Official 112th Congress Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

Did anyone see Jon Stewart's take on this? He was spot on as usual. "We live in a complex ecosystems of influences and motivations and I wouldn't blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine. And this is coming from someone who truly hates our political environment."""Boy would it be nice to draw a straight line of causation from this horror to something tangible then we could convince ourselves that if we just stop this, the horrors will end. To have the feeling that this type of event can be prevented forever. But it's hard not to feel like it can. You cannot outsmart crazy. Crazy always seems to find a way, it always has.""It's a worthwhile goal not to conflate our political opponents with enemies, if for no other reason than to draw a better distinction of the manifestos of paranoid madmen and what counts as acceptable political and pundit speak. It would be really nice if the ramblings of crazy people in no way resembled how we actually talk to each other on TV. Let's at least make troubled individuals easier to spot."

John Stewart makes me want to go out a buy a gun.

[timwakefield 68]

Daily Kos Put a "Bulls Eye" on Giffords District in 2008 - Kos' words - not mine

You're really reaching there. It's cute how they photoshopped a bullseye into the original post so that we all know what a bullseye is, but in actuality it's simply a list of over one hundred names, followed by the line, "Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."Now I'm not blaming the "bulls eye" images from the right for this event. I'm not and I never have in this or the other thread. I just don't know how you can pretend that what you posted is the same as this image. It's plainly nothing at all like it. =!

[hblask 1]

You're really reaching there. It's cute how they photoshopped a bullseye into the original post so that we all know what a bullseye is, but in actuality it's simply a list of over one hundred names, followed by the line, "Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."Now I'm not blaming the "bulls eye" images from the right for this event. I'm not and I never have in this or the other thread. I just don't know how you can pretend that what you posted is the same as this image. It's plainly nothing at all like it.

Yeah, one uses a generic map marker, the other uses the words "target" and "bullseye".But hey, it doesn't mean anything from the left, because they have good hearts.

[timwakefield 68]

Yeah, one uses a generic map marker, the other uses the words "target" and "bullseye".But hey, it doesn't mean anything from the left, because they have good hearts.

So, words and pictures are the same thing, and have the same effect on people? A graphic that can be read and understood in 5 seconds has the same impact as a long article which lists a hundred names and eventually suggests that an upcoming vote, "puts a bulls eye on their district?" It's preposterous to claim that they're the same thing, and frankly doing so weakens the argument that Palin's bulls eye had no impact on anything. Everybody had bulls eyes, everybody was using violent rhetoric, so everybody's to blame! Well no, it's far more likely that nothing anybody has ever said about bulls eyes has led to an assassination. Trying to pretend that the left had as many bulls eyes as the right is a silly sort of anti-pissing-contest to engage in, especially when the left has offered up such an easy softball for the right to swing at (blaming the rampage on Palin's ad, and therefore politicizing the tragedy being the softball).P.S. Why are some of her bulls eyes red, while most of them are white? Are the red ones the ones she's already gatted?

[hblask 1]

Well no, it's far more likely that nothing anybody has ever said about bulls eyes has led to an assassination.

Bingo. that has been my point all along.

Trying to pretend that the left had as many bulls eyes as the right is a silly sort of anti-pissing-contest to engage in, especially when the left has offered up such an easy softball for the right to swing at (blaming the rampage on Palin's ad, and therefore politicizing the tragedy being the softball).

The right immediately hit that softball out of the park. The left went and got it and brought it back... again. And again. And again. Since the obvious, intelligent explanation wasn't working, people resorted to plan B, which is: OK, if you believe this stupidity, then you have to believe that all this leftist nonsense is as harmful as the nonsense from the right. Here's the evidence.The answer I've received, after presenting that evidence, is: it doesn't count on the left, because it's not as bad.

[timwakefield 68]

Bingo. that has been my point all along.The right immediately hit that softball out of the park. The left went and got it and brought it back... again. And again. And again. Since the obvious, intelligent explanation wasn't working, people resorted to plan B, which is: OK, if you believe this stupidity, then you have to believe that all this leftist nonsense is as harmful as the nonsense from the right. Here's the evidence.The answer I've received, after presenting that evidence, is: it doesn't count on the left, because it's not as bad.

I mean you're correct, neither bulls eye had anything to do with anything. But like you said, the obvious, intelligent, rational conclusion is being ignored by some people. I don't see how abandoning the rational argument in favor of mudslinging gains the right anything. The right has a chance to take the high road. They could continue to say, 'Um listen, this obviously wasn't what motivated this guy, it was a simply a tragedy.' It seems strange that they (85suited, the website he linked, etc) would instead resort to 'Nuh-uh, you did it worser too, and the kid was a Dem!'Basically the same thing I was saying to BG: You can't accuse the left of politicizing the issue for cheap points while at the same time yourself trying to politicize the issue to make the left look bad.

[AmScray 355]

P.S. Why are some of her bulls eyes red, while most of them are white? Are the red ones the ones she's already gatted?

[Balloon guy 158]

Basically the same thing I was saying to BG: You can't accuse the left of politicizing the issue for cheap points while at the same time yourself trying to politicize the issue to make the left look bad.

You saw my response before that I had crossed a line as well, but I do want to point out that the left going too far, doesn't mean the right can't point out the left's craziness and keep them accountable for it.Other than as a troll bait in the religion section, I have never made the case that this guy did this shooting because of his political affiliation. He did them because he was and is insane ( probably from years of pot smoking )Scram and I discussed that the reality is that our society doesn't have the ability to go back and put these types of people away before they do this for two reasons, 1. We have a horrible track record of major abuses of the system before. 2. The political climate isn't conducive to putting effort on something that doesn't garner votes. ( although Scram did not take my interpretation of this conclusion )So the shooting is bad, the left tried to use the shooting to gain political points, the right is well within its code of civility to call the left out on this politicization of this event, as long as they don't go too far ( like I did ) by ignoring that the victim's families have a reasonable right to not being used as a stepping stool for politics.

[timwakefield 68]

That's awesome, and I almost want to make it my avatar. Probably won't, cuz it could get a bit depressing. Still awesome though.

[Scott31 0]

You saw my response before that I had crossed a line as well, but I do want to point out that the left going too far, doesn't mean the right can't point out the left's craziness and keep them accountable for it.Other than as a troll bait in the religion section, I have never made the case that this guy did this shooting because of his political affiliation. He did them because he was and is insane ( probably from years of pot smoking )Scram and I discussed that the reality is that our society doesn't have the ability to go back and put these types of people away before they do this for two reasons, 1. We have a horrible track record of major abuses of the system before. 2. The political climate isn't conducive to putting effort on something that doesn't garner votes. ( although Scram did not take my interpretation of this conclusion )So the shooting is bad, the left tried to use the shooting to gain political points, the right is well within its code of civility to call the left out on this politicization of this event, as long as they don't go too far ( like I did ) by ignoring that the victim's families have a reasonable right to not being used as a stepping stool for politics.

The fact is that Democrats were killed, so it's natural for people to immediately look to the opposition (Republicans) for whom to blame. Add in the fact that Republicans are very pro gun (esp. in AZ) and you get a very easy target. I'll point out a couple of things. 1. If a Republican were killed, I don't think it's hard to see that we'd be searching for a Democrat's political motives for doing this. 2. Trying to find political motives of a crazy person is futile. It was an act of a mad man. If every thing he did made sense, well he wouldn't be mad.

[Balloon guy 158]

The fact is that Democrats were killed, so it's natural for people to immediately look to the opposition (Republicans) for whom to blame. Add in the fact that Republicans are very pro gun (esp. in AZ) and you get a very easy target. I'll point out a couple of things. 1. If a Republican were killed, I don't think it's hard to see that we'd be searching for a Democrat's political motives for doing this. 2. Trying to find political motives of a crazy person is futile. It was an act of a mad man. If every thing he did made sense, well he wouldn't be mad.

Up until we found out what this kid was about I agree with you. Which was probably close to 3-6 hours after. Once we found out that he was not political, just nuts, that's where the left lost it by trying to continue to blame Palin, talk radio and the 'level of discourse'. The sheriff in charge of the case is still railing on Rush Limbaugh and talk radio.Arguing that the level of discourse is worse now than ever is also flat out silly. Politics has always and will always be a dirty game played best by the ones who get dirtiest. Until they stop winning, we have no one to blame but ourselves for them doing what gets them elected.It's like the democrats with campaign finance reform stating their need for this because they can't control themselves from taking flat out bribe.

[CaneBrain 95]

It's like the democrats with campaign finance reform stating their need for this because Congress can't control themselves from taking flat out bribes based on the history of all political parties including the Whigs, the Know-nothings (different from the GOP surprisingly I thought it was a nickname), and the Tories.

fyp

[Balloon guy 158]

fyp

I can go with this

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The fact is that Democrats were killed, so it's natural for people to immediately look to the opposition (Republicans) for whom to blame. Add in the fact that Republicans are very pro gun (esp. in AZ) and you get a very easy target. I'll point out a couple of things. 1. If a Republican were killed, I don't think it's hard to see that we'd be searching for a Democrat's political motives for doing this. 2. Trying to find political motives of a crazy person is futile. It was an act of a mad man. If every thing he did made sense, well he wouldn't be mad.

Uh oh.

[Scott31 0]

Arguing that the level of discourse is worse now than ever is also flat out silly. Politics has always and will always be a dirty game played best by the ones who get dirtiest. Until they stop winning, we have no one to blame but ourselves for them doing what gets them elected.It's like the democrats with campaign finance reform stating their need for this because they can't control themselves from taking flat out bribe.

You wouldn't agree that the political discourse has become increasingly polarized since the advent of competing 24 hour news networks? It's made politics an ongoing discussion without any breaks to let people catch their breath...and for logic to come around. I'd also point out that campaigns for president are started much earlier than in history, with this last 2008 election having the most debates (by far) and the longest waged campaign(s). It used to be that we'd at least have a period of "wait and see" with our politicians. Now if the DOW drops, there's finger-pointing at who is in charge. You're 100% right that this trend will continue until it is identified as being detrimental to the process AND resulting in failed elections. So far, all the polling shows overwhelmingly that negative campaigning works. The Citizens United Case ruling unfortunately will add to the ridiculousness of elections and will no doubt increase the partisan divide.

[hblask 1]

The Citizens United Case ruling unfortunately will add to the ridiculousness of elections and will no doubt increase the partisan divide.

That's not how free speech works.

[CaneBrain 95]

That's not how free speech works.

It sure is when money's a factor.

[85suited 0]

George Soros' money doesnt count however

[hblask 1]

It sure is when money's a factor.

No. Unless you count the New York Times editorial page as a massive handout to favored groups. All that money does is offset the favored corporate interests with other corporate interests. If corporations aren't allowed to contribute, then the people who run the major newspapers have an inordinate influence over elections, and even if you get 10,000 people who agree with you to all pitch in to help counteract that, you can't. All Citizens United did was give those 10,000 people a way to have their voice heard.This is why the left hates Citizens United. Something like 90% of reporters are leftists, so of course they don't want anyone outside the industry speaking up.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

This is why the left hates Citizens United. Something like 90% of reporters are leftists, so of course they don't want anyone outside the industry speaking up.

This isn't why people on the left dislike the decision at all.

[hblask 1]

This isn't why people on the left dislike the decision at all.

Is it naivete about the value of the liberal corporate media then? That really seems to be the only two choices: you know that the corporate media has a disparate influence and like that, or you don't know about their disparate influence.

[CaneBrain 95]

Is it naivete about the value of the liberal corporate media then? That really seems to be the only two choices: you know that the corporate media has a disparate influence and like that, or you don't know about their disparate influence.

I think it is naivete about the power of corporate dollars that's the real issue. There are more than enough conservative news outlets now. Who reads a newspaper anymore? I think you overstate the influence of liberal corporate media and vastly understate the influence and ulterior motives of entities whose only goal is profit.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think it is naivete about the power of corporate dollars that's the real issue. There are more than enough conservative news outlets now. Who reads a newspaper anymore? I think you overstate the influence of liberal corporate media and vastly understate the influence and ulterior motives of entities whose only goal is profit.

While Corporations do have an immense and somewhat frightening influence on Public Policy - especially since most of their influence is more covert, happening behind closed doors making most of us very ignorant of their efforts - I think you are really underestimating the Liberalness and influence of the Media and their actual desire and ability to shape Public Policy. Some may think it is some sort of check an balance between the two, but I disagree. That isn't the role I believe the Press should be performing. And isn't the Media also ultimately out to make a profit? They certainly make most of their $ from Advertising Revenues from the Big Bad Corporations that they seem to hate so much.

[akoff 0]

While Corporations do have an immense and somewhat frightening influence on Public Policy - especially since most of their influence is more covert, happening behind closed doors making most of us very ignorant of their efforts - I think you are really underestimating the Liberalness and influence of the Media and their actual desire and ability to shape Public Policy. Some may think it is some sort of check an balance between the two, but I disagree. That isn't the role I believe the Press should be performing. And isn't the Media also ultimately out to make a profit? They certainly make most of their $ from Advertising Revenues from the Big Bad Corporations that they seem to hate so much.

I was wondering how long it would take for somebody to mention this.

[85suited 0]

Sen. Durbin Tells FOX News Sunday: Dems Will Only Cut $10.5 Billion From Bloated Budgethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMfddpqOBpU...player_embeddedSenator Dick Durbin told FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace that democrats would not cut more than $10.5 billion from the bloated $3.5 trillion budget. This is less than .28% of the annual budget.