48 thoughts on “My Man/Person of the Year.

  1. PM says:

    given the recent activity during the lame duck session, why not Harry Reid?

    Frankly, I think that Reid was more successful over the course of the year than McConnell.

    1. Look, in spite of McConnell et al, Obama (and Reid) have achieved very substantive results. The two things that speak “well” for McConnell as “Person of the Year” is how he diluted major legislation — health and financial reform in particular, to suit his constituency (which is NOT the rednecks of Kentucky) — and that Obama’s legislative successes withstanding conventional wisdom, among the conventionally informed, is that Obama has done little or nothing, and at worst as driven the debt through the roof and brought “Bigger Government” into every aspect of private life. If you doubt that, you missed the November election.

      1. PM says:

        I like your point about his constituency.

        Why is it that he (and others) are so eager to abandon the rednecks of Kentucky (and Georgia and Alabama and….) for the embrace of the bankers and wall streeters and wealthiest of America? Is it just because the pay is better?

      2. There’s a movie in the works, “College Republicans” based on the early years of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. Thomas Frank covered a lot of it in his book, “The Wrecking Crew”. It is practically a statutory requirement for Republican politicians to game the chumps, talking their talk and promising them anything … to gain electoral support to serve the infinitely wealthier interests. The Democrats play the same game, but very badly.

  2. Joe Loveland says:

    You’re right that McConnell made it very, very hard. And watching it all made me think the country needs cloture reform even more than we need $900 billion tax cuts for billionaires. But at the end of the day, Obama largely beat McConnell on:

    The largest stimulus package since the New Deal (which contained dozens of things McConnell vigorously opposed)
    The most significant health reform bill since Medicare
    The most sweeping bank reforms since the New Deal
    The most significant credit card reform legislation ever
    Banned sexual orientation discrimination in the armed forces
    The largest nuclear weapon reduction treaty in years
    And lots more

    McConnell mitigated those losses with cloture abuse, but they’re still pretty darn big losses. McConnell got him some tax cuts for the wealthy and lots of air time, but he lost an awful lot too.

    1. Joe: I’m agreeing on the basic argument, but we’re talking politics and political narrative here. McConnell’s carried the election and continues to out-punch Obama’s.

      1. Joe Loveland says:

        I agree with you on that, Brian. Obama is getting outspun.

        Is it because:

        1) Obama is not hard wired to spin wonky policy issues (i.e. only can spin politics on campaign trail);

        2) Obama is afraid he can’t win bipartisan support if he is too aggressive and pointed with the bully pulpit; or

        3) the bully pulpit just isn’t the huge advantage it used to be, because the right wing has such outstanding message delivery channels with which to drown him out?

  3. Newt says:

    Looking forward to the next PrideFest parade at Camp Lejeune. Should be a real boost to our nation’s defense.

    1. Ah, homophobia to boot. Why am I not surprised? In my experience, a squirrely fear of homosexuals is the second issue after every standard complaint about “Big government” “taxes” and “Socialism”. Why is that? Or should I just continue playing amateur psychologist?

      1. Newt says:

        I wouldn’t answer my question either if I were on your side of the argument.

        I’m not interested in how many Marines are gay or straight. I’m interested in knowing how many are capable of kicking ass as a cohesive fighting force.

        Sexual preference, or favorite foods, or musical tastes aren’t qualifications for military service. They are incidental, irrelevant and distractions to the job of killing enemies and breaking shit.

        In the la la world of liberalism, sexual expression is why the military exists.

      2. Joe Loveland says:

        Re: “How is pronouncement of one’s sexual preference relevant to national defense?”

        Ok, I’ll take the bait.

        1) The code of HONOR is said to be the backbone of the armed forces, the thing that keeps it strong. I can’t imagine anything more dishonorable than requiring lying as a matter of policy . Therefore, this DADT policy that requires dishonorable behavior weakens the armed forces.

        2) Limiting the pool of people available to defend the nation by roughly 10% obviously limits the quality of our national defense personnel. The smaller the talent pool, the weaker the quality of our national defense.

      3. Newt says:

        (1) DADT has nothing to do with “lying.” And you know it. Look up the definition.

        (2) The military already enlists soldiers who happen to be gay. These gays enlisted knowing beforehand what the requirements were.

        (3) Thanks to Obamanomics the military has no shortage of qualified applicants.

        (4) The oft-cited Pentagon survey that everyone is so fond of also indicates that 45% of soldiers feel repeal of DADT will be disruptive and harmful. Not exactly a recipe for cohesion and, oh yeah, national defense.

        (5) The military has a unique and singular purpose – national defense. It’s not a playground or incubator for social exploration.

    1. PM says:

      Oh, give me a break, Mike–this “war on Christmas” stuff is simply an excuse for some to wallow in victimhood. What, are we supposed to talk about the poor persecuted American christians? (don’t get me wrong–I really don’t care if people talk about Christmas break versus Winter break–but i don’t care about it either way, and I don’t care if some people try to be careful about what they say for fear of offending some others. But I think that it is incredibly stupid for people like Beck and O’Reilly and any one else to complain about this as if Christians and Christmas was in some was suffering or persecuted because some people prefer to use non-Christian specific terminology. Shit, Christians are so dominant in this country that it is silly for them to try to assume the mantle of victimhood! What a crock!) (oh, and if i misinterpreted what you were trying to say, I’m sorry.)

      On the other hand, i absolutely agree with you about DADT. I’m glad that one is settled now.

      1. Mike Kennedy says:

        Who said anything about “war on Christmas?” Avoiding saying the word because you might offend someone is idiotic. Plain and simple.

        If someone invites you to a Christmas party, call it what it is. Come on, PM. Christians assuming the mantle of victimhood? Precisely by doing moronic shit like Totenberg does, you are creating victimhood. Again, if she is invited to a Ramadan celebration, I’m sure she would have had no problem saying it.

        Let’s grow some Holiday Balls and quite talking like we are stepping in a fucking mine field every time we talk.

      2. Mike Kennedy says:

        Sorry it should have said “quit talking like we are stepping in a fucking mine field every time we talk.”

      3. PM says:

        Avoiding words because they might offend someone is what is usually known as being polite.

        I am certain that you, in your professional life, do not tell your clients who invested with, say, Tom Petters over your objections that they are fucking idiots (even though they might well be). That is not only being polite but being self interested, and smart.

        Needlessly offending other people is stupid, boorish, mean….I am certain that your mother explained all of this to you at some point in your life.

        And, if you are offended because someone won’t say “Christmas” when you expect to hear it, then repeat after me “Sticks and stones may…..” (surely you know the rest).

        And stop getting your undies all in a knot, and enjoy the festive season instead! When you start getting all exercised about what people are calling it (or not calling it), you clearly need more eggnog!

      4. Mike Kennedy says:

        Oh, I’m enjoying it, all right — too many parties and too much to eat and drink.

        I normally agree with you. However, the fucking idiot comparison is hardly equal to calling a known, named holiday what it is.

        Personally, PM, I’m not offended. She simply looks like an idiot to most people, and that’s my point.

        (It wasn’t eggnog but a mix of beer and red wine last night, and I certainly didn’t need any more than the several I had).

  4. john sherman says:

    I think Harry Reid was the genius by telling the Republicans that they couldn’t go home and suck up to campaign contributors until they did something; see Dana Millbanks latest on the Petulant Party.

    Mitch McConnell actual legacy maybe in uniting all senate Democrats in favor of filibuster reform and creating the situation wherein the question, “What kind of an asshole would oppose 9/11 responders health care, the START treaty, food safety, etc.? ” The answer is “a Republican.”

    1. The part I loved, as Jon Stewart pointed out in his 9/11 show last week, was how the networks — who were at least as shameless as Rudy Giuliani in wrapping themselves with the “heroism” of the rescue workers — made NO MENTION of the bill and its (Republican) problems fore MONTHS. Do you think that it might have something to do with avoiding conflicts with the new majority?

  5. Mike Kennedy says:


    Which one most closely approximates Nina Totenberg — the one the left or the one on the right.

    1. Mike Kennedy says:

      Isn’t it. I laugh as hard every time I see it. It’s starting to concern me. How they all held it together is simply amazing.

  6. PM says:

    I haven’t read any reviews. Tried it last year, and liked it, so picked it up again recently, when I saw that it was back in the stores (they only make it seasonally, so probably only around for a month or 2).

    it is a lot like Furious, but lighter–and still just as hoppy. intense floral nose, slightly bitter.

  7. bertram jr says:

    Bri- You do realize that the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell, (we already KNOW)” is not about gays serving in the military, right?

    It’s just another step on the slippery slope to “normalize” gay sex, just like the “gay marriage” issue.

    When I was fighting at El Alamin, I sure wouldn’t have wanted to deal with gay lovers crying about each other getting mowed down by the Huns.

    You see, this retarded move by the pro-gay sex lobby weakens our military. Which is certainly a big part of Barry’s “agenda”.

    I liken it to the fact that trans-gender “ladies” are accepted now at the LPGA and NCAA, but that Brett Favre is some kind of a criminal for sexting a hot chick.

    What’s up is down, and what’s wrong is right.

    It is ever thus in lib-land.

    1. Ellen Mrja says:

      Hi, bertram. Question: When you were fighting at El Alamin, were there any gays fighting alongside of you and, presumably, defending your life?

      1. Jim Leinfelder says:

        “Bertram’s” a lifelong civilian. No ROTC. No military high school. Never served. He sees a lot of movies, though.

  8. bertram jr says:

    The gay sex act that you all seem so pleased with spreads horrible, awful dieases, and is rather clearly referenced in the Bible, not to mention how the Muslims generally react to it.

    Gay lovers will not fare well in combat missions together, and therefore threaten our security.

    And what Newt says.

    I don’t think this is anything but the majority opinion on such things.

    Now, what about this shit hole economy?

    1. john sherman says:

      I assume you’re talking about HIV. What do you make of the fact that the HIV rate among lesbians is lower than that among heterosexuals of both sexes?

Comments are closed.