Infrastructure. Very important. Pretty bland answers. Coats says we’d have more money for infrastructure if we hadn’t spent so much on stimulus and Obamacare which, by the way, Ellsworth voted for.
Category: Uncategorized
Liveblogging the Indiana Senate debate – 4
Dan Coats gives a perfunctory answer and then sez “That wasn’t me lobbying. That was my 850-lawyer firm.”
Ellsworth says “you were co-chair of a 25-30 lawyer lobbying department at the law firm.” Then gives his perfunctory answer.
Sink-Burris sez the Fair Tax is a panacea that will eliminate the questioner’s recordkeeping woes. Right or wrong, she’s answering the question, and even taking it to a higher level of generality rather than micro-focusing on a particular paperwork burden.
Liveblogging the Indiana Senate debate – 3
Rebecca Sink-Burris is dissing the bank bailout. Huzzah! I’ll click to post this when the two dudes have answered. No! Wait! She’s waffling. “Some say this, some say that.”
Coats just categorically said government messes things up. And he wants to be Senator? But he’s frank that the big banks got bailed out because they’re powerful and influential, while little banks didn’t. (Too big to fail, but he didn’t propose to bust them up. Yeah. That’s my version of Rebecca Sink-Burris’s Fair Tax mantra.)
Ellsworth didn’t answer the question, but trenchantly notes that Coats was a lobbyist.
Liveblogging the Indiana Senate debate – 2
Rebecca Sink-Burris, Libertarian, apparently thinks “Fair Tax” is a winning issue. I’m pretty ambivalent. It’s simpler, but it’s regressive, isn’t it, just like the sales tax?
Liveblogging the Indiana Senate debate
I hadn’t planned to liveblog. I hadn’t even planned to watch the debate. But Dan Coats and Brad Ellsworth both just ticked me off reflexively supporting the War on Terror. Rebecca Sink-Burris is doing a bit better, but meandering – trying to be all things to all voters.
How will history view 11/2/10?
It seems like a done deal that November 2 is going to be a bloodbath for incumbents. How will history judge this? Continue reading “How will history view 11/2/10?”
TJ’s Excellent 15 Minutes of Fame
Michael Gerson at the Washington Post has an Op-Ed on — how best to put it? — the insanity of “Pastor” Terry Jones getting his 15 minutes of fame so cheaply.
Gerson is, if I recall correctly, an Evangelical Protestant — perhaps even a Wheaton College Evangelical — so it was interesting to see his spin on why Muslims go postal at a threatened Koran-burning while Christians (a far more equivocal term than you might think, but serviceable in this context) remain pretty mellow about sacrilege Continue reading “TJ’s Excellent 15 Minutes of Fame”
Out of the mouths of …
From John Cleese comes advice on writing, creativity, getting in the zone, and interruptions:
While we can all use tips on such things, I made a connection that I don’t think is too eisegetical: Continue reading “Out of the mouths of …”
Same-sex marriage decision
(This was too long for Facebook.) I have never found my crystal ball very reliable, but I’m taking it out again anyway:
- Most Democrats in the Fall elections will continue to say they favor traditional marriage, but they’ll also continue to refuse to do anything to buttress it – either by opposing same-sex marriage, changing divorce laws, or whatever.
- Like Obama, Democrats will leave themselves wiggle room (“I said I was religiously opposed, not really opposed! Separation of Church’n’State, y’know.”) so they can claim to have been on “the right side of history” when the smoke clears. Continue reading “Same-sex marriage decision”
Unhinged politics
Side-by-side at the Washington Post, Michael Gerson and Ruth Marcus present a strong contrast today, and there’s no doubt in my mind which outlook would be better for the country.
Marcus starts off decrying a “Tea Party” candidate’s campaign video in an Alabama congressional primary. (I’m still wondering how columnists so infallibly distinguish a Tea Partier from other populist types, but never mind.) The candidate thinks redistributionist welfare is slavery for the people who pay taxes, as he makes graphically clear, and he closes with a very, very brief image of a concentration camp – one of those “subliminal” images that Marcus, sitting on her high Washington D.C. perch, was nevertheless able to perceive all the way down in the fever swamps of scary, scary Red Alabama. (I’m still wondering how these subliminal images get detected if they’re so subtle. Do some people have no lives? Oh, never mind.)
She decries the video as sacrilege, unhinged and emblematic. She links it to conservative talk radio (which she hints she has spent some time listening to). She insinuates that there couldn’t possibly be anything slavish about the role of taxpayer because — hey! — this is a democracy with checks and balances, and the system we have was voted on by the people who worry terribly about the Tea Party.
Marcus closes throwing down a gauntlet for conservatives to join her in decrying such stuff.
Gerson takes up the gauntlet so firmly that Marcus may be sorry she asked. His first target: David Weigel (the reporter whose blogging got him his 15 minutes of fame — which, by the way, runs out very soon now).
When Rush Limbaugh went to the hospital with chest pain, Weigel wrote, “I hope he fails.” Matt Drudge is an “amoral shut-in” who should “set himself on fire.” Opponents are referred to as “ratf — -ers” and “[expletive] moronic.”
This type of discourse is an odd combination between the snideness of the cool, mean kids in high school and the pettiness of Richard Nixon rambling on his tapes. Weigel did not intend his words to be public. But they display the defining characteristic of ugly politics — the dehumanization of political opponents.
He continues:
Radio host Mike Malloy suggested that Glenn Beck “do the honorable thing and blow his brains out.” … Liberals carried signs at Bush rallies: “Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush.” Says John Avlon, author of “Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America,” “If you only take offense when the president of your party is compared to Hitler, then you’re part of the problem.”
Yet Gerson acknowledges the problem on the right.
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh,” Ann Coulter once said, “is he did not go to the New York Times building.” … Conservatives carry signs at Obama rallies: “We Came Unarmed (This Time).”
Gerson then ties things up a bit, beginning:
The rhetoric of the Ugly Party shares some common themes: urging the death or sexual humiliation of opponents or comparing a political enemy to vermin or diseases. It is not merely an adolescent form of political discourse; it encourages a certain political philosophy — a belief that rivals are somehow less than human, which undermines the idea of equality and the possibility of common purposes.
Such sentiments have always existed. But the unfiltered media — particularly the Internet — have provided both stage and spotlight. Now everyone can be Richard Nixon, threatening opponents and composing enemies lists.
…
The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party — less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent … I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.
Marcus hears no enemies of civility on the left. (What! Did she go expatriate during the Bush years?) Gerson correctly sees really bad polarization with crazies at both the red and blue ends of the spectrum.
Anyone foolish enough to follow this blog faithfully will suspect that I think the country may be too far gone for rehabilitation by either the Ugly Party or the Grown-Up Party. But if we’re going into the tank economically, I’d rather go into it with people who realize that virtually all of us were complicit in bringing it about — and that no scapebillies deserve to be hung by the testicles or scapenannies to be raped and put naked on display.
I resolve to try to remember that in future posts, and I regret any dehumanizing in former posts. My intent is always “what fools we mortals be,” but blogging can be intoxicating (as David Weigel found), and I may have said some things that sounded more like “kill the creeps.”