What He Said

Brad DeLong has posted six questions he asked Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, authors of the new book It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, which says that our political main problem is the appalling extremism of the Republican Party.

DeLong also posted one question he didn’t ask Mann and Ornstein, and I’ve been trying to figure out something clever to say about it, but all I can say is that it sums up practically everything I feel about politics in America right now, so here it is:

Look. You two are expecting normal politics to rein in a Republican Party gone bonkers extreme. But it will not work. The press corps will continue to say “he said, she said, yadda yadda yadda” either because they are gutless cowards or because they are bought. In a world of low-information voters, the bonkers extremism and sheer total meanness of the Republican Party will not get through. The only way it could get through would be if moderate Republican barons were to announce that they had had enough and were crossing t’he aisle, and if they did so in a way that they brought their affinities with them. But I don’t see Brent Scowcroft doing that, I don’t see Colin Powell doing that, I don’t see Greg Mankiw doing that, I don’t see Marty Feldstein doing that, I don’t see Gail Wilensky doing that, I don’t see Bob Dole doing that, I don’t see Jack Danforth doing that, I don’t see Richard Lugar doing that–and I don’t see you doing that, Mr. Ornstein. I don’t see you calling for the defeat of every single Republican candidate this fall and every fall until the party comes back to reality.

And since all of you moderate Republicans are unwilling to take the only step that might fix the situation on your side, we have to take the only step open to us: We have to stop bringing a set of policy proposals and briefing papers to what the Republican Party has made a thermonuclear exchange. We have to oppose their noise, slime, and lie machine with a noise, disinfectant, and truth machine of our own–and at the same intensity.

That means you moderates need to pick a side and fasten your seat belts, rather than wringing your hands about how the Republicans are being so mean, and you wish they would be less so.”

What can I add to that?

The other six question are pretty good, too, particularly #1 and #6.

(Via Jonathan Bernstein. X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

112 replies
  1. 1
    cat48 says:

    Actually, they were on Morning Joe yesterday & Ornstein is hoping Obama wins control because the way he governs is “centrist”. He doesn’t want GOP controlling it all. Powell hasn’t endorsed Obama this time, but he mocked Romney’s foreign policy & listed several good things that Obama had done for the economy.

    They were both guests this week.

  2. 2
    Scott S. says:

    Why didn’t he ask that? It would’ve been great to see their answers. It would’ve been great to see some of the moderate Republicans forced to ponder that very question.

  3. 3
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    The press corps will continue to say “he said, she said, yadda yadda yadda” either because they are gutless cowards or because they are bought.

    It’s both. Which is why when The Revolution comes, we tumbrel their corporate masters, and them.

  4. 4
    Ed in NJ says:

    Somewhat related to the topic:

    Even a sports blog is starting to realize that the Politico model of giving voice to crazy is out of control:

    Stupidity in a minor AP wire story

  5. 5
  6. 6
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    But I don’t see Brent Scowcroft doing that, I don’t see Colin Powell doing that, I don’t see Greg Mankiw doing that, I don’t see Marty Feldstein doing that, I don’t see Gail Wilensky doing that, I don’t see Bob Dole doing that, I don’t see Jack Danforth doing that, I don’t see Richard Lugar doing that—and I don’t see you doing that, Mr. Ornstein.

    __
    Let’s for a moment entertain the following hypothetical: what if all of the people named above did come out an denounce in no uncertain terms the nihlism and extremism of the Republican Party. How much difference would it make? Would it shift the Village narrative and would any actual swing voters even notice?
    __
    If the anwsers are Not Much and Nope, nobody, then our problem isn’t with the cowardice of the Moderate Republicans, it is with the press and low info voters.
    __
    When people keep lining up to purchase a toxic product which hurts them, at some point you have start thinking about blaming the consumer for their stupid decisions. Low info voters are the consumer here.

  7. 7
    smintheus says:

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Washington to be born?

  8. 8
    the Conster says:

    The vileness from the Repuke side has started to set off alarms – of course we here on this side of the blogosphere have been setting them off for years, but sane people of every political stripe are starting to get fearful of the out of control crazy nutjobs who are threatening the very notion of a commonly shared reality. Of course the Villagers will be the last ones to speak the truth about that though – I’m looking at you Davids Brook and Gregory.

  9. 9
    ericblair says:

    Why is getting 60 Democratic senators to vote for a Republican health care bill an accomplishment? Wouldn’t an accomplishment have been getting 50 Democratic senators to vote for a Democratic health care bill via reconciliation?

    Um, because getting 60 votes was a huge teeth-pulling nail-biting accomplishment? What did Brad do, live under a rock while both sides beat on wavering Dem senators and yanked this sucker across the finish line? And shouldn’t that be saying more about the Republican party’s devolution than whether it was a Democratic accomplishment or not?

    As to the reconciliation business, my memory is thankfully hazy, but I’m pretty sure this was the wrong type of bill and reconciliation had been used that session/year already.

  10. 10
    The Dangerman says:

    …either because they are gutless cowards or because they are bought…

    Neither; their survival depends on eyeballs and eyeballs depend on a horserace.

    ETA: Better yet, a horserace with a photo finish that keeps the eyeballs through December like 2000, which basically set the model.

  11. 11
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Ed in NJ:

    “Somewhat”?

    It’s spot on, on the status of the media, which feels compelled to include some Talibangical asswipe in the conversation, thus giving legitimacy to the talibangical asswipe, helping to shift that Overton window. “Homophobia” is a loaded political term, my ass, it’s accurate in the case of that theofascist quoted totally unnecessarily.

    BTW, the first comment to the linked article is brilliant.

  12. 12
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @The Dangerman:

    This is the thing I don’t get. The most thrilling and compelling horse race I’ve ever seen in my life was the ’73 Belmont Stakes.

  13. 13
    Linda Featheringill says:

    @Ed in NJ: #4

    The first comment on that article is actually quite good:

    “I would hope that people that have traditional beliefs, traditional faiths that they would not be bullied for holding views about morality or the definition of marriage.”
    __
    Ah, yes, I remember those good ol’ times on the playground like they were yesterday. “Hey!,” one of us would shout, “that kid doesn’t think gay people deserve to be happy. Let’s get him!,” at which point we would all laugh derisively and throw rocks at his face til he bled, then swarm him, kicking and punching in a hateful mob as we gleefully yelled “Traditionalist!” and “Conservative Christian Asshole!” and “Hey, you moral grandstander, why don’t you put on a white dress shirt and a power tie and go marry a woman, you non-fag bitch!?” Ahhhh, youth.

  14. 14
    gocart mozart says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
    Yes, are problem is also (mainly?) with a cowardly media, but I do think that if those people “came out” against the crazy, it would make some difference. It would help to change “the conventional wisdom” IOW, the zeitgest of obtuseness.*

    * A great title for a novel don’t you think.

  15. 15
    burnspbesq says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    when The Revolution comes

    Riiiight. Stoned before breakfast, I see.

  16. 16
    The Dangerman says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The most thrilling and compelling horse race I’ve ever seen in my life was the ‘73 Belmont Stakes.

    If we could make the the Presidential Election last as long as a Secretariat (I assume) run around Belmont, we’d have a chance; there’s 6 months (actually, 11 months, starting the Iowa caususes) of newstime to fill and 6 (or 11) months of Big Pharma Ads to sell.

    Actually, that might be Step 1 in the solution; outlaw ads for Boner Pills, etc., on the news (or for that matter, all non-cable channels).

    ETA: And Step 2 is tax those institutions (I’m looking at you, Catholic Church) that want to insert themselves into the debate.

  17. 17
    Elie says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    I totally agree. Like it or not, its “government of, by and for the people”. Also, you get the government you deserve…

    No excuses but the unchecked run of winner take all individualism on both sides of the political spectrum and the resulting contempt for negotiation and fairness is driving this more than any one doctrine. We are a selfish and entitled population, used to being “top dog”. Ever wonder why bullying is such a problem nowadays? Its admired in how we value everything from our sport teams to who is first in line at the Best Buy. Why? I don’t know exactly but somewhere in the last two decades we moved from a community of citizens to a herd of individual consumers, each trying to work his own deal and screw the other guy before we are screwed. A bunch of couch potatoes engaging television reality shows rather than joining PTAs or bowling leagues. Facebook instead of real friends. Living in gated communities in suburbs without sidewalks — holed up and “under siege” from messages that are about fear and loathing of the other.

    No, we have seen the enemy and it is us. I hope that someday we are able to see it. Right now, everyone is looking at the next guy to stop it…

  18. 18
    SatanicPanic says:

    Brent Snowcroft? Bob Dole? Colin Powell? No one with any power in the Republican party cares what these people have to say.

  19. 19

    The coming battle will have all kinds of issues to fight over via proxy wars for the core issue, imo. And that would be the ascendency toward permanent fixture of wealth and class, or the power of cash versus ideas toward needs met for the masses. It is the only way to run a successful democracy.

    It is not something new, and every free market democracy has had to battle those demons on a regular basis. The effort toward the wealthy to democratize their wealth into political power and control, began before the ink was dry on the newly minted constitution. And has been fought for by these fractions of citizens of the republic ever since.

    It is not the first time that has happened in this country, but the sheer amounts of money and wealth in play is something new, as well as a changing country with more and more minority voting power. The problem the plutocrats and would be oligarchs have, and always have had in this equation, is the effects of deprivation on an ever increasing majority of citizens. Deprivations that eventually give way to hungry stomachs conquering any and all fears and prejudice the rich use to keep everyone at each others throats, long enough for them to concentrate the nations wealth into their bank accounts.

    It is a perilous journey, when gone too far before mitigation and sanity take back over. And I think there is a fail safe point, to where putting the princes and paupers genie back in its bottle is too late for a happy ending, at least in the short term. I have no idea where we are on that scale, and we likely won’t know till the dust clears and we see who’s on top and who’s not. WE are entering some perilous times, that should be obvious to everyone. The problem for the plutocrats is, there are a lot more paupers than princes, and it is hard to hold on to bought and stolen power, when the castle is surrounded by the hungry masses looking for some rich people to adorn their lightposts.

  20. 20
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I just checked NewsMax. Nothing about crazy Republicans there.

  21. 21
    SteveM says:

    @SatanicPanic: Yeah, but the Village might care what they have to say.

  22. 22
    Clime Acts says:

    We have to stop bringing a set of policy proposals and briefing papers to what the Republican Party has made a thermonuclear exchange. We have to oppose their noise, slime, and lie machine with a noise, disinfectant, and truth machine of our own—and at the same intensity.

    This is precisely correct. And the fact that the President and party has NOT done this over the last four years but instead has continued to kowtow to these freaks in the spirit of “bipartisanship” is why I and millions of other registered democrats are so utterly disgusted with them

  23. 23
    eric says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: here is the problem, Citizens United took away their power. It used to be that if you needed money or wanted to run, you needed their blessing. Now you need one crazy with a boatload of bucks and there is a large number of those crazies. The Law of Unintended Consequences wins again.

  24. 24
    hildebrand says:

    Powell has already been dismissed because he is ‘blah’. Nobody remembers Scowcroft or Danforth, the others are even less known. So, who would it actually take to switch sides to get the Village to actually sit up and take notice?

  25. 25
    Forum Transmitted Disease says:

    And the fact that the President and party has NOT done this over the last four years but instead has continued to kowtow to these freaks in the spirit of “bipartisanship” is why I and millions of other registered democrats are so utterly disgusted with them

    @Clime Acts: You are the world champion goalpost mover. You ought to enter the Olympics or something.

  26. 26
    Schlemizel says:

    @smintheus:
    I love that line but had never heard it before. WHile looking for it I cam across this poem & it is too good not to share: (sorry for the length)
    A Lost Poem by Rudyard Kipling
    The U.S. Burden
    Rudyard Kipling

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    Send forth the best ye breed –
    Go bind your sons to exile
    To serve all corporate greed;
    To wait in heavy harness
    In Kuwait and Kabul,
    To transform Arab culture
    And send Islam to school.

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    In patience to abide
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check Islamic pride;
    By opaque speech, not simple,
    And never quite made plain,
    To seek all corporate profit
    And Haliburton’s gain.

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    The savage wars of oil –
    Fill full the maws of tankers
    And make the people toil;
    And when your goal is nearest
    The peace the world has sought,
    Watch Banks and Wall Street Folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    No tawdry rule of law,
    But drones and Hellfire missiles
    Shall hold them all in awe.
    The news ye shall not publish,
    The facts ye shall not spread,
    Go send abroad your living,
    And bring them back as dead!

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    And reap the butcher’s bill:
    The blame of those ye batter,
    The hate of those ye kill –
    The cry of hosts ye shepherd
    Unto the western light: –
    “Why brought ye us from bondage,
    Our loved Islamic night?”

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    And dare to stoop to less –
    And call again on Freedom
    To cloak your greediness;
    By all ye cry or whisper,
    By all ye leave or do,
    The peoples of the planet
    Shall weigh your God and you.

    Take up the U.S. burden –
    Have done with truthful days –
    The worldwide admiration,
    The European praise.
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through these new fascist years,
    Hard-edged with higher wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers!

  27. 27
    amk says:

    You guys have fun reading this wapo fact checking by glen kessler of Jay Carney and Marketwatch Rex Nutting’s “Obama spending binge never happened” and giving them 4 pinnocchios, no less.

    Contest ? Spot kessler’s bs.

  28. 28
    Elie says:

    @Clime Acts:

    Having knock down drag out fights would have given the other side exactly what they wanted and nothing – NOTHING would have gotten done. As it was, (for those of you paying any attention), this administration got a lot of good legislation passed for this country.

  29. 29
    maya says:

    Somewhere, ages and ages hence
    I shall be telling this with a sigh.
    Two parties diverged in a yellow woods, and I,
    I took the shortcut over to grandma’s house,
    And ate up all her pie.

    T. Wolfe

  30. 30
    Steve in DC says:

    I don’t think wanting the “moderate” Republicans in the Democratic tent is a net positive, it’s a disaster. They are the typical social liberal\fiscal conservatives. “Equal pay” (for lady lawyers that is, but income inequality is a great thing), “let the gays marry” (so we can get to cutting taxes and privatizing social security).

    We already have enough of these types in the Democratic party, and a lot of them were former Republicans. But getting “moderate” Republicans always equates to “people that really, really, REALLY want to get rid of the new deal but happen to be OK with abortion”.

    No, screw that. Give me their crazies that like social security and medicare. Give me the Jesus freaks. Because allowing the moderates into the Democratic party is allowing them to destroy the New Deal. That’s always been the case as well.

  31. 31
    kindness says:

    You won’t get an honest answer out of ‘moderate’ Republicans though. I mean, look through Norm’s article. Not once does he raise his opposition to the nuts over there to rebellion status. He just wrings his hands and moans how bad it is.

    Sorry. Won’t matter. Just look at the MSM response to their original article and you can understand why. There was no response, only crickets. Now that is the intellectual integrity the MSM & the current Republican party will follow.

    @burnspbesq: Riiiight. Stoned before breakfast, I see.

    Breakfast of Champions.

  32. 32
    SatanicPanic says:

    @SteveM: They might. But those guys aren’t signing their paychecks. I’m just not convinced these old hands have much power anymore.

  33. 33
    EconWatcher says:

    I keep waiting for AEI to announce that Ornstein has left to pursue other opportunities. It can’t be long now.

  34. 34
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I checked World Net Daily too. Nothing about crazy Republicans there either.

  35. 35
    Clime Acts says:

    @Elie:

    Having knock down drag out fights would have given the other side exactly what they wanted and nothing – NOTHING would have gotten done.

    Then that’s what it would take for a while, wouldn’t it? To bitch slap some awareness into the moronic American electorate.

    Going along to get along only enables the radical Republican agenda.

  36. 36
    Hill Dweller says:

    @amk: I’m not clicking on that a-hole’s site. Does he fudge the numbers?

  37. 37
    giltay says:

    @Ed in NJ: Ugh. It’s creepy how Wolfgang’s arguments are exactly the kind of shit the Catholic school system is trying to pull in the Ontario legislature right now. Almost word-for-word. (There is a bill being read that would allow students to form Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in [publicly-funded] Catholic schools.)

  38. 38
    Sentient Puddle says:

    The only way it could get through would be if moderate Republican barons were to announce that they had had enough and were crossing t’he aisle, and if they did so in a way that they brought their affinities with them.

    I’d imagine Arlen Specter would disagree.

  39. 39
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Brent Snowcroft? Bob Dole? Colin Powell? No one with any power in the Republican party cares what these people have to say.

    Fixed.

    @Steve in DC:

    But getting “moderate” Republicans always equates to “people that really, really, REALLY want to get rid of the new deal but happen to be OK with abortion”.

    This, a thousand times this. I’m no firebaggin’, teabagger of the left but there’s no real difference between “moderate” Repups and Blue Dogs. We either win or lose this political fight on our own merits since we’ve seen what watering down the brand has done to us in the past.

  40. 40
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @eric:

    Citizens United took away their power. It used to be that if you needed money or wanted to run, you needed their blessing. Now you need one crazy with a boatload of bucks and there is a large number of those crazies. The Law of Unintended Consequences wins again.

    __
    Agreed, but I think the problem is bigger and has been going on longer than just Citizens United. It really started with the rise of direct mail fundraising. Over time and most noticeably during the 1990s, the RNC and other central coordinating bodies in the GOP lost control of the stream of money used to stir up the grassroots and now we’re reaching a place where they’ve lost control of the party. You could really see this happening during the Gingrich years in the House. The GOP moderates and even the non-ideologically committed strategists and operatives don’t count for much any more. Nobody gives a shit what Colin Powell thinks, etc. The Birchers are in charge now.
    __
    This has happened before in the GOP. This is essentially what happened during the Goldwater campaign in 1964 when F. Clifton White engineered a grassroots takeover of the GOP by the conservative wing of the party who had been nursing grudges ever since Senator Taft was denied the nomination at the 1952 convention. And it was a debacle for the GOP in 1964.
    __
    Lately I’ve been re-reading Perlstein’s Before the Storm and trying to figure out what is different between then and now. And it seems to me that one really big difference is the positioning of the major news media outlets. Goldwater and the GOP got killed in the 1964 election because the news media went right along with the Johnson admin in portraying him as a madman. So much so that from a perspective of 50 years later it looks to me like they (the news media) were carrying water for the Dems. Goldwater was ripped apart for saying things no different from the contents of speeches JFK had given 2 years previously, and got no credit for anything he proposed which didn’t fit the prevailing media narrative (for example Goldwater proposed ending the draft and moving to an all volunteer military, and this during the early stages of our escalation in Vietnam!).
    __
    But today the shoe is on the other foot and the news media is carrying water for the GOP. That is why the crazies have been able to take over the GOP without destroying their party in the process, because the media is covering up the takeover.

  41. 41
    grandpa john says:

    OT somewhat but I have to tell this to someone and I don’t want to spread it locally except with family, but it does serve to remind folks that we never know what tomorrow brings

    Late Feb. my wife received a letter from a law firm in CT saying that a cousin had died and left her as one of the heirs of her will.This was a cousin she hadn’t seen in 20 years. since there were 15 other organizations and cousins were also named we were hopeful of maybe 40 to 50 thousand to help pay off a fewof our bills the daughters bills and the grand daughters college loan.
    Monday, when I got home from doing one of my good deeds, taking a friend who doesn’t drive and who recently had a leg amputated below the knee (diabetes) to the VA in Augusta where he is to get rehab and physical therapy to learn how to use his new leg courtesy of VA. and let me go off topic a little, the VA hospitals in Augusta are outstanding and their service will match any hospitals.
    Back to the main subject, When I got home, I walked in a wife was holding a big thick envelope Which contained summaries of the cousins estate, bills paid out ect. So I looked at the paper and of course went to the bottom line.
    The estate value was 7.1+ million. I grabbed a calculator, the wife’s share is approx 445 thousand . almost half a mill, money that we would never have expected because we had no idea of evening being left in her will.So bless hou Grace Bartram and a big donation in your name will help pay the mortgage on our new church
    inheritances are non taxable.
    So know we get to pay off all our bill, the daughters bills the granddaughters bills and she will now get to back to grad school and money left over for our few remaining years.
    So when they say shit happens , remember that sometimes It can be good shit. and tomorrow truly can bring good news

  42. 42
    Steeplejack says:

    Bakho’s comment over at DeLong’s place is spot on:

    Does it make more sense if you discount ideology and partisanship and simply look at who is funding the politicians and what the politicians must do to keep their donors happy?
    __
    [. . .]
    __
    Watergate and the reforms that followed forced Big$ to change its interaction with the political system. Big$ bought the media, bought publishing houses, bought radio and bought think tanks to write their books and appear on their media. This set up an infrastructure to promote their own goals and exclude other voices. How often do we see labor union leaders on TV today? What is the ratio of GOP to Dem on the Sunday shouting head shows? How often are liberal dems featured compared to “might as well be Republican Dems” like Joe Lieberman? Their goal has been accomplished.
    __
    Big$ have set off a feedback cycle where they use their $$ to buy political influence that increases their relative wealth, which gives them ability to buy even more political influence, which increases their wealth even more. Big$ has a system in place to promote their goals in a way that reinforces the system. No politician can withstand the barrage of negative ads that Big$ can launch. Senator Lugar was not obedient enough, so Big$ bought Richard Mourdock. One strategic takeout is enough to send the rest of the pack cowering.
    __
    Attempts to democratize the political process have simply allowed Big$ to buy democracy through marketing. The California voter initiatives have gone from “grassroots” (what the people want) to Astroturf efforts by Big$ to bypass the representative political process altogether and implement the changes they want through mass marketing campaigns.
    __
    Political parties are no longer required to negotiate with informed representatives of their interest groups. Parties are subject to Big$ buying a politician and promoting them by mass marketing against the wishes and interest of the party philosophy. The “democratic” reforms post 1968 have allowed the “people” more say, but the people can be suckered by marketing techniques that give Big$ more sway than they had with the previous system. In presidential elections we get to choose between Republican and Republican Lite. Big$ owns a piece of candidates from both parties.
    __
    The political process is rancorous because the Big$ special interests pursue goals that are unpopular with the public and bad for the great majority in the country. Big$ knows that high voter turnout favors their opponents and increased rancor and negative advertising suppresses voter turnout. The Big$ promotes rancor because it makes its TV shouting heads more popular and it serves their interest by manipulating voter turnout.

  43. 43
    Downpuppy says:

    @Hill Dweller: Does he fudge the numbers?

    Nah, Kessler fucks them inside out & tosses a 20 on the dresser.

    Arbitrarily decides that pre-recession 2008 is the baseline, comes up with a still low % increase but calls it high by hiding all comparisons & context. And of course, never says Boo about the breakdown by program.

  44. 44
    Corner Stone says:

    But I don’t see Brent Scowcroft doing that, I don’t see Colin Powell doing that, I don’t see Greg Mankiw doing that, I don’t see Marty Feldstein doing that, I don’t see Gail Wilensky doing that, I don’t see Bob Dole doing that, I don’t see Jack Danforth doing that, I don’t see Richard Lugar doing that

    More to the point, why would I want to be making common cause with these cowards?
    They have zero pull in the R party, so they can’t help me moderate bad policy. All they’ll do is give cover for my elected D allies to move further right as a “compromise”.

  45. 45
    Steeplejack says:

    @Ed in NJ:

    That piece is great:

    This is how we get a little bit dumber. A reporter or editor somewhere decides that all real knowledge can be found only at a point equidistant between two competing claims, no matter if one of those claims deserves as much attention and respect as the guy with the shopping cart screaming at the contrails in the sky.

  46. 46
    Corner Stone says:

    @grandpa john: I always you loved you grandpa!

  47. 47
    gogol's wife says:

    @Corner Stone:

    LOL. Me too.

  48. 48
    Capri says:

    @hildebrand: McCain

  49. 49
    the Conster says:

    @grandpa john:

    That’s just awesome covered in awesome sauce. Karma can be a bitch, but sometimes she’s your bitch. I can’t think of anything to say cuz congratulations isn’t quite right, but you’d better hang on to that wife of yours!

  50. 50
    Carl Nyberg says:

    The Republicans couldn’t move so far to the Right on economic issues without the collusion of the Democratic Party.

    As much as it’s cool in the Daily Kos community to blame the Republicans, the Democrats have been captured by the 1% too.

    In Illinois the Democrats control the whole game, the House, the Senate (veto proof), the Governor, Mayor of Chicago and the Illinois Supreme Court.

    Illinois is cutting services for the poor while cutting taxes on the rich.

    I’ll go along with voting for Democrats as a bulwark against really fucking insane policies, but I’m going to vote for non-Dem, non-GOP candidates when I can too.

  51. 51
    lacp says:

    Yes, like I really give a deep-fried shit about what Colin Powell and Greg Mankiw think and have just been waiting for their signal to break out the Moderate Centrism and Sensible Shoes.

  52. 52

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
    I remember back in 2004, some of the old-school GOP luminaries (many of them retired military) came out for Kerry.

    It really didn’t seem to make much of a difference.

  53. 53

    […] This is about right. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post.   […]

  54. 54
    brantl says:

    Going along to get along only enables the radical Republican agenda.

    Exactly; if you’re steering a car and the passenger grabs the wheel and steers it toward a cliff, sometimes you just have to elbow him in the face.

  55. 55
    kindness says:

    @gogol’s wife: So do lot’s of Nigerian Princes now…Look out Grandpa. Run away! Run Away!

  56. 56
    Steeplejack says:

    @grandpa john:

    Congratulations on your great good fortune! It’s like something out of a Victorian novel.

    Please set aside a few bucks to throw at the various worthy causes supported here (Charlie’s Angels, etc.).

  57. 57
    Amir Khalid says:

    @grandpa john:
    I’d like a pony. ;)

  58. 58
    gene108 says:

    @SatanicPanic:

    Brent Snowcroft? Bob Dole? Colin Powell?

    Y’all do realize the reason Bush, Jr. didn’t do so hot is because he was TOO LIBERAL.

    Right-wingers, who vote, agree with this conclusion and demand basically the dismantling of the federal government we’ve come to rely on, since the 1930’s.

    They may not fully “get” that this is what they are advocating, but it is what it comes down to.

    The Republicans have really pushed at the basis of the whole “peaceful transfer of power” that’s been the hallmark of democracy, by refusing to cooperate with the winners; they really have set up a situation, where for all intents and purposes one side has to obliterate the other, in order to get anything done.

  59. 59
    Elie says:

    @grandpa john:

    Many congratulations, Grandpa! Best to you and your family

  60. 60
    grandpa john says:

    @amk: Hell I knew what the reast of the article was about when I read this

    326

    (
    The spokesman’s words caught our attention because here at The Fact Checker we try to root out “BS” wherever it occurs.

    We all remember when the WP gave Ryan budget plan 3 pins can’t we?

  61. 61
    Someguy says:

    I have to admit I like the idea of pushing back on Republican sponsors, outing them, publishing their addresses, photos of their families, running ads outing them as the bigots funding anti-civil rights campaigns. That seems to work at silencing these thugs.

  62. 62
    ericblair says:

    @brantl:

    Exactly; if you’re steering a car and the passenger grabs the wheel and steers it toward a cliff, sometimes you just have to elbow him in the face.

    So what does that mean in political terms?

    There seem to be a number of people who are simultaneously arguing that Obama is a civil-liberty-shredding closet Republican who doesn’t represent them, and that he hasn’t personally usurped all federal and state power to push through his agenda. You’d think that given the former, they’d be grateful for the latter.

  63. 63
    Mnemosyne (iTouch) says:

    @comrade scott’s agenda of rage:

    This, a thousand times this. I’m no firebaggin’, teabagger of the left but there’s no real difference between “moderate” Repups and Blue Dogs.

    Well, except that most of the Blue Dogs are both anti-abortion and “pro-business,” which means that strengthening social conservatives won’t actually lead to the economic populism that SteveinDC tells you it will. So, basically, we can give up abortion rights and civil rights in exchange for exactly the same economic system we have now, but with even fewer worker protections! Yay!

  64. 64
    Yutsano says:

    @grandpa john: OMEDETO GOZAIMASU!! Now go out and have fun dammit! You two deserve to have a nice comfortable life.

  65. 65
    grandpa john says:

    @Corner Stone: Actually its my wife you should be loving, she’s
    the one who gets the money and our marriage is not the traditional one where hubby gets to be the only lord and master.

  66. 66
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I don’t get how the world where all the Democrats are liberal and/or populist, everyone knows that that’s what they are, and they comprise only 35-40% of each house of Congress, actually ends up generating better policy than what we have now. It still puts the power in the hands of the bloc just to the right of that, only they’re not called “Democrats” anymore. In a world where Mark Warner is a Republican instead of a Democrat, Mark Warner is still going to get elected, and you’ll still need his vote to make law. How is that an improvement?

  67. 67
    Chris says:

    @Mnemosyne (iTouch):

    So, basically, we can give up abortion rights and civil rights in exchange for exactly the same economic system we have now, but with even fewer worker protections! Yay!

    Quoted for truth.

  68. 68
    Mnemosyne (iTouch) says:

    @ericblair:

    A lot of people here seem to have bought into the conservative view that the government is somehow self-perpetuating, so we don’t actually need a functioning Congress to pass laws and funding bills. They really think that government is all about public posturing and not, you know, governing.

  69. 69
    grandpa john says:

    @Steeplejack: Well between, Tiger Haven, IFAW, and about a dozen more, I will be lucky to get here the keep some for us. lately she has also added a couple of wounded vet organizations to her list, She is also a member of PETA but she doesn’t get violent

  70. 70
    becca says:

    @Downpuppy: Can one be a Shell Oil scion and a credible fact-checker for the WaPoo?

    Anything is possible.

  71. 71
    grandpa john says:

    @Amir Khalid: Then you need to talk to my wife, I can assure you that our marriage is a modern one in which the wife rules the roost especially when it comes to what is her’s

  72. 72
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne (iTouch): I think there ought to be more economic populists in Congress, and I think Southern Democrats used to fit the bill, but I have to think that it would be a dismal situation for women, African Americans, Spanish-speakers, and LGBT folk, unless you likewise brought bank the civil-rights-minded Northeastern Republicans too. Steve in DC seems to want to reboot to pre-Southern Strategy days. I’m not comfortable with that because I’d like to think that “intersectionality” applies, and class differences are productively linked to racial, gender, and sexual differences, rather than decoupled from them.

  73. 73
    Mnemosyne (iTouch) says:

    @grandpa john:

    Wow! They had an interesting article in People (I know, but stick with me) about lottery winners, and it seemed as though the people who ended up happiest were the ones who bought one thing that they’d always wanted and then put the rest towards charity. It sounds like you and the missus are already on that path, so you’ll be fine. Congrats and enjoy making people happy!

  74. 74
    Mnemosyne (iTouch) says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    He also seems to think that there are unreconstructed Huey Longs out there somewhere, but they’ve all bought in to the Republican economic thinking. The Southern populists that he dreams about all died out before his Harvard-educated parents were born, and they ain’t coming back.

  75. 75
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ericblair: It’s not really about Obama, I don’t think. It’s the belief that there’s a liberal-left-populist majority out there in the country just waiting to be energized enough to show itself in all its glory, but those people are in a chronic state of demoralization because corporatists and quietists keep drinking their milkshake.

  76. 76
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne (iTouch): Populism ought to work to win over white people in the South. It just doesn’t. And the Democrats that _do_ win in the South aren’t throwback populists, they’re precisely the squishy pro-business types we all deplore, like Mike Ross and Mary Landrieu. I thought Halter vs. Lincoln was a great idea, but it failed, and that’s a significant data point.

  77. 77
    slag says:

    @grandpa john: Why this whole argument is stupid:

    The critics countered that the transition between Bush and Obama, which came amid a severe economic downturn, did not fit the historical pattern.

    “Hey-We’re in a severe economic downturn…I can’t wait to figure out who to blame for spending money to address the problem!”

    It’s utterly mind blowing. I really don’t want these people responsible for anything at this point. Nothing. If they all suddenly quit their jobs to open up hair salons, I’d want to go all contra-Yglesias and regulate the shit out of that industry.

    I just can’t believe how irrepressibly stupid the world is sometimes.

  78. 78
    grandpa john says:

    @Yutsano: We are already looking at cruises. WE usually take one a year, now the frequency may be increasing somewhat, as ex navy vets we love being on the water, the port of calls we can take or leave, usually leave if we have been there before. She really would like to get away for a bit as soon as her health problems get better. She fell in Jan and had a low back compression fracture, , then found a lump in her breast, luckily it was benign. march she had a bump on her nose tested and it was basel cell, which had to be removed and now she is finishing up plastic surgery to fill in the giant hole on her nose, so we were really due for some good news.

  79. 79
    fasteddie9318 says:

    The only way it could get through would be if moderate Republican barons were to announce that they had had enough and were crossing t’he aisle, and if they did so in a way that they brought their affinities with them. But I don’t see Brent Scowcroft doing that, I don’t see Colin Powell doing that, I don’t see Greg Mankiw doing that, I don’t see Marty Feldstein doing that, I don’t see Gail Wilensky doing that, I don’t see Bob Dole doing that, I don’t see Jack Danforth doing that, I don’t see Richard Lugar doing that—and I don’t see you doing that, Mr. Ornstein.

    DO NOT WANT.

    If the leadership of the Democratic Party has left liberals behind as it is, imagine how much further and faster they would shift right if they thought they could pick up assholes like the above.

  80. 80
    Chris says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I think there ought to be more economic populists in Congress, and I think Southern Democrats used to fit the bill, but I have to think that it would be a dismal situation for women, African Americans, Spanish-speakers, and LGBT folk, unless you likewise brought bank the civil-rights-minded Northeastern Republicans too.

    More to the point in cold, heartless political terms, population trends are making social conservatism a political loser. You’re not going to help economic populism by tying it to social conservatism, you’re just going to make it less popular and deprive yourself of large and growing chunks of the public who might otherwise support you.

    I made the Dixiecrat analogy myself a few days back. A better one might have been William Jennings Bryan, whose populist crusade really fired up rural WASP farmers… and no one else. He wasn’t able to reach out to urban or immigrant demographics; his brand of rural populism, if anything, scared a lot of them away; and in an age of fast-increasing urbanization and immigration, that was a political killer.

    Ditto anyone who in this day and age tries for the mid-20th-century formula of “economic populism and social conservatism.”

  81. 81
    eemom says:

    @grandpa john:

    As an animal rights donater who gets mailings from every such group in the country I recommend you check charitynavigator.com for the various groups you give to. They have a ratings system that helps you assure you are getting the best good-doing bang for your buck. In particular, it shows you the proportions in which charities spend money on their actual “mission” as opposed to admin and fundraising.

    There are some real eye-openers on there — and the other thing is, these groups change over time. I used to be a PETA donor also, before they went totally batshit crazy, but not anymore, because in addition to having become essentially the animal rights equivalent of an attention whoring FDL and therefore useless to actually accomplish anything, they don’t use money as efficiently as they used to.

    IFAW also wasn’t that great last time I checked. Animal Legal Defense Fund, otoh, got top ratings. Others I remember being consistently good are Humane Farming Association and another farm-related one whose name I can’t recall at the moment.

    There are also some worthy charities that unfortunately aren’t on there yet — Dogs Deserve Better is one.

    I know I have checked out Tiger Haven before and for some reason it raises a red flag in my mind, but I can’t remember why….

    /steps off soapbox

    Congrats on your good fortune!!

  82. 82
    grandpa john says:

    @Mnemosyne (iTouch): My wife is a lottery player. every time it gets good size she makes a
    list of where the money will go and how much. the church tithe is always the first thing on the list, family needs next and then its animal and vet organizations along with local food kitchens and banks. we live comfortably on our SS and my retirement from the state. Hell we are both too old (75) to party it away so might as well follow Jesus teachings and help the poor and needy. This is my philosophy which is why I switched from R to D many years ago I live in SC where being a White D definitely makes me a minority

  83. 83
    slag says:

    They have a ratings system that helps you assure you are getting the best good-doing bang for your buck. In particular, it shows you the proportions in which charities spend money on their actual “mission” as opposed to admin and fundraising.

    Which, by the way, is a horribly simplistic and even counterproductive way to evaluate the effectiveness of an organization. But whatever. It comes in handy pie chart form, so, yay!

  84. 84
    eemom says:

    Correction: charitynavigator.org

  85. 85
    eemom says:

    @slag:

    You got something better?

    If yes, let’s hear it. But first start with what’s “horribly simplistic” and “even counterproductive” about those metrics.

    If not, STFU, asshole.

  86. 86
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @slag: it’s maddening. It’s like being angry that the credit card bill is high after taking the baby to the emergency room and not having it covered by insurance. Hey, she’s better, we’ll just keep making payments and over the long term it’ll be OK.

  87. 87
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Mnemosyne (iTouch):

    He also seems to think that there are unreconstructed Huey Longs out there somewhere, but they’ve all bought in to the Republican economic thinking. The Southern populists that he dreams about all died out before his Harvard-educated parents were born, and they ain’t coming back.

    __
    What I find from reading political blogs is that there is a blind spot people have when they know just enough US political history to grasp the structure of the New Deal coalition of northern and urban liberals and southern populists which FDR put together and which the Dems held together creaking and groaning until roughly 1980 or so ( give or take a decade depending on what issues we are talking about, WH vs. Congressional seats, etc).
    __
    And that blind spot is that they don’t grasp how abnormal that coalition was by the standards of US politics either before it arose or since the GOP’s Southern Strategy dismantled it. FDR’s coalition was contigent on a huge number of factors, such as the way the GOP liberal and conservative factions split apart in the 1912 election creating an opening for progressives to move over to the Dem side, the existence of urban machine politics, African-Americans being one of the single largest blocks of swing voters from 1932 thru 1964, the severe state of economic underdevelopment and lack of physical infrastructure in the southern and western US during the 1930s and 1940s, the favorable position that US labor unions enjoyed during the period of US dominance in global manufacturing, and a host of other factors which helped make Democratic party politics work back then.
    __
    We aren’t that nation any more, nor can we easily get back to being that sort of nation even if we wanted to, and folks thinking that we can somehow recreate the political alignments of the mid-20th Century today are going to be deeply disappointed over and over again until they get the idea that new alignments are needed to get the job done in this century.

  88. 88
    grandpa john says:

    @eemom: if I am not mistaken both of those you mentioned are among the mail we receive, and yes we seem to have or 4 in the mail every day, she has her favorites but I don’t know all of them. there is a primate place in Charleston I think that is on her list and also in Alabama there is a little zoo that had to relocate because of a hurricane a few years ago. We are currently running a care center for 1, a kitten that still has to be bottle fed, That is an experience that every animal lover should try at least once. but I think once is enough if we ever get her to eating soft food and using the litter box we will consider it a major accomplishment.

  89. 89
    SteveM says:

    @fasteddie9318: Well, I can’t speak for Brad, but I want them to stay where they are — but acknowledge that they share a common enemy with us, namely the far-right crazies. In a better world, that would be our two-party system, with the current Republicans marginalized.

  90. 90
    Roger Moore says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I’d like a pony. ;)

    You can’t have one, and I blame Obama.

  91. 91
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Well said!

  92. 92
    gogol's wife says:

    @SteveM:

    You are very cool.

    ETA: Oops, that was meant for GrandpaJohn!

  93. 93
    slag says:

    @eemom: Yeah. I got something better: If you think you want to donate to an organization, volunteer with it for a bit. Even for a day. And if you can’t do that, talk with someone who has.

    As for why it’s horribly simplistic and even counterproductive, that’s almost on-the-surface obvious, but I’ll indulge…

    1. Admin v. program costs can easily be smoke in mirrors. Organizations (esp large organizations) can and do artificially structure these costs to game the charity navigator system. If you don’t know how this may be done, you’ve likely never worked in a business.
    2. Regardless of that, the ratio between admin and program costs–even if accurate–doesn’t mean a whole lot. Good admin costs money. And it can save a whole lot of program-related money in the process. If you don’t know how this may be done, you’ve likely never worked in a business.
    3. Newer or smaller organizations (organizations that could use your money the most) are more likely to have high admin costs simply as a result of them trying to ramp up. A good, solid infrastructure investment is often a good start on the path to success. Penalize that and you’re automatically cutting off a potentially innovative and effective organization. If you don’t know how this may be done, you’ve likely never worked in a business.

    Does that help?

  94. 94
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @SteveM: In an even better world, the two parties would be broadly liberal on social issues and all the fights would be about labor economics vs. financial-sector economics. Unfortunately our world is populated by ignorant peckerwoods upset about how the Negroes are putting one over on them.

  95. 95
    eemom says:

    @grandpa john:

    Excellent. Obviously the charity you do yourself and the local orgs you actually know are the best.

    For the big names ones, however, charitynavigator.org really is a good resource — and just to clear away the asshole-debris above, it includes useful and specific information of MANY different kinds.

  96. 96
    slag says:

    @eemom: Did I say Charity Navigator, as a whole, was worthless? I don’t believe I did. But then again, I didn’t go to law school to help me separate out these complex issues, so, I clearly must have said it.

    Feel better now?

  97. 97
    eemom says:

    @slag:

    Nevertheless it is important to know if an organization is paying its CEO $150K a year and spending half that on “program,” wouldn’t you say?

    As mentioned above, the charitynavigator site includes specifics that allows those factors you mention to be taken into account. I mentioned the pie chart to give an example of how it’s useful, not to suggest that’s all there is to the issue.

    And yes, it’s a fucking no brainer that charity begins at home, as I also noted above. But that’s not that issue. When people are thinking about giving their money to things like PETA, they need the kind of information that website provides to make intelligent decisions.

  98. 98
    slag says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It’s like being angry that the credit card bill is high after taking the baby to the emergency room and not having it covered by insurance.

    I like this analogy.

  99. 99
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    In an even better world, the two parties would be broadly liberal on social issues and all the fights would be about labor economics vs. financial-sector economics.

    __
    Amen to that, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.
    __
    I hate to keep flogging books rather than something I can link to so folks can just hop across the net and read it right now, but my thinking about politics has been hugely influenced by the writings of Kevin Phillips (e.g. Cousins’ Wars) and David Hackett (Albion’s Seed). And my takeaway is that the politics of cultural identity and the alignments thereof are much longer lasting and stable than the politics of economic systems. It is only a modest exaggeration to say the our Red-Blue divide in US politics today goes all the way back to the incomplete character of the British Reformation, and the political conflicts and civil wars spawned in the wake of that divisive event. The economic changes which have happened since then, and the reshuffling of economic interests and actors, are staggering by comparison with the durability of our cultural markers and divides. And cultural politics tend to be more bitterly contested and zero-sum in character than economic politics do, because compromising one’s cultural identity is a profoundly painful thing for most people to endure, so it is hard to find ways to give everybody half a loaf and get some sort of broad sense of mutual satisfaction on cultural issues.

  100. 100
    slag says:

    @eemom:

    Nevertheless it is important to know if an organization is paying its CEO $150K a year and spending half that on “program,” wouldn’t you say?

    Maybe. But I believe the ACLU’s ED, for example, gets paid off the books (or at least on other books) so it’s not going to show up on that handy pie chart (that’s not to say it’s not elsewhere). And that’s cool. However, I also understand who the ACLU’s major constituency is and how it may be easier to spend less time and money to get big donations from that constituency than if it were a less…well-represented…constituency.

    Success breeds success is a well-known axiom. But it’s not a golden rule, and I wish fewer people treated it as such.

  101. 101
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: I’ve been meaning to read the Hackett book for years. Thanks for the reminder.

  102. 102
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @slag: Thx. I still think we need to come up with homespun analogies for what a liberal government does with and through debt. Everyone hates The Household
    Analogy, but I don’t think we’ll ever shake it, so instead let’s talk about relatable household-scale experiences. Most of them, sad to say, aren’t hypothetical in the least.

  103. 103
    slag says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Everyone hates The Household Analogy, but I don’t think we’ll ever shake it, so instead let’s talk about relatable household-scale experiences.

    I’m down with this. I have a hard time doing it myself (not being very “homespun”, in general), so I rely on others to provide these analogies for me. So, thanks!

  104. 104
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I still think we need to come up with homespun analogies for what a liberal government does with and through debt. Everyone hates The Household
    Analogy, but I don’t think we’ll ever shake it, so instead let’s talk about relatable household-scale experiences.

    __
    You just got laid off. After a decade working at the same office your entire wardrobe consists of nothing but business casual polo shirts and kakhi pants. You can’t go to a job interview dressed like that. If you want to find another job, a good job, a job that doesn’t involve the phrases “Welcome to Walmart”, or “..would you like to supersize that?”, then you are going to have to go out and purchase a new suit and tie and a nice pair of shoes. That is an investment which will help your hard work pay off and provide future prosperity. Fortunately you still have a credit card, with a substantial open credit limit and 0% interest for the next 10 years. What do you do? Do you purchase that new suit and tie and shoes and go out and knock ’em dead at that interview and get that new job, or do you cut up your credit card (because all debt is bad debt) and then sit at home watching TV in a wife-beater shirt and boxer shorts?

  105. 105
    ...now I try to be amused says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It’s not really about Obama, I don’t think. It’s the belief that there’s a liberal-left-populist majority out there in the country just waiting to be energized enough to show itself in all its glory, but those people are in a chronic state of demoralization because corporatists and quietists keep drinking their milkshake.

    The crazier the Right gets, the likelier they’ll make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  106. 106
    shortstop says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Pretty good. Very good, in fact.

  107. 107
    eemom says:

    @slag:

    ACLU is not a charity. I don’t know, but it seems to me a 501( c )(3) might have special accounting requirements that preclude those kinds of shenanigans.

    Burnsy, you around?

  108. 108
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Good one. I mean, it’s not like we’re not all living through a moment when we need to borrow money or skip a payment or any number of other things in that vein. We do it every day. And not for frivolous stuff, for necessities. The real experiences of real people are 180 degrees away from the analogies conservatives use. That can’t hold up.

  109. 109
    Howlin Wolfe says:

    @Ed in NJ: Thanks for the link to that rant, Ed. Great stuff!

  110. 110

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Thx. I still think we need to come up with homespun analogies for what a liberal government does with and through debt. Everyone hates The Household
    Analogy, but I don’t think we’ll ever shake it, so instead let’s talk about relatable household-scale experiences. Most of them, sad to say, aren’t hypothetical in the least.

    I think Steve Benen has done a pretty good job of addressing this discrepancy over the years:

    When a family goes to buy a home, its members don’t simply write a check; they take out a mortgage. Almost no one can afford to simply and literally buy a home, so we take out very large loans, and make payments, with interest.
    __
    The same is true when a family wants a car, tackles college tuition, or thinks about starting a small business. American families, in other words, take on debts, some of them huge relative to their incomes, all the time. There’s nothing wrong with any of this — these are just routine examples of people investing in themselves, as they should.
    __
    The government’s debts aren’t identical — there is no mortgage or car payment, exactly — but officials take on debts to invest in things they consider worthwhile, too. A family that relies on student loans to pay for college should be able to relate to a government that relies on loans to pay for public services. The family thinks it’ll be worth living in the red for a while, so long as it can make the payments and afford the interest, because they’ll be better off in the long run — and the government believes the exact same thing.
    __
    The comparison between families and governments “living within their means” tends to annoy me because of the lack of parallels, but I’m wondering if I should just embrace it and turn it around. If Mr. and Ms. America take on debts they can afford to improve their position in life, why is it outrageous for their government to do the same thing? Forget macro- vs. micro-economics; shouldn’t this make intuitive sense to the American mainstream?

  111. 111
    zoot says:

    but these are real life rich sh*ts – the weakest character people on Earth; not fictional fantasy characters created from the same weakest of characters projecting a vision of what they wanted the rich persona to be – not the sniveling drool human excrement that most are.

  112. 112
    Brad DeLong says:

    @Scott S.: Look: I asked six questions. They weren’t going to let me ask seven…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] This is about right. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post.   […]

Comments are closed.