I didn't take it as a criticism of Fetterman. I took it as a plain statement that someone somewhere was saying something obviously stupid about Fetterman and asking who said it.
Apparently, nobody.
Hoosegow Flask is not saying Republicans do not, in fact, have agency. He's repeating a common internet meme that Republicans -- falsely -- disclaim agency for their own choices, hiding behind the "look what you made me do" defense.
But you probably know that.
It's entirely possible that somebody did say something like that in the '80s or '90s, and almost certain that he was harking back to the common misunderstanding of what Kael said.
Bezos owns a newspaper and can do what he wants. Like anyone else who owns a newspaper. And the rest of us can point and laugh. Or cancel our subscriptions.
You are perfectly free to start a newspaper and run it on those principles. But your principles are just that -- your principles. They are not baked into the cake of the moral universe, grounded in the history of journalism (quite the opposite, in fact), or anything else. Of course freedom of the press is for those who own one, but who knows, you might hit the lottery
And inflation happened everywhere, in countries where Joe Biden wasn't President, and where both right-ish and left-ish governments were in power. We came out of it a lot better than most of those other countries. The incumbent parties in most of those countries took a pounding, and so did the Democrats. Did they all, or did any of them, deserve it? Even asking the question is a mistake. As JFK once said: "Life isn't fair."
Remember "Kamala is a cop"? And she actually did talk about her experiences as a prosecutor talking to victims. Fat lot of good it did her. And the people who voted against her wouldn't have paid attention or believed her anyway, because "those people" are soft on crime no matter what they say or do.
Saying "crime is bad" isn't a policy. Talking honestly about the hard, boring slog of actually investigating and prosecuting crimes, and establishing sensible enforcement priorities within the limits of the resources taxpayers are willing to provide is a crashing bore unless you spice it up with frothing savagery.
Most of the time, they don't even do that. How hard would it be to say: "The whole world went through economic hell starting with COVID. The whole world experienced inflation the like of which we haven't seen in decades. It hurt for as long as it lasted. We felt your pain and we worked very hard to help people through it. We succeeded, better than any other country in the world, breaking inflation without setting off a recession. A lot of people said it couldn't be done, but we did it, and our recovery was the envy of the rest of the world. Inflation is mostly dead, and has been for about a year. The economy is humming. The stock market is at record highs. Those are facts. We did all that, with almost no help from the other party. but there is more to be done -- [fill in details]."
Over at Kevin Drum's blog is a series of graphs and commentary showing that Trump has been dealt a very fine hand as far as the economy, trade. crime, and immigration go. Just like last time. What Trump promised has already been largely delivered. My bet is that he f**ks up, just like last time, but that will depend on how much he gets of what he says he wants.
As is so often the case, the Democrats didn't take their own side in a fight, trumpet their actual accomplishments in getting through the world-wide economic crisis and delivering a sound economy, promise to keep up the good work, and come up with a few new wrinkles. Whether any of that would have mattered to low-information voters is another question, but the likely futility is no reason not to try.
The post-mortems will be coming thick and fast, and at least three-quarters of them will involve either telling the Democrats to become Republicans, throwing some valuable and vulnerable constituency under the bus, telling the white working class lies, or recommending the adoption of, or more likely merely bloviating more loudly about, the coroner's pet policies. The insiders are surely mulling this over already, though they are unlikely to share their thinking with the general public. The unique features of the 2024 election will surely not be repeated on the Democratic side. Trump, being ineligible to run for re-election, will not present a Biden problem to the Republicans when Trump's age and imbecility catch up with him or become too obvious to the public.
There's no payoff to saying predictable stuff early. It's a long off-season.
Indeed it would be a bad plan, which is why it wasn't the plan. So tell people the truth about the economy and what needs to be done -- though they probably won't listen. Endorse a serious plan to deal with illegal immigration. See where that got us? And explain exactly what you plan to do about the actual levels of violent crime without lying about the scope of the problem. Of course, that will bore voters to tears unless the candidate froths at the mouth and makes tough-sounding noises.
But it's not going to be her turn -- unless they all look alike. There will be a wide-open scrum in 2028. Maybe she'll enter it, maybe she'll win, but she won't be the prohibitive favorite. Are there any other black women you see on the horizon who have a claim on the nomination?
When all is said and done, the likely bet is a candidate with white skin and a penis.
Pet issues, surely. Saying crime is up is not a policy, and ranting about American Carnage (TM) is a lie. The plain fact is that crime has been declining for decades and has largely come down to almost unimaginably low levels. Year over year it fluctuates in a narrow band around a low normal, but the trend has been steady for years. Reasonable people can disagree about what needs to be done about the crime we have, but (speaking of traditional media credibility problems) when the rule for local news is "if it bleeds it leads," people will get the wrong idea about the scope of the problem and fall for anyone who talks tough and has no actual idea what to do that might work. As for illegal immigration, there was a tough compromise bill that would have gone a long way to addressing that, but there are certain people who would rather have a problem to exploit than a solution. And we know who they are. And inflation, as it turns out, was transitory, the traditional media didn't report that Biden was in great shape, and Trump can speak for himself about Liz Cheney, and did.
And while I agree that there was little effort to communicate the truth about the economy and there should have been more, I can't say I share your confidence that better communicators would have succeeded in getting people to believe it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 11/11/2024”
Is Gaetz more interested in the Justice Department than the Justice Department is interested in Gaetz?
"
If you say that's what you meant to say, then I assume that's what you meant to say. English be hard.
"
I didn't take it as a criticism of Fetterman. I took it as a plain statement that someone somewhere was saying something obviously stupid about Fetterman and asking who said it.
Apparently, nobody.
"
You’ll always have a handful of people saying something like “Fetterman is the most influential senator to sit in that chamber since Lyndon Johnson!”
I'll take three -- two if one of them is someone people have actually heard of.
On “He Got Away With It”
Hoosegow Flask is not saying Republicans do not, in fact, have agency. He's repeating a common internet meme that Republicans -- falsely -- disclaim agency for their own choices, hiding behind the "look what you made me do" defense.
But you probably know that.
"
Your rules, your move.
"
Wasn't there supposed to be "an actual conversation" next?
On “The Shepherds have a Credibility Problem”
It's entirely possible that somebody did say something like that in the '80s or '90s, and almost certain that he was harking back to the common misunderstanding of what Kael said.
"
I'm sure you would. What it might contribute to the point under discussion is obscure, but what else is new?
"
Bezos owns a newspaper and can do what he wants. Like anyone else who owns a newspaper. And the rest of us can point and laugh. Or cancel our subscriptions.
"
You are perfectly free to start a newspaper and run it on those principles. But your principles are just that -- your principles. They are not baked into the cake of the moral universe, grounded in the history of journalism (quite the opposite, in fact), or anything else. Of course freedom of the press is for those who own one, but who knows, you might hit the lottery
On “Trumped”
And inflation happened everywhere, in countries where Joe Biden wasn't President, and where both right-ish and left-ish governments were in power. We came out of it a lot better than most of those other countries. The incumbent parties in most of those countries took a pounding, and so did the Democrats. Did they all, or did any of them, deserve it? Even asking the question is a mistake. As JFK once said: "Life isn't fair."
"
Remember "Kamala is a cop"? And she actually did talk about her experiences as a prosecutor talking to victims. Fat lot of good it did her. And the people who voted against her wouldn't have paid attention or believed her anyway, because "those people" are soft on crime no matter what they say or do.
Saying "crime is bad" isn't a policy. Talking honestly about the hard, boring slog of actually investigating and prosecuting crimes, and establishing sensible enforcement priorities within the limits of the resources taxpayers are willing to provide is a crashing bore unless you spice it up with frothing savagery.
"
I'll go with facts versus vibes, even if vibes win in the short term. Especially if you don't put them out there early, often, and hard.
"
Most of the time, they don't even do that. How hard would it be to say: "The whole world went through economic hell starting with COVID. The whole world experienced inflation the like of which we haven't seen in decades. It hurt for as long as it lasted. We felt your pain and we worked very hard to help people through it. We succeeded, better than any other country in the world, breaking inflation without setting off a recession. A lot of people said it couldn't be done, but we did it, and our recovery was the envy of the rest of the world. Inflation is mostly dead, and has been for about a year. The economy is humming. The stock market is at record highs. Those are facts. We did all that, with almost no help from the other party. but there is more to be done -- [fill in details]."
"
Over at Kevin Drum's blog is a series of graphs and commentary showing that Trump has been dealt a very fine hand as far as the economy, trade. crime, and immigration go. Just like last time. What Trump promised has already been largely delivered. My bet is that he f**ks up, just like last time, but that will depend on how much he gets of what he says he wants.
As is so often the case, the Democrats didn't take their own side in a fight, trumpet their actual accomplishments in getting through the world-wide economic crisis and delivering a sound economy, promise to keep up the good work, and come up with a few new wrinkles. Whether any of that would have mattered to low-information voters is another question, but the likely futility is no reason not to try.
The post-mortems will be coming thick and fast, and at least three-quarters of them will involve either telling the Democrats to become Republicans, throwing some valuable and vulnerable constituency under the bus, telling the white working class lies, or recommending the adoption of, or more likely merely bloviating more loudly about, the coroner's pet policies. The insiders are surely mulling this over already, though they are unlikely to share their thinking with the general public. The unique features of the 2024 election will surely not be repeated on the Democratic side. Trump, being ineligible to run for re-election, will not present a Biden problem to the Republicans when Trump's age and imbecility catch up with him or become too obvious to the public.
There's no payoff to saying predictable stuff early. It's a long off-season.
On “History Was Made in 2024 Election, Now What?”
If you want to argue with the voices in your own head, don't let anyone stop you.
"
When you set the terms for both sides of the argument, you’re bound to win.
"
When you set the terms for both sides of the argument, you’re bound to win.
"
When you set the terms for both sides of the argument, you're bound to win.
"
Indeed it would be a bad plan, which is why it wasn't the plan. So tell people the truth about the economy and what needs to be done -- though they probably won't listen. Endorse a serious plan to deal with illegal immigration. See where that got us? And explain exactly what you plan to do about the actual levels of violent crime without lying about the scope of the problem. Of course, that will bore voters to tears unless the candidate froths at the mouth and makes tough-sounding noises.
"
But it's not going to be her turn -- unless they all look alike. There will be a wide-open scrum in 2028. Maybe she'll enter it, maybe she'll win, but she won't be the prohibitive favorite. Are there any other black women you see on the horizon who have a claim on the nomination?
When all is said and done, the likely bet is a candidate with white skin and a penis.
"
Let's go back to those confiscatory Clinton tax rates!
"
Pet issues, surely. Saying crime is up is not a policy, and ranting about American Carnage (TM) is a lie. The plain fact is that crime has been declining for decades and has largely come down to almost unimaginably low levels. Year over year it fluctuates in a narrow band around a low normal, but the trend has been steady for years. Reasonable people can disagree about what needs to be done about the crime we have, but (speaking of traditional media credibility problems) when the rule for local news is "if it bleeds it leads," people will get the wrong idea about the scope of the problem and fall for anyone who talks tough and has no actual idea what to do that might work. As for illegal immigration, there was a tough compromise bill that would have gone a long way to addressing that, but there are certain people who would rather have a problem to exploit than a solution. And we know who they are. And inflation, as it turns out, was transitory, the traditional media didn't report that Biden was in great shape, and Trump can speak for himself about Liz Cheney, and did.
"
I'm glad to see that we don't disagree.
And while I agree that there was little effort to communicate the truth about the economy and there should have been more, I can't say I share your confidence that better communicators would have succeeded in getting people to believe it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.