The Week in Blog: Politics of Cool (Bill Scher & Matt K. Lewis)

[Bloggingheads]

[chamblee54]

What happened to Mr. Lewis's sound? This is going to be tough to listen to.
chamblee54

[sugarkang]

Listening to Adam's rant now. It's not just envy, but yeah. Adam just reiterates a lot of my own points for the last 6 months, only more entertaining.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Listening to Adam's rant now. It's not just envy, but yeah. Adam just reiterates a lot of my own points for the last 6 months, only more entertaining.

Your self-regard knows no limits. Have you ever noticed how much you talk about yourself? How much praise you heap upon yourself? Kind of weird.

[graz]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Your self-regard knows no limits. Have you ever noticed how much you talk about yourself? How much praise you heap upon yourself? Kind of weird.

Whatcha talkin bout? You mean like this?:

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Props to Dan for articulating my position on the failure of monogamy. Am I the only commenter to hold this view?

Twin, obviously sugar is alone in assessing monogamy as problematic.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

I wish people would spend time trying to fix the source of the problems, but as far as I know, I'm the only one interested in that.

His uniqueness knows no bounds.

P.S. I hope he doesn't mistake this mockery for disdain. It's always a treat to see him toot his own horn.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by graz

Whatcha talkin bout? You mean like this?:

Twin, obviously sugar is alone in assessing monogamy as problematic.

His uniqueness knows no bounds.

P.S. I hope he doesn't mistake this mockery for disdain. It's always a treat to see him toot his own horn.

It's funny, isn't it?

[David Edenden]

Next flavor of the month: Jon Huntsman?

Why doesn't Jon Huntsman tour with Gary Johnson in Iowa and New Hampshire debating. The sheer novelty will generate interest, attendence and later coverage.

Discuss next week.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

Next flavor of the month: Jon Huntsman?

Oh, hell no. He doesn't have that killer instinct that the GOP base craves. He doesn't appear to hate anyone, he doesn't appear to relish violence and authoritarianism. He doesn't satisfy the wingnuts' punitive itch. He'll never do.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Oh, hell no. He doesn't have that killer instinct that the GOP base craves. He doesn't appear to hate anyone, he doesn't appear to relish violence and authoritarianism. He doesn't satisfy the wingnuts' punitive itch. He'll never do.

I look forward to Jon Huntsman getting the nomination, if only to see TwinSwords flip-flop on all these points.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by apple

I look forward to Jon Huntsman getting the nomination, if only to see TwinSwords flip-flop on all these points.

The GOP base wants red meat; they want a leader who regularly talks about stickin' it to the libz, making them feel pain, defeating them utterly, and making them feel the humiliation of their defeat. That's what gets the GOP base motivated. Huntsman has never catered to this element of his party, so he's stuck at 2.4%.

It is theoretically possible that things could change at some point in the future. These characteristics are not inherently tied to conservatism. But they are tied to the current incarnation of conservatism -- and the incarnation that has prevailed in the US since at least 1992, though you could make a case that these toxic political attitudes go back to Nixon, or to the white Southerners who tried to block intergration and had to be backed down by the 101st Airborne, or, ultimately, by your intellectual and cultural ancestors in the Confederacy.

So, whatever potential there is for sane conservatism, at least for now the party is modeled on Fox News, which was modeled on Rush Limbaugh. That is, it's modeled on authoritarianism, and hate, plus the basic belief that liberals are the enemy who are responsible for all the problems in the world, and whose defeat is the most important national purpose.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

The GOP base wants red meat; they want a leader who regularly talks about stickin' it to the libz, making them feel pain, defeating them utterly, and making them feel the humiliation of their defeat. That's what gets the GOP base motivated. Huntsman has never catered to this element of his party, so he's stuck at 2.4%.

Huntsman is much more conservative than Bush - who was never that conservative to begin with. Bush also wasn't very partisan (same as Obama). You still hate his guts, and most conservatives (for whatever reason) like Bush, even though his big spending and tax cuts are to blame for the size of the deficit.

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

the incarnation that has prevailed in the US since at least 1992, though you could make a case that these toxic political attitudes go back to Nixon, or to the white Southerners who tried to block intergration and had to be backed down by the 101st Airborne, or, ultimately, by your intellectual and cultural ancestors in the Confederacy.

Not mine, if that's what you meant, I am not a conservative.

[CrowsMakeTools]

Newt is a favorite for a core GOP constituency: angry white men. There are lots of older angry white men that have been through divorces, maybe multiple divorces, and these people are likely to be forgiving of Gingrich's peccadillos. It certainly is a significant item of historical interest that many angry white men were supporting Herman Cain, and have now moved to support, at least for the moment, the Gingrich boomlet.

It may be possible to win the Republican nomination with a core constituency of angry white men. I have my doubts about whether such a candidate can win the general election, given the demographics of the electorate in 2012.

[graz]

Originally Posted by CrowsMakeTools

It may be possible to win the Republican nomination with a core constituency of angry white men. I have my doubts about whether such a candidate can win the general election, given the demographics of the electorate in 2012.

They've got the angry white women vote locked as well:
See badhat.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by graz

They've got the angry white women vote locked as well:
See badhat.

and that's a helluva lot of people.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

and that's a helluva lot of people.

Yeah. There are probably about 15,000,000 of you. Maybe 20,000,000.

30,000,000 - 40,000,000 if you include the menu. That's the approximate size of the Fox News/Limbaugh/Hatemonger/Zealot/Wingnut/Lunatic GOP base.

[David Edenden]

Smart Newt?

Paul Krugman:

"A stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like"

Discuss!

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

Smart Newt?

Paul Krugman:

"A stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like"

Discuss!

I have always maintained that Newt Gingrich is what happens if you take Barney Frank and bang him repeatedly on the head with something moderately heavy, making sure to do, among other things, some frontal lobe damage.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I have always maintained that Newt Gingrich is what happens if you take Barney Frank and bang him repeatedly on the head with something moderately heavy, making sure to do, among other things, some frontal lobe damage.

Gingrich is the perfect example of how the left doesn't believe one can simultaneously be intelligent and Conservative. He is obviously intelligent. Paul Krugman denying that is a pathological deal.

Indeed, it casts a shadow over the intelligence of people who say it. It is lazy; a means of avoiding defense of positions by calling the opposition "stupid", over and over. One wonders if they don't want to defend their position, or if at this point with the degeneration of the actual intelligentsia, if they can anymore.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Indeed, it casts a shadow over the intelligence of people who say it. It is lazy; a means of avoiding defense of positions by calling the opposition "stupid", over and over. One wonders if they don't want to defend their position, or if at this point with the degeneration of the actual intelligentsia, if they can anymore.

I didn't say "stupid". I think Gingrich is smarter than the average person.I just think there's a whole lot of space between where he is and where some people (including him) think he is. There's also a lot of space between him and genuinely exceptional people. If one spends a lot of time listening to, interacting with and/or reading, really smart people, Gingrich doesn't seem to be any great shakes.

I think my Frank comparison holds up. He's your version of Frank, except not as smart and or self-controlled.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I didn't say "stupid". I think Gingrich is smarter than the average person.I just think there's a whole lot of space between where he is and where some people (including him) think he is. There's also a lot of space between him and genuinely exceptional people. If one spends a lot of time listening to, interacting with and/or reading, really smart people, Gingrich doesn't seem to be any great shakes.

I think Gingrich is smarter than the average politician. I certainly think he is more intelligent than the President. Intelligence should be measured first, and foremost, by one's mastery of the trivium and the quadrivium. Then we can talk about who is better in the weeds of policy, gender studies, or Star Trek ethics.

Now, would anyone disagree with this?

I think my Frank comparison holds up. He's your version of Frank, except not as smart and or self-controlled.

I don't think your version of Frank is all that smart, rather than being simply clever on television. I find Frank's personal history to be worse than Gingrich's by far, and certainly indicative of a lack of wisdom. He also has absolutely no self control. His retirement has brought forth a raft of stories about how he is a pretty abusive, petulant person to his staff and journalists. He also seems like a bottom feeder when it comes to his relationships with other homosexuals. At least Gingrich's wives seem like decent people.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I think Gingrich is smarter than the average politician. I certainly think he is more intelligent than the President. Intelligence should be measured first, and foremost, by one's mastery of the trivium and the quadrivium.

Are you really claiming that Gingrich is better at music and geometry than is Obama???

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I don't think your version of Frank is all that smart, rather than being simply clever on television. I find Frank's personal history to be worse than Gingrich's by far, and certainly indicative of a lack of wisdom. He also has absolutely no self control....At least Gingrich's wives seem like decent people.

Having long term committed relationships with people you don't like is more indicative of a lack of self control than is repeatedly and consistently cheating on spouses you consider to be decent people, having publically promised God and society that one wouldn't, in fact, cheat on said decent people?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Are you really claiming that Gingrich is better at music and geometry than is Obama???

Maybe not music. Probably geometry. The difference in their educational attainment is substantial. And that is all that matters, according to the Party of Appeal to Authority.

Having long term committed relationships with people you don't like is more indicative of a lack of self control than is repeatedly and consistently cheating on spouses you consider to be decent people, having publically promised God and society that one wouldn't, in fact, cheat on said decent people?

Interesting framing. Having a long term affair with a gay pimp, and a representative of Countrywide who most likely was lobbying you for influence, shows a remarkable lack of self control and wisdom. Since he could have no real formal contract, it is impossible for him to "cheat" in the way Gingrich did.

[harkin]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Are you really claiming that Gingrich is better at music and geometry than is Obama???

Mr "57 States" should tackle arithmetic before he goes on to the (for him) heavy stuff.

After that, he can go after "corpsman" and geography (hawaii as part of asia and the "english embassy").

Don't like Gingrich at all. The fact that he would be much better than the Bystander-In-Chief shouldn't stop the republicans from coming up with a better nominee.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by harkin

After that, he can go after "corpsman" and geography (hawaii as part of asia and the "english embassy").

If you don't think music and geometry are adequate tests of intelligence, take it up with Sulla.

[tom]

Originally Posted by harkin

Mr "57 States" should tackle arithmetic before he goes on to the (for him) heavy stuff.

I've lost count of the number of times you've employed this example to score a point, but since it evidently plays a significant role regarding how you think of Obama generally, I'm curious:
Do you believe that Obama believed, at any point, that there are 57 states? Or do think he merely said the wrong word?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by tom

I've lost count of the number of times you've employed this example to score a point, but since it evidently plays a significant role regarding how you think of Obama generally, I'm curious:
Do you believe that Obama believed, at any point, that there are 57 states? Or do think he merely said the wrong word?

I believe that Obama seriously believed the American army liberated Auschwitz. I doubt he had an interest in military history.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Having long term committed relationships with people you don't like is more indicative of a lack of self control than is repeatedly and consistently cheating on spouses you consider to be decent people, having publically promised God and society that one wouldn't, in fact, cheat on said decent people?

What does this even mean?

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

What does this even mean?

Sulla claims that Gingrich has more self control than does Barney Frank.

His evidence for this is two-fold:

1. Frank has long-term committed relationships with people that Sulla doesn't approve of.

2. Gingrich has been married to (and, Sulla doesn't say this, but it's a fact and relevant to the self-control issue) and cheated on several women who are also decent people. (Sulla also didn't point out that in cheating, Gingrich violated the public vows he made to his wives and his God).

I don't see how 2 demonstrates more self-control than 1. Indeed, it would seem that if the decency of Gingrich's wives is relevant at all, it would mitigate against, rather than for, the proposition that Gingrich has a great deal of self control. As to their decency, I can't say, but the last two wives were willing to sleep with a married man.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Sulla claims that Gingrich has more self control than does Barney Frank.

His evidence for this is two-fold:

1. Frank has long-term committed relationships with people that Sulla doesn't approve of.

2. Gingrich has been married to (and, Sulla doesn't say this, but it's a fact and relevant to the self-control issue) and cheated on several women who are also decent people. (Sulla also didn't point out that in cheating, Gingrich violated the public vows he made to his wives and his God).

I don't see how 2 demonstrates more self-control than 1. Indeed, it would seem that if the decency of Gingrich's wives is relevant at all, it would mitigate against, rather than for, the proposition that Gingrich has a great deal of self control. As to their decency, I can't say, but the last two wives were willing to sleep with a married man.

Well it was unclear at any speed. In the first line it is not at all determined that the "people you don't like" means people Sulla doesn't like.

I also think the "long term committed relationships with people" instead of "person" is a little odd but I guess in this age it's par for the course.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I also think the "long term committed relationships with people" instead of "person" is a little odd but I guess in this age it's par for the course.

Yeah, true. I just think that serial monogamy, whatever problems it may entail, is probably better than serial cheating relationships.

[Wonderment]

Newt certainly looks smart when he's up on the stage with Rick Perry, Santorum and Cain. His problem is not IQ; it's his sleazy character, extensive rap sheet and extremely obnoxious personality. I am thrilled that he's making a move. This is the best thing that happened for liberals since Perry surged. Obama will wipe the floor with Newt. I worry about Romney, but Newt is a gift from god.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Newt certainly looks smart when he's up on the stage with Rick Perry, Santorum and Cain. His problem is not IQ; it's his sleazy character, extensive rap sheet and extremely obnoxious personality. I am thrilled that he's making a move. This is the best thing that happened for liberals since Perry surged. Obama will wipe the floor with Newt. I worry about Romney, but Newt is a gift from god.

No, Romney is going to win. No other candidate except Perry has even bothered to put together real organization in Iowa and New Hampshire.

It's just that he doesn't deserve to win. The establishment is to be damned for leaving the party with "Romney or nothing". You're right to be worried; our version of Kerry will do a lot better than yours.

And its a damned shame.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

It's just that he doesn't deserve to win. The establishment is to be damned for leaving the party with "Romney or nothing".
And its a damned shame.

If you were in charge who would be running?

You're right to be worried; our version of Kerry will do a lot better than yours.

translation please

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

If you were in charge who would be running?

Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Haley Barbour? Tom Coburn, Jeb Bush? Heck, we can't find a retired general or colonel to dust off? We have a million of those guys.

translation please

I think we're reenacting the Democratic primary of 2004, even with the state of origin of the likely nominee. I just think Obama isn't as skilled a politician as Bush, in a much worse time, and will lose to our boring suit.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Haley Barbour? Tom Coburn, Jeb Bush? Heck, we can't find a retired general or colonel to dust off? We have a million of those guys.

What I find peculiar is that in a time when the president of the other party is so vulnerable, the Republicans haven't been able to muster more formidable opposition. It makes me wonder if this is the people you mention waiting till the next time. But that could be 16 years down the line. It really is puzzling but that is the crazy character of American politics.

[David Edenden]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Newt certainly looks smart when he's up on the stage with Rick Perry, Santorum and Cain. His problem is not IQ; it's his sleazy character, extensive rap sheet and extremely obnoxious personality. I am thrilled that he's making a move. This is the best thing that happened for liberals since Perry surged. Obama will wipe the floor with Newt. I worry about Romney, but Newt is a gift from god.

Newt Gingrich is a loud mouth, smarty pants know it all. I don't like to make predictions ... especially about the future ... but he is going to flame out!

[basman]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

...Obama will wipe the floor with Newt..

What are you, 12?

And I heard similar bull shit about how Gore was going to wipe the floor with Bush.

I'd worry plenty whether either Romney or Gingrich gets the nod. As the cliche has it, if the economy be bad come voting day Obama has gehackteh tzores. Both Gingrich and Romey are formidable, unlike most of the rest of the Republicans clowns out there vying, Huntsman to the contrary notwithstanding and with no chance to win anything.

It's delusional to underestimate Gingrich.

Itzik Basman

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by basman

What are you, 12?

And I heard similar bull shit about how Gore was going to wipe the floor with Bush.

I'd worry plenty whether either Romney or Gingrich gets the nod. As the cliche has it, if the economy be bad come voting day Obama has gehackteh tzores. Both Gingrich and Romey are formidable, unlike most of the rest of the Republicans clowns out there vying, Huntsman to the contrary notwithstanding and with no chance to win anything.

It's delusional to underestimate Gingrich.

Itzik Basman

What have you done with Itzik Basman??????

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by basman

What are you, 12?

And I heard similar bull shit about how Gore was going to wipe the floor with Bush.

I'd worry plenty whether either Romney or Gingrich gets the nod. As the cliche has it, if the economy be bad come voting day Obama has gehackteh tzores. Both Gingrich and Romey are formidable, unlike most of the rest of the Republicans clowns out there vying, Huntsman to the contrary notwithstanding and with no chance to win anything.

It's delusional to underestimate Gingrich.

Itzik Basman

I think it's quite possible to overestimate Newt on a national platform. His electoral successes have all been accomplished in extremely limited, homogeneous contexts - that is, in a single Congressional district in suburban Altalnta with a well understood demographic and predictable political characteristics, and among House Republicans (who eventually turned on him.) If you read the user comments at a site like NRO (one way to sample the transient political breezes, I think), he's pretty controversial even among the Republican base. There's quite a bit in his extensive, well documented political career waiting to be exploited by his opponents on both sides; and up until now he hasn't seemed like a factor to to worry about in the current political season, so most of that is still waiting for someone to choose to exploit it. He's smart and savvy, but he also has obviously self-destructive tendencies and pattern of overreach.

We'll see.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Newt certainly looks smart when he's up on the stage with Rick Perry, Santorum and Cain. His problem is not IQ; it's his sleazy character, extensive rap sheet and extremely obnoxious personality. I am thrilled that he's making a move. This is the best thing that happened for liberals since Perry surged. Obama will wipe the floor with Newt. I worry about Romney, but Newt is a gift from god.

I would also add "Newt Already Magnanimous in Victory"

If you don't understand why this is both extremely funny and apt, then it casts doubt on whatever opinions you hold on the subject of Newt.

Now this other Newt is another story