Raise your hand if you're surprised more donations are going to the DNC now than the GOP. Anyone? On Saturday, the Washington Post ran an article about the big fundraising gains that the Democratic party is posting in comparison with their Republican counterparts, and I swear there was more than a hint of surprise in the article's tone.
I'm not sure why, really, and my confusion with their surprise has nothing to do with my political bend.
The fact of the matter is, when times get hard, voters often turn to the hardliners in the political circus - those that naturally talk the loudest and make the biggest promises about "cleaning up". However, when those same hardliners get voted into office in large numbers, as we saw happen in the 2010 midterm elections, but they fail to do anything close to what they promised to do, those same voters begin to sour on the hardliners.
The voters start to look for the more moderate-leaning politicians. Unfortunately for the GOP, the field is looking pretty spare when it comes to moderates. The Republican party seems to be of the impression that it is still 2010, that we didn't just go through several stomach-churning rounds of political and budgetary deadlock (driven in many cases by those same hardliners), and that the way to the donors' hearts is through political rhetoric about how conservative they are.
I think the fundraising numbers that President Obama and the Democratic party in general are posting should be a wake-up call for the GOP. As Representative Steve Israel of New York is quoted as saying in the above article, “When Republicans consistently protect billionaires over Medicare, it’s hard to convince small donors to give a check.”
And yet, I keep reading articles expressing surprise about how well the DNC seems to be doing on the fundraising front. So, I can only assume that no one is heeding this particular wake-up call.
I think the current situation for Republicans is summed up best by the 170 comments that followed the article, very few of which in any way seemed to support the Republican party. Most appeared centered around the idea of ousting the GOP from the offices they just gained.
I don't think it gets more telling than that.
-- Statler, forum moderator
11.29.2011
11.11.2011
REPOST: PROUD TO HAVE NEVER GONE TO PSU
From Statler: I liked Penn's Toasted Filbert's piece enough that I wanted to repost it to The Ranter's Row. Here it is.
Never have I been so proud to say I’m a Pitt alum as I have been since the Penn State scandal hit the news wire. The scandal that has rocked Penn State University is terrible, unthinkable, and the path of its destruction is only growing.
I'm at a loss to understand how PSU's football program could ignore child sex-abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky and allow him to continue to have access to not only more potential victims, but access to them in PSU's own facilities. I'm even more at a loss to understand how an eyewitness to the abuse could witness what he did and not immediately contact the police, and then later he became a Penn State coach.
I'm saddened that this is how Joe Paterno's 46-year career will be remembered, because up until this scandal broke, his legacy was a proud one. (I can say that even as someone who wished for a rock-solid victory by my own Panthers anytime Pitt and PSU met on the football field.) But, I am not sorry that he was fired. I am not sorry that the university's president was fired. Nor am I sorry that Mike McQueary, the eyewitness in question, has been placed on leave, indefintely. No doubt the university will eventually fire him for not alerting the proper authorities to what he witnessed. That is his deserved treatment.
In my opinion, the Penn State University football program has lost its moral compass. No other conclusion can be reached about a program that harbors sex offenders and lies for them. I sincerely hope that the clean-up and righting of that compass continues to be swift, if only out of respect for those that have suffered at its hands.
Penn
Penn is a Ranter's Row forum contributor and author of Toasted Filberts.
Never have I been so proud to say I’m a Pitt alum as I have been since the Penn State scandal hit the news wire. The scandal that has rocked Penn State University is terrible, unthinkable, and the path of its destruction is only growing.
I'm at a loss to understand how PSU's football program could ignore child sex-abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky and allow him to continue to have access to not only more potential victims, but access to them in PSU's own facilities. I'm even more at a loss to understand how an eyewitness to the abuse could witness what he did and not immediately contact the police, and then later he became a Penn State coach.
I'm saddened that this is how Joe Paterno's 46-year career will be remembered, because up until this scandal broke, his legacy was a proud one. (I can say that even as someone who wished for a rock-solid victory by my own Panthers anytime Pitt and PSU met on the football field.) But, I am not sorry that he was fired. I am not sorry that the university's president was fired. Nor am I sorry that Mike McQueary, the eyewitness in question, has been placed on leave, indefintely. No doubt the university will eventually fire him for not alerting the proper authorities to what he witnessed. That is his deserved treatment.
In my opinion, the Penn State University football program has lost its moral compass. No other conclusion can be reached about a program that harbors sex offenders and lies for them. I sincerely hope that the clean-up and righting of that compass continues to be swift, if only out of respect for those that have suffered at its hands.
Penn
Penn is a Ranter's Row forum contributor and author of Toasted Filberts.
11.07.2011
ENTER: THE WUSSY GENERATION
Sunday night, I found an article on how to help your kid deal with Daylight Savings Time… Are you kidding me? This article was actually titled: Daylight savings time wreaks havoc on kids’ sleep: Expert Advice.
I found it when I was going through the Lifestyle section of The Washington Post. Believe it or not, I do tire of blogging about politics sometimes, regardless of the wealth of material there – like the speculation among conservatives that Rick Perry was drunk during a recent speech, just because he showed signs of a pulse while giving it.
So, I went looking for something different that peaked my interest, or ire, and turned to The Washington Post's "Lifestyle" section. That’s where I turned up this gem of an article. The gist of it was that Daylight Savings Time is somehow detrimental to kids' sleep cycles and here's advice on how to get them past it.
In small defense of the author of this piece, Janice D'Arcy, she was basically reposting something written by another author (Kim West, “The Sleep Lady”, if you can buy that title). My question is, why do we need an article on that? Once upon a time, didn't kids just deal with the time change like any other day and night?
I always looked forward to the “fall back” portion of the year, even when I was very young, because it’s one more hour I get to sleep in. So, I think it's a valid question when I ask: are we raising a generation of “wusses”?
With the blogging explosion that has taken place in the last couple of years has come a huge number of parenting blogs. There are ones to validate anyone’s method of parenting – let the kids run loose, never let the kids out of your sight, teach your kids to be independent, applaud them every time they use the potty. Whatever your flavor of parenting, there’s a blog telling you that you’re right.
Along with that explosion, I’ve noticed a rise in the amount of advice on how to “ease” your child into any number of life events. And, at the same time (unsurprisingly, in my mind), there is a similar rise in the number of people wondering why their now-adult child won’t grow up and looking for advice on how to remedy the situation.
Welcome to my worst nightmare.
And that is why I choose to ignore the advice of this article. My flavor of parenting happens to be the kind where I tell my young offspring what Daylight Savings Time is, and here's how it works. I say, “Hey, guess what? You get to sleep in a bit longer this Sunday, and enjoy it while you can, because in a couple of months, you get shortchanged again.”
Why is that hard? Why do I need to “prepare” my child for what is really nothing more than changing the time on the clocks.
Easing my kid into it just sounds stupid to me. Maybe The Sleep Lady should try tackling REAL sleep issues, like chronic sleep walking or night terrors. Daylight Savings Time? Sounds like the biggest non-issue possible to me.
-- Statler, forum moderator
I found it when I was going through the Lifestyle section of The Washington Post. Believe it or not, I do tire of blogging about politics sometimes, regardless of the wealth of material there – like the speculation among conservatives that Rick Perry was drunk during a recent speech, just because he showed signs of a pulse while giving it.
So, I went looking for something different that peaked my interest, or ire, and turned to The Washington Post's "Lifestyle" section. That’s where I turned up this gem of an article. The gist of it was that Daylight Savings Time is somehow detrimental to kids' sleep cycles and here's advice on how to get them past it.
In small defense of the author of this piece, Janice D'Arcy, she was basically reposting something written by another author (Kim West, “The Sleep Lady”, if you can buy that title). My question is, why do we need an article on that? Once upon a time, didn't kids just deal with the time change like any other day and night?
I always looked forward to the “fall back” portion of the year, even when I was very young, because it’s one more hour I get to sleep in. So, I think it's a valid question when I ask: are we raising a generation of “wusses”?
With the blogging explosion that has taken place in the last couple of years has come a huge number of parenting blogs. There are ones to validate anyone’s method of parenting – let the kids run loose, never let the kids out of your sight, teach your kids to be independent, applaud them every time they use the potty. Whatever your flavor of parenting, there’s a blog telling you that you’re right.
Along with that explosion, I’ve noticed a rise in the amount of advice on how to “ease” your child into any number of life events. And, at the same time (unsurprisingly, in my mind), there is a similar rise in the number of people wondering why their now-adult child won’t grow up and looking for advice on how to remedy the situation.
Welcome to my worst nightmare.
And that is why I choose to ignore the advice of this article. My flavor of parenting happens to be the kind where I tell my young offspring what Daylight Savings Time is, and here's how it works. I say, “Hey, guess what? You get to sleep in a bit longer this Sunday, and enjoy it while you can, because in a couple of months, you get shortchanged again.”
Why is that hard? Why do I need to “prepare” my child for what is really nothing more than changing the time on the clocks.
Easing my kid into it just sounds stupid to me. Maybe The Sleep Lady should try tackling REAL sleep issues, like chronic sleep walking or night terrors. Daylight Savings Time? Sounds like the biggest non-issue possible to me.
-- Statler, forum moderator
11.03.2011
LET THEM JUST WALK...OR CRAWL
Even as sanity stirs in part of the House, the Senate Republicans have voted to screw the people once again. Not even 24 hours after it was reported that 100 House Republicans and Democrats banded together, and signed a letter urging the debt supercommittee to consider new revenue and entitlement cuts as deficit reduction ideas, all of the Senate Republicans, Democrat Ben Nelson (Neb.), and Libertarian Joe Lieberman (Conn.), banded together to kill the $60-billion infrastructure bill.
This afternoon, The Washington Post reported that the measure designed to repair our crumbling bridges and roads, and spur private investment in construction died in a 51-49 vote, short of the 60 needed to dodge a filibuster.
Why? Because the $60-billion in spending was to be paid for by a surtax (let's just call it a plain-old tax) on the wealthy. It wouldn't be paid for by more borrowing. It would be paid for by earners bringing in better than $1,000,000 per year in income.
How would this spending have broken down? Of the $60-billion, $50-billion would have gone to highway, railroad, public transit, and airport repairs, and $10-billion to the infrastructure bank, which is designed to encourage private investors to put money into other construction projects.
Do you want to fly into or out of an airport in need of repair? I don't. And, judging by just the first couple pages of the 1500+ comments on this vote, not many other people do either. Nor is anyone buying the argument that the tax revenue is a real non-starter, as House Speaker Boehner is suggesting.
It seems there could be some real truth to David Axelrod's and others' suspicions that the Republicans are purposely tanking the economy to make President Obama look bad going into the 2012 election. The question is, how successful will their strategy be once voters angry at the Party of No get to the polls in 2012?
Also, if they succeed in destroying the economy even further, and manage to turn the presidency over to their own party again, would the Republican president be able to pull the economy out of the trash heap again, or will the deficit increase to unimaginable levels and unemployment rates get even worse than just the 9% it is right now?
--Penn, forum contributor and co-author of Toasted Filberts
This afternoon, The Washington Post reported that the measure designed to repair our crumbling bridges and roads, and spur private investment in construction died in a 51-49 vote, short of the 60 needed to dodge a filibuster.
Why? Because the $60-billion in spending was to be paid for by a surtax (let's just call it a plain-old tax) on the wealthy. It wouldn't be paid for by more borrowing. It would be paid for by earners bringing in better than $1,000,000 per year in income.
How would this spending have broken down? Of the $60-billion, $50-billion would have gone to highway, railroad, public transit, and airport repairs, and $10-billion to the infrastructure bank, which is designed to encourage private investors to put money into other construction projects.
Do you want to fly into or out of an airport in need of repair? I don't. And, judging by just the first couple pages of the 1500+ comments on this vote, not many other people do either. Nor is anyone buying the argument that the tax revenue is a real non-starter, as House Speaker Boehner is suggesting.
It seems there could be some real truth to David Axelrod's and others' suspicions that the Republicans are purposely tanking the economy to make President Obama look bad going into the 2012 election. The question is, how successful will their strategy be once voters angry at the Party of No get to the polls in 2012?
Also, if they succeed in destroying the economy even further, and manage to turn the presidency over to their own party again, would the Republican president be able to pull the economy out of the trash heap again, or will the deficit increase to unimaginable levels and unemployment rates get even worse than just the 9% it is right now?
--Penn, forum contributor and co-author of Toasted Filberts
11.02.2011
PARKAS ALL AROUND
Hell seems to have finally frozen over. Congress is now showing signs of the return of sanity in its ranks. The Washington Post published an article this evening about a letter signed by 4o House Republicans and 60 House Democrats that "encouraged Congress's deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue". The letter also suggested the supercommittee should consider entitlement reforms.
Yes, I said 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats signed a letter that suggested new revenue (aka taxes and/or removal of tax breaks) and cuts to entitlement programs.
I have to say that I feel a touch of shock and awe when I read this:
And several Republicans who signed the letter were careful to note they were not endorsing a net tax increase — but rather a broad rewrite of the tax code that might close loopholes and lower rates, while still producing more government revenue.
Let me repeat that. "More government revenue." A quote from a Republican.
Amazing. It turns out that the House of Representatives might be remembering how to represent the people, rather than ignore them.
--Statler, forum moderator
Yes, I said 40 Republicans and 60 Democrats signed a letter that suggested new revenue (aka taxes and/or removal of tax breaks) and cuts to entitlement programs.
I have to say that I feel a touch of shock and awe when I read this:
And several Republicans who signed the letter were careful to note they were not endorsing a net tax increase — but rather a broad rewrite of the tax code that might close loopholes and lower rates, while still producing more government revenue.
Let me repeat that. "More government revenue." A quote from a Republican.
Amazing. It turns out that the House of Representatives might be remembering how to represent the people, rather than ignore them.
--Statler, forum moderator
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
