From my Twitter feed (8/15-8/24)Aug 26, 2011 at 6:16 PM | |
---|---|
Powered by Keepstream | |
![]() | What happens when poli sci helps rethink the modern campaign? Highly recommend new @sissenberg e-book on Perry '06/'10 http://t.co/STkloNH |
![]() | |
Aug 24, 2011 at 12:13 PM | |
![]() | Fascinating RT @DLeonhardt Rick Perry, scientist: my chat w/@victorylab about Perry's empirical approach to campaigns http://t.co/b5GjUMN |
Rick Perry's Scientific Campaign Method - NYTimes.com A conversation with the author Sasha Issenberg about how the Texas governor's campaigns have been shaped by rigorous social science testing. | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM | |
![]() | MT @RyanLizza "48% of Republican voters [in IA] believe Barack Obama was born in the United States but 32% still do not" http://t.co/2tQXsiH |
![]() | |
Aug 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM | |
![]() | RT @normative: The Cult Of The Presidency In Action http://t.co/BVBtAqH |
![]() | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM | |
![]() | For once, I agree with Robert Samuelson: Save the Statistical Abstract of the US! http://j.mp/npsfVc |
![]() | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 3:55 PM | |
![]() | Imputation of nefarious motives: @delong says "Republicans in Washington are trying to make the country weaker & poorer" http://j.mp/nfMTaq |
A Colossal Failure of the American Political System That Republicans in Washington are trying to make the country weaker and poorer is a bad thing, but not a surprising thing: anybody who has been paying attention to the evolution of the Republic... | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM | |
![]() | RT @Student: That's right. The problem with Carter was how the news media wrote about him. No rabbit metaphor, no Reagan: http://t.co/rAbG8oy |
![]() | |
Aug 21, 2011 at 7:08 PM | |
![]() | RT @LudovicSpeaks: “@ppppolls: Most of the stuff Obama's done that supposedly made the left mad didn't really. But I think debt deal did: http://t.co/XzOiuyU” |
Aug 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM | |
![]() | Cook: "Ind. Voters...Required to Win General Elec." http://j.mp/rbpkVl False: Indies backed PV loser last 3 close elecs. http://j.mp/onXNBg |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Aug 19, 2011 at 1:54 PM | |
![]() | First Read on Obama interview: "It’s all about independents, stupid" http://j.mp/nDz3Fx Once again, false: http://j.mp/onXNBg |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 3:15 PM | |
![]() | RT @kwcollins: .@mattyglesias on causal inference, donations, and interest group influence: http://t.co/bywq0RT Having backers doesn't mean you're corrupt |
![]() | |
Aug 19, 2011 at 1:57 AM | |
![]() | RT @GrahamDavidA: With faux-uproar abt Obama's vacay everywhere, here's my story frm last August on faux outrage against O, Bush, Clintons: http://j.mp/ouAuw3 |
![]() | |
Aug 19, 2011 at 12:04 AM | |
![]() | Very cool idea RT @MysteryPollster: Introducing the HuffPost-Patch Power Outsiders Poll of influential GOPers in IA/NH/SC huff.to/oUj2nt |
Aug 17, 2011 at 6:50 PM | |
![]() | CAP doubles down. Old pattern: http://t.co/S33IWjB RT @thinkprogress: @BrendanNyhan Nothing more dishonest than a direct quote. Spinsanity! |
![]() | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 6:49 PM | |
![]() | RT @betsylevyp: the psychology of choice: decision fatigue, ego depletion, and 200 blackberrys http://t.co/EdeGQb0 |
![]() | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 6:27 PM | |
![]() | Sad efforts by @thinkprogress to close the "hack gap" by dishonestly flogging the Romney "corporations are people" quote http://j.mp/rf6MuV |
![]() | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 2:43 PM | |
![]() | .@smotus on partisanship: "everyone hates it until they think their side is losing, and then they want more of it" http://t.co/ibNzfAS |
Enik Rising: Obama and Post-partisanship Sean Smith makes some interesting points in this Politico piece . His argument is that many of those on the left now criticizing Obama for not being partisan enough were among those praising him... | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 11:24 AM | |
![]() | RT @ianrmcdonald: Mark Cuban and Howard Schulz leading my "Sucessful business people who talk about politics like 3rd graders" list.
http://t.co/vYGJbBf |
We The Insane « blog maverick Why do we allow our elected officials to do the same things over and over again. You know the definition of insanity ? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. We as a co... | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 11:16 AM | |
![]() | RT @jonathanshainin: A persuasive slap at the "electability" canard by @jbplainblog: "extremism" in general elex may not hurt too much: http://t.co/rJLEwON |
A plain blog about politics: Is Fed Up a Campaign Book? One of the reasons I've thought Rick Perry was likely to run for president in 2012 is that he published Fed Up -- a book chock full of very conservative policy positions. | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 12:16 AM | |
![]() | Bad signals from Perry about how he would campaign against Obama http://j.mp/ofzyKg http://j.mp/o67vBT http://j.mp/oTXi9g |
![]() | |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Aug 16, 2011 at 11:53 AM | |
![]() | A must-read: @jonathanchait on "Rick Perry And The Return Of Conservative Identity Politics" http://j.mp/o4Iigx |
![]() | |
Aug 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM | |
![]() | Perry endorsed "death panels" label in his book Fed Up! http://j.mp/pVWlMi |
![]() | |
Aug 15, 2011 at 2:38 PM | |
![]() | Nyhan's political dictionary: "psychological barrier" = arbitrary threshold involving round number http://j.mp/qc7xoy |
![]() | |
Aug 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM | |
![]() | .@mattyglesias on the failures of the Green Lantern theory of the presidency, particularly in explaining Bush's 2nd term http://j.mp/rt6ESx |
![]() | |
Aug 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM | |
![]() | See also my all-too-relevant posts from '09 on Green Lantern theories of the presidency http://j.mp/gehWkI http://j.mp/bAxvbv |
| |
| |
Aug 17, 2011 at 7:56 PM | |
![]() | RT @jbouie http://t.co/TbJAlSi Obama used the "bully pulpit" to defend liberalism this afternoon. Of course, no one paid attention. |
![]() | |
Aug 16, 2011 at 1:42 AM | |
![]() | RT @theprospect: Obama doesn't have a "vision" problem. He has a "crappy economy" problem. @jbouie discusses: http://t.co/F7SxtFR |
![]() | |
Aug 15, 2011 at 6:43 PM | |
![]() | USAT economist survey forecasts 2.5% GDP growth in Q2 '12 http://j.mp/pNO5yw Closest comps: 2004 (2.6% in Q2), 1976 (3%), 1956 (3.2%) |
![]() | |
Aug 15, 2011 at 2:35 PM | |
![]() | Using USAT forecast for GDP growth Q4 '11-Q3 '12, @smotus forecasts Obama getting <51% http://t.co/JIsI8PX Closest comps are '60, '68, '04 |
![]() | |
Aug 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM | |
![]() | Meme: Truman as model for Obama http://j.mp/pGBDZQ Reality: Truman enjoyed much stronger growth than Obama will http://j.mp/asTJTj |
![]() | |
| |
Aug 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM | |
An unfair way to attack a political opponent is to exaggerate something he said or wrote so as to make it sound ridiculous. E.g., through some combination of malice, ignorance and carelessness, Yglasias asserts that Perry had claimed that "All Bank Regulation Is Unconstitutional." Of course, Perry actually claimed that federal bank regulation should be unconstitutional. He doesn't say or imply that state regulation of banks is unconsitutional. Based on this error, I wouldn't trust any of Yglasias's other characterizations of Perry's views without checking the original source.
BTW I think Perry's view is a reasonable interpretation of the originally intended meaning of the Constitution. E.g., I know that in 1869 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Paul v. Virginia that the issuance of a policy of insurance was not the transaction of commerce, and therefore beyond the scope of federal legislation.
However, today's courts take a different view of the Constitution. E.g., they overturned Paul v. Virginia in 1944.
Posted by: David in Cal | August 24, 2011 at 05:44 PM
Here's another example from Law Professor Ann Althouse of Yglesias smearing a Republican by misstating his views.
Yglesias says:
[Ron Paul is] loudly trumpeting his plan to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies...
However, Althouse goes on to demonstrate that Paul said no such thing.
ISTM that Yglesias ought to be named and shamed along with the birthers, not quoted approvingly.
Posted by: David in Cal | August 24, 2011 at 06:04 PM
I wanted to give props to Yglesias for his defense against unfair charges of crony capitalism, but found another falsehood in that article, this one smearing libertartarians:
The overwhelmingly dominant vision of libertarianism in the contemporary United States involves the strange view that the owners of industrial enterprises should have an untrammeled right to engage in massive air pollution, notwithstanding the infringement of the property rights of others this involves.
Yglesias calls this supposed libertarian view "strange". It would indeed be strange if that was the dominant libertarian view. I read a lot of libertarian material, and I've never seen that view expressed.
Yglesias gives no source for his sweeping contention. Wikipedia says he has it backwards:
The relative benefits of common law evolving toward ever-finer definitions of property rights were articulated by thinkers such as Friedrich Hayek, Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett. Some libertarian thinkers believe that this evolution can define away various "commons" such as pollution or other interactions viewed by some as externalities. "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility."
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Libertarian_Party
Posted by: David in Cal | August 24, 2011 at 08:20 PM
Somehow, I knew the latest Truman article from TNR would be referenced here. Give it a week, and here it is.
Posted by: Metrichead | August 25, 2011 at 01:58 AM
Yglesias refused to correct his error about Ron Paul's abortion comments. Yglesias had written, "[Ron Paul is] loudly trumpeting his plan to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies". Although Yglesias didn't find any comment where Paul had explicitly advocated criminal penalties on women who have abortions, Yglesias argued that "reading between the lines", he could deduce that this is what Paul wants.
If Paul had been "loudly trumpeting" his position, Yglesias would have been able to find explicit statements, not just deductions. In fact, Yglesias's speculation about Paul's underlying position might not even be correct.
Posted by: David in Cal | August 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM