Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 391 To 400 Of 839 Comments
THE MOST EXPENSIVE DATE NIGHT IN HISTORY
On the related but separate question of culture: no, Washington is not in the first tier. Obama's been living in Chicago. As a restaurant town Chicago is vastly superior to DC. So I can see Obama looking for something more than DC has to offer.
DC has some very good restaurants but nothing to equal the best of Chicago or New York.
As for musical theater, I couldn't say: my metrosexuality only goes so far.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.05.2009 @ 22:59
Andrew:
The same thing happens when Brittney Spears shows up. Certain costs are unavoidable. If we're going to have a president, and we are, we're going to have some disruption when he leaves the White House. Do you think it would be good for the country if the POTUS were locked in the WH for 8 years?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.05.2009 @ 21:19
Travis:
Idiot. It's the travel and security costs, not the Broadway tickets or the dinner. You figure Mr. Bush flew commercial to Crawford?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.05.2009 @ 16:24
Mr. Bush's very, very frequent trips -- far more "vacations" than previous presidents -- to his phony ranch were for political purposes. So that he could pose as a faux cowboy and convince us all he was a manly man.
Whether it all equates we can see when we add up the total amount spent by Mr. Obama as compared with Mr. Bush.
But of course that kind of judgment would require Republicans to wait and see. A degree of patience and intellectual honesty that conflicts with your sad little effort to work the "elitist" theme.
As usual, you guys have nothing.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.05.2009 @ 16:22
I'm curious: how much did Mr. Bush's many brush-clearing expeditions to his Potemkin ranch cost? During war time. While the deficit was skyrocketing. While Brownie was doing a heckuva job.
But of course we knew at least that he and Laura weren't having hot jungle sex. So that makes it much more palatable.
Isn't it sort of moronic to equate a vacation - that no one begrudges a president - with a date night that took hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe more) to move to another city.
Nice try. Is that the official Democratic response?
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 31.05.2009 @ 12:15
DEALERGATE: STATISTICAL COINCIDENCE OR POLITICAL BIAS? (IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW)
This was genuinely silly, Rick. You got nothing. This is tinfoil hat stuff. And what's worse: you know it as well as I do. Nate Silver took this story apart.
Is this what you have to do to stay in the good graces of PJM? I respect needing to hold onto a gig. I, too, do what I have to do to pay the rent. Most of us do. I have no criticism of a man who needs to keep food on the table. Been there. Will be there again.
But what does this say about your party? That an intelligent, rational, knowledgeable person like you has to stoop to the kind of nonsense you've peddled in your most recent posts? You're on the path to becoming the latest Captain Ed -- who has now managed to demote himself to Midshipman Ed.
You're trying to catch a falling knife, trying to drop fast enough to stay with your free-falling party. I'm betting you won't be able to do it. I think you're too proud.
You question my integrity? I write a responsible, reasonable post about a subject that anyone who isn't in a partisan could consider a possibility and you accuse me of selling out?
I'm tired of being told by partisan hacks like you - political ignoramuses who demonstrate a lilting idiocy about politics with every word they write - that my integrity should be questioned because, on occasion, I happen to write about subjects that interest me and that my point of view skews toward the right. I am also tired of being patted on the back when I skewer conservatives and the GOP while having my integrity questioned when you and others on this site disagree with me.I have read more about this issue than you. My knowledge of it far surpasses yours. This post is my best judgment of where the issue stands. I allow for many caveats and qualifyers, linking to people who don't believe there is anything to the story and present evidence in that regard. I have presented the evidence as straightforwardly as I can, pointing out weaknesses in both arguments.
What the fuck more do you want?
Please read Shaun Mullen's comment above. A liberal, former investigative reporter, while not believing much is there, nevertheless, treats the idea of politically biased closing seriously. You - and your ignorant cohorts - dismiss it without having read and absorbed the amount of information on this subject that I have.
The Republican party, btw, is not in "free fall" - more evidence of your towering ignorance of politics. The RNC just outraised the DNC by quite a bit if you didn't notice. "Free falling" parties don't outraise their opponents. Yes, the GOP is in trouble. But so are the Democrats if you look at the numbers - one more piece of evidence that you are more mouth than mind when it comes to political analysis.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 28.05.2009 @ 21:20
PRINCIPLE SHOULD TRUMP PRAGMATISM IN SOTOMAYOR VOTE
Busboy:
You know what? You are absolutely right. I blame the fact that I'm tired today. The show must go on!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 27.05.2009 @ 17:16
Help, we're all gonna diiiiiiieee! It's a Sotomayor! Noooooooo!
I see the crazy has come to Rightwing Nuthouse.
I think we should make a grand bargain: the right wing groups can tell us how much money they hope to raise. We can all pitch in and pay the money. And then they can stop making asses of themselves. Sort of like some PBS stations will cancel the fundraising week if you just pay up.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 27.05.2009 @ 16:05
OBAMA OUTFLANKS GOP WITH SOTOMAYOR PICK
Mike:
Comment Posted By Michael Reynolds On 27.05.2009 @ 08:09
Excellent regurgitation of GOP talking points.
Funnyman:
They have their talking points and they're going to deliver them. Again and again and again until they've squeezed contributions out of every sucker, er, Republican in the country.
Then and only then will Sotomayor be confirmed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 26.05.2009 @ 20:54
