Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote:Kind of silly to say that democrats constantly lose elections. I mean, they do, but so do republicans. The Democrats just held a two-term presidency and got many more votes for a third term, just poorly distributed under our archaic system, and held the Senate from 2006 - 2014. If the reference is to the special elections...they've almost all been in super republican districts (that being the point from Trump's perspective), and by comparison to those districts, they currently look on track to win big in 2018 (with the caveat that lots could change).

It isn't silly if you face the numbers. Here are the numbers - 32 state legislatures in Republican hands. 33 governors. The President of the United States. Both chambers of the United States Congress. The Supreme court. 5 states legislatures are divided between the two parties. The Democrats have 13 State legislatures and 18 Governors.

So sure the Democrats have more votes nationally but it means fuck all. That 2-term Presidency is being dismantled because it was mostly by fiat because of unprecedented Republican obstructionism that paid off. The non-fiat parts are being dismantled at a slower pace. And that points to evidence that the Democrats are ineffective. I don't see how anyone can argue against that reality strongly at this point. And yes the archaic system is a part of it. And the gerrymandering and the voter suppression. And my point was the Democrats have to figure out this shit or the chance at power will continue to slip from them.

I think the other disadvantage the Dems have is that their base doesn't run on the "I'm not a goddamned liberal" platform. The GOP base fervor makes up for a lot of policy weaknesses. I know that because I regularly used to vote on the basis of "I have no clue who this guy is, but he's not a Democrat. That makes him A-OK in my book!" That's how I voted for Pat McCrory, an action I will probably never forgive myself for.

We've reached a point where the side who plays the dirtiest wins. And currently the GOP is more willing to roll in the muck.

malchior wrote:

El Guapo wrote:Kind of silly to say that democrats constantly lose elections. I mean, they do, but so do republicans. The Democrats just held a two-term presidency and got many more votes for a third term, just poorly distributed under our archaic system, and held the Senate from 2006 - 2014. If the reference is to the special elections...they've almost all been in super republican districts (that being the point from Trump's perspective), and by comparison to those districts, they currently look on track to win big in 2018 (with the caveat that lots could change).

It isn't silly if you face the numbers. Here are the numbers - 32 state legislatures in Republican hands. 33 governors. The President of the United States. Both chambers of the United States Congress. The Supreme court. 5 states legislatures are divided between the two parties. The Democrats have 13 State legislatures and 18 Governors.

So sure the Democrats have more votes nationally but it means fuck all. That 2-term Presidency is being dismantled because it was mostly by fiat because of unprecedented Republican obstructionism that paid off. The non-fiat parts are being dismantled at a slower pace. And that points to evidence that the Democrats are ineffective. I don't see how anyone can argue against that reality strongly at this point. And yes the archaic system is a part of it. And the gerrymandering and the voter suppression. And my point was the Democrats have to figure out this shit or the chance at power will continue to slip from them.

A lot of those numbers are derivative of democrats getting wiped out in 2010. And that, in turn, has a lot to do with election timing. In 2010 the country was badly fucked upon account of the financial crisis. The democrats were clearly the party in power, since they had both chambers of Congress (including 60 votes in the Senate) and the presidency. So the voters threw the bums out in large numbers. And because that was the census year, because the Republicans won big there they gerrymandered something fierce and were able to translate that one year's big wins into sustained wins across the decade (so like, the Republicans control the Wisconsin legislature, but they were able to do that because they won a supermajority in the state senate for example while getting less votes than the democrats did).

I guess I'm not actually sure that we're disagreeing here. The democrats need to focus on fixing gerrymandering (and voting rights and whatnot) as much as they can, although they can't really do any of that (outside of lawsuits) until they get more election victories. Which they should, in 2018, since everything that contributed to the 2010 wipeout should be in their favor in 2018 (although they'll have gerrymandering and voting rights headwinds).

I suppose I'm just saying that it's simplistic to say "democrats are ineffective" or they can't win elections or anything like that. They were going to get wiped out in 2010 no matter what they did; they probably made mistakes, but I'm skeptical that those changed things except in a marginal way (except arguably for passing the ACA, but if they're not doing stuff like that there's no point to having a majority anyway). And the loss in 2010 reverberated in many ways mostly out of their control as well.

I think that 2010 was a huge problem for them sure but that doesn't explain how badly they have been damaged at the local and state levels. I don't have those numbers handy but I recall they were getting their pants beaten there too. It has been years since 2010 and the economy is ok-ish. The Republican death cult yet still has outsized advantage. The Dems need to really circle up and get their future in order. And hope that it isn't too late. The Republicans are playing for keeps and even if the Dems flip the House...I can't see them getting much of their agenda passed. Compromise is dead and that only further helps the Republicans after they run roughshod over the land.

Edit: Side note on a potentially interesting risk factor I see for the Dems. Kentucky fiscal policy on taxes was a cautionary tale on the dangers of extreme supply side; it probably effectively established a limit on how far the dial can be turned. That experiment failed. But it didn't hurt the Republican brand much IMO.

However when Illinois finally melts down I think the Dems will own that mess with the story being public union pension largess. Regular people simply don't have that type of retirement option generally and resent the public sector for it. I think there is a decent chance that IL, NJ, and/or a few other states public debt will become a huge crisis at some point and will ultimately benefit the Republicans in the same fashion as 2010 did. It gets worse in a way because the Republicans might well be in charge of helping them if Chapter 9 comes into play. It'd be fair to say I'm looking down the board a bit to be sure but I think it is a major risk overhang. And student debt looms out there as well as a major risk to the economy. Any recession is going to put major pressure on both those vectors. The blue states with fiscal crises are suffering now despite full employment. To boil that down a lot, anything that plays into the Republican fiscal doomsday logic loop will only play to their advantage. The Dems don't have much upside in these potential scenarios. Even if they hit when Trump is President. I believe the Republicans are well positioned to exploit either.

malchior wrote:I think that 2010 was a huge problem for them sure but that doesn't explain how badly they have been damaged at the local and state levels.

It does, though, because the Republicans have been gerrymandering at those levels too (at least, at the state level at a minimum), and the 2010 wave was the main thing that gave them the power to do that.

El Guapo wrote:

malchior wrote:I think that 2010 was a huge problem for them sure but that doesn't explain how badly they have been damaged at the local and state levels.

It does, though, because the Republicans have been gerrymandering at those levels too (at least, at the state level at a minimum), and the 2010 wave was the main thing that gave them the power to do that.

I agree that we aren't really disagreeing here btw. I just think that the gerrymandering argument only goes so far. The Dems are losing statewide elections too. There is a fundamental weakness here. They need to figure it out because we all need them to.

malchior wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

malchior wrote:I think that 2010 was a huge problem for them sure but that doesn't explain how badly they have been damaged at the local and state levels.

It does, though, because the Republicans have been gerrymandering at those levels too (at least, at the state level at a minimum), and the 2010 wave was the main thing that gave them the power to do that.

I agree that we aren't really disagreeing here btw. I just think that the gerrymandering argument only goes so far. The Dems are losing statewide elections too. There is a fundamental weakness here. They need to figure it out because we all need them to.

They're also winning statewide elections too, though - like, you have democratic senators in places like Montana, Missouri, West Virginia (until the Sanders people fuck that up in 2018, anyway), North Dakota, etc. Basically, the analysis isn't really complete without some evidence / data that they're consistently losing statewide elections that they should be competitive in.

I agree that gerrymandering isn't the whole story, to be clear, although it's certainly a big part of it.

Holman wrote:Part of that problem is that the Democrats have to sell sane, unsexy normalcy: government that does its job.

The Republicans are marketing a POST-APOCALYPTIC THRILL RIDE!! in which we learn too late that we have to be the zombies.

Brilliant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holman wrote:Part of that problem is that the Democrats have to sell sane, unsexy normalcy: government that does its job.

The Republicans are marketing a POST-APOCALYPTIC THRILL RIDE!! in which we learn too late that we have to be the zombies.

To grossly generalize: Democrats are generally good managers. Every organization needs good managers, but when management is doing its job well it tends to go unnoticed. They are not as good on leadership -- a different skill set than management. YellowKing complained repeatedly that Obama was not an inspiring leader...but we can see in retrospect that he was a pretty decent manager. Clinton was known as a policy wonk. Hillary would have governed in the same vein.

Republicans, as most recently embodied in Trump, sell themselves as leaders. They disdain management, and that's why everything goes to hell under their rule...even as their supporters keep on supporting them, because leadership!

Democrats either need to work on their leadership skills or make management sexy.

El Guapo wrote:

malchior wrote:I think that 2010 was a huge problem for them sure but that doesn't explain how badly they have been damaged at the local and state levels.

It does, though, because the Republicans have been gerrymandering at those levels too (at least, at the state level at a minimum), and the 2010 wave was the main thing that gave them the power to do that.

Bingo. Also the GOP's tactic of redistricting even in non-census years. It was a key factor in how Red Texas is, as well as Wisconsin. If you remember, the GOP seized power in those states on off redistricting years, and proceeded to have emergency redistricting sessions which the Democrats would flee across state borders to prevent a quorum.

One can also look at how many Democratic Gerrymander court cases there have been, as compared to the GOP. There are a number of GOP States which have had (and have ongoing) court cases about illegal gerrymandering. I'm pretty sure the Democratic number is zero (in recent history).

Don't count out the GOP's highly successful efforts to limit voting rights as well (Voter ID, Voter fraud claims/investigations, etc.).

Skinypupy wrote:Remember when Trump declared a victoryfor the American worker because Ford decided not to move their plant to Mexico? You may want to be sitting down for this update...that plant is moving to China instead.

Shocking, I know.

Ford Motor said on Tuesday that it would build its next-generation small car for American consumers in China rather than Mexico, where the automaker canceled plans for a new factory this year.

The company was building a $1.6 billion assembly plant for the next Focus model in Mexico, but it ran into stiff opposition from President Trump and then canceled the project.

I'm confused, does this make us great again yet?

Doubling down on the good news, remember how Trump spiked the ball about keeping all those Carrier jobs in the US? Surprise, surprise....

More than 600 employees at a Carrier plant in Indianapolis are bracing for layoffs beginning next month, despite being told by President Trump that nearly all the jobs at the plant had been saved. The deal, announced with great fanfare before Trump took office, was billed not only as a heroic move to keep jobs from going to Mexico but also as a seismic shift in the economic development landscape.

Nearly seven months later the deal has not worked out quite as originally advertised, and the landscape has barely budged.

"The jobs are still leaving," said Robert James, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999. "Nothing has stopped."

Read this elsewhere, thought it was an apt summary of what happened:

1. Announce plant closure and outsourcing to Mexico
2. Trump gets angry on Twitter
3. Offer to talk to him
4. Trump promises $7M in investment money (aka - public funds) in exchange for keeping the plant open
5. Offer up $16M additional as a "investment" to convince Trump of your good intentions
6. Trump goes off to celebrate his bigly win
7. Use the $16M, plus Trump's $7M, to invest in plant automation for the US plant
8. Outsource the jobs anyway, thus giving you one automated plant in the US, and one cheap labor plant in Mexico
9. PROFIT!!

Slate: White House Warns Reporters Not to Report on Instructions About Not Reporting on Thursday’s Press Conference

Isgrimnur wrote:Slate: White House Warns Reporters Not to Report on Instructions About Not Reporting on Thursday’s Press Conference

REPORRTING IS LEAKKS!!!

In my opinion here is why the poor working class people vote Republican, especially in rural communities.

They all have a child/relative/friend (or many of them) who sponge off the government. I have plenty of them. We grew up with the same families, the same schools, the same skin color, the same prospects, and they still are burdens on society and it rankles to watch Democrats continue to give them money. It has nothing to do with where the money comes from. It's an (often incorrect) sense of fairness. They work while others sponge. They believe in the welfare queen myth, because they have people like that in their social circle. And when there's the great recession bailout and unemployment is extended for years, those are the things they remember. If Democrats would market that welfare isn't what it used to be. If they would market sunset provisions on government handouts. If they could work in some way to chastise my friend Brandi who hasn't had a job in years, but had a second kid, you'd see a lot more folks voting Democrat.

Sure there are other reasons whether it's xenophobia or religion. I'm not discounting those, but if it wasn't for the former, a lot of these people would remember that Christ would be a Democrat. It wasn't so long ago that American unions used to be the biggest anti-immigrant lobby group. Those types of things are justifications (see alleged Christian right support of Trump) rather than innate.

But why doesn't that same logic apply in urban, heavily D areas? You have the same mix of leeches and hard workers, and yet they don't vote to turn off the welfare state.

noxiousdog wrote:In my opinion here is why the poor working class people vote Republican, especially in rural communities.

I can't speak for a larger generalization but that is not true for my family and their surroundings. They see themselves as independent and self reliant and on a small scale they are right. They buy in to the notion the republicans are protecting their ability to be independent and self reliant and democrats want to take that ability away and there appears to be nothing that can change that narrative. (begrudgingly) supporting republicans against the taking of their independence is an expression of who they are... That and this is a Christian country.

Loathing those who take advantage of the system that is already cheating good hardworking people out their money is not why they vote republican but it's why they (generally) hate democrat politicians.

LordMortis wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:In my opinion here is why the poor working class people vote Republican, especially in rural communities.

I can't speak for a larger generalization but that is not true for my family and their surroundings. They see themselves as independent and self reliant and on a small scale they are right. They buy in to the notion the republicans are protecting their ability to be independent and self reliant and democrats want to take that ability away and there appears to be nothing that can change that narrative. (begrudgingly) supporting republicans against the taking of their independence is an expression of who they are... That and this is a Christian country.

Loathing those who take advantage of the system that is already cheating good hardworking people out their money is not why they vote republican but it's why they (generally) hate democrat politicians.

And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

Max Peck wrote:And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

Hillary.

ImLawBoy wrote:But why doesn't that same logic apply in urban, heavily D areas? You have the same mix of leeches and hard workers, and yet they don't vote to turn off the welfare state.

Because in urban areas, people have a whole lot more to occupy their time (culture, social options, parks, recreation) than to sit in their trailer homes and brood over the welfare bastard with four kids who has almost as much as they do, yet they're killing themselves for just above minimum wage.

When you live out in the rural areas, "culture" is hard to find and life has a lot of quiet moments to stop and reflect on your situation.

Butterymales.

Paingod wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:But why doesn't that same logic apply in urban, heavily D areas? You have the same mix of leeches and hard workers, and yet they don't vote to turn off the welfare state.

Because in urban areas, people have a whole lot more to occupy their time (culture, social options, parks, recreation) than to sit in their trailer homes and brood over the welfare bastard with four kids who has almost as much as they do, yet they're killing themselves for just above minimum wage.

When you live out in the rural areas, "culture" is hard to find and life has a lot of quiet moments to stop and reflect on your situation.

I think you overestimate the amount of free time and money that the working poor in urban areas have with which to engage in culture.

Paingod wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:But why doesn't that same logic apply in urban, heavily D areas? You have the same mix of leeches and hard workers, and yet they don't vote to turn off the welfare state.

Because in urban areas, people have a whole lot more to occupy their time (culture, social options, parks, recreation) than to sit in their trailer homes and brood over the welfare bastard with four kids who has almost as much as they do, yet they're killing themselves for just above minimum wage.

When you live out in the rural areas, "culture" is hard to find and life has a lot of quiet moments to stop and reflect on your situation.

I don't think the extended family is as noticeable and social circles tend to be peers rather than simply because you grew up together. It's also a much harder life in urban areas to be completely reliant on the government. Very few government programs are based on the cost of living. So, someone in New York City says, "who would ever choose this life?" and someone in El Campo would say, "Sheesh, they're only making 80% what I am."

LordMortis wrote:

Max Peck wrote:And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

Hillary.

Absolutely! Nevertheless, the ironic payoff remains.

Max Peck wrote: And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

They voted for the (R) and hated the (D). It had little to do with the name or person.

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

They voted for the (R) and hated the (D). It had little to do with the name or person.

I understand that. The entertainment factor lies in fact that they ended up with someone who exhibits the very characteristics that they claim to despise.

Max Peck wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Max Peck wrote: And so they voted in a billionaire who literally cheats good hardworking people out of their money. The irony is worthy of a Greek drama. Or a comedy.

They voted for the (R) and hated the (D). It had little to do with the name or person.

I understand that. The entertainment factor lies in fact that they ended up with someone who exhibits the very characteristics that they claim to despise.

I'd love to proclaim that the irony is not lost on them, but it is.

I would say that a number of them (but by no means a majority) would have crossed from Red to Blue if Democrat would have had not stench of Clinton or Pelosi (They really hate Pellosi nearly as much as they hate the Clintons) and to a lesser extent Obama (for reasons I can't grasp). Sanders might have been a challenge because I think the GOP could sell the SOCIALISM. In short, most democrats with a reasonable track record and no allegiance to any former administration would have seen no small percentage for red voters lean purple (in my family, which I think may be indicative of Rustbelt Sunday church going voters but not necessarily of red state voters)

The Democrats need another surprise candidate that isn't revealed until the 11th hour, so the Republicans don't have years to create a hate machine. Another Bill Clinton or Obama should suffice.

Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership should have been ousted after the election failure.

I think that as a practical matter, noxiousdog is correct in describing a significant portion of the working poor. There are obviously other groups (the actual deplorables that embrace all of Trumps worst characteristics, those who just need to stick it to the "other", and those who genuinely were gullible enough to believe that Trump in particular cared about them and would keep or bring back their jobs).

But I've encountered what he's talking about quite a bit. Some is violently anti-welfare, and it's because they know someone in their family that is a lazy piece of shit that is gaming the system.

As a practical matter, it's not much more complicated than that. The problem of course, is the one inherent in anyone that uses their extremely limited anecdotal evidence and projects it on a population of 330 million people as a universal law. Their cousin Steve is a lazy piece of shit on welfare, therefore all people on welfare are lazy pieces of shit.

Having a liberal position that helping people that actually need it is worth the cost of some lazy pieces of shit getting a "free ride" loses any kind of credibility with someone that believes that there aren't any people that actually need it.

Also - to whoever said that rural communities don't have access to "culture". That's nonsense. They probably have limited access to OTHER cultures. They are neck deep in THEIR culture.

Anyway - I believe that the people that noxiousdog is talking about are wrong, to a great degree. But they will never see it. Data is unimportant to them when they can see examples of what they believe right in front of them.

Governors?

Jerry Brown (Calif.) - Just no.
John Hickenlooper (Colo.) - 2nd Amendment, drug policy issues
Dannel Malloy (Conn.)
John Carney (Dela.)
David Ige (Hawaii)
John Bel Edwards (Louis.)
Steve Bullock (Mont.)
Andrew Cuomo (NY) - LOL, no.
Roy Cooper (NC) - just getting started as gov.
Kate Brown (Oregon)
Tom Wolf (Penn.)
Gina Raimondo (RI)
Terry McAuliffe (VA)
Jay Inslee (Wash.)
Jim Justice (WV)
Mark Dayton (MN)
Bill Walker (Alaska, Ind.)

Might as well say no to McAuliffe, too - he has too much of the Clinton stink on him.

I knew I recognized the name, but couldn't remember where.

I threw up the list for crowd-sourcing, as I'm sure the hivemind has better familiarity with these than I do.

Isgrimnur wrote:Jerry Brown (Calif.) - Just no.

Brown had a short lived candidacy in 1992. Shortly before he formally announced, he spoke to my 400 level Poli Sci class at the University of Michigan (so a pretty small crowd - maybe 20 students). I seem to recall he was very big on accepting $5 donations from individuals and avoiding any corporate contributions. It was obvious that Gov. Moonbeam was not going to win.

This post has added nothing to this discussion.

ImLawBoy wrote:Gov. Moonbeam

NYTimes

For the uninitiated, ‘Governor Moonbeam’ became Mr. Brown’s intractable sobriquet, dating back to his days as governor between 1975 and 1983, when his state led the nation in pretty much everything — its economy, environmental awareness and, yes, class-A eccentrics.

The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.

Also, he's 79.

ImLawBoy wrote: I think you overestimate the amount of free time and money that the working poor in urban areas have with which to engage in culture.

Hell, some of the cultural institutions are pricing themselves out of middle class, too! Going to a museum used to be an inexpensive thing to do; now between parking, base ticket price, and any "special exhibition" ticket price, it can cost several hundred $$$ even if you refrain from the massively overpriced toxic offerings in their crapeterias. If you're able to go more than once in a year you're almost always better off with a family membership. And it's not just museums, even the zoo is cheaper to just buy an annual pass.

Jeff V wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote: I think you overestimate the amount of free time and money that the working poor in urban areas have with which to engage in culture.

Hell, some of the cultural institutions are pricing themselves out of middle class, too! Going to a museum used to be an inexpensive thing to do; now between parking, base ticket price, and any "special exhibition" ticket price, it can cost several hundred $$$ even if you refrain from the massively overpriced toxic offerings in their crapeterias. If you're able to go more than once in a year you're almost always better off with a family membership. And it's not just museums, even the zoo is cheaper to just buy an annual pass.

I voted to make the DIA free to county residents at a cost of $10 per year on my property taxes. I haven't been since the vote but I feel good about my decision. I was severely pissed after the Governor suggested it would be OK to auction assets weeks after I volunteered my money (and my fellow residents money as well)

Charging so much for all those things is necessary in order to have the money to fund all those sweetheart stadium deals.

Rip wrote:Charging so much for all those things is necessary in order to have the money to fund all those sweetheart stadium deals.

If that would have come up, I would have voted against it though I am a supporter of the Illitch family and think they do deserve consideration for their philanthropy to the area. 500,000,000 is a ridiculous amount of consideration wrapped in a lie that it will be paid back in economic gain.

Isgrimnur wrote:

ImLawBoy wrote:Gov. Moonbeam

NYTimes

For the uninitiated, ‘Governor Moonbeam’ became Mr. Brown’s intractable sobriquet, dating back to his days as governor between 1975 and 1983, when his state led the nation in pretty much everything — its economy, environmental awareness and, yes, class-A eccentrics.

The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting “the moonbeam vote,” which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.

Also, he's 79.

Hmm. I had thought the "Governor Moonbeam" moniker had its origins in Brown's proposal in the 1970s that California launch its own satellite. Actually, when I just googled that, the article you quote came up, and it confirms that the satellite origin is definitely part of it:

Exactly when Mr. Royko first crowned Mr. Brown “Governor Moonbeam” is unclear. Mr. Royko said he didn’t even remember when he first landed on the phrase. He “was stringing some words together one evening to earn his day’s pay,” he wrote.

But the nickname accompanied Governor Brown as he declared his fascination with outer space, proposed that California launch its own space satellite and made headlines dating the rock star Linda Ronstadt.

Isgrimnur wrote:I knew I recognized the name, but couldn't remember where.

I threw up the list for crowd-sourcing, as I'm sure the hivemind has better familiarity with these than I do.

He's been a fine governor in Virginia (which I acknowledge even though I didn't vote for him). But yeah, that Clinton stink would doom him from the start nationally, I'm sure.

If anyone out of Virginia should run, it's Mark Warner.

LordMortis wrote:Nobody loves the environment more than Trump

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... _cuts.html

The White House is proposing to slash Environmental Protection Agency funding that pays for Great Lakes pollution cleanup by 97 percent, according to a budget document obtained by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

The potential cuts are part of President Donald Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal, detailed in a U.S. Office of Management and Budget "passback" to the EPA that outlines drastic cuts to an agency Trump has called a "job killer" and promised to reduce to "tidbits" as a candidate.

The proposal would virtually eliminate annual Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding, slashing it from $300 million to $10 million among other cuts that would altogether reduce the EPA's total budget by a quarter.

I'm sure the Great Lakes will continue to be oh so glad we generally swung Red.

On the bright side when we're done I won't much give a shit about preserving anything any more. There is no Conserve in conservative, I guess.

Thank goodness we're cutting funding to clean up the Great Lakes. Otherwise we could point to what a terrible job the EPA is doing and demand they do something. Now, we can rely on industry to self regulate.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201 ... miles.html