[Posted by Karl]

One of the nice things about the 2010 midterm election was that we were largely spared triumphalist punditry about political “realignment.” After all, sentiment among conservatives and Tea Partiers was consistent with the polling data suggesting that the 2010 results were much more about stopping Pres. Obama and the Democrats than any great enthusiasm for or trust in the Congressional GOP.

Nevertheless, there have been some Dems bitterly clinging to the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis, i.e., that demographic changes in the electorate will soon put the Dems back in the dominant position they enjoyed for much of the 20th century. It shows up in this recent post-census Slate piece by Christopher Beam. The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost does a nice job exposing one major weakness with the thesis — and if you read the whole thing, Jay links back to his prior dissections of the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis, all of which are pretty darn good.

However, there is a major problem with the “emerging Democratic majority” thesis that Jay adresses only obliquely. Those propagating or buying this thesis rely heavily on demographics because they are at least somewhat predictable. Yet discussions of realignment frequently leave out the role of historical events.

Anyone looking US history would surmise that events like the Civil War, the Great Depression and the capture of the liberal establishment by the New Left in the late 1960s to mid-1970s had a little something to do with major political realignments. It is understandable that people are loath to discuss “unknown unknowns.” Pundits and analysts cannot foretell the future, but it is foolish to invest in theories based on demographics without recognizing that historic unknowns are likely to significantly influence the outcome.

(more…)

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

You all know and love R. Lee Ermey for his iconic role as the Drill Sergeant Instructor in Full Metal Jacket.  In real life he was, pretty much the drill instructor in Full Metal Jacket—that is a real D.I. in the Marines.  And as much as you liked him before, you will probably love him even more when you see him go full metal Glenn Beck in this video clip:

And I don’t mean that in a tongue and cheek fashion.  That is pretty much Beck’s theory in a nutshell, love it or hate it.  I tend to be more of a “never assign to malice what can be better explained as incompetence” kind of guy, so that is my explanation for the last two years.  But I admit sometimes you wonder if they are doing it on purpose.

By the way, that headline comes from this line.  And they have a whole page dedicated to his sound clips.  Cool.

Update: Thanks to Lopez in the comments who corrected me for incorrectly referring to the good man as a Drill Instructor. And thanks to AD for another embarrassing typo. Dang that lexdysia!

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; please send any tips here.]

Cracked.com has an unusually harsh critique of how the media treated the Tea Party, contrasting how we heard the story in the media v. the reality:

The way we heard it:

“The Tea Party is just a swarm of redneck doofuses, not only unworthy of serious consideration from the rest of us but 100 percent deserving of scrotum-based epithets. Because they’re just that ridiculous.”

And Christine O’Donnell was the new Queen of the Crazies. It didn’t take long for us to find out that she was personally bankrupt, a dabbler in witchcraft and not all that knowledgeable about this holy document she swore she was building her candidacy around. Plus, everything that came out of her mouth was pure hilarious moonshine. Which was probably why she stopped giving her mouth a national platform six weeks before the election. But that didn’t stop the media from talking about her, because O’Donnell so perfectly represented everything else about the Tea Party.

There were blatant racists and blatant Obama-to-Hitler-comparison-makers. All year we saw misspelled signs and angry, red-faced Colonials. People like Anderson Cooper and President Obama showed how seriously they were taking the party by calling them “tea-baggers.” And nobody blamed them, because all year long, the media gave us a picture of the Tea Party that made it perfectly clear: This is a joke.

But the truth is …

It wasn’t a joke.

For all those wackjob birthers captured on film wearing frilly lady blouses and triangle hats, there were thousands of ordinary people just living their lives, being regular, and not liking how their Republican Party had turned out. And even though Tea Party members tend to skew toward older, middle-class white guys, their overall demographics aren’t that far from the rest of the country. Of course, regular people are about as riveting as dry toast, so they didn’t get much screen time. Which is why it came as such a shock to everyone when 32 percent of Tea Party-affiliated candidates won their elections.

By focusing in on the a–clowns the media painted a picture that not only wasn’t accurate, but pretty much made constructive political discourse impossible. They didn’t just fail to do their job — they did the opposite of their job, and they’ve been doing it for years….

So when we watched coverage of O’Donnell and the Tea Party this year, we were only getting the bonkers half of the picture. Now that CNN is teaming up with the Tea Party Express to host the Republican debates next year, we’ll probably see a lot fewer costumed revolutionaries. But everyone will just assume the Tea Party cleaned up its act, when in reality it will be CNN.

That is going to leave a mark.

As they say, read the whole thing.

But I will note that there is one major news outlet I can think of which got this story right.  You know, a certain outlet branded unfair for using accurate terms and allowing us to hear both sides of a debate.

And for my money, I don’t have a single problem with the guys who show up at Tea Party rallies dressed in faux colonial outfits.  They’re just having fun and the history geek in me smiles at the sight.  We should love the lovable parts of our past.

Still, nice job Cracked.  It almost makes up for this.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; please send any tips here.]

Well, he lost again.  The Federal Court has dismissed his case entirely.  You can read the decision, here.  The short version is that the Federal Courts are not willing to accuse the state courts of judicial activism without pretty clear evidence.  Whatever you think of that, this is not unexpected from an institutional standpoint.

Miller might keep on fighting and I will keep half an eye open watching this.  But speaking for myself, I think this story is done and unless there is something big and surprising, I’m not going to post on it anymore.

As for Miller, I think it really is time to contemplate throwing in the towel.  I am not saying you are wrong, just that it looks increasingly like you have little chance of success.  You fought the good fight and if only because I hate nepotism, I was pulling for you.   But I think it’s time to give up.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing]

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; please send any tips here.]

Update (IV): For the opposite extreme, we get this story of a woman who saved a dog from drowning and then… gave it mouth to mouth.

Dude.

Update (III): Well, I can’t say this was not predictable. Apparently everyone who thinks Vick shouldn’t have a dog is a racist, or so Earl Ofari Hutchinson claims.

The real racists are the people who think we should excuse or minimize a person’s behavior because they are black. And it does no one any good, least of all the “beneficiaries” of this soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

Update: See below to hear from one of the people who took in one of Vick’s dogs.

Update (II): In this clip Tucker Carlson calls for the death penalty for what Vick did. Which I think is a bit much, but I suspect a lot of people who love dogs would agree.

We now pick up where the post originally started:

Here is Megyn Kelly debating with two people about Obama’s praising the way the Eagles gave Vick a second chance:

So her point is basically that what he did was so vile he doesn’t deserve this kind of presidential pat-on-the-back.  And the NAACP guy’s argument is that at some point the punishment should end and we should let him rejoin society.  I admit to being of two minds on the issue myself.  But I am pretty clear that this is idiotic:

When the CEO of a “Humane Society” says convicted dog-fighting kingpin Michael Vick “would do a good job as pet owner,” it should raise more red flags than a Chinese parade. That’s just what happened two weeks ago as Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), endorsed Vick’s future as a dog owner.

Of course that was in response to Vick himself saying:

“I would love to get another dog in the future. I think it would be a big step for me in the rehabilitation process,” Vick said[.]…

“I think just to have a pet in my household and to show people that I genuinely care, and my love and my passion for animals; I think it would be outstanding,” Vick said in the interview. “If I ever have the opportunity again I will never take it for granted.

“I miss having a dog right now. I wish I could. My daughters miss having one, and that’s the hardest thing: Telling them that we can’t have one because of my actions,” Vick said in the interview.

Yeah and in related news, Roman Polanski thinks he should be allowed to shoot a movie about a school full of thirteen-to-fourteen-year-old girls who run around in various stages of undress, with the working title of Roman Holiday.

Meanwhile we get a voice of reason coming from…  um…  PETA.  Yes, this whole thing is so off-the-rails that PETA is coming off as reasonable:

(more…)

Obama decried Bush’s signing statements, and badly wishes he could somehow limit them:

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised that would end if he won. “We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress,” he said. (He has since issued dozens of such statements, but also signaled a desire to limit them.)

I have a great way for Obama to signal a desire to end signing statements: stop issuing signing statements.

Except he has apparently discovered the useful (and indeed necessary) nature of yet another reviled George W. Bush practice.

Criticizing is easy. Governing is hard.

P.S.  Even PolitiFact admits that Obama has broken his promise to wait five days to sign bills.  Apparently there is a way to get him to fulfill that promise on occasion: namely, to send him a bill that he can sign in a nice ceremony to get some good PR:

However, five days after Congress left town, a batch of bills it passed have yet to make it to the White House. They include the defense authorization bill, a food-safety reform measure, and a bill aimed at increasing U.S. competitiveness in science and technology fields, the America COMPETES Act. (See update below)

It’s possible some of those measures have been deliberately slowed in being sent to the president so that he has time to stage a signing ceremony next week.

Promises kept when they are convenient — what could be more admirable than that?