skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Mediaite reports.
The professor, Dave Karpf, who studies media and public affairs, published a screenshot of the email he received Monday night from Stephens, who claimed an unnamed “someone” had “just pointed out” Karpf’s insult to him, complained that the professor had “set a new standard” for poisoning the discourse. The Times columnist went on to effectively physically challenge Karpf, inviting him to “come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face.”...
Karpf’s initial joke on Twitter, posted just hours before, was in response to news of a recent bedbug outbreak in the New York Times newsroom. "The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."...
Stephens’ over-the-top response to a Tweet that notably did not use his Twitter handle, as well as the not-so-subtle attempt to get Karpf in trouble with the professor’s boss at the college, seemed to run counter to the proclaimed free speech champion’s disgust with thin-skinned “PC culture” and societal “safe spaces” where no one has a sense of humor anymore.... The tetchy, how-dare-you tone and speak-to-your-manager snitch move by Stephens came across as more than a little hypocritical to many media watchers online....
ADDED:
"Bret Stephens is Deactivating His Twitter Account After Blowing Up at Man Who Called Him a Bedbug" (Mediaite).
“Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity,” Stephens posted. “I sincerely apologize for any part I’ve played in making it worse, and to anyone I’ve ever hurt. Thanks to all of my followers, but I’m deactivating this account.”
पोस्ट्स
२१६ टिप्पण्या:
216 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I am not familiar enough with the NYTimes (Yay!) to know what Bret Stephens' beat is, but Holy Cow what a humor-challenged scold he sounds like. I'm sure he'd blame Trump for his brain state.
"The bedbugs are Bret Stephens"
What progs call a "joke."
So, Bret, you do realize what your prog paymasters actually think about you, right? I mean, you realize that your never-Trumper act doesn't give you any protection, right? You do know that you are just as deplorable as the rest of us, Althouse included, right?
Better keep your cool, though.
Haha!
I'm sure he'd blame Trump for his brain state.
He wouldn't be wrong either. Things must not be going so well over there in the Times Building. It's hard being a slumlord...
Mommy!
I am open to the idea that Stephens did not actually send the email. (It was Russians!!) But I'm thinking he probably did.
The tetchy, how-dare-you tone and speak-to-your-manager snitch move by Stephens came across as more than a little hypocritical to many media watchers online....
The subtle judgments of those many media watchers give me some hope that civil society is either collapsing or not collapsing.
I am certainly no fan of Bret Stephens, but I think it's a little ridiculous to say that "“come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face," was "effectively physically challeng[ing]." I think Stephens was saying that it is a little harder to hurl insults to someone's face after you've humanized them. It's always easier to insult from behind a computer screen than it is to someone's face.
Twitter is like what Cosby said about cocaine- it intensifies your personality. Yes, but what if you're an asshole?
Here's two of the many media watchers, watching some "many media":
8-(
;-)
See how diverse they are? That's how you know they're good.
The bedbug community doesn't like being compared to Those People.
I became aware of this story before Althouse published this blog post. I wondered who Dr. Dave Karpf was, and what his Twitter feed showed. Karpf is a political science prof, whose Twitter feed tilts somewhat gently toward letist political activism. Looking for out-and-out grenade throwing, I found very little of it on @davekarpf.
So what was up with Karpf's going after Bret Stephens? I can only gather that it was because Stephens was too conservative. Not liberal enough.
Which is so wonderfully weird in a way. As readers of this page -- and the blog hostess herself -- have so long had their knickers in a bunch over Brett Stephens' open criticism of Donald Trump.
And I suspect that the real, true reason for this blog post was to collaterally counterattack Stephens' own criticism of Donald Trump. It is as if all disputes in the end break down along lines of Pro- or Anti-Trumpism.
It's always easier to insult from behind a computer screen than it is to someone's face.
"Ease of insult" is one of the major benefits of computers. Microsoft got it all started by making everyone curse a lot while using a computer.
Twitter and TDS have driven people crazy. Proof? The Dems are looking to nominate loons or a senile old man to run the country.
Bedbug? Someone here (wrongly, I might add) keeps calling Ann Althouse a Marxist feminist. Others have said nasty things about Althouse.
People need to cool their jets.
In any event, Althouse is a better writer and tougher than old Brett.
“come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face.”
Is Stephens illiterate? Karpf explicitly said it was a metaphor.
Never trumpers by their inherent nature are humorless scolds. They have to be to have abandoned their supposed deep seated principles of limited government and defense of western civilization because they find the actual defense of such to be too icky.
: “Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity,”
True, but it sure didn't take much to bring out the worst in Brett Stephens.
@SDaly:
I agree with your take on the statement, but Stephens was still a total prick in sending the email to Karpf's dean.
Totally agree.
"...seemed to run counter to the proclaimed free speech champion’s disgust with thin-skinned “PC culture” and societal “safe spaces” where no one has a sense of humor anymore....The tetchy, how-dare-you tone and speak-to-your-manager snitch move by Stephens came across as more than a little hypocritical to many media watchers online...."
I think it's inaccurate to see this sort of behavior as "hypocritical". We're not seeing "hypocrisy" in all the increasingly nutty stuff from people like Stephens. They haven't changed their core beliefs or their feelings. They just no longer have the Olympian calm and restraint that comes with perceiving oneself and one's fellows or employers as being comfortably in the saddle, with the confidence that the world and history are moving along the correct (inevitable) "arc", regardless of any ineffectual grumbling from the despised class.
Designated "conservatives" could carp about "PC", as long as they carped impotently, and pretend to support traditional American civic values, as long as their relentless erosion, necessary for the implementation of the globalist project, continued unimpeded. All we're seeing now, all the delusional perceptions and batshit malice, have been there all along.
I hope the bedbugs hire legal counsel and sue.
Of course Stephens is also a huge fan of sanctioning Iranians to death and bombing them. So perhaps there are a few things worse than getting called a name on Twitter.
Iranian revolutionary guards who have been killing americans since 1983, farmer, the ayatollahs private stash.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard at 8:26 AM
They just no longer have the Olympian calm and restraint that comes with perceiving oneself and one's fellows or employers as being comfortably in the saddle, with the confidence that the world and history are moving along the correct (inevitable) "arc", regardless of any ineffectual grumbling from the despised class.
Good comment.
Jason Eldredge and Dierks Houser recently collaborated on this this soon-to-be country hit:
"Sometimes I feel like there's just no way
To sing those happy songs I sing as we travel place to place
But Darlin' you can make it better,
just call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face."
©Bugboy Music, 2019.
I am reminded of one of Peter Hitchens' appearances on the BBC One program The Big Questions when he responded, "There are people constantly calling for me to be killed on Twitter. Who cares?!"
Iranian revolutionary guards who have been killing americans since 1983, farmer, the ayatollahs private stash.
The sanctions aren't killing Revolutionary Guardsmen, they're killing regular Iranians. You know, the ones whose side we constantly claim to be on.
Welll, if twitter is a sewer has Mr S been floating along on the surface all these years nest to a Baby Ruth?
Many layers of hypocrisy.
Leftists that do similar things escape repercussions.
In-house media so called Republicans that castigate Trump for hitting back.
Not allowing Stephens to reply to a leftist attack.
No that is the corrupt regime, you have trust in, that sqandered its money im missile programs in syria and yemen, that is in partnership with maduro
Are mainstream media outlets in trouble because they don't take leftwing extremism seriously? and sweep it under the rug when it occurs and 10 people are dead?
The Dayton Shooting and Left-Wing Extremism
No that is the corrupt regime, you have trust in, that sqandered its money im missile programs in syria and yemen, that is in partnership with maduro
I have no "trust in" the regime, but that's pretty much the only way you seem to be able to argue the issue, that anyone with a different point-of-view must be supportive of the Iranian regime. It's no different than when people opposed to the Iraq War were told that they must have a soft spot for Saddam Hussein. It's cheap and crude, but I've long given up any hope that you can debate the issue honestly.
"It is no exaggeration to say that U.S. sanctions kill Iranians, and they impoverish the people that they don’t kill. The burden of these sanctions falls hardest on the weakest and most in need. It bears repeating that all of this is entirely unnecessary, and our government is inflicting this hardship and suffering on the Iranian people in a vain effort at regime change. Our government is using cruel and unjust means to pursue an unrealistic goal."
How Sanctions Kill Iranians
Bret and Fredo should get together.
I can't imagine the last time Dan Larison's been right about something that wasn't horrifically obvious or already concluded, JFarmer, but you're also missing the point. Sanctions are modern siege weapons, designed to weaken nations and cities. Preferably to the point of starvation. The American elite wants to protect its interests in the Middle East, there's no reason for them to give up their comfortable deal with the Saudis, and they care about normal Iranians only one degree less than they generally care about normal Americans, which is not at all. The Obama Administration tried to be "neutral," which in practice meant empowering Iran with unfrozen assets and diplomatic legitimacy. Why, I have no idea. But that's not the Trump stance, or the Israel-Saudi stance for that matter.
I doubt you'll have the slightest luck convincing anyone that the tactics being used against Iran are morally bad. Anyone soft-hearted enough to agree has long since either ducked out of politics or has some more pressing issue to focus on.
It is as if all disputes in the end break down along lines of Pro- or Anti-Trumpism.
In your mind, Chuck, that is exactly what happens.
I am so happy I never got into Twitter.
SDaly said...
And I suspect that the real, true reason for this blog post was to collaterally counterattack Stephens' own criticism of Donald Trump. It is as if all disputes in the end break down along lines of Pro- or Anti-Trumpism.
And Chuck projects his own behavior (in reverse) onto Althouse!
How else do we explain the Althouse-Commentariat hostility toward Bret Stephens? He's a conservative columnist. As so many of the Althouse commenters claim to be. Stephens' detractor is a liberal. A liberal college professor.
Stephens' only failing is that he is NeverTrump. So that's what it comes down to. And in fact when one looks at the Althouse Brett Stephens tag, it didn't exist (although she had in fact mentioned Stephens in earlier blog posts) until Stpehens turned against Trump, at which time Althouse turned against Stephens.
Farmer: Of course Stephens is also a huge fan of sanctioning Iranians to death and bombing them.
Gosh, why would he want to sanction Iranians? And to death? How does that work?
And he's a "huge" fan? Do you accumulate points or something?
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
"It is no exaggeration to say that U.S. sanctions kill Iranians, and they impoverish the people that they don’t kill.
The alternative is to bomb them.
We could leave them alone but they don't seem to want to reciprocate.
Maduro is as hostile but spends his efforts killing his own people. The Iranians do that, too, but seem to reach out with terrorism. Not just against Israel.
The Islamic terror networks reach even into the US Congress.
He's a conservative columnist.
He's a neocon columnist. You even know that, Chuck. Any Trump hater is your friend.
Stephens doesnt join the side hes on, therein lies the point, the times wont protect him from these ravagers
"The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."
Sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite!
Too late, the humorless Brett Stephens already 'bites'.
Nothing Stephens tweeted necessarily threatened violence. He suggested that once you know someone even a little, have met his family, and talked a while you may reconsider issuing personal insults. Even so, he would have been wiser to roll his eyes and move on.
I'm so glad Chuck is here. I know people say "Don't engage the trolls," but nah. That rule's as dead as Godwin's Law. If the host keeps them around, why not ask them questions?
Hey buddy pal friend homeslice, why do you think no one notices that you defend neocon slime like Bret Stephens and Jennifer Rubin? They relentlessly excoriate a President who sticks up for American interests based on tweets and marital history, which is actually fine coming from the truly incorruptible. But given how they play by Marquess of Queensbury rules when dealing with vicious murderers, warmongers, and closet pedophiles, most actual Americans who make less than $450 at elite law firms are... mildly perplexed. We can tell you're part of Team Shill. You're not fooling anyone.
LLR Chuck: "Stephens' only failing is that he is NeverTrump."
LOL
Anyone who calls the obama economy a "dream-perfect economy" is not someone whose analysis can be trusted....particularly when they've been exposed as a Reid Hoffman-like blog troll who has explicitly admitted to only being here to smear and lie about Trump and drive a wedge between Trump and his voters AND drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers.
Stephens was trying to squash the man who made a joke about him on twitter. As Karpf correctly states, you don't write an email to his Boss unless that's what your trying to do. Burt Stephen's apology was laughable. Burt thought Twitter was OK until he was insulted - then it became a "Sewer" LOL!
And B.S. is not a "Conservative". He's a never-trumper who left the Republican party. He's a globalist, open borders, and wanted Hillary to win in 2020 and will NOT vote Republican in 2020. He gets along fine with all the Lefties at the NYT's. Its only the Right-wingers he hates.
There are only two "Somewhat conservative" things about Burt Stephens. He wants lower taxes on the rich, and he's for an "interventionist" foreign policy. Which also means he likes Defense spending. IWO, he's a rich globalist who doesn't like to pay taxes and Loves Israel.
rcocean: "Stephens was trying to squash the man who made a joke about him on twitter."
A defining characteristic of a current day leftist.
Stephens is not a conservative. He's a fully trained house pet of the left who does what he is told....for a paycheck....from the left.
Just like the entire fake conservative gang at the hoax conservative site The Bulwark.
Well thats fine, but if he wants either, he should realize the upper east side cannibals will carve him up.
Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity
`A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'
Yeats
narciso: "Well thats fine, but if he wants either, he should realize the upper east side cannibals will carve him up."
The fact that Stephens is allowed to exist within the upper east side enclave of radical leftism shows that he is an acceptable member of the lefty family......like a dog that is given scraps from the dinner table.
Yes but ultimately he cant be woke enough for them, like syme in 1984,
I would like to accept Bret Stephens' invitation.
Sounds like a good time.
Well he could have escalated things with Stephens and called him a cockroach. But he left it at bedbug.
Skeptical Voter:"Well he could have escalated things with Stephens and called him a cockroach. But he left it at bedbug."
Just a bit of shared pro-dem courtesy.
Didn't something like this happen with John Podhoretz? What do they teach at U of C?
Stepphens is a typical liberal pussy beta boy.
A bedbug? I've been called worse on the internet, and for probably less cause.
@Fen:
Gosh, why would he want to sanction Iranians?
Regime change
And to death? How does that work?
Read my link. Or this one, this one, or this one.
And he's a "huge" fan? Do you accumulate points or something?
Don't need points, just need to listen to what he's written and said on the subject for years.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
By all means, stop reading what I write. No skin off my back.
"The bedbugs are a metaphor. The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."...
Wow, what a burn! It's practically fighting words, Bret.....
"It's humanity's fault" is a terrible excuse for an apology.
Gosh, why would he want to sanction Iranians?
"Expert": Regime change
Why would we want regime change? Is Iran trying to corner the humus market?
@Fen:
I love how you think pointing out that I am not an "expert" is some kind of response. Is it your position that only "experts" may have opinions on US foreign policy.
Why would we want regime change
I don't believe "we" should. I think it's a foolish policy, and my non-expert evidence is Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. But Bret Stephens does. If you don't believe this, read his book America in Retreat. Or you can read this article in which Stephens says: "The overarching goal of Western policy cannot be to appease Iran into making partial and temporary concessions on its nuclear program, purchased at the cost of financing its other malignant aims. The goal must be to put an end, finally, to 40 years of Persian night."
Potus gets in on bedbug thing.
I'll give him this, Twitter is a sewer and it does bring out the worst in people. That's pretty much why I quit it, and FB, two and a half years ago.
I am a big fan of Bret Stephens, though I disagree with him on some things. I was really sorry to see him leave the WSJ. He has been very clear that he despises Trump. Stephens generally has his head screwed on straight. Trump is not his kinda guy.
This whole controversy is being mischaracterized. Stephens did not threaten Karpf. He suggested that Karpf wouldn’t use dehumanizing metaphors if he personally knew the Stephenses. This is a noncontroversy being peddled as a “threat”.
Twitter and the internet make lots of people stupid.
Farmer: I love how you think pointing out that I am not an "expert" is some kind of response. Is it your position that only "experts" may have opinions on US foreign policy.
No, my position is that you attempt to speak with authority on foreign policy and have no idea what you are talking about. Naive idealism is cute when you are 16, how old are you now?
"Why would we want regime change"
Farmer: I don't believe "we" should.
When I asked why America would impose sanctions on Iran, you should answered "regime change". When I ask why we would seek regime change you say... you don't support regime change?
Could you try to answer my question? Or are you just talking out of your ass to feel pretty about your "righteous" non-interventionist stand that will get another 6 million Jews incinerated?
Say what you will about Hitler - he didn't get 6 million Jews exterminated merely to Virtue Signal was a Righteous Dude he surely must be.
Fen: The Somalis are running out of food. 12 million will starve to death at weeks end.
Farmer: Send them bread.
Fen: We did. The rations and medical supplies sent have been intercepted by the very gangs that have caused the deprivation and starvation to begin with.
Farmer: Let them eat cake?
Bret's apology:
“Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity. I sincerely apologize for any part I’ve played in making it worse, and to anyone I’ve ever hurt. Thanks to all of my followers, but I’m deactivating this account.”
Oh my lord, that's your swansong twitter apology, Brett? What a fucking drama queen.
He should descend to these august comment pages to learn what real verbal abuse is like:)
I think Bret gets a lot of abuse at NYT, probably more from the left than the right (although Trump fans used to abuse him at WSJ). I suspect that the “Jew as insect” slur made by Karpf pushed a button with him.
Shorter Chuck: Bret Stephens did something stupid, so I immediately rushed to examine Dr. Karpf's Twitter feed!
@Fen:
No, my position is that you attempt to speak with authority on foreign policy and have no idea what you are talking about.
By all means, point out what facts you believe I've gotten wrong. I'll wait.
Naive idealism is cute when you are 16, how old are you now?
I have repeatedly said that I am pessimistic and that I consider pessimism the ideal position for any conservative to take. I have never advocated "idealism," naive or otherwise. If you want to argue with me fine, but try confining yourself to things I've actually said not some strawman you've invented in your head.
When I asked why America would impose sanctions on Iran, you should answered "regime change". When I ask why we would seek regime change you say... you don't support regime change?
Go back and read what you wrote. You quoted me as saying the Stephens was a fan of sanctions and then you wrote: "Gosh, why would he want to sanction Iranians?"
Could you try to answer my question?
Trump and Pompeo have both said that "regime change" is not the objective in Iran. I guess that means they want 6 millions Jews incinerated, too, right? It's something the interventionist wing of the party does not like about him. That's why Andrew McCarthy wrote back in June: "On Monday, Trump took pains to stress that he is 'not looking for regime change' in Iran. He is, instead, 'looking for no nuclear weapons.' This is wrong on multiple levels."
Bret Stephens must've been beaten up by Kafka as a child.
I am Laslo.
rcocean: There are only two "Somewhat conservative" things about Burt Stephens. He wants lower taxes on the rich, and he's for an "interventionist" foreign policy.
Don't go all Chuck on us, rc. Chuck's observations are daffy because his world-view is dated and ahistorical. I.e., to him, "conservatism" = GOPe = post-war globalist "right liberalism". Bret Stephens was situated in that particular niche of American "conservatism", recently regnant but now waning, and challenged by other, older strains of American conservatism that had been quiescent during the last half-century or so of giddy triumphalist neo-liberalism. Since GOPe "conservatism" is a subset of American liberalism, it's only natural that its adherents would drift back into that larger fold when their brand of boutique-liberalism stopped selling.
Being in favor of an interventionist foreign policy was (is) emphatically *not* a distinguishing feature of American conservatism relative to American liberalism, in any longer term historical view. But the neo-cons were pretty successful for a while in making their brand synonymous with American conservatism, and Chuck appears to be oblivious to the political realignment that's been going on under his nose. No use trying to school 'im, he'll be blithering about the chimera of "real conservatism" 'til the end of his days.
Moderator: Thanks everyone for coming. Now that we've collectively left our biases and bigotry at the door, we can go around the circle and introduce ourselves.
Member 1: Hi. My name is Anthony. People call me The Mooch. I used to work for Trump, but not anymore.
Group: Hi Anthony.
Member 2: I'm Chris. People call me Fredo. But not to my face anymore (laughs). I'm, I'm over at CNN.
Group: Hi Chris.
Member 3: Wolf Blitzer. Wolf. Wolfie. The Wolfman. Also CNN.
Group: Hi Wolf.
Member 4: I'm Bret. Mr. Stevens is my dad, so, just Bret. I'm at the Wall Stree...New York Times. I'm at the New York Times.
Group: Hi Bret.
Member 5: George. Conway, not Stephanoplois. I'm, uh, married to Kellyanne. Conway. Kellyanne's my wife.
Group: Hi George.
Member 6: Stephanopolis. Also George, but Stephanopolis. I'll answer to Steph. Or handsome. Uh, ABC.
Group: Hi Steph.
Member 7: April Ryan. Nobody's filming here are they? NOBODY BETTER BE FILMING!!!
Group: (stares at floor)
Member 8: Joe. Scranton Joe. Call sign Celtic. That was my Secret Service code name, Celtic, back when I was President. After Barack was tragically shot. (starts sobbing)
Group: Hi Joe.
Moderator: It's alright Joe. Everything's going to be alright.
Moderator: Now everyone get your Army jacket on and get in front of a mirror. We're going to do some empowerment exercises.
(group finds their places)
Moderator: Now stare into that mirror, make a gun with your finger, and repeat after me: "You TALKIN' to ME?"
Group: You TALKIN' to ME?
Moderator: Good, keep working on it. Really try to own it. Find your inner spirit guide!
Group: You TALKIN' to ME? You TALKIN' to ME? You TALKIN' to ME? You TALKIN' to ME?
Moderator: Very good. Now come back next week. We'll be working on "Punk-ass bitch!"
Amadeus 48: I suspect that the “Jew as insect” slur made by Karpf pushed a button with him.
Wut?
“Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity. I sincerely apologize for any part I’ve played in making it worse, and to anyone I’ve ever hurt. Thanks to all of my followers, but I’m deactivating this account.”
Shorter Stephens: It's just this Twitter and that lying son of a bitch Karpf!
Karpf NAILED it.
“Too late, the humorless Brett Stephens already 'bites”
Haha. All the news that’s fit to bite.
@Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard:
Being in favor of an interventionist foreign policy was (is) emphatically *not* a distinguishing feature of American conservatism relative to American liberalism, in any longer term historical view. But the neo-cons were pretty successful for a while in making their brand synonymous with American conservatism, and Chuck appears to be oblivious to the political realignment that's been going on under his nose. No use trying to school 'im, he'll be blithering about the chimera of "real conservatism" 'til the end of his days.
Agree completely. Robert Kagan makes a similar point in his World Affairs essay "Neocon Nation" and his book Dangerous Nation. The intermingling of conservatism and interventionism was primarily a byproduct of the Cold War.
Fredo Cuomo... Bret BedBug...
A glimpse into the hell of the Stephens family's 1960s Labor Day car trip.
"Mom! Joey called me a bedbug!"
"Mom! Suzy is looking at me!"
"Mom!...
"I suspect that the “Jew as insect” slur made by Karpf pushed a button with him."
So: Mein Karpf?
I am Laslo.
Bret: Mommy, mommy, the boys are being mean to me! I cancelled the WSJ years ago because of this left-wing loon masquerading as a "conservative."
Apologies are hard. Particularly with loved ones. It's hard to apologize to your wife, when you've upset her; and vice versa.
You're supposed to be specific about your offense; you're supposed to apologize for the specific harm caused by your offense, and you're supposed to pledge not to do that type of offense again in the future.
Man, the Jesuits were sticklers on remorse.
But, here's a hint to Bret and other like-minded adults: If your apology contains the phrase:
“I sincerely apologize for any part I’ve played in making it worse, and to anyone I’ve ever hurt.
... it's kind of a teenage girl, "everyone hates me, nobody loves me" type of melodramatic non-apology.
TJM: "Bret: Mommy, mommy, the boys are being mean to me!"
Just substitute "LLR Chuck" for "Bret" and "Althouse" for "Mommy" and a clear and consistent theme emerges.
It's always easier to insult from behind a computer screen than it is to someone's face.
Not always. A face-to-face insult can be extremely satisfying.
Angel-Dyne;
I’m not oblivious. I see what is happening. In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s Bill Buckley almost single-handedly drove the Birchers and the Klan out of conservatism. In so doing, Buckley built a movement and a virtual national majority. Conservatism based on ideas not bigotry.
And now that Buckley is gone, those old nativist forces are coming back, wearing MAGA hats.
@Jim at:
Not always. A face-to-face insult can be extremely satisfying.
Ha. More satisfying, for sure. But easier?
@Chuck:
And now that Buckley is gone, those old nativist forces are coming back, wearing MAGA hats.
Or it could be the massive amounts of immigration and outsourcing (ie globalism) and the displacement they naturally cause that could be fueling those "old nativist forces." And according to Dictionary.com:
na·tiv·ist
/ˈnādəvəst/
adjective
1. [US[ relating to or supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.
What exactly is wrong with policies that protect the interests of citizens from non-citizens?
Now that is funny. Stephens is finding he has no allies on the left or the right. Makes you wonder how that happens.
Fredo Cuomo... Bret BedBug... LL Smear Merchant Chuck
And from now until forever Bret will be known as "Bedbug Stephens" thanks to his over-the-top response.
Good job, Bret - I mean, Bedbug.
I still prefer Life Long Fredo for Chuck. Hope it catches on. Maybe Chuck can forward an e-mail to my mother.
“What is a Nativist?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/what-is-nativist-trump/521355/
Has Bill Kristol started writing for The Atlantic?
Ha. More satisfying, for sure. But easier?
For me? Yes. Insulting someone on-line is read by other people. I'd much rather do it face-to-face. No limitations that way.
@Chuck:
“What is a Nativist?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/what-is-nativist-trump/521355/
Despite Cas Mudde's embellishments (“xenophobic nationalism”), The Atlantic article is merely a 2,500 word restating of the dictionary definition I quoted: "relating to or supporting the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants."
And how about my question: "What exactly is wrong with policies that protect the interests of citizens from non-citizens?"
Obama's "dream-perfect economy" Chuck: "And now that Buckley is gone, those old nativist forces are coming back, wearing MAGA hats."
LOLOLOLOL
For record, LLR Chuck, just 2 days ago, endorsed admitted racist tweeter Joe Walsh for the republican nomination!!
Which makes sense since our LLR Chuck has his own long history of making racist comments.
What an awesome week its been. I'm not yet tired of winning.
I wonder if LLR Chuck's long history of racist posting was one of the reasons he was asked to leave this blog by the blog moderators?
One would assume so, lest Althouseblog become known as a hate site full of LLR racist posters.
SDaly: "Buckley did not drive the Klan out of conservatism. The Klan was never part of conservatism. You thought you could just slip that lie through?"
Chuck does stuff like that all the time.
He is constantly working to support the far lefts narrative that all the democrat racists were actually republicans all along.
LLR Chuck is always perfectly in tune with every dem/left/LLR-left lie intended to denigrate republicans and conservatives.
SDaly: "I put the interests of my wife and children ahead of my neighbors. I guess that makes me a "familyist."'
According to the far lefties, like LLR Chuck, ONLY if you are caucasion.
I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first 2 thousand MAGA hat wearing natives standing in line for a Trump rally, in the rain, for 2 days, than in a society governed by the 2 hundred LLRace-hustling smear merchants with subscriptions to Teh Atlantic.
Remember how strongly Buckley would advocate for principled conservatives to pose as LLR's and attempt to drive wedges between republican Presidents and his/her voters as well as to try and drive wedges between middle of the road media types and their readers while simultaneously promising to smear and lie about the republican President in order to drive down the Presidents poll numbers and make it easier for the far left/marxist dems to impeach that republican?
Good times, good times.....
Remember how Buckley used to praise the far left dems for their economic policies and call it creating the "dream-perfect economy"?
Remember how Buckley used to bend over backwards to defend far left lunatic democrat Senators who called US troops "Gestapo" and lied about their Stolen Valor records of service?
Good times, good times.....
I take it that Bedbug has never read the comments on any of his Times columns that aren't explicitly anti-Trump.
Remember all those times Buckley would insist that republicans defend far left radical activist judges who would simply toss the law and the Constitution out the window to advance dem policies?
Good times, good times....
More reading for Chuck.
Amy Walter on Twitter (just substitute "LLR SmearMerchantChuck" for "Joe Walsh" and "Bill Weld"):
"Couple thoughts on the Joe Walsh challenge to Trump. Watching him on ABC this weekend and hearing his pitch, he sounds less like a frustrated Tea Partier and more like a suburban GOPer from say, a district he used to represent in suburban Chicago
Walsh is distancing himself from his own inflammatory past and instead attacking Trump as 'unfit' and 'unpresidential '. It's really not that much different from what a real moderate Republican like Bill Weld is already doing
To me, the most threatening GOP challenger to Trump is one that attacks his record on populism; where's the big infrastructure bill? Why the tax cuts to corporations? Where is the swamp draining? Etc.."
Also, why isn't my head spinning from the promised suddenness of Trump's wall building?
To me, the most threatening GOP challenger to Trump is one that attacks his record on populism; where's the big infrastructure bill? Why the tax cuts to corporations? Where is the swamp draining? Etc.."
Ann Coulter has been making a similar point for a while now.
"Home Depot says suppliers are moving manufacturing out of China to avoid tariffs"
Communists and LLR's hardest hit.
J Farmer: "Ann Coulter has been making a similar point for a while now"
It's not a mystery.
The only way to beat Trump is to out-Trump him in delivering for the base of the republican party that is tired of lefty-leaning "Conservative Inc."/GOPe/LLR's which only wishes to better manage the decline and ensure the eventual victory of all dem policies so that they can feel comfortable at dinner parties.
@Drago:
It's not a mystery.
The only way to beat Trump is to out-Trump him in delivering for the base of the republican party that is tired of lefty-leaning "Conservative Inc."/GOPe/LLR's which only wishes to better manage the decline and ensure the eventual victory of all dem policies so that they can feel comfortable at dinner parties.
I agree to a point. As best I can tell, the winning formula in US politics is "socially conservative and fiscally liberal." The Establishment is just the opposite.
Communists and LLR's hardest hit.
Not the communists of Vietnam ;)
actually you'll find a whole host of think tanks even heritage and hoover, indulging in constructivist, communitarian philosophy that is anathema to the individual,
joe walsh's campaign was so embarrassingly bad, he was supposed to have declared 10 days, but his campaign manager, wouldn't take his call, perry is probably a discount steve Schmidt, if one had need for such a thing,
Farmer: "I agree to a point. As best I can tell, the winning formula in US politics is "socially conservative and fiscally liberal." The Establishment is just the opposite."
Pretty much with one caveat: I don't think most Trump supporters are comfortable with the fiscally liberal side of things, but there is a real cost/benefit assessment to be made as to the political usefulness of banging away as a deficit/debt hawk.
Most important of all, all of the LLR's bestest GOPe heroes will abandon you at the first drop of the dem pushback hat if you ever really did try and hold the fiscal line.
Who can forget the Ultimate Back-stabbing GOPe Ryan being attacked in 2012 as pushing grandma over the cliff? (I'll bet LLR Chuck absolutely looooooved that one).
But remember, according to the LLR's, the ONLY reason the dems HAD to show Ryan as an elderly mass murderer in 2012 is because of Trump in 2016 and beyond.
#Lefty&LLRLogic
Attacking Trump for "Not delivering" simply ignores the fact that he - and ALMOST he alone - in DC is in favor to MAGA, building a wall, etc. Trump has failed in part, because his so-called base, wouldn't elect Roy Moore in Alabama, Replaced McCain with a Democrat, and nominated Romney in Utah.
Trump is battling the whole goddamn DC Republican establishment and most of his dumb base doesn't even understand that. They thought they could elect Trump and then go fishing and he'd do it all on his own. And it doesn't work that way - and never did. He's made plenty of of mistakes but the POTUS is just 1 branch of the Gov't.
Farmer: "Not the communists of Vietnam ;)"
Just how "communist" are those "cats" anymore?
Remember when they were practically begging the US to come on back y'all and use the Naval Base at Cam Ranh Bay? (which we should consider since we built "the dang thing" (John McCain obvious anti-republican lie sub-reference there))
After the US departed in the 1970's, the Soviets moved in and what did your little Asian brothers and sisters find out? The Soviets were worse than the Americans...and they had NO MONEY!!!
Joe Walsh is a congenital idiot. The idea that the never Trumpers are pushing him is entirely revealing of their intellectual, moral, and political bankruptcy. Walsh lied, wheedled and lucked his way into Congress in 2010 and was promptly turned out in the next election. He has no principles. He has no decency. He is a stupid loudmouth. I have voted for some rum-dumb Republicans in Illinois, but I never would have voted for Joe Walsh.
Amadeus 48: "Joe Walsh is a congenital idiot."
Undeniable.
And LLR Chuck endorses him wholeheartedly and without reservation!
Peas in a pod baby....
John Walsh is a Con-man. Pro-life and Moderate in the 90s, then turned tea party and Pro-life to get elected. Then lost in 2012 because he was convicted of DUI and not paying child support. Then got a Radio show and became a bomb-thower and promised To "Get a gun" if Hillary got elected. then quickly turned on Trump calling him a "Traitor" after Trump met with Putin in Helsinki.
He's been all over the map. Now he's apologizing for his remarks about Obama. And will be on to some other publicity grabbing "Outrageous" thing once he loses to Trump. But send in those never-trumper $$$ and be sure to listen to his show!
Omidyar is covering the pin money, probably, he did have a votive candle for mueller, if that helps any,
The Republican House seems to attract kiddie touchers, con-men and grifters like shit draws flies. Joe scarborough, Walsh, Ryan, Hassert, the list goes on and on.
BTW, did you see what I did there?
"...without reservation!"
LOL
That was thrown in just to trigger Li'l Tomahawk Warren and LLR Chuck!
Oh Meade you just know that I am with the late great Buckley on the quote that you deliberately butchered. As you know (but others may not), Buckley famously said that he’d prefer to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the (2,000-member) faculty of Harvard College.
Your twisting of that old quote is downright perverted. 2,000 Trump rally-goers would look nothing like the first 2,000 people we’d find in the general public. In the first 2,000 members of the general public, about 62% of them would disapprove of Trump. About two of them would ever have attended a Trump rally.
On the other hand, your lineup of of Trump rally-goers would include people like the shocking number of vocal Q Anon fans as seen in the hilariously infamous video from the Grand Rapids rally a few months ago. Or Cesar Sayoc Jr, the Trump-rally Superman now serving 20 years for his attempted mail bomb campaign against left wing media targets.
I have very good reasons to be satisfied with governance by a democracy, but not by a self-selected group of Trump fanatics. I would no more wish to be governed by them than by 2,000 Black Lives Matter rally-goers, or 2,000 Antifa rioters.
much like the east german, the azeris (john reed was shocked they were using jihad against the brits in 1920) Georgians, same, et al, whatever it takes,
@rcocean:
I agree with everything you wrote, but how do we hold Trump accountable for the "plenty of of mistakes" he has made? Like Trump saying, "I want people to come into our country, in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally."
rcocean: "Then lost in 2012 because he was convicted of DUI and not paying child support"
Drinking heavily?
Not paying child support?
This guy has LLR Hero written all over him!
Farmer: "I agree with everything you wrote, but how do we hold Trump accountable for the "plenty of of mistakes" he has made?"
Can't.
He's the only guy in town even playing the game we want played.
There is no replacement. He can't run every dept every minute of the day. It is what it is.
@Drago:
Just how "communist" are those "cats" anymore?
Debatable, but it doesn't do much to help American workers if a company moves their manufacturing from one low-cost country to another.
There is no replacement. He can't run every dept every minute of the day. It is what it is.
That is why I am fond of (though not happy about) saying "America is doomed." I tend to agree with buwaya that our problems are systemic and much bigger than what one person can solve alone, even one as idiosyncratic as Trump. But presuming Trump wins in 2020, who is next on the horizon? Is there anyone who can carry the banner of America First nationalism? The National Conservatism Conference that got Amy Wax in so much hot water is a good first step in creating the intellectual infrastructure of such a movement, but we will still need practical politicians to carry the ideas forward. I remain (unsurprisingly) pessimistic.
@SDaly:
True, but it does weaken a large, dangerous enemy with the world's largest chip on its shoulder.
That's a potential upside, but are we in a trade war for the benefit of American workers or for geostrategic advantage. I am less bullish on China than others, and I don't much care about the psychological effect of the "world's largest economy," especially considering that China has quadruple our population, a much lower standard of living, and serious internal problems.
Farmer: "Debatable, but it doesn't do much to help American workers if a company moves their manufacturing from one low-cost country to another."
With the NAFTA fatal flaw loophole closed those relocated factories in Vietnam and elsewhere significantly and negatively impact the largest geo-military/business competitor to the US, so the economic benefits through the USMCA already lock in the economic gains while the relocation from China to elsewhere in Asia locks in the geo-political gains.
I realize that you are going to find the grey lining in every silver cloud, but you have to accept that some things which can be objectively demonstrated are improving. Cuz if you don't, then that would make your complaints something entirely different...
Farmer: "That is why I am fond of (though not happy about) saying "America is doomed."
Terrific!
Thanks for playing.
You don't mind if we keep carrying on over here though, right?
Farmer: "That's a potential upside, but are we in a trade war for the benefit of American workers or for geostrategic advantage."
It is both. Obviously. As I outlined above.
I'm surprised at your "small ball" thinking on that Farmer. There is nothing "either/or" about it.
well the first rule of fight club, is you don't talk to chotiner, there's no need for a second rule,
both, as pointed out, china's under pressure do to their severe pork shortage occasioned by contamination,
@Drago:
You don't mind if we keep carrying on over here though, right?
Sure. But recall what you wrote just minutes ago: "Can't. He's the only guy in town even playing the game we want played. There is no replacement."
p.s. And recall that even Trump said that he wants immigrants to come "in the largest numbers ever." That's not the game I want played.
Farmer: "Sure. But recall what you wrote just minutes ago: "Can't. He's the only guy in town even playing the game we want played. There is no replacement."
.....and?........
J. Farmer: "p.s. And recall that even Trump said that he wants immigrants to come "in the largest numbers ever." That's not the game I want played."
Good point.
Let's get rid of him.
Blogger SDaly said...
Seriously Chuck, how much are you getting paid? Do you do your Moby routine on other sites as well, or do you limit your wasted words on Althouse?
Such are the Trumpkin obsessions with me that I barely have to type more than a few lines to get them all riled up about me personally. I don’t have to write about them, or engage them or even care about them. I can’t explain it apart from what I have said before; if you criticize Trump, and if it is good, unanswerable criticism, Trump fans will attack you personally.
A single comment by me is good for a couple-dozen obsessed Drago screeds. No one else is in that league, but there are 40 or 50 others who do their best.
"I agree with everything you wrote, but how do we hold Trump accountable for the "plenty of of mistakes" he has made?"
Get Ann Coulter to run against him. Otherwise, you're out of luck - since everybody else is 10x worse.
rcocean:
Get Ann Coulter to run against him. Otherwise, you're out of luck - since everybody else is 10x worse.
No disagreement there. The problem is that if Trump is the best we can do, then we are doomed.
Obama's "dream-perfect economy" Chuck: "Such are the Trumpkin obsessions with me that I barely have to type more than a few lines to get them all riled up about me personally."
A few lines (paraphrased) Chuck has written:
I'm only here to smear and lie about Trump
I'm only here to drive a wedge between Trump and his voters
I'm only here to drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers
Obama gave us a "dream-perfect economy"
LLR Chuck, like all leftists, believes he can reset history every single morning and that his previous comments do not allow us to accurately discern what he is really up to in his Reid Hoffman-y "clothing".
LOL
Farmer: "No disagreement there. The problem is that if Trump is the best we can do, then we are doomed."
Terrific!
Thanks for playing.
You don't mind if we keep carrying on over here though, right?
@Drago:
.....and?........
And nothing. I don't have a solution. If I did, I wouldn't be so convinced the country was doomed.
Let's get rid of him.
As I said 30 minutes ago: "But presuming Trump wins in 2020, who is next on the horizon? Is there anyone who can carry the banner of America First nationalism? The National Conservatism Conference that got Amy Wax in so much hot water is a good first step in creating the intellectual infrastructure of such a movement, but we will still need practical politicians to carry the ideas forward. I remain (unsurprisingly) pessimistic."
Most of Trump's mistakes can be put in 3 categories. (1) trusting the Republican establishment aka McConnell and Ryan and (2) not knowing how DC Works (3) making some bad personnel moves. usually as a result of (1) and (2).
For example, Trump thought Sessions with his great legal background and years in the Senate would be a good AG. He turned out to be the biggest mistake of his presidency. He thought Steve Bannon would be a good WH Aide - another big error. People told him Comey as an OK guy - so he gave him a chance. He was super impressed by Rex Tillerson - and he turned out to be an egotistical clown. Same with Gen. Kelly.
Yeah, we're "Doomed" if we do nothing to support Trump by electing the right people to congress.
Farmer: "As I said 30 minutes ago: "But presuming Trump wins in 2020, who is next on the horizon? Is there anyone who can carry the banner of America First nationalism?"
And even if Trump wins in 2020, who will we get in 2024?
And even if we get someone in 2024 will they win reelection in 2028?
And even if that person wins in 2028 who will we have in 2032?
And....
.... even if we get someone in 2064.......
.....even if that person wins in 2068....
...will we still have access to superior barbecue? With all the different types of sauces? Will our pants be too tight? What if our future cranium-installed global connectivity goes down? What if...what if ....what if.....
You don't mind if we keep carrying on over here though, right?
Not sure how much carrying on you can do when, as you say, you're stuck with a single figure.
Farmer is like a different version of Leslie Nielsen in "Airplane" as he comes into the cockpit every 90 seconds to say "are you guys still trying? What's the point? We're doomed" instead of "good luck, we're all counting on you".
Farmer: "Not sure how much carrying on you can do when, as you say, you're stuck with a single figure."
Farmer is not going to stop until everyone just gives up now.
Farmer is the kind of guy you want to stay back with the gear when you have a mission to accomplish. Plus, that gives him more time to document all the things that could possibly go wrong and create a list of all the reasons the mission wasn't worth achieving anyway.
Farmer has no recommendations and no solutions but he knows for sure that what everyone else is doing is just plain dumb and destined for failure.
@Drago:
And even if Trump wins in 2020, who will we get in 2024?
You tend to need a bench of talent to draw from. And demographic change cannot be easily reversed. Even if we stopped immigration now, European-Americans are still heading for minority status. And that's with Trump still saying he wants immigrants to come in the largest numbers e ver. Or is the plan we just hope some unknown figure arises every few years who will continue on with Trumpism? Excuse me while I enjoy my pessimism and a nice glass of bourbon. If we don'
Farmer: " Excuse me while I enjoy my pessimism and a nice glass of bourbon."
You've certainly made a compelling case for why surrendering now is the only option.
Farmer has no recommendations and no solutions but he knows for sure that what everyone else is doing is just plain dumb and destined for failure.
If you have recommendations and solutions (and a feasible way to see them implemented) that will prevents whites from becoming a minority in this country, by all means let's hear them.
@Drago:
Most of Trump's mistakes can be put in 3 categories. (1) trusting the Republican establishment aka McConnell and Ryan and (2) not knowing how DC Works (3) making some bad personnel moves. usually as a result of (1) and (2).
I agree with all three, but I think by far the worst of (3) were Jared and Ivanka.
Farmer: "If you have recommendations and solutions (and a feasible way to see them implemented) that will prevents whites from becoming a minority in this country, by all means let's hear them."
Why don't we start with a single "victory by inches" idea: tone down the defeatist rhetoric by 10% and increase the emphasis on those things going right by 10%.
If you can't even do that, what's the point of engaging you on anything else?
@Drago:
Farmer is not going to stop until everyone just gives up now.
As opposed to your sterling plan of let's just hope some hitherto unknown figure appears within the next 3 years who can carry on Trumpism.
that's what the 1619 project is about, and attendant efforts in the media educational complex.
If you can't even do that, what's the point of engaging you on anything else?
Well I'm of the mind that in order to do anything about our impending demographic crisis, we first need to convince people that there actually is an impending demographic crisis. And winning the presidency won't be enough. You'll need to win a majority of Congress, and demographic trends with each year will make that more and more difficult. You don't have 20 years to get this done. Non-white births have already outstripped white births for the last several years.
Farmer: "As opposed to your sterling plan of let's just hope some hitherto unknown figure appears within the next 3 years who can carry on Trumpism."
Trump appeared out of nowhere, didn't he?
And perhaps, his example where none existed before is giving people ideas they never had before.
But, you're right. If we can't identify the succession plan for the next several administrations perhaps giving up now is the best choice.
We'll just have you sit over there with LLR Chuck at the end of the bench complaining about how the uniform colors aren't really acccurate and the jersey numbers font is weird and who forced us to drink only the blue gatorade during halftime....
Farmer: "You don't have 20 years to get this done."
LOL
I should have guessed you wouldn't have included yourself in that task. Quite telling.
But I get it: We are all doomed and by God YOU people better do something about it while I nurse my bourbon over here and think up new criticisms for your imperfect efforts....
Blogger SDaly said...
Seriously Chuck, how much are you getting paid? Do you do your Moby routine on other sites as well, or do you limit your wasted words on Althouse?
Such are the Trumpkin obsessions with me that I barely have to type more than a few lines to get them all riled up about me personally. I don’t have to write about them, or engage them or even care about them. I can’t explain it apart from what I have said before; if you criticize Trump, and if it is good, unanswerable criticism, Trump fans will attack you personally.
A single comment by me is good for a couple-dozen obsessed Drago screeds. No one else is in that league, but there are 40 or 50 others who do their best.
@Drago:
I should have guessed you wouldn't have included yourself in that task. Quite telling.
But I get it: We are all doomed and by God YOU people better do something about it while I nurse my bourbon over here and think up new criticisms for your imperfect efforts....
Giving up doesn't even make sense in that context. Have I said don't vote? Have I said don't participate in the political process? Have I said don't support politicians that you think will help the problem? Have I said don't try to convince people in your community of your cause? Have I said don't vote out bad incumbents?
No.
I can play basketball with Kobe Bryant, give it my all, and still be very pessimistic about my chances of winning.
Drago, perhaps our conversation can be more edifying if you explain to me what you think "giving up" is and why you think I'm advocating for it.
Twitter is a sewer. It brings out the worst in humanity,” Stephens posted. “I sincerely apologize for any part I’ve played in making it worse, and to anyone I’ve ever hurt. Thanks to all of my followers, but I’m deactivating this account.”
Ah, so it's all Twitter's fault. And a non-apology apology to boot. What a bedbug.
Farmer says, "No disagreement there. The problem is that if Trump is the best we can do, then we are doomed."
I enjoy Farmer, and enjoy mixing it up with him. He has an interesting take on many items, and is a valued contributor
But he is a defeatist! (just kidding).
His "doomed" comment likely derives from old British curmudgeon, John Derbyshire, who wrote a book in 2010, "We are Doomed." Farmer's an acolyte of Derb, and, well, if you know, Derb, you can definitely see the influence.
In my view, Derb is intelligent and interesting, but at bottom, he is a non-influential, conservative utopian theoretician. He does not even try to have "skin the game."
Myself, I have skin in the game. I have kids to raise in America, I have business interests in America, and I previously served in the military in America. At the local level, sheesh, I even gotta endure endless PTA meetings, when my wife can't go -- all to benefit American children!
I guess my point is, that perhaps, at heart, I am still young, naive and idealistic. But I believe in America and the Constitution, and her traditions and her values. I want her to succeed. And, regrettably, I think a large portion of Democrats want her to fail. But, I have been pleasantly surprised by the unorthodox, but successful presidency of Donald J. Trump, so, I shun defeatism, and march along as a happy keyboard warrior.
I think by far the worst of (3) were Jared and Ivanka.
You might be right about this. They hired Manafort.
On the other hand, Trump has very few he can trust. Nixon put Bob Finch in charge of HEW and continued the Great Society. He and Moynihan set the domestic agenda. Not much worse than that,
John Derbyshire, who wrote a book in 2010, "We are Doomed."
But that book was Puckish and not altogether serious. I laughed out loud many times reading that book.
I’m calling the Timesmen the “Bedbugs” from now on, and their sycophants in the rest of the JournoList propaganda complex the “Bedbug Media.” Let’s make this a thing.
@Bay Area Guy:
His "doomed" comment likely derives from old British curmudgeon, John Derbyshire, who wrote a book in 2010, "We are Doomed." Farmer's an acolyte of Derb, and, well, if you know, Derb, you can definitely see the influence.
That is undoubtedly true, though I would reject the term acolyte (hey, I had to get in a contrarian point). But my influence actually date back to another British curmudgeon, Peter Hitchens, and his 1999 book The Abolition of Britain, which I read long before I'd ever heard of John Derbyshire. I wasn't so much influenced by We Are Doomed, though I did read it and found myself nodding along to most of it. I was influenced by Pat Buchanan and his books in the late 1990s The Great Betrayal and A Republic, Not an Empire. So I've been on that side of the political spectrum pretty much my entire adult life. The first regular political writer I read was Mickey Kaus' blog kausfiles.
New York Times Columnist Can’t Figure Out If Racist Tweets Are A Fireable Offense Or Not
Bret Stephens praised ABC when it fired Roseanne for a single tweet, yet he defends the racist tweets of Sarah Jeong.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/10/new-york-times-columnist-cant-figure-out-if-racist-tweets-are-a-fireable-offense-or-not/
@Michael K:
But that book was Puckish and not altogether serious. I laughed out loud many times reading that book.
I had the same reaction. I didn't find the book influential so much as repeating what I already believed but in a quite funny way.
You guys can rag Stephens all you want, but it’s mild compared with what he gets from the left. Goofus Karpf was irritated because Stephens hasn’t drunk the Koolade on anthropogenic global warming, so he suggested that Stephens was infesting the NYT newsroom. I can’t explain why Stephens engaged with the guy, but look at all the time people waste on Inga, Howard, and Chuck in these comments. Maybe the whole insect politics meme bugs (heh) Stephens.
In any case, have a laugh at the boy genius. He got himself into this by joining NYT. And now he’s on MSNBC and NBC, too. They’re all just waiting to dump him if he doesn’t toe the line.
Back in November of 1999, John O'Sullivan wrote a cover story for National Review called Types of Right. I'd say that I'm a cross between "Nationalists" (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Peter Brimelow) and "evolutionary conservatives" (e.g. Steve Sailer, John McGinnis, Charles Murray).
p.s. Murray would probably reject the term since he identifies as libertarian, but except for a brief dalliance in my undergraduate years, I've never really taken libertarianism seriously as a political. Though I don't appreciate it as a disposition.
@Amadeus 48: "I think Bret gets a lot of abuse at NYT, probably more from the left than the right (although Trump fans used to abuse him at WSJ). I suspect that the 'Jew as insect' slur made by Karpf pushed a button with him."
I think that's probably right re pushing a button. Several Jewish journalists have spoken about the huge increase in the number of vile anti-Semitic emails they've received over the last few years.
He wrote a column back in April about the blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon about Trump and Netanyau the NY Times printed, in which he said this:
"As prejudices go, anti-Semitism can sometimes be hard to pin down, but on Thursday the opinion pages of The New York Times international edition provided a textbook illustration of it.
Except that The Times wasn’t explaining anti-Semitism. It was purveying it.
It did so in the form of a cartoon, provided to the newspaper by a wire service and published directly above an unrelated column by Tom Friedman, in which a guide dog with a prideful countenance and the face of Benjamin Netanyahu leads a blind, fat Donald Trump wearing dark glasses and a black yarmulke. Lest there be any doubt as to the identity of the dog-man, it wears a collar from which hangs a Star of David.
Here was an image that, in another age, might have been published in the pages of Der Stürmer. The Jew in the form of a dog. The small but wily Jew leading the dumb and trusting American. The hated Trump being Judaized with a skullcap. The nominal servant acting as the true master. The cartoon checked so many anti-Semitic boxes that the only thing missing was a dollar sign."
Bret might be a humorless scold, but the humorless scolds on the Left are only humorless scolds when it comes to Republicans. None of them are scolding the Klan Kosplaying Governor of Virginia anymore after their perfunctory week of it.
This just in (via Ace of Spades): LLR Chuck's beloved Washington Post now declares the anti-abortion movement both white supremacy AND anti-semitic!!!
Just in case the Bret Stephens of the world were uncertain regarding which direction their paymasters were headed....
LLR Chuck's lefty allies are showing us quite clearly how they view Trump's reelection chances and their assessment of the inroads he has made with blacks and hispanics.
Like LLR Chuck, they are panicking.....bigly.
oops they misread jd vance, never mind, onto the next category error,
Trump is battling the whole goddamn DC Republican establishment and most of his dumb base doesn't even understand that. They thought they could elect Trump and then go fishing and he'd do it all on his own.
In thinking that Trump voters are dumb not to go as far in the nativist direction as you'd like, you're making a mistake similar to the one made by the Democrats in 2016. Rather than assuming the voters are stupid, you might try to understand where they're coming from.
Maybe a lot of Trump voters are more libertarian than you think. While Trump ran against free trade and illegal immigration in the primaries, in the general election campaign he mostly talked about getting the economy going and how corrupt Clinton was. He promised to appoint judges who would apply rather than rewrite the Constitution. Nothing there that a libertarian would disagree with.
Trump did not talk much about abortion, the decline of the family, affirmative action and other issues that were traditionally important to social conservatives. His appeal to social conservatives boiled down to "I'm not a far left radical like my opponent," an appeal that worked because it was clearly true.
Even with this big-tent campaign, Trump barely eked out a victory against a very weak opponent. Many of the commenters here think Trump's 2016 victory was a huge mandate for the anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies he advocated during the primaries. But regardless of ideology, professional politicians are really expert at figuring out which way the wind is blowing. That's why Ronald Reagan was able to get much of his program enacted despite a substantial Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. The fact that Trump has had such difficulty in doing the same is perhaps a clue that the voters don't actually favor much of his program. They seem to like the judicial appointments and deregulation, as well as the attacks on political correctness and the biased media. But the Wall doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and there's a lot of pushback on the trade warrior stuff.
It's almost as if much of the country actually is kind of Libertarian.
well that's one view, the other is nearly all of capital hill and most of the bureaucracy is not libertarian, they want control of as much of your life, as is humanly possible, hence the unwillingness to change Obamacare substantially,
By the time this page gets to 200, there will be very nearly 40 Drago-authored comments. Like, nearly 20% of the page.
LMFAO.
LLR Chuck: Trump inherited a dream-perfect economy.
LMFAO!!!!
@Jeff:
Many of the commenters here think Trump's 2016 victory was a huge mandate for the anti-immigrant and anti-trade policies he advocated during the primaries
Where do you think we got that idea? Because Trump kicked off his campaign complaining about illegal immigration from Mexico and talked about building a wall pretty much every day of his campaign. Were they shouting "deregulate!" at Trump rallies or were they shouting "build the wall?"
Every single one of Trump's primary opponents were running on judges and deregulation. Trump positioned himself by triangulating on traditionally Democratic positions, like skepticism towards "free" trade and foreign interventionism. He also opposed Paul Ryan's voucherization scheme and promised to "protect" Medicare.
It's almost as if much of the country actually is kind of Libertarian.
The most libertarian candidate was Rand Paul. How'd he do? The most popular things the federal government does, by a long mile, are Social Security and Medicare. How do you get libertarianism out of that?
Maybe we should offer Chuck another case of something. Single malt perhaps. American of course.
This stuff is great https://www.westlanddistillery.com/whiskey/american-oak
well that's one view, the other is nearly all of capital hill and most of the bureaucracy is not libertarian, they want control of as much of your life, as is humanly possible, hence the unwillingness to change Obamacare substantially
I think you're right about Capitol Hill and the bureaucracy, but I also think part of the reason that Obamacare repeal failed was that Trump didn't push very hard for it. And of course, there was McCain. But given McCain's petty treachery, the only way Trump was going to get Obamacare repealed is if he got a few Democratic senators to vote his way, and that would require some combination of favors, horse trading and threats. You know, what we used to politics. And Trump never really engaged. I don't know why, maybe it just wasn't that important to him.
How did enforcing immigration laws become “anti-immigrant.”? If anything it is pro-legal immigrant, pro=African-American too, for that matter. And pro legal Hispanic resident.
Change my mind.
"You guys can rag Stephens all you want, but it’s mild compared with what he gets from the left. Goofus Karpf was irritated because Stephens hasn’t drunk the Koolade on anthropogenic global warming,”
I am assuming the “bedbug” comment came from the left.
Blogger AAT said...
"You guys can rag Stephens all you want, but it’s mild compared with what he gets from the left. Goofus Karpf was irritated because Stephens hasn’t drunk the Koolade on anthropogenic global warming,”
I am assuming the “bedbug” comment came from the left.
That’s right. That was the subject of my first comment. And yet that fact did nothing to slow the hateful diatribes against Brett Stephens. Because of Stephens’ NeverTrump history.
@Farmer,
Yes, Trump did what you say during the primaries. And he had a couple of other things working for him as well: he was the only one fighting back against the PC crowd, and he is much funnier and charismatic than any of his opponents were. Voters like that, as Richard Nixon found out in 1960. Trump simply outclassed his opponents as a candidate. His zingers hit their marks, and it certainly didn't hurt when his strongest primary rival Rubio self-destructed under Christie's attack at a debate. Rubio was the only Republican who might have stopped Trump, but he clearly wasn't ready for prime time.
I remember looking at polls during that primary season and seeing that Trump's positions on free trade and immigration did not command majority support even within the GOP, but his opponents just could not figure out how to fight this guy. They were unhappily flailing away while Trump was clearly having a great time. Trump was a superb candidate compared to them.
Trump continued the charismatic barrage in the general election, but not so much on the same issues. And Hillary was nothing if not arrogant and condescending. The worst Presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson, maybe even worse than that. Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats seem likely to nominate another shrill harpy who detests most voters again, and Trump has both increased his support and greatly neutralized the biased MSM during his first term. Barring a disaster, I don't see how he loses in 2020.
Wow, something useful out of all the usual crazy back and forth comments. I shall have to try Westland single malt, new to me.
I would like to take a moment to congratulate the 150 million Americans or so who were fortunate enough to survive Trump's massively massive mass murder of 200 million or so as pointed out on LLR Chuck's beloved CNN.
Blogger AAT said...
How did enforcing immigration laws become “anti-immigrant.”? If anything it is pro-legal immigrant, pro=African-American too, for that matter. And pro legal Hispanic resident.
Change my mind.
I wouldn’t want to change your mind at all. And not one word of your comment.
All that I would add is that immigration fights are fraught with racial and humanitarian concerns so that the arguments need to be advanced carefully and skillfully. If you start talking about “a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” your lawyers are going to tell you about 20 times and 20 different ways that no, you cannot do that or anything like that.
There's absolutely ZERO Reason for anyone on the Right to defend Stephens. Not only for his gutless cowardly behavior, but because he's just a leftist. A Hillary supporter. A democrat- in practice - if not in theory. He's hated by people by Karpf because Burt Stephens is only 80% liberal/left instead of 100%. But Stephens IS Liberal/left. That's why he works for the NYT. That's why he hates Trump and wanted the R party "Destroyed" in 2018.
He's like Max Boot or Jennifer Rubin. Only without the charm.
Its amusing watching LLR Chuck squirming around trying to give the impression of conservative beliefs as he undermines those.
I wonder if fake conservative LLR Chuck from MI at Althouseblog is more convincing than fake conservative LLR Chuck from CA on that newneo blogsite?
Somebody is being mean to Bret "America belongs first to immigrants!" Stephens? Good. I will thoroughly enjoy whatever misfortune befalls the globalist bugman.
the hateful diatribes against Brett Stephens. Because of Stephens’ NeverTrump history.
When we defeat an enemy, we tend to their wounded and treat captives humanely. But traitors? Traitors we hang.
If you support israel and are a climate skeptic you cant be anywhere near the democrats, same if you are a person of faith, how hard is that to understand?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा