Daily Kos is pretty overwhelming Kos's former partner Jerome's site was a bit better. Talking Points Memo would be better. None are great for general information.
Send him a copy of Krugman's most recent book, or tell him to read his columns from the past year. Might as well start at the top.
Kevin Drum is nicely non-threatening. Also, what about Ezra Klein? Boring, yes, stupidly even-handed when he shouldn't be, yes, but for someone coming from a conservative echo chamber, he might be accessible as not appealing to too many unshared assumptions.
TPM, Krugman, Drum, and EZ are all good thoughts. I guess maybe I'd lean against Kos, only because all the snark and in-jokes might be off-putting.
Oh, good call, all. I knew there were obvious people who I was forgetting.
Yglesias may be another good choice because his unbridled lust for certain forms of deregulation provide a certain number of shared assumptions, combined with an interest in, rather than debating abstractions, simply pointing out that Republicans are constantly lying and saying things that make no sense.
Yes but Yglesias abandoned his excellent "Republicans are lying" blogging in about 2010 and it's now Econ 101 applied to land use policy and licensing regimes for lower middle class jobs the time, plus some laughably terrible "business" reporting and rehashing of Krugman on macro policy. Stay away!
I bet your student would enjoy The Washington Monthly's blog, where Ed Kilgore of the Progressive Policy Institute is now the head blogger; he's liberal but quite non-threatening on culture wars markers (Georgian, a big college football fan, occasionally discusses his status as a believing Protestant).
Also, hm, Jon Bernstein's "A Plain Blog About Politics"; Krugman; Talking Points Memo. Ezra Klein is news analysis rather than partisan blogging, but worth reading anyway. (Unless we want to rehash the question of whether Ezra Klein is a moral monster.)
@7
I was thinking of Yglesias as well. I haven't read him since he moved to Slate (and don't miss him), but I recall he was pretty good at clearly laying out "and this is why conservative policy proposal X is obviously wrongheaded" in a way that wouldn't be too offputting to some one who wasn't already convinced.
And of course, as you say, his deregulation mania would make him appear sympathetic to the conservatively inclined.
@8
So he's abandoned the one worthwhile aspect of his blogging?
I'm glad I haven't kept up.
No, there's still some stuff about how Republicans are lying, like this piece about mothers. The key is to find people with some shared assumptions, and not too many unbearable in-jokes. That is to say, whatever is the exact opposite of Balloon Juice.
I might even say Andrew Sullivan. Despite being a wanker he is the very embodiment of "open-minded".
maddowblog.msnbc.com
is Steve Benen's current blog, and also the blog for the Rachel Maddow talk show on TV. He's somewhat more comprehensive and less idiosyncratic than Drum. He followed Drum at Washisngton Monthly.
Also, the Rachel Maddow Show for liberal TV talk, along with The Daily Show/Colbert.
Though he's not a liberal by any means, Daniel Larison's blog at The American Conservative might be worth forwarding on to your student. Larison spends most of his time poking holes in Republican talking points from a conservative perspective, and in doing so ends up reaching many of the same conclusions that you'd see on the liberal blogs listed in the above comments.
I don't like Steve Benen. He approaches everything with the "Sigh, yet again I have to be outraged by yet another outrage by these people who do nothing but things that outrage me" attitude.
I second Larison and Sullivan. Neither one's really a liberal, except relative to the screaming loonies that constitute the current conservative movement, but they're both very good at what they do and provide a smoother start to busting up the GOP mindmold.
Charlie Pierce's writing at Esquire is great, but like TPM and Kos, updates awfully frequently. Krugman's The Conscience of a Liberal would be a really good starting point as well.
Someone working from shared assumptions is the key. Much better suggestions could be offered if we knew what "conservative" means, and which specific aspects of that conservatism were actively being questioned. Is he a conservative Christian who remains staunchly pro-life but is questioning the Republican party based on their uncharitable views towards the poor? Or is he a small-government freedom lover who is starting to wonder whether the Republicans really want to cut the deficit as much as they claim? What's useful for him to read will vary dramatically between those scenarios.
Dissident "conservative" voices are very good choices. Suggestions might include the U.S. Catholic Bishops scathing criticism of the Republican budgets proposals and health care policies. Or possibly Richard Posner's criticism of the 'goofiness' of the current Republican party. Which of those would be more useful depends on where your student is, politically and philosophically, today.
Rawls is also good.
Is he a conservative Christian who remains staunchly pro-life but is questioning the Republican party based on their uncharitable views towards the poor? Or is he a small-government freedom lover who is starting to wonder whether the Republicans really want to cut the deficit as much as they claim?
It's highly likely that he was raised religious. When we were chatting over the summer, he said he was going out to lunch with his grandfather who was specifically going to rail against big government and endless red tape/beaurocracy imposed on businesses.
He approaches everything with the "Sigh, yet again I have to be outraged by yet another outrage by these people who do nothing but things that outrage me" attitude.
Outrageous!
Although honestly, it's hard to not have that attitude if you pay attention to politics at all.
I think blog-type sites are necessary but a bit of a turnoff for the unconverted. They are written for the already converted and are a constant flow of triumphant 'gotchas', sometimes over trivial matters. That doesn't mean it's not important to send one or two, just as a response to the conservative blogs he is probably exposed to. I might send Thinkprogress, which is the main
But it might be worth digging up one or two individual articles to lay the groundwork. Here is a piece that I think is a crucial one in the reeduction of any conservative -- ex-Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett's explanation of why Obama has actually governed as a moderate conservative:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx#page1
And here is a terrific recent one from the American Conservative on the real issue behind the election; the fact that rich people want to steal it all:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/
A better link for Posner. (First introducing him as a giant of modern conservative legal scholarship, and then moving to his blistering criticism of the Citizens United decision and the "pervasive corruption" being introduced into our political system by the torrent of corporate money, before tying this into his criticism of the current Republican party.)
Come to think of it, the Becker-Posner blog isn't a bad choice, depending on where your student is (philosophically). It's unrelentingly conservative (so much that I won't even read it), but it's not partisan, and it contains oodles of criticism of the corruption of the finance industry, along with arguments in support of gay marriage, etc.
Come around to the light on those issues, and you'll fall away from the Republican party (as has Posner), without even needing to pay attention to any of the horse-race politics.
Don't have much to add in terms of websites (ta-nahesi coates?), except to second (nth) the suggestion not to send him to Daily Kos, or any site where he might find a general tone of contempt for Republicans (which they obviously deserve, but catching flies with honey and all that...)
Oh. He might not really be interested, and this might not exist, but could there be a "greatest speeches of moderate Republicans" type collection? Eisenhower, Nixon, and basically most Republicans before 1980 would be Democrats today when it comes to economic and certain social policies, and it might be eye opening for him to realize how far his party has moved rightward from even 30 years ago. If he's smart, he'd also notice that Obama is basically a moderate Republican of yore, and it might help him counter the "Obama is a Kenyan Islamofascist communist" rhetoric.
Whoops, meant to say in 21 that Thinkprogress is the main Democratic establishment opposition research outlet. Here is link: http://thinkprogress.org/. Also second Daniel Larison as a very good foreign policy (only) blog.
But I stick to my recommendation of specific articles such as the two articles in 21 as better than just letting him sink or swim in blog world.
I agree with the article approach in 21, and with the specific articles mentioned. However, it seems like he needs to be handed more of a response to someone who will "rail against big government and endless red tape/beaurocracy imposed on businesses".
23.2 this is exactly what the Bartlett piece does so well. There is a great comparison of Obama to Nixon -- the guy that the other party absolutely hates but if you consider his actual policies is actually very centrist.
One thing about both Nixon in the 70s and Obama today is that in both cases the opposition party is not seeking any kind of moderate liberalism or conservatism, so trying to compromise just makes them more pissed off. The Rs are radicals, obviously.
Here is Think Progress' central fact check page, which is a good one-stop debunker for all Republican factual claims about Obama:
http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts-matter/
TPM and Ezra are probably the best intro - one for straight political reporting and the other much more policy and info oriented. Also the NYT editorial page, not the op-eds but the unsigned thingies. They're pretty reliably liberal. If you're looking for the soft sell with no screaming outrage then Andrew Sullivan is not a good choice. His politics may be pro-Obama centrist these days, but there is plenty of venom in it. On the other hand something like Ezra or the NYT eds may just put him to sleep.
? The democratic party of the early 1970s was not remotely radical. Also Nixon, to the extent he was a domestic miderate, deliberately caved to liberals on domestic policy so as to have a freer hand on foreign policy and to win over the white working class with, basically, racism (and also to try and prime his own reelection). He was a nasty son of a bitch, conservative by the standards of his own party at the time (George Romney and John Lindsey were viable Republican candidates in 1968), and is as responsible as anyone for the state of the Republican party today. Sorry to go off on a tangent but I hate "Nixon was a moderate" as a meme.
29:Also Nixon, to the extent he was a domestic miderate, deliberately caved to liberals on domestic policy so as to have a freer hand on foreign policy and to win over the white working class with, basically, racism
Sorry, also received wisdom and ancient memes, and doesn't go far enough.
Basically, racism + enviromentalism, busing, inflation, the whole "latte liberal" agenda. Nixon didn't "cave" to the party of guns, germs, and steel acid, amnesty, and abortion...he gave them the wedges they could use to rip themselves from the working class.
And a whole lot else, like Bretton Woods and the volunteer army. Nixon, and some of his advisors were geniuses.
Hey, Slacktivist is good. I don't read him that regularly, but I do at intervals, and for a conservative Christian the left-wing evangelical approach is probably good.
I hate "Nixon was a moderate" as a meme.
God, yes. Also "only Nixon could have gone to China", since anybody else trying would have had Dick Nixon standing on a chair screaming "COMMUNIST" at them.
All clew to be the first to recommend Fresh Salt.
I stand corrected on the Nixon analysis, this is what blog comment sections are for.
This David Frum about how movement rightism got too extreme for him might go some of the way.
Yeah, I was thinking about Frum as well.
A lot of people don't care for Kevin Drum, but he exudes reasonableness (for the most part), and insists on reposting valuable charts and graphs -- like the portion of the deficit attributable to Bush-era tax cuts, two unfunded wars, etc.; and the job loss/creation rates under Bush versus Obama. Those are posted by other people as well, but not as frequently. He's also pretty accessible on just what the Ryan budget would do to the general welfare. These are all useful correctives for someone who's otherwise hearing nothing but a litany of charges that Obama is trashing the economy.
The Democratic Party platform might not be a bad start.
Amy Davidson, maybe: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/
Or the whole News Desk blog, which certainly leans liberal where it touches U.S. politics but is not especially ideological or strident.
Ah, one of the many people I was less cool than in high school.
Don't worry, LB, I'm sure if it weren't for heebie's pseudonymity, Katherine would've recommend your work here on Unfogged.
www.isidewith.com. Let him see for himself who he sides with.
Also, mark your calendars: The debates are coming up.
First presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 3
University of Denver, Denver, CO
Vice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 11
Centre College, Danville, KY
Second presidential debate (town meeting format):
Tuesday, October 16
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Third presidential debate:
Monday, October22
Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL
I'm going to make popcorn for the VP debate.
I'm going to smoke heroin.
(Seriously, I will not be able to take it.)
It's funny: the more stridently conservative people in my FB feed are just certain that Ryan is going to so utterly destroy Biden that it will be a fatal wound for the Obama campaign. As if Biden hasn't been holding his own in debates for several decades now.
They also were convinced if they could get just get Gingrich into a debate with Obama that it would be a first-round KO as well, despite the fact that Gingrich "won" only one of the two kazillion debates against a laughably inept GOP field, and that one only because the broke-tooth South Carolina crowd was allowed to hoot and holler all the way through it. But, you know, Nobama wouldn't have his teleprompter (like he did in all of the 2008 debates).
48: Me too, to which I responded, "Who the fuck is Jill Stein?"
It's unfortunate the Republican party wasn't suicidal enough to nominate that repulsive toad GIngrich. Romney was by far the best candidate.
49: I'd bet nearly everybody here would end up with Stein, unless there's a further left outcome available.
That's why I want popcorn -- I give it 80-20 Biden cleans Ryan's clock, with the remaining 20% chance Biden starts a war with New Zealand or something. Anything could happen.
It will be a draw, and boring. VP debates always are. They will just repeat their talking points. If Biden/Palin was boring four years ago, what makes people think Biden / Ryan will be gripping?
49: Her minions have covered the lampposts in my neighborhood with small, monochromatic posters. And I'm supposed to vote for her as well. (It also identified me as in step with the voters of NY. I don't know if it checks everyone as in or out of tune with the state they appear to be located in, or whether my answers could have pegged me as a Nutmegger at heart.)
48: Yeah, that is amazing to me. They think Biden is *dumb*! I mean, he is a goofball with a mouth-governor of variable efficacy, but the dude ain't dumb.
Has anything memorable or noteworthy happened in a vice presidential debate since "and you are no Jack Kennedy" back in 1988.
That stupid quiz (which I assume is sponsored by the Green Party) told me to vote for "Kissing" Jill Stein as well.
(Commenting from work!)
I agree with the "individual articles" approach. From a religious, conservative/populist direction, maybe Russell Arben Fox? But I'm having trouble finding a nice stand-alone piece--there's this post, from 6 years ago, I suppose. Still, he's very good at showing why the Republican Party's libertarianism is in many ways diametrically opposed to some central strands of conservative religious political and economic thought.
49:Heavy *sigh*
Interview with Jill Stein ...FDL. Pt 2, Aug 23
Of course we learned in 2007 that there are some kinds of people that can never become President, but that's ok, cause we aren't racist.
57: Gwen Ifill asked about AIDS and African-American women and John Edwards gave an answer about AIDS in Africa.
Little danger that will happen this time, though, since apparently in a country of 310 million people the Debate Commission cannot find a person of color qualified to be moderator.
I knew before it happened that the Biden/Palin debate was going to be a snooze (unless Palin really melted down), because Biden couldn't really go after her.
51: And the site doesn't even provide a link!
Nobody cleans anyone's clock. Partisans think their guy beats the other, and a healthy percentage of genuinely undecided people make their decision based on the visuals, without regard to the content at all. I suppose someone can say something so unexpected that it changes the view of some undecideds, but that's not all that likely with this crowd.
My guess is that nothing either campaign does or doesn't do will have any effect on the race from here on out. External events can matter, but I think we'll be coming down to the wire wondering how effective voter suppression is going to be, and whether Romney's dog whistle campaign creates enough of a Bradley effect to change the results Nate Silver is projecting now.
I plan to follow the debates on Twitter. (Well, I'll be in GTMO for one of them and Alaska for another, so will ignore those outright.)
How have the networks usually handled debates on the West Coast? Do they go out in real time (which would be 6PM here, it looks like) or later?
I hate the debates; they are so meaningless.
I think they should be replaced with role playing or simulation tests, a la a reality TV or Model UN.
Here's the idea: Each candidate and a team of 6 advisers are put into a separate fake "Situation Rooms." The doors are locked for 24 hours and communication with the outside world is prohibited. The cameras are rolling the entire time. We get to see in real time each candidate responds to one simulated domestic and one simulated foreign policy emergency. The simulations are the same for each candidate. Who is with me on this? Would this not be the best idea ever?
68: were you thinking like a fantasy scenario with like a dragon attack or a dungeon kind of thing or where you more going in a superhero direction, like maybe a Champions system campaign? Ohhh or Shadowrun! That'd be intense. Paul Ryan using his elf magic against a helicopter dropship full of cyborg mercenaries.
Biden was right about stimulus (we need more of it), right about the auto industry save (it needed doing), right about which economists to listen to (Jared Bernstein not Peter Orszag), right about Afghanistan (concentrate on supporting the Afghan govt. and going after any actual threats that turn up, don't send a zillion Marines to march around Helmand).
very far from dumb.
61: I'm all for the Green Party trying to bring environmental issues to the fore, but fielding a third-party presidential candidate is a monumental waste of time and resources. Why not put that effort into trying to elect a few people to statewide office or to a House seat or two?
Halford, that's so good it could be my idea. Couldn't you go back and come up with something like...making all of them do the WoD?
I was thinking more like "showdown over the debt ceiling" but maybe we could add a third fantasy simulation involving Godzilla just for fun. This would be so awesome.
My guess is that nothing either campaign does or doesn't do will have any effect on the race from here on out.
I think Republican money will matter and will make a difference, probably eventually win the race for them. But it is hard to cover as a discrete event. I mean, the Republicans have essentially unlimited money -- all told, counting independent money, Romney could outspend Obama by a half a billion dollars. TO give a sense of the implications of that, the entire 2000 Presidential campaign (both parties) cost like $350 million.
I think for well-known figures like presidential candidates, money only makes a difference on the margins, but this race will be decided on the margin. It is a dead heat right now.
Larison is good on twitter, btw. Not as good as mcmanus would be, if he'd just give it a shot.
It's not a dead heat in the electoral college. Can the money really get anywhere with people so disconnected as to be undecided even at this point? I would guess that too much negativity -- and the Republicans have no positive message -- will depress undecided turnout, on net.
We'll all see.
69: Shadowrun was great. I remember making some ridiculously overbalanced starting characters; any combat action became basically "gather every d6 in a two mile radius; roll them. Now reroll all the sixes. Again!" Actually playing, as a result, wasn't very fun at all. But making abusively overpowered characters was!
74: I'm really doubtful about the impact of doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. the number of phone calls and TV ads a campaign would otherwise run. I'm similarly skeptical that the race is a dead heat on the metric that counts: Electoral College votes. Romney's going to have to get very lucky to beat the map.
As I've said before, my sense is that this is basically a cultural election rather than an issues/economic one. People are on one team or the other and all the advertising in the world isn't going to change their team.
Here are some more advantages to my idea: first, it would be one of the most watched shows of the year, bigger than the Superbowl. Want to create political engagement? This is how.
Second, it would give people a sense of both the constraints Presidents are under and their leadership style.
79: Sally would like to see it incorporating an aspect of coaching a show choir through a statewide competition. And I believe her demographic concurs.
I mean, at this point we have more information about the actual leadership abilities of contestants on Real World/Road Rules Challenge as we do about the presidential candidates. My plan changes all that. A debate for the 21st century.
Second, it would give people a sense of both the constraints Presidents are under and their leadership style.
Not to mention the delicate interplay of spell-casting and laser-targeted robot sentry guns.
The ISideWith website says they aren't funded by any candidate or party.
In other news, the web magazine Next American City is asking for recommendations of Cleveland-based writers.
of contestants on Real World/Road Rules Challenge
Actually, come to think, what about running the candidates through an episode of any randomly selected reality show with a competition format? Make them design evening-wear! Operate food trucks! Eat bugs!
I'm really doubtful about the impact of doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. the number of phone calls and TV ads a campaign would otherwise run. I'm similarly skeptical that the race is a dead heat on the metric that counts: Electoral College votes. Romney's going to have to get very lucky to beat the map.
What's to prevent him from just paying millions of die hard Republicans $10,000 each to move to battleground states before the election?
(That's exactly how Bain Capital would solve this problem.)
It's not a dead heat in the electoral college.
Isn't that because of the winner-take-all effect, though? A not-all-that-large national swing could quickly change the electoral map.
Not to mention the delicate interplay of spell-casting and laser-targeted robot sentry guns.
This makes me think of one of the asides from The Grimoire,
The gamemaster decides in which domain a shaman is when he wants to cast a spell. A recent case In Seattle boiled down to whether the Shaman was sitting in the front seat of !he limousine (inside the bakery's plate glass window and therefor in the domain of a Hearth Spirit) or the back seat (which was still on the sidewalk, thus in the domain of a City Spirit).
Not to mention the delicate interplay of spell-casting and laser-targeted robot sentry guns.
I think there's still use in pointing out that a lot of domestic policies passed or proposed under the Nixon administration would seem kind of moderate today, but no use in saying that Nixon himself was a moderate.
||
I suppose I'm probably going to have to break down and read Cloud Atlas at some point, huh? I've ignored it until now because it is one of those popular crossover SF novels that are only popular because everybody pretends they are not SF, and I hate that.
Also, stupid people in Mpls. think we should get rid of the skyway system. Yeah, real brilliant there, dumbass. Minneapolis without skyways would be a cold Detroit. I am not interested in fleeing packs of feral dogs every time I go downtown, thankyouverymuch.
||>
90.1: It's not earthshatteringly great, but it's worth reading. Also: it's SF without SF fandom, which is all to the good from where I'm sitting.
The movie looks like it's going to be a giant clusterfuck though.
Actually, there used to be a British TV show in which contestants did a number of tests including, as the last one, a final approach in a Boeing 747 simulator.
TBH, I'd pay cash money to watch politicians doing a simulator check-ride. GWB was a pilot, you know, but you bet he'd have fucked up impressively. (after all we know he wasn't all that)
Rmoney, well...and Dave....I suspect Boris Johnson might have done rather well, though, being a drama queen/trouper at heart. Should probably include some crossfit in there, which is what the TV did.
And in the trying too hard department, Ryan has chosen his own Secret Service name and it is Bowhunter.
94 should disqualify any fucker from ever voting for him. Fucksake.
That said, I'm sure many of our own dear leaders would choose worse.
They all end up with goofy-flattering names, though, don't they? I mean, stupid, but no stupider than Rawhide, or Renegade, or Eagle.
My fellow Unfoggeders, I promise you today, that should I be called upon to serve my country in a role that requires a Secret Service detail, I will choose the codename "Beerpong".
I think my current identity would work fine.
How was I unaware of this tradition? This is such an entertaining list.
91: The movie looks like it's going to be a giant clusterfuck though.
Right, that's why I have to read the book now -- I love giant clusterfuck movies! So much more to consider than with a really good movie.
This is such an entertaining list.
That's fantastic.
George W. Bush - Tumbler or Trailblazer
Was the former name used before or after he "choked on a pretzel"?
I mean, was I the only one who didn't know that Todd Palin's nickname was "Driller"? That bit of knowledge makes all the innuendo jokes about Sarah Palin's "drill, baby, drill!" a bit funnier, I suppose.
re: 99
Yeah. I didn't think British Royal Protection officers used code-names, or I'd never heard of any. But just google'd, and apparently Princess Diana's was 'Purple 52'. But I've certainly never heard of any for politicians.
Well, it alliterates with his father's -- maybe "Tumbler" was for the alky son-of-POTUS, and "Trailblazer" was what he picked as President?
Oh hmmm, I'm not sure this counts as flattering:
Karenna Gore - Smurfette
One other question: what's the point of assigning these secret service nicknames to people, if they're all made publicly available?
I would have assumed the whole point of these nicknames would be to give at least some semblance of psuedonymity, in case anyone was eavesdropping on the SS communications.
But I've certainly never heard of any for politicians.
Who handles security for Number 10?
Oh, looks like the Diplomatic Protection Group (SO6).
Other options I'm considering: "Butterface", "Tostada", "Cowpocalypse".
I would have assumed the whole point of these nicknames would be to give at least some semblance of psuedonymity, in case anyone was eavesdropping on the SS communications.
That was the original reason, but now they're just for tradition and to reduce the possibility for mistaking names -- you can choose (flattering) nicknames that sound more dissimilar than "Jenna" and "Laura" or whatever.
114: Yeah, I don't get that either. The only think I can think of is having an unambiguous ID when you've got family members around, so last names might be confusing? But that seems silly.
I don't know why they don't just use the abbreviations. POTUS, FLOTUS, EDOTPOTUSAFLOTUS, YDOTPOTUSAFLOTUS, PWDOTPOTUSFLOTUSEDOTPOTUSAFLOTUSAYDOTPOTUSAFLOTUS.
And my kids, Shazbot, Longpig, and Tweaker.
"Team Alpha this is Team Bravo, over. Prepare Location. Sususudio's motorcade is leaving the helipad, over."
Woulda been better if I didn't randomly capitalize "Location". Oh well, that's all I can do and that's what I've got to face.
Are they trying to tell us something with Rose Kennedy's codename?
I'm saddened that Billy Carter and Roger Clinton didn't get code names.
They had code names, but not in ways we could understand.
O HAI. Roger did have one. It was "Headache." Wikipedia says so.
132: That clashes with their otherwise well-adhered-to principle of giving the same first initial to everyone in a family, since the Clintons were E's. Wikipedia cites a book, and who knows how well sourced that was.
Why is there a Secret Service code name for Antonio Banderas????
Maybe they get bored, and just start assigning people code names. "Agent Smith? I think we should assign the new barista at Caribou Coffee -- the one with the piercings? -- a code name. I think... Cinderblock. Put it on the list."
Hahah. The footage of Romney debating Teddy Kennedy in their senate race was choice.
An old grad school colleague who was definitely a Republican voter then but has since changed her allegiances just posted this on FB as an explanation to her (largely Mormon) friends and family of why she isn't voting for Romney.
||
Apropos of the sandwich thread the other day...
|>
139 -- That's excellent.
||So everyone should watch Denise Juneau tomorrow. 7pm Eastern. Shouldn't she be running for Congress? |>
Since this is the politics thread, I admit I'll be interested to hear Martin O'Malley's speech tonight. Gov. of my state, after all, and supposedly on tap for 2016, yet he comes across to me as such a dweeb (not policy-wise, just in affect). I'll be interested to hear whether anyone else thinks so.
Regarding the original topic Drum and Yglesias are good suggestions. Krugman isn't, he is annoying if you don't already agree with him.
Follow-up email with the kid in the OP...part 1 is useful, part 2 is amusing.
I personally am more interested in the economic philosophy and fiscal policy. Any facts would be extremely helpful to get a practical idea of how the philosophy would work. Facts are actually what I am having the most problems seperating from subjective interpretation....
I hope the term "non-conservative" is okay - I was not sure what would be offensive. I was going to use "liberal" but it seems to have taken on a negative connotation, especially in Texas. If you have a more accurate term for describing non-conservatives, I would like to know what works. I try to stay away from just republican and democrat as much as possible.
146: Darwin suffered fools much more gladly than Krugman, but people respond to Darwin the same way. I don't think it has anything to do with Krugman or Darwin. Annoying people is a necessary result of promoting accuracy in a forum to which nitwits have access.
And Krugman probably is what passes for "liberal" among economists nowadays, but thirty years ago he could have worked in the Reagan administration.
Anybody can be annoying when they have a goal in mind. The real trick is to be annoying for it's own sake.
I hope the term "non-conservative" is okay - I was not sure what would be offensive. I was going to use "liberal" but it seems to have taken on a negative connotation, especially in Texas.
Awww. What a nice child, trying to figure how you talk politely to liberals. What are you going to tell him? "Liberal really isn't offensive for people who are, but some people prefer 'progressive'?"
BTW, I third the recommendation of the Slacktivist. It doesn't seem to be spot-on for this guy, but in general I think he's incredibly effective at explaining how evangelical groupthink is poisonous to anyone who takes Jesus Christ seriously. He's like Ezra Klein with balls, in that he's scrupulously fair-minded until he's proven that a given figure is a bad actor (e.g. The Liar Tony Perkins), at which point he's relentless.
I do think that one of the biggest flaws of liberals/progressives/Dems is a fear of being shrill - which then leads, Kos-style, to excessive shrillness, in a case not proven kind of manner.
"Those who long to destroy the sun."
Any additional information from the kid in the OP is helpful. (I'm pretty curious about what sites his very conservative friend has directed him to, but I'm not sure you can ask him that.)
If something like Blume's FB's friend's link in 139 to the Atlantic piece* isn't good enough -- and it is awfully detailed, assuming a lot of background understanding -- I'm coming up short at the moment on simpler explanations about ... why trickle-down economics doesn't work.
* If Matthew O'Brien at the Atlantic is McMegan's replacement, wow, what an improvement.
They all end up with goofy-flattering names, though, don't they?
Except for Pontiac.
158: Oh, geez that's awful. Fuckers.
I hope the term "non-conservative" is okay - I was not sure what would be offensive. I was going to use "liberal" but it seems to have taken on a negative connotation, especially in Texas.
Huh, I like this kid. I think what he's getting at is that he needs some non-disparaging way of referring to you while talking to other people.
OMG, Mara (who's been home sick all day and is manic or something rather than sleeping) has finally noticed accent differences and is mimicking Lily Ledbetter in real-time. This is hilarious.
That's hilarious, Thorn.
parsimon, your governor really is a dweeb. I feel like he's a caricature from the Simpsons.
Based on his latest email, I just stuck to Krugman and Ezra. I think they are both exceedingly readable and not so dry. But also invited him to follow up with me on sources for specific issues.
Also I asked him which conservative sites he was rec'ced.
I feel like we're helping you corrupt him. In a completely awesome sort of way, of course.
This is what his parents probably worried about, sending him to college.
I'll be in GTMO for one of them and Alaska for another, so will ignore those outright.
Meetup!
Right -- secretive, pseudonymous nationwide networks of leftists plotting to seduce innocent conservative college students into their socialist clutches.
I suppose it's all right. He really is asking for it.
Of course it's all right, because we're right.
I suppose it's all right. He really is asking for it.
WHERE IS THE SHAME AMONG SO-CALLED FEMINISTS THESE DAYS. WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT A WOMAN, I AM SURE YOU WOULD NOT. COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE HUMAN BEINGS TO AND I CANNOT APPROVE THIS GROUP RAPE THAT YOU SO CALLOUSLY PROPOSE.
parsimon, your governor really is a dweeb.
Pawlentyesque. And getting sandwiched between those two speeches really amplified the effect.
103: How did Meghan McCain get to be called Peter Sellers?
Also, who the hell thought Sasha Obama's codename was OK?
I'm not seeing the offense in Rosebud.
Rosebud was Hearst's name for Marion Davies' vagina?
172: Would you want a used name from Maureen Reagan?
Because who cares that much about a sled?
At least Vertigo hasn't been spoiled yet.
179: Why did no one warn me about Kim Novak's eyebrows?!?!
Be warned, Josh: Kim Novak's eyebrows are sleds.
177, 178: Lucy spoiled it for me.
183: Sounds like she's got some 'splaining to do.
Kim Novak's eyebrows are really Anthony Perkins.
some people prefer 'progressive'
I prefer 'SWPL-American'.
If books are allowed, "No One Makes You Shop At Wall-Mart" is supposed to be a nice antidote to sloppy "Econ 101 proves libertarianism is right" thinking. I've heard good things about "Were You Born on the Wrong Continent," too, and I think there's some magazine-article-sized extract somewhere. Oh, here it is.
I bet Cosma could suggest something. Maybe one of Galbraith's classics?
Bloggers: Dean Baker and Mike Konczal on economic issues.
Oh, definitely on No One Makes You Shop At Wal-Mart. That's a great antidote for the 'much as we'd like government to be helpful, simple logic proves that regulation can only ever fuck things up' thinking that's really persuasive to a kid that age.
I never actually read Robert Reich, but mostly because I find him simplistic and obvious. Maybe those aren't bad traits in this context.
He's surprisingly effective on Marketplace, but yeah, his writing doesn't do much for me.
163: Also I asked him which conservative sites he was rec'ced.
Oh, let us know what he says!
170: parsimon, your governor really is a dweeb.
Pawlentyesque. And getting sandwiched between those two speeches really amplified the effect.
Julian Castro was odd to me. For whatever reasons, I have a hard time watching these speeches without at the same time observing rhetorical skills and devices. Castro was mannered, and noticeably practiced (I could envision him practicing before a mirror and before trainers): gesture thus when saying that. Smile so at this other part. Pause here, spread your arms wide there.
That's all fine -- it's part of effective oratory -- but it reminded me of Marco Rubio's presentation at the RNC. There's a mannequin-like effect; he's young.
(Michelle Obama's speech was outstanding; she has a thing where she stutters the opening syllable of her words. "I-I know that Barack blah blah", "i-it is no news that blah blah", "w-we must not forget etc. etc.". She also did that surfing the crowd thing, talking over applause. Very effective.)
For some reason I can't turn off this observational mode when watching these things. It sounds like I'm dissing these fine speeches, though I'm not.
She also did that surfing the crowd thing
I'm surprised more people have commented on this.
If this thread is still alive, I got this response:
They pointed me toward the sites patriotpost.com, townhall.com, and nationalreviewonline.com. Also suggested speeches from the RNC from Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice, Suzanna Martinez, Marco Rubio, Clint Eastwood, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Also they suggested the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times .
193: Whoa. Yeah. Michelle Obama crowdsurfing? There's an unexpected image.
Maybe it's called surfing the applause, not surfing the crowd.
193: Oh, if the student is going to review convention speeches, you could send him to Bill Clinton's speech last night.
Clinton's speech was pure freaking genius. What a great natural politician -- he made it look easy to combine a reasoned substantive argument with an emotional appeal.
What a great natural politician
For all the talk of Reagan as The Great Communicator, he could never at any point in his career have come anywhere remotely close to doing what Clinton did last night. I saw a tweet go by at one point to the effect of "Obama should appoint Bill Clinton to be Secretary of Explaining Shit".
Yeah, and I imagine it's not remotely easy to wing it, go off-script, with such confidence. 'course he has a lot of speech-giving experience (and actually, now that I think about it, after the Monica Lewinsky fiasco there's not much left to fear embarrassing oneself over ... the fear's gone).