Bryan

1) So does Michael Moore. That doesn't make him a good candidate for the GOP. 2) If the district isn't really all that conservative in the first place then what is the big deal with a Democrat winning it? If you meant all along to imply that NY23 was pretty much a RINO district you could have mentioned that in the OP. If you can find a national trend in the NY23 race then you can probably find every Roman Catholic saint in Saturday's cloud formations as well--obscured though they are with various puffs of water vapor.

Scozzafava endorsing the Democrat, you mean? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If favors a number of interpretations. One, that the choice of Scozzafava was a blunder (though she shot herself in the foot in addition with some odd behavior during what there was of her campaign). The Democrats chose a moderate Democrat to run. That was smart. It comes down to the fact that the GOP just did not have a good candidate to run in NY23. Hoffman, for example, was susceptible to the charge of carpetbagging. Well, if one added the Scozzafava vote to the Hoffman vote then Hoffman should have won. Either liberals were voting for Scozzafava to begin with or her endorsement really did make a difference to Republican voters (possibly both, of course). http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/20...zzafava-fading/ You can always arrange the evidence to support the conclusion that the influence of the far right lost the election. And I think it was undeniably a factor--but a small one. Does it make sense for the GOP to run a candidate to the left of the Democrat in a conservative district? No, it really doesn't. I think of the factors involved the most important is the one I've already pointed out: The GOP did not have a strong candidate to put forward. They could have taken Hoffman. But aside from being more conservative then either Scozzafava or Owens he had little in his favor. He was fairly low on the charisma scale, you could say. And a bit of a carpetbagger. But for all that he may have won if Scozzafava had demonstrated some party loyalty. The three percentage points separating them is a slim margin, after all. We love to try to find the big trends in these types of races. But amidst the basics of having a good candidate, the signs of national political trends are faint.

The spin and counterspin on this board is hilarious. Just going to point out a few things. 1) Scozzafava was not the incumbent in NY23. It was a special election with no incumbent ("The R's had a moderate and popular incumbent who was a shoo-in"???). Why nobody mentioned that Scozzafava endorsed the Democrat after she dropped out of the race is anybody's guess. She was arguably to the political left of the Democrat in the race. 2) President Obama placed at least some importance on the NJ governor's race. If not, then he would not have spent time campaigning for Corzine. This is beyond obvious. 3) The tendency of Virginia to have a governor of the opposite party of the President is interesting and possibly relevant. The American people, it seems, like to see the parties check each other. Unified government is rare in the U.S. 4) With apologies to the spinmeisters, there's no gauging the impact of this election on President Obama's election chances. NY23 doesn't mean a whole lot. Virginia and New Jersey at least demonstrate that the GOP can still win elections. But if the election tells no story of the support for Barack Obama, national polling tells a different story. Obama's agenda is unpopular, and his personal popularity is gradually dropping as a result of that (also because of the weak economy). My opinion? As things stand, Obama probably wins a second term. But he may have to learn to work with a slimmer congressional majority and may even lose a house of Congress or two before he's through in office. If his foreign policy continues to be a disaster (he has nothing to show except a Nobel Prize, as far as I can tell), then there is a chance the American people will turn him out of office after one term. The economy will also play a big role, but the public may remain patient with the president if that's the only big problem. It is easy to see parallels between Obama and our two previous Democratic presidents. Obama so far resembles Jimmy Carter on foreign policy, but Bill Clinton on domestic policy (though well to the left of Clinton and with a more aggressive push for his agenda). Obama aside, Congress really is a mess.

Yep. Mistake on my part (except I never admit mistakes, so keep it quiet).

The Democratic State Committee now admits paying for a robocall to Somerset County voters that slams Republican Chris Christie and promotes independent gubernatorial candidate Christopher Daggett. http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/...obocall-corzine Now there's an electoral strategy for you. Note: (it was correctly pointed out that the thread title names the DNC as admitting responsibility, whereas the responsibility was admitted by the DSC. I can't amend the title of the thread at this point, so this will have to serve as the correction. My apologies for the error.)

And do I not understand that because I have not bothered to comment on it (appeal to silence) or because I have conflated two concepts (still waiting for the quotation(s) as evidence)? If I don't get it, then why did you switch my point from legal reasoning to the legal conclusion? Is it that you don't understand that more than one method of reasoning can reach a single conclusion? Or are you just naturally dishonest? And somehow you still haven't gotten around to the text of Ginsburg's footnote, where she states that the rationale for the legal reasoning is presented instead of remanding the case to the lower court occurs because of the decision of the majority. It's a fairly straightforward statement and thus difficult for you to spin. I don't envy you the task one bit. Well, see, that's just it. You make like you object, but the objection is couched in terms of an if/then statement. You don't just assume that I read law blogs without bringing a critical mind to it, do you? If you have evidence with which to make a claim that I used an uncritical mind then wouldn't it be appropriate to share it? But thus far that isn't your style, is it? You like to work without evidence. Did I mix the two by completely ignoring them or by conflating them? If the latter, please quote the relevant portion as concisely as possible and explain your charge. It looks like you're following the Liar's Manual again. A response to what? I don't take Ginsburg's footnote as a charge that the lower courts relied too much on "intent" as indicative of their focus on intentional discrimination. And if I'm right then it would not be relevant for me to answer as you request. Your own statement above would seem difficult to reconcile with that supposition. So what is supposed to be the relevance? Your need for a red herring? One vote difference in each case, and she had cooperated in a summary judgment that might have kept the case from progressing up the judicial hierarchy. Some testimonial. You're kind of a wannabe Rumpelstiltskin--you're trying to spin straw into gold. Seriously, you're pretty good at dodging my points and offering up distractions. But who's buying it?

And you think the people surveyed answered with that in mind? Scientists must be pretty stupid if that's the case. Can't they just read the questions and answer them accordingly?

LaClair flunks spot-check for accuracy: And odd issue to see on a survey, I thought. (M)ost scientists say they believe claims that the Bush administration suppressed some research findings by government scientists. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549 Does anyone need for me to point out how LaClair embellished the findings of the survey? We'll just have to wait a few years to see how Obama fares when this question is asked with some history behind it. Perhaps Obama will be able to rely on poor coverage of his less heroic deeds. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/po...ry5117890.shtml We should compare the above the the most egregious case used to criticize Bush on the point, in order to establish proportion.

Are you trying to say that the footnote quotation was taken out of context? Was it your insincerity that sabotaged your grammar? There's no way the footnote is taken out of context. It has sufficient internal context to stand on its own. And here is the paragraph to which the footnote was attached (curious you didn't do this in order to justify your claim that it was taken out of context): III A Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven’s failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision.10 Baloney. The footnote absolutely belies your claim. If Ginsburg had intended to merely say that the lower courts did a fine job then she could have followed Sotomayor's course and simply written that and had done with it. Not only did she not do that, she led off the portion of her dissent following her critique of the majority view with an introduction that included footnote 10. There is no way you can plausibly dance around the content of that note. I'm amused that you're even trying. Should I add that Ginsburg did not include the root word "affirm" in her dissent, in support of the Second Circuit's decision? Can you ever forgive me for reading conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy including posts by law professor Jonathan Adler? It's just crazy to pay attention to something written by a blogger! If that's all it meant, then why did Ginsburg include the part about the lower courts emphasizing intent? If she meant what you say she meant, then wouldn't she have been far better off not blurting out anything that seemed critical of the rationale used by the lower court? Apparently you're not enjoying your cognitive dissonance. So sorry. Here's what the footnote really means: You're sunk. I've got a great idea for you. Try repeating it a million more times. Maybe that will make it true. Seriously, your approach to the problem simply ignores what Ginsburg wrote, which is an extremely close paraphrase of what I had written earlier. Well, at least that's a more mature way of whining than "Nanny-nanny boo-boo ..." You're probably right, and it doesn't much matter anyway. The Democrats in the Senate will overlook the incompetence she demonstrated with the Ricci decision and her apparent willingness to lie to the Senate regarding her "wise Latina" comments. And she probably won't be much worse than the rest of the libs on the Court. Most likely the Ricci case is not entirely representative of her work. But it's pretty clear that Obama could have chosen a better (liberal) mind for the Court, and it's equally clear that Republicans who wish to vote "no" to her confirmation have all the justification they need. She is too late in distancing herself from Obama's empathy qualification. And the American public has taken notice. Just like they'll be able to notice your pathetic attempt to sweep footnote #10 under the rug.

It means that you keep asserting/implying that I don't understand a particular distinction in the law but you repeatedly fail to provide evidence in support of that assertion/implication. I'll end the game with this post. Pay attention. Right, but it doesn't mention intentions at all. It's as though you're still working from the liar's manual and pretending not to understand the question. Keep paying attention. Right, and I've already explained that partial agreement does not make the disagreement I'm pointing out go away. But for some reason you ignore that (following the liar's manual?). Keep paying attention. No, as I already explained, the Ginsburg opinion would have recommended remanding the case to the lower court for clarification if it had been the majority opinion. Are you paying attention? Great: 10The lower courts focused on respondents’ “intent” rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act. See 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 157 (Conn. 2006). Ordinarily, a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. But the Court has seen fit to preclude further proceedings. I therefore explain why, if final adjudication by this Court is indeed appropriate, New Haven should be the prevailing party. Guess who wrote that (or at least signed off on it)? You get one guess, and you're allowed to cheat by using the Internets. No, I don't, and just to be clear I am saying that it was the reasoning of the Second Circuit that was rejected. I have the best possible support for my analysis. You're sunk. You haven't been able to coherently explain why I should discuss them, and that's a question I asked of you very pointedly. Your own reasoning should lead you to conclude that the mystery person who wrote the big text I quoted above does not understand the distinction, either. Do you want to go there? That's true. I consider the analysis you suggest a red herring. It isn't true that I can't criticize the decision without understanding the distinction you insist I must understand. You used that as a big fat distraction technique, perhaps because you're a lawyer and you can't help it. All I really need to understand is how to interpret the English language. You've made your case that I don't understand the issues with a combination of appeal to silence and lies. Did you notice how you weren't able to explain how I both ignore and conflate at the same time? It improperly relied on the city's intent. Maybe you'll begin to see it now, if you've been paying attention. lol You're arguing in a circle. Is it that my argument could not in principle succeed because I do not understand the distinction, or is it that my argument (as you appeared to suggest) somehow conflates the things that should be kept distinct thus demonstrating that I don't understand the distinction? If the latter, you should be able to quote me instead of insisting that Ricci can't be debated without understanding the distinction. Naturally, you can't afford to get pinned down to either one. The liar's manual forbids it. We're supposed to think that you can provide a solid analysis of Supreme Court decisions when you pull cheesy distraction techniques like this out of your arse? It's as though you're following some secret. So when you can't argue a point, you resort to name calling and refuse to address my points? LOL! lol What name do you think you were you called, O expert interpreter/debater/whatever? You just like to make stuff up. Let me guess: Was it "you"? It's the equivalent of a child putting his hands to his ears and repeating, "I'm not listening," after he can't get his way. Game over, man. Deal with the enlarged text. Your argument based on lies and fallacies is easy enough to defeat (except when it comes to opening the eyes of those with the most severe cases of liberal bias, perhaps), but the game really is over, now. I look forward to your response.

Yes there is, because as noted previously, Obama has had great success in getting big legislation passed. And it is entirely fair to judge Obama both as to the legislation he has signed as well as for the things he proposes doing. Right. And in 1994 the GOP gained power in Congress. The economy had already begun to rebound under George H. W. Bush, so neither Congress under Clinton needed to get that done. But as I also noted, the biggest economic growth occurred late in Clinton's presidency. A tax increase by Obama retroactive to 1993 will have a tough time getting through Congress. Seriously, you're right. He's already got it, in effect, by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And then he'll raise quite a few other taxes on high income earners. And that points up another difference between the two. Clinton raised taxes on a growing economy (it wasn't growing fast but it was growing). Obama plans to do it during a recession. It's bad economics, and even Obama has made statements indicating that he understands that. He just isn't willing to act as though he understands it, other than talking about it. That's correct. So you think taxing it away is the thing to do? Think about what the stimulus package is. It is a deliberate action aimed at boosting today's economy by borrowing from tomorrow's economy. It's a classic Keynesian stimulus. If done right, it provides short-run economic benefits (it does not seem to have been done right, largely because the spending has been slow). But you still have to pay it back. You don't get something for nothing. Obama is guaranteeing the necessity of raising taxes with profligate spending. It's no surprise at all to me, but you may end up being surprised if your family makes under $250,000 and you thought Obama wouldn't raise your taxes. That's consistent with the reports that his campaign informed Canadian officials that the talk of redoing NAFTA was simply campaign rhetoric and not to take it seriously. I don't know if I'd be excited about that if I were you. Regardless of NAFTA, however, Obama has exhibited a protectionist streak. He axed a free trade agreement with Columbia and advocated a "buy American" policy in the Stimulus bill. Then when foreign nations complain he exhibits his strength by changing his mind. What a leader. Yes, of course. And it was you who used the bogus argument referring to the capital gains tax rate. Are we supposed to forget all about that since I brought up the capital gains tax rate? Right, though I had originally pointed out that Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate before you commented that he increased the tax rate for the highest income bracket. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97679 By just taking that one aspect of Clinton policy and pointing to the robust economy of the 1990s, you give the appearance of committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. In any case, you're radically oversimplifying things by ignoring Clinton's generally conservative approach to the economy. My point was that the differences in a capital gains tax rate of 15% (Bush II), 20% (Clinton) or 28% (Reagan) has little causal connection to sustained economic growth. I never linked it to the deficit. "The biggest swing in the ENTIRE history of America from budget surplus to budget deficit occurred under George W. Bush. Analyze the reasons for that historic swing before challenging Obama after 3 months." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=97702 All you numbers predictors look alike to me. To the contrary, a lowered rate causes more sales of long-term assets, and can actually increase tax revenue as investors seek to cash out. However, it also increases price appreciation and asset value inflation. There are many reasons for the real estate bubble under George Bush -- but one of them was Bush's changes in capital gains taxation. Actually it was Clinton who applied a special exemption to the capital gains tax rate for the sale of homes. So far as I know, Bush made no change that that exemption. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html Now you're equivocating (honesty? Puh-lease!). There was more than one capital gains rate under Clinton. At the start, when the economy was puttering along, it was at the rate that Obama likes. Clinton dropped it to 20 percent in 1997. It was after that the economy really boomed and the federal deficit went briefly positive. Whoa. That's flat out wrong. The Obama position throughout the campaign and as President is to return the long term capital gains tax rate to the lowered Clinton 20% rate for the highest earners. See any news source including the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...1724238901.html Then, Bryan, using your logic, Obama restoring the 20% capital gains rate will cause the economy to boom, right? That's a good thing, right? Don't pretend to be using my logic when you oversimplify things. That has been your tendency, not mine. You're partially correct about Obama's capital gains rate increase. He has been reluctant to name a number, but offered hints that it could be up to 28 percent. When asked about the capital gains rate back in March, Obama told CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo that he “certainly would not go above . . . 28 percent,” adding, “and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that.” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-clarifies.html And it stands to reason that Obama would like a higher rate under better economic conditions. Going up five percent during a recession will help extend the recession. I note that the Senate is prepared to raise the tax on capital gains by 1.45 percent (to 16.45, I believe) to help pay for the Medicare shortfall. It remains to be seen where the capital gains rate will be fixed. Most likely it will go high enough to discourage economic growth. I'll just point out that it may be true in terms of numbers that the jobs added during the Bush years have evaporated. But obviously it isn't true that literally all of the jobs that were created have been lost. You might also want to check to see when the Democrats recovered control of Congress. Don't forget that the American president is relatively weak in the federal scheme of things. Democrats blocked Bush's attempts to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and also used Social Security as an electoral bludgeon instead of trying to rationally address the approaching shortfalls. It was the final year of Bush's term. You can't blame it on Bill Clinton, or 9/11 or the a year and a half of a Democratic Congress who gave Bush the exact stimulus plan he requested (remember the rebate check of a year ago?) and the TARP bailout (after the initial hiccup) and the AIG mop up. I agree there's blame for all on Freddie and Fannie, but Social Security? Please. My point there is that the Democrats were not at all serious about fiscal responsibility. Their focus was on acquiring political power. I thought that was clear in the context. That wouldn't affect one penny of our current trillion dollar a year deficit. Bottom line: The Bush economic policies was a house of cards. See? Oversimplifying things again. The reality of national economics is that it can take years for economic policy to play out. You, for example, blamed Bush for exacerbating the housing bubble with a capital gains tax rate cut when Clinton had already exempted most homes from the capital gains tax in the first place. Bush certainly gets a share of the blame for the economy meltdown. But there's plenty to go around, even if one wouldn't know it from the way Obama talks. And Bush's policies did help pull the economy out of a 9-11 associated nosedive. The key is letting the market do the heavy lifting. Many Democrats don't get that.

Yes you do. You're just misreading my statement. Put another way, if the flower is considered dead at the point when all the petals fall off and for that particular reason, then that is the demarcation point. If that was the issue then "Guest" should have said that theologians aren't doing theology when they do science. But that isn't what "Guest" wrote, is it?

Straw man. If you really believe that's what the display meant, then your powers of analysis are close to nil. If you knew better and made the argument anyway then you're dishonest.

Obviously. But investments in research can occur even if it isn't the government doing the investing, and the breakthroughs do not necessarily happen because they were purchased through overwhelming dedication of capital. The bulk of investment takes place after the breakthrough, when investors see the value of the idea and put their money behind it with the reasonable expectation of getting something back (profit). Obama's plan turns that mode of investment on its head. The investment in this case precedes the breakthrough and is apparently expected to produce the needed breakthroughs. We'll see.

Yes. Your question suggests that you do not, and perhaps I am supposed to assume your answer to my question to you on that basis. Iraq does not trust Iran. Iraqis are generally Arabs, Iranians are generally Persians. The eight years they spent at war with one another cemented that mistrust. Iraqis now have a general experience with the United States as the fair player in the game, trying to balance the interests of each of Iraq's major factions. The Kurds love us. We allowed the Shiites to assume majority power. We endeavored to institute political protections for the minority Sunnis and encouraged forgiveness for former Baathists. Iraq now has what is probably the closest thing to a representative democracy in the Middle East (not counting Israel but you can count Israel if you want). Currently, Iraqis can look at what is going on in Iran to see what happens when the extremists rule. Iraq has transformed into our natural Arabic ally in the region. Their culture has moved into step with ours more than for any other Arabic nation. The most powerful Shiite cleric in the region has condemned the Iranian regime. Reconcile that with your prediction. I'll just chuckle in the background.