1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Still More Politicized Pseudo-Science?

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 13, 2014 5:07 PM
What I still don't entirely get is what anyone--the WWF or anyone else--really gains from this. Is the idea to cause economic disaster so that then the Communist Party can pop up and say, "We need Communism to deal with this crisis"?
What was new for me was the allegation that some of them froze to death in captivity. If that is true, that took what would be a legitimate tactic--having the prisoner in a place that was not comfortable for 24-48 hours in order to throw him off his game--out of bounds--the point at which it actually harmed the prisoner. On the other hand, I don't know that this is true. A highly partisan report with an agenda said it is, but it's not a source I trust.
In response to:

Obama Bails Out Boehner On Spending Bill

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 6:37 PM
The Democrat negotiators agreed to this bill. So why are they running and hiding now? They made a deal and then left Boehner out to dry, knowing that he was going to have some trouble from the party's right. Do they really think they'd get a better deal from Trey Gowdy? No--they're counting on a shut-down to give them a political boost by making Boehner look bad.
Bottom line--the administration must at least be having internal discussions about the possibility of sanctions against Israel, and must be looking at steps as to Iran which it cannot lawfully take without the consent of Congress.
In response to:

Enough of the ‘Open Season’ on Police

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 10:26 PM
There's a real distinction between these two cases. In the Ferguson case, it's pretty plain that Wilson was defending himself against a dangerous, violent criminal. In the New York case, a group of policemen exercised unnecessary and extreme violence against a man whose dangerous offense was that he was selling loose cigarettes--surely an activity that would cause policemen to believe their lives were in danger? In one case, one has to side with the cop, unless one has a deep ideological commitment to the proposition that the police are engaged in a vicious conspiracy to kill black men. In the other, one has to conclude that the police were over the top. In neither case does the evidence suggests a racial motive. The senior police officer present in the Garner case was a black woman. Whatever was going on there, it wasn't racism.
In response to:

Americans Hate a Loser, GOP

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 08, 2014 5:11 PM
McClellan was a bad example for your point. He did not lose battle after battle. Let's see: Philippi, 1861. Win. Rich Mountain, 1861. Win. Fair Oaks, 1862. Win. Mechanicsville, 1862. Win. Gaines Mill, 1862. Loss, but Confederate casualties were almost twice Union casualties. Savage's Station, 1862. Draw. Frayser's Farm, 1862. Draw. Malvern Hill, 1862. Win. Antietam, 1862. Win. That's a pretty good record. Is McClellan subject to criticism? Sure. After Malvern Hill, he could probably have counterattacked against Lee and destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia, which had just taken a horrible beating, and he didn't; he sat there. At Antietam, he broke the Confederate center at 1 PM, and if he'd thrown in the V and VI Corps, which were fresh, he'd have destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia, but he didn't; he sat there. After Antietam, he could have attacked the Confederates as they withdrew, but he didn't, pleading that his "horses were tired". After that last, Lincoln fired him. But as far as actual battles, he repeatedly beat Lee. After the war, Lee was asked who the most competent commander he had faced, and his answer was McClellan. McClellan lacked the killer instinct to put away an enemy he had beaten, but he was tremendously effective in organizing his battle. Looking at it another way--he inherited a broken rabble that had fled in panic from the field of First Bull Run; he turned over to Ambrose Burnside one of the most powerful field armies in the world. So he wasn't a loser, and shouldn't be used as an example of a loser.
The Republicans don't have to get a majority of the women's vote; they need a larger share of the women's vote than the Democrats are getting of the men's vote. The gender gap isn't simply a "women problem" for the Republicans; it's a "men problem" for the Democrats. Actually, the principal source of the "women problem" is an almost unanimous Democratic vote among black women. White women vote majority Republican; Asian women vote about evenly. Without the black female vote, the overall women's vote would be about even (Hispanic women vote majority Democrat, but not nearly as heavily so as black women). If the Republicans could break into that vote--even get 10-15% of it--the Democrats would be finished.
Obama loves running for President; he doesn't love being President. He can campaign like nobody's business, but when it comes to governing, he's lost. So he evaluates all policy in terms of whether it will galvanize the Democratic base, or whether it's politically more expedient to court more moderate voters. Above all, he looks for opportunities to blast the Republicans, whom I think he flat-out hates.
In response to:

Memo To The Outgoing House GOP Conference

Ken6565 Wrote: Dec 02, 2014 7:38 PM
Absolutely right. The continuing resolution should be for about 6 months, long enough that we're not under the gun to get it right, but short enough that we're not stuck at those spending levels too long.
Scott Walker is the right man.
1 - 10 Next