You think of Rick Perry, you think of Texas. And more Texas. Perry the cowboy coyote-killer, the lord of the Texas job-creation machine, the g-dropping glad-hander with a “howdy” for every stranger in the room. He barely exists in the national mind outside of the Texas connection.And Maureen Dowd is all over the place talking about Perry with references to an obvious and old Hollywood movie.
Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?
ADDED:
पोस्ट्स
१८० टिप्पण्या:
Rick Perry is going nowhere. What Bachman was doing to him in the last debate is nothing, wait till blogs and Op-ed go after him. Listen to Diane Rehm (http://thedianerehmshow.org) on HPV vaccine.
Perry is going to lose so big in the primary that even the POTUS Obama people are disappointed. They really want to run against Perry. It will not matter.
You know what amuses me about these eastern types who look down on the south, in this case Texas? Most of them have never been here. Most of them don't understand us at all. They have all these stereotypes floating around in their heads and to me, it just sounds like someone talking about a foreign country they've never been to.
They never seem to catch on to the fact that they are the ones who sound provincial.
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?"
I disagree completely. I think that this is what they do. So, I'm not moved by their jabber.
But, when I saw Castellanos make the "scary Perry" argument on MTP today, I did start to like Perry more. I think more folks are like me than they are like Althouse. That is, seeing the establishment Rs dumping on Perry is likely to help him much more than any NYTers could ever (inadvertently) manage.
"Howdy" is the traditional Aggie greeting. I find it charming. And somewhat comforting that Ms. Dowd does not.
Must be such a boring life.
Why is Jeb Bush unacceptably reminiscent of W, but Perry is fine? People were sick of Bush's style after eight years, and Perry is more Bush than Bush.
The NY Times ladies are trying to draw the Bush-Perry connection. To the extent independents internalize that, it's not good for Republicans.
Do NYT Writers and Readers know that a Texas spin appeals to a huge area of the South, Plains and far West?
Slightly OT, but I've been on a "Yay Texas" streak ever since they put away Warren Jeffs for life. The states of Utah and Arizona tried to punish him, with much less success (Utah overturned his conviction on a technicality that makes one wonder about that state's supreme court). Having followed issues around the FLDS for some time (in addition to the really scary Mormon fundamentalist groups in Mexico), I can tell you that many, many people were breathing a sigh of relief that Texas would finally have their chance at Warren Jeffs.
So, yes, articles like this make me ever more fond of Texas.
Thank you for reading the NYT so I don't have to.
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing.."
No?
We saw him in Richmond last Wednesday and his freedom message was pitch perfect.
He also said he would sign an Executive Order as his first act stopping everything he could by Executive Order with ObamaCare. It brought the house down!
These 2 hags just want to be Helen Thomas imitators. No one really takes them seriously and Collins and Dowd are trying to be relevent when, they really are not.
"...and Perry is more Bush than Bush."
And Bachmann is more Palin than Palin.
Plus 100.
Bush was always moderate. Palin is a bit more conservative, but not even remotely hard-right.
All decent people believe that coyotes should be rehabilitated, not executed.
As it stand right now the election is going to be between a Texas cowboy or an errand boy for the Chicago Outfit. My money is on the cowboy. As for Perry's grades, anyone seen Obama's grades? Wonder why.
Another thing about Dowd and Collins, it appears that they have never been laid by a masculine man. maybe that is why they are so bitter.
Maybe that's what they're hoping for? I don't know. I like Perry but I think Obama's campaign against him writes itself. Romney is a lot tougher for Obama to go up against on economic issues and one-on-one debate polish.
I backed Romney in 2008 despite his obvious deficiencies to someone as conservative as I am. Though Perry doesn't have the Romney-Care and flip-flopping problems Romney has, I just don't see how, at least as he's performing in debates right now, he presents much of a challenge to Obama (recognizing, of course, the ultimate results of the election will be close regardless of who the GOP nominee is -- by "not much of a challenge I mean the ability to keep independents away from Obama as they are right now).
Ha! The movie I was thinking of was Pillow Talk. I can see Rick Perry seducing MoDo by saying that she reminds him of a pot-bellied stove.
Frankly, liberals have got to stop making scornful references to "g-dropping" because their beloved, very educated Obama sure gets folksy in his speeches as he pontificates on "learnin" and "doin"...etc.
The Genius Savant said...
Forget what the Obama campaign will say about the republican candidate. Their (insoluble) problem is the republican campaign asking are you better off than you were four years ago and who do you believe: Obama and the democrats or your lying eyes?
Pat Buchanan isn't in the running and Ron Paul won't get the nomination so frankly whomever the republicans run is going to win. The only question is if the republicans can get a RINO and filibuster proof senate.
P.S.
These folks are paid to attract attention. IMHO, they have achieved near perfection when they can simultaneously rustle up attention from the left and the right.
Althouse wonders if these gals realize that they may be unintentionally supporting Perry. But, we should be sure that we realize what really motivates them. Or, we may be asking the wrong questions.
From their perspective as professional NYT blatherers, it could be argued that a Perry POTUS would be good for them.
Really, Ann. None of those answers satisfy me. If you can be swayed either way by an op ed from a New York columnist, then I don't believe you are the true thinker and scrutinizer that I know you are.
Rick Perry might be attractive if it were not for his social stances, those are truly out of the main stream and totally out of my way of thinking. In fact, the only thing I agree with him on socially is the total threat that cervical cancer is on society today. Now, I don't believe an executive order was the way, girls from 12 to 23c should be encouraged to take the vaccination, which is actually 3 shots over 6 months.
Perry is a scary man, not for the reasons Maureen Dowd said but, for me, his rejection of evolution, his stance on choice,gay marriage and the death penalty is what scares me
As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
A rational, thinking person would, eventhough they believe in capital punishment, have at least a moment of thought before putting someone to death. People like that worry me.
Vicki from Pasadena
"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."
Pauline Kael
NYT movie critic
Perry is a scary man, not for the reasons Maureen Dowd said but, for me, his rejection of evolution
Must have missed that one.
As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
Ha! Girl you need to get out a bit more if you really think that's true.
These people really never leave their Manhattan/Beltway bubble. Pathetic.
Gad dang! Perry gone n' worked those liberal lasses int'a proper fit!
Really, reading a month's worth of left-wing criticisms of Perry, I get a sense of those mid-90's teen movies, with the book-smart girl who gets her lunch tray knocked out of her hands (NY09 anyone?) by the class jock, and she's oh-so-steamed at him and hates his stupid clothes, and how dumb he is, and how crass he is with his friends, and how he treats women like dirt, and how he has that...cute way he winks his eye sometimes, and has that big chest and bulging arms and...whew, is it hot in here?
I hate his stinkin' guts. Please ask me to prom!
From Dowd's column: "Perry told the students, 'God uses broken people to reach a broken world.' What does that even mean?"
Not exactly an obscure or out-of-the-mainstream bit of Christian belief, that.
Funny how incurious these "intellectuals" are. It's almost as if their intellect is all pose. /sarc
Victoria said, "As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
My, aren't we full of our self.
Most of them don't understand us at all. They have all these stereotypes floating around in their heads and to me, it just sounds like someone talking about a foreign country they've never been to.
So, is Perry supposed to be J.R. or Cliff?
The market for elite prissy whines will soon require subsidy to stay afloat. Between Dowd and Krugman - the NYT symbolizes something no longer recognizable in the rational world.
I'm not sure it was ever sophisticated in the past - but the whine has turned to vinegar.
The Genius Savant said...
Maybe that's what they're hoping for? I don't know. I like Perry but I think Obama's campaign against him writes itself.
I bet Perry scores a lot better with the Reagan Dems in PA, OH, MI, WI, CO, and NM that make or break an election map.
As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
yeah, yeah, I'm a native Californian also, with degrees from 2 UC's. so what? California isn't in an Perry Win Column. Oregon maybe. What turns Californians off, might appeal to Oregon and certainly does to AZ, CO and NM.
michaele said...
Frankly, liberals have got to stop making scornful references to "g-dropping" because their beloved, very educated Obama sure gets folksy in his speeches as he pontificates on "learnin" and "doin"...etc.
or worse, when O'bama and Clinton try to speak Eubonics
Oops, Ann: When I posted my comment a few minutes ago, I hadn't realized that you had already commented on this.
[Texans] are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
Well, there's unsubstantiated psychological generalization and then there's data. The migration figures suggest that lots more Californians want to be Texans than the other way around.
The fact that MoDo is already going full Gloria Steinbrenner on Perry shows how scared Pinch is.
Ann Althouse said...
Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?
She gets the same way when Meade says, "That's enough 'My Dinner With Andre' for one week. Tonight it's 'The Comancheros' and then 'The War Wagon', little darlin'".
Well, there's unsubstantiated psychological generalization and then there's data. The migration figures suggest that lots more Californians want to be Texans than the other way around.
That is true for the moment. That has not always been true, and probably will not be true in the future.
Have Collins and Dowd never heard of LBJ?
That has not always been true...
Well, no kidding.
Before the Democrats screwed everything up California was a great place to live. Or so I'm told.
But that has nothing to do with Texans' alleged envy of Californians and their dysfunctional government.
victoria "They [Texans] are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
So let's see: Arrogant Californians denigrate Texas. Texans respond with "Fuck you, asshole. We love it here." Californians interpret this as "jealousy". Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that.
My gut feeling as of now (of course, it's early yet & things could change) is that Perry is electable; I think the more independents see & hear from him (as opposed to hearing *about* him from the likes of the NYT), the more they'll like him (at least enough to vote for him over Obama). And Bachmann's crazy Gardisil attack on him only helps in this regard.
Pb&j brings up a good point: for all the NYT animus toward Perry, there's also a conspicuous block of "estabishment Rs dumping on Perry" lately. And this too seems likely to backfire. (It's funny to read all the anti-Perry posts, say, at NRO's Corner-- they seem to be in the tank for Romney-- always followed by a strong pushback in the comments.)
I wonder if… it's possible that… the anti-Perry feelings from *some* Democrats this time around are due to this: there are sophisticated, NYT-reading Democrats out there who, maybe for the first time ever in their politically-immaculate lives, are envisioning voting for a Republican-- Romney, an "acceptable" Republican-- over the SCOAMF Democrat. Because for many of these Democrats, political preferences are so strongly bound up with socio-cultural signifiers (even more than ideology & policy), to vote for an ultra-Texan, folksy religious cowboy-- someone "like Bush" (shudder)-- is inconceivable, a bridge too far, beyond the pale.
But the decisive step is envisioning yourself voting, once in your life, for a Republican. Romney's the "gateway" candidate.
Come on in, folks. The water's fine.
Ultimately, I think Perry might be able to win a lot of them over (even if they never admit to anyone that they voted for him)-- like Reagan once did. With Obama as the alternative (and Bachmann as the crazy Republican foil), the "scary Perry" thing isn't that easy to sell. And if those Dems can't bring themselves to vote for Perry, it's enough that they're not so scared of him that they'll vote for Obama (as opposed to just not voting at all).
Let's don't be talkin' about droppin' g's until we remember the sacrificin' our Obamas are doin' for the countruh and the economuh.
The media firewall to stop Perry is a repeated assertion that Texans are arrogant and talk funny.
She's right, but so what.
Perry's savvy enough to campaign on economic common sense and his empathetic and caring personality.
The liberal MSM is bluffing and they know it.
The weird part is their nemisis, George W. Bush, is definitely not friends with Rick Perry anymore. They had a falling out years ago.
I have no real dislike of Perry. But he has not yet thrilled me either (nor has Romeny, although he is better than last time around). I like Palin but know the long knives are out for her and it is hard to judge her without her being in the race.
Perry better raise the level of his play if he is serious about this (not that he has been bad, but he needs to dominate). Bachmann is not going to be the nomination and pretty much everyone knows it. This GOP race looks like it is either Perry, Romeny, or Palin (if she gets in).
@Vicki from Pasadena:
As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
Well, yeah. That explains all those Texans emigrating to California, right?
Oh. Wait.
It's the other way around!
Texans are many things, but envious of Californians ain't one of them. Contemptuous is more like it, and rightly so.
As for these "elities", meh. They have far less influence than they think they do, and I agree most of their efforts against Perry help more than they hurt him. Perry is also no libtard straw man like Huntsman.
the total threat that cervical cancer is on society today.
Crap! I'm at risk, too?
I have never met a Texan who was envious about any state...except Alaska. It bugs them that Alaska is geographically bigger than Texas.
But since it has oil, a lot of Texans think of Alaska as the place to make money and excape the heat of summer.
What the New York Times is realizing is that President Perry would be worse than President Palin.
Republicans may or may not agree with the Times assessment.
But the Times has published a pro-Palin editorial, and they ripped the book attacking her.
New York Times to the liberal mob: "Back off on Sarah Palin."
So why would the New York Times prefer Palin to Perry?
Well, she's a woman. There goes that glass ceiling.
And in Alaska she took on corruption in the Republican party.
She is religious, but is far more private about it than Perry is.
She is more libertarian than Perry, and more populist.
Alaska's never had a death penalty.
There are all kinds of reasons for the New York Times to conclude that Palin would be a better President than Perry.
Plus any fair-minded journalist has to feel guilty as shit for the sewer treatment that Sarah Palin and her family has suffered.
Right now our front-runner is Rick Perry. Who, if I recall, thinks Social Security is a crime and a disease.
It's possible that Mitt is our nominee. Or that Perry is our nominee and Obama beats him. But another possibility is that Perry is our next President.
It is that scenario that has caused the New York Times to try to fix the damage they have inflicted on Palin.
@Vicki from Pasadena:
A rational, thinking person would, eventhough they believe in capital punishment, have at least a moment of thought before putting someone to death. People like that worry me.
That's right, Vicki! All those extrajudicial Predator drone assassinations in a country that we're not at war with that Perry ordered is VERY worrisome!
Oh, damn. Sorry, Vicki. My bad.
That was Obama! But no need to worry about that; I'm sure he agonized over each and every one of those assassinations!
He meant well.
By the way, Obama is also against gay marriage and for the death penalty.
Does that worry you?
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing..."
Uh no. Which explains why they have been wielding their elitist contempt for the last 30-40 years. Jeez, Althouse, you can be so damn thick at times.
I do think that the country is somewhat Texas shy after Bush. Doesn't matter that this impacts Perry's chances unfairly. It's part of the equation of relative electability and right now a caricature of a typical Texan can be more effectively used by the Dems against Perry than could a caricature of a typical Minnesotan or, God willing, Alaskan.
I'm with DHP, LBJ was far more intensely Texas that Perry ever could be. Of course, combine willful blindness and sheer ignorance and you might come up to the opinion squirted out by those two.
The funniest thing is at the bottom of the Collins article. She's written a book about Texas.
Imagine how insightful that will be.
Important political question:
Is it better to always g-drop, or only g-drop in front of certain audiences?
chickenlittle said...
Well, there's unsubstantiated psychological generalization and then there's data. The migration figures suggest that lots more Californians want to be Texans than the other way around.
That is true for the moment. That has not always been true, and probably will not be true in the future.
For that future to come about, a change not unlike that wrought by Stephen Kearney, Robert Stockton, James Marshall, and John Bidwell will be needed.
Fred4Pres said...
Perry better raise the level of his play if he is serious about this (not that he has been bad, but he needs to dominate).
I would tend to agree. I'm willing to cut him a little slack for the last outing because of he actually had to do something (fight prairie fires) other than just prepare for the debate, but Fred's point is well-taken.
Dowd lives in DC.
tits.
pst314 quoted victoria, "They [Texans] are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
pst, I think it must be a Pasadena thing.
What about when all the talking heads and politicians go off on Massachusetts?
How do you think that makes me feel?
sad.
The Boston Herald has a front page story about Rick Perry doing a fundraiser in Mass. The title was "Welcome to Taxes". Get it taxes-Texas.
Tits.
Where's Palladian?
Victoria says:As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will.
Oh, honey, that hasn't been true since the end of the Gold Rush, if even then. By the way, one metric you might want to consider is this - have a conversation with Latinos from Texas and ask them what they think of their lives compared to Latinos in California. That issue is one worth looking at in the California v. Texas discussion, particularly as to which state is supposedly more open and accepting.
Fred4Pres says:I have never met a Texan who was envious about any state...except Alaska. It bugs them that Alaska is geographically bigger than Texas.
This is true, but it's not envy, it's disgust. I think it's complete bullshit that Alaska was let into the Union as a state. It should be a territory or some sort of protectorate. But a state? Nonsense.
And last from Althouse: Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?
Don't let that sway you. Trust me, you don't want Rick Perry to be President. If you dislike Obama and want a good Republican President to change the course of things, vote for Mitt Romney.
If the reps nominate Perry Obama will beat him and win a second term. Maybe knowing this trashing Perry is a reverse psychology scheme on the part of the NYTers.
Do you guys ever weigh yourself before and after you pinch a loaf?
I just did.
Going in I weighed 158. After the humongous loaf I weighed 155.
Clouds.
I am not a fan of most of the country.
Just a few fab states and thats it.
But Europe, so delish.
They have far less influence than they think they do
Actually I think the New York Times has a huge effect on the liberal media. The New York Times affects the AP and the networks. They all take their cues from the gray lady.
Republicans don't care what they think--the liberal bias is obvious to us--but we do care in a political sense. We realize that our larger society is often oblivious to how much the media controls the narrative.
So, for instance, Ann Coulter has argued that Palin should not run because her reputation has been destroyed by the media.
So it will be interesting to see if that same media can rehabilitate Palin.
somefeller said "trust me."
LOOK OUT!
Titus avoids the "gross states" like the plague.
Number three is the obvious answer to the poll. All you have to do is read the comments to Collins's article-- smug, supercilious New Yorkers to whom just being from Texas makes one stupid.
By the way, as a Californian I envy Texans' sense of belonging to their state. Everybody in California is from somewhere else, except for me. It's just that Texas too damned flat, hot, and dusty
They are vetting Perry way more than they did Obama. We still know nothing about Obama. We know more about Perry than we may want to.
Just goes to show lengths the media will go to for the guy they want. They will roll over and play dead.
It's actually obama's race to lose.
And, I think he is, in fact, losing it. If all he's left with are Jewish and Black voters ... his goose is cooked.
PERRY CAN MAKE IT?
At first, I didn't think so.
But, why not? (I doubt he'll choose Sarah Palin to be his veep.)
Sometimes, the "veep choices" get grotesque.
In 1976 Reagan chose "Schweiker" from Pennsylvania. It was a terrible choice. The elder Bush walked away with the win.
Right now our front-runner is Rick Perry. Who, if I recall, thinks Social Security is a crime and a disease.
What's funny about this is that Perry probably feels the same way about Social Security as Bush or Romney. He knows it's in trouble, he thinks it was a bad idea, but he also accepts the political reality of it. All Republicans are RINOs when it comes to Social Security. (Except Ron Paul).
Perry went "full Republican" in his book because he wasn't running for President then.
What's bad about his comment is that if he walks it back, he can by portrayed as a hypocrite. And what's really bad is that we're arguing about the wrong damn thing. Obamacare, unemployment, stagflation, over-regulation, and debt. Those are our issues.
A Republican attacking social security is like Mondale promising to raise our taxes. It's a political disaster and a gift to the other side.
This should not be a close election, but if we threaten Social Security, it will be.
Oh, yeah, I get all my GOP advice from Gail Collins, yup.
"Obamacare, unemployment, stagflation, over-regulation, and debt. Those are our issues. "
I think getting entitlements sustainable somehow is indeed one of the most important issues. For some reason, it's also one folks have fought very hard to claim is not a major issue. I don't get it.
But indeed Perry has painted himself into a corner. He must support major entitlement overhauls. There's no way around it, and frankly, I am very glad.
Good point, Saint Croix.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?...should be the Republican mantra, no matter who the candidate.
Hey CH, are you a chess grandmaster in your other life? Thinking way ahead to who's gonna be the VP pick. What a brain.
"As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
I've been in Texas 20 plus years, moving from CA. Never once actually witnessed what you claim.
No-one here talks about California unless it's to worry that the people that wrecked the place are going to move here, and bring their politics.
However, lots and lots of people in CA talk about how everyone everywhere else is jealous of them.
wv: trait. Dang, this thing is good.
"As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will." - Vicki
I think you've been smokin' a little of that wacky tobacky you guys love so much.
Texans jealous of another state?
Not likely, for the most part. Sure, there are whiners everywhere, I guess.
California is a beautiful place. It's also blessed with geological abundance more than anywhere on earth. Also has great tourism and technology.
Even then, with all those advantages, Californians cannot manage to make it work.
I can understand why Californians enjoy their state, but the one thing that sucks about it are the actual californians, who, generally, have conceded to stupidity in government that fine Texans would never tolerate.
We have it better, and that's just that.
I hope California adopts a Texan approach to things. Such a place would indeed be envied by the world.
Sitting here in California's Central Valley at the moment. We are talking 20-30-40pct unemployment, depending on the location. And nobody expects anything to improve.
I swear half the people here wish this was Texas. The other half wish they were in Texas. Plenty of people have already left. Plenty of people have left for Mexico - imagine that.
I don't know what California Victoria thinks she's in.
Hmmm...finding a particular person or concept "more appealing" than one might do otherwise simply as a response to "elitist contempt" for that person or concept seems to be the epitome of irrationality, or of adolescent emotionalism:
"Oh yeah? You say I shouldn't date him because he's (fill in undesirable characteristic of choice here)? I'll show you!! I will go out with him!"
Later, married to the impulse choice and with two babies, the young lady realizes she's stuck with a drunken lout who beats her and cheats on her, but she can't leave due to fear and financial necessity. But at least she showed her parents, and that was the important thing!
It seems the more rational approach is to appraise the various choices one has before one and to make one's selection based on a serious consideration of how well, comparatively, each of the choices solves the problem one is hoping to remedy, or meets other criteria one has decided are necessary, and without undue consideration for the approval or disapproval of others.
I guess you're saying here that Americans between the two coasts are ignorant nitwits who decide who they'll favor in elections simply to spite "the elites" for their scorn.
This explains a lot.
"As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me. They are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
Back in the early years of the 20th century, my great grandfather Oden rode the rails from West Texas to come to California, then later on his mother and other family came. Lots of migration to SoCal from those southern states.
Lots of opportunity and freedom to find a new life if one was willing to work hard.
I had other family members from long ago come from other places in the mid to late 19th century. All finding their way to California, becoming farmers, working on construction, doing this and that.
The trouble is that in the last 30 years or so, it has become so easy to come to and live in California that a whole different kind of settler wandered this way. It wasn't the pioneers, but the descendants of people who only go where it's easy. Those sorts of people have different voting habits and they have helped make California into the sorts of places that earlier Californians were fleeing from.
One of those places I know a lot of people are going to is Texas. For the exact same sorts of reasons that my forebears came to California.
I've not left yet. But there's a part of me that wouldn't mind bringing the Odens back to Texas. But, I really do like California. Especially the old sort of California that exists outside the major urban areas. The trouble is that those major urban areas have a lot more votes and make living in California an increasingly taxing proposition.
Sorry MoDo, the Liberty Valance anlogy is not working. I also do not think Jimmy Stewart when I think of Mitt Romney.
And what movie sums up Barack Obama? Being There?
Doesn't matter. America will never elect a wingnut like Perry.
I guess Collins and Dowdy never heard of Lyndon Johnson? Now there was a Texan.
Elitist contempt is how Tricky Dick got elected.
It won't be long before Texas buys Southern California from Mexico, anyway.
wv: cangor. Angry candor.
Tyrone Slothrop said...
Number three is the obvious answer to the poll. All you have to do is read the comments to Collins's article-- smug, supercilious New Yorkers to whom just being from Texas makes one stupid.
By the way, as a Californian I envy Texans' sense of belonging to their state. Everybody in California is from somewhere else, except for me. It's just that Texas too damned flat, hot, and dusty
Reminiscent of what General Sherman said, that all that was lacking in TX was water and good society, which was also what was lacking in Hell.
buwaya said...
Sitting here in California's Central Valley at the moment. We are talking 20-30-40pct unemployment, depending on the location. And nobody expects anything to improve.
I swear half the people here wish this was Texas. The other half wish they were in Texas. Plenty of people have already left. Plenty of people have left for Mexico - imagine that.
That's how Victor Davis Hanson has been describing things there the last 5 years.
I don't know what California Victoria thinks she's in.
She's living in the Lefty Socialist Utopia.
Not to mention that river that's usually in Egypt.
I live on the east coast. However my part of the coast is South Carolina so my neighbors and I are also objects of contempt to NYT types. I used to live in Connecticut and New York City. People in CT and NYC--at least of the NYT type--have more money and formal education that people in SC. Apart from that they are in no way superior.
As a Californian, nothing about Texas appeals to me.
Well, as a Californian, I remember when California was more like Texas in our liberty to succeed and I'm sorry that left me and mine behind.
That's what bugged the crap out of me about Romney's crack that Perry pulled 4 aces ... California has more natural resources, better weather so how come CA's unemployment state-wide is still 12%? (with selected counties running anywhere from 14% to 30%)
Sacramento is lousy with Socialist Democrats.
And I find it funny that Perry's religious beliefs are "scary" but 20 years of Obama in the anti-Semitic, god-damn-America church of his mentor "Rev" Wright was no-nevermind.
feh
I'm not so sure that to independents, centrists, moderates, and apolitical types, Romney is more electable than Perry. Might be vice-versa. I go back & forth on this.
The vast majority of people (outside of Texas) know little of Perry other than what's being said about him, and the debates. That will change in the coming months. Perry's "nuanced" position on immigration-- which upsets a lot of conservatives-- knocks down the notion that he's an extremist hardliner. And Bachmann's demagoguery on Gardisil makes it harder to caricature Perry as "anti-science" (or as a crazy social conservative type).
So people-- and pundits-- are watching the debates. But pundits score the debates like tennis matches, on who makes "points," is most articulate, has the last word. But IMO that doesn't fully reflect how most people (especially independent/ centrist/ moderate/ apolitical types) judge the candidates up there, judging with their guts as much as their intellect. Their evaluation of the candidates is largely intuitive-- a reading of character: sensing (in)sincerity, (in)authenticity, (dis)honesty, straightforwardness, demagoguery, humility, pomposity, hypocrisy, nervousness, self-confidence, smarminess, shrillness, use of doublespeak, etc.
Cf. the debate been Bush & Gore, where what most people remember is Gore's obnoxious sighs. IMO Perry's acknowledging making mistake re the EO on Gardisil, not backing down on SS, not pandering to the Tea Party crowd on immigration, etc., might have won over more voters than the points scored by others who were declared winners by pundits (Bachmann & Romney).
Of course, intuition & gut feelings are subject to bias & prejudice-- e.g. anti-Texan feelings left over from Bush. But IMO people are overestimating this as a factor. The American palate that Perry has to appeal to may have some lingering Bush aftertaste… but this is overwhelmed by the full meal of Obama sitting heavily on our stomachs, causing indigestion & still being force fed. IMO Obama fatigue is a much bigger factor than Bush fatigue in 2012. If Perry seems more like Bush, but Romney seems more like Obama, I'm not sure that helps Romney.
When it comes to intuition of character & voters' gut feelings (as opposed to pundit scoring & surface signifiers), I'm not so sure Romney is more appealing than Perry. The conventional wisdom here might be wrong.
Maybe politics have always been this way, but this is a perfect example of attacking your opponent with goofy slander, vs discussing why you have a difference of opinion on policy issues.
Writ Small: The NY Times ladies are trying to draw the Bush-Perry connection.
When Perry entered the race NPR ran a piece comparing Perry and Bush's accents. They had a linguist on saying they were like "peas in a pod".
It's just that Texas too damned flat, hot, and dusty
Heh. If Texas were as pretty as Arkansas I would probably have moved there already.
I think getting entitlements sustainable somehow is indeed one of the most important issues. For some reason, it's also one folks have fought very hard to claim is not a major issue. I don't get it.
Well, it's an issue that can bite us in the ass.
I don't know anybody who likes high unemployment, debt, or stagflation. Those are absolutely safe and winning issues for us. The Democrats are utterly demoralized by high unemployment, debt and stagflation.
Obamacare and over-regulation are winners, too.
Focus on what's horrible about Obama. Make him run on his record. Hammer his record. Talk about the disaster that is his administration. What has he done with Social Security? Nothing. Same as Bush. Same as Clinton.
Entitlement reform is a hard problem, one that will require a lot of pain and sacrifice to fix. I don't think Republicans should run on "pain and sacrifice." We got to flip it around.
I say pitch individual IRAs again, and turn over the FICA taxes to professional money managers. Manage Social Security like it's a real pension, and not a government scam. Attack the corruption in the current system.
But I would not argue for cutting benefits. Why do that?
Writ Small said...
Why is Jeb Bush unacceptably reminiscent of W, but Perry is fine? People were sick of Bush's style after eight years, and Perry is more Bush than Bush.
The NY Times ladies are trying to draw the Bush-Perry connection. To the extent independents internalize that, it's not good for Republicans
===================
There are a couple states where the stereotype works. The candidate touts himself as exemplifying that states core essence and values, and the public believes them. And from that we get the "Teddy, Dukakis, Kerry" bedwetting Massachusetts liberal, the corrupt Louisiana politician tradition, -
Or the LBJ, Dubya, Perry native born and bred Texan that aches for more wars, muscular government while giving lip service to "eliminating gov meddling", embodies a proud anti-intellectualism as part of their "regular folk" populism. Always has their own farm or ranch.
In the popular mind, especially after a real bad one comes along,the "state brand" gets a little stigmatized.
So part of the argument will be to put a mental image in people's minds of statues or busts of the two past disastrous all-Texas all the time presidents LBJ and Dubya and question the wisdom of adding a Perry bust alongside them as consequence of the 2012 election.
(Connecticut born and bred HW Bush gets a pass as a Texas transplant)
Bill Clinton got past the Southern Jimmy Carter stigma by successfully convincing voters he was a whole different breed of Southern cat than Jimmy. Perry is posturing as "Gov Dubya Bush PLUS".
[And as for poor Jeb Bush, who his dad thought would have made a better President than Dubya and lost his chance because he lost his 1st state-wide election - his Dad was probably right. But now he is cursed by being too close at the heels of a moderately successful Presidency by his Dad who was a one-termer because of economic problems, and Dubya, who left an awful mess behind him. Dynastic politics only works if the "brand name" is good, and Dubya trashed the brand name.]
I'm kind of in agreement with Vicki's "swayed either way by an op ed from a New York columnist..." comment. That's giving them a lot of power I don't believe they deserve.
I love that bit about dropping "g"s. I guess it does not bother Gail Collins that Obama does that everytime he finds himself trying to appeal to "folks." On him it's as fake as stimulus-created green job. At least Perry's from a state where they do tend to talk that way. Makes me think of re-locating. As they say, "on earth as it is in Texas."
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?"
Right. Because the media is not saturated wit the whole "heartland values voter" versus "coastal elitist" meme: the very meme in which Perry himself trades.
And in which you and your commenters are trading right now. Christ on a crumb heap, irony alert.
If the democraps know this NOW, Obama is NOT going to be on the ticket in 14 month's time.
Given how dirty and hardball politics IS ... is just a question of either letting Obama fall ... But then hoping to go "anti-obama" as democraps appeal for botes ...
It's not even that Perry is a strong candidate. But only that Obama is growing weaker and weaker!
This probably means we just "slide" for the next year or so. NO BIG STEPS, TAKEN! NO WARS "DELCARED."
No improvement in world-wide unemployment numbers.
And, NONE OF THE BANKERS GO TO JAIL! If Obama is still standing there at the end? He'll PARDON all the bankers ... but the mess is GLOBAL.
And, the biggest bubble to burst, ahead? BELONGS TO CHINA!
When hasn't the world had poor people?
You know what I didn't know?
There are now starving Irish, who can't come into America. And, when they try, they're picked up and deported!
Carol - excellent point. Poverty is the default state of humanity. The idea of lifting all people into a middle class is a very NOVEL concept! It certainly isn't AFrica or the Middle East that is giving people that opportunity. It's America mainly.
Any time NYT bloviators are cited, its time to hit delete--The NYT and its crew of foolish opinionators appeal only to manhatten and South Connecticut--they are totally detached from reality.
We oughtn't underestimate the power the MSM still wields to picture & define candidates. But now that even the NYT is backtracking on Palin, basically admitting that the MSM's frenzied anti-Palin smear-and-mock campaign was full of BS, & even malicious (cf. the panning Joe what's-his-name is getting), I think a similar anti-Perry campaign is gonna fall flat. At least much flatter. (And Bush did win twice, after all.)
Nevertheless, unlike others here, I consider Palin unelectable as POTUS & hope she doesn't run. For reasons I've gone into before; pointless to rehash them again. Unless she runs, in which case I'm sure there will be much rehashing & gnashing across the land.
To harrogate: nice strawman. So far as I know, no one here, and none of the Republican candidates, have gone after Obama for being a "coastal elitist." They're going after him for for his execrable record & abominable policies as president. It's the NYT that's publishing multiple articles pushing culture war rhetoric, dripping with contempt. I mean, what else is Obama going to run on?
Having spent some time in Texas I found that they don't think much of New Yorkers in that state. Or any other state for that matter. Texans think quite well of themselves. And their state. Not being from there I found it all fairly amusing, although I kept that to myself.
Yashu, Althouse's question begins: "Do these New York women..."
Do you not see that she is trading in an absolutely well-worn rhetorical trope here? And that everyone just jumped right in and rolled in it?
I am not saying anyone here has or has not called Obama a "coastal elite." I am, however, saying that for years and years now, just about everywhere you turn you hear that rhetoric being thrown around by pundits and by GOP candidates alike. I still remember the way the Bush/Kerry election was framed as a clash between "values voters" and "elitists," for example. Perhaps you took issue with that contempt-filled characterization as unfair. But I doubt it, somehow.
Making fun of urbanites and especially "coastal liberals" is actually quite acceptable in the MSM. Surely you know this. Good thing none of the GOP candidates make a distinction between the "real Americans" who support them, and everyone else.
The exact mirror image of what althouse complains about in her post takes place within her post and the comment section.
Harrowgate, they are two women from New York who write about New York. They are thus New York women, it seems.
"Any time NYT bloviators are cited, its time to hit delete--The NYT and its crew of foolish opinionators appeal only to manhatten and South Connecticut--they are totally detached from reality."
Some real probing analysis, right there.
Some real probing analysis, right there.
What probing analysis did Gail Collins give us? She's a pure bigot. She might as well have written an article about how she hates blacks or Jews.
Alex:
The merit or lack of merit, of Gail Collins' writings has nothing to do with whether or not the quotation I posted drips ignorance and cultural bigotry. Because the quote I posted simply does drip ignorance and cultural bigotry. And if you support what "Roger" wrote, then that says something about you as well.
But thank you for playing.
harrogate - you seem new here, so I'll cut you some slack. It's just that I don't give Gail Collins the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging Texans. She's a petty harpy that writs for the NYT ensconed in her Manhattan/CT bubble. That is not my bigotry, but reality.
Um, thanks for the "slack." I truly was worried.
In truth, there is no more a Manhattan/CT bubble than there is a "Texas" bubble. This is obvous to anyone with sensory capability. But it is much mroe common among people such as the commenters here to speak of one as a "bubble" and the other as "heartland" or "the american people" or some such rot.
I suspect Governor Perry isn't metro-sexual enough for these two females.
I've visited Texas only twice but loved the people I met there. It's a refreshing place.
Whether or not Perry drops his g's is irrelevant to me. He seems to be able to utter an entire sentence without the aid of the teleprompter, unlike the most brilliant mind ever to grace the Oval Office.
In fact, that's a presidential debate I'd pay to watch.
victoria "A rational, thinking person would, even though they believe in capital punishment, have at least a moment of thought before putting someone to death. People like that worry me."
Why do you assume that those you disagree with have not thought things through?
You remind me of those effete liberals who describe themselves as "Conscious".
And liberal pseudo-intellectuals wonder why normal people despise them.
Funny how Dowd, et al, have taken to making an issue of Perry's academic performance while Barack continues to hide his grades, Kerry isn't so smart, and neither is Gore.
Those New Yawkers are just giving Perry free PR!
Now who is the fool?
Forgive them. They know not what they do.
Part of this elitist "pushback" is the 8 years of Bush. These NY/CT elitists just couldn't stomach 8 years of having a brash Texan as POTUS and now they are letting loose their wrath!
harrogate,
It seems to me that most of the "anti-elitist" culture war rhetoric from the right in recent years is basically *pushback*. The contempt is directed at elitism itself (i.e. the poisonous contempt directed at "fly-over" "red state" Americans by the MSM, Hollywood, and Democratic Party), more than at any of the cultural markers those elitists are identified with.
It's because the NYT displays such elitist contempt toward the red state "other", that people feel contempt right back-- not because it covers opera and molecular gastronomy. It's because academia displays such elitist contempt toward the red state "other", that people feel contempt right back-- not because they study presocratic philosophy and post-Renaissance art. Jokes about "arugula" have a contingent content-- it's not about the arugula, which is a fine leafy green. Whereas jokes about Texas and religion, are about Texas and religion.
I don't deny there's some ugly culture war stuff on some fringes on the right (which turns me off), but IMO it's dwarfed in comparison to what the left continually shovels out-- e.g. on the pages of this nation's ostensibly preeminent newspaper.
Comparing stuff said about Obama's cultural elitism (arugula, Harvard-- p.s. Bush's alma mater too) & stuff said about Sarah Palin backwoods hillbilly savagery: the virulence on the left was orders of magnitude greater than anything on the right. Now, the issue of Obama's "Marxism"-- that's something else, that's a question of ideology, not culture.
By the way, I happen to be an SFBayArea arugula-eating Proust-reading postpunk-listening hipster-glasses-wearing Ivy-League-alumna pro-science atheist academic single childless woman. Who will happily vote for the Texan cowboy if he's the GOP nominee.
What if Ron Paul's "card" is strengthening? To a republican candidate, he is just a "spoiler."
But the contest gets won by the person who peels off the independents.
Can America go back to having another failed PROHIBITION? Sure. Look at all the money poured down the sewer on the war on drugs?
Obama hasn't been making people as angry as Jimmy Carter made them!
Has Obama started angering up more of his base?
Yashu, most women are slaves to their eggs.
Yashu says:I don't deny there's some ugly culture war stuff on some fringes on the right (which turns me off), but IMO it's dwarfed in comparison to what the left continually shovels out-- e.g. on the pages of this nation's ostensibly preeminent newspaper...By the way, I happen to be an SFBayArea arugula-eating Proust-reading postpunk-listening hipster-glasses-wearing Ivy-League-alumna pro-science atheist academic single childless woman. Who will happily vote for the Texan cowboy if he's the GOP nominee.
So in other words, you're someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. For one thing, the "coastal elites" (or just plain "elites") insult against Obama and his supporters isn't a fringe idea, it's something one finds all the time in conservative discourse, from internet comment pages to mainstream media and political figures. If you haven't noticed it or think it's just a fringe phenomenon, that's because you live in a liberal bubble where you're insulated from it. Conservatives who live in big urban liberal areas tend to be. (And by the way, if that liberal world is so terrible to you, why don't you move to a nice conservative rural town in West Texas? Or is that a bridge too far?) Also, if you think Rick Perry and his crowd would have any positive feelings toward a self-described "SFBayArea arugula-eating Proust-reading postpunk-listening hipster-glasses-wearing Ivy-League-alumna pro-science atheist academic single childless woman", you're kidding yourself. But please, vote for Rick Perry. I could use the tax cut and he'd be helpful to some friends here in Texas.
The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that a college-educated conservative has almost certainly passed through at least one institution controlled by liberals. A college-educated liberal has almost certainly not passed through an institution controlled by conservatives.
In America, liberals are the insular ones.
Could we please stop pretending that either one of these women, or the NYT in general, represents an "elite" opinion?
Thinking you're "elite," telling everyone you're "elite," assuming you're "elite," does not make you elite.
somefeller,
I didn't say that "coastal elite" insults were fringe-- just what I consider particularly ugly rhetoric. I don't consider cracks about arugula, or Althouse's epithet of "New York women" to describe, um, New York women, to be ugly. Well, I don't consider that to be an insult, either.
Thanks, I'm happy here. Some of my best friends are Marxists. (Although I'm largely in the closet politically-- that's no fun. But I get to unload with you fine people here.)
I don't know what Rick Perry & his crowd would think of me. But I know very well-- from living among them, privy to their conservations & rhetoric & judgments-- what many in the crowd around me, people who look like me & sound like me, would think of me if I was more frank about my politics.
I don't predicate my vote on whether the candidate looks like me, talks like me, likes the same kind of food & music as me, or has the same ideas about God as me. I vote based on what I think his/her policies are likely to be, based on what I know of their ideological principles & their actions in office.
Carol_Herman said...
Obama hasn't been making people as angry as Jimmy Carter made them!
Has Obama started angering up more of his base?
=================
Truth is Obama seems like a nice guy by nature, but he is someone that had entree` into an Elite Culture and in part reflects insufferable aspects of that Culture in his snootiness, "perfessorial ways", and attitudes.
Unlike people like Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Tom DeLay, Teddy, Jesse, and Sarah Palin who are just viscerally disliked by a significant portion of the US population.
He sort of has the Dubya problem - basically a good guy, but in over his head...and more incompetent, with more wrong decisions, and even more bad luck than Dubya Bush.
There's a lot of ways you can score an upcoming election. But you just don't know, until the scores are actually tallied.
Take, for instance, the republican win of Anthony Weiner's seat. MOST of the voters STAYED HOME. Only a small percentage (under 1000 people) came out to vote.
IF it looks like Obama is winning? People in his base may decide to stay home? (This was done to Dole, in 1996, by Conservatives.)
You can also see an upsurge in votes for Ron Paul. If he's still out there, and running as an Independent.
Can Perry hold the lead?
How did Jimmy Carter best Ford?
In 2008, Obama really had a surge in support. Which has been lost. But for him to lose to Perry, Perry has to be as popular a choice as Ronald Reagan.
Maybe, their hair is similar?
Maybe, philosophically, both men are more alike than not?
And, what if "somehow" Obama is "bumped off?" So can't run? Maybe, the "real birth certificate" gets found?
The repubilcans have quite a large field. But other than obama, what do the democraps have? Hillary? Biden? Harry Reid?
Whatever position Obama is in right now ... he knows "people don't love him." And, he can shed votes. Or make people willing to stay home.
I actually think these days the "bad news" motivates the democraps more than Jimmy Carter ever motivated them, before.
The election is going to be a referendum on Texas I guess... the Confederate flag versus a black man.
Cedarford, I agree with your observations.
But, so far, neither Perry or Obama can get to an electoral college win.
Perry, meanwhile, gets to sleep in lots of motels for the next 14 months.
Obama plays with a different set of cards.
Oh, by the way, HOW one votes is a silly argument. (Though I do remember reading some political commentary, once ... that there are people who hate to vote for losers.) So how a person is portrayed in the press ends up counting for a lot of points. Because there are people who "just want to vote for a winnah."
Perry's not in that category, yet.
Dubya was called "hitler." At the end, his popularity sunk to 31%. And, he was full of himself as "the decider in chief."
That's not obama, either.
Yes Lyle, we all hate black people, blah, blah, blah.
I just can't get enough of hearing that b.s. Lord give me strength to make it through Nov 2012.
And yes, I pray. Eeeeek!
"The main difference between liberals and conservatives is that a college-educated conservative has almost certainly passed through at least one institution controlled by liberals. A college-educated liberal has almost certainly not passed through an institution controlled by conservatives.
In America, liberals are the insular ones.:"
Mesquito, that is an insufferably dumb comment. Compare the conservative's experience of four or five years of going to college, to the experience of being a liberal growing up in a conservative community. Where I grew up, conservative rhetoric inundated the schools I came through, the community functions I attended, pretty much everything. Not exactly easy to stand up for gay rights, for example, as a teenager in a small West Texas town.
The truth is that it is hard to be in the ideological minority. Conservatives hardly corner the market on this experience.
Funny that, harrogate. I live in a small town in the Hill Country. It has a population of 300 and five thriving churches. I've lived here ten years and I swear the question of gay rights has never been brought up in my presence.
In other words, my small Texas town is intensely religious and scrupulously apolitical.
And I really doubt your high school assigned readings from National Review.
"SLIP, SLIDING, ALONG"
For some reason I think I remember something like that from a song back in the 1960's.
And, I also think it's going to be Obama's way, ahead. Pretty much "doing nothing." Because without dramatic "steps" ... how to you build a campaign against him?
The "bubble" exploded on Dubya. AND, it exploded because people around the globe went crazy.
In Ireland they shoveled money out the door, through bankers, to build real estate ... for twice as many people as they have! And, workers from Poland were brought in to do the "cement work." (Poorly.)
I'm guessing this has something to do with both the Irish and the Poles being Catholic.
While the banks lent money to bring in all this real estate BOOM. Which, when it went bust ... As Michael Lewis tells it ...
Lots of fancy BMW's were left at the Dublin airport. What the valets couldn't understand, though, is that they ran out of space to park more cars. And, nobody "returned" to pick up their automobiles. (Which were really owned by the Irish banks. And, of course, every single Irishman ... because the loans were guaranteed by the taxpayers.)
Some police were sent to Poland, to "find" the workers ... to "get them to pay up their loans." BUT they disappeared into Poland! And, not one of them could be tracked down.
Stories like this make it seem plausible that Obama is just waiting for enough angry Europeans to go and kill the EURO. Which knocks the Belgium's off their high perch. And, brings "borders" and currencies ... and sovereignty, too, back to each and every European. Living now in "border-less" country.
Where's the downside to Obama?
He just waits.
And, what pot shots can the republicans take? They're up to their eyeballs in the BUBBLE THAT GREW!
It seems it's easy for republicans to blast obama ... As they skirt around the IDIOT McCAIN ... And, the poor performance, while in office, of Dubya.
The other benefit to Obama?
A close race keeps people occupied. If it was said that Obama was a shoo-in? He'd lose! Too many people would yawn. And, just stay home.
The reason the NY Times is touting Perry ... is because they want to give Perry enough track room to fall over himself.
Now, saying Perry has A vote ... doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
mesquito: What it is about the subject that causes you to thus write in bad faith, as in the comment above?
"And liberal pseudo-intellectuals wonder why normal people despise them."
Hahahaha!
It's because "normal people," that is to say--stupid people--hate anything they can't understand or anyone they perceive to be smarter than they are.
Take, for instance, the republican win of Anthony Weiner's seat. MOST of the voters STAYED HOME. Only a small percentage (under 1000 people) came out to vote.
*shakes head*
Elle,
I was being facetious. :)
Lyle - forgive me :)
Said before, said again, need a sarc/ font.
"I guess Collins and Dowdy never heard of Lyndon Johnson? Now there was a Texan."
LBJ probably only won the election for two reasons: his association with the (then) revered JKF and the fear engendered in most Americans by Barry Goldwater's far-right political positions.
Of course, by the standards of today, Goldwater would hardly seem far right, so far to the right has "the middle" become.
harrogate said...
mesquito: What it is about the subject that causes you to thus write in bad faith, as in the comment above?
I'm sorry, harrogate, if I find somewhat comical the idea of a small town in West Texas being ideological in the same sense of, say, the University of Wisconsin. If you had to stand still and all respectful through Veterans Days ceremonies, without being permitted to say your piece about "Don't Ask-Don't Tell," I'm sure you'll get over it some day.
Only a small percentage (under 1000 people) came out to vote.
You got a source for that howler, pard?
"Now, the issue of Obama's 'Marxism'-- that's something else, that's a question of ideology, not culture."
Actually, it's a question of paranoia, ignorance, and delusion by stupid people.
"I'm sorry, harrogate, if I find somewhat comical the idea of a small town in West Texas being ideological in the same sense of, say, the University of Wisconsin. If you had to stand still and all respectful through Veterans Days ceremonies, without being permitted to say your piece about "Don't Ask-Don't Tell," I'm sure you'll get over it some day."
Oh, please. First of all most college kids are worried about politics about as much while they are at college, as your average main streeter is at home. Yes, there is strong political discourse on college campuses and a lot of it is liberal.
Buyt here's a shock. There is very strong political discourse everywhere and a lot of it is conservative dominated. Where I grew up, in the time I grew up, if you challenged the dominant thinking that Ronald Reagan was a great Presuident then you were viewed with suspicion. If you were gay it was pretty scandalous and you were mistreated in all sorts of ways.
There are thousands of anecdotes any liberal could give that would match any example any poor conservative that felt outnumbered for four years at college could give. But the thrust of the argument rests far less on anecdote than on the importance of not wallowing in delusions of martyred grandeur.
There are places and cultures in the United States where it is difficult to be a liberal who speaks your mind. There are also places and cultures in the country where it is difficult to be a conservative who speaks your mind.
In short: "We conservatives were challenegd but you liberals were not" is just about as stupid an argument as can possibly be made with a straight face. So you'd be better off not making the argument.
Mesquito says:Funny that, harrogate. I live in a small town in the Hill Country. It has a population of 300 and five thriving churches. I've lived here ten years and I swear the question of gay rights has never been brought up in my presence. In other words, my small Texas town is intensely religious and scrupulously apolitical. And I really doubt your high school assigned readings from National Review.
If that's true, great. Seriously, I hope that is true. But let's remember that the Hill Country of Texas has historically tended to be more liberal than other parts of rural Texas. The Germans who settled that part of the state tended to have more tolerant views on a lot of things going way back (that part of Texas was more pro-Union than other parts of the state and if memory serves some of the counties there voted against secession) and that was the part of Texas that was LBJ's base. So while your town may be a small one, the Hill Country is different than other parts of the state on many matters.
Also, when one talks about socially conservative environments that are oppressive, it isn't because the urbane conservatism of William F. Buckley is being preached. It's because the conservatism of Pat Robertson and his crowd is being preached, even in the supposedly-secular public schools.
I've seen the poster of Dubya that says "Miss me yet?". Didn't think it would be the NYTimes saying "yes".
You got a source for that howler, pard?
Of course not. Carol Herman doesn't come up with sources, she just comes up with whatever spills out of her ignorant and addled brain, without regard for whether it's true or not. I guess that makes life easier for her, though it probably makes life harder for everyone else around her.
"Going in I weighed 158. After the humongous loaf I weighed 155."
Am I the only one that pictured Titus as a big doughy 240 pound man? 155 pounds??? Must reconfigure internal vision of Titus on the commode.
"Now, the issue of Obama's 'Marxism'-- that's something else, that's a question of ideology, not culture."
Actually, it's a question of paranoia, ignorance, and delusion by stupid people.
Robert,
Whether or not any of Obama's actions as president can be ascribed to Marxist ideology-- let's say, for the purposes of argument, that they aren't-- it's still undeniable that he had Marxist mentors, Marxist associates, and joined Marxist associations as an adult. Much of this is described in his own memoirs.
So if people on the right-- who, unlike you, happen to oppose Marxist ideology & think it would be a bad thing to implement in our government-- object to O's "Marxism," they may be mistaken (though who can read Obama's mind?), but their concerns are not insane & (more to the point of this thread) aren't driven by their contempt for "coastal elites" or culture-war stuff. That was the only point I was making. It's the ideology, stupid.
NB I'm not actually calling you stupid. In contrast to you-- who, for some reason, are calling your fellow commenters here "stupid people" who "hate anything they can't understand or anyone they perceive to be smarter than they are." If you wanted to disprove the point some of us are making here about elitist contempt, that's not the… smartest way to go about it.
pst314 said...
victoria "They [Texans] are jealous of Californians, always have been, always will."
So let's see: Arrogant Californians denigrate Texas. Texans respond with "Fuck you, asshole. We love it here." Californians interpret this as "jealousy". Yeah, right. Keep telling yourself that.
Victoria does not speak for many Californians. She does not speak for me. If our kids and grandkids did not live here in California my wife and I would move to Texas in a flash. We have lived there before, in the military.
"The migration figures suggest that lots more Californians want to be Texans than the other way around."
In the mid-1900s California was the biggest "magnet" in the nation, growing the fastest in population and political influence as measured by its number of electoral votes. Since then it has been Texas.
In the mid-1900s California was usually run by Republicans and Texas was usually (well always) run by Democrats. Since then California has usually been run by Democrats and Texas by Republicans. Just sayin'.
PS - I live in California
pst314
I meant to cite to your comment with approval, not to take your eloquent thoughts as my own.
It seems to me that most of the "anti-elitist" culture war rhetoric from the right in recent years is basically *pushback*.
I think this is mostly right. Folks on the coast have been making fun of the south for ages. Now they’re getting a little bit of pushback and they are whining like a bunch of little girls. Man up! (also, to anyone who says Texans are proud of themselves, have you never met a New Yorker?)
It's because "normal people," that is to say--stupid people--hate anything they can't understand or anyone they perceive to be smarter than they are
Maybe they just hate people who go around yelling “I’m smarter than you” while saying and doing the dumbest shit imaginable. Of course, it’s always been my opinion that the person who constantly tries to tell everyone how smart they are isn’t very.
Miss Victoria is a high society matron in Pasadena California. She must live in the insular world of Democrat party California politics. You know the ones that voted for teaching elementary school children gay history in California bucause they worried so much such about all the gay children. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we should know that what they want is that it must be backed as law. I’m always surprised at the issues put up as important.
Kids are failing in school. We get temps for hire that can’t speak enough English for us to understand without extensive questioning. I’m talking about people of American citizens.
There is an old saying: As California goes America.
This must be stopped.
Shanna writes:
"Ithink this is mostly right. Folks on the coast have been making fun of the south for ages. Now they’re getting a little bit of pushback and they are whining like a bunch of little girls...."
I'm sure you do like to "think" the commenter has a point. However, a cursory tour of speeches by, say, just about any conservative politico in the 195os, 60s, 70s, will prove you full of hokey. Say, Reagan or Nixon. Wallace. Endless list.
Not to mention I have a stack of old country CDs that proves how delusional you and those who are arguing along similar lines, really are. When in doubt, if you're a country singer in the late 20th centuy, beat up on "them San Francisco hippies" or contrast your idyllic Alabama haven to how they "do it in New York or LA."
I mean, please/ The idea that there is some innate virtue in the rural white South and/or "flyover country" is old as it gets. Hell, Thomas Jefferson thought cities were magnets for corruption (and they are!); but he thought that rural landowners were banner carriers of virtue (hahahahahahaha).
Strange to watch the commenters do all these ridiculous gymnastics to defend a persecution complex. Hmmmm. I perhaps there is more at stake in protecting this lie than meets the eye?
harrogate,
Oh for god's sake-- yes, Mr. Obvious, the country vs. city, folk vs. elites thing is old as the hills; it appears in virtually every culture; there's plenty of it going back to ancient Greece.
But we're not talking about the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's-- I specifically limited my diagnosis to "in recent years." And we're not talking about country music, or slasher movies with hillbilly serial killers (or the remake of Straw Dogs), we're talking about politics-- specifically, presidential politics. You objected to Althouse using the term "New York women" (an offensive epithet when used to describe women from New York who write for the New York Times, apparently), and accused her of deploying the same kind of cultural contempt she's criticizing in Collins & Dowd. (That Althouse likely has more in common culturally with Dowd than with Perry is beside the point, I guess.)
The topic was two articles in the NYT today obsessed with the scary/ freaky/ stupid cultural Texan-ness of the potential GOP nominee-- among countless others in recent days. Articles & discussions that focus not on Perry's ideas or policies or his performance in office-- but his scary cultural Texan-ness, including his religion. (There was a disgusting example of this from David Brooks recently too: Jews may be sour on Obama, he says, "but wait until they get a load of Rick Perry." Brooks doesn't give any actual reasons, say to do with Perry's views on Israel, why Jews should be put off: just his innate Perry-ness, I guess.)
Find me one reference in the GOP debates (or from anyone among the commenters here) which attacks Obama-- criticizes him as president or 2012 candidate-- that focuses specifically on socio-cultural qualities, characteristics as a member of the "coastal elite"-- as opposed to his policies, ideology, rhetoric, and actions as president.
"NB I'm not actually calling you stupid. In contrast to you-- who, for some reason, are calling your fellow commenters here "stupid people" who "hate anything they can't understand or anyone they perceive to be smarter than they are." If you wanted to disprove the point some of us are making here about elitist contempt, that's not the… smartest way to go about it."
I'm not trying to disprove a point...I was having some fun by posting a snarky remark, mainly, as the comment I was responding to was so juvenile. I just responded to it in kind. (Not that I don't think there is some truth in my insult.)
As for Obama's alleged "Marxism," I hear a lot about it, but where is it, in practice? What policies has Obama pushed or passed that are in any way Marxist? In fact, his problem is that he is resolutely centrist, not even a liberal, much less even a leftist, and certainly no Marxist. The people who say such things about him either are really stupid--assuming they believe him to be a Marxist--or they don't have a clue about Marxism.
"LBJ probably only won the election for two reasons: his association with the (then) revered JKF"
Is this the same "revered" JFK who barely scraped by in the 1960 election? And who, before he was assassinated, was predicted to have another tough battle in 1964? I guess he put LBJ on the ticket because he didn't want to be too popular and figured having a Texan on the ticket would keep him from winning the election by too much.
"We have had several Texas presidents, but none so deeply, intensely Texas as this guy would be."
The NYT has photos in their files of LBJ sipping a latte.
Robert, I think those people-- no fans of Marxism-- just have different ideas about what Marxist ideology in an American president would look like in practice. Obviously, there's no way to implement Marxism wholesale or any recognizably pure form in the American system, as a coherent ideology-- it's politically impossible. But it might be manifest indirectly in mixed (& politically compromised) actions, snippets of rhetoric, overall allegiances, preferences, biases, and antipathies: e.g. being strongly pro-union, repeated class war rhetoric, demonizing the rich/ Wall Street/ banks (yet all the while in bed with favored cronies), favoring certain foreign leaders over others, etc.
These people would expect such a president's Marxist ideas or sympathies to manifest themselves in ways that might seem incompatible to you (who see Marxism in a more idealistic light): e.g. crony capitalism, authoritarian tendencies & chilling of dissent (Attack Watch!), doublespeak, opacity & corruption in federal agencies & instruments of power (cf. Eric Holder), a tendency toward centralized power & (over)regulation, exercising power by diktat (sidestepping the legislature & judical branches, appointing lots of czars), joining forces with union thugs, etc.
That is, these people would not expect Marxism to look like what Marxists think Marxism looks like. More like, the opposite.
I think for those people, the greatest indication of Marxist ideas in a president might actually be incoherence-- i.e. a completely distorted, ignorant, and unrealistic picture of how markets & the economy in general works.
You may be right that these people know nothing about Marxism. Or they may just have a different picture of Marxism than you-- one patterned not so much on Marxist theory, but on empirical examples of Marxist societies & leaders in history-- i.e. Marxism in an 'impure' form, but then that's the only form seen in the real world.
NB I'm no expert on Marxism. Someday I'd like to study it (as theoretical tradition & historical phenomenon) in depth.
Bad case of logorrhea today. Sorry everybody.
Why should anyone with an IQ above room temperature give two shits about the opinions of shallow, pre-programmed ideologues like Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd?
Nelson Muntz said it best.
Find me one reference in the GOP debates (or from anyone among the commenters here) which attacks Obama-- criticizes him as president or 2012 candidate-- that focuses specifically on socio-cultural qualities, characteristics as a member of the "coastal elite"
Well, constantly referring to him as some product of the Chicago Machine and criticizing him for the church he attended in Chicago are a good start. (Granted, they make him part of the Midwest, not coastal, elite, but the sentiment is the same.
These people would expect such a president's Marxist ideas or sympathies to manifest themselves in ways that might seem incompatible to you (who see Marxism in a more idealistic light): e.g. crony capitalism, authoritarian tendencies & chilling of dissent (Attack Watch!), doublespeak, opacity & corruption in federal agencies & instruments of power (cf. Eric Holder), a tendency toward centralized power & (over)regulation, exercising power by diktat (sidestepping the legislature & judical branches, appointing lots of czars), joining forces with union thugs, etc.
To call these tendencies (even if the accusations are true) Marxist, means Marxism is reduced to "policies yashu doesn't like". And by this standard, George Bush (who Ann absolutely adored) is somewhere between Lenin and Stalin.
Every policy you are claiming Manifesting "Marxist sympathies" (with the exception of cosying up to "union thugs", of which you can give not one concrete example), were demonstrably more severe under the Bush administration.
stuff said about Sarah Palin backwoods hillbilly savagery
Where on earth did you hear Palin accused of "backwoods hillbilly savagery"? You are just making things up.
I will have to remember that one, though. In its insane paranoia and defensiveness it is a pretty good line.
constantly referring to him as some product of the Chicago Machine
That's a reference to the well known corruption of Chicago and is similar to critizing someone for being a louisiana pol. It has nothing to do elitism or anti-elitism. The stuff about his church is about the crazy things his minister has said.
I'm sure you do like to "think" the commenter has a point.
I just have to say that I am vastly amused at the scare quotes around think.
I would not be at all surprised to someday learn that Perry has been trying to evoke exactly this response from the NYT and similar. I'm sure it helps him, and it is tactically no different than goading a debate opponent to overreach, just on a bigger scale.
In that sense I might agree with Ann---it may make me like him a bit more not just for his enemies, but I realy suspect this is the result of a disciplined strategy and that sort of thinking is what I want in a President.
I suspect that the people who show this intolerant attitude towards Texans are usually the ones with the "Celebrate Diversity" bumper sticker.
Freder Frederson asks: "Where on earth did you hear Palin accused of 'backwoods hillbilly savagery'? You are just making things up."
Freder, allow me to help you use the internet. The following Google searches will turn up stories and blogs, many of them mainstream (e.g. thinkprogress):
"savagery wolf palin"
"backwoods palin"
"hilbilly palin"
So to answer your question, that's where.
You can accuse me of anti-elitism, but I'm rather tired of all the East Coast credentialed presidents. It way be that I'm originally from West Texas, too, but I'd love to have an Aggie from Paint Creek, TX in thyw White House (or someone from Iowa, Oregon State, etc....). That might be what this country needs.
Just saw this at Maggies' Farm:
"From a medical malpractice defense lawyer: "I can pick any one of your charts at random and, in a little while, find a potential malpractice case in there. Why? Because few things in medical care work out perfectly, and they can easily find another doc in your specialty from an Ivy medical school to say, at $1500/hour plus expenses, that he would have done it a little differently. My advice? Move to Texas where they will appreciate you docs. Texas wants happy, caring doctors who do not view every patient as a potential lawsuit."
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/18037-Heard-at-a-faculty-lecture-yesterday-Move-to-Texas..html#comments
Y'know Professor, I enjoy reading your blog every day but, wrt the polls you occasionally post, don't quit your day job to become a multiple choice test writer.
A rational, thinking person would, eventhough they believe in capital punishment, have at least a moment of thought before putting someone to death. People like that worry me.
Vicki from Pasadena
Rick Perry is personally executing one of James Byrd's murderers two days from now. Get your drum circles and candlelight vigils ready.
Two can play that game. Try out how this sounds:
"You think of John Kennedy, you think of Ireland. And more Ireland. Kennedy the boxing whiskey swiller, the lord of the Irish job-creation machine, the th-dropping mick with a “God to you” for every stranger in the room. He barely exists in the national mind outside of the Irish connection."
How does that sound?
Texan, especially native Texan, is a cultural and ethinic identity. Judging someone on its basis is no less racist than judging Obama as a black Kenyan.
Look for Slick Willie to try to make best friends.
I believe that The New York Times is one of the Republican Party's greatest strategic assets. By pandering to the prejudices of their upper-class, white liberal, urban atheist readers, NYT does more than any other media outlet to keep its readership safely ensconced in a comforting reality bubble until it's too late to adjust course.
Lawrence Person
http://www.battleswarmblog.com/
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing.."
No, but if they do, they don't care. If you're the type of person who would be more interested in Perry because of what they say (i.e., independent thinking), then you're nothing to them anyway.
"Do these New York women realize that this kind of elitist contempt makes Rick Perry more appealing... to a lot of people... including me?"
I don't know and I don't care. I stopped reading the NYT years ago and I don't pay any attention to anyone expressing elitist contempt.
I think a much better question for a reader poll would be, "do you read the new york times?" Or, "do you listen to people who express elitist contempt."
Blogger DADvocate said...
Funny how Dowd, et al, have taken to making an issue of Perry's academic performance while Barack continues to hide his grades, Kerry isn't so smart, and neither is Gore.
Precisely. The Left and their minions in the Press have been telling us for years that their candidates are so...intelligent. Funny - Al Gore's GPA at Yale was lower than George W. Bush's according to...the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18). John Kerry turned out to be a pretty average student as well. According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm), Bush had a better GPA than Kerry as well. And based on the limited information we have at present, Barack Obama seems to have been a near-perfect example of an affirmative-action baby - he has no achievements that demonstrate any real intelligence whatsoever. Yet the lefties keep pushing the 'we're smarter' meme despite the utter lack of evidence to back it up. This article in the NY Times is simply one more example of small, un-talented people projecting their own inadequacies on their opponents. As we've seen with the TEA Party versus union thugs, projection is the one thing the Left and their media shills is actually good at. Making accurate predictions and providing cogent analysis are things they have signally failed at for years.
Bad case of logorrhea today. Sorry everybody.
I thought your Marxist post at 11:59 was pretty damn awesome.
If you subscribe to the NYT, you are an ignorant retard who makes rednecks look stellar in comparison.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा