December 19, 2010
I need to do some year-end type features for this blog, like Althouse's Biggest Flip-Flop.
I'm surprise to even see that I wrote this. Man, nobody called me on that, back when I was a big 1-issue voter in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race. Looking at the comments over on that first post, I'm thinking maybe you guys flipped me!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Feingold?
"Feingold?"
Althouse is not supportive enough of free speech to ever come out against Russ Feingold - America's number one enemy of free speech.
Free speech seemed like one of Althouse's core beliefs - until she met Feingold in person.
So much for that. Blinded by his glitterati she was.
If you want to get Althouse on your side of the aisle, you merely have to wine and dine her and make her feel like she is important. Mention her in the well of the Senate. Or quote her in your NY Times op-ed.
That's all that's required to win her over.
Uh... click on the links. And look up the word "gubernatorial."
Don't forget to include a shameless plug.
Ann keeps falling in and out over The Zero. We've yet to see the final position there.
I'm fully aware the Feingold ran for Senator. But you implicitly asked what was your biggest flip-flop and I simply responded as a long time reader of the blog.
You're saying I flip-flopped on Feingold this year? Not seeing it.
"Ann keeps falling in and out over The Zero. We've yet to see the final position there."
So that can't be "biggest flip-flop."
It's more like oscillation.
I thought I recalled reading that you changed your mind and voted against Feingold. If you didn't, then I'm wrong and stand corrected.
Well, we can say you're working on it.
I thought you were being sarcastic. After all, . . . EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS?!?!
Or maybe you thought the project was shovel-ready.
@The Elder. No. Meade read that out loud to me last night, and I was all "Who wrote *that*?" It was really weird!
Althouse continues to grow which I think would happen to more liberals if they where open-minded.
That's okay, Walker flip-flopped on the rail issue too. He was once for it. Oh well. It all worked out great. Wisconsinites get to pay other states to take their tax dollars, and the rail line will be built around Wisconsin. Win-win!
@garage But that's the point. You can see it in my January post: The government is handing out billions... You can either say no to the whole thing or look to see how to get yours. Which do you choose? The govt's game is to put so much money up for grabs that everyone decides to be a grabber. There's too much to lose by trying to get a "no" movement going. And yet the Tea Party worked. That was one of the most amazing political things I've seen in my life. I originally thought it was embarrassingly dumb.
Gee, based on the prior thread....maybee you might not want to talk about the biggest flop out. Just sayn'
"I need to do some year-end type features for this blog, like Althouse's Biggest Flip-Flop."
How many of the men here were hoping this somehow involved a trampoline?
Hot chicks on trampoline.
@AA
Tea party ideology doesn't necessarily make for good policy or elevate the state. It would be one thing if Walker took his stand on principle, but it certainly was not principled. He was for the rail line at one time, but he had to separate himself from his primary challenger with hard right wing street cred. He boxed himself and Wisconsin had to pay for it. So dumb. All of it.
One can Oscillate until the picture becomes clear before taking a firm position.Then some people will call you a dumb blonde, but no one that I like is perfect.
How tragic for Wisconsinites that they won't get garage's 59 mph choo-choo. Not sure how they'll be able to get around with only cars, buses and airplanes to choose from.
Maguro
You must be really bad with money. Like Scott Walker.
garage mahal said...
Tea party ideology doesn't necessarily make for good policy or elevate the state.
It makes for good policy precisely because it does not elevate the state.
It would be one thing if Walker took his stand on principle, but it certainly was not principled.
As Milton Friedman said:
“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office."
Not yours, but a pretty big flip-flop.
"Hot chicks on trampoline."
I see what you did there, EDH.
Thoughts on the Rail Debate.
1. People consider engineering boring. So boring that they don't care about actual plans. Of course, that's true of lots of technical fields.
2. It's beyond foolish to sell a transportation project as a jobs project. The primary goal of a transportation project is to move goods and people efficiently and if you're incapable of making that case, it's no wonder that people are suspicious.
3. When you take a hardline, no compromise position, you better be sure of the endgame. You don't want to see all the funds distributed elsewhere and be on the hook for $19 million in ADA upgrades, millions for a maintenance base, the cost for crossing upgrades, about $30 million for freight upgrades, etc. AND paying for high speed rail capital costs in other states. That kind of defeats the purpose of saving taxpayers money.
See http://dailyreporter.com/blog/2010/12/17/departing-rail-money-puts-freight-line-in-a-pinch/ for instance.
Post a Comment