A new Suffolk poll in Massachusetts finds that a majority of Bay State residents -- 55 percent -- indeed think that state's law should be changed to allow Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for the late Ted Kennedy.
Far more shocking, though, is the following:
Q8. Is your opinion of Curt Schilling generally favorable or generally
unfavorable?
N= 500 100%
Never heard .................................... 1 58 12%
Favorable ...................................... 2 143 29%
Unfavorable .................................... 3 195 39%
Heard of/Undecided ............................. 4 104 21%
That's right. A plurality of Massachusetts registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Curt Schilling, the former Boston Red Sox pitcher and World Series hero who has been a somewhat outspoken -- although moderate -- Republican, and who at one point was contemplating a run for Kennedy's seat.This is one state, evidently, where blue blood runs thicker than red. If Schilling wants to become a senator, he'd have a far better chance in New Hampsire, where he now makes his residence.
Red Sox owner John Henry, incidentally, is one of the relatively few owners of a major sports franchise who is an outspoken Democrat (remember, the demographic here is rich older white dude).
94 comments
If Schilling ran would Scott Boras be his campaign manager?
A plurality of Massachusetts registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Curt Schilling
That's the downside of being a dick.
Schilling lives in NH? I thought he lived in Medfield, MA (in Drew Bledsoe's old house).
That might be the first time anyone has used the modifier "somewhat" to describe Schilling's outspokenness.
Keep in mind that he fell off in his last couple years here and in his last season people thought that he signed a contract knowing he was injured. He ended up never playing in 2008, thus stealing 8 million dollars from the Sox in the eyes of many. Add that on to people being tired of his outspokenness and you can see why he's not that popular.
Unfortunately, I've come to suspect no republican can win a senate seat in MA. Gov, yes. And Patrick is the least popular gov in the country. But Senate is definitely a hereditary Dem posession in the Bay State. It's of course, a complete disgrace, as there is perhaps no more corrupt state party than the Mass Dems. Unless its the NJ Dems. Or the IL Dems. Come to think of it, there are a lot of contenders.
Speaking of IL, any word on whether Burris plans to run? Hee hee.
The poll on whether the law should be changed is suprisingly close given the inherent bias of the question. It sounds like a blase little, should we appoint an interim senator. Only political junkies will know the history here, how Kennedy tried to screw Romney on this point very recently, the brazen hypocrisy of it, and so forth. Basically, all of the "noes" know all of this, and the intensity of their irritation at this will, or should, be known to congress folk.
Baseball is just a game, something for people to pass the time and distract themselves from their lives. Politics has real life consequences for many of these people. When it comes to real life, Curt Schilling is a scumbag piece of shit of the highest order.
The title of this thread post should be Massachusetts 1, Opportunistic Right-Wing Bushbot Cocksucker 0
If anyone doesn't know, Kurt Shilling was an avid Everquest 2 player and has now created his own video game company, 38 Studios.
He took with him some of the more talented Devs from Everquest 2.
It's of course, a complete disgrace, as there is perhaps no more corrupt state party than the Mass Dems.
The problem for you wingnuts is that the national Rethuglican party is far more corrupt than the MA Dems.
Jeff said
'It's of course, a complete disgrace, as there is perhaps no more corrupt state party than the Mass Dems. Unless its the NJ Dems. Or the IL Dems. Come to think of it, there are a lot of contenders.'
-------------------------------------
For instance the Alaska Republican Party, or South Carolina Republican Party, or Louisiana Republican Party.
Nate, as someone from MA verrrry interested in these numbers, is there any chance you'll do some more analysis on these polls?
At first it looks like a coakley wash, she's at 47% and the next highest is capuano at 9%. But the undecided is 33% and less than 33% have an opinion on Capuano.
Also, more interesting, 41% say they are more likely to support Capuano if Kennedy endorses him. That's more than the undecided numbers. Does that indicate people are very soft in their opinions overall?
I think there is a lot of flux in this race, and that Capuano may surprise. Would love to hear 538's thoughts on it.
NEW "Capitalism: A Love Story" clip featuring a pathetic Ronald Reagan being ordered around by the chairman of Merrill Lynch and exploring early ties between the two:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/michael-moores-capitalism_n_289868.html
Everyone knew Reagan was a senile old fart for most of his pResidency and suspected it was his advisers and handlers who were running the country. But even I didn't think he was anybody's BITCH. That clip was actually quite shocking to me.
LOL@"Oh!"
FiFi…
Before you go accusing anyone else of impolitic behavior, perhaps you’d like to explain and/or beg indulgence for your hundreds of posts in which you threatened to kill people here and “gut them like a fish!”.
You’re a poodle, Fifi. You always were a poodle and you always will be.
Paz, my reading of the whole survey was that its all name recognition at the moment. Very typical pre primary poll.
I think a Kennedy endorsement automatically gives anyone a big push. Capuano, who one assumes would be the one to get the nod, would automatically be vaulted into a fight out with Coakley, you have to think.
Except, and here is the tiny, tiny caveat to the whole race right now. What if another Kennedy (maybe Ted Kennedy jr??) were to make a surprise late entry? Its not something I would expect to happen, but its just the only thing that might throw the whole thing open.
PorridgeGun…
Wow. Ronald Reagan is actually told by his chief of staff, Don Regan, “You’re going to have to speed it up.” I wonder how many times Regan told him, in the privacy of the Oval Office, “Shut the fuck up.”
I’ve always said Ronald Reagan will be remembered as the worst president of the 20th Century, primarily because he was such a mindless puppet of business interests. His only intellectual exercise was in trying to figure out if his presidency was occurring during the “Final Days” outlined in the Book of Revelation. Beyond that, to Ronald Reagan the world was all a fog. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “I could fashion a better man from a banana.”
The real shocker is that 12% of the Red Sox Nation have never heard of Curt Schilling. Do these people live in caves?
;^)
FWIW, I was raised in NH and am a proud member of the RSN.
Here’s a little gem for Bart De Palma and Fifi—Mark Williams (leader of the Tea Farty movement) spelling out his philosophy.
Can’t beat that with a stick!
I franklky think it speaks for the GOP as a whole.
Prag:
Citing Michael Moore for anything nevertheless the presidency of Ronald Reagan is silly unless you like to look foolish.
The Chief of Staff runs the President's schedule and often tells his boss "to speed it up." The clip had nothing to do with Merill Lynch. Then again, misrepresentation and lies are Moore's stock in trade.
In any case, like most American supporters of socialism, Moore has already made his money under our free market capitalism. Socialism for thee and not for me. Typical.
I sure hope it's not Coakley. She's a fuckin' moron. It'd be nice to get an intelligent, progressive liberal with a backbone into Kennedy's seat. Is there no one on the MA bench that fits the bill? We are perhaps the only state in the union that will let a progressive be progressive without any fear of losing his or her seat. It's a dark blue state, and one the liberal wing of the Democratic Party would be wise to take advantage of.
One person who doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot of attention is Dukakis. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with the seat, especially if Deval gains the power to appoint someone.
Bark…
The clip had everything to do with what a marshmallow Ronald Reagan was. Can you imagine what John Kennedy’s reaction would have been to be ordered around on mike by his chief of staff? Or Lyndon Johnson? Or Barack Obama?
I’m sure Reagan is above tarnish in your estimation.
Pragmatus said...
Here’s a little gem for Bart De Palma and Fifi—Mark Williams (leader of the Tea Farty movement) spelling out his philosophy.
Mark pretty much pegs most of the concerns of the Tea Party movement and a majority of this country.
Mark's complaints about a corrupt government run by special interests? Sounds like the 2/3 who told Roper the same thing in the poll I posted in the last thread.
Mark's complaints about Bush's TARP and Obama's socialism? Right on the money. What is the current level of support for using TARP money to buy GM and Chrysler for the UAW?
What I found incredible was the complete obliviousness of the two DC establishment talking heads - Gergen and Carville - sniffing at the vulgar masses before going to the evening's establishment cocktail party just days after hundreds of thousands of their countrymen marched in protest within spitting distance of where these two fools live. The establishment really does not get it. It was like a scene out of Dr. Zhivago before the Russian Revolution.
I was shaking my head like Mark listening to the clueless.
This thread is bringing out the best in Nate's readers, nicely demonstrating their capacity for self-delusion. Examples. Apparently Ronals Reagan is destined to go down as the "worst" president of the 20th century. (This must be the same person who called Jimmy Carter an "elder statesman" yesterday). Apparently the GOP is responsible for corruption in Louisianna!
Folks, corruption can't get any worse than MA. Three consecutive Speakers (the most powerful post in the state) have been arrested for corruption. A triple play! And the rot drips down from there. The Pike Authority. The Big Dig. No bid contracts. Pay to play. You name it, it goes on. Boston's mayor is being investigated for illegally dumping emails, possible in connection with a bribery investigation of State Senator Diane Wilkerson (she was filmed stuffing cash in her bra). Martha Coakley won't investigate, because Mayor "Mumbles" Menino is her close political ally. That's how it works around here. It's beyond belief.
That is the one opening the GOP has. IF Coakley or some other state official is the nominee, corruption will be an issue.
Pragmatus said...
The clip had everything to do with what a marshmallow Ronald Reagan was. Can you imagine what John Kennedy’s reaction would have been to be ordered around on mike by his chief of staff?
Can I skip the next meeting to take my pills and sneak a hooker into the West Wing?
Ask Tip O'Neil what a marshmallow Reagan was when the President personally convinced a third of the Dem caucus to blow off their leadership and vote for tax reform. Mr. Obama would do wise to pay attention.
Ask Gorby what a marshmallow Reagan was during nuclear negotiations when he tried to convince the President to abandon SDI.
The "amiable dunce" meme is just so 1982.
just days after hundreds of thousands of their countrymen marched in protest within spitting distance of where these two fools live
Baghdad, even wingnuts like O'Reilly are admitting that there were only 75,000 tea-baggers in the protest. The "Revolution" is all in your head.
Folks, corruption can't get any worse than MA
You clowns lied your way into a war. The Iraq Disaster is MUCH worse than anything going on in MA. To pretend otherwise is simply absurd. And the people of MA are probably going to punish you clowns for that war for many years to come.
'The clip had everything to do with what a marshmallow Ronald Reagan was. Can you imagine what John Kennedy’s reaction would have been to be ordered around on mike by his chief of staff?'
-------------------------------------
JFK didn't have a Chief of Staff!!
(Do I win pedantic post of the day for that??)
@Bart ..just days after hundreds of thousands of their countrymen marched in protest within spitting distance...
There would be a lot less disdain going around for those "vulgar" people if they'd stop with the blatantly obvious fabrications. :)
P.S. Although I should commend you for moving back from the insanity of 7-digits to the merely mildly delusional 6-digits. Any chance that in the future you'll scale it back from the 20"-30" range down to something remotely plausible?
I hate to agree with BDP, but the Michael Moore clip proves nothing. Presidents generally do not keep intricate track of their schedule and need their staff to keep them paced. It's not just Reagan. That being said, Reagan was absolutely a puppet handled by Regan, Meese, Falwell, Nofziger, Nancy, etc, this particular clip just does not speak too that point effectively. I hope Moore came up with better examples because they are everywhere.
To say that he was one of the worst Presidents in history is an understatement. I think Mule's point (with the childish name calling filtered out) is that Reagan was incredibly successful in accomplishing his agenda--whether or not Reagan was a great President of an awful one depends on what you think of that agenda--brutalizing the poor, bloating the military, lying to the press almost by default, expanding the deficit with government waste (NOT with useful social programs), and turning over the reigns of government to corporate lobbyists (polluters and loggers at the EPA, biggoted fundamentalists at justice, neocons and oilmen in the state and defense establishments, etc). I would agree that Reagan was one of the worst Presidents of all time, but I can see how an intelligent (but completely heartless) person could disagree.
Bart DePalma said...
Citing Michael Moore for anything nevertheless the presidency of Ronald Reagan is silly unless you like to look foolish.
Yeah, because Michael Moore is notorious for getting everything completey wrong, from General Motors (Roger & Me), gun nuts, right-wing militias, hate and domestic terrorism (Bowling for Columbine), Iraq invasion and occupation (Fahrenheit 9/11), corporate abuses and outright criminality, healthcare (Sicko), George W. Bush, etc, etc, etc...
And he called out Bush for lying and manipulating the country into war in 2003, by linking Saddam to 9/11. Wow, how did that turn out? How about those WMDs? Moore was proven wrong on that as well.
Whatever you do, don't listen to Michael Moore's warnings of potential catastrophes to hit the United States.
Jacob…
Point taken, but I would disagree in this fundamental way—a good president is aware enough and strong enough not to let others push him around. Reagan was neither.
A good illustration—one day in his second term he was scheduled to meet with two groups in the morning. One from Buick, the division of General Motors, and the other a group of Japanese businessmen. He was given the wrong 3x5 cars when he went in front of the Japanese, yet delivered the entire Buick speech without realizing his mistake. Even the quizzical looks on the Japanese failed to make an impression.
Now that is a portrait of someone who has no business being president.
Another one who gets it requently wrong, at least compared to truthtellers Glenn Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh:
KO Documents Racist Attacks on Obama
http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/17/early-morning-swim-ko-documents-racist-attacks-on-obama/
Bartbuster,
Kindly inform us why the Iraq war has anything under the sun to do with Democratic corruption at the state level. What, Rangel, Murtha, et al get a lifetime pass to rob the public blind? For that matter, what do the GOP contenders for senate in MA have to do with the Iraq war (a war that one of their existing DEM Senators voted for, by the way). The partisanship around here staggers. Can't we call a spade a spade. The Dems of MA are corrupt to the bone.
As for the hilarious idea that Reagan will be remembered as a disaster - keep that idiocy up. WHEN is he going to be remembered as a disaster? Here's been out of office for 30 years, and is still popular, for crying out loud. And keep up the Michael Moore stuff too. That's the way to hold onto the independent vote.
Excellent point, Pragmatus: a good President should be aware enough of his surroundings to present a strong public image and speak to his audience--although I think that Reagan was generally stronger on delivering his message than on actually crafting the agenda, missteps such as that aside. Ultimately Reagan was able to do so much damage because he could effectively sell the ideas that his handlers crafted. He had no business being President because he proclaimed this massively corrupt agenda without even thinking about what it would do to the country.
Also, I hope Moore's movie points out that other Presidents of both parties have allowed Wall Street tycoons from Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc to take over the management of the economy. Reagan may have been more egregious than most, but almost every President since the Gilded Age has allotted a lot of leverage to the robber barons of their age. Moore has usually been willing to criticize both parties (especially Clinton) for corporatizing government and rightly so; let's hope that he continues to do so.
Kindly inform us why the Iraq war has anything under the sun to do with Democratic corruption at the state level.
I never said it had anything to do with Dem corruption. I said it shows that you wingnuts are more corrupt than MA Dems could ever be.
Only 12% of mass is registered republican and from the suffolk poll only 28% of the independents lean republican. If you work it out 28% are likely to vote republican. This is just simply a split along party line ... exact same percentage disapprove of Obama. Wow, people vote according their their party preferences in Mass. too. Shock.
Seriously, do any of you know what socialism is?
41 comments and no one has applauded Nate for the choice of picture?
As someone from North Jersey, I thoroughly enjoy the usage of Curt's red sox for this post.
That said, the numbers can be read different ways. In the sample, 39% of people have an unfavorable view of Schilling, but. BUT. There are a high number of undecided - 32.4%, in fact. Granted, it's like threading a needle - his net favorability is -10% (actually, -10.4%), so of the 162 undecided/no opinion, he needs to pull off...oh, 107, I think. (Or, nearly 2/3 of the undecided.)
Nate's almost certainly right that he stands a better chance in New Hampshire. Hell, he probably stands a better chance in New York. Against Chuck Schumer.
Keep in mind the talk has barely started here in Mass. Today was the first day on soprts radio (which I listen to every day) that it got any serious play. I hope he goes for it ... I bet he has a much better shot than these numbers suggest.
...okay, 41 comments as of typing that up.
@Josh: It's easy to define socialism: anything Obama does. For example, when he has breakfast, he pours himself a big bowl of Stalinflakes. (Sasha and Malia are more partial to Commie-O's. Now with fun hammer and sickle marshmallow shapes!) Then he washes himself with Politburo-brand soap.
Hell, even his arugula is grown in the finest Siberian labor camp.
Yeah Massachussetts politics are pretty corrupt, especially the Democratic leadership, but so are Texas Republicans, Alaska Republicans, Nevada Democrats, South Carolina Republicans, Arizona Republicans, Maryland politicians historically, almost every leader in Illinois, New Jersey, and Louisiana government, the RNC, etc. If you dig deep enough you can find corrupt politicians everywhere and in both parties.
The point of the comparison to the national GOP is that Beacon Hill leaders skimming off the top is unfortunate, but it's nothing compared to lying the country into a six year war in order to drive up your profit margins. Don't try to paint corruption as a Democratic problem or a Massachussetts problem when others have done or are doing far worse.
Also, we can be glad that officers of the commonwealth had the good sense to arrest corrupt MA speakers, would that the same could happen regarding corruption in the Bush administration
Of course, the Republicans might do better in MA, and indeed the entire northeast, if they could get the rest of their party to lay off the hateful, shrill, xenophobic, religiously-intolerant, red-baiting (in 2009, seriously?), conspiracy-mongering, and borderline racist and violence-encouraging rhetoric.
I have no idea what Kurt Schilling's personal politics are, beyond his claimed conservatism. But anyone associated with the basket of screaming loonies that the Republicans seem to have become is really going to have a tough time making any headway in this part of the country.
Josh said...
Seriously, do any of you know what socialism is?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BDP is writing a tome/pamphlet ;) on the ultimate definition re: socialism.
Soooo, yes Virginia, Bart is your go to guy for the official word on all things to do w/socialism!
Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.
Schilling came THIS close to pitching a perfect game against Oakland; an error on a routine grounder by Julio Lugo (anyone surprised?) was the only blemish in the first 27 at bats. Sadly for Curt, the 28th batter got a single. He retired the 29th for a 1-hit shutout.
But for Lugo, Schilling would have been in the elite company of the likes of Jim Bunning, and like Bunning would be a viable candidate for senate. But it was not to be, and the voters of our fair commonwealth know that without that flawless no-no, Schilling will never represent us in the upper house.
Besides, Bunning is so bad a senator that even the Republicans are embarrassed. Imagine how bad Schilling would be WITHOUT that perfect game?
No Jacob. The MA Dems perhaps have a counterpart in the Alaska GOP,but states like Texas - with two working parties - are no where near as bad. The war is irrelevant in this context (and only a small part of the country agrees with your somewhat fevered account of the war as some sort of ginned up oil grab). Finally, the "officers of the commonwealth" did not break this stuff up. The FBI did it, as they have done in IL. These states are beyond redemption. And their voters aren't going to be soothed by the blithe claim that "corruption is everywhere, what can ya do." I'll tell you what, cut the double standard. Treat Charlie Rangel as you treated Ted Stevens.
I don't think Schilling is that much of a hero in Boston. Compare him in the affections of Bostonites to say Carlton Fisk. Just because the guy has made some political statements, and played for the Red Sox, does not make him a good candidate for the Senate seat.
@Mule Rider
yes, the question DOES indeed make sense.
I'd like you, right now, to not use ANY SOCIALIST CONCEPTS THAT OUR GOVERNMENT CURRENTLY PROVIDES.
this list is not exhaustive...
-Any public roads (this includes most roads people drive on to get anywhere, including to their neighbor).
-police force to protect its citizens
-fire fighters to stop things from burning and destroying everything
-ambulances and EMTs to help people not die before they can get to a dr.
-public street lighting
-road signs
-stop lights
-public schools
-public colleges and universities
-libraries
-public transportation
-running water
-a communication system that allows emergency personnel to get to where YOU need them
-snow removal and ice prevention on roads - so you can drive safely
-medicare
-lawyers to those who can't afford one
how many of these 'socialist' ideas would you like to do away with?
and michael moore is anything but anti-capitalism. He is just anti stupidity.
go watch his movies and learn something you didn't know before.
thanks for playing.
By the way, Mike Capuano is my Congressman, and he doesn't do much for me. Not bad, but not inspiring either.
Capuano ascended to Kennedy/O'Neill/Kennedy memorial congressional seat via mayor of Somerville, a city which is not exactly a hotbed of good government. I don't think it would behoove him to bring up corruption issues with Martha Coakley, because there HAS to be some sleeze in his past that would come back to haunt him if he tried.
Schilling is certainly hero here. Not the greatest ever, but a hero for sure ... as the Yankee killer he will go far. During that series something like 86% percent of the televisions were tuned in ... we had what 2 or three million for the parade. Don't underestimate what that world series meant here.
He's a little to the right a bit dweebish and a little too religious for my tastes but he is honest and a straight-shooter and I think he'd make a great Senator. Mass has certainly had enough of the noblesse oblige.
As a lifelong BoSox fan, this is very easy to understand.
Though Schilling is a sports icon in New England, and will never have to pay for a beer in any regional bar, Sox fans know very well that Schilling is a blowhard and something of a buffoon off the field.
A typical NESN broadcast of a Schilling outing would invariably show Curt in the dugout talking at interminable length to a wordless teammate, who would be looking like he'd like to get thrown out of the game to escape Schilling's loghorreic monologue.
That is: He'd get a long standing ovation if he made an appearance at Fenway, but Sox fans know that he is not Senate material (not in
Massachusetts, anyway).
Oh, that and his cheerleading for Bush...
Jeff,
If Charlie Rangel is convicted of anything, I would be all for drumming him out of the House as fast as possible. Based on recent discoveries in that case, I think he should resign his seat now. I was glad to see Bill Jefferson go too, and I think that the Blagojevich impeachment should have happened far sooner.
If you read my comment you might notice that I make no pretense of defending corrupt Democrats; my point is that corruption is widespread in both parties (and for all I know there are probably a few crooked libertarians too). But there is a difference between this sort of ordinary corruption, which absolutely should be fought and exposed, and corruption that leads to massive loss of life and polluting diplomacy for generations to come, which should be treated as the war crime that it is.
Whatever you believe the Bush team's motivations were for lying us into war (and I'm not saying that oil is the sum total of those reasons), the fact remains that they, a good number of conservative Dems, and the British government for good measure, manufactured evidence and lied repeatedly in order to engage our nations in a war of convenience that they had wanted for some time. This sort of deceit goes far beyond the boilerplate corruption of the administration such as the Plame incident or the US Attorney firings.
As for MA being a one-party state, well it is. But until 3 years ago, it had a stretch of 16 years of Republican governors who, while they could not sustain a veto over the legislature most of the time, DID appoint all the various commissars and apparatchiks in the state government, including all the ones who oversaw the disastrous Big Dig that lined the pockets of the private contractors with billions in overruns while giving us shoddy construction in return.
AND these Republican governors appointed 6 of the 7 Supreme Judicial Court justices who legalized gay marriage here, so you can't blame THAT one on the Dems.
No, Deval Patrick is not a particularly inspiring leader, but we were so sick of Republican governors that Donald Duck would have been elected here in 2006 running against any Republican (Mitt Romney knew this and pulled out of the race). The sad truth is we have received crappy government from BOTH parties here in Massachusetts.
Still, our taxes have been below the national average (according to TaxFoundation.org) for over a decade and our schools are at or near the top in most categories. Don't get too much divorce or murder here compared with other states. If you look at quality of life issues here, you find MA does very well right down the list. As bad as our state government here is, it would seem everyone else's is worse.
Uh, I watched him on Leno the other night. He said, and I quote, "Capitalism may have worked at one time in this country, but it doesn't anymore. We need an entirely new system."
That precludes another capitalism based system that works [better] given the circumstances we find ourselves in? :)
P.S. I really don't care for a lot of what he does, how he conducts himself, but he never struck me as particularly anti-capitalism. *shrug*
The war is irrelevant in this context
No, it isn't. It exposed the GOP as the party of warmongering scumbags. That's a lot worse than anything that MA Dem pols have done. Toss in the GOP's merry band of religious crackpots, and you have a party that has no chance of winning a senate seat in MA.
Curt was and always shall be, a Phillie.
I suspect the recognition and maybe also the net positives on Schilling would be higher if the poll asked favorable/unfavorable on Massachusetts celebrities from a variety of fields, including politics, sports, and others.
P.S. I really don't care for a lot of what he does, how he conducts himself, but he never struck me as particularly anti-capitalism. *shrug*
Though I will acknowledge I never paid him a whole lot of attention.
The idea that either you're for socialism or you're for capitalism is silly. Michael Moore thinking the current system is broken doesn't automatically make him a socialist.
There are essentially zero pure socialist or pure capitalistic societies on Earth. The US certainly isn't a pure capitalistic society. Like all other democracies, the US is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Virtually no one in the US (and quite few in Europe) desire pure socialism. The debate is over what blend of capitalism and socialism is best. Trying to characterize the situation in the US as "capitalism that we must defend from turning into socialism" is either very ignorant or very dishonest.
Moore is not being inconsistent or hypocritical in advocating changes to the system after having made money. He's not advocating that people shouldn't be able to accumulate money. He, like many that some conservatives (ignorantly or dishonestly) brand "socialists," believes that the rich owe something to a society and a system that allowed them to accumulate that money. You certainly aren't going to accumulate much wealth all alone in the wilderness. Moore would be affected by the "wealth redistribution" that taxes and social programs require, so he's very much putting his money where his mouth is.
If we want to talk about "Big Lies," the main Big Lie that has dominated politics for the past couple of decades, at least, is that the US is a capitalist society that needs to avoid becoming a socialist one. If one doesn't think carefully, it sounds "reasonable," which is generally how "Big Lies" work. Subjected to scrutiny, it falls apart pretty obviously.
The US is a capitalist/socialist mix. Deciding whether to adjust the mix a bit in one direction or the other is not a revolution or a fundamental change to society. That sort of black-and-white thinking is an attempt to paralyze governance ("Do you want to completely destroy/overthrow our entire system??") which is, of course, what Republicans want when the Democrats are in power.
markymark -
I think the Kennedys are out of this one, and after Coakley bought her CoakleyforSenate.org site a few days after Kennedy was diagnosed I think the family won't support her.
And Capuano was the one who chewed out the wall street execs when they testified in congress, so he's got potential. I think he's a great progressive fighter actually, although I would be happy wth Coakley as well.
p.s. I wish this whole post/discussion was about those two and this amazing race shaping up.
"Moore believes that the rich...owe something to a society and a system..." Based on the statements of Mr. Moore's earnings from his film making, he is one of "the rich". In that light, an essential question. How much of his income does Mr. Moore give to charities or directly to the unfortunate poor?
GbThrone wrote:
>>Based on the statements of Mr. Moore's earnings from his film making, he is one of "the rich".<<
That was, of course, the whole point of what I was saying in that part of my post. Some previous conservative posters were criticizing Moore as somehow hypocritical for having problems with a system in which he got rich. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about feeling that those who do get rich, including him, owe something back.
>>In that light, an essential question. How much of his income does Mr. Moore give to charities or directly to the unfortunate poor?<<
I don't agree that it's an "essential question." One certainly hopes he (and anyone else in a position to) gives directly to charities, but we're talking about how the system (including taxes and programs) should be structured. To put his "money where his mouth is," he needs to be willing to pay the heavier taxes that would be used to fund the programs to help the less fortunate.
I've seen nothing to suggest that he's unwilling to pay the taxes that the changes he seems to be for would entail. If he gives to charity in addition, that's even better.
@Minstrel
Excellent post on Socialism vs. Capitalism
Jon Henke of The Next Right makes exactly the same point:
"The fact is, American has always had a mixed economy, as do all modern, developed economies. The question is not one of category - capitalism or socialism? - but of degree."
http://www.thenextright.com/jon-henke/the-s-word
"It's fair to call the General Motors deal or the AIG takeover examples of socialist policy; government is directly intervening in a private concern. But it's not fair to say that the Obama administration is socialist per se because socialism is an -ism, a system, a guiding philosophy, and it's clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration's guiding philosophy." --Tim Fernholz, The American Prospect. (Via the Next Right link posted above.)
Only shocking if you ain't a true masshole. Sox Nation ain't made up of douchebags. Teddie Williams!
Also - GO MAYOR MIKE!
Paz, the only reason I threw out the slim possibility of another Kennedy stepping in is that you haven't seen a mad rush to ger into the race. I don't especially expect a Kennedy to step in, but I almost wonder if some around the fringes of the race do by there reluctance to get into it.
On the whole Michael Moore/charity rap. This is a typical right wing tactic, to accuse any left winger with any kind of wealth of hypocrisy, as if the left is saying you shouldn't be wealthy. Thats not what the left is saying at all. It is saying those with wealth need to be responsible. Moore is actually reasonably responsible, a decent employer, does give money and time to good causes.
Its not like the hypocrisy of the right, which says that when a left winger has an affair they need to resign immediately, but when a right winger has an affair, its like its ok.
"It's fair to call the General Motors deal or the AIG takeover examples of socialist policy; government is directly intervening in a private concern.
It's a big stretch to call it a socialist policy since it doesn't involve government ownership outside of the time it takes to transfer, and it appears that the government is staying at arms length from the actual running of GM and Chrysler. What it does lack is an air of a strong sense of objectivism in how the bankcrupcy came about. Although bankcrupcy certainly isn't always by the numbers and there is often much nashing of teeth and haggling that occurs between the different classes of debtors.
Bankcrupcy is ugly.
The strange thing about this site is the assumption that the religious right and the war will prevent the GOP from every winning again with moderate candidates in moderate states. This despite nominees such as Crist, Kirk, Castle, etc. Obviously the MA GOP isn't going to go with a hard line conservative. It's also interesting how you all think the war will sink the GOP for a generation. Forget it. It's even now not near the top of the issues list. Furthermore, the mainstream middle doesn't like the war, but they don't share you analysis of why it happened (for "corrupt" reasons, based entirely on lies, or just for Dick Cheney's jollies). They view it as a mistake, but one undertaken for our national security. It's a misuse of the word "corruption" to call it that.
As further evidence that the war and the religious right isn't going to be a permanent problem for the GOP (even in blue states), I point you to yesterday's poll showing Pataki knocking off Gellibrand in NY. If the GOP can be competitive there, and in NJ, and in IL, you can bet it will make a bigger comeback still in the swing areas. The rot may be bipartisan, but it hurts the incumbent party worse (as the GOP found out, and as the Dems will soon).
To be honest, your nonchalance about the level of gross, personally enriching, corruption in MA sort of shocks me. I guess you folks don't care about honest government as long as your friends are in power.
To Jeff and the other righties on this board who continue to refer to the corrupt Dems in IL. Yes, the Democratic party in IL is a mess...but guess what? SO IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! The last governor of Illinois, who is currently in federal prison, George Ryan, is a REPUBLICAN.
As far as Mark Kirk running for Senate..good luck with that one. If he continues to hold closed townhall meetings, flip-flop on cap and trade and display general indecisiveness and pandering to the right wing, it's not gonna fly in this state.
This genius also suggested that distributing condoms to Hispanics could reduce the immigration problem. Problem for him, Chicago has a HUGE Latino population...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/30/mark-kirk-backpedals-on-c_n_245793.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/immigration-remarks-land_n_274617.html
chgoblue
Of course. Ryan was a pig. The downstate corruption used to be an all GOP affair. But that is ancient history - the whole state is Democratic now, and no one is going to be running against Ryan again. Kirk will be competitive. I'd give him at least a 1 in 3 chance, particulalry if the Dems nominate a hard left, Chicago liberal.
This genius also suggested that distributing condoms to Hispanics could reduce the immigration problem.
WTF?
Oh wait, ok that makes sense ... if "immigration problem" is a code phrase for too damn many spics, whether or not they are lawful citizens.
quoting
'It's fair to call the General Motors deal or the AIG takeover examples of socialist policy; government is directly intervening in a private concern.'
---------------------------------
Actually socialism generally requires a monopoly of an industry. The government can join in the market, but that doesn't make it socialist.
To be honest, your nonchalance about the level of gross, personally enriching, corruption in MA sort of shocks me
To be honest, your nonchalance about the level of warmongering scumbaggery in the GOP doesn't shock me at all. I already knew you folks don't care about honest government as long as your friends are in power.
Bartbuster,
You don't know my position on the war. An obvious point but I thought I would make it. I still fail to see the relevance to the issue of corruption, unless all Democratic sins can be magically erased by reference to the Iraq War (that most of them voted for).
I assume, by the way, that you are equally disgusted by Obama's war mongering in Afghanastan/Pakistan? No extra troops? Pull out now? Ready to march on the White House? It's not just GOP wars that get you going is it?
Jacob said:
"a good President should be aware enough of his surroundings to present a strong public image and speak to his audience--although I think that Reagan was generally stronger on delivering his message than on actually crafting the agenda, missteps such as that aside. Ultimately Reagan was able to do so much damage because he could effectively sell the ideas that his handlers crafted. He had no business being President because he proclaimed this massively corrupt agenda without even thinking about what it would do to the country."
You can easily substitute "Obama" for "Reagan" and the quate is equally accurate.
You don't know my position on the war.
I don't give a crap what your position on the war is. You are whining about why people in MA keep voting in Dem pols even though they are all corrupt. I'm simply telling you why. The GOP is even more corrupt, and the Iraq Disaster is the leading example of that.
I still fail to see the relevance to the issue of corruption, unless all Democratic sins can be magically erased by reference to the Iraq War
I see "lying your way into a war" as corrupt, but I can understand why you might not. Many others probably see the war, and the GOP, as criminally stupid. Hence the vote for Dems.
(that most of them voted for)
Not in MA. Kerry voted for it, but has since admitted that his vote was a big mistake.
I assume, by the way, that you are equally disgusted by Obama's war mongering in Afghanastan/Pakistan?
Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be George W Bush's wars. I'm willing to give Obama a chance to clean up the mess that Dumbya created.
If Obama does anything as stupid as the Iraq Disaster, I won't vote for him again.
Richard said...
You can easily substitute "Obama" for "Reagan" and the quate is equally accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~
So Richard, of no particular political philosophy er not a Dem, not a Rep, not a Libertarian , not an anything.
Who would you like to currently see as president ?!? btw, you're very good at dissing, not so much at problem solving, eh.
take care
shiloh,
This set-up lends itself to "dissing" more than problem solving, so that is what occurs more frequently, but I have offered my prescriptions for health care reform all over these pages. You'll have to go back and read my posts.
As for who I would like to see as President? Well, I come from a libertarian framework on certain issues and I liked some of what Ron Paul has said, but he is a bit extreme for me. I'm a little more moderate. I can't say I have been pleased with many of the candidates who have run in the past few elections.
I worked for Senator John Heinz in the 80s, before I went to law school, and I have admired both Republicans and Democrats, such as Daniel Moynihan, Bob Dole, Sam Nunn, Richard Lugar and William Proxmire. There aren't too many congressmen I like now. As for Presidents, I've liked Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and, you may be surprised, Bill Clinton. I prefer moderate competence over ideological incompetence.
Richard, nothing about you surprises me, take care.
shiloh said:
"Richard, nothing about you surprises me, take care."
I'm not sure you meant it this way, but I'll take that as a complement.
lol being vague is the key. :)
At the political forum I used to frequent there was/is a lawyer who is a progressive who has such a way w/words, he could slam a winger w/out their knowing it ;) and it would also fly by the clueless moderators.
Sent him a couple pm's praising his genius!
p.s. upon further review my post was non-specific, not good or bad as we all have opinions and who can be totally sure who one is talking to, especially at a progressive political blog on the net where the ad nauseam minutia hits the fan daily.
pretty sure "we" both enjoy playing devil's advocate.
ciao
Shiloh,
Your last post reminded me of two teachers I had. The first was an art teacher in HS who used to tell people "Now, that's different!!" Not good, not bad, but "different." The other was a law professor who once said to a student he called on in class "well, that is the correct answer to a different question." That responce was brilliant!
Bartbuster,
Your position is that all Democratic sins (including the kind of gross corruption that got the GOP in hot water) can be written off because Bush was responsible for a war that was unpopular but is now less so, and is in any case winding down.
My position is that you argument is as idiotic as you are rude. If the war was going to constantly save Dems, they would be winning, rather than losing, in VA, NJ, NV, CO, NY, NC, CT, and a host of other senator and gov races. Wake up. Only the hard left is still singing the "no war for oil" refrain. There are no blank checks in politics. If the Dems screw up health care, they are toast, no matter how much you may want to relive the salad days of Donald Rumsfeld. It took the GOP all of four years to bounce off their Watergate lows.
Richard said...
Shiloh,
Your last post reminded me of two teachers I had. The first was an art teacher in HS who used to tell people "Now, that's different!!" Not good, not bad, but "different." The other was a law professor who once said to a student he called on in class "well, that is the correct answer to a different question." That responce was brilliant!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coincidentally, I was always the kid in parochial grade school who when the teacher/Nun asked the class, how many want this, how many want that and who doesn't care ... yea, you guessed it ;) I didn't care.
p.s. there's nothing quite like a parochial education in the '60s, truly unique! :)
My position is that you argument is as idiotic as you are rude. If the war was going to constantly save Dems, they would be winning, rather than losing, in VA, NJ, NV, CO, NY, NC, CT, and a host of other senator and gov races.
We're not talking about VA, NJ, NV, CO, NY, NC, CT, or a host of other states. We're talking about MA, where wingnuts have been having their heads handed to them in elections for national offices for some time now. Obviously a lot of that came before the Iraq Disaster, but being seen as the party of idiotic wars probably isn't going to help the GOP in MA in the future.
P.S. The fact that the Iraq Disaster is winding down does not make it any less idiotic.
Schilling lives in NH? I thought he lived in Medfield, MA (in Drew Bledsoe's old house).
===
My sources in Medfield tell me that he was looking to sell that house, and move to a new development across town.
And he was a bit of a poor neighbor to St. Edward the Confessor Church a time or two. If I recall correctly, it had something to do with parking cars or moving vans in the church parking lot w/o permission.
Pragmatus or PorridgeGun said...
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “I could fashion a better man from a banana.”
Please source this quote by TR? Where and or when was it said, and it what context?
This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody; Schilling was a major let-down in his last year's with the Red Sox, and is widely believed to have signed a big money contract knowing he was injured last year. Nowhere has he shown his conservatism to be of the "moderate" variety, and is totally the wrong kind of Republicanism to be appealing to Massachusetts voters. If he wants a political career, he'd be better served going back to Arizona and letting his good buddy McCain find him somewhere to run.
Jeff said...
If the war was going to constantly save Dems, they would be winning, rather than losing, in VA . . . other . . . gov races
Jeffy?
The Democratic Party candidate in Virginia may still be behind, but the gubernatorial contest is getting closer:
Deeds Shows Big Gains In Va. Poll
More in N.Va., Women Describe McDonnell As Too Conservative
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902552.html?hpid=topnews
If I were the Conservatards, I wouldn't count all my chickens before they hatch.
Mike in Maryland
The reason for Shilling's negative ratings are based on two factors.
1. He has no experience that would qualify him to be a legislator.
2. He campaigned for Bush. Heavily. All over New England.
He's a ball playing hero, not a real one. People know the difference.
.
He could run in NY, if Billary likes him. That's a Constitutional requirement in NY, now. But he can't pitch here. No way.
.
As a lifelong Sox fan who disagrees with almost all of Schilling's political views, I'd still have been one of the people who voted "favorable". The amount of euphoria that the entire city of Boston experienced during the playoffs and World Series in 2004 far outweighs any political views he may have IMO. There's no way the guy could ever come close to winning a Senate seat here, and there are many worse blowhards than him out there.
Plus, I'm a fellow MMO geek, so that tips the scales in his favor a bit.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment