MassDem's Blog

October Surprise - Pretty Goddamn Simple

2008-10-03T00:08:35Z

You'd better believe it's coming. It will come via first class mail in the second or third week of October. You won't know its your October surprise at first, but wait till you open it.

When 3rd quarter statements for 401(k)'s, 457(b)'s, 403(b)'s, IRA's and annuities arrive in the next few weeks, it will be a shock. It will be the moment when we all realize that the problems on Wall St. are also on Main St. Elm St. Forest St and your street. You think people are focused and worried about the economy now, just wait till these October Surprises start arriving. (By the way, a lot of senior citizens who live off of these accounts are in FL, PA and OH).

It will be a goddamn sad day for a lot of people, but maybe it will make them wake up and realize that we want people running our government who think that government can solve problems, rather than create them. This is going to hit home for a lot of people and hit home hard.

Reccommend if you're sick of "reccommend if" posts

2008-09-17T23:11:57Z

Seriously, I know headline writing is hard, but isn't this just mailing it in?

WaPo Gets a Headline Right

2008-09-17T10:30:37Z

Props to Ruth Marcus and the WaPo headline writers for this one. I hope her ideas resonate with many of her colleagues, who seem to be open to similar conclusions.

Mc?

2008-09-16T22:58:39Z

I am rather shocked that I haven't seen a thread on this before and I'm sorry if it already happened and I missed it, but there are a whole lot of great McNicknames out there we could be using - lets brainstorm a bit.

We've already seen McLiar, McSame, McBush, but I know there are some devious minds out there in TPM-land who can do better.

How about McMansion? McGoldigger? McScary?

3 questions...

2008-09-15T23:56:10Z

Why is it that when news appeared that Mitt Romney once put his dog on the roof of his car, it was a top political story for a cycle or two, but nobody is allowed to mention aerial wolf hunting?

Why is it that it is okay to flog a speech given by Jeremiah Wright as an indicator that Barack Obama might not unfailingly love his country, but nobody is allowed to mention Todd Palin's decade-long membership of a group that advocates secesion of Alaska from the United States?

Why is okay for George Stephanopolous to ask Barack Obama if Jeremiah Wright "loves this country as much as you do", but Charlie Gibson can't ask Sarah Palin if she thinks cavemen hunted dinosaurs 6,000 years ago?

These are serious, dispassionate questions, and I don't understand why they are not being asked.

The American media loves building someone up, then tearing them down. McLiar is clearly hoping there is enough time for only the build-up before November, the tear down can come later.

By then it will be too late.

P.S. I'm sorry to add yet another Palin post to the pile, please forgive me and reccommend anyway...

P.P.S. Please feel free to add other questions to the list that were legitimate when pointed towards the left, but "disrepectful" when they go the other way. I bet we could get quite a list pretty easily.

Holy Crap - I'll try this again

2008-09-04T00:48:46Z

This post got pushed off of the list by a repeat clicker...please excuse the re-post, but I'd like your thoughts.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/a-question-im-evidently-not-al.php

A Question I'm Evidently Not Allowed To Ask

2008-09-03T23:35:01Z

One of the items that Steve Schmidt finds to be afoul of his brand-spanking new standards of decency is a question that a reporter allegedly asked him (umm, off the record) about whether Sarah Palin had her amniotic fluid tested.

This question got lumped in with all of the other manufactured outrage about supposed attacks on Bristol, but I think it is entirely different and legitimate. This question is the first thing that came to mind for me when as part of her official bio, the fact came to light that she chose to have her last baby even after discovering that he would be afflicted with Down's Syndrome.

You see, when my wife and I were meeting with the OBGYN who would eventually deliver our daughter, we discovered through a blood test (AFP) that we had an elevated risk of our child having Down's. We asked the next sensible question, which was - can we find out for sure? We were told, accurately as I understand, that the only way to confirm Down's syndrome was by amniosintesis, a process by which a needle is inserted into the uterus and a sample of the fluid is extracted, then tested. Our doctor then told us, VERY CLEARLY, that while it was our decision, the procedure carried risks for the baby. The bottom line was that unless we were entertaining the possibility of aborting the pregnancy, this procedure was an unnecessary risk.

My questions to Sarah Palin on this subject are as follows:

1. Why did you elect to take the risk of an amniosintesis if your religious convictions completely preclude you from entertaining the possibility of an abortion?

2. How do you reconcile the fact that you claim to have "chosen" to carry the baby to term inspite of Down's with the fact that you do not believe that "choice" exists at all?

3. You made this choice for yourself, do you not believe that others should be able to choose as well?

Also, I should add, in our case we elected not to take the risk of an amniosintesis, and my daughter (now three) is not afflicted with Down's, a fact that I am very thankful for.

I'll also add, for the purposes of disclosure, that I am male, christian but not over-the-top, and I am staunchly pro-life and staunchly pro-choice. What I mean is that in any case where my opinion is asked, I will always advise against abortion but I also recognize that in the vast majority of cases, MY OPINION IS NOT ASKED, and I should leave those people alone to make the most difficult decision of their lives in peace.

A Huge Risk for Barack - Get Ready Now

2008-08-26T02:05:02Z

This might sound like a joke, but I'm deadly serious.

I don't know if Barack is a baseball fan, but if he's not, he needs to start studying. The team from his south side of Chicago, the White Sox, is leading the AL Central right now, and he needs to be ready to talk baseball when he is asked.

I am a diehard democrat, but John Kerry almost lost me when he responded to a question about his favorite Red Sox player with - Manny Ortez. For those of you who do not follow the Red Sox, it was an almagamation, and mutilitation of two of the best players on that team: Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. It was an obvious admission that he wasn't a fan, but was trying to play one on TV. He looked like a fool, and I still hear the quote at least once a week on sports radio here in Boston.

I can predict with confidence that someone will ask Barack about the White Sox on camera, and he better have a better answer than Manny Ortez.

Again, this may sound like a joke, but a gaffe in this situation will be far worse than forgetting how many houses you own, since it will play right into the wheelhouse of the GOP's efforts to paint his as un-American, out of touch and elitist.

I hope he is a legit Sox fan, but if not, I hope they already thought of this. I don't want to see GOP ads with sad kids on baseball fields questioning if he really likes Mom and Apple Pie too...

Gary Hart, Donna Rice and John McCain

2008-07-23T15:16:57Z

Oh Man, whiplash sucks.

John McCain has evidently never heard the admonition that we've all hear from our parents at one time or another: Be careful what you wish for.

In 1984, amid rumors of an extramarital affair, Gary Hart issued a challenge to reporters to "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored." Unbeknownst to Hart, the night before that challenge was published, reporters from the Miami Herald took pictures of Donna Rice at Hart's home, which were promptly published, ending Hart's electoral hopes. I didn't think that a politician would be foolish enough to try this sort of thing again, but I understimated John McCain.

In one week, he complains that he's not getting enough attention from the media, effectively challenging them to do more reporting on him and his campaign, then promptly ensures that the additional coverage of him will be negative with comically stupid (Iraq/Pakistan border, Osprey Aircraft, timing of the surge and the sunni awakening, etc...)and downright irresponsible (Obama would rather lose a war...) comments on the same day. What a fascinating level of stupidity. It's really unbelieveable.

It is good policy never to underestimate your opponent, but John McCain makes it too easy. Thankfully, every time I lower my estimation of him, he proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that my expectations have not yet sunk to the level of his capabilities.

Don't click on the post below this one

2008-07-18T13:06:39Z

Please don't recommend this, as it will look foolish once the other one drops off...

Quick - How do you tell when a pundit is shilling for McCain?

2008-07-09T18:31:56Z

Their lips are moving!

Don't Get Fooled Again

2008-07-08T17:10:28Z

Some time ago, there was a reader post on TPM that listed phrases from this campaign cycle we never wanted to hear again. I don’t know if it made the list, but for me, the one that rises above (sinks below?) all others is Karl Rove Tactics. Aside from reminding me of the repugnant man himself, the tactics that bear his name represent the worst that America has to offer. The fact that they still work in spite of the fact that we are aware that they are being used is just sad. The old adage is fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. What does it say about the electorate that we can be fooled over and over again by this clown and his minions?

I bet some of you are reading this thinking yeah, but he’s not gonna get us this time. We are fighting the smears, we’re not letting them get away with it like they did with John Kerry in 2004 or to John McCain in South Carolina in 2000. We called them out on the whisper campaigns, we called them out by name, and we have a candidate who can express himself simply and forcefully who can fight back himself.

To our peril, we forget about the other key aspect of Karl Rove tactics. Sure, he is the master of the covert: damaging whisper campaigns, race baiting, direct mail, push polls, and Barack has fought back against those, but what about the more overt tactic of turning your strength into a weakness? They’re trying this as we speak: They are trying to paint Barack as the typical vacillating politician, thus taking away his “outsider” advantage. There is limited success here and I think defenses are up. They are trying to brand Barack as an elite, thus taking away any advantage he might have from his meager upbringing. This has had some success, but again, the defenses are up. Barack is able to eloquently and forcefully put down these attempts in a speech, or a turn of phrase - This is going to be the problem.

When the word got out that the acceptance speech would take place at Invesco Field, the conversation turned to what a moment it would be. To see 70,000 people cheering while Barack brought the house down with an amazing address. McCain can’t possibly match this spectacle, as evidenced by his “green screen” debacle the night the nomination was clinched. The only option left is to minimize it. Not to set the expectations so high that they can’t be met, but to actually turn this amazing positive into a negative. This started yesterday with the comment out of camp McCain that “even NSYNC was able to sell out Invesco - twice.”

We need to see what they’re trying to do here: They are looking to turn one of Barack’s greatest strengths, mastery of the oratory and ability to draw large crowds, into a negative. They are trying to create an environment where each time he gives a brilliant speech, people roll their eyes and say “there he goes again.” And worst of all, the very target of this attack will make it difficult to defend, since any direct defense from Barack could be met with “see? there he goes again.” I know it would be ridiculous for McCain to attack Barack on the topic of speechgiving, but that’s what defines this particular “Karl Rove Tactic.” Attack an unimpeachable strength that your opponent is completely unprepared to defend, with bonus points if it’s also a weakness for you. It was ridiculous for Bush to attack Kerry for military service, but he did, and it worked. Defenses need to be up on this one. The attack has started subtly, with eye rolls on Fox News when they talk about the latest speech, but it will turn more overt. If we take the attitude that it’s so ridiculous that it couldn’t work, and we don’t dignify it with a response, it will work.

Don’t get fooled again.

What I Learned on My Summer Suspension

2008-07-04T00:32:19Z

I had the experience of being scolded and punished for bad behavior on TPM over the past couple of days. I was restricted from posting comments on reader posts for a time. It was (mostly) not fun, but it was educational, so I thought I would share.

For context, all the gory details are here.

Primarily, I had my first direct experience with censorship, and it was unpleasant. I did not like it when it was imposed on me in the form of a comment restriction, and I should not have liked it when I imposed it on someone else. In the cold light of day, posting a 93 page comment on a thread does tend to shut down conversation, and this is a form of censorship every bit as much as restricting my ability to comment. In this case, I think the punishment did fit the crime, as I was only restricted from posting comments on reader posts. I was still permitted to write my own posts, and to comment on center-column posts. This indicates to me that Lila's intention was to take away only the medium in which I had behaved badly, not to completely cut off the ability to express thoughts.

As a result of this experience, I have also learned that the TPM community is a really cool group of people. I don't mean to make myself out to be Spartacus here, but many of you guys put yourselves right out there to stand up for me, regardless of whether or not we agree on the usual issues. I'm glad I had my wife calling me a geek for being so bothered about not being able to post on "that stupid blog thing" to keep my head from swelling as I read through the thread.

I also learned that something about my profile, avatar or tone makes people think I am a "she." I am, at last inspection, a "he."

Finally I learned that Josh and Lila are good, fair people. They both came right out and explained directly, listened to all of the feedback, and assured us that the communication will be better next time this happens. I can't think of a better outcome.

Thanks for indulging me the post mortem, and a special thanks for CaliforniaPaige and everyone else on Lingr the other night.

Free MassDem

2008-07-03T00:14:03Z

Please excuse the petulant tantrum, but I have an issue with TPM, and I'd like to know if anyone else has had a similar experience.

It wasn't my proudest moment as a member of the community here, but I posted a middle-english glossary on the thread of michelle b's post from the other day, it was really, really long but not offensive, insulting, vulgar or abusive in any way. In fact, no one who posted to the thread after me found it objectionable to say so. I also posted the exact same comment on a thread awhile ago, and it led to a rather comical spam fight.

In due course, my comment was deleted from the thread, which I really have no objection to. But now, I am not allowed to comment on any reader posts. When I try to submit a comment, I get a message that says: your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner. I am assuming the the blog owner in this case is TPM. I know that it is not the original poster, since I have tried to post on my own threads and have reveived no notification that a comment is waiting for my approval.

When I first received this message, I thought I was in some kind of tape-delay, penalty box and my comment would appear once it is reviewed and found to be harmless. This bothered me, but I figured it was probably a fair punishment my action. But, it has been roughly 36 hours since the first time I received the message and none of my comments have appeared yet.

I sent an e-mail to "management"(not calling anyone out by name) yesterday evening, and have recieved no reply. I recieved no warning that I would be restricted, there is no explanation of the deletion of my original comment.

To reiterate, posting a "spam" comment on a thread was not my finest moment, but I don't understand how it is any worse than some of the downright abusive, vulgar and personal comments I've seen posted by others (again, not calling anyone out by name). For my commenting priviledges to be suspended (revoked?) without any warning, precedent or notification that this could even be done seems excessive.

As I write this, I don't know if this post will show up, and I am reasonably sure that I will not be able to participate in any discussion that ensues, so that you for hearing me out.

Will the press ever notice that McCain lies to them or does Tina Fey have to point it out?

2008-07-01T01:22:13Z

The coverage of Barack Obama was incredibly positive before the SNL skit about the subject. As an Obama supporter, this is obvious even to me. After that weekend, everything did change, all of the talking heads were suddenly afraid of being made fun of, so they started to be critical of Obama.

My question now is: What is it going to take to make the press get out of love with John McCain?