Althouse: "On Thursday morning... Manchin pitched his holding out on Democrats’ spending bill not just as a reflection of his conservative state, but of the country as a whole."

November 5, 2021

"On Thursday morning... Manchin pitched his holding out on Democrats’ spending bill not just as a reflection of his conservative state, but of the country as a whole."

"We can’t go too far left,' Manchin said on CNN. 'This is not a center-left or a left country. We are a center — if anything, a little center-right country. That’s being shown, and we ought to be able to recognize that.'... The kind of people who have been bemoaning Manchin’s obstinance immediately cried foul.... As a whole, if everyone voted and the playing field were completely level, it’s evident Democrats would win more. That’s not quite the same as saying we’re a center-left country, though. As Manchin shows, electing Democrats doesn’t inherently mean you support liberal policies.... It’s also been true for a long time that many more Americans tend to view themselves as conservative than liberal.... Whether the United States is a center-right country is a very debatable proposition. And Manchin certainly has an interest in arguing that, given it would validate his position as a swing vote and his decision to hold out on the Democrats’ big spending bill...."

From "Joe Manchin suggests we’re a center-right country. Here’s what the data show" by Aaron Blake (WaPo).

74 comments:

tommyesq said...: Sounds like Manchin is preparing the battlefield for a run at the Presidency!; 11/5/21, 7:12 AM
rehajm said...: Navel gazing is the sixth stage of WaPo grief.; 11/5/21, 7:20 AM
Kevin said...: “Everybody wants this. The only thing holding us back are a few evil people with too much power,” is the starting point for every Democratic idea.

The media are chiefly employed to maintain this fantasy.; 11/5/21, 7:24 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Democracy Dies in Darkness!; 11/5/21, 7:27 AM
Nancy said...: "If everyone voted". Not voting is voting! Change comes when more people with tendencies on one side or the other do or don't choose to vote.

Here in Virginia it was a crawl-over-broken-glass election. In New Jersey, Sweeney got his usual number of votes, but somehow Durr found 30,000 other voters to come to the polls.; 11/5/21, 7:28 AM
rehajm said...: "We can’t go too far left,' Manchin said on CNN.

The irony.; 11/5/21, 7:33 AM
gilbar said...: As a whole, if everyone voted, registered/unregistered citizen/noncitizen living/dead actual/synthetic; and the playing field were completely level, it’s evident Democrats would win more

fify!; 11/5/21, 7:36 AM
Achilles said...: We are not "center-right."

This country overwhelmingly supports individual freedom and has a small corrupt subset of violent National Socialists that survive on "mail-in votes."; 11/5/21, 7:38 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Okay Aaron Blake, now imagine the media didn’t act as palace guards and cheerleaders for liberal progressives! Then how would people react to political positions if they were clearly and honestly presented. What about Big Tech deciding what people may and may not say on social media? How does disallowing open debate on climate and race and transgender-steria and vaccines help anyone who wants to operate with all the available facts and opinions? Left and right don’t mean anything in a country where “speaking truth to power” is no longer allowed.; 11/5/21, 7:38 AM
What's emanating from your penumbra said...: In some ways, it's a surprising argument to hear him make. Normally you try not to throw in people's faces that their entire political philosophy is out of touch, if you are trying to convince them of something. So this isn't about convincing them to agree with him. This is about saying GTFO my back.

It's also not a very convincing argument, because you'll never prove to them that you're right. In fact, the WaPoo propagandist seems to point this out -- it *would be* a center left country if only Manchin would do his job.

But back down here on Earth, he has repeatedly tried arguing substance -- these plans are irresponsible. And they are damaging to the country, not only financially but to the nation's cohesion, particularly when there is no bipartisan support. Look throughout U.S. history. The transformational legislation has been bipartisan, with the (perhaps sole) exception of Obamacare, and look what has happened to it. No buy in = keep trying to undermine it until it dies.

And of course arguing substance doesn't sway them. So, GTFO my back makes sense.; 11/5/21, 7:40 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Aaron Blake is a hack. He writes "Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, after all. They hold the presidency, the House and the Senate, and the spending bill is both popular and very much reflects the campaign promises President Biden ran on in 2020."

The Democrats do not "Hold the senate." The senate has 50 Republican senators, 48 Democrat senators, and two independents (who vote with the Democrats). VP Harris is allowed to vote in the senate under strictly limited conditions, she is not a senator, she sits on no committees, she cannot introduce or debate legislation.

This is a meaningless statement: "As a whole, if everyone voted and the playing field were completely level, it’s evident Democrats would win more." Babies should vote? The currently incarcerated? The psychotically insane? Those are included in the word "everyone." And there is no agreed upon meaning of a completely level playing field. This is Blake assuring the WaPo's liberal audience that, darn it, if only everything was the way it should be, liberals would win more.

And way down at the bottom of the article, he includes polling data that shows more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal by 10 percentage points. This undercuts everything else Blake wrote. It shows that Manchin was correct, the data supports Manchin's position, not Blake's.

Aaron Blake is not a good political writer, and he is the WaPo's "Senior political reporter."; 11/5/21, 7:43 AM
Achilles said...: Manchin would love to go along with his party.

But he knows that his Maserati and Yacht and Mansions are funded by his Senate seat and he would lose those if he supported the looting of the treasury.

This is a missed opportunity. If that looting bill passed the economy would cease to function and the dollar would collapse.

Food prices are way up for poor people. That would just push everything over the cliff.

The grifters would fair poorly in nationwide food riot. A lot of people want to see Nancy's 20,000$ refrigerator in person.; 11/5/21, 7:44 AM
Kay said...: I don’t know if we’re a center right country or not, but we are definitely a country in which bribery is legal.; 11/5/21, 7:52 AM
Temujin said...: "As a whole, if everyone voted and the playing field were completely level, it’s evident Democrats would win more."

Evident? How is that evident? Are we assuming things? Like, all minority people are of one mind- a hive mind- and given actual facts could not think for themselves, they would all just vote for a Democrat? We're talking living people, not dead people on write-in ballots, reprinted and harvested in bunches.

There is literally no way to know how 330 million individuals would vote if that could ever happen. As evidence he claims that Democrats would get the vast majority of non-voters. Hello? First of all, most non-voters are not engaged voters. They are not engaged with the details, the candidates, etc. Frankly- that does sound like many Democrat voters. But are they Democrats because they know what the Dems stand for, or is this a reflexive vote responding to the groupthink they are fed from social media (which censors conservatives), Hollywood, the music industry, etc.

If these 330 million people were engaged with actual information, they would make decisions based on that actual information. Given that most people prefer to live in safe, economically functioning societies, I suspect the totals would surprise the WaPo writer and so many more of the experts who still cannot understand what happened in 2016, 2020, or this past week.; 11/5/21, 8:05 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: There was a professor out of USC or UCLA who studied how voters react to news in context. His conclusions showed that if voters were presented issues neutrally without any opinions injected they voted more conservatively. In fact the final conclusion was that the USA would vote “like Texas” if media presented facts instead of opinions. He put a number on the shift very similar to the shift we all just witnessed in VA where Joe benefited from the usual media blitz & blackout methods while this week’s contest was more fact-based with voters reacting to the school and economic issues being widely discussed: 15-point shift to R party.; 11/5/21, 8:19 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "We are not "center-right." This country overwhelmingly supports individual freedom..."

Individual freedom is distinctly center right.; 11/5/21, 8:34 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "The Democrats do not "Hold the senate." The senate has 50 Republican senators, 48 Democrat senators, and two independents (who vote with the Democrats). VP Harris is allowed to vote in the senate under strictly limited conditions, she is not a senator, she sits on no committees, she cannot introduce or debate legislation."

It depends on what meaning of "hold" you... hold.; 11/5/21, 8:35 AM
CJinPA said...: Whether the United States is a center-right country is a very debatable proposition.

Writers are taught NEVER to use "very" this way. It's Writing 101. Notable that Aaron Blake felt compelled to violate this basic rule.; 11/5/21, 8:45 AM
Whiskeybum said...: Sounds to me like Manchin is getting ready to switch parties (or using that notion as a threat against his Democrat detractors).

Hey - he could be the Republicans' new 'maverick'!; 11/5/21, 8:46 AM
Achilles said...: Ann Althouse said...

"We are not "center-right." This country overwhelmingly supports individual freedom..."

Individual freedom is distinctly center right.

Abortion pre-Heartbeat/brain stem. Gay Marriage. Possession/Ingestion of drugs. Private Property rights. Immigration/Citizenship.

I beg to differ.; 11/5/21, 8:46 AM
Michael said...: Just a reminder that prior to the 2020 election, the New York Times rated as "toss-up" seven Senate seats and 27 in the House. Of those, Republicans won 5 of 7 Senate races (2 in Georgia the exception) and all of the 27 House contests.

Manchin, Sinema and most insiders know what that means. Biden and Pelosi know what that means. That's why the push for the spending package now. There will not be another chance for decades. The Democrats are about to become a minority party for at least a generation.; 11/5/21, 8:47 AM
rhhardin said...: We are a country of men and tomboys, not a country of women.; 11/5/21, 8:52 AM
Big Mike said...: Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, after all.

That was then. This now. After 9 months of Democrat governance there are people -- white suburban mommies and Hispanics -- who are finding themselves pushed out the Democrat Party and into the Republicans. Here are a couple clips that should give Democrat political strategists sleepless nights for the next couple years.; 11/5/21, 8:52 AM
Iman said...: Democrats have a significant problem: their leadership. They are senior citizen children always acting out. Not a sober thinker to be found.; 11/5/21, 8:52 AM
gadfly said...: Ann Rand, famously and with tongue-in-cheek, tells us about the safest political place to choose.

Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle — with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor — with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force — with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery — with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice — with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror — and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.; 11/5/21, 8:54 AM
Critter said...: What a shallow analysis by this guy Blake. He asserts the popularity of liberal policies without current data to support his position. There is ample survey data to counter his views. If the Democrat policies are so popular then why are the Brandon administration approval levels so low and 70% of Americans feel we’re on the wrong track? And he ignores the fundamental point that Manchin’s West Virginia constituents are much more conservative than the national average. No wonder the left feels entitled to their policies when they are fed only what they want to hear. Not a sophisticated analysis at all.; 11/5/21, 8:55 AM
rcocean said...: Biden stole the election, and even with the fraud, a couple hundred thousand votes in Penn, Arz, GA and Winsc gave him the win. The D's have a 10 vote majority in the house, and no majority in the Senate.

This radical spending bill filled with corrupt pork spending, special favors, and changes to various laws, isn't supported by a majority of the american people. That the D's have been able to - almost -ram this through, is a tribute to their party disclipline. Its why it doesn't matter what your D congressman says on the campaign trail. When you voted for them, you were voting for nancy pelosi. And whatever your Senator says, (except for Manchin), you were voting for Schumer.

Manchin is a grandstanding fraud. I don't trust him to do anything to really stop this. Just watch, they'll throw some $$ to his big donors in the Bill, and he'll change his mind and vote for it.; 11/5/21, 8:55 AM
Drago said...: Althouse: ""hold" you... hold."

"Hold you hold" was the one Beatles song that didn't make the cut.; 11/5/21, 8:58 AM
William said...: Some observations about the French Revolution. I don't think that nowadays many people believe in the prerogatives of anointed kings, and even good Catholics don't believe that their chances of heaven are absolutely dependent on receiving the sacraments from Vatican approved priests. Nonetheless, at the time of the French Revolution, that was the belief of many people in France, and they were willing to die for those beliefs. Those who held opposing views were even more vehement in their beliefs, and both sides were willing not just to die but to murder for their beliefs.....I suppose you can say that the Jacobins and sans-culottes have won the argument, but you can also argue that they brutally inflicted their views on the rural population--the deplorables of their era. The French oppressed the French. What the French did to the French in the Vendee region was just as nasty as anything the French did to the French on St. Bartholemew's Day....On the plus side, they learned many useful lessons on how to subdue a restive population, and such lessons were of great value when they went on to subdue the deplorable populations in Algeria and elsewhere.....Anyway, what I'm arguing here is that the way that you're right or wrong is far more important than what you're right or wrong about. Good ideas will win out in the end if you don't back people into a corner. The left might be right about some issues. They won the arguments on gay marriage and legalization of pot, but they didn't riot in the streets to advance their arguments. ....The left frequently point to Denmark as an exemplary country. Fair enough, but it's instructive to take note of the fact that Denmark is a monarchy and that in the equations of the French Revolution era monarchists were fascists.....; 11/5/21, 9:04 AM
Breezy said...: I don’t see how they keep claiming the spending bill is popular when it’s not even settled what’s to be in it. IMO there is way too much in it for a proper bill for consideration, even reconciliation. Poison pills abound. Maybe the popularity is due to the plethora of poison to kill the whole damned thing.; 11/5/21, 9:11 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Take reporting on Afghanistan. Where’s the media? Why aren’t they reporting on the 14,000 Americans that the State Dept admitted are STILL THERE?

You know why instinctively! Reporting the truth reflects poorly on old Sleepy Joe. Thus our Press and President pretend no one’s left behind, or maybe 100… okay 400 tops. Until today when they can slip it out while Pelosi dies a two-step to distract 99% of the media.; 11/5/21, 9:15 AM
Temujin said...: "Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, after all."

Yes that's true. Another view of it shows that actual elected Presidents runs differently. And yes, the rules and laws do count. Otherwise you might as well let illegal immigrants vote. Wait...what?

Anyway- Since Richard Nixon in 1969, there have been 8 Republican Presidents elected and 6 Democratic Presidents elected. Seems like a swing back and forth. One might call it an overall moderate voting record.

One thing to remember: After Jimmy Carter, the Republicans held the Presidency for 12 years. Biden is no Jimmy Carter. He's far worse.; 11/5/21, 9:17 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: LOL Achilles lists abortion but if it is indeed seen as an *individual right* then the viewer is only seeing one “individual” that has “rights” in this issue. I can think of at least two other parties with a keen interest in this issue.; 11/5/21, 9:21 AM
Howard said...: Of course it's a center right country compared to Europe. Even liberals in the US are mostly personally conservative. That's why liberals dominate modern free market capitalism. The puritanical influence remains alive and well in the States... hence woke cancel culture.; 11/5/21, 9:25 AM
wendybar said...: And then he got attacked in his car as he was trying to leave by Climate Change Zealots who screamed "He tried to run us down" This is worse than anything done on 1/6/21 to a Senator. But because they were progressives, it is okay. Just like on Oct 15 when they insurrected the Department of Interior and got away with it. What they did was no different than what the 1/6/21 people did. https://www.theblaze.com/news/climate-change-activists-storm-department-interior; 11/5/21, 9:35 AM
Sebastian said...: Many of those "center-right" people still love getting access to other people's money, and the Dems are happy to accommodate them.

But so far, fortunately, the left is too caught up in the righteousness of its woke crusade to achieve a permanent majority through vote-buying. Just wait til the people find out what "fighting climate change" is going to cost them.; 11/5/21, 9:36 AM
Leland said...: Individual freedom is distinctly center right.

WaPo thinks individual freedom means the right to define your own pronouns and have others say them. The rest of the country sees individual freedom as the right not to be forced to use others pronouns. That's before we get into the concept of individual freedom not having anything to do with hiked up taxes to pay for global concerns.; 11/5/21, 9:38 AM
MadisonMan said...: The Democrats are about to become a minority party for at least a generation.
I've seen that said about both political parties at least 3 times in the past 30 years.; 11/5/21, 9:46 AM
cubanbob said...: The only election a politician really cares about is their own election. Manchin is looking out Manchin. If he votes for the crap show the progs are pushing he knows he will lose his next election. He also knows that the Democrats will probably lose both houses next year and he doesn't need to fear Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or the Brandon Administration.; 11/5/21, 9:49 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Abortion pre-Heartbeat/brain stem. Gay Marriage. Possession/Ingestion of drugs. Private Property rights. Immigration/Citizenship. I beg to differ."

You offer these to refute my assertion that individual freedom is center right. I'd need more particular statements to understand what you are trying to say, but your list doesn't make your point. Maybe that's your rough outline for an argument you're planning to make when you get around to it. Obviously, I could give you a list of things lefties support that run counter to individual freedom, but more importantly, I think you're thinking of more extreme social conservatives and not "center right" people when you suggest they reject these freedoms. I'd also say — just to help you as you flesh out the argument you seem to want to make — that most people in the center support access to abortion up until something like viability and that private property rights ARE an aspect of individual freedom. I don't think open borders is a center right position, but a center right person would probably tend to think that we can only have our high ideas of individual freedom if we preserve our country as a separately functioning polity and not leave it open to everyone who wants to take advantage of what we have built for ourselves.; 11/5/21, 9:55 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Bronx Tina's post election analysis; 11/5/21, 9:56 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: Conservative and liberal are nebulous terms. One can justify calling us one more one or the other since we can define our own set of criteria, and then define how that criteria is measured. Even with "individual freedom" we can't agree on what it means and how it is measured. Americans are torn between the prospect of individual freedom and compassion. How much freedom should we take away to insure that other people can be given certain levels of compassionate welfare? This permeates almost every major political question - individual freedom verses societal obligations. Most people on the left favor sacrificing more freedom to insure more obligations are given, and people on the right the opposite. Bot most people don't think about the consequences of those choices, they just react to how it affects them. People seem to be in love with the Democrat's promises of goodies for the needy until such time as it hits their pocket book. The whiplash that comes from the constant change in voting loyalties in purple states is amazing to watch. We are both liberal and conservative based on our own personal experiences.

It would be interesting to have some research done with people who rarely vote in purple states. We would have certain key issues explained in a neutral way allowing them to see both the positive and negative implications of each issue and then see whether they would choose individual freedom or societal obligation options. This might be the best way to determine what a level playing field might look like.; 11/5/21, 10:06 AM
rcocean said...: Immigration/Citizenship? How the hell is that an "individual freedom"? "Free Trade" is not a "Individual Freedom" either, because foreign trade is always been regulated by Governments.

The same can be true of "Gay Marriage". Anyone can get married to anyone in a religious/private ceremony - there was never a law against it. Its just whether the Government recoginizes it and gives you benefits. That's what the fight over Gay marriage was all about. It had almost nothing to do with "individual freedom".

But you can make a case that "drugs" and "Abortion" or prostitution for that matter is a matter of private freedom.; 11/5/21, 10:07 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: Here's the consensus of public opinion in the U.S.:

(1) Marijuana
(2) Same-sex marriage
(3) Abortion

Is that center-right? OK, noted.; 11/5/21, 10:09 AM
Achilles said...: Ann Althouse said...

"Abortion pre-Heartbeat/brain stem. Gay Marriage. Possession/Ingestion of drugs. Private Property rights. Immigration/Citizenship. I beg to differ."

You offer these to refute my assertion that individual freedom is center right. I'd need more particular statements to understand what you are trying to say, but your list doesn't make your point. Maybe that's your rough outline for an argument you're planning to make when you get around to it. Obviously, I could give you a list of things lefties support that run counter to individual freedom, but more importantly, I think you're thinking of more extreme social conservatives and not "center right" people when you suggest they reject these freedoms. I'd also say — just to help you as you flesh out the argument you seem to want to make — that most people in the center support access to abortion up until something like viability and that private property rights ARE an aspect of individual freedom. I don't think open borders is a center right position, but a center right person would probably tend to think that we can only have our high ideas of individual freedom if we preserve our country as a separately functioning polity and not leave it open to everyone who wants to take advantage of what we have built for ourselves.

I am not saying you are wrong. But there is a distinction between center-right and individual liberty. I am pointing out your spectrum only includes right and left in a one dimensional graph. Or line.

I include the second dimension of freedom vs. collectivism. This forms a 2D X/Y graph people are familiar with. There are libertarians, conservatives, communists and socialists on this spectrum. There is economic freedom and sociocultural freedom. There are considerations of how strongly supported current cultural institutions and traditions are and their relationship with the government monopoly on power. The Government Monopoly on power is even a point of contention because the idea that citizens can legally defend themselves is itself contested as we are seeing in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The word nuance unfortunately applies.

The position that the Government should ban abortion after conception is very collectivist. You can make the argument that you are protecting a baby at some point during the pregnancy say heartbeat law or brain stem forms or minimum outside the womb viability. But before that you are making a moral determination for every individual and forcing a collective remedy through government monopoly on force.

Conservatives generally believe in economic freedom, unless you make a song with bad words in it. Then the FCC levies fines on you. It isn't enough for them to turn the channel or teach their kids how to deal with it. They want big government to maintain social order with a heavy hand.; 11/5/21, 10:19 AM
gilbar said...: CJinPA said...
Writers are taught NEVER to use "very" this way. It's Writing 101. Notable that Aaron Blake felt compelled to violate this basic rule.

To be fair Blake is a "Journalist", he knows Absolutely NOTHING about writing...
He has Never Heard of a "rule". Those are the things that are taught in English classes...
As I Said; Blake is a "Journalist" The only English classes he Ever had were back in Junior High... And he was WAY Too Stoned to have learned then; 11/5/21, 10:21 AM
Achilles said...: gadfly said...

Ann Rand, famously and with tongue-in-cheek, tells us about the safest political place to choose.

'Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle — with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor — with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force — with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery — with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice — with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror — and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.'

Do you not know what "tongue in cheek" means?

That was honest assessment. This flows straight down the River of History and most people's genetic proclivity to seek the safe path for survival of their offspring following animal instincts.; 11/5/21, 10:24 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: The center-right position on guns, apparently, is that we don't own guns and want stricter gun laws.; 11/5/21, 10:36 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: RE: Left bank of the Charles:

The problem with polling results is that most of the people responding to questions about the state of the laws in the country (need more restrictions, need less restrictions) is that they are very ill informed about what laws actually do exist. They only have what the media tell them, and the media tells them what the media wants them to understand. The other three topics, marijuana, abortion and gay marriage are too complex to say they are left or right issues. Libertarians are right leaning and favor the freedom to choose to get high or get married, so you can't say that favoring these two issues proves we are left leaning as a society. As I said before, the left/right definitions are not clearly defined therefore debating it in this format is pointless.; 11/5/21, 11:20 AM
Wa St Blogger said...: The position that the Government should ban slavery is very collectivist. You can make the argument that you are protecting a human. But before that you are making a moral determination for every individual and forcing a collective remedy through government monopoly on force.

Protecting the rights of individuals is not a left/right issue. Both side believe in using the collective remedy through government monopoly on force for certain issues. Abortion is the wrong topic to prove the freedom/obligation debate because one's position on whether the unborn is fully human and deserves all rights determines the position on whether abortion is murder or not, and almost no one argues against the fact that murder requires the forcing of a collective remedy through government monopoly of force.; 11/5/21, 11:29 AM
Maynard said...: Individual freedom is distinctly center right.

I think of it as libertarian which swings from center right to center left.; 11/5/21, 11:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: People on the political extremes are much more likely to pick the rights they like and act like other rights don't even exist. Centrist people are more likely to respect the concept of rights and to see the risk and disorder in being selective about rights. We want to reinforce the rule of law and to require integrity and consistency in its application.; 11/5/21, 12:02 PM
wendybar said...: Mike (MJB Wolf) said...
Take reporting on Afghanistan. Where’s the media? Why aren’t they reporting on the 14,000 Americans that the State Dept admitted are STILL THERE?

If they don't report it, it didn't happen. Just like the 3 major TV news stations failed to mention Durham and Hillary's Russian conspirator.; 11/5/21, 12:11 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Who would have thought a debate over the term "center-right country" would provoke such nonsense on here, especially those who cite polling? The polls are written and managed determines what the quality of the content will be, and so linking to random polls without that context and without us readers taking the time to understand where the pollster is coming from, is meaningless. Look how volatile right track/wrong track numbers can be, given the conductor and the day's/week's news!

Robert Conquests' "Laws of Politics" apply in this subject area, especially the one that says people are conservative about that which they know best. Few who want "open borders" for the country would leave their own doors open to all comers. Few who are voting today pay illegals huge sums for the alleged tort of Trump following our immigration laws as written (and interpreted via the Flores Decision) would allow strangers to enter their homes uninvited and sue us individually for $450K each. It seems somehow that spending other people's money brings out the worst fascist collectivist tendencies of both parties, which is why term limits are one of the few things that work to actually "reform" these reprobates in Congress. The longer they serve the more Swamp Lizard they all become, leaving their humanity behind.; 11/5/21, 12:13 PM
cubanbob said...: Ann Althouse said...
People on the political extremes are much more likely to pick the rights they like and act like other rights don't even exist. Centrist people are more likely to respect the concept of rights and to see the risk and disorder in being selective about rights. We want to reinforce the rule of law and to require integrity and consistency in its application."

I'm 65 years old and I don't recall a time when your statement reasonably true. Now maybe I'm way out of the mainstream but rights as I see them are something inherit to a person that does not depend on someone else be forced to provide them for you at their expense.; 11/5/21, 12:32 PM
rcocean said...: Any discussion that invokes Libertarian clowns is unserious. There are not a factor in the real world.; 11/5/21, 12:40 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: We want to reinforce the rule of law and to require integrity and consistency in its application.

I would expect that 90% of people in America are in significant agreement with that. Sometimes we differ in our interpretation of the facts of a case, often informed by our past experiences with agencies that wield power and whether they have done so with integrity and consistency. That is why there can be such large conflicts over major issues such as the circumstance with Raymond Floyd. Almost everyone one on both sides of the issue are reacting to the failure to have things applied in a consistent manner with integrity. Both sides are advocating for the exact same thing yet violently opposed to each other. We are by and large a nation of honest and fair people who mistakenly believe that we are not. That mistaken belief comes primarily due to the few people who wield power and abuse it to achieve some goal in the unfortunate belief that it will generate a positive outcome. However, in doing so, they undermine their own efforts by generating unnecessary conflict. They are the authors of the resistance to their own goals.

Always work to oppose concentrations of unchecked power. Because Lord Acton was right. In every case at all times.; 11/5/21, 12:47 PM
Michael said...: If I read this carefully I find that Blake, to his credit, lays out data (a favorite word that means take care of what you are about to read) then concludes by saying the data is debatable. Nice touch.; 11/5/21, 1:05 PM
gadfly said...: Achilles said...

Do you not know what "tongue in cheek" means?

I most certainly know what the phrase means but you are leaning on the wrong word. Rand explained the problem for readers who might otherwise miss the point.

Ayn Rand (sorry about the earlier misspell) believed in extremism which she defined as "the advocacy of capitalism," so she was nicely explaining the middle-ground problem with the term "moderates" - which she called a cover name invented by welfare statists.

The quotation came from “Extremism,” or The Art of Smearing, an essay she originally published in the September 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. If you reread the quotation, the ending says "and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise".; 11/5/21, 1:09 PM
Achilles said...: Ann Althouse said...

People on the political extremes are much more likely to pick the rights they like and act like other rights don't even exist. Centrist people are more likely to respect the concept of rights and to see the risk and disorder in being selective about rights. We want to reinforce the rule of law and to require integrity and consistency in its application.

What is the difference between Law and Regulation and Taxation?

What is the source and subsequent derivative grantor of "Rights?"

What Responsibilities accompany these Rights? Do you lose your Rights when you fail at your Responsibilities?

If I define a Word differently than you define a Word what does that Word mean? Who arbitrates and what is the source of authority?

Who enforces the rule of law? Is it a responsibility of every person to uphold the laws or only the state?

What is the difference between a Citizen and a Serf?; 11/5/21, 1:09 PM
gadfly said...: Achilles said...

Do you not know what "tongue in cheek" means?

I most certainly know what the phrase means but you are leaning on the wrong word. Rand explained the problem for readers who might otherwise miss the point.

Ayn Rand (sorry about the earlier misspell) believed in extremism which she defined as "the advocacy of capitalism," so she was nicely explaining the middle-ground problem with the term "moderates" - which she called a cover name invented by welfare statists.

The quotation came from “Extremism,” or The Art of Smearing, an essay she originally published in the September 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. If you reread the quotation, the ending says "and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise".; 11/5/21, 1:11 PM
Achilles said...: rcocean said...

Any discussion that invokes Libertarian clowns is unserious. There are not a factor in the real world.

There are a lot of ways to tell the world you are not a serious or deep thinker.; 11/5/21, 1:11 PM
Jaq said...: Take a look at that map of the Virginia results by precinct, and extend it to West Virginia and you will see that Manchin is looking at a cherry red state, just itching for the strike of the Republican hammer.; 11/5/21, 1:21 PM
Jaq said...: Manchin is doing everything he can to hold on to his seat, and by extension for the Democrats to hold onto the Senate, and you have to wonder how many Democrats he is taking the heat for, because he can take the heat, it only helps him.; 11/5/21, 1:23 PM
Jaq said...: "Abortion is the wrong topic to prove the freedom/obligation debate because one's position on whether the unborn is fully human..."

Stop right there, are you saying that my unborn nephew, due next week, is "not fully human"? What you mean is that, like the enslaved prior to emancipation, unborn children are not legal persons.; 11/5/21, 1:27 PM
rehajm said...: That is why there can be such large conflicts over major issues such as the circumstance with Raymond Floyd

Golfer.; 11/5/21, 1:40 PM
Mikey NTH said...: Surprise? My position has been that Manchin and Sinema would dig their heels in even harder after Tuesday's elections and say they were justified doing so.; 11/5/21, 1:54 PM
Michael K said...: Few who are voting today pay illegals huge sums for the alleged tort of Trump following our immigration laws as written (and interpreted via the Flores Decision) would allow strangers to enter their homes uninvited and sue us individually for $450K each. It seems somehow that spending other people's money brings out the worst fascist collectivist tendencies of both parties,

The super rich, who make the Democrat agenda and who have gates and walls and security guards seem impervious to any argument that open borders are dangerous. Maybe Trump, having had his mother mugged, became an exception.; 11/5/21, 4:08 PM
RMc said...: WaPo thinks individual freedom means the right to define your own pronouns and have others say them.

If anybody ever asks, this is the way I hope it goes down:

Lefty: "And what are your pronouns?"
Me: "Who, me?"
Lefty (a bit testy): "Yes, *you*."
Me: "No, those *are* my pronouns."
Lefty (confused): "Huh?"
Me: "'Who' and 'me'...those are my pronouns!"
Lefty (screaming): "I've been *triggered*! HATECRIME...!!!"; 11/5/21, 5:22 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: ot: Polis aggressively avoided federal income tax and tried to hide it; 11/5/21, 5:38 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: For Tim in Vermont. I am saying just the opposite. Your nephew was fully human at conception. I am saying that those who equivocate on the murder of the unborn by saying that morality is in the eye of the individual on that issue have no qualms about saying unequivocally that slavery is always wrong regardless of whether one thinks a black is less human than a white.; 11/5/21, 7:53 PM
Gahrie said...: What is the difference between a Citizen and a Serf?

It was supposed to be the Second Amendment, but the Progressives fucked that up the last time they were around.; 11/5/21, 8:12 PM
Yancey Ward said...: RMc,

You were obviously raised on Abbott and Costello.; 11/5/21, 11:23 PM
Jaq said...: All I am saying is that in the history of the United States, there are only two examples of living human beings being considered "non-persons" in a legal sense. Unborn children and people who were enslaved.; 11/6/21, 6:04 AM