Deny, Deny, Deny

In everybody's attempts to figure out what the fuck went wrong Wednesday night at the "debate", we seem to have overlooked important elements in the Repubs' tactical approach.

1. Mis-represent, mislead, mis-state (but be sure your surrogates are regularly hinting/claiming/screaming that your opponent is a fibber/liar/etc)
2. Be prepared to dance a little if somebody calls you on it (but knowing nobody's gonna call you on it, feel free to make it all up)
3. When the Lefty Scum point to very specific examples of the unicorn shit you've been spraying on the walls - Deny, Deny, Deny

Obama Now

My new favorite = "Horse-and-Sparrow Economics"

From Wikipedia:

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote, "Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'" Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[15]

In 1896, Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan made reference to trickle-down theory in his famous "Cross of Gold" speech:

There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.[16]

Proponents of Keynesian economics and related theories often criticize tax rate cuts for the wealthy as being "trickle down," arguing tax cuts directly targeting those with less income would be more economically stimulative. Keynesians generally argue for broad fiscal policiesthat are directed across the entire economy, not toward one specific group.

In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo."[17]

In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O'Connor has, in the Labour Party campaign launch video for the 2011 general election, called trickle-down economics "the rich pissing on the poor".

A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.[18]

(hat tip = Addicting Info)

Gettin' It Done - 30

One of the things that's working against Obama is that he's fallen from favor with some of the Big Industry players because he's been willing to take 'em on a bit (his reputation among the Lefties for always caving on everything notwithstanding).

Regulation is a very touchy subject in case you hadn't noticed, so if you can do anything that helps get some of the more toxic WIld Rangers of the Totally Unfettered Market to be a little more human-friendly, then you should get a coupla points for it.

30. Gave the FDA Power to Regulate Tobacco: Signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (2009). Nine years in the making and long resisted by the tobacco industry, the law mandates that tobacco manufacturers disclose all ingredients, obtain FDA approval for new tobacco products, and expand the size and prominence of cigarette warning labels, and bans the sale of misleadingly labeled “light” cigarette brands and tobacco sponsorship of entertainment events.

Today's Pix

Student Voting

Yes, ya bonehead.  Your vote counts.  You can rationalize all you want about how it's just a drop in the bucket, but try to remember the simple truth that even tho' it takes more time than you prob'ly think it should, drops have filled the oceans.

Make a grownup commitment, and then get up off your dead butt and go vote.

Gettin' It Done - 31

A 30% reduction in transport fuel consumption translates to saving $7 Billion/year just for the US Military.  Applied to the whole of the Government Facility, that 30% reduction saves enough money in one year to rebuild every elementary school in the US, and to keep Big Bird on the air for another 99 Gazillion fucking years.

31. Pushed Federal Agencies to Be Green Leaders: Issued executive order in 2009 requiring all federal agencies to make plans to soften their environmental impacts by 2020. Goals include 30 percent reduction in fleet gasoline use, 26 percent boost in water efficiency, and sustainability requirements for 95 percent of all federal contracts. Because federal government is the country’s single biggest purchaser of goods and services, likely to have ripple effects throughout the economy for years to come.

Pound sand, Willard.

Correction

In a post I put up yesterday, I ran with the erroneous assumption that Willard is actually the cheatin' douche nozzle that he seems to be.

Right here and right now, I wanna set the record straight - Willard has been, is, and apparently will always remain a lyin' sack o' shit, but of all the examples of Willard being a cheatin' douche nozzle, I chose the wrong one to illustrate what a cheatin' douche nozzle Willard is.   So - he wasn't a cheatin' douche nozzle on that one particular occasion.  He was a lyin' sack o' shit, but not a cheatin' nozzle while on stage for 90 minutes Wednesday night.  I stand corrected.  Sorry for my error.

Smart People

...talking about stuff that matters.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Backfire Effect

Posted by sofa king at Democratic Underground today:
(and pasted into this post in its all-together cuz it's awesome)

"But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the effect, 'pseudo-certainty.' I call it, 'being a fucking moron.'" --Al Franken

The use of cognitive bias against the public can probably be traced back to the United States' foundation. Consider, for example, the rapier-like tact Americans used in the Declaration of Independence, directing all of their ire against Great Britain's slowly maddening King instead of the Parliament that they knew had wronged them. I think it is a classic example of misdirection, in the same family of dishonesty as mentioning Osama bin Laden in the same paragraph every time one mentions Saddam Hussein.

Last night, Mitt Romney made the most of a particular cognitive bias which we all need to know about. It is called the Backfire Effect. Here is a link to the paper.

People have a bad habit of clinging to disinformation, particularly if they are fed the disinformation first. If the disinformation is refuted, many of us simply give up trying to figure the problem out and default to the first thing we learned, and if the first thing we learned is crap, we believe the crap.
We are all vulnerable to some degree to the Backfire Effect, but there is a critical difference in the way the Backfire Effect works between conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans.

The shortest version I can give is this: when a conservative lies and a liberal refutes the lie, conservative observers become more likely to believe the lie. This effect does not work in reverse--because liberals have better thinking skills, I say, but I'm biased. This is part of the reason why an alarming number of American doofuses are still shambling about thinking that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and why the vast majority of them are Republicans.

Up to now, Mitt Romney's biggest problem has been that he hasn't won over the right-wing authoritarians who make up the most important voting bloc in the Republican Party, and maybe in all of American politics. They are diligent voters and can be easily programmed with lies, fear, and racism, of which they are fed a steady diet by Fox News and AM radio. Almost one in four Americans fits the profile of a right-wing authoritarian.

Despite every effort, right down to nominating arch-conservative darling Paul Ryan, Romney just hasn't been able to convince them that he's their guy.

And why should they think so, when Romney gamed the nomination process, knocked off the conservative authorities they trust one by one, and silenced all dissent at the convention? He had to steal it from them before he can steal it from us, and they haven't easily forgotten.

Last night was Romney's last big chance. He's got the press and the pollsters pulling for him to make it a closer race, because it is to their personal, professional, and financial advantage. He has finally assembled the captive audience of right-wing authoritarians he needs to win over. All he needed to do was to finally, permanently, establish himself as a conservative authority, someone the conservatives can trust.

He needed President Obama to help him, by doing what every Democrat, including myself, wanted him to do: call Mitt a liar.

So Mitt Romney went out and did what he's best at. He lied his ass off. He changed a central plank of his platform at the debate in an attempt to draw out President Obama, to encourage the President to raise his voice and express outrage at such malicious dishonesty.

But President Obama wouldn't bite.

Instead, the President stuck to his own policy, his own platform, and pointed out only the most basic and agreed-upon flaws in whatever Romney's so-called plan is today (or rather, last night, because I'm sure he's walking back half of what he said right now). He tried not to show flashes of anger or disgust, as Al Gore so tragically did in 2000.

It was probably disappointing to all of us here to see the President steer away from direct confrontation, but it probably also sealed the election for him.

Consider what would have happened had the debate swung a different way.

Gov. Romney: "I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan...."

President Obama: "That's bullshit. You've run on that all year."

Millions of Democrats would have stood up and cheered at that moment, to be sure, but it wouldn't have done a damned thing to change the political landscape because we're all already going to go out and vote for President Obama, and every other Democrat on the ballot. We're all registered now, right?

Just as certainly, a giant mob of tea-partiers would have been on their feet and whooping. That would have been the signal they needed, the sign from baby Jesus that Mitt Romney was the anointed one. They would have dusted off their IDs and registrations, and they would have come out and voted--at a higher frequency, unfortunately, than we do. Millions of our votes would have been canceled out.

We need to realize that right now an unusually high number of right-wing voters are far closer to reality than they usually are. They don't trust Mitt Romney, and they shouldn't, and it is to their credit that they do not in spite of the enormous psyops being run on them.

But we also need to acknowledge that these voters unfortunately tend strongly toward racism, and are highly motivated to vote against President Obama simply because he is a person of color. President Obama will never win their vote--but he might win their non-vote.

So that is why President Obama didn't "win" last night's debate. Because this debate wasn't about us. But do you know who is going to refute Mitt Romney's bullshit? We are. In the voting booth.

J'accuse!

Aha - Willard's not just a lyin' sack o' shit - he's a cheatin' douche nozzle to boot.



Rules is rules, bubba - from the agreement that both sides signed up for:

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates"

(hat tip = Democratic Underground)