#1
Wow - this is a hoot! Chris is definitely blunt and honest, and the press and Dems must hate him for it. I love it!
Watch the video - and keep an eye on the guy behind Christie's right shoulder. He was laughing almost as hard as I was. :-D
Give 'em hell, Chris!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/14/2010 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Christie has proposed that the teachers pay 1.5% of their health care premiums. They are screaming.
Many states are going to have to come to the hard realities that Christie is trying to implement. If such changes are not implemented they will go in the red more. Feds are going to have to do the same.
One problem with sudden cuts to government employment is that might dump a lot of people into the unemployment ranks. If jobs are not available in the private sector to absorb them because of government policies that destroyed jobs, I see big problems. I see Greece redux but maybe even more worse. I know, the reports coming out of Washington are rosy, glowing and optimistic but I have difficulty sharing this optimism. They are whistling in the graveyard.
#5
I think that's 1.5% of their salaries as a contribution to their health care premiums -- a bit of a difference.
Not that it should be a problem; having employees pay part of the premium is a reminder that despite the slogan, health care is NOT free.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/14/2010 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Next POTUS.
Let us hope. Unfortunately, he's not modern presidential material, i.e. photogenic.
Posted by: ed ||
05/14/2010 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
he's not modern presidential material, i.e. photogenic.
That's part of the "I'm not a politician like you're used to" appeal. It's his message and delivery that's telegenic. (And good radio) Makes him more like one of us.
/Sexist rant on
Christie will lose the female vote. The women will take into consideration is this a guy they would consider sleeping with (or at least fantasize about) before pulling the lever for him. The better looking/taller candidate has consistently won the presidency, barring something extraordinary (i.e. Eisenhower, but even then women could fantasize about bedding the world conquering hero).
And that also goes for the male vote. A lot of Palin's appeal is her hot librarian looks, and a big negative for Hilary Clinton. But I don't see a either of them running for president in 2012.
/end rant
Posted by: ed ||
05/14/2010 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#1
I will give Harry credit, he has made himself almost invisible on the national scene. Not giving his opponent any sound bites for which to beat him with. But he will have to defend his votes and policies sooner or later. He is toast unless the Republican challenger has a lot of ghosts in their closet.
#2
Harry might hope the Angle will win the primary and drive RHINO Pub voters to him. More likely is that everyone is so fed up with him that just about anyone the Pubs field will win. Tarkanian is up 10.0% over Reid. Angle is nearly up that much over Reid. Lowden is up 10.5% over Reid. The Pubs need to keep pushing here to get the win. Harry has a lot of soundbites in the archives that will come back to haunt him.
#3
I have a small fund for making political donations where they will do the most good (thanks to some recent overtime).
Any suggestions which candidate I should donate to in this race? I really want Reid GONE, but don't want to waste my money on someone who can't win. (Maybe that's cold, but the fund's small and there are other candidates in other states to consider.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/14/2010 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What happened to Tarkanian? I thought he was neck-and neck a month ago with establishment-Lowden.
#2
The site is probably very, very busy right now, gromky . . . .
I got a copy of it after I waited for over a minute.
Looks like she's got a radical brother who inspired her to look into socialism. The conclusion suggests she is somewhat saddened by the idea that socialism in America destroyed itself in the early 1900's.
Hmm. Any other takes out there from someone who actually read all 127 pages?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 5:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The fiorst few lines of the introduction: Ever since Werner Sombart first posed the question in 1905, countless historians have tried to explain why there is no socialism in America. For the most part, this work has focused on external factors - on features
of American society rather than of American socialist movements. Socialists and non-socialists alike have discussed the importance of the frontier in providing the U. S. citizenship with a safety valve and in keeping urban unemployment to a minimum. They have pointed to the fluidity of class lines in the United states - a fluidity which, whether real or imagined, impeded the development of a radical class consciousness.
Well, it looks like we've just about got the urban unemployment problem resolved.
And it's an external link, so you can go back to reading the 'Burg while it loads.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 6:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
James Weinstein offers the alternative thesis that the dissolution of the Socialist Party resulted not from the walkout of the syndicalists in 1912 but from the infinitely more disastrous departure of the communists seven years later.
But Kagan disagrees: Weinstein's explanation is a superficial one. The Russian
Revolution.was the precipitant of the American Socialist Party's split and subsequent decline; it was not and could not have been the sole cause.
This was 1981. I'm sure she's grow up since then!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Here's the conclusion of the introduction. One need read no further.
Intra-party sectarianism had previously weakened the socialist party; inter-party sectarianism now finished the job. By the late 1920's, the socialist movement in New York City
was dead; what remained was no more than its ghost.
She was really into semi-colons, then.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 7:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
She's up to a full colon now. Very full.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/14/2010 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
.. countless historians have tried to explain why there is no socialism in America.
1 - it's a European disease.
2 - as a European disease it infects Euro-centric academics, which is why they don't 'get it'.
3 - it's counter the the American perspective that government works for the people rather than the European social tradition of the people/ruled working for the government/rulers.
#11
The conclusion suggests she is somewhat saddened by the idea that socialism in America destroyed itself in the early 1900's.
Kagan should be ecstatic about 2008.
They [socialists] have pointed to the fluidity of class lines in the United states - a fluidity which, whether real or imagined, impeded the development of a radical class consciousness.
Fluidity of class lines is a good thing. It means people can improve their lot. Radical class consciousness is not a good thing. There is too much of that today.
#14
Thirty years ago she was what she would call a pragmatic socialist, that is, someone trying to tame the radical socialists so that a real American socialist will gain power and demonstrate the greatness of socialism.
Basically, the first part of this has happened. A real American socialist has gained power.
However, it has instead begun to demonstrate the awfulness of socialism as contemporaneous socialist regimes in Europe are similarly demonstrating their awfulness.
It must break her heart.
Posted by: lord garth ||
05/14/2010 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Socialism would come not as the culmination of a plethora of insignificant changes but as the result of a swift and sudden revolution.
Or both.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/14/2010 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#16
It must break her heart.
Naw. She must know that you gotta break a few eggs if you wanna make an omelet.
#17
Ever since Werner Sombart first posed the question in 1905, countless historians have tried to explain why there is no socialism in America.
We're smarter.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/14/2010 16:09 Comments ||
Top||
#18
To get a sense of where she is coming from, this is an excellent article. Mainly a fluff piece, but with plenty of hidden gems to make the read worthwhile.
Basically a North-East liberal, who would feel she had to don a safari suit if ever found herself in the unfortunate position of having to venture into flyover country. A Climb Marked by Confidence and Canniness
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
