The Tea Party (FreedomWorks) is panicked about Jeff Flake’s chances in the Arizona senate race, and they are sending in staffers and money to try to save the day. In other news, some idiot killed himself and his whole family because he wasn’t falling for that unskewed polls nonsense and he couldn’t face four more years of Obama.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
If you read the entire article, the “some idiot” appears to have had a life long struggle with mental illness and had a history of it in his family.
According to a “family friend” who decline to give her last name and spoke to THE DAILY MAIL.
Suspicious. As. Fuck.
“Suspicious. As. Fuck.”
Explain that. You’re running with some interesting assumptions and I would love to know them.
So you’re suggesting the family friend is concocting a cover story because … why? What is her motive? She wants to protect her friends reputation by insisting mental illness had something to do with it instead of the guy just being stupid and a political extremist?
So she either made up the point about the suicide of the guy’s father and about him being depressed when his mom died?
And you’re suggesting that killing ones own children and wife is more consistent with mere stupidity than mental illness?
I’m not putting words in your mouth. I’m just waiting to see what you’re basing that on.
The daily mail is imperfectly reliable. This person could easily be hoaxing them, an attention seeker with barely any or even no connection to the person.
I read about that guy Friday. I even had to post it on my FB page for people to see how stupid Obama derangement syndrome really is.
But I rather post something much more smile worthy!
Cutest picture ever from the Obama FB page!
BTW, this is the original caption from the FB post…soo cute!
“Oval Office, how may I help you
The word “Orwellian” is so overused, but calling a political operation that you rush to set up in response to a candidate’s probable defeat a “Victory Center” is right in like “Ministry of Peace” and “Ministry of Love.”
You think Flake’s in that much trouble? I’m skeptical. He’s actually semi-reasonable on a couple of issues, so he’ll probably pull in more moderates than your average wingnut Senator. And Arizona ain’t blue yet.
They point is, they think he’s in enough trouble to warrant opening a “Victory Center.”
The guy did have a history of paranoia – but then you’d have to suspect that the entire tea party has at least the paranoia trait for them to believe the crap they do.
Let’s assess what we are dealing with here. First, these are people without any anchor in reality and they have a titanic echo chamber to reinforce their delusions. There is literally no crazy theory that they won’t latch onto an believe despite the evidence – from the earth is cooling to the hummer is more environmental than the Prius. Second, because of that they really believe that a) their freedom is being threatened (by that they mean guns, free religion, free speech, etc), b) that Obama is part of some grand anti-American conspiracy, and c) that as part of this conspiracy he’ll make them and everyone in this country bankrupt. I know because I often hear them talking when they think they are amongst fellow teavangelicals. As such many of them are extremely fearful of losing the election.
Finally, proving they can believe mutually-contradictory things, they both believe that 1) only the true tea partiers really understand the depth of the threat (which is why they don’t trust any of the so-called “mainstream” Republicans or even Fox News when it strays from telling them what they want to hear), making them a threatened minority, but also 2) that this is all so obvious that if Obama wins it can only be by massive vote fraud since they obviously represent a majority.
So, yes, when Obama wins and the Dems take both houses of Congress there will be some major, major fallout. A lot of it very violent.
Was with you until the violence. I don’t see it. Major anger and disappointment, claims of widespread vote fraud, yes. Maybe some hooliganism.
I guess it’s all a matter of how the RW echo chamber handles it. They can coax their crazies off the ledge or they can stoke their fears with tales of the impending Sharia Law and re-education camps…
Whoops, maybe I revealed too much about our secret plans, comrade. Don’t tell Nick. 🙂
I certainly hope you’re right. I’ve not seen this kind of widespread anger/fear before (here in extreme teapartyland) … in crowd situations it’s like kerosene-soaked kindling waiting for a spark.
I feel sorry for his family and for this poor man who clearly had some mental health issues. These tragedies are often preventable if there is timely intervention. He was well – off; he could have afforded decent mental health care. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t seeing anyone because of the stigma attached to mental health issues, particularly in a place like texas. No doubt that right wing demagogues were exacerbating his paranoid delusions. Having access to dangerous weapons in the home probably didn’t help either. Its ironic that he was most afraid of a political party who , if they could do so, might institute social policies like gun control or mental health care programs that could have helped him.
whoops, he lived in Virginia not Texas.
I don’t follow the Texas reference. Do you live there?
This person was in Virginia.
He lived 4 houses down from a friend of mine
The whole neighborhood was shocked
No, just more confused than usual today.
On an unrelated note…France raised it’s highest marginal tax rate to 75 percent!
Any Progs want to take a bet on what happens to metrics measuring France’s economy (you know, stuff like GDP, employment growth or contraction, median income, poverty level, debt as a percentage of GDP, you know, all the stuff Obama had failed to improve)…
No, I’m not “out of touch” enough to bet a flat $10,000 like Romney…Assuming we come to agreement on the metrics, I’ll bet two weeks income to your one day of income! That’s 14 to 1 odds! As a percentage of income, not even actual dollars!
Surest bet in history!
Any takers?
I have enough trouble watching the American economy. If they spend that extra money their economy should improve. If they use it to pay down their debt or lend it to the ECB to stengthen the Euro, then it will hurt them.
Commandeering private savings has NO effect on an economy, Laffler notwithstanding. It’s the level and kind of spending that affects the economy.
Increasing taxes only affects inflation/deflation. People always act to maximize their wealth, particularly rich people. They have the choice of earning something or nothing. No one chooses nothing.
If I were to take your bet, who would hold the stakes? Booman?
First, income taxes do not effect savings (money already earned), but current income.
Second, the money supply is related to capital savings…the more wealth a society has stored up, the more money it can reasonably circulate…
The fact that Progressives see no value to stored wealth indicates that you do not have the slightest idea how to tell the difference between money and wealth!!!
As if printing a bunch of green pieces of paper somehow creates houses and food and clothing and cars and airplanes and iPhones!!
Wow! Unbelievable!
Your ignorance is unbelievable.
The rich have a large marginal propensity to save. When you increase their marginal tax rate you decrease their savings, not their spending which, at the levels we are talking about, is a small fraction of their income.
The more wealth is “stored” in fixed assets, the less can circulate (as in from hand to hand).
Printing bunches of green paper that are then exchanged for materials and labor creates houses and food and clothing et cetera. Only in a command economy, like the Soviet Union before NEP, can these be obtained without the green pieces of paper. The green pieces of paper (increasing only oriented magnetic domains on a disk in the cloud) serve as a fluid representation of wealth which is symbolically exchanged. Somehow I don’t think you admire Lenin’s attempt at pure communism before he reintroduced money (the New Economic Policy in Limbaugh speak).
Don’t get your economic ideas from Fox News. Follow some professionals: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/about.html
Please…
When legitimate money, backed by true wealth, flows to fixed assets, the value of those assets increases. Legitimate credit (i.e. an increase in the money supply) can than be issued against those assets, thus creating new businesses.
When illegimate money, not backed by true wealth, flows into fixed assets, you create “asset bubbles”…see dot.com bust 2000, see housing 2006…see Dow Jones at 13k plus 2007…and now 2012 thanks to Bernanke!
Every series Depression or Recession can be traced to an asset bubble created by excessive printing of money not backed by true wealth…
Legitimate money? Is that like legitimate rape?
That’s your retort?
Really?
Can you define “money”?
I can define rape, but you haven’t the foggiest notion what is “money”.
very similar, and obviously where he got the phrase
1800’s? All those Panics didn’t happen I suppose. You know, the entire reason we created the Fed in the first place.
Seabe…give me the 1800 “panic”, and, since I’m much more well versed in 20th century economic history, with the help of the Internet, I will trace it to an asset bubble. Yes, greedy private investors looking for a quick, unrealistic return, drive the asset bubble, but they cannot do it without the Government’s help! Only the Government can suspend the law of supply and demand because it is COERCIVE!!!
I’m not going to comment on whether they were asset bubbles or not. That’s not what you argued. You argued that without “legitimate money” we will have asset bubbles. If you’re arguing that there were asset bubbles in the 19th century, then you’re arguing that there are and were asset bubbles with “legitimate money”.
And for someone who’s such a reader of Milton Friedman, you are aware that he argues that the Depression was the Federal Reserve’s fault because there wasn’t enough money being printed, right? It spawned an entire theory of economic thought called “Monetarism”? Ringing any bells? For you to argue in favor of Friedman and somehow say he would be AGAINST the Fed increasing the money supply in a deflationary period is lunacy. Friedman was a capitalist asshole, but he wasn’t Andrew Mellon.
Friedman argued that the increase in the money supply should reflect increases in real production…he suggested a Constitutional Amendment restricting money supply increases to a maximum of 3 percent per annum…I’ll take that!
Along with a Constitutional Amendent restricting Federal spending to a fixed percentage of GDP…
Along with replacing ALL Federal Transfer Payments with a negative income tax!!
Brilliant!! Unless, of course, you are Union Government Employee!
I do not accept the monetarist theory behind the causes of the Depression. However, it is what Friedman argued: the government — ie, the Fed — should have actively intervened.
There are a few things I agree with Friedman on. Food stamps and stuff should be eliminated, for example, and we should give the poor cash transfers.
It’s funny you’re arguing for a negative income tax. I can see the value in that; I’d rather have 85-90% unionized workforce, but both accomplish similar goals. But I think the reason why you want a negative income tax is so you can berate the poor like the Republicans and Romney are doing right now with their 47% bullshit. It’s a Scarlet Letter. I think in many ways you want them to be dependent, rather than being union and fighting for themselves and their fellow workers, so you have something over them. It’s pride. Letting them know their place. And that’s why I’m not a capitalist.
Seabe and Voice: love your stuff. But give up the fights with “Nick”. They only serve to clog the thread which is his purpose.
Oh, I know. I tried too. If you can dig back to DailyKos in the first year, when he was on Haloscan for comments, you’ll find a commenter “Z” who kept fighting a troll “Irish Boy”. “Z” was me. Eventually I learned that all it does is clog the thread.
Course, back then a thread of 50 comments was huge and Markos himself did the troll banning – but “Irish Boy” kept coming back with different names and IP addresses. Ignoring is the ONLY solution.
He’ll come back regardless. Drunk and bored, mostly. And that’s why I respond myself; out of pure boredom lol. Plus, you gotta be up to date on the latest wingnut rationales.
Seabe…OMG!…we’re both bored…let’s start a political party…
Truly, if a political party could guarantee an end to Boredom, it would win 100 percent of the vote!
Correct! I don’t really even understand why I post here! I literally can’t help it!
But I feel ALIVE while debating…agreeing with Right-wingers is so fucking boring!
Caboose…one difference…
Somehow, I was really poor, and got rich…
And I tried to figure out why…
After searching for an answer, I found out…
I DON’T GIVE UP!
EVER!
EVER!
EVER!
If I set a goal, I either achieve it, or I die.
Try it…it works…
That’s probably while I post here until I die!
Or until the site dies!
Everything Dies!
Except Existence/Universe/God…whatever the hell you call it!
Another good source: http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Economics-Ideas-Still-among/dp/0691154546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=13
48957072&sr=8-1&keywords=zombie+economics
Although he does a rather poor job of demolishing the Efficient Market Hypothesis. For a better, mathematically grounded demolition of the EMH, see http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Certainty-Scientists-about-Future/dp/068811914X/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&
amp;ie=UTF8&qid=1348957281&sr=1-12&keywords=john+casti This is a book I recommend highly, written by a practicing expert in System theory and Catastrophe Theory. If your math is up to it, which it probably isn’t unless you are at least a third-year student in the hard sciences and preferably a grad student, read http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Rules-Set-Wiley-Science-Paperback/dp/0471184373/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&am
p;ie=UTF8&qid=1348957281&sr=1-10&keywords=john+casti
It’s a bit pricey, I paid $100 for hardcover, now they want $210 for paperback. Forget it if you are not comfortable with “REACHABILITY THEOREM: A state x contained in R super n is reachable from the origin for the system Sigma if and only if x is a linear combination of the columns of the matrices G,FG, FsquaredG,…F to the n-1 G.” which is quote obtained by a random opening of volume 2.
But do read his book that I cited first. It’s written for the mass market, while “Reality Rules” is a textbook.
Have you read Milton Friedman? Ludwig Von Mises? Frederick Hayek?
We can trade suggested reading all night long!
Wow! I just read your reply more thoroughly!
Have you heard of the Weimar Republic?
Please google Weimar Republic Inflation!
The fact that you actually believe printing money produces tangible wealth speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy…
You can see Weimar Republic, Chile in the 1970’s…how about the Roman Empire…or…Gilligan’s Island!!!
Thirsting Howell had millions in his chest…but he couldn’t buy anything with it!
Green pieces of paper are only worth something if people think they are worth something! That’s based on supply and demand… Increase supply without increasing the demand, value decreases. Increase the amount of dollars without increasing demand (i.e. the things dollars can buy, without which the dollar has no value…see Thurston Howell)…decrease the value of the dollar…i.e. the dollar buys less…i.e. inflation.
Is it that hard to understand?
The Weimar Republic pursued a deliberate policy of hyperinflation in an effort to make the Versailles reparations cheap to pay off, because they were set in constant value.
That history has not the slightest thing to do with the debate going on over Fed policy.
Is it that hard to understand?
It isn’t remotely hard to understand. The reason childishly simplistic answers to complex questions are worthless isn’t because they are difficult to understand, but because they fail to grasp or explain the real world.
There’s no way to measure if it’s a result of the taxes, at least not right now. For example, Conservatives have it in their head that Reagan’s tax cuts spurred economic growth and fixed the recession, when it was really Paul Volcker and the Fed.
So you’re admitting sound monetary policy (i.e. higher interest rates, lower money supply) benefits the economy?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bernanke’s doing the exact opposite, one Keynesian doing whatever he can to get another Keynesian elected!
But you’re right…Larry Kudlow is one of the best speakers on this topic…a sound dollar (not necessarily a gold standard–see Milton Friedman)…will definitely help the economy!
Seabe…you’re a Republican now?
Of course monetary policy can affect the economy. But you idiots think it goes one way all the time. Right now we have a deflation problem, and the money supply should be increased and handed to people.
In fact, rather than propping up the banks, the Fed could have directly given people money with underwater mortgages.
So no, I’m not admitting that at all.
Shorter Nick: Don’t give someone who is dying of thirst a glass of water, because people can drown in the ocean!
Thinking that monetary expansion works the same way during periods of high inflation and extremely low inflation is foolish.
Nick, please, you are going to extremes. Trust me. I’ve seen Nixon and Reagan and BOTH Bushes. Hell, I’ve even seen Nixon before Kennedy (I’m old as dirt).
Relax. Take some drugs. have a drink.
go Here and Here and Here.
Thank you and have a Simon Crowell day.
Dee…I don’t do drugs…have already had a few drinks…can’t tell which addiction is worse…spirits, or the frog pond…
Question…I try, mostly, to state my beliefs in my own words, according to my understanding…you guys seem to quote other sources using Green Qoute Technology…why not state your beliefs using facts?
Curious…
Because brainpower is wasted trying to argue with drunks.
Because a fact without something to back it up is a subject to disbeliefe, and discussion without common ground is noise.
Basic philosophy. Without an agreed upon set of axioms any discussion devolves into “I believe / I don’t believe”. Please note that the axioms do not have to be “real” or self-evident. Just agreed upon. Thus anyone CAN discus anything by the simple expedient of agreeing to pretend to the existance of a set of basic entities (example). You don’t give up your right of disbelief, just your right to say so for discussion.
By quoting outside sources for facts (who was where on what day, the exact wording of a quote, how much $$$ were given by whom and so forth) you let your audience know a general set of axioms you are using. Thus, I maintain that anything by Fox News cannot be trusted, but I’ll generally trust 3 or 4 other sources. This lets the BatShitCrazies know that I’m part of the the Great Satanist Conspiracy and other people know that you can actually discuss in a rational manner with me.
Which you don’t do. Because most of your positions are matters of belief and not fact. At least, not fact based on observations that I will accept.
Thank you and may Hume have mercy upon you.
I’ve been thinking about Romney’s “zinger” strategy if it even exists (I’m beginning to thing the Romney strategy is to just throw out all these debate pre stories to give the Obama folks and the media some sort of false expectation of …???)
Zingers only work if they make sense. “Noun, verb, 9/11” makes sense with someone like Guiliani. The same zinger means less against anyone else.
And usually they often come in a counterpoint against what your opponent says. Now does anyone truly believe that Romney will have many opportunities to do this with Obama? Like I’ve said, if you don’t at least give Obama the benefit of being a great debater, he is at least compotent. Plus unlike Obama, Romney has had more flip-flop on darn near every issue.
Plus I suspect like McCain, Romney has NEVER had to debate a person of color in his life. He’s got to treat POTUS with some respect. Obama can still win with smaller parts of the white electorate and that part can get even smaller if by trying to “zing” the first African American President he comes off as being flippant or disrespectful. Heck after McCain’s “that one” thing in his debate with Obama, you had people blistering McCain on his condescension…and people LIKED McCain. The village except for Halperin and the Faux-lite people don’t really like Romney, and he already has a problem with people thinking he’s a condescending douche!
I think Steve M has the best insight on this. The zingers were created over a month ago and have been focus-group-tested and already distributed to Drudge, Fox, et al so that the moment they are spoken the conservamedia already is blaring “Best line of the debate!!!” and the full context of the zinger.
The purpose of announcing this via the media is so that everyone else is on board and watching. They know that most of the leading punditry is wealthy and in agreement with the GOP economically. Furthermore, the horse race reporting gets boring when one candidate runs away with it – the reporters start to root for a comeback and even try to help make it happen.
The purpose of the NY Times announcement of the zingers was to prepare the media to get into stenographer mode when the wingnut media sends out “Zinger” press releases.
If Mitt’s handlers are successful the MSM will have their debate stories 3/4ths written before the debate starts and just need to sprinkle in a few details to fill them up. They might even have sample quotes from the person in the street already written up ready to go.
But, while I have my doubts about Axelrod & company’s willingness to stick their neck out to help the Democratic party as a whole, I’m extremely confident that they’ve already planned for this contingency and may have a surprise or two of their own.
What do you want to bet the Obama campaign has, or will have, a copy of the zingers before the debate and the President will be ready for them?
Further to that thought:
What odds that the President will pre-emptively weave the “zingers” into his comments so that Mitt can’t hit a single, let alone a home run?
Example: Obama standard stump line: “People want a hand up, not a handout.”
Romney preplanned zinger: “You say people want a hand up, not a handout, but the only hand they’ll get from you is in their pockets!”
Obama pre-emptive strike: “I believe that people want a hand up, not a handout, but my opponent wants to put his hand in every retiree’s pocket and give the back of his hand to the working poor.”
I swear – this sounds like the guy who shows up for a blind date with a bunch of notecards with jokes written down.
I think we’ve seen something like this before…
Mitt Romney: Raw & Unleashed – Now fifteen to seventeen percent more edgy!
I doubt Mitt can use a Zinger to hide the recent news that he invested in a company that does stem cell research, Chinese Oil Co., and two companies that have dealings with Iran.
Link? Source?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/mitt-romney-tax-returns-2011_n_1913754.html
Thank you.
Just saw this video and my reaction was “good for her”. I think it pretty much gives you an insight to how Obama’s election affected so many in the African American community and to show ya that antecdotally the community is still pretty fired up for Obama. Aided more so by these voter suppression laws popping up all over. Ain’t no better way to get people motivated than to deny them something they’ve fought long and hard far. It’s one thing to choose not to vote, it’s a whole ‘nother thing to feel like your choice is being threatened.
This young lady is 106 days young. The first time she voted was 1928, due to raising her family and living her life, she says she hasn’t voted since, but if the Lord says the same, then this November she will be voting for the first time for Barack Obama. It’s that important to her this year.
http://youtu.be/1pDsWLXTbDs
Just a lovely video. Ya’ll should check it out!
The Carmona campaign has a fundraising goal of $30,000 over the weekend, you can donate here. Please and thank you!
Sunday update: hey got an avalanche of new donors and over $80,000.
Of course, this means they set a new goal of $100,000 for the weekend. Every dollar helps – this seat is winnable. Please and thank you!
very exciting! thanks for keeping us updated!
Sounds like this is sort of an open thread. Question for you, Boo: if things go as you are thinking, who are the winners and losers?
I think a few losers are:
But that’s just my short list. The benefits of defeating massive money even once will linger on.
This would make a tremendously funny send-up of right wing insanity if it hadn’t actually happened.
Sure it’s not a fraud?
Did the story originate in The Onion?