Two examples -- first, let's look at Marco Rubio, the young Florida senator who is already apparently looking at 2016. He talks to GQ and hilarity ensues:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?Which gets boiled down to:
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
Andrew Kaczynski@BuzzFeedAndrew
RT @felixsalmon: GQ: "How old do you think the Earth is?" Marco Rubio: "I'm not a scientist, man. That's a dispute amongst theologians.”
Nice. Meanwhile, we learn the following from Kevin Drum at Mother Jones (via Althouse):
Poor Mitt. Conservatives never liked him in the first place, so he tried hard to say all the things they wanted him to say. But once he lost, he was an instant pariah. He was saying the stuff they wanted him to say during a campaign, not realizing that the rules had changed. Once the campaign was over, that exact same stuff was a rather too blunt admission of what conservatives believe. He was betraying the cause, not helping it. The price he'll pay is a banishment from the conservative movement even more thorough than George Bush's. Conservatives are not kind to their losers.The title of Drum's piece? Mitt Romney is Now Officially the Most Hated Man in America.
We'll set aside what Drum said, which is hardly true for most conservatives I know. What conservatives actually think really doesn't matter, of course. The larger message is this: it's just a lot easier for conservatives if they just shut up, apparently.
14 comments:
In the normal run of things, it would be hard to come up with someone lower than a politician. A lawyer perhaps. But journalists have been outdoing themselves lately. Dr. Faust lives.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Mitt Romney believes God is 6'2" and lives on the planet Kolob. The Vatican teaches that a cracker turns into human flesh when a sufficiently trained asexual (ahem) male incants certain woofs and grunts. I feel bad for anyone that has to deny the first statement and play lip service to the other two to keep their job. I think Mitt was a poor fit for conservatives because he doesn't understand them. They don't want more liberty, we all know what happens after you give women the vote and birth control and educate the masses -- the 60s! They want authority, they want control, they want power, they want the proper order restored -- counter revolutionary warriors! Huzzah! Mitt didn't get it and the right knew it all the while he kept moving to the front of the line. Marco Rubio will have to find a cleaver way to preach counter revolution to the masses to get his turn at the front of the line. From this quote of his, he's got a lot to learn.
Meanwhile, global warming "science" is about as credible as a horoscope and, depending on the day, may be less accurate.
Marco Rubio will have to find a cleaver way
That's either a hell of a pun or a hell of a Freudian slip.
I'd say anon is projecting just a fair bit.
Thinks are looking too good for faith-based Keynesianism, either.
I'd say anon is projecting just a fair bit.
One of my fave sorts of people, a triumphalist atheist. There's a 50/50 chance it's an old high school classmate of mine who enjoys tweaking us from time to time. Hi, Jim!
why would GQ even ask a potential presidential candidate about the age of the earth?
i would think that would disqualify GQ as any serious interviewer of anybody.
Mark,
I am easily confused, but today, my condition is particularly acute.
Is your point that Democrats and their supporters make running for national office such a horrifying prospect that people will not want to do it? Or is it that it's (life's?) a lot easier for conservatives if they just shut up?
Is life, as a Conservative, really that bad? Are Liberals just that brutal and scary? And are you guys really that defenseless? Do you honestly believe some of the stuff you write? "It's a lot easier for CONSERVATIVES if they just shut keep quiet." Part of the game...especially among Democrats... Seriously Dude, get a grip. You must live in an alternate universe where Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and Grover Norquist and Pat Buchannan and Lyn Nofziger and Sean Hannity and Michael Savage and... I can go on...never existed. In that alternate universe, Conservatives are just gentle, peace loving souls, and Conservative meetings are places where "neer'y is heard a discouraging word." Why you poor little lambs! Please...it's time to come down off your crosses.
Drum's headline is hyperbolic by design: Many headlines are. But most of the harsh criticism of Romney that is being laid down right now IS from your side.
(BTW, for one of the best skewering's of a hack polemicist I've read in a long time, take a look at this take down of John Podhoretz by Jonathan Chait: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/podhoretz-has-awkward-postelection-epiphany.html )
Regarding the Rubio interview, I assumed the interviewer was a conservative, and was giving Rubio
some early exposure, and a chance to answer a softball question or two that would allow him to draw a line in the sand that says "I'm Conservative, but not a fundamentalist hack." I guess Rubio didn't wanna' take the bait. Which probably means Rubio is a pusillanimous shmuck, and this interviewer is doing you a favor by helping you to weed him out now. Do yourselves a favor and get on the Chris Christy bandwagon now. He's a guy who, I would bet a weeks pay, would never give such
feckless answer to such a simple question.
Picklesworth, when you said "But journalists have been outdoing themselves lately." I will assume you are talking about the dolts on the Right who were busy maligning pollsters and statisticians for doing a fantastic job of reading the numbers going into the final week of the election. You're right. Morris, Will, Barone, etc. are complete hacks.
Gino, I will assume you were being ironic and funny. Touche!
Last Anon was me.
Regards,
Rich
And Happy Thanksgiving!
Is your point that Democrats and their supporters make running for national office such a horrifying prospect that people will not want to do it? Or is it that it's (life's?) a lot easier for conservatives if they just shut up?
I suspect that a lot of conservatives don't want to run the gauntlet. And it is a lot easier for conservatives if they shut up -- trust me on this.
Seriously Dude, get a grip. You must live in an alternate universe where Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and Grover Norquist and Pat Buchannan and Lyn Nofziger and Sean Hannity and Michael Savage and... I can go on...never existed.
Lee Atwater? Lyn Nofziger? Hell, why not give us Bebe Rebozo while you're at it.
I don't take Savage or Hannity especially seriously, by the way.
In that alternate universe, Conservatives are just gentle, peace loving souls, and Conservative meetings are places where "neer'y is heard a discouraging word." Why you poor little lambs! Please...it's time to come down off your crosses.
That's a strawman argument, of course. I don't believe that conservatives are lambs. I do believe that a lot of what is said about conservatives is pretty scurrilous, though.
As for Chris Christie, I kinda doubt he'll have much a shelf life. He's an even money bet to lose to Cory Booker in the next cycle and if that happens, he gone. What's going to give the Republicans a chance in the next cycle isn't personalities but the reality of a second Obama term.
One last thing: as for "please... it's time to come down off your crosses," that's really beneath you. You've used that particular locution before and I've let it slide, but I'm going to say it flat out -- I find that highly offensive. You're better than that.
Mark,
I would never set out to offend for the sake of offending. Just having fun and debating. I am sorry you find that so offensive. It isn't/wasn't my intent. That phrase has never been one I took as higly offensive. I do throw it around a lot. Never realized I might be hurting folks feelings. My apologies. Not sure if I missed something that you picked up on. Perhaps I am NOT better than that. Perhaps I wasn't brought up right. Must be my parents fault;)
I'll try to switch to something about 1000 tiny violins. But you get my point.
BTW, do read the Chait article. It's a great and well deserved takedown.
Lastly, saying "That's a strawman argument, of course. I don't believe that conservatives are lambs. I do believe that a lot of what is said about conservatives is pretty scurrilous, though."
Again, why is it any more of a strawman than your original assertions? Furthermore, while you are most certainly correct to say that a lot of what is said about conservatives is pretty scurrilous, you would be just as right to say that about liberals. That's politics. It's not Chicago politics, or New York politics or Southern politics or Minnesota politics. It's politics. And in the U.S. today, where we seem to have exaggerated our political differences and become increasingly tribal about them, both sides do battle like this. If I am wrong about that, you will need to show me how I am wrong, because you and I could sit in a room and trade liberal vs. conservative grievances all day, and we would never run out of material. That was my point all along.
Regards,
Rich
I would never set out to offend for the sake of offending. Just having fun and debating. I am sorry you find that so offensive. It isn't/wasn't my intent. That phrase has never been one I took as higly offensive. I do throw it around a lot. Never realized I might be hurting folks feelings. My apologies. Not sure if I missed something that you picked up on. Perhaps I am NOT better than that. Perhaps I wasn't brought up right. Must be my parents fault;)
I'll try to switch to something about 1000 tiny violins. But you get my point.
I'll explain. To me, the reference to the cross is really offensive, because I know what the cross means. You do, too, of course. It's something I can't be flip about and it's always bothered me greatly. Your mileage may vary on this issue; apparently it does. But I can't get past it.
Furthermore, while you are most certainly correct to say that a lot of what is said about conservatives is pretty scurrilous, you would be just as right to say that about liberals.
Of course. But we're not talking about what is said about liberals on this thread. You're moving the goalposts when you do that. And the larger point is this -- part of the job that conservatives have right now is to find better ways to cut through the scurrility. Your interests in this area differ greatly from mine, which is fine.
The "both sides do it" argument is (a) 100% true and (b) beside the point I'm making. I'm talking about where conservatives are right now as we try to sort through the larger meaning of this election. The "having fun" comes across as smack talk and no one in the losing locker room appreciates it. You can't hear the tone of voice in a blog post or comment and maybe I'm not hearing something you're saying, but frankly the way it reads to me is this -- you're coming across as saying something like "stop bleeding on my fist." Just sayin'.
Look, I honestly try to take the emotion out of these things, but I fail at that sometimes. We all do. Further, I understand that we're not going to get rid of the MSM prism that still holds such sway in our nation. And I do get the point that no one is going to feel sorry for poor, misunderstood conservatives. Still, I'd appreciate your indulgence. I'm guessing you weren't a very happy camper in November, 2004, either.
Post a Comment