Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
72 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
You’re welcome?
Primary war-of-words battles at the Big Orange are alive again.
For some odd reason many readers/participants were under the impression that Moulitsas was an astute political observer and didn’t favor neoliberalcon Democrats. He just doesn’t like wimpy neoliberalcons and stupid warmongers. He’s a savvy enough businessman not to censor or ban those on his left, but seriously, he revealed his hand fairly early on in 2003. Although not quite as blatantly as his recent piece at “The Hill.”
He’s writing off Sanders already. A bit premature.
I’m sure Kos has been writing off Bernie since the moment there were indications he was considering a run, if not before. I’m also sure Kos will continue to write Bernie off as long as he can.
The stated purpose of the DailyKos has always been to get Democrats elected, and most Kossers seemd to confuse that with being leftish. And Kos has mostly let them believe that. But Kos has almost always been one of those self-proclaimed “realists” who blithely ignore the reality of the damage done by the decades-long parade of center-right Democratic candidates.
One can be both a realist and a dreamer. As long as one doesn’t mistake the latter for the former and the former is grounded in objective facts.
2002 – Spring — Kos: Invading Iraq was never on the table — not going to happen.
Midterms: Kos was trumpeting that Democrats were going to have solid gains.
I sure wanted some of what he was smoking because GWB had been talking about invading Iraq since at least 2000 and the 2002 midterm polls were looked ugly.
Stopped reading whatever he wrote after he began fluffing Wesley Clark for POTUS in 2003. (Don’t think he has yet to figure out why Clark was even a consideration and who was behind it.)
I stopped reading Washington Monthly after being caught flat-footed after several elections. How could I continuously be so wrong? After Nate Silver took pundits to school on elections, I began to notice that lots of liberal bloggers were as squishy on their analysis as the mainstream media — almost always to the benefit of their candidate. Negatives for opponents are comically trumped up, while potential positives for our guys are inflated beyond all possibility.
Sometimes I think it’s a natural human instinct to distort reality; other times I think the creativity involved requires conscious effort.
Ned Lamont campaign was my wake up call on that particular front. Doesn’t make me less eager to support long shots, but I’m not deluding myself about it.
Actually, Ned Lamont knocked Lieberman out of the Democratic Party, which is Mission Accomplished AFAIC.
But Obama let him back in.
Totally natural for humans to perceive fact, etc. through their pre-existing frames or schemas. It’s how Republicans looked that the polling in 2012 and concluded that Romney would win. Somewhat more complicated on the other side of the aisle. A liberal mind is more comfortable admitting non-confirmatory data/information into their consciousness and thinking. However, not all Democrats possess a liberal mind. Rigidly partisan Democrats that don’t looked at the same polling data and saw an Obama win. Those that do, but don’t have adequate mathematical or statistical skills fretted continuously over the same numbers. The partisan Democrats got that one right, but not for the right reasons.
Nate’s good on the numbers but either has biases that he is unable to admit to or lacks the granular and/or meta analytical skill to do better than flip a coin when the numbers are too close for an easy call.
Added to that is that humans are narcissistic — meaning that we assume that others perceive as we do and respond to the same perception in the same way. Even if there has never been consensus on Ginger or Mary Ann question.
However, most of us do have roughly similar visual first impressions and perceptions. Thus, if one clears away partisan cobwebs, one can recognize gross differences in charisma between any two candidates. And at the end of the day, that’s almost always decisive in elections.
Nate’s good on the numbers, right, but I don’t think he has any feel for politics. (He’d probably take that as a compliment, but I didn’t mean it as one.)
I thought we’d settled on Mary Ann.
I partly agree with your analysis, but also think there is room for people to expand their reality. For instance, I’ve come to grudging terms with how awful this country really is. A lot of Democrats think there are all these reachable white people, when in fact those people are too spiteful and xenophobic to ever vote their actual economic interest if it helps a minority. There are plenty of people who want us to bomb Iran — or are whose positions are idiotic enough to force the United States into a situation where it must bomb Iran. The polls are out there; Donald Trumps numbers after calling Mexicans murderers and rapists are out there; it’s just if we want to accept that it’s really the country we’re living in.
I think as distracting as partisan fervor is the liberals belief that people are fundamentally good, fundamentally rational, fundamentally compassionate. That just ain’t the case. Once that’s accepted, it’s easy to see how a liberal could lose.
I don’t think Nate has a crystal ball — and I don’t think he thinks he does either. He puts bounds on his predictions, so if it’s too close too call, he’ll probably say its too close to call, or give it some useless odds like 60/40. Nate Silver’s claim to fame wasn’t statistical legdermain, but a blunt analysis which was obvious to no one else. For me, he’s more significant as a contrast to the hordes of media color commentators who don’t know the score.
Why ruin such a good question with a settled answer?
Are we in this country uniquely and innately awful or are we awful because we’re wealthy (if measured by how much stuff we have/own)? Probably both.
Not sure liberals ever viewed others as fundamentally good, etc. Even in romanticized fiction villains abound.
Have the media hordes modified their commentaries since Nate’s been around? Seems to me that they don’t understand Nate’s mathematical embellishment to the poll any better than they understand the polls. Not that the average viewer can understand odds.
Well he’s an idiot for writing off Bernardo this early. Unlikely but possible, and the trendline is positive for him compared to HRC. Long ways to go. Especially with minority Dems.
I think Kos got additional undue cred from libs and lefties when he made those dozens/hundreds of appearances on Olbermann’s old Msnbc show, back in Keith’s heyday as a political analyst and bold ranter against TPTB.
Nothing wrong with writing off a candidate at this point if facts and logic warrant such a projection. While mushy, a candidate’s attractiveness to certain demographics and the electorate as a whole are facts.
However, that’s not what he did in his piece. He set it up by claiming that Sanders flopped at NN when confronted by BLM activists. Therefore, he’ll never attract minority voters. Completely dismissing Sanders lifetime record wrt minorities and the Clintons playing the race card in the 2008 election.
Perhaps he’s correct that Clinton has a lock on all Democratic primary voters except for white men. If so, he’s should chill instead of attempting to depress support for Sanders. To my ears, however, it sounded more like wishful thinking on his part.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/kirk-unpopular-trails-duckworth.html
So the “old white man” hatred guarantees that whoever is sworn in in 2017, the 1% will own him/her, body, and soul.
No, it means that the 1% owns 75+% of the electorate. If the old, white male vote splits 60/40 for the GOP, then approximately half of the 40% that votes DEM backs Clinton. So, the white male vote for the 1% is 80%. Not all that different from that of minorities. Nobody ever claimed that voters are smart, but if I had to choose the 1% that comes packaged with racism, sexism, and no minimum wage or the 1% that doesn’t overtly attack minorities and doesn’t repeal the minimum wage, I’ll take the latter. A substantial majority of old white men choose the former and their white women folk aren’t much kinder nor gentler.
he had reason to.
I have long had a 50/40/35 rule about Iowa and NH. If a front runner is above 50, they seldom lose. Between 50 and 40 they still usually win, but usually are strongly challenged in Iowa or New Hampshire. Below 40 they are in trouble and below 35 they lose as often as they win.
Hillary is still around 50 in Iowa. No doubt, there is weakness in NH, but to actually threaten Clinton for the nomination he is going to have to close the gap in Iowa.
It is very early, but I don’t think Bernie is in a position where he is really threatening Clinton.
Yet.
What will threaten Clinton is if she looks like she will lose to the GOP. Here are the last two national polls, with prior result
CNN: Clinton 51-45, prior poll was 54-41 (Taken end of June)
Quinnipiac : Bush 42, Clinton 41, was 47-37 in Mid-may
We will have to see if these get confirmed (PPP didn’t show much movement)
But if Clinton starts running behind by 5, Democrats are going to start looking for alternatives in a serious way.
He’s just doing his job, making sure that the so-called “left” of the DemRat wing of the PermaGov remains impotent at all costs and by whatever means.
So it goes in fix years. Bet on it.
AG
I don’t know. Bernie’s got no charisma and his hair is awful. There is a certain shallowness to the America electorate that is undeniable.
And help me out with this: as much of a socialist as I am, if by some miracle Bernie Sanders was elected, what would happen? The blue dogs and centrist democrats would turn their backs on him. He has no Washington constituency. He doesn’t seem like the sort of guy that can make deals, and his aims seem far outside what is achievable on a national scale. Bernie Sanders would be a disaster as president.
The System is there in Washington. Fundamental changes happen within the system. Even a Sander’s pick to the Supreme Court — the most important decision any president makes — would have to go through the senate. He couldn’t cut military spending, either, because congress gives the military more money than even it asks for.
And the MSM clique would eat him alive. His presidency may very well haunt progressives the same way Carter’s did (fairly or unfairly).
Not sure how you’re abstracting the notion of charisma. It is semi-autonomous from physical attractiveness. And it operates in all professions and walks of life. Dynamic, inspires confidence, authentic are major variables that get folded into charisma.
Bernie does have an advantage over Carter and most of the Democratic politicians we’ve seen over the past few decades. He’s not running “to be” Potus, but “to do.” And he’s given decades of thought to what that “to do” is.
Yes, the neoliberalcon DC consensus would try to eat him alive. It’s their job to retain their power. However, Bernie knows their game as well, if not better, than they do. And he doesn’t have any skeletons in his closet that they can use to blackmail him. If he can only deliver a bread and jam sandwich, he’ll call it that and not a ham and cheese sandwich. And if the opposition tells him to accept a shit sandwich, he’ll tell them to fuck off and tell the public what he was told to and refused to do.
Practically, Bernie’s going to need some coattails. Still time to oust a couple of blue dogs in primaries and field some real Democrats in open and GOP seats. However, a two election cycle agenda is required for the change we need.
I went to a local Sanders organizing event tonight expecting about 6 people. Instead, there was a full house, a mix of Ds, Rs, and Is. It will be interesting to see what develops.
Do tell us more about the Rs.
I would like Sanders to be treated as seriously by the press. I hope he’s able to get the message out there.
like the sort of guy that can make deals
Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway
From National Journal…
probably not that premature, he hasn’t really closed any ground since his initial surge
Sure — unless one looks at the numbers
End of April — 5% (before he announced)
End of May — 10%
End of June — 15%
Mid July — 20%
And that’s the national polls where Clinton’s name ID id near 100% and she’s been running for years and Sanders’ name ID is roughly half of that and he’s been running for less than 90 days. (And a not insignificant chunk of people are still pining for Biden to run.)
And he doing even better than that in Iowa and NH where people do pay somewhat more attention at an earlier date and where the campaigns are more focused at this point.
watch out for the Bernmentum
a number of people who post at dkos are smart, insightful political analysts. Markos is not one of those and never has been.
Yeah. But none who will seriously threaten the fix(ed) status quo by referencing the truth of the matter.
Been there, banned for that long ago and far away.
There is no appreciable money to be made or power to be accrued by confronting the Fix Corp.
Bet on it.
AG
You too? Marie and I were banned too. Me under my real name.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Arthur. The Truth Shall Set You Free. Never lie to get a favor.
I have been banned 3 times. Never again. DK is filled with clueless bozos.
I salute you, Sir!
The last time was because I told a bunch of morons from WI that WI was not a liberal state. That got a donut, and they were going to make me acknowledge the donut. Fuck them, large bolt, no lube.
They probably never left Madison.
You’re wrong, but that’s a dumb reason to ban anyone.
OK, you’re all getting milk and cookies today for wearing your Daily Dookie TM battle scars proudly. My last dia-reah there was October 2012 when one of the Daily Smarms, (you know, “back acha” and “you go girl,” will only get you so far,) accused me of being a Republican troll for comparing Obama’s 2nd debate against Romney as masterful Jimmy Cochran courtroom entrapment with moves that hearkened back to the glove thingy. Response: “So, you’re comparing Obama to OJ, troll.” Ach no Capn’ Underwear Skids, I’m complimenting the man for having courtroom chops that I did not know he possessed having been a Constitutional Law Professor at The University of Chicago, and not having too much courtroom time in his resume’ if memory serves correct. Hate that blog! Jimmy Olson Cub reporters before the radioactive spider bite with this mistaken notion that they are connected to the D.C. beehive, NOT!
fascinating take on Obama’s 2nd debate. is that still your thinking? very interesting. a credible explanation imo
Articles by Moulitsas @TheHill
○ Markos Moulitsas: Sanders struggles on race
○ Markos Moulitsas: Dems can do better
A Cincinnati Grand Jury has indicted a police officer on murder charges in the shooting death of a Cincinnati motorist during a routine traffic stop.
Whaaaaat???? A cop lose his temper and shoot someone out of frustration? Who could have imagined such a thing? Well, I applaud Mr. Deters for the indictment. But I think he needs to get out a little bit more. These kinds of things DO HAPPEN in the U.S., not just Afghanistan.
Back in my legal schooling days it was noted that in Europe they are suspicious of ypu if you get stopped but stay in the car and in America it’s the opposite. Generally.
That’s rhetoric. It means that it’s not supposed to happen here. Otherwise, you are saying it’s ordinary and expected.
Looks to me as if LEO SOP for traffic stops for minor violations require a major rethink. Back off if a driver refuses to cooperate. Record all of the information that was obtained (including a description of the driver) and note the lack of cooperation in the police system.
Here in Illinois, any hint of balking means one or more additional cars will arrive, not guns drawn Dodge City style. I’ve seen four police vehicles arresting one belligerent drunk in my 60-40 white/brown suburb. A few years back, one white cop was dumb enough to bludgeon a (white) drunk right in front of his own dash cam. He was fired and the Village settled the lawsuit quickly without covering the cops personal liability, i.e. they threw him to the wolves (rightly so).
No, that didn’t happen to TarHeeldem who awoke with a gun in his face, but that was political not a routine stop. Not saying Illinois cops are angels, I’m saying their bosses are more politically astute and aware that at the City and County levels they owe their jobs to black and brown voters.
How much has the City of Chicago paid out for excessive use of force?
Agree that back-up is essential if the driver is a clear and present danger to the public and isn’t being cooperative. But LEOs also shouldn’t then act like a gang because the numbers are on their side.
Minor offense and a single incident of being uncooperative can be blown off because everybody has one bad day in his/her life. (Note: I did say that it should be logged into the police system.)
So, you have a belligerent drunk. You are suggesting that the cop simply back off and let the drunk go on and kill someone? Is that a serious suggestion? I sure as hell do not agree with that notion.
Being a cop means confronting and controlling mean assholes. Today, the mean assholes may be and often are carrying high-powered weapons. This is my belief – cops are on edge and shoot quickly because of the proliferation of concealed carry.
DUI isn’t a minor traffic violation. That is a clear and present danger to the public.
Agree that LEOs today may be on edge because of the perceived increased incidence of armed drivers. But, why is that black people stopped for a minor violation are ending up dead? They are no more likely to be armed or obstreperous than a white person.
Shooting folks at the drop of a hat is certainly wrong. Like that cop in Cleveland who shot the 12 YO 10 sec after appearing at the scene.
It is a hair-trigger defensiveness. My belief is that the cops are basically stressed hugely. I am not making excuses for the many killings, which I do not accept. I see the cops in a very difficult position. They must be fair. They must consider everyone innocent. Then some guy comes up to 2 cops in NYC and just kills them while they sit in the car. Some guy comes up to 3 cops in a Seattle coffee shop and kills them in 3 sec flat.
To the cops, it must be like the US grunts in Vietnam. Everyone was Charlie, no one was innocent, better shoot first and clarify later.
Thanks for the update. Its been awhile since the last one SNL gave us. I wasn’t sure anymore.
Reagan is still dead too! Wahooo!
Cheney still lives, sort of, which sucks.
Cheney is Undead.
Mullah Omar is dead. Al Zawahiri is still alive and remains on Obama’s bucket list.
Space fans will note that NASA was born on this day by an act of Congress, July 29, 1958.
Its heyday was the 60s and the Apollo program, which many of us recall watching with interest as kids as the solo Mercury program moved into the 2-spaceman Gemini program, then finally Apollo. Exciting times, back when NASA seemed cutting edge and had cred.
Not so true anymore, especially since the shuttle program went on forever, and there seemed to be no long-range planning for manned exploration. Just boring science experiments in the shuttle and now on the ISS.
Most people lost interest, including me. I try to work up enthusiasm about the latest findings about Pluto, but it’s no go.
Forgot to add this weird fact: exactly 10 years later, July 29, 1968, a Saturday I believe, Congress held its first public hearing on flying saucers/ufo’s. Probably the only such public hearing ever on that subject …
A shout-out to John Podesta while I’m at it. The former “Mr X Files” …
Sending people out into space is stirring to the soul, but entirely without scientific merit.
I’d rather we spend that money making really cool space movies and flight simulators.
I’m afraid it’s in the human soul or immortal spirit to explore, first-hand. As human space flight technology improves, it is inevitable we will test it out, to Mars and beyond. No stopping those advances whether in the public NASA realm or private SpaceX realm.
I’ve already had my fill of cool space flight movies — saw 2001 on the big screen numerous times as a kid.
We’re also likely to need a backup-getaway planet pretty soon …
It will happen. The USA won’t be doing it, however. Right now it looks like Russia. But will they ever learn how to raise chickens?
It’s interesting to think of space exploration as an extension of human terrestrial exploration; but maybe there are some differences. Some of it is just ego or national pride — being the first to the North Pole for instance. Other times, it is economic — the discovery of America. Sometimes it’s economic in another way — people being pushed out by lack of farmland into new areas. Some explore with an almost spiritual fervor — just to go to hidden places (cave divers).
Space exploration is in a weird spot. There really is no economic incentive — nobody’s getting rich going to Mars. There isn’t much national pride involved now that we’re not in a technological arms race with Russia. We won’t learn anything by exploring space in person — all the information can be gathered by probes. And the cave divers, mountain climbers and polar explorers can’t fund a space program.
I think the best hope for manned exploration is more income inequality — then someone (like Branson) could fund a project that the rest of society wouldn’t.
… but fascists still haven’t given up.
The fascists never give up. Because the siren song of wealth and power never stops.
https://youtu.be/g2Q0cyJSs04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=butZyxI-PRs
here it is with Franco is still dead
What did you say? I’m hard of hearing.
Since he died years and years before I was born, I have never really gotten the joke. Was it constantly rumored he was dead while he was alive?
Joke [explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead%5D.
Joke explained.
Perhaps a renewed US occupation of Spain would be better than the EU’s austerity program. Oops, the US is bolstering its presence in Rota and Morón AFB in Spain. See also Obama’s pivot to Africa. The austerity programs in Europe does boost the right-wing anti-immigrant parties as well as a renewal of leftist movements as seen in Greece and expected this fall in Spain with leftist Podemos.
Franco’s form of fascism has left some artifacts besides the ‘disappeared’ and the stolen babies, namely through his sports minister Juan Antonio Samaranch in the Olympics organization and later FIFA.[Interesting, Samaranch became a friend of the Soviets and won the bid for IOC’s presidency in 1980 in Moscow]
Jim Gilmore has registered for the GOP Presidential contest.
Where is my fainting couch?
Playing the old Monty Python game “Spot the Looney” is even easier with the Republican candidates.
New poll
Reuters..,national poll
Trump on top.
Jeb second
Trump double what Jeb has
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA H AH AH AHA
Yeah, but that poll was before Jim Gilmore entered the race.
Not just on top, but if you look at the most recent 5-day rolling it is Trump: 20.4% to Jeb: 10.8%. Amazingly almost 2:1. Brains must be frazzling in Jeb HQ and many other locations around the nation.
And it seems that Trump’s gain is from the pool of “wouldn’t” voters, which may have been shrinking just now anyhow as the first debate looms. This suggests that Trump’s timing is impeccable or, even scarier, he’s pulling supporters from outside the current primary voting cohort.
Sucks to be a Republican candidate or staff.