"No Surrender" - Eddie Vedder
On the road again, this time back in the home town in Massachusetts to gather up the lad and bring him home for a few weeks. It's been a trains, planes, and automobiles kind of week.
- President Greg Marmalard - I haven't had a chance to weigh in on the Romney bullying story. All I can say is that it doesn't surprise me much. And yes, I do think it is indicative of his character. Choosing to be a bully -- even if you're a 16 or 17 boy -- is very much a morally revelatory act. Romney has always seems like a kiss up, kick down type of guy, so this is just seems like one more ugly aspect of the smug, entitled prick -- now we know he's a mean-spirited, cowardly, smug entitled prick. Of course, being a bully or a coward will never be deemed a disqualifying defect in the Republican Party. I assume the faithful will rally around him.
- One of the more enjoyable aspects of reading Paul Krugman over the last year or so has been his consistent practice of slapping down David Brooks (and occassionally Thomas Friedmann) without ever mentioning his name. The columns are usually brutal refutations of whatever fatuousness Brooks has pulled out of his butt and called a column a day or two before. I thought this was a very good example of the genre.
- Dean Baker makes a plea for policy makers to recognize the ongoing tragedy of widespread and long-lasting unemployment. Sadly, I would not hold my breath waiting for policy makers to respond.
- And Arianna Huffington argues against the austerity that is destroying the future of Greek youth and suggests that leaving the Euro and defaulting on its debt is likely the only reasonable path to protect the younger generation of Greeks.
Alright, time for bed to get some rest before an early flight tomorrow. Hope to be checking in in early afternoon. Until then, give us your collective wisdom.
douthout never fails to disappoint. my neighbor sent this link with a comment that the "NYT commenters write more skillfully/creatively than the columnists on whose work they are commenting."
Posted by: kathy a. | May 13, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Nice little op-ed by Rebecca Traister in today's Wash Post. A bit shallow, but contains a few good insights and syntheses of trends in the war on women, from a young woman's point of view. http://bit.ly/J2ZIC9
Posted by: Paula B | May 13, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Also, re: Romney's pranks, Charlie Pierce has a good column: http://bit.ly/J2ZY3X
Posted by: Paula B | May 13, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Screw Greg Marmalard; I knew my share of guys at the prep school I attended for middle school and the early part of high school who looked just like this Romney pic who were vicious young fucks.
Thank goodness it was just a day school, not a boarding school. I don't talk or think about it much, because those were some of the most unpleasant years of my life, but I did come away from those years with one important takeaway that's still with me, more than four decades later:
Thugs in coat and tie are still thugs.
It's a simple enough lesson, but from reading the news and the pundits, you'd get the impression that there are few people with a syndicated column or a spot on the Sunday morning political TV shows that have figured this out. The very notion that people who clean up nice and travel in the 'right' circles can be thugs seems to have totally eluded them.
But it sure is an important thing to understand these days. It would be even if Mitt Romney were not running for President, but that does raise the importance of this concept a bit.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 13, 2012 at 07:50 PM
My thoughts on Romney's character.
Posted by: Linkmeister | May 14, 2012 at 01:52 AM
As i mentioned in my reply to KN on the other thread, I want to ask the women here -- and the wives, friends, etc. of the males -- if they would leave their drink uncovered if the young Romney were at the same party. Don't know the stats in real life, but at least the dramatic cliche of the guy who uses a 'date-rape drug' is just the Romney type. (Again, in the cliche at least, about half of the stories involve gang rapes at parties, particularly frat parties.)
I think that's yet another conscious or unconcious reason why even many 'good Republican' women -- not the religious types but comparatively centrist or "Traditional Republicans" -- will find some reason not to vote for Romney.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 14, 2012 at 04:23 AM
Late, so I'll just state this now and defend it tomorrow. But the expected 'pivot to the center' hasn't happened yet, even though there have been at least five chances for him to make such a pivot relatively cheaply. (Any pivot loses votes, the hope is you gain more than you lose.) I could frame his responses in 'Republican orthodoxy,' could show how he could have made them in a way to lose the fewest votes, but he didn't make them and won't.
There's not going to be any 'pivot to the center.'
Think it through. he doesn't have the support of the base -- which is suspicious that he will do just that, that his conservatism was -- as Gingrich, Santorum and the others told them -- merely a ploy to win their votes.
Then there's the convention, which will be writing an incredibly ugly, RWNJ/TP type platform. I already expect there will be some attempt to bind the nominee to support it, and if Romney has already 'pivoted' it will be even stronger, and extremely embarrassing to Romney. Again, if he fights it off, the doubts of the right wing part of the base wil be even stronger.
But there's a more important reason I don't see being discussed. Given the positions he's already taken, there are simply no centrist positions he can reach that could be credible and which would actuslly attract independents or Democrats.
Try it yourself. Try writing a couple of paragraphs in which you are Romney, describing and defending a new, centrist position on women's health, gay rights, the Ryan Budget, health care, entitlements, infrastructure spending, jobs, or student loans.
Go ahead and try, I'll wait...
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 14, 2012 at 04:47 AM
Hell, Prup, the 'pivot' for other GOP candidates in recent years has usually been more a matter of image and optics rather than actual position changes. We can count on our sorry-ass media to buy into it, though, because they always do.
It's not like they pay enough attention to actual issues to let that get in the way anyway, other than as it affects the whole who-might-not-like-which-candidate-over-what crap. And as far as that goes, they'll accept the GOP framing wherever possible.
So Romney will be able to do an issue-free 'pivot,' though he'll have to do a considerable amount of kowtowing to the wingnuts first. Because you're right about their not trusting him, and the demands they'll put on him as a result.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 14, 2012 at 06:17 AM
Re Greece: default would put Greece in a position of being unable to borrow, so it would have to bring its budget into balance.
To the best of my understanding, Greece's budget, excluding interest payments, isn't in balance or even particularly close, and that money from the EU has been squaring that particular circle. As I understand it, this is why they have little choice but to accept the EU's counterproductive austerity requirements. (I've been trying to dig up some substantiation of this, but right now I can't do any better than "I remember reading this somewhere reliable.")
It's easy to say Greece should default, but absent a plan to balance its budget in the wake of a default, it can't afford to default, nor can it muster the credible threat of default that Atrios thinks would be the answer.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 14, 2012 at 09:53 AM
l-tc: Why haven't we seen an of this on relatively 'low-cost' issues? Let's look at some things he could have said recently to flash a signal that he would move towards the center -- and realize how strong a move the second one would have been in -- unlike the others -- actually winning potential votes. Then notice how he slammed the door against taking these positions. (I'm going to write this as if I had followed throigh on my college time and had a radio show, and "My guest this week is Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President."
"Mr. Romney, can we discuss the recent story about your prep school days?"
"Now, Governor Romney, what about marijuana legalization? This seems to be a very popular topic for discussion, and it's considered a main reason for the popularity of one of your rivals for the nomination. Rep. Paul."
"Governor, some members of your party have been criticized for opposing the extension of the Violence Against Women Act."
Please note that I am attempting to state a 'compassionate Conservative' case for Romney to make, not expressing my own views. Of course some of his arguments are illegitmate, my point is not that but that he doesn't make them, or any similar ones, in areas that would cost him relatively few votes. In fact, the marijuana question would not just bring over a lot of Paulistas, but is the one position which would attract other independents -- and not really turn off many of his own supporters. And the others would at least be 'dog whistles' to the center -- for a change -- that he might be more 'reasonable' as President than he has to be as a candidate.
Of course that is assuming that the 'real Romney' is the Governor or the Senatorial candidate, rather than any of the other hundred personae he's tried on.
But we got none of this in less 'dangerous areas.' Why should we expect to see it in the areas where the right and the bible whackers and TPers are much more heavily invested.
Nope, no 'pivot to the center.' And I'm waiting for the first evidence that there will be one. I've heard plenty of arguments why there should be but they aren't coming from anyone in the Romney camp except for the 'Etch-a-sketch' guy.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Re: So Romney will be able to do an issue-free 'pivot,' though he'll have to do a considerable amount of kowtowing to the wingnuts first.
I suspect you're right on this, l-tc. He seems to get a free ride, anyway, just based on his looks and the fact that he's the challenger. When he raises $, it's played as a positive sign of approval. When BHO does (like last week's Clooney), it's portrayed as a nasty threat. (To what, I don't know.) It's all football, all the time.
And, prup, yeah, I wouldn't imbibe anything a guy like Mitt handed me. He's definitely the frat guy from hell to me, but it's been a while since I've been in the dating pool.
I just read about the enlightenment of Beastie Boy Adam Yauch, how he eventually saw the light and publicly apologized for his youthful sexism, racism and homophobia, through the medium of his music. Romney has the mike in his hands at all time these days, and missed a great opportunity to admit the damage he did to people through what he called pranks, and others might see as symptoms of serious mental illness. The fact that he minimized the incidents when he had a chance to apologize tells me two things: 1/frat boys from hell never grow up, and/or 2/he exhibited psychopathic behavior in 1965 and in 2012.
Posted by: Paula B | May 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Prup,
1)Whhat matters is that bullying is still going on today, and we should give school officials the tools to deal with it.
Sorry, but that in itself would get Mitt in trouble with the base. Stupid, I know. But as Rummy would say, he's got to run for President with the base he's got.
2) "But why should the Feds set up a bureaucracy and use shrinking federal resources simply to tell states 'We know better and we won't let you make that decision'? No, that's not how Republicans think.
It's how they think with respect to drugs.
3) "It's ironic. We Republicans rightly campaign against giving homosexuals 'special privileges' and then, by this vite, we tell a homosexual 'go ahead, beat up, attack, injure your partner. We won't prosecute you the way we would if you were heterosexual and did the same thing to your partner; we won't press the charges we would have if the person you had attacked was your girlfriend instead of your boy friend. What is that but a 'special privilege'"
Yeah, but it's a special privilege they're all for. They have no problem with queers getting beat up, even if other queers are doing the beating. Maybe even especially.
And in general, the Violence Against Women Act has become one of those things the GOP base is simply against because it's a librul idea; I bet most of them don't even know why they're against it, but it's gotta have bad shit in it, because Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson all told them so.
These aren't low-cost issues at all.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 14, 2012 at 03:52 PM
I bet most of them don't even know why they're against it, but it's gotta have bad shit in it, because Fox and Friends, Rush Limbaugh, and Pat Robertson all told them so.
Same as anchor babies. VAWA would recognize anchor bruises, another nefarious means to avoid deportation. Or something like that.
An aside. In my Mother's Day call yesterday to Mom who is in Northern Kentucky and in her eighties, she sees no way that women are going to forget or forgive the 'war on women' any time soon and that it alone will GOTV. She's been a reliable bellwether over the years regarding elections. Wisdom from a red county denizen, and her working class neighbors who are unanimous in their disgust. Mom would shove Mitch McConnell down a flight of stairs if she could. After some handsome profanity.
Posted by: nancy | May 14, 2012 at 06:31 PM
go, nancy's mom! that's the kind of news i like to hear.
Posted by: kathy a. | May 14, 2012 at 07:49 PM
dana milbank has officially pissed me off with talk of obama "pandering" to women. you just tell me what the other major candidate has or will do for people like me. if it is basically zipperino, then the person who has done something for people like me is not "pandering" by mentioning those facts.
Posted by: kathy a. | May 14, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Hey guys!
Dana Milbank is a tool.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 14, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Obama is pandering to women? Well, that's instructive Mr. Milbank.
How about women have been following the other party in utter, complete and stupefied disbelief. No pandering necessary. At all.
No, he and his administration have more work to do, but really.
Posted by: nancy | May 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM
I answered Prup in the previous thread.
At the end of this thread well, what can be said. Milbank is not just a tool but a dull tool. You could say an insensate tool but that might be over generous.
Despite the open thread I will not digress into a reverie over my long history interacting successfully with many women at all levels, and the appalling lack of self-awareness manifested by most of the men I have know. And I have known many more men than women. All this theater about the war on women is just blatent intimidation. It is a racket, it even has a formal name in law, it is called extortion. I sincerely hope that the overwhelming majority of women will react appropriatey and go to extraordinary lengths to protect their own rights. I am with them 100%. Ratify the ERA! I have previously made mention of the lesson of the Lysistrata - I bring it up again because it is clear really that in a truly democratic society the majority has the most influence. You have power, use it.
SC - "policy makers" that is, obstructionists who happen to be able to keep anything good from happening, are never going to have any empathy let alone concern for the plight of the pathetic multitudes who are not rich.
Huffpo is a sewer. I stopped looking at it about 2 years ago. What about Iceland?
Look at what happened in Iceland and you will understand how the echo chamber and the stenographic culture of so called journalism has been perverted to the point that up is down and left is right. Huff Po is a decidedly clear and transparent panderer. AH prognostications are no doubt brilliant and inspired by her decands of involvement with global economics. As if the government of a soverign nation was subordinate to the arrogance of international banks.
Across the world, when the crisis unfolded in its most revolting form, what transpired was the banks, who were solely and entirely responsible for the bubble and its inevitable bursting, were given a pass and the hoi polloi were hung with the consequences. Instead of the reckless gamblers jumping out the windows of their 50th floor offices they were busily contracting for bulldozers to push millions of people into homelessness, unemployment and utter despair.
Creative destruction. What a clever oxymoron.
What troubles my whole existence is that such extreme idiocy has any currency at all.
Still in purgatory here waiting to see if something will happen to emancipate me. Saddly, there has been some recent violence that has given things a nasty taint.
Maybe I need to go ans spend a week in Brazilia to try to get a feel for how things are in and around the beltway.
Just an afterthought but I do have to say it is something of a surprise and an honor to me that you 'elitists' would condescend to respond to my poor musings.
Posted by: KN | May 15, 2012 at 12:53 AM
KN, your poor musings are worth 10x more than most pieces on HuffPo, any day. You are loved. Cogblog is your home.
Yes, women are in the majority at the moment in the US but there's no evidence that fact has sunk in yet. We are in the simple majority, and more than half the voting public, the working public and the buying public. We may not have the money, but we sure as hell control who gets it and who represents all of us! Yet, until women can feel that power in their bones, our potential will go unrealized. We need a dramatic awakening, and I shudder to think what it will take to bring that about.
I didn't read the whole script but was thrilled to hear excerpts from BHO's commencement address at Barnard over the weekend, where he urged women to go out and take over the world. Is that pandering? To me, he said all the things you would expect someone to say at a Seven Sisters commencement. If he were at Harvard, I would expect the same.
Compare BHO's speech to Romney's at Liberty U, where the Mitt reiterated his belief that marriage must be between one man and one woman. You know, maybe we've missed something here. Maybe the operative word in that equation is the number one. Could he be trying to prove he doesn't believe in bigamy? Pretty radical for a Mormon, eh?
KN, I was moved by your assessment of the economic crisis, especially this part:
Instead of the reckless gamblers jumping out the windows of their 50th floor offices they were busily contracting for bulldozers to push millions of people into homelessness, unemployment and utter despair.
A quick look at world history will show that idiocy has always had currency. It's just so painful to watch when there is so much need and the potential for so much good.
Is it a uniquely human trait to waste resources, time and energy? I look at squirrels and birds, and see innate efficiencies unlike anything I can detect in humans. If it's human to be wasteful, we're extremely human at this point in the life of the planet.
Posted by: Paula B | May 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM
A late Mother's Day message:
We owe it to ourselves, our daughters, our granddaughters and generations to come after us to keep the light burning for women, ALL women...
It’s up to women to use the strength in numbers that has fallen into their laps, combined with the rights and privileges inherited from the hard work of women who came before...
Let’s not slip, no matter what our religion, our race, our politics. Let’s promise we will not elect people to office or go along with the appointment of leaders who do not respect our fundamental rights as human beings and as women.
Bottom line: Women voters must come together as women on the issue of birth control and health care issues related to femaleness. Race, religion, ethnicity, geographic region, economic class, occupation, marital status: None of that matters when it comes to issues regarding how an individual woman moves her own cells through life’s maze. Our bodies and our choice of life paths come first; all the rest is secondary.
http://bit.ly/H6YtN7
Posted by: Paula B | May 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Before I go off on the latest flashpoint, I have to link to a wonderful response from POLITICSUSA to Paula's comments.
Just a hint, but read it all:
How do Democratic Mothers deal with Republican children?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Prup, thanks for that link! Indeed!
As for watching one's children go off the deep end, raising children who turn to Republicanism may be the new "parent's biggest fear." Should make good fodder for stand-up comics.
Posted by: Paula B | May 15, 2012 at 01:58 PM
And now I blow up. I was going to rant and race, but I don't have to. I'll just say that, earlier today, I read this.
Is there any question if it is accurate? If it is, can anyone defend it? And if the Democratic Party doesn't stand for this, what does it stand for?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 15, 2012 at 08:17 PM
Jim,
Yeah, I can't believe the DNC doesn't see the significance of this race.
Obviously they have a Washington-centric view of the world, but they could be missing the chance to deliver what I think would be a devastating (or at least cautionary) blow to the right.
I don't get it either.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 15, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Here's a follow-up from Blue Cheddar.
And this quote from Charles Pierce sums my problem with the party and the White House, and why I worry about any 'coattail' effect.
Read it, and then I hope someone will explain why I am wrong this time.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 15, 2012 at 08:26 PM
Add to this the 'reward' to North Carolina and the local Democratic Party with the convention -- and even before the recent election -- and how strong was the actual party on this -- this was the party that tried to draft Mike McIntire for Governor. McIntire, who has voted against every Obama proposal, who is the farthest right of any Blue Dog. (And how can they not move the convention now? Or Democrats will make what may be the single biggest gift to the NC economy all year.)
And how much help are local candidates going to get, if they aren't big name stars? (*Again, a reminder to you all, Shelley Berkeley in Nevada, Dr. Richard Carmona in AZ, Joe Donnelly in Indiana.*)
And I see a lot of talk from Democratic bloggers, pundits, and professionals about the "War on Women," but are any actual candidates using this -- or homophobia, or the other Republican horrors -- against specific Republican candidates. It shouldn't be 'Republicans are doing this' -- if our candidates will even go this far -- but 'why are you supporting or not protesting these tactics by your party.'
Sometimes this election reminds me of a sporting event where the manager of each team has a heavy bet on the other side. That's emotion, not meaning, but damn it, it feels that way.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 15, 2012 at 08:39 PM
There is a SignOn.org petition to the DNC about its vacation on the Walker recall effort. Created yesterday, today it has almost 100K signatures.
Handwriting. Wall. I feel like my party will never master the rather simple exercise of reading it.
Posted by: nancy | May 16, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Paula B.
"Mitt reiterated his belief that marriage must be between one man and one (or more) women". There fixed that for him.
As a man it is more than a little apparent to me that could well love and abide with more than one woman, I am sure the reciprocal is also true. So the concept of fidelity has to have some advantage over anything else if it is going to survive. And in addition, it pays some to analyze the concept of polygamy and what advantages it has and to whom they accrue.
In addition, you always have to bear in mind that within the proscriptions of any religion, lies for Jesus or lies for Moroni are fully dispensated and justified if they further the objectives of the cult.
It is also notable, that they are all death cults. Their promise is entirely contained in a hypothetical after life for which there is no evidence at all.
Lazurus, wherefore art thou Lazurus?
Posted by: KN | May 18, 2012 at 12:05 AM