Does this Kausfiles Klassic from September 2006 count?
RT partner "R" emails to give the upshot ... Only 1 of 5 Democrats look to be in any trouble at all, so the magic number for the D's remains 15 or 16 at the worst.
Doesn't sound like a baked cake, does it? ... And if the Dems aren't convincingly ahead in enough of those races now to pick up 15 seats, doesn't it seem like the GOPs have a chance?
That was the mid-term election in 2006. You know, the election when Democrats won thirty-one seats?
In Mickey's universe, a cake is not fully baked until it is fired from a cannon into the sun.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Kausfiles Recycles!
Note that before there was this, all the Napolitano news was tagged with this.
I'm not sure what precisely this Napolitano business has to do with Mickey's prior wrongness regarding Bill Richardson [They're governors ... in the southwest ... do I need to draw you a picture? -- ed. Yes, and try to work Jim Gibbons in, too -- the next time Mickey mentions him will be the first ...] and I'm still not sure why Napolitano's role in the Anita Hill affair would result in bipartisan protection [Because the Anita Hill hearings roughly coincide with the last time Mickey had any relevance in Washington? - ed. Hey, that's not right ... Mickey *never* had any relevance in Washington ...], but it's clear that when we think of Janet Napolitano, Mickey thinks we should be thinking of whoever the hell it is that Mickey thinks Bill Richardson had sex with.
A normal person would ask "why?" But a normal person does not read Mickey Kaus.
I'm not sure what precisely this Napolitano business has to do with Mickey's prior wrongness regarding Bill Richardson [They're governors ... in the southwest ... do I need to draw you a picture? -- ed. Yes, and try to work Jim Gibbons in, too -- the next time Mickey mentions him will be the first ...] and I'm still not sure why Napolitano's role in the Anita Hill affair would result in bipartisan protection [Because the Anita Hill hearings roughly coincide with the last time Mickey had any relevance in Washington? - ed. Hey, that's not right ... Mickey *never* had any relevance in Washington ...], but it's clear that when we think of Janet Napolitano, Mickey thinks we should be thinking of whoever the hell it is that Mickey thinks Bill Richardson had sex with.
A normal person would ask "why?" But a normal person does not read Mickey Kaus.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Nobody Could Have Seen This Coming
From the New York Times article on taxing the banks:
The most likely alternatives would be a tax based on the size and riskiness of an institution’s loans and other financial holdings, or a tax on profits.
Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax.
Suggested follow-up questions:
- Taken by surprise meaning that you've seen it coming for ages and have been desperately spinning to try to forestall the inevitable ("the housing bubble took us by surprise!")?
- Taken by surprise meaning you totally knew it would happen and you're just trying to act as though it's so inconceivably crass that you never saw it coming ("the furor over bonuses took us by surprise!")?
- Or taken by surprise like you're all bunch of know-nothing, backwards idiots getting high on your own supply ("financial deregulation leading to complete collapse took us by surprise!")?
Then again, when a lobbyist for bankers tells you he's shocked -- shocked! -- by something, I'm sure it's totally genuine.
The most likely alternatives would be a tax based on the size and riskiness of an institution’s loans and other financial holdings, or a tax on profits.
Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax.
Suggested follow-up questions:
- Taken by surprise meaning that you've seen it coming for ages and have been desperately spinning to try to forestall the inevitable ("the housing bubble took us by surprise!")?
- Taken by surprise meaning you totally knew it would happen and you're just trying to act as though it's so inconceivably crass that you never saw it coming ("the furor over bonuses took us by surprise!")?
- Or taken by surprise like you're all bunch of know-nothing, backwards idiots getting high on your own supply ("financial deregulation leading to complete collapse took us by surprise!")?
Then again, when a lobbyist for bankers tells you he's shocked -- shocked! -- by something, I'm sure it's totally genuine.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Gotta Beat Life
Mickey, in the midst of explaining his inexplicable contrarianism:
[T]he purpose of the health care system is to keep people alive--it's enemy is, in effect, death, which will never be defeated.
You mean we're MORTAL? Oh, man, I'm glad Mickey's around to help us out.
STOP THINKING YOU'RE VAMPIRES, PEOPLE.
Actually, you know the best part of this help-me-help-you-understand-my-ridiculousness post?
He lists as a "contradiction" something that was never a contradiction in the first place (he wants to spend more money on health care and less money on the military; this approach endorsed by a noted neoliberal contrarian here), yet his explanation as to why it's not a contradiction is also wrong. (Who thinks that the rational purpose of a nation's military is not to "keep people alive"? Genghis Khan?).
Mickey then declares failure, and asks for help from his readers:
None of these answers is completely satisfying. Suggestions welcomed.
Suggestion: you're an idiot.
[T]he purpose of the health care system is to keep people alive--it's enemy is, in effect, death, which will never be defeated.
You mean we're MORTAL? Oh, man, I'm glad Mickey's around to help us out.
STOP THINKING YOU'RE VAMPIRES, PEOPLE.
Actually, you know the best part of this help-me-help-you-understand-my-ridiculousness post?
He lists as a "contradiction" something that was never a contradiction in the first place (he wants to spend more money on health care and less money on the military; this approach endorsed by a noted neoliberal contrarian here), yet his explanation as to why it's not a contradiction is also wrong. (Who thinks that the rational purpose of a nation's military is not to "keep people alive"? Genghis Khan?).
Mickey then declares failure, and asks for help from his readers:
None of these answers is completely satisfying. Suggestions welcomed.
Suggestion: you're an idiot.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
All I Know
We know three things:
1) Mickey is king of the undernews.
2) Mickey hates Peter Orszag, for attempting to murder Mickey by personally mandating how many hospital beds are available in North Dakota. [No, seriously ... -- ed. No, seriously!]
3) "[T]he fact that Mr. Orszag’s ex — Claire Milonas, a 39-year-old venture capitalist — was pregnant with his daughter was well known among Beltway swells." Link.
So, um, Mickey ... if you can't deliver on #1, even in service of #2, what exactly is your purpose here?
1) Mickey is king of the undernews.
2) Mickey hates Peter Orszag, for attempting to murder Mickey by personally mandating how many hospital beds are available in North Dakota. [No, seriously ... -- ed. No, seriously!]
3) "[T]he fact that Mr. Orszag’s ex — Claire Milonas, a 39-year-old venture capitalist — was pregnant with his daughter was well known among Beltway swells." Link.
So, um, Mickey ... if you can't deliver on #1, even in service of #2, what exactly is your purpose here?
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Theory Goes Right Out The Window
The Washington Post, showing off their economic chops:
Employers, the theory goes, would put the savings into higher wages.
When this theory is the underpinning of your outlook on life, you should really give up on your theory, and probably give up on life. This theory, my theory goes, is completely idiotic.
Employers, the theory goes, would put the savings into higher wages.
When this theory is the underpinning of your outlook on life, you should really give up on your theory, and probably give up on life. This theory, my theory goes, is completely idiotic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
