Designed To Elicit Crazy Edition (Benjy Sarlin & Daniel Foster)

[Bloggingheads]

[thouartgob]

Good diavlog I certainly think republicans will be more interested in Astro-glide if he is boxed in.

What wasn't discussed was the Mittness Protection Plan that Romney has instituted. He doesn't do interviews where there is a chance he would have to actually respond to non-softball questions, just in case he says something that will hurt him in the general election. It's a good idea now but do conservatives really want somebody that can't deal with the press ?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

It's a good idea now but do conservatives really want somebody that can't deal with the press ?

As long as he beats Obama no one cares.

[TwinSwords]

I was looking forward to this diavlog, and I like Dan Foster, despite his politics. I greatly enjoyed, for example, his conversations with Amanda Marcotte. But I couldn't take more than 25 minutes of this one because it turned out to be a non-stop Dan Foster monovlog. I really wasn't in the mood tonight to listen to a conservative go on and on for an hour about the virtues of the far right.

I'm not blaming Dan for this: Benjy just passively sat listening to Dan for most of the 25 minutes I watched. That's not Dan's fault.

Benjy: What the left needs is not more passive liberals to nod along while conservatives spin their narratives. We need people who can push back. I mean, assuming your a liberal, or that you have any interest in pushing back against the dominant far-right narrative. Maybe this is like the Sunday shows on network TV, where they pit ideological conservatives against neutral journalists who refrain from ideological judgments.

Whatever the case, as much as I like both Benjy and Dan, this didn't work as a diavlog for me. Hope others get more out of it.

[badhatharry]

Benjy seems to be saying that it's pretty clear that what Bialik described is sexual harassment. I would just ask him to consider if perhaps Ms. Bialik was sending messages that made Cain (if the incident happened) assume his advances would be accepted. It happens.

I don't think Obamacare can be repealed as easily as some say it can be.

About over-reach... I have come to understand this Gingrich statement, "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering." He was wise to see that big changes need to be made incrementally, so's the peeps don't notice.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Whatever the case, as much as I like both Benjy and Dan, this didn't work as a diavlog for me. Hope others get more out of it.

You'll be delighted to know, I loved it.

Benjy: What the left needs is not more passive liberals to nod along while conservatives spin their narratives. We need people who can push back.

I know! the intellectual guiding lights of the movement like Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and the ever popular Toure. Geez, you have all kinds of outlets, MSNBC, Comedy Central, HBO and whatever station Olbermann is on these days. Maybe if your ideas were more popular or even coherent more people would be pushing them.

[TwinSwords]

Hey look, two of your favorites together in one!

[harkin]

Originally Posted by thouartgob

What wasn't discussed was the Mittness Protection Plan that Romney has instituted. He doesn't do interviews where there is a chance he would have to actually respond to non-softball questions, just in case he says something that will hurt him in the general election. It's a good idea now but do conservatives really want somebody that can't deal with the press ?

If it's good enough for Obama for the years since he took the national stage, it's good enough for Mitt. Personally I'd prefer a candidate like Chris Christie who calls out the biased msm and is able to deal with hostile lefty reporters doing the DNC's bidding (aka 90% of the press).

[harkin]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Hey look wingnut, two of your favorites together in one!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by harkin

If it's good enough for Obama for the years since he took the national stage, it's good enough for Mitt. Personally I'd prefer a candidate like Chris Christie who calls out the biased msm and is able to deal with hostile lefty reporters doing the DNC's bidding (aka 90% of the press).

Oh shut up, you don't even vote.

[Don Zeko]

It's all relative, isn't it?

[TwinSwords]

[cbjones1943]

~3 mos ago I was in rural SE Iowa; Ron Paul signs were quite literally everywhere.

Am not a conservative but this diavlog held my interest.

Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943

[tom]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Benjy seems to be saying that it's pretty clear that what Bialik described is sexual harassment. I would just ask him to consider if perhaps Ms. Bialik was sending messages that made Cain (if the incident happened) assume his advances would be accepted. It happens.

Having a lot of trouble thinking of a signal that would invite a. a direct reach for a woman's genitals & pushing a woman's head towards one's crotch, with no incremental escalation of physical contact first, and b. the remark "you want a job, right?" in response to a woman's resistance to this behavior. I'm old fashioned that way.

[Peter Sibley]

Absent such signals and incremental escalation, the two-handed scenario becomes less plausible. Still, Cain has a problem.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by tom

Having a lot of trouble thinking of a signal that would invite a. a direct reach for a woman's genitals & pushing a woman's head towards one's crotch, with no incremental escalation of physical contact first, and b. the remark "you want a job, right?" in response to a woman's resistance to this behavior. I'm old fashioned that way.

Well, OK. But it's certainly possible that she could have been sending him "I'm available" signals. I hate to think Herman Cain behaved that way, so let's talk hypothetically, 'k?

A certain woman is adrift and looking for work. She is good looking and she knows it. She gets an invitation to go to another city and apply for a job. That's exciting, right? She arrives there and she sees that a suite has been reserved for her and that she is to meet her prospective employer for dinner. Wow!!! I'm special! (by now, I'd be thinking, what's up? but not everyone is as astute as I.) She has several drinks at dinner and some enlivening conversation. She uses what she has in the way of friendliness and outgoingness and maybe even flirts. (you will notice she has chosen to wear a tight fitting and revealing dress). It's late, but her host wants to show her her new office. "Hey, what the heck, this guy seems nice and harmless. Besides I don't want to do anything that would make him think twice about giving me the job!"

A certain executive is very successful and likes women. He has seen a picture of a prospective employee and sees that she has gigantic...dimples and he loves dimples. He decides to really give her the royal treatment, room upgrade, fabulous drinks and dinner. She's fun and she laughs at his jokes. She's definitely interested in him. He gets her away from the restaurant on the off chance that she'd like to make it with him. He's a little drunk and aroused because she's been patting his ego all night long.

Now I agree that the moves are gross and unbelievably insensitive to the way most women want to be treated but he stopped when he was told to and exercised considerable restraint considering the condition he was in.

At what exact moment does this rise to the level of sexual harassment? That's kinda what Dan and Benjy were discussing.

[Romanized]

Benjy is projecting by going on about the supposed ridiculousness of a black conservative in the race. The left is highly invested in playing this meme up. If blacks depart even a bit from the liberal plantation Obama (and several Democrats thereafter) are sunk. It's interesting to see the left continue to take this route thinking blacks dare never walk out on them.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Romanized

Benjy is projecting by going on about the supposed ridiculousness of a black conservative in the race. The left is highly invested in playing this meme up. If blacks depart even a bit from the liberal plantation Obama (and several Democrats thereafter) are sunk. It's interesting to see the left continue to take this route thinking blacks dare never walk out on them.

Well, I agree that liberals are highly skeptical of black conservatives but I doubt that Obama or the democrats are sunk because of they're presence. They just, for the life of them, can't figure out why in the world any black or Hispanic, for that matter, would be conservative. It's a case of cognitive dissonance and they tend to resort to all kinds of psychobabble to explain the phenomenon.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Well, I agree that liberals are highly skeptical of black conservatives but I doubt that Obama or the democrats are sunk because of they're presence. They just, for the life of them, can't figure out why in the world any black or Hispanic, for that matter, would be conservative. It's a case of cognitive dissonance and they tend to resort to all kinds of psychobabble to explain the phenomenon.

I actually suspect that democrats and liberals have pretty elaborate ideas as to how an individual black person would embrace conservatism. They just don't think they're particularly good or praiseworthy reasons, for the most part

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually suspect that democrats and liberals have pretty elaborate ideas as to how an individual black person would embrace conservatism. They just don't think they're particularly good or praiseworthy reasons, for the most part

Oh I see. You aren't surprised at the phenomenon. You just know that there must be something bad and unprasieworthy about it. So it's a moral issue, not psychological.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Oh I see. You aren't surprised at the phenomenon. You just know that there must be something bad and unprasieworthy about it. So it's a moral issue, not psychological.

I was talking in general about liberals and dems.

My own theory is that Black people who embrace conservatism do so for largely the same reasons that White people do. And yes, it's a moral issue.

But let's keep pretending this is a horrific thing that only liberals do.

When Ann Coulter says "our Black are better than their Blacks" was she talking about morals or psychology?

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by harkin

If it's good enough for Obama for the years since he took the national stage, it's good enough for Mitt. Personally I'd prefer a candidate like Chris Christie who calls out the biased msm and is able to deal with hostile lefty reporters doing the DNC's bidding (aka 90% of the press).

Fox news criticizes Mitt for his ducking his way to the nomination.

Just one followup question in the last debate had Mitt fumbling.

from partisan web page but it has the video:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato...n-mandates-mak

HARWOOD: But, Governor, let me ask you about health care, because Congressman Paul said, put it back to the doctor and the patient. You said a few moments ago that you thought states should have the responsibility for insuring the uninsured. And, of course, in Massachusetts, you enacted an individual mandate and subsidies to have people who didn't have insurance get it. So you think there's a pretty large role for government in this area.

ROMNEY: Well, I think that people -- that people have a responsibility to receive their own care, and the doctor-patient relationship is, of course, where that -- where that exists -- where that exists.

HARWOOD: But the government has the responsibility to force them?

ROMNEY: I --

I didn't know whether Ron Paul was saying we're going to -- he's going to get rid of Medicaid. I would not get rid of Medicaid. It's a health program for the poor. What I said was I would take the Medicaid dollars that are currently spent by the federal government, return them to the states so that states can craft their own programs to care for their own poor, rather than having the federal government mandate a one-size- fits-all plan in the entire -- entire nation. Obamacare is wrong. I'll repeal it. I'll get it done.

Pew study finds press isn't sympathetic at all to Obama:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...w-study-finds/

Sure the nominations is Mitt's to lose and he can turtle-up when it comes to followup questions that mess up his talking points but I have a feeling the general is gonna be a little more tougher. Tough on everybody.

[kezboard]

At what exact moment does this rise to the level of sexual harassment?

How about the moment he shoves her head into his crotch and says "You want the job, don't you"?

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by kezboard

How about the moment he shoves her head into his crotch and says "You want the job, don't you"?

Yeah. I guess the sex for employment quid pro quo seems normal and appropriate to badhat.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by kezboard

How about the moment he shoves her head into his crotch and says "You want the job, don't you"?

But maybe she was sending signals that she really, really wanted the job. You can't dismiss the signals!

[Florian]

Originally Posted by harkin

Amusing. How do you do that? Is it possible to blend more than two faces?

How about FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton and Obama?

[stephanie]

The discussion of Romney had some parallels to the question I tried to raise in the other thread re Huntsman.

Basically, I think Dan has a point that a lot of what really bothers liberal-leaning centrists and moderates in general about the kinds of conservatives that the TP types seem to love is a demeanor, a cultural thing. Part of this, I think, is that what the TP loves is the message that liberals are evil, and it's hard not to get put off by this. Sarah Palin's politics in AK weren't all that rightwing in a lot of ways, but when she's telling me I'm not a real American, yeah, not going to be a fan. I think a lot of people not so involved in the issues do tend to have this kind of reaction even more, and thus Romney might present very well to them. (I think Huntsman would be even better on this score AND would be more reliably conservative, but whatever.)

On the other hand, there are issues that will matter to people when there's a closer focus on them, and it depends on what Romney runs on. So far, I think he's trying to do what he needs to win the nomination, more skillfully than in '08, and yet leave room to run to the center.

I also think Romney's longstanding reputation as a flip-flopper ends up helping him, probably, as most centrists/moderate liberals/even disaffected liberals of the "they are all the same" variety can tell themselves that anything worrisome that Romney supports is just pandering, and the real Romney will be a moderate. Yet, at the same time, conservatives can convince themselves either that Romney's moderate persona was/is pandering.

My problem with Romney, were I a centrist inclined to vote that way, is that it's impossible to tell what he will do, except that he will almost certainly do what he thinks is politically advantageous. While that's not all that unusual for a politician, it's harder to predict what this will be, for Romney. It might make him a moderate, but it might mean he's more indebted to the far right on certain matters than a genuine rightwinger would be. Plus, it masks the few things on which he might have real principles, which relate to what a pretty traditional business-oriented Republican would believe, and could well be farther right on economic matters than people assume. So far, I'm assuming he'd be like Bush Part II, but more competent.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

I like Dan Foster, despite his politics.

I thought this diavlog was okay, but I'm not a big fan of Dan. The reason was crystalized by one of the exchanges here, when Benjy was talking about the dismissal by various folks on the right of the existence of sexual harassment as a thing and how Bialek's allegations may have countered that reaction some.

Dan, in what I would describe as a typical "I'm a reasonable guy but standing up for the reasonability of the far right who I don't want to piss off even if I don't want to actually adopt their position in this diavlog" pose by some of the Corner types, tried to deal with this in the following way. (1) by distancing himself from the full-scale Rush/John Derbyshire POV by suggesting that they didn't phrase the argument in the best of all possible ways; and (2) by trying to reframe it as some genuine point -- what we need to have is a discussion over whether we should allow people to sue for just being offended, this culture that we should be protected from the smallest offense, blah, blah.

Simultaneously, then, he avoids being pinned down to the ridiculous statements that really were said but kind of defends them anyway by suggesting that they were part of a genuine argument against some -- non-existent, btw -- notion that we should be protected from any offense. That, naturally, has nothing to do with anything except for the made-up by Cain notion that the lawsuits were about him comparing some woman's height to his wife's. It is inconceiveable to me that the NRA or anyone would have paid non-nuisance value settlements for such a ridiculous thing. Yet, as Dan would have it, there's a real concern that we as a society have decided that that would be recoverable, and that's what this conversation is about.

Given Dan's suggestion that there might be a real problem that we decided that women are entitled to recovery for anything that might happen to offend them, it's worth considering the actual requirements of a sexual harassment claim.

First, of course, there's quid pro quo harassment. To prove this, you must show that you suffered a negative result from rejecting a sexual demand. Second, there's hostile work place, which is what most of the claims that people can't tell jokes anymore, can't talk about a woman's height, etc., stem from. This is, of course, a ridiculous distortion. To succeed on a claim, the law requires that one show an atmosphere of harassment or hostility and that the offending behavior must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the victim's employment conditions and create an abusive working environment. This is measured by the reaction of "a reasonable person," not simply the specific plaintiff. In order to sue for the loss of a job based on this, to recover salary after quitting, one must show "constructive discharge," which means "working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign."

Moreover, employers can protect themself from a lawsuit by setting up "a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints." This is what most employers are doing in creating a policy and when giving you a copy of the policy and making employees attend seminars. They also may explain to those who supervise other employees what their duties are if they learn about sexual harassment. But essentially if a company has a policy in place and enforces it, someone cannot recover for sexual harassment without attempting to go through the policy and being able to demonstrate that despite this nothing was done to stop it. The exception would be if it's possible to show that the events were so extreme as to be a constructive discharge, but again that's hard to prove. You also, obviously, have to convince the jury even if the facts alleged and proof are sufficient to get by summary judgment.

Now, do people threaten and even bring lawsuits that they shouldn't win under the law? Sure, about all things. But the idea that our society -- through our law -- defines sexual harassment in the silly kind of way Dan implied was the real issue here is, of course, not true.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Basically, I think Dan has a point that a lot of what really bothers liberal-leaning centrists and moderates in general about the kinds of conservatives that the TP types seem to love is a demeanor, a cultural thing.

But there's also cultural bias in the other direction. it's as if one couldn't say that John Kerry's demeanor also put off some people in red states, as if they didn't have their own sets of superficial biases and beliefs about what constitutes "real" America.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Benjy: What the left needs is not more passive liberals to nod along while conservatives spin their narratives. We need people who can push back.

I am probably inviting a whole heap of abuse (not from you), but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I would have preferred that benjy be a litle more confrontive early on.

Agree with others' complaints about foster's unspecified complaints about sexual harassment and about how the critique of it just isn't being made articulately enough. Would have also preferred more pushback about it.

But I suspect Benjy didn't see this is part of what they were there to discuss and wanted to get on to the other things on the agenda.

It got a lot better for me about 30 minutes in.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

But there's also cultural bias in the other direction.

Oh, of course. In fact, I think the cultural bias plays into the reaction to conservative candidates by conservatives and liberal candidates by liberals, too. Looking back, there are plenty of excellent reasons not to have liked Edwards, but I know the reason I've never been able to stand him has some element of cultural bias to it. (For the record, it's not a Southern thing -- I have always liked Clinton, after all.)

On the conservatives, I've found it interesting that people seem to instinctually love Palin and dislike Huntsman when on lots of traditional conservative things -- especially going by records -- Huntsman is more conservative. There are lots of other examples I could use, too. I think it's the cultural things, the style, the approach toward people who disagree and with liberals specifically. And obviously there's a reverse reaction to this on the other side, such that I think if you really cared primarily about getting the person with the most conservative positions and record elected, you'd go for someone with a more conciliatory style. But of course that's not the deal. (And again, the same can be seen on the left, which is why Weiner was way more popular with some on the left than his actual positions justifed.)

it's as if one couldn't say that John Kerry's demeanor also put off some people in red states, as if they didn't have their own sets of superficial biases and beliefs about what constitutes "real" America.

To be clear, I don't think the reaction to Palin vs. Huntsman by liberals or liberal-leaning moderates is about Palin not seeming like a "real" American. I think it's that they know (or believe) that the more pugnacious conservative types accuse them of not being real Americans and the like, and naturally there's a reaction.

Whatever the reaction to people like Kerry or Obama (I'm sure we get words like elitist, condescending), I don't think its about what real America is. That's an accusation (like the non-patriotic thing in general) that comes from only one side, IMO.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I am probably inviting a whole heap of abuse (not from you), but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I would have preferred that benjy be a litle more confrontive early on.

I actually thought Benjy was fine, and am not saying that he should have called Dan on the comment I responded to. I think it was off the topic of what they were trying to discuss.

(I listened to this one, like many others, on my iPod, and when I do I always wonder how much difference the video makes.)

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I actually suspect that democrats and liberals have pretty elaborate ideas as to how an individual black person would embrace conservatism. They just don't think they're particularly good or praiseworthy reasons, for the most part

Most of the ideas liberals seem to have about this are pretty offensive, if you view them objectively and consider political ideology to be independent of one's "blood".

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Most of the ideas liberals seem to have about this are pretty offensive, if you view them objectively and consider political ideology to be independent of one's "blood".

I actually think my own ideas on it are probably the norm among liberals and they are in fact premised on this independence.

And there are plenty of pretty stupid ideas that Republicans have about why African Americans tend to vote Democratic that dwarf whatever stupidity resides in the cartoon version of dem views you seem to have in mind.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Whatever the reaction to people like Kerry or Obama (I'm sure we get words like elitist, condescending), I don't think its about what real America is. That's an accusation (like the non-patriotic thing in general) that comes from only one side, IMO.

Oh, I think the left has been working over time the last three years accusing people of lacking patriotism, or of being "real Americans".

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

And there are plenty of pretty stupid ideas that Republicans have about why African Americans tend to vote Democratic that dwarf whatever stupidity resides in the cartoon version of dem views you seem to have in mind.

Such as? Anything as offensive as calling someone an Uncle Tom for being a Democrat?

This concept of "race treason" seems to be pretty common place on the left. Pretty cool as a manifestation of cognitive dissonance, though.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Oh, I think the left has been working over time the last three years accusing people of lacking patriotism, or of being "real Americans".

Patriotism, perhaps by a small minority of liberals; "real Americans" not so much.

In any case, do you disagree that Republicans are the masters of this tactic?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Such as? Anything as offensive as calling someone an Uncle Tom for being a Democrat?

I would consider suggestions that African Americans who are democrats have retain a "slave mentality," are still on a "plantation" or have been "brainwashed" en masse are all pretty offensive.

I also haven't heard "uncle tom" used in any context by a national public figure in the last twenty-thirty years. The plantation stuff and brainwashing thing was mentioned last week.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

This concept of "race treason" seems to be pretty common place on the left.

It wasn't even all that common in the 1980s, which was the last time it was even a blip on the national radar.

[Mr. Morden]

Was a bit surprised when Dan suggested that Romney picking Cain as his running mate would reassure the conservative base that he cares about their issues.

Picking a running mate who doesn't know if he's pro-life or pro-choice would reassure the conservative base? Seems like quite a stretch. I don't see why anyone would recommend that Romney pick Cain over, say, Marco Rubio or John Thune.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by harkin

If it's good enough for Obama for the years since he took the national stage, it's good enough for Mitt. Personally I'd prefer a candidate like Chris Christie who calls out the biased msm and is able to deal with hostile lefty reporters doing the DNC's bidding (aka 90% of the press).