Says Jonathan Chait, adding that Romney reminds him of George H.W. Bush. Me too. So... advice to Mitt: Whatever you do, do not look at your watch.
By the way, why is Jonathan Chait so mean?
There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified. The dilemma is especially acute in the political economic field, where wealthy right-wingers have pumped so much money to subsidize the field of pro-rich people polemics that the demand for competent defenders of letting rich people keep as much of their money as possible vastly outstrips the supply. Hence the intellectual marketplace for arguments that we should tax rich people less is glutted with hackery.Now, go away wingers! You're flummoxing Jonathan!
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
"That is one of the problems with the dream of governing like a Prescott Bush or a George Romney, after you’ve run for office by selling yourself as a muttonhead."
Too funny, and yes, mittens has several problems.
Thank God we have superior people like Chait to give us these great insights.
"...the agony of suppressed contempt."
Sounds like Jonathan is projecting to me
Pot, meet Kettle.
What risable bullshit.
"By the way, why is Jonathan Chait so mean?
I thought this would be in reference to the Kausfile article. See link at instapundit.
OIK!
"There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified."
Indeed so.
And none more so than our president, the least qualified, least experienced man ever nominated for the office by a major political party.
And 53% of the electorate were stupid enough to vote for him.
Here's to mass idiocy.
We'll be paying the price for several lifetimes.
Do better next time.
Attack the messenger and not the message = another typical day among Althouse conservatives as she, as always, leads the way ...
The left's exhausted never-ending big idea that the removal of private property is a good idea when that private property can destory private jobs and be funneled into a waste-filled corrupt crony govenrment run by rich democrats and their wealthy donors.
There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified. The dilemma is especially acute in the political economic field, where universities have pumped so much money to subsidize the field of pro-marxist polemics that the demand for competent defenders of capitalism and economic growth vastly outstrips the supply. Hence the intellectual marketplace for arguments that we should tax rich people more is glutted with hackery.
Mash this up with Chait's statement and you have hackery armageddon.
It's really past time to retire the terms "political economy" and "political economics". These things convince flabby thinkers that they are clever.
"There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified."
There's a simple solution to that. Unfortunately for him, it violates our inalienable rights. If one of the costs of our freedoms is that he must suffer the dissemination of, e.g., Limbaugh's views, another cost is that we must suffer the dissemination of Chait's views.
Put another way, who in the hell does he think should decide who is "qualified?"
A prayer.
God, please save us from all of the really smart, and not-as-smart-as-they-think-they-are, people in politics.
If they would only leave us the f*** alone.
Please.
Those with the "right thinking" and those who "care." Personally I think those who can pass a civics test should be a baseline.
It's hard for a managerial technocrat not to show contempt for those benighted conservatives.
Give Romney points for suppressing his contempt, if only Chait and his ilk would, we might have a more civil society.
"Attack the messenger and not the message"
I know you're referring to Althouse, but you didn't think past the level of "Althouse: must attack." Think about what Chait is decrying. He is doing nothing if not attacking messengers.
"[The left] mythologises uselessness and praises it."
David Mamet
GHW Bush. Yes.
I first noticed it with the false energy/urgency he applies to his speaking style. (Listen for it.) It seems designed to add a sense of conviction from a man who, like Bush 41, is seen as a moderate, though competent, mush.
Another way to sum up Chait's view of Romney is that Romney has become worn out and fragile from efforts to hide his contempt for the citizens whom he must serve.
It's not easy to live up to George W Romney's calling from the Mormon god. But all this money must be his for a reason...so he will suffer and do what he can with it for Dad.
"..government handouts have reached a level that is equivalent to 35 percent of all wages and salaries in the United States... this figure was only 21 percent back in the year 2000 and only 10 percent back in 1960.."
But.. Romney has a secret antipathy.. and Obama can sing like Al Green.
Message: I care.
Hence the intellectual marketplace for arguments that we should tax rich people less is glutted with hackery.
Yeah because taxing "rich people" more is like a moral imperative or public good or something.
Why are leftists so vapid?
Never mind suffering fools gladly, Chait is attempting to damn Romney with faint praise.
Maddening that mere quackery stands between Chait and other folks' money...well, more of it.
hackery quackery what's the diff
Put another way, who in the hell does he think should decide who is "qualified?"
I should.
End of discussion.
There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified.
Yes, Cindy Sheehan comes to mind.
So does Carolyn McCarthy.
So does any "victim" the left decides to hold up to make a political argument.
If Milton doesn't suffer fools gladly, that puts him in the same camp as Philip Henry Sheridan and Donald Rumsfeld.
Good for him.
Chait is a journalist which makes him supremely qualified for what exactly?
Chait is the meathead who published in an article in The New Republic on how much he hated, just hated, George W. Bush.
He really is in no position to criticize anyone for coarsening political discourse.
God Lord, I'm so old now I can actually remember when the New Republic was interesting.
Chait is a journalist which makes him supremely qualified for what exactly?
A job in the White House press corps that involves the wearing of knee pads.
I see this as an attempt to find a negative meme to utilize against Romney by Obama and his adherents. They can't get away this time by portraying their opponent as stupider than their candidate - Romney has two Harvard graduate degrees, and he was at the top of his class in B-school. Plus, first in his class at BYU.
Indeed, any direct comparison of Obama with Romney would likely make the former look quite weak. Not only is Romney probably smarter, he is far harder working, and actually accomplished quite a lot before going into politics.
Add to that that Obama is one of the most self-indulgent Presidents that we have - think of how many days he has played golf, or shutting down NYC airspace (3 of the biggest airports in the world) so he and his wife can go there for a romantic weekend, or shutting down traffic in LA during rush hour for a fund raiser. That sort of thing.
But, that later, is one reason that this sort of thing may not work all that well for Obama. Not only does he not seem to have any empathy for his lessers, he seems unwilling to try to hide it. And, his 1% coronating convention isn't going to help matters any either.
Bruce Hayden said...
Add to that that Obama is one of the most self-indulgent Presidents that we have - think of how many days he has played golf
The equivalent of three months, it is said.
We should make him reimburse us all.
Crimso said...
"There are just a lot of people out there exerting significant influence over the political debate who are totally unqualified."
There's a simple solution to that. Unfortunately for him, it violates our inalienable rights. If one of the costs of our freedoms is that he must suffer the dissemination of, e.g., Limbaugh's views, another cost is that we must suffer the dissemination of Chait's views.
Put another way, who in the hell does he think should decide who is "qualified?"
Why, self-proclaimed intellectuals like Chait, of course. Now, who precisely is he and why should I or anyone else give a damn about his opinion on anything?
One of the reasons I adore Willard is that he's not an Al Gore/John Kerry elitist. Willard is a regular guy. In fact, he's a lot like GW Bush in that regard. He's a guy's guy, the kind of man most of us would enjoy meeting at the local watering hole for a beer. Except Willard doesn't drink beer, so we'd meet at the local malt shoppe for a milk shake.
Pro-rich people:$535 million to billionaire Kaiser, $500 million to billionaire Perelman, stop an oil pipeline for the sake of billionaire Buffett, 20 billion to billionaire Soros' Petrobra, various taxpayers' stimulus money to super donors.
"One of the reasons I adore Willard is that he's not an Al Gore/John Kerry elitist. Willard is a regular guy."
Indeed as he's a regular teddy bear lol. Unfortunately, that characteristic will not serve him well as C-in-C! :D
Poor mittens ...
FYI, Willard's favorite milk shake flavor is vanilla.
Vanilla is a good flavor, and Romney would be a good president.
Don't you think that, after the spasms of 2008, it will be refreshing to vote for someone who doesn't care if he's loved?
That was the problem with Newt -- he was too into being loved. It's not the problem with Santorum. His problem is he's not hearing the right question if he thinks the answer is, "Oppose gay marriage."
For too many conservatives this year, it's been all about feeeeeelings. That's why the romances with Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and now Santorum. Hopefully, this regression into adolescence will end in time to nominate the adult and vote the adult into office.
(And my very apt WV: Outtype)
Don't you think that, after the spasms of 2008, it will be refreshing to vote for someone who doesn't care if he's loved?
Absolutely! That's another thing I love about Willard: he sticks to his principles and doesn't flip flop on issues to please his audience or constituents.
"Hence the intellectual marketplace for arguments that we should tax rich people less is glutted with hackery."
I have yet to see or hear anyone argue that the rich should pay less, but I constantly hear politicians and talking heads argue that they should pay more. So what Chait is claiming is not just wrong, but more like the opposite of the truth.
I think Chait means the arguments that the US should tax rich people less than he ideally wants to tax them.
I would like Chait and others like him to commit to a number. How high is high enough? Is there such a thing as too high? What precise number is optimal? What precise number is 0.01 percent too much?
They do not like answering that question.
"the demand for competent defenders of letting rich people keep as much of their money as possible vastly outstrips the supply."
Hardly. It doesn't require 1000 or 100 or 10 people to defend "letting" rich people keep what is theirs. A single person can do it quite adequately. They should get to keep it because it belongs to them. There. How can any "intellectual" (or anyone else) fail to understand and/or agree with that (unless they reject the idea of property rights)?
Chait is just cranky because de Rugy has been trouncing him in their argument over the progressivity of the US tax system.
So, in classic Chait fashion, he has resorted to ad hominems.
Chait is mean because that characteristic is valued on the left. The vast majority of the hard left are mean. It's supposed to look like passion and moral superiority. It comes from their marxist roots, love for mankind but contempt for the individual. Unless you're a greenie then you hate mankind as well.
The Gingrich love-fest here a couple weeks back suggests it isn't just the Left that celebrates meanness in its advocates. :)
"The Gingrich love-fest here a couple weeks back suggests it isn't just the Left that celebrates meanness in its advocates. :)"
Thank you, along those same lines, many conservatives prefer matter of fact, non wishy/washy, albeit over-the-top at times, Gingrich to easily swayed, milk toast mittens.
... letting rich people keep as much of their money as possible ....
At least give this fool some credit for telling what is really going on. It always begins with some hated sub group till it expands to all of us.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा