Bullies really don’t like it when people fight back.
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.
True.
Plus Huckabee lives in the land of delusion whereby:
IOKIYAR
always applies.
Suckah!! hope the law suit prevails.
The do that a lot. They pass these forever copyrights then think they don’t apply to them. Why doesn’t he play something from Ted Nugent?
My favorite was when Bushco played and attempted to sing the refrain “Born in The U.S.A.”, apparently never having listened to the words.
That was Ronald Reagan not a Bush.
No. It was just a few years ago. Definitely after 2000.
Maybe Reagan did the same. I had no internet when Reagan was in office. Did anybody?
TV, radio, and newspapers did exist. CNN – politics/music
Yes, but I read it on the internet. Didn’t even know about the Reagan incident. Neither, apparently did W and Cheney, not surprisingly.
The incident I’m referring too was at some rally and no copyright claim was made because all the idiots knew was the refrain “I was born in the USA”.
A campaign event for staff and press, more of a party than a rally.
You may have read it on the internet, but it appears not to have risen to the level of a major infraction. Or perhaps you didn’t remember it quite correctly. CNN coverage of this issue
Anybody have a link to official daily actual snow fall by zipcode or city/state? All I can find are estimates. They say 6 to ten inches but it looks like a foot to me and it’s still coming.
You can click around on this page to get recent actual precipitation:
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?map=2&date=20151120
(The archive dates go back two months.)
Thanks, but I don’t see snowfall there.
It has been my experience that ALL the bullies that I have run into are cowards. If you stand up to them they slither away to find a rock to hide under.
the huckster has become yesterdays news, as far as his presidential candidacy is concerned.
ergo, any publicity is good publicity especially if he can blame it on the someone he can associate with the ubiquitous anti conservative movement.
victus totalis
John Bel Edwards defeats diaper Dave.
Did his tough ad make the difference?
I was wondering where the bleeding from the manufactured Syrian refugee non-crisis was going to be stopped.
While Vitter attempted to make that a last minute campaign issue, it didn’t work because Edwards wasn’t on the other side.
For a punditry fail, check out a diary and thread on the LA Gov race ten months ago.
didn’t work because he was already toast due to Bel Edwards hammering on the character issue and Vitter being twinned with Jindal who was well hated by that time and rightly blamed for woes
I would agree generally that Edwards “wasn’t on the other side” of the Syrian refugee issue, but John Bel didn’t run nonstop campaign ads and other bullshit on all media in the last week of the campaign attacking Syrian refugees.
We can also agree that the ACA was not formed with the intent of destroying Medicare, yet Republicans ran ads claiming just that in 2010, and they won with them. By 2012, things had calmed down a bit and they failed to win with that same tactic. But they tried.
What’s important about yesterday’s result is that the attempt to win a Statewide election by fearmongering over the Syrian refugee issue utterly failed to work. This will help the Senate Democratic caucus hold the line on blocking the House bill on Syrian refugee policy.
I found this analysis of the state of play in the Capitol on this issue discouraging, but not without merit:
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762054/congress-obama-refugees-syria
I’m interested in your view on this reporting.
A last week “hail Mary” attack in a campaign is rarely effective, particularly when the candidate is trailing by as much as Vitter was and the leading candidate isn’t a sitting duck for the attack.
An event of some importance that links specifically to one of the candidates in the waning days of an election might do the trick. Off the top of my head can only recall one: “macaca.” Many would probably agree that had the Paris Peace talks in 1968 succeeded that HHH would have won and had Carter managed to get the hostages released he would have won. Unfortunately, as neither happened due to Nixon and Reagan interference, it’s merely a guess.
The repeated “macaca” statement by Senator Allen took place on August 11th, nearly two months out from the election. I agree that it’s easier for an incident to affect the outcome if it takes place weeks or months before the election, particularly in the modern era when a lot of the votes have taken place before Election Day.
I still believe that this election result after Senator Vitter’s horrible attempt to demagogue on the Syrian issue will help the Senate Dem caucus hang together to kill the House bill.
Even more importantly, this outcome will help us combat the conventional wisdom in the wake of the recent Kentucky gubenatorial election that supporting Medicaid expansion and other aspects of the ACA is not high-strength electoral poison in the South. In fact, it has been interesting to see Governor-elect Bevin back away from his promise to end the State’s Medicaid expansion by forming plans to request a waiver. Even he can see that the real high-strength electoral poison would be to be seen directly and completely taking health insurance away from hundreds of thousands of constituents.
iirc the “macaca” issue was news driven as opposed to Webb making use of it on the stump or in ads. It does take several weeks for a non-breaking event like that one to achieve voter saturation.
Once a “goodie” is obtained it ceases to have any motivational power. The GOP has been huffing and puffing about destroying Social Security and Medicare for decades but that doesn’t stop beneficiaries from voting for them. Thus, KY voters chose a DEM Gov that accepted Medicaid expansion and then they were free to vote for a Republican who they are confident won’t kill KyNect. However, those primarily effected by KyNect don’t vote at all.
LA is different. A much larger AA population and high AA poverty rate and AA are much more inclined to vote than poor white folks in KY. That added a few points to Edwards margin. Perhaps enough that that would have been the margin of victory. OTOH, Jindal has a very high disapproval rating and Vitter is loathsome; so, Medicaid expansion may not have been the key to Edwards victory.
The similarity between Edwards and Webb is that they were both tough campaigners. Not the usual mealy-mouthed Democrats. Voters always prefer the stronger looking and sounding candidate. Thus, Brown could defeat Coakley, and then Warren could defeat Brown.
Decided to look back at the videos of Allen’s responses to the exposure of his racism. Not a good look for him:
Love how he tries to invoke Daddy Football Coach to try to rescue the thing. Sorry, no sale, cracker.
At least Russert pushed Allen on the issue — but his well rehearsed explanations/excuses/rationalizations were no match for his real disposition caught on tape and the info supplied by Russert that he had a noose and confederate flag in his office.
This was Allen’s best opportunity to clean up his mess. He lost the election, in a bit of an upset. He can’t be seen to have been successful.
He can’t be seen to have been successful. Huh? Who claimed that Allen’s attempt to save his own bacon was successful?
Webb’s win was “a bit of an upset;” it was a major upset. He was on the very short list for the 2008 GOP POTUS nomination. Had there been any advance concern that he couldn’t win his Senate re-election, he would have pulled a Romney and declined to run for it.
One quarrel: you may think there is no motivating power for voters to defend SS/Medi, but the most serious campaign that has been run to change the programs significantly was the push by Bush and congressional Republicans to privatize Social Security.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20977/top-midterm-election-issues-iraq-terrorism-healthcare-corruption.as
px
While this poll near the beginning of ’06 didn’t have Social Security at the top of the list of important issues for all voters, it was near the top of the list for Democratic Party members; it was about as big an issues for Dems as the Iraq War. So we can extrapolate that the attack by Bush and the GOP on Social Security drove Dem voter turnout. And that election worked out much better for the Democrats than any mid-term in decades, and in the decade since.
For the first three decades of SS, Democrats owned the senior vote. So much so that Republicans stopped publicly calling for dismantling it. GWB was the first to go there in 2005 after receiving 54% of the senior vote in 2004. That dropped to 51% in 2008 for McCain. Let’s also not neglect to note that GWB’s attack on SS was quickly dismissed as not serious by DEMs and the media.
Democrats has a lot going for themselves as they entered the 2006 election. Iraq was a disaster and the price tag for it was ballooning as was the deficit due in part to the Bush tax cuts. The GOP House “sex” scandals. One issue that got attention from non-GOP partisan voters was the DEM promise to raise the minimum wage for the first time since 1996.
Claiming that “GWB’s attack on SS was quickly dismissed as not serious by DEMs and the media” is a serious embroidering of the history.
Bush famously announced in his press conference the day after the election that his re-election gave him political capital, and he intended to spend it. The chief policy goal he identified that day was a Social Security privatization effort. Three months later, days after the State of the Union address and Bush’s featuring of the privatization campaign in his SOTU, the media was taking the proposal awfully seriously:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6903273/#.VlTv8narTIU
Seven months after he announced the SS privatization initiative, there’s still evidence that the effort is not being dismissed by the media:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051205090810/http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/0
60105/social.html
This article, while showing that the SS campaign was in trouble, documents that the Democrats were taking it seriously as well:
“Concerned about the impact of altering the so-called third rail of American politics, some Republicans have said they do not want Social Security reform to spill into 2006. But others maintain that Democrats will continue to criticize the GOP on Social Security throughout next year’s election season, even if Republicans stop addressing the issue in 2005.”
I remember this being a big big thing in early 2005. We were working very hard to prevent any Congressional Democrats from supporting any form of privatization. I recall Talking Points Memo and others taking a very sophisticated whip count, aggressively parsing the Dems’ public statements and encouraging readers to call their Congressional representatives to ask them what the weasel words meant.
Finally, in January 2006 Democratic Party voters identified SS as issue which matched the Iraq War in importance.
Huckabee, I hear that “Honey” by Bobby Goldsboro is available.