Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   A Lot To Worry About (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2741)

Bloggingheads 03-16-2009 10:17 PM

A Lot To Worry About
 

harkin 03-16-2009 11:15 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Someone named Danbmil99 showed more balance in his/her comment on Frum's New Majority 'Fox News' piece than Frum's entire article.

"Due to my place of birth, most of my friends and relatives are die-hard liberals. They tend to be educated, articulate, and intelligent. Nonetheless, at least 50% of them, when thinking about politics, are prone to the same kind of assinine conspiracy theories that people like Glenn Beck promulgate on the right. They take everything Michael Moore puts on film as gospel truth. They believe Keith Olberman is level-headed, fair-minded and shows little bias. To them, Chris Matthews is a shill for the RIGHT. They see everything through liberally polarized glasses. I guess the same is true for the conservatives. It's a very strange feature of human nature that I can't really comprehend or explain. It seems like a good idea to try to fight it though; the prevalence of conspiracy theories seems correlated with political instability. Look at how common they are in the Middle East, and even in Eastern Europe."

It also points out Frum's inability to call out liberals as he continues to blast conservatives. Now that Newsweek has given DF space to be quoted endlessly by the msm, I would be interested to know what he thinks about that mag being completely in the tank for Obama last year.

Jyminee 03-16-2009 11:25 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Wow, Glenn Beck is insane and frightening. I don't agree with Frum, but at least he's fighting for a conservatism that jettisons the maniacs.

claymisher 03-16-2009 11:30 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 107112)
It also points out Frum's inability to call out liberals as he continues to blast conservatives.

You're kidding, right? Frum always takes cheap shots at liberals. It's part of his schtick. He never engages with the best arguments on the other side.

claymisher 03-16-2009 11:47 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
I love Frum's four step program. It's pretty close to garden-variety Democratic politics. Fine with me!

Frum on Glenn Beck is pretty funny. Frum doesn't remember the Clinton years at all. The wingnuts picked up right where they left off with the conspiracy theories at whatnot.

What Frum, Douthat, and Salam (the axis of something I'm sure) still don't get is that the Republican Party is the real Republican Party -- Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are the real Republicans. FD&S aren't. They'd get the shit kicked out of them by real Republicans.

When they wise up they're welcome to join us cranky pragmatic problem-solver types in the Democratic Party. There are plenty of free-market borderline-libertarians in it. If they drop the homophobia they'd even find some social conservatives to bond with. They'll find their happy niche, and they won't have to turn off their brains to fit in.

uncle ebeneezer 03-17-2009 12:10 AM

Re: How Big Was Clinton's Package??
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/183...4:40&out=24:54

uncle ebeneezer 03-17-2009 12:13 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Frum seems fairly reasonable nowadays. Except when he went all Jim Pinkerton on the environmental issues. I wish he had had somebody more prepared to push back on the energy issues.

Wonderment 03-17-2009 12:25 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Frum seems fairly reasonable nowadays.
Here are the three words that will be chiseled onto David Frum's tombstone: Axis of Evil. There's no forgiving that.

In the meantime, I wish Frum a long life of reflection on the role he played in the nefarious Bush administration.

Perhaps someday he'll take responsibility for his collusion rather than cooking up controversies with Rush Limbaugh and trying to reposition himself as the rational voice of Republicanism.

cacimbo 03-17-2009 12:59 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Frum dumping on Palin misses the whole point that politics is more about personality than position. A minority of the population actually follow the positions and most vote for who they like. Palin had a press problem. Biden was not dumped on in the press despite making numerous absurd statements.

bjkeefe 03-17-2009 01:05 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 107122)
Frum seems fairly reasonable nowadays. Except when he went all Jim Pinkerton on the environmental issues. I wish he had had somebody more prepared to push back on the energy issues.

That part bothered me, too. He made a nod at the global warming problem when outlining how he's not crazy like those other conservatives, but then insisted more than once that the best way out of our energy problems is coal.

Granted, he also mentioned nukes, but I think it's fairly clear that, even leaving aside political problems inherent in a massive push in that direction, it's going to take decades before we can build enough reactors to make a difference. Given that, it seems better to focus on solar, wind, conservation, and other less problematic alternatives.

And really, there is no getting away from the political problems associated with nukes.

Titstorm 03-17-2009 01:07 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
"I want Frum's policies to fail."

- me


let's not give this guy any more attention. he's trying to save the reps by guiding them away from limbaugh. i hope they continue to ignore him so they will, in turn, continue to be a bunch of troglodytes.

bjkeefe 03-17-2009 01:15 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cacimbo (Post 107126)
Frum dumping on Palin misses the whole point that politics is more about personality than position. A minority of the population actually follow the positions and most vote for who they like. Palin had a press problem. Biden was not dumped on in the press despite making numerous absurd statements.

I disagree completely. The only thing the MSM cares about with Biden, and cared about during the campaign, is catching his gaffes. There were barn-burner speeches and other great moments (e.g., e.g.) during the campaign that drove us on the left crazy at how little coverage they got because the MSM was more interested in reporting on every second of Palin.

By the way, you'll note if you looked at the second link a moment that Fox "News" tried to portray as him having said this past weeked -- another supposed gaffe. Details here.

bjkeefe 03-17-2009 01:25 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 107116)
I love Frum's four step program. It's pretty close to garden-variety Democratic politics. Fine with me!

Yep. To the extent it's not just warmed-over GOP apple pie and motherhood with a little Vaseline on the lens.

Quote:

Frum on Glenn Beck is pretty funny. Frum doesn't remember the Clinton years at all. The wingnuts picked up right where they left off with the conspiracy theories at whatnot.
And how. Good point. Same features even, like the "body counts," the unbelievable hysteria about, and hatred for, the respective First Ladies, and the howling about socialism. I don't remember as much "they're going to put us all in camps" nonsense, though. I wonder how much that has to do with the Internet, which lets me hear more from the lunatic fringe.

Quote:

What Frum, Douthat, and Salam (the axis of something I'm sure) still don't get is that the Republican Party is the real Republican Party -- Palin, Limbaugh, and Beck are the real Republicans. FD&S aren't. They'd get the shit kicked out of them by real Republicans.

When they wise up they're welcome to join us cranky pragmatic problem-solver types in the Democratic Party. There are plenty of free-market borderline-libertarians in it. If they drop the homophobia they'd even find some social conservatives to bond with. They'll find their happy niche, and they won't have to turn off their brains to fit in.
In my dreams, I agree. But I think we won't have a chance of seeing anything like this until after the 2010 midterms.

uncle ebeneezer 03-17-2009 01:50 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Wonder, I agree on all counts. I was more referring to his view of the Republican party, which is WAY more reality-based than most of the GOP ditto-heads want to admit.

Unit 03-17-2009 02:23 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Since I don't watch tv I didn't see the Beck-Paul piece, so I just Googled and this is the first link that came up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGgzW9r0QrM

So I guess the problem is that Beck brought up the subject at all, not that he agrees with the conspiracy theories. But if so, isn't it a good thing that the "right" tries to educate it's extreme fringes? I could be off base here because I don't know anything about this issue. Also Paul just went ahead and criticized the Bush admin. as his usual, so I don't see what's so scandalous.

MikeDrew 03-17-2009 04:43 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Frum "hopes to persuade" Drezner that the mentality behind suggesting the Israel lobby was involved in spiking Chas Freeman is in error? Wow, now that is an ambitious undertaking. Since when has BhTV gone to the default of having like-minded heads talk almost exclusively (the previous Alterman-Salam diavlog being a welcome exception).

Also, I wonder if David Frum would have appreciated an outside group being able to dictate unconfirmable national security staffing decisions to his president in the first fifty days of their administration.

pete776 03-17-2009 09:25 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 107124)
Here are the three words that will be chiseled onto David Frum's tombstone: Axis of Evil. There's no forgiving that.

In the meantime, I wish Frum a long life of reflection on the role he played in the nefarious Bush administration.

Fair enough but Iím wondering what your view of Al Gore is then given that he was the Vice President for eight years when disastrous economic sanctions were imposed upon Iraq with estimated casualties of anywhere up to 1 million and when the US was intermittently bombing the shit out of the place.

Now of cause the Clinton Administration was no were near as bad Bush was but shouldn't Al Gore also be held to this high standard as well as Frum

pampl 03-17-2009 11:58 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cacimbo (Post 107126)
Frum dumping on Palin misses the whole point that politics is more about personality than position. A minority of the population actually follow the positions and most vote for who they like. Palin had a press problem. Biden was not dumped on in the press despite making numerous absurd statements.

Nixon had an actual "press problem" and was in fact a huge asshole and won electoral victories that make Republicans' mouth water. That's the problem with the mewling and whining about the 'left-wing media' on the right: if there is a bias it's been there for 50+ years and it isn't varying wildly from election to election. It's a silly excuse to justify supporting unpopular positions, as if that even really needs justification.

a Duoist 03-17-2009 12:30 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
It's good to see two conservatives ruminate about what it will take for conservatism to be politically viable nationally in the years ahead. Unfortunately, conservatives are far better intellectually when out of power than when they hold power. They are best at perceptive critique of the philosophical pretensions of others, but terrible at an honest critique of their own ideological pretensions.

As for China: Their holdings in U.S. debt are now so vast (a still growing 75% of 2 trillion dollars in reserves, the largest fortune ever accumulated in all of human history), that our two economies are inextricably linked. The world's largest debtor is literally married to the world's largest creditor. A sneeze in the U.S. becomes a panic in China, and vice-versa. China will do nothing to upset the fundamental relationship; nor will we.

The uproar about the Chinese fishing vessels confronting the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea has to do with China's very real sensitivity to their newest attack submarines recent rebasing to their naval base at Hainan, which was only 75 miles from the confrontation. We were obviously mapping the sea bed approaches to Hainan harbor; they know it, and were upset. They had to do something, so they sent a couple of boats to harass the U.S. All they actually did was 'moon' the U.S. Navy; note, they were careful NOT to send their attack submarines to harass the U.S. Navy.

Michael 03-17-2009 01:30 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Thanks Guys,

Really a high-level diavlog...more insights than opinions...I like that.

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 03-17-2009 02:42 PM

Walt and Mearsheimer
 
"The Israel Lobby" must be the most linked to book on BhTv by a huge margin. Regardless of what else one thinks about the book, if the authors' purpose was to get a discussion started, it would be hard to argue that they failed on that count.

Starwatcher162536 03-17-2009 02:46 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Frum needs to do a little more research about his views on energy.

You can't say Windfarms are a fantasy because of the high cost per kWh, and then say Nuclear power is the answer. With nuclear power's high upfront capital requirements combined with utilities having to accept shorter output contracts, nuclear power has a kWh that is at least as expensive as windmills kWh, if not more. It's not exactly rocket science why France has to heavily subsidize it's nuclear power plants.

The real thing that is keeping solar/wind power from going prime time is that there really is no cost effective way to store the energy. This results in "pure" windfarms/solar power plants being unable to change their power output at will to meet the demand curve (if energy onto the grid does not equal being used up by the grid bad things happen,like your Air Conditioner's transformer burning out for one!)

The whole coal vs. windmill debate is more light then heat. Windmills do not really replace coal power plants per say, they just make it so you do not have to run the coal power plant on windy days. Windmills and coal are more partners then adversaries.

Starwatcher162536 03-17-2009 02:53 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
I guess I should add that while coal and windmills work rather well together, unfortunately, nuclear and wind make very poor partners.

Nuclear power plants are so expensive to build, and are so cheap to run, that once you have one built it makes more sense to keep it cranking out power as much as possible then trying to partner it to wind.

Unit 03-17-2009 04:04 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by a Duoist (Post 107160)
It's good to see two conservatives ruminate about what it will take for conservatism to be politically viable nationally in the years ahead. Unfortunately, conservatives are far better intellectually when out of power than when they hold power. They are best at perceptive critique of the philosophical pretensions of others, but terrible at an honest critique of their own ideological pretensions.

If only we could keep the GOP at exactly 49 senators, that would be perfect.

brucds 03-17-2009 04:36 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
As I recall, a few years back David Frum wasn't the target of crackpot leftwing conspiracy theories, as Dan D suggests, but was at the center of fomenting an overheated conspiracy theory (an Iraq/Iran/N.Korea "Axis of Evil", a looming mushroom cloud, Saddam's WMD's as an imminent threat to the USofA, etc. etc.) that struck me as crackpot at the time and appears as such to most folks in retrospect.

Also authoring a book titled "The End of Evil" has the same ring of nuttiness as any of Glenn Beck ridiculous blather. A big difference is that Beck isn't writing crazy shit for the President.

brucds 03-17-2009 04:52 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
I don't want to defend paleocons, but since David Frum asked about finding 3 sentences in his screed about anti-American conservatives that aren't backed up by quotes, I have to say that the quotes gleaned from the notorious "anti-Americans" Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan in the section entitled "Espousing Defeatism" read more as prescient than either defeatist or anti-American.

I'm of the opinion there is a "hate America" Right - and some Paleo-cons may be part of it, along with creeps like Ramesh Ponnura who openly sides with islamic Jihadists in his "conservative" critique of American culture, but Frum was swinging pretty wildly in that article and relying on a variation of the old "anti-American" smear to rein in dissent. None of the folks he cites in that article have done as much damage to the country as Frum and friends. With "pro-Americans" like this Canadian import, we don't need "anti-Americans" to drag us down.

pampl 03-17-2009 05:19 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brucds (Post 107179)
I'm of the opinion there is a "hate America" Right - and some Paleo-cons may be part of it, along with creeps like Ramesh Ponnura who openly sides with islamic Jihadists in his "conservative" critique of American culture

Please tell me you mean Dinesh D'souza. I like Ponnuru, it would suck if he was crazy :(

brucds 03-17-2009 05:57 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
You're right - D'Souza. I'm confusing Ponnuru's "The Party of Death" (that would be you, if you're a Democrat) with D'Souza's even crazier "The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9/11." Although, "The Party of Death" is up there in the annals of crazy rightwing bullshit. I agree, though, that Ponnuru has a likeable affect, despite his assertion that I'm on the side of "Death." You know, now that I think about it, Glenn Beck is also a pretty cheerful, upbeat character compared to, say, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.

John Randoe 03-17-2009 06:54 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 107171)
Frum needs to do a little more research about his views on energy.

You can't say Windfarms are a fantasy because of the high cost per kWh, and then say Nuclear power is the answer. With nuclear power's high upfront capital requirements combined with utilities having to accept shorter output contracts, nuclear power has a kWh that is at least as expensive as windmills kWh, if not more.

Just compare the upfront and maintenance costs of a plant with four 750MW reactors to a farm with 2000 windmills. How can you criticize Frum's research when you can't even do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 (Post 107171)
Windmills do not really replace coal power plants per say, they just make it so you do not have to run the coal power plant on windy days. Windmills and coal are more partners then adversaries.

And windmills may be more partners than adversaries on the margins, but you can't just shut down a coal plant at your whim. There's a 12 hour startup and shutdown during which you're burning gas extremely inefficiently. The bottom line is that the vast majority of our utility power will for the foreseeable future be from good baseline sources (primarily coal and/or nuclear).

claymisher 03-17-2009 08:00 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Anybody else catch Fox News making fun of one of their own?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/13/...-beck-mockery/

AemJeff 03-17-2009 08:33 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 107196)
Anybody else catch Fox News making fun of one of their own?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/13/...-beck-mockery/

I saw a link to that clip yesterday, and got distracted by work and lost track of it. Thanks for posting it.

Starwatcher162536 03-17-2009 08:46 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John Randoe (Post 107188)
Just compare the upfront and maintenance costs of a plant with four 750MW reactors to a farm with 2000 windmills. How can you criticize Frum's research when you can't even do that?

2000 Industrial Windmills is abit more then 4(750MW),at least if you are talking about peak capacities. Granted, a reactor is going to be able to maintain peak power generation a higher % of the time then windmills, so the nominal power ratings will be better for nuclear reactor.

MIT had a study here comparing the relative costs that showed windfarms and nuclear power plants cost/kWh about the same over the lifespan. SciAm did an article over another study showing nuclear reactors actually a little more expensive. Ill dig around for the links later.

Quote:

And windmills may be more partners than adversaries on the margins, but you can't just shut down a coal plant at your whim. There's a 12 hour startup and shutdown during which you're burning gas extremely inefficiently. The bottom line is that the vast majority of our utility power will for the foreseeable future be from good baseline sources (primarily coal and/or nuclear).
Eh, you caught me here, I was being sloppy. Yes, you can't shut them down at a whim all the time and still be economically pleasing, but you can vary their power output to meet your demand curve. That's kind of the reason CoGen plants are so effective (other then how stupidly cheap coal is).

Also, perhaps I was not being clear, but yes, I agree that Windfarms are not going to take over coal because of the energy storage problem. Regardless, Frum was being hard on wind/solar for all the wrong reasons.

bjkeefe 03-17-2009 09:06 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 107196)
Anybody else catch Fox News making fun of one of their own?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/13/...-beck-mockery/

This has been hilarious.

I'd also say that it looks like Wallace is surrendering to Smith his claim as token sane person at Fox. I had hopes for him for a while last campaign, for example, when he chastised the creeps on Fox and Gated Community Friends, but to stand up for Glenn Beck is contemptible.

uncle ebeneezer 03-17-2009 09:22 PM

Re: Conspiracies
 
Frum forgot to mention the biggest conspiracy of all among the wingnuts. You know the one about BH comment moderators ;-)

AemJeff 03-17-2009 09:30 PM

Re: Conspiracies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 107206)
Frum forgot to mention the biggest conspiracy of all among the wingnuts. You know the one about BH comment moderators ;-)

You are banned, Ebeneezer!

SpikeTedAgnew 03-19-2009 03:55 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
"Say the same things over again louder!" David please. Maybe, if what the Republicans acted on there rhetoric in the past 20 years they woulden't be in the current situation they find themselves in. If the base is saying the same things louder it's because they were never heard by you'all in D.C. Conservatives have never been statist, imperialists regardless of what you and your ilk would like to believe.

SpikeTedAgnew 03-19-2009 04:53 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
David and Professor Drezner see 'The Lobby Strikes Back' by Pat Buchanan.

bjkeefe 03-19-2009 11:14 PM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpikeTedAgnew (Post 107377)
"Say the same things over again louder!" David please. Maybe, if what the Republicans acted on there rhetoric in the past 20 years they woulden't be in the current situation they find themselves in. If the base is saying the same things louder it's because they were never heard by you'all in D.C. Conservatives have never been statist, imperialists regardless of what you and your ilk would like to believe.

I wonder, then, why you all kept voting for the sort of candidates that clearly were "statist imperialists" and who kept not acting upon the principles they espoused and you believed. Why did George Bush win reelection in 2004? Why did it take until 2006 to get the GOP out of the majority in Congress? How is it that John McCain got the nomination in 2008?

I don't mean to sound accusatory; I'm genuinely curious. Was it just that it took a long time for what you say now to become obvious to most people? Was it that no matter how many misgivings a good conservative might have felt earlier, the alternative (Democrats) was worse?

bjkeefe 03-21-2009 12:14 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Doghouse Riley reacts.

graz 03-21-2009 12:29 AM

Re: A Lot To Worry About
 
Riley nearly had me reexamining my luv for bhtv. He is good. Yet commenter #3 put it in proper perspective and made me realize that Riley can't possibly have enough time in his life for both the leisure that bhtv requires and his awesome - and I'm assuming - time consuming writing.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.