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 06-08-2011, 09:04 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:37 AM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default It's all about the team

These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:51 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.
So caring about broad political ideals and whether some clumsy onanist has damaged those ideals is "narcissism?" I think you might want to check your dictionary.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 06-08-2011 at 10:20 PM.. Reason: fix typo; fix spelling error
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:17 AM
Olavus Olavus is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 26
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Politics is a shameless product promotion.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."

-- Ronald Reagan


And a freak show.

Stephen Milligan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-08-2011, 12:18 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda. To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.
Interesting. I, on the other hand, love that Weiner has hurt their beloved liberal Democrat agenda if that is true.

Meanwhile, attacks on the republicans will have to be ramped up. Debbie Wasserman Shultz has recently accused the GOP of wanting to revert back to the good ol' Jim Crow days. Hey, whatever it takes!

And the bureaucracy chuggs on, eating up resources, and the Congress can't pass a budget. What a circus.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-08-2011 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-08-2011, 01:43 PM
beren beren is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 17
Default Re: It's all about the team

I agree this incident is much ado about nothing and Weiner shouldn't have to resign or suffer political damage going forward. But it was funny to see these divbloggers disappointed. Rebecca, especially, seemed to feel especially betrayed because Weiner is someone who fights for positions she favors. As if that makes it all the worse.

And what's with Michelle claiming a former mayor of New York was gay? Even if that is true, the voters didn't know about it when he was running.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-08-2011, 02:11 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

To me Weiner comes off as an obnoxious jerk, not for what he did in this case, but for the over-bearing way in which he behaves. I can't believe Rebeccda Traister thinks he is an effective "voice" for the causes she passionately believes in because, I can assure her, he does more damage than good for these causes across the country as a whole. Like so many native New Yorkers she is "provincial" in a way that most Americans are not.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-08-2011, 02:13 PM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
So caring about broad political ideals and whether some clumsy onanist has damaged hose ideals is "narcisissism?" I think you might want to check your dictionary.
It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-08-2011, 02:45 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Barney Frank is Ok with Michelle and Rebecca? What about this?

And Edward Kennedy's sex scandal cost somebody's life -- to say nothing of the time he used his influence to get his nephew off of a rape charge.

These women have no shame when it comes to their team.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 06-08-2011 at 02:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-08-2011, 02:51 PM
DWAnderson DWAnderson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 64
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

What is different about this case is the pictures and the transcripts. This probably would not be nearly as big a deal without those. Perhaps that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

They exist in this case and they make all the difference-- enough that it is highly likely that he will be forced to resign but his Democratic colleagues.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-08-2011, 03:58 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.
I see. You let us know if you see any of those "real intellectuals," all right?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-08-2011, 04:11 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
It's narcissistic because real intellectuals discuss ideas, as opposed to simply assuming their politics are right and then discuss how events help or hurt your cause.
Have you read these message boards?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-08-2011, 04:33 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWAnderson View Post
What is different about this case is the pictures and the transcripts. This probably would not be nearly as big a deal without those. Perhaps that shouldn't make a difference but it does.

They exist in this case and they make all the difference-- enough that it is highly likely that he will be forced to resign but his Democratic colleagues.
Agree, I said essentially the same thing on the Althouse/Pinkerton diavlog yesterday. With all this incriminating material out there for public viewing one has to question his judgement. He's all alone now in Congress having his leader, Nancy Pelosi, by asking for an ethics investigation, effectively "throwing him under the bus". He's become a distasteful, national joke. Resign or not, relected or not, he's ability to legislate will be nil.

Last edited by bkjazfan; 06-08-2011 at 04:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:13 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Meta comment. Why is it women are always called upon to cover the "sex beat"? (Not just here but pretty much everywhere.) Or more generally why so many women's voices are so predictably defined by their perspective on men. For example, one would be hard pressed to quote any statement by Amanda Marcotte that would make sense if men didn't exist. Conversely, it's hard to think of any statement by virtually any of the guys here that would lose any meaning whatsoever if women didn't exist.

My question is only partly rhetorical. I know part of the answer, which is the same answer that explains why The Times would feature Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd and not say Helena Cobban or Yves Smith, two women whose intellectual voices can hardly be said to supervene the chromosomal world.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:16 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

LOL Hypocrisy is only a higher offense if there is some BENEFIT from adhering to principle. Neither of these women seem to show any sort of deference or respect to Conservative politicians who are not accused of any sexual scandal.

Also, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Larry Craig may be a homosexual; but there is no edict from God (Or if the left prefers, "Gaia Earth Mother) that a homosexual needs to support gay marriage. The Greeks never had that problem. David Vitter is a bad husband; why does that obligate him to support homosexual marriage?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:19 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
Meta comment. Why is it women are always called upon to cover the "sex beat"?
Cause it's creepy when guys do it?

Go back and watch the recent Kaus exchange with Bob again. ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:22 PM
ohreally ohreally is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 666
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Cause it's creepy when guys do it?
Go back and watch the recent Kaus exchange with Bob again. ;-)
Best answer I am likely to get. I, too, was creeped out.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:22 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
LOL Hypocrisy is only a higher offense if there is some BENEFIT from adhering to principle.
You may be the only person who believes this. It makes no sense to me. One doesn't have to agree with whatever silly law a politician wants to enact to point out the hypocrisy in said politician breaking his own law.

David Vitter should be free to oppose gay marriage. If, however, he frames his opposition as "defense of traditional marriage" or of "God's law" or somesuch, then, yeah, he's a hypocrite. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-08-2011, 05:52 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
These women argue that the big tragedy here is how Weiner hurt their beloved liberal Democratic agenda.
I don't believe they suggested that it was a tragedy. (It's not. There is no big tragedy here, so to suggest they failed to identify the correct one is pretty hilarious.)

Instead, they discussed their reactions to the Weiner scandal, presumably because they were asked to (a waste of Rebecca and Michelle, IMO). Their reaction was, among other things, gee, it's a shame, as it reduces the effectiveness of this guy who had been effective at making arguments for positions I agreed with him on.

Seems pretty typical of the reactions of everyone, from those Dems who think he should resign (he's no longer a good spokesman and has hurt that he stands for, so let someone else less embarassing in instead) to those on the right who are enjoying this mainly because they don't like Weiner for unrelated reasons. (Some on the left fall in this camp too.)

Quote:
To have such a limited, narcissistic filter for analyzing current events suggests they are simply partisan shills--rationalized appropriately as doing good--but simple apologists just the same.
You seem to have mixed up narcissistic and partisan (based on your following post too). But in any case, given that the topic of the diavlog was "what do you think of the Weiner scandal," your complaint is odd.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-08-2011, 06:00 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Have you read these message boards?
True, but the real problem with the argument is not "everyone does it," but that the topic of the conversation was not "intellectual arguments for Rebecca's and Michelle's political views." It was "what is your reaction to Weiner." And I strongly suspect that was a topic that bloggingheads decided it would be interesting to have a couple of female liberals comment on.

So unless eric wants to bitch in all the diavlogs that talk about political strategy type things or any number of other things other than "intellectual defenses of the diavloggers' positions," his comment here is pretty strange.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-08-2011, 06:20 PM
basman basman is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 648
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

One more thing besides his sociopathic lying: if it's true, as the reporting today says, that Weiner sent around a picture of himself with his schmuck erect to women he didn't know, that puts into play the additional ground of his sexual conduct for his resignation or congressional chatisement/expulsion.

Itzik Basman

Last edited by basman; 06-08-2011 at 08:09 PM.. Reason: transform prose from edifying to electrifying
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-08-2011, 06:52 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basman View Post
One more thing besides his sociopathic lying: if it's true, as the reporting today says, that Weiner sent around a picture of himself with his schmuck erect to women he didn't know, that puts into play the additional ground of his sexual conduct for his resignation or congressional chatisement/expulsion.

Itzik Basman
Add to that:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/366...6:55&out=07:18
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-08-2011, 06:59 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

One can argue that Congresswoman Pelosis' request for an investigation is no more than an attempt to limit the damage to the Congressman; but this stalling tactic is probably moot at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-08-2011, 07:09 PM
DWAnderson DWAnderson is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 64
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Also, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Larry Craig may be a homosexual; but there is no edict from God (Or if the left prefers, "Gaia Earth Mother) that a homosexual needs to support gay marriage. The Greeks never had that problem.
This reminds me of an Ann Coulter's comment on Larry Craig that I thought was pretty funny at the time:

Quote:
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing hom*osexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he’s in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I’m not seeing the “hypocrisy.”
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-08-2011, 07:31 PM
sapeye sapeye is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 391
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

No, no Rebecca, don't hold back, tell us what you really think.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-08-2011, 07:37 PM
bramble bramble is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 31
Default Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop

As a liberal, I initially responded to the Weiner news with the same hand-wringing and perplexity as Traister does in this diavlog, because I was experiencing cognitive dissonance. At the end of the day, I really wanted to condemn Weiner for what he did, even though I might find his behavior quite amusing if he were, say, a fictional character in a movie. In other words, I tend to be more or less forgiving of sexual foibles. It's like a dog doing his business on the living room rug. You don't want the dog to do this, but it is in no way as big a deal as the dog biting someone.

Here's how I squared the circle.

I gave myself the permission to hold politicians to a different moral standard when it comes to sex. We all hold different people to different standards when it comes to sex. Goldberg and Traister both make clear that sexting is verboten in their households, yet in general they find the practice to be as harmless as late night porn viewing.

I'm not asking horny male politicians to become nuns, but I am asking them to chose outlets for their libido that won't become public. I'm asking them to be prudent and discreet. If they are not, I'm going to be outraged at their behavior like everyone else. The people who defend or, at least, "think deeply" about the tawdriness of these scandals don't appear more sophisticated. They look like dupes and fools.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-08-2011, 08:03 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop

Quote:
I'm not asking horny male politicians to become nuns, but I am asking them to chose outlets for their libido that won't become public. I'm asking them to be prudent and discreet. If they are not, I'm going to be outraged at their behavior like everyone else.
Maybe. But I think you're missing something here that was not really underscored in the diavlog either.

The problem for voters is not that Wiener engaged in sexting, but rather that he toxically lied about it in the cover-up phase.

The underlying issues are minor, personal, forgivable, legal and arguably normal and legitimately recreational. The problem is the spectacle of paranoid duplicity and crazed self-righteousness that came after the facts went public.

I have no opinion about whether he should resign or not. Don't really think it's a big deal either way.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-08-2011, 08:11 PM
basman basman is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 648
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Thanks for the link, ding a link, whatever it's called: it's beyond stupid; it's a disorder verging on the sociopathic.

Itzik Basman
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-08-2011, 08:17 PM
basman basman is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 648
Default Re: Hand-wringing, perplexity and dog poop

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Maybe. But I think you're missing something here that was not really underscored in the diavlog either.

The problem for voters is not that Wiener engaged in sexting, but rather that he toxically lied about it in the cover-up phase.

The underlying issues are minor, personal, forgivable, legal and arguably normal and legitimately recreational. The problem is the spectacle of paranoid duplicity and crazed self-righteousness that came after the facts went public.

I have no opinion about whether he should resign or not. Don't really think it's a big deal either way.
Heaven's to mercy, Wonderment I agree with you save that of course he should resign. (Btw "whether he should resign or not"--"or not" redundant, implicit in "whether.")

Itzik Basman
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-08-2011, 08:27 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Is whore-mongering (not to put too fine a point on it) David Vitter still sitting in the Senate?

He is? Well then, never-f**kiing-mind!

The hypocrisy of rancid little GOPers like the insufferably stupid Marc Cantor or that creep who replaced the other creep at RNC reeks...
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-08-2011, 08:33 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Exclusive - Wiener exposes a dick on Twitter:

http://tinyurl.com/3wjem9r

THAT'S the Weiner Twitter at the center of a major scandal - the integrity of our most cherished institutions has been compromised.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:23 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: It's all about the team

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
... they discussed their reactions to the Weiner scandal, presumably because they were asked to (a waste of Rebecca and Michelle, IMO).
Yes, I also think it was a waste, especially Michelle who usually has lots of interesting things to say, at least for those of us who agree with her politically.

This is a topic that has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Weiner was stupid. I'm sure he knows it. The consequences will be whatever others decide that they will be.

The reality is that a brain on sex is not the same as a rational or intelligent brain. The higher the sex load, the lower the ability to use good judgement, prudence or discretion. Some people have a somewhat lower sex drive, or a higher ability to suppress, or they're lucky and haven't been caught. It is all within the boundaries of normal human behavior. "Normal" doesn't make it good or desirable or judicious, it just tells us that no one is above the laws of nature which include our sexual drives.

We should expect adults and mostly public figures to keep their impulses within legal and moral bounds. But moral bounds change. What could have been scandalous in the past may no longer be.

The easy access to people's private information and private lives through a new media that allows intrusions will reveal aspects of everybody's lives that were kept behind closed doors before. Our bedroom and bathroom lives, so to speak, can be made public anytime. It will be interesting to see whether we become a repressed society, fearful of engaging in any possibly embarrassing or objectionable behavior, or whether repeated exposures of multiple people will make us face the fact of who we are and what we do.

I understand why Rebecca said that she doesn't think that Weiner's behavior should be seriously penalized while at the same time, she wouldn't accept this kind of behavior from her husband. Lots of people would immediately understand what she means and agree. However, I would encourage her to reflect about why that is and to look more deeply into all the reasons, emotional and cognitive that lead her to think that the dichotomy is reasonable. I'm not implying that she would come out of the reflection with the opposite idea, but she may be able to find interesting inconsistencies along the way.

Michelle said that there are aspects of men's psyche that are surprising to her. I have to wonder whether both diavloggers have lived in somewhat isolated or truly conservative environment. I don't think that any of the mentioned behaviors are surprising. Many people suppress their desires and curiosity, but others don't. Opportunity and circumstances can lead to the most obscure corners of the mind. All we can hope for is that there is some restraint and filtering out of respect and consideration for those who could be hurt by unbound release of sexual impulses.

Interesting topic if one really digs into it, but the prompt for it, the Weiner case, has no particular substance. No pun intended. Seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:30 PM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Am I right to assume that this is the hypothetical conversation that would have occurred had Wiener admitted his guilt upon the first accusation?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:34 PM
Writ Small Writ Small is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

"
Quote:
If you are kind of making the point of your public life to, you know, demagogue about the sanctity of marriage in the service of denying it to other people or to, you know, kind of police the sex life of other people or to present yourself as the paragon of family values then it kind of stuff does matter. Then you open yourself up to it (it = moral disapprobation by those on the left)."
If you want to extend marriage to include same-sex couples, you're allowed to cheat on your spouse without fear of condemnation by the left. Cool story.

If only demagogues buy into the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing and adultery is no big deal so long as you are pro-choice, what makes marriage so worth fighting to participate in? If it's just for the tax breaks, insurance savings and such, why wouldn't civil unions suffice?

What is that you say? Keeping gays from marrying is makes them second class citizens? Marriage is an important, significant part of our society that no one should be excluded from, especially gays, you say?

Well OK, then. I guess cheating Democrats are hypocrites, too.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-08-2011, 09:55 PM
jansob jansob is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

It's completely about tactical political damage. They don't seem upset that their guy is a really creepy liar (the pointing of fingers and accusations during the first denials), only that he will be less effective at politics. So let's not hear anything from these two about personal morals or treatment of women or trustworthiness the next time a Repub ends up in a scandal (this guy gets zapped with the same "hypocrisy" charge liberals love so much, as he 's been championing women's causes, yet sends unsolicited pics to young women that would be considered harassment if a normal person did it ). And I will be pulling up this diavlog when it does happen and throwing their rationalizations right back at them.

That said, Wiener should not resign unless he chooses too. If the people of his district feel that he represents them well, they will make that choice at the polls. If he does resign, it will not be because puritanical Repubs forced him out, it will be because Dems wanted him out. Vitter is still in, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:10 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Writ Small View Post
If only demagogues buy into the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing and adultery is no big deal so long as you are pro-choice, what makes marriage so worth fighting to participate in?
No one is claiming that adultery is no big deal. The question is whether one can "defend marriage" as a politician, given that the threats to marriage are individual, private behavior that have no purview in the political arena.

Setting onesself up as a "defender of marriage" suggests that one should defend one's own marriage, or shut up about others'.

It's not really so complicated. And, indeed, many would be satisfied with civil unions, if in fact such carried all the legal rights.

In all honesty? The straights have done far more to denigrate the institution than the gays ever will, just as a matter of demographics.

My state has recently decided to allow gay marriage. This threatens my straight marriage not a whit (the whining of the people who claim to defend my marriage aside). The only thing it has done has been to remove the irony that the priest who performed our ceremony could not, himself, marry.

This hypocrisy isn't limited to the GOP, FWIW. Spitzer with his "tough on prostitution" stance is in the same boat as Vitter, he's just had more in the way of consequences.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:13 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jansob View Post
It's completely about tactical political damage. They don't seem upset that their guy is a really creepy liar (the pointing of fingers and accusations during the first denials), only that he will be less effective at politics. So let's not hear anything from these two about personal morals or treatment of women or trustworthiness the next time a Repub ends up in a scandal.
It would help your credibility if you didn't say things about a diavlog that are demonstrated to be false if people actually listen to the diavlog in question. The above is false. They both expressed their moral disapproval of his behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-08-2011, 10:21 PM
jansob jansob is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 7
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Um, not so fast there, sport.
They don't seem the slightest bit upset about anything but the damage to their cause. They minimize the moral turpitude and rationalize it to the point that it's obvious their moral disapproval is quite minimal. They cut him a vast amount of slack that a non-up-and-coming-liberal-rock-star would never get.

Last edited by jansob; 06-08-2011 at 10:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:37 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jansob View Post
Um, not so fast there, sport.
They don't seem the slightest bit upset about anything but the damage to their cause. They minimize the moral turpitude and rationalize it to the point that it's obvious their moral disapproval is quite minimal. They cut him a vast amount of slack that a non-up-and-coming-liberal-rock-star would never get.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/366...3:15&out=33:27
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-08-2011, 11:43 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Slavering Sanctimonious Panopticon Edition (Michelle Goldberg & Rebecca Traister)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
That was ten seconds in a 45 minute diavlog. Not exactly impressive. Besides, it really didn't say much about her view of the morality of Weiner's actions. She was talking about what she would accept from a husband. But she couldn't or wouldn't make any more generalized moral judgement. I hope she's not a mom.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 06-09-2011 at 12:09 AM..
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 02:17 AM.


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