Never said he did, I wrote Metlife did based on the research of your source....the same Metlife you said did not use the research as preemployment. Keep dancing around the truth and your statements you make Nancy P smile with envy.

Seligmann didn't use software. Try reading Learned Optimism by Martin he has a whole chapter on his experiences with Metlife.

The website sells the software pre-employment screening test you said does not exist...the same one used by Metlife.

Met Life..changed its hiring Practices to include screening candidates for optimism...via the SASQ test (modified by Seligman). http://www.waldentesting.com/salestests/...

Yep again we can draw you a picture and you don't see it.

Wrong again. It wasn't pre-employment. They went through training and MetLife wanted to put management through the same training but Seligmann said no. Assessments can be done as multiple choices tests or essays. These are the same essays graduate schools use. See, you don't know what you're talking about as usual.

"Too bad you don't know anything about this topic."
-
Yeah it was really hard to read about the pre-employment screening test Met-Life put in place using the high level of study your cited expert put together. Let me guess, questions like is the glass half full and what actions you would do if entering a room full of strangers? Real in-depth science!

Wrong again. Too bad you don't know anything about this topic. However, you don't really know anything about any of these topics.

"This research has been used by MetLife and the NBA since the early 90's."
-
The research shaped a test...it did not define anything. But please keep digging to prove your point.

Wrong again. This research has been used by MetLife and the NBA since the early 90's.

"So optimism can be measured."
-
Must be the new science were subjective traits now meet the means test for quantitative analysis.

Wrong again. Martin Seligmann used content analysis of verbatim explanations of political stump speeches to determine which politicians were optimists and therefore more likely to win. It actually had predictive value. So optimism can be measured. Your blah blah blah dribbling again.

Speaking of dubious…declaring past Presidential victories because you think they were pragmatic? Declaring someone a pragmatist is a kin to saying someone is an optimist; neither is clearly defined or quantified. It is rather funny that you list pragmatist in the same thought train as “using history to predict the future”. When one of the traits of being pragmatic is looking at the facts from history to declare cause and effect to learn from it…there by having the ability to foresee future events from past causations.

Using history to predict the future is dubious to say the least. This was the same type of argument used to justify moving social security to the stock market. However, as Robert Schiller pointed out you have to select your intervals carefully. The fact is that the Republicans lost and will continue to lose unless they actually come up with some ideas other than "cut taxes". Reagan won because he was a pragmatist and Carter lost because he was an ideologue. Clinton won because he was a pragmatist. George Bush won because people thought he was a pragmatist. John McCain lost because he gave up being a pragmatist for being an ideologue.

“But how many people look at facts/proof when casting their ballot? I'd wager not too many. I think that the "feeling" that the Republican Party gives off is what inspires language…if younger voters tend to vote according to what's trendy/hip, then what is motivating the huge boost for the Democrats amongst the baby boomers?”
-
Any “feeling” you are getting from a party is your own. It might be changed by the message from that party or influenced by the opposing party or views. Again I disagree with the assumption of a huge boost or large trend. Historically the ruling party (Admin) looses house/senate seats during the first four years and then looses the white house after that…this last election was no different. During the last one hundred years each party won the election for the white house 13 times (taking over control 6 times each); kind of throws water over all the worries.

"reduce shareholder rights"
-
Looks like this is has gotten worse under this administration.

"Georgy boy wanted to put Social Security into the stock market."
-
Not even close to the truth. He wanted to give some people the option to put part of their SS money into the market; as millions of workers do every week with 401k's.

Blah blah blah. Dick Cheney and Dumb Limbaugh are the epitome of compassion for those less fortunate? Shelby thinks American workers should be paid the same as foreigners. Georgy boy wanted to put Social Security into the stock market. Cut taxes, cut taxes, bash unions, bash unions, buyer beware, make bankruptcy harder, reduce shareholder rights, deregulate, strip Americans of their rights to due process and a redress of greivances: Yes, keep up that mantra and see how far that gets you. 16 years of democratic control.

Exactly, RAF.
But how many people look at facts/proof when casting their ballot? I'd wager not too many. I think that the "feeling" that the Republican Party gives off is what inspires language seen Darwin's post.
+
Also, if younger voters tend to vote according to what's trendy/hip, then what is motivating the huge boost for the Democrats amongst the baby boomers?

"The simple fact is that the Republican party has little empathy or understanding of the daily lives of people who are poor or middle class."
-
More baseless assumptions with no proof or facts.

The simple fact is that the Republican party has little empathy or understanding of the daily lives of people who are poor or middle class. They have little understanding of people who are afraid for their jobs. Instead they continue with the "don't tax me me me" phrase that has little support and is indicative of a selfish mentality. Their ideology has smashed up against a wall of reality and instead of admitting they were wrong they keep trying to smash down the immovable reality. Look at this report from the World Bank:

http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA...

Joe privatization and commercialization on military installations has been happening for decades; well before the 20 years I put in. To the issue of “gate guards”, it has become a manning issue; the people that did perform those tasks are now needed (skills) to protect assets in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The military by law can only have the number of personnel authorized in any given year by congress; the privatized “gate guard” fills two needs. One, it frees skilled troops for other roles and two it is cheaper than hiring more military people (again a congressional action). But these actions and no-bid contracts don’t leave the distaste many feel is currently happening with imposed govt rules involving public business. More specifically bond holders. In the current deal govt and Chrysler are working through certain bond holders receive a better return on equity than other bond holders. This will derail future bond holders from acquiring the once secure investment of corporate bonds. This has always been a low yield very low risk investment that is now tarnished by govt action…not corporate greed. When govt steps in and awards unions (not people, the organization) a better return than the ordinary private citizens it sends a shutter throughout the investment community.

"So what happened to this Republican?...The Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act, for starters. The largest expansion of government size and power in the modern era."
-
Joe, you will find many in the Republican Party that do not agree with these issues either; a large departure from conservative roots.

jowner's comment is spot on.

andre - I promise you I am not the Joe Flint you think I am.

RAF - on this we are in full agreement... I was a registered Republican until 2006; wanted Kemp to win in 88 and voted for Bush Sr, Dole, and W. Voted 3rd party in 2004 and for Obama in 2008.

So what happened to this Republican?

> But I think most want the policy of expanded government

The Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act, for starters. The largest expansion of government size and power in the modern era.

> govt holding voting collateral in business
> govt deciding who is hired and fired from private business
> govt deciding which bond holders get more amount than others

Likely, you are referring to the current round of banking and automotive bailouts; let us all recall that many airlines were bailed out after 9/11 and that Lee Iacocca's Chrysler was bailed out back in 1979 -- a failure in many respects (*). That "bailout" itself was modeled on previous airline and railroad bailouts.

Deflecting just a little bit but in all seriousness, let us recall the no bid contracts in support of OIF, given to "preferred" firms like Cheney's old firm Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. Further, the last Republican administration "privatized" many nominal government functions; while this is an admirable goal, let us ponder if it can indeed be taken too far. I work on a military installation: when I arrive in the morning, there are private guards at the gate; driving around the base, there are private contractors performing the landscaping, and there is no longer a mess hall, just private firms (e.g. Burger King, Starbucks, etc.) preparing and selling food. This strikes me at least as very, very strange: the government is already paying for the training, housing, and employment of soldiers: why aren't the soldiers manning the gates, cutting the grass, and peeling the potatoes? The last item, privatized food, is also occurring in universities. So when soldiers or students spend their money on food, those profits are being sucked up into a private corporation instead of back into the base or the university. I ask in all sincerity, is this a good idea? Is this a form of economic stimulus? Is a military base an entity that exists for the benefit of the government or private corporations?

(*) http://www.heritage.org/research/regulat...

"When your agenda is bashing gays,"
-
Here is another typical talking point that is absurd. There are members of both parties that are against this lifestyle as there are members of both parties that have no issue with it at all; there are openly gay people in all political parties. Having a differing opinion is a far cry from "bashing".

I sum it up in one word...RutabagaActionFaction.

What used to be republican states will soon be just plain old vegetative states.

The party of the big tent is now a party of the pup tent. I look to the person sitting to my right, and he is any angry old white guy. Ditto to the left, rear, and front. The party has a social agenda based on guns, gays and god - and lest we forget, tax cuts for the country club crowd. When your agenda is bashing gays, more guns and ammo, imposition of hypocrital religious views on society, what do you expect...converts in droves? Anyone who has a different opinion is a godless American hating "liberal". Well folks, you are wrong, and you will be marginalized into meaningless hate club.

“that shows the age demographics of the Republican Party...Not too good.”
-
The younger voter has always tended to vote via trends (trendy) and what is hip. They are more connected to pop culture and media icons. In this day and age that venue has a distinctive dem party lean so this is more about the message via the venue than the loss or gain of party identity by a demographic.

I understand your point, RAF, but here is an interesting website, that shows the age demographics of the Republican Party...Not too good.
+
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/...

+

darwin1-- Archie would ask was that a shot ?

Yes, andre you are the expert on hot air aren't you.

“RAF - I only used the #s in the article; are you suggesting that the impact of the tax cut for those with over $2M in taxable assets was less than $19B? If so, that only drives *down* their tax rate to less than five percent! Otherwise, I am misunderstanding what you are asking.”
-
Joe, I was discussing the tax cuts under Jeb. The story states in words of one cut yet list the number based on all the tax cuts. This statement; “All told, his tax-cutting mania deprived state coffers of $19 billion” is for all the cuts not just the “the intangibles tax”. The intangible tax saved 300,000 taxpayers a total of 161 million dollars, a far cry from the 19 billion for 200,000 people depicted in this article.

“that's why I feel the Republicans are losing ground, and need a complete overhaul to attract any real numbers.”
-
I disagree. 59 million is a far cry from losing ground. To place the number in a percentage format is just over 45%, the previous election cycle it was over 50% and the one before that was almost 48%. To draw a pattern of losing ground with numbers this close is disingenuous. The “game” is winner take all and no matter the number a win-is-a-win. If the losing numbers were in the 30’s or lower I then might agree.

“When conservatives say they hope Obama fails, are they hoping…”
-
I can only speak for one. But I think most want the policy of expanded government, govt holding voting collateral in business, govt deciding who is hired and fired from private business, govt deciding which bond holders get more amount than others, and the like to fail….meaning to end.

Let's see Dick Cheney would rather have a stupid blathering do nothing drug addict as leader of the Republican party over a do-something General who actually pulled himself up by his bootstraps. Sounds about right.

Here that flushing sound? Its the Republicans going down the toilet. The last time something like this happened the Reps were out of the Presidency for 16 years. Good luck.

To 916wi-When the Republicans (including some Dems.) deregulated the commodities market in around 2004, big business bought up gas futures and drove them up above $4.00 a gallon.
The largest buyers of these futures were AGI and Goldman Sachs. This is what eventually closed the Janesville Plant. So if you want to blame someone, you can blame our own Paul Ryan, as he always voted with the Bush adminisration.

RAF: I agree with you...politics is a game. While I can't discuss the Clinton Administration's impact on Democratic numbers, I do know that right now the numbers of the Republican party are spiralling downwards. Will this change? History shows us that recent elections have evolved into a referendum on the last President. Now, if Obama's Administration doesn't deliver I do believe we'll see some sort of a surge in Republican numbers. The level of that surge should correlate with the degree of success the adminstration has and/or the amount of fear that can be generated in the electorate around election time...That being said, I do think that the majority of the media seems to be very positive towards Obama...regardless if he deserves it. That's a huge advantage for the Democrats, and will be used to their full advantage during election season.
+
I also think there is something to be said about the Republican Party and it's direction, though. I'm 29, and while I see a lot of political interest in Madison amongst my peers and those younger than me, I see only a fraction of that here in Janesville. I'm only speculating here, but I believe that people of my generation find it difficult to relate to the Republican Party for a variety of reasons: For starters, it comes across as too old, there isn't a defining player in the Republican Party that anyone in my age group really identifies with. Especially since Obama hit the scene, younger voters are energized by him and his campaign. Secondly, a lot of people my age are not religous...I'm not saying all, but definitely a lot. The Republicans are portrayed to be very strongly connected to their religous beliefs. That's a huge turn-off for a lot of young voters. Lastly, I think it's important to remember that my generation (in my opinion) are a bunch of wimpy brats, who have been handed everything, and have very rarely had to work for anything. I believe that this has a variety of impacts on our mindset, not least of all fiscal responsiblity. Of course it only seems natural to the majority of my peers to be bailed out by the government, when they themselves have been bailed out for their irresponsibility their whole lives...While I am nauseated by this mindset, I completely blame the imbeciles who raised this generation of complacent morons.
+
I understand that the previous list is all opinion, but that's why I feel the Republicans are losing ground, and need a complete overhaul to attract any real numbers. Republicans are dying off everyday, and they're not being replaced...something is going to have to be done. As someone who usually identifies herself as a Democrat I cannot stress how important I feel it is to have at least a two party system in this country...I fear we're losing one of them quickly, and it isn't a good feeling.

RAF - I only used the #s in the article; are you suggesting that the impact of the tax cut for those with over $2M in taxable assets was less than $19B? If so, that only drives *down* their tax rate to less than five percent! Otherwise, I am misunderstanding what you are asking.

I did not state nor do I believe that disagreeing with spending policy is worse than dissenting with war; however, one could imagine ridiculous contexts...

My point was that anti-war protestors were broadly painted as "America haters", "traitors", "cut and runners", "people who want America to fail", etc. This fallacy began with President Bush who declared on September 20, 2001 that "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney, etc. voice their belief that they wish to see this Presidency fail. “I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, ‘Well, I hope he succeeds.’” -- Limbaugh, January 16, 2009.

Why would one hope for failure? We are still at war. The threats from both nations and rogue actors have not disappeared. The economy needs to be redirected. It would seem that those who wish to see this administration fail do so simply because of their long-standing belief that conservatism must triumph over all other ideologies and strategies instead of genuinely hoping and working for our success as a nation no matter upon which path we currently embark. I am not hearing cogent analysis or constructive policy criticism from the right in regards to the course of the war or the economy, only that they hope to see Obama fail.

When Cheney states that Obama has endangered our country, he is not providing cogent analysis or solutions. Gitmo and the rules of engagement within have changed; given that new fact, what new, constructive advice has he provided? He remains as inflexible as he ever was as VP or he or Rumsfeld were as SecDef.

When conservatives say they hope Obama fails, are they hoping that the economy worsens still more? That home prices freefall? That unemployment lines and bread lines spring up? Are they hoping that crushing deficits and debt remain with us well into the future? Are they hoping that China stops purchasing treasury notes? Are they hoping for failure in Iraq, simply because we are in Obama's term? Are they hoping that the active construction of and deployment to Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan is a failure? What is it that they wish to see when they state that Obama fails?

The right sorely needs another William Buckley, Jr.

I find it laughable that the media and many posting here think a political party that has lost ground during the past election cycles is doomed, many also believe the party needs a “big tent” to survive. Both are false. Politics is a game, like it or not, it’s true. The game is all about momentum and message. The last administration was behind on both and this then associated with the party as a whole; just like it did for Clinton and his party. To address the big tent issue, changing the message to cater to one side will only tune out another. A steady message of leadership has been the best approach and has won the majority of elections; leadership is never earned by bending your message for the fringe. I am one that thinks this approach by Jeb and Romney will go nowhere, they were rebuked by members of their own party during the last cycle and this will do nothing to improve their position to the base.
-
Joe you need to check your numbers; the numbers were for the total cuts not just the program you used. Also, how is being against government spending (increasing the debt) worse than dissenting from the war?

I don't think he means to suggest removal of a post -- it just got copied and pasted with the text to the left (username and date of post).

916WI i see your a car guy and thats good .

Who is Robyn Blumner? Well, she's a nationally syndicated columnist. She is affiliated with the ACLU. The Gazette has been running her for several months now.
http://www.tampabay.com/writers/article3...
http://www.tmsfeatures.com/bio/robyn-blu...
.
The Jeb Bush push here is something that has been widely covered in the media, so it's not unusual for her to be writing about. I do think the GOP is going to survive in some fashion; it's up to them whether they continue as a fringe, regional (Southern) party, or find their way back to a "big tent" approach with some appeal to the middle. For now, though, they seem quite content to reject the middle and "define" themselves more cleverly as an ideologically pure niche party.

Suggesting removal of a post --916WI
hit me with a 2X4 but i didn't suggest removing your post .

klick.....don't be so sensitive! Suggesting removal of a post for poking a little fun at a spelling error is a little over the top--don't you think?.....To answer your question, I'm not really thrilled with either side right now, but I definitely do not support the policies and the direction of President Obama. I overheard a 20 something mention Obama at a fast food place this weekend. I asked her, "Just out of curiosity, why did you vote for him?" Her answer--"Because he's going to give us all free health care." She was serious too! I realize that this thought process is representative of many of Obama's supporters--that's kind of scary.......

916WI
May 11, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal Too funny Werpknarly! You definitely are the typical democrat--you can't even spell the name of the party you're affiliated with:)
************************************************916WI
you must be a repuke eh

Denweb.......Please!!! The Republican party is responsible for the failure of GM? You seriously can't be that clueless.......It had nothing to do with the greed of the unions, the apathy of the management and competition which brought it's "A game"......Nope--these factors had nothing to do with it--it was all because of those pesky Republicans:)

A couple of millionaires showed off their "Average Joe" side... Please (and I'd feel the same if it was Gore or Kerry trying to be "down home" or "regular").

Wow... $19 billion divided by 200,000 taxpayers is $95,000 in taxes. That $95,000 is only 5% of their $2 million in taxable assets. In other words... peanuts in both real and relative value to a real "Average Joes" who pays closer to 20% on his Federal return.

I vehemently disagree with andre's position.

First, to state that we have a high tax burden right now is absolutely absurd and totally demonstrably false; it is quite simply a lie. Taxes (particularly for higher income brackets) were higher under Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy, and Eisenhower; I suppose that makes all of them liberal tax and spend socialists too? If I am wrong, then the Republicans have truly accomplished nothing with all of their alleged tax cutting during the past 30 years. Oh, snap.

Second and more importantly, if one were to go back just ten years ago and state that after eight years of a Republican White House that we would be attacked during a Republican Presidency and Congress, that the economy would crater, that two of the Big Three would be in (or near) bankruptcy proceedings, that foreclosures would grip the remainder of the economy, and that we would be stuck in not one but two land wars in Central Asia, both of which have lasted longer than our direct involvement in WWII... well, you would have been laughed at; people would think you were absolutely insane.

Why? Because ten years ago Republicans were still able to fool people into believing that they knew more than the Democrats about both the economy and national security. Turns out neither party knows anything... it's just the the facade has utterly fallen away from the Republicans' carefully constructed image.

You know what's really funny...? When the Iraq War began, people who dissented were labelled traitors because they "disagreed with the President during wartime."

Well... you're disagreeing with the President during wartime... Actually, you're doing worse. In general, people who dissented with the Iraq War still wished to see it come to a successful conclusion; meanwhile, the right in this country is actively hoping that Obama fails, in turn bringing ALL of us to an even more pitiable state. That is simply a tragic way to live, in the humble opinion of this author.

Too funny Werpknarly! You definitely are the typical democrat--you can't even spell the name of the party you're affiliated with:)

ya! Bush III with Limbaugh for VP! democrates are lovin it

I agree that will probably be what happens, andre. I do wonder what the future holds for the Republican party, though. I wonder if it will split or what. Something needs to be done to start attracting more members...younger folks just can't identify with them. Maybe, if this "house of cards" does fall hard enough, anything will look better than the Democratic brand...it's interesting to watch.

These are the same issues John McCain ran on in 2008 and lost. The problem with the Republican party is that it has lost its Conservative skepticism. True conservatives were skeptics not just of government but of all large institutions including business and religion. Now they are just skeptical of government run by anyone but them.

Repubs failed miserably last 8 years and tanked the economy. GM is going bankrupt, need anyone say any more.....it is no wonder the GOP is dying off and for good reason.

Who is Robyn Blumner and why does she have her panties in a bunch over some meeting Jeb Bush had in some pizza place? We have Obama now! The Republicans are political dinosaurs and will most likely not be in control of the White House, House or Senate any time soon, right? I mean, we don't have anything to worry about, do we? I geuss if Robyn Blumner took the time to write this article it must be important......... Maybe we should be worried about a grass roots republican backlash. The Obama administration did mock the failed "trickle down economics" theory. I mean they did something completey different. They passed a stimulus bill that aims at spending money on huge government projects that require spending on infrastructure, construction etc. that will create work for large corporations who will need to hire employees to get all of the work done and this will decrease unemployment.....wait....this kind of sounds like trickle down economics. Okay, maybe we should be worried.........