December 29, 2014

That long Atlantic article about Erick Erickson, "the man who steers the Tea Party" who "says conservative anger has grown toxic and self-defeating."

"Is the Most Powerful Conservative in America Losing His Edge?" by Molly Ball.

1. There's a man who steers the Tea Party?

2. I haven't read this article, and yet somehow I feel pressured to care about it. I'm not enjoying this feeling.

3. I'm very familiar with the idea that right-wingers are "toxic," that anything at all right-wing is "toxic," whether there's excessive anger or edge or not. Any whiff of right-wingedness can cause left-liberals to view you as toxic, no matter how conciliatory and moderation-oriented you are. That's my personal experience.

4. I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics, this "punch back twice as hard" business. I don't like it from lefties or righties. I've always had an aversion to politics, going all the way back to the time when the yippies moved in on the hippies.

138 comments:

tim maguire said...

Any conservative can be recognized as the brightest star in the right-wing firmament. They need only say something unflattering about conservatives and liberal journalists will beat a path to their door.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

What Tim Maguire said.

NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...

Who?

Humperdink said...

The most powerful conservative in America? There is no need to read more.

There is a guy, name escapes me, who broadcasts on 600 radio stations for 3 hours on a daily basis.

chillblaine said...

Erick Erickson doesn't run the Tea Party. Everyone knows that commenter "Kenyan Interloper" at WND runs the Tea Party.

Good to see you are home.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

My step-mother-in-law, knowing all too well my conservative bent, gifted me with a coffee table book, The Left Coast by "eco-historian" Philip Fradkin. It's about how industry and the military have trashed California. That, and a donation in my name to feeding third world children. Mind you, I have nothing against preserving the environment in non-regressive ways, and I am all for third-world children having enough to eat, but the woman (a Unitarian minister-- I would like to encourage her to adopt a real religion) seems to believe I need to be educated. Silly me, I thought Christmas presents should be things the recipient actually likes. Next year, she's getting Charles Krauthammer's book and a membership in the National Rifle Association.

Nonapod said...

That's some pretty funny concern trolling. I'm pretty sure that I've visited that Red State site a few times but I've never heard of this Erick Erickson guy, and I like to think I'm fairly aware of most of the major pundits, personalities, radio hosts, and bloggers on both the right and left wing esp. someone who is claimed to be the "Most Powerful Conservative in America".

Titus said...

He's fat, white and southern. In other words a major republican.

MadisonMan said...

No mention of the Koch Brothers at all in the article.

Charlie Currie said...

How about that time when yippies became yuppies...that was awful.

Franklin said...

You may not be interested in Politics, but Politics is interested in you.

If I thought that the Left would just leave me alone to live my life I wouldn't give any thought to punching back twice as hard. But, yeah, you know they wouldn't ever leave me alone.

jacksonjay said...

I thought that Tax Pledge nut, Grover, was the most powerful and toxic right-winger.

It really is hard to keep up.

Titus said...

Do you know my parents, because their age, have to take out tons of money every year because they have so much money.

The government wants to tax them.

I then,receive that money.

My mom told me I will never have to worry about money, or work another day, after they croak-

I will be shopping in India.

Henry said...

Should there not be a long companion article in which, George Takei, The-Most-Powerful-Liberal-in-America, says viral Facebook posts have become a pox.

Oso Negro said...

The problem with having an aversion to politics is that there is a never-ending supply of do-gooders, control freaks, and generally rapacious citizens ready to bend the government to their will. In addition to, ahem, a never-ending supply of young lawyers ready to adjust the law to mold society. So if you sit it out for awhile, the most remarkable things can happen to your country and society.

To me, the essence of the Tea Party is the notion of smaller, more affordable, less-intrusive government. That notion is terrifying to all the characters I listed in the first paragraph, so it is necessary that they demonize or excoriate its proponents.

To those who want the ever-expanding state to be ever-expanding, I ask this - where does it end? With total government control of all life functions? A 100% authorized and monitored life? We are getting there. I reject that, and while I am not in a revolutionary state as yet, I did pick up another 1,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition at the Houston Gun Show yesterday.



Titus said...

My parent's will pays off my loft-it cost around 800k, but I owe 300k.

Also, I will received 100k a year for the rest of my life.

And I will receive a 200 acre farm which can be used for a housing development. How many lots can be in 200 acres? I tried multiplying the number but got confused.

And a cottage on a lake, a deer hunting lodge in Montana, and their home in the only Waunakee in the world!

I am excited!

But my hubby is much richer. His grandfather was buddies with Nehru and Ghandi

Tank said...

What is actually, in the real world, "toxic and self-defeating?"

Black anger aimed at white people and police officers.

That would make a good article.

Unknown said...

@Tryone Slothrop

Well naturally conservatives are against feeding hungry children since they are all Randians. And are too short-sighted to see the damages they are inflicting on the environment in their single-minded pursuit of profit.

Simply everyong knows that.

traditionalguy said...

Yes. The build up of knee jerk condemnation of any thoughts that accept a place for efficient, good government plans is the toxic part. Any Rand would as soon see you dead as touch her money God.

This is a test.

rhhardin said...

Anybody who says he's in the Tea Party, isn't.

Matt Sablan said...

Red State is still one of the bigger political blogs on the conservative side. They actually want people to play nice though, most the time.

rhhardin said...

I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics

If it's an amusing line, you get a THAT'S NOT FUNNY gender divide on this.

Robert Cook said...

"To me, the essence of the Tea Party is the notion of smaller, more affordable, less-intrusive government."

This is how it's being sold to you by those who have an interest in promoting that idea: the capitalists, such as (major tea party funders) the Koch Brothers, for whom a "smaller, more affordable, less-intrusive government" means fewer regulations on their activities.

Tea party members are being conned by the very folks who are most harming this country and against whom we most need to be protected by regulatory safeguards on their predatory behavior.

Matt Sablan said...

"Tea party members are being conned by the very folks who are most harming this country and against whom we most need to be protected by regulatory safeguards on their predatory behavior."

-- We can have effective regulation without excessive regulation.

kcom said...

Toxic. It's their favorite word. So far, the only truth I can find in the accusation is that whatever they are complaining about is anathema to knee-jerk "progressive" ideas. Not much real meaning there. Actually, I think "progressive" is just "toxic" misspelled.

Unknown said...

In any event, I am aware of Erik Erickson in that I know he runs a web site called redstate.

I don't read his blog because he is of the "if only we could get rid of all these social conservatives we could sell the moderates on our hip, libertarian views, rout the progressives, and usher in a free market utopia" bent.

That is, he is delusional.

kcom said...

"a 'smaller, more affordable, less-intrusive government' means fewer regulations on their activities."

No, it means not borrowing trillions from China to spend on wasteful, stupid, inefficient crap. It's possible to run a government without doing that (at least in theory).

jr565 said...

Has he been anywhere near as toxic as Sharpton or Deblasio?

Dan Hossley said...

Erick Erickson? He worked for CNN from 2010 to 2013 so how influential can he be?

DanTheMan said...

"What does the author *want* to be true?"
-TLP

Anonymous said...

I read only the first two paragraphs at the link. "Lefties who can't write without parodying themselves" is a played-out comedy niche. So is concern-trolling about all the "conservative leaders" you either never heard of or don't pay any attention to if you have.

Speaking of Republicans: meanwhile, in "kill me now" news, Jeb Bush emerges as leader of the Republican pack in new poll.

PB said...

Erick Erickson? Who?

The Atlantic is becoming delusional like much of the left.

Owen said...

Robert Cook: "Tea party members are being conned by the very folks who are most harming this country and against whom we most need to be protected by regulatory safeguards on their predatory behavior."

Conclusory. Assumes facts not in evidence. Begs the question. Misses the point.

But, other than that, a valuable contribution to the discussion.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Madison Man:

I suspect that you mean no mention of some of the Koch brothers since only 2 of them seem to get about 98% of the press.

In any event, why would the Kochs be mentioned in an article about conservatives?

They are pretty explicitly liberal. Support liberal causes and candidates and so on.

(For the etymologically challenged, liberal = classical libertarian)

John Henry

Big Mike said...

1. There's a man who steers the Tea Party?

Only the minds of the left wingers.

2. I haven't read this article, and yet somehow I feel pressured to care about it. I'm not enjoying this feeling.

That's funny. I feel no inclination whatsoever to care about what The Atlantic thinks about people who are right of center.

3. I'm very familiar with the idea that right-wingers are "toxic," that anything at all right-wing is "toxic," whether there's excessive anger or edge or not. Any whiff of right-wingedness can cause left-liberals to view you as toxic, no matter how conciliatory and moderation-oriented you are. That's my personal experience.

This is a standard tactic for shutting off debate and discussion. Everyone who has a truly open mind has seen it in action. Now for the follow-up question. If their side had the stronger arguments, and truly had science, on their side, wouldn't they want to encourage debate and discussion?

4. I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics, this "punch back twice as hard" business. I don't like it from lefties or righties. I've always had an aversion to politics, going all the way back to the time when the yippies moved in on the hippies.

That's where you and I part company. The Democrats are firmly in the hands of extremists who have evidenced a strong taste for violence. Trying to run away from the fight won't fix things. Don't you see that they're counting on you and many others to drop out?

m stone said...

So right-wingers are toxic. That's the new line.

“What I mean is that conservatives are in a constant state of hair-on-fire, yelling anger,” he said—a toxic mind-set that prevents them from seeing straight.

I think it's Molly Ball calling them toxic. She very selective on her use of quotes and liberal with paraphrase.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made more toxic statements.

Big Mike said...

@Tyrone, bless your heart. If you're well enough off be sure to make it a lifetime membership in the NRA.

tim maguire said...

He's a fairly well known conservative, possibly even influential, somewhat. I suppose. But I have yet to come across a liberal who has the slightest clue what the Tea Party is. They know nothing of conservatives, who they are, what they believe, or why they believe it.

In fact, probably the only thing liberals know less about than conservatism is liberalism (which they largely oppose).

Original Mike said...

"Tea party members are being conned by the very folks who are most harming this country and against whom we most need to be protected by regulatory safeguards on their predatory behavior."

Bullshit. What's most harming this country is the ruinous fiscal conduct of the government, which is the Tea Party's concern.

Fred Drinkwater said...

RC:
A few months ago, I heard a CA state employee explaining how new rules, require state agencies, commissions, etc, to have all the forms necessary to interact with them available on line. Now this, in principle, seems like a good thing.
The example he gave went like this: "Suppose you want to open a hair cutting shop (his term). Under the new rules, the 13 state agencies you need to deal with all have their paperwork on line......"
My brain skidded into the safety barrier at hearing the number "13". Didn't yours? (Oh, and of course that number does not include any federal, county, regional, or city regulatory bodies.)

Trashhauler said...

From the article: "Over the past decade, Erickson, who is 39, has emerged as a driving force behind the Tea Party."

I saw no confirming information about this statement in the article. I'm beginning to believe that the Left made up the Tea Party in order to have someplace to store all their misunderstandings about conservatives and libertarians.

Skipper said...

Consider the source.

Shanna said...

Tea party members

I don't think you can actually 'join' the tea party. Or maybe you can, but it's not like they have a serious organization. It's a movement, with no one at its head, certainly not this guy whose name I have heard but has not real power.

The left always is trying to make conservatives into a top down sort of people - Rush told you this, thus you must believe. That only works with leftists.

JSD said...

Molly Ball writes some pretty silly articles. She actually published something in 2013 about Texas turning blue or purple or something.

Franklin said...

"4. I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics, this "punch back twice as hard" business. I don't like it from lefties or righties. I've always had an aversion to politics, going all the way back to the time when the yippies moved in on the hippies.

That's where you and I part company. The Democrats are firmly in the hands of extremists who have evidenced a strong taste for violence. Trying to run away from the fight won't fix things. Don't you see that they're counting on you and many others to drop out?"


Well said, Big Mike.

Hagar said...

I got my new washer this morning and am running last week's wash to try it out.
It is a low end (few controls) Joanie Caucus, false fleeting Clarence, Cherokee Liz, energy efficient, super safe special, and so far I think I am going to hate it.

Perhaps I should just have had the old one repaired after all.

jacksonjay said...

Does Robert Cook remembers Matty Yglesias and George McGovern? Two noted right-wing, toxic, regulation hatin, Captitalists, who complained about regulations when they attempted to practice a little capitalism in their own behalf.

I too, often confuse the Kochs for Matty and George!

Paco Wové said...

"She followed me around CPAC and the RedState Gathering, she hung out at my house with my family, and her profile of me is now online. I consider it very fair and will not quibble with it"

Erick Erickson's response. Most of the comments there are of the "You go, girl!" variety.

CWJ said...

From the article: "Over the past decade, Erickson, who is 39, has emerged as a driving force behind the Tea Party."

The tea party started at the end of Bush's first term?

Who knew?

Hagar said...

This thing is very loud, the lid is locked so that I can't see what is happening, and it has got stupid lights for cycle indicators, so that i can't tell where it is in the cycle, either.

richard mcenroe said...

Erick Erickson?
ERICK FREAKING ERICKSON?!

"I can't wait to hear what Erick says to do," said no Tea Partier, ever.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Just imagine Molly Ball answering the litmus question: "Is fascism a phenomenon of the political Left, or the political Right?"

If she says, or would say, "The Right, of course!", then you can safely dismiss anything else she writes about politics as she's obviously an idiot who cares not for the truth and only spits back dogma she has heard.

Anonymous said...

In other anger news, E.J. Dionne of "Justice Scalia must resign" and "Voter ID is Jim Crow" fame, now says we're being too shrill about politics. (As usual, "we" means "you".)

Robert Cook said...

@Fred Drinkwater,

The notion that one must deal with 13 state agencies, (among others),in order to open a "hair cutting shop" does seem, without further context or information, to be outrageous. However, as I don't know what each of these agencies regulates, or why, I can't say there are not good reasons for these agencies to exist.

I don't dispute that the regulatory impulse can be taken too far. However, this does not invalidate government's proper role to stand as agents for we, the people and to oversee and regulate the operations and behavior of commercial concerns that may be underhanded, dishonest, or otherwise damaging to us.

donald said...

The next Joe Scarborough.

richard mcenroe said...

Any "conservative" willing to stab other conservatives in the back for the mainstream media is "the most influential conservative". John McCain has made a long media career out of that.

The fact that CNN approved of Erick Erickson as a conservative is enough to tell you he's doing something wrong.

You could have thrown a bucket of rice at the Searchlight Tea Party rally (25,000+) and not hit anyone who read Erick Erickson.

Known Unknown said...

The tea party started at the end of Bush's first term?

Indeed. Or do you not remember Porkbusters, the tea-party antecedent?

Known Unknown said...

Regulate the operations and behavior of commercial concerns that may be underhanded, dishonest, or otherwise damaging to us.

Wal-Mart can't force me to buy a thing. I can decide to never shop there.

But hey, Justice Johnny Roberts, John Boehner and Barack Obama can!

Robert Cook said...

"The Democrats are firmly in the hands of extremists who have evidenced a strong taste for violence."

This has no relation to reality.

The Dems are a slightly less coarse version of the Republicans at this point, nearly as avid to serve as lackeys to Wall Street and the wealthy elites as the Republicans always have been.

Brando said...

The whole point of the Tea Party is that they have no leader or organized structure. Ericsson basically admits this.

The past six years ought to have showed both moderate and far right Republicans that they have far more to fear giving the Dems full control of government than they do of each other.

Mark said...

Erick Erickson, squirrel du jour.

Robert Cook said...

"'Regulate the operations and behavior of commercial concerns that may be underhanded, dishonest, or otherwise damaging to us.'

"Wal-Mart can't force me to buy a thing. I can decide to never shop there."


You're thinking too small, and you fail to see all the ways in which our lives are affected by the behaviors of commercial enterprises.

Can you stop big companies from polluting the environment, from selling unsafe goods, from engaging in practices harmful to local economies or damaging to the competitive environment, thus leaving consumers with fewer choices?

Does your not shopping at Wal-Mart--which I do not--stop them from underpaying their employees such that Wal-Mart management has been known to encourage their employees to seek public benefits? In this manner, Wal-Mart is profiting off you and me even if we never shop at their stores.

Teddy Roosevelt was the great trust-buster and enemy of monopolies; the founding fathers were very wary of the dangers corporations could do, and regulated them closely; yet modern day corporate propaganda has erased their actions and concerns from memory, and we are now being indocrtinated to hate and fear government oversight of corporations and to see as a God-given right--good for them and good for us--for corporations to act as they please with no impediment.

Robert Cook said...

"The past six years ought to have showed both moderate and far right Republicans that they have far more to fear giving the Dems full control of government than they do of each other."

How is this? The Dems have acted as de facto Republicans.

jacksonjay said...

Richard Mcenroe said:

Any "conservative" willing to stab other conservatives in the back for the mainstream media is "the most influential conservative". John McCain has made a long media career out of that.

Looks like Common Core Amnesty Jeb is carrying on that tradition.

As Rev. Jackson said, "Stay outta Bushes!"

Known Unknown said...

Can you stop big companies from polluting the environment, from selling unsafe goods, from engaging in practices harmful to local economies or damaging to the competitive environment, thus leaving consumers with fewer choices?

We already do all of this with duplicated regulations, services and agencies.

CWJ said...

EMD,

I trust you were being as tongue in cheek as I.

Known Unknown said...

I'd rather severely punish those who break the existing laws regarding commercial activity than create onerous barriers to entry into the commercial realm that assumes all practicing parties to be guilty.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Fen's Law leavened with a bit of panic, I suspect. Joe and Jill Apolitical are far more likely to be talking disapprovingly of the toxic tunes of the Left than anything emanating from the Right these days.

Quick, find me a toxic conservative, dammit!

Known Unknown said...

CWJ-

Ah, sorry. I misread your text. Yes.

jacksonjay said...

RC said:
The Dems are a slightly less coarse version of the Republicans at this point, nearly as avid to serve as lackeys to Wall Street and the wealthy elites as the Republicans always have been.


Gotta say Cookie is right about that one. Timmy Geithner, Jackie Lew and the latest Antonio WhatsHisName. A $20 million bonus to jump from Wall Street to Treasury seems a little untoward. To regulate banks, no less!

Does anyone remember the name, Robert Rubin?

Peter said...

Well, I'd like to see the word "toxic" reserved for actual toxins.

Achilles said...

"Progressive members are being conned by the very folks who are most harming this country and against whom we most need to be protected by regulatory safeguards on their predatory behavior."

FIFY

Matt Sablan said...

Remember: Corporations pay tribute to the government, not the other way around.

The person RECEIVING the bribe is the one with the power. Wal-Mart would be powerless to do these vague things they're accused of if we'd just vote all the bums out.

Paco Wové said...

I do wish Cookie could work the phrase "running dogs" into one of his tracts.

traditionalguy said...

There has been a big shift to eliminate damage liability cases for defective products. Texas lead the way. But the knee jerk right wing is being used to support that because Lawyers get some of the money due to the poor and injured people.

That is immoral to the extreme now. The middle class right wing loses what was their heritage of justice for a angry expression of hate.
The Judges are coming from defense firms and are openly corrupt because they can get away with it.

The trick is a ruling that allows judges the sole say on an approved expert witness....and than NEVER approve of any of them no matter their credentials and therefore dismiss the case. It is corrupt as it gets.


jr565 said...

I hit red state from time to time, so do know who he is. But had no idea that he had such power over the Tea Party nor that anyone considers him toxic. Unless you read redstate I doubt you'd even know who he is.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Robert Cook said...
You're thinking too small, and you fail to see all the ways in which our lives are affected by the behaviors of commercial enterprises.


And you are thinking to narrowly, and fail to see all the ways in which consumer behavior affects enterprises. Apple appeared to have a monopoly with the iPad and iPhone, but in came Android-based competitors, consumers bought them in droves, and away went Apple's monopoly. Fortunately, this happened so fast that Apple did not have time to talk/buy the Government into restricting it's competition "for the public good". Business + Government (with its monopoly on legal force) is the only thing that can create a true and lasting monopoly. Other's are only temporary, given a free market.

Can you stop big companies from polluting the environment, from selling unsafe goods, from engaging in practices harmful to local economies or damaging to the competitive environment, thus leaving consumers with fewer choices?

I can't, but WE (sufficient numbers of freely-acting consumers) can. We (still) have all the power. We only lack the collective will.

Does your not shopping at Wal-Mart--which I do not--stop them from underpaying their employees such that Wal-Mart management has been known to encourage their employees to seek public benefits?

It would, as would a robust economy that would put labor (rather than jobs) in short supply. Business would have to respond with higher wages. I mean, come on! This stuff is easily understood. What's your problem? Have you never read Adam Smith?


In this manner, Wal-Mart is profiting off you and me even if we never shop at their stores.

OK, that is a proper English sentence, grammar-wise. But it makes no sense what-so-ever.

Teddy Roosevelt was the great trust-buster and enemy of monopolies;

And every 'trust' he tried to bust, was one that was created by the combination of bad-actor businessmen PLUS government partnership and favor-granting. It's called "crony capitalism", with the "crony being government. Read your history. Don't just accept what you have been spoon-fed.

. . . the founding fathers were very wary of the dangers corporations could do, and regulated them closely;

Nonsense. Only government can legally use FORCE, which is the only thing they and we need fear.

. . . yet modern day corporate propaganda has erased their actions and concerns from memory,

Nope. Not true at all. You've just made that up.

. . . and we are now being indocrtinated to hate and fear government oversight of corporations and to see as a God-given right--good for them and good for us--for corporations to act as they please with no impediment.

Government oversight is not the problem. Government/Business partnership is the problem, as the German National Socialists well understood, learning from the Soviets mistake of killing the golden goose, rather than co-opting it.

Educate yourself, Cook. You're an embarrassment in your current state of 'knowledge'.

Skeptical Voter said...

Who is Molly Ball? Why should I listen to what she says, or read what she writes?

Who is Eric Erickson? I'm a conservative sort of fellow and have never heard of him. Can't say that I'd listen to what he had to say if I knew him. He sure as heck doesn't run any Tea Party that I know of.

One thing about the Atlantic magagzine---it has an inexhaustible supply of bogey straw men. You have to be careful with matches in the Atlantic editorial office--all that used straw on the floor.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
"@Fred Drinkwater,

The notion that one must deal with 13 state agencies, (among others),in order to open a "hair cutting shop" does seem, without further context or information, to be outrageous. However, as I don't know what each of these agencies regulates, or why, I can't say there are not good reasons for these agencies to exist.

I don't dispute that the regulatory impulse can be taken too far. However, this does not invalidate government's proper role to stand as agents for we, the people and to oversee and regulate the operations and behavior of commercial concerns that may be underhanded, dishonest, or otherwise damaging to us."

If you haven't been in the private sector, and haven't bothered to look up any information on how businesses suffer from over-regulation, why would you make blatantly ignorant comments about it?

We have to pay monthly taxes to 2 different state agencies, quarterly taxes to 4 federal agencies and 1 state agency, and property taxes to the state either annually of bi-annually. Then you get into the regulations of which I can think of 5 different agencies we talk to this month. We haven't even made any money yet.

Progressives keep believing we need more government. We pay about 70% of our income to taxes. That is a gross number and doesn't count gas taxes which are hidden.

You don't know what you are talking about as usual.

traditionalguy said...

Beware of the coming of Elizabeth Warren. She has the answers both sides like.

Anonymous said...

Wow there is a lot to comment on in these comments.

First to Althouse: You really have to stop reading the Atlantic. If you walk away from the propaganda the propagandist are diminished.

Cook wrote:

"Teddy Roosevelt was the great trust-buster and enemy of monopolies; the founding fathers were very wary of the dangers corporations could do, and regulated them closely..."

What? Teddy was a lunatic with all due apologies to the moon.

Could Cook please cite the source for the statement that the founding fathers were wary of corporations, an entity that didn't exist in late 18th century America, as far as I know. Did I miss something in the Federalist Papers? The Founding Fathers feared tyrannical government not WalMart.

As far as Cook's fixation on the Koch brothers and the Tea Party: The Koch smearing is a prime example of the propaganda machine that works so well to keep the status quo in effect. An anecdote: I was working as a half-assed reporter on April 15, 2010 and attended two of the first Tea Party rallies, one in Rhode Island and one in Manhattan. Neither of the Koch brothers were mentioned, seen, or heard. It seemed to me that the crowd was uniformly middle-class and concerned about the direction of the country. I still get email from organizers of both those rallies and again no mention of the Kochs.

No mention by Cook as to why Wall Street types shower money on Democrats. Do a quick search of news to get that story.

Government is the other organized crime, the sooner you and everyone else realize it the better.


HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...4. I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics, this "punch back twice as hard" business. I don't like it from lefties or righties. I've always had an aversion to politics, going all the way back to the time when the yippies moved in on the hippies.

Where's the line between 4. and "civility bullshit," Professor?
Given the ideologial predisposition of the Media generally I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say a pox on both their houses--if a Repub is hit and hit in the Media and decides to hit back once in a while that Repub's likely to be considered toxic (and intemperate, dangerous, etc) by the same Media. As someone who listens to Rush L. do you think he's characterized fairly in the mainstream "news" accounts you may read where he's mentioned? For fun I've tried to imagine the headlines if a Repub repeatedly denounced private citizens (by name) on the Senate floor the way Dirty Harry Reid has--what's the proper response to something like that that'll avoid yelling and sneering, etc?

Unknown said...

"Does your not shopping at Wal-Mart--which I do not--stop them from underpaying their employees such that Wal-Mart management has been known to encourage their employees to seek public benefits? In this manner, Wal-Mart is profiting off you and me even if we never shop at their stores."

They, like every other business, pay their employees what the market will bear. Wages, just like the price of goods, are regulated by the law of supply and demand. Wages will go up when labor is in short supply. Increasing the number of jobs without importing people to fill those jobs at depressed wages would seem to be in order.

Perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, more hair cutting businesses would start, necessitating the training of more hair cutters, the purchase of more hair cutting supplies, etc. if starting a new hair cutting business did not necessitate dealing with a bare minimum of 13 different government offices regulating the conduct of hair cutting. One might then further speculate that such a situation might slightly increase the number of jobs, thus requiring increasing wages overall.

One could then further speculate that a reduction of regulation on businesses other than hair cutting would also benefit wages by encouraging greater investment in those businesses and reducing the cost of compliance with excessive, byzantine regulatory requirements.

And if one was being extremely daring, you could speculate even further that while some regulation of business is necessary, the government may be a tad over-zealous in that regards at the moment.

The idea that Walmart is profiting off the public purse because some of its employees are eligible for public assistance betrays a profound lack of understanding of economics.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said.... I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics

Resolved: John Stewart's (and to a slightly lesser extent Stephen Colbert's) success as an entertainer is currently based on what amounts to a gigantic sneer against a majority of American citizens (aka anyone to his right politically).

Unknown said...

Or perhaps it would be better for WalMart to fail due to the fact that it lost profitability because it had to charge higher prices than its competitors.

Then its employees would have no wages at all and would be completely reliant on public assistance.

No more of this attempting to better yourself via work nonsense.

Unknown said...

"I do wish Cookie could work the phrase "running dogs" into one of his tracts."

And "hoarders and wreckers."

Shanna said...

Apple appeared to have a monopoly with the iPad and iPhone, but in came Android-based competitors, consumers bought them in droves

And when they truly tried to price fix on ebooks in collaboration with publishers they were taken to court and lost.

Walmart pays similar to its competitors, so I will never understand what the Robert Cook's expect them to do here. Pay 15 dollars an hour, I guess. Such a convenient villain, Walmart, because that is where poor people shop!

Anonymous said...

Any whiff of right-wingedness can cause left-liberals to view you as toxic, no matter how conciliatory and moderation-oriented you are. That's my personal experience.

That's funny. You've called me, a moderate with no ties to either political party, "toxic" because I pointed out a couple of Scott Walker's blatant lies.

That's my personal experience.

Gahrie said...

The Dems are a slightly less coarse version of the Republicans at this point, nearly as avid to serve as lackeys to Wall Street and the wealthy elites as the Republicans always have been.


I would argue that the Democrats are far more in bed with Wall Street than the Republicans.

Start with comparing prosecutions of financial corruption under Bush with that under Obama.

Then move onto contribution amounts.

For shits and giggles, compare the number of Democrats who became millionaires while in "public service" with the number of Republicans who have.

MarkW said...

"I don't dispute that the regulatory impulse can be taken too far. However, this does not invalidate government's proper role to stand as agents for we, the people and to oversee and regulate the operations and behavior of commercial concerns that may be underhanded, dishonest, or otherwise damaging to us."

Yep, government is so GOOD at protecting us from 'underhanded commercial concerns'. Here's a great example:

https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372

In fact, what Uber vs the taxi industry shows (not just in Las Vegas) is that government is really good at helping politically-connected cronies use the rationale of consumer protection as a pretext in order to stave off competition and enable the cronies to keep sticking it to consumers.

furious_a said...

"Toxic" = "Midterm Electoral Success". Also "Unseating Democrat Incumbents". Plus some Republican ones.

Free Republic is as much the Helmsman as Red State.

Koch Bros support Gay Marriage and Marijuana Legalization. Toxic.

Pete from Baltimore said...

As a long time commenter at the Atlantic site, I can attest to the fact that the writers and liberal commenters at the Atlantic all beleive that "the Tea Party" is a monolithic organisation .And that all " Tea Partiers" are also "Neo-cons".And that there are no differences between social conservatives and economic conservatives

I wish that I was joking.But the writers and commenters there sincerely believe this to be true.

Back in 2011 and even up to early 2012, most Atlantic commenters were claiming that either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann would be the Republican nominee. [An astute and intelligent liberal commenter named "Kylopod" was a rare exception . And made some good political forecast in many Atlantic threads]

n

furious_a said...

She actually published something in 2013 about Texas turning blue or purple or something.

That was from laughter at the ineptness of Wendy Davis' campaign.

furious_a said...

Can you stop big companies from polluting the environment, from selling unsafe goods, from engaging in practices harmful to local economies or damaging to the competitive environment, thus leaving consumers with fewer choices?

All the time. Started with people buying Toyota Corollas instead of Cadillac Cimarrons.

eddie willers said...

@ SomeoneHasToSayIt:

Robert Cook (and most everyone else) should read your 11:53 post multiple times until it sinks in.

Kudos

madAsHell said...

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

So, Mr. Erick Erickson has become the target, and the article runs through the rest of the steps.

buwaya said...

Cook,
I have worked for Fortune 500 businesses (AIG was one), consulted for more with Arthur Anderson, consulted for large industrial firms, including many in aerospace, as well as international agencies like the Asian Development Bank (on behalf of small businesses), had a couple of small business ventures of my own, and worked for several small industrial enterprises. I have 40 years of very varied experience upon which to build my opinions. Regulation ALWAYS hurts small businesses disproportionately. It helps large businesses competitively. It suppresses small business activity effectively. The US has been suffering for the last 30 years due to a decline in entrepreneurial activity and a low rate of business formation, for which I credit the constant growth of regulation over that period, in spite of the supposed variations in the regulatory environment. This is a truly disastrous development and ultimately not recoverable. The damage is done and it is fatal.
The decline of the US in the world and the future US standard of living is now inevitable and irrecoverable.
All existing and would be regulations serve some plausible purpose, or can be conceived as a critical need. However, the cost of any regulation is rarely evaluated, as they do all come with costs, of many kinds, most of them not something that can easily be given monetary value. And much more important, the cumulative effect of numerous regulations all together create costs greater than the sum of their parts. The human mind can deal with only a certain degree of complication. A small business owner has enough problems to solve with respect to the technical and business aspects of his enterprise. Add the need to deal with (as in the example above) 13 different agencies and filings and reporting, and prohibitions, etc. can make the plain mental effort impossible for too many. Most humans in most fields of endeavor cannot create in this mud pit. Its no surprise that the only real creation in the US recently comes in those fields which are as yet underregulated, like software. Not for long I think.
Regulations cannot be selectively relaxed because every jot and tittle is someone's ricebowl and has to be fought for in politics and in courts. Selective reform is therefore unfeasible, the reform effort would consume the economy given the scale of existing regulations.
We are doomed, and people like you, well meaning though you are, have doomed us.

eddie willers said...

That was from laughter at the ineptness of Wendy Davis' campaign

To bring this thread back around, remember it was Erick Erickson who labeled her "Abortion Barbie".

Hard to recover from that in Texas.

Big Mike said...

We are doomed, and people like you, well meaning though you are, have doomed us.

Well meaning? Please reevaluate!

Bilwick said...

I was thinking about the Tea Party yesterday when I saw a Gadsden Flag bumper-sticker and was reflecting on "liberals'" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators") animosity toward people who display that flag. Who would object to the sentiment "Don't Tread on Me" but someone who wants to, in some weay, tread on me?

Shanna said...

Regulation ALWAYS hurts small businesses disproportionately. It helps large businesses competitively.

Quoted because this needs repeating.

And, even if they don't realize it, this is recognized by constantly including 'small business' exemptions into so many laws. Of course, this means the small business that wants to expand is stuck with a hard choice.

Murph said...

@Big Mike @Tyrone
"...bless your heart. If you're well enough off be sure to make it a lifetime membership in the NRA."

FYI: NRA is offering life memberships at 50% off through some date in January that I can't remember. Buy early for your SMIL's next Christmas!

Hagar said...

I went back to the store to look, and as far as I can see, no matter how much you pay for a new washing maching, it will rinse with cold water only.
The higher priced ones have a setting for a 2nd rinse, and if that does not get all the detergent out, according to Wikipedia, the work-around is to run your clothes through another wash cycle, but without detergent.

I wish the flies of 10,000 Siberian yaks to lay their eggs in the armpits of EPA employees!

Shanna said...

as far as I can see, no matter how much you pay for a new washing maching, it will rinse with cold water only.

Wait, what? Seriously?

I did not know this.

Hagar said...

I think so. My old machine had Cold/Cold, Warm/Cold, Warm/Warm, Hot/Warm, and Hot/Cold.

The new machines all have a dial with temperature settings for the Wash Cycle, but nothing is said about any Rinse Cycle, so I am pretty sure that is what you are going to find.
It is all in the interest of saving the planet from AGW!

Hagar said...

And with the electronic timers and locked lids (it's for the children!), I don't think you can interrupt and work the cycles like you could with the old mechanical timers.
You want the soap out, you are just going to have to do the wash twice.

Hagar said...

EPA people are smart like Robert Cook is smart.

MadisonMan said...

I've a washer with a warm/warm setting. (No Hot/Warm) I think it's an LG. But now that I think of it, it's probably >5 years old.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

And did you know that the people killed that drew attention, until and after the police were killed, were '2 unarmed black men.'

n.n said...

Failing to knock down Americans with her hammer, Brown has resorted to constructing a strawman, that will be cut down by her sickle. It's probably not sustainable, but how does one confront millions of self-moderating, responsible, viable men and women, short of a pogrom or plan?

n.n said...

Perhaps she is referring to the sludge oozing from her neighborhood sewer. It's a real tell-tale heart of crimes committed in privacy. I think more Americans are rejecting that toxic combination of fairy tale and rationalization.

Hagar said...

I was wrong again.
Mine is a cheap machine and indeed only has the cold rinse.
I see in the detailed specifications for more expensive machines that they do give more than one rinse temperature. Possibly stay with the wash temp?

Do go online and read the detailed spec's and reviews for whatever machine you are looking at before deciding!

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Point of information-- "Cook" in German is "Koch" Has anybody ever seen Robert Cook in the same room as Charles and/or David? I mean, it would be entirely in character for the devilishly evil Koch brothers to masquerade as a blinkered liberal ideologue in order to score points for their devilishly evil side.

tim in vermont said...

Comment #1 answers the question.

David said...

For someone with an aversion, Althouse, you can be quite forceful when you punch back. Wow, what if you enjoyed it?

Hyphenated American said...

BTW, if you read the article, you will notice that he does not use the word "toxic" - the liberal journo does.

Rusty said...

I was a corporation once. I don't remember doing anything particularly evil though.

Anonymous said...

I see articles like this as battle space preparation.

I don't think there is any conspiracy, rather, a bunch of like minded people headed in the same direction, but this will sound like a conspiracy.

Someone like Erick Erickson will endorse Rand Paul for President. He will get all of his fans riled up for Rand Paul.

Mark Levin, or someone like him, will get on the Ted Cruz bandwagon.

Huckabee, or someone like him, will get on the Ben Carson bandwagon.

All the while, they will all be preaching the same message, stop the establishment guy. Let's say that is Bush.

During the debates, the Rand Paul people will learn they hate the Ted Cruz and Ben Carson people more than the Bush people.

Ted Cruz types will learn they can't stand the Rand Paul and Ben Carson types, but Bush is ok.

Ben Carson people will hate the Rand Paul's and the Ted Cruz's, but Bush is alright.

Guess who wins with this clever strategy?

This is what happened last time with Romney.

If you liked Santorum, you couldn't stand Newt. And the reverse was also true.

I'm just hoping this time we don't fall for it. That we are more humble after 8 years of Obama and after losing with both McCain and Romney.

We shall see.

MathMom said...

A chubby, neatly dressed man of medium height, he has spiky strawberry-blond hair, narrow eyes, and a grin that scrunches up his broad face.

1. Chubby, broad face = fat
2. Narrow eyes = maybe his family tree doesn't branch.

Would a similar article on Barack Obama note that big mole by his nose, or his dramatic wasting in office?

That said, Erick Erickson is a prick.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

eddie willers said...
@ SomeoneHasToSayIt:

Robert Cook (and most everyone else) should read your 11:53 post multiple times until it sinks in.

Kudos


Thanks! I get lucky sometimes. :)
Just trying to integrate the best of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand and others, as I'm sure you recognize.

We all stand on someone's shoulders. The question is, whose do we choose?

Robert Cook said...

"No mention by Cook as to why Wall Street types shower money on Democrats. Do a quick search of news to get that story."


Uh, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats are as much servants to the wealthy elites as the Republicans, (who are also wetted by money showered on them by the wealthy elites). By paying both parties, the wealthy get what they want no matter which party is in power.

We are not the constituents of those in Washington: the wealthy are.

Drago said...

Cook: "We are not the constituents of those in Washington: the wealthy are"

I hate to break it to you but this has been the case since time immemorial for all nations/governments.

And will continue to be so for as far as the eye can see.

It is human nature.

There is one, and only one, way to limit the power the elite have to influence politicians and affect your life: limit the size, scope and reach of government to minimize the governments impact in our lives.

Of course, the joke is really on cookie and ARMeltdown and garage et al as they would have ALL the power vested in the government and would have the government control EVERY aspect of our lives thus maximizing the influence of the elites over us all.

One can only imagine the tears of pain that seep out of cookie every Nov 9th and Dec 26th.

Drago said...

BTW, I wonder who will be the leader of the Tea Party next week?

The left seems to have set up a "wheel of fortune" contraption which they spin each week to determine who the leader of the Tea Party/Republicans/Conservatives happens to be that day.

cubanbob said...

Robert Cook said...

"No mention by Cook as to why Wall Street types shower money on Democrats. Do a quick search of news to get that story."


Uh, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats are as much servants to the wealthy elites as the Republicans, (who are also wetted by money showered on them by the wealthy elites). By paying both parties, the wealthy get what they want no matter which party is in power.

We are not the constituents of those in Washington: the wealthy are.
12/29/14, 10:01 PM "

The poor cost money so who needs them. At least the rich pay their bribes with their own money. What are you offering those very same politicians? You do know they are in for the money.

cubanbob said...

Titus said...

He's fat, white and southern. In other words a major republican.

12/29/14, 9:27 AM"

Without those fat, white Republicans you wouldn't be getting your parents $28k a year gift free from gift taxes and you wouldn't be getting up to $5mm free of inheritance taxes. Don't be an ingrate because if it was up to those fab progressive Democrats you wouldn't get squat tax free.

Drago said...

Titus: "He's fat, white and southern. In other words a major republican"

Well, we can't all be Jerrold Nadler or Michael Moore.

Although, to be fair, Nadler has slimmed down to a svelte 250 or so. Of course, Nadler is under 5'6" so maybe that isn't so good after all.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...

"Uh, because, as I pointed out, the Democrats are as much servants to the wealthy elites as the Republicans, (who are also wetted by money showered on them by the wealthy elites). By paying both parties, the wealthy get what they want no matter which party is in power."

This is obvious. The only way to reduce the power of the wealthy to buy favors is to reduce the size of government and the taxes they take from us. The more money they take from me the more they give to their wealthy friends/donors.

At least I have to somehow convince you to give my business money. All the wealthy people have to do is drop a donation in some pols re-election fund and he gets a chunk of my earnings thanks to the governments monopoly on force.

Mary E. Glynn said...

I've never liked any of the yelling and sneering in politics, this "punch back twice as hard" business. I don't like it from lefties or righties
----------------------
You liked it when Glenn was promoting your blog, having you guesthost and pushing some pretty vile issues.

How Brave (and opportunistic) you are to speak out now... It's like you've suddenly found Christianity, and seek forgiveness for how and why you built this blog. You really are self centered, Ann, and you're now laughing at kids who pursue higher education from places like Wisconsin.

Are you sure about this Meade thing? Or was that for the publicity too?

Mary E. Glynn said...

Don't be an ingrate because if it was up to those fab progressive Democrats you wouldn't get squat tax free.
----------------
I'm ok with this...
Oh, and revamp the tax code so we don't have multiple spousal exemptions. One writeoff: you either support the "home" spouse for life or until they begin to work, or it's meaningless. Second time: marry for love if you must, but no more write-offs.

Defeats the whole societal purpose of lifetime maintenance of spousal partnerships. Others should not pick up the tab of multiple lovers staying at home, not working whom the spouse should support himself.

One.

(oh and don't laugh at education or those who work their way up. Not all professors are there to suck public money and issue worthless degrees that overflood the marketplace. One man's Gravy Train is another man's career ladder.

Just because YOU're too fat to climb...

Kirk Parker said...

How cute.

Cookie thinks I should mind the Koch brothers having fewer regulations on their activities.

How very cute.


Oh: and Teddy Roosevelt was a gasbag and a dangerous man.



madisonfella,

Yeah, you're a "moderate". And I am Marie of Romania.

furious_a said...

The left seems to have set up a "wheel of fortune" contraption which they spin each week to determine who the leader of the Tea Party/Republicans/Conservatives happens to be that day.

They've given up trying to kill drones one-by-one and are frantically trying to locate the Queen.

Rusty said...

SHTSI @ 11:53

too really appreciate the effort, but you must realize it is futile to reason with a lead brick.
You could argue the certainty of gravity and our comrade bob would assure that it is just your opinion.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Rusty said...
SHTSI @ 11:53

too really appreciate the effort, but you must realize it is futile to reason with a lead brick.
You could argue the certainty of gravity and our comrade bob would assure that it is just your opinion.


True enough. It is only when the student is ready, that the teacher appears.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you're a "moderate". And I am Marie of Romania.

Just because I defend the Second Amendment doesn't mean I'm a rightwing nutjob extremist. Tho, I totally understand why a liberal like you would think that of me.

amielalune said...

They would LOVE it if he were the "brightest star" because he's not all that impressively bright. There are many, many brilliant conservative writers and bloggers; he may be in the Top 100, but no higher. Plus he has a drawling southern accent, which alone makes them think he must be the Tea Party redneck bigot poster boy.

Kirk Parker said...

madisonfella,

You've made my day. It's been a long, long time since anyone mistook me for a 'liberal' (in the modern American sense of the word.)

walter said...

"A chubby, neatly dressed man of medium height, he has spiky strawberry-blond hair, narrow eyes, and a grin that scrunches up his broad face."

Just another article where I know it's written by a woman just by where she goes/feels allowed to go.