My take on her has always been this: Due to her sharp analytical mind and her legal training, she knows how to put forward the best possible argument. During the period when she rose to blogging prominence, conservatism as an ideology was deeply discredited and unpopular -- especially in an academic setting, and doubly so in Madison, Wisconsin. She recognized that branding her arguments as "conservative" would only serve to weaken them. Not for legitimate reasons having to do with the merits of what she was saying, but merely because in the 2005-2008 timeframe, conservatism was very unpopular. I suspect this is one factor in her constant lying about being a conservative.
But I'm as much of an Althousaholic as anyone: I read her blog daily for years. I've watched every diavlog she's done on BhTV. I have listened to at least a dozen of her debates on Wisconsin Public Radio. And I have listened to many of her old Audible Althouses.
If I were to judge her exclusively by her early BhTV appearances, it would be easier to be confused about her conservative bias; she worked hard to hide it. But if you look at her whole body of work, you can't escape the conclusion that she's deeply conservative.
Big Althouse Projects:
-- Before Obama was nominated: Destroy Hillary Clinton, defend Bush and Cheney. Defend GWoT, Iraq war.
-- After Palin was nominated: Defend and promote Palin. She was BhTV's go-to-'head for Palin defense for about a year straight.
-- From about mid-2009 - present: Defend and promote the tea party
-- Since Jan. 20, 2009: Damage Obama and the Democrats by promoting every meme, true or false, that can be used against them.
October 27, 2010
Supposed "Big Althouse Projects" that purportedly prove that I'm "deeply conservative."
Hmm. I'm surprised I even ran across this. It's buried in a comments thread over in a Bloggingheads diavlog — and I'm not one of the "heads" — which I happened to start reading. Somehow my name comes up in a conversation about people who are hard to pin down politically. This commenter, one "Twinswords," insists that my "conservatism is irrefutable":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
224 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 224 of 224I thought the essence of why AA voted for Obama was that he seemed smart and calm and he wasn't McCain, who seemed like half a whack job (or is that Beck?) - hmmmm.
Basically, to me, as a non american - observing americans of different stripes - I can't help but notice that MOST of you - leftists, rightists, centrists - have many, many common beliefs and common values.
So much so, that the rancor in political debate here is surprising!
You're all VERY american, and with good reason, proud to be that way. I just don't see why such small differences get magnified so much.
BP's original plan was to drill in shallow water close to shore. The Fed denied their permit to do this. The oil is equally accessible in either location.
Yes, oil fields more than 100 miles off shore are equally accessible from shallow water -- all you need is a 100 mile long drill bit.
Is shoutingthomas a troll like Alex?
You keep saying they were forced to the deepwater in the gulf of mexico by ....someone. Link, please?
Bill Clinton signed the law that capped liability for oil companies at, I believe, $78 million, if they drilled in deep water.
That was in response to BP's petition to drill near shore.
The liability cap was a disaster.
And, liberals, you must remember this...
The Obama administration has said that the cleanup of the spill was a complete success and that there were no lingering environmental damages.
Remember?
fls,
BP is business to make money by...
Believe it or not...
Drilling for oil!!!!!
Let me repeat this very slowly:
BP is business to make money by...
Believe it or not...
Drilling for oil!!!!!
So, let me ask you again: Do you drive a car and heat your house?
Now, fls,
Stop posting until you answer the essential question:
Do you drive a car and heat your house?
I notice you keep avoiding that question.
RD, that's my basic recollection.
Also, that after her period of cruel neutrality, and the announcement of her decision, there was a brief period of pro-Obama and/or anti-McCain postings that came off as rather in-your-face, and therefore, quite annoying.
"Capped the liability". That seems to me to be an incentive to drill deep, rather than a disincentive to deal shallow.
So you are saying that by LIMITING their liability in case of accident, they were somehow FORCED to deep waters?
Help me understand the train of thought here.
In the business I am in, if the government limited my liabilities for undertaking a certain high risk/high reward undertaking - they are essentially opening up my upside while limiting my downside. I would gleefully jump at the opportunity to undertake that high risk activity, simply because my downside risk is hedged/limited.
I keep asking this question, fls, because BP is out there drilling for our...
... so that you can drive your car and heat your house.
"Capped the liability". That seems to me to be an incentive to drill deep, rather than a disincentive to deal shallow.
That is precisely what I said.
The fed deliberately created the incentive to drill deep.
And prohibited drilling shallow close to shore.
So, "creating an incentive" = forced?
Isn't that the give and take of business? When governments ask businesses not to do something, because of the classic 'tragedy of the commons' situation, isn't it a good thing that they incentivize the businesses to innovate in other realms?
Look, if we had the ability to account for every 'cost' that we undertake as businesses, we would not need government intervention at all.
By that, I mean: lets take an abstract case of a business that is, willingly or unwillingly, releasing mercury, cadmium and chromium into a region's water supply. Essentially, they are consuming that water, by removing it from the usable pool or that regions resources. Now, if one were able to value that resource and the business had to pay for that consumption, it would undertake policies that reduced its emissions.
However, we don't have a way of doing that. So, businesses keep any knowledge they have of uncontrolled emissions secret so their shareholders won't suffer. And protecting shareholders is also a moral imperative.
Basically, I do believe that businesses would act morally/rationally/positively if there was a way to capture all the costs of operation. But since there is no way to value the water polluted or the fish that I can't eat because my river is full of mercury, we need an external agency to make sure the balance of transactional power is maintained.
I strongly believe that as we learn more and more about the true costs of certain business operations, not only will the BUSINESS learn to get more and more efficient, but the need for government regulation over business will slowly vanish.
I want to be able to fish in my lake without worrying that if I eat more than 3 servings a week, I will get sick. And if someone is taking away my fish, why aren't they paying me for it?
Ankur said...
Basically, to me, as a non american - observing americans of different stripes - I can't help but notice that MOST of you - leftists, rightists, centrists - have many, many common beliefs and common values.
What the hell?
How can you say that. Don't you this is the internet and minute distinctions are what seperate us and makes us hate each other.
You dirty foreigner.
The fed deliberately created the incentive to drill deep.
And prohibited drilling shallow close to shore.
Do you mean Public Law 104-58?
Because it didn't prohibit drilling shallow close to shore.
What it did was provide incentives for drilling in water deeper than 200 meters (656 feet)
by eliminating royalty payments
if drilling would be uneconomical for the oil company
if they had to pay royalty payments.
Here, BP was drilling in 5,000 feet of water.
The bill did not provide any more incentive to drill in 5,000 feet of water than in 660 feet of water.
BP drilled in Mississippi Canyon because that was where the oil was.
I don't understand why Althouse lets dirty foreigners comment here.
Lonewacko is right. She doesn't care about immigration.
You dirty flithly liberal you.
Hahaha - indeed. Quelle horreur!
WV: wredis - a redistributionist penis
"Daniel said.....
(FAR more, incidentally, than the support for Democrats, Republicans, Congress, or the truly hated Sarah Palin)."
Truly hated?
Loafing Oaf? Is that you? Where have you been buddy?
fls,
I notice again how dogmatically you refuse to answer this question:
Do you drive a car and heat your house?
There is nothing really to criticize in BP's actions.
Remember. Obama said the spill had no lasting consequences.
Now, tell me, what in the hell are you arguing?
Do you drive a car and heat your house?
If you can't answer this simple question, you are just bullshitting... which indeed is precisely what you are doing.
Or, perhaps you drive a Pious, as they call it on South Park.
What would be a better thing for you to do is explain to me why people like you, who drive cars and heat your house with oil, like to get all fucking sanctimonious over the fact that people make a profit drilling for oil?
I know you don't have an answer. So, I'll abandon you to your piety and your halo.
That's all you've got here. Piety and sanctimony are really the logical, legalistic arguments you think you're presenting.
You think BP is evil for making a profit providing you with oil. Got it. You're a saint. Ditto.
Fuck saints.
Palin's at 22% favorability. Just ahead of Satan.
Yes, but Satan is President so that counts for at least 20 points. So if you subtract that he is way below Palin. Just sayn'
"...22% favorability. Just ahead of Satan."
Satan's always had a core constituency to draw on.
Tha American Bar Association? Huge supporters.
Way ahead of "Blind Blues Guitarists" and "Barney Frank".
Palin may have a low favorability rating, but a recent Rasmussen poll said, 52% of Voters Say Their Views Are More Like Palin’s Than Obama’s.
This would suggest that her low favorability rating is due more to bad press than policy disputes.
Truth be told, though, lotsa folks prefer Satan's views, too.
Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Laziness, Wrath, Envy, & Pride.
a) The seven favorite sins
b) a struggling law firm in New Jersey.
Ankur...You are already a valuable commenter that makes thoughtful, well reasoned points. You have run the gauntlet of the haters of "the Others" that arises from some against new comers until the new guy's ideological category has been determined. Just ignore them and keep up the great comments. A love for the truth trumps ideology everytime.
Post a Comment