January 30, 2016

"But what too many people forget is that on a Venn diagram, PC and good manners do overlap to a limited extent."

"Yes, huge swaths of political correctness amount to cultural-Marxist codswallop and other forms of leftist bullying. But some of it — just some — does have to do with figuring out how to show people respect. And that is exactly what good manners are all about: showing respect. And as someone who sincerely believes William F. Buckley was the most well-mannered man I’ve ever met, I’d hate to see conservatives defenestrate good manners in their indulgence of populist hysteria."

Jonah Goldberg, of the famously Trump-hating National Review, says that right after denouncing Trump's "I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct. Instead I will only call her a lightweight reporter!" Goldberg insults Trump —  "almost Caligulan narcissism" — and uses the word "idiots" to refer to anybody who thinks Trump refrained from calling Kelly a bimbo.

Meanwhile, here's a video on political correctness that Trump put up 2 days ago. It's amusingly short because we. don't. have. time:



ADDED: For reference, here's William F. Buckley's "now, listen, you queer" outburst:



IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin said: "Bimbo is correct. She dresses up for TV and does a soap opera serious newsbabe act for the women in the audience."

It's a good question: If the woman dolls up like mad, with extremely heavy makeup — and Kelly came to the debate in absurdly thick fake eyelashes — if she uses that to advance her career, are we supposed to maintain respectful silence, because respect must be paid to women?

Last March, I had a post about someone (Mark Belling) calling female reporters "bimbos" and getting criticized for it. My response at the time was:
When I hear "bimbo," I think of "bimbo eruptions," a term coined by Governor Bill Clinton's chief of staff Betsey Ross Wright:
As deputy chair of the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, Wright established the rapid response system that was responsible for defending Clinton's record in Arkansas and promptly answering all personal attacks on the candidate. During the 1992 campaign, Wright coined the term "bimbo eruptions" to describe rumors alleging extramarital affairs by Clinton. 
And that makes me want to stop and think about whether Trump was playing at the genius level when he floated the term "bimbo" in the Kelly context. Not only did he have his (somewhat ludicrous) out — that he said he wouldn't call Kelly a bimbo — but he also meant to get people talking about the word bimbo — what does it mean? how bad is it? when can it be used? — because he anticipated — several moves ahead in this chess game — that people would arrive at the most notable use of "bimbo" in American politics, "bimbo eruptions," and it's Hillary Clinton who will get hurt the most.

163 comments:

Patrick said...

Jonah Goldberg is very overrated. I expect National Review to slip beneath the waves sometime soon.

rehajm said...

It's cute how people like Goldberg are clinging to the notion they will find the right combination of verbiage that will usher in the outcome they desire. You think you're some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that?

Pete said...

Goldberg and his like can only wail about Trump's conservative impurity and insult him and his followers. No other candidate is talking about the issues that Trump's talking about and give no indication that if they're elected it wouldn't be the same old thing. It's time Goldberg and the other candidates make a better pitch to voters than Trump has done.

Hagar said...

If Kelly does not like to be called a bimbo, she should take it a little easier on the make-up and glam accessories.

Rae said...

Political Correctness is a brainwashing method to limit thinking to the approved topics. You sometimes need an intervention to break out of that conditioning.

Fabi said...

Good manners asks both sides to avoid topics that may be uncomfortable during pleasant conversation. Political correctness banishes one side of the spectrum from the marketplace of ideas. Big difference.

robinintn said...

I like Jonah Goldberg. He usually has good common sense, optimism, and humor, but Trump has sent him off the rails completely. I wonder if the NR people just reinforce one another until they're incapable of detecting the huge flaws in their rhetoric.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

Bimbo is correct. She dresses up for TV and does a soap opera serious newsbabe act for the women in the audience.

tim in vermont said...

I have never watched Kelly's show, so maybe I am judging her harshly, but it seems like her whole career has been about monetizing her looks. I enjoy female pulchritude, perhaps to an unhealthy degree, hey, I used to watch the golf channel just for Holly Sonders, but I don't get why anybody would care about her opinion.

rhhardin said...

Derbyshire, I think it was recently, mentions bad blood between Megyn Kelly and Trump.

rhhardin said...

Asking Trump how he thinks calling women names will affect his popularity with women is a bimbo move.

She's daring him to say who the hell cares what women think.

"See, you have to do the same act I do" is her message.

Trump just rejected it.

Tank said...

@Tim

You should watch her show. She has certainly utilized her looks, but look around at all of the "newswomen" on TV and tell me she is alone in that. She is good at what she does, presenting an entertainment/news/opinion show, which is sometimes very good. She has lots of spots that are very supportive of conservative causes, and quite a few (particularly when they involve "women") which don't.

Before you form an opinion of her, why not watch her show every day for two weeks?

Note: I'm not supporting her role in the attempted Fax takedown of Trump.

Hagar said...

The "bad blood" is between Trump and Murdoch. Kelly is just caught in the crossfire. And she knows from street fighting as well those two do.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Had I the I.Q. missing, I would combine the Protein Wisdom understanding of intent along with the current notions of "signaling" both of virtue and vice in order to reach a more full understanding of what people refer to as politically correct, or not.

In short and inaccurately (but hopefully leading to that special awareness whereby the inaccuracies are reduced) using the woefully misguided model of Heisenberg's Uncertainly Theory consisting of partially-recalled locutions by Freddy Reidenschneider from the great Coen's The Man Who Wasn't There: by looking at it, you change it.

Previous to the now well-defined concepts of status or psychology, folks would watch other folks and make judgments. Over time, the act of watching folks became a system, wherein the smartest would consider a "30,000'" perspective of the macro situation including the passage of time's seen and unseen harbingers. After a long period with suspicious thoughts consistently pointing to undefinable patterns of still questionable existence, effects have become predictable regardless of intention, negating humanity as needed no longer for mass power.

One of Reagan's daughters said the only time she heard her dad swear he was in the kitchen looking for something he ended up not finding, and he didn't know she was behind him, and she heard him say "damn."

Guildofcannonballs said...

Micro-aggression is en vogue because pet-peeve confuses people who are married to their pet.

Anglelyne said...

But some of it...does have to do with figuring out how to show people respect.

If the referent for "it" here was not PC, but what Goldberg so graciously and respectfully dismisses as "populist hysteria", he'd be somewhere within the vicinity of an insight.

Self-insight is not the forte of NR types, however.

(Buckley sounds so gay saying "listen, you queer".)

tim in vermont said...

Before you form an opinion of her, why not watch her show every day for two weeks?

I have this commenting thing at Althouse that takes up all of my time. Seriously though, I don't watch Fox or any new channel anymore. I DVR the local news in case I want to watch the weather or something, and that's it. All of my news, every morsel, comes from the web. I used to watch Fox every night, I used to listen to Rush every day. I used to plan my lunch hour around Rush. Now I might listen to Rush if I happen to be in my car alone at 12:07 on a weekday, but usually not.

Gusty Winds said...

Jonah Goldberg is an arrogant idiot if he thinks people don't see Trump did mean to call her a Bimbo and is throwing darts. Quit talking down us Jonah. He still can't see that he is part of the reason for Trump's appeal.

Fox News now has its own agenda driven Katie Couric and viewers are pissed.

If you look at he Maxim pose where she's leaning left, one cheek off the cushion, it looks like she's farting.

Gusty Winds said...

Good Manners and Political Correctness are false equivalence. Just like taxes and charity.

Goldberg is showing his desperation here. His mom gave him a cush life, and Trump is shaking up everything he's ever known.

sean said...

I'm not with Goldberg. Prof. Althouse's colleagues are calling for "muscle" to suppress reporters,* her political allies are using the power of the state to shut down Christian bakers and photographers, it's no time for good manners.

*Let us compare the number of professors who signed a petition supporting Melissa Click with the number who signed a petition supporting due process for Harvard students.

JPS said...

I'm not the fan of Buckley that I used to be, but posting that exchange with Vidal is misleading. It's a good counterexample, but it's one of the very few, perhaps the only, such examples you'll find in decades of public exchanges, some of them with staunch opponents. His friendships with many such opponents were numerous and deep.

Nowadays a lefty calling a conservative a Nazi is ho-hum stuff. But it's still disgusting, it was disgusting then, so I'll give Buckley a pass for a thoroughly provoked lapse that he regretted very much.

Gusty Winds said...

The best was with all those video montages of Cruz and Rubio flip flopping on immigration used during the debate. Trump had Megyn Kelly doing his work for him. She killed the night for those two and made Bush look good. Did Trump just play her like a.....?

Curious George said...

She went on air with a short skirt and no panties and reenacted Basic Instinct. Does that make her a bimbo?

Chuck said...

Being against political correctness is not exactly a policy or a platform. And I think it is true that even to the extent that some of us or most of us actually like a bit of political incorrectness, that is not really what Donald Trump features.

Trump isn't so primarily "anti-p.c." as he is just plain insulting. And he does it with such numbing regularity, that it is almost pointless. If you criticize Trump, you immediately become "lousy" at your job (journalist, columnist, commentator, program host), and your news outlet becomes "failing." It happens every single time.

Althouse, your Buckley/Gore video misses the beginning of that argument, in which Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist." I suspect that many of your readers will know that; I am pointing it out to those who weren't aware.

And as for "what would Buckley say?" about Donald Trump in 2012, we at least do know what Buckley wrote about Trump (a potential "Reform Party" candidate) in 2000:

When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America. But whatever the depths of self-enchantment, the demagogue has to say something. So what does Trump say? That he is a successful businessman and that that is what America needs in the Oval Office. There is some plausibility in this, though not much. The greatest deeds of American Presidents — midwifing the new republic; freeing the slaves; harnessing the energies and vision needed to win the Cold War — had little to do with a bottom line.

Titus said...

Megyn Kelly is my new girl crush. She is hot. I want to do her. She is fab.

tits.

traditionalguy said...

Respect means you must never talk about Religion or Politics in a social group.

It always comes down to a group refusal of bad ideas by refusal of any speakers of those ideas.

Other helpful social rules: Thou shalt track down the heretics. Betray the heretics. Imprison the heretics. And Burn the heretics.



Bay Area Guy said...

I love Buckley, and have loved NR for many years. But the "Against Trump" issue was a mistake and shows an intellectual defect on the Right.

Trump is running. He is a master of the media. His tweets get full CNN, Foxnews and MSNBC coverage. He has $400-500 million to spend to become the President. And, a large segment of the electorate is angry at both parties, and have migrated towards him.

Trump will not lose the primary, unless some, specific GOP candidate beats him.

NR's failure to endorse that person (Christie, Cruz or Rubio) was a significant error, because it allows the so-called "anti-Trump vote" to continue to be splintered among several candidates.

Also, it's cop-out. Since all the candidates have flaws, to pick one, means NR would have to defend his flaws. For example, I'm voting for Rubio in the primary. I think his Gang of 8 ploy on immigration was bad, I wish he hadn't done it, I want him to be stronger on stopping illegal immigration. However, on the whole I think he has the best shot at winning Fla & Ohio, and the best shot at beating Hillary in the General. So I have to take my lumps from Conservative friends. However, if Trump wins the primary, I'll gladly vote for him in the general.

NR should have endorsed a candidate not an "anti-Trump" position. They lost sight of the objective - which is to win.

AReasonableMan said...

Goldberg was dead to me several years ago when he wrote that we should be glad that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas. His argument was that manufacturing is hard work and everyone really aspires to do something better, cleaner, easier. He is apparently unaware of the changes in manufacturing in recent decades, but mainly he is just classist shit.

AReasonableMan said...

Bay Area Guy said...
NR should have endorsed a candidate not an "anti-Trump" position. They lost sight of the objective - which is to win.


Is that really their goal, or is their goal primarily to retain their 'influence', which can be orthogonal to winning.

Fernandinande said...

My favorite/pet-peeve PC phrase is "failing schools"; can't find an instance where Trump actually said it (google ["trump" "failing schools"]), but this is pretty close:

‘Competition’
“Competition is why I’m very much in favor of school choice. Let schools compete for kids. I guarantee that if you forced schools to get better or close because parents didn’t want to enroll their kids there, they would get better. Those schools that weren’t good enough to attract students would close, and that’s a good thing.”

But "weren’t cheap enough to attract parents" would make more sense. The US spends lavishly on education, to no effect.

Michael K said...

Goldberg's book was excellent but his manner in his columns is too cute. He wants to be a humorist but the only one who has pulled that off in politics is Limbaugh.

The best discussion of the effect of Trump on the conservative DC "Establishment" is by Tucker Carlson in, of all places, Politico !

On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there’s never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he’s a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.
I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I’m not even convinced he really wants the job. He’s smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.


That's good but this is even better.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.
Pretty embarrassing. And yet they’re not embarrassed.


It's the best explanation of Trump I've seen on the right.


F said...

Too much coverage (free coverage at that) of Trump on all forms of media. I don't need to hear his name at all for the next 8 months.

Paul said...

"NR should have endorsed a candidate not an "anti-Trump" position. They lost sight of the objective - which is to win.'

Everyone suffering from TDS has long since lost any objectivity. Look at the commenters here that are so embroiled with sputtering hatred that they cannot help from compulsively repeating the same shit over and over again, as if saying something 300 times instead of two hundred and ninety nine times it will make a difference. They remind me of the Bush haters on the left last decade. If you were to show the brain activity between the right wing TDS sufferers and the left wing BDS sufferers I submit there would not be one iota of difference between them. It's simply pathological and a huge turnoff for sane people.

MPH said...

I'm not digging this althouse performance art.

chickelit said...

IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin said: "Bimbo is correct. She dresses up for TV and does a soap opera serious newsbabe act for the women in the audience."

I'm pretty sure there's a garage mahal comment somewhere back in the archives referring to Kelly as such in some disparagement of "FauxNews."

So we've come full circle in opinion, but still agree to disagree for the sake of not getting along.

chickelit said...

AReasonableMan said...Goldberg was dead to me several years ago when he wrote that we should be glad that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas. His argument was that manufacturing is hard work and everyone really aspires to do something better, cleaner, easier. He is apparently unaware of the changes in manufacturing in recent decades, but mainly he is just classist shit.

In other words, Goldberg would disparage Mike Rowe's arguments and efforts.

Chuck said...

Michael K:

I could not possibly be in more disagreement with Tucker Carlson.

First, Tucker ought to know that the spending on Movement Conservative thinktanks is balanced by the spending of the Open Society, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, etc. There had better be that resource, or else conservatism is going to get run over.

Second, the National Review pretty much saved conservatism. Conservatism might have been consigned to the John Birch Society without a literate, urbane, humorous and good-natured voice like Bill Buckley.

Third, for all of the yapping by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and the rest, those guys haven't won [m]any elections, and they haven't had [m]any big policy victories.

Fourth, for forty years, Movement Conservatism has been the heart and soul and brains of the upstart conservative outlets like the Fox News Channel. Bill O'Reilly doesn't stand for much of anything at all; the best parts of Fox are the people like Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, Bill Kristol (before departing), Karl Rove and Bernard Goldberg, all of whom are firmly in the "National Review" camp on Trump.

People are free to choose in the Republican primary, of course. They can choose a conservative, or they can choose Trump.

bbkingfish said...

That thar is some deep thinking.

Laslo Spatula said...

To best evaluate the Bimbo Question in relation to Megyn Kelly I suggest that all one has to do is watch her with the sound off. To not let words confuse the signaling. Of course.

With the sound off, the signal comes through clearly: Men, she wants you to think about her sucking your cock. She wants you to think only about her lips around your cock as she gazes up at you soulfully. Her lips, Lips Lips Lips Lips.

Lest this be considered sexist, you get the same soundless result with Anderson Cooper.

I am Laslo.

Paul said...

"Third, for all of the yapping by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and the rest, those guys haven't won [m]any elections, and they haven't had [m]any big policy victories.'

And you gave us John McCain, Mitt Romney and eight years of Barack Hussein Obama. So you will get Trump whether you like it or not.

Annie said...

The best was with all those video montages of Cruz and Rubio flip flopping on immigration used during the debate. Trump had Megyn Kelly doing his work for him.

About that, after the debate, and after interviewing Cruz, Kelly went on air and admitted she had looked in depth at Cruz's record and it does support the fact that he never supported legalization or amnesty and has been telling the truth, that his amendments were a poison pill.

She knew all along what the truth was, but set it up that he was a flip flopper and dishonest, trying to cast doubt in the minds of those watching. So yes, doing Trump's own dishonest work for him. (saying dishonest because he's still beating the birther drum)

Phil 3:14 said...

I like Jonah Goldberg, I don't like Donald Trump. I'm not particularly fond of Megan Kelly. I guess I've been pegged.

You all can move on to the next comment.

Terry said...

The GOP has had smashing electoral successes without the Trump bombast. One of the overlooked stories of the Obama years is routing of democrats from state and federal electoral offices.
Ironically, the Democrats dominate in the least democratic of government and non-government institutions: the state and federal bureaucracies, the presidency, the media, and academia.There is a strong whiff of fascism around the dems. They seem to think that the wishes of the American people are best represented by the state, and not by the actual wishes of the actual American people.
AG Lynch:

When I asked Lynch in late December…how she could possibly manage all of her priorities in such a short time, she was characteristically measured: “These issues are not administration-specific. They themselves don’t have a deadline or a timetable,” she said. “My goal is to position the department where it will carry on in all of these issues long after myself and my team have moved on.”

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/loretta-lynch-isnt-giving-in-to-fear.html
The JD has its agenda, now? Who the Hell does Lynch think she is?

Bay Area Guy said...

I'm curious to see how many Right of Center folks here at the Althouse Commentariat would not vote for Trump in the General, if he were to win the nomination.

Likewise, how many Trump supporters will stay home, if someone other than The Donald wins the nomination?

Hillary Clnton wants those numbers to be pretty, pretty high.

My personal opinion is that, after 8 years of Leftist Democrat control and all its attendant destruction, it is imperative to deny power to another Democrat, even if we elect a somewhat, ahem, "unorthodox" Republican or even a squishy type.

SGT Ted said...

When people criticize "PC", they aren't talking about basic manners. They are talking about the avoidance of reality that is often dangerous. They are also tired of the foul manners of PC proponents going unremarkable or being excused.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mattman26 said...

Okay, first: Jonah is awesome, and says many things that need saying.

And on the "Is Megyn a bimbo" question: If all she had going for here were her good looks, then maybe you'd have an argument. But she's bright, capable, does her homework. She did a great job pushing back on these guys who would be president as needed, and was a credit to her profession.

Is she not supposed to do hair and makeup because . . . why, exactly? (The eyelashes were, I admit, a bit much, but they didn't bother me a bit.)

They can't all be Andrea Mitchell.

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
In other words, Goldberg would disparage Mike Rowe's arguments and efforts.


It is hard to see him sitting through an episode of 'Dirty Jobs'. But, my main complaint with his attitude is that manufacturing is very skilled and difficult work, which he simply cannot see. Good craftsmanship is one of the highest human skills, but this is rarely recognized in our country. The Germans have the right attitude to manufacturing, they revere it, and this is why they dominate the high skill sections of the industry.

Original Mike said...

"They can't all be Andrea Mitchell."

Ouch.

Phil 3:14 said...

"I'm curious to see how many Right of Center folks here at the Althouse Commentariat would not vote for Trump in the General, if he were to win the nomination."

I'll bite.

I would NEVER vote for Trump.

Phil 3:14 said...

However...

AReasonableMan said...

Phil 3:14 said...

I would NEVER vote for Trump.


OK, I'll bite. Why not?

chickelit said...

MPH said...I'm not digging this althouse performance art.

1/30/16, 9:23 AM


Great! Then put down the shovel, please.

Original Mike said...

John Kasich thinks it's "awesome" that he received the endorsement of the New York Times.

rhhardin said...

I give her a bimbo for the topics. It's for women. All the newsbabes do it.

Here's who tells you what's important in the world and where your true concerns should lie, every day.

Bob Ellison said...

I don't think I could vote for Trump. It seems like a Nixon 1968 replay. You know he's wrong, so how can you vote for him?

Especially after seven years of our current narcissist-in-chief.

mccullough said...

Bimbo is a good term. It's old fashioned but not as old fashioned as hussy but it's old fashioned enough that it's kind of a charming insult. He didn't call her a whore or slut, which mean pretty much the same as bimbo or hussy.

Anglelyne said...

Chuck: First, Tucker ought to know that the spending on Movement Conservative thinktanks is balanced by the spending of the Open Society, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, etc. There had better be that resource, or else conservatism is going to get run over.

Conservatism has already been run over and left dead by the side of the road. But it's funny to see a "conservative" evade a point by conflating "level of funding" with "accomplishing things".

The liberal foundation/think-tank/academic industrial complex is a vast, inter-locking, well-oiled, highly effective machine that has succeeded in getting its tentacles so deeply into the body politic that it pretty much sucks up taxpayer monies at will - about which "conservatives" make the occasional, impotent complaint.

"Movement conservatism" is effective only to the extent that some its organs (Cato, Heritage) help promote globalist/neoliberal preferences that the lefties are mostly on board with, anyway. Otherwise it's a bunch of salaried ineffectual blowhards with a website.

Second, the National Review pretty much saved conservatism.

The NR made the world safe for the NeoConNeoLib operators who'd squatted on the property that was once American conservatism.

Conservatism might have been consigned to the John Birch Society without a literate, urbane, humorous and good-natured voice like Bill Buckley.

...and instead consigned itself to standing athwart history shouting "wait a couple of years and we'll be agreeing with everything you libs are saying now, and in a couple more years after that we'll be on board with whatever lunacy you're cooking up now".

Third, for all of the yapping by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and the rest, those guys haven't won [m]any elections, and they haven't had [m]any big policy victories.

So you're even, then. All yap no cattle.

Fourth, for forty years, Movement Conservatism has been the heart and soul and brains of the upstart conservative outlets like the Fox News Channel. Bill O'Reilly doesn't stand for much of anything at all; the best parts of Fox are the people like Charles Krauthammer, Steve Hayes, Bill Kristol (before departing), Karl Rove and Bernard Goldberg...

"Fox is a conservative outlet". Good one, Chuck. That cast of always-wrong-but-not-that-it-ever-shuts-em-up open-borders interventionists - even better.

Speaking of lack of self-insight, you have no idea what a shill you come across as, do you?

Terry said...

If you are a conservative, the best reason not to vote for Trump is that Trump is not a conservative. He is a populist.

grimson said...

I agree with JPS about the Buckley clip. It is a gross misrepresentation of the man. It may be one of the few such outbursts by Buckley, but unlike Trump's pride in his insults, Buckley was not proud of his. (I base this mostly on the recent documentary, "Best of Enemies." Vidal was trying to make Buckley explode, and he succeeded.)

To put Buckley's outburst in context, you would need to watch his 1500 episodes of "Firing Line" where he routinely engaged with those with whom he disagreed.

Trump's video is short because he is not saying anything. Why does being PC take time? And not having time to wait, isn't that what Obama is always saying?

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse, your Buckley/Gore video misses the beginning of that argument, in which Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-fascist." I suspect that many of your readers will know that; I am pointing it out to those who weren't aware."

Just pull the slider back. I set it to start where I wanted to "quote." It's all there. Pulling the slider back is like clicking on a link in a post that has quoted words. Of course, there's a context, and access to the context is right at hand. I'm just focusing on the part that I'm talking about. But, of course, something pissed Buckley off. It's kind of irrelevant, since one only becomes harsh — and not "the most well-mannered man" — when something has pissed you off. What difference does it make what pissed him off? If the assertion by Goldberg had been that Buckley never resorted to insults except when it was well deserved, the context would matter.

buwaya puti said...

ARM is right, re Rowe and Goldberg.
Chuck is wrong, to a degree. I have been following politics and ideology for about 40 years, including reading NR religiously for thirty years (dropped it a decade ago).
The "movement conservatives" have done poorly with respect to the interests of the rank and file, and have failed even in intellectual circles. Looking back on events it does seem that much of the intellectual sound and fury was futile, including Buckley's career. There is less of a conservative voice in academic circles than ever, especially in those areas that feed into public policy. Being right has been useless.
The most effective bits of the right have always been the most proletarian.
I am reminded of the famous confrontation in Salamanca between Millan Astray and Unamuno. Both were in fact intellectuals, Unamuno a great philosopher. Both rightists committed to a traditional vision and bitter opposition to the leftists. In the middle of a war of survival, Unamuno loudly complained about Millan Astrays rhetoric, designed (and he was an expert here, he created the memes of indoctrination of the Army of Africa) at inspiring the troops. It seemed like pernicious nonsense to Unamuno, and he said so loudly. That's the problem with the NR crowd. They know why, but not how.

Original Mike said...

"If you are a conservative, the best reason not to vote for Trump is that Trump is not a conservative. He is a populist."

Wait, what? Next you're going to tell us that ARM isn't a conservative.

Fernandinande said...

When I hear "bimbo," I think of "bimbo eruptions,"

I (almost) never hear "bimbo", but when I read it I think of bread.

Terry said...

One reason I keep finding myself defending Trump(though I will never vote for him), is that liberals attack Trump as a conservative, when he is not a conservative. Check any of Dana Milbank's columns on Trump for examples.

wendybar said...

I'd rather look at Megyn than Rachel Maddow. That being said..
The "Trumpsters" are vile in the comment sections of most blogs. Remind me of the Obama lovers....If you disagree with them...the namecalling gets out of hand...Might as well call everyone racist.

mccullough said...

The conservative think tanks couldn't stop W from expanding the shit out of the government so they were useless. Homeland Security, NCLB, Medicar Part D, TARP. And National Review and the Weekly Standard were cheerleaders for the Iraq War and other ridiculous

chickelit said...

Terry wrote: If you are a conservative, the best reason not to vote for Trump is that Trump is not a conservative. He is a populist.

There's no real presidential precedent, is there?

I'm now going back, reading about the last time a populist got so far before any voting began: Huey Long (along with Limbaugh as Coughlin). But Huey Long faced down an incumbent who looked weak after his first term. That's not us today. And Huey Long ended badly.

People like the Perot analogy better because it involved a Clinton, but let's face it, Trump is beyond Ross Perot by now.

wendybar said...

Oh, and I would vote for Trump, if he gets the nomination...because I do not want Hillary, Bernie, or Biden/Warren to continue the downfall of America that Obama started. I just do not like the "cult-like" worship of another narcissistic candidate.

Boxty said...

Terry: The Republicans controlled Congress for a couple of years under Bush but the establishment pissed it away. They gained it back in 2010 due to TEA party insurgency despite the establishment's lousy job. Now they are pissing it away again.

chickelit said...

@Mccullough: You should always finish thoughts.

Laslo Spatula said...

"My God! You look just like Megyn Kelly!"

"That's because I AM Megyn Kelly."

"Wow! When I called the Escort Service I asked for a classy-looking blonde, but I never would have expected YOU to show up at my hotel room!"

"Am I not a classy-looking blonde?"

"Oh, you are classy, all right! The classiest! But you already have a real job, as a respected Journalist. I never imagined that you could also be a.. a..."

"A classy-looking blonde escort whore?"

"Yeah!"

"Being a journalist feeds my intellectual needs, but there is a part of me that just wants to be wanted solely for my looks and my finely-honed sexual abilities."

"I watch your show all the time, and I HAVE wondered about your sexual abilities. You seem very limber."

"That's very kind. It's hard, being a good-looking female broadcaster. Everyone thinks you are just a Bimbo."

"Yeah..."

"Look, I get it: Fox News may pay me so that THEY can make money on my looks, but when I moonlight as a Whore, I am Free, Free to make my OWN money on my looks, on my OWN terms. I am no longer a News Bimbo, I am an Empowered Entrepreneur. Plus, I just like to suck cock."

"That's sure some smart talk, there."

"Speaking of terms, I start at Five-Hundred for a half-hour, so we might want to get started."

"Do I have to wear a condom?"

"Well, I'm okay without it, but I DO have serious Herpes."

"Wow! To say you got your Herpes from Megyn Kelly! That would be GREAT!"

"Yeah... So tell me what you would like, Dirty Boy."

"Ummm... do you do anal?"

"So you want a 'Bill O'Reilly'?"

"Huh?"

"Bill O'Reilly. He's a big anal freak. Everyone at Fox knows that. Dildos, cucumbers: all of it. In fact, most of the men at Fox are anal freaks."

"Even Shepard Smith?"

"No, not him. He's a 'Golden Showers' guy. And, no, I don't do that: but I hear Greta does..."

I am Laslo.

chickelit said...

They gained it back in 2010 due to TEA party insurgency despite the establishment's lousy job. Now they are pissing it away again.

Bingo. It looks just like everyone's worst fears: the conspiratorilists are right: somebody is pulling the strings of Congress.

Gusty Winds said...

Wow. Trump is really forcing unbelievable changes quickly and bringing people together.

In this thread I actually think A Reasonable Man is being quite reasonable.

Paul said...

"I'd rather look at Megyn than Rachel Maddow. That being said..
The "Trumpsters" are vile in the comment sections of most blogs. Remind me of the Obama lovers....If you disagree with them...the namecalling gets out of hand...Might as well call everyone racist."

Here it's the opposite. It's the Trump haters that are most vehement and caustic. In general that's what I find as well.

I will vote for whoever wins the republican nomination. Those who will never vote for Trump thus doing their part to put another democrat in office and yet call themselves conservatives are worse than democrats and beneath contempt.

DKWalser said...

Bimbo means an attractive but unintelligent person. On this score, Trump is only half right. Kelly is very intelligent and is one of the best interviewers on television. She doesn't toss softballs to anyone -- left or right. So, Trump was also wrong when he called her lightweight.

But, that's just Trump. He insults anyone who disagrees with him. In 2011, he was going to moderate a debate in Iowa and several of the leading candidates decided not to participate. Kelly interviewed Trump about it and he said Romney and the others lacked the courage to show up. (The debate was scheduled at the last minute and the candidates choose to honor their prior commitments.) at the end of the interview, Trump said Kelly was very professional and competent and said Kelly would do a better job moderating the debate than he would. Typical Trump: insult those who don't do what you want and suck up to those who do.

Trump is popular because Republicans are tired of politicians who are punching bags. They crave someone who will land a few blows. In Trump they've someone who'll punch back and doesn't care if his punches land above or below the belt. Trump's willingness to fight is what makes him popular. Too bad he's more committed to throwing punches than he is to conservative principles. My only solace is that he'd be a better president than Clinton or Sanders.

Terry said...

"Those who will never vote for Trump thus doing their part to put another democrat in office and yet call themselves conservatives are worse than democrats and beneath contempt."
No. I will vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. Between Hillary and Trump (or even Sanders and Trump) there is no conservative in the race to vote for.
If Trump is elected, and he announces that he's changed his mind, and illegal immigration and free trade are A-okay with him, what are you gonna say? That he violated his principles?

rcocean said...

Those who will never vote for Trump thus doing their part to put another democrat in office and yet call themselves conservatives are worse than democrats and beneath contempt."

Agree completely. They're just showing what they really are - Liberal Democrats.

Paul said...

"If Trump is elected, and he announces that he's changed his mind, and illegal immigration and free trade are A-okay with him, what are you gonna say? That he violated his principles?"

I'll say I gambled and lost vs. simply capitulating to defeat with Hillary and Bernie.

And if he does stick to his positions, gets immigration under control, helps improve the economy, jobs, etc. what will you do? You'll still rationalize your vote for Hillary no doubt.

Michael K said...

Tucker ought to know that the spending on Movement Conservative thinktanks is balanced by the spending of the Open Society, the Ford Foundation, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, etc. There had better be that resource, or else conservatism is going to get run over.


Carlson's point was that all that spending accomplished almost nothing. It didn't have to get "run over." Hastert and his allies did that with no help.

I had high hopes in 1994. I was so enthusiastic that I drove down to DC and talked to a number of people about going to work for free for a healthcare committee in the House on drawing up a GOP substitute for Hillarycare. I had just finished, at Dartmouth, a Masters in health care policy after 30 years in practice before I retired.

The New Hampshire Senator's office was helpful in getting me in to see people. I was offering to work for nothing. I didn't need money. I was just wanting to help with this new GOP "Revolution."

I was told over and over "No thanks." The House Ways and Means would use exclusively tax lawyers to draft any health legislation. They didn't want providers. That, of course, was Hillary's mistake but the GOP was no smarter.

I went home to California and taught medical students.

I see where Trump came from even though I don't like him.

I do agree that NR gave an intellectual base for conservatism for years but they have not accomplished anything else. All talk.

Paul said...

"Agree completely. They're just showing what they really are - Liberal Democrats."

I don't think they're liberal democrats so much as petulant children.

rcocean said...

Goldberg is a surrender monkey. He's so hung up on being a "reasonable" conservative, he spends more time attacking and tone policing the Right then attacking the Left.
That's why NR fired Coulter, Derbyshire, and exiled Buchanan and Steyn.

Goldberg is your classic moderate Republican, not a conservative. He would've supported Ford in 1976, and Bush in 1980. Reagan would've been too 'populist'.

Original Mike said...

" They're just showing what they really are - Liberal Democrats."

I really did just LOL.

rcocean said...

"I don't think they're liberal democrats so much as petulant children."

Yeah, in 2008 and 2012 all the Conservatives were supported to vote for McCain or Romney otherwise they were "Traitors". Now in 2016, its suddenly different. Looks like the Trumphobes only believe in party loyalty when it suits them.

rcocean said...

And why was Kelly so dolled up for? She had more warpaint on then Geronimo.

Terry said...

" You'll still rationalize your vote for Hillary no doubt."
Never said I'd vote for Hillary.
Why not vote Libertarian? They are closer to conservative than Trump is, and they have principles (too many, probably).

AReasonableMan said...

Terry said...
If you are a conservative, the best reason not to vote for Trump is that Trump is not a conservative. He is a populist.


This is a categorical argument, and, as usual, it only works if everyone agrees on the definitions of the categories. There is no way that Bush Jr, based on his actions, could be reasonably considered conservative, but, as noted above by mccullough, the talking heads on the right supported him fully, one ridiculous step after another. Now, these same people do not support Trump because he is not their definition of conservative. Their definition of conservative apparently does not include maintaining the basic character of the US population.

Michael K said...

"Reagan would've been too 'populist'."

Yup. Exactly which is why he made the mistake of making Bush VP instead of someone like Kemp.

Paul said...

"Why not vote Libertarian? They are closer to conservative than Trump is, and they have principles (too many, probably)."

Because you are throwing your vote away, taking one more vote out of the R column thus helping the Ds. Do I really have to explain this to you?

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

ARM, I think Bush wanted to be conservative but he got pushed into big government by 9/11. Cheney should have been his conservative conscience but he was also too alarmed by the attack.

National Security trumped (pardon me) conservatism. The Democrats then demanded a pound of flesh for cooperating which meant the DHS became a new union entitlement.

We can see how well that worked every time we go to an airport.

Anglelyne said...

buwaya puti: I am reminded of the famous confrontation in Salamanca between Millan Astray and Unamuno. Both were in fact intellectuals, Unamuno a great philosopher. Both rightists committed to a traditional vision and bitter opposition to the leftists. In the middle of a war of survival...

OT, but this is an example of why buwaya is one of my favorite posters here. Possessed of a very wide range of reference, lightly carried, from which he is always plucking the interesting and apt anecdote. Always learn something from a b.p. comment.

Terry said...

"Because you are throwing your vote away, taking one more vote out of the R column thus helping the Ds. Do I really have to explain this to you?"
Not after two semesters of political science, Paul.
Being patronizing isn't helping your cause.
You want to vote for a conservative. You also want to vote for Trump. Those are contrary goals.

Paul said...

My problem with Megyn Kelley is the same for all self absorbed agenda driven journalists. Plus she is a feminist, and feminism is the single most pervasive and thus destructive branch of the Cultural Marxist movement.

Anglelyne said...

Gusty Winds: In this thread I actually think A Reasonable Man is being quite reasonable.

Keeps on our toes that way sometimes, our ARM does.

Terry said...

ARM-
W ran for governor of Texas as a Republican, won, and governed as a conservative, and, well, that's about a thousand times more conservative credentials than Trump has. I'm not a purist. but Trump has no record as a conservative other than recent jaw boning.

Paul said...

"Being patronizing isn't helping your cause.
You want to vote for a conservative. You also want to vote for Trump. Those are contrary goals."

I have no cause, I merely answered your question logically. I want to vote for whoever will help the country the most, or harm it the least if that be the case. I'm no ideologue and certainly won't help the left due to any ideological purity. I hold those who would in contempt.

Terry said...

Conservatism in the US is a three-legged stool. The legs are social conservatives, patriots, and businessmen. Of the three legs I have the least use for the last, the businessmen, because all they care about is money. They'd sell the country down the river to make a dollar.
The patriots don't like illegal immigrants. The social conservatives (many of them) accept illegal immigrants for humanitarian reasons. The businessmen accept illegal immigrants because they can make a buck off of them.

Terry said...

"I want to vote for whoever will help the country the most, or harm it the least if that be the case."
You said that voting libertarian would be throwing my vote away.
Libertarians, at least, have a history of supporting property rights, opposing big government, opposing government unions, and opposing tax increases. Trump has no record on any of these typical conservative issues -- other than recent jaw boning.

William said...

Some fine nuances on political correctness: if you criticize Caitlyn Jenner for wearing too much make-up, you're being trans phobic....I would bet that Hillary Clinton buys pancake make-up in bulk, possibly by the ton, but if you criticized her use thereof, you would be an ageist. Besides, Hillary doesn't wear heavy, false eyelashes. Pancake make up is ok, but deep thinkers don't wear false eyelashes. Everyone knows this......,,,.So far as bimbos go, Bill Cosby's rape victims are far more stereotypically "bimbos" than are the victims of Bill Clinton's bimbo eruptions. However, no sane person could ever call Cosby's victims bimbos in an open forum and hope to survive with their career intact.........Gore Vidal had the knack of getting under people's skins. Norman Mailer physically assaulted him. Mailer's assault was not considered gay bashing, but Buckley's insult was. It's not the nature of the insult, but the politics of the person who dealt the insult that is truly demonstrative of character.

Paul said...

"You said that voting libertarian would be throwing my vote away.
Libertarians, at least, have a history of supporting property rights, opposing big government, opposing government unions, and opposing tax increases. Trump has no record on any of these typical conservative issues -- other than recent jaw boning."

All you're poli-sci edjumication not withstanding you are rather obtuse. Libertarians don't win elections which is the point for most of us. In your case it's to virtue signal your conservative bona-fides apparently.

Pettifogger said...

I recently saw an engrossing film about the Buckley-Vidal debates. Buckley rued for the rest of his life the exchange where he lost his temper.

rcocean said...

"Their definition of conservative apparently does not include maintaining the basic character of the US population."

Precisely. Murdoch is an open borders fanatic and FOX news tries to avoid talking about Amnesty and Illegal immigration as much as they can. Coulter has a great column on this.

Goldberg and NR are the same. In fact, I'd bet the REAL reason Goldberg/Lowry hate Trump so much is that he's focusing attention on illegal immigration. Of course, NR is "officially" against Amnesty, but they never take the lead on the issue and never write about it, unless they have to. You get the feeling Goldberg/Lowry want to be out of the closet "Open borders" fanatics like the WSJ ed-op page but they can't because they readership would be outraged.

Quaestor said...

And as someone who sincerely believes William F. Buckley was the most well-mannered man I’ve ever met, I’d hate to see conservatives defenestrate good manners in their indulgence of populist hysteria.

What appallingly maladroit sentences these are. Buckley certain wouldn't have written them or allowed them in his magazine, except perhaps as satire by way of a direct quotation from some Trotskyite Sarah Lawrence pot-thrower. National Review isn't what it used to be, that's for danged sure.

However, let's put aside the less than persuasive rhetoric and consider the meat of Goldberg's argument, what there is of it, which I take to be PC isn't that bad. In case anyone has forgotten PC stands for "politically correct" or "political correctness". Either way there is no conception more poisonous to a democracy, more abhorrent to the spirit of our Constitution, than the notion that some ideas must be expunged from the academic conversation (and by extension the national conversation) on the grounds of respect. Goldberg's argument is spurious for several reasons not least of which is this supposed overlap with good manners. Bilge. PC has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with protecting orthodoxies. But even if did, even if there was some undefined intersection of circles, it is still no sound argument for trending lightly lest damage to mannerliness ensues. The fact that the NSDAP contained Oskar Schindler is not an argument for the preservation of Nazism. By the same token the vanishingly small coincidence of mannerly speech and "politically correct speech" is not evidence of a baby submerged in PC's befouled bathwater.

rcocean said...

Vidal called Buckley a "Nazi" - WFB responded by calling him a "Goddamn Queer".

Seems like both men were ill-mannered.

rcocean said...

BTW, Buckley supported Joe McCarthy, opposed the 1964 Civil rights bill, Supported Reagan's 1976 run against Ford, and opposed the 1965 Immigration act.

He read the JBS out of the conservative movement because they opposed the Vietnam war.

He was the exact opposite of Goldberg. He took risky anti-establishment stands.

Terry said...


rcocean wrote:
"Precisely. Murdoch is an open borders fanatic and FOX news tries to avoid talking about Amnesty and Illegal immigration as much as they can."
Yes, and most libs -- who never actually watch Fox, but read about it on Lefty websites --never get how open borders Fox is. Fox also includes far more opposition voices than MSNBC.
"Of course, NR is "officially" against Amnesty, but they never take the lead on the issue and never write about it, unless they have to"
They give Mark Krikorian a platform.

boycat said...

Trump's own dishonest work for him. (saying dishonest because he's still beating the birther drum)...

"Birther drum?" The sad fact is, Cruz WAS born in Canada. I say 'sad' because I otherwise like Cruz. But it nevertheless remains a fact. And, yes, for Cruz it is an inconvenient fact. But it remains a fact, and it's not something Trump made up. No, it was handed to him by Cruz, who never got out in front of it. And it's not going away just because Cruz supporters want to wish it away. Compared with Obama, Cruz's case is even weaker. Obama at least makes a showing that he was born on US soil. Compared with McCain, Cruz is weaker. McCain was born on a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a father on active duty and stationed there. And McCain got out in front of the issue with a Senate Resolution saying he was a citizen. Cruz's case is much more like the case of Mitt Romney's father, George, a controversey which was never resolved one way or another before his viability as a candidate disintegrated for other unrelated reasons.

Terry said...

"In your case it's to virtue signal your conservative bona-fides apparently."
Now you sound jealous, Paul.
I don't have a problem with people who vote for Trump -- only for people who vote for Trump because he's conservative, because Trump is not a conservative.
Trump has made a living out of promising people one thing, and delivering a different thing.
It's your vote, you can cast it for whomever you please. It is yours to waste, if you choose.

Michael K said...

"if you criticize Caitlyn Jenner for wearing too much make-up, you're being trans phobic.."

I understand Jenner has offered to donate his testicles to Obama.

What a great thought !

Original Mike said...

"I understand Jenner has offered to donate his testicles to Obama."

Obama wouldn't know what to do with them.

n.n said...

PC (Progressive Corruption) is a quasi-religion that discriminates against individuals, politically unfavored orientations, and [wholly innocent] human babies. It is a minority rule draped in democratic action.

Quaestor said...

What appallingly maladroit sentences these are.

Okay, one sentence -- sorta.

Paul said...

"Now you sound jealous, Paul."

Of what? Narrow minded ideological purity? That is to laugh.

I never said I would vote for Trump because he's conservative and I doubt anyone else here who supports him feels differently. That's your straw man problem.

There's a technical term for someone who castigates another for throwing their vote away while suggesting voting for a libertarian candidate.

The term is fool.

Paul said...

"Obama wouldn't know what to do with them."

Sure he would. Put them in the jar where Michelle keeps his other pair.

Terry said...

"Narrow minded ideological purity?"
I'd vote for Huckabee or the Libertarian candidate before I would vote for Trump.
I would vote for Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, or Carson, Hell, I'd even vote for Kasich before I'd vote for Trump.
That's purity?
It's the same purity that tells me not to vote for Hillary or Sanders, because Hillary and Sanders are not conservatives.
Yet you don't seem willing to vote for anyone but Trump.
That is ideological purity.

RigelDog said...

I don't watch network news anymore but years ago when I first saw Megyn Kelly, I was seriously impressed. FINALLY a journalist/interviewer who had a command of the relevant facts and knew how to conduct a difficult interview with cross-examination skills. It's the attorney experience showing. She is fearless and smart. She is also working the beautiful, sexy woman angle, but so what? Trump is a mean asshole who knows Kelly is the opposite of a lightweight but who has no compunction about lying and insulting her the second he feels like doing so. I can't believe that I may end up having to vote for that tool.

Paul said...

"Yet you don't seem willing to vote for anyone but Trump.
That is ideological purity."

What part of "I'll vote for for whoever the Republican candidate is" did you not understand? You're coming off sillier with each subsequently more incoherent post. Just give it up.

Lydia said...

Try watching Megyn's friendly interview with Michael Moore a few nights ago. Not a pleasant experience.

chickelit said...

Lydia said...Try watching Megyn's friendly interview with Michael Moore a few nights ago. Not a pleasant experience.

Thanks, Lydia. Moore raised an interesting hypothesis near the end: nobody can get elected in this country without Rupert Murdoch. It's never been done. That's it in a nutshell.

chickelit said...

That's it in a nutshell.

I mean, that's just another reason to admire Trump.

Original Mike said...

"I can't believe that I may end up having to vote for that tool."

Believe it or not, it could be worse.

Quaestor said...

Not a pleasant experience.

A disgusting experience to watch and a disgraceful episode in Kelly's career. Michael Moore is a propagandist and a purveyor of conspiracy nonsense intended to deceive the weak-minded, a practitioner of the Jedi mind trick. The whole interview was a lovefest and a promotional for Moore's latest MiniTrue prole manipulation. Kelly challenged Moore's claims not even once. What does that imply? Nothing good about Megyn Kelly, that's for danged sure.

Quaestor said...

The Untruth About Donald Trump A compendium of actual quotes and documented facts compiled by Stefan Molyneux that's well worth a look.

Terry said...

So if the Republicans nominated Hillary, you'd vote for her, Paul?
I am registered as an independent. I will vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. I have never voted Democrat in my life, but I can assure you, if the GOP nominated Hillary, I would not vote for her, for the same reason I would not vote for Trump. She is not a conservative.
You need to get over the idea that a vote for Trump is a casting a conservative vote. Enlightenment will follow.

Theranter said...

To Bay Area Guy's question: If Trump gets the nom, if his VP pick is decent I'd vote for him. I'm hoping he doesn't pick a woman (unless it's someone imminently qualified, like Condi Rice) just to have a woman on the ticket.

In researching largely-left millennial's this past week, many have dropped support for HRC. While the majority of them have moved their support to Bernie, a surprising number of them have stated saying "I can't believe I'm actually considering Trump."

What I couldn't tease out, as a majority of them made it sound as though they would choose after the nominations, which I initially took as apathy towards voting in a primary, was do they in fact vote in the primaries, and should HRC win the nom despite their vote for Bernie, they'll go Trump in the general. (And further tangling the issue in deciphering apathy vs. primary voting is whether or not they are in an open primary state or not.)

Which, yes, all supports the fact that Trump is not a pure conservative, but he'd be one heck of a sturdy bridge for a bonafide conservative in 2020. And that, to me, is preferable to any Democrat taking the White House for another four years.

cubanbob said...

Terry said...

One reason I keep finding myself defending Trump(though I will never vote for him), is that liberals attack Trump as a conservative, when he is not a conservative. Check any of Dana Milbank's columns on Trump for examples.
1/30/16, 11:05 AM

Liberals like Millbank are doing a great job of driving working class Democrats into the arms of Donald Trump.

There is going to be an election in November. There will be two candidates whose results will determine the fate of the country. Voting for any other minor party candidate is just vanity. Of all the Republican candidates right now I'm for Cruz. Whoever is the Republican nominee in November and that includes Donald Trump I will vote for. Hillary Clinton as president is beyond the pale. Another consideration is if Trump doesn't win the nomination whoever the Republican nominee is is going to need Trump's support in the general to help insure those working class Democrats cross the aisle.

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
Moore raised an interesting hypothesis near the end: nobody can get elected in this country without Rupert Murdoch. It's never been done. That's it in a nutshell.


This has been true in Australia and Britain for some time.

rcocean said...
Murdoch is an open borders fanatic


Not exactly. He is an anti-labor fanatic who sees open borders as an effective means to undermine labor. His framework of thinking is Australian/British - bosses versus the workers.

Quaestor said...

You need to get over the idea that a vote for Trump is a casting a conservative vote. Enlightenment will follow.

Here's an enlightening thought: In a Trump vs. Hillary election staying home and not voting for Trump is doubling the weight of a vote for Hillary.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Yes, taking Moore seriously precludes any sane person from ever taking Kelly seriously.


"And you gave us John McCain, Mitt Romney and eight years of Barack Hussein Obama. So you will get Trump whether you like it or not."

Absolutely, amen. My number one issue for 2016 is keeping Hillary out of the White House. To knowingly elect a blatant criminal means America is truly done.

Terry said...

But you don't understand, Quaestor. I think Trump would be as bad or worse a conservative than Hillary would be. When I look at Trump I see a charlatan.
He went bankrupt in a business where customers give you dollar and you give them back ninety-five cents, fer God's sake.

cubanbob said...

boycat said...

There is no controversy in law about Cruz's natural born citizenship status either now or at the time of his birth.The Constitution doesn't define the term, it leaves it up to Congress and the courts to make the legal definition. In short he was born to a natural born American citizen who had resided fourteen years as an adult in the US and had not renounced her US citizenship. That makes Cruz a natural born citizen. The difference between Obama and Cruz is that Obama's mother while a natural born citizen was not an adult residing fourteen years in the US when she gave birth to Obama.
Incidentally Cruz renounced his Canadian citizenship. Has Obama ever renounced his dual citizenship?

Jonathan Graehl said...

"populist hysteria" - what a quivering fop.

AlanKH said...

Calling someone crypto-anything may be a sign that one may be losing the argument.

Defending the Viet Cong as a group fighting for self-determination is a definite sign.

chickelit said...

Cracker notes To knowingly elect a blatant criminal means America is truly done.

To play devil's advocate for just a moment, her due process must come first.

Before any election I mean.

Bay Area Guy said...

Two real quick points:

1. If Sanders somehow wrestles the nomination from Hillary, do we mostly agree that he will lose the general election to any GOP candidate, including Trump? The current head to head polls don't show this, but I think that will be the case. We ain't gonna elect no Socialist to our highest office, darn it!

2. But, who is the weaker Dem candidate - a tired, old, corrupt, authoritarian banshee, with an indictment hanging over her head like the Sword of Damocles or a 74 year old Vermont Socialist, who never had a job?

This is a winnable election. Let's be smart about this and not piss it away.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Re: "bimbo", I think that sticks to Kelly in spite of her obvious intellect (didn't she pass a bar exam? I haven't watched her but I hear she's sharp in unscripted interviews too). It sticks because half the people will stop at the obvious assumptions (if she looks + acts like that, she must have slept her way into her job, must be below-average competence, etc) without giving her an honest shot, and because it's a powerful word that hasn't been in circulation lately.

I don't really care if insults aren't, strictly speaking, accurate. I'd vote for President Trump (though in California, what's the point?) even if he's shamelessly pegging all his enemies w/ whatever resonates w/ the unschooled masses, as long as it's reserved only for people who have gone after him (and there are a lot of those). I'm not afraid that he's incapable of cooperating+consulting+dealing; we just aren't going to see that at this stage.

Jonathan Graehl said...

"venn diagram" is so pretentious and so dumb - so there are *some* people out there who are both PC and polite? You don't say!

(also, Jonah, "to a limited extent" - are you saying there aren't even that many polite+PC people, or are you just too lazy or cowardly to make a specific statement?)

cubanbob said...

Blogger Terry said...

So if the Republicans nominated Hillary, you'd vote for her, Paul?
I am registered as an independent. I will vote for the most conservative candidate who can win. I have never voted Democrat in my life, but I can assure you, if the GOP nominated Hillary, I would not vote for her, for the same reason I would not vote for Trump. She is not a conservative.
You need to get over the idea that a vote for Trump is a casting a conservative vote. Enlightenment will follow.

1/30/16, 2:23 PM

Unless your state allows open primaries you already disqualified yourself from voting for the most conservative candidate in the Republican field. As for the general, you have got to be kidding. First of all the GOP wouldn't allow an indisputable criminal to be the presumptive nominee. They pushed Nixon out of the White House for what is a speeding ticket in comparison to what Hillary has done. As for the rest, between Trump and any Democrat nominee at this point is there is such a chasm of evil as to be not worth agonizing about.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Or take the intersection to be of behaviors rather than people. Some behaviors are both PC and polite. You don't say, again!

Original Mike said...

"If Sanders somehow wrestles the nomination from Hillary, do we mostly agree that he will lose the general election to any GOP candidate, including Trump?

This is a winnable election. Let's be smart about this and not piss it away."


Trump may be popular with the majority of commenters here, but this blog is not a representative slice of America. A Trump candidacy would be a crap shoot. I think it could be the very epitome of pissing it away.

David said...

Betsy Ross Wright, who began her political career working for McGovern, cashed in after Clinton was elected, becoming Executive V.P. of a prominent D.C. lobbying firm. She is a strong opponent of capital punishment, and began visiting death row prisoners in Arkansas on a regular basis, which lead to . . .

While visiting a death row inmate in 2005, Wright was accused of trying to smuggle money into the prison. After the incident, Wright lost visitation privileges for six months.[2] In August 2009, the Arkansas State's Attorney's office filed 51 felony charges against Wright, accusing her of attempting to smuggle a knife, tweezers, a boxcutter, and 48 tattoo needles into the Varner Unit on May 22.[3][5] During an interview with the Associated Press, Wright denied any wrongdoing, saying that the needles were in a bag of chips that she got from a prison vending machine.[2] In April 2010, Wright agreed in a plea bargain to plead no contest to two misdemeanors; in exchange, 48 felony counts were dropped. She was sentenced to one year of probation and a $2000 fine (Source: Wikipedia article on Wright)

A vending machine? Are you kidding? And for this she gets a no contest plea for two misdemeanors.

The lefties are correct. There is unequal justice in this country, and it often seems to involve the Clintons and their associates.

Michael K said...

" I think it could be the very epitome of pissing it away."

Would it be too much to ask the Trump haters to wait until one fucking vote had been cast ?

Jeeez.

Original Mike said...

The man asked a question Michael. It's a blog. People comment. That's what we do.

I agree with you that's it's a long time until November. Get off your high horse.

William said...

Trump has character issues and is probably wrong about a lot of issues. That said, I think he's right about more things than Hillary and his character issues, unlike those of Hillary, are not a threat to national security.......,If you don't have severe misgivings about the adventure of a Trump presidency, then you're not thinking things through. If you think Hillary deserves to be president, you're incapable of thought.

David said...

Kelly is monetizing her looks? Well, Duh. So is Fox monetizing her looks, which are quite spectacular. So much so that most of the other Fox babes (and there are a lot of them) seem almost average looking, which they are not. But Kelly also has smarts, an unteachable charisma and a willingness to be very aggressive. She's tough and very ambitious. Roger Ailes recognized this, and capitalized on it. It's nothing new. Round the world, TV types are pretty people, male and female. She has an asset, and enough talent to capitalize on it.

(Anybody remember Willow Bay, who was at NBC and CNN? She had the same combination of looks, charisma and smarts. After a early career as a model and chief spokes babe for Esteé Lauder, she turned to news, with immediate success. She also married Bob Iger (Disney CEO) so money was not an issue. She moved to LA after marrying Iger. Bay now heads the Annenburg School of Journalism at USC, and she's been married to Iger for over 20 years.)

Bay Area Guy said...

I think both Trump haters and Trump fanatics should calm a bit down. The objective is to defeat the Leftism that has damaged our country. We don't want to end up like Europe - bisexual, socialist BetaMales who allow their women to be raped by Muslim Immigrants. No thank you.

William said...

I don't mind Megyn's false eyelashes. I don't like her new hairdo though. It makes her look like a cobra, poised to strike. She's become the liberal's favorite Fox personality--sort of the way Russert was a favorite of the conservatives. She's got cross over appeal, and her ratings will go up........I prefer Maria Bartiromo. Like most women over the age of twenty five, she's lost most of her sex appeal, but she's still aces in my book. I remember her from the nineties when every day she would tell me that I was richer than the day before. The money honey. Having this sloe eyed vixen tell me I was getting rich was the greatest erotic experience of my life. I think she should be the moderator of all the Fox debates.

Terry said...

Cubanbob, I live in Hawaii. We have caucuses to determine each party's presidential nominee.
We also have a solid blue congressional delegation, a democrat governor, and solid dem majorities in both houses of the state legislature. Politics at the county level is dominated by dems statewide.
So my vote, for Trump or any other GOP candidate in November is meaningless.
But if I still lived in Minnesota, I wouldn't vote for Trump.

AReasonableMan said...

William said...
Having this sloe eyed vixen tell me I was getting rich was the greatest erotic experience of my life.


You need to get out more.

Guildofcannonballs said...

high hopes.

You gottem?

Or should I refphrasef: YOU GOT HIGH HOPES???

EVeryone I know has high hopes, because I am a white High Hoper.

I, like Rush at his most despairingly, hope people hope for my white hopes too.

If they ain't, those sunsbithez don't understand my suffering, as WHITE. How could I forgive that?

Oh yeah, through seriousness toward Jesus.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Every election is winnable. The problem for the Republicans is, since Bush I, they haven't had a candidate who fiercely wanted to win the Presidency in a personal, elemental way. Trumps competitiveness and appetite for gamesmanship may just change that. Screw ideological purity. So long as he keeps Hillary, Muzzies, and illegals out, he can tax and spend till the cows come home.

Terry said...

I hope Trump chooses Hillary to be his running mate in 'unity ticket' just so I can see his supporters' heads explode.

Quaestor said...

I think Trump would be as bad or worse a conservative than Hillary would be.

Say what?

He went bankrupt in a business where customers give you dollar and you give them back ninety-five cents, fer God's sake.

Bankruptcy is what happens when liabilities exceed assets. Most bankruptcies are settled for considerably less.

Guildofcannonballs said...

"He went bankrupt"

You betcha he did.

Say, say it again.

Say it: TRUMP WENT BANKRUPT and put some points, let's say of exclamation even!, behind them.

Say it ! TRUMP WENT BANKRUPT!

Don't hold back now.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Jesus didn't have no bank to rupt.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Now some other site learning levity, as if, doesn't get this:

For the average American, to be told, "oh yeah, well, daddy gave him the money, like, if he had just invested every last penny his daddy gave him, never spent a dime on/by/in towards of his life in the present, as in, like, every moment he slept or ate or rode or cojoled, he paid for that all by himself, without any of daddy's money, aka "principle" which The Donald merely invested, never spent."

Like some shit diety, but not God. Not God. Donald knows.

Donny win again.

Guildofcannonballs said...

The Big Lebowski obviously had Steve Buschemi play "Donny" in order to prevent Trump's 2000 run, the lack of which brought us Bush 2000, the Fourth Blues Brother.

Ain't no Coen "magic" magicakin' tonight yo.

stlcdr said...

Back to the origin 'venn diagram' statement, this is solely to blur the lines between the political correctness (the kind that a significant proportion of the population know to be no less than stupid), and politeness.

Just the same way that racism/sexism/'islamaphobia' is now applied to anyone who steps outside their front door.

stlcdr said...

Also, does the average person know what a Venn diagram is without looking it up on Google?

Char Char Binks said...

What Fabi said.

Kirk Parker said...

"Kelly is monetizing her looks? Well, Duh. So is Fox monetizing her looks, which are quite spectacular"

Not any more! Please try to keep up.