Matt says early on Republicans "are dominating on Twitter." Is this anything worth bragging about? What does it even mean, that there are more Republicans spewing out sound bites and ill-considered thoughtlets? I view Twitter as a source of entertainment and a potentially useful coordinating tool and very occasionally a way to get instant information on breaking news (which I personally don't care about), but given the choice to "dominate" on Twitter compared to, say, the blogosphere, let alone actually getting people off their couches to go knock on doors, I know which one I'd pick. I've also found that following more than a few people has made Twitter pretty much useless to me, because I am not about to keep Twitter or any third-party Twitter-related app open at all times. There are already enough pointless interruptions that happen when I sit at the computer. So, as far as Matt's thought about putting links up on Twitter, I can only say that I'd much rather have someone whom I could conceive of following instead do a once a day link dump as a blog post, ideally with a few words about each one. Could be

Hi it's Rachel - thanks BJ for the nice welcome! I just wanted to apologize for the wobbly filming/audio - I thought it would be fun to film from the airport, but maybe it was just fun for me. Oops. Sorry about that. It's amazing how fast it goes, I completely forgot to get to one thing I wanted to mention: Congratulations to fellow BHTV-er Ann Althouse on her engagement! I had Twittered about it from the security line and then completely forgot to mention. So there you go, another use for Twitter. Thanks Matt for re-acclimating me after a few months absence. Good to be back. That's it from me, see you on the #TCOT!
RS

Matt, Obama promised to address these issues during the campaign. So what if social conservates 'react'. Activist social conservatives are being replaced by younger, more tolerant conservatives and libertarians.

Conservative 'Milk'? Birth of a Nation? The oeuvre of Leni Riefenstahl? Nearly all action films? Fucken...nearly all movies?

To show that liveblogging is not dead, here are some more notes jotted down while listening. I found it hilarious, around 17 minutes in, that when Matt wished for movies to be made about conservative heroes that aren't obvious propaganda, he could not name anyone as a serious candidate. (I feel certain he does not really think there's any point in making a movie about Charlton Heston as conservative hero.) Oh, and actually, Matt? That's the funny thing. And really, the fact that the wingnutosphere is trying to make an issue about the gift Obama gave the Queen of England just shows how little of worth you all have to contribute to the discourse. Seriously, how much would you guys pay to have an Obama/intern scandal? I bet we could pay off the national debt with the money that could be raised for that. And trying to make an issue about Obama bowing to the Saudi king? Seriously? I know how hard it is for wingnuts to grasp the concept of courtesy after three decades of winning by bullying (and especially when they're always so insecure about the possibility of appearing "weak") but this

Matt did not explain his objection to the iPod gift, except that it was not "formal". If he would think a little more, he would understand the appropriateness. Such gifts are obviously symbolic, and the symbolism of an iPod loaded with show tunes is nothing less than a slap-in-the-face statement of American technological superiority and cultural dominance. Every conservative should be proud of this, as I am. Those damn Brits drove my puritan ancestors across the pond to Boston, and I'm still steamed about it. On the other hand, I do agree that it's shameful when the President bows to foreign leaders, or kisses the hand of the Pope. Our nation is truly in decline.

Rachel, you always have such beautiful hair in these videos -especially at 2:00 with the sunlight. How do you do it?

Quoting Simon Willard: On the other hand, I do agree that it's shameful when the President bows to foreign leaders, or kisses the hand of the Pope. Our nation is truly in decline.

I already alluded to this above, but since it's so important to me, I am going to say it again: I could not disagree more with this attitude. I am overjoyed to see my President doing small social niceties and moments of ritual to signify that the US understands it's in partnership with the world, and not looking to be the unquestionable superior. I believe that the long term health of the United States will be improved, and not at all weakened, when the rest of the world stops seeing relationships with us as an endless game of King of the Hill. To me, bowing or kissing a ring as part of a formal ceremony shows strength. It says, "I am not afraid to lose face by participating in something trivial that you still care about." It's analogous to being polite, and actually speaking to, say, waitstaff and doormen. Costs very little, makes them feel appreciated, shows you're not arrogant, ... there are a million little wins to be had from such behavior.

Quoting Rachel Sklar: ...I completely forgot to get to one thing I wanted to mention: Congratulations to fellow BHTV-er Ann Althouse on her engagement! I had Twittered about it from the security line and then completely forgot to mention. So there you go, another use for Twitter...

So we needed a repeat of a tweet that has little or no relevance to the subject at hand. How is that a good thing? Plus as per the rules of the bhtv drinking game, any mention of Ann Althouse that is not attached to her dv's directly... requires a shot. It's barely noon!

Quoting bjkeefe: I am overjoyed to see my President doing small social niceties and moments of ritual to signify that the US understands it's in partnership with the world, and not looking to be the unquestionable superior. I believe that the long term health of the United States will be improved, and not at all weakened, when the rest of the world stops seeing relationships with us as an endless game of King of the Hill.

To me, bowing or kissing a ring as part of a formal ceremony shows strength. It says, "I am not afraid to lose face by participating in something trivial that you still care about." It's analogous to being polite, and actually speaking to, say, waitstaff and doormen. Costs very little, makes them feel appreciated, shows you're not arrogant, ... there are a million little wins to be had from such behavior.

The President has an important role as the democratically elected representative of the people. His formal actions are therefore prescribed and should be interpreted in this light. If he want to get chummy with these leaders at Camp David, I suppose it's OK, but in a formal ceremony of greeting, it is inappropriate

Quoting Simon Willard: The President has an important role as the democratically elected representative of the people. His formal actions are therefore prescribed and should be interpreted in this light. If he want to get chummy with these leaders at Camp David, I suppose it's OK, but in a formal ceremony of greeting, it is inappropriate to greet another leader in a posture of submissiveness -- especially if that submission is untrue! It is appropriate for these interactions to be widely reported and examined by the public. It's not just about strength, it's about who you represent and what you stand for.

I don't view those actions as submissive. Perhaps they once showed that, but the original meaning has been lost, just as shaking hands once meant "See? No weapons!", but no longer does. To perform them now shows nothing but a moment of respect for a different culture. At most, the gesture says, "I don't think I am perpetually superior to you." And, to the extent that the president is my representative, he is doing exactly as I would do, and would have him do. Hilariously enough, it was just a few days ago when greater Wingnuttia was all a-twitter about Michelle

Rachel Sklar is the embodiment of the beauty of Canadian women. Just as I am the embodiment of the beauty of Canadian men (over 60, bald and not getting any thinner.) Itzik Basman

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't view those actions as submissive. Perhaps they once showed that, but the original meaning has been lost, just as shaking hands once meant "See? No weapons!", but no longer does. To perform them now shows nothing but a moment of respect for a different culture. At most, the gesture says, "I don't think I am perpetually superior to you."

And, to the extent that the president is my representative, he is doing exactly as I would do, and would have him do.

Hilariously enough, it was just a few days ago when greater Wingnuttia was all a-twitter about Michelle Obama putting her arm around the Queen of England. I'm not saying you were, but in general, I'd say those who are complaining about these things can't have it both ways.

Agreed and on twitter too, and for the reasons you refer to, as much I understand twitter. I hope the rumours of the death of the blogosphere are greatly exaggerated. Kind of a lame exchange, generally, I think. Twitter? Itzik Basman

It's analogous to being polite, and actually speaking to, say, waitstaff and doormen.

I disagree. Politely engaging with service workers is a denial of status-disparity. Bowing is the opposite. Whatever little wins bowing to a foreign leader might get you, (respect, politeness, etc) those could be had without making submissive gestures. And there are many little losses. There is a beautiful and powerful symbolism in rejecting castes and titles. We call the president Mister. I think the right-wing outrage is silly; this was a minor gaffe, not a herald of American Sharia. Still, I hope it doesn't happen again.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't view those actions as submissive. Perhaps they once showed that, but the original meaning has been lost, just as shaking hands once meant "See? No weapons!", but no longer does. To perform them now shows nothing but a moment of respect for a different culture. At most, the gesture says, "I don't think I am perpetually superior to you."

And, to the extent that the president is my representative, he is doing exactly as I would do, and would have him do.

Hilariously enough, it was just a few days ago when greater Wingnuttia was all a-twitter about Michelle Obama putting her arm around the Queen of England. I'm not saying you were, but in general, I'd say those who are complaining about these things can't have it both ways.

Perhaps I'm perverse, but I think the arm around the Queen demonstrates a lack of submission to the Queen, and I'm all for that. I really don't understand or care what the Wingnuttariat thinks about these things. Anyway, I know your position is defensible, but let's agree to disagree. Maybe some others will weigh in on the bowing/kissing stuff.

Is it just me, or does Matt completely dance around the gay marriage issue? I would be interested if he could articulate why there should not be gay marriage without invoking the bible or slippery slope arguments. On another note, why are Democrats so politically stupid? Letting the issue be framed as "gay marriage" gives the impression that the Gov't wants to break into churches and force priests to condone a gay lifestyle at gunpoint. Repeat after me, gay civil rights, gay civil rights, gay civil rights.

Quoting Simon Willard: Perhaps I'm perverse, but I think the arm around the Queen demonstrates a lack of submission to the Queen, and I'm all for that. I really don't understand or care what the Wingnuttariat thinks about these things.

I know you don't, but they were howling about "lack of respect" and "breaking protocol." Just for the record.

Anyway, I know your position is defensible, but let's agree to disagree. Maybe some others will weigh in on the bowing/kissing stuff.

Sounds good.

Quoting basman: Agreed and on twitter too, and for the reasons you refer to, as much I understand twitter. I hope the rumours of the death of the blogosphere are greatly exaggerated.

I think they are. People have been predicting "the end of blogs" for years now.

Kind of a lame exchange, generally, I think.

Twitter?

Heh. That made me think of something -- the Twitter "interview" George Stephanopoulos did with (newly hip and able to use a keyboard!) John McCain. Which I did not follow.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Is it just me, or does Matt completely dance around the gay marriage issue? I would be interested if he could articulate why there should not be gay marriage without invoking the bible or slippery slope arguments.

I thought he clearly said he was against it, but I think he doesn't really have a defense, at least not one that he wanted to try to make stand up in this diavlog.

On another note, why are Democrats so politically stupid? Letting the issue be framed as "gay marriage" gives the impression that the Gov't wants to break into churches and force priests to condone a gay lifestyle at gunpoint. Repeat after me, gay civil rights, gay civil rights, gay civil rights.

Hah. Like the Dems ever win a framing battle against the cultural conservatives. I'll be happy if they manage to make clear that the Iowa court decision does not mean same-sex marriage is now compulsory, for everyone. Your suggestion is a pretty good one, although I can imagine at least one tactical problem somewhere down the road: it opens up a fallback position for the opponents of same-sex marriage, who would leap on this

Gun control is not something I have ever looked into at any real depth, but don't the majority of studys state that the amount of crime that is thwarted by legal civilian gun owners is several magnitudes larger then the amount of crime that is abetted by guns? If true, that is a rather strong argument against super strong regulations of gun ownership (like say Japan has). Now, I am not a complete wacko on this, for instance I don't want AK-47's or Black Talons ammunition to be easily attainable. I just do not like the idea of me not being able to enjoy myself at a shooting range just because some infinitesimal minority of gun owners commit crimes with their guns. I think the rhetoric on both sides of the isle is rather unfortunate. This is clearly a "The Devil is in the details" issue. It's obvious some forms of gun control will be a social good.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Gun control is not something I have ever looked into at any real depth, but don't the majority of studys state that the amount of crime that is thwarted by legal civilian gun owners is several magnitudes larger then the amount of crime that is abetted by guns? If true, that is a rather strong argument against super strong regulations of gun ownership (like say Japan has).

Proponents of either side can dredge up all manner of statistics. Back when I cared to argue about this issue, in favor of more gun control, I used to have at hand all manner of studies that showed that a gun in the home was overwhelmingly (like 8 or 9 times out of 10) more likely to be used in a manner that those living in that house would not want -- suicides, impulse killings in domestic squabbles, accidents. Next most likely outcome -- gun would be stolen by housebreakers. I don't think it's an argument amenable to that kind of evidence, because there are too many complications and it's too easy to cherry-pick. Anyway, I am now much more receptive to the argument about gun ownership

Quoting skonny: I disagree. Politely engaging with service workers is a denial of status-disparity. Bowing is the opposite.

You're entitled to agree with Simon on this, but that argument isn't very persuasive. Seems to me the two actions are the same -- the initiator is setting aside a claim of superiority, at least for the moment.

There is a beautiful and powerful symbolism in rejecting castes and titles. We call the president Mister.

That makes more sense to me, and I do like this aspect of our country. But I'm okay with performing some rituals on the world stage. Catch more flies with honey, if nothing else.

This is a ridiculous correction to have to write, but here goes. Since Obama gave the Queen a Richard Rogers' autographed songbook in addition to the iPod - and it's reported she asked for an iPod loaded with video of her trip to the US (and already uses an iPod that's several years old) - could we please have links that aren't unchallenged, short counterfactuals ? How hard is it to find out what's really happening in this kind of ephemeral, over-reported "news" - assuming you're not a brain-dead rightwing partisan ? I'm not obsessed with finding trivial fault with Obama and didn't care about the gift story at all, yet I found it near-impossible to read more than the very first report - or perhaps just a headline - and not find out that the "facts" are quite different than what these whiners are attempting to turn into some sort of moronic meme among their pathetic flock.

Quoting brucds: This is a ridiculous correction to have to write, but here goes.

Nice try, brucds, but the wingnuts have their narrative and they're stickin' to it. Besides, Stop The ACLU are none too impressed with ol' Richard Rodgers:

Now, perhaps the songbook gift might have been nice (I’ve never heard of the guy) ...

Remember that Matt Lewis pays his rent by preaching what these people want to hear. For example:

I hesitate to be critical of Sarah Palin. The last time I did so here at Townhall, I was compared -- in the comments section -- to David Frum.

That, of course, is the kind of insult that makes one think twice before considering writing another critical Palin post.

Quoting bjkeefe: Matt says early on Republicans "are dominating on Twitter." Is this anything worth bragging about? What does it even mean, that there are more Republicans spewing out sound bites and ill-considered thoughtlets?

I view Twitter as a source of entertainment and a potentially useful coordinating tool and very occasionally a way to get instant information on breaking news (which I personally don't care about), but given the choice to "dominate" on Twitter compared to, say, the blogosphere, let alone actually getting people off their couches to go knock on doors, I know which one I'd pick.

I've also found that following more than a few people has made Twitter pretty much useless to me, because I am not about to keep Twitter or any third-party Twitter-related app open at all times. There are already enough pointless interruptions that happen when I sit at the computer.

Vato, twitter was made for you.

I don’t know that triple-X pornography constitutes free speech. But I do know that the right to bear arms constitutes the right to bear arms.

Wow. Equivalence-check please...

Not unpredictably, I'd side with BJ on this one. Local pleasantries and formalities are what they are. Not everything is a war or a posturing contest. And where precisely is the line drawn. Bowing to Japanese diplomats. Shaking hands. Looking at the person he's talking to. Calling someone "mister?" Derived from "master" I believe. The whole thing is ridiculous to me. Being courteous is well, courteous. I do love the fact that, this is apparently the best thing the GOP can come up with right now. Flag-pin lapels. Ipods. "Party of big ideas, indeed."

Vato, twitter was made for you.

My One and Only Twitterku Twitter, stupid fad,
Perfect for terminal attention whores
Adios

Disappointing that Matt does not point out that the problem with gay marriage is it opens the legal door to gay adoption. Children get little or no choice in who adopts them. It is important that the adopting parents be socially normal, because that is what the adopted child will likely desire once they become aware of the differences between a gay couple and others. Anyway, who cares, republicans have no choice in the matter. The people with the pitchforks have the run of the land. Let the republicans go free. Give them the hill country.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Is it just me, or does Matt completely dance around the gay marriage issue? I would be interested if he could articulate why there should not be gay marriage without invoking the bible or slippery slope arguments.

how could a legally married gay couple be denied the right to adopt children? I dont think many people are considering that legalizing gay marriage will also legalize gay adoption.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Disappointing that Matt does not point out that the problem with gay marriage is it opens the legal door to gay adoption. Children get little or no choice in who adopts them. It is important that the adopting parents be socially normal, because that is what the adopted child will likely desire once they become aware of the differences between a gay couple and others.

Socially normal parents??? I don't know how you would define that.

Anyway, who cares, republicans have no choice in the matter. The people with the pitchforks have the run of the land. Let the republicans go free. Give them the hill country.

Interesting.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: how could a legally married gay couple be denied the right to adopt children? I dont think many people are considering that legalizing gay marriage will also legalize gay adoption.

News flash: it is already legal for gay couples to adopt children.

Here's the problem, Eb: Courtesy is not symmetrical between different cultures. So, who's courtesy gets respected? Theirs or mine? Are you courteous enough to kiss the Pope's ring? Bow before a foreign dictator? Kiss Hugo Chavez's ass?

Quoting xjudson: Matt,
So what if social conservates 'react'. Activist social conservatives are being replaced by younger, more tolerant conservatives and libertarians.

are these younger conservatives just as tolerant as the democrats with pitchforks that obama told the bank execs he is keeping at bay??

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Disappointing that Matt does not point out that the problem with gay marriage is it opens the legal door to gay adoption.

In case you didn't see my reply above:

Quoting bjkeefe: News flash: it is already legal for gay couples to adopt children.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: It is important that the adopting parents be socially normal ...

What with all your talk of secession and pitchforks and heading for the hills, I'd say you've pretty well disqualified yourself. [Added] Here are a couple of books you'd do well to read.

Quoting Ocean: Socially normal parents??? I don't know how you would define that.

hard to say. best answer is you know it when you see it. I dont see it as fair to a child to be adopted by a gay couple.

SW- I'm more comfortable letting the President make that decision himself, than a bunch of people who scold every move he makes. I don't think America's position as the world super-power has been direly threatened so far.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: hard to say. best answer is you know it when you see it. I dont see it as fair to a child to be adopted by a gay couple.

I know gay couples that are wonderful parents. And I know straight couples that are terrible parents. Parenting doesn't seem to be dependent on whether the parents are gay or straight. There is still a lot of prejudice regarding this.

I dont see it as fair to a child to be adopted by a gay couple.

Negroes and foreigners are bad as parents too. Double that for foreign Negroes like B. Hussein Obama. I do think that gays should be allowed to impersonate heterosexuals and form normal families, however. If one of the male couple dresses up as the mommy and has boobs (duh, we are mammals!), I could accept it. She has to do the laundry too though. Vice versa for the lesbian couples. One has to be the daddy. If you want a kid so bad, get a penile implant.

Quoting bjkeefe: ....the wingnutosphere still oscillates wildly....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXLJElH_OR4 Great band, if not one of their greatest songs.
.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: how could a legally married gay couple be denied the right to adopt children? I dont think many people are considering that legalizing gay marriage will also legalize gay adoption.

So? I do not think the quality of me wanting to have intercourse with someone of the opposite sex is an attribute that will make me a good parent. Even if it was found a heterogeneous couple on average did make better parents then a homogeneous couple, that would not mean that there is not heterogeneous couples that have kids that are such bad parents that the children would be better of going to the homogeneous couple.

Quoting bjkeefe: To me, bowing or kissing a ring as part of a formal ceremony shows strength.

It's so easy to laugh.
It's so easy to hate.
It takes strength to be gentle and kind.
It takes guts to be gentle and kind. —I Know it's Over, The Smiths
As it happens, The Smiths have some questions for Matt's collapsed and failed Republican Party: If you're so funny
Then why are you on your own tonight?

And if you're so clever
Then why are you on your own tonight?

If you're so very entertaining
Then why are you on your own tonight?

If you're so very good-looking
Why do you sleep alone tonight? —I Know it's Over, The Smiths

Quoting Simon Willard: The President has an important role as the democratically elected representative of the people. His formal actions are therefore prescribed and should be interpreted in this light. If he want to get chummy with these leaders at Camp David, I suppose it's OK, but in a formal ceremony of greeting, it is inappropriate to greet another leader in a posture of submissiveness -- especially if that submission is untrue! It is appropriate for these interactions to be widely reported and examined by the public. It's not just about strength, it's about who you represent and what you stand for.

From the ultra-wingnut/loon blog, Little Green Fascis... er, Footballs: —Bush Bowed Too

Quoting TwinSwords: From the ultra-wingnut/loon blog, Little Green Fascis... er, Footballs:

—Bush Bowed Too

I gotta say, and not for the first time, I don't know if I think LGF counts as a full-blown member of Wingnuttia anymore. That post is another example of why. Thanks for the link. [Added] I'd still like to hear the real reason why Charles Johnson parted ways with Roger L. Simon and PJM. I wonder, in retrospect, if that was part of what seems like occasional outbursts of sanity on LGF.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hilariously enough, it was just a few days ago when greater Wingnuttia was all a-twitter about Michelle Obama putting her arm around the Queen of England. I'm not saying you were, but in general, I'd say those who are complaining about these things can't have it both ways.

They need something to keep the tiny little gears in what counts for their brains spinning, and so this is what they come up with. They should know: We do pity them.

Quoting Simon Willard: On the other hand, I do agree that it's shameful when the President bows to foreign leaders, or kisses the hand of the Pope. Our nation is truly in decline.

I agree with the sentiments but I don't think there's any connection between the two sentences. Obama isn't acting like he's a subject of the king of Saudi Arabia because China is going to replace the U.S. as the world's biggest economy.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Gun control is not something I have ever looked into at any real depth, but don't the majority of studys state that the amount of crime that is thwarted by legal civilian gun owners is several magnitudes larger then the amount of crime that is abetted by guns?

It's been a while but IIRC the majority failed to find any correlation between gun control and crime. There was one widely reported study that found as you said- widely reported first for being comprehensive as well as unusual, then widely reported again when the author turned out to be a lunatic who invented data wholesale and sock puppeted on Usenet and Amazon.com. Worth taking that study with a grain of salt, IMO.

Quoting bjkeefe: Proponents of either side can dredge up all manner of statistics. Back when I cared to argue about this issue, in favor of more gun control, I used to have at hand all manner of studies that showed that a gun in the home was overwhelmingly (like 8 or 9 times out of 10) more likely to be used in a manner that those living in that house would not want -- suicides, impulse killings in domestic squabbles, accidents. Next most likely outcome -- gun would be stolen by housebreakers.

I don't think it's an argument amenable to that kind of evidence, because there are too many complications and it's too easy to cherry-pick.

Anyway, I am now much more receptive to the argument about gun ownership being a Constitutional right, and the one that points out that the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't use them for criminal purposes. Not thrilled about it, but I do give Matt this one -- the pro-gun side has won this one in the political arena.

That's how I feel too. I stopped caring about the gun debate when I realized that, statistically, gun owners are more likely to off themselves with their gun

Quoting basman: Rachel Sklar is the embodiment of the beauty of Canadian women.

Just as I am the embodiment of the beauty of Canadian men (over 60, bald and not getting any thinner.)

Itzik Basman

:-D Itzik FTW

Perhaps not everyone is appreciating treating these international meetings as events in a dog eat dog world. In this view, when the lead dog of the US pack meets the lead dog of the Saudi pack, which one establishes dominance and which is submissive establishes the relationship parameters. These dominance behaviors are somewhat symbolic, so it is no more necessary for the President to physically dominate the King or have the Secret Service throw down on his guards than it is for a dog meeting another on the street to bite. Simply showing some teeth, snarling a bit (think Cheney here), and a low growl would let the Saudi's know who is the doberman and who is the spaniel. Once the foreign dog is backed down, the US dog can then spin around several times, lie on the floor, and lick his own butt secure in the knowledge that the proper order has been maintained.

Quoting skonny: I disagree. Politely engaging with service workers is a denial of status-disparity. Bowing is the opposite.

Whatever little wins bowing to a foreign leader might get you, (respect, politeness, etc) those could be had without making submissive gestures. And there are many little losses. There is a beautiful and powerful symbolism in rejecting castes and titles. We call the president Mister.

I think the right-wing outrage is silly; this was a minor gaffe, not a herald of American Sharia. Still, I hope it doesn't happen again.

What people are missing here is that this has nothing to do with "submission," and everything to do with the well-established tradition of respecting the customs of other cultures when in their lands. It's how heads of state and diplomats have been interacting for millenia. When the president bows, he's not saying "I am subservient," he is saying "I respect your customs." I know conservatives love to show their contempt, indeed their loathing, for all of the people living outside our borders*, but their party lost in the last elections, and we're not following their failed practices anymore, to the great relief of the American people, and the world. Of course, that doesn't mean wingnuts can't still insult foreigners from

Quoting bjkeefe: Could be a matter of taste, but I have found that my interest in Twitter has plummeted as quickly as it peaked. That everyone won't shut up about it, both in the political and tech spheres, has undoubtedly contributed to that.

I am happy to say one of my favorite writers feels the same way, only more so. (He's mad about other things, too.)

Quoting TwinSwords: What people are missing here is that this has nothing to do with "submission," and everything to do with the well-established tradition of respecting the customs of other cultures when in their lands.

Ah yes, the well known London custom of showing subservience to the Saudi monarch. Wait, no.

When the president bows, he's not saying "I am subservient," he is saying "I respect your customs."

He's saying both, actually. Same as if Clinton dressed up in a burqa before entering the room. The "custom" being respected is one of subservience to an un-elected monarch, and I'd rather Obama show respect to the people of Saudi Arabia instead of dismissing their self-determination by respecting the unjust institution of monarchy.

Yeah. Twitter is a useful way for friends to keep each other posted on their plans and whereabouts. "Going to the bar," "at the library," "just got out of work." Kind of a quicker version of email that is more accessible than email (you can twitter from your phone far more easily than you can email), and you can reach ALL of your friends/family/contacts with one tweet -- something that can't be done in email without laboriously adding recipient addresses or building elaborate email distribution lists, etc. So, that's what Twitter was made for and is still perfect for. How it ever got turned into a medium for serious communication, I will never understand. But then you have to figure, most Republican thoughts can be more than amply expressed in 140 characters. I guess it should not be surprising that the Party of the Bumper Sticker is attracted to something like Twitter. I can see how it would be an environment in which they would flourish.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: are these younger conservatives just as tolerant as the democrats with pitchforks that obama told the bank execs he is keeping at bay??

You're lying again. Obama said nothing about "democrats with pitchforks." It's really bizarre that you believe he did.

Quoting bjkeefe: I gotta say, and not for the first time, I don't know if I think LGF counts as a full-blown member of Wingnuttia anymore. That post is another example of why. Thanks for the link.

I don't know. I haven't had it on my regular wingnut reading list for a long, long time. My distant memories are of it being virulently hateful towards Muslims. But that's an interesting post of yours that you linked to. I'll have to reconsider their degree of wingnuttiness.

Quoting TwinSwords: I don't know. I haven't had it on my regular wingnut reading list for a long, long time. My distant memories are of it being virulently hateful towards Muslims. But that's an interesting post of yours that you linked to. I'll have to reconsider their degree of wingnuttiness.

I agree that CJ lost his mind about the "Muslim threat" there for a while. I don't regularly read LGF, but I can say two more things: (1) I never seen it mentioned anymore on any of the left-wing blogs that mock the rightosphere, and (2) whenever I search for a recent news-related keyword using Wingnuttia Search, I pretty much never get hits from LGF.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree that CJ lost his mind about the "Muslim threat" there for a while.

I don't regularly read LGF, but I can say two more things: (1) I never seen it mentioned anymore on any of the left-wing blogs that mock the rightosphere, and (2) whenever I search for a recent news-related keyword using Wingnuttia Search, I pretty much never get hits from LGF.

Hmm.... I see what you mean. That post is not only not wingnutty, it's anti-wingnutty!

Quoting TwinSwords: Hmm.... I see what you mean.

That post is not only not wingnutty, it's anti-wingnutty!

Thanks. And good for CJ for putting that one up.

Rachel raises the issue of homophobia. So if all opponents of gay marriage are homphobes, does that mean opponents of immigration are xenophobes and opponents of cancer are oncophobes? Pathologizing your political opponents just shuts down political debate.

Quoting TwinSwords: You're lying again. Obama said nothing about "democrats with pitchforks." It's really bizarre that you believe he did.

I think I might know where DenvilleSkeve got that line. Obama apparently said something of the sort, but it wasn't about Democrats, it was about the whole population. Assuming you can believe anonymous sources with obvious axes to grind, talking to rePubOLITICO, I mean:

The bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president of the United States.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying high salaries to their employees — and, by extension, to themselves.

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”

But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

The fresh details of the meeting — some never before revealed — come from

Quoting bjk: Rachel raises the issue of homophobia. So if all opponents of gay marriage are homphobes, does that mean opponents of immigration are xenophobes and opponents of cancer are oncophobes? Pathologizing your political opponents just shuts down political debate.

So does making ridiculous analogies. Being against one thing is not the same as being against another. And yes, there is no reason to be against same-sex marriage except homophobia. Or certain religious beliefs. But I repeat myself.

Quoting TwinSwords: That post is not only not wingnutty, it's anti-wingnutty!

Instaputz notices that post, too, calls attention to a follow-up, and makes some general observations about LGF. Don't miss the link in IP's last line.

Ok if being against the gay agenda is homophobia, then explain what's wrong with homophobia. Insults are not arguments.

Quoting bjk: Ok if being against the gay agenda is homophobia, then explain what's wrong with homophobia. Insults are not arguments.

If you do not understand why being against someone simply because of his or her sexual orientation, then there is nothing I can tell you that will help. That you're using the wingnut term "gay agenda" only confirms my feeling. It is not an insult to call someone a homophobe for opposing the right of same-sex partners to get married. It is a truthful descriptive label, exactly the same as would be the term racist for someone who opposed marriage between people of different skin colors.

It is not an insult to call someone a homophobe for opposing the right of same-sex partners to get married. It is a truthful descriptive label, exactly the same as would be the term racist for someone who opposed marriage between people of different skin colors.

So do you think Obama is a homophobe?

Quoting Wonderment: So do you think Obama is a homophobe?

No. It's clear when a politician is being a politician, and not speaking his own views. Besides, he spoke against Prop. H8, and unless I am mistaken, he has not spoken against the Iowa decision.

No. It's clear when a politician is being a politician, and not speaking his own views.

You think he's lying about his belief in marriage as being between a man and woman? I agree that he's lying, but I object to calling it "being a politician."

Besides, he spoke against Prop. H8, and unless I am mistaken, he has not spoken against the Iowa decision.

He (supposedly) supports states rights regarding gay marriage. (Cf. Segregationist)

Wonderful point Wonderment.

Quoting Wonderment: You think he's lying about his belief in marriage as being between a man and woman? I agree that he's lying, but I object to calling it "being a politician."

Hey, when you're running for president, then come talk to me. It's a reality of life that you have to speak differently when you're trying to win a majority vote, especially against a hysterical smear machine, compared to speaking as an individual.

He (supposedly) supports states rights regarding gay marriage.

Sounds like another expedient compromise, at worst.

(Cf. Segregationist)

A truly stupid statement. Is your wingnut cousin using your account or something?

Quoting Lyle: Wonderful point Wonderment.

When you can't get Althouse to fight your battles for you, you'll turn to anyone else, won't you? What a pantywaist you are, Lyle.

Quoting bjkeefe: I think I might know where DenvilleSkeve got that line. Obama apparently said something of the sort, but it wasn't about Democrats, it was about the whole population.

Yes, I was aware of the provenance of Steve's deliberate and dishonest misconstrual, but thanks for the link for the benefit of anyone else in the audience who may not have been. Let it be known that Steve cannot be counted on to faithfully and truthfully relay information to the reader.

Do you take back what you said about President Obama's homophobia?

Quoting Lyle: Do you take back what you said about President Obama's homophobia?

Link to where I called Obama a homophobe, or admit, once again, that you're a liar.

"bjk" - "Pathologizing your political opponents just shuts down political debate." Unlike pathologizing a class of people base on their sexual orientation ? I truly have come to hate homophobic assholes as much as I detest racists. It's the same damned thing. The good news is these are "Dead Men Walking" and their children or grandchildren will simply be embarrassed and move on. I just have to say to the Neanderthals rasing hysteria over "gay adoption" here that I have gay "married" friends who have adopted children and provided wonderful homes to abandoned children who desperately needed them. This "anti-gay couple's adoption" crap makes me sick. It's like saying that there should be no interracial adoptions because it's not fair to the children. Some folks probably still believe this, but it's a bow to bigots. And, frankly, it's often the bigots who are using this angle as their excuse.

As much as I agree with bjkeefe almost completely on the topic of gay marriage, I'd have to say that Barak is a bit of a homophobe and actually confessed as much when he admitted thgat his feelings on gay marriage needed a bit more review and perhaps a bit more understanding before he'd be comfortable supporting it fully. (I am paraphrasing here. Others on this board, I am confident, can pull the exact quote from the sit down with Melissa Etheridge where it occurred.) For that matter, I wonder about our host Bob, who said a few years back (yes, I was a bit offended) that he and his family 'had a little fun' talking about the gay couple they had just shared a dinner with. This was, I believe, the conversation of the first moose deployment over Mickey's difficulty with the topic of anal sex, which he clearly believes only happens during same sex and not between consenting heterosexuals - also a telling homphobic concept, though I doubt Mickey would ever think it so. It reminds me clearly of the discussions about subtle racism, and sexism - glass ceilings and the like - that are sometimes

Maybe we need a Kinsey scale for homophobia.

Matt Lewis: "(Ross Douthat) is not part of the conservative movement." Matt who ???? Must be one of those "cocktail parties" guys - this from an unbroken series of his blog posts at mattlewis.org: "I was on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue last night with David Shuster.." "The latest edition of 'The Week in Blogs' with Bill Scher and yours truly is now up." "I was on Bloggingheads TV last night..." "I was on Cavuto today..." "The Huff Post's Roy Sekoff and I were on MSNBC today..." Yuck...

Quoting bjkeefe: When you can't get Althouse to fight your battles for you, you'll turn to anyone else, won't you?

What a pantywaist you are, Lyle.

I usually think your posts are well thought out and articulated well when you stick to the issues bjkeefe, but when you jump into attack mode against other commenters it makes you seem juvenile and you lose the intellectual high ground. Since for the most part there is no advocate for the right here that is matching you in either quality of posts or quantity of posts I don't understand why you personalize things, all it does is make you overreact (Like with Lyle's Palin thread, it was a reasonable thread about how politics is more perception based then reality based).

Quoting Starwatcher162536: [...]

Noted. Thanks for your thoughts.

As Wonderment wonderfully pointed out, you made the point by inference.

Quoting Lyle: As Wonderment wonderfully pointed out, you made the point by inference.

You can't even back that up. I explicitly said "no" when Wonderment asked me if I thought Obama was homophobic. You're a liar, Lyle.

Why did Wonderment comment in the first place? To explain to you that by your own logic President Barack Obama would be a homophobe.

>> A truly stupid statement>> You may recall that you are the one who drew the race/sex analogy. In fact, you said it was "exactly the same":

It is not an insult to call someone a homophobe for opposing the right of same-sex partners to get married. It is a truthful descriptive label, exactly the same as would be the term racist for someone who opposed marriage between people of different skin colors.

Are you calling yourself stupid or just me?

Quoting Wonderment: Are you calling yourself stupid or just me?

I am calling you stupid, both for using the term ("Segregationist"), and for failing to distinguish between what an individual says in hysterical opposition and how someone running to be president hedges on the issue.

Quoting TwinSwords: So, that's what Twitter was made for and is still perfect for. How it ever got turned into a medium for serious communication, I will never understand.

It's getting worse:

Twitter switch for Guardian, after 188 years of ink

• Newspaper to be available only on messaging service
• Experts say any story can be told in 140 characters

Consolidating its position at the cutting edge of new media technology, the Guardian today announces that it will become the first newspaper in the world to be published exclusively via Twitter, the sensationally popular social networking service that has transformed online communication.

The move, described as "epochal" by media commentators, will see all Guardian content tailored to fit the format of Twitter's brief text messages, known as "tweets", which are limited to 140 characters each. Boosted by the involvement of celebrity "twitterers", such as Madonna, Britney Spears and Stephen Fry, Twitter's profile has surged in recent months, attracting more than 5m users who send, read and reply to tweets via the web or their mobile phones.

As a Twitter-only publication, the Guardian will be able to harness the unprecedented newsgathering power of the service, demonstrated recently when a passenger on a plane that

I've never seen anyone with more obviously the face of a child molester than this man.

Quoting ethansalto: I've never seen anyone with more obviously the face of a child molester than this man.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Introducing yourself with it in a public forum, as your first posting is a way to get noticed I guess.

Quoting TwinSwords: You're lying again. Obama said nothing about "democrats with pitchforks." It's really bizarre that you believe he did.

Obama told the bank execs that he was shielding them from americans with pitchforks. democrats are the ones who rant about executive pay, who want to tax others to pay for their living expenses. It was barney frank and code pink who wanted the names of the AIG bonus recipients. It was democrats who organized the bus tours of the homes of the AIG execs in CT. Obama speaks for democrats, the majority of the country, the people who elected him.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Obama told the bank execs that he was shielding them from americans with pitchforks. democrats are the ones who rant about executive pay, who want to tax others to pay for their living expenses. It was barney frank and code pink who wanted the names of the AIG bonus recipients. It was democrats who organized the bus tours of the homes of the AIG execs in CT. Obama speaks for democrats, the majority of the country, the people who elected him.

Isn't it Michelle Malkin who stalks the families of sick kids and publishes pictures of their homes on her widely read blog? Your tears for the banking executives are touching, Steve - where were you when Michelle was stalking children?

Matt makes some lame points that I would have thought somebody as apparently bright and savvy as he seems to be would have avoided. For instance, characterizing people of particular religious backgrounds as "victims" because their specific religious practices have been deemed inapropriate for publicly sponsored events is a blatant, and I think fundamentally dishonest, emotional appeal. There may be perfectly valid arguments for his point of view. "Victimization" is not such an argument.

well written article, addresses the danger obama and the democrats pose to decent people living under the jurisdiction of the US federal government: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-t...oviet-classic/ "...To get the full flavor of the president’s implication we must remember that in Obama’s code language, the word “pitchforks” means “a vigorous campaign of threats and intimidation perpetrated by Obama-sponsored ACORN and union activists in conjunction with theatrical outrage from government officials, amplified by the complicit media, and coordinated from one political center, which has now moved to the White House.” ..." "... Accordingly, the words “public” and “the people” denote “an appearance of broad popular movement created by a small but highly organized band of professional pitchfork operators (ACORN) who rely on the government funding and the media’s eagerness to present their deliberately planned actions and pre-fabricated messages as heartfelt and spontaneous.” ..."

Quoting DenvilleSteve: well written article, addresses the danger obama and the democrats pose to decent people living under the jurisdiction of the US federal government:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-t...oviet-classic/

"...To get the full flavor of the president’s implication we must remember that in Obama’s code language, the word “pitchforks” means “a vigorous campaign of threats and intimidation perpetrated by Obama-sponsored ACORN and union activists in conjunction with theatrical outrage from government officials, amplified by the complicit media, and coordinated from one political center, which has now moved to the White House.” ..."

"... Accordingly, the words “public” and “the people” denote “an appearance of broad popular movement created by a small but highly organized band of professional pitchfork operators (ACORN) who rely on the government funding and the media’s eagerness to present their deliberately planned actions and pre-fabricated messages as heartfelt and spontaneous.” ..."

Oh, goodness! Agitprop from Glenn Reynolds basement.

Quoting AemJeff: Isn't it Michelle Malkin who stalks the families of sick kids and publishes pictures of their homes on her widely read blog? Your tear for the banking executives are touching, Steve - where were you when Michelle was stalking children?

Michelle is excellent. She denounced the many republicans in the house who voted with the democrats on the recent bill to claw back the AIG bonus money. Very chilling that government can single out individuals and use the tax code to take all their earnings and assets. I dont recall the details of the sick kids affair. Did it have to do with people who had placed themselves in the public arena, advocating some government handout, saying they were poor, when in fact they had more assets than they disclosed and did not need government help?

Quoting AemJeff: Oh, goodness! Agitprop from Glenn Reynolds basement.

( you forgot the possessive apostrophe ) comment on the substance. I would like to know your POV. Bob Wright after all considers Glenn Reynolds serious enough to appear on BHTV. democrats are sheeple. If I was one of them I would be concerned that party operatives would use violence, ala Chavez, to achieve permanent power in the government.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Michelle is excellent.

I agree completely.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ( you forgot the possessive apostrophe )

comment on the substance. I would like to know your POV. Bob Wright after all considers Glenn Reynolds serious enough to appear on BHTV.

democrats are sheeple. If I was one of them I would be concerned that party operatives would use violence, ala Chavez, to achieve permanent power in the government.

You're quite right about the apostrophe. (Maybe Brendan won't notice?) Glenn generates a lot of internet traffic, so by definition he's a reckonable force. I'd argue that he is just about the least interesting blogger on the planet, and I have no idea what drives that traffic. I assume he's good at being a law professor, so I'm sure he has a few IQ points over the mean, but he's a fount of conventional wisdom, and missed nuance. He's just not fun to read, unlike Volokh, or even the self-obsessed Althouse, to try to find comparable names. But, it's PJTV I was specifically ridiculing. PJMedia was a failure, despite the success of a couple of associated bloggers, notably Reynolds and Malkin. I understand scrapping the venture and wanting to try something new. But these guys aren't TV stars. Glenn is a wooden presence, and generally awkward in person. His analysis tends to be

I am calling you stupid, both for using the term ("Segregationist"), and for failing to distinguish...

bj, I'm going out on a limb here as a newcomer, but I interpreted Wonderment's posts in this thread as being tastefully playful, celebrating the irony of politics. Maybe don't take everything personally? -TB

Brendan, I don't see exactly what was stupid in wonderment's post. He correctly pointed out that Obama's pathetic opposition to gay marriage is allegedly based on his support for "state's rights" - the same argument made by supporters of segregation. (And, um, slavery, but wonderment didn't go there.) I also don't see why you're so quick to let Obama off the hook on this one - he's shown that he has the ability to move public opinion, but he's being a complete coward on this issue. (So much for telling Americans "difficult truths," eh?) I know that he didn't support Prop 8., but if he had had the balls to cut an ad against it, I have no doubt that it would have failed. Change we can believe in???

"Denville Steve" - "Bob Wright after all considers Glenn Reynolds serious enough to appear on BHTV." That appearance of the Professor and his silly wife with, appropriately, Ann Althouse, was probably THE most embarrassing Bloggingheads yet, and that's saying something !!!

Quoting thornybranch: bj, I'm going out on a limb here as a newcomer, but I interpreted Wonderment's posts in this thread as being tastefully playful, celebrating the irony of politics. Maybe don't take everything personally?

-TB

You're right. I let my annoyance with Lyle and Steve drive my reaction to Wonderment. [Added] And actually, there were additional reasons, outlined in my response to nikkibong.

Quoting nikkibong: Brendan,

I don't see exactly what was stupid in wonderment's post. He correctly pointed out that Obama's pathetic opposition to gay marriage is allegedly based on his support for "state's rights" - the same argument made by supporters of segregation. (And, um, slavery, but wonderment didn't go there.) I also don't see why you're so quick to let Obama off the hook on this one - he's shown that he has the ability to move public opinion, but he's being a complete coward on this issue. (So much for telling Americans "difficult truths," eh?) I know that he didn't support Prop 8., but if he had had the balls to cut an ad against it, I have no doubt that it would have failed.

Change we can believe in???

There's something to this, but I still maintain that there is a difference between the sort of kneejerk reaction on the part of an individual, most recently seen in the blatantly homophobic reaction against the Iowa decision, and the calculations made by someone running for (and later holding) office. Obama's single biggest theme when running was the idea of getting past the "red/blue" divide, and it seems obvious to me that

Am I asking you and Wonderment to bite your tongues and always march in lockstep? Of course not. But there gets to be a point it's crucial to choose your words more carefully when expressing disagreement with your own side.

You too might choose your words more carefully (like calling someone who agrees with your view on the issue "stupid") but also in setting yourself up for obvious criticisms. If you say, as you did, that anyone who thinks gays and lesbians shouldn't get married is a homophobe, just like someone who doesn't think black should marry whites is a racist, then you are inviting the question I asked: Does that make Obama a homophobe or a liar? The questions is raised. It's inescapable. Now you can defend how all politicians lie, how impossible it is to tell the truth to a bigoted electorate, how maybe deep in his heart Obama is "less progressive on this issue than I'd like him to be" (translation: homophobic); you can feign outrage when someone reiterates your own sexism/racism analogy to you five minutes after you've made it. And finally you can shoot the messenger

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Noted. I don't agree with you, but I don't want to continue this.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am happy to say one of my favorite writers feels the same way, only more so. (He's mad about other things, too.)

More on conservatives and Twitter, again from Ken Layne.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...4:02&out=35:20 Excellent analysis by Matt. The truth is that Ross is a Atlantic Monthly certified "100% reasonable" token conservative. That's why he was picked. And Ross is not only what the NYT's thinks conservatism is - he's what the NYT's *wants* conservatism to be. That is to say, elitist, internationalist, abstract, mild mannered. and harmless. Ross will never challenge any deeply held liberal elite opinion.

Quoting rcocean: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/188...4:02&out=35:20

Excellent analysis by Matt. The truth is that Ross is a Atlantic Monthly certified "100% reasonable" token conservative. That's why he was picked. And Ross is not only what the NYT's thinks conservatism is - he's what the NYT's *wants* conservatism to be. That is too say, elitist, internationalist, abstract, mild mannered. and harmless. Ross will never challenge any deeply held liberal elite opinion.

Your conclusion is completely backwards. A real conservative would be absolutely unable to challenge any deeply held liberal opinion, because the gulf would be too great. How many deeply held small-town conservative opinions are challenged by liberals? Does Moveon provoke a lot of thought in small-town America? Ross argues in a language that the left, or at least the center-left, can understand, which is why he was hired. That's also why it's possible for him to challenge opinions of the NYT's readership.

Quoting pampl: Your conclusion is completely backwards. A real conservative would be absolutely unable to challenge any deeply held liberal opinion, because the gulf would be too great. How many deeply held small-town conservative opinions are challenged by liberals? Does Moveon provoke a lot of thought in small-town America? Ross argues in a language that the left, or at least the center-left, can understand, which is why he was hired. That's also why it's possible for him to challenge opinions of the NYT's readership.

In other words, Ross is the best we can do at the NYT. Maybe true. But that shouldn't stop other conservatives from pointing out who Ross D is - and why he was hired. The real damage Ross D (and Brooks) do is quite simple. Whenever needed, the liberals trot out these "reasonable conservatives" to support liberal policy X or attack "extremist" conservative politician/pundit Y. And as Matt stated, they go on PBS/NPR/CBS etc. as the token" conservative" and make conservatism look weak/bad. If Ross just call himself a "Moderate" & say he's not a Republican, I'd feel better.

Quoting pampl: Your conclusion is completely backwards. A real conservative would be absolutely unable to challenge any deeply held liberal opinion, because the gulf would be too great. [...]

There's something to this, which I think can be seen by looking at this site. If we take the lefties here as having some ideological overlap with the majority of the NYT readership and consider the right-leaning diavloggers, who gets respect? Who gets reactions like, "I don't agree with X, but at least (s)he makes an honest argument."? I'd bet that virtually all of these would be rejected by rcocean and Matt Lewis as "not a real conservative." Including Ross Douthat, obviously. And who gets dissed? I'd bet that everyone whom rcocean or Matt Lewis would call a "real conservative" provokes nothing but contempt, or at least an utter rejection of views, from pretty much every lefty here.

Quoting rcocean: Whenever needed, the liberals trot out these "reasonable conservatives" to support liberal policy X or attack "extremist" conservative politician/pundit Y. And as Matt stated, they go on PBS/NPR/CBS etc. as the token" conservative" and make conservatism look weak/bad.

You could make this statement equally true by replacing every instance of "conservative(s)" with "liberal(s)" and vice versa.

Quoting rcocean: In other words, Ross is the best we can do at the NYT. Maybe true.

But that shouldn't stop other conservatives from pointing out who Ross D is - and why he was hired. The real damage Ross D (and Brooks) do is quite simple. Whenever needed, the liberals trot out these "reasonable conservatives" to support liberal policy X or attack "extremist" conservative politician/pundit Y. And as Matt stated, they go on PBS/NPR/CBS etc. as the token" conservative" and make conservatism look weak/bad.

If Ross just call himself a "Moderate" & say he's not a Republican, I'd feel better.

So, "moderate" and "Republican" have no intersection? "Reasonable" is an epithet? rc, you need to turn off your AM radio and get out into the big, bad world. It's really not required of either Republicans or conservatives that they be stupid, really. The true irony is that guys like Ross, with the balls, and the imagination to think deep strategy, despite hard pushback from the self-interested demagogues squatting on the party's opportunities, and wannabe ideological enforcers like rc trying to step in their credibility, are the best hope for a party in distress to find its footing. rc, you do my party a service. I thank you.

Thanks BJ, for pointing out A)The inanity of the Twitter craze (Yay, more trivial yammering in the world! Exciting!!) And B)the silliness of Matt's absolutist 2nd amendment argument (not to mention his macho "THEY WILL LOSE ELECTIONS" delivery)--uh, I'm sure someone before Michael Moore (and the nut he was talking to) pointed out that weapons grade plutonium is and should be restricted...please take the tired and silly tricks out of your arguments if you want to play with the smart people. We're clearly going to draw a line on what weapons are legal and have some bureaucratic and screening process for acquiring them, so what we're talking about is what weapons are legal and what the process is. The right to bear arms doesn't mean any kind of arms with no process whatsoever, not even getting into the militia part of the amendment (and I won't even bother with the second amendment being anachronistic, in that people's houses aren't going to be commandeered by their Congressmen or the British...but I'll concede that point since its pointless to get into it with a gunnutterbutter). The non-parenthetical points are

Quoting bjkeefe: And trying to make an issue about Obama bowing to the Saudi king? Seriously?

At risk of restarting something, I have to pass this along. I just happened across video of The Bow That Apparently Surrendered America To The Terrorists, and I cannot believe anyone even noticed this, much less made an issue out of it. I thought the bow had taken place in some sort of formal greeting. It turns out it took place in the middle of everyone walking around, chatting with each other. Video here. Bow occurs around 54 seconds in. (h/t: Thers) If you watch Obama talking afterward, another explanation occurs to me -- he's about a foot taller than King Abdullah. Maybe he merely wanted to start off by not looking like he was bending down to/towering over the guy he was talking to. Unbelievable.

Quoting bjkeefe: Unbelievable.

I spoke too soon. It gets worse. Check out the video at this post, featuring poor David Corn, trapped on the same planet as self-described "member of Dick Cheney's fan club" Frank Gaffney, more or less saying:

Obama is speaking in the secret Muslin code!!!1! He is promising on the teevee that we will all submit to Sharia and we don't even know it yet!!1!1!

Quoting bjkeefe: I spoke too soon. It gets worse. Check out the video at this post, featuring poor David Corn, trapped on the same planet as self-described "member of Dick Cheney's fan club" Frank Gaffney, more or less saying:

God, it must suck to be a conservative. 98% are crazy, and 2% are trapped in a party with the likes of Gaffney, Althouse, and Limbaugh. Speaking of the fat drug addict, did you listen to this? Very enjoyable.

Quoting TwinSwords: Speaking of the fat drug addict, did you listen to this? Very enjoyable.

I did see this mentioned on Think Progress last night, but I didn't listen to it. Thanks for the reminder link. I was going to say Rush deserves a little bit of credit for not hanging up on the guy, but the last part seemed like he might have cut the guy's mike while he was responding. Hard to believe there wasn't even a peep of interruption. In any case, I'm glad Rush continues to push people who don't think exactly like him away from the GOP.

More on the LGF front: Kevin K. and Steve M. notice what we've noticed. Even better, Pam Atlas seeks to banish Charles Johnson for apostasy.

Quoting AemJeff: So, "moderate" and "Republican" have no intersection? "Reasonable" is an epithet? rc, you need to turn off your AM radio and get out into the big, bad world. It's really not required of either Republicans or conservatives that they be stupid, really.

The true irony is that guys like Ross, with the balls, and the imagination to think deep strategy, despite hard pushback from the self-interested demagogues squatting on the party's opportunities, and wannabe ideological enforcers like rc trying to step in their credibility, are the best hope for a party in distress to find its footing.

rc, you do my party a service. I thank you.

Following on this theme, here are some more clear thoughts on the MSM's affirmative action program for conservative voices, from Steve Kornacki, via Oliver Willis. As it pertains to this thread, note especially Kornacki's last two paragraphs, but the whole thing bears reading. As much as rcocean and others who share his views like to complain about the so-called liberal media, there is no getting around the dichotomy that Kornacki describes: when conservatives are in power, everyone from NPR on down says they deserve an excess of slots because they're the ones governing. When conservatives are out

I'm probably not the hard-core gun nutter you want, but... 1) I am ecstatic that the Dems have gotten off this issue. Gun violence is horrible, but the Dems handing over millions of votes to war-mongering republicans so they can get us into unnecessary wars kills a lot more people than domestic gun violence ever will. 2) I've called 911 once. when i called I was told a cop could get there in 45 minutes to an hour, and yes this was in a life-threatening situation - the closest officer was 45 minutes away if he responded immediately. So, owning hand guns and having concealed carry permits, as well as having automatic weapons for home defense all seem quite reasonable in my location.

Yes, you're clearly not a nutter But you still didn't really respond to the issues at hand--you could get your gun for protection with common sense regualtion and screening, so why is the NRA against trying to make those more effective to keep guns out of the hands of loons who can snap, and the question I really want to hear answered is do pro-gun rights people care at all about innocent people who are killed--we have these mass-killings, not to mention tons of ordinary one-by-one murders, just far too much in our country. Way more than 3000 people are killed every year, year after year, than were killed on 9-11, but for that we spend vast amounts of blood and treasure, not to mention innocent civilian life of people in other countries in efforts that are dubiously helpful at best, detrimental at worst, but for the much larger source of killing year after year after year ways of reducing danger can't even be discussed. That's what I'm calling nutty. I can understand why people, especially in less populated areas need guns for protection. If you see this I'd love

I didn’t enjoy this one too much, and not just because of the poor audio/video quality. It seemed too heavy on their own opinions (particularly Rachel Sklar’s) and not enough on the roundup of the blog world in general, which is something that I appreciate about The Week in Blog since I do not spend a lot of time reading other blogs. On Ross Douthat - I guess whether Ross is a good pick or not depends on what the goal is in hiring him. If it’s the intention of NYT to increase their readership of the conservative audience then it appears they have failed. If their goal is to provide their readers (the overwhelming of whom I think can be described as either liberal, independent, or conservative in a William Buckley mode) with a different viewpoint that will make them reconsider their opinion or learn something about the other side, then I think Ross is the guy. I have no idea if the Times made such analysis but I truly think that having Ross Douthat is a win for the conservatives as he is someone who can make a reasoned case

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: if they fire Thomas Friedman tomorrow I will subscribe for the next 5 years.

Seconded. Actually, raised: ten years, and I'll even take the Boston Globe off their hands. Your Friedman comment almost makes up for . . .

“just who is this Ross Douthat” meme (yeah, I’m using that word)

Quoting bjkeefe: At risk of restarting something, I have to pass this along.

I just happened across video of The Bow That Apparently Surrendered America To The Terrorists, and I cannot believe anyone even noticed this, much less made an issue out of it. I thought the bow had taken place in some sort of formal greeting. It turns out it took place in the middle of everyone walking around, chatting with each other.

Video here. Bow occurs around 54 seconds in. (h/t: Thers)

If you watch Obama talking afterward, another explanation occurs to me -- he's about a foot taller than King Abdullah. Maybe he merely wanted to start off by not looking like he was bending down to/towering over the guy he was talking to.

Unbelievable.

You can't pretend to be "respecting" customs when you dismiss what they actually mean and treat them as a patronizing way of humoring the savages.

Quoting pampl: Ah yes, the well known London custom of showing subservience to the Saudi monarch. Wait, no.

He's saying both, actually. Same as if Clinton dressed up in a burqa before entering the room. The "custom" being respected is one of subservience to an un-elected monarch, and I'd rather Obama show respect to the people of Saudi Arabia instead of dismissing their self-determination by respecting the unjust institution of monarchy.

Bingo. Great post!

Quoting pampl: You can't pretend to be "respecting" customs when you dismiss what they actually mean and treat them as a patronizing way of humoring the savages.

"Humoring the savages?" Please. Don't even pretend I said anything of the kind. As for "pretending to be 'respecting' customs:" First, where do you get "pretending" from anything that I said earlier? And on a related note, why did you put "respecting" in scare quotes? I did not imply any sort of insincerity on Obama's part. Look, pampl, earlier I was under the impression that the bow took place in some sort of formal ritual type of thing. Now that I'm aware it took place in a different setting, I merely offered another hypothesis for the movement. It is not uncommon for a taller person to bow or otherwise signify through body language that he has no wish to dominate a shorter person in a social setting. However, if your physique matches your attitude in the above quoted comment, I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Quoting bjkeefe: "Humoring the savages?" Please. Don't even pretend I said anything of the kind.

As for "pretending to be 'respecting' customs:" First, where do you get "pretending" from anything that I said earlier? And on a related note, why did you put "respecting" in scare quotes? I did not imply any sort of insincerity on Obama's part.

Look, pampl, earlier I was under the impression that the bow took place in some sort of formal ritual type of thing. Now that I'm aware it took place in a different setting, I merely offered another hypothesis for the movement. It is not uncommon for a taller person to bow or otherwise signify through body language that he has no wish to dominate a shorter person in a social setting.

However, if your physique matches your attitude in your latest comment, I'm sure you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Not insincerity exactly, you (and presumably he) think of yourselves as respecting customs while smugly treating them like physical tics without any purpose or meaning behind them. It's like if Berlesconi tried to respect American customs by saying "sup nigga?!?" and going in for a high five when he saw Obama. Parroting how

Quoting pampl: It's like if Berlesconi tried to respect American customs by saying "sup nigga?!?" and going in for a high five when he saw Obama.

Is this your impression of how American presidents are usually greeted? This seems to be a pointless discussion, so I'm going to end it here.

Quoting bjkeefe: More on the LGF front:

Kevin K. and Steve M. notice what we've noticed.

Even better, Pam Atlas seeks to banish Charles Johnson for apostasy.

FYI - no serious conservative has ever cared about LGF or Charles Johnson. The man's always been a "wingnut" (for once, your term fits). Some think he's a grifter who saw an opportunity after 9-11, other conservatives (i.e. me) think he's a just liberal democrat who just hates Muslims and is obsessed with the WOT. In any case, his site has always been full of less than intelligent, loudmouth cranks and taken seriously by no one. He's another "conservative" whose drifting left and will probably end up linking up with Daily KOS or some other lefty site.

Quoting Lemon Sorbet: Oh, let me add - if they fire Thomas Friedman tomorrow I will subscribe for the next 5 years.

I love Thomas Friedman. He's the best opinion guy the Times has, in my opinion.

I typically do not read the opinions, so I cannot comment on Friendmen's overall quality, but his last article seemed alright. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/op...ml?ref=opinion

Quoting bjkeefe: Is this your impression of how American presidents are usually greeted?

No. The King of Saudi Arabia isn't usually greeted with a bow, either. He's not even greeted with a bow in any other of the 3 times he's greeted in that youtube video. That's because it's a way of showing subservience, not a greeting between equals. It was a dumb gaffe that's being defended by people with no respect towards or interest in custom, under the pretense of respecting custom.

Quoting rcocean: FYI - no serious conservative has ever cared about LGF or Charles Johnson. The man's always been a "wingnut" (for once, your term fits). Some think he's a grifter who saw an opportunity after 9-11, other conservatives (i.e. me) think he's a just liberal democrat who just hates Muslims and is obsessed with the WOT.

In any case, his site has always been full of less than intelligent, loudmouth cranks and taken seriously by no one.

He's another "conservative" whose drifting left and will probably end up linking up with Daily KOS or some other lefty site.

If you say so. Seems to me he was pretty tight with a lot of the major figures in the rightosphere and well looked upon for quite a while -- big part of Rathergate, co-founded PJM, still a Top 100 blog according to Technorati, etc. On the other hand, I no longer have any idea who counts as a "serious conservative." Oh, wait. I think I asked you this before ... yep. Are these ...

Quoting rcocean: Who are "real conservatives" ?

Rush, Coulter, Steyn, Buchanan, Goldberg, RS McCain, Hewitt, Lowery, Bennett, Krauthammer, Levin, Taki, Ingraham, Hannity, Sowell, Lopez, Beck, Will, Malkin, Ace, Allahpundit, etc.

That's just the bloggers/pundits. All take various positions on various issues. However, all believe in the same core values of Reagan conservatism. And they don't spend their time attacking other conservatives for the

Quoting bjkeefe:
If so, do you really think all of them are taken seriously? Coulter, for example? Beck?

Do you really think all of these blogs (where relevant) are free from "less than intelligent, loudmouth cranks?"

And why is Charles Johnson not covered by "take[s] various positions on various issues?" Is there some maximum number of issues where you can deviate from orthodoxy?

And why aren't those who attack Charles Johnson failing to meet your final criterion?

[Added] To my last question, I'll add that it's my impression that his "attacks" are restricted towards fringe elements; e.g., the Cult of the COLB, along with firing back at people who are sniping at him, like, lately, Pam Atlas and Robert Spencer.

Some interesting questions. Sadly, I can't answer most of them because they assume positions I didn't take. But lets compare Johnson to Beck/Coulter. 1) Coulter has written 5 ( maybe 4-6) best selling books, she writes a column and has been famous among conservatives for at least ten years. She was also editor of Michigan Law Review and clerked for an US appellate judge. 2) Beck is the 4rd Most listened to talkshow host in America. He's written 3 best selling books. He's keynoted at the NRA convention and has a TV show. 3) Charles

Quoting bjkeefe: ...

I was struck by the following in the Kornacki article, regarding Douthat:

His instincts are conservative, but he is far more loyal to critical thinking than partisan rhetoric

I get the impression that the sort of people typified, seemingly, by rc, are offended exactly for that reason. Ross's conservatism is impure, showing insufficient loyalty to the party line, and the party figureheads. I have a feeling that you convince members of a certain class of Republicans to say almost anything, regardless of how ridiculous or obviously false, just by telling them, in a voice of sufficient gravitas, that Reagan believed that thing was true.

Quoting rcocean: Some interesting questions. Sadly, I can't answer most of them because they assume positions I didn't take. But lets compare Johnson to Beck/Coulter.

1) Coulter has written 5 ( maybe 4-6) best selling books, she writes a column and has been famous among conservatives for at least ten years. She was also editor of Michigan Law Review and clerked for an US appellate judge.

2) Beck is the 4rd Most listened to talkshow host in America. He's written 3 best selling books. He's keynoted at the NRA convention and has a TV show.

3) Charles Johnson is an jazz musician. In 2001 he started a blog. That's it.

Johnson does no serious political analysis. He doesn't write a column - He just writes little blurbs on his blog and links to other sites.

Johnson was unknown to conservatives prior to 2001. He hates Muslims and focuses endlessly on the war on terror.
Oh, and he's famous for his smearing and attacking people he doesn't like.

Coulter and Beck popularize conservative thought. I have no idea what LGF does except keep Charles Johnson busy.

Well, this doesn't really say much as a response. If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, fine, but for the record, I hardly think they assumed anything about

Quoting rcocean:
[...]

1) Coulter has written 5 ( maybe 4-6) best selling books, she writes a column and has been famous among conservatives for at least ten years. She was also editor of Michigan Law Review and clerked for an US appellate judge.

2) Beck is the 4rd Most listened to talkshow host in America. He's written 3 best selling books. He's keynoted at the NRA convention and has a TV show.

[...]

Coulter and Beck popularize conservative thought.

That is perhaps the most damning thing I can think of about the Republican party. Truthfully, I am not crazy about alot of positions the left holds, but sadly, I have no real choice but to support them anyways. It absolutely astounds me how prominent hyper partisan crazy people like Coulter,Rush,Beck and Hannity are with the Right. (I wonder how much of an act it is....at least I think Beck is just acting...not so sure about the others..) Don't Republicans realize that by going hardcore right they are letting the Left go further left then they would be able to if the Right moderated itself? As it stands now, we Independents have very little leverage on the Democrats, because the Democrats know even if they

Starwatcher, I'm kind of with you... although I'm an Independent who is less frightened by hot-headed Republican populists, and more frightened by mean Progressives. Camille Paglia chimed in this week with an answer to a reader's question, writing: Your theories about the talk radio audience are intriguing. The most rewarding aspect of talk radio for me is the callers, whose voices are heard nowhere else in the culture -- the feisty, super-organized home-schooling moms, the gruffly stoical transcontinental truckers, and the fiercely independent and self-reliant small-business owners, outraged by Washington's tilt toward bailing out corrupt, top-heavy corporations.

However, the popularity of conservative radio shows is a round-the-clock phenomenon. There are flamboyant evening hosts as well as night replays of the major daytime shows, extending well past midnight to dawn. Clearly, conservative hosts have an instinctive rapport with AM radio, which I have been arguing for years is a populist medium (an idea that finally seems to have taken wing in its invocation by other commentators).

Salon reader Cecil W. Powell writes: "The failure of talkers on liberal radio is in large part due to an absolute inability to poke fun at themselves." How true! Liberal hosts like to

Quoting Lyle: Starwatcher, I'm kind of with you... although I'm an Independent who is less frightened by hot-headed Republican populists, and more frightened by mean Progressives.

Camille Paglia chimed in this week with an answer to a reader's question, writing ...

... basically, Sarah Palin's stump speech about "real Americans," only farting out a lot more words to say it. An Independent? My ass. Anyone who would credulously lap up Paglia's stupid-is-the-new-smart drivel of the past year or two is not thinking for himself.

Quoting bjkeefe: Well, this doesn't really say much as a response. If you don't want to answer the questions I asked, fine, but for the record, I hardly think they assumed anything about whatever positions you take. They were yes/no; e.g., do you think Coulter and Beck are serious? That they have made money doesn't answer the question -- they could be (seen to be) putting on an act, right? Also, if success is your measure, I'd observe that LGF gets far more traffic than pretty much all of the other blogs you listed.

Similarly, my question about the other blogs you listed as serious -- do you really think they are all free from "less than intelligent, loudmouth cranks?" -- seems like another yes/no question, without my assuming anything about you.

If you want to dismiss Johnson for just being a blogger, then I wonder how you think most of the rest of those bloggers are any different. Not that I read any of them every day, but I do check in on most of them regularly, and I'd say they all have pretty much the same approach as the one you belittle Johnson for taking. Seems to me they all, at times, write quick thoughts, post videos

Quoting rcocean: Do I take Coulter and Beck seriously? [...]

Okay. Thanks.

Quoting Lyle: Starwatcher, I'm kind of with you... although I'm an Independent who is less frightened by hot-headed Republican populists, and more frightened by mean Progressives.

Camille Paglia chimed in this week with an answer to a reader's question, writing:
[...]
Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

I think there may be something to that. The religious rhetoric is Paglia distorting reality for partisan goals though. Liberals, on the whole, do not support various Gov't programs because of faith, like say a Christian has for God. No, they are using historical data points (Like say the New Deal or Great Society) as evidence that gov't intervention in society can be a positive influence on society. However, I will agree that the left does tend to overplay successes while downplay failures.

[...]
Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.[...]

Is she joking? As evidenced by my last post, my major beef with the Right is how vitriolic and distortionary they have become.

[...]
Probably the main reason for my unorthodox view

This world is a system of unparalleled complexity, every input affects countless hidden variables in hard to foresee ways. I want highly informed and intelligent people for the highest levels of our gov't. I firmly reject the notion (I am looking at you social conservatives) that running our gov't is not that hard and anyone can do it, so we should just look at someones value system instead of competence.

Very well said, Starr.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Is she joking? As evidenced by my last post, my major beef with the Right is how vitriolic and distortionary they have become.

No, I think she's thinking of those who are not vitriolic and distortionary. Some or worse than others. Depends on who you read or listen to.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I find the idea that you have to be some suburban elitist with little connection to the working class to disapprove of Palin absurd. My father was a construction hand and my mother was a secretary while I was growing up, I have spent almost half of my life in a travel trailer. I disapproved of Palin because her level of ignorance was shocking for the position she holds,much less the position she wanted to hold, not because I have no connection to blue collar workers.

This world is a system of unparalleled complexity, every input affects countless hidden variables in hard to foresee ways. I want highly informed and intelligent people for the highest levels of our gov't. I firmly reject the notion (I am looking at you social conservatives) that running our gov't is not that hard and anyone can do it, so we should

Lyle, do you notice that you have to say that these people say things that they don't say so you can stand up for what they "say"? maybe it would be easier to say what you think and stop citing people that don't think the way that you do.

I don't understand your point. Can you be more clear?

B'head Sean Carroll on Twitter. Also.

Quoting rcocean: [...] But lets compare Johnson to Beck/Coulter.

Okay, let's.

Quoting rcocean: 3) Charles Johnson is an jazz musician. [...]

Charles?

Notice how Beck sneers out the words “jazz musician,” as if they were some kind of mortal insult — as if being an alcoholic, weeping, ranting, creationist talk show host who idolizes John Birchers and Ron Paul is a real accomplishment, but practicing diligently for years, earning several gold records, and touring and recording with some of the world’s top musicians is worthy of derision and scorn.

(h/t: James Wolcott) ========= rcocean: Shamefully out of context, I know. But when I happened across the CJ/GB pissing match, I couldn't resist.

Quoting TwinSwords: God, it must suck to be a conservative.

You have no idea. It doesn't help that my wife is a liberal and can bring up those idiots' behavior to me every day! I'm just biding my time when the groundswell behind the Dems loses its mind twenty years from now.