(h/t: Comics Curmudgeon)

Juli Weiner says all the blogs love this, but in case you haven't already seen it, Jon Stewart doing Glenn Beck's election coverage is a must-watch.

Quoting bjkeefe: Good to see you back, Conn. Thanks especially for reporting (starting around 30 min in) on some blogs that we don't always hear about.

Small note on something that came up later (around 39 min): I was very happy to hear you point out early on ways in which Rush Limbaugh does not help. I was saddened, especially in this light, to hear you talk about energy policy by resorting to the beyond stale tactic of making it all about Al Gore As Demon. If you want attention to be paid to the Heritage point of view on this issue, I'd advise that you drop that tactic -- it's nothing more than a cheap way to get applause from people who already buy your point of view. It tends to make most everyone else think, "Okay, this guy's not worth taking seriously."

Whether or not your complaints about Gore are legitimate is a separate issue, and you would do well to keep them out of a larger discussion. At this point, Gore is out of office, and in a position that Limbaugh holds -- lots of people who like him listen to him, lots of

Quoting bjkeefe: Juli Weiner says all the blogs love this, but in case you haven't already seen it, Jon Stewart doing Glenn Beck's election coverage is a must-watch.

OMFG yes. I saw that last night and was in the throes of delight - as inspired as Stewart has been in a long time. It's extra-funny for those who have actually occassionally seen (suffered through?) some of Beck's awful show. (Which I, gulp, have in recent months - at least in excruciating bits and pieces. Unemployment does funny things to a man!)

Quoting nikkibong: Excellent points made by Bill about how the (in)famous "blue dogs" are learning all the WRONG lessons from New Jersey and Virginia. For Chrissakes Dems, you were elected to accomplish, not obstruct.

Agreed. Do these people not remember the phrase "Republican Lite?" What happens when a member of Congress runs away from everything that the rightwing noise machine labels as "far left" is two-fold: the liberals in the party are inspired to stay home on Election Day, and large numbers of independents think, "Well, given these two choices, I might as well vote for the real thing." Blue Dogs draw the wrong lessons from Bill Clinton. He won in 1992 less because of his "third way" and more because (1) he was a brilliant and charismatic politician, where the rest of the Dems and GHWB weren't, and (2) the economy was sour, and that means "blame the incumbent." One of the other B'heads (Weigel?) made a good point a few days ago -- the core problem for the Dems has long been that, unlike Republicans and especially conservatives, they won't just stand up and show pride in what they want to accomplish. If there was more leadership out there saying, "Yes, I believe wholeheartedly

CONN !!!

Great to see Conn back: all substance, no gossip. How does Bill respond to the apparent contradiction of wanting "to make more stuff over here in the US" and thus presumably using up a lot of our resources, which includes polluting our environment a lot more, and his other concern with everything "green"? I might add that I was cringing throughout the long spiel of a rich well-fed westerner (Bill) crying that "we are not competing on a level field" and "those Chinese do not abide to the same rules" etc....So what if China is shooting itself in the foot, trampling over basic human freedoms to implement a centralized industrial policy, protectionism, etc...while disposing of its natural resources? Why would we even want to imitate that behavior?

Bill Scher, You mentioned that you do not like NPR and likened them to opiate for the liberal masses. I would love to hear or read more about these thoughts.

In that Phillies cartoon, it would be even more appropriate to put a picture of Erick Erickson.

Quoting rgajria: Bill Scher,

You mentioned that you do not like NPR and likened them to opiate for the liberal masses. I would love to hear or read more about these thoughts.

I hope Bill weighs in, but this might get you started while you're waiting.

Nancy Pelosi came out on election night and claimed the the NY23 seat had been in Republican hands since the Civil War. That is a lie. It has been in Democratic hands many times since then and nobody seems to call her on it or has bothered to check. Inconsequential? yes. An attempt to make the win larger than it was? Sure. Should we expect more from the SOTH? Not this one. Also if the Democrats want to call beating a bad candidate by 7%(?)...whose name no one knew a month before the election... after the Democrat was endorsed by the Republican who dropped out a couple days previous from the race... a big victory, thats fine. I will let them breed false confidence. Although I would have preferred Hoffman won; I would rather have a Democrat being a Democrat there than a Republican being a Democrat there...and like the Godfather cartoon...the message was still delivered.

NPR as our opiate:
After an hour or two of All Things Considered I feel more in touch with the stories that matter....and I'm introduced to the smart people pursuing solutions to the troubling issues. And generally I catch a reminder of our better natures through the selfless work of some ordinary citizen hero....or I'm uplifted by the story of someone's successful struggle. I FEEL COMFORTED. NPR may inspire thoughts of good citizenship(activism or simple participation) but does it set its listeners on fire? FOX does...and sends them marching with teabags and guns. FOX is our Crystal Meth.

Quoting ImprecisePsychic: ...
After an hour or two of All Things Considered I feel more in touch with the stories that matter...

I dunno about comfort, but I don't think there's a better general news source, or one with higher quality reporting. It's literate, eclectic, and smart - if it's not perfect, it certainly comes closer to that ideal than any other single source.

Quoting ImprecisePsychic: NPR as our opiate:
After an hour or two of All Things Considered I feel more in touch with the stories that matter....and I'm introduced to the smart people pursuing solutions to the troubling issues. And generally I catch a reminder of our better natures through the selfless work of some ordinary citizen hero....or I'm uplifted by the story of someone's successful struggle. I FEEL COMFORTED.

NPR may inspire thoughts of good citizenship(activism or simple participation) but does it set its listeners on fire?

FOX does...and sends them marching with teabags and guns.

FOX is our Crystal Meth.

It's alright until I hear one of the villagers -- Juan Williams or Mara Liasson -- and then the radio goes off. That and "the Dow is up on news of a butterfly flapping its wings in Madagascar ..."

Quoting claymisher: It's alright until I hear one of the villagers -- Juan Williams or Mara Liasson -- and then the radio goes off. That and "the Dow is up on news of a butterfly flapping its wings in Madagascar ..."

Juan's become a tiresome contrarian, but I think Mara's a good reporter.

Quoting Whatfur: Nancy Pelosi came out on election night and claimed the the NY23 seat had been in Republican hands since the Civil War. [...]

Inconsequential? yes. [...]

Well put.

Quoting Whatfur: ...and like the Godfather cartoon...the message was still delivered.

Why am I not surprised that the cartoon that appealed to you the most was the one with the most violent imagery?

Quoting Flaw: CONN !!!

Quoting bjkeefe: Well put.

Why am I not surprised that the cartoon that appealed to you the most was the one with the most violent imagery?

Why am I not surprised that the cartoon that appealed to you had something sticking into someones butt?

Quoting claymisher: It's alright until I hear one of the villagers -- Juan Williams or Mara Liasson -- and then the radio goes off. That and "the Dow is up on news of a butterfly flapping its wings in Madagascar ..."

And don't forget the "This I Believe" series. That was the final straw for me.

Funny you should mention the tea baggers and NPR...I happened to be driving an obscure road with very little radio reception when the big DC rally happened and the only radio station I could pick up was NPR. It went on to tell me a number of times during that 45 minutes that the crowd estimate was about 10K while disparaging the participants. I was disappointed until the next day when I learned it was closer to a 1/2 million. Yep, thats your NPR. Reliable news source.

Quoting Whatfur: Why am I not surprised that the cartoon that appealed to you had something sticking into someones butt?

Because you always see things through the lens of your worries about your own sexual orientation.

Quoting bjkeefe: Because you always see things through the lens of your worries about your own sexual orientation.

Said tutti fruiti.

Conn shows why he's a political analyst and not an economist: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:05&out=34:55 Don't confuse me with facts man, I'm a free-trader.

Quoting Whatfur: Funny you should mention the tea baggers and NPR...I happened to be driving an obscure road with very little radio reception when the big DC rally happened and the only radio station I could pick up was NPR. It went on to tell me a number of times during that 45 minutes that the crowd estimate was about 10K. I was disappointed until the next day when I learned it was closer to a 1/2 million. Yep, thats your NPR. Reliable news source.

If we're talking about the 9/12 rally ... Where did you get that "1/2 million" number? Gateway Pundit or Michelle Malkin? Or someone else of that ilk? Or still someone else, mindlessly repeating that "ABC report?" Note that even Fox News eventually started reporting the number as "tens of thousands." Which, I'd be willing to bet, is what NPR was saying.

[quote=bjkeefe;136599]If we're talking about the 9/12 rally ... ...
QUOTE] Actually the lowest estimate I heard was 300,000. heres the time lapse video I am sure you have seen. How about you remove your shoes and see how high you can count and then go back to trying to rewrite history.

Here's another Election Night 2009 story, sadly not given the attention it deserved, due to the Battle For The Fate Of The Entire Universe For All Of Time From Now On (i.e., NY-23): Jonah Goldberg's brother, Joshua, ran for city council in New York (as noted on this site, some time ago). Well, despite support from mom and bro, he lost. Pretty badly. More than seven points below the crazification factor, matter of fact. And then he made matters worse. (h/t: TBogg) ========== (De-insiderifier: What's the crazification factor?)

Quoting Whatfur:

Quoting bjkeefe: If we're talking about the 9/12 rally ...

...

Actually the lowest estimate I heard was 300,000.

Like I said, consider expanding your sources. ========== [Added] Also ...

Quoting Whatfur: heres the time lapse video I am sure you have seen.

No, that was a first for me. I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to be able to come up with a meaningful estimate from that, though. (I note you can look at the sidebar and see "on up to the two million figure cited by the boss earlier this morning," a line I do recognize, the boss here being none other than, yup, Michelle Malkin! That Allahpundit sure knows who signs his paychecks, doesn't he?) But perhaps you will help me to estimate the crowd from this "conclusive!!!1!" video?

Quoting Whatfur: How about you remove your shoes and see how high you can count ...

So, you're saying the crowd size was more like 20? Okay, I'm happy to leave it there. Meanwhile ...

Quoting Whatfur: ... and then go back to trying to rewrite history.

Here's fifty cents, kid. Go buy yourself some new clichés. Linking to contemporaneous reports is hardly "rewriting history."

You did notice that, the Fox News piece, it was based on an AP story didn't you?

Quoting piscivorous: You did notice that, the Fox News piece it was based on an AP story didn't you?

I'm curious how you think that might change the point he was making. Do you think Fox would have used a different number if the Wall Street Journal had "contributed to [that] report?"

No. But who's estimate is the "tens of thousands." Fox's or AP's. Brendons implication is that it is Fox's, but as there live coverage estimates were considerably higher, my contention is that its the AP's.

Quoting piscivorous: No. But who's estimate is the "tens of thousands." Fox's or AP's. Brendons implication is that it is Fox's, but as there live coverage estimates were considerably higher, my contention is that its the AP's.

But that's my point. Fox published that statistic, knowingly, beneath its own logo. That is a pretty clear statement that they support the number in the article. AP's unspecified contribution notwithstanding.

Quoting piscivorous: You did notice that, the Fox News piece, it was based on an AP story didn't you?

What Jeff said. Also, you're being misleading here. It wasn't "based on an AP story," and it certainly wasn't said in the Fox News piece that they got the crowd size number from AP. As far as I can tell, the only reason they added "The Associated Press contributed to this report" at the bottom is so they could use a quote or two given to an AP reporter who was on scene. [Added] And I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, but if it's to suggest that AP is somehow part of the imaginary "liberal media," I have five words for you: Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier. Look him up.

Quoting rcocean: Conn shows why he's a political analyst and not an economist:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:05&out=34:55

Don't confuse me with facts man, I'm a free-trader.

I think you have 'economist' and 'political analyst' switched: it's politicians who use trade as a foreign policy tool and economists who stick to the principles of free-trade.

Quoting piscivorous: No. But who's estimate is the "tens of thousands." Fox's or AP's. Brendons implication is that it is Fox's, but as there live coverage estimates were considerably higher, my contention is that its the AP's.

More likely that it was the number given by the Washington, D.C. fire department, which ABC reported, as part of its efforts to tamp down the wingnut meme of "ABC reported 2 million!!!1!" Or, it is to be hoped, Fox called the fire department themselves, to get or verify this number. If they were just passing along AP's number, they would have said so, just as they attributed the quotes.

Some points I liked: 1. Nate Silver - thanks! 2. Scher's "Heterosexist" quip and Carroll's retort. 3. Slamming CNN and cable TV 4. Carroll defending competent candidate selection. 5. Carroll taking Rush Limbaugh to task One big quibble of mine: learn to pronounce names, like Scozzafava! And, finally, LINKS!!!! Thank you! The rest was OK. I liked this discussion better. Now, why can't bhTV get some of those bloggers in those neat powerful links and put them in a diavlog???!!! If I can praise Conn Carroll, MAYBE bhTV staffers can book someone other than a creationist or force Bob to cover! I'm not holding my breath.

Charlie Pierce's take, posted by Eric Alterman:

Of all the shoddy reactions to last Tuesday's orgy of marginal significance, this may be the most IMPORTANT. If you're keeping score at home, the national Republican party just sent a message to the nutters that, any time they can muster up a candidate from the Island Of Misfit TOYS, the party will take a pass on the race. Now, if you think Cornyn's a little smarter than I think he is --and I think he's pretty much a blockhead--you could argue that he's giving The Base just enough rope to hang itself. (The establishment candidates who get crisped as collateral damage--Hi there, Charlie Crist!--are just SOL, I guess.) However, if you are burdened with common sense, it's plain that the national GOP is scared right down to the tassels on its loafers by what's going on in the hinterlands, its trembling exacerbated this week when Congresswoman Batshit J. Crazee called for direct ACTION. They may learn to channel all this by 2012; the redoubtable Digby OPINES that the whole business is just the same old plutocratic weasels sub-contracting the job of rebuilding their movement. That may be, but, for

Dr. Alterman, please come back on bhTv!!

What's the deal? He's much smarter than the other guy.

They didn't mention Houston, either.

Gee I wonder if AP would appreciate having fox change its estimate of tens of thousands to 100s of thousands? I don't think that is how it works!

Since when is the DC Fire and EMS in the crowd estimating business? It is not one of the service on their site, nor does there seem to be a public press release about it! And while that are plenty of quotes on the page, attributed to many individuals, I can't find any attribution to AP or one of it's reporters. So what part of the story did they contribute? P.S. It took me awhile but I did find this

"DC Fire Department Report" Quote Regarding September 12 Event Misrepresents Agency Policy

In reference to the September 12th Tea Party event held in Washington DC, quoting a “DC Fire Department Report”, regardless of what any media reported, the size of the crowd of those who attended this event were never estimated by DC Fire & EMS. Any reports contrary to this are false. The DC Fire & EMS Department does not estimate crowd sizes.

A Twitter posting estimating the crowd gathering at Freedom Plaza only as “large, possibly as many as 60 thousand” stated that it was an early estimation of that specific area (Freedom Plaza), not the number of participants in the event.

I'm not the one with conspiracies on my mind. I merely made the point that you don't know from what source the estimate came yet you want to clasify it as being FOX's official estimate.

Quoting piscivorous: Since when is the DC Fire and EMS in the crowd estimating business? It is not one of the service on their site, nor does there seem to be a public press release about it!

[...]

P.S. It took me awhile but I did find this

As I understand it, that's not an official capacity of theirs. (The Park Service used to provide "official estimates," but gave it up as a thankless task that did nothing but make activists from both sides yell at them, for under- and overestimation, as the case might have been. Now, as far as I know, no one provides official estimates anymore.) ABC got someone who they evidently thought was credible and went with that, and then there was walking back on the part of the fire department, saying it wasn't an official statement by them. So, whatevs. The key thing to remember about this is that the wingnuts made up some story about ABC having reported the crowd size of a million or so, it got batted around and within hours, became holy writ that it was "2 million, as reported by ABC!!!1!," so much so that ABC felt compelled to respond to it. The various estimates that I have

And it is the loonies on the left that bought into and propogated the Fire Department estimate.

Quoting piscivorous: I'm not the one with conspiracies on my mind.

Straw man alert!

Quoting piscivorous: I merely made the point that you don't know from what source the estimate came yet you want to clasify it as being FOX's official estimate.

I am not saying it's an "official" estimate. I'm saying it's a number Fox felt comfortable reporting; i.e., putting their name behind. However they got it and/or confirmed it, that's what they went with. And given the amount of promotion Fox had put into this and earlier teabaggery, you would think, if anything, that they'd be motivated to give as large a number as they thought they could get away with. Or, if you want to say, "No, no, Fox News and Fox News-Related Opinionating are two separate departments," then fine -- in this case, assume they use more or less the same standards for a factoid like estimated crowd size as any other member of the MSM -- here, since there are no official estimates, essentially a best guess from some source whom they trust not to embarrass them. The fury you're putting into this incredibly trivial point is mind-boggling. I still fail to see what your point is. The only thing

Quoting piscivorous: And it is the loonies on the left that bought into and propogated the Fire Department estimate.

Oh for Pete's sake, pisc, give it a rest. "Tens of thousands" was the number that credible media sources eventually coalesced around. There is nothing "loony" about taking that number as the best estimate. And I might add that it is more than a little loony for you to keep insisting (or implying, if you don't wish to go as far as 'fur), without any good evidence, that it is anything more than that. Further, it was not "bought into and propogated [sic]." Phrasing it that way, contra your earlier claim, comes awfully close to making it sound like you do, in fact, have a conspiracy theory working here. And besides, you want to know who bought into and propagated a totally unfounded number? Wingnuts, that's who. Read Eric Boehlert. He documented it thoroughly. Oh, wait. You won't trust him. Because he's part of "the liberal media." But you don't believe in conspiracy thinking. Well, whatever. Believe what you want. If the teabaggers really are that massive a force, I'll say they sure hid their power this year. But who knows, maybe they'll make it plain in the next election. And

Quoting rgajria: Bill Scher,

You mentioned that you do not like NPR and likened them to opiate for the liberal masses. I would love to hear or read more about these thoughts.

ImprecisePsychic below pretty much sums up my thoughts, but I'm happy to elaborate. 1. NPR attracts one of the largest, arguably the largest, audiences in America. 33 million listen to NPR stations weekly, with 14 million tuning to Morning Edition. -- http://www.npr.org/about/press/2009/...nceRecord.html Morning Edition alone is on par with the audiences of the top talk radio shows Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. -- http://talkers.com/online/?p=71 But while Rush's audience is 77% conservative, NPR's audience is 63% liberal (30%) and moderate (33%) -- http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=834 . (I have long argued that the political distance between self-described liberals and moderates is small compared to the distance between moderate and conservatives.) So NPR has a hold on huge swath of the center-left majority. Liberal talk radio -- still a new addition to the media landscape -- has yet to reach such a wide audience. Top liberal talkers Schultz, Hartmann and Stephanie Miller each reach about 2M weekly -- http://talkers.com/online/?p=71 As I wrote in my book a few years back, comparing liberal and conservative news audiences (you can search the parts about NPR on Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594863962 ), "The difference is that these

Quoting Bill Scher: ...

I'll stipulate to every point Bill makes. And yet, what credible substitute is there? Ignoring the marginal problems in regard to the ideological alignment of political commentary (which I fully acknowledge is an issue, like I said), it's still the case that if your interest is broad-based, in depth reporting conforming to high jounalistic standards, there's no comparable broadcast source.

What I will allow is that the crowd estimates are a political football with the left under counting and the right over counting due to their personal biases and political preferences. I have seen numerous time motion analysis that places the crowd size in the 250,000 to 500,000 size for the march down Pennsylvania Ave. I don't know the political leanings of the individuals that made these estimates but I'm quite sure that I and everyone, that participates or just lurks here, are well aware of our particular biases. If one surfs enough the fire department quote shows up in news stories on all of the "credible media sources" sites including your linked Eric Boehlert piece.

According to estimates provided by the Washington, D.C., fire department, Malkin and friends were only off by 1,930,000 people. In other words, ...

I freely admit that I have little to no trust in the "credible media sources", that you so adore, but then again I'm not alone in that.
From PEW

Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news

Quoting piscivorous: What I will allow is that the crowd estimates are a political football with the left under counting and the right over counting due to their personal biases and political preferences. I have seen numerous time motion analysis that places the crowd size in the 250,000 to 500,000 size for the march down Pennsylvania Ave. I don't know the political leanings of the individuals that made these estimates but I'm quite sure that I and everyone, that participates or just lurks here, are well aware of our particular biases.

If one surfs enough the fire department quote shows up in news stories on all of the "credible media sources" sites including your linked Eric Boehlert piece. I freely admit that I have little to no trust in the "credible media sources", that you so adore, but then again I'm not alone in that.
From PEW.

Do you prefer "uncredible" media sources? Seriously, who do you propose to believe?

No I believe that one should digest the conflicting points of view from the various media sources, along with a large dose of Maalox, and draw their own conclusions.

Quoting piscivorous: No I believe that one should digest the conflicting points of view from the various media sources, along with a large dose of Maalox, and draw their own conclusions.

Based on what evidence?

Other than as an disguised insult your question is nonsensical.

Quoting piscivorous: Other than as an disguised insult your question is nonsensical.

?

Lets pull this back to its origin... No Brendan, on the NPR broadcast I was listening to they kept saying "around 10 thousand protesters", NOT 10s of thousands. This happened the day of the protest...it is possible they were working with bad information themselves, but as it coincided with some pretty obnoxious statements about the participants coupled with some glowing reports of Obama giving a talk in Minnesota it stuck in my craw (what is a craw btw?) . You're wanting to "bet" about it is childish or at most silly. If you don't wish to believe me. Don't. And then maybe we can say it was a pretty impressive number of people at the DC protest. (I bolded the part your will quote to make it easier)

Quoting piscivorous: What I will allow is that the crowd estimates are a political football with the left under counting and the right over counting due to their personal biases and political preferences.

As I said.

Quoting piscivorous: I have seen numerous time motion analysis that places the crowd size in the 250,000 to 500,000 size for the march down Pennsylvania Ave.

I note your continued reluctance to post any links, which ...

Quoting piscivorous: I don't know the political leanings of the individuals that made these estimates ...

... makes me think I'm on safe ground speculating that you saw these analyses on wingnut blogs. I'd also be willing to bet that your impression of "numerous" comes from lots of reposting of the same original "analysis."

Quoting piscivorous: but I'm quite sure that I and everyone, that participates or just lurks here, are well aware of our particular biases.

Yep. You have a bias in favor of cherry-picking numbers to support your wishes and a bias in caring about the credibility of the source only when the source tells you what you don't want to hear. I am biased against such behavior.

Quoting piscivorous: I freely admit that I have little to no trust in the

And you referenced fake photos with no links. The analysis are out there if your seek you shale find.

Quoting Whatfur: Lets pull this back to its origin...

No Brendan, on the NPR broadcast I was listening to they kept saying "around 10 thousand protesters", NOT 10s of thousands.

That's what you say. Here's what they have on their web site:

Tens of thousands of people marched through Washington Saturday to protest ...

and in another place, reviewing the spread of numbers, two days later:

NPR's Allison Keyes, who was actually there, put the number in the "tens of thousands":

The colon points to an audio link, which, from listening to the beginning of it, sounds like the first quote and link above is a transcript. Do I think it's possible that someone said "around ten thousand" instead of "tens of thousands" at some point? Sure, especially if it was an extemporaneous conversation, say, between a reporter and an anchor. But it doesn't sound like the estimate they ended up reporting. If you want to hunt around for more, feel free.

Quoting Whatfur: This happened the day of the protest ...

The report I linked to above is datelined 12 September, the day of the protest.

Quoting Whatfur: ... but as it coincided with some pretty obnoxious statements about the participants coupled with some glowing reports of Obama giving a talk in Minnesota

Quoting piscivorous: And you referenced fake photos with no links.

I did? Where?

Quoting piscivorous: The analysis are out there if your seek you shale find.

As you so often do when I ask you to document your more dubious claims with links, you bring this weak sauce. Look, pisc, if you can't actually find anything to back up what you claim, fine. Or, if you don't want to provide links because you know they're going to be obviously ludicrous, also fine. But disabuse yourself of the notion that it is somehow my responsibility to do your work for you.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's what you say...

Yes it is. If you cannot look at the video and come up with more than a football games attendance then you are both a prick and an idiot.

No bj it is just that I will not respond to your preemptive Ad Hominem wingnut bullshit in any serious manner.

Quoting Whatfur: Yes it is. If you cannot look at the video and come up with more than a football games attendance then you are both a prick and an idiot.

I'll take that as the closing whimper of someone who can't actually address any of the points I laid out. Thanks.

Quoting piscivorous: No bj it is just that I will not respond to your preemptive Ad Hominem wingnut bullshit in any serious manner.

Yet continue to respond you do. Until you post links to those "numerous time motion analysis [sic]" that you claim exist, I'll stick with my conclusion that you can't back up what you assert with anything like credible sources. I note also that you won't back up your accusation that I supposedly "referenced fake photos with no links."

Actually you can take as someone who is not going to bother playing games with a prick and an idiot.

Quoting Whatfur: Actually you can take as someone who is not going to bother playing games with a prick and an idiot.

As you prefer, and I'll be curious to see how many more times you'll continue this thread, but for the record, I think "playing games" is an awfully strange way to characterize your refusal to address numerous points I raised in response to where this all began: your insisting that there were half a million teabaggers at that 9/12 rally in DC. No. It's clear. You feel like you got your butt beat, and you've got nothing left but repetitious name-calling.

Quoting Whatfur: Nancy Pelosi came out on election night and claimed the the NY23 seat had been in Republican hands since the Civil War. That is a lie. It has been in Democratic hands many times since then and nobody seems to call her on it or has bothered to check.

Inconsequential? yes.

Yes. But, since I just happened across this (and found that Wikipedia table you linked to hard to understand), I thought I'd pass it along, just for the record. Pelosi's statement (and everyone else who said this) is, it turns out, kinda sorta true. Confusion of redistricting. (h/t: Frank Rich)

I just noticed that Bill has a tell. If he laughs while he's talking, it's usually because he's setting up a straw man to knock over.

Quoting Tara Davis: I just noticed that Bill has a tell.

If he laughs while he's talking, it's usually because he's setting up a straw man to knock over.

Give us a dingalink!

Oliver Willis passes along survey results. The headline:

Poll: Large majority of Obama 2008 Virginia voters who did not vote in 2009 thought Creigh Deeds "was not progressive enough."

See also. Dem losses are not just due to "independents moving away from Obama," no matter how often the rightwing noise machine and the Villagers chant this. [Added] Heh.

I forgot what the bet was.

Quoting Unit: I forgot what the bet was.

The bet was whether the final health care legislation would be voted on after a complete CBO scoring or not. So we don't know who won yet.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: The bet was whether the final health care legislation would be voted on after a complete CBO scoring or not. So we don't know who won yet.

We must have a dingalink to the bet as originally stated! Where, oh where, is Nate the Historian?

Quoting bjkeefe: We must have a dingalink to the bet as originally stated!

Where, oh where, is Nate the Historian?

Ta-da!

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Ta-da!

Hey, great! You're the New Nate! Thanks.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Ta-da!

Seems to me that before the bet was formulated Bill was claiming that the CBO score would be there before a House vote as well.

Quoting Whatfur:

Oh come on...not one comment on my pic!!?? Come on it took me like 5 minutes.

Ha...

Quoting Whatfur: Oh come on...not one comment on my pic!!?? Come on it took me like 5 minutes.

Well done.

Quoting Unit: Seems to me that before the bet was formulated Bill was claiming that the CBO score would be there before a House vote as well.

1. CBO did score the House bill:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10710 2. While Bill and Conn do discuss a CBO score of the House bill, the bet itself is over the final Senate bill. Watch to the end of the clip.

Quoting bjkeefe: If we're talking about the 9/12 rally ...

... not to mention the prickliness of estimating crowd size from video, not to mention "stop motion analysis," not to mention Fox "News" and wingnuts like Crazy Eyes Bachmann lying about how many attended ... ... then we must consider this three-minute clip of The Daily Show busting Sean Hannity and crew.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yet continue to respond you do.

Until you post links to those "numerous time motion analysis [sic]" that you claim exist, I'll stick with my conclusion that you can't back up what you assert with anything like credible sources.

I note also that you won't back up your accusation that I supposedly "referenced fake photos with no links."

Actually I have been a little busy, my life does not revolve around BH.tv. I have given you all the information you need to go find the information for yourself. As no source I reference will be credible in your eyes why should I bother? As to the "referenced" bit you might want to go back and check some of your links (references) and then you can stop repeating the bit about how I have done you such a disservice.

Quoting rcocean: Conn shows why he's a political analyst and not an economist:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/236...4:05&out=34:55

Don't confuse me with facts man, I'm a free-trader.

ummmm... I don't get it. This clip is Bill talking about how awesome China's industrial policy is, and then me making fun of Tom Friedman's communist fetish. I don't get how this shows any lack of economic understanding on my part, but I could be wrong. Please do enlighten me.

Quoting piscivorous: Actually I have been a little busy, my life does not revolve around BH.tv. I have given you all the information you need to go find the information for yourself.

As I said before, it is not my job to do work for you to back claims you made and, as is becoming increasingly clear, can't back up.

As no source I reference will be credible in your eyes why should I bother?

I will take this as your formal (albeit ungraceful) acknowledgment that I was correct in my suspicion that you have only seen these analyses on sites you know others will see as dubious at best. Thank you.

As to the "referenced" bit you might want to go back and check some of your links (references) and then you can stop repeating the bit about how I have done you such a disservice.

Yeah, keep blowing this vague smoke, pisc. Maybe a couple of droolers will fall for it. As for everyone else: no links, no specifics, no cred. End of story.

Take it how you wish BJ!

Quoting piscivorous: Take it how you wish BJ!

Will do. Have done. But thanks.

Quoting conncarroll: ummmm... I don't get it. This clip is Bill talking about how awesome China's industrial policy is, and then me making fun of Tom Friedman's communist fetish. I don't get how this shows any lack of economic understanding on my part, but I could be wrong. Please do enlighten me.

I don't know if he got the right part of the quote, but I imagine (from context) that the intent was to reference your expression of concern about free trade. rcocean seems to represent an anti-free-trade faction within the conservative movement. If memory serves, so does Pinkerton, though I have no idea how significant this group is. It might be interesting to have a where goes Conservativism type debate between the more traditionally populist sorts and the more classically liberal types, especially since even the liberal bloggingheads tend to be pro free trade, or at least that's my impression. (I'm pro free trade myself.) In fact, it would be interesting to have a Republican vs. Republican debate on where the party should go more generally. I had some hopes for something like that with the Heather McDonald-Ross Douthat discussion of religion and politics, but it ended up being a

ahhh... rcocean is a Pat Buchanan close the borders type. I get it now.