PoliticsView from the Center and Left

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: epicure who wrote (182521)2/15/2012 10:31:28 AM
From: Wharf Rat
of 369934
Here's another, with lots of links

De Nile isn't just a river and a state of mind; it's an industry, too.

Here's your playbook for the next year.

Breaking news: A look behind the curtain of the Heartland Institute’s climate change spin
The Heartland Institute — a self-described "think tank" that actually serves in part as a way for climate change denialism to get funded — has a potentially embarrassing situation on their hands. Someone going by the handle "Heartland Insider" has anonymously released quite a few of what are claimed to be internal documents from Heartland, revealing the Institute’s strategies, funds, and much more.

These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.

One thing I want to point out right away which is very illuminating, if highly disturbing, about what Heartland allegedly wants to do: they are considering developing a curriculum for teachers to use in the classroom to sow confusion about climate change. I know, it sounds like I’m making that up, but I’m not. In this document they say:

[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

That seems clear enough, doesn’t it? From that, it sure sounds like they want to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I imagine there will be a lot of spin about how this quote is out of context, or a typo, or something alone those lines. Perhaps. But I remember all the hammering real scientists took when they used jargon in their emails to each other, jargon which was gleefully misinterpreted to make it seem as if these scientists were faking data. Interesting how this is pointing right back at them. Just as I said it does.

When it comes to all this, the comparison to "Climategate" springs to mind, but there’s one enormous difference: Climategate was manufactured, a made-up controversy (what I call a manufactroversy) that had no real teeth — as was its failed sequel. The emails released weren’t damning at all, and didn’t show scientists tinkering with or faking data. As much as the media made of it, as much as climate change denial blogs played them up, it has been shown again and again that Climategate was all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

These new documents, though, look different, especially given that quote above. The next few days should be very interesting as people start digging into them, especially if they prove to be authentic.

And how ironic! It was the Heartland Institute themselves who played up Climategate quite a bit. Back in 2009 when they were trumpeting Climategate, Heartland said:

The release of these documents creates an opportunity for reporters, academics, politicians, and others who relied on the IPCC to form their opinions about global warming to stop and reconsider their position. The experts they trusted and quoted in the past have been caught red-handed plotting to conceal data, hide temperature trends that contradict their predictions, and keep critics from appearing in peer-reviewed journals. This is new and real evidence that they should examine and then comment on publicly.

That claim from them is nonsense, but it will be interesting to see how happy they are when the tables are turned, and "reporters, academics, politicians, and others" look into their documents. And around that same time they also said:

For anyone who doubts the power of the Internet to shine light on darkness, the news of the month is how digital technology helped uncover a secretive group of scientists who suppressed data, froze others out of the debate, and flouted freedom-of-information laws.

Again, none of that is true. But that claim about freezing out others sticks out, especially in light of another of these leaked Heartland internal memos which says,

Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out.

Emphasis mine. Yes, that sounds like a group interested in promoting "sound science".

Wow. Just, wow.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Win Smith who wrote (182517)2/15/2012 10:38:17 AM
From: JohnM
of 369934
Thanks for posting the Nate Silver piece, Win. It's helpful but I think he's put his tradeoff cut a bit too low. The point at which he might lose significant votes with a "populist" strategy seems to me to be above $200k, not as low as $100k.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: epicure who wrote (182522)2/15/2012 10:43:12 AM
From: T L Comiskey
of 369934
never 'indulged....'
I remember the bush SCourt..

ruling it was ..'legal'..

maybe along the same grounds as the Native American Church
the bushies were not happy about that............

The Grand Old Man..

Socrates.....would smile......

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: JohnM2/15/2012 10:47:47 AM
of 369934
TPM Editor’s Blog
Mitt’s Brutal Calendar
Josh Marshall
February 14, 2012, 9:02 PM

Earlier this evening I noted this eye-popping graphic which shows that Mitt Romney’s net favorability rating has plummeted to -24%. I don’t think many political observers would disagree that someone that far under water public opinion-wise is just not going to be elected president. That’s not going to happen. The real question is how and when Romney starts to unwind the damage. And here’s where the primary calendar becomes critical.

There’s little doubt Romney can repair some of this damage. A small but significant amount is likely driven by intra-Republican opposition from the primary race itself. Santorum’s and Gingrich’s supporters aren’t crazy about Romney at the moment. And once Romney is the nominee a good bit of that animosity will soften.

But fundamentally Mitt Romney’s reputation has taken a terrible beating across the spectrum, especially with independent and loosely affiliated voters. (He’s actually hitting almost Gingrich levels of unpopularity. He’s at -24 and Newt’s at -36.9.)

So when does he start to repair the damage? Ideally, right now. But that’s the problem. Not only is the race not sewn up; the stitches seem to get looser by the day. Romney is now running behind Santorum nationwide and in the Mitt-critical state of Michigan.

Yesterday or today I heard someone on TV say that Super Tuesday is Romney’s last chance to take the nomination as the consensus candidate. Here ‘consensus candidate’ would mean that the party decides to rally around a ‘winner’ well before that person is anywhere near to mathematically clinching the nomination. The other alternative is to slug it out for months and take it by (electoral) brute force.

And this is where we come back to favorability ratings. I doubt there’s any way Romney really repairs the damage to his reputation and favorability before he gets the nomination fight behind him. There are two big factors working against him.

First, the intensity of the primary fight is forcing Romney to take increasingly hard right positions that are alienating independent voters. As much as it’s a cliche, he can’t effectively tack to the center until he’s got the primaries behind him.

Second, and a bit more intangibly, running around the country in a long twilight struggle with Rick Santorum is just … how to put it? inherently demeaning and diminishing. It’s like struggling to land a one pound fish or searching for the way out of a paper bag. People see you doing that and you just look weak and feckless, even pitiful.

So how long does this play out? If Romney can get Michigan in hand, win convincingly and then do the same on Super Tuesday it’s probably back to being over. He’ll still have his work cut out for him but by mid-March he can get back into general election mode.

But what if he doesn’t? The polls say it will be a challenge. And the deeper this gets into the Spring the closer you get to the point on the calendar where Romney simply won’t have enough time on the clock to undo the damage.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: JohnM who wrote (182526)2/15/2012 10:54:46 AM
From: JohnM
of 369934
Someone may have posted Jon Stewart's take on Rick Santorum's take on women in combat. But if not, here's a link to the video. Well done. Very well done.
Jon Stewart Ridicules Santorum’s ‘Concerns’ About Women In Combat

Jon Stewart
David Taintor
February 15, 2012, 9:41 AM

Jon Stewart on Tuesday congratulated women for their expanded combat role in the military. That’s right, ladies, you’ve earned it, he said. But not surprisingly, Rick Santorum — defender of traditional roles for women — has some “concerns.” His chief concern? Men who see women in harm’s way will do all they can to save a damsel in distress.

“It’s not the women Santorum’s concerned about,” Stewart said. “It’s the men, and how concerned they’ll be about the women.”

To explain, Stewart recreated the Navy SEALs’ raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Watch the video:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c Lady and the Troops
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: koan who wrote (182516)2/15/2012 11:04:31 AM
From: ChinuSFO
of 369934
The first victim of these ads will be Santorum. But if Romney end up being the nominee,, I expect him to be butchered by Obama's ads which is essence will say what Rove said about another NorthEasterner: "I was for it before I was against..." And imagine the ad ending with his now oft-repeated phrase "Severely conservative, Mitt Romney?"

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Suma who wrote (182457)2/15/2012 11:06:43 AM
From: T L Comiskey
of 369934
re... Santorum

"See my works, how fine they are.

Now all that I have created, I have created for your benefit.

Think upon this, ....
do not corrupt and destroy My world.

For if you destroy it, there is no one to restore it after you."

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:28

Im guessing..this means..

god the Almighty.
wont be there
to save our silly asses..
when needed......


Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: JohnM who wrote (182527)2/15/2012 11:09:13 AM
From: epicure
of 369934
that's really funny

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (182529)2/15/2012 11:12:45 AM
From: Wharf Rat
of 369934
"Im guessing..this means..

god the Almighty.
wont be there
to save our silly asses..
when needed......"

This is true, my son.
It'll all work out OK in another 500 million years or so, with another species at the top of the food chain.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: epicure who wrote (182530)2/15/2012 11:18:32 AM
From: JohnM
of 369934
I love to see Stewart do this. Much better than a serious debate on these issues.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.