tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8114001778436215483..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Read Stuff, You ShouldJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-55580673927783846332010-08-21T00:49:58.163-05:002010-08-21T00:49:58.163-05:00I take issue with Massie saying Douthat's and ...I take issue with <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6212145/the-deplorable-newt-gingrich.thtml" rel="nofollow">Massie</a> saying Douthat's and Salam's posts are 'sane and humane'.<br /><br />Douthat:<br /><br />'And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.'<br /><br />Douthat would attaint Islam itself with the guilt of al Qaeda. The language is less inflammatory than Gingrich's and more articulate than Palin's, but it is the same position. It is not sane nor humane.<br /><br />And this:<br /><br />'Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.'<br /><br />This is innuendo in the service of bigotry, demonization, and divisiveness.<br /><br />Salam seconds Douthat, saying he 'has written a wonderful column on Cordoba House that captures my feelings almost perfectly.'David Tomlinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-80220072415635589472010-08-20T15:23:36.390-05:002010-08-20T15:23:36.390-05:00I don't know, David, the rhetoric of "tre...I don't know, David, the rhetoric of "treason" and so forth on the right seems to me to go farther than the liberal tropes you mention -- certainly farther than Olberman's line (which is mostly about conservatives being hypocritical jackasses). And this, despite the fact that today's right is the ideological residue of the only large group of actual traitors in American history, i.e. the old Confederacy.<br /><br />Also, further to Kylopod's point: I remember predicting the day after the '94 election that the Republican takeover of Congress made Clinton's re-election a cinch. Of course, Clinton had the sense to actually *campaign against* Republicans and what they stood for; it's still not clear to me that Obama understands that that needs to be done.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-11661281366359639872010-08-20T13:55:15.920-05:002010-08-20T13:55:15.920-05:00. . . that the Left is not motivated by a desire t...<i> . . . that the Left is not motivated by a desire to make the country better, but a desire to destroy it and enslave much of the population . . . </i><br /><br />I don't think this is very different from liberal tropes about conservatism being a malicious conspiracy against the poor and minorities.David Tomlinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-39059586162912065142010-08-20T10:47:45.270-05:002010-08-20T10:47:45.270-05:00In Abramowitz and Ornstein's article, I found ...In Abramowitz and Ornstein's article, I found the following paragraph confusing:<br /><br />"Midterm elections are largely determined by short-term factors, including the popularity of the president and the state of the economy. As a result, they rarely indicate anything about longer-term trends, and they have no value in predicting the results of the subsequent presidential and congressional elections. Presidents whose parties have suffered major midterm losses -- such as Harry Truman in 1946, Ronald Reagan in 1982 and Bill Clinton in 1994 -- have gone on to win reelection easily two years later. So even if Republicans make major gains in 2010, as is widely expected, it won't tell us anything about what will happen in 2012."<br /><br />First of all, I would not say that Truman <i>easily won reelection</i> in 1948. Second, these facts leave open the possibility that major midterm losses actually increase the president's chances of reelection. Maybe that isn't the case, but I'd like to see more relevant data on this point.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-19383706790927923992010-08-20T10:41:14.602-05:002010-08-20T10:41:14.602-05:00Not regional, that I know of...I grew up playing t...Not regional, that I know of...I grew up playing that way too, and AFAIK most people did. It's just not as good a game that way -- it's better to drain money out of the game, especially early on.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91049118254812015212010-08-20T10:28:11.796-05:002010-08-20T10:28:11.796-05:00Money paid to the bank for anything but buying pro...Money paid to the bank for anything but buying property goes in the center of the board, and landing on 'Free Parking' wins the pot. That's how everyone I know plays Monopoly. I'd like to play by the original rules for once, but I haven't met anyone willing to do so. Is this a regional thing?David Tomlinnoreply@blogger.com