HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MannyGoldstein » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Manny Goldstein
Gender: Male
Hometown: Greater Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Remulak, as far as I can tell
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,409

Journal Archives

DO NOT dismiss Republican claims that they're way ahead

Remember this interview with Karl Rove from Nov 2006?

SIEGEL: Weíre in the home stretch, though, and many would consider you on the optimistic end of realism about -
ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias Ö
SIEGEL: Iím looking at all the same polls that youíre looking at every day.
ROVE: No, youíre not. No, youíre not.
SIEGEL: No, Iím not.
ROVE: No, youíre not. Youíre not. Iím looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally but that do not impact the outcome of -
SIEGEL: Iím looking at main races between Ė certainly Senate races.
ROVE: Well, like the poll today showing that Corkerís ahead in Tennessee, or the poll showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race.
SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia, yeah.
Mr. ROVE: Exactly.
SIEGEL: But youíve seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race Ė I donít want to have you call races.
ROVE: Yeah, Iím looking at all these, Robert, and adding them up, and I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but youíre entitled to your math, Iím entitled to THE math.
SIEGEL: Well, I donít know if weíre entitled to our different math, but youíre certainly -
ROVE: I said THE math. I said youíre entitled to yours.

Just like Rove predicted, Republicans went on to win both houses of Congress in that election, if by "win" you mean what the dictionary defines as "lose".

Damned Liberals and their so-called "word definitions".
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Wed Oct 31, 2012, 10:33 PM (2 replies)

It would be incorrect to say Obama won tonight

It would be more correct to say that Obama *owned* Romney tonight.

It's now clear that the win was last week, that Obama broke Beldar at that time. I believe that the moment was at the "Please proceed, Governor" mark. That was when we first saw the fear in Romney's eyes, the realization that an uppercut was milliseconds from his head and his hands were stuck in his pockets. I've never seen Beldar look afraid like that.


My former Governor showed up tonight still looking afraid, looking all "please don't make it hurt again". This time the Mitt Flopper brought his "I'll do the same stuff that he'll do, just don't smack me down again" guise. While Obama was unable to get a claw deep into balled-up armadillo boy, there was still much violent batting around.


Hard to tell how this will end up in November, but it's clear that Romney's been roughed up good and has lost confidence.
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Mon Oct 22, 2012, 11:20 PM (11 replies)

Beldar's terrified - just trying to avoid another beatdown

I've never seen him scared like this before - Obama really rattled his cage last week.

Hopefully Obama will coax him to stick his neck out then...
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Mon Oct 22, 2012, 09:24 PM (4 replies)

Please! Send good vibes to a fellow DUer who's healing!

Cancer sucks - please see here:


Posted by MannyGoldstein | Mon Oct 22, 2012, 08:33 AM (2 replies)

Here's what happens when spineless Democrats refuse to fix problems:

When triangulating becomes more important than delivering results, we get shit like this: Romney's family has money in Ohio voting machines.

Romney Family Investment Ties To Voting Machine Company That Could Decide The Election Causing Concern

From fucking Forbes, no less.

Really great idea to stay away from making Republicans mad by keeping hands off their precious magic electronic voting.

Ken Blackwell will be laughing so hard and continuously from now through November 6th that he'll need a Foley cather to keep the place dry.
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Sat Oct 20, 2012, 11:37 PM (90 replies)

OK, the Concern Crew has finally started to tick me off.

It may be impolitic to say it, but this is why Liberals lose elections. We're... well I want to use a different word, but *wimps* will have to do.

Jeez! Grow a pair of balls/tubes/whatever!
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:53 PM (8 replies)

Obama will win on Tuesday - I'll bet cash on it.

I'll bet $5 against each of the first 20 nattering nabobs of negativity who don't know Obama very well.

Easy money.

Monies paid directly to Obama for America.
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:23 AM (16 replies)

Seeking volunter graphic design for Progressive/Liberal website - is there a specific place to post?

Forgive me if I've missed the obvious. Or if this isn't the right place to ask.
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:19 AM (4 replies)

Know the FACTS: Simpson-Bowles only calls for tiny cuts to Social Security

People whine about Simpson-Bowles, but I don't think they really know what's in the plan.

Only 22% of the average recipient's benefits will be cut when their recommendations fully kick in. That's only a $50,000 lifetime reduction per beneficiary in today's dollars, or $100,000 per couple.

Nobody will miss that. Heck, I'll bet that with a little uniquely American ingenuity, seniors will be able to make up for that. Maybe they could sell a kidney. Or start an online service where retirees can rate dumpsters so their peers will know which ones have the tastiest morsels to scavenge - sort of the Yelp for trash pickers.

And it will allow us to keep taxes low on the job creators. And keep a strong military, so we can protect ourselves from those who hate our freedom and want to turn us into a third-world country.


The Rich
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:56 AM (174 replies)

Obama praises Romney: "I suspect that on Social Security weíve got a somewhat similar position"

That must mean that Romney won't cut a cent from Social Security Benefits, and only wants to raise the wage cap on which Social Security is paid in order to have higher-income folks pay more.

Or maybe ...

Bowlesing Toward Betrayal - Paul Krugman, 10/2/12

So, is my timing good or not? Right after I warn about the risk that Democrats, including the president, might betray the mandate they seem likely to get for preserving the safety net, we learn that Senate leaders are at work on a plan based around, well, you guessed it:

If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obamaís fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.

Just to say, this would be politically stupid as well as a betrayal of the electorate. If you donít think Republicans would turn around and accuse Democrats of cutting Social Security ó probably even before the ink was dry ó youíve been living under a rock.

Wake up, folks. The Grand Bargain Express is coming, and the 99% are tied to the tracks. Simpson-Bowles voted for a 22% cut in the average Social Security recipient's lifetime benefit.

And the Social Security "crisis"? It's totally cooked up by assuming that the economy won't ever get better again. If we return to anything near the average economy of the last 70 years, Social Security is fully funded.
Posted by MannyGoldstein | Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:16 AM (56 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »