From Matthew Yglesias:

Mitch McConnell says Republican senators “represent half the American population.” James Surowiecki does the math and concludes that they actually only represent 37 percent of the voters. All the more reason not to worry too much about getting 80 votes for anything.

Of course, this is the same math that said Bush’s 48% and 51% wins in 2000 and 2004 respectively equaled ‘a mandate’ while Obama’s 53% win in 2008 does not equal a mandate. And it’s the same math that says the GOP losses in 2008 of the White House, more seats (8) in the Senate and even more seats (21) in the House does not equal a shift away from the Republican Party but rather equals an evenly-divided country that still remains center-right. And, this is the same senator who supported Bush’s fiscal recklessness and mind-numbing deficits, yet all of a sudden urges “caution” and “restraint” with the new president’s spending plans.

With this type of math, it’s no wonder we are in the mess that we find ourselves in today.

FactCheck was asked to check into the veracity of the following email making its way around the Internets:

INTERESTING FACTS —– NOTICE LINK AND MAP AT BOTTOM

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma: All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337.

*
Here’s what FactCheck found … continue

Jessica Hagy posted another instant classic:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie posted an op-ed piece in The Forward last week in which he lamented those “few Jewish doves” who “have demonstrated an utter lack of empathy for Israel’s predicament,” calling their views “morally deficient.” J Street, one of Rabbi Yoffie’s targets, responds:

Our position on the crisis reflects our support for Israel, our hope for its security and our sympathy with the ongoing suffering of the people on both sides in this conflict. It is hard for us to understand how the leading reform rabbi in North America could call our effort to articulate a nuanced view on these difficult issues “morally deficient.” If our views are “naïve” and “morally deficient”, then so are the views of scores of Israeli journalists, security analysts, distinguished authors, and retired IDF officers who have posed the same questions about the Gaza attack as we have.

And, when tens of thousands of pro-Israel American Jews are joining with statements made by J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek, Israel Policy Forum and others calling for a ceasefire – it is simply wrong to call these views out of touch with Jewish sentiment.

American Jews are, as Rabbi Yoffie says, by and large sensible and centrist, and they support Israel in her hour of need.  But many of those same Jews – and their friends who want the best for Israel – are well within their rights and within the centrist mainstream to question the wisdom of the actions taken this week, to question where they will lead and to ask the US and others to help bring an end to the violence as quickly as possible.

It’s not completely unlike the condemnations by the pro-war crowd against anyone who questions the wisdom of our own nation’s military actions, especially when some of those actions prove to have been based on false premises and crumbling justifications. While there are often legitimate reasons for military action to protect our nation’s security, there are also those in this country who seem to relish at the thought of starting wars, especially if it means attacking Arab/Muslim countries … continue

Sobering assessment by the former Iraqi prime minister hand-picked by the Bush Administration:

(Reuters) - Former U.S.-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has denounced the policies of President George W. Bush as an “utter failure” that gave rise to the sectarian venom that ravaged his country.

… “Yes, Bush’s policies failed utterly,” said Allawi, describing the U.S. administration that once backed him. “Utter failure. Failure of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, including fighting terrorism and economic policy.”

“His insistence on names like ‘democracy’ and ‘open elections’, without giving attention to political stability, was a big mistake. It cast shadows on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt, and I believe this will be remembered in history as President Bush’s policy,” he said.

There was a quite entertaining exchange earlier this week on MSNBC’s Morning Joe when Joe Scarborough was set straight on his own show by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski:

With the new year comes the successful completion of my first resolution, which was to change the name of this blog.

Over the last few months, as I discussed previously, this blog has evolved into more of a commentary site with significant discussion about politics and social issues rather than the light-hearted, observational type blog that I originally envisioned. Since this evolution of the blog no longer represented the spirit of the original concept, I decided that I needed to change the name, even if only slightly.

“Brad Neese: Living Large in Oklahoma” just doesn’t seem to capture the true personality of this specific blog any longer. I’d rather save it for later in case I decide that I want to once again do a light-hearted, more personally focused blog in addition to this commentary blog. The reality is that this blog and its focus will be the one that I will feel most dedicated to. Here’s what I said back in November…

Some friends and long-time readers of this blog and the previous incarnations of my blogging expressed disappointment that I was giving up the political and current affairs writing. It seems, according to them, that I do my best blogging and writing when I talk about those things that stir up my passions. Politics, government and current affairs, social justice, faith matters and specific circumstances that affect me or my family are what stir up my passions the most.

So, I went back to writing specifically about those things that are on my mind and stirring my passions on any given day. Much of the time that means it will be about my viewpoint or others’ viewpoints that I find interesting and what to share regarding current affairs and politics.

So, here it is. The new name of the blog, as you can see at the top, is “Brad Neese At Large.”

at large (idiom) —

a. free from restraint or confinement; at liberty.

b. to a considerable extent; at length: to treat a subject at large.

c. as a whole; in general: the country at large.

d. representing the whole of a state, district, or body rather than one division or part of it: a delegate at large.

Here’s to hoping that this year is better than the last!