The Week in Blog: Keeping It Real (Bill Scher & Matt Lewis)

[Bloggingheads]

[sugarkang]

Bill, I think you're right about Scarborough, but I've mentioned in other threads that there isn't an equivalent, moderate liberal show with substantive discussion. I'd watch it if it existed.

[chamblee54]

Oxymoron alert.

chamblee54

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by chamblee54

Oxymoron alert.

chamblee54

LOL. I think you meant ironic, but that was good, nonetheless.

[miceelf]

I can't figure out if this is a navigation problem on my end, but I can't find the set of links that usually go up with these things (or used to).

In any case, for those who haven't watched this, they ment Cenk Uygur or however you spell it and his rift with MSNBC. Some of us had speculated a while ago about this, so in fact, it does appear that Uygur is gone and Sharpton may be taking over (although, given Uygur's kind of loose approximation to reality in other areas, I will believe it when I see it). I didn't enjoy his show, although I can't say I enjoy Sharpton much more. If only someone would consider the merits of Ed Schultz.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_908385.html

[Hume's Bastard]

I have to admit, that WinB, as it is, is on a bit of a roll for me. Props to both Scher and Lewis for seeong the debt ceiling canard for what it is, a red herring. Props to Matt Lewis for showing a quantum of the iconoclasm many conservatives can't even fathom. Still, I worry that this split between the establishment and the reactionary insurgency is the harbinger of an anti-democratic movement that will make the populism - admittedly, the left had its version, too - of the 20s and 30s seem benign. But, even then, Matt Lewis can't even let support for Bowles-Simpson pass his lips. It's one thing to deride the insurgents and redistricting, but there is a compromise on the table. A sane, thoughtful conservative like Lewis could adopt a position on taxes/cuts that's the opposite of the liberal one or the commission's recommendation, and I would take that for an honorable debate. Even The Economist lambasted the GOP reactionaries:

America’s debt debate seems still more kabuki-like. Its fiscal problem is not now—it should be spending to boost recovery—but in the medium term. Its absurdly complicated tax system raises very little, and the ageing of its baby-boomers will push its vast entitlement programmes towards bankruptcy. Mr Obama set up a commission to examine this issue and until recently completely ignored its sensible conclusions. The president also stuck too long to the fiction that the deficit can be plugged by taxing the rich more: he even wasted part of a national broadcast this week bashing the wealthy, though the Democrats had already withdrawn proposals for such rises.

Yet Mr Obama and his party seem a model of fiscal statesmanship compared with their Republican opponents. Once upon a time the American right led the world when it came to rethinking government; now it is an intellectual pygmy. The House Republicans could not even get their budget sums right, so the vote had to be delayed. A desire to curb Leviathan is admirable, but the tea-partiers live in a fantasy world in which the deficit can be reduced without any tax increases: even Mr Obama’s attempts to remove loopholes in the tax code drive the zealots into paroxysms of outrage.

...In America’s Congress the moderate centre—conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans—has collapsed, in part because partisan redistricting has handed over power to the extremes.

...America’s Democrats need to accept entitlement cuts and Republicans higher taxes. Independent commissions should set electoral boundaries.

[rgajria]

I doubt MSNBC will address the Cenk Uygur exit in any detail barring the press release already out there. Which means Cenk's version is the only truth out there. He did have good ratings so the 'tone' story does ring true.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by rgajria

I doubt MSNBC will address the Cenk Uygur exit in any detail barring the press release already out there. Which means Cenk's version is the only truth out there. He did have good ratings so the 'tone' story does ring true.

Its hard to make much sense of his ratings. He was up against pretty whiffy competition in a non prime time slot. (both the hardball before and after him- the same show!- did better than him, which puts a lot of people in my category).

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I have to admit, that WinB, as it is, is on a bit of a roll for me. Props to both Scher and Lewis for seeong the debt ceiling canard for what it is, a red herring. Props to Matt Lewis for showing a quantum of the iconoclasm many conservatives can't even fathom. Still, I worry that this split between the establishment and the reactionary insurgency is the harbinger of an anti-democratic movement that will make the populism - admittedly, the left had its version, too - of the 20s and 30s seem benign. But, even then, Matt Lewis can't even let support for Bowles-Simpson pass his lips. It's one thing to deride the insurgents and redistricting, but there is a compromise on the table. A sane, thoughtful conservative like Lewis could adopt a position on taxes/cuts that's the opposite of the liberal one or the commission's recommendation, and I would take that for an honorable debate. Even The Economist lambasted the GOP reactionaries:

Meh, the Economist hasn't been a very favorable source for the right for about 15 years now, IMO. If I may, I'd like to point out the "reactionary" problem with Simpson-Bowles, or the President's "Grand Bargain", even. Its that the "reactionaries" get rolled everytime they make a deal. Bush and Reagan made these deals and the spending cuts never come. The only way these arrangements can be made is if the cuts come first.

Would you hold your breath on that?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Matt Lewis is really danger close to being a card carrying squish.....no? I know that he cashes checks from MSNBC but come on.....

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Bill, I think you're right about Scarborough, but I've mentioned in other threads that there isn't an equivalent, moderate liberal show with substantive discussion. I'd watch it if it existed.

I see Scarborough as the porthole into Conventional Wisdom chamber which fuels the USS Establishment.

If I drank that early it would be like playing quarters, guessing the PRECISE "nuance" it takes to be popularly center left.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Meh, the Economist hasn't been a very favorable source for the right for about 15 years now, IMO. If I may, I'd like to point out the "reactionary" problem with Simpson-Bowles, or the President's "Grand Bargain", even. Its that the "reactionaries" get rolled everytime they make a deal. Bush and Reagan made these deals and the spending cuts never come. The only way these arrangements can be made is if the cuts come first.

Would you hold your breath on that?

The Economist has never lost touch with a reality any conservatives outside of America recognizes. The problem with this debate, and your response, is, that sometime in the 70s, American conservatives became convinced that they didn't want to live in the country FDR created. Starting with the Kennedy cuts, tax rates reached a nadir fit only to return the US to the 19th Century. It's not even an either-on, zero-sum choice between two utopias. Most of the military budget, where the deficit lies, is due to health care and pensions, the same on the civilian side. Social Security is solvent. So, we don't need a permanent solution, just a compromise neither side will win, to get past this totally forgettable debt ceiling charade and take maybe 25% out of the deficit. Then, the country can have the real debate about its moral direction. As a matter of fact, I'll give you cuts in subsidies and watch the corporations topple. I care a wit more for one senior citizen or pre-schooler than I do for any employer. Any American can start a business, but no American will countenance a dying person living in disgrace or a kid who can't go to school. But, no, conservatives don't get cuts - not one - until the selfish traitors start paying for something other than their cash-stuffed mattresses. And, if the GOP and Democrats all go down to defeat with a compromise in hand, oh well! Maybe if redistricting happened the way it should and not like the corrupt bargain it has, the current crop of insane Republicans would be unemployed or playing video games or collecting government checks, like Bachmann, whatever it is they did before this. There's plenty of real estate in Antartica and manned space exploration needs fodder.

[ledocs]

Right on, bro'.

[timba]

too bad progressives aren't able to strong-arm Reid, Obama & Co. as the tea partiers are with their spineless wall street reps.

[timba]

Kudos to Matt for trying to talk sense to the debt ceiling deniers, but really ... how can anyone take Sarah Palin seriously?

[timba]

Total Lifetime Gross
Domestic: $106,998

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3215&p=.htm

Then there's the 0% rotten tomatoes score.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/771245638/

[ledocs]

Please forgive this digression.

Here is an example of someone (Matt Lewis) relying in public upon his recollection of events and of things said, by himself and others. "I tried to search for what I wrote, I think I wrote something, I could not find it, I am confident in my recollections..."

Is there something inherently scandalous about a person making statements in public about events and conversations that he cannot document, except from memory?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/37765?in=18:51&out=20:57

This is a propos of a very recent contretemps in which I was involved as the person relying upon memory, now relegated, perfectly correctly in my view, to "Stupid Pointless Flame Wars" in the Althouse vs. Watson thread. This just seemed too apt to pass up.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I see Scarborough as the porthole into Conventional Wisdom chamber which fuels the USS Establishment.

If I drank that early it would be like playing quarters, guessing the PRECISE "nuance" it takes to be popularly center left.

I rather enjoyed the exchange between Grover Norquist and Lawrence O'Donnell. And I also make an effort to inform myself of the inner workings without getting bogged down in ideology. I'm only interested in knowing what's really going on. It's surprising what a pain in the ass it is to try to uncover the truth.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

The Economist has never lost touch with a reality any conservatives outside of America recognizes. The problem with this debate, and your response, is, that sometime in the 70s, American conservatives became convinced that they didn't want to live in the country FDR created. Starting with the Kennedy cuts, tax rates reached a nadir fit only to return the US to the 19th Century. It's not even an either-on, zero-sum choice between two utopias. Most of the military budget, where the deficit lies, is due to health care and pensions, the same on the civilian side. Social Security is solvent. So, we don't need a permanent solution, just a compromise neither side will win, to get past this totally forgettable debt ceiling charade and take maybe 25% out of the deficit. Then, the country can have the real debate about its moral direction. As a matter of fact, I'll give you cuts in subsidies and watch the corporations topple. I care a wit more for one senior citizen or pre-schooler than I do for any employer. Any American can start a business, but no American will countenance a dying person living in disgrace or a kid who can't go to school. But, no, conservatives don't get cuts - not one - until the selfish traitors start paying for something other than their cash-stuffed mattresses. And, if the GOP and Democrats all go down to defeat with a compromise in hand, oh well! Maybe if redistricting happened the way it should and not like the corrupt bargain it has, the current crop of insane Republicans would be unemployed or playing video games or collecting government checks, like Bachmann, whatever it is they did before this. There's plenty of real estate in Antartica and manned space exploration needs fodder.

Good post.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

If only someone would consider the merits of Ed Schultz.

none

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

But, even then, Matt Lewis can't even let support for Bowles-Simpson pass his lips.

the president couldn't either.

[miceelf]

(on the merits of Ed Schulz)

Originally Posted by badhatharry

none

Yes, I agree. I really hope they dump him for (say) Melissa Harris-Perry. Of course, that would be probably too much of an IQ increase. Tamron Hall, or Alex Witt.

If they feel they really need a partisan radio host, then Stephanie Miller.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I rather enjoyed the exchange between Grover Norquist and Lawrence O'Donnell. And I also make an effort to inform myself of the inner workings without getting bogged down in ideology. I'm only interested in knowing what's really going on. It's surprising what a pain in the ass it is to try to uncover the truth.

Well, there's a lot more money in covering it up than in uncovering it. The market has spoken.

O'Donnell is a smart guy but I find him a little tiresome. There's no better target for his yelling than Norquist.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

O'Donnell is a smart guy but I find him a little tiresome. There's no better target for his yelling than Norquist.

It's not for a lack of brain cells that we're in this mess. I wish the left could disagree with Norquist after trying to understand him.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

It's not for a lack of brain cells that we're in this mess. I wish the left could disagree with Norquist after trying to understand him.

I am not sure the problem is that people don't understand Norquist. At least in terms of his pledge, it's wreaked a lot of havok. But I may be missing some nuance.

[whburgess]

Originally Posted by miceelf

(on the merits of Ed Schulz)



Yes, I agree. I really hope they dump him for (say) Melissa Harris-Perry. Of course, that would be probably too much of an IQ increase. Tamron Hall, or Alex Witt.

If they feel they really need a partisan radio host, then Stephanie Miller.

I think Schultz tries to appeal to old style union blue collar liberals. A shrinking constituency for the Dems.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

I care a wit more for one senior citizen or pre-schooler than I do for any employer. Any American can start a business, but no American will countenance a dying person living in disgrace or a kid who can't go to school.

There's nothing easier than asking someone other than yourself to spend money for the benefit of someone else. And if any American can start a business, why aren't they starting them? Why are new businesses created with such ease in China?

Son of David, you're a philosopher aren't you? What do you make of Derek Parfit?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

There's nothing easier than asking someone other than yourself to spend money for the benefit of someone else. And if any American can start a business, why aren't they starting them? Why are new businesses created with such ease in China?

What proportion of people in China create new businesses?

And, I suspect that the big barrier for most people in terms of starting a business (the ones who consider, but don't) isn't ambition or smarts. It's capital.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard

The Economist has never lost touch with a reality any conservatives outside of America recognizes.

"Conservatives" outside of America lack a tradition of classical liberalism.

The problem with this debate, and your response, is, that sometime in the 70s, American conservatives became convinced that they didn't want to live in the country FDR created.

Hmmm....why pick the 70s? Goldwater revitalizes the movement in the 1964s; surely you wouldn't argue that Reaganite Conservatism is more anti-New Deal than Goldwater. The 80th Congress, which so upset Truman at the time, was DEDICATED to rolling back the New Deal. Until December 1941, the Conservative movement in this country was saying the FDR administration was riddled with socialists. And we know that in some cases, they were absolutely right.

I think that sometimes people on the Left confuse Republican politicians with Conservatives. Richard Nixon, for example, was no conservative.

Starting with the Kennedy cuts, tax rates reached a nadir fit only to return the US to the 19th Century.

The Kennedy cuts....are to large? You are saying that cutting 90% to 70% charts a path to return to the 19th century? Why not outlaw the possession of private wealth altogether, if that's how you feel?

It's not even an either-on, zero-sum choice between two utopias. Most of the military budget, where the deficit lies, is due to health care and pensions, the same on the civilian side.

I don't know how you get here. The deficit does NOT primarily lie in the military budget, unless you view the first duty of the state to serve as mother, doctor, and school marm rather than defense. The preparation for the successful prosecution of war is the primary purpose of a state. Everything else is second.

So if we establish the priority, we must then examine the numbers. 20% of the federal budget is spend on the department of defense, 23% is spent on Medicare, and Medicaid. The expense of the military can be limited by policy; simply avoid engagement. It can be a FIXED expense. Medicare and Medicaid are the source of our deficit problems now and in the future. I notice you mentioned SS, but not either of those.

Social Security is solvent.

Medicare and Medicaid aren't solvent. SS isn't really all that solvent either, but thats because of profligate spending of SS revenue as general funds. Though of course, the program wasn't meant to pay people for 30 years either. The age should be increased to 70, or 72.

So, we don't need a permanent solution, just a compromise neither side will win

It doesn't seem as though you list any of those compromises that your side would "lose" on. You just said SS is solvent, the military is the driver of deficits, and no mention of Medicare and Medicaid. You also mention cutting subsidies and taxes. So if I have your list right, you favor military cuts, tax increases, and cutting tax incentives.

Doesn't seem like a compromise at all, which is why I think the "reactionary conservatives" should hold fast and make sure that our priorities are met first. After all, as I said, we've been to this show before and were betrayed.

As a matter of fact, I'll give you cuts in subsidies and watch the corporations topple. I care a wit more for one senior citizen or pre-schooler than I do for any employer.

What else do you care more for than employers? Incompetent bureaucrats with lifetime job security and absurd pensions using children as weapons in political debates? Billion dollar boondoggles with "green energy" accepting federal handouts to justify the childish moralizing of coastal elites? Medicare and Medicaid scamming rent seekers? Racial grievance professionals?

The federal government is indeed a complicated quilt of unpleasantness.

Any American can start a business, but no American will countenance a dying person living in disgrace or a kid who can't go to school.

I wonder when we, as a people, are prepared to be serious and stop with this RFK rhetorical excess. Look how that kind of demagoguery has evolved from the Kennedy's to John Edwards. There are realities of statecraft which require a government to make choices with limited resources. Those choices have a cost.

But, no, conservatives don't get cuts - not one - until the selfish traitors start paying for something other than their cash-stuffed mattresses.

You can save talk of "treason" and "cash stuffed mattresses" for the lumpen-proletariat. I suspect most people here know better. They know that Conservatism represents the traditional American middle and upper middle class, along with the owners of production and land owners. Our opposition is the rootless cosmopolitans of the academic and financial elite. So while you rail about conservatism, blaming the woes of the United States on the industrialist or the rancher or the small business owner, it is the "mattress stuffed" banker who funds the clique of left wing intellectuals who ARTICULATE your view in the public sphere.

Maybe if redistricting happened the way it should and not like the corrupt bargain it has, the current crop of insane Republicans would be unemployed.

Purged? Purge the wreckers?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

And, I suspect that the big barrier for most people in terms of starting a business (the ones who consider, but don't) isn't ambition or smarts. It's capital.

Exactly. And why would a new business require so much capital? Or, alternatively, how would one start a business for less capital?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Exactly. And why would a new business require so much capital? Or, alternatively, how would one start a business for less capital?

Not sure I follow. How much capital would depend on the particular business in question. And most people actually have negative capital, given credit card and mortgage debt.

[ImprecisePsychic]

Erick Erickson is the voice of RedState.com. Matt says that Erick is "the blog guy" who everyone goes to.

But look at the traffic on RedState. And look at the participation of its commenters. The site is DEAD.

And the fact is Erick Killed Redstate. Three years ago the site offered lively discussion and participatory dissent. Erick chose to crush all dissent and his success has yielded him a few hundred faithful followers-----far fewer than the thousands who once listened to his rants.

As Matt says a little later in this diavlog, Erick's influence is seriously in question.

Tea Party politicians are fools to listen to someone of such small actual influence.

Originally Posted by ImprecisePsychic

Erick Erickson is the voice of RedState.com. Matt says that Erick is "the blog guy" who everyone goes to.

But look at the traffic on RedState. And look at the participation of its commenters. The site is DEAD.

And the fact is Erick Killed Redstate. Three years ago the site offered lively discussion and participatory dissent. Erick chose to crush all dissent and his success has yielded him a few hundred faithful followers-----far fewer than the thousands who once listened to his rants.

You aren't talking about his decision to crack down on the crazy birthers, are you?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Not sure I follow. How much capital would depend on the particular business in question. And most people actually have negative capital, given credit card and mortgage debt.

I'm just saying that it's a lot easier and cheaper to start a business in China. That's due to our craptastic legal system.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I'm just saying that it's a lot easier and cheaper to start a business in China. That's due to our craptastic legal system.

I have no idea about that. What proportion of chinese start new businesses?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have no idea about that. What proportion of chinese start new businesses?

That isn't the right question. The question is, if you're an investor with startup capital, where should you start a new business? Where is the opportunity?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

That isn't the right question. The question is, if you're an investor with startup capital, where should you start a new business? Where is the opportunity?

I have no idea , but I don't think it's the wrong question. If China is the land of opportunity, how many poeple are exercising that. Or is it possible that our craptastic legal system may actually make some people more likely to have startup capital to begin with?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have no idea , but I don't think it's the wrong question. If China is the land of opportunity, how many poeple are exercising that. Or is it possible that our craptastic legal system may actually make some people more likely to have startup capital to begin with?

I know several people who invest in China, and are looking elsewhere in underdeveloped Asia for new opportunities. China and Vietnam are currently struggling for a gigantic oil reservoir that supposedly rivals Saudi Arabia. The oil is there, it's a question of which country gets what percentage. What's not debatable is where the new centers for economic power are going to be built.

I recommend the TED video as a good explanation of our broken legal system.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have no idea , but I don't think it's the wrong question. If China is the land of opportunity, how many poeple are exercising that. Or is it possible that our craptastic legal system may actually make some people more likely to have startup capital to begin with?

What needs to be considered is the status of the Chinese and American economies. China was a Third World agrarian economy not very long ago, and is currently in the process of growing the scale of its economy - approximately where the US was a generation or two after the start of the Industrial Revolution. The U.S. was also in a state of steep exponential growth At that time, and U.S. policy was at least as free-wheelin' as that of China now, When the Chinese economy matures and that sort of growth is no longer sustainable, I wonder how their regulatory approach will evolve? Of course, they have a sterling record regarding individual liberty in every other arena, don't they?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

What needs to be considered is the status of the Chinese and American economies. China was a Third World agrarian economy not very long ago, and is currently in the process of growing the scale of its economy - approximately where the US was a generation or two after the start of the Industrial Revolution. The U.S. was also in a state of steep exponential growth At that time, and U.S. policy was at least as free-wheelin' as that of China now, When the Chinese economy matures and that sort of growth is no longer sustainable, I wonder how their regulatory approach will evolve? Of course, they have a sterling record regarding individual liberty in every other arena, don't they?

Well, this is the other thing. Whether we think of it as regression to the mean, or the fact that the better things get, the harder it is to improve them, it's not dramatically suprising that economic growth would asymptote in the west where things have much less room to improve.

From this perspective, more aggressive regulatory schemes would be a consequence of, not a cause of, the asymptoting.