From my Twitter feed (9/28-10/3)Oct 3, 2011 at 3:31 PM | |
---|---|
Powered by Keepstream | |
![]() | RT @JustinWolfers: Cheap politics has real consequences. MT @AP: More than 1 in 10 US parents reject vaccine advice for young children. http://t.co/KyMjiy4k |
![]() | |
Oct 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM | |
![]() | Second Gail Collins column discussing Willow the cat - may be on its way to a place in her pantheon with Romney's dog http://j.mp/qAEG4U |
![]() | |
Sep 29, 2011 at 12:43 PM | |
![]() | Amazing reversal: "Obama’s strategists intend to use abortion, gay rights, the environ. & successes in fight against AQ" http://j.mp/ou62ct |
![]() | |
Oct 3, 2011 at 11:20 AM | |
![]() | 22nd Gail Collins reference to Romney's dog since 8/07 (6% of all bylines) - when will her editors stage an intervention? http://j.mp/pk5LHN |
![]() | |
Oct 1, 2011 at 4:36 PM | |
![]() | Since 8/3/07, Collins has mentioned Romney's dog (22 references) almost as frequently as the VPOTUS (24 references to Biden by name) |
Oct 1, 2011 at 4:46 PM | |
![]() | Bad pundit incentives RT @pwire: Clinton on Carville: "He likes to act crazy because it helps him get speaking gigs." http://t.co/8a52FZP5 |
![]() | |
Oct 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM | |
![]() | RT @MysteryPollster: Q: What predicts 2012 better, current horserace polling or Obama approval? A: Neither - still too early http://t.co/zzz39Arp |
![]() | |
Sep 30, 2011 at 8:21 PM | |
![]() | MT @rcantor [Obama jobs plan] looks like the underpants gnome theory of governance: 1. Speechify 2. ?? 3. Legislation! http://t.co/8dd6Gduk |
![]() | |
Sep 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM | |
![]() | Surprise! "Obama has been...repeating a message for Congress...'Pass this bill' ...It still doesn’t seem to be working." http://j.mp/nBKR1z |
| |
Oct 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM | |
![]() | RT @Atul_Gawande: The usually wise @michaelkinsley is badly wrong to argue Chris Christie's weight disqualifies him from Presidency http://t.co/GCnkd0V6 |
| |
Sep 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM | |
![]() | RT @ezraklein: Chris Christie: Not too fat to be president. http://t.co/3cc3SXVJ |
![]() | |
Sep 30, 2011 at 7:22 PM | |
![]() | Kinsley's smart and everything, but isn't his "Christie too fat to be president" column just blatant pageview-whoring? |
Sep 30, 2011 at 3:45 PM | |
![]() | How many hours will be wasted debating this inane point on cable? How many Maureen Dowd columns? I can feel our society becoming dumber. |
Sep 30, 2011 at 3:45 PM | |
![]() | RT @jonathanchait: New post: Chris Christie and the obesity moral panic http://t.co/jyGq9xXm |
![]() | |
Sep 30, 2011 at 5:36 PM | |
![]() | RT @nickconfessore: Been awhile since a male pol's appearance was scrutinized like Christie's. Routine for female pols, unfortunately. http://t.co/dxlI1mXB |
| |
Sep 30, 2011 at 3:49 PM | |
![]() | MT @prowag End of abstract is overblown, but contradicts Kinsley's pageview-whoring: http://t.co/Bqed49uD // See also http://t.co/0LkU5bpw |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Sep 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM | |
![]() | Conservatives still flailing about in search of the elusive Obama scandal I predicted http://t.co/lE7pc9rs http://t.co/mkB47n3y |
![]() | |
| |
Sep 30, 2011 at 1:34 PM | |
![]() | Matthews explaining the Christie boomlet on Hardball: "He`s grouchy, grumpy...same mood as most of this country" Really? That's why? |
Sep 30, 2011 at 12:43 PM | |
![]() | .@gregamarx of @CJR on Wash. Post's failure to explain how new GOP position led to disaster aid fight http://j.mp/oqpwPg |
![]() | |
Sep 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM | |
![]() | RT @PredictWise: Great graph by @EconRobe plotting the Intrade chances Obama re-election vs the Intrade chances of US recession in 2012 http://ow.ly/6Ig8S |
![]() | |
Sep 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM | |
![]() | More grim news for WH: GOP enthusiasm advantage comparable to 2000 (+27) http://j.mp/ndlw6F Dissatisfaction sky high too http://j.mp/r1RlGQ |
![]() | |
![]() | |
Sep 29, 2011 at 12:34 PM | |
![]() | Reminder from @jamesfallows: "'savior' candidates are never again as popular as they are the day before they announce" http://j.mp/qlKjDR |
![]() | |
Sep 29, 2011 at 12:30 PM | |
![]() | Great TNR profile of Rick Perry - shows he is just as much of an ambitious, strategic politician as Romney http://j.mp/rbcVT3 |
![]() | |
Sep 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM | |
![]() | MT @j_a_tucker: Are Obama's small donors really as "slow to return" as NYT suggested? @MonkeyCageBlog: http://t.co/lS4VBkdP |
![]() | |
Sep 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM | |
![]() | John Sides of @monkeycageblog breaks down seemingly conflicting polls on Obama's handling of the economy & his jobs plan http://j.mp/r6E0A3 |
![]() | |
Sep 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM | |
John Harwood correctly characterizes the current Obama campaign approach as one seeking to utilize wedge issues. Up until now that's been a term that's been used, at least in the Times, almost exclusively to refer to Republican attempts to exploit divisive social issues. It'll be very interesting over the next year to observe whether the Times's reporters and editors will, like Harwood's blog entry, apply that term to Obama, or whether (my guess) they come up with a more sanitized, less pejorative descriptor when the subject is Obama. As hack TV reporters love to say when closing their stories, only time will tell.
Posted by: Rob | October 03, 2011 at 01:55 PM
IMHO the two people consulted by the New Republic gave some excellent reasons why a majority support aspects of Obama's so-called "jobs" bill, but a majority oppose the bill itself.
Another way to look at it is that a lot of Americans support lower taxes and oppose higher spending. This is a consistent position. Many of us support tax cuts, because we expect that a limitation on federal revenue will limit the government's ability to spend more and more of our money.
If Obama proposed a bill that did nothing but reduce the FICA assessment, that bill would get majority support. However, his actual bill includes a bunch of new spending. That's why it's opposed by a majority.
Posted by: David in Cal | October 03, 2011 at 04:40 PM
I was proud of the Republicans for standing up to the principle that extra spending in one area needed to be offset by cuts somewhere else. Congress has agreed to cut the deficit by a fixed amount. If they add new spending outside of the agreement, then the additional new spending sabotages the deficit reduction.
The agreed deficit cut is $150 billion/year IIRC -- only about 10% of the current deficit. However, if Congress and the President add new spending, then there might not be any deficit cut.
It's interesting how this was perceived by the public. My closest friend is a liberal Dem. His understanding of the issue is simply that the mean Reps didn't want to provide disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Irene. Not only does his version miss the actual political battle, he was unaware that the money as issue wasn't about Irene. FEMA already had enough money to cover the victims of Irene.
Posted by: David in Cal | October 03, 2011 at 09:08 PM
Christie made his announcement not to run today because had we chosen a fat man for President it would not prove to be salvific for them or the nation.
Posted by: JP | October 04, 2011 at 06:34 PM