"It’s that they didn’t confuse their cause with the game, and they knew better than to get caught up too much with balls and strikes."
True. But back then the umpires were alive to call balls and strikes, whereas now their bodies lie a mouldering in the field while the party that killed them runs through the bleachers beating random women and minorities with baseball bats.
Today's Republican Party has no reason to want to return to the 20th century. Back then, it had to compete based on ideas and accomplishments. Now? All it needs to do is ignore the rules, break the law, and ride roughshod over anyone that gets in its way. As David Frum pointed out 15 years ago, if conservatives can no longer win at the ballot box, they will give up on democracy before they give up on conservatism.
I don’t always watch political “debates” on TV but when I do, I enjoy Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar playing wack-a-mole with Michael Bloomberg.
The fact that I’m mentally lining Tom Perez up for blame is not a good sign. It’s Feb and while I am happy to vote for anyone but Bloomberg, this is not the feeling I want to have at this juncture. I still think that most any betting person finds trump a difficult wager, what with all the crime, the appearance of crime, the desire to be seen as liking criminality (Rod, Mike, Bernie et al), his business grifts and whatnot. Shd be a winnable election, but it doesn’t feel like it.
I've been thinking about anger, the way candidates display it during debates, how it does (or doesn't) resonate with people, and where that anger gets directed. For me, Bernie's anger resonates because I'm also angry at billionaires and large corporations for completely fucking everything up---we just want some decent health care that doesn't put us out on the streets, but apparently that's too much to ask. So when he gets mad at Pete, it resonates because this twerp takes money from 40-odd billionaires and gets up on that stage and spits empty platitudes, and he really thinks he should be president.
But when Klobuchar gets angry at Pete, it doesn't resonate with me. That anger is personal, not macro. But I'd be willing to guess there are a lot of people, women especially, with whom that anger resonates---some punk with a thin resume comes in and insults her repeatedly while trying to upstage her for a job she's obviously more qualified for? Yeah, I get it. That would piss me off, too. But it doesn't make me any more motivated to support her in the primary, unless it were coupled with policies that more resembled Bernie's.
So where I'm going with this is that when I log on Twitter (and I don't know why I do), it's pretty striking to see the ways in which people work themselves into a frenzy about innocuous bullshit when there are real things to be mad about. I'm glad Warren had a good debate last night, and I hope she gets more coverage, but my God, by the way her supporters were acting on Twitter in the run-up to the debate you'd have thought the media were involved in such a grand conspiracy of erasure that they were cropping her out of historical photos. She finished third and then fourth, and she's fourth overall in the popular vote. I mean, is anyone surprised that in the days after the Indy 500 the sports media talk about the driver who won? The media aren't blameless, for sure, but there's a lot worse they can do than ignore your favorite candidate who underperformed.
That's the kind of anger that's really directionless. And that's why the petty squabbling on stage does nothing for me. And that's why I like that Sanders stays on message, despite people pointing it out as a weakness---he's not distracted, he's not there to play games. He's there to make a simple point: the billionaires are fucking everything up. That's the kind of anger I can get on board with.
You're right, they are taking all the fun and camaraderie out of it, but I would argue that Bernie's campaign has it, with music and dancing and diversity.
If one could say the entrance of Bloomberg has had any positive aspect, it might be that Sanders and Warren stans (or whatever other ideological phalanx) have a clear, unambiguous, and richly deserving target for their javelins instead of each other. Lord knows I love hating the guy.
I was reading on Twitter where a Fellow Citizen said Pete hadn't given back money that someone who knew Epstein donated to him, therefore Pete supports pedophilia. I don't get it. That is not how the transitive property of equality works unless you are Sir Galahad trying to remain Pure. Meanwhile a gay friend of mine can't stand Pete because Pete said God made him gay, which is equal to saying he would never have chosen it for himself, which is equal to being against gays. What the hell. Just be against Pete because he's in over his head. Don't add some personal, obtuse fucking moral premise that you don't even apply to yourself. Keep your Presbyterianism out of this shit. EPSTEIN, MAIL ME $70K, I WILL TELL PEOPLE YOU WERE ONLY A HEBEPHILE AND THAT IS NOT SO BAD. We are not electing a Galahad, we are electing a horse trader. Let's get the best horse trader. The one who will ruthlessly bargain the GOP down to bare pennies, then after winning the sale, sneak into McConnell's home and knife him dead anyway.
Isn't one of the things they knew, and that Liz (yay) and Amy (sigh) know, is that nothing gets actually accomplished without horse-trading, deals, expenditure of capital, compromise, etc.? That's what I don't get from Bernie. His analyses and descriptions and moral stance are all absolutely right. But to me his righteous fervor reads as inflexible and intransigent moralizing. Unless the Dems keep the House (okay) AND take the Senate by a lot (good luck), what can he accomplish with that attitude? He thinks he can lead a popular uprising to force scumbag Republicans to come around. That sounds like a hernia-inducing lift.
Thanks again for this thoughtful view of the oddly-evolved place our politics have found themselves, kind of like a guy who steps into the elevator without looking when the car isn't there and falls down the shaft, and here we are busted up at the bottom but still alive and even conscious. It's the rank and vile of these political micro constituencies who seem lost or caught up in moments of idiocy that make our discourse oddly hysterical and divisive. It's as if right now this moment in this exchange whether on Twitter or Facebook or in person is so important nothing else can matter and I'm going to kill you and your family regardless, when actually, thinking about it for myself, my politics and political opinions are about the same as my opinion of a famous person who doesn't even know who I am and why am I even bothering to think about that person at all? Now, don't get me wrong. I have this whole other thing going on, in which I react and then analyze my own reaction and come away understanding a great deal not only about myself but about everyone and everything. But that's the point. My views and reactions are for me to gain real insight; and then like any effective political operator or poker player I need to figure out what I want, what impact to have on others, and what rhetorical means will achieve the desired outcome. Maybe I'm just delusional. I'll fold this hand and wait for better cards. Vote wranglers, licking their wounds, exit stage left, please.
Old enough to remember when the outcomes of prez conventions weren't foreordained
"It’s that they didn’t confuse their cause with the game, and they knew better than to get caught up too much with balls and strikes."
True. But back then the umpires were alive to call balls and strikes, whereas now their bodies lie a mouldering in the field while the party that killed them runs through the bleachers beating random women and minorities with baseball bats.
Today's Republican Party has no reason to want to return to the 20th century. Back then, it had to compete based on ideas and accomplishments. Now? All it needs to do is ignore the rules, break the law, and ride roughshod over anyone that gets in its way. As David Frum pointed out 15 years ago, if conservatives can no longer win at the ballot box, they will give up on democracy before they give up on conservatism.
They've given up on democracy.
I don’t always watch political “debates” on TV but when I do, I enjoy Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar playing wack-a-mole with Michael Bloomberg.
The fact that I’m mentally lining Tom Perez up for blame is not a good sign. It’s Feb and while I am happy to vote for anyone but Bloomberg, this is not the feeling I want to have at this juncture. I still think that most any betting person finds trump a difficult wager, what with all the crime, the appearance of crime, the desire to be seen as liking criminality (Rod, Mike, Bernie et al), his business grifts and whatnot. Shd be a winnable election, but it doesn’t feel like it.
I've been thinking about anger, the way candidates display it during debates, how it does (or doesn't) resonate with people, and where that anger gets directed. For me, Bernie's anger resonates because I'm also angry at billionaires and large corporations for completely fucking everything up---we just want some decent health care that doesn't put us out on the streets, but apparently that's too much to ask. So when he gets mad at Pete, it resonates because this twerp takes money from 40-odd billionaires and gets up on that stage and spits empty platitudes, and he really thinks he should be president.
But when Klobuchar gets angry at Pete, it doesn't resonate with me. That anger is personal, not macro. But I'd be willing to guess there are a lot of people, women especially, with whom that anger resonates---some punk with a thin resume comes in and insults her repeatedly while trying to upstage her for a job she's obviously more qualified for? Yeah, I get it. That would piss me off, too. But it doesn't make me any more motivated to support her in the primary, unless it were coupled with policies that more resembled Bernie's.
So where I'm going with this is that when I log on Twitter (and I don't know why I do), it's pretty striking to see the ways in which people work themselves into a frenzy about innocuous bullshit when there are real things to be mad about. I'm glad Warren had a good debate last night, and I hope she gets more coverage, but my God, by the way her supporters were acting on Twitter in the run-up to the debate you'd have thought the media were involved in such a grand conspiracy of erasure that they were cropping her out of historical photos. She finished third and then fourth, and she's fourth overall in the popular vote. I mean, is anyone surprised that in the days after the Indy 500 the sports media talk about the driver who won? The media aren't blameless, for sure, but there's a lot worse they can do than ignore your favorite candidate who underperformed.
That's the kind of anger that's really directionless. And that's why the petty squabbling on stage does nothing for me. And that's why I like that Sanders stays on message, despite people pointing it out as a weakness---he's not distracted, he's not there to play games. He's there to make a simple point: the billionaires are fucking everything up. That's the kind of anger I can get on board with.
You're right, they are taking all the fun and camaraderie out of it, but I would argue that Bernie's campaign has it, with music and dancing and diversity.
If one could say the entrance of Bloomberg has had any positive aspect, it might be that Sanders and Warren stans (or whatever other ideological phalanx) have a clear, unambiguous, and richly deserving target for their javelins instead of each other. Lord knows I love hating the guy.
I was reading on Twitter where a Fellow Citizen said Pete hadn't given back money that someone who knew Epstein donated to him, therefore Pete supports pedophilia. I don't get it. That is not how the transitive property of equality works unless you are Sir Galahad trying to remain Pure. Meanwhile a gay friend of mine can't stand Pete because Pete said God made him gay, which is equal to saying he would never have chosen it for himself, which is equal to being against gays. What the hell. Just be against Pete because he's in over his head. Don't add some personal, obtuse fucking moral premise that you don't even apply to yourself. Keep your Presbyterianism out of this shit. EPSTEIN, MAIL ME $70K, I WILL TELL PEOPLE YOU WERE ONLY A HEBEPHILE AND THAT IS NOT SO BAD. We are not electing a Galahad, we are electing a horse trader. Let's get the best horse trader. The one who will ruthlessly bargain the GOP down to bare pennies, then after winning the sale, sneak into McConnell's home and knife him dead anyway.
Isn't one of the things they knew, and that Liz (yay) and Amy (sigh) know, is that nothing gets actually accomplished without horse-trading, deals, expenditure of capital, compromise, etc.? That's what I don't get from Bernie. His analyses and descriptions and moral stance are all absolutely right. But to me his righteous fervor reads as inflexible and intransigent moralizing. Unless the Dems keep the House (okay) AND take the Senate by a lot (good luck), what can he accomplish with that attitude? He thinks he can lead a popular uprising to force scumbag Republicans to come around. That sounds like a hernia-inducing lift.
Thanks again for this thoughtful view of the oddly-evolved place our politics have found themselves, kind of like a guy who steps into the elevator without looking when the car isn't there and falls down the shaft, and here we are busted up at the bottom but still alive and even conscious. It's the rank and vile of these political micro constituencies who seem lost or caught up in moments of idiocy that make our discourse oddly hysterical and divisive. It's as if right now this moment in this exchange whether on Twitter or Facebook or in person is so important nothing else can matter and I'm going to kill you and your family regardless, when actually, thinking about it for myself, my politics and political opinions are about the same as my opinion of a famous person who doesn't even know who I am and why am I even bothering to think about that person at all? Now, don't get me wrong. I have this whole other thing going on, in which I react and then analyze my own reaction and come away understanding a great deal not only about myself but about everyone and everything. But that's the point. My views and reactions are for me to gain real insight; and then like any effective political operator or poker player I need to figure out what I want, what impact to have on others, and what rhetorical means will achieve the desired outcome. Maybe I'm just delusional. I'll fold this hand and wait for better cards. Vote wranglers, licking their wounds, exit stage left, please.