MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Heckuva job, Brownie.
This fairly long, it's-not-my-fault piece is worth reading if you're open to a highly debatable argument. And, perhaps, especially if you're not.
Comments
In an odd turn of events, Brown is featured in a new video from the Jeb Bush campaign that touts Jeb's(!) great record of hurricane response in Florida.
Maybe not the best idea.
by barefooted on Thu, 08/27/2015 - 10:12pm
Brownie whining on 10 years on his own whining excuse: I would need to suspend posse comitatus and violate the Constitution. Blame Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Or blame Obama.
And I recall two college student from Virginia who were in the Katrina news, they saw the people in the stadium asking for water/food, and the college students loaded up an old car drove from VA to NO and distributed it before the Bush Feds and FEMA even showed up.
Before Bush and Co. even digested McCain's cake at the big McCain 69th birthday bash in Arizona the exact day Katrina swamped NO and turned hundreds of residents into MREs for alligators.
by NCD on Thu, 08/27/2015 - 10:53pm
I'd guess to be objective, it's worth considering what Brown has to say - e.g. in retrospect, how competent do we really think Ray Nagin was? Additionally, the way the press plays ball, it's doubtful that they're out looking for true stories, whether favoring Rep or Dem - they're looking for some click-bait or back then channel grabbing angle, objective or not.
More interesting for me is another story in Politico, assessing the fate of the Democratic Party over the last 6 years & the coming 6. Blame who you will, it looks dismal.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 3:51am
The article ends with given the demographic headwinds, the Democrats have a shot at retaking the Senate. They may win Marco Rubio's seat, for example. Republicans made gains in the states fueled by fears of a black President. Whites attracted to the GOP want the 1950s back. Donald Trump taps into this feeling. The article concludes that Democrats will have to work hard to win back state legislatures. Wow, Democrats won't magically win seats? Eye-opening article? Not really. There is nothing there that people working at ground level don't already know.
Trump growls about anchor babies. "Moderate" Jeb Bush chimes in. Latinos and Asians are listening. Ben Carson alienates blacks from the GOP with commentary about Black Lives Matter that confirm that while soothing to white Republicans, proves that he is out of out with the black community. Rand Paul, the guy the media says is doing outreach to the black community offers advice on a better name for Black Lives Matter.
The Democrats have the edge on the Presidency. They have to go grass roots big time to win statewide elections. The GOP has a message that only appeals to a shrinking white demographic. I'll take the Democratic Party's changes over those of the GOP.
Jeff Greenfield gets paid to speculate. That doesn't mean that his predictions are worth the paper they are written on
http://news.yahoo.com/why-hurricane-sandy-might-cost-obama-the-popular-v...
Edit to add:
Most pundit predictions are no better than or worse than a coin flip
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/pundits-as-accurate-as-coin-toss-acco...
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 8:37am
These aren't predictions - they're the current shitty state of Democrats in state legislatures and governorships. There are few Democratic farm clubs. & yet our focus is 2 seats on the Supreme Court. Fell a few big trees & miss all the sprouts and weeds - loverly. And no offense to seniors, but having the Democratic contenders all eligible for Social Security? Shocking.
PS - re Hurricane Sandy, the Economist & ABC made similar predictions, and Greenfield devoted a paragraph to how speculative this all was. In this case, a) Obama's team handled things well where there was a lot of room to flub, b) cooperation with Chris Christie cut Romney's edge while Romney couldn't campaign or be on-air for 3 critical days due to weather, c) Romney's position on FEMA came back to bite him, and d) unlike 2004, 2012 provided more focus on climate change, a win for Obama, e) AFAIK it didn't seem to affect voting rates that badly (including early voting) or change the outcome if it did. And where relief payments *were* bungled for about half the recipients, this came far after the election, so no effect on the 2012 ballot.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 9:37am
The two seats on SCOTUS are VERY important. Gerrymandering decisions impact voting patterns. How SCOTUS decides these cases is me of multiple critical issues. Voting suppression decisions are also important and tend to fall along partisan lines.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 9:34am
31 governors' houses & 30 completely controlled state legislatures are also very important - likely much more important for the day-to-day of our existence, and they can frequently override Supreme Court rulings on issues, in practice if not legally, and the Supreme Court only decides about 100 cases a year - far far less than the number of pieces of legislation.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 9:48am
Gerrymandering impacted some of those results.
Democrats do have to work at the state level.
Gerrymandering makes the local GOP more rigid possibly alienating Independents.
Independents form a window of opportunity for Democrats.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 10:10am
Here is a review of how mathematicians looked at the impact of gerrymandering on North Carolina. Democrats cast more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won more seats. Gerrymandering caused that result.
http://m.slashdot.org/story/210395
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 08/28/2015 - 11:25am