My guess is that republicans should work on bringing orientals, asians, eastern europeans and even arabs into the party. Where the divide is people who favor affirmative action and government handouts are democrats, and those who want to make it on their own identify with republicans. For certain, change the face of the party to a multicultural one.

The federal budget is out of control in regard to spending. Even with the economy improving, I don't see how the deficit is brought under $1 trillion per year. Granted, I can't explain why inflation has not yet kicked in. But neither, I assume, can democrats explain how you can run such large deficits w/o doing great damage to the economy and/or triggering inflation. If the economy collapses by next year, the fiscal right candidates win the congressional elections in a landslide. Everything Steve and Mark have to say here will be dwarfed in impact if the government runs out of money.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: My guess is that republicans should work on bringing orientals, asians, eastern europeans and even arabs into the party. Where the divide is people who favor affirmative action and government handouts are democrats, and those who want to make it on their own identify with republicans.

For certain, change the face of the party to a multicultural one.

Yeah, but then you lose the racist vote!

Mainstream Republicans are not calling Obama a Marxist to smear him. They are doing so because there is abundant evidence that he is in fact a Marxist. Those who wish to deny it will continue to deny it no matter how much evidence is presented. A minimal amount of research with search engines will yield credible evidence. Unless of course, you don't WANT to find it.

Given that we just added a little more than 1,870,000,000,000 of debt this year I can't see it getting much better very soon either. There has been some rather server manipulation of the economy through both fiscal and monetary policy that has so far managed to avoid an inflationary period. But the chickens come home to roost at night and sooner or latter you have to unwind the manipulations that have been made. It seems we are destined to suffer the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" As far as the economy and the election in 2010 goes I think unemployment will be the driving force. If you, one or more of your family members, or a couple of your friends are out of work you will likly be vetoing for some kind of change. Weather there is hope associated with that is debatable. 2012 might be the election where the excessive borrowing and debt as the chicken may be coming home for the night by then.

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, but then you lose the racist vote!

Yeah. After they have worked so hard and so effectively for 43 years to get it! A lot of people think Republicans are incompetent, but they have been very successful in capturing the considerable Hate Vote, whether hate of blacks, or gays, or Muslims, or Mexicans, or women, or science, or the unemployed, or unions, or Europe, or more than half of Americans, or poor people, or non-Christians. And that's just scratching the surface!

Quoting Andi S: Mainstream Republicans are not calling Obama a Marxist to smear him. They are doing so because there is abundant evidence that he is in fact a Marxist. Those who wish to deny it will continue to deny it no matter how much evidence is presented. A minimal amount of research with search engines will yield credible evidence. Unless of course, you don't WANT to find it.

Marxist? Does Obama subscribe to the labor theory of value? Does he relate social conditions to underlying economic factors? What does he think about primitive accumulation? What? If we're free to redefine words then I'm pretty sure you're a goat blower. Look, you can even google Andi S blows goats.

(But I'm against redefining words like that.)

Quoting claymisher: Marxist? Does Obama subscribe to the labor theory of value? Does he relate social conditions to underlying economic factors? What does he think about primitive accumulation? What?

If we're free to redefine words then I'm pretty sure you're a goat blower. Look, you can even google Andi S blows goats.

ok, so he is a fascist then. Obama wants big industry and big government to work in a mutually benefical way to further the achievement of the nation.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ok, so he is a fascist then. Obama wants big industry and big government to work in a mutually benefical way to further the achievement of the nation.

Quit throwing words you don't know around.

Quoting Iuvo: Quit throwing words you don't know around.

Try to better write grammatically. What is the difference between Obama and a 1930s Fascist?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Try to better write grammatically. What is the difference between Obama and a 1930s Fascist?

I dunno. I'd say a lack of pogroms.

The process has just begun. first it's FOX next will be SNL.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Try to better write grammatically. What is the difference between Obama and a 1930s Fascist?

Obama doesn't wear flag pins.

Quoting Ray: Obama doesn't wear flag pins.

Actually, he ALWAYS wears the pin, since about mid 2008 or so.

"Orientals"? "Asians"? In what century were you spawned? This is one of those times I'm just disgusted with "Americans"! And, it's not a matter of "capturing" - such militaristic terminology betrays your mindset - but listening to local activists and citizens working in their own communities for reform.

Listening to Teles' analogy about the 19th Century, I was taken aback. I think he tries to hard to squeeze a diamond out of the sh@t. I also think the Jacksonians of today are the Republicans, and that, indeed, there's no better model executive for Republicans. Teles seems to want a replay of 1824, when a principled New Englander, John Quincy Adams, an intellectual force and true statesman with an excellent pedigree and CV, destroyed his reputation and his administration with a scandalous "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay. This scandal fueled Jackson's supporters, an intra-party and local insurgency backed by anti-Bank money, and actually stoked Jackson to take a personal interest in running for office. For the GOP, there's no lack of love for a God-fearing general with local roots. An Adams character would only compel the rightwing fringe to mount an insurgency today, as Tennessee business and property interests backed Jackson.

Car Czar Rattner defends the Obama administration against charges of "creeping socialism": http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/busin.../gm_10-21.html

Barack Obama is no John Q. Adams, in my opinion... but the Jacksonian, Republican comparison is not bad. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

I don't believe Obama is Adams. The Adams dynasty was quite amazing, but the likes of Adams and his sons and grandsons will never recur - and thankfully. But, I think Teles has a future Adams-like pol in mind, when the GOP gets itself back in shape.

I haven't watched this one yet, but when I visited the video page, the first "link mentioned" caused me to make a few comments which seemed, at the moment I started typing at least, better suited for another thread. Who knows. Anyway, there they are.

One problem here: he's marrying this idea of being anti-corruption with the notion that the GOP should be pro-spending when it comes to things like infrastructure. The historical parallel he draws, however, to Jackson vs. Adams shows that it was JQA and his corrupt cronies who were busy investing in infrastructure--roads, principally, also education (he wanted a national university). Jackson's campaign against the 'corrupt bargain' was also tied to a rejection of expansive federal prerogative (including prerogative over national infrastructure).

I agree that there is no moral or legal argument that favors Polanski. Polanski can and should throw himself at the mercy of the court as a horrifically traumatized survivor of two Holocausts: a) the Nazi one and b) the Manson one. Diminished capacity. He is no longer a danger to society so a) make him allocute to the crime, acknowledging it was a heinous rape of a child; b) give him community service and c) require him to get court-supervised counseling. I'd favor no jail time, although i suspect jail time would have a salutory effect on Polanski. Most liberal intellectuals who set foot in a US prison come out so appalled by the horrors that they become livelong advocates for prisoners rights and prison reform. As Polanski anticipated when he fled, prison would be his worst nightmare. He's right; it's everone's most nightmare.

Quoting Andi S: Mainstream Republicans are not calling Obama a Marxist to smear him. They are doing so because there is abundant evidence that he is in fact a Marxist... A minimal amount of research with search engines will yield credible evidence. Unless of course, you don't WANT to find it.

A minimal amount of research would surely lead one to John Rawls rather than Karl Marx, and conclude that Obama, domestically, wants to tackle social and economic inequality whilst restoring and strengthening political liberties. In short he's a modern liberal: SO CALM DOWN.

Quoting claymisher: Actually, he ALWAYS wears the pin, since about mid 2008 or so.

My God! He is a fascist!!!

Right, but remember that there was really one national quasi-party, the Democratic-Republicans with regional variants in the early '20s. Adams' conservative republicanism was too much for the Tennessee cohort around Jackson. That was the beginning of the Democracy, a real modern party. Teles, and others like Frum, Salam, and Douthat, are just too cerebral in their designs to keep the new Jacksonians in line. The hotheads are going to launch an insurgency that will take the party and the brains can't do anything about it.

Diminished capacity. He is no longer a danger to society so a) make him allocute to the crime, acknowledging it was a heinous rape of a child; b) give him community service and c) require him to get court-supervised counseling.

Proportionality is key. I agree confinement in a penitentiary is cruel and usual punishment. House arrest with electronic surveillance is one option, but does he have an American residence? His punishment should somehow make others aware of the odiousness of abuse of power, of women, and of children. Maybe he can use his talents for organizations desperate for an unlimited budget and the means to use media effectively. BTW, isn't there a precedent with Powers Boothe? I'm becoming a bit queasy about comparing Polanski as artist with Polanski the man. How talented does a man have to be for others to forgive his transgressions? I just don't like to consider this. The two aspects of Polanski are distinct. He's just one man before the law, but a great artist among his peers. Those who only consider the latter I consider fundamentally illiberal and at odds with anything I consider western.

Quoting Toryentalist: A minimal amount of research would surely lead one to John Rawls rather than Karl Marx, and conclude that Obama, domestically, wants to tackle social and economic inequality whilst restoring and strengthening political liberties. In short he's a modern liberal: SO CALM DOWN.

As a no doubt cultured British conservative you are assuming that American conservatives are sane, rational people. Some are, but for the most part American conservatism is the haven of crackpots.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Try to better write grammatically. What is the difference between Obama and a 1930s Fascist?

I've been thinking about how anybody could be so stupid to actually say something like that. Hitler was bad because of the genocide and the warmaking. He's not remembered for being a vegetarian or whatever. But you see this Obama = Hitler shit all the time. I think what's going on is some kind of total product of outrage equation. For example: I'm very strongly against Obama * Obama's actions = I'm against Hitler * Hitler's actions It's not that Obama is literally as bad as Hitler, it's that people are trying to say they hate Obama really, really, really a lot.

...I'd favor no jail time, although i suspect jail time would have a salutory effect on Polanski... I would for amongst these reasons: 1. He raped, after drugging, a minor; 2. He is a fugitive from justice; 3. One policy rationale for criminal sentencing is punishment; another is exemplum. I'd be surprised if he didn't get sent up the river. I'd say a year or four--and I can meet you in the middle--in the hoosegow, the iron bar hotel if you will, with the usual time off for x and y, would vindicate these reasons. Itzik Basman

Quoting claymisher: I've been thinking about how anybody could be so stupid to actually say something like that. Hitler was bad because of the genocide and the warmaking. He's not remembered for being a vegetarian or whatever. But you see this Obama = Hitler shit all the time. I think what's going on is some kind of total product of outrage equation. For example:

I'm very strongly against Obama * Obama's actions = I'm against Hitler * Hitler's actions

It's not that Obama is literally as bad as Hitler, it's that people are trying to say they hate Obama really, really, really a lot.

I'm increasingly certain that the only thing Steve is really trying to say is "HEY, OVER HERE!"

Quoting piscivorous: Given that we just added a little more than 1,870,000,000,000 of debt this year I can't see it getting much better very soon either. There has been some rather server manipulation of the economy through both fiscal and monetary policy that has so far managed to avoid an inflationary period. But the chickens come home to roost at night and sooner or latter you have to unwind the manipulations that have been made. It seems we are destined to suffer the old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times"

As far as the economy and the election in 2010 goes I think unemployment will be the driving force. If you, one or more of your family members, or a couple of your friends are out of work you will likly be vetoing for some kind of change. Weather there is hope associated with that is debatable. 2012 might be the election where the excessive borrowing and debt as the chicken may be coming home for the night by then.

I agree with your 2010 calculation. I think unemployment will be high and that will cause Democrats to lose

Quoting claymisher: I've been thinking about how anybody could be so stupid to actually say something like that. Hitler was bad because of the genocide and the warmaking. He's not remembered for being a vegetarian or whatever. But you see this Obama = Hitler shit all the time. I think what's going on is some kind of total product of outrage equation. For example:

I'm very strongly against Obama * Obama's actions = I'm against Hitler * Hitler's actions

It's not that Obama is literally as bad as Hitler, it's that people are trying to say they hate Obama really, really, really a lot.

actually I had Mussolini in mind as the model fascist. Admittedly I am not up on my scholarship of 1930s European forms of government. My reference point is the Jonah Goldberg book that asserted many simularities between fascist ideology and American liberalism. Obama believes in the partnership of big business and big government. I think such an alliance lessens individual liberty.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: My reference point is the Jonah Goldberg book ...

Good first step.

Quoting bjkeefe: I haven't watched this one yet ...

... but now that I have, I can say that it was every bit as good as I expected it to be. I don't have comments about specific aspects other than the ones I made on Steven's article, so let me just say that it was a real pleasure to listen to this diavlog.

I'm becoming a bit queasy about comparing Polanski as artist with Polanski the man. How talented does a man have to be for others to forgive his transgressions? I just don't like to consider this. The two aspects of Polanski are distinct. He's just one man before the law, but a great artist among his peers. Those who only consider the latter I consider fundamentally illiberal and at odds with anything I consider western.

Yep, as both speakers agreed, defenders of Polanski on "aesthete" grounds are really flushing their credibility down the toilet. The notion that everyone is equal before the law is absolutely basic to our judicial systems. Polanski's friends would have been far wiser to defend him on compassionate grounds (which, I'm sure his lawyers will do at sentencing) than on special privilege grounds, by trying to trivialize the offense or by claiming the Evil Puritan Hypocrites were out to get him.

more kleiman please! And I love this pairing as well. I love BHTV!

does democrats like kleiman have short memories? what about the eight years of demonization bush derangement syndrome by democrats?

Quoting johnmarzan: does democrats like kleiman have short memories? what about the eight years of demonization bush derangement syndrome by democrats?

Really? You think Bush was unfairly demonized by deranged Democrats? I think you might be the one having a problem with recollection.

Polanski's friends would have been far wiser to defend him on compassionate grounds (which, I'm sure his lawyers will do at sentencing) than on special privilege grounds, by trying to trivialize the offense or by claiming the Evil Puritan Hypocrites were out to get him.

I could just about buy the argument, that too much time has elapsed, or that Polanski is now too old. But, he's a fugitive. He has to be punished, to discourage a behavior that would undermine any conception of justice. And, letting him off lightly will also undermine not only the anti-kiddie porn argument, but the argument that rape is just violence, not sex. Those "libertines" ridiculing repressed Americans have to answer why violence and abuse is permissible in sex, but not when taxpayers and consumers consider the value of their art.

Mark reveals a shocking ignorance of the factions which make up the Republican Party, for somebody who supposedly spends as much time thinking about it as he does. He says there are two factions: 1) Social (religious) conservatives, and 2) "Rich guys." First of all, there are three major factions in the Republican Party, not two. Secondly, "rich guys" are not one of them. Taking on my second point first: Have a quick scan of the Forbes list of the richest people in America. Apart from the Koches and (some of) the Waltons, the list is mostly made up of Democrats. Getting back to my first point, here are the THREE groups of republicans which once made up what people called the "Reagan Coalition" 1. Social conservatives. This is exactly why the abortion "debate" keeps coming up, even though it's pretty much settled law at this point. It's also why politicians like Bush The Younger engage in fag-bashing policies like calling for a constitutional amendment to uphold DOMA. 2. Fiscal conservatives. These are not "rich people", but people who are keenly aware that they never received a paycheck signed by a poor person. You don't have to be rich to see that

Quoting AemJeff: Really? You think Bush was unfairly demonized by deranged Democrats? I think you might be the one having a problem with recollection.

Indeed. You'll never get specific examples out of anyone making this claim about Democrats. Or if you do, some random blog comment or moment by, say, Code Pink, will be held up as though it equates to the endless stream of invective coming from the most prominent conservative pundits and senior members of the GOP.

Quoting bjkeefe: Indeed. You'll never get specific examples out of anyone making this claim about Democrats. Or if you do, some random blog comment or moment by, say, Code Pink, will be held up as though it equates to the endless stream of invective coming from the most prominent conservative pundits and senior members of the GOP.

It's always easier to repeat a slur than it is to back one up.

Where do neo-cons fit though? What about Ross Douthat and David Frum? What about guys like Daniel Larison? It's even more complicated than 3 groups I think. For the sake of conversation though I can see anybody just talking about 2 or 3 groups. You've got to generalize everyone at some point in just about any kind of conversation.

I agree that at least some fiscal conservatives are not happy with the Republicans. However, on a personal note my father, an ole' fashioned pencil & eraser accountant not an economist, who was a strict fiscal conservative lost all interest in politics once Reagan started running up massive deficits. I'm sure there were other reasons for losing his political passion but spending money you don't have was one of them. John

Indeed. You'll never get specific examples out of anyone making this claim about Democrats. Or if you do, some random blog comment or moment by, say, Code Pink, will be held up as though it equates to the endless stream of invective coming from the most prominent conservative pundits and senior members of the GOP.

The place to look is the fake news dynamos, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and podcasts, like The Young Turks or The Best of the Left, et al, which excel at digging up individual pol's flip=flops and C-Span performances. Fox now excels at both amnesia and uncontrolled spin, but these practices have roots during past administrations, GOP and Democratic.