Well the joke's on us-all, those of us who thought the post-Bennet and Weiss era that the Times' opinion operation would be an improvement.
If the role French is to play at the Times is never-true conservatives then maybe he doubles as a humor columnist because how those people dance around the idea that Trump is bad while GOP policies are fine cracks me up. Then again, may that's, like, a my problem, that I find that funny. May not be a universal thing?
Meanwhile... If only ~55% of Times subscribers are there for news as opposed to cooking, games, the Athletic, etc., what percentage of the ~55 care about the opinion side? That's rhetorical question because I doubt the numbers out there. The said, I'm sure it's relatively small. But then split that number into categories -- libs, conservatives, "independents", etc. -- and I'd hazard to guess approximately no one cares about French's hiring -- too few to matter, other than Roy, of course (not a dig).
Meanwhile, I was so hopeful that the House was reconvening Wednesday night for a seventh vote but being a cohort suffering #smalldickenergy*, all they managed to do was adjourned. (*Warned y'all.)
Okay, I know all of this. But does he honestly think older children are cheaper or something? I clearly missed that weirdness the first time I saw he'd said it.
Although they were not referring to French, someone on Twitter made an interesting tangential point, about MAGA/Trump. They asserted that not only is Trump’s influence ebbing, but that he never had as much influence *personally* as people believed – that his primary function was to remove political inhibitions and to show right-wingers what was possible *without* wearing a mask of civility, and he was exalted for revealing that tactic as viable.
So I agree French along with a lot of anti-Trumpers oppose Trump and Trumpism primarily on the basis of tactics – French believes the Right can win more victories with honey than with vinegar (and of course that French personally can profit from positioning himself this way). But make no mistake, honey or vinegar, the goal is the same.
I like (not!) the non-sequitur of “government too big, no respect, therefore BUNDY RANCH! QED LIBZ! More of the same, tired blaming Dems for the crap the whack jobs pull. The “reasonable conservative” seems to lack the “reasonable” part.
Same old vapid shit. He looks like someone that writes vapid shit. Remember when, for one brief day, he was the man most qualified to be president? Like what were they going to do? Elect Trump?
You think he might start hanging out with Brooksie and get a hankerin' for some of that hot young research assistant stuff ?
("Hankerin'" is a great word!) Remember when Frenchie told his wife she couldn't drink or use Facebook while he was away at war I guess because she couldn't be trusted. There was talk of a chastity belt.
The NYT and WaPo think they have to provide pseudoconservative opinions to keep their reactionary readers happy, since it isn’t every day a Whitewater bullshit fountain, fake WMD fable or Hillary email shocker comes along to bring that pseudoconservatism onto the front page. With the coming two years of House Republican dysfunction, it makes sense the NYT would bring on an asshole like French to divert the asshole wing of their readership, so fewer of them are driven by the “biased media” reporting of reality to cancel their subscriptions or, worse yet, withdraw their ad revenue.
French is another 'Velvet Hammer', aka how to get fucked gently with a chainsaw. His pretty, thoughtful words wash over the MSM masses who might have the attention span for a 4 minute read (the NYT new snagbait tool, which I detest) while few dig deeper into his true stance on the issues.
What the hell might French actually know about the history of farming (and the historic need for Government intervention in the markets to keep the US fed)?
The little noticed decisions by the likes of Nixon's Earl Butz (he of the "tight pussy, loose shoes, and warm place to shit") that chose mega farming and corporate Ag, instead of the European model (keep a stratum of small farms as a social good), the subsidies for corn and sugar, the politicization of farmers in the politics of grievance, these are right wing actions...
French is bloody awful, and the NYTimes is implicitly endorsing his views by publication.
I wanted the Times to be as good as they claim, and not that they think they are better than the readership...
Listening to Washington Journal. I'm starting to wonder when someone makes it explicit that they're waiting to be offered a white guy. I'm not liking my country that much right now.
What's the over/under on the number of columns he writes before the Times publishes one so stupid or ridiculously offensive (editors? lol) that it causes an internet uproar, at which point we are flooded in "Dark Web" teardrops over his "cancellation?"
To be fair, French will fill a gaping ideological lacuna in the Times editorial roster since he is so radically different from David Brooks. I can only hope they team up for many op-ed colloquies -- they could finish each other's sentences:
David: "We need to create a country in which all of these really diverse communities — some of them centered around real..."
David: "...convictions whether on the far-right or the far-left — we need to build a culture that accommodates..."
David: "...diverse points of view as long as those views are right down the middle."
I always get him mixed up with David Frum (Frum&French, French&Frum, let's call the whole thing off.)
And speaking of David Frum (how's that for a segue?) he was giving us all a history lesson on MSNBC yesterday about the 1923 battle for Speaker (which, just coincidentally, also involved Republicans). Frum's just-so story is that, back in the day, Republicans had real policy differences between rural Republicans and northern big-city Republicans, and because their differences were over policy, they were amenable to negotiation, and the conflict could eventually be resolved.
But this new crowd today? This minority, this Never-Kevin caucus, they're just nihilists, they don't have any principles or any policy ideas, how can one negotiate with such people?
And being David Frum, he neglected to mention that Kevin doesn't have any principles or policy ideas either, that nihilism is endemic to the Republican party now, it's not isolated within a minority of 20. Which, come to think of it, is exactly the sleight-of-hand that Mr. French pulls. I'll go back to not bothering to tell the difference between them.
Outside the context of American politics, but into the whole wide world: what, in the entire history of the world, has "conservatism" done to contribute to human prosperity and happiness? Nothing. Not one fucking thing. Ever.
Conservative governments can't balance a budget. They can't improve the lives of their citizens. They hate "outsiders." They wage wars. They make life miserable for the many while the rich get richer...
[Sorry, this is your actual Life interrupting your no doubt insightful comments on whatever, but your ex and your kid are having some kind of dispute that it seems only you, Rick, can resolve. We here at Life suggest that you wrap this up and attend to business. We also think you could probably use the distraction. And, "They wage wars"? Jesus, Rick, get a fucking Life, will you?]
French's fanboys think nodding sagely at his unlikely suggestion mothers/parents might be supported financially gets them off the hook for being greedy selfish assholes without having to actually, you know, DO anything. It's all about feeling good, not about accomplishing anything.
Which reminds me: it's always projection with these shitheads. Look for them to be doing pretty much anything they accuse their enemies of doing.
A few points...
Well the joke's on us-all, those of us who thought the post-Bennet and Weiss era that the Times' opinion operation would be an improvement.
If the role French is to play at the Times is never-true conservatives then maybe he doubles as a humor columnist because how those people dance around the idea that Trump is bad while GOP policies are fine cracks me up. Then again, may that's, like, a my problem, that I find that funny. May not be a universal thing?
Meanwhile... If only ~55% of Times subscribers are there for news as opposed to cooking, games, the Athletic, etc., what percentage of the ~55 care about the opinion side? That's rhetorical question because I doubt the numbers out there. The said, I'm sure it's relatively small. But then split that number into categories -- libs, conservatives, "independents", etc. -- and I'd hazard to guess approximately no one cares about French's hiring -- too few to matter, other than Roy, of course (not a dig).
Meanwhile, I was so hopeful that the House was reconvening Wednesday night for a seventh vote but being a cohort suffering #smalldickenergy*, all they managed to do was adjourned. (*Warned y'all.)
Okay, I know all of this. But does he honestly think older children are cheaper or something? I clearly missed that weirdness the first time I saw he'd said it.
Although they were not referring to French, someone on Twitter made an interesting tangential point, about MAGA/Trump. They asserted that not only is Trump’s influence ebbing, but that he never had as much influence *personally* as people believed – that his primary function was to remove political inhibitions and to show right-wingers what was possible *without* wearing a mask of civility, and he was exalted for revealing that tactic as viable.
So I agree French along with a lot of anti-Trumpers oppose Trump and Trumpism primarily on the basis of tactics – French believes the Right can win more victories with honey than with vinegar (and of course that French personally can profit from positioning himself this way). But make no mistake, honey or vinegar, the goal is the same.
I need to keep reminding myself of what the NYT really is, so I will stop being surprised when it does something like this.
I like (not!) the non-sequitur of “government too big, no respect, therefore BUNDY RANCH! QED LIBZ! More of the same, tired blaming Dems for the crap the whack jobs pull. The “reasonable conservative” seems to lack the “reasonable” part.
Same old vapid shit. He looks like someone that writes vapid shit. Remember when, for one brief day, he was the man most qualified to be president? Like what were they going to do? Elect Trump?
You think he might start hanging out with Brooksie and get a hankerin' for some of that hot young research assistant stuff ?
("Hankerin'" is a great word!) Remember when Frenchie told his wife she couldn't drink or use Facebook while he was away at war I guess because she couldn't be trusted. There was talk of a chastity belt.
The NYT and WaPo think they have to provide pseudoconservative opinions to keep their reactionary readers happy, since it isn’t every day a Whitewater bullshit fountain, fake WMD fable or Hillary email shocker comes along to bring that pseudoconservatism onto the front page. With the coming two years of House Republican dysfunction, it makes sense the NYT would bring on an asshole like French to divert the asshole wing of their readership, so fewer of them are driven by the “biased media” reporting of reality to cancel their subscriptions or, worse yet, withdraw their ad revenue.
David French's: Yellow mustard or yellow journalism?
French is another 'Velvet Hammer', aka how to get fucked gently with a chainsaw. His pretty, thoughtful words wash over the MSM masses who might have the attention span for a 4 minute read (the NYT new snagbait tool, which I detest) while few dig deeper into his true stance on the issues.
What the hell might French actually know about the history of farming (and the historic need for Government intervention in the markets to keep the US fed)?
The little noticed decisions by the likes of Nixon's Earl Butz (he of the "tight pussy, loose shoes, and warm place to shit") that chose mega farming and corporate Ag, instead of the European model (keep a stratum of small farms as a social good), the subsidies for corn and sugar, the politicization of farmers in the politics of grievance, these are right wing actions...
French is bloody awful, and the NYTimes is implicitly endorsing his views by publication.
I wanted the Times to be as good as they claim, and not that they think they are better than the readership...
Listening to Washington Journal. I'm starting to wonder when someone makes it explicit that they're waiting to be offered a white guy. I'm not liking my country that much right now.
What's the over/under on the number of columns he writes before the Times publishes one so stupid or ridiculously offensive (editors? lol) that it causes an internet uproar, at which point we are flooded in "Dark Web" teardrops over his "cancellation?"
To be fair, French will fill a gaping ideological lacuna in the Times editorial roster since he is so radically different from David Brooks. I can only hope they team up for many op-ed colloquies -- they could finish each other's sentences:
David: "We need to create a country in which all of these really diverse communities — some of them centered around real..."
David: "...convictions whether on the far-right or the far-left — we need to build a culture that accommodates..."
David: "...diverse points of view as long as those views are right down the middle."
I always get him mixed up with David Frum (Frum&French, French&Frum, let's call the whole thing off.)
And speaking of David Frum (how's that for a segue?) he was giving us all a history lesson on MSNBC yesterday about the 1923 battle for Speaker (which, just coincidentally, also involved Republicans). Frum's just-so story is that, back in the day, Republicans had real policy differences between rural Republicans and northern big-city Republicans, and because their differences were over policy, they were amenable to negotiation, and the conflict could eventually be resolved.
But this new crowd today? This minority, this Never-Kevin caucus, they're just nihilists, they don't have any principles or any policy ideas, how can one negotiate with such people?
And being David Frum, he neglected to mention that Kevin doesn't have any principles or policy ideas either, that nihilism is endemic to the Republican party now, it's not isolated within a minority of 20. Which, come to think of it, is exactly the sleight-of-hand that Mr. French pulls. I'll go back to not bothering to tell the difference between them.
Outside the context of American politics, but into the whole wide world: what, in the entire history of the world, has "conservatism" done to contribute to human prosperity and happiness? Nothing. Not one fucking thing. Ever.
Conservative governments can't balance a budget. They can't improve the lives of their citizens. They hate "outsiders." They wage wars. They make life miserable for the many while the rich get richer...
[Sorry, this is your actual Life interrupting your no doubt insightful comments on whatever, but your ex and your kid are having some kind of dispute that it seems only you, Rick, can resolve. We here at Life suggest that you wrap this up and attend to business. We also think you could probably use the distraction. And, "They wage wars"? Jesus, Rick, get a fucking Life, will you?]
French's fanboys think nodding sagely at his unlikely suggestion mothers/parents might be supported financially gets them off the hook for being greedy selfish assholes without having to actually, you know, DO anything. It's all about feeling good, not about accomplishing anything.
Which reminds me: it's always projection with these shitheads. Look for them to be doing pretty much anything they accuse their enemies of doing.