Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-13-2010, 06:59 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-14-2010, 01:23 AM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)

Can't believe they didn't discuss The New Dating Game
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2010, 01:24 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)

I think the point of promoting marriage, especially when children are in the mix, is that it tends to be a more stable basis of child rearing. That is the idea anyway, and I tend to agree with it until proven otherwise.


Assuming the partner is not abusive or dead weight of course. Single mothers do not have dual income streams like married couples often do. And while that may not be such a bother for Angelina Jolie or other women on the higher end of the income scale, it can make a huge material difference in terms of wealth and prosperity at the lower end.


Day care for poorer single women does not equate to an extra income stream. Daycare x10 does not come close to an extra income stream.


The problem is that many people are loathe go out on a limb and put down single parenthood. Sort of a let's not be judgmental mode. Which is fine. Can't have that... but making a case to people that having two parents is the preferred model, especially at the lower income levels should not be controversial or get resistance imo.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2010, 01:32 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Mr. Right, Mr. Good Enough, and Mr. Edwards (Emily Bazelon & Dana Goldstein)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
I think the point of promoting marriage, especially when children are in the mix, is that it tends to be a more stable basis of child rearing. That is the idea anyway, and I tend to agree with it until proven otherwise.
From the perspective of understanding population pressures, I think allowing families a free hand on procreation as a huge, tragic mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-14-2010, 02:12 AM
dieter dieter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 237
Default pro single mother is more pro family than a nursing home

I think the single motherhood issue went off track. In Germany and Austria it was almost standard practice that children of single moms were taken away from them and sent to nursery homes, where many of these kids were mistreated, banned from seeing their mothers, even abused for cheap child labor und personally blamed by nurses for their mother's irresponsibility.

The german Red Army Faction even stormed some nursery homes to set the kids free.

So the defence of single-motherhood was directed at this inhumane practice and it was actually pro family, rather than anti family, because surely one parent is better than none.

Well, the nursery homes were closed down and the remaining ones reformed, so that problem went away. Yet, the "defend single motherhood" meme remains and many later leftists and liberals misguidingly thought that they have to pretend that a father makes no difference.

That said, how do you promote marriage? Conservatives blame liberal and feminist intellectuals who are seen as the root of all evil. That is an easy cop-out and an excuse to sit on your hands and not seriously think about the issue.

I am not convinced at all that the masses plan their lives according to the ideology of obscure feminist magazines and elitist liberal newspapers. And the readers of these papers themselves largely live in stable relationships.

The kind of magazines most women read is full of marriage advise anyway. I assume that all of those church going americans receive plenty of sermons about marriage. Yet, the most religious seem to have the highest divorce rates.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2010, 01:43 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Abolish Valentine's Day

Any holiday that combines Christian - however forgotten and ignored - and galloping consumption is anathema. The little hearts, the candy, the obligatory gift-giving....it's Xmas with a high fructose corn syrup buzz.

And, in South Korea, it's worse. Today women give men candy. On March 14, those men will choose to reciprocate with chocolate. And then, on every 14th of each remaining month of the year, singles can meet for some food item to commiserate about their loneliness to the benefit of some restaurateur or store. For instance, on Black Day, singles meet to eat noodles and black bean sauce. And then, Xmas is basically another Valentine's Day for singles, just with a different theme.

I would like to go back in history, to the advertising firm that concocted this atrocity. I would set the sprinklers to malfunction, or pull a spark plug to cause the meeting to be canceled, etc. Valentine's is America at its corporate, agribusiness, conformist, sexist worst!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:49 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Sweets for the sweet

.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2010, 10:25 AM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Default Which one is more annoying?

I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2010, 10:45 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.
Are you in a bad mood?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-14-2010, 10:48 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

thprop.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:38 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thprop View Post
I find both of these women to be annoying - but Goldstein takes the prize. Her voice is so incredibly whiny.
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:54 AM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
I think it'd be pretty great to have Matthew Lee or Glenn Lowry or what's-his-name with the stupid hats who writes about the military...yeah, some of those guys...have them talk about Jenny Sanford or Elizabeth Edwards or dating or marriage or whatever.

Mickey would be a horrible choice for this, however, for obvious and painful reasons.

Maybe BHTV could run a "Dude Stuff" segment--something right out of the New Sexism. Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.

Again, Mickey's no good here.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:56 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray View Post
I think it'd be pretty great to have Matthew Lee or Glenn Lowry or what's-his-name with the stupid hats who writes about the military...yeah, some of those guys...have them talk about Jenny Sanford or Elizabeth Edwards or dating or marriage or whatever.

Mickey would be a horrible choice for this, however, for obvious and painful reasons.

Maybe BHTV could run a "Dude Stuff" segment--something right out of the New Sexism. Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.

Again, Mickey's no good here.
LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-14-2010, 12:09 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
LOL!
me too!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2010, 12:40 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Brink Lindsey and Dan Drezner discuss the new SI swimsuit issue, the gayness of the Winter Olympics, and their favourite disgusting bugs.
I'm all for it - anything to keep Drezner and Lindsey off Economics and politics.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:55 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
Yes, I agree. And let me add that "women's issues" doesn't mean that all women enjoy these topics! Or to make it clear: count me among those that don't.

I guess there is a way to talk about these topics, which are not very interesting to start with, in a way that may make them more appealing. But that hasn't been the case for what I can recall.

And I also agree that the participants are able to discuss other topics intelligently.

It's just that mellow girly talk!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-14-2010, 02:56 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues.
The problem is that it's hard to have it both ways -- as a serious political commentator and a John Edwards-Jennie Sanford gossip monger. That is one of the reasons why Mickey -- also of Slate -- was so obnoxious in his "outing" of Edwards, and why it's silly for a public intellectual to spend 5 minutes here wondering whether it's true that Edwards is now engaged.

As Annie Lamont pointed out in the LA Times today, where on the scale of Cheny-like crimes do you situate John Edwards? Lamont decides to forgive Edwards and move on to important stuff to women like wars, health care and natural disasters.

Quote:
Edwards' fall from grace is the oldest story in America, and probably the world. He was a gorgeous, powerful man willing to torch his family, his career and those who trust him to get laid -- by someone whose name the rest of us can't even pronounce.

But where does Edwards even rank on the scale of loathsomeness when compared with, say, Dick Cheney? Not very high. Twenty names below John Boehner; 27 below Sarah Palin; directly after the TSA security people at the airport; and tied with Susan Collins.
To Bazelon's credit she points out that some feminist issues get reported and popularized in a manner skewed to the interests of upper middle class men and women.

Another problem is inflating the importance of gossip. I think Emily said something like "Sanford will always be remembered for...." The truth is that Sanford will not be remembered for anything. Healthcare under Obama will be remembered, torture will be remembered, Roe v. Wade will be remembered, Afghanistan will be remembered, but Sanford will be utterly forgotten in about 10 media minutes.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y s璲uela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-14-2010, 03:08 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
The problem is that it's hard to have it both ways -- as a serious political commentator and a John Edwards-Jennie Sanford gossip monger. That is one of the reasons why Mickey -- also of Slate -- was so obnoxious in his "outing" of Edwards, and why it's silly for a public intellectual to spend 5 minutes here wondering whether it's true that Edwards is now engaged.

As Annie Lamont pointed out in the LA Times today, where on the scale of Cheny-like crimes do you situate John Edwards? Lamont decides to forgive Edwards and move on to important stuff to women like wars, health care and natural disasters.

To Bazelon's credit she points out that some feminist issues get reported and popularized in a manner skewed to the interests of upper middle class men and women.

Another problem is inflating the importance of gossip. I think Emily said something like "Sanford will always be remembered for...." The truth is that Sanford will not be remembered for anything. Healthcare under Obama will be remembered, torture will be remembered, Roe v. Wade will be remembered, Afghanistan will be remembered, but Sanford will be utterly forgotten in about 10 media minutes.
I agree. And all the time and energy that is being used to gossip about completely inconsequential events, is a distraction from the issues that really matter.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-14-2010, 03:20 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
Bazelon is terrific on the gabfest but Dickerson and Plotz are unbearable villagers. She really ought to get her own show.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-14-2010, 05:09 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Don't these people come on and talk about what they want to talk about? So whatever "sexism" that's here, it is all on their shoulders. Who cares really. Let them have their say about whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-14-2010, 11:15 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Don't these people come on and talk about what they want to talk about? So whatever "sexism" that's here, it is all on their shoulders. Who cares really. Let them have their say about whatever.
Yes, really. If a portion of the viewing audience enjoys it, who cares?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-15-2010, 01:46 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
Yes, yes yes.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-15-2010, 04:36 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

No, no no.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-15-2010, 07:47 AM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
What's annoying is that is that - either by their choice, or BHTVs design - these two are always consigned to discussing "women's issues." A few times I've actually been bored enough to listen to Slate's (generally turgid) "political gabfest" and Bazelon seemed to actually have some insight into legal issues. Yet when she appears here, it's to discuss Mad Men or Jenny Sanford or whatever middlebrow horseshit "women" are supposed to think about.

There's a latent sexism here.
I think you're right that no one asks men to get on BHTV and talk about gender issues, which is a problem. But it's worth pointing out that Dana at least writes specifically about women, family and gender issues. That's her beat. So it's not craven to ask her specifically to talk about that stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-15-2010, 08:02 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
I think you're right that no one asks men to get on BHTV and talk about gender issues, which is a problem. But it's worth pointing out that Dana at least writes specifically about women, family and gender issues. That's her beat. So it's not craven to ask her specifically to talk about that stuff.
And also that Emily evidently spends a lot of time contributing to and participating in Slate's XX blog.

But ... "craven?"

(I ask because I used to use that word to mean other things, and then I finally looked it up. It sounds like it should mean something other than, or in addition to, cowardly, but I don't think it does. Or is that what you actually meant? (In which case I'm even more puzzled.))
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-15-2010, 08:36 AM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
But ... "craven?"

(I ask because I used to use that word to mean other things, and then I finally looked it up. It sounds like it should mean something other than, or in addition to, cowardly, but I don't think it does. Or is that what you actually meant? (In which case I'm even more puzzled.))
I've always used it to mean cowardly and in this instance, I meant it would be without courage, or sort of lame, to pick women to talk about women on the basis of gender alone, but in Dana's case, there's a substantive reason she's in this DV.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-15-2010, 09:40 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
I've always used it to mean cowardly and in this instance, I meant it would be without courage, or sort of lame, to pick women to talk about women on the basis of gender alone, ...
Okay, thanks. I don't think of it as cowardly to do this, but I can see why one might; e.g., in the sense of not having men on to discuss gender issues, perhaps?

However ...

Quote:
but in Dana's case, there's a substantive reason she's in this DV.
... yes. And, I think, Emily as well. Also, I am fairly sure these two are not compelled to do these diavlogs, so I must conclude they want to.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-17-2010, 01:45 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

@Preppy:

(A follow-up to craven.)

Here's another word that I, at least, have the tendency to think means something other than its dictionary definition, and so I'm forever avoiding its use unless I can look it up: callow.

Check out K-Drum's use:

Quote:
Luke Russert tweets: "Amazing, Bayh told his staff he was done on Friday and didn't call Harry Reid until 25 minutes ago!!!" If that's true, it's pretty remarkable behavior even for someone as famously callow as Bayh.
I think this is wrong (cf.), and he means something other than young and inexperienced. I suppose he could mean immature, though. What do you think?

Actually, now that I've typed this out, I've had the effect of pretty much answering my own question, and changing my mind about it being wrong. But, what the hell, I'll leave it, and still look forward to your, or anyone else's, thoughts.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-17-2010, 02:13 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Perhaps a better choice would have been the synonym puerile.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-17-2010, 02:27 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Perhaps a better choice would have been the synonym puerile.
Huh. That's yet another word I don't use for the same reason (that I can never remember what it means). I always think of putrid, I guess.

But you're right. That would have been a good option for K-Drum.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-17-2010, 02:46 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
@Preppy:

(A follow-up to craven.)

Here's another word that I, at least, have the tendency to think means something other than its dictionary definition, and so I'm forever avoiding its use unless I can look it up: callow.

Check out K-Drum's use:



I think this is wrong (cf.), and he means something other than young and inexperienced. I suppose he could mean immature, though. What do you think?

Actually, now that I've typed this out, I've had the effect of pretty much answering my own question, and changing my mind about it being wrong. But, what the hell, I'll leave it, and still look forward to your, or anyone else's, thoughts.
I think there's a legitimate metaphorical sense here. A man can be "callow" in the sense that he behaves in way that seems consistent with how we would expect him to if he were in fact "young and inexperienced."
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-17-2010, 02:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I think there's a legitimate metaphorical sense here. A man can be "callow" in the sense that he behaves in way that seems consistent with how we would expect him to if he were in fact "young and inexperienced."
In the "never grew up, no matter how long he'd been in the game" vein? Yes, that makes sense.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-17-2010, 03:27 PM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Yep. That's how I took the usage in this case. But I agree with Keefe in that I don't really use callow that way. Puerile would've been better, as pisc says.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-17-2010, 04:23 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I think there's a legitimate metaphorical sense here. A man can be "callow" in the sense that he behaves in way that seems consistent with how we would expect him to if he were in fact "young and inexperienced."
I think its resonances with shallow and hollow make callow a great word but you gotta use it right.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-17-2010, 04:50 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

It depends upon which behavior the word is actually being applied to. The only real political event that occurred recently was the Senate Majority leader, trashing the bipartisan jobs agreement, for what appear to be purely ideological/political reasons, and substituting into it's place one sure to wind up creating further division. This seems to be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back, as far as Senator Bayh is concerned. Not notifying the Senate leadership in the normal flow of how things are done does seem to be juvenile if not childish on Senator Bayh's part so in that sense callow would seem to apply.

But from a strategic political point of view his actions were very sophisticated. He apparently made up his mind to not run very late in the cycle. The only Democrat that seemed to be trying to register was from the more left wing stream of the party and, in Senator Blah's opinion, was more likely to lose in the fall than a more centrist candidate. By announcing his retirement the day before the signatures were due he almost insured that none would be able to gather and submit the requisite number of signatures on time; insuring that the party apparatchiks get to name the candidate of their choice. This insuring no messy pre-primary argument or nasty primary campaign. Where as the Republicans will probably have a very acrimonious primary campaign that is likely to do some damage the eventual victor when it comes to the actual election. So he has probably increased the odds of the Democrats being able to hold the set in the fall.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-17-2010, 05:09 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
[...] But from a strategic political point of view his actions were very sophisticated. He apparently made up his mind to not run very late in the cycle. The only Democrat that seemed to be trying to register was from the more left wing stream of the party and, in Senator Blah's opinion, was more likely to lose in the fall than a more centrist candidate. By announcing his retirement the day before the signatures were due he almost insured that none would be able to gather and submit the requisite number of signatures on time; insuring that the party apparatchiks get to name the candidate of their choice. This insuring no messy pre-primary argument or nasty primary campaign. Where as the Republicans will probably have a very acrimonious primary campaign that is likely to do some damage the eventual victor when it comes to the actual election. So he has probably increased the odds of the Democrats being able to hold the set in the fall.
This is a very plausible hypothesis, except for one problem: it depends crucially on Bayh seriously believing that whomever the Democratic party bosses pick to run in his place can win. As far as I can tell, no one is giving a generic Democrat much chance to win the seat he vacated -- and was on track to hold easily -- so unless he knows something no one else does, it appears that he has effectively handed the seat to whatever Republican wins the GOP primary. Seems to me that if Bayh really wanted to keep the seat in centrist (and one charitably assumes, Democratic) hands, he could have found a much better way to handle his desire to leave.

Therefore, until I hear something quite different, I don't think that Bayh was thinking what you suggest, except perhaps in kidding himself.

I guess I'd buy something close: that he'd rather have the seat go to a Republican (and hope that the winning Republican would be the most centrist of the candidates who were looking to unseat him) than risk letting it be won by someone more liberal than him.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-18-2010, 12:43 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

While I had considered this possibility I tend too discount it as with some minor exceptions Senator Bayh was a fairly reliable partisan. For sure one could not classify him as rebellious. To believe that he would willingly surrender his seat to a Republican, a traitorous act to the party, would not be in his nature.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-18-2010, 12:53 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
While I had considered this possibility I tend too discount it as with some minor exceptions Senator Bayh was a fairly reliable partisan. For sure one could not classify him as rebellious. To believe that he would willingly surrender his seat to a Republican, a traitorous act to the party, would not be in his nature.
Yeah, I can see why you'd say that, except that from everything I've read, "willingly surrender his seat to a Republican" appears to be exactly what he just did.

Actually, I guess I don't completely agree that he has never been rebellious. Certainly, he has been one of the most pain in the ass* Senate Dems as far as the Obama Administration is concerned. "Rebellious" probably goes too far, but he hasn't been cooperative.

==========

* [Added] Some examples itemized here (via).
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 02-18-2010 at 02:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-18-2010, 01:13 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
[...]
Also, I don't think I posted this here: A view of Bayh from one of his constituents, Doghouse Riley.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Which one is more annoying?

How do you know bhtv doesn't ask men to come on and talk about women issues? Have these women just not discussed whatever it is they wanted to discuss? They talked about women stuff... oh heaven forbid, women stuff.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.