...And thank you for contributing nothing to the discussion at hand, instead dishing out vitriolic partisan bile. Discussion is pretty good so far, not all the way through yet. Matt is someone who I always enjoy listening to even though I almost always disagree with him. I think he makes unique and insightful points instead of regurgitating punditry, which is refreshing. David is someone I don't quite get; a libertarian who doesn't have I-regret-voting-for-Obama-syndrome, which most libertarians seem to be experiencing some form of these days. I don't know him that well though, maybe he's a Will Wilkinson prototype.

I'm curious to know why so many on the left have chosen to not focus on their own accomplishments, or to at least try and spin current events as accomplishments worthy of a majority party, and have instead opted to focus on the other party's craziness. It strikes me as a mistake to invest so much time damaging the other partys brand name, when the next big round of elections will be for the
House/Senate/Governor. Historically, the parties brand name appeal is not as important in these more local elections, at least relative to when there is a national elections (President). Also on a personal level, tracking the Republican base's schizophrenia seems somewhat distasteful, as you will be inevitably making the election(s) more base. Not to mention I really don't care if there is a R or a D next to someones name, all I care about is the individual running.

David also has a YouTube channel. And: Here's a hilarious-yet-hair-raising post featuring a number of YouTube videos recorded by earnest if deranged Birther / Teabagger types: — Birthers of a Nation Deeply interesting stuff, at least if the total derangement of the Republican base is interesting. I would note that ObamaBirther, the user featured in the fourth video in Weigel's story, quit YouTube and shut down his web site (ObamaBirthers.com) soon after he suffered the humiliation of falling hook, line, and sinker for the fake Kenyan Birth Certificate story promoted by WorldNetDaily, Fox News, and the rest of mainstream conservatism. For your amusement, the story that was instrumental in popularizing that particular hoax is here: — Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth? And here is ObamaBirther's first video on the subject: Remember: As fun as it is to laugh at what has become of conservatism in America, this derangement is now the norm in the Republican Party, and the teabaggers appear poised to claim a seat tomorrow in NY-23.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I'm curious to know why so many on the left have chosen to not focus on their own accomplishments, or to at least try and spin current events as accomplishments worthy of a majority party, ...

Well, you said it yourself: spin. Who wants to do that, at least without getting paid for it?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: ... and have instead opted to focus on the other party's craziness.

Partly because it's entertaining, mostly because it's the most worrisome aspect about politics today, and it certainly does not get enough attention in the MSM. At least, that's how I see it.

I'm curious to know why so many on the left have chosen to not focus on their own accomplishments, or to at least try and spin current events as accomplishments worthy of a majority party, and have instead opted to focus on the other party's craziness.

It doesn't seem to be the strategy of the elected Democrats. If it's the strategy of liberal pundits, fundraising groups, etc., there are two purposes: the first, to convince Democrats in office that the Republicans are not going to work with them and that they should stop watering their plans down in the name of bipartisanship; the second, well, to raise money. I have to say I find it a bit irritating to be told all the time that liberals should stop paying attention to the crazies on the Republican side because it doesn't do us any good; it's essentially saying that they're not important and don't have any effect on the political climate. I don't think that's true at all.

Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously when you say WorldNetDaily is part of mainstream conservatism? There are plenty of good arguments to make against conservatives, why resort to complete strawmen?

'Teabaggers'? Really? The best you can do is regurgitate a tired, immature piece of snide that even Anderson Cooper realized was playground-level smack and apologized for? Looks like that dialogue with Bob trying to foster civil discourse is working wonders and the high class of the left wing here strikes again. And while you're laughing at what has become of conservatism, laugh a bit more at liberalism because more Americans describe themselves as conservative than they do liberal (heck even liberals run from the word and try and rebrand themselves as progressives). Even Newt Gingrich is finding out that the Powell/Frum/Brooks brand of socialism-lite is just a slower way to an Obama-style nanny state......and loses elections. NY-23 may be a bellweather for the back room style end runs that Republicans have done in selecting candidates and the present administration uses for Obamacare. It's pretty pathetic when those who call the other side names for pursuing an Obama birth certificate story support a bill that hasn't been written and promoted by politicians who refuse to read it before voting on it, have

I've yet to listen to this diavlog, and have not heard the hypotheses about how NY 23 devolved. But, I would offer that, with corporate money flowing back to keep parity in the political system - to the GOP - and inordinate attention to a mere three races, instead of 2008's full slate, it's easier for conservatives - and I use that term generously - to exert maximum force on one race. I wouldn't call this a trend, just a freak show.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously when you say WorldNetDaily is part of mainstream conservatism? There are plenty of good arguments to make against conservatives, why resort to complete strawmen?

It is, at minimum, a key part of the pipeline by which right-fringe stuff bubbles up to the mainstream media. This has been thorough documented. If you would like to read a quick post illustrating with some examples, here's a recent one. And here is an example of a right-blogger worried about WND's influence. WND has also been instrumental in sustaining the Birthers, and has been, IIRC, referred to people as high as Republican members of Congress as a credible source in this regard. Here's an example reported by Dave Weigel himself. (If this was mentioned in the diavlog, I apologize -- haven't had a chance to watch this one yet.) Whether WND is, in and of itself, "part of mainstream conservatism" is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. You appear to think not. Many others, including some who comment here, might say that such a view means you are Not A Real Conservative. I myself would call it more toward the fringe than the mainstream, if you're wondering, but I do

Quoting Baltimoron: I've yet to listen to this diavlog, and have not heard the hypotheses about how NY 23 devolved. But, I would offer that, with corporate money flowing back to keep parity in the political system - to the GOP - and inordinate attention to a mere three races, instead of 2008's full slate, it's easier for conservatives - and I use that term generously - to exert maximum force on one race. I wouldn't call this a trend, just a freak show.

Good point -- the ability to concentrate resources would allow a determined, though comparatively small, group to dominate a few local elections.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I'm curious to know why so many on the left have chosen to not focus on their own accomplishments, or to at least try and spin current events as accomplishments worthy of a majority party, and have instead opted to focus on the other party's craziness.

This isn't true. We can focus on and talk about more than one thing, and we do. It's just that the wingnut/loon faction that now controls the Republican Party is interesting, and important. Note: I do recognize that not all Republicans are actually deranged or crazy. Most of the ones I know in real life are perfectly normal. Mainly we're talking about the activists, the people who control the party, and the people who speak for and represent the movement and the party, i.e., the professional class of Republicans.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: It strikes me as a mistake to invest so much time damaging the other partys brand name, when the next big round of elections will be for the House/Senate/Governor. Historically, the parties brand name appeal is not as important in these more local elections, at least relative to when there is a national elections (President).

You may be

Quoting bjkeefe: Good point -- the ability to concentrate resources would allow a determined, though comparatively small, group to dominate a few local elections.

What's remarkable about NY-23 is that the wingnut candidate isn't even from the district, and the vast majority of the money funding his campaign comes from outside the district, too. Basically the extremists are buying a congressional seat they have no connection to. You would think the voters of the district would resent a poltical movement dominated by far right extremists swooping in and taking over their district's seat. If anyone doubts this characterization, note how Dick Armey (one of the leaders of the teabagger mobs who disrupted so many town hall events last summer) chastised a local newspaper as "parochial" for expecting the 3rd party candidate to know something about the district he was running for. — Dick Armey: “Parochial” to Expect Hoffman to Care About His District’s Concerns

What's remarkable about NY-23 is that the wingnut candidate isn't even from the district, and the vast majority of the money funding his campaign comes from outside the district, too. Basically the extremists are buying a congressional seat they have no connection to. You would think the voters of the district would resent a poltical movement dominated by far right extremists swooping in and taking over their district's seat.

It will be interesting to look at turnout numbers and how they break down. I assume turnout would be lower for this race than say the '08 races. But, if "foreign" influences cause a surge in turnout, I will begin to question the sanity of the locals. However, it's possible all this hype doesn't affect the turnout, or possibly cause voters to stay away. I wonder if locals are so disaffected that the spectacle of national attention is what is whipping them up, not the race per se.

Quoting Baltimoron: It will be interesting to look at turnout numbers and how they break down. I assume turnout would be lower for this race than say the '08 races. But, if "foreign" influences cause a surge in turnout, I will begin to question the sanity of the locals. However, it's possible all this hype doesn't affect the turnout, or possibly cause voters to stay away. I wonder if locals are so disaffected that the spectacle of national attention is what is whipping them up, not the race per se.

Good thoughts and questions. What I'm hoping is that where the wingnuts/loons might have been able to win the seat with the low turnout that is the norm in special elections (due to the fact that the extremist base is more activated than other voting populations), the enormous attention and extremely unusual developments in this race (e.g., the R dropping out and endorsing the D) will drive UP voter turnout and defeat the extremist base. If the ultraconservatives win this race even with high turnout, it will be an ominous portent for 2010 and the fate of the nation.

Yes and the propensity of the Democrats to over spend and grow the government has nothing to do with the movement of Independents from supporting their candidates. These few additions to the federal bureaucracy, in speaker Pelosi's health plan, are sure to control costs. 1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making

108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968).

Did ya get that? The wingnut / loon Doug Hoffman told Glenn Beck that Beck is his "mentor," and pledged his "sacred honor" to Beck. WTF? Check out this incredible report from Rachel Maddow. To the critics who wish we would just sweep the crazy under the carpet, this is what has become of the Republican Party. We have to talk about it if we care about the fate of the nation.

If the ultraconservatives win this race even with high turnout, it will be an ominous portent for 2010 and the fate of the nation.

House Minority Leader Boehner made a point I think on CNN to assure moderates they had a place in the GOP. The Dems in '08 couldn't win without running moderates and conservatives even as plump with donations as they were. I doubt the GOP could attract more money in less than a year, and run a national campaign spending so much money as they have in these three races. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the money materialized. I'm angry that these elections are not anti-Wall Street referendums. I assume now that Wall Street could spend its money - a weird form of public finance - on the midterms and no one would care. That even the GOP couldn't turn this into a referendum speaks volumes about how both parties will spread their legs.

Quoting Baltimoron: I assume now that Wall Street could spend its money - a weird form of public finance

God, that's a great point. Reminds me, actually, of how we pay a fortune in insurance premiums to insurance companies who then use the money we give them to run ads against health care reform, to hire lobbyists to defeat reform, and to fund candidates for office who are opposed to reform. They are using our money to screw us. And your point that bailout trillions are going to be used in much the same way is well taken. What a messed up system.

The wingnut / loon Doug Hoffman told Glenn Beck that Beck is his "mentor," and pledged his "sacred honor" to Beck. WTF?

I never would have picked Hoffman for a fantasy stint as a rodeo clown! Maybe learning to deploy Vaseline and bawling uncontrollably on TV could come in handy one day! I have no problem with Glenn Beck for chairman of a minority Nationalist People's party. He could split ballots for the Dems any day!

And FDR ran on continuing Hoover's spending policies. I can't see how David Weigel can say the opposite: Under President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) real per-capita federal spending rose by 82 percent - larger than the 74 percent rise in real per-capita federal expenditures from 1933-1940
Also, it's kind of convenient to point to Hoover's "fiscal" policies and forget that the quantity of money was allowed to contract by a third....

They are using our money to screw us.

Honestly, I was shocked to hear the counsel for Citizens United in its case against FEC argue that corporations needed free speech protection, because corporations needed elections to avenge any action taken by the three branches of the Federal government and states. Now, I see that argument was serious, and that corporations aren't waiting for SCOTUS to rule.

This Board has visited this enough to know better. Depression economics and political history are tricky, which makes them fertile ground for spin.

Quoting Baltimoron: This Board has visited this enough to know better. Depression economics and political history are tricky, which makes them fertile ground for spin.

82% is hard data, not spin.

How many voters do you know who read Eichengreen?

Quoting Baltimoron: How many voters do you know who read Eichengreen?

I wasn't talking about voters, but what Mr. Weigel said, which is historically inaccurate. Why voters vote the way they do is a mystery to me and I'm not going to even start making conjectures.

I wasn't talking about voters, but what Mr. Weigel said, which is historically inaccurate.

Exposing the examples of lies foisted on voters by the media is a full-time occupation. But, you need to read Rousseau about the value of persuasion, and the poverty of reason, in politics. Start with Emile.

Here's something that was mentioned during the diavlog that should have been posted on the sidebar: The local paper's editorial about new conservative darling Doug Hoffman being thoroughly clueless about local issues (via). I was about to say this was the best part ...

A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked.

... since it reminded me so much of previous darlings of the far right -- George W. Bush and Sarah Palin -- and their inability to deal with honest interviews where, you know, you don't actually get a list of prepared questions in advance. But then, I read the next sentence:

He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions.

As in, Watertown Daily Times -- the same paper he knew he'd be meeting with the next day. But as long as he's got his lips firmly planted on Glenn Beck's butt, I guess he's as fully informed and well-prepared as teabaggers Movement Conservatives could ever ask. P.S. These gotcha interviews from the liebrul media have got to stop. Also.

Posted by David Weigel on his YouTube channel moments ago: "I was at a tea party, but [elections are] too slow of a process for me. I'm more on the violent side. I'm more of the civil war revolutionary." On Obama: "He's Muslim by origin." Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party.

Quoting TwinSwords:
[...]

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say this. The parties are so different. Only in the complete absence of any values or ideology can I imagine someone not caring what party they vote for. The direction the country will head under R's and D's is so very different, it's baffling to me that you would be happy to go in either direction.

The range of issues in which I have any idea what I am talking about is rather narrow. As such, on most things I usually just end up throwing up my hands and thinking "I have no idea what policy X's aggregate effects will be". For example, the last thing I really started to look through whose ab initio cause for me to start looking at because of politics was Climate Change. Three years later, I still am a fence-sitter, who is unsure of what should be done. This line of events really is the mode for the set of events that contains all the times I tried to become informed about some political issue. As for my lack of a general philosophy, I tend to either see both sides

Quoting Baltimoron: Exposing the examples of lies foisted on voters by the media is a full-time occupation. But, you need to read Rousseau about the value of persuasion, and the poverty of reason, in politics. Start with Emile.

I was given to read Rousseau in high-school and have tried to stir away from him ever since.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I tend to look at the attributes of the candidates themselves, instead of just making a checklist of positions.

Starwatcher! You have written a brilliant post, and BHtv is the place to say it. I agree with your philosophy (or lack thereof). Your entire post is reproduced below:

Quoting Starwatcher162536: The range of issues in which I have any idea what I am talking about is rather narrow. As such, on most things I usually just end up throwing up my hands and thinking "I have no idea what policy X's aggregate effects will be". For example, the last thing I really started to look through whose ab initio cause for me to start looking at because of politics was Climate Change. Three years later, I still am a fence-sitter, who is unsure of what should be done. This line of events really is the mode for the set of events that contains all the times I tried to become informed about some political issue.

As for my lack of a general philosophy, I tend to either see both sides as making worthwhile points or see both sides as not being experimentally justified. For example, on the various permutations of the

Quoting piscivorous: 108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968).

Thanks, Pisc. The bureaucracy boggles the mind. Hey, I think I found a hole in the plan! What about this: 112. Pilot program to provide for improved coordination between the Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation and the Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services”. No one could deny the value of these efforts, and no one could deny the synergistic benefits of better coordination between them. So why is it missing? I propose to set up this pilot program myself with $4 million of seed money, if this can be worked into the budget. It's really a modest request.

Here's a direct link to the video.

Friend of yours is he?

Jim Newell has (ACORN!!!1!) excerpts from and commentary on a longish Election Day report from Dave: "A New Conservative Star Wrestles With the Spotlight: First-time Candidate Buoyed, Caught Off Guard as Campaign Becomes National Cause." Also, via Dave, here's Nate Silver's take.

Quoting TwinSwords: I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say this. The parties are so different. Only in the complete absence of any values or ideology can I imagine someone not caring what party they vote for. The direction the country will head under R's and D's is so very different, it's baffling to me that you would be happy to go in either direction.

Read this.

The NY Daily News (via TPM) reports that police have been called to at least two polling places in NY-23 due to complaints about overzealous Hoffman supporters. I'm sure it will be revealed soon that these are undercover agents ("bots") from AoCbOaRmNa.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Read this.

And this:

Centrists In The Wild

The centrist is an elusive and unpredictable species. It is prone to darting out of press conferences before the Q&A starts. When backed into a corner by reporters, the centrist is known to give vague, uncomfortable answers, eye flitting about looking for escape routes. Our Brian Beutler encountered a female from the rare subspecies of Senate centrists today on Capitol Hill, and she exhibited many of the behavior patterns of her kind, especially when pressed on health care reform.

--David Kurtz

Slight correction: that should be our Brian Beutler, David Kurtz. ;^)

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Read this.

You're not being serious here. All that New America Foundation stuff sells itself as being centrist but it's obviously left wing (I love it, of course). Aside from Snowe maybe there's not a single Republican in Congress who'd vote for any of it (hell, it's almost to the left of the median Democratic senator). They're not going to sign up for a 21st c. Hamiltonianism. The Republicans couldn't even get behind SCHIP, let alone the NAF-style health care reform moving through congress right now. Jesus Christ they couldn't even go along with Franken's anti-rape bill.

There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.

I agree with your view in the ideal. In practice, anyone with power or seeking power who claims to be a centrist is usually a squish, and is less interested in ideas than in getting (re)elected, and people who vote for them are usually just falling for snow(e) jobs. Secondly, I believe that the Republican Party as it stands now is so thoroughly controlled by the far right that there is no choice but to be equally firm about where we liberals stand. Not that the Democratic Party will ever commit to doing that on

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: There's a huge difference between centrist elected officials and centrist voters. Most principled centrist voters I know don't vote for so-called moderate officials who are simply advocating watered down versions of the policies of either the left or right. True centrists (of the Halstead/Lind school at least) want policies that are amalgams of the undiluted policies of both sides. They're trying to merge hard left and hard right. Clearly, that doesn't happen very often. But if policies like Halstead's and Lind's are your ideals, it's easy to see why R's and D's look equally unappealing.

Why don't you share some of that NAF policies with the board and let people decide if they're left or right ideas. I wonder what people will think of nationally funded K-12.

Quoting TwinSwords: Dave has been doing yeoman's work covering the lunatic fringe that has taken over the Republican Party, mainly at The Washington Independent[/url].

TWI's parent is partly funded by Soros and Rockefeller, and Weigel does what they want quite well. For instance, here's Dave Weigel lying by just making something up. (I.e., what he says never happened). In the case of NY23, I posted a link to these questions for Doug Hoffman on his entries at TWI. If Weigel were a real reporter he would have asked things like that. Can anyone find examples of Weigel asking anything even remotely close to those type of questions? Weigel is just a hack, even if those who are blinded by partisanship can't recognize it.

Shorter ImmRefDotCom:

Since Dave Weigel is not perpetually in a frenzy about teh Messikins, he must be a liar. Also, Soros. Do the math.

Quoting claymisher: Why don't you share some of that NAF policies with the board and let people decide if they're left or right ideas. I wonder what people will think of nationally funded K-12.

Off the top of my head, I recall the book plugging the following: mandatory health insurance (left), mandatory k-12 (left), replacing social security with individual accounts (right), nixing corporate taxes (right), consumption tax (right). Mostly, it was hard left social policy paid for by hard right economic policy. I'm pretty solidly left of center, so much of what Halstead and Lind take from the right I oppose, but I see how what they are advocating is fundamentally different from what we get from so-called 'centrist' officials and how, if you decide that all parts of their agenda are equally important to you, both parties fail to impress.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Off the top of my head, I recall the book plugging the following: mandatory health insurance (left), mandatory k-12 (left), replacing social security with individual accounts (right), nixing corporate taxes (right), consumption tax (right). Mostly, it was hard left social policy paid for by hard right economic policy.

I'm pretty solidly left of center, so much of what Halstead and Lind take from the right I oppose, but I see how what they are advocating is fundamentally different from what we get from so-called 'centrist' officials and how, if you decide that all parts of their agenda are equally important to you, both parties fail to impress.

The bottom line is they raise federal spending by 2-4% of GDP. Republicans are never going to go for that (unless it's for invading Argentina or something). BTW, there are plenty of liberals for (progressive) consumption taxes and for eliminating corporate taxes ('cause only people pay taxes). So yeah, I agree H+L won't find any friends among village centrists. Also, Lind ain't for privatizing social security. Look, I think it's great to try to sell a social democratic agenda as radically centrist or whatever, but let's not kid ourselves.

John Cole's take: "We’re All Moderates Now." [Added] DougJ's earlier post might have provoked that sarcastic title -- he actually makes a plausible case that the teabaggers are, in some senses, a possible moderating force on the Republican Party.

Quoting bjkeefe: Secondly, I believe that the Republican Party as it stands now is so thoroughly controlled by the far right that there is no choice but to be equally firm about where we liberals stand. Not that the Democratic Party will ever commit to doing that on our behalf, of course, but we lefties have to keep pushing, lest the wingnuts drive this country off a cliff.

"The middle ground doesn't exist."

Closely related: Former staunch Republican John Cole looks at "reasonable conservative" Rick Moran's futile attempt to find that middle ground. P.S. JC just has a screenshot of the Memeorandum link in question. Here's the actual link.

I think we have to define terms. 1. centrism 2. Moderate 3. Radical Center I think what Brendon is talking about is party discipline while moving the American political system in a more parliamentary direction. Most voters are still consensus and moderate. The current president is a consensus politician. But, there's now, in Sam Tanenhaus' argument, a radical conservative movement analogous to the radical leftist movement in the late 60s and 70s, that is prompting Democrats to call for party discipline. But, it's all highly populist and uncritical. And this is where a horrible media sector combines with private constituencies for policies that don't necessarily match party categories. Radical centrists have the only strategy to navigate this shoal-laden map. Partisanship only works when the bureaucracy is completely professionalized, meaning political appointees going only one level deep. That's just too much change for American voters.

Harking: "Powell/Frum/Brooks brand of socialism-lite" Do you have any idea how crazy that is ? Do you expect anyone to consider you anything less than deranged ?

I'm not disputing that there ARE progressives who will espouse these policies, or denying that the GOP in its current extreme incarnation won't espouse these policies. I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals. And Lind may have changed his position since writing that book; fair enough. My point is still that the ideas in that book are centrist ideas. Twin seemed to be suggesting that there was no such thing as centrist thinking. And I'm saying there is such a thing. If philosophical liberals adopt some of those proposals, that doesn't MAKE them philosophically liberal ideas.

Quoting harkin: 'Teabaggers'? Really? The best you can do is regurgitate a tired, immature piece of snide that even Anderson Cooper realized was playground-level smack and apologized for? Looks like that dialogue with Bob trying to foster civil discourse is working wonders and the high class of the left wing here strikes again.

Where'd that term originate? The only people who need to apologize for the term are the morans who put that sign in the hands of a kid. Don't blame Cooper for repeating what they'd already been calling themselves.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I'm not disputing that there ARE progressives who will espouse these policies, or denying that the GOP in its current extreme incarnation won't espouse these policies. I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals.

And Lind may have changed his position since writing that book; fair enough. My point is still that the ideas in that book are centrist ideas. Twin seemed to be suggesting that there was no such thing as centrist thinking. And I'm saying there is such a thing. If philosophical liberals adopt some of those proposals, that doesn't MAKE them philosophically liberal ideas.

The question, though, is (IMHO): Are they meaningful centrist ideas? By which I mean: Do they represent more than the merely random, idiosyncratic views held by a (statistically) insignificant minority? If you allow a small enough minimum sample size, almost any view has a chance of being represented.

Quoting AemJeff: The question, though, is (IMHO): Are they meaningful centrist ideas? By which I mean: Do they represent more than the merely random, idiosyncratic views held by a (statistically) insignificant minority? If you allow a small enough minimum sample size, almost any view has a chance of being represented.

Agreed. I don't know, and am not that interested in, the statistical or political implications of such ideas existing. Twin seemed to be making a philosophical point, that it wasn't a tenable ideological position to be centrist--that's all I was trying to counter.

The GHEMRotRSTF intones:

The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.

I am not making this up. P.S. Doug Hoffman has his first glass of whine. [Added] Vote count details. [Added2] An interesting earlier note. [Added3] Can't wait to hear the Son of Erick comment on the news from California.

It's like the GOP paid $20 for an apple. The GOP can keep paying dearly for the same real estate every election, too. Corzine and Bloomberg can keep spending $20 for an apple, too. I'm embarrassed that Americans, wingnuts and non-rodeo clowns, are so profligate with their money.

But, what was the turnout?

Quoting Baltimoron: But, what was the turnout?

Haven't seen anything official, and I don't think all the votes have been counted yet (absentee ballots plus some mechanical problems in four precincts), but right now, it looks like it was about two-thirds of what it was in 2008.

And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"

Quoting Baltimoron: And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"

You think it'll be that tame, eh?

Well, I guess writing headlines for Fox is one job I'm proud not to be good for. Sinking one-liners is not my forte!

No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.

Quoting kezboard: No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.

I think the first has already been asserted (not even phrased as a "question"), although I'm not positive that Fox has run it as a headline. Yet. I think "Chicago-style politics" (with "thug" or "thuggery" thrown in somewhere) is now mixed into all Fox News broadcasts by Autotune.

As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.

Quoting kezboard: As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.

Quite so. However, you're trying to bring accuracy back into a situation where the wingnuts have already picked a meme and defined it to suit their taste, and the Villagers have opened wide and swallowed deep, so, uh, may I recommend a battle with better chances of winning, perhaps? (I'm still trying to save "liberal," myself.)

Quoting Baltimoron: And, the Fox headline will be: "Liberals Scare Voters from NY 23 Polls!"

LOL!

Quoting bjkeefe: You think it'll be that tame, eh?

LOL x 2!

Quoting kezboard: No no no no.
It's going to be something like "ACORN influence in NY-23?" Or maybe "Chicago style politics in NY-23?" Whatever it is, it will surely contain the Cavuto Mark.

Yes, this is right. I think I'll turn on Fox News right now and see how they're spinning it.

Is Jon Stewart right about how Fox covers the NY-23 story? http://radicalcontra.wordpress.com/2...m-to-change-2/

Entertaining video.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I'm just saying that on a philosophical level, these are centrist proposals.

i thought they were extremist proposals entirely, some from the left and some from the right - which may balance out to "centrist" if you deal in averages, but really, it just seems like the worst, most extreme ideas from both sides. pretty much the antitheses of anything i'd like to see happen in this country. just my .02

Quoting kezboard: As a Chicagoan, I'm very irritated about the misuse of this phrase. Chicago-style politics does not mean intimidation or thuggery or whatever Glenn Beck thinks it means. It means "vote early and vote often", dead people voting, exchanging votes for beers, etc.

I thought it was like New York style, except served in a deep dish like a casserole.

Quoting popcorn_karate: i thought they were extremist proposals entirely, some from the left and some from the right - which may balance out to "centrist" if you deal in averages, but really, it just seems like the worst, most extreme ideas from both sides. pretty much the antitheses of anything i'd like to see happen in this country.

just my .02

yes, they are the most extremist ideas from left and right amalgamated into something id agree with halstead and lind and call "radical centrism." it's not moderate politics, which is what i think most people think of when we use the term "centrist," and what most "centrist" elected officials reflect. i was just trying to draw the distinction between this [radical] kind of centrism--which averages out to being in the middle but is of its own philosophy--and the more commonplace washington centrism which is just watered down versions of liberalism or conservatism.

You have mentioned in a previous thread that you believe the parties are more similar then I and most others believe. Could you explain your reasoning? Edit:
From my vantage point, the rise of hyper-partisan news sources (such as Fox or MSNBC), is radically polarizing the electorate. How can there ever be consensus among the electorate (instead of a perpetual 55-45 split), when the two sides cannot even come togethor and agree on basic facts about reality (which I would argue is largely an artifact of partisan news sources) ?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: You have mentioned in a previous thread that you believe the parties are more similar then I and most others believe.

Could you explain your reasoning?

Edit:
From my vantage point, the rise of hyper-partisan news sources (such as Fox or MSNBC), is radically polarizing the electorate. How can there ever be consensus among the electorate (instead of a perpetual 55-45 split), when the two sides cannot even come togethor and agree on basic facts about reality (which I would argue is largely an artifact of partisan news sources) ?

The question isn't directed to me, but at least until pretty recently I would have said that the parties were pretty similar, certainly more so than portrayed by their more rhetorically-extreme advocates. I might still make that argument, although the Republicans are making it hard, especially since it seems unclear how to separate what they really advocate vs. what they are happy to use to rile up the tea party mobs (who don't seem to really have that much in common with traditional Republicanism in a lot of ways). I was just thinking about this in light of the attack on Obama's

Quoting stephanie: So that leaves the deficit, which I find the weirdest of the apparently polarising issues of the moment, in that it seems most directly related to (1) the bailout of the financial sector (supported by the Bush admin and almost certain to have been supported by a President McCain, even if he had trouble figuring out how to work it as a campaign issue) -- not a traditional lefty policy, but the kind of issue where mainstream business-oriented Republicans and the particular pragmatist and DLC sectors of the Dems who have been big influences in the party in recent years tend to agree; (2) the stimulus -- again a policy that owes as much to mainstream thinking about economists and business interests as some supposedly leftist idelogy and, again, a policy that I suspect a Republican president would have followed to a certain extent, although with different pork projects to be embarassed by; and (3) a recalculation of the budget going forward revealing the cost Bush's own policies, such as the wars and the tax cuts (assuming they wouldn't be allowed to expire). Plus, of course, the negative effect on tax revenue

Quoting popcorn_karate: but people say i'm cynical...

When it comes to mainstream Republicans activists and the like, and to some extent the actions of politicians, I actually do think you are more right than cynical (not that the two are mutually exclusive). What I'm puzzling through is whether the rhetorical games means that there's really a difference between the parties or whether the fact that I think the situation would be pretty much the same on these matters no matter who was elected allows me to maintain my traditional view that the parties aren't so far apart as all that. It also makes me frustrated with those of good faith who seem to be falling for the rhetoric or imagine that Obama is some hardcore lefty, but oh, well.

Quoting stephanie: ....what they are happy to use to rile up the tea party mobs (who don't seem to really have that much in common with traditional Republicanism in a lot of ways)...

...I've actually got major problems with both cap & trade and the health care reform as currently envisioned, but hardly because either is particularly leftist. Both are pretty much a combination of a sop to centrism and the powers that be and basically politics as usual (don't want to have too much change)...

It is always hilarious too see the left trying to define their preferred policies as those of the centrists but a take or of some 16-17% of the economy is not centrist nor is the placing of regressive tax policies on energy, even with the various Robin Hood clauses of rob the rich to redistribute to the poor, centrist. Perhaps some of the more partisan name calling, in an attempt to re-brand those individuals participating in the summer protests (mobs, teabagers, right wing fanatics etc.) many of which, if not the majority, are just working folks expressing their concerns, has been unproductive. While

Quoting popcorn_karate: i think you're problem here is thinking. you know, being rational. The point of "oh noz - the deficit!" hand wringing from the right is to obstruct everything in Obama's agenda. It has nothing to do with actually thinking about the issues, or trying to understand why we are in the situation we are in, or trying to solve problems.

once you realize that they are just digging in their heels for pure power-politics reasons, their actions and "concerns" become easily understood.

but people say i'm cynical...

When I have to deal with some cousin's blowhard right-wing boyfriend or whatever I play a little game with him: 1) who was the last guy to hit .400?
2) what's the debt right now anyway? They always get the first one right and never get the second.

Given that I've been a swing voter in plenty of elections, have been as turned off by the leftist faction in the Dems as anyone, and was delighted that the DLC and Clintons moved the party to the center, as it made me able to fit okay in one party vs. the other, trying to define me as hard left is silly. Plus, polls consistently suggest that the US population is more to the left on health care than the current approach reflects. The Republicans have a problem with a certain type of moderate voter (and I know that moderates aren't all that popular around here, so I'm certainly not calling myself that to be liked -- fact is that like a lot of people my politics vary depending on the issue and I don't tend to like extreme partisanship, although that's currently changing in reaction to the Republican strategy). Now, they may not want people like me even looking in their direction, and on the national level I've been more of a Dem than not anyway, but given that the dividing line isn't all that clear I don't think

Quoting stephanie: Given that I've been a swing voter in plenty of elections, have been as turned off by the leftist faction in the Dems as anyone, and was delighted that the DLC and Clintons moved the party to the center, as it made me able to fit okay in one party vs. the other, trying to define me as hard left is silly.

When did you last vote for someone from the right? Reagan? Because if you liked Clinton it would follow that Gore and Kerry were your guys as well.

Quoting stephanie: Plus, polls consistently suggest that the US population is more to the left on health care than the current approach reflects.

It would be better if you actually link to these polls as there are polls on both sides of the issue. But even the pollster.com aggregate average is 50.3 against 42.6 for.

Quoting stephanie: The Republicans have a problem with a certain type of moderate voter (and I know that moderates aren't all that popular around here, so I'm certainly not calling myself that to be liked -- fact is that like a lot of people my politics vary depending on

Don't kid yourself. You're a liberal. You might have the temperament for moderation in all things (and a nice thing that is too), but your policy preferences in the current political context make you a liberal.

Quoting piscivorous: When did you last vote for someone from the right? Reagan? Because if you liked Clinton it would follow that Gore and Kerry were your guys as well.

I don't know about Stephanie, but I was a Clintonite, and supported Gore and then Kerry for President, but vote for Republicans in most local races.

Quoting claymisher: Don't kid yourself. You're a liberal. You might have the temperament for moderation in all things (and a nice thing that is too), but your policy preferences in the current political context make you a liberal.

Not quite. None of what Stephanie outlined alludes to the cultural and social aspects of liberalism or the defense and foreign policy aspects of liberalism. Without making assumptions about Stephanie's views on these points specifically, let's take a hypothetical: where would you classify someone who is hard left on economics but hard right on social and defense issues?

Without making assumptions about Stephanie's views on these points specifically, let's take a hypothetical: where would you classify someone who is hard left on economics but hard right on social and defense issues?

Stalinist? That was facetious. A union member from the forties? What prominent person in the US today fits this profile?

Beats me. Let's look at today's news:

Democrats only had to break three separate filibusters in the Senate to get this passed! The first filibuster was broken by a vote of 87-13, the second by a vote of 85-2, and the third by a vote of 97-1. The fourth and final vote, the one to actually pass the bill, was 98-0. Elapsed time: five weeks for a bill that everyone ended up voting for.

Why? Because even though Republicans were allowed to tack on a tax cut to the bill as the price of getting it passed, they decided to filibuster anyway unless they were also allowed to include an anti-ACORN amendment. Seriously. A bit of ACORN blustering to satisfy the Palin-Beck crowd is the reason they held up a bill designed to help people who are out of work in the deepest recession since World War II. Details here and here.

-- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...erative_b.html Is stephanie really on this fence between these two parties? I doubt it.

Quoting kezboard: Stalinist? That was facetious. A union member from the forties? What prominent person in the US today fits this profile?

No prominent person. As I've said elsewhere on this site, I'm not making any claims about the positions of political leaders but of voters. They are not usually the same thing. And I'd argue that Hillary Clinton supporters in Spring 2008, or the folks Ross Douthat is talking about in his book (the folks sometimes crudely described as "White, rural and working-class") seem to fit this bill--eager for state protection on economic issues, hawkish on defense and distrustful of coastal cultural liberalism.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I don't know about Stephanie, but I was a Clintonite, and supported Gore and then Kerry for President, but vote for Republicans in most local races.

I'd actually disagree, of course, that supporting Clinton means that one would support Gore and Kerry (obviously it didn't, for a number of people, and by the time Gore ran he could be seen to the left of Clinton, depending on what one cared about, and Kerry too, also depending). In any case, my point is simply that I'm typically a swing voter, and yes that includes voting for plenty of Republicans in statewide elections (including both Senate and Governor).

Quoting claymisher: Don't kid yourself. You're a liberal. You might have the temperament for moderation in all things (and a nice thing that is too), but your policy preferences in the current political context make you a liberal.

Oh, in the current climate I think that's probably true, and I am pretty clearly a liberal on certain issues that are currently prominent and tend to be discussed on this forum (health care being one, although I think the American public is to the left of the current admin in some ways on that issue, as I mentioned before) and probably more so than I've been in the past. (For the record, a lot of the issues I'm more conservative on just don't come up much or seem like that much fun to discuss.) My point was more that I think it's fair to say that if you really look at what the mainstream Republicans have done, it's hard to say precisely where the parties split, but it's not really normally on the issues that are currently being screamed about by Beck et al. as socialist. Almost all the current stuff seems more rhetorical

Quoting Starwatcher162536: You have mentioned in a previous thread that you believe the parties are more similar then I and most others believe.

Could you explain your reasoning?

Edit:
From my vantage point, the rise of hyper-partisan news sources (such as Fox or MSNBC), is radically polarizing the electorate. How can there ever be consensus among the electorate (instead of a perpetual 55-45 split), when the two sides cannot even come togethor and agree on basic facts about reality (which I would argue is largely an artifact of partisan news sources) ?

My primary thesis is this: The electorate is not polarized. And the electorate is fundamental. Everything else, including "parties" must be understood relative to the people. If you graph a histogram of the people on a left/right axis, you will find a normal (Gaussian) distribution. The peak is the political center. The job of each party is to cover the left side (D) of this curve, or the right side (R) in such a way as to maximize votes. Since the normal distribution is peaked at the center, there is an almost irresistible force drawing the parties together (at least when they understand the game and want

Quoting Simon Willard:
If you graph a histogram of the people on a left/right axis, you will find a normal (Gaussian) distribution. The peak is the political center.

Are you sure? Have you checked? There are bimodal distributions, you know. You're making a pretty big claim here.

Quoting Simon Willard: Circling back to your brilliant post, you expressed the difficulty of deciding on the proper path. The path will be chosen by the back-and-forth oscillations of the political system as it makes mistakes and feels the pain of those mistakes. Negative feedback rules! It's messy and painful, but it's the best we can hope for. So, yeah, you can't know what policy is best. Don't try to decide if you should choose paper or plastic to save the world. The best thing you can do is put a diverse collection of intelligent people in office.

Good lord, that is some serious Pangloss you got there. Those oscillations ain't always so happy.

Thanks for the repsonse. Btw, when I was talking about consensus, I was not talking about a general consensus on all issues, but was instead talking about consensus forming on what the optimal solutions are for specific problems.

I think Simon would say that parliamentery systems are probably inherently less stable then ours.

And I'd argue that Hillary Clinton supporters in Spring 2008, or the folks Ross Douthat is talking about in his book (the folks sometimes crudely described as "White, rural and working-class") seem to fit this bill--eager for state protection on economic issues, hawkish on defense and distrustful of coastal cultural liberalism.

Yeah, I kind of know what you're getting at -- somewhere between the images of John Edwards (pre-Rielle) and Mike Huckabee, or something. I just don't know how "distrustful of coastal cultural liberalism" translates into a party platform, and I don't think that it's just a matter of positions on things like abortion and gay marriage.

Quoting kezboard: Yeah, I kind of know what you're getting at -- somewhere between the images of John Edwards (pre-Rielle) and Mike Huckabee, or something. I just don't know how "distrustful of coastal cultural liberalism" translates into a party platform, and I don't think that it's just a matter of positions on things like abortion and gay marriage.

It's economic and defense planks of this you're missing. This constituency is hard left on economics--anti-trade, desirous of big government support programs etc, hard-right on defense and center-right on social issues.

Quoting kezboard: Yeah, I kind of know what you're getting at -- somewhere between the images of John Edwards (pre-Rielle) and Mike Huckabee, or something. I just don't know how "distrustful of coastal cultural liberalism" translates into a party platform, and I don't think that it's just a matter of positions on things like abortion and gay marriage.

I tend to agree. The whole Walmart Republican movement seems to be based on the idea that there's something in Republicanism for the white (and in some cases the hope is to get the non-white, too) working class, and that you can encourage this by modifying Republicanism with recognition of the economic liberalism (even if they don't always admit that's what it is) of many in these groups. However, the trend of these people into the Republican party really does seem to be a cultural reaction in the current climate, so I'm not seeing it translate into a real set of programs. And that's especially so as that would highlight the splits in the Republican Party. The current cultural basis for a lot of this just seems stupid, though, so I'd prefer that the splits get highlighted and

Quoting stephanie: [...]

Paul Krugman's column of today has some relevance to this discussion. He has a darker view of the changing nature of the Republican Party ...

... the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

... and he worries that this is no laughing matter.

Krugman should come out and say what's bothering him. Are posters that make Hitler comparisons are in bad taste? OK, so they are. The GOP is controlled by the extreme right? There has been some movement in that direction. Ordinarily this means the GOP will be even more marginalized than it is now. Good news for Dems. The GOP will take advantage of voter frustration with Obama? Well, gosh, and why not? That's how it should work. That's as wholesome and American as Mom's apple pie. The GOP is not interested in governing, but rather preventing others from governing? I'm not sure about the validity of this Krugman fear, but it's certainly a legitimate position for the GOP to say they want less government, and act accordingly. Finally, the coup de grace: Krugman warns the country may become "ungovernable". But no explanation of what that means. Now it's starting to sound like paranoia on Krugman's part.

Quoting Simon Willard: Krugman should come out and say what's bothering him.

Seems to me he does -- he is concerned that the GOP is increasingly dominated by people who are more interested in acquiring power by preying on people's fears and anger than they are in finding solutions to problems, and that when such people are in office, even in the minority position, they spend their efforts doing nothing but impeding progress. He points to California as an example, where he sees the GOP as preventing steps that have to be taken; e.g., to resolve the budgetary crisis. It also seems to me that this ...

Quoting Simon Willard: ... it's certainly a legitimate position for the GOP to say they want less government, and act accordingly.

... is too simplistic a position, and in fact, resonates with what Krugman worries about when he talks about what passes for leadership in the GOP these days. You're certainly entitled to hold a belief in "less government," and as a matter of principle, it is one I share on a number of policy questions. However, you can't just be all "less government" = "problem solved!" when we have to deal with issues like a serious recession, high unemployment, and

Quoting bjkeefe: Seems to me he does -- he is concerned that the GOP is increasingly dominated by people who are more interested in acquiring power by preying on people's fears and anger than they are in finding solutions to problems, and that when such people are in office, even in the minority position, they spend their efforts doing nothing but impeding progress. He points to California as an example, where he sees the GOP as preventing steps that have to be taken; e.g., to resolve the budgetary crisis.

It also seems to me that this ...

... is too simplistic a position, and in fact, resonates with what Krugman worries about when he talks about what passes for leadership in the GOP these days. You're certainly entitled to hold a belief in "less government," and as a matter of principle, it is one I share on a number of policy questions. However, you can't just be all "less government" = "problem solved!" when we have to deal with issues like a serious recession, high unemployment, and climate change. It's as unthinking as opposing all tax cuts without exception as the first sentence in one's political creed.

To address a couple

Quoting stephanie: All that said, however, it does seem that there's been a switch with many working class whites more likely to vote Republican and a lot more professional class types firmly in the Dems.

That's not what some political scientists say: http://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Blue...7810788&sr=8-1

Quoting Unit: That's not what some political scientists say:

http://www.amazon.com/Red-State-Blue...7810788&sr=8-1

I've read that book and it's not disputing the stats I was referring to, but looking at a different issue. The big point in that book (which goes on to discuss various aspects of the issue) is that poorer states are more Republican than richer. Also, in poorer states, party allegience can be predicted based on income, whereas in richer states there's far less corollation between income and party affiliation. (Gelman tries to control for the race-related aspect of this and says that the conclusion still holds, and I remember being convinced when reading the book.) On the other hand, nationally, working class whites (or non-college-educated whites) have been moving over to the Republicans, whereas upper income and professionals (or, in other polls, college-educated whites*), who used to be firmly in the Republicans are moving over to the Dems. Probably this is largely reflective of what's going on in the richer states. There are a variety of stats which show these changes, and here's one paper, by occasional blogginghead Ruy Teixeira, about it. *I acknowledge that the two divisions I'm talking about are somewhat different, and am not trying to claim

Quoting Simon Willard: Sorry I don't have time to acknowledge every point you make. In brief, I think you are clarifying that much of Krugman's column can be explained as a partisan rant. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I'm looking for insight.

Sometimes insight is gained by stating clearly what the problem is. PK continues on this theme today, in a blog post titled "Armey of Ignorace," referring to what he calls a "seriously disgusting interview" with the teabagger-in-chief.

There’s a persistent delusion, on the part of many pundits, to the effect that we’re actually having a rational political discussion in this country. But we aren’t. The proposition that the Community Reinvestment Act caused all the bad stuff, because government forced helpless bankers into lending to Those People, has been refuted up, down, and sideways. The vast bulk of subprime lending came from institutions not subject to the CRA. Commercial real estate lending, which was mainly lending to rich white developers, not you-know-who, is in much worse shape than subprime home lending. Etc., etc.

But in Dick Armey’s world, in fact on the right as a whole, the affirmative-action-made-them-do-it doctrine isn’t even seen as a hypothesis. It’s just a fact, something everyone knows.

Truly, sometimes

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Are you expecting anyone to take you seriously when you say WorldNetDaily is part of mainstream conservatism? There are plenty of good arguments to make against conservatives, why resort to complete strawmen?

To follow up on my earlier answer, here's another, even more recent, example, from David Weigel:

My profile of WorldNetDaily made the case that the conservative Website, which opinion-makers brush off as a conspiracy hub, is actually incredibly influential on the right. Here’s some evidence for that argument.

For months — really since it was announced at the How to Take Back America Conference — WND has backed a campaign to send “pink slips” to members of Congress. Upon the sending of the five millionth pink slip, WND held a press conference yesterday on Capitol Hill, drawing actual GOP members of Congress, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). After the jump, pictures of Bachmann and Gohmert with WND Editor Joseph Farah, one of the driving forces of the “birther” movement.

(h/t: LGF)