"Only $12,360 of the $265,341 he’s raised came from potential constituents. Hoffman collected money from donors in 35 states. Of the total 146 donors, only 22 were actually from within the district he hopes to represent. The campaign’s biggest backer is the Washington-based Club for Growth, accounting for more than one-third of all fundraising ($83,260)."
Scozzafava was the candidate of the local Republican committee. She was chased out of the race by national Republicans and the conservative machine, exactly as Newt Gingrinch described.
I think you are uninformed about a lot of the backstory, and in particular just how much the national Republican establishment meddled with and controlled this campaign, at the cost of the actual local control that conservatives claim to love.
What is objectionable is that conservatives make a fetish of "Getting Washington off of our backs," except when Washington goes paternalistic with a candidate deemed to liberal for the Republican establishment. All of the GOPs talk about local issues, about federalism, about respecting the rights of people in a particular area and letting them lead their own lives-- all of it has been revealed to be empty posturing by this fiasco. This is the absolute definition of big politics, played by people who say they don't play them.
I guess what I think, Mark, is that the cleanliness stuff should go without saying, but that they don't have to be expressed in a context that treats waiters as if they aren't people. Perhaps I'm reading in too much, I dunno.
I think it's pretty clear from his piece that he's speaking about waiters serving him as well. Sure, he can have his rules as an owner. That doesn't mean some of them aren't incredibly distasteful. You aren't allowed to tell someone your name? You aren't allowed to compliment people? That is class antagonism, I think. And I also do really think that it is a kind of poverty to be so unable to handle little things that you have to freak out on people who are just trying to work.
I would just like it if we could all admit that out of a dedication to neutrality and equal time, we have essentially abandoned any notion of equitable judgment between Democrats and Republicans, and between liberals and conservatives. We simply are not judging the two groups, of either divide, with equal discrimination, because conservatism is in such a sad place now that people feel like holding it to adult standards is somehow biased against it.
Now that's fine. It's fine. I just wish people would recognize that this is what I'm pointing out, and what I keep going on about. It's not just "Bush did bad stuff too". It's never been that. It's acknowledging, and pointing out the danger in, this kind of two-tiered system of political judgment. Now if we have all decided that conservatism is incapable of being judged according to the standards that we have set for correct political conduct, fine, but let's all remain aware of that fact, please. Let's not pretend that the failures of the Obama administration aren't being held to a different standard than the failures of the Republicans in congress-- you know, the sitting, existing, current and not-at-all-in-the-past Congressional minority that is doing things like voting against bills aimed at protecting defense contractors from rape. Whatever other conclusions we want to draw from all this, let's remember, when the inevitable conservative resurgence happens, who had to participate in the political Special Olympics, because they couldn't clear a bar unless it was set absurdly low.
This is a smart post. Unfortunately, this is a blog, and this is the Internet, and I think there is a chance some commenters won't actually understand what you're really saying.
First, Lev is right: ED is just factually wrong on whether the large private sector unions oppose health care reform. A brief perusal of their websites would tell you that.
private sector union density at a historically low 7.6 percent
This is the incoherence of conservative messaging regarding unions at play, and their delicate dance. Conservatism as an entity as time has gone on, have reached a level of frankly absurd scapegoating of unions, principally because American conservatism is in thrall to corporate interest. But as conservatives have taken to ascribing more and more of the country's problems to unions, union membership has gone down. It's very strange. And this brings us to the dance: many on the right want to blame unions for our economic problems, but they don't want unions to disappear entirely, because they are such an convenient hate object.
But calling one city a preferred model of progressive governance is a far cry from equating that city with liberals and liberalism, for the purpose of a backdoor accusation of hypocrisy. The point is rendered nonsense by the fact that the actual most progressive cities like New York and LA are, actually, filled with minorities.
More than anything, this whole episode proves again the power of cherry-picking. When you exclude all of the major examples that disprove your point, you sound like you're saying something smart. No shit.
Here is what this article is saying: if you exclude the biggest cities, which happen to be among the most diverse AND the most liberal, well, then!
Talking about American urbanism, and about race in America, while excluding New York, Chicago, and DC-- and pretending that Atlanta is not progressive-- is just not beneficial.
Note that you could’ve written this about the Yankees in any year for quite some time, and it’s famously not panned out for them for several years while some of the league’s lowest-payroll franchises have made some fantastic runs (that wouldn’t have been nearly as notable or exciting with salary caps).
You hear this a lot. The playoffs represent a small sample size, which maximizes the role of chance. In terms of regular season, higher payroll correlates very well with wins. It's not a guarantee of anything, as the Mets will prove. But in terms of overall trend lines, higher payroll teams correspond with more successful teams in terms of making the playoffs and winning divisions. This Yankees team is a perfect example of why: an already above-average team was able to sign by far the three best players available. No other players, or teams, came close. No one in their right mind would design a league from scratch with that kind of disparity in the ability of individual teams to get ahold of the top talent.
I'm confused, incidentally, by your ideas about what is good for the NFL, particularly considering every NFL team is already profitable. Suppose you get what you want and the Redskins and Cowboys can simply outspend every other team and constantly get the best talent. Why would a fan from Green Bay ever get into football? A fan from Jacksonville? Their teams would have a huge and intrinsic disadvantage. That would lower the number of people interested in football, lowering the number of fans buying tickets and merchandise. This is how it is in baseball-- small market teams don't draw any fans, don't sell merchandise, don't get lucrative local television contracts, and don't make money. That's not good for baseball; it's terrible for baseball. But it's absolutely rational on the part of the fans. A 12-year old in Kansas City has absolutely no reason to become a fan of the Royals. It isn't rational to root for a team without a meaningful chance to compete. That 12-year old, meanwhile, could potentially be a life-long fan, bringing interest and money to MLB. As it stands, he'll worship Tony Hawk instead.
To be clear, the problem is the system-- my team is a big market club too and can vastly overpay. The point is that there's little to cheer in a victory that's so driven by economic imbalance. Reform, baseball!
That said, sports is all about proud irrationality. Die, Yankees, die. Seriously.
On “Stray thoughts on the NY-23 race”
It's from the Washington Independent. They don't give the numbers for the other candidates, unfortunately.
"
Now that's a damning quote.
"
"Only $12,360 of the $265,341 he’s raised came from potential constituents. Hoffman collected money from donors in 35 states. Of the total 146 donors, only 22 were actually from within the district he hopes to represent. The campaign’s biggest backer is the Washington-based Club for Growth, accounting for more than one-third of all fundraising ($83,260)."
"
Test test.
"
test test
"
Scozzafava was the candidate of the local Republican committee. She was chased out of the race by national Republicans and the conservative machine, exactly as Newt Gingrinch described.
"
I think you are uninformed about a lot of the backstory, and in particular just how much the national Republican establishment meddled with and controlled this campaign, at the cost of the actual local control that conservatives claim to love.
"
What is objectionable is that conservatives make a fetish of "Getting Washington off of our backs," except when Washington goes paternalistic with a candidate deemed to liberal for the Republican establishment. All of the GOPs talk about local issues, about federalism, about respecting the rights of people in a particular area and letting them lead their own lives-- all of it has been revealed to be empty posturing by this fiasco. This is the absolute definition of big politics, played by people who say they don't play them.
On “Bruce Buschel, you are a douche of the first order”
No harm done Jay.
"
You're right, I'll get our highly paid blog intern on it right away.
"
I guess what I think, Mark, is that the cleanliness stuff should go without saying, but that they don't have to be expressed in a context that treats waiters as if they aren't people. Perhaps I'm reading in too much, I dunno.
"
I think it's pretty clear from his piece that he's speaking about waiters serving him as well. Sure, he can have his rules as an owner. That doesn't mean some of them aren't incredibly distasteful. You aren't allowed to tell someone your name? You aren't allowed to compliment people? That is class antagonism, I think. And I also do really think that it is a kind of poverty to be so unable to handle little things that you have to freak out on people who are just trying to work.
But, you know, polemic. Who knows.
"
On this topic, I am unrepentant.
On “On duplicity, fairweather conservatism, and the art of war”
Can we all admit that, coherent or not, my post was awesome for generating so much content?
On ““Taking responsibility” again.”
I don't know that you got me wrong. I think you got me pretty right.
"
I would just like it if we could all admit that out of a dedication to neutrality and equal time, we have essentially abandoned any notion of equitable judgment between Democrats and Republicans, and between liberals and conservatives. We simply are not judging the two groups, of either divide, with equal discrimination, because conservatism is in such a sad place now that people feel like holding it to adult standards is somehow biased against it.
Now that's fine. It's fine. I just wish people would recognize that this is what I'm pointing out, and what I keep going on about. It's not just "Bush did bad stuff too". It's never been that. It's acknowledging, and pointing out the danger in, this kind of two-tiered system of political judgment. Now if we have all decided that conservatism is incapable of being judged according to the standards that we have set for correct political conduct, fine, but let's all remain aware of that fact, please. Let's not pretend that the failures of the Obama administration aren't being held to a different standard than the failures of the Republicans in congress-- you know, the sitting, existing, current and not-at-all-in-the-past Congressional minority that is doing things like voting against bills aimed at protecting defense contractors from rape. Whatever other conclusions we want to draw from all this, let's remember, when the inevitable conservative resurgence happens, who had to participate in the political Special Olympics, because they couldn't clear a bar unless it was set absurdly low.
On “revisiting my thoughts on a productive racial dialogue”
Sorry-- should read civil libertarian heart.
On “Weak Become Heroes”
This is a smart post. Unfortunately, this is a blog, and this is the Internet, and I think there is a chance some commenters won't actually understand what you're really saying.
On “It’s a hard knock life, for unions”
First, Lev is right: ED is just factually wrong on whether the large private sector unions oppose health care reform. A brief perusal of their websites would tell you that.
private sector union density at a historically low 7.6 percent
This is the incoherence of conservative messaging regarding unions at play, and their delicate dance. Conservatism as an entity as time has gone on, have reached a level of frankly absurd scapegoating of unions, principally because American conservatism is in thrall to corporate interest. But as conservatives have taken to ascribing more and more of the country's problems to unions, union membership has gone down. It's very strange. And this brings us to the dance: many on the right want to blame unions for our economic problems, but they don't want unions to disappear entirely, because they are such an convenient hate object.
On “The New White City”
But calling one city a preferred model of progressive governance is a far cry from equating that city with liberals and liberalism, for the purpose of a backdoor accusation of hypocrisy. The point is rendered nonsense by the fact that the actual most progressive cities like New York and LA are, actually, filled with minorities.
"
More than anything, this whole episode proves again the power of cherry-picking. When you exclude all of the major examples that disprove your point, you sound like you're saying something smart. No shit.
"
Here is what this article is saying: if you exclude the biggest cities, which happen to be among the most diverse AND the most liberal, well, then!
Talking about American urbanism, and about race in America, while excluding New York, Chicago, and DC-- and pretending that Atlanta is not progressive-- is just not beneficial.
On “interesting facts”
You're missing the fact that exceptions don't disprove the larger trend: making the playoffs largely correlates with having a higher payroll.
"
Note that you could’ve written this about the Yankees in any year for quite some time, and it’s famously not panned out for them for several years while some of the league’s lowest-payroll franchises have made some fantastic runs (that wouldn’t have been nearly as notable or exciting with salary caps).
You hear this a lot. The playoffs represent a small sample size, which maximizes the role of chance. In terms of regular season, higher payroll correlates very well with wins. It's not a guarantee of anything, as the Mets will prove. But in terms of overall trend lines, higher payroll teams correspond with more successful teams in terms of making the playoffs and winning divisions. This Yankees team is a perfect example of why: an already above-average team was able to sign by far the three best players available. No other players, or teams, came close. No one in their right mind would design a league from scratch with that kind of disparity in the ability of individual teams to get ahold of the top talent.
I'm confused, incidentally, by your ideas about what is good for the NFL, particularly considering every NFL team is already profitable. Suppose you get what you want and the Redskins and Cowboys can simply outspend every other team and constantly get the best talent. Why would a fan from Green Bay ever get into football? A fan from Jacksonville? Their teams would have a huge and intrinsic disadvantage. That would lower the number of people interested in football, lowering the number of fans buying tickets and merchandise. This is how it is in baseball-- small market teams don't draw any fans, don't sell merchandise, don't get lucrative local television contracts, and don't make money. That's not good for baseball; it's terrible for baseball. But it's absolutely rational on the part of the fans. A 12-year old in Kansas City has absolutely no reason to become a fan of the Royals. It isn't rational to root for a team without a meaningful chance to compete. That 12-year old, meanwhile, could potentially be a life-long fan, bringing interest and money to MLB. As it stands, he'll worship Tony Hawk instead.
"
To be clear, the problem is the system-- my team is a big market club too and can vastly overpay. The point is that there's little to cheer in a victory that's so driven by economic imbalance. Reform, baseball!
That said, sports is all about proud irrationality. Die, Yankees, die. Seriously.