Thanks to Matt and Michelle...[...] I enjoyed this very much, particularly Matt's evisceration of the Republican convention. The double-standard Dems employ when dealing with the Kennedy royalty revolts me; so I can understand some of the repugnance expressed by many on the right. JFK was a pill-popping skirt-hound who approved of numerous assassinations, escalation in Viet Nam and the Bay of Pigs. Teddy left a young woman to drown in a car, but was such is the magic of the Kennedy name not even manslaughter could derail his political career. And that's kind of the point. Lots of ordinary folks don't want to pay other people's health-care bills; and they especially don't want to pay the health-care bills of people who aren't paying taxes. I saw at least one video of folks attempting to interview Jane Hamsher at a tea-party rally. It was clear that Jane honestly doesn't believe grass-roots means organizing against the president she helped elect. We see the same disconnect in Michelle. My reaction to the news that five people had brought guns to Presidential rallies was only five? That doesn't seem like anywhere near enough given

Michelle notes in her excellent book that countries with generous policies towards pregnant women and women with children, tend to have high birthrates. (Sweden & France for example. ) Today, the CS Monitor reports that Japan is finally going to take some pronatal policies.

Here's what we've learned... The leader of the Republican party is ‘not Barack Obama’. Social messaging is missing. Something is new about what the grassroots right wing looks like. Matt gives a brief and compelling history of the Republican party since the sixties. John Birch was eclipsed by neo conservative and social conservatism. Michelle says the Republicans were once on the march instead of on the defense. Libertarians made an unholy alliance with the religious right. People in the party have been straining against each other for a long time.
Freak out about the economy has caused the warring factions of the Republican party to come back under the tent. Economic policy and government takeover of industry are not minor issues. Really great conversation!!!!!

Kidneystones said: Michelle is bright and I hope her book does well. Maligning those who oppose President Acorn's policies as racists isn't making his policies any more popular or doing much to persuade me Obama supporters believe a word about hope or change. I don't think Michelle is so much saying that those who oppose Obama's policies are racist. She is saying that she can't figure out what the motivation is, so it must be some subliminal/dark one. Matt tried to tell her several times that economic policy is a big motivation. This seems to be territory where each side is mystified by the other.

Quoting Markos: I think Matt fails to see that Bush gave Obama a 1.3 trillion-dollar deficit on Inauguration Day as well as a collapsing economy of daunting proportions which required a lot of action and spending by government.
And all those hysterical right-wingers with no solutions of their own act as if Obama started with a clean slate.

There is certainly a continuum to public events which ties one political figure to the actions of past ones. But in this case the argument that Obama was saddled by Bush with all these terrible fiscal and economic problems would be a more significant if Obama supporters could clearly show his opposition to Bush policies. But look carefully at who was one of the most favorite politicians getting Fannie campaign contributions? Who voted for TARP immediately (while his supporters impugned John McCain's sanity for holding back at least a little while)? Who appointed Tim Geithner to continue the various schemes to recapitalize finance companies with public funds? Who decided to drop several more billion into GM that it seems quite likely the public will not

Because of open borders immigration democrats are the majority in the country. These people basically want big government because they don't think they can compete in the economic marketplace with core Americans. The division between the handout crowd and those that favor self reliance is only going to widen in time. To stop the complaining and protests, all democrats have to do is allow states to secede from the federal system. That would take the edge off the fear that Americans have that their country has been taken from them.

Quoting Gravy: There is certainly a continuum to public events which ties one political figure to the actions of past ones. But in this case the argument that Obama was saddled by Bush with all these terrible fiscal and economic problems would be a more significant if Obama supporters could clearly show his opposition to Bush policies. But look carefully at who was one of the most favorite politicians getting Fannie campaign contributions? Who voted for TARP immediately (while his supporters impugned John McCain's sanity for holding back at least a little while)? Who appointed Tim Geithner to continue the various schemes to recapitalize finance companies with public funds? Who decided to drop several more billion into GM that it seems quite likely the public will not recover? Easy to blame Bush, but let's hear an argument that conditions are significantly different than if Obama had been President since January 2008, for example. Maybe Bush fouled up, but Obama, at this point in his Presidency, does not represent much in the way of change.

well said. And republicans in congress are still part of the problem because they

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Because of open borders immigration democrats are the majority in the country. These people basically want big government because they don't think they can compete in the economic marketplace with core Americans. The division between the handout crowd and those that favor self reliance is only going to widen in time. To stop the complaining and protests, all democrats have to do is allow states to secede from the federal system. That would take the edge off the fear that Americans have that their country has been taken from them.

New strategy Steve:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...a-problem.html

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Because of open borders immigration democrats are the majority in the country. These people basically want big government because they don't think they can compete in the economic marketplace with core Americans.

"core Americans." I love when you throw out these expressions so flippantly. Tell me who these "core Americans" are? Do you mean anyone who is a citizen? Because, you know, you have to be a citizen to vote.

Quoting badhatharry: I don't think Michelle is so much saying that those who oppose Obama's policies are racist. She is saying that she can't figure out what the motivation is, so it must be some subliminal/dark one.

Matt tried to tell her several times that economic policy is a big motivation. This seems to be territory where each side is mystified by the other.

I divide democrat voters into two groups. One group, the policy democrats, have an overpowering desire to meddle in the affairs of others. The other group, the handout democrats, want big government and high taxes in order to keep the money coming. The policy democrats likely are aware that the government is killing the economy, but they are so compelled by the desire to meddle ( and be protected from free range people ), that they cannot rationally address the problems facing the country. The handout democrats have been convinced by main stream society ( run by policy democrats ) that they are unable to be productive. They are resigned to continue the status quo.

Thank you, Michelle, for your insights. Continue to tell it like it is!

I find this graph interesting.

Notice that the first budget year under the freshly elected Democratic Congress (2008) the deficit takes a big jump. In there second budget year it takes a rocket ride. As it is from the legislative branch that all spending originates is it really President Bush's deficit or that of the Democratic Congress. Yes President Bush could have vetoed the spending bills so I guess one could hold him responsible for not stopping the irresponsible behavior of the legislators, so he is a least partially complicit, but it all starts in the legislature not the executive branch.

Quoting graz: New strategy Steve:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...a-problem.html

I don't agree with the military coup approach. That just maintains the unified government with the all powerful center. It is the central, federal government that is the problem. Secesion is the only solution. I think the next step for the free range Americans is to start occupying federal buildings and territories. Use their numbers to do this peacefully. Would have been great if the 9/12 gathering in Wash DC had stormed the capital building and refused to leave until the federal budget was balanced.

Quoting mattcbrown: "core Americans."

I love when you throw out these expressions so flippantly. Tell me who these "core Americans" are? Do you mean anyone who is a citizen? Because, you know, you have to be a citizen to vote.

Anyone who believes in self reliance. working cooperatively with others to produce things. I think it is outrageous that so many in the US think it ok to impose mandates and restrictions on commercial transactions. Individuals have the right to purchase health insurance without the meddling of the government.

O.K. But "free range" brings flightless birds to mind.
Branding matters.

Quoting piscivorous: Notice that the first budget year under the freshly elected Democratic Congress (2008) the deficit takes a big jump. In there second budget year it takes a rocket ride. As it is from the legislative branch that all spending originates is it really President Bush's deficit or that of the Democratic Congress. Yes President Bush could have vetoed the spending bills so I guess one could hold him responsible for not stopping the irresponsible behavior of the legislators, so he is a least partially complicit, but it all starts in the legislature not the executive branch.

So what is to be done about it? Just complain, complain, complain? Democrats dont have the guts to balance the budget. The longer people stay under the authority of the federal government, the larger will be the debt they are saddled with when they finally do break away.

Quoting graz: O.K. But "free range" brings flightless birds to mind.
Branding matters.

You know, "free" and "out on the range". I like it. I like better the label "democrats" for them and "Americans" for the rest of us.

Quoting piscivorous: I find this graph interesting.

Notice that the first budget year under the freshly elected Democratic Congress (2008) the deficit takes a big jump. In there second budget year it takes a rocket ride. As it is from the legislative branch that all spending originates is it really President Bush's deficit or that of the Democratic Congress. Yes President Bush could have vetoed the spending bills so I guess one could hold him responsible for not stopping the irresponsible behavior of the legislators, so he is a least partially complicit, but it all starts in the legislature not the executive branch.

The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, not 2008. The worst fiscal decisions of the 2000s were the Bush tax cuts and the prescription drugs benefit, both of which were led by Bush and supported by Congressional Republicans. A deficit is revenue minus spending. Revenue dropped sharply in 2008 for obvious reasons. Referring to the growth of the projected deficit in 2008 as "all that spending" is like looking at an anorexic and saying 'too much exercise'. It may be that there is too much spending/exercise, but it isn't proven

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I divide democrat voters into two groups. One group, the policy democrats, have an overpowering desire to meddle in the affairs of others. [...] The policy democrats likely are aware that the government is killing the economy, but they are so compelled by the desire to meddle ( and be protected from free range people ), that they cannot rationally address the problems facing the country.

Well said, Steve. That reminded me of this memorable quote from Ride with the Devil:

But my point is merely that they rounded every pup up into that schoolhouse because they fancied that everyone should think and talk the same free-thinkin' way they do with no regard to station, custom, propriety. And that is why they will win. Because they believe everyone should live and think just like them. And we shall lose because we don't care one way or another how they live.

There is a difference between budget year and calendar year. The 2007 budget was passed by the Republican Congress in 2006, the Dems, elected in 2006, took over in 2007, and the first budget they passed was for what year? Could that be 2008. Nor does your argument address the fact that all spending originates in the legislature.

Quoting pampl: The Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, not 2008. The worst fiscal decisions of the 2000s were the Bush tax cuts and the prescription drugs benefit, both of which were led by Bush and supported by Congressional Republicans.

A deficit is revenue minus spending. Revenue dropped sharply in 2008 for obvious reasons. Referring to the growth of the projected deficit in 2008 as "all that spending" is like looking at an anorexic and saying 'too much exercise'. It may be that there is too much spending/exercise, but it isn't proven just by ignoring the blindingly obvious primary cause.

I am all for balancing the budget. Cut spending or raise taxes. Problem with raising taxes by $1+ trillion is two fold. It takes that much money out of the hands of investors and individuals who are saving to start a business. 2nd, it maintains and grows the unproductive segment of society. We have to slash payments for social security disability, early retirement, extended unemployment payments. Cut the pay and retirement benefits of government workers by 30%. End medicare and replace with health care clinics and hospitals for the poor, no matter the age.

Quoting piscivorous: There is a difference between budget year and calendar year. The 2007 budget was passed by the Republican Congress in 2006, the Dems, elected in 2006, took over in 2007, and the first budget they passed was for what year? Could that be 2008. Nor does your argument address the fact that all spending originates in the legislature.

and you are not acknowledging that republicans in congress today are putting forth no plans to cut spending. The games they recently played to rally the elderly against HCR by demanding that medicare not be affected by the health plan was wrong and very disappointing.

Interesting diavlog with Michelle and Matt. A good pairing - I find both enjoyable to watch. Since I don't listen to right wing radio or have cable tv I am missing out on the likes of Rush, Glenn, Sean, and the rest of them who seem to be considered by many to be leading the right wing conspiracy. As far as spending money sure President Obama is doing it but in many cases just following through on what the last one (Bush) started like with the banks and financial houses which have been extraordinary. I can see why he bailed out the auto companies since they are union employers and if he wouldn't of done that the states they are based in would be in a depression now. Yes, the Stimulus seemed to have been mostly a bust and the deficits are going through the roof and will remain there. I am not sure it would have been too much different if the republicans were running the show. So, I too am wondering why the tea parties have attracted so many followers and have gathered steam? I suppose if I followed things closer I would

All right. Enough. I've suffered in silence through Matt's cockamamie attempts to channel his own personal bugaboos, by portraying every last teabagger as highly informed about about fiscal policy, for three-quarters of an hour now. Shoutout to Michelle for trying to shovel away the manure as best she can, but this is starting to look like the Augean stables problem. Therefore, let us look at a one-minute clip that's just full of Wrong and address some comments to Matt. To begin: Reaching for one line in one column by Maureen Dowd as though this represents the entirety of the righteous anger over Joe Wilson's disgraceful behavior is the epitome of a desperate attempt of, as you put it, Matt, "looking for strands of evidence." Second, your glib statement, slightly paraphrased as, "I didn't see any signs about welfare or affirmative action at the one teabagger rally I went to, therefore racism doesn't exist" recalls nothing so much as David Brooks, the jogging sociologist. Please, aim higher when seeking a pundit to emulate. An argument from personal incredulity is a decidedly poor tactic, especially when employed by someone who works for an organization called Reason. Third, in contrast to

Michelle Goldberg is not a serious person.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: democrats are the majority in this country

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I like better [sic] the label "democrats" for them and "Americans" for the rest of us.

So a majority of Americans aren't American?!? You have a very warped perspective. I think this sort of mindset is what Michelle is referring to when she talks about people whose opposition to healthcare is rooted in a desire for a deeper paradigm shift as opposed to a direct resistance to fixing the healthcare system.

I would be glad to acknowledge the prolific spending under the Republican Congress, which in no way alters the fact that under the Democratic legislature the budget deficit, primarily due to spending, has blossomed like a flower in spring using time lapse photography.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Michelle Goldberg is not a serious person.

Yours is not a serious critique.

Quoting bjkeefe:
And finally, to your claim that "there hasn't been a Republican playing explicitly on white racial resentment who has been successful in a pretty long time," I can only say, oh, yeah?

What about the $400 million dollar man and de facto leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh? What about the couple dozen Republican members of Congress who are flat-out Birthers or (wink, wink) "understand Birther concerns?" How much money did Joe Wilson raise after his unseemly outburst? How do you think Steve King (e.g.) is filling his coffers these days? How much attention and support does Sarah Palin -- the chief race-baiter in the last election cycle -- still enjoy?

This is what democrats believe, and yet they will not give these terrible Americans a way to opt out of the federal system. What could the reason be? They need someone to do the work and fund the welfare state, perhaps?

Metaphorical muck... Yuck.

Quoting messwithtexas: So a majority of Americans aren't American?!?

You have a very warped perspective. I think this sort of mindset is what Michelle is referring to when she talks about people whose opposition to healthcare is rooted in a desire for a deeper paradigm shift as opposed to a direct resistance to fixing the healthcare system.

Democrats have to stop irritating and scaring people. They should stop meddling in everyone's affairs and give up the dream of controlling all aspects of the economy. If you want government run health care, you can have it if you would only allow people to opt out of both the receiving and paying for parts of the system.

Quoting bjkeefe: All right. Enough.

Okay, you did say "explicitly," and yes, Matt, the old codewords of the '80s and '90s aren't with us so much anymore -- largely because they've lost their power. But you are grievously wrong to think that there aren't plenty of new ones being used by the right, every damned day. A significant fraction of the remarks referring to Barack Obama's "connections" and his "otherness" are transparently racial in motivation and/or solely designed to prey on racist tendencies in the target audience. "Marxist" is the new "welfare queen," "ACORN" is the new "affirmative action," "radical" is the new "states' rights" and "Real American" is the new "white." To dispute that is to lose all credibility.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Spot on, Brendan. That said, I think Matt is a likeable and knowledgeable guy. But like many a libertarian he has trouble understanding the idiocy of the party he probably votes for.

Quoting Francoamerican: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Spot on, Brendan.

Thanks.

That said, I think Matt is a likeable and knowledgeable guy. But like many a libertarian he has trouble understanding the idiocy of the party he probably votes for.

Likable I won't dispute, partly because it's a matter of taste and partly because, evidently, there is something that keeps me giving him additional chances instead of just consigning him to the Day Off list populated by other woolly-headed diavloggers. Knowledgeable is harder for me to agree with. I get the sense that he's very well-informed about evidence that supports his ideology; I would not, for example, suppose that he'd be unable to back up claims about, say, budget numbers or drug laws. But he does seem to have some big blind spots about political realities and he seems very often to twist what little he does observe of partisan strife into narratives that align with his agenda. I'm not sure if this is because he's against both major parties or what, but his insistence, for example, that all of these teabaggers and townhall shouters are sober-minded deficit hawks, that there is nothing besides sincere grassroots concern

Hmmm. Even though I probably politically align better with Michelle, Matt came away from this one as the more reasonable of the pair.

Quoting bjkeefe: Yours is not a serious critique.

Like Michelle's statement that it is better when a woman makes more money than a men
Because women spend the money on their children not drinks and clothes.
And she did it with a straight face. Men love clothes shopping.

Quoting sirfith: Like Michelle's statement that it is better when a woman makes more money than a men
Because women spend the money on their children not drinks and clothes.
And she did it with a straight face. Men love clothes shopping.

She did not say "men love clothes shopping." To the rest, I'm pretty sure she could back up her statement with references if she bothered to drop in to this thread. I'm vaguely aware of studies that I think she's talking about -- which, by the way refer to developing nations, not the US -- and there does seem to be empirical evidence that mothers devote more of their income to their children, and fathers tend to spend more on their own pleasures. Here, let's just try a random Google of what she said. The third result and the sixth result returned look like pretty substantial starting points, wouldn't you say?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: This is what democrats believe, and yet they will not give these terrible Americans a way to opt out of the federal system.

We have offered to buy you a one-way plane ticket numerous times, Steve. You have declined our kindness. The truth is, what you really want is everything in this country to be done your way, with no uppity dark-skinned people sullying your view, isn't that right?

What could the reason be?

Um, I don't know. Call me crazy, but I'm going to guess that most Americans believe in our system and prefer to work within it, rather than pitching a tantrum when their side loses an election due to its leadership's failings.

They need someone to do the work and fund the welfare state, perhaps?

Yes. That is what we all do. It's called living in an advanced society, one whose social contracts you enjoy every day of your life.

Quoting bjkeefe: She did not say "men love clothes shopping."

That was my sarcastic take on Men spend their money on drinks, cigarettes, tea and new clothes for themselves etc,etc.
To be fair In context she may have been referring to behavior in the developing world and I just mistook it as the usual feminist man bashing.
As for

Michelle Goldberg is not a serious person.

It seems like she has a stream of consciousness filled with feminist progressive talking points going on in her head and she is trying to non sequitur them all into the conversation.

How many of the 43 American soldiers killed in battle since the Aug 30 died because there were not enough other soldiers with them to fight off the enemy? Aug 30 is the date that Gen McChrystal reported that he needed more troops. It is Obama who said during the campaign that Afg was so important. Then he replace the Gen in charge with McChyrstal. But Obama limits the resources available to the soldiers he sends into harms way. This is especially disgraceful because Obama and the libs around him would never themselves join the military.

Quoting sirfith: That was my sarcastic take on Men spend their money on drinks, cigarettes, tea and new clothes for themselves etc,etc.
To be fair In context she may have been referring to behavior in the developing world and I just mistook it as the usual feminist man bashing.

Okay.

As for

Michelle Goldberg is not a serious person.

It seems like she has a stream of consciousness filled with feminist progressive talking points going on in her head and she is trying to non sequitur them all into the conversation.

I do not share that impression. I would be inclined to think, from your first paragraph, for example, that you are so rabbit-eared about any mention of a feminist perspective that when you hear one, you lose some ability to concentrate on what else is being said. I'd say she stays on point at least as well as any other extemporaneous conversationalist. It could be that I happen to be more familiar than you with what she's interested in, and so I am less thrown by shorthand references, I suppose.

Quoting sirfith: It seems like she has a stream of consciousness filled with feminist progressive talking points going on in her head and she is trying to non sequitur them all into the conversation.

Shows with ditzy feminists have become very much part of bhtv brand. I think the series deserves its own title, not unlike Percontations, Science Saturday, The Week in Blog. My suggestion is: The Castration Panel (out of respect for Emily Bazelon and Hannah Rosin, of course).

Quoting bjkeefe: We have offered to buy you a one-way plane ticket numerous times, Steve. You have declined our kindness. The truth is, what you really want is everything in this country to be done your way, with no uppity dark-skinned people sullying your view, isn't that right?

All the democrats have to do is allow one state to drop out of the union. Then when the hard working people complain about the $trillion plus budget deficits the majority authorizes, give them that one way ticket to freedom.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: All the democrats have to do is allow one state to drop out of the union. Then when the hard working people complain about the $trillion plus budget deficits the majority authorizes, give them that one way ticket to freedom.

There are over 160 countries independent of US budgetary constraints. Go for it. But as for you weekend survivalists, glibertarian fantasists, and doughy white supremacists being handed a piece of my country just because you're stamping your feet: Sorry, no. You don't get to carve out a piece of US real estate just because you think whining like a three-year-old is sufficient justification.

My problem with Michelle Goldberg in a nutshell. I believe I was criticized for taking the position earlier that she lacks sufficient empathy.

Let's see, here's an example: Michelle Goldberg lets us know she wrote a book on right-wing hate groups and knows something about them. She reports that right-wing Republicans (whom, she suspects, are motivated by racism) were bringing guns to town-hall meetings last August to protest health-care reform. Matt points out this is a big country and there were only two isolated incidents. Michelle corrects him: there were five incidents. Matt recounts the only two he knows about. Michelle adds a third: what's his name, whose pistol fell out of his pants. Matt avers that would probably be Plaxico Burress, the black NFL football player who brought a pistol into a night-club last year tucked into the elastic waste-band of sweat-pants; it not only slipped down his pants but discharged into his own leg, creating a media sensation. Now maybe Michelle had another incident in mind, or two, or three. I don't know. But she let it go. I call that being unserious.

I'm always mystified by the libertarian argument that insurance companies would "compete" for customers. It makes me think that they don't really understand the principles of insurance in a math/economics sense. They are a little like communists in their unwavering faith in the hammer of their ideology for every nail of a problem.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Let's see, here's an example: Michelle Goldberg lets us know she wrote a book on right-wing hate groups and knows something about them. She reports that right-wing Republicans (whom, she suspects, are motivated by racism) were bringing guns to town-hall meetings last August to protest health-care reform. Matt points out this is a big country and there were only two isolated incidents. Michelle corrects him: there were five incidents. Matt recounts the only two he knows about. Michelle adds a third: what's his name, whose pistol fell out of his pants. Matt avers that would probably be Plaxico Burress, the black NFL football player who brought a pistol into a night-club last year tucked into the elastic waste-band of sweat-pants; it not only slipped down his pants but discharged into his own leg, creating a media sensation. Now maybe Michelle had another incident in mind, or two, or three. I don't know. But she let it go. I call that being unserious.

Actually, although Matt was wrong to think that Plaxico Burress is a teabagger because he also dropped a gun, it really did happen that some guy dropped his gun at a town hall meeting. If you call it

Quoting qingl78: I'm always mystified by the libertarian argument that insurance companies would "compete" for customers. It makes me think that they don't really understand the principles of insurance in a math/economics sense. They are a little like communists in their unwavering faith in the hammer of their ideology for every nail of a problem.

You are my new best friend.

"if you would like to equate Christian fundamentalists with right-wing hate groups, you can rest assured that I will do nothing to dissuade you" BJ, I can assure you that that is not remotely the case. I wish you would not engage in this kind of wholesale judgment of vast groups of people, about whom, I presume, you have little first-hand knowledge. I do not demonize liberals. Indeed, I am one. So are all my friends and family. Feminists, too, for that matter. But I do criticize them around the dinner table whenever I see prejudice and bigotry creeping in. The truth is liberals and conservatives need each other -- or maybe I should say that every healthy democracy needs both liberals and conservatives. I think we should all recognize that fact and try to be civil to each other. It is the partisan fiends, on both sides, we have to look out for. Cheers.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: "if you would like to equate Christian fundamentalists with right-wing hate groups, you can rest assured that I will do nothing to dissuade you"

BJ,

I can assure you that that is not remotely the case. [...]

You made the claim yourself, unprovoked, in attempting to put those words into Michelle's mouth. Go back and read your own post. As to the rest, about not demonizing vast swaths of people or whatever it was you imagine happened, I await your leading by example. And if you're going to post ridiculous comments criticizing a diavlogger who is far more substantive than I've ever read you being, I'm going to call you on that, too.

Quoting AemJeff: Before he does that, I'd need some hint of what he thinks those words, in that order, might signify. Meanwhile I'm going to try to refute this coffee cup.

Look guys, I don't know if Lyle's really in middle school or not. Maybe he had a really bad brain injury. Or maybe he has learning disabilities he doesn't want to talk about. I don't know. In any case I don't think it's very nice to pick on him like this. We have to assume he's doing the best he can. Lyle, buddy, you hang in there. The people on this board are actually pretty nice. When they point out your errors you should take it in stride. They're just trying to help! They get frustrated too sometimes.

Quoting Lyle: Empty assertions about people... hmm, nope you guys never make empty assertions about people.

I document claims I make about people to the point where I sometimes get complaints that I give excessive amounts of links (e.g., e.g.). If you have a problem with an assertion I've made because I haven't supported, link to it. Otherwise, this is, yep, just another one of your empty assertions that you can't back up.

You do, but you also make up stuff and make empty assertions about people. People here aren't stupid bjkeefe. We all know who you are and what you're about.

Quoting Lyle: You do, but you also make up stuff and make empty assertions about people. People here aren't stupid bjkeefe. We all know who you are and what you're about.

All right, it's clear you've got nothing. You'll be talking to yourself for awhile, probably at least until I see some links or other specifics.

Haha... how many times do we find you responding to yourself in thread after thread. I can't count the times on one hand... lets' put it that way.

Um, I think she was specifically referring to studies that showed that women were more likely to take their money and spend it on their children than men were. I guess you can say that's a feminist talking point, but she didn't say it because it's ideologically convenient, she said it because she actually read studies about it. Besides, I don't see how it is ideologically convenient for feminists -- I can actually see this being brought up in a nature vs. nurture type debate where the evo-psych devotee says "You feminists always like to say that femininity is a social construct, but look, women all over the world are more likely to take their money and use it to invest in their communities or their families, which shows that women are inherently nurturing!" It's more fun to attack Michelle Goldberg for being a woman who dares to talk about gender, though. Look, she's young, too, and has a cute haircut! What a ditzy feminist.

Quoting kezboard: It's more fun to attack Michelle Goldberg for being a woman who dares to talk about gender, though.

Anybody can talk about gender the way feminists do. There is nothing daring, let alone wise about it.

Quoting kezboard: Look, she's young, too, and has a cute haircut! What a ditzy feminist.

Just because she styles herself after Lulu doesn't mean she is not ditzy. But I don't necessarily disagree with you on a narrow point - microfinancing experts prefer to lend money to the woman of the house.

But I don't necessarily disagree with you on a narrow point - microfinancing experts prefer to lend money to the woman of the house.

And why do they do that? Because they've apparently read the same studies Michelle has. That's what she was saying. So I take it the only problem you have with her is that she's a feminist who says things.

Anybody can talk about gender the way feminists do. There is nothing daring, let alone wise about it.

I don't even know what you mean by "the way feminists do", but I'll give you this: not everyone can completely disregard the point an intelligent woman's making so they can make a pointless ad hominem attack, the way misogynists do. Congratulations.

First off: I really enjoy both Michelle and Matt Welch and would like to see more of both of them. But Michelle sort of has an issue that I think comes from writing too many books and not blogging enough -- she likes to throw up a bunch of apparently-unconnected points in the air and then go around connecting them. This works in a book, but not in an hour-long dialogue like this. For instance, I think that what she was trying to get at in the whole second half, when she was saying "Why would anyone disagree with the public option so strongly?" and "Why are people so angry about deficits?" is this simple question: Where did all the crazy come from? Why are all these folks running around saying "I want my country back" and tearing up at town halls and shouting at elected officials instead of just laying out the totally sane and understandable (even if I don't agree with them) points Matt did about private insurance at the end of the diavlog? Seriously, what's motivating that woman who started crying about Russia at Arlen Specter's town hall? Matt

Quoting Gravy: Maybe Bush fouled up, but Obama, at this point in his Presidency, does not represent much in the way of change.

Good post and analysis. None of our presidents is presented with a blank slate. And so it's always hard to tease out the parts that they are entirely responsible for. Besides that, there is that little thing called the Congress which has lots to do with a lot of things. I wonder what would have happened if McCain had refused to sign on to TARP and actively campaigned against it. It all seemed to urgent and inevitable at the time....and politically suicidal if you didn't get behind it.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I divide democrat voters into two groups. One group, the policy democrats, have an overpowering desire to meddle in the affairs of others. The other group, the handout democrats, want big government and high taxes in order to keep the money coming. The policy democrats likely are aware that the government is killing the economy, but they are so compelled by the desire to meddle ( and be protected from free range people ), that they cannot rationally address the problems facing the country. The handout democrats have been convinced by main stream society ( run by policy democrats ) that they are unable to be productive. They are resigned to continue the status quo.

I agree that liberals in general are a meddling bunch. I think the reason for this is their desire to change the world for the better and their belief that they know how to do it. Half of the country is questioning this and they are using the health care reform debate as the vehicle. Economics is not just some peripheral subject to be dealt with later. People want specifics. They want to know what all of this largesse is going to cost. Answer: a lot!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: and you are not acknowledging that republicans in congress today are putting forth no plans to cut spending. The games they recently played to rally the elderly against HCR by demanding that medicare not be affected by the health plan was wrong and very disappointing.

Yes, but it rallied the base, something republicans are getting very famous for, these days. one honest politician....that's all I want!

Can you stop calling Michelle a "girl" ? She's accomplished more than both of us, I dare say.

Quoting bkjazfan: So, I too am wondering why the tea parties have attracted so many followers and have gathered steam? I suppose if I followed things closer I would understand their motivation but I don't.

John

I've mentioned what I think is the reason/s several times, now, but I'll give it another try. I think the country is fairly divided right now between people who think the government has good ideas and can do things better than private enterprise (especially when it comes to administrating health care benefits). Then there are the others who balk at the notion that Washington does anything well, that it operates efficiently and that it can do any kind of accurate financial projectioning. There are people at those rallies who articulate this feeling by saying silly things like "I don't want America to be like Russia", but I think what everyone who is sympathetic with the teabagger movement can agree that they don't trust Washington or its motivations. This is a true clash of ideologies.

But he does seem to have some big blind spots about political realities and he seems very often to twist what little he does observe of partisan strife into narratives that align with his agenda. That would describe just about everybody. It's such a human trait and it's rare when someone can rise above it.

Quoting JoeK: Shows with ditzy feminists have become very much part of bhtv brand. I think the series deserves its own title, not unlike Percontations, Science Saturday, The Week in Blog. My suggestion is: The Castration Panel (out of respect for Emily Bazelon and Hannah Rosin, of course).

Good one! Who would sponsor it? Virginia Slims is out. Maybe Ginsu Knives?

Quoting Lyle: You do, but you also make up stuff and make empty assertions about people. People here aren't stupid bjkeefe. We all know who you are and what you're about.

I need to step in here and support the man who has the balls to take on the big bad wolf of BHTV. You go, boy!

No, she is a girl and she will always be one. I don't use the word as a matter of disrespect, it's just a way of speaking. No animus is intended. It is a figure of speech. If you, her, or anyone is offended... I don't care. If I knew her personally, I'd probably refer to her as Toots. If she comes down South, I'm going to call her Lady. I use to play the woman game while college as a genuflection to feminists and feminist theory. Now I don't care. There are a lot of other ways for women to figure out whether or not you respect them for who they are, and not just by playing some word game with girl, woman, or whatever. Who cares what she has accomplished by the way. What does that have anything to do with respecting people? Everyone deserves respect.

You handle him and them well too badhatharry.

BJ, maybe I misheard her, but I thought Ms. Goldberg indicated she could imagine no motive besides racism for the tea-party people opposing healthcare reform. If you say she didn't do that I will look it up. Myself, I am a big healthcare reform supporter if it has the public option. yours,

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: BJ, maybe I misheard her, but I thought Ms. Goldberg indicated she could imagine no motive besides racism for the tea-party people opposing healthcare reform. If you say she didn't do that I will look it up. Myself, I am a big healthcare reform supporter if it has the public option. yours,

I think you should give it another listen, if it's important to you. I can't remember her exact words, but the general sense I got is that she said something along the lines of "I simply cannot get my mind around the idea that anyone could rationally oppose HCR." (This is not a point of view I wholly endorse, just to be clear, although I'm think it probably applies 80-90% of the time (cf. first blockquote here).) I think she also said at another point in the diavlog that among the teabaggers have been a non-trivial number of opportunists looking for face time on stage, some of whom were there primarily to spout or display racist sentiments. She also, at still another point, pushed back against Matt's claims when he tried to make the case that racism was an insignificant factor among the most vehement opposition to Obama in

Quoting kezboard: [...]

Excellent commentary, kez. On a related note, did you see what PMP posted? I strongly encourage you to consider this.

Quoting badhatharry: But he does seem to have some big blind spots about political realities and he seems very often to twist what little he does observe of partisan strife into narratives that align with his agenda.

That would describe just about everybody. It's such a human trait and it's rare when someone can rise above it.

Which I did acknowledge in the line immediately following the line you quoted:

Quoting bjkeefe: Which, of course, does not make him unique. But it does call for some reminding when he's given the microphone.

Which you might have noticed had you not been so busy cheerleading.

Quoting Lyle: No, she is a girl and she will always be one.

[...]

Everyone deserves respect.

Juxtaposition of the thread.

Quoting bjkeefe: Which I did acknowledge in the line immediately following the line you quoted:

Which you might have noticed had you not been so busy cheerleading.

Oh boy! a little substance! Probably designed to lure me into taking you seriously and then pummeling me afterwards. Too little, too late.

Quoting badhatharry: Oh boy! a little substance! Probably designed to lure me into taking you seriously and then pummeling me afterwards. Too little, too late.

You're making the mistake of thinking I care about your opinion of me.

Recognizing someone's sex is disrespect in fact? Haha.

Quoting Winspur: Thank you, Michelle, for your insights. Continue to tell it like it is!

Glad you found someone with your same level of depth and view.
For myself I sympathized with Matt trying to crack through her caricatures.

Listen starting 38:30 in, for the next minute and 45 seconds.

Michelle Goldberg has such a deep-seated disdain for like your average American, and just refuses to impute anything less than the worst racialized and like violent motives to any idea in the world. She did this in the gun debate with McArdle also. What I want to know is where were all of these crybabies when everyone would constantly cariacture Bush and his accent as backwards and monkey?

Quoting piscivorous: There is a difference between budget year and calendar year. The 2007 budget was passed by the Republican Congress in 2006, the Dems, elected in 2006, took over in 2007, and the first budget they passed was for what year? Could that be 2008. Nor does your argument address the fact that all spending originates in the legislature.

As I specifically addressed that fact twice, you should probably get someone to read the following aloud to you: There are specific proposals that originate with the President that result in spending. The budget itself, in fact, originates with the President and results in all federal spending. Regardless, conflating spending with the deficit is an obvious and embarrassing error that discredits your broader point and so should be avoided.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Listen starting 38:30 in, for the next minute and 45 seconds.

Okay, thanks. Here is a dingalink to that. (Really only about the first 1:15 is relevant -- the rest is that "let's talk about guns at town halls when neither of us has command of the facts" moment of agony.) Here is what you said earlier, that I objected to:

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: BJ, maybe I misheard her, but I thought Ms. Goldberg indicated she could imagine no motive besides racism for the tea-party people opposing healthcare reform. If you say she didn't do that I will look it up. Myself, I am a big healthcare reform supporter if it has the public option. yours,

Here are some phrases that caught my ear in the clip dingalinked above (emph. added):

"I see some of those fears ..."

"For example ..."

"... part of this anxiety ..."

" ... subtexts ..."

Also, she's talking at one point more generally about opposition to Obama than just opposition to HCR, evidently alluding to something she'd said earlier. Thus, as I hear it, she is saying SOME of the (kneejerk) opposition to health care reform has SOME basis in racist tendencies in SOME people. She is not saying there is "no motive besides racism" for this opposition, even the kneejerk kind. As it happens, I think there's probably

Quoting pilotkaul3000: Michelle Goldberg has such a deep-seated disdain for like your average American ...

I am a citizen of the United States, and I consider myself slightly above average in some regards and slightly below average in others, so on average, an average American (like my average American?), and I do not feel as though Michelle has disdain for me. [Added] Oh, wait. Is "average American" the new "Real American?" Because Sarah Palin already explained to me how I, along with about 97% of my fellow citizens, do not meet the criteria for Real Americanness, so maybe I'm not so average after all and that's why Michelle doesn't disdain me, because she has a fondness for freaks? What were you saying again?

Good enough, let's shake on it.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Good enough, let's shake on it.

(*shake*)

I can't help but agree with Matt's analogy between Clinton and Bush wars. Michelle's dismissal of the comparison relies on her assertion that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was a response to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. However, as you can easily confirm, refugees did not start pouring out of Kosovo until AFTER the bombing began. Indeed Gen. Clark was not surprised that the bombing precipitated the cleansing-- he claimed that it was an expected result of NATO action. Investigation of actual crimes perpetrated by Milosevic in the months and years preceding the bombing will show that he was a very small time thug compared to Hussein (most of whose crimes we did not object to at the time, it is true...). Not that I was in favor of the Bush wars... I spent a lot of time actively opposing them. I just think that supporters of Clinton's wars have a lot to answer for. I also have to take issue with Michelle's assertion that "liberals" gave Bush a pass for the first few years of the Iraq war. The demonstrations against the war in the first months of 2003 dwarf many mass movements

I think Michelle does feminism a disservice when her gut reaction to the Polinski issue is to sympathize for the guilty to the point where a person could logically imply she wants to give him a free pass. How does she know he's not the same person he was many years ago? I doubt she'd have the same sympathy if it had been Willam F Buckley or Irving Kristol.

Quoting Lyle: I don't use the word as a matter of disrespect, it's just a way of speaking. No animus is intended.

I can respect that point of view. but, sometimes its worth using the words other people like just to grease the wheels of society and discourse. you know the little social niceties and white lies that make living with others possible. I have a tough time making the call for "girl", because "boy" has such obvious overtones of denigration - so i can see a woman not liking it.

Quoting Lyle: Who cares what she has accomplished by the way. What does that have anything to do with respecting people?

great sentiment! I have confused and annoyed many by the fact that janitors and CEOs often get just about the same level of respect from me (i generally try to treat everyone with quite a lot of respect - at least until i get to know them)

Quoting Lyle: Everyone deserves respect.

well, i do think some people go out of their way to lose respect - so maybe everybody i don't know anything about deserves respect or the benefit of the doubt anyway, but others have put