Posts tagged ‘Politics’

July 5, 2013

US Parents Are Loath to Raise Future Politicians

by thoughtfulconservative

This is one of those polls that drives me crazy.

Mommas don’t want their babies to grow up to be politicians, a new poll finds.

U.S. parents who are pretty down on Washington and don’t want their kids anywhere near the political world.

A new Gallup poll finds that only 31 percent of Americans want their son or daughter to go into politics.

via US Parents Are Loath to Raise Future Politicians – ABC News.

Besides the non-sentence paragraph in the middle (doesn’t anyone proof-read anymore?), it starts with promise. Maybe there’s something to this. But then,

As it turns out, Americans have never really loved the idea of raising future politicians. Fewer than 30 percent of Americans have said they want their son to go into politics since the 1960s.

Sigh. So there’s no news here. It’s basically the same as it’s always been.

It kinda makes one wonder about the breathless quality of the headline.

But maybe that’s my imagination…

Nah…

Advertisements
January 5, 2013

Ninety-eighth Wisconsin assembly district special election web sites

by thoughtfulconservative

Here are the people running for the 98th assembly district seat with their web sites:

First the Democrat Eric Prudent:  Eric Prudent for District 98.

Then the Republicans:

Ed Baumann

Todd Greenwald For Wisconsin State Assembly

Matt Morzy for State Assembly

Adam Neylon

Taxpayers For Tarantino

Patch has done a short story focusing on Baumann and a look at the rest of the candidates and Blogging Blue has written supporting Prudent.

Here’s a map of the district (PDF file). I’m close to being in it but I’m just outside still in the 97th. And here’s where you can find out if you live in the district.

The primary is February 19 and the election coincides with the Spring Elections on April 2.

It’s a highly Republican district that the Republican nominee should win.

November 21, 2012

Lincoln – movie review

by thoughtfulconservative

Lincoln” is not a bio-pic  in the sense that the movie does not follow Lincoln through his life, or even his term as president. It could have easily been name “The Story of the 13th Amendment.”

Yeah, I know. Not as exciting. And again, not completely accurate. The film takes in more than the acts that led to the adoption of that critical amendment.

I admit, when I heard the film was a Stephen Spielberg creation, I was a bit skeptical. But from the credits, the film was based on the book by Doris Kearns GoodwinTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (on my list, but not yet read).

“Lincoln” covers his last four months in office. The Civil War is winding down, although the South is still resisting, the war is still taking thousands of lives.

The first thing I wondered was when did Daniel Day-Lewis get so tall? For some reason it continued to nag me throughout the film.

But Day-Lewis was brilliant in the role of Lincoln. I felt I was watching Lincoln. I don’t want to take anything away from the supporting actors; they were excellent in their roles.  And a lot of familiar faces, Sally Field, of course, David Strathairn, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, Tommy Lee Jones, Gregory Itzin, Jackie Earle Haley, Bruce McGill, Tim Blake Nelson, too many to name.

But the film belongs to Day-Lewis. I felt as though I were actually watching Lincoln.

The movie does not paint Lincoln in the noble light that many who are only faintly acquainted with him see him. He is a politician, as any one who has ever risen to the highest office must have been, save, perhaps, Washington.

He used every trick in the book to get the Thirteenth Amendment through the House, ending, according to the movie, by being anything but “Honest Abe.”

The great lesson from the movie is that democracy (or a republic, if you will) is messy and not always a pretty sight.

It’s just a shame it took all those years and hundreds of thousands of lives to just say that all people were equal.

It is highly recommended.

Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
June 16, 2011

This is the price of apathy?

by thoughtfulconservative

I usually don’t take on Community Columnists at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I was one once. But the one in Thursday’s paper is useful for a point, because it reflects what I see in liberal thought toward conservatives.

The 2010 election saw a full 50% of the electorate sit on their hands and do nothing. Among those who did vote, one has to wonder just how much effort was put into understanding the issues, the proposed solutions and the historical performance of the candidates.

via This is the price of apathy – JSOnline.

I’ve written about apathy before, even as a member of the Community Columnists. However, Mr. Bell is not really writing about apathy.

The Republicans got elected promising jobs and have pulled a fast one on all of us. Behind the foible of “budget,” they used the issue to drive home every bit of longed for right-wing goodies – and now, some who voted for them feel duped.

Yes, this is another screed about those no good Republicans.

What was that whole brown bag lunch that the liberals liked to ridicule so much, all about anyway?

That’s right. The budget.

How soon they forget.

But that seems to be the liberal tactic, that somehow the Republicans pulled a bait and switch on the people of Wisconsin.

“Jobs was what the Republicans promised.”

Well, yeah and the brown bag lunch. Living within your means.

Hmmm, I wonder if Mr. Bell was truly “duped?” Because the article sure didn’t give the feel of one who had been duped.

So who’s doing the duping?

As usual, what it comes down to is that the GOP lied and stupid people voted for them.

Same ol’ same ol’.

June 14, 2011

Claiming persistent bias, Democratic Party to stop taking PolitiFact’s calls.

by thoughtfulconservative

Accusing the Journal Sentinel’s continuing feature PolitiFact of persistent bias, leaders of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin say they will no longer respond to inquiries from the fact-checking operation’s reporters.

The party leadership acted after a series of PolitiFact stories they considered unfair, as well as an overall assessment that in its judgments about what to cover as well as its assessments of truth and falsity, “it just seems consistently weighted to one side,” [DPW communications director Graeme] Zielinski says.

via Inside Milwaukee – Dine, Shop, Entertainment and more.

I’m well-acquainted with the Right’s suspicion of PolitiFact, having originated with the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald, both well-known left-leaning newspapers in Florida. The Right is also suspicious of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of it’s left-leaning tendencies.

I’m also aware of the left side of the Cheddarsphere’s frustration with the Journal Sentinel which they lump together in one big lump with WTMJ 620 and WTMJ 4 under the Journal Communications, Inc. parent company. They believe the organization is right-leaning based on the WTMJ 620 talkers, Patrick McIlheran and others. I believe they also uncovered one of the Board of Directors contributing to a Republican candidate, bu I can’t put my hand on the link right now.

PolitiFact responded.

In a statement today, the Journal Sentinel editor in charge of PolitiFact, Greg Borowski, stood by the impartiality of the feature.

“At PolitiFact Wisconsin, our mission is to serve our readers by examining political statements to determine their accuracy — but also to identify where those statements are inflated, misleading or simply wrong. We do this by turning to outside sources to provide context to the issue, as well as by clearly stating how we came to the conclusion we did and what sources and reasoning we used to get there,” Borowski said.

Both left and right have had their problems with PolitiFact. One source of contention is the “Truth-o-meter” which does often seem pretty subjective. Other popular fact-checkers don’t have anything comparable, to my knowledge. As the author of the article writes,

Even so, PolitiFact’s critics have a point, but it’s a bit more complicated than partisan bias. The larger problem remains in its simplistic rating system and especially the incendiary “Pants on Fire” category, which doesn’t appear to be consistently applied.

He also notes,

Here [in wisconsin] the criticism has been most vocal among political activists on the left.

I not sure why that is. I sure my friends on the right think they’re biased, too; they just don’t seem to write about it.If they are some links to right-leaning posts, I would be glad to share them here.

By contrast, the national PolitiFact operation appears to get more criticism from conservatives.

Zielinski, who once worked for the Journal Sentinel, went on to say,

“We will deal with the Journal Sentinel. We have to,” he says. “It’s the largest newspaper in the state. We have good relationships with many of their reporters.”

But PolitiFact, he says, “is an instrument that we don’t think profits us anything, because we believe we’ve worked in good faith with them and not seen fair results.”

The writer of the article then states,

On the one hand, a casual examination of how party affiliation lines up with ratings from True to Pants-on-Fire makes doesn’t make an obvious case of bias for or against either side of the political spectrum. (You can see for yourself; if you disagree, feel free to comment below.)  Did you know, for instance, that 17 of Gov. Scott Walker’s 27 statements to be rated so far have been labeled as “Barely True,” “False,” or (in one instance) “Pants on Fire”? That seems difficult to square with a claim of consistent bias against Democrats.

No doubt the comment section will fill fast.

He sums up,

Perhaps the single biggest improvement in PolitiFact would be if there was just a little less of it, with topics more carefully chosen.

That might be something to shoot for. We don’t need a daily truth detector; and we don’t expect it to be perfect.

And, please, get rid of the “truth-o-meter.”

 

June 13, 2011

In which I give my thoughts on this whole #wiunion thing

by thoughtfulconservative

Probably no one will be completely happy with this post. That’s OK.

There’s been a great political division in Wisconsin since Gov. Scott Walker announced plans to do away with collective bargaining for state employees. Most of my readers are well acquainted with what’s been going on in protests, court cases and legislative shenanigans.

On the whole I agree with Walker’s budget (and other) plans including some of the things that the union’s are protesting so vigorously. But I also disagree with some of the things the GOP is trying to accomplish.

I used to be radically anti-union. My father died during a strike at the place he worked. No doubt the stress of not working was part, part not all, of the trigger. He also smoked and was slightly overweight which were probably the main causes.

But in seeing the way some, some, not all, employers work, and the government is an employer in this situation, I find that I cannot be totally anti-union. Unions do good work for workers. Safety, wages, etc., are the result of union advocacy. And in spite of what you’ve heard, employers are not really looking out for the best interests of their employees.

But I do think that benefits should not be part of a collective bargaining arrangement. Oh, I know why it’s happened; benefits are a way to “sweeten the pot,” to help make a bargaining agreement palatable.

And I think one should have an option about whether to join a union or not. Yeah, I know that unions are why the wage benefit package is available to an employee; I guess I just don’t like the idea of being forced to do something. That should provide fodder for discussion.

I realize my poor little blog is going to have much influence on the public debate long since enjoined. But I do wish Walker and the GOP had done things a little bit differently.

Oh, and “union thugs” or other derogatory terms will not make it into my writings on the subject.

Well, I guess that’s it for now. Unless something else comes up…