The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

October 30, 2012
election:

Does your brain feel like it’s melting? Blame the campaign ads.
It’s the final week before the election, and rich people are shoving money into Senate campaigns left and right, The Washington Post reports. If you’re in one of the battleground states, we feel for you. All these annoying ads are probably testing your patience when all you want to do is watch “King of the Hill” reruns while eating Hot Pockets and otherwise being vegetative. And if you live in Montana, we doubly feel for you:

Perhaps no state has been so consumed by outside spending as Montana, where advertising is very cheap compared to large states with urban populations such as Ohio and Florida. There, according to the GOP tracking document, [Jon] Tester ($311,000) and [Denny] Rehberg ($515,000) will blanket the state’s seven small media markets with their closing ads in their competitive race.

Are you at the point where you just don’t care anymore? Think you’ll queue up Netflix and watch a “King of the Hill” marathon on election day rather than, y’know, voting? Just a thought of encouragement here: Don’t listen to the majority. Don’t feel like you’re at a crossroads. Read up on the issues, get a grip on foreign, domestic and economic policy issues, and vote for yourself. And don’t merely base your opinion on the fact that Denny Rehberg wears flannel in his official Congressional photo and looks like a distant relative of Ron Swanson. You can do better than that.
— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog

Why campaign ads are getting increasingly annoying.

election:

Does your brain feel like it’s melting? Blame the campaign ads.

It’s the final week before the election, and rich people are shoving money into Senate campaigns left and right, The Washington Post reports. If you’re in one of the battleground states, we feel for you. All these annoying ads are probably testing your patience when all you want to do is watch “King of the Hill” reruns while eating Hot Pockets and otherwise being vegetative. And if you live in Montana, we doubly feel for you:

Perhaps no state has been so consumed by outside spending as Montana, where advertising is very cheap compared to large states with urban populations such as Ohio and Florida. There, according to the GOP tracking document, [Jon] Tester ($311,000) and [Denny] Rehberg ($515,000) will blanket the state’s seven small media markets with their closing ads in their competitive race.

Are you at the point where you just don’t care anymore? Think you’ll queue up Netflix and watch a “King of the Hill” marathon on election day rather than, y’know, voting? Just a thought of encouragement here: Don’t listen to the majority. Don’t feel like you’re at a crossroads. Read up on the issues, get a grip on foreigndomestic and economic policy issues, and vote for yourself. And don’t merely base your opinion on the fact that Denny Rehberg wears flannel in his official Congressional photo and looks like a distant relative of Ron Swanson. You can do better than that.

— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog

Why campaign ads are getting increasingly annoying.

(via gov)

18:55 // 1 year ago
October 29, 2012
election:

The tough FEMA question to ask before the election: Who pays?
Back in 2011, during a debate moderated by CNN’s John King weeks after the Joplin, Missouri tornado, Mitt Romney said this about disaster relief funding: “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” (His office released a statement backing off this stance, saying he would give the funding to the states.)
His running mate, Paul Ryan, had this line in his budget plan: “The disaster declaration is intended as a process to help state and local governments receive federal assistance when the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceeds state and local resources, and when federal assistance is absolutely necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not made judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from communities that are truly in need.”
And here’s what we’re currently facing: A fiscal cliff that’s going to force someone’s hand, because FEMA’s set to get a $878 million haircut if we don’t find a way to get away from that cliff, according to Wonkblog. And that’s on top of limits placed on funding by the debt-ceiling deal. The need for disaster relief isn’t going down; in fact, there has been more usage of federal relief than ever under the Obama administration, according to the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, which says it’s been on the rise since the Clinton years. (Though, as any fool with a TV set and an internet connection could tell you, 2011 was a rough year for devastating storms.)
Here’s the problem we face as a country — nobody wants to see people in trouble who aren’t getting help. And the best-laid plans and most careful consideration ultimately fly out the window when the problem is IMBY (which, being a DC resident, it kinda is right now). With a hurricane within shouting distance of the country’s most-populated corridor,  Romney and Ryan’s tough talk won’t sound so tough on this topic right now, especially so close to the election. But we don’t have a lot of time to consider what we have in front of us. So, the question we gotta ask is: When it comes down to it, who will best fund disaster response in a way that’s effective and efficient, which won’t fall down on the job?
— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog

What do you guys think?

election:

The tough FEMA question to ask before the election: Who pays?

Back in 2011, during a debate moderated by CNN’s John King weeks after the Joplin, Missouri tornado, Mitt Romney said this about disaster relief funding: “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” (His office released a statement backing off this stance, saying he would give the funding to the states.)

His running mate, Paul Ryan, had this line in his budget plan: “The disaster declaration is intended as a process to help state and local governments receive federal assistance when the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceeds state and local resources, and when federal assistance is absolutely necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not made judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from communities that are truly in need.”

And here’s what we’re currently facing: A fiscal cliff that’s going to force someone’s hand, because FEMA’s set to get a $878 million haircut if we don’t find a way to get away from that cliff, according to Wonkblog. And that’s on top of limits placed on funding by the debt-ceiling deal. The need for disaster relief isn’t going down; in fact, there has been more usage of federal relief than ever under the Obama administration, according to the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, which says it’s been on the rise since the Clinton years. (Though, as any fool with a TV set and an internet connection could tell you, 2011 was a rough year for devastating storms.)

Here’s the problem we face as a country — nobody wants to see people in trouble who aren’t getting help. And the best-laid plans and most careful consideration ultimately fly out the window when the problem is IMBY (which, being a DC resident, it kinda is right now). With a hurricane within shouting distance of the country’s most-populated corridor,  Romney and Ryan’s tough talk won’t sound so tough on this topic right now, especially so close to the election. But we don’t have a lot of time to consider what we have in front of us. So, the question we gotta ask is: When it comes down to it, who will best fund disaster response in a way that’s effective and efficient, which won’t fall down on the job?

— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog

What do you guys think?

(via gov)

19:52 // 1 year ago
October 25, 2012
Today in political cartoons with an extra dash of clever: xkcd’s take on electoral precedent.

Today in political cartoons with an extra dash of clever: xkcd’s take on electoral precedent.

22:30 // 1 year ago
October 22, 2012

What the pundits think: Who won the debate, anyway?

  • Sully "He’s flawed; he’s made mistakes; but who hasn’t? If this man, in these times, with this record, against this opposition, does not deserve re-election, then I am simply at a loss for words. I have to believe the American people will see that in time.”
  • The Fix ”It was probably inevitable that a real discussion of America’s role in the world wasn’t going to happen amid polling that suggests that voters overwhelmingly care about the economy in this country.”
  • Hot Air ”Romney wanted to show the audience not just that he understands Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran, but that he’s unflappable even in a tense situation. Obama wasn’t facing that test so he could afford to be more aggressive, if only to impress his base. Because he was playing offense, I’ll bet that he wins the insta-polls. But that won’t matter; the bottom line is that Romney’s still on track.”
  • TPM “Obama seemed comfortable, happy. The visuals told the story. Romney was sweating a lot and looked like he was in pain. Into the second half of the debate Romney’s answers seemed more jumbled and unfocused. There was even that rambling and generally uncontroversial digression on Pakistan. Why? He seemed lost.”
  • Politico "Putting his disdain for Romney on vivid display, Obama said his challenger has been ‘all over the map’ on matters of war and peace and pushed back more aggressively than ever on some of Romney’s stock foreign policy attacks.”

And now, your turn. What do you think? And wasn’t Bob Schieffer such a bro?

23:27 // 1 year ago
14:13 // 1 year ago
October 18, 2012
14:31 // 1 year ago
October 15, 2012

LEAKED: The list of guidelines for the debate that both camps agreed to

2012 Debates Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns

The guidelines of tomorrow’s presidential debate, as agreed upon by both campaigns (technically, this is a “memorandum of understanding,” not a list of official rules). Good get by Mark Halperin over at Time, who highlighted some of the more interesting bits in the 21-page document. source

22:53 // 1 year ago
October 6, 2012
"And what would you like for Christmas, little boy?" Jon Stewart’s reaction to a question asking what advice they’d give Congress on working together was to sit on Bill’s lap.

"And what would you like for Christmas, little boy?" Jon Stewart’s reaction to a question asking what advice they’d give Congress on working together was to sit on Bill’s lap.

21:15 // 1 year ago

lifeincommas says: Do you know if the O'Reilly / Stewart debate tomorrow will be available after the fact or is it only streaming? I haven't been able to find anything useful, answer-wise.

» SFB says: According the the FAQ page, “And after the live event, you will be able to download the media file and put it on your favorite device locally.” By the way, in case you want to watch it on TV, it’s available on Roku. I’m probably going to liveblog this, by the way. — Ernie @ SFB

10:07 // 1 year ago
9:54 // 1 year ago