I should say most decent people. I think Obama is a fundamentally decent person. There are probably a lot of people in safe house seats that are fundamentally decent people and a good amount of Senators.
I think when politicians get away or do not get away with misdeeds of one sort or another is largely a result of polarization and partisanship.
Let's look at the cases of Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter who both got in trouble for the same issue. Both went to escort services (BTW this is in no way to spell out my own personal position on sex workers and whether prostitution/escorting should be legal or not) and allegedly engaged in some risque/taboo sex. Vitter had his diaper fetish and Spitzer like bareback blowjobs. Vitter remained in power but Spitzer resigned pretty quickly? We have no idea what happened behind the scenes but if Vitter resigned, he would have been replaced by a Democrat because the governor of Louisiana at the time was a Democrat. Spitzer was replaced by a Democrat and there was really no hope at that point for the Republicans to gain the governorship of NY. Spitzer's successor was not very popular but New York was blue enough at the time to make sure that a Republican would not get the seat.
Anthony Weiner and a congressional Republican from upstate were forced to resign because of sending nude photos to women on-line. Both of them were from perceived safe seats but ended up being replaced by a member of the opposite party. I'm sure that if you told Pelosi and Bohener about these results, the parties would have let them stay and repent.
The same goes for Clinton and Ryan. Both are well-known and polarizing figures. And in Clinton's case, the witch-hunt was led by Newt Gingrich at a time when he was seen as an ultra-partisan who shut down the government. Newt and other House members like Henry Hyde were known adulterers so that added to the sting of partisan hypocrisy. If there is one thing that many liberals and secular types dislike about the religious right is that we sense that they are largely very hypocritical. They preach morals but act in a very different way. No conservative bugs me more than the privilege of the cognitive dissnoance conservative. The kind of person who thinks it is okay for them to drink, smoke pot, and have sex because they are wealthy and white but will then go rail against it. This is why the party rallied around Bill instead of letting him get impeached. Democrats that sided with the Republicans lost a lot of cred in the party for doing so like Newt Gingrich.
Anyway am I being too cynical by wondering how many of our politicians have open marriages or at least a marriage that is more about power than love? Not all of them, Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards seemed appalled and truly upset by their husbands adultery. Others I am not so sure of. The Obamas (and to be fair The Romneys) seem to have a marriage based more on love and mutual respect than the Clintons. At least in my eyes. For all his faults, Bush II never struck me as an adulterer. It doesn't make him a good President though.
Though I also think you are right and this largely says something about our political process. I think to be a politician in the United States, you need to be made of very strong stuff or even be a bit cold. I don't think that many people can stand the pressure and brutal nature of an American styled campaign. You have to know that the attacks will be brutal, personal, misleading, bring up old ghosts, etc. We have developed a form of campaigning that scares of decent people except from the most safe seats or the most local elections.
It is certainly an 80s or at least pre-Grunge 90s movie.
Oh the 80s and early 90s. I was born in 1980 and have strange fascination with experiencing the time period as a 20 or early 30 something, I have no idea why. Same with being prime-Gen X and being in my 20s during 1992-1995.
Yup. I have no problem with their version of marriage even though I find it odd. There are plenty of more progressive marriage practices that I find odd and also have no problem with. Though there are some very progressive women I know with some old-fashioned concepts that might cause me problems.*
The second point is where I raise my objection. It is not the fact that they are simply against everyone who does not follow their view of marriage. They object to all aspects of modernity including how many modern heterosexual couples view marriage as a partnership of equals.
*I know a lot of very progressive women who still think it is necessary for boyfriends to ask for the woman's dad for permission to propose. As in the guy saying "Can I marry your daughter?" This strikes me as something that I could not do with a straight face.
But how do you tell between the suburbs that Republicans lose and which ones that they don't?
Marin and Westchester are some of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Just as wealthy as an area like Scottsdale or some of the conservative suburbs of DC. What causes the GOP to lose in Marin and Westchester but hold unto Scotsdale and other wealthy suburbs?
I didn't mean identical twin alike but the rural Mountain west has more in common with Alabama than it does with Denver or Boulder.
rural California has more in common with Alabama than it does with San Francisco, San Diego, or Los Angeles even if it is different than the rural South in key ways as well.
I also think that if rural Oregon or Washington is basically indistinguishable from the deep South, that will keep the GOP alive in state legislatures and the House at least.
The Democrats basically seem to hold onto cities with over 500,000 people, a good chunk of cities with populations between 50,000-500,000 people, college towns, and certain inner-ring suburbs.*
*Mainly the upper-middle class ones filled with professionals. The kind of suburb I grew up in. Marin County and Westchester are prime examples of this kind of liberalism.
I am not looking for that either necessarily. I am left-wing economically. Arguably I am more left-wing on economics than much of the Democratic Party.
I do have a lot of friends who are Democrats but would love to be Rockefeller Republicans though. However, the social extremism of the GOP on gay rights and abortion is keeping them away. Other social issues as well.
What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
By charity, I meant acknowledging the validity of their definition. I will follow what Michael said below.
I was not talking about compassion or aide through hard times.
For my reasoning, I think they come from a position of bad faith. As a Jewish person, I don't like being a necessary pawn in their apocalyptic world view and find that their support for Israel is dangerous. With friends like Michelle Bachmann, the Israelis do not need Hamas as enemies.
The writer's argument is "This is how we view marriage. It is right. You are wrong." Why should I grant charity to that?
I suppose I just don't see the people you mentioned as being a new generation of moderate Republicans in the mode of Jacob Javits or even Olympia Snowe.
We shall see how Scott Brown's reelection campaign turns out. I think there are too many naysayer's on the left who want to beat down and cry doom for Elizabeth Warren. I've heard her speak in person. She is smart and able and I don't really care for the persona that Brown puts on. He is a rather successful real estate lawyer and Ms. Warren's background is just as humble. Ms. Warren went to undergrad and law school at public universities. Her dad was a janitor. She was a mother while in law school. She is just as "authentic" as Mr. Brown in this regard and too many people are trying to make it look like she is from the manor born just because she seems a bit more professorial and upper-middle class now. So what if Scott Brown still goes around in a pick-up truck. The tarring of Ms. Warren (not by you) smacks a lot of sexism to me.
I am also not certain that McMahaon will win again this time around. She is going against a more obscure Democratic candidate and this heightens her odds. But if she could not win in 2010, the year of the Tea Party; why should she win in 2012 when Obama is almost certain to carry Connecticut and help Democrats down ticket?
The question is "Why did they come down against Todd Aiken?"
I'm a cynic and don't think that they had any pure motives. They wanted Aiken out because his stupid statement turned a once safe-Senate seat into play. He also became fundraising gold for the Democratic Party. The establishment never wanted him anyway. He is another Tea Party candidate pushed to be a standard-bearer by doubling down reactionaries.
That being said, Aiken's stance on abortion is the same as the Republican party platform. The GOP just does not want to advertise this very much.
There are people in the GOP who realize that they don't have enough "Angry White Men" to continue winning forever but this has not caused any social liberalization from happening yet.
I question whether we are seeing the reemergence of a national GOP.
Rather, I think we are seeing the doubling down of the Tea Party set.
Connecticut and California are both very blue states with some red pockets. As was noted in a post by Burt a few weeks ago, the red parts of California have more in common with Alabama than they do with the rest of California.
I think this going to be true nationally. Red counties and part are going to have a lot in common and blue parts are going to be in common. This is why Salt Lake City can elect a very liberal mayor even though it is in one of the most Republican states of all. The mayors of Salt Lake City and Austin probably have much more in common with Sam Adams of Portland than they would with other mayors in their state that happen to be Republican.
1. What does the writer mean by "our young people"? Does he mean people raised as conservative Christians or who choose to stay instead of flee or is there a subtext? This is a religion that believes in conversion. I often find with many Conservative Christians that there is a subtext of "You might claim to be really against us but in your deepest unconscious you know that we are right and want what we are selling". I find this attitude appalling.
2. Even if the writer means Conservative Christians by "our young people", why should the Conservative Christian view of marriage dominate how the rest of society views marriage? There are a lot of Conservative Christians but they are not a majority of the world or even a majority of the United States. And I am sure that a lot of them could not stand up to a serious grilling. How many Evangelicals really practice this Master-Submissive variant in all aspects of their marriage? How many women really submit to "Christian Discipline". My guess is not as many as the writer believes and that many Conservative Christian marriages form on very secular and modern grounds of love and affirmation and being a "partner".
3. As Sam said above, I see no reason to offer charity to those who think people who disagree with them or are not part of the "elect" are going to burn in hell for all of eternity after death.
I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
On “Why (things like) Paul Ryan’s marathon lies matter (to me.)”
I should say most decent people. I think Obama is a fundamentally decent person. There are probably a lot of people in safe house seats that are fundamentally decent people and a good amount of Senators.
"
I think when politicians get away or do not get away with misdeeds of one sort or another is largely a result of polarization and partisanship.
Let's look at the cases of Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter who both got in trouble for the same issue. Both went to escort services (BTW this is in no way to spell out my own personal position on sex workers and whether prostitution/escorting should be legal or not) and allegedly engaged in some risque/taboo sex. Vitter had his diaper fetish and Spitzer like bareback blowjobs. Vitter remained in power but Spitzer resigned pretty quickly? We have no idea what happened behind the scenes but if Vitter resigned, he would have been replaced by a Democrat because the governor of Louisiana at the time was a Democrat. Spitzer was replaced by a Democrat and there was really no hope at that point for the Republicans to gain the governorship of NY. Spitzer's successor was not very popular but New York was blue enough at the time to make sure that a Republican would not get the seat.
Anthony Weiner and a congressional Republican from upstate were forced to resign because of sending nude photos to women on-line. Both of them were from perceived safe seats but ended up being replaced by a member of the opposite party. I'm sure that if you told Pelosi and Bohener about these results, the parties would have let them stay and repent.
The same goes for Clinton and Ryan. Both are well-known and polarizing figures. And in Clinton's case, the witch-hunt was led by Newt Gingrich at a time when he was seen as an ultra-partisan who shut down the government. Newt and other House members like Henry Hyde were known adulterers so that added to the sting of partisan hypocrisy. If there is one thing that many liberals and secular types dislike about the religious right is that we sense that they are largely very hypocritical. They preach morals but act in a very different way. No conservative bugs me more than the privilege of the cognitive dissnoance conservative. The kind of person who thinks it is okay for them to drink, smoke pot, and have sex because they are wealthy and white but will then go rail against it. This is why the party rallied around Bill instead of letting him get impeached. Democrats that sided with the Republicans lost a lot of cred in the party for doing so like Newt Gingrich.
Anyway am I being too cynical by wondering how many of our politicians have open marriages or at least a marriage that is more about power than love? Not all of them, Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards seemed appalled and truly upset by their husbands adultery. Others I am not so sure of. The Obamas (and to be fair The Romneys) seem to have a marriage based more on love and mutual respect than the Clintons. At least in my eyes. For all his faults, Bush II never struck me as an adulterer. It doesn't make him a good President though.
Though I also think you are right and this largely says something about our political process. I think to be a politician in the United States, you need to be made of very strong stuff or even be a bit cold. I don't think that many people can stand the pressure and brutal nature of an American styled campaign. You have to know that the attacks will be brutal, personal, misleading, bring up old ghosts, etc. We have developed a form of campaigning that scares of decent people except from the most safe seats or the most local elections.
On “Weekend jukebox and trivia”
It is certainly an 80s or at least pre-Grunge 90s movie.
Oh the 80s and early 90s. I was born in 1980 and have strange fascination with experiencing the time period as a 20 or early 30 something, I have no idea why. Same with being prime-Gen X and being in my 20s during 1992-1995.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
Yup. I have no problem with their version of marriage even though I find it odd. There are plenty of more progressive marriage practices that I find odd and also have no problem with. Though there are some very progressive women I know with some old-fashioned concepts that might cause me problems.*
The second point is where I raise my objection. It is not the fact that they are simply against everyone who does not follow their view of marriage. They object to all aspects of modernity including how many modern heterosexual couples view marriage as a partnership of equals.
*I know a lot of very progressive women who still think it is necessary for boyfriends to ask for the woman's dad for permission to propose. As in the guy saying "Can I marry your daughter?" This strikes me as something that I could not do with a straight face.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
How is Idaho different than the deep rural south in substantive ways politically?
Especially social/cultural politics. They seem close enough to my blue-state eyes.
"
But how do you tell between the suburbs that Republicans lose and which ones that they don't?
Marin and Westchester are some of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Just as wealthy as an area like Scottsdale or some of the conservative suburbs of DC. What causes the GOP to lose in Marin and Westchester but hold unto Scotsdale and other wealthy suburbs?
"
There is still a whole lot of gerrymandering going on though. Enough people live rural and exurb for gerrymandering purposes.
"
I didn't mean identical twin alike but the rural Mountain west has more in common with Alabama than it does with Denver or Boulder.
rural California has more in common with Alabama than it does with San Francisco, San Diego, or Los Angeles even if it is different than the rural South in key ways as well.
"
I also think that if rural Oregon or Washington is basically indistinguishable from the deep South, that will keep the GOP alive in state legislatures and the House at least.
This is from 2004 but it seems apt:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813
"
The Democrats basically seem to hold onto cities with over 500,000 people, a good chunk of cities with populations between 50,000-500,000 people, college towns, and certain inner-ring suburbs.*
*Mainly the upper-middle class ones filled with professionals. The kind of suburb I grew up in. Marin County and Westchester are prime examples of this kind of liberalism.
"
Got it.
I am not looking for that either necessarily. I am left-wing economically. Arguably I am more left-wing on economics than much of the Democratic Party.
I do have a lot of friends who are Democrats but would love to be Rockefeller Republicans though. However, the social extremism of the GOP on gay rights and abortion is keeping them away. Other social issues as well.
"
Perhaps we have different definitions of what will make the GOP sane again.
"
What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
By charity, I meant acknowledging the validity of their definition. I will follow what Michael said below.
I was not talking about compassion or aide through hard times.
For my reasoning, I think they come from a position of bad faith. As a Jewish person, I don't like being a necessary pawn in their apocalyptic world view and find that their support for Israel is dangerous. With friends like Michelle Bachmann, the Israelis do not need Hamas as enemies.
The writer's argument is "This is how we view marriage. It is right. You are wrong." Why should I grant charity to that?
On “The Excellent Foppery of the World: Clint Eastwood in Tampa”
You still have to admit it would be rather amusing to see Clint Eastwood as our variant of a fop.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
I suppose I just don't see the people you mentioned as being a new generation of moderate Republicans in the mode of Jacob Javits or even Olympia Snowe.
We shall see how Scott Brown's reelection campaign turns out. I think there are too many naysayer's on the left who want to beat down and cry doom for Elizabeth Warren. I've heard her speak in person. She is smart and able and I don't really care for the persona that Brown puts on. He is a rather successful real estate lawyer and Ms. Warren's background is just as humble. Ms. Warren went to undergrad and law school at public universities. Her dad was a janitor. She was a mother while in law school. She is just as "authentic" as Mr. Brown in this regard and too many people are trying to make it look like she is from the manor born just because she seems a bit more professorial and upper-middle class now. So what if Scott Brown still goes around in a pick-up truck. The tarring of Ms. Warren (not by you) smacks a lot of sexism to me.
I am also not certain that McMahaon will win again this time around. She is going against a more obscure Democratic candidate and this heightens her odds. But if she could not win in 2010, the year of the Tea Party; why should she win in 2012 when Obama is almost certain to carry Connecticut and help Democrats down ticket?
On “The Excellent Foppery of the World: Clint Eastwood in Tampa”
Now I want to see Hugh Laurie imitate Clint Eastwood as a Fop.
No one does Fop better than Hugh Laurie
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
The question is "Why did they come down against Todd Aiken?"
I'm a cynic and don't think that they had any pure motives. They wanted Aiken out because his stupid statement turned a once safe-Senate seat into play. He also became fundraising gold for the Democratic Party. The establishment never wanted him anyway. He is another Tea Party candidate pushed to be a standard-bearer by doubling down reactionaries.
That being said, Aiken's stance on abortion is the same as the Republican party platform. The GOP just does not want to advertise this very much.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/who-takes-over-if-romney-loses.html
There are people in the GOP who realize that they don't have enough "Angry White Men" to continue winning forever but this has not caused any social liberalization from happening yet.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
Damn it, I wanted to make this joke.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
I question whether we are seeing the reemergence of a national GOP.
Rather, I think we are seeing the doubling down of the Tea Party set.
Connecticut and California are both very blue states with some red pockets. As was noted in a post by Burt a few weeks ago, the red parts of California have more in common with Alabama than they do with the rest of California.
I think this going to be true nationally. Red counties and part are going to have a lot in common and blue parts are going to be in common. This is why Salt Lake City can elect a very liberal mayor even though it is in one of the most Republican states of all. The mayors of Salt Lake City and Austin probably have much more in common with Sam Adams of Portland than they would with other mayors in their state that happen to be Republican.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
I have some questions and thoughts:
1. What does the writer mean by "our young people"? Does he mean people raised as conservative Christians or who choose to stay instead of flee or is there a subtext? This is a religion that believes in conversion. I often find with many Conservative Christians that there is a subtext of "You might claim to be really against us but in your deepest unconscious you know that we are right and want what we are selling". I find this attitude appalling.
2. Even if the writer means Conservative Christians by "our young people", why should the Conservative Christian view of marriage dominate how the rest of society views marriage? There are a lot of Conservative Christians but they are not a majority of the world or even a majority of the United States. And I am sure that a lot of them could not stand up to a serious grilling. How many Evangelicals really practice this Master-Submissive variant in all aspects of their marriage? How many women really submit to "Christian Discipline". My guess is not as many as the writer believes and that many Conservative Christian marriages form on very secular and modern grounds of love and affirmation and being a "partner".
3. As Sam said above, I see no reason to offer charity to those who think people who disagree with them or are not part of the "elect" are going to burn in hell for all of eternity after death.
"
"1) What kind of woman would want to take a subservient role?"
Not a Jewish woman.
"
Isn't it simply the human condition to be a selective disciple of anyone or anything?
This is why Conor's "cognitive dissonance" cons are so galling and annoying. They want to have it both ways.
Disclaimer to avoid hypocrisy: I am pretty much a selective follower of many things as well.
On “A Welfare State Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives Can Get Behind”
Hm.
I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
"
Maybe but I am doubtful. There will be creative accounting and reasoning but some groups might be nudged/guilt-tripped into being honest.
Katherine still points out an obvious problem.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.