Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Have you noticed there is no large-scale protest in the wake of a poll, or for that matter an election, in which the liberal viewpoint prevails? You’re not imagining it. It’s a time-honored tactic practiced by the hard left to always, always, always make sure you have the last word in everything. And it’s worked well for them so why should they stop?
And so when they win, it’s “The People Have Spoken.” No ifs, ands or buts. When they lose, Diebold must have been up to some shenanigans. If it’s something close to a tie, it’s time for a whole slew of “recounts”…at the end of which, they win. Try to think of some exceptions to this. You can’t. Ann Coulter once said somewhere, we might as well have a rule that you’ve got to give an election to democrats if they lose by less than a thousand votes. And from the history I can recall, she’s right.
Latest target: Scott Rasmussen. Get out the torches and pitchforks, and for Gaea’s sake make sure the cameras are rolling!
The pointed attacks reflect a hardening conventional wisdom among prominent liberal bloggers and many Democrats that Rasmussen Reports polls are, at best, the result of a flawed polling model and, at worst, designed to undermine Democratic politicians and the party’s national agenda.
On progressive-oriented websites, anti-Rasmussen sentiment is an article of faith. “Rasmussen Caught With Their Thumb on the Scale,” blared the Daily Kos this summer. “Rasmussen Reports, You Decide,” the blog Swing State Project recently headlined in a play on the Fox News motto.
I suppose, if you’re pre-disposed to think a certain thing just because there is a large number of other people already thinking it, you’d be statistically likely to vote democrat — especially right about now — and you’d be an important part of that constituency. They wouldn’t want to give you up without a fight.
It just seems to me a funny thing to try to attack…this notion that the Obama experiment has been given a fair shake, and found to be something less than a genuine success. If that’s the hill they wanna die on, 2010 will bring a whole lot more fighting that will have to be done. Oh well. That’s the choice they’ve made, so keep an eye out.
It’s funny, isn’t it? Toward the end of George W. Bush’s second term, as his approval rate dipped downward into the mid-thirties, it became a conservative talking point to deny he was a genuine conservative. With Obama, the insistence that He is more moderate than liberal stretches backward, clear back to Day One, and with the undertone that this is a good thing. Whereas with Bush and the conservatives, the conservatives were arguing that the President was not giving their ideology a fair shake, that he should have been injured with this lack of good credential. And that this was happening.
The data seem to back this up. Bush pursued conservative policies, his approval rating went up; he pursued liberal policies, reached “across the aisle,” went-all-wobbly, his approval rating went down.
The alternative, euphemistic adjective for liberal is “progressive”; there is none defined or required, so far as I know, for the conservative counterpart.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.