by hilzoy
Via TPM, what Peggy Noonan, Mike Murphy, and Chuck Todd say about the Sarah Palin pick when they think the mic is off:
Transcript:
“Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys — this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it’s not gonna work. And —
PN: It’s over.
MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.
PN: Saw Kay this morning.
CT: Yeah, she’s never looked comfortable about this —
MM: They’re all bummed out.
CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives —
CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.
MM: I totally agree.
PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at, they blow it.
MM: You know what’s really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.
CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.
MM: Yeah.”
…I don’t believe this. What are the bona fides of this video?
i love it. not only does it show that Noonan has a brain. but it also shows that she refuses to use it in the product she sells. i don’t whether to love her or hate her.
Well, via MSNBC to TPM… 😉
Oh well. Allah notes that turnabout is fair play as Fox got Jesse Jackson earlier.
Amazing isn’t it? That video is making the rounds of the internet pretty quickly but it is surprising to me how blasé everyone seems to be about it. Most bloggers seem to be treating it as something mildly amusing. But think about it. They’re liars. We always knew they were liars but the tape is evidence that the host, supposedly a journalist, is also quite well aware that they are lying to his face for public consumption. He asks them their opinion. They give him an opinion that he knows is not true and he just moves on and asks them another opinion. Their entire conversation, which characterizes a great deal of our political discourse, is laid bare as just so much bad theater. Why should any of us even bother pretending anymore that there is such a thing as “news” or “journalism” when we can see with our own eyes that that is clearly not the case?
hate, cleek, hate. This is awful. This clip really needs the companion piece of what was actually on the air purposefully before they cut the mics. The clip where those two republican hacks said exactly the opposite of what they said when they thought the camera was off. And Todd, who up until now I had respected, just played right along. Awful. BS. Theater. It’s loathesome.
not only does it show that Noonan has a brain. but it also shows that she refuses to use it in the product she sells.
It also shows that, despite her normally prim public demeanor, apparently she has a bit of a potty mouth. Not a fan but I now like her maybe 10% more than I used to.
By my count, this is 18 of the last 20 posts on Palin. Sullivan is worse (and verging on the clinically insane w/r/t the Jews for Jesus angle). There is certainly room for criticism of Palin, but what I’m getting now from the Obamosphere is fear. And a degree of short-sightedness.
Palin is going to give a good speech tonight. Based on past media interactions, she’s no Dan Quayle: she’s going to speak her mind. I’ve also now heard/read her deliver more than a few quick-witted, cutting remarks. If the Obamosphere approaches her the way it has, it’s going to get decimated without even realizing what’s happening.
You’re going to disregard this advice. That’s OK.
brent is right, its pretty discouraging to know–for realsies!–that its all phony. cripes, noonan has a column today saying the exact opposite of what she’s saying here.
on the other hand, as an Obama supporter, i find it delightful to watch. when is wil.i.am going to set music this to music?
I think this comes out better for Murphy that Noonan. At least Murphy is a “strategist” and hence paid to lie. Noonan claims to be what exactly these days? Who pays her to lie to us?
Ahem…
Yesterday I wrote this:
while our supermarket tabloid press is busy working themselves into a frenzy over Babygate, there are signs of extreme displeasure with the Palin pick emerging from the other direction. The Village, aka The Serious People, are not amused. Charles Krauthammer called the Palin pick “near suicidal”. Richard Cohen today compared it with Caligula appointing his horse to the Roman Senate.
What this means is that cracks are showing in the solidarity of McCain’s real base (the media) and that could spell big trouble for him in the coming months.
If The Serious People decide that McCain himself is not serious, that will probably impact the election most directly via the moderation at the debates. If the moderators are McCain friendly, then their questions will put Obama at a disadvantage and the net result of the debates will be a rough tie, which will then be spun as a “win” for McCain because of the expectations game.
On the other hand, if the moderators are unfriendly to McCain, Obama may eat him alive, in which case this election will go the way the 1980 election did, with late deciding voters swinging to the anti-incumbent in the wake of the debates.
Today, I give you this:
Thomas Friedman: And Then There Was One
Ladies and Gentlemen, what you witnessing is McCain’s original base, the Village MSM, starting to melt away like the Arctic icecap under global warming.
If he is lucky, the social-cons he has hitched his star to with the Palin VP pick will be a big enough iceberg to keep him above water.
There is certainly room for criticism of Palin, but what I’m getting now from the Obamosphere is fear
you’re reading different blogs than i am. cause where i look, i see gleeful derision.
the only thing i’m afraid of is that people won’t take her seriously and the press will give her a low-expectations win.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ makes a sound point.
John Cole has a pretty good response to Von.
And Ambinder has excerpts of the speech. I’m sure they’re saving the awesome parts, but it sounds incredibly defensive to me. And it’s going to focus on drilling. Yay!
Seriously, dude, I’m not scared of this. The reason there are so many posts on Palin is because of the sheer flood of crazy that the nomination has unleashed. A new sliver of information every day. And even if it’s not credible, to say that this is going to snowball in her favor is a bit of a wager.
This is the Republican’s Eagleton.
If the Obamosphere approaches her the way it has, it’s going to get decimated without even realizing what’s happening.
As a member of the Obamasphere, I will be happy to take your advice von. But you will have to be more specific about what is wrong or fearful in our approach. I get that Sullivan is a little nuts but what exactly is the criticism here. From the points you raise about Palin, you seem to be suggesting that the Obamasphere is putting forth the contrary narrative that she is dumb and won’t speak her mind. I really haven’t seen that so I am really not sure what it is that we should stop doing exactly. If the advice is to stop reading Sullivan, I pre-accepted your advice on that score many years ago.
you’re reading different blogs than i am. cause where i look, i see gleeful derision.
Cleek, I suspect that you (and I) are insulated. My gut tells me that this is going to play very differently with most folks than it plays with us.
Another piece of advice, Brent, is to ignore advice from henceforth anyone who compares Palin to Eagleton.
Von, you have a point (though not about fear), but this clip is significant for reasons that have nothing to do with Palin. It’s about the media, not the candidates.
John Cole has a pretty good response to Von.
BR, you must take me for someone who dislikes Obama. Au contrair. I think Obama is brilliant, and I’d be fine with him as our next President. As I’ve said, I may even vote for him. So the fact that Obama can speak without a teleprompter is neither news, nor particularly frightening, to me.
If the Obamosphere approaches her the way it has, it’s going to get decimated without even realizing what’s happening.
Von, the “Obamasphere” isn’t a participant in this. Like most of the world, it’s just watching this slow-motion collapse with a mixture of amazement, disgust and schadenfreude.
Obama is a player, the commenters here are not. We’re just shooting the breeze same as you are. If you suppose otherwise then you are simply deluded.
Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan are part of the Obamasphere? Wow, he does bring people together.
Although Palin’s speech is going to be good, she’s a ex-sportscaster, I think she can talk to a camera with words someone else wrote.
von: fear? Um, no.
von: My gut tells me that this is going to play very differently with most folks than it plays with us.
What is it with Republican guts? In polite circles, if a person’s gut says something, it’s manners to pretend it never happened, not to repeat what your gut said a bit louder to make sure the rest of the room heard it.
Another piece of advice, Brent, is to ignore advice from henceforth anyone who compares Palin to Eagleton.
Well I have heard that bandied about some and I cannot say that I find it to be impossible that she will have to be dropped from the ticket at some point but that still doesn’t give me much of an idea about what exactly you are criticizing here. Is the mistake “we” are making in suggesting that, for various reasons, she may have to be dropped because she is a liability? Again, I don’t really see how the fact that she is intelligent or quick witted or outspoken contradicts that argument.
what I’m getting now from the Obamosphere is fear. And a degree of short-sightedness.
I don’t know; all I see is joyful contempt and wonder at how infantile McCain is.
Palin is going to give a good speech tonight. Based on past media interactions, she’s no Dan Quayle: she’s going to speak her mind. I’ve also now heard/read her deliver more than a few quick-witted, cutting remarks.
How many cutting remarks does it take to alter the fact that she hired a lobbyist to get earmarks for her town, brought in millions of dollars that way, and yet managed to take her town from a balanced budget to massive debt? I mean, I’m sure that she can be very cutting, but I’m not sure why I or the general public should care about how cutting her quips are in the face of minor facts like that.
If the Obamosphere approaches her the way it has, it’s going to get decimated without even realizing what’s happening.
Um….how? If by “Obamasphere”, you mean lefty blogs supporting Obama, there is no way they can get “decimated”. Blogs don’t control anything, and for the most part, don’t reach nearly enough people to affect electoral outcomes. How can lefty blogs get decimated?
You’re going to disregard this advice. That’s OK.
Let’s say all the lefty blogs follow your advice…then what will happen? Telling a few thousand people to alter their expectations about a speech doesn’t seem like it will make a difference in the real world.
Hilzoy, what you feel and what people think you feel are two different things. The hard thing to learn is that only the latter matters.
Von, can you do us the courtesy of explaining what it is you are trying to say? Thanks in advance.
What is it with Republican guts? In polite circles, if a person’s gut says something, it’s manners to pretend it never happened, not to repeat what your gut said a bit louder to make sure the rest of the room heard it.
Or, if all else fails, curl your nose and glare accusingly at the dog 🙂
–TP
Another piece of advice, Brent, is to ignore advice from henceforth anyone who compares Palin to Eagleton.
A better piece of advice is to ignore advice from those who have been consistantly wrong, whether pundit or blog commentor.
Jes, everyone once in a while, your knifestrokes have a distinctively Queens English* character to them. I’m endeared despite disagreeing with you on, well, everything. Reminds me of some formative years in colchester. So I’ll gladly accept the evisceration here — though I don’t think you really address my points.
*Yes, yes, you’re a Scot. Sorry ’bout that; since I’m lowland & n. Irish as well, you’ll appreciate my treason the more.
Ergo, if von keeps saying you are fearful, it doesn’t matter if you aren’t. It’s a very nice way of discarding data that doesn’t fit your curve.
A better piece of advice is to ignore advice from those who have been consistantly wrong, whether pundit or blog commentor.
Sure, sure.
LJ, in my field, I’ve learned the hard way to listen to local counsel — the folks with roots in the community. I’m not a conservative, but I think I’m closer to a conservative than most of you.
Kevin Donoghue, I surely can’t speak slowly enough for you. 😉
wow, this got nasty really quickly. don’t you know i come to OW when I need a break from Balloon Juice?
Consider the desperation of Plain’s defenders:
* Any criticism of her lack of experience is sexism.
* Her foreign policy experience comes via peristalsis and Alaska’s proximity to Russia
* She’s the CINC of that Alasksn National Guard, and makes lots of decisions (of some kind or other, probably)
* Her teenage daughter’s pregnancy is a triumph of old-fashioned conservative values
I agree that von smells fear, but he mistakes its source.
von,
Hang in there – I admire your courage even if I don’t share your opinion.
von: though I don’t think you really address my points.
I hardly needed to: everyone else already had.
wow, this got nasty really quickly. don’t you know i come to OW when I need a break from Balloon Juice?
You too, huh?
I tend to write with my head on ObWings, and my heart on
Balloon Juice[WordPress error establishing a database connection].Sullivan is worse (and verging on the clinically insane w/r/t the Jews for Jesus angle)
Sully was well into insane with his insistence that Palin produce Trig’s hospital birth records; if he’s only verging on it now, he’s recovering.
But given your point on local counsel, I’m Jewish, and I consider the Jews for Jesus to be something below pond scum, far more offensive than Wright’s black nationalism.
I for one can’t wait to see how badly lefty blogs that support Obama will get decimated. I imagine that Josh Marshall will be bleeding from a thousand cuts while Matthew Yglesias will have his head cut off and placed in a bowling bag. And they could have avoided this terrible fate if only they listened to von and…um…altered their expectations…or something.
Multiple category errors certainly do make comments more entertaining. Those sorts of errors tend to come about when people are afraid of course.
The problem is, von, is that you aren’t telling us what local counsel is saying, you are giving some impression (informed by talking to Palin supporters that you have talked to?) of what we look like. This has the effect of validating the prejudice of local counsel rather than challenging it. ‘Sorry, that’s not how it’s done down here in Yoknapatawpha county’
While I, like TLT, appreciate your opinion, you seem to stop at challenging whether it is true. Sure, you can put code words in like Noonan does to show how you don’t agree with it, but in the end, you’ll just take it as yet another sh!t happens moment in American politics. It is not as transparent as Brett’s support of Bob Barr (no word yet on whether he will hold Palin to the same standards that he holds Obama) but things like arguing McCain did due diligence in vetting Palin strikes me as similar. Perhaps you are just overconcerned with optics, but juxtaposing your advice on that is a bit disturbing.
Not to intrude on the massively enlightening discussion on von’s gut, but mine reads somewhat differently.
I keep calling family back in OK to see their thoughts on the various conventions and nominations (especially my lifelong very Republican sister). None of them are exactly wild eyed members of the “Angry Left”. They are less gleeful in their contempt of Palin and significantly more appalled by the sheer cynical pandering, but they all seem to share the contempt. The women seem to be especially offended that the fact that she is similarly equipped is supposed to win them over despite her obvious lack of credentials.
Given that I recently moved to Alaska to be near the my brother, my family also has a familiarity with the state in general and the town of Wasilla (where he lives) specifically. The universal belief is that she is in WAY over her head. She may give a good speech, but Alaska politics isn’t exactly the big time and she never really stood out as a shining light on the hill up here.
Turb,
But wouldn’t it be nice if instead of being the Angry Left, we could be the Mildly Annoyed Left for a change?
wow, this got nasty really quickly. don’t you know i come to OW when I need a break from Balloon Juice?
Whoa. That’s not my intention. I’m not here to J’accuse. And to the extent that I make fun of the Irish, ’tis only that I kid what I am.
In any event, we shall see how this works out. I get the strong sense that y’all are underestimating Palin and McCain. But I have been wrong before. And may be yet again.
The problem is, von, is that you aren’t telling us what local counsel is saying, you are giving some impression (informed by talking to Palin supporters that you have talked to?) of what we look like.
I don’t mean too; I’m not qualified to say what you look like. (Metaphorically, of course.) What I will say is that, if you spend 18 out of 20 posts on an issue, it better be a winning issue. And, to me, the jury is really out on Palin. She could be a distaster. She could be brilliant. The only firm prediction I can make is that, if she’s brilliant, TMP, Sullivan, ObWi — and, by extension, Obama — is going to pay a price.
Fwiw, I am not underestimating her as a political performer. (I think I’ve said as much earlier, at various points.) I think she’ll come off well, etc. I do think it’s hard to underestimate her suitability for the job.
But hey: I don’t know what really matters, so I’m probably wrong on this as well.
I get the strong sense that y’all are underestimating Palin and McCain
nah. this is just gloating because the Dems are on top right now. McCain will have a good week (or two) out of the next eight, and we’ll all be scowling at Obama’s lack of effective counterpunching, or the media’s shameful fluffing towards McCain, who they know is just a cynical old fraud, etc..
but for now… we gloat.
and i shall drink Laphroaig 1/4 Cask, in celebration.
Sorry for the typos in the above. I blame it on my head cold & am heading to bed.
Von: I’m right there with you. I’ve been telling them for days but for some reason they don’t believe me either. 😉
On Noonan: I’m not entirely getting the “liar” part. She has not been that upbeat about the pick. Her oped from today:
The choice of Sarah Palin IS a Hail Mary pass, the pass the guy who thinks he has a good arm makes to the receiver he hopes is gifted.
Most Hail Mary passes don’t work.
But when they do they’re a thing of beauty and a joy forever.
That sounds to me like putting the best face on it she can. I think you’d have a point if she had been seriously acting as a Palin cheerleader but I don’t see that. She does get a little more rah-rah in there at times, but “Hail Mary” is exactly what many of you right here said back on Friday…
Camera pans to building, heard in background…
Silly me, I thought this post was about hypocritical right wing political shills.
you saw who?
I get the strong sense that y’all are underestimating Palin and McCain.
Is it possible, at this point, to underestimate McCain & Palin?
————
TMP, Sullivan, ObWi — and, by extension, Obama
Does anyone here judge MCain by what’s said on RedState, Captain’s Quarters, etc? Does anyone with a shred of sense? Anyone who would judge Obama based on what blogs said would seem to me to be 28%ers anyway.
========================
(I’ve been listening to snippets of the RNC and a goodly portion of the speeches could be lifted from Democratic position papers over the last 20 years. Go green!)
Oops: Peggy Noonan
Teh Nutroots | Oh dear oh dear. Two well-known GOP shills, Peggy Noonan and political consultant and McCainite Mike Murphy dissing McCain’s choice of running mate. HuffPost has more. For bonus fun, check out Peggy N explaining what she really
And, to me, the jury is really out on Palin. She could be a disaster. She could be brilliant.
Putting aside, for a second, the relative odds of disaster and brilliance, will you at least admit that for this to be the case after a candidate has been selected for a major party ticket is a pretty major indictment of the process by which she was chosen and the person doing the choosing?
OT-Gary: Thanks for the info from the other thread. (It seems finished, and I don’t know if you’d see the thank you.) I suppose I won’t beat you up for not wanting to wade into legalese detail. This time. ^.^
OT: These speeches are pretty lame…
Though no sooner do I write that than Mitt Romney starts making a better one.
Carly Fiorina thinks it’s sexist that people describe Palin as a showhorse, not workhorse? Is she just waking up from a year-long nap? People (including Hillary Clinton) attacked Obama using exactly those words, and they’re not exactly uncommon in referring to politicians, most of whom are not female.
In any event, we shall see how this works out. I get the strong sense that y’all are underestimating Palin and McCain
I will repeat myself and point out that I still don’t have the slightest idea what behavior you are attempting to steer us away from. What is it that we in the blogosphere are doing that constitutes an underestimation of Palin? Every single blogger that I read thinks that she appears perfectly intelligent and has very formidable political talents.
Put another way, lets assume that you are right. Lets say that somehow we are stupidly doing something that indicates an underestimation of her. How should we be behaving differently? When new information comes out about troopergate or about her trying to intimidate librarians into banning books, the type of stories that come out at a rate of several a day, then how should we react in your estimation? Would it count as less of an underestimation if we didn’t comment on these stories?
Beyond that, now that we have underestimated her, and when she proves us wrong, what price is ObWi, TPM etc going to be forced to pay?
You have leveled an extremely vague accusation that, as far as I can see, we can do nothing to defend ourselves against.
Maybe start an open thread for speeches, since several of us seem to be watching?
I did notice that Romney said “Democratic” once. Are people avoiding the “Democrat”-as-an-adjective childishness as a concession to Lieberman?
brent: What is it that we in the blogosphere are doing that constitutes an underestimation of Palin?
Speaking for myself only, I think that we need to be cautious about her in the debates, where Biden will probably do better but Palin isn’t going to totally embarass herself. Combined with the low expectations, it’ll be reported as a win for Palin.
Also, her ability to campaign and get the GOP Christianist base fired up could gain more votes than she loses from moderates turned off by the crazier aspects of her politics.
Overall, Palin is probably a good thing for the Dems, but she isn’t the ultimate gift-wrapped present that many may think she is.
Though no sooner do I write that than Mitt Romney starts making a better one.
Really. I actually turned him off. I saw him throw out a line trying to make fun of Al Gore and I just changed channels. It just seemed sort of silly to me. I guess a lot of this stuff is directed towards their base but don’t they really need to address independents a whole lot more right now? Is making fun of Gore and going on about defeating evil really the ticket? Seems lame to me.
Have any speakers before Romney reminded America that the Republicans are the party of Gitmo? Will any others? Well, Giuliani will presumably squeeze it in between 9/11’s.
Did Romney really refer to Democrats as the party of Big Brother??
Was Romney really, really proud of America the day the Abu Ghraib pictures came out??
Did the son of auto-industry CEO and Michigan Governor George Romney, himself a venture capitalist and Governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts really just rail against ‘the elites’??
Do Republican politicians have any respect for the intelligence of their own delegates?
–TP
OCSteve
On Noonan: I’m not entirely getting the “liar” part.
The editorial she wrote is full of, at least to me, the same sort of bad faith argumentation that I’ve seen so much when talking about Palin, leavened with just enough ‘warnings’ to allow plausible deniability if things go down the toilet. It is not lying, it is bullshitting.
noonan when no one is listening
PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives —
noonan, trying to retrieve her kool kids conservative card
Here I must plead some confusion. In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. “The first lesson they learned is the one they remember,” I said to Todd — and I’m pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that’s over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, “It’s over!” — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to.
Being covered in slime does help one’s flexibility, it seems.
Tossing in the ‘hail mary’ ref is simply a CYA move, and note that she says it can come off as ‘a thing of beauty’. And presumably a joy forever?
And the “I had the same thought when Dan Qualye was nominated”, that is pathetic dissembling, though I’m sure she’d wave the trial balloon WSJ article about how Bush was going to dump Cheney, because his daddy didn’t dump Quayle.
As I’ve said before, it is bullshit turtles all the way down.
alright… i tried watching it. Huckabee just came on and i tried watching. but he got about three minutes in and then started on this nonsense about Obama going to Europe and bringing back “European ideas” that would destroy our freedoms and our way of life… ?
the whole xenophobic conservative reactionary philosophy is just alien, and frankly offensive, to me. and the blatant falsehoods and misrepresentations from people who call themselves devout Christians? come on.
compare Huckster’s bu11sh!t demagoguery about American values to Obama’s.
blech. Republicanism is a social disorder.
What the hell? Huckabee just got wild applause for a even more inaccurate mutation of the lie I heard earlier from Kellyanne Conway. In his version he says that the number of votes Palin got running for mayor of Wasilla (Conway had said the whole population of Wasilla) was higher than the number Biden got running for president. These people are shameless.
compare Huckster’s bu11sh!t demagoguery about American values to Obama’s.
heh. that should have been:
compare Huckster’s bu11sh!t demagoguery about American values to Obama’s speech.
+3
if you spend 18 out of 20 posts on an issue, it better be a winning issue.
It’s not just the Palin issue here at Obwi, but the lack of any conservative voice on top level posts. I don’t know what the exact ratio of McCain-critical posts to other posts was pre-Palin, but if you took out Eric’s posts on Iraq, it was close to the same ratio. The only Obama posts are in defense of the Great One.
what price is ObWi, TPM etc going to be forced to pay?
ObWi loses (meaning the community) when the conversation becomes so one-sided. When I’m wrongheaded about a topic, there are 100 commenters ready to help me see the light. OTOH, there are maybe, what, 5-7 regular commenters here that are conservative? And no top level posters?
The pile-on on Palin is just the latest illustration. Palin=Eagleton? Are you serious? I’m with von on this one. The hysterical (and I don’t mean funny) reaction to Palin is likely to backfire.
Phew. I was a away for a few hours and this turned into an epic thread. Good stuff.
Let me just say to OCSteve and Von that I think the media is underestimating another base as well: Obama’s. Sure we were excited before. But, speaking for myself only, I am fully enraged now and convinced McCain Palin will be worse than Bush Cheney. Not only have I given more money to Obama this last week, but I convinced my mom and sister (former Hillary supporters) to donate, and got a few friends who were Obama supporters to give for the first time. Palin might energize the abortion-abortion-abortion crowd, but she seems to be firing our base up too. And I think there are more of us than there are of them.
TP, Tom Brokaw did point out the incongruity of Mitt Romney’s attack on Eastern elites.
And Keith Olbermann gave the facts on the lie about numbers of votes after Huckabee’s speech.
Oh… I forgot to mention
Eagleton Eagleton Eagleton
:-b
the lack of any conservative voice on top level posts.
If the kitty grants minor wishes (i.e. something sort of peace on earth and goodwill to all), I’d like to see a conservative blog author as an ObWings regular, and posting on a variety of topics (sorry, but Charles’s one-note periodic updates on Iraq are pretty weak tea).
Would it help as a carrot, if we promised to be nice to them, at least at first? So it wasn’t too perilous. Or maybe just a little bit of peril?
Alternatively, as a threat, maybe some of us could take turns pretending to be the in-house conservative. At least until you scream in pain and surrender by giving in and ponying up to go get the real deal.
cleek, I think it’s your turn in the barrel this week… I’ll go next week.
blech! typos be gone!
(i.e. something short of peace on earth and goodwill to all)
I’m shocked! Apparently I’ve died and become a ghost poster!
But, yeah. That was me up there.
cleek, I think it’s your turn in the barrel this week
heh. well i tried, but i just can’t force my head to argue in favor of a lie.
TLT: Believe it or not, we have aqctually been trying. If anyone has suggestions for good conservative commenters, please feel free to make them.
Palin=Eagleton? Are you serious?
I’ve stayed away from this whole topic, which is more than adequately covered by many others, but I find the (mock?) outrage here curious.
We have a situation here (“We” being the American public, as well as the politicians involved) with very few precedents, and since we like precedents, we scramble for the best we can find. Remember Andrew Johnson and Nixon and Clinton (re: presidential impeachments)? Remember Katrina, prior to Gustav?
Which precedent, in this case, would obviously be Eagleton.
1) A late, last-minute, basically unvetted, surprise selection for VP nomination of a major party? Check.
2) A “scandal” (or two) unknown to the public, and apparently to the candidate, emerges almost at once? (Cf. “unvetted,” above.) Check.
3) The VP selection is forced to step down? Yes in 1972, still unknown in 2008.
IF Palin does step down, it’s Eagleton all the way. We can discuss, if we want, the implications of the particular scandal involved (e.g., is abuse of power worse than a history of psychotherapy?), as we discussed the various allegations against Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, or the gale forces of Katrina and Gustav, but whether or not we do, the parallel is there.
IF she does not, then the precedent no longer holds. It is, in the words of Ron Ziegler, “inoperative.”
Now I have no particular insight as to whether or not Palin will weather this storm, but it would seem to me curious indeed if, given this situation, someone did NOT mention Eagleton as the obvious (potential) precedent.
The only way (IMHO) one can think otherwise is to assume – without knowing any more than any of the rest of us does of the facts of the case – that Gov. Palin somehow must be blameless of any and all charges that may have been, or may yet be, laid against her, or that the Republican party leadership must stick with her, regardless of what may be alleged, believed by the public, or proven, i.e., they have nailed her to the mast.
Of such assumptions, I can only ask:
Are you serious?
I’m really curious about what specific benefit do people think a conservative front pager would add. I mean, would this conservative writer write fascinating posts explaining that torture is actually OK or that only three people have been tortured by the US? Would he write about the tremendous success of the Iraq War? Would he write about how the great intellectual seriousness with which John McCain approaches policy decisions? Would he write about the media’s liberal bias? What exactly would he write about?
I have a theory that any conservative front pager will either end up writing similar things to other front pagers (torture is wrong, the US has tortured, Iraq has been a disaster, McCain isn’t very sharp, etc.) or they will write patently ridiculous things that will be mocked to death (insert the opposite of the previous list’s elements). I could be wrong about my theory, but I’d really appreciate it if someone could explain why.
If I am right, then any conservative front pager will mostly differ from the current front pagers on the details and in matters of emphasis; they might say for example that while the US has tortured many people and that is unacceptable, it is doing quite well by historical standards. Or they might say that while the Iraq War has been a disaster, it is one from which we can recover with relatively few ill-effects. However, if a conservative front pager really differs from the current front pagers only in emphasis, then I don’t think they are going to significantly change the tone of OW. How can they, if they’re just like hilzoy except with a slightly more conservative take? Any difference they introduce must be small, right?
Wow. I’ll bet this could change dozens of votes. A tempest in a teapot.
Do Republican politicians have any respect for the intelligence of their own delegates?
No.
It’s not just the Palin issue here at Obwi, but the lack of any conservative voice on top level posts.
Well this whole post is about what the conservative voice really is. When the mike is on, they spin, and when it is off, they make fun of the bullshit they just spewed. You think there should be more of that here? Why? Don’t we put up with enough bullshit already?
ObWi loses (meaning the community) when the conversation becomes so one-sided.
In the same way that shape of the earth discussions lose when the flat earthers are excluded.
The pile-on on Palin is just the latest illustration. Palin=Eagleton? Are you serious?
Of course not, Eagleton had a small amount of credibility and a skeleton in his closet. Palin is a joke. The people who say otherwise when the mike is on say, “Political bullshit” when they think it has been turned off. Don’t make a fool of yourself.
If the kitty grants minor wishes (i.e. something sort of peace on earth and goodwill to all), I’d like to see a conservative blog author as an ObWings regular
How about a flat-eather as well. Has there EVER been a flat earth friendly poster on this blog?
Kinda one-sided, doncha think?
I’m all for a conservative front pager … but I will surprise no one when I say that I don’t actually read any conservative blogs. I’ve tried, occasionally, to read people that moderate liberal bloggers praise (Douthat, McArdle, I forget who else), and found them to range from uninteresting to infuriating.
Leaving aside getting them to post on ObWi, can someone recommend a readable sane Conservative blog to read occasionally?
can someone recommend a readable sane Conservative blog to read occasionally
Also, a scientifically literate flat earther blog.
>>Do Republican politicians have any respect for the intelligence of their own delegates?
>>–TP
Should they?
(The above wisecrack only refers to the actual delegates on the floor as observed on TV and is not meant in any way to convey derision or criticism of all Republicans or conservatives as an undifferentiated set. God bless; thank the savior; l’chaim; praise Allah; RegUSPatOff)
(I’m still going to regret this post, aren’t I?)
I, too, have no idea what a conservative front pager would say.
The GOP has clearly, very clearly, decided that the only function of government is to shovel money to its cronies, while distracting the plebes with wars and family circuses. I realize quite a few conservatives will say that’s not what they’re all about – but if they’re voting for the GOP, that’s what they are about.
The GOP’s contempt for the American people has been manifest for quite some time, but now the display is downright pornographic.
“…I don’t believe this. What are the bona fides of this video?”
Peggy Noonan vouches for it.
“But wouldn’t it be nice if instead of being the Angry Left, we could be the Mildly Annoyed Left for a change?”
I’m the Frequently Perturbed, and Sometimes Despairing, But Sporadically Cheerful, Left, myself.
“What I will say is that, if you spend 18 out of 20 posts on an issue, it better be a winning issue.”
What I will say is that this only makes sense if you look at blog posts as put forward as a planned political campaign, rather than impulsive responses to news that comes along.
And I don’t think the former, your apparent view, describes the reality of either ObWi, a blog where you’ve had blogging privileges longer than anyone else currently posting, or most other blogs I’m familiar with.
“I’m really curious about what specific benefit do people think a conservative front pager would add.”
True, several more are called for. The benefit would be to get ObWi back to what it was, and what it was intended to be: a place where a spread of political views are put forth and respectfully debated.
Oh my, is Obsidian Wings in its death throes for lack of conservative front-pagers again? Sorry, this particular complaint and the accompanying concern trolling sort of lost their impact to me after the first few times.
The first occurrence of this came up at least as long ago as 2005, and while the idea of having a principled conservative blogger on the front page has merit, this is largely complicated by the notable shortage of principled conservatives–and the suitable candidates tend to have their own blogs already.
It’s simply not possible at this point be principled and informed, and simultaneously support the McCain/Palin ticket. You can pick conservatives at random off the street and front page, them but they’re still going to be either joining the chorus of pointing out how dishonest and unqualified the Republican ticket is, or getting rightfully destroyed in the comments section for trying to put lipstick on that pig.
At a certain point, you have to come to terms with the realization that it’s not the message or the messenger that sucks, it’s your product. That if there’s 19 out of 20 posts all pointing out different ways your product sucks, and your objection is not that they’re wrong but that they’re spending too much time on it, maybe you should be focusing on the fact that your product sucks rather than complaining when people point it out.
True, several more are called for. The benefit would be to get ObWi back to what it was, and what it was intended to be: a place where a spread of political views are put forth and respectfully debated.
Um, is there any evidence that OW used to better in any measurable way than it is now? Or are you just assuming that?
It seems like a spread of political views are put forth and respectfully debated right now, so I’m unclear on what specific changes you’d like to see.
Do you really think that OW would be a better place if Charles Bird were writing more front page posts? I mean, I’m sure he benefited from the very slow remedial education you gave him on the most basic facts about the Vietnam War, but I didn’t find it very edifying and I didn’t see Charles offering serious commentary in the interim.
Gary, with respect, it might be better if you addressed the other questions in my previous comment. For example, you might address the questions of what specific things you think a conservative front pager would write about and how exactly do you think that change in writing would change OW’s culture. Its not that I didn’t like your ‘Faster please’ response, I just think it is incomplete.
Re von’s remark waaaay up thread: I’m afraid of her. I am afriad of the folly of the ten percent of swing voters who stare at the TV and decide, “I like her (or him). I think I’ll vote for him (or her)” without ever properly thinking about it at all, without knowing eonugh about the issues or having enough background information to actually THINK.
Republicans get elected by misrepresenting their policies, by appealing to the worst in human nature, and by choosing plausible liars for their candidates. So the questsion is: who plausible a liar is Sarah Palin? She is certainly a very fluent liar.
So yes I am afraid of her. I think that you are right, She could possibly play in Peoria.
Well, perhaps what would be interesting would be someone more in the way of a conservative interpreter. For instance, when Palin was talking about Bristol’s choice to keep the baby, she wasn’t talking about carrying to term vs. abortion but rather raising the child herself vs. putting it up for adoption, a top post about that would have been useful. Or Huckabee’s little story about the desks – the unspoken part was “Freedom isn’t really free.” Or why fundamentalists talk about being discriminated against because they’re Christians. Just my 2 cents.
I’m really curious about what specific benefit do people think a conservative front pager would add. I mean, would this conservative writer write fascinating posts explaining that torture is actually OK or that only three people have been tortured by the US? Would he write about the tremendous success of the Iraq War? Would he write about how the great intellectual seriousness with which John McCain approaches policy decisions? Would he write about the media’s liberal bias? What exactly would he write about?
In your questions is your answer. If you really thought conservative thought was limited to the above, you might have a point. But I know you know better.
How can they, if they’re just like hilzoy except with a slightly more conservative take?
No offense to Hilzoy, but there’s a bit more room on the conservative side of Hilzoy than you seem to intuit.
Oh my, is Obsidian Wings in its death throes for lack of conservative front-pagers again? Sorry, this particular complaint and the accompanying concern trolling sort of lost their impact to me after the first few times.
Sure, it’s easy to lable a conservative comment with the “troll” label. No effort to understand. Fine. There’s no question in my mind that many posts from the left here would be labled “troll” if it were a mirror image aimed at Obama/Biden.
I think the first issue that brought me to ObWi was health care benefits. Interesting discussion. I stayed. I was intrigued with polite discussion from both political angles by apparently very smart people.
Just the few comments here about the lack of need of a top level conservative poster reinforce the very need for one unless this is to eventually become a higher brow Huffington Post, IMHO.
Gary has it right. And, no, whining that I’m whining (or trolling, or whatever) isn’t making me go anywhere. Even though this has become almost an extension of Obama/Biden 2008, I’m staying.
Not that that hasn’t uses….
However, I agree it would be a lot MORE useful to have more top-level conservative posters. I learn more that way.
(However, affirmative action (the cartoon version) would not be helpful….).
In your questions is your answer. If you really thought conservative thought was limited to the above, you might have a point. But I know you know better.
Um, no, I really don’t know better, so could you please answer my original questions: what might a conservative front pager write about and why do you think that writing would change the culture here?
Just the few comments here about the lack of need of a top level conservative poster reinforce the very need for one unless this is to eventually become a higher brow Huffington Post, IMHO.
I never said that we don’t need one. I just questioned what the benefit would be. If you think conservative FPers are magical, then that’s fine, but I’d like to see an argument that has some plausible mechanism of action by which a conservative FPer would improve OW.
I mean, maybe we should believe that back in the day OW was a much better place because there were more active conservative FPers, but I don’t see any reason to believe that absent some evidence. I certainly won’t assume that just because you said so.
“Um, is there any evidence that OW used to better in any measurable way than it is now?”
Since “better” is a subjective judgment, I don’t know how it would be measured; feel free to put forth suggestions for a metric to be used to as regards this idea that ObWi would be “better,” that you’re inventing, and which has nothing whatever to do with anything I said.
“Or are you just assuming that?”
Quote me anything I said that had anything to do with ObWi being “better.”
I liked the old ObWi just fine, though, if that’s relevant. I stick around because of various factors, but there’s no shortage of straightforward liberal blogs. There is a shortage of blogs with a far wider spread of views where people can reasonably debate.
“Gary, with respect, it might be better if you addressed the other questions in my previous comment.”
Is there any evidence that OW would be better in any measurable way if I addressed the other questions in your previous comment? Or are you just assuming that?
Original Lee: For instance, when Palin was talking about Bristol’s choice to keep the baby, she wasn’t talking about carrying to term vs. abortion but rather raising the child herself vs. putting it up for adoption, a top post about that would have been useful.
Oh, I got that, actually.
I just figured (when discussing how the media might approach this angle) that it would be better to take the moral high ground and just assume to Governor Palin that she’d made a speech identifying herself as a good, pro-choice mother, not an abusive pro-lifer who forced her daughter.
For a parent to force a child to give birth against her will is abusive: and likewise abuse if a parent tried to force a child to abandon her baby against her will. So naturally, speaking to Governor Palin, one would assume she was not abusive with her own daughter: she was pro-choice.
Let me throw out some ideas (so expect them to be even more half baked than usual. Quarter-baked?).
First – I’m not looking for a partisan GOP champion to just round out party political bias in favor of the Dems. Sorry, but the levels of intellectual dishonesty that I’ve seen coming from that quarter are too much to swallow.
What I would like is a somebody who speaks from a broader set of philosophic assumptions than are currently represented here, and who speaks on behalf of that viewpoint independent of the degree to which is it, or is not, a good fit with the current GOP.
I don’t mind “lesser of two evils” arguments when election time comes around, but I’m not really interested in hearing from somebody who takes the talking points du jour and then tries to rationationalize from them backwards and is willing to do noticeable damage to their metaviews in the course of doing so.
Having said that, from time to time I’ve read stuff from a paleo-con point of view on Pat Buchanan’s magazine American Conservative and at http://www.antiwar.com which struck me as worth the time taken to read, and providing some non-imperial ideas about US foreign policy which are distinctly different in flavor and assumptions from the sort of critiques normally offered from the left.
Ditto Ron Dreher from a crunchy-con point of view. Conventional organized religion seems to be a sparsely represented viewpoint here, and I would welcome someone who is able to write from that standpoint with quiet confidence and humility (rather than noisy preaching and telling us that we’re all gonna go to hell).
I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with these bloggers, or that they don’t sometimes spout what strikes me as arrant nonsense, but they do have the virtue of making me think through my own ideas in order to understand where I part company with them and why.
So somebody like that would be nice.
I imagine that there are probably some Eisenhower Republican style fiscal conservatives that are out there crying in the wilderness, but I haven’t been as successful finding a good blog of that variety, so pointers are welcome.
What I would like is somebody (or multiple somebody’s) who will write to challenge liberal/progressive orthodoxy (especially if we have an Obama administration) from the right rather than the left, and do so in a way that forces us to think and either work to critique their arguments or admit that the Dems are getting off track.
I sort of expect already that this will happen from the left, once the partisan battles of the election have cooled and the messy details of governance come to dominate discussion. I think one reason you aren’t hearing much anti-Obama dissent from the left just now is that after 2000 and 2004 virtually everybody on the left is convinced that this is the most important election evah, and so ranks have closed. That is temporary – the normal circular firing squad behavior should return in due course.
In the longer term, I’m hoping that at some point there will be a movement within the GOP to rebuild along conservative principles rather than just using them as camoflage for cronyism and kleptocracy, and I think it will be healthy for our democracy if that happens. If this place is an outlet for voices working on that project, I would welcome that. I don’t want to live in a country where there is no Right, I want to live in a country where the RIght isn’t wrong about so many things.
Um, no, I really don’t know better,
What ThatLeftTurninABQ said for starters. And, no, I’m not in favor of some gun-totin-Bible-spewin’, Obama-blastin’, Rove-point-sayin’ redneck wearing an SS RR cap. I don’t like competition. But someone who truly believes in the principles behind the talking points (where there actually are some) and has a focus in some of the areas ThatLeftTurninABQ pointed out would be nice.
There are many ways to be ‘conservative’.
Adhering to established rules of spelling, grammar, and punctuation is a conservative trait. In that respect, ObWi posters and commenters are refreshingly conservative, to my taste.
Hewing to established values is conservative. John Dean can rightly call himself a conservative, not despite his call to impeach Bush and Cheney, but because of it. Protecting and defending a 219-year-old constitution is conservative. Rejecting authoritarianism is conservative. ‘Established values’ does not mean ‘name-brand GOP values’.
Respect for numbers is conservative. For numbers with dollar signs in front, especially conservative. An economist can be ‘liberal’ by virtue of favoring a flatter distribution of GDP, but still be conservative by agreeing (if data and analysis support it) that a flatter distribution might mean a smaller GDP. Preferences are a matter of taste; numbers are sacred.
Speaking of sacred: a theologian would be conservative by definition. Most organized religions are based on scriptures that are even older than the US Constitution. A theologian could preach communism and still be conservative. Jesus Christ did it.
Just which kind of conservatism is so sorely lacking around here?
— TP
Avedon Carol links to thoughtful conservatives on her blog under the heading Loyal Opposition. (Jim Henley, Arthur Silber, Julian Sanchez, The Agitator, Balloon Juice, Wendy McElroy.)
I don’t suppose any of the above would want to front-page at Obsidian Wings, but that sort of quality is what I assume is looked for.
I’d welcome more front page posts from Sebastian or Slartibartfast, actually (though I can see both of them now, faces writ large: “Jes just wants more opportunities to go for me like a rabid pit bull!”) – no, seriously: they’re both good writers: or Von, if he cared to explain why he – who seemed to have grasped that the Bush administration was bad news some years ago – is nonetheless supporting John McCain for four more years of the same.
“Avedon Carol links to thoughtful conservatives on her blog under the heading Loyal Opposition. (Jim Henley, Arthur Silber, Julian Sanchez, The Agitator, Balloon Juice, Wendy McElroy.)”
No offense intended, but Jim Henley is not a conservative. Neither is Wendy McElroy. Neither is Julian Sanchez. Neither is Radley Balko. You’re confused as to what she means by “Loyal Opposition.” Not all non-leftists are “conservatives.”
(Avedon and I have known each other since 1974; ask her yourself, if you think I’m wrong; or ask those people themselves, or read their blogs.)
(Hint: libertarians aren’t “conservatives”; all those people are libertarians, who, to be sure, would also expand the range of views at ObWi, just as Andrew did.)
Von remains perfectly free to post, last I looked, and Charles never said he quit, so far as I know — just that he was taking a break for a while. Technically, Von doesn’t regard himself as a “conservative,” last I looked, but as a “classic liberal,” for the record, although the distinction can seem a tad unclear from a distance. But so do most fine distinctions.
Back and feeling a bit better.
Re: this (last night from Jeff):
Does anyone here judge MCain by what’s said on RedState, Captain’s Quarters, etc? Does anyone with a shred of sense? Anyone who would judge Obama based on what blogs said would seem to me to be 28%ers anyway.
You should: these are the people who had influence with Bush and are likely to have influence in a McCain administration –although perhaps a bit less, since until the last three months most of ’em really hated McCain. And even those without influence tar McCain: we’re big fans of guilt by association in this country. (It’s probably a feature of human existence, e.g., a tribal thing, but that’s a different set of posts).
So, yeah: When Obama’s cheerleaders in the media push a series of attacks that ultimately fail (or backfire), that’s a problem for Obama.
On conservative posters:
You’re not going to find anyone who is (1) an authentic conservative and (2) willing to write for ObWi. ObWi, like 99.44% of the blogosphere, is not a blog of ideas. It’s a blog of parties — in ObWi’s case, the Democratic party. Every argument is ultimately framed in partisan terms. Hence, if you’re not a Democrat (or supporting one at the moment), it’s not going to be very interesting for you to write for ObWi. You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much.*
Maybe that will change after the election year; maybe not. It is very difficult to debate ideas without becoming partisans. God knows that Moe, Katherine, and I tried. We didn’t succeed.
von
*As Gary notes, the “conservatives” that have been mentioned above are not conservatives. I’m a classic liberal/squishy libertarian, and although it’s difficult for y’all to distinguish classic liberal from conservative, it’s not hard for conservatives to do so. I get roughly the same reception as RedState as I get here.
I got the sense from Andrew (and get the sense from Sebastian) that they apply roughly the same framework as I do, but emphasize different issues and, on occasion, reach somewhat different results. But neither is truly a conservative. With respect to Andrew, it also happened that he was also a truly amazing (and disarming) blogger …. and impossible not to like. Me, not so much.
Obama’s cheerleaders in the media
the GOP’s old/new blame-the-media tune resonates with the base, i see.
It’s a blog of parties — in ObWi’s case, the Democratic party. Every argument is ultimately framed in partisan terms.
I think you’re massively underestimating the extent to which normally disparate groups have coalesced around the anti-Bush — and thus anti-GOP — platform. If the only realistic options are 1) Democrats or 2) batshit-insane near-psychopaths, you’re gonna get a lot of people identifying as Democrats that would not normally do so.
I get roughly the same reception as RedState as I get here.
I get the impression that you are treated as a fellow traveler over at Redstate, but here, as part of the (loyal?) opposition, though I haven’t followed Redstate. I think that gives you a different reception, even if the sentiments sound basically the same.
I also think that authentic conservatives does not equal bush supporters
Surely Redstate is a Republican blog, not a conservative one, or are those the same thing by the definitions you’re using?
von: Hence, if you’re not a Democrat (or supporting one at the moment), it’s not going to be very interesting for you to write for ObWi. You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much.
Well, that, or – y’know – actually be able to intelligently justify supporting McCain and other conservative policies. If you can’t do that, I agree you’re better off just posting where you’ll get other conservatives giving you supportive noises about how terrible it would be to have a black Democratic President who isn’t reliably pro forced pregnancy.
There is a shortage of blogs with a far wider spread of views where people can reasonably debate.
Well, there is a shortage of many many things, so I must ask: why do you think blogs with a far wider spread of views would be better? If you don’t think it would be better, then why are you bringing up the concept? Is having a “far wider spread of views” a virtue in and of itself? If so, why?
I mean, if I said, boy, there is a real shortage of restaurants that sell pickled anchovy chocolate ice cream, I would be totally correct. But, um, the mere presence of a shortage does not mean that the shortage is a bad thing.
Gary, I wrote this:
I’m really curious about what specific benefit do people think a conservative front pager would add.
You then responded by writing this
True, several more are called for. The benefit would be to get ObWi back to what it was, and what it was intended to be: a place where a spread of political views are put forth and respectfully debated.
Now, I, being of limited mental abilities, assumed that when you claimed that several more conservative front page posters were called for you meant that such a thing would be a good idea. I did not think that you sought the destruction of OW and were thus recommending bad ideas. Thus I was very surprised to read your later comments where you wrote:
Since “better” is a subjective judgment, I don’t know how it would be measured; feel free to put forth suggestions for a metric to be used to as regards this idea that ObWi would be “better,” that you’re inventing, and which has nothing whatever to do with anything I said.
Quote me anything I said that had anything to do with ObWi being “better.”
I think that saying that several more conservative front pager posters are called for an that they would “benefit” (your word) OW by “getting it back to what it was” does constitute making OW “better”, but perhaps there is some non-obvious reading of your original comments in which you are not talking about making OW “better” that I just can’t see. Of course, I’m only interested in readings of your comments that make sense.
Is there any evidence that OW would be better in any measurable way if I addressed the other questions in your previous comment? Or are you just assuming that?
Hee hee, this is funny. You can be so cute when you get confused about what you just wrote.
Well, there is a shortage of many many things, so I must ask: why do you think blogs with a far wider spread of views would be better? If you don’t think it would be better, then why are you bringing up the concept? Is having a “far wider spread of views” a virtue in and of itself? If so, why?
For two reasons, the first prudential and the second instrumental: (1) diversity in opinion and viewpoint is the safety net you need in case Mr. Groupthink comes to the neighborhood, and (2) Quality opposition spawns better arguments. Sloppy thinking, logic errors and factually challenged statements thrive in an ienvironment where ideas are either not challenged or are only challenged from one direction. You need a whetstone to keep a knife sharp.
ThatLeftTurn, thanks for your two very informative comments. I appreciate your willingness to actually specify some detail.
Maybe the front pagers should just start recruiting folks from amconmag?
von: “ObWi, like 99.44% of the blogosphere, is not a blog of ideas. It’s a blog of parties — in ObWi’s case, the Democratic party. Every argument is ultimately framed in partisan terms. Hence, if you’re not a Democrat (or supporting one at the moment), it’s not going to be very interesting for you to write for ObWi.”
Being pretty new to the blogosphere, it would be disheartening if that 99.44 figure were on the money — maybe I should have stuck to newspapers, magazines and TV.
While Hilzoy, Eric and Publius may be left-leaning, they manage to post material that challenges this Democrat to give issues a more thorough examination than I normally would — especially, most recently, during the Russian-Georgian conflict and “Support the Troop” threads.
And as far as ObWi not being a blog of ideas, Gary, LeftTurn and others can address than better than I.
—
Gary: “What I will say is that this only makes sense if you look at blog posts as put forward as a planned political campaign, rather than impulsive responses to news that comes along.”
One reason this blog attracted me was that it doesn’t put forth material that is, as Gary said, “put forward as a planned political campaign.”
Rather, most of what I read and partiicpate in here seems like honest-to-goodness conversation, where it would therefore be natural if someone posts once, twice or 18 times on a particular thread.
It’s also refreshing that many regulars recognize their own flaws, as I am discovering I may be more sexist than I’d imagine.
—
I wonder what Peggy Noon is saying this morning.
von: “ObWi, like 99.44% of the blogosphere, is not a blog of ideas. It’s a blog of parties — in ObWi’s case, the Democratic party. Every argument is ultimately framed in partisan terms. Hence, if you’re not a Democrat (or supporting one at the moment), it’s not going to be very interesting for you to write for ObWi. You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much.”
We never asked anyone to self-censor. We never expected anyone to. It is of course true that the commentariat is overwhelmingly liberal, and thus that conservatives will get more pushback than liberals. I regret this, which is why I’ve spent ages looking for a decent conservative commenter.
On the other hand, when people defend McCain apparently just for the sake of doing it, e.g. saying that his claim that we need a stimulus, but we need to cut spending first, or saying that his vetting process was actually just fine, or saying that when he says that his cap and trade policy doesn’t involve a mandatory cap, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand his own legislation, it’s hard to just treat those arguments as perfectly natural interpretations that happen to be wrong. And when one has enough respect for the person who makes them to think: surely that person knows better than this, it can lead to a certain level of frustration.
On conservative posters:
You’re not going to find anyone who is (1) an authentic conservative and (2) willing to write for ObWi. ObWi, like 99.44% of the blogosphere, is not a blog of ideas. It’s a blog of parties — in ObWi’s case, the Democratic party. Every argument is ultimately framed in partisan terms. Hence, if you’re not a Democrat (or supporting one at the moment), it’s not going to be very interesting for you to write for ObWi. You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much.
von,
I agree with your point about many of the examples previously cited not being conservative (John Cole for example sounds about as conservative as Harry Truman of late). But I don’t think that invalidates the point that a little more ideological diverstiy would be welcome at ObWings*, be it conservative, libertarian, anarchist, or be what you may (within the bounds of civil discourse – no racists, etc). I guess “conservative” is a synecdoche for “not liberal/progressive” in this case.
With regard to the partisan character of current discussion, as others have pointed out this is a consequence of the polarization of the Bush years and the urgency of the current election. By this time next year we’ll be complaining about what a sellout Obama is and gnashing our teeth about how he was never a real progressive, etc., etc.
I am genuinely puzzled by “You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much”?
Why? Are you saying that the kitty will strike down a top-level blog author who is too conservative? Will the commentariat make rude noises? What exactly is the terrible retribution that will be rained down on a conservative who [shudder] goes too far because they did not self-censor? Are we really that mean? Are conservatives really that thin skinned?
*Turb – thats another answer to your question: why? Not because we can prove it would make this blog “better”, but because that is what multiple commentators are asking for.
Peggy Noonan: “I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives –”
I always wondered if Noonan truly was a prim-and-proper pundit or just played one on TV.
I mean, the lady, even off camera, asked to be excused for tossing in a “bullshit.”
On the other hand, and this may have been discussed upthread, I thought she had built her career on political narratives.
“By this time next year we’ll be complaining about what a sellout Obama is and gnashing our teeth about how he was never a real progressive, etc., etc.”
Or we may be complaining how McCain’s State of the Union put us to sleep and how that damn Sarah Palin is essentially a co-president running domestic policy.
TLTIA: I sort of expect already that this will happen from the left, once the partisan battles of the election have cooled and the messy details of governance come to dominate discussion. I think one reason you aren’t hearing much anti-Obama dissent from the left just now is that after 2000 and 2004 virtually everybody on the left is convinced that this is the most important election evah, and so ranks have closed.
Should you be thirsting for these kinds of discussions before Nov. 5 or the inauguration, you could check in at A Tiny Revolution, where the spread of opinion ranges from people (like the blog owner Jonathan Schwarz and me) who think that we should still vote for Obama as the lesser of two evils despite the ticket’s lies and imperial outlook to those who think the whole system is so rotten that letting the less sane wing of imperial managers win will hasten the collapse of U.S. hegemony.
For hard-to-categorize libertarian views on the election, check out The Art of the Possible.
Anarch, I can understand why you write: “If the only realistic options are 1) Democrats or 2) batshit-insane near-psychopaths, you’re gonna get a lot of people identifying as Democrats that would not normally do so.” But you’ve just made my point. If I have to choose “democrat” or a supporter of “batshit-insane near-psychopaths,” I’m just going to walk away from the conversation. Because the democrats don’t have all the answers and some of the folks you regard as “batshit insane” do. But what’s the point in discussing the matter with you?
Hilzoy, you can look and look for a conservative poster. Unless you find one who supports Obama, however, I don’t see why he or she would accept. Would you accept a job to be the token liberal at RedState?
ObWi is a liberal equivalent to RedState ?
I am genuinely puzzled by “You’ll have to self-censor yourself too much”?
Why? Are you saying that the kitty will strike down a top-level blog author who is too conservative? Will the commentariat make rude noises? What exactly is the terrible retribution that will be rained down on a conservative who [shudder] goes too far because they did not self-censor? Are we really that mean? Are conservatives really that thin skinned?
Yes to all. I don’t know if “thin-skinned” has anything to do with it.
Take me: I have a full-time job, a family, and other interests. ObWi didn’t/doesn’t pay me. If I spend an hour composing a post and the next four hours defending myself in comments against a readership who doesn’t want to read what I write, why bother? What I am getting out of that? Nothing. What is the readership? Nothing. Indeed, the readership would rather read Hilzoy or Publius or Eric Martin — all fine writers who share most of the readership’s views. Why shouldn’t the readership get what it wants?
I don’t think that’s being thin-skinned. That’s not putting myself above the blog. Anything I could add as a front page poster — e.g., debate — I can add as a commentator.
ObWi is a liberal equivalent to RedState ?
Equivalent? Noooooo ….. The point is that ObWi is at least as committed to its candidate.
If I spend an hour composing a post and the next four hours defending myself in comments against a readership who doesn’t want to read what I write, why bother?
Von, you need not spend any time defending yourself in this particular instance, but please note that I am only able to point out a self-contradiction in your comment because I read what you wrote.
–TP
If I have to choose “democrat” or a supporter of “batshit-insane near-psychopaths,” I’m just going to walk away from the conversation. Because the democrats don’t have all the answers and some of the folks you regard as “batshit insane” do.
While the Democrats don’t have all the answers — and I have no idea where you’d’ve got that idea, since I know literally no-one who believes that — it does not necessarily follow that “some of the folks” I so regard do. In fact, I’ll go further, and say definitively that they don’t: I don’t regard Cheney, for example, as having any answers worth a damn, nor James Dobson, nor Grover Norquist. YMMV on this issue, but I suspect (based on past comments) that it doesn’t.
The problem once again seems to be twofold: first, that the Republican party has what are, to me at least, politically powerful factions consisting of “batshit-insane near-psychopaths”. Note that once again I’m not talk about rank-and-file GOP members, who run the gamut (as do the Democrats, fwiw), I’m specifically talking about either high-ranking members of the party or their equivalents in power amongst the Republican interest groups. Second, the non-batshit-insane, non-near-psychopaths in the GOP are, for a variety of reasons, subordinating their reason to those factions’ madness; and in some cases, arguably being drawn into that madness themselves.
And ultimately, that’s what it’s boiled down to these past several years: the Democrats don’t have all the answers, but the Republicans as a party have none. [Let me reiterate, as a party, because I think you read me too broadly.] Endless war, tax jihadism and (now) “Drill Baby Drill!” aren’t answers, they’re jingoistic slogans aimed at four more years of Republican dominance without even the pretense of governance. If that reality is too bitter a pill to swallow, well, I respect your willingness to walk away… just not the reason for it.
Would you accept a job to be the token liberal at RedState?
At RedState, any commenter who expresses liberal opinions – “liberal” in a very broad sense, too – gets banned, in short order.
At Obsidian Wings, no commenter who remained polite has ever been banned, regardless of the political slant of opinions they promote.
At RedState, a “token liberal” front-pager would never get any support whatsoever from their views in the comment threads, because anyone inclined to express such support would promptly be banned,
At Obsidian Wings, if your posts attract conservative commentators who agree with you, they get to stay and comment so long as they remain at least as polite as me – which, you know, I admit is not very at times. 😉
So trying to equate the two is pretty much just… idiotic.
I have a full-time job, a family, and other interests. ObWi didn’t/doesn’t pay me.
That point, however, I completely support and agree with…
Von, I think you are selling yourself short when you say: “That’s not putting myself above the blog. Anything I could add as a front page poster — e.g., debate — I can add as a commentator.”
And this definitely is true: “The point is that ObWi is at least as committed to its candidate.”
I Am Not Von, but I suspect he has something in mind along the lines that when 92%+ of the commentariat disagrees with you largely along a similar alignment, the pile-on effect can make for such a gigantic effort to respond to, if one chooses to engage with even a plurality of commenters (unlike, say, Publius), that posting because an exercise in exhaustion, which would tend to make anyone without near-infinite reserves of time and energy one reluctant to post after a while.
Personally, I ahbor echo chambers; I’d far rather, most of the time, find intelligent, thoughtful, reasonably courteous, people I disagree with, to challenge my views, bring up ideas I might not be as familiar with as I should be, bring me new perspectives, help me see things I might not have seen before, and make me think, and thus improve my conclusions, and my quality of knowledge, and the accuracy of my appraisals and understanding, then I would hang out with a bunch of people who heartily agree with me, and from whom I learn little, and are intellectually challenged by infrequently.
Call me a communist for believing in the notion that thesis can meet antithesis, and thus produce synthesis, rather than wanting soak in a bath of chummy like-mindedness.
I’ve always believed in reading as wide a range of political views as possible. From my earliest days of interest in politics, I’d seek out as wide a range of publications at libraries, and fringe bookstores, from the most obscure communist and anarchist and racist rightwing sects and groups, to, well, anything I could find that might help me be better informed as to the range of how people look at things, no matter how crazy.
Being validated in one’s views is all well and good, but expanding my views and understanding is immensely more valuable to me.
Growing in understanding of how differently things may look to people outside my head is immensely valuable to me.
I don’t want to live in any more solipsistic a universe than I’m forced to.
I think that’s made me smarter, not stupider.
I’m too familiar with people who are extremely bright, but utterly unable to understand how anyone can disagree with them, or have any kind of remotely legitimate different perspective. (Not, you know, that we’d see any examples of folks like that commenting on this blog, he said airily; no, never, he said, mentioning no names.)
The more echo-chamber-ey ObWi has become, the less valuable and interesting it has become for me, much though I also greatly appreciate the deeply thoughtful and smart views of those I’m closest in alignment and perspective with, such as TLTIA, Hilzoy, Russell, and many others.
But I’d also never put this in a frame of “better” and “worse,” since those terms have no meaning absent a defined frame, and the only frame I’m suggesting here is what I, a unique individual, am looking for. No one need agree with me. No one need feel similarly. I am not making any sort of objective claim about what sort of blog, or set of people, or set of arguments, is “better,” or “worse.”
I simply know what I personally tend to value more, and what I like most, and what I liked most about Obsidian Wings in its first couple of years.
As always, the Mileage of others may perfectly legitimately Vary.
Von, I think you mean “Democrat,” not “democrat.” You do believe in democracy, and thus are a “democrat,” right? Even though you abhor, apparently, the Democratic Party?
I’m a republican, as well, myself, no matter that I’m not a Republican.
Capitalizing the words makes them different words. Thus the whole “common noun” and “proper noun” distinction.
I also hope you mean that “some of the folks you regard as ‘batshit insane’ also have some valid answers,” rather than what you wrote, which is that they “have all the answers.”
Might I most humbly suggest that it might benefit your commenting if you wrote just a tad slower? And reread what you wrote before hitting “post”? (Advice all of us, certainly including me, could benefit by, to be sure, and no offense intended; I’d equally or even more strongly give that advise to Publius, so I have no partisan motive in speaking up for even slightly more careful writing, even “just” for blog comments.)
“Indeed, the readership would rather read Hilzoy or Publius or Eric Martin — all fine writers who share most of the readership’s views. ”
I’d like to read much more of you, Von, and would be delighted if you would return to front-page commenting. I’d be particularly delighted if you’d make more clear in a front page post what it is you find admirable about John McCain, and why you think it’s a reasonable idea for people to vote for him. I can imagine some of your reasoning, but would vastly prefer to read your actual reasoning.
And so on in general.
Thanks!
“The point is that ObWi is at least as committed to its candidate.”
Per usual: the blog is a bunch of software. It has no volition and no agency. Neither do the many people who post here, which includes you, march in lock-step views.
It’s fine to speak of the similarities and overlaps of the majority of commenters, or posters, and to observe that the overwhelming majority these days tend to be far more left/liberal than conservative/libertarian/right, and far more Democratic, when U.S. citizens, than Republican, but speaking/writing of what “the blog” believes or thinks or does makes no sense.
Gary: “speaking/writing of what ‘the blog’ believes or thinks or does makes no sense.”
I understand your point, but just don’t take this as literally as you. By your measure, we should never use “the Obama camp”/”the McCain camp” — to which you might say, “That’s right.”
I guess I should have amplified a bit in that I view what we were just talking about along the lines of using the “editorial we.”
Or: I often find myself saying my Phillies or my Eagles or, “We played great last night,” when I know damn well, I don’t have a thing to do with the team.
“you’d make more clear in a front page post what it is you find admirable about John McCain, and why you think it’s a reasonable idea for people to vote for him.”
I’d like to read that too, though I admit I’d probably also enjoy reading the tidal wave of comments that would come roaring your way immediately afterwards. And I perfectly understand why von wouldn’t want to do it. Our loss.
On a related point, I also don’t condemn the drive-by conservatives who comment here–I don’t necessarily respect their views, but setting that aside, it’s tough making a case when you’re outnumbered and besides, sometimes people just want to state their opinion without committing to spending a good chunk of the day defending it. I’ve done this myself, and if it’s wrong then I’m one of the sinners. But unless the post is very obnoxious, I don’t think it’s wrong.
trying to put lipstick on that pig.
Sexist! (Putting lipstick on a pit bull isn’t apparently. I guess pit bulls nullify sexist talk in a way that pigs don’t…)
———————-
“Jes just wants more opportunities to go for me like a rabid pit bull!”
Hmmm, is a pit bull without lipstick sexist? If one with isn’t, then surely one without must be. (I don’t know why, but I don’t picture Jes wearing lipstick often, if at all…)
=====================
these are the people who had influence with Bush and are likely to have influence in a McCain administration
You think so? Do you have ANY evidence that Bush cared what RedState or PowerLine (“Blog of the Year”!!!) posted? I know the fine folks at the right-wing blogs think themselves Mighty Advisors to the Decider-In-Chief, but I see no reason to believe it.
——————-
The point is that ObWi is at least as committed to its candidate.
Weren’t they horribly aghast at McCain as candidate at one point? And then suddenly switched back once he won?
Are you claiming that RedState is anywhere NEAR as honest as ObWi?
Yeah, if a front-pager made claims like these, they wouldn’t have time for anything else when the OMGWTFBBQ comments started flooding in.
=================
Are conservatives really that thin skinned?
The ones currently holding national offices seem to be.
I also don’t condemn the drive-by conservatives who comment here
I don’t know — it seems to be like putting lipstick on a pig (is that sexist or not? I’ve gotten myself confused re cosmentics and critters) — it only annoys the pig. What’s the point, other than a “Ha ha! I showed those ignorant lot! Neener!”?
Per usual: the blog is a bunch of software.
Perhaps that’s Snowden’s secret* — as applied to blogs — but it isn’t my point. ObWi isn’t the machinery or software. It ain’t the electrons neither. ObWi is a set of ideas. That they be multi-personal is irrelevant.
*J. Heller, Catch-22: “He felt goose pimples clacking all over him as he gazed down despondently at the grim secret Snowden had spilled all over the messy floor. It was easy to read the message in his entrails. Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret. Ripeness was all.”
Gary, von:
Look, I don’t think anyone is disputing that the bulk of the posting on ObWi, even among those who wouldn’t define themselves as liberal, has drifted overwhelmingly towards support for the Democratic ticket and opposition to the Republican ticket.
I think you’re missing the larger point of why that is, though. Your complaints seem to coalesce around, more or less, the idea that having no front-page conservatives on ObWi has made it less valuable because now it is an Obama echo chamber. The flip side of this is the assumption that having more opposition to Obama on the front page would be a sign of healthy diversity–without any apparent regard for whether or not the level of opposition to McCain and support for Obama is due to a qualitative difference between the two candidates and campaigns.
Again, it comes back to this: at a certain point you have to come to terms with the fact that nobody’s saying anything nice about your product because it actually does suck. And the honest conservatives, even if they are willing to hold their nose and pull the lever for Obama because they recognize how bad McCain is, aren’t likely to find it a lot of fun to sit around and bash the candidate they have more in common with ideologically, while advocating for someone who may be the lesser evil to them but still embodies many policies they find to be anathema.
The lack of conservative front pagers isn’t a problem with ObWi, it’s a problem with the Republican ticket being historically bad this year.