Comments on: Instinks History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:50:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: Monday round-up: we’ve got primary fever! : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:43:33 +0000 [...] that modern agriculture fights communism!  (He’s a fellow Colorado politics junkie–he thinks Bennet will win tomorrow, and he’ll actually vote for the turd in November.)  As for your question about supermarket togs:  Adults really did dress like adults fifty years [...]

By: Indyanna Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:19:21 +0000 I’m still stinging over the Netroots’ ass-shaking, endzone-dancing act in late winter and early spring of 2008 when they had advanced the Obama ball to about the 45 yard line, and there were (as we knew) miles and miles to go before anybody was going to sleep. Not that different from the boomers claim in circa 1998 to have invented “economics without gravity.” No brief whatsoever for Lieberman here. I just thought it was kind of funny the way he actually knew how an election in Connecticut was going to turn out, and the Dean-team alumniae still hadn’t passed their prelims yet!

By: Historiann Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:53:51 +0000 Indyanna–great point about the new insurgencies yielding all to easily to old school strong-arm tactics. I just think it’s a bad year to be an incumbent with the “advantage” of being Obama’s hand-picked little senator in short pants.

You’re totally gloating over that turn against Lamont! I thought he was worthy of the not-Lieberman vote myself, but never had any illusions about his progressive Jesus awesomeitude. (Maybe that’s what makes me different from most of my fellow Netizens.)

By: Indyanna Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:46:56 +0000 I think one of the subtexts of the last political year-and-a-half or so is that actual voters are resistant to the apparat-notion that parties shouldn’t have primary contests because they consume resources, leave bruised feelings, take focus off of the general election, etc. That may well(or well may not) be true in an orthodox playbook or political science sense, but voters seem to think they should have as many chances as possible to consider their choices. Even at the expense of repetitive t.v. ads and robocalls. It seems ironic that the best live example available to Team Obama, the, what was it, oh, yeah, 2008 campaign, seemed to show that a vigorous spring fray could lead to a favorable outcome in the fall. It seems like one more example of the new politics leading to the old playbook.

It has been interesting to watch the Times paying almost as much attention to Kolorado as to Kabul, or maybe even Konnecticut. Of which, an interesting piece there today on Netroot disillusion with Ned Lamont. I had to smirk.

By: Historiann Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:48:41 +0000 Yeah–ColoradoPols has just been weird about the primary. They once posted some clearer-sighted things about the Bennet selection in 2009, as your link notes. What I find so hilarious is that their position is essentially the same as the Major Denver Daily they can’t link to any more: endorsing Bennet and irrationally pouring the hate on Romanoff because he had the temerity to launch a primary challenge. I got suspicious of them not so much for their Bennet partisanship, but for the fact that they refused to admit that anything Romanoff did was smart.

For example: there was a lot of chatter over there last spring about how the Romanoff campaign was DOA and Andrew should just quit. Well, anyone with 2 brains to rub together could see that his was a timing game–with much less money to spend, he had to be crafty and hold his fire until the summer, which is exactly how he played it and what has worked for him. (BTW, this isn’t any kind of genius surprise strategy–this is just what the Bennet people should have expected. That they didn’t shows just what a bunch of idiots they really are.)

That’s politics, folks. Maybe “career politicians” know a little something about how the game is played, after all. (But, that’s my prejudice as a “career historian” married to a “career pediatrician.” We think expertise matters, and that bouncing around from sinecure to sinecure courtesy of Daddy’s Friends isn’t in fact such an impressive resume.)

We’ll see tomorrow. Jonathan thinks Bennet will pull it off. I think it may well be a late night because it will be close. It certainly will bode ill for Obama this election season if Bennet becomes yet another hand-picked and carefully-groomed incumbent he supported who doesn’t make the cut.

By: cgeye Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:03:53 +0000 oh, the “why can’t we get along” Colo Pols post:

By: cgeye Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:02:14 +0000 The creepy part of the evening wasn’t Don Draper buying a ho for Lane Pryce, nor this evening’s Howdy Doody or hillbilly jokes (you can tell I’m missing the MAD MEN recaps, right?); it was the Bennet children being pimped out for a campaign ad.

How can men who’d be the first to tout draconian laws for the sake of Protecting the Children be the first to use their kids for political gain? If he can’t address his issue through well-done damage control ads, how in the hell will be survive the general election?

One more thing — it was SO CUTE when the folx at Colorado Pols were shocked, shocked, I tell you, at the lack of civility Romanoff partians showed their site — not Bennet, mind you, THEIR SITE. A sample:

“Romanoff shills, metastasizing like cancer cells, go beyond vilifying Senator Bennet to attacking their host, Coloradopols itself, calling for the humiliation and vilification of the very community of which they are an integral, if frequently disrespectful, part.”

And, this is where I started snorting:

“It can be said, however, that the warring Romanoff/Bennet factions could learn from the relative civility of the Norton/Buck partisans on this site. And two years ago, many of us blogged valiantly and hopelessly for the Fair Hillary, only to be overwhelmed by Team Obama. The Democrats got over it and went on to win in November.”

It hurts when the wolves of the OFB turn their snouts to *your* political faves, huh?

And, another site aims a gimlet eye at possible site-wide biases:

“…And on and on from then, up till the present day.
Colorado Pols has belittled every positive story about Andrew Romanoff – even the recent poll that shows Andrew Romanoff pulling ahead of Bennet, meanwhile Bennet gets positive press here.

And the whole time, they have kept ridiculous odds on the Big Line, always citing Bennet’s money for the reason Romanoff was 20-1 or 25-1. Now its 17-1 and Romanoff is ‘out of time’ even though Bennet is down in latest polls.

So what happened? How does a website go from impartial to in the tank for a candidate?

And should editors here have to disclose that they support Bennet – or is it so obvious?”

By: Historiann Mon, 09 Aug 2010 04:42:08 +0000 We’ll see, cgeye. I don’t hold out a huge amount of hope for Romanoff, but like I said: the NOT-Bennet option is good enough for me now.

As of Sunday night 10:30 p.m. MDT, the New York Times has published one small correction and one addendum to its story, but neither of them exonerate Bennet or the deal he sold to the DPS Board. The paper merely notes that Bennet and Boasberg didn’t in fact know each other when they worked in the private sector, and it notes that one of the people quoted in the story, Jeannie Kaplan, is in fact a Romanoff supporter in the primary. (The correction is dated Aug. 9.)

That’s important to note, but it doesn’t admit to any factual or analytical errors on the part of the reporter. The Bennet campaign has been circulating a list of 20 “errors” in the NYT piece that look to have been written by Boasberg, a Bennet supporter, and which mostly deflect blame rather than “prove” errors on the part of the story. I’ve kept an eye on this all weekend–I figured that if in fact these “errors” were true they’d be corrected by the Times. Like I said: looks like more spin from the desperate Bennet campaign.

By: cgeye Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:59:42 +0000 This is not to say I’m not glad Mr. Bennet’s return to the private sector will be upcomingly swift. I don’t give a damn how corrupt a man is at the beginning of his political life, as long as he realizes that if he wants to have a future, his constituency should be the people first, and his puppetmasters, second. That’s as close to honorable corruption as we can get, and America has survived it better than this open corporate contempt we have now.

By: cgeye Sat, 07 Aug 2010 08:49:20 +0000 I’m wondering, again, whether the Fix is In with Romanoff.

If he were to stay any damn good, or if he hasn’t promised to veer hard right after the primary, then we’d be seeing a shitstorm against him. That’s how Versailles works.

We know that since the GOP candidates are DOA, the usual suspects will rush to give him cash through their employee flunkies, then show him the bill due once he’s elected and has to plan his campaign two years hence. We’ve been lied to, again and again, about the intentions and promises of Yellow Dogs who went blue faster than a choking victim. So, I ask again: Who’s bought Romanoff, and when will he show us what color he is politically?