Fuck its silent in here.......

[Quality Start Machine]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

[Gilgamesh]

Again, I concede that the Democrats are sure to lose many seats this fall.  This happens when any party wins a tremendous number of seats.  However, my point is simply this.  The generic congressional ballot is 44.1% for Republicans and 42.3% for Democrats.  Take out Rasmussen's polling (which is sketchy anyway) and the number is 44.8% for the Democrats and 43.9% for the Republicans.  Hardly blow-out conditions, in my opinion.

Also, it appears that the Republicans are doing more to ruin their own chances than anything else.  There will not be an overarching agenda from the GOP; Boehner has suggested that the GOP doesn't need one, just voter anger in sufficient numbers.  The GOP is flirting with and then actively selecting extremist or otherwise lackluster candidates for seats they should win (Nevada, Illinois, and, in my long shot pick, Kentucky).  And, while voters distrust the Democrats in Congress, they distrust Republicans more.

This is still a media-driven narrative of "blow-out" conditions.  And no, it's not just a FOX driven narrative; every MSM outlet is falling for it.

[morpheus]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.

[morpheus]

Again, I concede that the Democrats are sure to lose many seats this fall.  This happens when any party wins a tremendous number of seats.  However, my point is simply this.  The generic congressional ballot is 44.1% for Republicans and 42.3% for Democrats.  Take out Rasmussen's polling (which is sketchy anyway) and the number is 44.8% for the Democrats and 43.9% for the Republicans.  Hardly blow-out conditions, in my opinion.

Also, it appears that the Republicans are doing more to ruin their own chances than anything else.  There will not be an overarching agenda from the GOP; Boehner has suggested that the GOP doesn't need one, just voter anger in sufficient numbers.  The GOP is flirting with and then actively selecting extremist or otherwise lackluster candidates for seats they should win (Nevada, Illinois, and, in my long shot pick, Kentucky).  And, while voters distrust the Democrats in Congress, they distrust Republicans more.

This is still a media-driven narrative of "blow-out" conditions.  And no, it's not just a FOX driven narrative; every MSM outlet is falling for it.

I think maybe we should just see how it all plays out.

[Quality Start Machine]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.

WSJ follows the script. You and I both know how easy polls can be skewed. Ask questions the right way and you could have a poll showing 85% of Americans like ghey buttsecks and hate bacon, when in reality we know it's only Yeti.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

Owning WSJ? Is that significant?

Clearly he wrote the poll results himself, and somehow suckered NBC into accepting them.  The guy is amazing.

WSJ follows the script. You and I both know how easy polls can be skewed. Ask questions the right way and you could have a poll showing 85% of Americans like ghey buttsecks and hate bacon, when in reality we know it's only Yeti.

From the story:

For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve.

So the NBC/WSJ poll has had Obama in positive territory for 18 months just to set him up for a big fall?

That's an impressive ratfuck.

[Eli]

O RLY?

Carl Hawkinson was my Little League coach for a few years and his son was a groomsman in my wedding.  He's an awesome guy.

/namedrop
/hueystory

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

Nearly two-thirds in the survey said they wanted more regulation of oil companies. Majorities also favor more regulation of Wall Street firms, health insurers and "big corporations."

While a majority still favors greater offshore drilling, support has slipped considerably over the past month as the Gulf oil spill has grown worse—from 60% in May to 53% now.

Sixty-three percent support legislation to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in energy costs.

Everything's coming up GOP!

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/

They blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they're well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?

Read the whole thing.

[MAD]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/05/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/

They blow each other up by mistake. They bungle even simple schemes. They get intimate with cows and donkeys. Our terrorist enemies trade on the perception that they're well trained and religiously devout, but in fact, many are fools and perverts who are far less organized and sophisticated than we imagine. Can being more realistic about who our foes actually are help us stop the truly dangerous ones?

Read the whole thing.

Yeah but one of them managed to steal a U.S. Presidential election for himself, so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them...

[morpheus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

[flannj]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

Intrepid Reader Sen. Carl Levin:
Political theatre? What political theatre?

[Chuck to Chuck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?  Not that changes didn't need to happen... but maybe they should be understood before implementation?  Further, an attempt at addressing Fannie and Freddie, and maybe even the broader incentives to extend credit to crappy borrowers, might have been nice.  But then again, Dodd and Frank ("let's roll the dice!") would then have to address their own ineptitude, and indeed that of Congress as a whole in regulating the GSEs, in such a scenario.  Not likely.

It's a mind numbingly stupid way to say it, but it's true.  Same with every law, right?  What are the unintended consequences?  Where will the smart lawyers figure out the loopholes?

[Quality Start Machine]

Intrepid Reader Sen. Carl Levin:
Political theatre? What political theatre?

Best neck ankles (nankles) ever.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html

Wow.

"No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done."

That's encouraging.  I guess we're passing a bill to find out what's in it?

Isn't this a lame left over talking point from the health care debate?

Dodd didn't say "No one will know what's in it until it's actually in place." He said no one will know how it will work.

Will it be effective in practice rather than in theory?

In other words [guh]: what Internet Chuck said.