RogerA,I could be mistaken but I believe "jumping the shark" requires something so preposterous that even what's left of the loyal audience finds it so absurd that they subsequently tune out.What's left of the NYT audience will find this latest preposterous absurdity by the NYT "just about right". I seriously doubt it will cause a single member of their audience to say, "I gotta find something else to read."
Knuck--I agree with your understanding of "jumping the shark." I didnt flesh out my argument, but I am asserting that the NYT has now taken its place with the Kossacks and DU as the moonbat mouthpiece. That in turn, should further diminish its declining readership.Now--if the readership is only the moonbat wing, they might improve their circulation.
The single line in the editorial I found MOST compelling was this: "Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little." As I read that it suggests the NYT editorial board was suggesting Alito break his sworn oath and lie--inasmuch as pretending is lying--to gain confirmation. That particular argument encapsulates one of the left's greatest problems: Failure to distinguish between ends and means.There is of course many other bloopers in the editorial worthy of fisking. But time does not permit me.
Karl Rove is on his knees this very moment praying for a filibuster. It would prove to be a political disaster for the Democratic Party. The polling data shows that the majority of American people are behind the nomination of Samuel Alito.
May I suggest the term "vaulting the shark", which implies not only clearing the shark by a fairly safe margin, but also poking it with a sharp object while doing so?
oooo. That is breath-taking in its idiocy.
DT,Thanks for the LOL. I just got this picture of Rove kneeling in a chapel... It might be fun to speculate on how he composed his prayer...
Ooh,those wacky wabbits at the Times are bouncing off the walls, but they are wunning out of wubber.
I second duffy's suggestion.
A filibuster may very well destroy any chance of the Democrats doing well in the elections of 2006. The mainstream of the Democratic Party and its allies are unable to even plot rational strategy. They look like fools rushing off the cliff. Long gone are the days of James Carvelle and Paul Begala shrewdly running the show.
DT,I suspect the Dems may well have reached the desperate point of "he who pays the piper calls the tunes." Nobody is tossing money into the pipers shoe box other than the whackjob wealthy crowd and if what they demand is ineffective histrionics, well, that's what they'll have.What's will become obvious and amusing over time, but the Dems are too desperate to recognize at the moment, is that the wealthy, whackjobs or otherwise, don't get wealthy by throwing money away. Up to this point they've had to toss 20's, 50's, and 100s into the shoebox to establish pride of place over the folks tossing coins, 1's, and 5's in. But that just sends the non-wealthy on their way since they can no longer call any tunes. In no time at all the Dems will find that if they want a fiver in the ol' shoebox their gonna have to not only play tunes on command but dance jigs also. In fact, it may already have gone that far.
“...that the wealthy, whackjobs or otherwise, don't get wealthy by throwing money away.”Someone like George Soros is so wealthy that his donations are taken out of petty cash. I’m sure that his accountants constantly tell him how much “free money” he can spend. Did I say free money? Yes, I most certainly did. Soros has an enormous amount of cash to either donate to his favorite causes---or give to the taxman.
DT,Yeah, he has plenty of money to continue to call the tunes. But he has no need to continue paying the same price. The Dems have seemingly converted themselves from a party that had many contributors of all sizes to one that has but a small number of wealthy contributors. Now the wealthy, not being nearly as "generous" as many believe them to be, will start demanding more for the same price and, eventually, more for less.The Dems are finding out, or will soon discover, that just because the people who own them have unlimited funds doesn't mean they will continue to receive those unlimited funds. We'll know the Dems are finally in their death throes when the Beautiful People (Hollywood) start to abandon them. Once that happens they won't even be able to deliver the Glitterati to the Illuminati. Then the wealthy will look for other ways to amuse themselves and discard the Dems like a used condom.
Let me cite Molly Ivins on some poll numbers. "The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush's tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax."Now you can try and dispute these numbers but go to pollingreport.com and check them out yourself. It seems the American public is turning "moonbat" on you and you either refuse to or won't acknowledge it.
markg8,Now you can try and dispute these numbers but go to pollingreport.com and check them out yourself.So what's your beef? If those numbers are correct the Democrats are in great shape for the next election cycle. You should be out stocking up on champaign, not wasting your time here.
Yes really weird "turning Moonbat" but voting Republican!
Couldn't comment until a few minutes ago because of alleged Blogspot maintenance.But at least I saw Mark at Trollhagen's ("MAT") latest thread hijacking effort.I searched in vain to see anything in those poll numbers he gets from my favorite middle of the road columnist Molly Ivins relating in any way to the confirmation of Judg Alito, or the wisdom or not of filbustering his nomination.Just because that is a crazy idea and has now been advocated by the former lady in grey, I'd'athought MAT might have had some backup showing it was was supported at least by Molly's Minions.Alas, MAT has left us with nothing to comment on.When he lacks substantive arguments, trial balloons will have to do.
Not THE Molly Ivins?My God, if only I'd known this sooner! Now I'll have to rethink everything.
Molly Ivins citing poll data. Now there's something that should stoke the fear in men's hearts.
"Let me cite Molly Ivins on some poll numbers."Apparently the NYT heeded your advice and has hired Molly as a business and political consultant. I applaud the effort expended and fervently hope that they maintain their focus on polls other than those taken on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even numbered years.The same people who shun the NYT and the MSM shun pollsters even more. They don't shun voting, though.
Vnjagvet,The connection is obvious,Molly Ivins,Allito and filibuster have all got "L" and "I" in them.
Let's see if they get a chance to shun electronic paperless voting machines next election. Now that Bob Ney has resigned his committee chairmanship because even he thinks he's going to be indicted electoral reform might just pass this congress. With Hamas' victory yesterday I'd think you guys would mute the "democracy is the right's trump card from here to Baghdad" meme anyway.
But still Molly Ivins has some sense, she won't back Hillary
It is well known that Samuel Allito is red hot for electronic paperless voting machines,talks about nothing else,he only wishes TecKennedy had brought the subject up
Marky,Did you read all the polls on that page? Or did you just pick the one that fit your view? There are some that conflict with your statements....Things like even though people question why we went they think we are winning, and that we should stay until things are settled. That kinda conflicts with your worldview doesn't it?What bothers me though, and maybe I haven't found it yet, is I can't seem to find the breakdown of the respondents to the poll. That same report at pollingreport.com also has the infamous IPSOS poll which was heavily weighted with Democrats. I like to know what I'm looking at before I believe results
Reed Hundt wishes the NYT would fire Dowd and replace her with Ivins. I agree with Drum on this, no I don't want Molly behind a firewall. Never liked Dowd's brand of snark much so I don't care if she goes or stays.
I can't bear carrying the secret any longer. I have to tell.mark, the wealthy Democrat party supporters are secretly working with Karl Rove. Seriously, all these capitalists against capitalism, rich folks for soaking the rich - it just isn't plausible.Why did the Dems get John Kerry, possibly the only Democrat who could pass as a presidential candidate yet still pull off the loss against Bush? Because that was the plan. Follow the money, and you'll see.It was the big media and the wealthy Dem "supporters" behind it that advocated for him - "he's the only one that can win!" Remember that? But he didn't. We all knew he wouldn't, because that wasn't in the plan, and we made sure he didn't win by hiring people to advise him to talk a lot about things he understood very little, and a little about things that were sure to rankle the majority of Americans.It's not Rovian mind control, it's good old behaviorism - "press the lever, here's your cash", the donors dish out the pellets, but Karl Rove wrote the program.markg8, I hope you're listening, because this charade must be brought to an end. Hear the cries of the little people? "Help us markg8, you're our only hope."
Without Robert Byrd, any filibuster would lose all entertainment value. What could the NYT be thinking?
Let's see if they get a chance to shunelectronic paperless voting machines next election.I seem to recall that these machines were promoted as the solution to the Democrats inability to deal with butterfly ballots. Now all I hear is bitch, bitch, bitch. Seems the Democrats just can't get anything right.
Vnjagvet,Would Byrd be wearing his bedsheet?
spector I just picked Ivin's column because I'd read it earlier, chock full of real numbers and it was easy to drag and drop. People who think we are "winning" - whatever that is supposed to mean this week - are deluded by the msm. They're going to be even more disappointed in the months to come. It'd be nice if we were winning, if Iraq was blossoming into a free peaceful capitalist democracy grateful to the US for freeing it from the tyrant. That ain't happening despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground. And don't make me spell out for you why.
Markg8,Why can you not keep to the subject in hand,is it the drugs?
I won't make you. Geez get a grip. I wouldn't try because you can't....LOL
Not only is the NYT in leaping sharkland, but it cannot count.There are now at least 58 votes against cloture in hand. Even if Chaffee, Snow or another NE Rebublican votes no on Alito, none will think of voting against cloture.As of the current count three democrats will vote yes on Alito. I doubt if any of them will vote against cloture when push comes to shove.That leaves two to get. Lieberman, it seems to me is a shoe in against cloture, even if he votes against Alito. I am pretty sure there is another vote out there to stop a filibuster among the "gang of seven" or among the red state dems.
If Reid has the numbers he should use the filibuster. Make Frist nuke the rules of the Senate to get him confirmed and then explain to the American people why he needed to corrupt 200 years procedure to put a man on the Supreme Court who will role back their rights.
If Reid has the numbers he should use the filibuster. Make Frist nuke the rules of the Senate to get him confirmed and then explain to the American people why he needed to corrupt 200 years procedure to put a man on the Supreme Court who will role back their rights.Sounds good to me. I think Reid should give it a go even if he doesn't have the numbers. BTW, 200 and 38 are *not* the same number. May I suggest you brush up on your number skills before going public? It would help you avoid all sorts of embarrassment.
Flash:CNN courtesy of Drudge has just announced that Sen. Kerry, now in Davos, is calling for a filibuster and is "on the phone" drumming up support.It helpfully says that his fellow Senator from MA, the large, sodden one, is supporting his position.Hallelujah.Kerry can't count either.
"the rule of law, fairness, and commonsense dictate that the Senate should obey its rules in confronting and addressing filibusters as it has done for over 200 years." Courtesy of PFAWF Report: No Defense for the Nuclear Option; A Response to the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Article, March 16, 2005. Just for you Chucky. I remember when we used to be a nation of laws, not men. As one wag put it: I remember America. That was a great country for quite a while. Now, it's looking more and more like a men's bathroom after the football game.
"I remember when we used to be a nation of laws, not men".A vast improvement with people,laws are to serve us not vice versa.
I remember when we used to be a nation of laws, not men.Yeah, I remember the Laws. Swaggering down the street, picking fights, poaching deer. The Laws boys were a rough bunch and we were all happy when they left town to homestead in Alaska.
More Democrats foe Allito
Seems to me that Kerry went to the paper, read the editorial and played his filibluster card. Pinch and JFK--two cuckoos of a feather.
A nation of laws, not men.One law, one vote?All laws are created equal, and are endowed by their creators with certain inalienable rights?
"The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it."stated as though that were,de facto,the only way to develop and implement such a health care plan.Taxes.nuanced,sophisticated,brilliant,"intellectual" solutions.no thanks.clearly the answer involvesre-structuring the insurance industry to make single-payer possible.that would be a worthwhileuse of legislative energy.but i'm not gonna hold my breath.
Let me cite Molly Ivins on some poll numbers. I wasn't aware that Molly Ivins was doing polling now.
According to Pollipundit:Currently, there are three Democrat senators who have already declared that they will not support a filibuster - Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).UPDATE: Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), another member of the Gang, has decided to keep his promise. Just one more vote is needed to rule out the possibility of a filibuster.UPDATE 2: And we have it, thanks to Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD), who probably doesn’t want to be Daschled.There we have it....no filibuster. Sorry Mark.
Reed Hundt wishes the NYT would fire Dowd and replace her with Ivins.Who?
I seem to recall that these machines were promoted as the solution to the Democrats inability to deal with butterfly ballots. Now all I hear is bitch, bitch, bitch. Seems the Democrats just can't get anything right.I think the problem is that the machines didn't deal with the problem of Democrats losing elections.
Kerry can't count either.Oh, I think he can count just fine. Now he's nailed down the Kos vote while not having to do anything for which he might actually take some responsibility: he calls for a filibuster, he gets in some posturing, cloture passes, he collects.
Mark,How's your chad?
Reed Hundt is this egomaniac who nver theless has this lot pegged."Suffice it for me to repeat that she says "As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country, it becomes ever clearer that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore are just not the right people to respond to the administration's national security scare-a-thon."
"the rule of law, fairness, and commonsense dictate that the Senate should obey its rules in confronting and addressing filibusters as it has done for over 200 years."Mark, the silly assertions here are manifold. First, the Senate's rules are neither statutes, nor determined by the Constitution: they're its own rules, adopted for its own needs, and subject to its own modification. The whole "rule of law" thing here is a red herring: there's no law involved. What's more, if changing the rules by a simple majority vote is "changing the rules of law, fairness, and common sense", it sure isn't the first time in 200 years. In fact, the exact same maneuver was used in 1980: "And so Mr. Byrd moved to get rid of the first filibuster opportunity--debate on motions to proceed to nominations. GOP Senator Jesse Helms objected and the presiding officer ruled in Mr. Helms's favor. Mr. Byrd appealed, and the Senate voted 54-38 to overturn the chair. The rule change went into effect."That would be Robert Byrd the Democrat, in the Democrat-controlled Senate.Looks to me that the big thing that's offensiev about this being used now is that your side isn't winning.I'm not at all impressed with that reason.
Seneca:Just exactly cynical enough for the redoubtable 90 day wonder.
PeterUK,I went and read the Reed Hunt piece and a bit of the commentary. Thanks for pointing me there. It isn't often one gets to read civil words from the keyboards of moonbats. She doesn't like MoDo so she's got that going for her. But she seems to think Ivins is a proper replacement for MoDo. Ivins isn't a proper replacement for anything other than, perhaps, a wheel chock and even then only in moment of desperation for a very short time.She also apparently finds Al Gore to be a very weighty and qualified politician who, after all, is writing a book about global warming and there just aren't many politicians who could manage that level of intellectual challenge and...Another case of a moonbat mind that would clearly be of some use to humanity (or the owner) if only it would stop spending so much time in the cave and, when not the cave, stop be mesmerized by moonlight.
Oh, BTW, most fascinating of all - to me at least - at the link PeterUK provided is the collection of seemingly intelligent people who are convinced the MSM is right wing, that all guests on talk shows and the like are conservatives, that liberals have no voice. These people even thing the NYT is purposefully trying to bring down Dem candidates and politicians. I didn't spend enough time there to determine if they present any form of evidence for this. But the participants there are apparently the folks who view the MSM as hopelessly "right wing" and the Democratic Party as not nearly far enough to the left to be worthy of the term "liberal" or "progressive". I knew such people were out there but I didn't realize they ever stopped screeching and punking up long enough to construct coherent paragraphs.
"She also apparently finds Al Gore to be a very weighty and qualified politician who, after all, is writing a book about global warming".I'm waiting for the musical.There are people about who thought that the USSR was not a communist country,rightly of course,but they thought it was capitalist.
What a bunch of sniveling children. Heaven forbid you should read something that might challenge your carefully nurtured pathetically guarded delusions. Check out TPM Cafe for yourselves sometime. You'll see some of the best writing and reporting around from both posters and commentators. Far and away more intelligent than most of what passes for discourse on wingnut sites. Try it sometime, they don't bite. Reed Hundt's bio: "Reed Hundt graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, practiced law for 18 years, and served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, 1993-97. Since that date, he has written and lectured about information sector politics, as well as served on various technology company boards."
Markg8,You sit there like the leftovers from someones liposuction and you have the audacity to lecture us?Come back when you have qualifications of your own.
Seems like Allito is a certainty Only the Massachusetts coven wants a filibuster.
Mark--I usually dont respond to folks, but I went back and reviewed your posts on this particular thread: you started out with some interesting info from a Molly Ivin's post about poll numbers; then sequed to something about a corrupt republican house member; then a post about replacing MoDo with Ivins, something about an Ivin's column chock full of real numbers as if that were of sufficient gravitas to command our attention; some comment about Iraq.Only toward the end of the thread did you get down to the topic of this thread: The prospect of filibustering Judge Alito in the senate, wherein you displaced some striking ignorance about the nature of senate "rule," using, without attribution I might add, most of what Robert Byrd says about them.As for your final comment about sniveling children and the like, you may make those assertions if you desire--for your information, I, and I suspect many of my colleagues on this blog probably read Kevin Drum and Joshua Marshall from time to time--I even check in to Kos and DU although level of discourse there is so crude as to embarass Larry Flynt.Unlike the left moonbat sites, we dont block you; we let you ramble on even though you arent even rambling on the appropriate subject. So my question: My question is this: why do you play in this particular sandbox if you dont like us or what we say? Seems a bit masochistic to me, but to each his own.
Hmmm... my apologies to Mr. Hunt for thinking he was a she. Not sure how that happened.
rogera maybe you ought to follow the thread. You folks here seem to think your support for the Republican party is currently shared by the majority of the American public. It's not. Pointing out how misplaced your triumphalism is may be a tad sadistic on my part but it certainly isn't masochistic. Be sure to enjoy the new and improved Supreme Court over the next several decades. You guys deserve to politically reap what you've sown.
Yes Markg8.Republican President,Senate congress and Supreme Court,a terrible defeat.
Post a Comment