Thursday, January 17, 2008

Megan knows politics

after all, she's been fighting the same pointless battles against such incredibly relevant topics as political correctness for over 15 years now. She has strong opinions on the Iran/Contra thing, too.
Let's start with Megan's liveblogging of the most recent Democratic debate.

My ears hurt: As a racially enlightened left libertarian, Megan is appalled by the sorts of questions Obama is facing. She'd much rather someone ask him if he can score them some coke, or why blacks are lazy. (That's my uncharitable but not inaccurate summary of Megan's position, not my own. We only hate wimmin here at FMM.) N btw, patting yourself on the back for being racially enlightened is in itself a very questionable act. Minorities are not infants, and they don't need others to defend them or make their case for them. Especially not you, Megan.

Liveblogging the debate: Alternative Energy, Part II:

Ideally, we should understand what the economic cost of carbon emissions is, and use a carbon tax to raise the price until it includes the cost of that negative externality. If, once we have raised the cost of carbon to the price of the utility + the negative utility, and people still continue consuming carbon-intensive goods, then that is telling us something important about the value of that added carbon-intensive economic activity.

This is, needless to say, not a popular view with environmentalists who place a value on (other peoples') extra carbon-intensive economic activity of zero, or less than zero.
Gotta love that poke at environmentalists, eh? Gore's mansion uses lots of electricity, too! Hawhaw, stupid libruls who haven't created an entire alternative energy superstructure to free themselves from the all-encompassing system they recognize is tremendously harmful.
And a question for Megan; how exactly are we to calculate the costs to our children and later generations of the damage we're doing now?

Say what?:
I'm on record as thinking that Hillary is the only person who can lose this race for the Democrats.

And if Hillary is the nominee, Mitt is the only person who is nearly guaranteed to lose this race for the Republicans. He's the H2 of the Republican camp.

What goes through the mind of primary voters? Can someone 'splain me, please? Using small words and lots of pictures?
That's the entire post. Megan is very puzzled that primary voters in various states aren't voting according to her opinions. I guess they must all be reactionaries, voting to irk Repubs, and Megan. And there's no projection involved in that equation, such as, say, the flaws in Megan's own reactionary stance against everything Hillary being displaced onto a large body of disparate primary voters who, I think it's safe to say, aren't casting their votes with Rush Limbaugh's reaction in mind.

In it to win it
I understand that primary voters may be supporting Hillary and Mitt Romney for entirely non-strategic reasons; that they simply think theirs is the best candidate for the job.
That, folks, is fucking brilliant insight into the electoral process, right there. It'd be even more compelling if Megan didn't constantly contradict it.
But she still doesn't understand why Democratic primary voters don't let the rabid right wing determine their votes for them.
Despite the chirpy news stories about long-time Republicans changing their party affiliation, Democrats will probably win the 2008 election for two reasons: disgusted independents voting Democratic, and Republicans staying home in despair. But independents don't like Hillary, which is why she does the worst of the major Democratic candidates in head-to-head polling. And Republicans almost all hate her. Put her up and the Republicans don't need to bother with a turnout operation; their voters would pull themselves to the polling place with their tongues if that's what was necessary to cast a ballot against That Woman. Given how little daylight there is between the Democratic candidates on policy matters, I find it hard to understand why you would vote to nominate the candidate with a strong chance of losing the general election.
Maybe, Megan, because her husband's admin is remembered quite fondly among the Dem base, and her voters don't agree with your biased by personal antipathy view of Hillary's chances?

Still plenty to get to, and more to come today.

No comments: