• Silly Santorum -- Social Security is for Democrats!

    Poor Rick, he can't even hide on his own website. Screenshot below the jump, look at the poll:
  • Sick

    What the fuck has happened to our country? The man we stripped naked, beat the hell out of, and let freeze to death was "probably associated with people who were associated with al Qaeda"? Did we really build this city on a hill so we could throw innocents off the ramparts?
  • Loads O' Polling

    To say Bush's priorities aren't polling well would be to understate the remarkable reverse-Midas touch he's been demonstrating. I'm convinced that every time he utters the words "Social Security", Americans decide it's 2% less important than it was before they heard him. I't's the boomerang of his own tactics. By consciously making himself such a polarizing figure, everything he does or wants to do is viewed as partisan warfare. As such, voters aren't evaluating his case for Social Security privatization but instead categorizing it as another left-right battle and, all things considered, they'd rather not see their pension plan made into a political football. And so this is what we've come to -- Republican manipulation of objective reporting has managed to delegitimize any and every domestic priority as just another handful of mashed potatoes in the ongoing partisan foodfight, and the more politicians speak about crises, the less Americans believe there actually is one. Ranking their...
  • The Bugman Goeth

    You have to respect the karmic rightness of this : Tom DeLay's redistricting toughened his own district, so in 2004, having historically won 60+% with no effort, he only took 55% against an unfunded Democratic challenger. Now it;s back to Sugar Land for the Bug Man, as he tries to shore up support. That's a Good Thing for the country; every evening spent in a bad buffet line with the rest of the Lions Order is a night he's not raising cash for other candidates or plotting new and ever more devious ways to screw the country. And I love Rep. Emanuel's perspective: Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he is happy that DeLay is "meeting some real people instead of just K Street lobbyists." "Maybe he'll find out the people actually like Social Security," Emanuel said. Well played. Now caption this picture of the majority leader of the United States Congress:
  • "a little bit"

    At least he's honest : Santorum acknowledged that his [antipoverty] proposals were modest. "We're helping out, let me be honest, a little bit, not a lot," he said at one point. And even that "little bit" is in some jeopardy without more help from Bush. By their deeds, you shall know them. And along with his attempts to do "a little bit" on poverty, Santorum's efforts to privatize Social Security have been nothing short of herculean. Privatization, by the way, would do more than a "little bit" on the poverty issue, but not in the way Santorum wants you to think. On a lighter note, try google-searching Santorum .
  • Why Bayh?

    Not to argue with a sage like Rothenberg, but what exactly makes Bayh so nightmarish for Republicans? He's good looking, sure, but no more so than Edwards, and he's certainly not a better speaker. He's hawkish, sure, but no more so than was Lieberman, and look where that got him. He's not a general, like Clark, nor a superstar, like Hillary. Labor doesn't love him, nor does any other interest group. And, in this era of calcified partisanship, or Republicans really going to be marking his ballot box en masse? What if the right runs a Hagel, or McCain? And what makes Bayh, who's going to have to swing left in the primary in order to calm a nervous base, stronger than other popular Democratic Southerners (for our purposes, same as Midwesterners) like Warner or Bredesen? Bayh might be a fine candidate, but Rothenberg is hanging his hat entirely on perceived moderation, as if the simple air of centrism was enough to guarantee election. Call it Clinton-syndrome. But Clinton won with a hefty...
  • Labor Choices

    The ALF-CIO rejected both the Teamster plans and Sweeney's proposal, meaning the choice is now punted to the AFL-CIO convention in July. Jonathan Tasini has been on the ground and providing great live coverage, so you should head over to his place for the play-by-play . Trapper John's got background . DHinMI just posted up a long interview with Andy Stern. So there's your context. As for my thoughts, the crucial bone of contention is whether the AFL-CIO will be spending more on political advocacy or organizing. The latter would, at least theoretically, grow the shrinking movement, but the former keeps out Republicans who make unionizing harder and the safety net nonexistent. But the AFL-CIO's political advocacy is rarely determinative. It certainly hasn't stemmed Democratic losses, and as the labor movement grows smaller, so too does their ability to affect electoral change. Fighting these rearguard political battles isn't winning them any wars, particularly not if they can't staunch...

    Who do I find this so funny?
  • Horrorwitz

    PZ Myers attended David Horowitz's lecture the other night. It was funny. And sad. But definitely funny. As for the kid who stood up at the end, made note of his service in Iraq, and called Kerry unAmerican for opposing the war (which Kerry, by the way, didn't do), I wouldn't worry about the round of applause he got. I've noticed that when a soldier stands up at any sort of campus political event and expresses any opinion, pro or con, smart or dumb, they get a wild round of applause. Students generally hold their battle-tested peers in a kind of awe, and the cascade of clapping has more to do with our guilt (there but for fortune...) than their opinions. Update : Speaking of shit that makes no sense, Berube found a pile .
  • Fighting Philosophies

    Mark Schmitt's got one of those posts that make all the bloggers breathlessly beg you to stop what you're doing and dive into his site. So imagine my heaving bosom (look to the upper right for a pictorial aid) as I send you over to his place to find out what the Social Security debate is really about. For those with a lazy clicker-finger, suffice to say that privatization isn't about advancing any particular Republican philosophy, but destroying the Democratic one. Mark doesn't quite go as far as I will here, but privatization probably won't end up that popular. All other countries that've tried it have found a mixed bag at best, and many have looked down to find their sack filled with manure and lit aflame. But if privatization does crash and burn, that's not going to hurt Republicans at all. The boomerang is going to whip back and smack Democrats in the head as irritated pensioners shake their heads and mutter about how the doggone government can't do anything right. This is...