I think this guy is being a jerk, but nevertheless, I think he has the basic outlines of what is going to happen exactly right.

Whether he’s reelected or not, I think the party, the radical, conservative, right-wing party, is going to keep moving to the right. Keep getting rid of dissidents, purging dissidents...

For liberals to have the illusion that it’s going to change, or that they’re going to learn a lesson if Romney loses, is to make the same mistake liberals always make.

All the way back to Goldwater, liberals have expected Republicans to stop moving to the right after a defeat.

And they’re deluding themselves.

Every liberal pundit — Tony Lewis and James Reston in the Times, Richard Hofstadter in the New York Review of Books — back then predicted oblivion and, two years later, Reagan was elected governor of California and the rest is history....

The other thing that’s going to happen is: unbelievable rage at Obama. We’re going to see the rage of fanatics and spin keep ratcheting it up. The position has been — and this is even by relatively establishment people like Peggy Noonan, George Will — “He’s an incompetent. Americans can’t stand him. They think he’s a nice guy but he’s in over his head. This is an historic change to end this collectivist presidency.” Because underlying so much of this, in my view, is race, they’re going to be furious. They really felt they could knock him off easily.

So when that fails, they’re going to be very angry.

I think he is totally wrong about race being the motivation. Its ideology. They don't hate Obama because he is black - not enough of them for it to matter anyway - they hate Obama because of the extremism of their politics and their absolute rejection of moderation.

Frank Rich: Right will rage if Obama wins - Salon.com

We don't lack for challenges. A billion people want electricity, millions are without clean water, the climate is changing, manufacturing is inefficient, traffic snarls cities, education is a luxury, and dementia or cancer will strike almost all of us if we live long enough. In this special package of stories, we examine these problems and introduce you to the indefatigable technologists who refuse to give up trying to solve them.

Why We Can't Solve Big Problems | MIT Technology Review

Iran has suspended 20-percent uranium enrichment in order to have Western-imposed sanctions lifted, a parliament member told Al Arabiya on Saturday.

Earlier, Foreign Policy and National Security Commission of Parliament Mohammad Hossein Asfari told ISNA news agency that Tehran’s move was a “good will” gesture, hoping that Western countries will lift their sanctions on Tehran.

Hard-hit by sanctions, Iran suspends 20-percent uranium enrichment

In the last three recoveries, however, America’s economic engine has emitted sounds we’d never heard before. The 1990 recovery took 15 months, not the typical six, to reach the prerecession peaks of economic performance. After the 2001 recession, it took 39 months to get out of the valley. And now our machine has been grinding for 60 months, trying to hit its prerecession levels — and it’s not clear whether, when or how we’re going to get there. The economic machine is out of balance and losing its horsepower. But why?

The answer is that efficiency innovations are liberating capital, and in the United States this capital is being reinvested into still more efficiency innovations. In contrast, America is generating many fewer empowering innovations than in the past. We need to reset the balance between empowering and efficiency innovations.

A Capitalist’s Dilemma, Whoever Wins the Election - NYTimes.com

This is from the 2012 Texas GOP party platform:

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

The official spin is that this was a mistake - they didn't mean to oppose the teaching of critical thinking skills - just higher order thinking, apparently.

Texas GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really. - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post

Romney:

We’ll use enhanced interrogation techniques which go beyond those that are in the military handbook right now.

Election Will Decide Future of Interrogation Methods for Terrorism Suspects - NYTimes.com

The extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap.

This article does a tremendous job of dissecting the present election choice in a fashion that is complimentary and critical of both candidates. Its a level of clue and objectivity that is almost impossible to find in our domestic political dialog anymore and I really appreciate it. The highest rated comments are very good as well.

The fact is that Romney could work, assuming, as the Economist says, that you ignore everything he has said during the campaign and focus on who he is - but the problem is a political party that has become too radical. Although they can be fooled into supporting a moderate candidate they believe they are fooling us, and they fully intend to be spiking the football and then pulling the knives out for fundamental facets of social order like equality before the law and the writ of habeas corpus just as soon as they get their man in office. That isn't acceptable.

Our American endorsement: Which one? | The Economist

“We’re talking about getting water of the tunnel. Let’s get the water out of the tunnel tomorrow, let’s get the people out of the water today. There’ve been thousands of people who have been displaced. There are people who are cold, who are hungry, who are without a place to go, and looking for warmth.,” Lanza said, according to Politicker.

“There are people still trapped. Yet we’re talking about marathons and tunnels.”

:-/

Staten Island fury: Official blasts Red Cross response after Sandy as a 'disgrace' - U.S. News

Apparently racist nativism has a fully funded Washington think tank. I don't usually read the Washington Times but this headline popped up on my Google News:

Two-thirds of jobs go to immigrants during Obama’s four years

Often the concept of "immigrant" and the concept of "illegal immigrant" are conflated by activists who are opposed to illegal immigration. As an immigrant I find this annoying. I was surprised to find that this particular rabbit hole was a bit deeper - in this case focusing on "foreign born" versus "non-foreign born" people - irrespective of their citizenship.

“It’s extraordinary that most of the employment growth in the last four years has gone to the foreign-born, but what’s even more extraordinary is the issue has not even come up during a presidential election that is so focused on jobs,” said Steven A. Camarota, the center’s research director, who wrote the report along with demographer Karen Zeigler.

The author of the article provides this zinger, which is inaccurate enough that were this a real news paper it would raise questions about journalistic integrity.

He also said immigrants are quicker to jump into the rebounding job market while native-born Americans, who under federal law have more welfare options and access to unemployment benefits, are slower to find work.

The "He" referred to here is Cato Institute policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh. I'm interested to know whether he actually said something like this or if he is being misquoted. I suspect the later, but I'm not sure.

Native-born Americans do not have more welfare options nor do they have better access to unemployment benefits than naturalized U.S. Citizens. We're all equal under the law, except when it comes to the office of the Presidency.

I find it deeply troubling that a group which apparently advocates that some U.S. Citizens should be more equal than others receives funding and a credible reception in Washington as a serious organization. If Cato also subscribes to this nativist perspective that is much, much worse (but I doubt it - I think this is a misquote).

Nativists have a Washington Think Tank

The drug war is a perfect example of this effect; we all know drugs have the potential to be dangerous but the facts become devalued when trusted sources overstate their case. 

Unfortunately a situation seems to have prevailed in which young people learn to disregard claims about drugs from figures in authority. Suggesting that ecstasy is hundreds of times more dangerous than it really is or that cod is 210,000 times more overfished than it is utterly undermines the arguments one is trying to make. This effect could explain why drug prevention programs such as DARE have been found in many cases to result in an increased level of drug use (Lilienfeld, 2007, Werch and Owen, 2002).

Who Needs Facts Anyway? | Neurobonkers | Big Think