If side B is Muslims then probably not with the PA moribund and all other Muslim participants in the direct question of Israel being deranged.
If I were to guess, probably things may go with campaigning following normal nostrums but Likud discovering that increasing numbers of Democrats respond to Likud calls with "new phone, who's this?"
Yeah some new candidates should be about what is needed. They'll either go full on group left and bomb or figure something else out. If it's the former then it'll fix itself the cycle after that. I just wish we had an alternative party to run things while the Dems do their stint in the wilderness instead of the flaming dumpster fire/clown show we have.
I don't think it's quite that simple. To put it in Jaybird terms Likud, led by Netanyahu, has been hitting the "defect" button on the bipartisan support for Israel issue for a long time now and the Dems have been responding by pressing the "cooperate" button while increasingly testily commenting on it. At some point their decision is going to have to change. As someone once said- the game is iterated.
Oh indeed, but you left out a word- "anymore". The Bush-Cheney set may be a bunch of either gormless sellouts or powerless principled exiles (like our many writers here) but they were once the ruling dynasty of the right. The arch of history bends towards justice it seems.
Yeah if my Husband gets a job soon *knocks on wood* then I'll consider Freddie and MattY for sure as well as possible Noah. I just can't pencil out the cost of all the substackers I'd want to read and comment on in my fiscal conscience. If only there was a way to aggregate them into a Substack magazine of some sort.
But it's also likely that, having come of age during the exquisite moment of the Blogosphere, I'm simply utterly spoiled in my mental taste for commentary and what I think it should cost.
You are probably correct and I generally think the same thing. Part of this, surely, is because the current set from Biden on down were far too set in their ways and desperate to stay in power. Well, that's all over now, next cycle will be with a much newer crop of candidates.
I'll readily cop to saying that the Dems and Harris made a big mistake by treating the neocon exiles as representing any voter constituency beyond their literal personal votes. But the Dems basically were locked in combat with them for decades so it was probably too tempting a conceit to ignore.
I am bemused at the idea of describing the Bush-Haliburton-Cheney set who basically ran the GOP for a decade plus as a fringe that Trump chased out of the party.
To address your greater point- I agree and Harris was a very unique candidate in that Bidens choices basically foisted her on the party but that also partially illustrates my point which is that the Democratic Party ended up with Harris because of a series of choices Biden made- the party didn't choose her in a conventional sense (they simply had no better options at the time) and I don't think it's been established that Harris' 2020 views were representative of the party. Heck, Harris- as part of taking on the nomination mantle- basically memory holed all those left wing positions. Is that not a black and white illustration that the Democratic Party and the vast majority of the left of center population it represents, does not subscribe to the left wing nut views that get ascribed to it?
But this is bigger than Harris. As I said to Jay this predates Harris.
Yes, Yes, but this stuff predates Harris. People were pushing this stuff under Biden, and Obama before him. The Dems are responsible for every fringe nut on the internet and have an obligation to denounce them whereas the GOP aren't responsible for even the fringe nuts they nominate, and I just don't see that you have answered as to why that is.
Sure, but the GOP is literally a mass of angry populists and a fading mass of crusading social conservatives providing votes with a grinning crust of naked plutocrats grifting them for all they're worth. It's not like the right's base is monolithic.
In utilitarian terms we'll probably have to see how things go in two-four years when we can run with candidates who haven't been closely welded to the left-wing nuts but the asymmetry is baffling.
But, Jay, you're literally illustrating my point. None of those points were embraced by the Democratic Party widely.
SSM? Sure, eventually, reluctantly by the Dems but only after VP Biden kind of frog marched them into it. TERF and Hogwarts legacy?!? That's entirely transposed in your mind straight from twitter to the Democratic Party and, as far as I can see, it's made up. Not even Harris got up and threw shade at JK Rowlings or British TERFS. So why?
And I'm not asking this in vulgar utilitarian terms or moral terms- I'm asking you as one of those unaligned centrist view from nowhere voters why.
As to "boy who cried wolf" (and this applies to your comment too John Puccio), the right has been calling Dems communists, fascists and worse my entire adult life. Liberal Fascism was published in 2008 for fish's sake. There are entire genres of music dedicated to sneering at liberal communities and population centers. So why is none of that "Boy who cried wolf"?
Yes really. The reason we keep talking about Sista Soulja is because it was an unusual thing for Clinton to do and because Clinton managed to pull it off. I already agreed that Harris was too associated with further left wing views to be able to silently ignore them the way your standard Dem politician does but Kamala was a unique candidate in a variety of negative ways that aren't typical for her party. That doesn't change my wider point which is that even though none of these left wing fringe positions are formally embraced by the Dems as a matter of course they are expected to be renouncing and policing them whereas the GOP are not.
And you're recapping my main point- why does the GOP not need to? It's not like the right wing fringe ideologies are popular- they're toxic and despised. My own theory is that it may be an artifact of Trump; a kind of reverse Obama field where every possible supporter says of Republicans more toxic positions and associations "well those are who Trump is going to con."
And yes, I know there're more than two groups of voters, and I'm asking you, since you give the vibe of being one of the view from nowhere unaligned voters, why the Dems have this obligation while the GOP doesn't. This isn't just Harris- Biden faced it when he won narrowly in 2020 for instance.
Left wing fringers are generally not Dems. They consider Dems picayune sellouts, despise them and go with the Greens; Dem Socialists or other similar left wing failure parties. This doesn't strike me as controversial to observe.
Why do these fringers reflect on the Dems when right wing fringers, it seems, don't reflect on the GOP? Why do we generally not hear our various unaligned centrists calling on the GOP to denounce their fringers?
Harris didn't denounce left wing fringers. I agree. She generally just ignored them or distanced herself from them. And it can't be denied that her 2020 positions, which were not wildly left wing fringe but were assuredly in viewing distance of wild left wing views, didn't help.
Still, Harris aside, the general political rule is there's very little hay to be made making war on your own fringe- it annoys and turns off your base, signal boosts said fringe and your opponents will always claim you're disingenuous or insufficiently vehement. I'm just curious about this double standard (I certainly don't deny it exists I just am puzzled as to why). Why must Dems make war on or answer for their fringers while the GOP has no similar obligation vis a vis their own? Heck, if the Dems embraced and nominated their nuts the way the GOP does their own the media's collective heads would >pop< explode.
Ah, then your position is that the Democrats must police their left wing fringes even though these are people who aren't Democrats because those fringes deranged fringing reflects poorly on the Dems because... reasons. But the GOP has no need to do the same for their right wing fringe nuts possibly because they elect them as Republican Senators, Congressfolk and President and manage to eke out wins about half the time? And who sets these rules?
I mean, yes, he's won twice (and lost once) but both the first time was incredibly close and the second time was not as historically narrow but not particularly a big win. Then again, considering what he has to work with in terms of the right and the GOP, those wins remain remarkable so maybe you are in grandfather sucking eggs territory.
Frankly I'd find you opining about the first one to be interesting in telling me a bit about your morals. I'd find you opining about the second interesting as to how you think the electorate works. And I'd find both interesting to have an idea as to what you'd be saying if, say, you hadn't been banned from Redstate. So I'd welcome you opining on both.
I think there's a pretty persuasive case to be made that Bibi isn't afraid exactly of Trump but uneasy because he knows a lot of people who don't like him have Trumps' ear. The Saudi/'s, for example. I think it's not so much fear of Trump trying to fish Bibi over so much as fear that Trump will be too unpredictable for Bibi to continue to do the fan dance he's been doing.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
I came to it far too late to appreciate it. First saw it in the aughts and was wondering if someone had spiked my coke with PCP.
"
Not Dune???
On “Reports: Isreal and Hamas Agree To Cease-fire Deal”
Like I said, it's not simple.
If side B is Muslims then probably not with the PA moribund and all other Muslim participants in the direct question of Israel being deranged.
If I were to guess, probably things may go with campaigning following normal nostrums but Likud discovering that increasing numbers of Democrats respond to Likud calls with "new phone, who's this?"
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
Yeah some new candidates should be about what is needed. They'll either go full on group left and bomb or figure something else out. If it's the former then it'll fix itself the cycle after that. I just wish we had an alternative party to run things while the Dems do their stint in the wilderness instead of the flaming dumpster fire/clown show we have.
On “Reports: Isreal and Hamas Agree To Cease-fire Deal”
I don't think it's quite that simple. To put it in Jaybird terms Likud, led by Netanyahu, has been hitting the "defect" button on the bipartisan support for Israel issue for a long time now and the Dems have been responding by pressing the "cooperate" button while increasingly testily commenting on it. At some point their decision is going to have to change. As someone once said- the game is iterated.
"
The Dems will need to think very hard about how they're going to interact with Likud going forward I suspect.
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
Oh indeed, but you left out a word- "anymore". The Bush-Cheney set may be a bunch of either gormless sellouts or powerless principled exiles (like our many writers here) but they were once the ruling dynasty of the right. The arch of history bends towards justice it seems.
"
Yeah if my Husband gets a job soon *knocks on wood* then I'll consider Freddie and MattY for sure as well as possible Noah. I just can't pencil out the cost of all the substackers I'd want to read and comment on in my fiscal conscience. If only there was a way to aggregate them into a Substack magazine of some sort.
But it's also likely that, having come of age during the exquisite moment of the Blogosphere, I'm simply utterly spoiled in my mental taste for commentary and what I think it should cost.
"
You are probably correct and I generally think the same thing. Part of this, surely, is because the current set from Biden on down were far too set in their ways and desperate to stay in power. Well, that's all over now, next cycle will be with a much newer crop of candidates.
"
I'll readily cop to saying that the Dems and Harris made a big mistake by treating the neocon exiles as representing any voter constituency beyond their literal personal votes. But the Dems basically were locked in combat with them for decades so it was probably too tempting a conceit to ignore.
I am bemused at the idea of describing the Bush-Haliburton-Cheney set who basically ran the GOP for a decade plus as a fringe that Trump chased out of the party.
"
To address your greater point- I agree and Harris was a very unique candidate in that Bidens choices basically foisted her on the party but that also partially illustrates my point which is that the Democratic Party ended up with Harris because of a series of choices Biden made- the party didn't choose her in a conventional sense (they simply had no better options at the time) and I don't think it's been established that Harris' 2020 views were representative of the party. Heck, Harris- as part of taking on the nomination mantle- basically memory holed all those left wing positions. Is that not a black and white illustration that the Democratic Party and the vast majority of the left of center population it represents, does not subscribe to the left wing nut views that get ascribed to it?
But this is bigger than Harris. As I said to Jay this predates Harris.
"
Hmmm you may have a point there.
"
Yes, Yes, but this stuff predates Harris. People were pushing this stuff under Biden, and Obama before him. The Dems are responsible for every fringe nut on the internet and have an obligation to denounce them whereas the GOP aren't responsible for even the fringe nuts they nominate, and I just don't see that you have answered as to why that is.
"
I'm, alas, too cheap to subscribe to substacks in general as much as I'd love to read MY's stuff and comment on it.
"
Sure, but the GOP is literally a mass of angry populists and a fading mass of crusading social conservatives providing votes with a grinning crust of naked plutocrats grifting them for all they're worth. It's not like the right's base is monolithic.
In utilitarian terms we'll probably have to see how things go in two-four years when we can run with candidates who haven't been closely welded to the left-wing nuts but the asymmetry is baffling.
"
But, Jay, you're literally illustrating my point. None of those points were embraced by the Democratic Party widely.
SSM? Sure, eventually, reluctantly by the Dems but only after VP Biden kind of frog marched them into it. TERF and Hogwarts legacy?!? That's entirely transposed in your mind straight from twitter to the Democratic Party and, as far as I can see, it's made up. Not even Harris got up and threw shade at JK Rowlings or British TERFS. So why?
And I'm not asking this in vulgar utilitarian terms or moral terms- I'm asking you as one of those unaligned centrist view from nowhere voters why.
As to "boy who cried wolf" (and this applies to your comment too John Puccio), the right has been calling Dems communists, fascists and worse my entire adult life. Liberal Fascism was published in 2008 for fish's sake. There are entire genres of music dedicated to sneering at liberal communities and population centers. So why is none of that "Boy who cried wolf"?
"
Yes really. The reason we keep talking about Sista Soulja is because it was an unusual thing for Clinton to do and because Clinton managed to pull it off. I already agreed that Harris was too associated with further left wing views to be able to silently ignore them the way your standard Dem politician does but Kamala was a unique candidate in a variety of negative ways that aren't typical for her party. That doesn't change my wider point which is that even though none of these left wing fringe positions are formally embraced by the Dems as a matter of course they are expected to be renouncing and policing them whereas the GOP are not.
And you're recapping my main point- why does the GOP not need to? It's not like the right wing fringe ideologies are popular- they're toxic and despised. My own theory is that it may be an artifact of Trump; a kind of reverse Obama field where every possible supporter says of Republicans more toxic positions and associations "well those are who Trump is going to con."
And yes, I know there're more than two groups of voters, and I'm asking you, since you give the vibe of being one of the view from nowhere unaligned voters, why the Dems have this obligation while the GOP doesn't. This isn't just Harris- Biden faced it when he won narrowly in 2020 for instance.
"
Left wing fringers are generally not Dems. They consider Dems picayune sellouts, despise them and go with the Greens; Dem Socialists or other similar left wing failure parties. This doesn't strike me as controversial to observe.
Why do these fringers reflect on the Dems when right wing fringers, it seems, don't reflect on the GOP? Why do we generally not hear our various unaligned centrists calling on the GOP to denounce their fringers?
Harris didn't denounce left wing fringers. I agree. She generally just ignored them or distanced herself from them. And it can't be denied that her 2020 positions, which were not wildly left wing fringe but were assuredly in viewing distance of wild left wing views, didn't help.
Still, Harris aside, the general political rule is there's very little hay to be made making war on your own fringe- it annoys and turns off your base, signal boosts said fringe and your opponents will always claim you're disingenuous or insufficiently vehement. I'm just curious about this double standard (I certainly don't deny it exists I just am puzzled as to why). Why must Dems make war on or answer for their fringers while the GOP has no similar obligation vis a vis their own? Heck, if the Dems embraced and nominated their nuts the way the GOP does their own the media's collective heads would >pop< explode.
"
Ah, then your position is that the Democrats must police their left wing fringes even though these are people who aren't Democrats because those fringes deranged fringing reflects poorly on the Dems because... reasons. But the GOP has no need to do the same for their right wing fringe nuts possibly because they elect them as Republican Senators, Congressfolk and President and manage to eke out wins about half the time? And who sets these rules?
"
I mean, yes, he's won twice (and lost once) but both the first time was incredibly close and the second time was not as historically narrow but not particularly a big win. Then again, considering what he has to work with in terms of the right and the GOP, those wins remain remarkable so maybe you are in grandfather sucking eggs territory.
"
Err.. you're using a left wing academic example for the right? Could you unpack that more?
"
Frankly I'd find you opining about the first one to be interesting in telling me a bit about your morals. I'd find you opining about the second interesting as to how you think the electorate works. And I'd find both interesting to have an idea as to what you'd be saying if, say, you hadn't been banned from Redstate. So I'd welcome you opining on both.
On “Reports: Isreal and Hamas Agree To Cease-fire Deal”
I think there's a pretty persuasive case to be made that Bibi isn't afraid exactly of Trump but uneasy because he knows a lot of people who don't like him have Trumps' ear. The Saudi/'s, for example. I think it's not so much fear of Trump trying to fish Bibi over so much as fear that Trump will be too unpredictable for Bibi to continue to do the fan dance he's been doing.
On “Trump’s Ace in the Hole”
I'm curious. Are there any subjects where the Republicans should, or should be expected to, be policing the right?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/13/2025”
Really makes some of his stories, Calliope in Sandman especially, land very differently.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.