« Bin Laden's True Followers | Main | First we got the bomb, and that was good »

September 12, 2010


Daniel Larison was quite good on the D'Souza article too:

Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written.

Gingrich's real problem with Obama is that, still being on his first wife, he can't yet appreciate the sacredness of marriage.

Alinsky! Alinksky! Alinsky!

In addition, over the last decade he has taken 41 other trips paid for by corporate sponsors or industry groups, often to popular golf spots.

Well, that explains the bizarre tanning. I guess.

And I think that Larison probably would have treated the D'Souza argument as one does with dog crap on a walk, just give it a wide berth, except that Newt flagged it.

What took me by surprise was that this ode to Lamarckism is not in the National Review but Forbes, which gives an added layer of strangeness given what happened with the elder Forbes after his death. Am I the only one who remembers this?

lj: no, you're not.

The fact that Daniel Larison feels compelled to call out Dinesh D'Souza, the toffey-nosed, elitist, Dartmouth-graduated, Laura Ingraham-sharer of the single fascist Obama-hating FOX braincell, or even pay attention to this Brahman motherfu#cker who spits on American untouchables and adores al Qaeda for its murder of the American values that Brahman cracker Confederate haetef#ck hates, is sorry testimony to the state of American discourse.

The next time I see D'Souza at a conservative fete double dipping with the wrong Indian conservative wiping hand in the crab dip, I'm going to drown the pompous Colonial capo in the Koch-spiked punchbowl.

Larison, if he had the guts, would do the same.

Has the INS looked into D'Souza bonafides.

I say he's a terrorist vermin plant.

which gives an added layer of strangeness given what happened with the elder Forbes after his death. Am I the only one who remembers this?

I thought it was widely known, during his lifetime, that Malcolm Forbes was gay. Not so?

I didn't think much (in both senses) of Malcolm Forbes when he was alive, so it came as news to me. It was just the irony of an editorial hanging all of Obama's sins on a father who was only in Obama's life until he was 4 and then made only one visit, when Obama was 10 in Forbes. If it were common knowledge, it would be even more ironic. I realize that the conservative media wouldn't recognize irony if it were gift wrapped and labeled, but my very cursory impression of Forbes was that it at least trafficked in some relation to reality. If they chose to publish the D'Souza musings ('I heard the NRO Cruise didn't do as well as planned, let's give the folks over there a hand!'), I'm not sure I can trust anything that they write.

However, Countme?, you might want to turn the dials down from 11, a 7 or 8 would probably get the point across without so much distortion in the signal. Thanks.

"I thought it was widely known, during his lifetime, that Malcolm Forbes was gay. Not so?"

True. Not so.

Most casual observers were fascinated by his wealth from?, his hot air balloons, and his weird thing with gold and diamond encrusted eggs. Other than that, he was just an another guy you'd like to go out and have a beer with, as long as he was buying.

As for the Boner: He is an embarrassment to working class golfers everywhere.

when someone gets around to shooting "Born Orange: The John Boehner Story", Will Arnet will play the titular character.

"And I am flabbergasted."

So says Kevin Drum in response to the Gingrich/D'Souza/Forbes slander against Barack Obama.

lj, things are O.K. Pretty much.

It's just that Jon Stewart satire, Daniel Larison reasonableness, which sounds distressingly like the pointless liberal over-explaining to rabid right-wingers over the past 25 years, and Kevin Drum's polite flabberaghastedness seem a pale, ineffectual
7 or an 8 which has done nothing to blunt the fascist Republican tsunami in America, which is at a Force 14 at this point.

I'm still at 11.

It may be necessary to double 14, given how armed the other side is, or brags about being.

Lots of people have been flabbergasted throughout history just before filth murdered them.

Remember Newt's slogan: Newt: WTF?

I miss John Thullen. Anyone seen him around da webs?

@ Slartibartfast

I was thinking maybe Countme? was Thullen with a ramped-up rant.

I've been meaning to ask if anyone else thought Countme? was John Thullen, for weeks. I figured that had already been sorted out, that they were one and the same, and that I would look like a dork for asking. I guess not on the first and the last. I think so on the second.

You can be thankful that I looked like a dork for you, hsh.

Lobbyists largely only preserve the status quo for the entrenched powers.

[...] Based on a comprehensive examination of ninety-eight issues, this volume demonstrates that sixty percent of recent lobbying campaigns failed to change policy despite millions of dollars spent trying. Why? The authors find that resources explain less than five percent of the difference between successful and unsuccessful efforts. Moreover, they show, these attempts must overcome an entrenched Washington system with a tremendous bias in favor of the status quo.

Though elected officials and existing policies carry more weight, lobbies have an impact too, and when advocates for a given issue finally succeed, policy tends to change significantly. The authors argue, however, that the lobbying community so strongly reflects elite interests that it will not fundamentally alter the balance of power unless its makeup shifts dramatically in favor of average Americans’ concerns.


I suspect that the lobbyists' biggest impact is neither on pushing new policies nor even on maintaining that status quo. Rather, that it occurs when something is going to change. Then they may be able to get the proposed changes modified to better suit their clients. In other words, not driving a big change, but tweeks around the edges of changes driven from elsewhere.

I'm still at 11.

It may be necessary to double 14, given how armed the other side is, or brags about being.

One should always double down on an 11. It's how the game is played.

Has D'Souza explained how having a single Kenyan parent one did not know imparts an automatic anti-colonialist attitude through the blood but having, say, two Indian parents one did know presumably does not?

Does he view India's independence from Britain to have been a bad idea?

What about the Irish? At least half of white Americans have at least one Irish ancestor (and on March 17, suddenly we all do) who came here specifically to escape colonization by the English, who also colonized Kenya. And India. And North America.

Seeing as how the US was the first anti-colonial state, how exactly is anti-colonialism supposed to be a bad thing, anyway?

I really don't get these people.

Oh, and Mike Schilling for the win, right out of the gate.

Gary, what's to discuss? Elected officials pay little attention to constituents, even organized groups of them, and the best organized and funded groups are the financial elites. While it's nice to see evidence of what everyone already knew, everyone already knew it.

Bah. I'm going back to bed.

So, McKinneyTexas, how do you feel about John Boehner, and Newt Gingrich? :-)

I suppose in some alternate reality this would be something other than an attempt to put a face on another round of class warfare, but not in this one.

In reviewing the contributions by industry in Gary's link I noted that it was pretty complete. Also, the highest contributor has given a million dollars over twnty years. Everyone from manufacturers to the insurance industry have committed money to reelecting a pro-business Republican.

I can't describe how much that surprises me.

I must admit that it surprises me more that Jaime Dimon supported the Obama campaign.

As another view, how many jobs does that list of industries represent? How many of those jobs have been lost in the last two years? Isn't it great that the people trying to recreate those jobs have a voice in Congress?

Isn't it great that the people trying to recreate those jobs have a voice in Congress?

So it's job creation that these people are after, and not profits. Got it. Alternate realities, indeed.

The top two industries that contribute to Boehner: "Insurance $1,035,496
Securities & Investment $790,336"

How many jobs have these industries created in America in the last decade, and to what degree has that been a good thing?

Number four is "retired people": not a lot of job creation there.

Number five is "Commercial Banks."

Who doesn't applaud the fine job they've done for the U.S. economy, and job creation, with John Boehner to advocate for them?

Imagine where we'd be without him.

It's an eye-opener, seeing who is getting what from whom.

Chuck Schumer, for instance, has gotten $8.7 million career dollars from the Securities and Investment industry; they're his top donors. Goldman Sachs is his top single donor, followed by Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, and a lot of other things that sound like banks.

In comparison, though, Nancy Pelosi's donor list looks pretty decent. She gets her money in much smaller chunks.

There's nothing particularly unique about Boehner. And it's not, remotely, unique to the Republican party.

House reps run every two years. Senators run every six. It costs a lot of money to win and hold those seats, so they take the money from whoever is offering.

If you give the money, your phone calls get answered. Simple as that.

If it bugs you that corporations and/or their lobbyiest proxies contribute large amounts of money to Congresspeople's campaigns, there is a solution.

Corporations should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

Restrict political contributions to natural human persons. Put a generous but reasonable upper limit on the amount that can be contributed by any individual in a year. Do not allow Congresspeople or their immediate family members from taking employment in any industry they are responsible for regulating, either while they are in office or for some reasonable number of years afterwards.

And a significant amount of the problem goes away.

It is not rocket science.

I remember about Malcolm Forbes being gay only because the spectacle of his son Steve crapping on his father by attacking gays in pursuit of the Christian Right vote was perhaps the most posting-rules-violation despicable thing I've ever seen.

The comments to this entry are closed.