July 30, 2019

"Mostly the Democrats are taking tweet-size bites out of one another’s hind parts in Heathers-style putdowns, or engaging in virtue-signaling contests, like they’re running for president of Woke Twitter."

From "The Iowa Circus/An overstuffed field of candidates is repeating the Republicans’ 2016 primary-season errors" by Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone).

It's a long article. Feel to read it. I'm just going to cherry-pick some stuff about Marianne Williamson:
Precisely because socioeconomic stresses have pushed them into heightened awareness, she says, the American public sees what she calls “a transition from democracy to aristocracy,” and the corporate sector’s “insatiable appetite” for money that dominates American life....

Williamson [says] that most Americans are aware that their government is now little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces. She describes a two-party system that, at its worst, operates in perfect harmony with the darkest impulses of corporate capitalism, and at best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized beggary.

“ ‘Pretty please, can I maybe have a hundred-thousand-dollar grant here?’ ” she says. “ ‘Pretty please, can we maybe have a million dollars in the budget for all this?’ ”

Heads are nodding all over the place.

“They say, ‘I can get you a cookie.’ ”

This elicits a few yeahs from the crowd.

Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination....

102 comments:

rhhardin said...

Curiously, those money-grubbing corporations don't have money. They lend all their money out to others in return for an IOU. So they're really IOU-grubbing.

Jersey Fled said...

She might be the most honest candidate out there. The Democrats will never nominate her.

Dave Begley said...

My take on MW at Power Line. She is hypnotic!

"Williamson is the most fascinating Democrat I have seen and the most authentic by a country mile. I would have enjoyed sitting down and discussing politics with her over a bottle of wine. She’s a polished speaker with a nice stage presence. She has made her name as a New Age self-help guru who purports to help people fix what’s wrong with their lives. She has enjoyed great success and many Americans have bought what she has sold them."

Michael K said...

This is certainly a big part of the global warming hoax. Funded by government and virtue signaling corporations.

Sebastian said...

"institutionalized beggary"

She ain't wrong. Except that most Americans are among the beggars, begging for O-care "insurance," "disability" benefits, student "loan" forgiveness, etc. etc. When beggars vote, democracy dies.

"Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination"

But not the Dem nomination. If she wants to end beggary, she's running in the wrong party. Of course, the GOP is now also in the cookie distribution business.

traditionalguy said...

The Times that were a changing have now totally changed. Matt Taibbi and Marianne Williamson are belting out chorus in the final scene of the Opera, with no fear.
Trump really is Napoleon. And he has gloriously removed the corrupt political aristocracies ruling the world with Fake News Narratives.

Ken B said...

Feel to read it? Possibly the most incomprehensible sentence in history.

MBunge said...

If you want the Democratic version of Trump, Williamson is probably the closest you can get. She engages people in a completely different way than the other candidates and if the media slathered her with as much attention as they gave Trump, her poll numbers would skyrocket.

Mike

wild chicken said...

Sometimes one is better able to see the trees if she's not in the middle of the forest.

The old pols are so deep into their career bubbles that the don't understand what's going on.

Eric said...

The thing I found most interesting about the article is how he describes the media's rooting interests.

Wince said...

Ken B said...
Feel to read it? Possibly the most incomprehensible sentence in history.

I'm sure Althouse meant to say "feel free" which is easy to overlook on self edit because of the double-f double-e.

But since the post is about MW, "feel to read it" does makes a certain amount of sense.

Rick said...

Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination....

Whoah there Sparky.

1. Be right about something.
2. ???
3. Profit!

Lucid-Ideas said...

Never gonna happen.

Our sociopaths are better than their sociopaths;)

Michael K said...

The enemy of the Democrat candidates is that not one feels genuine.

Given the hysteria for their voting base, she could do it. A "self help guru" sounds about right.

Ralph L said...

Feel to read it.

Dems are all about the feels of soap opera women.

walter said...

Dave Rubin had an extended chat with her on his podcast. Her fans thought she owned him.
That was not my take.
Williamson/Nicks 2020!

rehajm said...

What's your damage???

Ficta said...

Marianne's the only Dem candidate I could even imagine voting for.

Taibbi was also one of the few on the left (like Greenwald and Dershowitz) who called out the press on the whole Russia nonsense.

Ralph L said...

Williamson [says] that most Americans are aware that their government is now little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces

Leave out the "handmaiden to", and she'd be about right. The new corporate monopolies are run by the left, so why does she or her party care?

William said...

She's got high cheek bones and haunted eyes. Those high cheekbones are the equivalent of Kennedy type hair in a male pol. It's so easy to extend trust to women with high cheekbones and large eyes. Kamala has high cheekbones but she doesn't have the eyes. I give the advantage to Marianne. Only Marianne has the love inside necessary to properly hate Trump.

Ray said...

"operates in perfect harmony with the darkest impulses of corporate capitalism, and at best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized buggery."

I light of Epstein I fixed it

dreams said...

Don't worry, it doesn't matter which loser democrat gets the nomination because Trump is going to kick some crooked democrat ass in 2020.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

How does the CEO of Boeing still have a job?

I was just talking to a friend about CEO culture. He works for Woodward (formerly Woodward Governor) and has all sorts of interesting insights into the corporate culture. ie: rushing projects to completion for profit,
*See that not so small problem called the 737 Max.
We're Not talking small and medium corporate, but mega-corporate. Why are mega-corporations allowed to skate when they screw up so badly? There is a gaping accountability problem. It's mega-government and mega-corporate culture - the very top of the top. and they rarely ever face the consequence that you or I would face in a similar situation.

It's like Jeffrey Epstein is running Boeing.

M Jordan said...

Well, if you really think this woman is going to get the nomination, you are making the classic blunder of confusing making sense with reality. Logical candidates don't win. Those with good arguments don't win. Those who make sense don't win.

Who wins? Those who push the right combination of buttons ... and there are a lot of them. Some of the buttons console the worried investor class. Some generate hope in the masses. Some generate money. Lots of buttons.

And the winning candidate learns which ones to push and when. So yeah, Ann, she makes some sense here but there are too many buttons she isn't pushing for her to even crack a 5% chance.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I like her.

tim maguire said...

"The Iowa Circus/An overstuffed field of candidates is repeating the Republicans’ 2016 primary-season errors" by

I'm no historian, but didn't the Republican's primary result in the nomination of the general election winner?

I think it's awesome that Williamson is doing well, but of course she won't win.

tim in vermont said...

Only reading the text you quoted, and that’s all I know about her, I am listening.

BtC said...

What is it with people who can only describe via pop culture, instead of literally describing - writing out their own descriptive words? These shorthand references are not compelling in any way - all the more so because art/culture conveys different meaning to the wide variety of people who already know the item or genre. And in this case - That movie came out in 1988... do most normal folks in 2019 have a solid category lodged in their brains/memories of "Heathers-style put-downs"? I did not.

I guess we are all just happy it wasn't yet another Harry Potter or Handmaid reference.

Thanks, rehajm, "What's your damage?" did at least ring a bell. I don't get it, though, as a descriptor of contemporary Dems. Were the other putdowns in that flick "Racist!", "Schism!", and "What's your intersectionalityism?" ?

As for M Williamson, look up Doctress Neutopia, from days of Usenet yore. The first time I heard MW rambling on about her issues, I had to check that MW wasn't the good Doctress re-invented. I think not, alas.

Dave said...

"Williamson [says] that most Americans are aware that their government is now little more than a handmaiden to sociopathic forces"

Right is right.

Mike Sylwester said...

Instead of watching the debates, millions of women will be watching the finale of The Bachelorette tonight.

doctrev said...

Taibbi and Greenwald, despite their obvious Wikileaks/ Russia connections, remain some of the most fascinating authors on the left, mostly because they still possess a shred of integrity. Contrast this article with Reines, and then consider that Reines is sought out for his opinion, while Taibbi/ Greenwald are on the sidelines of the Democrat Party.

This election is not going to be close.

narciso said...

Mean girls doesn't have as many memorable lines,

Martin said...

"Christ... this woman is going to win the nomination."

Would she be worse than ANY of the others? Biden is the worst sort of old-school political hack and he stands head and shoulders above all the others as a reasonable person (when I write "all the others" I am excluding "1-percenters" like Hickenlooper).

Given the field, why NOT Williamson? Trump went a long way just telling the truth as he saw it and not being intimidated, why not a Democrat doing the same thing but in Democratic Party style?

Freeman Hunt said...

Sheesh. Trump is going to win again.

narciso said...

We besides reparations and she probably wants to get rid of reliable sources of electricity and dismantle the defense department, shes crackers of a different crunch

Mr. Forward said...

“I can get you a kookie.”

Brian said...

Marianne has the best chance to beat Trump. As pointed out above, she's hypnotic. She appeals to emotions, shes fun to watch, she looks like she's having a good time campaigning, and is comfortable in her own skin.

Basically Trump.

The problem for Marianne is that the DNC (like all leftist organizations) is tightly controlled. The RNC controlled through money, (see Bush, George and Bush, Jeb). If you didn't say the right things you didn't get the dollars, which meant you fell out early (Walker, Scott).

The DNC controls through media. If you don't say the right things or kiss the right rings, you don't get airtime. Marianne needs a better Twitter game (or maybe she does and Twitter is just not showing it to me) to end run the media or she isn't going to get to Wisconsin.

Achilles said...

Tulsi Gabbard is the best dem candidate. She is going after the tech oligarchs as we speak.

What Williamson says here is truth in a parallel line.

BJM said...

I read that as "institutionalized buggery".

Works either way.

It's beyond amusing that the Dems and media now live or die at the hands of the mob they ginned up.

chuck said...

> The sequel even Hollywood would never make ...

That's a bold assertion, I wouldn't bet on it.

Beasts of England said...

'Marianne has the best chance to beat Trump.'

In at least one way I agree. Trump wouldn't be able to get under her skin. She'd probably weave him a daisy chain of peace if he got nasty. It's easy to trash a scummy politician without much downside risk, but how could you slime a flower child? Not the best optics.

mockturtle said...

I read that as "institutionalized buggery".

BJM beat me to it.

n.n said...

Woke but... and sleepy.

chuck said...

My take: Taibbi would enjoy life if only he became a Trump supporter.

Francisco D said...

Marianne has the best chance to beat Trump. As pointed out above, she's hypnotic. She appeals to emotions, shes fun to watch, she looks like she's having a good time campaigning, and is comfortable in her own skin.

As POTUS, she will lead all White people in prayer to apologize for slavery, Jim Crow, the MLK assassination, redlining and racial micro aggressions. Then the healing will begin.

Except for those White Supremacists who do not believe in collective guilt.

mockturtle said...

From what I've read about her, she would appear to be the prototypical Californian flaky New Age type whose background of drugs, alcohol and 'nervous breakdowns' somehow resulted in a supernatural awareness of life that made her a guru and advisor [and a favorite of Oprah]. While she is most certainly correct in her analysis of Crony Capitalism, she is hardly the first. Sarah Palin said the same as did Peter Schweizer in his book, Throw Them All Out.

rehajm said...

she would appear to be the prototypical Californian flaky New Age type whose background of drugs, alcohol and 'nervous breakdowns' somehow resulted in a supernatural awareness of life that made her a guru and advisor [and a favorite of Oprah]

Funny and insightful. On all counts.

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

"Christ, I think. This woman is going to win the nomination"

If she wins, I doubt Christ will have had anything to do with it.

narciso said...


she's still another crazy 'sybill the soothsayer'

https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/30/shaun-king-false-allegation-suicide-jazmine-barnes/

now trump might be frank Hackett from that film, willing to be rather tactless and ruthless to get what he wants,

rightguy said...

MW's use of the expression "heightened awareness" sounds Castanadian to me.

rehajm said...

What is it with people who can only describe via pop culture, instead of literally describing - writing out their own descriptive words? These shorthand references are not compelling in any way

**COUGH**BobDylan**COUGH**

narciso said...

why did cruz and trump, get to the final round, it wasn't about money but message, I think carson might have gotten there if he hadn't been sandbagged by that bogus politico story,

Jim Gust said...

very interesting article, but the page kept reloading on my ipad due to some error.

taibbi has some good insights, but he fails to give trump credit for his policy successes. it wasn't only about the process.

rehajm said...

Our walking civil war of a president reached office on a promise to burn it all down, which, incidentally, he’s doing

What is this it of which Taibbi speaks? Not any of the things I was led to believe. Deep state, perhaps? I don't think he's started yet. Perhaps for some a light shining on the scam feels like a flamethrower.

rehajm said...

The Democrats had years to come up with an answer to Trump that is fundamental, powerful, and new, solving the problem the elder George Bush once called “the vision thing.”

Consider the possibility your problem isn't poor messaging but that your policies suck eggs.

JMS said...

After the first debates, a very smart friend who lives in Georgia told me he thought Williamson did the best by far (in the two minutes she was given!). It wasn't her positions on climate change or police reform that impressed him, but her closing statement about how to beat Trump. She definitely has a way with words, you've probably heard several of her quotes--the most famous is “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? ” The quote is often misattributed to Nelson Mandela, but was actually in Williamson's first book, A Return to Love. It's also been featured in the movies Coach Carter and Akeelah and the Bee. My friend added that he knew she couldn't win the nomination, but then everyone said that about Trump too.

Known Unknown said...

"I think carson might have gotten there if he hadn't been sandbagged by that bogus politico story,"

Carson was too sleepy. He was the black low-energy Jeb but with a slightly better message and a really great history.

mockturtle said...

It is not Trump who is divisive. It is the anti-Trumpers who are divisive.

rehajm said...

The presence of human scratching post Biden atop the field

The visual for the referenced

rehajm said...

reanimating the 2016 pattern of TV networks giving Captain Orange masses of free airtime to flail rivals for sport and ratings

There are countless references to this illusion of a causative relationship between Tv airtime and votes. Consider the possibility it was the policies...

rehajm said...

Republican state governments and a CEO-friendly administration are hacking away at policies dear to working people

working people=illegal immigrants that vote.

narciso said...

considering the circumstances where he grew up, it takes great will power to be this serene, I was speaking of the message, wexner, singer and co who spent 150 million on jeb, might as well have burnt the money, Christie was slightly more effective, and Kasich, thy name is delusion,

narciso said...

Huckabee and santorum cancelled each other out, and Rubio had some traction but not much,

Ficta said...

"If she wins, I doubt Christ will have had anything to do with it."

Maybe so, maybe not...

rehajm said...

Papers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe ran stories suggesting Warren’s campaign might be fatally “wounded” before it even began in January, because of her too-liberal politics and her infamous claim to Native American heritage. But she persisted and suddenly looks like one of the favorites.

Papers like that ran them back then so we wouldn't have to revisit the horrors of her deception now, when it counts. Old news.

Sprezzatura said...

I, like Walt, also listened to that interview/podcast.

She seemed not a total dope. The power of low expectations, maybe. I dunno.

Anywho, a lib podcast (Lovett or Leave it) had a funny game w/ an audience member who had to guess if a quote was from Williamson or Mandela.

The "our deepest fear..." thing-y was just the beginning re hilarity.

Sprezzatura said...

BTW is a 'deepest fear' ok? But 'deeply fearful' is bad.

I dunno.

Sprezzatura said...

Vortex rules are tricky.

h said...

"It's like they are running for President of Woke Twitter." This resonates. Also, this quote from the article:

"Then there’s the content, which, to paraphrase Lincoln, is thinner than a soup made from the shadow of a pigeon that starved to death. The Democrats’ basic pitch reads like a list of five poll topics: kids are in cages; let’s close the gun-show loophole; this administration’s policies are an existential threat; something something Mitch McConnell; and Trump is (insert joke here)."

Taibbi has figured out that he has the left-wing credentials to differentiate himself from the rest of the media by telling the truth and not just try to one-up the rest with Orange Man Bad commentary.

rehajm said...

Her policy prescriptions are detailed and bold, including a two percent overall “ultramillionaires tax” that measures by net worth instead of income (theoretically closing a giant loophole)

Forgetting the Constitution for a moment- since when is failing to tax wealth a giant loophole? A loophole is an unintended method to avoid tax because a statute is poorly written, not a catch-all label for everything you find inadequate.

narciso said...

if you believe all money is the states, or 'you didn't build that' it makes perfect sense,

tim in vermont said...

"A loophole is an unintended method to avoid tax because a statute is poorly written,”

Or well written by insiders.

rehajm said...

Williamson belongs to a category of candidate you might call the Ignored. They’re candidates blown off by national political wizards who don’t believe, or don’t want to believe, they can win. How anyone can think this way after 2016 is mind-boggling.

Those wizards believe they are king makers, influencers, not analysts. That's how they think that way.

rehajm said...

Or well written by insiders.

If the intended consequence of the insider is met that's not really the true meaning of loophole.

buwaya said...

"Wealth" taxes are just a modern variation on the most ancient form of taxation, which was mainly on land, as landownership was wealth.

Straight capital bypassed property taxes. That is, holding money and lending it, so that ones holdings were just masses of IOU's, mortgages on square miles of Campania, not actual square miles of Campania. The Romans may have been the first to figure this out.

rehajm said...

It’s unseemly, the degree to which the press is rooting for Sanders to get his socialist tuchis out of the race

I liked how that Republican congressman referred to the Democrats and Socialists at the Mueller hearing. Heh.

rehajm said...

About 20 of the candidates exist somewhere on the spectrum of traditional Democratic politics...

About 20 of the candidates exist somewhere on the spectrum. is what he was actually thinking.

rehajm said...

Nobody will want to hear this, but Democrats are repeating the error. The sense of déjà vu is palpable. It might and should still work out, according to the polls

No déjà vu sense about the polls, eh?

Michael K said...

The new Trump ad.

Hilarious. There is already a guy, a military veteran running for AOC's seat.

mockturtle said...

"A loophole is an unintended method to avoid tax because a statute is poorly written,”

"Or well written by insiders.". Exactly, AAT!

rcocean said...

If the Democrats ever truly believed in "helping the working man" or "Controlling the Corporations" or "Making the tax system fair". In other words, if they were truly populist, they would win in a landslide.

But it just lies. Boob Bait. Whenever they get out of power, none of this EVER happens. Instead, we get Globalism, open borders, Bailouts of Wall Street, support for TPP and NAFTA. Clinton even signed up for "Welfare Reform".

Or look at Obamacare. How the hell did that control drug prices or the medical care costs? Or help the average person? It was a 1,000 page bill that no one read!

rcocean said...

I see nothing wrong with a "Wealth Tax". The gap between spending and receipts never falls below a Trillion a year. Let the millionaires and billionaires who bribe the politicians and rig the rules, pay for it.

The property tax is nothing more than a "wealth tax".

rcocean said...

Loopholes are never unintended. LOL! The whole purpose of the tax code is to allow the rich to bribe congressmen to lower their taxes through loopholes and complexity.

You're a boob if you think otherwise.

rehajm said...

Loopholes are never unintended. LOL! The whole purpose of the tax code is to allow the rich to bribe congressmen to lower their taxes through loopholes and complexity.

You’re making my case- you can call it a bribe or deliberate complexity. Those things are intended by the writers. Doesn’t fit the meaning of loophole.

...and what’s with the name calling? Did you turn into a Democrat?

narciso said...

Well Tommy the cork Corcoran was the big crafter of loopholes after putting together fdrs tax changes

narciso said...

See the tradeoff Is they close the loophole in return for a lower overall rate, then years later they revisited the rate, sans loophole

Matt Sablan said...

If we go to a National Popular Vote, they would be

Francisco D said...

Let the millionaires and billionaires who bribe the politicians and rig the rules, pay for it.

That seems rather naive, rcocean.

The middle class always, always pays the freight.

Clyde said...

Hopefully Marianne tanks tonight and is done. She's the only one that worries me at all, because like Trump, she's not a professional politician. It would take another outsider to beat an outsider like Trump. And don't be fooled by her demeanor, her ideas would be just as bad and destructive as any of the other 23 Democrats running, she'd just put them out with more affirmation and less negativity. She's the exact opposite of the other women in the race, all of whom are unlikeable to one degree or another.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Narciso is right. Nose of the donkey under the corner of the tent. They do it every time.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Little while ago they were looking at inherited IRAs as well. Gotta whole new bunch of "voters" to pay off.

FullMoon said...

I see nothing wrong with a "Wealth Tax".

California voters passed Prop 13 in the seventies. Limited property tax increase to 2% per year. When home is sold, then taxed on current valuation

It was during the first high tech property boom in Silicon Valley. Saved a lot of old people from having to sell and go.

Now, the younger citizens want to rescind it in order to force oldsters to sell and move.

narciso said...

furthermore when they reduced the deductability of real estate in the 86 act, just as the s&l portfolios rested on the value of real estate, so policy often seems insane,

Gospace said...

2016 Republican primary mistakes? What mistakes? The idea of primaries is to pick a winner. The non-rigged Republican primaries picked a winner. The rigged Democrat primaries picked a loser who was supposed to win a rigged election. They didn't think they would have to cheat more than normal.

Quaestor said...

Feel to read it.

Gosh, is it published in Braille?

Quaestor said...

[Williamson] describes a two-party system that, at its... best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized beggary.

Williamson is glib, but a timid little skulking rodent nonetheless. One may have his choice of beggars or pass them by without a glance, but government beggary is reinforced with leg irons and machine guns. If a real beggar used such tools he'd be called a brigand and a pirate. Governments, especially those operated by the Democratic party, are preferable to pirates in one respect only – one does have to chase them across an expanse of ocean to bring them into court.

Quaestor said...

[Williamson] describes a two-party system that, at its... best — presumably she refers more to Democrats here — sounds like institutionalized beggary.

Williamson is glib, but a timid little skulking rodent nonetheless. One may have his choice of beggars or pass them by without a glance, but government beggary is reinforced with leg irons and machine guns. If a real beggar used such tools he'd be called a brigand and a pirate. Governments, especially those operated by the Democratic party, are preferable to pirates in one respect only – one does have to chase them across an expanse of ocean to bring them into court.

narciso said...

brain trust at work:


https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/07/30/seriously-messed-up-nyts-carl-hulse-and-maureen-dowd-discuss-the-catholic-deep-states-influence-on-scotus/

Rusty said...

rcocean said...
"I see nothing wrong with a "Wealth Tax""
I see a lot wrong with it.

h said...

One concern I have about the wealth tax is "bracket creep". The calculations on Warren's proposal are that the tax would be paid by only 75,000 households (less than 0.1% of households). https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/facts-on-warrens-wealth-tax-plan/. The earliest data I could find on wealth distribution was for the early 1960s (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/files/6263_sfcc62book.pdf) . It shows a sample of about 2500 households and concludes: " the sample would have included "50 units with wealth of $100, 000 or more if uniform sampling rates had been used, and very few of these would have had as much as $500,000".

So if a Warren type wealth tax had been adopted in the early 1960s, and if it had only been paid by the top 0.1%, it is very likely that it would have been set to tax wealth above $400,000 or $500,000.

Fast forward to 2019, and suddenly people with relatively modest retirement savings and real estate holdings have net worth in this $400-500K level (my guess is 20-25% of all households based on https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf )

Après moi le déluge, I suppose; but I don't want to put this burden on my children.

mikee said...

“They say, ‘I can get you a cookie.’ ”

Has this woman NEVER read "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie?"
And if not, this ignorance of great literature explains Democrat policy perfectly!