eh if there was an ‘otherness’ about kerry it was the waspy new england shit, which in 2008 was more foreign to your average american than ‘has a relative from eastern europe’.
Bush is not a wasp? Kerry isn’t a Catholic? Your average American was unaware of Kerry’s ancestry, but they knew what he looks like, and the particular accusation was that he “looks” French. What he looks like, of course, is a product of his ethnic heritage. Most of the rival political coalitions in America are a product of distinct ethnic lineages and the cultures they created in the different regions of the country. So yes, it’s accurate to say that calling him a New England guy is calling him a WASP in the “elite” sense, but it’s also referencing that region’s cultural pluralism, and specifically Irish/Italian/Jewish/other ethnicity.
he just didn’t seem “rough ‘n tough,“ in an era where that’s what people wanted (maybe people always want that).
Well, sure, at least that’s how BushCo sought to sell him. but while Bush had the tougher rhetoric and perhaps body language, Kerry was the slightly bigger (ok, perhaps just taller) guy and arguably physically tougher, which became apparent when they first shared a debate stage together. But that was not all that was signified by the phrase.
it means literally nothing, since most of the people reacting against purportedly “French” or “European” traits know less about Europe than I know about dropping a transmission. it means “here’s your target, now haul out some insults you leaned from cartoons.” one of the really aggravating Rumsfeld moments among many:
Now, you’re thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east. And there are a lot of new members. And if you just take the list of all the members of NATO and all of those who have been invited in recently — what is it? Twenty-six, something like that? — you’re right. Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem.
also, this is the greatest thing ever
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/perrys-latest-oops-kim-jong-second/46394/
Lol.
You have to be fucking kidding me.
Mitt, unsurprisingly, is a great line-reader on Letterman. I kind of hate myself for liking the guy at times.
i wonder if there was that PR conversation in which someone had to tell romney, “just play down the french thing, okay”, keep your ability to speak another language on the down-low. it would be such a humiliating litmus test of how shitty the contest you were voluntarily participating in was.
there’s nothing wrong with liking a guy that you wouldn’t vote for imo
I kind of hate myself for liking the guy at times.
Had the same reaction Sunday, watching his Chris Wallace interview. When he takes a for-Pete’s-sake defensive stance at the debates, he’s at his worst; in a more relaxed setting, I don’t mind him. Maybe that’s true of everybody to an extent, but I don’t know—I haven’t liked Huntsman in any setting. That’s why I say “living-room test” (as in, can you stand to have this person in your living room almost every night for the next four years?) rather than likability. I think with some people—Romney, George H.W.—voters are able to reach a point of not not-liking them, without ever necessarily warming to them.
guys, that Perry gaffe is literally a repeat of W, but keep keeping yr mind off Obama’s worse-than-Bush police-state shit.
there’s nothing wrong with liking a guy that you wouldn’t vote for imo
Well, it would be one thing if he were just a nice, but misguided guy. But Romney’s a starchy, coldly insensitive, often highly patronizing jerk, from and of a wealthy class seeking to preserve its privileges, who is willing to contribute to public perception that we don’t face a serious climate change problem (which in passing disrespects science and its practitioners), one of a number of signs that he may subsume his purported objective orientation in the ideology that best serves the wealthy (and himself). While it’s possible that he’s just playing politics on that score and knows there’s a problem, I’m not sure he really cares much about it either way, and in fact he takes reasonably hard-right positions across the board. While he takes less about some social issues on which he’d previously shown some moderate/liberal tendencies, his religion may in fact make him at least some form of social conservative. And of course in office he’d be driven by an even harder-right party (so while I acknowledge the argument that it would take a Republican to get done a (probably wishy-washy) “left”-leaning initiative like a climate bill, I would never want to take such long odds).
What I like about him is that he’s a highly intelligent, and at least marginally data-driven (to the extent it serves his profit motive, at least; not sure about in other respects), Northeasterner with some humanist/cosmopolitan tendencies (at least to the extent they once served his political interests in MA), and a real, if rather old-fashioned/corny (though I’m a fan of corn, to an extent), sense of humor that isn’t mean. I also like that he’s a little awkward, and secretly probably a little of his paternalism, at least to the extent it’s directed rightward.
“takes” should be talks
a starchy, coldly insensitive, often highly patronizing jerk, from and of a wealthy class seeking to preserve its privileges
guys, that Perry gaffe is literally a repeat of W, but keep keeping yr mind off Obama’s worse-than-Bush police-state shit.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, December 20, 2011 8:24 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
yeah lots of Obama apologists on here. He’s a scumbag!
Morbius: what ever will you do if (or maybe when) Obama loses? Attacking Romney just won’t be as piercingly edgy.
what makes you think he’s going to stop bitching about Obama
I watched part of the Wallace interview, too and what I eventually took away from it was that it wasn’t so much that I liked Romney as I found him marginally less annoying than the other candidates. The transparently obvious pandering to idiots that is so common is painful to watch in Romney but the fact that he looks kind of half-hearted doing it, while it enrages the base, gives me small comfort, I guess.
so i see sully’s a paultard now. which makes perfect sense, really.
I have v. little love for ron paul, but ron paul >>> people who use the term “paultard” imo
like, if Ron Paul has jock itch, his pained scratchings at his undersac are still wittier than affixing “tard” to a dude’s last name
fair enough. not trying to be witty at all, just a common dumb thing people say but i obviously wasn’t thinking it through. anyways sorry!
I have v. little love for ron paul, but ron paul >>> people who use the term “paultard” imo
― undervalued aerosmith tchotchkes sold in bulk, Tuesday, December 20, 2011 9:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
OTM
Andy Borowitz @BorowitzReport — Romney campaign unveils new slogan: “You’re Out of Other Options”
lol
Uh, love my dog.
Uh, love my dog.
― Nicole, Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:10 PM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink
times infinity
Love this poat so much I want to strap it to the top of my car.
“Uh,” he said. “Love my dog.”
Cain speaks to the NRO. Remember him?
“I’m not bitter but I am disappointed and angry at times,” he says. “That’s different from being bitter.”
NRO can afford to be kind and gentle with Cain now that he’s irrelevant. No mention of his gaffes, like his not knowing that China has nuclear weapons.
that whole interview is kinda sad imo
This is what happens when someone who has never won an election to public office at any level runs for president. He’d never been scrutinized in this way before and he chose to be picked apart on a national stage in front of the entire country. His naivete was breathtaking and his fall was inevitable. The only thing strange about the entire episode was that he succeeded to the extent he did.
btw, he still has never won a single election. not even a primary contest.
once a fake pizzaman, always a fake pizzaman
also: he didn’t know anything about any major issues.
9!9!9!
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/is-romney-stronger-than-he-appears.html
We’ve kicked around variations of this before, but if the White House is counting on Romney’s time at Bain as their “devastating” ace in the hole (based on an election that took place 18 years ago), wow.
Hahah lord, they’re not dumb enough to make that the centerpiece.
weird how much this is dogging Paul lately, I was kinda under the impression everybody that cared already knew about this stuff
a lot of his fans have claimed that the newsletters don’t exist, or are blown out of proportion — i don’t think (or haven’t seen) a lot of hard evidence + quotes (until now of course)
alfred linked to this atlantic piece from a kinda-sorta-paul fan who sorts through the wreckage of the newsletters
between his defense of ron paul’s racist newsletter, his long bizarre promotion of the bell curve, etc, sullivan is pretty much out as a racist imho (not to mention his fascination with israel/neocon/aipac conspiracy theories)
The comments on Mr Destructo’s blog are genuinely lol-worthy
between his defense of ron paul’s racist newsletter, his long bizarre promotion of the bell curve, etc, sullivan is pretty much out as a racist imho
Interesting.
sullivan is trying this tact of saying “well, maybe he’s racist, but who running for the republican nomination isn’t?” of course, the answer to that is: “if it’s a party full of racist ppl maybe refuse to endorse any of them?”
Newsletters or no newsletters, it should be common sense to anyone who’s paid any attention to Paul that he’s a bit of a crank and doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office.
Nate otm. I have decided from my position of white, male privilege to overlook the tedious culture-war racism and homophobia and just focus on the fact that Mr Avuncular is also an out-and-out crank and should by no means be anywhere near the levers of power.
I do find Sullivan’s endorsement of Paul kind of odd, but he seems to be offering it with the disclaimer that he really supports Obama and he’s just endorsing Paul because he would spark a useful conversation within the conservative movement.
I think he is genuinely interested in re-invigorating the libertarian side of the Republican party, particularly in the non-evangelical side but I’m not really sure that Paul, everything considered, is a great standard-bearer for it looking forward.
If you’re going to argue against tyrannical state interference in society, I think you’re going to have to be a LOT more strident in condemning racism and homophobia if you want to capture the future (i.e. Millenials) and I have yet to hear any cogent arguments from states’ rights libertarians which either acknowledge that local tyranny can be every bit as onerous as national tyranny or prescribe anything both effective and possibly progressive as the Brown vs Board and Civil Rights Acts of the 60’s, all of which were decried as horribly intrusive on the fringe right.
The quintessential spokesman for the Libertarian side of the Republican Party was Barry Goldwater, who cast many a vote for “state’s rights” when that was clearly a position in favor of segregation and Jim Crow. Unlike Paul, he later made conciliatory remarks about his sad record against civil rights. Paul just dodges around it.
Like, I’m the kind of dick who would drop a gotcha question on Paul wrt Arpaio as much to see how he’s dealt with the contradiction ideologically/politically as to trip him up.
Goldwater was also forthcoming about the silliness of DADT.
I guess my beef with that wing is the basically unexamined notion that the best democracy is local democracy. I think that may be 18th century romanticism rearing up or some misplaced idolatry of Jefferson or whomever. Surely a corollary might be that local tyranny is about as bad as it gets, too.
There was that Loyalist during the Revolution who said, “Better to live under one tyrant a thousand miles away, than a thousand tyrants one mile away.”
I’m not a racist but I think Ron Paul has some interesting ideas for cutting down on government. At least he’s not some Big Government photocopy, rubber-stamping wars like Obama and Congless. But I am concerned about these racist allegations. I don’t think I would vote for him.
If you put that corollary to a modern libertarian, they’d probably answer that given an adequate number of guns in the hands of patriots, no local tyranny would stand for long, which is pure moonshine, but still they would believe it.
most patriots can only hold two guns in their hands at a time and be useful
I’m not a racist but
always a good way to start your posts
they’d probably answer that given an adequate number of guns in the hands of patriots, no local tyranny would stand for long
This is (a) sweetly and foolishly romantic in manly way or (b) failing to notice that in that case, they are the tyranny.
Lol, Shakey...
I’m waiting for the “I’m only racist against x group” as an intrductory disclaimer.
lol friedersdorf seems like a nice guy but hes such a goofball, that post hoos links to is like 9,000 words long and it has headers and shit
Sorry but yesterday someone said I was a racist!
can you imagine? a long article
“I’m not a racist, but” yields many interesting results on Google.
i’m not a racist, but some of my best friends are racists
love that quote, m. white.
always a good way to start your posts
LOL
George H.W. Bush “informally” endorses Romney.
He’s like the son he never had.
W. Mitt Bush
He’s like the son he never had.
and, in turn, romney has always had deep affection and great respect for GHWB.
as long as feeling that way helps romney.
Obama isn’t a racist but he’s a crank too (“Yeah, I haven’t gotten you world peace or single-payer, kiss my ass libs”)
OMG he said that?
parafraziering
I thought “crank” denoted something closer to “conspiracy theorist”...?
as opposed to just cranky
yeah, a label ‘reasonable’ ppl wften use vs anyone who points out that this whole game is a crock of shit
btw I got an email from MoveOn yesterday suggesting that I run for office
Don’t sell out, Morbz
I won’t accept anything less than the State Department.
I had fun thinking how fast anyone on this board could torpedo my candidacy for anything
yeah, a label ‘reasonable’ ppl wften use vs anyone who points out that this whole game is a crock of shit conspiracy on behalf of the Illuminati/The Gnomes of Zurich/Bermuda Triangle
you should run!
rep. dr. morbius.
Btw, Ambassador to France would suit me very, very well.
THINK OF ALL THE PERKS YOU COULD HAVE.
unlimited use of the congressional gym. free mimosas, anytime, anywhere in d.c. daily lunch on k-street.
Trying to remember when Obama promised world peace or single payer.
Can someone googleproof that Gnmoes of Zurchi thing upthread? I’d like to make through to 2012.
I think Obama is more of an individual mandate world peace kind of guy, Mr Holland.
btw I got an email from MoveOn yesterday suggesting that I run for office
excellent opportunity to dust off yr standup comedy routine
“i mean really folks, what’s the deal w/ fascist democrat shitheads?”
banning gabbneb = constitutional amendment
Let me put it a different way: Paul is a zealot. His brand of libertarianism may have some useful ideas to contribute, and maybe some elements of it will be incorporated into public policy at some future date, but I think someone who’s so convinced of the purity and righteousness of his own position, who is so impervious to any sort of opposing viewpoint, and who swallows whole-hog some decidedly fringe-y theories (forgetting the racial stuff, what about his views on the gold standard?) is just not temperamentally suited for the highest executive position in the country.
Not an executive order?! What’s the point of being POTUS if you can’t just ban gabbnebb?
banning gabbneb = constitutional amendment
I thought a two-thirds majority already insisted on ILE for this...?
in what world, even one where Ron Paul was 56 instead of 76, would the GOP bankrollers permit him to take the nomination?