Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 361 To 370 Of 657 Comments
DEALERGATE: STATISTICAL COINCIDENCE OR POLITICAL BIAS? (IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW)
"the possibility that there was interference on the part of the White House to keep politically connected dealerships open cannot be dismissed. But that would be impossible to prove and would not be a productive avenue to go down."
Presuming that politicians aren't so unbelievably dumb as to memorialize unethical or criminal activity in e-mails, phone records, and memos, then you are absolutely right.
Uh oh . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.05.2009 @ 16:30
This is certainly something for investigative people to dig into (and they should), but as yet its still too insubstantial to do anything more than raise an eyebrow.
As you noted Mr. M., the statistical D/R breakdown for dealers seems to be in line with what the numbers are showing is actually happening in the aggregate. An industry that is 8/1 populated with Right-handed people versus Left-handed people that suffers losses 8/1 Rh/Lh is exactly what you'd expect to see if there was no cronyism occuring.
Also, I'm skeptical about the motive. "Ha! I stuck it to a Red!" in and of itself seems a weak motive. As the quote you mentioned pointed out, the Red Dealer isn't going broke . . . his allegedly 100,000 employees (which may break more Blue than Red) are. The dealer will still donate Red (most likely with more conviction now), and you might well drive some of those employees into the Red camp as well. You accomplish nothing and very possibly hurt your own cause. That's not Chicago style Gangsta politics . . . that would just be moronic.
Having said all that . . .
The possibility that a connected dealer, as an individual, might get a "protect this person" phone call from someone in power seems like it might be an actual possibility -- and that would be absolutely, completely unacceptable (although not suprising). IF that happened, then heads should roll. I doubt Obama personally would be the one making the decision, but whomever in the staff pulled strings (IF IF IF strings were pulled) needs to be shown the door.
As you said though, there's no information (yet) to make a call about if that's happening or not, and assuming it in the absence of any data is blatantly partisan.
Let the muckrakers dig into this. If there's dirt here, let's bring it to light, THEN start the outrage. Jumping the "Obama is the AntiChrist!" gun before there's any evidence paints you as a RedHead, and when you DO have legitimate grounds to triumphantly "J'accuse!" it'll be ignored ("Sweet Lord . . . again? You said that when you found Obama liked ornage juice!"). If there's not . . . well, then color me impressed that the vicious, Gangsta, Totalitarian Administration is playing it so fair (or is at least bright enough to cover their tracks).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.05.2009 @ 14:15
PRINCIPLE SHOULD TRUMP PRAGMATISM IN SOTOMAYOR VOTE
@ Mike Reynolds:
Are you high?!?
I stocked up on popcorn and beer for this show! Watching whack-a-doodles compete to out-whack-a-doodle each other is the most entertaining T.V. I can look forward to until the NFL season starts . . . and that's a looooooong way away. Who knows when the next GOP full court press will come around.
Whack-a-doodles: If you say Sotomayor three times while looking in a mirror, you catch teh gay. Totally verified. Somebody start a chain e-mail with lots of CapLock ranting about this, please!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.05.2009 @ 17:02
Assuming the GOP does decide to filibuster, how do they deal with all the video clips that will fire off of them decrying the filibuster tactic against a GOP-annointed candidate? How do they go down this path without appearing blatantly patrisan? As you said, she's qualified on a basic level. You can't say she's not as qualified as Alito or Roberts in terms of ability and experience. How does the GOP make clear that they are not opposing her purely because she's a Dem nominee? If "not the best" means "doesn't agree with us", then they're going to be feeding the Blue PR machine.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.05.2009 @ 09:17
The Dems have been effective with "The Party of No", and if this isn't handled carefully the GOP is just going to underline that tag. The problem I see is that the opposition is going to be divided between trying to discredit her . . . and making speeches to excite the hardcore Reds. Every one of those campaign-targeted speeches is going to be a huge step backward. To lock in votes that they already have, they're going to drive potential middle votes even farther away.
OBAMA OUTFLANKS GOP WITH SOTOMAYOR PICK
Regarding the "Firemen" decision . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.05.2009 @ 00:27
I think the Reds are falling onto a trap with this case. To be clear, I disagree with the decision and with her rationale, but the case is not going to win the Red talking heads any points. If the "plan" with her is to put the Reds in a position to look like racist old white southern men by attacking her, this case is goingto be pouring gasoline on the fire.
The simplistic rationale behind the decision is that any test that only comes up with top scores for Caucasian Men must be inherently a poorly-designed test. It is excrutiatingly difficult to defend the test without drifting onto the asumption that the Blues will push the Reds onto -- minorities are simply not as qualified, intelligent, or skillfull as the Good Ole Boys. Obviously, this isn't what the Reds are meaning to say, but given the limits of the talking heads format in the media today being able to distinguish the two points is almost impossible. Already I've heard Red voices decrying the ruling as basically hurting the poor oppressed white men . . . and that's going to cause just about every minority in the Country to go ballistic.
Again, I want to make clear, it doesn't matter whether any of this is true or not. Attacking the decision without becoming extremely detailed and involved is almost guaranteed to sound bigoted. And that's a pit the Reds can't afford to sink into.
Like I said before, I disagre with the decision. I don't like it, and I don't like her reasoning. But the "bigoted racist redneck" accusations are going to come flying over this (especially as the more incindary Reds take this case up as a drum to beat), and personally I think its going to be a PR disaster far beyond just attacking a Hispanic female.
@ Bill Arnold:
. . . and now I've learned something new today. Thank you.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.05.2009 @ 22:02
btw . . .
"the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court"
What about Cardozo? Wasn't he Portugese? I would have thought that qualified as Hispanic.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.05.2009 @ 14:52
@Bob:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 26.05.2009 @ 12:29
What did the Left do to Alberto Gonzales?
CAN GINGRICH RIDE AN ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT WAVE TO THE OVAL OFFICE?
I'm not hearing any ideas from those exerpts you quoted. Rising groundswell of the common man against the fortifications of the entrenched elite, turning control of the reigns of power over to the commoner, redirecting the focus of the system to the common good, Liberte Egalite Fraternite ou la Mort! (Thank God the Reds exist to offer a counterpoint to all that Leftie hippie socialism).
So what's the plan, idea man?
LOWER TAXES!!! Will of the People! Do the right thing!
*facepalm*
Lower taxes aren't a plan . . . they are a means to effect a plan. Everything else is effective rhetoric in the sense that it pushes the right buttons and inflames the right desires in the audience . . . but its totally devoid of any plan. If anything, its so crasly manipulative that it tends to indicate a total contempt for the will of the common man (the audience) by the elite (Gingrich) who thinks some stirring music, jaunty berets and fluttering Red flags are all it takes to drive the sheep.
I know you're a G-man fan, and I've tried to see what you admire in him, but I'm not finding any ideas in the few things I've seen and heard. I've tried to find more, but as other people have commented he's . . . slimy. Personally distasteful. I'm sure he wants to run in 2012, but he's extremely damaged goods.p.s.: Agreeing with Mike Reynolds that Reid is a sniveling piece of excrement as well. For all you Reds that were screaming about the Elites Revolution once the Blues got 60 votes in the Senate -- look to the Gitmo funding fiasco. The only thing that organizes Blues is that they're not Red. But the "Party Leadership" (ha ha) is an impotent joke. They could hold 99 Senate votes and still wouldn't be able to pass anything except "Be Nice To Kittens Day" Resolutions.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.05.2009 @ 11:37
@ Mr. M:
Respectfully, you're really sounding wacky on this."How long are you going to try to convince everyone that Obama is just a moderate, nothing radical about him? And btw, I saw this Chicago style political mind before he was even given any chance at all. These threats of blackmail, muscling banks, and other gangster tactics are straight from the Machine’s way of doing business."
Yes, you spotted this radical blackmail, muscling and gangster tactics. And its illustrated here because. . .
"That gun is being held by Obama’s auto team as it struggles to keep as many UAW jobs at Chrysler as possible regardless of whether the businesses involved get hurt."
NOT that the Administration isn't simply giving out the money the company begged for with no strings -- that the Admin makes not trashing the UAW jobs or contracts contingent on the loan.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 21.05.2009 @ 22:18
If the Administration was only willing to give them the money on the condition that they seek to nullify the UAW contracts, would that be "radical gun-to-your-head gangsterism"? Baloney.
Is the Administration forcing Dodge to do ANYTHING? Y'know, "gun-to-you-head gangster" forcing? "Do this or I will hurt you"? Absolutely not. Dodge don't like it . . . Dodge can not take the deal. They're perfectly free to get a loan form another source. Of course, they've so throughly fu@ked their company up that nobody wants to lend them money, but that's entirely on them.
Your imagery implies that if the "victim" doesn't agree with the gangster, then the gangster will actively harm the victim, abusing them until they can take no more. You know this . . . and you also know that's not even remotely true here. You know it because you've written in the past about how the Federal government works, about how if you want X, you may be required to do Y. Want funding for your schools? Then you've gotta meet a certain test score level. Want fonding for your roads? Then your DoT will be held to restrictions in how and who it awards conteracts to. Don't like it? Then don't take the money. Radical gun-to-you-head gangsterism? Given that every single administration has operated under similar rules since the dawn of this country, its clearly not "radical" at the very least.
The "radical gangsterism" for you is that the Administration puts the UAW "over" the dealers. Fine -- you think the valuations and priorities should be different. Instead of just disagreeing, instead of "Obama really should throw the UAW under the bus and here's why", you resort to hysterical name-calling. Haven't you written multiple posts about how this approach to policy debate is self-defeating, embarassing, and indicative of a bankrupt mind?
Feel free to call me an idiot -- its been too long. But did I misread you oter posts, misread this post, or some other option?
