealClearPolitics, he demonstrated an unwillingness to answer some of the most basic policy questions that have permeated the national debate in recent months.

Asked if he would have voted for national health care reform, McAdams paused for a full 10 seconds before replying, "Let's see. One moment please."

Another 15 seconds of silence came next, before McAdams finally asked to hear the reporter's next question.

Asked next for his views on Afghanistan and TARP, McAdams said, "Why don't you let me get back to you on that."

Calls to the McAdams campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party asking for clarification were unreturned as of late Thursday night.

One area in which McAdams makes his views clear is his support for the continued solicitation of federally funded projects in Alaska.

Government largesse is an issue on which he might make some headway against Miller, who focused his primary campaign on a promise to combat excessive spending and a desire to see Alaska become more self-reliant.

"There's moderates, independents, and Republicans all over the state that are coming to our campaign because they recognize that this guy's statement that he'd like to reduce congressionally vetted appropriations to Alaska is flat-out dangerous to our economy," McAdams said. "It's hard to imagine the development of the American West without those infrastructure projects, and Alaska really has, I think, a case to be made before the federal government for federal investment in our state. And the fact that this guy would stop that I think is shortsighted and it really speaks to his narrow view of what Alaska is." . . .

FF.