Will Rudy Giuliani be Bush III?
June 1, 2007 8:37 AM Subscribe
TBH That's probably going to be the secret weapon of all the candidates, Republican ones most especially. Certainly talking in an adult and informed manner is out. I think Al Gore laments this in his book "You Lot Are All Dipshits".
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on June 1, 2007 [7 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on June 1, 2007 [7 favorites]
And Giulliani should totally tour the nation in a fire engine, as per Daily Show/Colbert.
posted by Artw at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by Artw at 8:42 AM on June 1, 2007
Why would conservatives elect Giuliani when they now have their Hollywood elite Reagan-esque liberal conservative actor Fred Thompson?
posted by NationalKato at 8:45 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by NationalKato at 8:45 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
I thought that America had an unrelenting passion for drinking the blood of kittens.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:45 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by KokuRyu at 8:45 AM on June 1, 2007
Conservative Catholics organize to sink Rudy.
It's just a matter of time before Rudy is a historical footnote. No candidate who's got a history like his will ever be the GOP presidential nominee. If I'm proven wrong, and pigs end up flying, well -- hallelujah.
posted by blucevalo at 8:50 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's just a matter of time before Rudy is a historical footnote. No candidate who's got a history like his will ever be the GOP presidential nominee. If I'm proven wrong, and pigs end up flying, well -- hallelujah.
posted by blucevalo at 8:50 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yup--he's toast. The GOP base won't come out for him at all--it conflicts with too many of their hatreds.
(what's most funny about that is that he's the perfect dictator for them and is by far the most authoritarian of all the people running)
posted by amberglow at 8:54 AM on June 1, 2007
(what's most funny about that is that he's the perfect dictator for them and is by far the most authoritarian of all the people running)
posted by amberglow at 8:54 AM on June 1, 2007
Fred Thompson gets my vote because he was the one Navy guy who gave Jack Ryan a break in Hunt for Red October.
Idiocracy approacheth.
posted by psmealey at 9:01 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
Idiocracy approacheth.
posted by psmealey at 9:01 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
Apparently Freepers aren't allowed to say positive things about Rudy. It actually warms my heart towards him however slightly.
How do most Republicans feel about Fred Thompson. What was his "record" as "New York DA?"
posted by drezdn at 9:05 AM on June 1, 2007
How do most Republicans feel about Fred Thompson. What was his "record" as "New York DA?"
posted by drezdn at 9:05 AM on June 1, 2007
Rudy's not really a politician, which is why mayor is as far as he'll go. He's a cop at heart and should've stuck to prosecuting.
posted by jonmc at 9:08 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by jonmc at 9:08 AM on June 1, 2007
I've been enjoying talking to conservatives who support Guiliani and still talk about what a pervert Bill Clinton is. The cognitive dissonance is amazing.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:08 AM on June 1, 2007 [6 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:08 AM on June 1, 2007 [6 favorites]
Even Richard Nixon wasn't wound that tight.
We Still Have Nixon to Kick Around!
posted by taosbat at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2007
We Still Have Nixon to Kick Around!
posted by taosbat at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2007
My brain-damaged cat is smarter than George W. Bush. "Smarter than Bush" doesn't really tell us anything.
posted by bshock at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by bshock at 9:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
(what's most funny about that is that he's the perfect dictator for them and is by far the most authoritarian of all the people running)
Absopositively. They don't know what they'll be missing.
posted by blucevalo at 9:15 AM on June 1, 2007
Absopositively. They don't know what they'll be missing.
posted by blucevalo at 9:15 AM on June 1, 2007
Still, you've gotta admire Rudy for sticking it out, overcoming the odds, and finally making the team. Go Irish!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:16 AM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:16 AM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
I do not want to talk about the merits or lack of merits of any of the candidaes or possible candidates, but a fairly shrewd person pointed out the other night on TV that it just might be that we ought to drop our notion that the rightwingers of the GOP and the conservatives consider abortion, marriage, gays etc as important issues. While these do remain important, that pundit suggested that national security may trump all consderations this time in American history. And that might just give Rudy an edge he needs.
posted by Postroad at 9:18 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by Postroad at 9:18 AM on June 1, 2007
How do most Republicans feel about Fred Thompson. What was his "record" as "New York DA?"
He was pretty tough, but wasn't nearly the public face that Executive Assistant DA Jack McCoy was.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:21 AM on June 1, 2007
He was pretty tough, but wasn't nearly the public face that Executive Assistant DA Jack McCoy was.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:21 AM on June 1, 2007
And that might just give Rudy an edge he needs.
Did you read TFA?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:21 AM on June 1, 2007
Did you read TFA?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:21 AM on June 1, 2007
Jack McCoy? Now there's a candidate I can get behind. If he'd only lay off the drinking...
posted by NationalKato at 9:25 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by NationalKato at 9:25 AM on June 1, 2007
Giuliani 2008: Terror, Terror, Terror...And That's Just Our Domestic Agenda
posted by uri at 9:25 AM on June 1, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by uri at 9:25 AM on June 1, 2007 [5 favorites]
Jack McCoy? Now there's a candidate I can get behind
I have to admit, I'd probably vote for Sam Waterston. Homeboy just looks presidential. Hell, he looks like he belongs on high-end currency.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
I have to admit, I'd probably vote for Sam Waterston. Homeboy just looks presidential. Hell, he looks like he belongs on high-end currency.
posted by jonmc at 9:26 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
Postroad has a good point-- the anti-gay marriage fervor is dying down. Maybe abortion will become yesterday's obsession, like Republicans and the balanced budget amendment, or Democrats and the Equal Rights Amendment.
That said, I think Giuliani has zero chance of making it through the election-- not because of his social liberalism, but because of the massive pile of skeletons in his closet. Bernie Kerik, terrible terrorism preparedness in NY, that cousin of his he married, Donna Hanover, etc. The GOP primaries are savagery, as McCain found out in South Carolina in 2000. Giuliani won't make it.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:28 AM on June 1, 2007
That said, I think Giuliani has zero chance of making it through the election-- not because of his social liberalism, but because of the massive pile of skeletons in his closet. Bernie Kerik, terrible terrorism preparedness in NY, that cousin of his he married, Donna Hanover, etc. The GOP primaries are savagery, as McCain found out in South Carolina in 2000. Giuliani won't make it.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:28 AM on June 1, 2007
My MasterCard is black, with a gray stipple portrait of Sam Waterston.
posted by COBRA! at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by COBRA! at 9:29 AM on June 1, 2007
A one link post from Matt F--king Taibbi? He's the absolute worst sort of hack. He's about as perceptive as a piece of sheetrock and thinks swearing=Hunter S. Thompson. Moving on, nothing to see here.
posted by Heminator at 9:33 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Heminator at 9:33 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
swearing=Hunter S. Thompson.
Fuckity cockface shitballs smegmapop!
Now, go fetch me some ether.
posted by jonmc at 9:35 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
Fuckity cockface shitballs smegmapop!
Now, go fetch me some ether.
posted by jonmc at 9:35 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
My brain-damaged cat is smarter than George W. Bush. "Smarter than Bush" doesn't really tell us anything.
I CAN HAS PREZIDENCY?
posted by fusinski at 9:37 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
I CAN HAS PREZIDENCY?
posted by fusinski at 9:37 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Heminator, I thought the same thing while reading the article. I came for the 'pictures of tits' but stayed for the 'motherfucker.'
posted by NationalKato at 9:38 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by NationalKato at 9:38 AM on June 1, 2007
Heminator's right. Some of Taibbi's stuff is OK, but this is just pure HST manque and with none of the insight. In fact the only really good line in it is the pull quote on the FPP. But then again we all know that American political discourse operates at the level of a retarded kindergarten, so even that's just a pertly profane bit of phrasing.
posted by rhymer at 9:41 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by rhymer at 9:41 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think the GOP base will come out for Rudy if he's the candidate. They're basically hypocrites and authoritarians. And Rudy will start saying all the right things in time for them to decide, hey, he's a tough talkin' rootin-tootin real man, unlike the effeminate Democratic faggot he's running against. And that's all it takes.
posted by grytpype at 9:42 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by grytpype at 9:42 AM on June 1, 2007
I wouldn't dismiss Rudy too fast. He's bought off the Swift Boaters, he's got tons of cash behind him, and he's crazy- not Sam Brownback cukoo-nutty crazy, but rabid-hyena-out-to-lap-up-some-blood crazeee. And despite all the skeletons in his closet, I think there are still a lot of voters here who will swoon in the face of that sort of bully boy authoritarianism if he lays it on thick enough.
If he wins the presidency we're in for some bad times that'll make the last 6 years seem like quaint mischief by comparison. Yet I look forward to watching him and Hollywood Fred claw the hell out of each other.
posted by maryh at 9:44 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
If he wins the presidency we're in for some bad times that'll make the last 6 years seem like quaint mischief by comparison. Yet I look forward to watching him and Hollywood Fred claw the hell out of each other.
posted by maryh at 9:44 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
I was thinking as I read the article that it was too bad that Taibbi prizes swearing so much, because he makes many well-substantiated points about Giuliani's megalomania and sliminess. He is considerably more perceptive than sheetrock, Heminator.
Do you disagree with Taibbi as to Giuliani's management of the cleanup after 9/11? As to the weirdness of his response to that little boy? As to his grandstanding against the 9/11 Commission, in order to preserve his unaccountability? As to his indifference to the reality of, much less the appearance of, corruption as mayor? Why?
posted by ibmcginty at 9:46 AM on June 1, 2007
Do you disagree with Taibbi as to Giuliani's management of the cleanup after 9/11? As to the weirdness of his response to that little boy? As to his grandstanding against the 9/11 Commission, in order to preserve his unaccountability? As to his indifference to the reality of, much less the appearance of, corruption as mayor? Why?
posted by ibmcginty at 9:46 AM on June 1, 2007
Fuckity cockface shitballs smegmapop!
Now, go fetch me some ether.
Is that you, Warren Ellis? Is this me?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:46 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Now, go fetch me some ether.
Is that you, Warren Ellis? Is this me?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:46 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
I'd vote for Sam Waterson; I like his idea for universal robot insurance.
posted by Rangeboy at 10:00 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Rangeboy at 10:00 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Heh heh! Ah, it's so refreshing to hear that question...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:01 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:01 AM on June 1, 2007
Well, fuck it: I respectfully disagree with Heminator et al. I think Taibbi's one of the few honest political reporters left in American journalism, and one of the only ones who doesn't seem to be angling for a recurring role on a cable-news panel. He actually seems to write exactly what he thinks about the lunatic parade he covers, instead of smoothing it over to avoid controversy or fancifying it and academicizing it so as to congratulate the Atlantic Monthly crowd on their learned detachment.
If that, plus a bit of cussing, makes him an "HST manque": well, fuck it indeed. The blunt honesty of the phrase "he's a fucking liar" is even more refreshing against the pile of posturing bullshit that passes for political reportage in contemporary America than it was in HST's heyday. Better to be the good Doctor's manque than, say, Tim Russert's.
posted by gompa at 10:05 AM on June 1, 2007 [7 favorites]
If that, plus a bit of cussing, makes him an "HST manque": well, fuck it indeed. The blunt honesty of the phrase "he's a fucking liar" is even more refreshing against the pile of posturing bullshit that passes for political reportage in contemporary America than it was in HST's heyday. Better to be the good Doctor's manque than, say, Tim Russert's.
posted by gompa at 10:05 AM on June 1, 2007 [7 favorites]
No shit, there I was... No shit, there I am!
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:08 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:08 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
So the primaries are in 2008, and I have to spend another seven months reading all of this bullshit? That's a bit disheartening.
Besides, I though Bush was going to fake another terrist attack, declare martial law, and claim the presidency for life. Whatever happened to that?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:10 AM on June 1, 2007
Besides, I though Bush was going to fake another terrist attack, declare martial law, and claim the presidency for life. Whatever happened to that?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:10 AM on June 1, 2007
Giuliani is a bald, lisping, adulterous, cross-dressing, authoritarian, New Yorker with no clear governing philosophy (small government, supply side economics) nor any identifiable marketing message (I feel your pain, I am a compassionate conservative).
If despite all that he is elected President of the United States, I will eat my size 7 1/2 Borsalino Fedora with habanero hot sauce on top.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on June 1, 2007
If despite all that he is elected President of the United States, I will eat my size 7 1/2 Borsalino Fedora with habanero hot sauce on top.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on June 1, 2007
I though Bush was going to fake another terrist attack, declare martial law, and claim the presidency for life. Whatever happened to that?
Check your calendar. It's not 2009 yet.
posted by psmealey at 10:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Check your calendar. It's not 2009 yet.
posted by psmealey at 10:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
I have to admit, I'd probably vote for Sam Waterston. Homeboy just looks presidential. Hell, he looks like he belongs on high-end currency.
Well, he has played both Thomas Jefferson AND Abraham Lincoln, so that automatically makes him more qualified than Fred Thompson AND Rudy Giuliani
posted by briank at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
Well, he has played both Thomas Jefferson AND Abraham Lincoln, so that automatically makes him more qualified than Fred Thompson AND Rudy Giuliani
posted by briank at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
ibmcginty, there's NOTHING in this article that hasn't been said elsewhere. Taibbi offers up the same critiques that have already been said, but he swears and attempts to sound Gonzo or dangerous in the process.
Taibbi is not the new Hunter Thompson. Taibbi might well be the corporeal confluence of every awful journalistic trend I can conceive of. Here's a typical example of Taibbi's wit and observational prowess with regard to l'affaire Abramoff in the April 6 of last year, in Rolling Stone:
Then he [Abramoff] shows up a few weeks before sentencing with his c--k wedged in the mouth of an adoring Vanity Fair reporter, claiming with a straight face that his problems came from trying to “save the world.”
Later in that same article, Taibbi further demonstrates his limited grasp of metaphor:
They apparently got Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and many others in the House, to lie back and open their legs all the way for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.
And here's yet another pleasant image from the article, wherein Taibbi throws his hands up in a reductive attempt to sum up the Reagan revolution :
[it attracted] a fresh generation of young people to the brash, piss-in-your-face, f--k-the-poor ideas.
Etc., etc. The whole article is written as if Taibbi considers vulgarity a sport. And it's sadly typical.
As a writer, Taibbi is so excessively mean and profane, yet so totally lacking any literary grace that might redeem him I imagine waking up as Matt Taibbi is its own just reward. His handiwork speaks for itself. Prior to Rolling Stone Taibbi was a columnist at the New York Press. If God has a sense of irony, Taibbi will be known only for his notorious column in that publication last year "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope," which got the editors of the New York Press fired and was decried by everyone from Hillary Clinton to the Anti-Defamation league. Even Chuck Schumer, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to public controversy, said of the column, "This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in 30 years of public life."
Offensive yes, but what no one bothered to say -- out of common decency -- was that the column was, like so much of Taibbi's work, punishingly unfunny. Reason 17: "In his last days, the Pope was in tremendous pain"; reason 44: "Gurgling sound during embalming process; real fluids in dead Pope's body sucked out into jars." That was the entire column, quite literally ad nauseum.
What public shaming awaited Taibbi? For having the cajones to be so unflinchingly obnoxious, Taibbi was rewarded. Soon after, he left the New York Press, becoming a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, a plum and lucrative gig, even if these days the magazine is editorially regarded to be the Hindenburg held together by two staples. Naturally this wasn't the first time Taibbi has fallen upward at the expense of harming others.
Before he took a job at the New York Press, Taibbi was one of the notorious founders of The eXile, an english language alternative weekly in Moscow. While he was running The eXile, the paper held a contest to determine the worst journalist in Moscow. After it was decided that The New York Times bureau chief Michael Wines was in Taibbi's words, "a shameless apologist for America's ridiculous neo-colonialist Russia policy," he was rewarded with a pie in the face. Of course, a pie in the face would have made his point and been sufficiently playful. But since this is Taibbi we're talking about, the pie happened to be made of... wait for it... horse sperm. I can only imagine that he owes his freedom to the fact that among the vagaries of the Russia's post-Soviet legal system, assault charges aren't particularly well defined.
And yet, the most offensive thing about Taibbi is that such a hack, gonzo prestidigitator would be swooned over by a journalistic establishment who routinely declares him the second coming of the New Journalists. Here's Peter Carlson in the Washington Post:
Hunter S. Thompson is dead and P.J. O'Rourke is writing for the Atlantic and delivering after-dinner speeches to Republican fat cats. But that's okay because Rolling Stone magazine has a new political reporter with the gonzo spirit that made Thompson and O'Rourke so much fun.
Unfair dissing of O'Rourke aside (Isn't The Atlantic using National Magazine Awards as doorstops these days?), Carlson then goes on to quote a number of colorful descriptions from a piece Taibbi wrote for Rolling Stone on Congress last August. Tom DeLay is a "balding incubus"; Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt is "a wrinkly, witchlike woman"; and in something of a freudian slip, James Sennsenbrenner "has the requisite moist-with-sweat pink neck, the dour expression, the penchant for pointless bile and vengefulness." Carlson claims that despite the name calling, Taibbi's piece ultimately evinces "fairly sophisticated knowledge of the inner workings of Congress," and maybe that would be the impression you're left with if you managed to read the whole thing. But it contained so much ad hominem to no great effect, halfway through I wanted to put on a HAZMAT suit before I finished reading it, afraid I might get some on me.
Despite Carlson's zeal to anoint a successor, the Hunter S. Thompson comparisons really need to stop at the water's edge. Deep down Thompson took his craft seriously; as vulgar and blasphemous as he might have been, Thompson was at least prone to quoting the likes of Joseph Conrad or the Book of Revelation in the same breath. Taibbi, by contrast, claims it was his college love of Russian greats like Gogol and Tolstoy that led him to Russia and eventually to journalism. But if Taibbi is able to savor Tolstoy's sprawling, expertly constructed page-long sentences in the original Russian, it's not self-evident in a guy who is fond of summing up opposing arguments by saying "That's horses--t on the face of it."
Taibbi compares even less favorably to O'Rourke, who is a rock-solid reporter in addition to bringing The Funny. Taibbi has little use for facts and is over reliant on gimmicks, such as interviewing the former head of the Office of National Drug Policy in a Viking hat, tripping on acid – a premise that, trust me, should be funnier than Taibbi makes it out to be.
Another Taibbi trademark is going to an event incognito, and ridiculing everyone there without naming names or honestly confronting anyone. In a widely circulated piece "Bush Like Me," Taibbi spent Ten Weeks (!) undercover working for the Bush campaign in Florida. Despite wasting two-and-a-half months of his life, he uncovered no electoral malfeasance and instead filed a rambling 4,000 word narrative mocking the supposed intolerance of southerners. Taibbi also recently showed up at a fundraiser for Senator Conrad "mean-spirited dips--t" Burns, pretending to be a lobbyist representing a Russian oil company. Taibbi's company was purportedly interested in drilling the Grand Canyon, or as Taibbi puts it with his typically light touch, "a shady foreign company seeking to violate, with a long metal phallus, America's most sacred natural landmark." Suffice to say, Taibbi returns from the event reporting that Unnamed Republicans privately show contempt for environmental regulations. This is hardly news. It only becomes entertainment when he adds "VULGAR EPITHET HERE." While these stunts might earn him street cred among the Daily Kos crowd that easily confuses indignation and reportage, as a journalist it's hard not to see such high jinks as lazy and useless.
Yet, Taibbi's profile continues to rise undeterred. As for me, I began to reach my Taibbi limit when hurricane Katrina hit. Photos of Taibbi in New Orleans were everywhere. Taibbi dove right into the media circus, hitching a ride in the back of Sean Penn's ill-fated rescue boat that had to literally be bailed out before the excursion began. Everytime I turned on the news there was Taibbi composing his nasty thoughts in his mental notebook right behind Penn, busy furiously scooping water out of the boat. The tableaux is acid etched in my brain – for me it's a 21rst century Huck Finn reinvisoned by William Blake at his most tortured. For this, Gawker dubbed Taibbi "Spicoli's Gondolier," surely a euphemism for "devil's handmaiden" if I've ever heard one.
In the ensuing months since then, whatever reservoir of tolerance I possessed for Taibbi has been topped like a Ninth Ward levee. I can't take another angry blog turnspit or media analyst calling attention to one of his "stinging-ooh-I-can't-believe-he-said-that" remarks. In the meantime, consider this my plea to the current editors of Rolling Stone: If as a magazine you hope to recover any of the political credibility you had in the days of Thompson and O'Rourke, take Taibbi out to the woodshed and mercifully end his career. He may be under the delusion that every insult he utters is clever, but you don't have to encourage him. If you need to tell him why he's being let go, please allow me to explain the problem in the only language Taibbi understands:
He's an asshole.
posted by Heminator at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2007 [13 favorites]
Taibbi is not the new Hunter Thompson. Taibbi might well be the corporeal confluence of every awful journalistic trend I can conceive of. Here's a typical example of Taibbi's wit and observational prowess with regard to l'affaire Abramoff in the April 6 of last year, in Rolling Stone:
Then he [Abramoff] shows up a few weeks before sentencing with his c--k wedged in the mouth of an adoring Vanity Fair reporter, claiming with a straight face that his problems came from trying to “save the world.”
Later in that same article, Taibbi further demonstrates his limited grasp of metaphor:
They apparently got Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), and many others in the House, to lie back and open their legs all the way for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions.
And here's yet another pleasant image from the article, wherein Taibbi throws his hands up in a reductive attempt to sum up the Reagan revolution :
[it attracted] a fresh generation of young people to the brash, piss-in-your-face, f--k-the-poor ideas.
Etc., etc. The whole article is written as if Taibbi considers vulgarity a sport. And it's sadly typical.
As a writer, Taibbi is so excessively mean and profane, yet so totally lacking any literary grace that might redeem him I imagine waking up as Matt Taibbi is its own just reward. His handiwork speaks for itself. Prior to Rolling Stone Taibbi was a columnist at the New York Press. If God has a sense of irony, Taibbi will be known only for his notorious column in that publication last year "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope," which got the editors of the New York Press fired and was decried by everyone from Hillary Clinton to the Anti-Defamation league. Even Chuck Schumer, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to public controversy, said of the column, "This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in 30 years of public life."
Offensive yes, but what no one bothered to say -- out of common decency -- was that the column was, like so much of Taibbi's work, punishingly unfunny. Reason 17: "In his last days, the Pope was in tremendous pain"; reason 44: "Gurgling sound during embalming process; real fluids in dead Pope's body sucked out into jars." That was the entire column, quite literally ad nauseum.
What public shaming awaited Taibbi? For having the cajones to be so unflinchingly obnoxious, Taibbi was rewarded. Soon after, he left the New York Press, becoming a contributing editor at Rolling Stone, a plum and lucrative gig, even if these days the magazine is editorially regarded to be the Hindenburg held together by two staples. Naturally this wasn't the first time Taibbi has fallen upward at the expense of harming others.
Before he took a job at the New York Press, Taibbi was one of the notorious founders of The eXile, an english language alternative weekly in Moscow. While he was running The eXile, the paper held a contest to determine the worst journalist in Moscow. After it was decided that The New York Times bureau chief Michael Wines was in Taibbi's words, "a shameless apologist for America's ridiculous neo-colonialist Russia policy," he was rewarded with a pie in the face. Of course, a pie in the face would have made his point and been sufficiently playful. But since this is Taibbi we're talking about, the pie happened to be made of... wait for it... horse sperm. I can only imagine that he owes his freedom to the fact that among the vagaries of the Russia's post-Soviet legal system, assault charges aren't particularly well defined.
And yet, the most offensive thing about Taibbi is that such a hack, gonzo prestidigitator would be swooned over by a journalistic establishment who routinely declares him the second coming of the New Journalists. Here's Peter Carlson in the Washington Post:
Hunter S. Thompson is dead and P.J. O'Rourke is writing for the Atlantic and delivering after-dinner speeches to Republican fat cats. But that's okay because Rolling Stone magazine has a new political reporter with the gonzo spirit that made Thompson and O'Rourke so much fun.
Unfair dissing of O'Rourke aside (Isn't The Atlantic using National Magazine Awards as doorstops these days?), Carlson then goes on to quote a number of colorful descriptions from a piece Taibbi wrote for Rolling Stone on Congress last August. Tom DeLay is a "balding incubus"; Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt is "a wrinkly, witchlike woman"; and in something of a freudian slip, James Sennsenbrenner "has the requisite moist-with-sweat pink neck, the dour expression, the penchant for pointless bile and vengefulness." Carlson claims that despite the name calling, Taibbi's piece ultimately evinces "fairly sophisticated knowledge of the inner workings of Congress," and maybe that would be the impression you're left with if you managed to read the whole thing. But it contained so much ad hominem to no great effect, halfway through I wanted to put on a HAZMAT suit before I finished reading it, afraid I might get some on me.
Despite Carlson's zeal to anoint a successor, the Hunter S. Thompson comparisons really need to stop at the water's edge. Deep down Thompson took his craft seriously; as vulgar and blasphemous as he might have been, Thompson was at least prone to quoting the likes of Joseph Conrad or the Book of Revelation in the same breath. Taibbi, by contrast, claims it was his college love of Russian greats like Gogol and Tolstoy that led him to Russia and eventually to journalism. But if Taibbi is able to savor Tolstoy's sprawling, expertly constructed page-long sentences in the original Russian, it's not self-evident in a guy who is fond of summing up opposing arguments by saying "That's horses--t on the face of it."
Taibbi compares even less favorably to O'Rourke, who is a rock-solid reporter in addition to bringing The Funny. Taibbi has little use for facts and is over reliant on gimmicks, such as interviewing the former head of the Office of National Drug Policy in a Viking hat, tripping on acid – a premise that, trust me, should be funnier than Taibbi makes it out to be.
Another Taibbi trademark is going to an event incognito, and ridiculing everyone there without naming names or honestly confronting anyone. In a widely circulated piece "Bush Like Me," Taibbi spent Ten Weeks (!) undercover working for the Bush campaign in Florida. Despite wasting two-and-a-half months of his life, he uncovered no electoral malfeasance and instead filed a rambling 4,000 word narrative mocking the supposed intolerance of southerners. Taibbi also recently showed up at a fundraiser for Senator Conrad "mean-spirited dips--t" Burns, pretending to be a lobbyist representing a Russian oil company. Taibbi's company was purportedly interested in drilling the Grand Canyon, or as Taibbi puts it with his typically light touch, "a shady foreign company seeking to violate, with a long metal phallus, America's most sacred natural landmark." Suffice to say, Taibbi returns from the event reporting that Unnamed Republicans privately show contempt for environmental regulations. This is hardly news. It only becomes entertainment when he adds "VULGAR EPITHET HERE." While these stunts might earn him street cred among the Daily Kos crowd that easily confuses indignation and reportage, as a journalist it's hard not to see such high jinks as lazy and useless.
Yet, Taibbi's profile continues to rise undeterred. As for me, I began to reach my Taibbi limit when hurricane Katrina hit. Photos of Taibbi in New Orleans were everywhere. Taibbi dove right into the media circus, hitching a ride in the back of Sean Penn's ill-fated rescue boat that had to literally be bailed out before the excursion began. Everytime I turned on the news there was Taibbi composing his nasty thoughts in his mental notebook right behind Penn, busy furiously scooping water out of the boat. The tableaux is acid etched in my brain – for me it's a 21rst century Huck Finn reinvisoned by William Blake at his most tortured. For this, Gawker dubbed Taibbi "Spicoli's Gondolier," surely a euphemism for "devil's handmaiden" if I've ever heard one.
In the ensuing months since then, whatever reservoir of tolerance I possessed for Taibbi has been topped like a Ninth Ward levee. I can't take another angry blog turnspit or media analyst calling attention to one of his "stinging-ooh-I-can't-believe-he-said-that" remarks. In the meantime, consider this my plea to the current editors of Rolling Stone: If as a magazine you hope to recover any of the political credibility you had in the days of Thompson and O'Rourke, take Taibbi out to the woodshed and mercifully end his career. He may be under the delusion that every insult he utters is clever, but you don't have to encourage him. If you need to tell him why he's being let go, please allow me to explain the problem in the only language Taibbi understands:
He's an asshole.
posted by Heminator at 10:17 AM on June 1, 2007 [13 favorites]
Giuliani has one simple problem. No, not abortion. Not Kerik. Not overplaying 9/11. He's bald.
America has not elected a bald man in the modern era (i.e. since JFK). McCain and Thompson have the same problem. And there goes the top tier and fantasy candidate.
posted by DU at 10:21 AM on June 1, 2007
America has not elected a bald man in the modern era (i.e. since JFK). McCain and Thompson have the same problem. And there goes the top tier and fantasy candidate.
posted by DU at 10:21 AM on June 1, 2007
So the primaries are in 2008, and I have to spend another seven months reading all of this bullshit?
Yes - yes, you do have to spend another seven months reading this bullshit. Unless you have something else to do, in which case, you probably won't click on these links. Since you keep clicking on these links and then complaining about them, I guess you have nothing else to do.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:22 AM on June 1, 2007
Yes - yes, you do have to spend another seven months reading this bullshit. Unless you have something else to do, in which case, you probably won't click on these links. Since you keep clicking on these links and then complaining about them, I guess you have nothing else to do.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:22 AM on June 1, 2007
America has not elected a bald man in the modern era (i.e. since JFK).
Same goes for a woman and a black man, so I think it's a wash.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:42 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Same goes for a woman and a black man, so I think it's a wash.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:42 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's just a matter of time before Rudy is a historical footnote. No candidate who's got a history like his will ever be the GOP presidential nominee. If I'm proven wrong, and pigs end up flying, well -- hallelujah.
posted by blucevalo at 11:50 AM on June 1
And the Evangelicals won't vote for Romney, because many of them consider mormonism to be a cult. That leaves McCain and Thompson. MCCain won't win because his greatest accomplishment as senator over the last 20 years has been to remind people he was a war hero 40 years ago.
My bet is on Thompson to get the nomination. The conservatives like him because he looked presidential in the movies where he was playing an admiral, but more importantly Jim Baker and the all the great special interests like oil, defense, big agra, etc are behind him. Assuming he doesn't die of a heart attack first. Furthermore, if he gets the nomination, he will win the presidency.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:43 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by blucevalo at 11:50 AM on June 1
And the Evangelicals won't vote for Romney, because many of them consider mormonism to be a cult. That leaves McCain and Thompson. MCCain won't win because his greatest accomplishment as senator over the last 20 years has been to remind people he was a war hero 40 years ago.
My bet is on Thompson to get the nomination. The conservatives like him because he looked presidential in the movies where he was playing an admiral, but more importantly Jim Baker and the all the great special interests like oil, defense, big agra, etc are behind him. Assuming he doesn't die of a heart attack first. Furthermore, if he gets the nomination, he will win the presidency.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:43 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Since you keep clicking on these links and then complaining about them, I guess you have nothing else to do.
Can you point out where I complained about this before?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:43 AM on June 1, 2007
Can you point out where I complained about this before?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:43 AM on June 1, 2007
Listen people... God bless him, Rudy Giuliani was able to take control and lead his poor traumatized hair follicles into a brighter tomorrow after many terror-filled years of horrific comb-over. The man can do anything.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:50 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by miss lynnster at 10:50 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
(what's most funny about that is that he's the perfect dictator for them and is by far the most authoritarian of all the people running)
I think you're being pretty naive if you think they don't see this clearly. And anyway, he'll never win the general. I hope he does get the nomination.
posted by delmoi at 10:54 AM on June 1, 2007
I think you're being pretty naive if you think they don't see this clearly. And anyway, he'll never win the general. I hope he does get the nomination.
posted by delmoi at 10:54 AM on June 1, 2007
Also, in a lot of the country a name like 'Guiliani,' makes people think 'Is he in the Mafia?' Seriously, it took this country almost 200 years to elect an Irishman, for pete's sake.
posted by jonmc at 10:54 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by jonmc at 10:54 AM on June 1, 2007
If the Republicans put up Fred Thompson, the Democrats should nominate Steven Hill and just turn the whole thing into a national referendum on which era of Law and Order is best. And if he wants to take part, Giuliani can play DA again on the very special episode Law and Order: Executive Intent. It's what we, the American people, most deserve.
posted by thecaddy at 11:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by thecaddy at 11:14 AM on June 1, 2007 [3 favorites]
Sorry, Heminator, I tried but I couldn't get through half of what ou wrote before having to stop out of boredom. If you were a more talented writer, like Taibbi, that wouldn't have happened. I guess he wins.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:19 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Space Coyote at 11:19 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Ice T!
He'll be in charge of the Department of Defense.
The Steven Hill ticket has my vote if Jill Hennessy or Richard Brooks gets the Vice President nomination.
posted by drezdn at 11:25 AM on June 1, 2007
He'll be in charge of the Department of Defense.
The Steven Hill ticket has my vote if Jill Hennessy or Richard Brooks gets the Vice President nomination.
posted by drezdn at 11:25 AM on June 1, 2007
Actually, Space Cowboy I feel pretty confident I am a far better writer than Taibbi. Not that that is a huge accomplishment. Far be it for me to suggest you're not a terribly discerning reader. But to each his own...
posted by Heminator at 11:37 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by Heminator at 11:37 AM on June 1, 2007
Fred Thompson and Rudy Guiliani: two separate yet equally important...
oh fuck it.
posted by rtha at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2007
oh fuck it.
posted by rtha at 11:43 AM on June 1, 2007
Ice-T/Belzer for the win.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 11:44 AM on June 1, 2007
jonmc: "Also, in a lot of the country a name like 'Guiliani,' makes people think 'Is he in the Mafia?' Seriously, it took this country almost 200 years to elect an Irishman, for pete's sake."
As far as I can tell, there have been zero Non-Northern European presidents. Anglo-saxons, Germans, Dutch and a couple of Irishmen but no Mediterraneans at all. The closest we got was Spiro Agnew.
posted by octothorpe at 11:50 AM on June 1, 2007
As far as I can tell, there have been zero Non-Northern European presidents. Anglo-saxons, Germans, Dutch and a couple of Irishmen but no Mediterraneans at all. The closest we got was Spiro Agnew.
posted by octothorpe at 11:50 AM on June 1, 2007
So, y'all are telling me that he's not enough of a hateful fascist to get the nom?
Great; so it's McCain?
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:06 PM on June 1, 2007
Great; so it's McCain?
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:06 PM on June 1, 2007
Even Chuck Schumer, hardly a shrinking violet when it comes to public controversy, said of the column, "This is the most disgusting thing I've seen in 30 years of public life."
maybe because a politician, no matter the party affiliation, would be smarter to side with the Catholics (and generally with religious people because no religious person would appreciate their religious leader be savaged like that in the press) instead of taking the side of a far left writer of a no-name rag?
even if these days the magazine is editorially regarded to be the Hindenburg held together by two staples.
they've been supposed to go belly-up since the John Travolta movie. they're still there. I bet they fold after the Weekly Standard does, by the way (and I have never bought either magazine in my life, thankfully). but RS will always a Justin Timberlake-like ripped, shirtless asshole or a half-naked skanky "singer" to put on the cover; unless Bush manages to attack Iran, too, the neocon house organ will run out of topics and, one is afraid, of the little ad space they manage to sell now.
O'Rourke, who is a rock-solid reporter in addition to bringing The Funny
if by rock-solid you mean "I'll pretend to be a ugly-American traveling rube because I don't actually know dick about foreign affairs so I'll pretend my limitations are just a shtick", yes, then he's rock-solid. his move to Washington DC in, what, the late 80s proved his inability to understand domestic politics as well. and re: the Funnay, he ran out of it by the very early 80s. He could only write about the beauty of being a "cool" right-winger who likes to drink and to have his cock sucked by underage girls. that's your ace reporter alright.
and I'm no big fan of Taibbi. but O'Rourke is a joke (a sad joke, in the case of his famous -- all is relative -- essay about his daddy complex). as his old Ferrari magazine piece proves, he's pretty clueless about sports cars, too.
While these stunts might earn him street cred among the Daily Kos crowd that easily confuses indignation and reportage
yes, crowds, let's talk about those for a moment -- I remember venturing into the Metro Center Olssons many years ago, and seeing O'Rourke there at the lectern, trying in vain to amuse an audience of glum white middle aged men in Burberry overcoats (and that was 90% black, lousy-with-college-students DC). they white dudes didn't even buy his books when he was done.
posted by matteo at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2007
maybe because a politician, no matter the party affiliation, would be smarter to side with the Catholics (and generally with religious people because no religious person would appreciate their religious leader be savaged like that in the press) instead of taking the side of a far left writer of a no-name rag?
even if these days the magazine is editorially regarded to be the Hindenburg held together by two staples.
they've been supposed to go belly-up since the John Travolta movie. they're still there. I bet they fold after the Weekly Standard does, by the way (and I have never bought either magazine in my life, thankfully). but RS will always a Justin Timberlake-like ripped, shirtless asshole or a half-naked skanky "singer" to put on the cover; unless Bush manages to attack Iran, too, the neocon house organ will run out of topics and, one is afraid, of the little ad space they manage to sell now.
O'Rourke, who is a rock-solid reporter in addition to bringing The Funny
if by rock-solid you mean "I'll pretend to be a ugly-American traveling rube because I don't actually know dick about foreign affairs so I'll pretend my limitations are just a shtick", yes, then he's rock-solid. his move to Washington DC in, what, the late 80s proved his inability to understand domestic politics as well. and re: the Funnay, he ran out of it by the very early 80s. He could only write about the beauty of being a "cool" right-winger who likes to drink and to have his cock sucked by underage girls. that's your ace reporter alright.
and I'm no big fan of Taibbi. but O'Rourke is a joke (a sad joke, in the case of his famous -- all is relative -- essay about his daddy complex). as his old Ferrari magazine piece proves, he's pretty clueless about sports cars, too.
While these stunts might earn him street cred among the Daily Kos crowd that easily confuses indignation and reportage
yes, crowds, let's talk about those for a moment -- I remember venturing into the Metro Center Olssons many years ago, and seeing O'Rourke there at the lectern, trying in vain to amuse an audience of glum white middle aged men in Burberry overcoats (and that was 90% black, lousy-with-college-students DC). they white dudes didn't even buy his books when he was done.
posted by matteo at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2007
Now in the correct thread...
who the hell is Warren Ellis?
To me, my camwhores!
posted by FunkyHelix at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2007
who the hell is Warren Ellis?
To me, my camwhores!
posted by FunkyHelix at 12:16 PM on June 1, 2007
drezdn writes "He'll be in charge of the Department of Defense."
And Mariska Hargitay will be in charge of the Department of *CONAN O'BRIAN SEXY CAT NOISE*.
posted by brundlefly at 12:28 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
And Mariska Hargitay will be in charge of the Department of *CONAN O'BRIAN SEXY CAT NOISE*.
posted by brundlefly at 12:28 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Can Angie Harmon be in charge of the Department of Awesome Eyebrow Lifts?
posted by rtha at 12:30 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by rtha at 12:30 PM on June 1, 2007
Republicans will vote for whoever makes them the most afraid, because that's how they make all their decisions. Conservatism is fear. Giuliani has a chance; don't underestimate his scaremongering abilities.
posted by interrobang at 12:49 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by interrobang at 12:49 PM on June 1, 2007
Warren Ellis is a very acerbic British comics writer who has a very distinct tone and worldview; in some ways, he seems to try to brong some of the ol' Hunter Thompson spirit to comics. With mixed results. Some people love him, some people hate him, but he's a big guy in the community.
posted by COBRA! at 12:50 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by COBRA! at 12:50 PM on June 1, 2007
and, jumping on interrobang's point, it's a damned shame that Warren Ellis is British, because he cultivates a very scary persona and could maybe rise to the top of the conservatism heap just by scaring the shit out of people.
posted by COBRA! at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by COBRA! at 12:53 PM on June 1, 2007
I don't know much about Rudy and haven't a clue as to whether anything in this article is true (though it'd be pretty surprising if RS hadn't vetted the thing and, as far as I know, no one's sued them for libel on this outing), but there are some world class lines here:
Coupled with yet another implosion by aneurysm-in-waiting John McCain a few days later ("Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room!" McCain screamed at a fellow senator during a meeting about immigration)...
You could change Rudy's mind literally in the time it took to write a check.
Winners both.
posted by Clay201 at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Coupled with yet another implosion by aneurysm-in-waiting John McCain a few days later ("Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room!" McCain screamed at a fellow senator during a meeting about immigration)...
You could change Rudy's mind literally in the time it took to write a check.
Winners both.
posted by Clay201 at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Warren Ellis is a very acerbic British comics writer who has a very distinct tone and worldview; in some ways, he seems to try to brong some of the ol' Hunter Thompson spirit to comics. With mixed results. Some people love him, some people hate him, but he's a big guy in the community.
Oh. I don't know anybody like that.
posted by jonmc at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2007
Oh. I don't know anybody like that.
posted by jonmc at 12:56 PM on June 1, 2007
Oh wait. Knew I forgot one:
In his years as mayor -- and his subsequent career as a lobbyist -- Rudy jumped into bed with anyone who could afford a rubber.
posted by Clay201 at 12:58 PM on June 1, 2007
In his years as mayor -- and his subsequent career as a lobbyist -- Rudy jumped into bed with anyone who could afford a rubber.
posted by Clay201 at 12:58 PM on June 1, 2007
Fred Thompson gets my vote because he was the one Navy guy who gave Jack Ryan a break in Hunt for Red October.
Well, hell, then, draft Harrison Ford and then you get Jack Ryan himself.
I've suspected all along that W somehow fancies himself as a real-life Jack Ryan of sorts.
posted by pax digita at 1:04 PM on June 1, 2007
Well, hell, then, draft Harrison Ford and then you get Jack Ryan himself.
I've suspected all along that W somehow fancies himself as a real-life Jack Ryan of sorts.
posted by pax digita at 1:04 PM on June 1, 2007
it's a damned shame that Warren Ellis is British, because he cultivates a very scary persona and could maybe rise to the top of the conservatism heap just by scaring the shit out of people.
He's got (seemingly) enough strange sexual quirks to be a republican too.
posted by drezdn at 1:05 PM on June 1, 2007
He's got (seemingly) enough strange sexual quirks to be a republican too.
posted by drezdn at 1:05 PM on June 1, 2007
pax digita: That would be Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan in Hunt for Red October.
I've suspected all along that W somehow fancies himself as a real-life Jack Ryan of sorts.
Doesn't Jack Ryan become Prez in one of the later novels? I remember hearing that his first act in office is repealing Roe v. Wade or something.
posted by brundlefly at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2007
I've suspected all along that W somehow fancies himself as a real-life Jack Ryan of sorts.
Doesn't Jack Ryan become Prez in one of the later novels? I remember hearing that his first act in office is repealing Roe v. Wade or something.
posted by brundlefly at 1:08 PM on June 1, 2007
Conservatism is fear.
Well, no. These (Bush, Brownback, Frist, etc) guys are reactionaries, not conservatives. I know it might not seem like it anymore, but there used to be a difference.
These guys don't stand for conservative values, not in any sense at all. They stand for turning back the clock: bringing back the cold war, closeted gays, subservient women and minorities.
At this point, if I could find a real conservative, I'd definitely vote for him or her. But now I've got a bunch of reactionary bigots on one side, and a bunch weak-kneed technocrats on the other.
posted by psmealey at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2007
Well, no. These (Bush, Brownback, Frist, etc) guys are reactionaries, not conservatives. I know it might not seem like it anymore, but there used to be a difference.
These guys don't stand for conservative values, not in any sense at all. They stand for turning back the clock: bringing back the cold war, closeted gays, subservient women and minorities.
At this point, if I could find a real conservative, I'd definitely vote for him or her. But now I've got a bunch of reactionary bigots on one side, and a bunch weak-kneed technocrats on the other.
posted by psmealey at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2007
Whatever, Matteo. You think PJ O'Rourke is past his prime -- fine. But the fact is that his best is still head and shoulders above anything Taibbi has written or is likely to write. When Taibbi writes anything like Parliment of Whores that is both entertaining and demonstrates a systematic grasp of politics and public policy, get back to me.
Secondly, you're not actually defending Rolling Stone as a good magazine are you? Just because it's been around awhile? Since when is that the mark of quality? It's been terrible for a very long time, as evidenced by the fact that the once venerable magazine's lead political reporter is ... Matt Taibbi. Anyone here really think he's anywhere near as good as Thompson, O'Rourke (in the 80's), or William Grieder?
Oh and you noticed I've written for the Weekly Standard. How the hell is that relevant? You don't really refute any of my arguments about Taibbi being terrible. But you attack a publication I've written for as being represenative of me -- without commenting on what I wrote or knowing anything about me -- based on some neocon, warmongering stereotype. Kind of dick-ish, very ad-hominem.
And by the way Taibbi is still a crappy writer. I at least had the decency to tell you *why* I think that.
posted by Heminator at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Secondly, you're not actually defending Rolling Stone as a good magazine are you? Just because it's been around awhile? Since when is that the mark of quality? It's been terrible for a very long time, as evidenced by the fact that the once venerable magazine's lead political reporter is ... Matt Taibbi. Anyone here really think he's anywhere near as good as Thompson, O'Rourke (in the 80's), or William Grieder?
Oh and you noticed I've written for the Weekly Standard. How the hell is that relevant? You don't really refute any of my arguments about Taibbi being terrible. But you attack a publication I've written for as being represenative of me -- without commenting on what I wrote or knowing anything about me -- based on some neocon, warmongering stereotype. Kind of dick-ish, very ad-hominem.
And by the way Taibbi is still a crappy writer. I at least had the decency to tell you *why* I think that.
posted by Heminator at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Giuliani wins we're toast.
Nothing in the article was anything I had not heard before (in one form or another). (I'll side with Taibbi writes well, but had not much to say. And he's saying it. And again.)
But after 2004 I will never again underestimate how far from the mainstream I am.
Giuliani? He's a bad guy. You meet him, you know - "Oh, this guy is a bad guy."
I hope he goes down in flames and then goes away.
posted by From Bklyn at 1:24 PM on June 1, 2007
Conservatism is fear.
Well, no.
Well, yes. "Conservative values" = fear of change, fear of others, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of hott, throbbing, purple-veined penises coming to penetrate you in the butt, fear of other religions, fear of an invisible man in the sky... in fact, I can't think of anything Conservatives aren't afraid of! But the main thing is, they're afraid all the time. Puking with fear. Shitting their beds in terror.
If Guiliani plays 'em right, he can win.
posted by interrobang at 1:31 PM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Well, no.
Well, yes. "Conservative values" = fear of change, fear of others, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of hott, throbbing, purple-veined penises coming to penetrate you in the butt, fear of other religions, fear of an invisible man in the sky... in fact, I can't think of anything Conservatives aren't afraid of! But the main thing is, they're afraid all the time. Puking with fear. Shitting their beds in terror.
If Guiliani plays 'em right, he can win.
posted by interrobang at 1:31 PM on June 1, 2007 [2 favorites]
Sure I did.
posted by interrobang at 1:34 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by interrobang at 1:34 PM on June 1, 2007
No, no, no, all that shit that was terrible and did not work? Not true conservatism. Honest.
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on June 1, 2007
See also: "true communism has never actually been implemented."
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by Artw at 1:36 PM on June 1, 2007
Marge: I really think this is a bad idea.
Homer: Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism
works. In theory.
-- Pros and cons of keeping the elephant, "Bart Gets an Elephant"
posted by chunking express at 1:52 PM on June 1, 2007
Homer: Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism
works. In theory.
-- Pros and cons of keeping the elephant, "Bart Gets an Elephant"
posted by chunking express at 1:52 PM on June 1, 2007
I'll have to side with psmealey here. I don't consider myself a conservative at all, but I do know that modern Republicans are pretty far from conservative. Goldwater would be pissed.
posted by brundlefly at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by brundlefly at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2007
so let me get this straight, heminator -- you write for the weekly standard, a publication so unloved that it must be subsidized by bill kristol's tv career to the tune of millions of dollars per year, and that's the basis on which we're supposed to take your criticisms of matt taibbi seriously?
if we ever need an opinion on how paul wolfowitz's spittle tastes, you would probably be the go-to guy. short of that, your opinion has all the merit of a stale fart in a cloakroom.
methinks you're the victim of a bit of professional jealousy. all you wingers cling to p.j. o'rourke like the last buoyant thing in a giant swirling eddy of humorlessness.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2007
if we ever need an opinion on how paul wolfowitz's spittle tastes, you would probably be the go-to guy. short of that, your opinion has all the merit of a stale fart in a cloakroom.
methinks you're the victim of a bit of professional jealousy. all you wingers cling to p.j. o'rourke like the last buoyant thing in a giant swirling eddy of humorlessness.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:56 PM on June 1, 2007
Not very familiar with any of these writers (I've read two HST books and the entire run of Doonesbury), so I can't speak with any authority on their respective merits. But, Hat Maui, your last post is a textbook ad hom. I actually cringed while reading it.
posted by brundlefly at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by brundlefly at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2007
Pff, I have no idea why someone would ever listen to a weekly standard writer. Why waste time on something from such an awful source?
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on June 1, 2007
Weekly Standard or not, Heminator's critique of Taibbi is pretty spot on IMO and I've read most everything HST has published so it's not like I'm not familiar with or don't enjoy the genre. I'd love to dig Taibbi the political commentator—our politics seem to mesh fairly well—but he lacks a certain nuance that is required if you want to walk the edge like that. I've known way too many HST devoteés—philosophy and journalism students hung out at the same dark and smokey bar at uni—who also lack Thompson's touch and depth who more or less reduced themselves to a sodden mess trying to recreate the gonzo magic. At least Taibbi seems to fall upward. So I guess that's a positive. Sort of.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:33 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by Fezboy! at 2:33 PM on June 1, 2007
Jesus Christ, at least familiarize yourself with a user's posting history before pinching off a big stinky straw man on the blue.
posted by psmealey at 2:38 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by psmealey at 2:38 PM on June 1, 2007
You don't really refute any of my arguments about Taibbi being terrible.
Your very long-winded argument was that you are kind of a prig about language, and eventually, paragraphs later, that celebrities were involved.
(not a big huge fan of Taibbi either, but he can be entertaining)
posted by furiousthought at 2:40 PM on June 1, 2007
Your very long-winded argument was that you are kind of a prig about language, and eventually, paragraphs later, that celebrities were involved.
(not a big huge fan of Taibbi either, but he can be entertaining)
posted by furiousthought at 2:40 PM on June 1, 2007
Whatever, Matteo. You think PJ O'Rourke is past his prime -- fine. But the fact is that his best is still head and shoulders above anything Taibbi has written or is likely to write.
Utter bullshit. O'Rourke is one of the least funny writers ever. I don't think Taibbi is all that great myself, but he has moments. O'Rourke hasn't had a moment since, oh, 1987. And honestly, it wasn't that great.
But this is kind of like John Stewart reminding Tucker Carlson that the lead-in to the Daily Show is talking puppets. RS is primarily a pop-culture and music magazine. The fact that they often have decent pieces (by Taibbi and others) on "real" politics that cut to the core more than anything Weekly Standard or New Republic (think we can all agree that that ship has sunk) is telling.
posted by bardic at 2:48 PM on June 1, 2007
Utter bullshit. O'Rourke is one of the least funny writers ever. I don't think Taibbi is all that great myself, but he has moments. O'Rourke hasn't had a moment since, oh, 1987. And honestly, it wasn't that great.
But this is kind of like John Stewart reminding Tucker Carlson that the lead-in to the Daily Show is talking puppets. RS is primarily a pop-culture and music magazine. The fact that they often have decent pieces (by Taibbi and others) on "real" politics that cut to the core more than anything Weekly Standard or New Republic (think we can all agree that that ship has sunk) is telling.
posted by bardic at 2:48 PM on June 1, 2007
*anything WS or NR puts out . . . is telling.
And honestly Heminator, grats on having a fairly wide circulation for your stuff. But the Weekly Standard is a rag everyone knows it.
Next you'll be linking to stuff you got printed in The Washington Times, and I'll laugh some more.
posted by bardic at 2:51 PM on June 1, 2007
And honestly Heminator, grats on having a fairly wide circulation for your stuff. But the Weekly Standard is a rag everyone knows it.
Next you'll be linking to stuff you got printed in The Washington Times, and I'll laugh some more.
posted by bardic at 2:51 PM on June 1, 2007
Taibbi on Thomas Friedman.
Maybe we've crossed into an impossible-to-reconcile ideological divide here regarding teh funnay, but this was a fucking hilarious read. IMHO, of course.
posted by bardic at 2:56 PM on June 1, 2007
Maybe we've crossed into an impossible-to-reconcile ideological divide here regarding teh funnay, but this was a fucking hilarious read. IMHO, of course.
posted by bardic at 2:56 PM on June 1, 2007
If Taibbi is the guy who infiltrated the Santorum campaign, I know that at least THAT piece was funny. I'm less taken with this one, to be honest.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2007
Matteo isn't attacking you or defending Taibbi, Heminator. He's attacking the idea that PJ O'Rourke is "a rock-solid reporter", or that his was an era of "political credibility" for Rolling Stone. I'm certainly had a "whaaa?" moment when I read that. O'Rourke is not "past his prime" - he's as bad as he has ever been. He can write clever sentences, but his political writings are as tired as they come.
I remember distinctly O'Rourke "reporting" from Panama - must have been the 89 or so. For two reasons. The first was that this phrase was pretty funny [while talking about Noriega's predecessor] "he wasn't such a bad guy. He even managed to wrest a new canal treaty from the US. Granted, he wrested it from Jimmy Carter, so he wasn't exactly playing against the varsity, but it gave the Panamanians a patriotic thrill to get the middle of their county back." That's pretty funny - O'Rourke can turn a clever phrase. The other thing I remember is that the article had no point whatsoever. After reading it, I didn't know anything more about Panama than I did before. And when the US invaded a few months later, I had no idea why. Actual reporting is beyond O'Rourke - he deals exclusively in cliches. "Democrats believe the government can make you smarter, richer and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans think government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it." That's pretty funny. But it's not "insightful". It's the *opposite* of insightful. I think that's why the Panama story was beyond O'Rourke - he had no pre-thought ideas about the country to spruce up - which I suppose is why the only phrase I remember is his restatement of the "Carter was weak" Republican talking point.
Taibbi strikes me as much better than that (his crude language doesn't bother me). He's subject matter is different than, say, Greider. He writes about the media circus nature of contemporary politics. I would argue that that's it's most striking feature (what would be the point of policy oriented reporting in this administration?) And he's pretty good at it - this article on the lazy group-think of contemporary punditry is spot on. It's also laugh-out-loud funny (at least I laughed out loud at it) - and his device of showing that not only is Freidman's though lazy and ridiculous, he very prose is lazy and ridiculous.
Your claim that he depends on the foul language isn't true. For example, this is priceless:
"Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses."
posted by bonecrusher at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2007
I remember distinctly O'Rourke "reporting" from Panama - must have been the 89 or so. For two reasons. The first was that this phrase was pretty funny [while talking about Noriega's predecessor] "he wasn't such a bad guy. He even managed to wrest a new canal treaty from the US. Granted, he wrested it from Jimmy Carter, so he wasn't exactly playing against the varsity, but it gave the Panamanians a patriotic thrill to get the middle of their county back." That's pretty funny - O'Rourke can turn a clever phrase. The other thing I remember is that the article had no point whatsoever. After reading it, I didn't know anything more about Panama than I did before. And when the US invaded a few months later, I had no idea why. Actual reporting is beyond O'Rourke - he deals exclusively in cliches. "Democrats believe the government can make you smarter, richer and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans think government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it." That's pretty funny. But it's not "insightful". It's the *opposite* of insightful. I think that's why the Panama story was beyond O'Rourke - he had no pre-thought ideas about the country to spruce up - which I suppose is why the only phrase I remember is his restatement of the "Carter was weak" Republican talking point.
Taibbi strikes me as much better than that (his crude language doesn't bother me). He's subject matter is different than, say, Greider. He writes about the media circus nature of contemporary politics. I would argue that that's it's most striking feature (what would be the point of policy oriented reporting in this administration?) And he's pretty good at it - this article on the lazy group-think of contemporary punditry is spot on. It's also laugh-out-loud funny (at least I laughed out loud at it) - and his device of showing that not only is Freidman's though lazy and ridiculous, he very prose is lazy and ridiculous.
Your claim that he depends on the foul language isn't true. For example, this is priceless:
"Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses."
posted by bonecrusher at 3:06 PM on June 1, 2007
Hat Maui, your last post is a textbook ad hom. I actually cringed while reading it.
a) duh
b) so what if you cringed? i cringed when reading about your cringing.
c) where can i find the 'ad hom' textbook? like a university bookstore or something?
posted by Hat Maui at 3:07 PM on June 1, 2007
a) duh
b) so what if you cringed? i cringed when reading about your cringing.
c) where can i find the 'ad hom' textbook? like a university bookstore or something?
posted by Hat Maui at 3:07 PM on June 1, 2007
Taibbi on Thomas Friedman. I just read that, bardic. It's pretty funny at first and spot on about Friedman's coarse and beastly style. Then it digresses into all that twaddle about flat and level being completely different and you start to realise he doesn't really have the intellectual firepower to sustain the argument or the humour to keep it funny...so he starts saying fuck a lot instead. By the end it's as dull as the book it critiques (and considerably more profane). It's also about 1500 words too long.
posted by rhymer at 3:10 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by rhymer at 3:10 PM on June 1, 2007
Got it, Hemiator.
Look, I find his eagerness to use profanity off-putting as well, but regardless of the subject of his assholery, the fact is that he has an instinct for interesting and important stories, and he has done some insightful, well-substantiated reporting.
Also, the fact that something has been mentioned elsewhere doesn't mean (1) it doesn't bear repeating, when it hasn't penetrated the popular view, and (2) it takes zero effort to track it down and bring it up.
I think his reporting here on Giuliani's his response to that little boy is original and spot-on.
I understand your being put off by him, but I don't think you should take it as a reason to simply ignore points he makes, or treat him as a merely a target of resentment and anger.
Maybe I'd feel more like you if I thought him to be working for "the other side."
posted by ibmcginty at 3:11 PM on June 1, 2007
Look, I find his eagerness to use profanity off-putting as well, but regardless of the subject of his assholery, the fact is that he has an instinct for interesting and important stories, and he has done some insightful, well-substantiated reporting.
Also, the fact that something has been mentioned elsewhere doesn't mean (1) it doesn't bear repeating, when it hasn't penetrated the popular view, and (2) it takes zero effort to track it down and bring it up.
I think his reporting here on Giuliani's his response to that little boy is original and spot-on.
I understand your being put off by him, but I don't think you should take it as a reason to simply ignore points he makes, or treat him as a merely a target of resentment and anger.
Maybe I'd feel more like you if I thought him to be working for "the other side."
posted by ibmcginty at 3:11 PM on June 1, 2007
"Freidman's thought lazy and ridiculous, his very prose is lazy and ridiculous"
Sigh.
posted by bonecrusher at 3:12 PM on June 1, 2007
Sigh.
posted by bonecrusher at 3:12 PM on June 1, 2007
Ah, found it -- Taibbi on David Brooks: "Both prefer a policy of being "cautious soldiers," "incrementalists" who shun upheavals and vote the status quo, although they subscribe to this policy for different reasons. Brooks worships the status quo because he has no penis and wants to spend the rest of his life buying periwinkle bath towels without troubling interruptions of conscience."
Sorry, but that's good in any language. And yeah, I might be coming off a bit too strong as a devout Taibbi-ist here, and I'm not. His overall structures aren't always so hot, and yes, he goes on too long. But I do enjoy the gems hidden amidst the dross.
Taibbi is obviously a liberal, and highly critical of Republicans, but just glancing through the titles of his pieces, it's clear that he doesn't hold back on Democrats (say, the new Congress) either. He's an equal-opportunity hater. I like that.
O'Rourke? Sure, he might land a few zingers against his fellow blue-bloods in a jokey-haha sort of way. But deep down, you know what side his bread has always been buttered on. He's Bush II's version of a court jester, trying to convince people that there's "nothing to see here," ever. He did the same thing under Reagan and Bush I.
posted by bardic at 3:24 PM on June 1, 2007
Sorry, but that's good in any language. And yeah, I might be coming off a bit too strong as a devout Taibbi-ist here, and I'm not. His overall structures aren't always so hot, and yes, he goes on too long. But I do enjoy the gems hidden amidst the dross.
Taibbi is obviously a liberal, and highly critical of Republicans, but just glancing through the titles of his pieces, it's clear that he doesn't hold back on Democrats (say, the new Congress) either. He's an equal-opportunity hater. I like that.
O'Rourke? Sure, he might land a few zingers against his fellow blue-bloods in a jokey-haha sort of way. But deep down, you know what side his bread has always been buttered on. He's Bush II's version of a court jester, trying to convince people that there's "nothing to see here," ever. He did the same thing under Reagan and Bush I.
posted by bardic at 3:24 PM on June 1, 2007
Taibbi on David Brooks
It was OK and had a lot less inane profanities. But PJ O'Rourke in his prime was side-splittingly funny. This (and I think we can say a 36 year old is in his prime) isn't. I don't think it's awful or anything. I just think he lacks HST's insight and PJOR's intentionally butt-headed hilarity. Both of them stood out in a way this doesn't.
posted by rhymer at 3:32 PM on June 1, 2007
It was OK and had a lot less inane profanities. But PJ O'Rourke in his prime was side-splittingly funny. This (and I think we can say a 36 year old is in his prime) isn't. I don't think it's awful or anything. I just think he lacks HST's insight and PJOR's intentionally butt-headed hilarity. Both of them stood out in a way this doesn't.
posted by rhymer at 3:32 PM on June 1, 2007
I enjoyed the Taibbi piece. No demented HST prose poetry shedding new light on the Rude-ster, but indeed some interesting moments and the quote by Taibbi used on the FPP made me laugh.
I enjoyed the Abramoff piece Heminator. Truly fascinating, incredible stuff, but in the end I can't share your bemusement with the man, no matter how good a story he tells. You have to understand that for a sociopath of his caliber (the man supported and encouraged slavery in the Mariana Islands), telling a good story is his way of fucking you. And your breathless adoration of the guy, makes me feel like I need to take a shower. The piece would have had more power, if you balanced it out with you know, the truly frightening and egregious aspects of the man.
I would get that suit out and move on, there are plenty of sociopaths and criminals, some of them are even Democrats, with amazing story's to write about. No need to get fixated on Abramoff. Also the critique of Taibbi doesn't hold water, not because your points don't have validity, but because being a writer for the WS puts you on some pretty shaky ground to have any objective view of the guy or his writing.
posted by Skygazer at 3:33 PM on June 1, 2007
I enjoyed the Abramoff piece Heminator. Truly fascinating, incredible stuff, but in the end I can't share your bemusement with the man, no matter how good a story he tells. You have to understand that for a sociopath of his caliber (the man supported and encouraged slavery in the Mariana Islands), telling a good story is his way of fucking you. And your breathless adoration of the guy, makes me feel like I need to take a shower. The piece would have had more power, if you balanced it out with you know, the truly frightening and egregious aspects of the man.
I would get that suit out and move on, there are plenty of sociopaths and criminals, some of them are even Democrats, with amazing story's to write about. No need to get fixated on Abramoff. Also the critique of Taibbi doesn't hold water, not because your points don't have validity, but because being a writer for the WS puts you on some pretty shaky ground to have any objective view of the guy or his writing.
posted by Skygazer at 3:33 PM on June 1, 2007
But PJ O'Rourke in his prime was side-splittingly funny.
I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree. Maybe I'm too young to remember when O'Rourke was funny, but I have gone back and read parts of his earlier books, and they did nothing for me. Obviously, political humor is topical humor, so the fact that I remember nothing of the Carter-era might have something to do with this.
O'Rourke has this strange habit of trying to speak for some phantom "common man" American, who was born upper-middle to upper-class, went to private high school and and Ivy league college, enjoys weekends at the club, and yet is still totally in touch with the State College Bud-drinkers who fight his imperialistic wars for him. I've never gotten it. And honestly, other than Tucker Carlson, I can't think of one person out there who's going to carry on his comedic legacy.
And I'd hope we can all agree that Tucker Carlson is the comedic equivalent of cancer of the dick.
posted by bardic at 3:39 PM on June 1, 2007
I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree. Maybe I'm too young to remember when O'Rourke was funny, but I have gone back and read parts of his earlier books, and they did nothing for me. Obviously, political humor is topical humor, so the fact that I remember nothing of the Carter-era might have something to do with this.
O'Rourke has this strange habit of trying to speak for some phantom "common man" American, who was born upper-middle to upper-class, went to private high school and and Ivy league college, enjoys weekends at the club, and yet is still totally in touch with the State College Bud-drinkers who fight his imperialistic wars for him. I've never gotten it. And honestly, other than Tucker Carlson, I can't think of one person out there who's going to carry on his comedic legacy.
And I'd hope we can all agree that Tucker Carlson is the comedic equivalent of cancer of the dick.
posted by bardic at 3:39 PM on June 1, 2007
Tucker Carlson may be the comedic equivalent of cancer of the dick, but he is a role model for all those preppie wannabees that went to third tier east coast liberal arts schools, and spend a lifetime putting on airs that they went to Harvard, Yale and/or Princeton.
posted by psmealey at 3:43 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by psmealey at 3:43 PM on June 1, 2007
Hat Maui writes "c) where can i find the 'ad hom' textbook? like a university bookstore or something?"
Yes.
posted by brundlefly at 3:50 PM on June 1, 2007
Yes.
posted by brundlefly at 3:50 PM on June 1, 2007
If a writer is going to be critical of another's writing, then he should simply show where specifically the writing is wrong, goes astray, is bad. Merely asserting that a writer is not very good and calling names along with this pronouncement, is, in fact, bad writing itself.
posted by Postroad at 4:14 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by Postroad at 4:14 PM on June 1, 2007
Tucker Carlson may be the comedic equivalent of cancer of the dick, but he is a role model for all those preppie wannabees that went to third tier east coast liberal arts schools, and spend a lifetime putting on airs that they went to Harvard, Yale and/or Princeton.
Most importantly tho--he's another rightwing legacy welfare recipient--like Kagan and Kristol and Goldberg and Podhoretz and oh so many others who shouldn't have legitimacy or media access yet do.
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2007
Most importantly tho--he's another rightwing legacy welfare recipient--like Kagan and Kristol and Goldberg and Podhoretz and oh so many others who shouldn't have legitimacy or media access yet do.
posted by amberglow at 4:18 PM on June 1, 2007
Same goes for a woman and a black man, so I think it's a wash.
But the reasons are different. We've never elected a non-white male, but that's because of sexism and racism both of which are on the decrease. Our obsession with image has not decreased noticeably in the last 40 years, so I don't see why baldness would play any less of a role.
Also, I'd like someone to explain to me the phrase "compassionate conservative". Is that as opposed to the majority of conservatives? Or is it supposed to indicate that screwing over the poor and minorities is somehow good for them?
posted by DU at 4:42 PM on June 1, 2007
But the reasons are different. We've never elected a non-white male, but that's because of sexism and racism both of which are on the decrease. Our obsession with image has not decreased noticeably in the last 40 years, so I don't see why baldness would play any less of a role.
Also, I'd like someone to explain to me the phrase "compassionate conservative". Is that as opposed to the majority of conservatives? Or is it supposed to indicate that screwing over the poor and minorities is somehow good for them?
posted by DU at 4:42 PM on June 1, 2007
Also, I'd like someone to explain to me the phrase "compassionate conservative".
It means: "Dear moderates and (*golem!*) liberals; If elected, I have no intention of representing you. But I'd sure like your vote, anyway! Thanks in advance!"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:55 PM on June 1, 2007
It means: "Dear moderates and (*golem!*) liberals; If elected, I have no intention of representing you. But I'd sure like your vote, anyway! Thanks in advance!"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:55 PM on June 1, 2007
Maybe Taibbi is tired, though - we all did reference the exact same article in his defense.
And, yeah - PJ O'Roarke was really funny in his day. I can quote more than one of his RS pieces from memory nearly 20 years after they were written. But he was never a reporter, and he was never insightful. He was a much more talented version of that guy you know who talks about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - a guy who's never had an original thought in his life.
The thing that amazes me is that my bookshelves groan under the weight of a book on the workings of the federal reserve written by a guy who used to write for Rolling Stone! What the hell was Greider doing at RS?
posted by bonecrusher at 5:02 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
And, yeah - PJ O'Roarke was really funny in his day. I can quote more than one of his RS pieces from memory nearly 20 years after they were written. But he was never a reporter, and he was never insightful. He was a much more talented version of that guy you know who talks about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - a guy who's never had an original thought in his life.
The thing that amazes me is that my bookshelves groan under the weight of a book on the workings of the federal reserve written by a guy who used to write for Rolling Stone! What the hell was Greider doing at RS?
posted by bonecrusher at 5:02 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
it's a way to appear more moderate, and to disassociate from the fire-breathing extreme rightwing, and it's also supposed to warm the candidate up--as a person with a big heart. Also, it comes off as "good-hearted and kindly Christian" to many.
Most Americans don't believe in GOP policies and don't want them---they always have to dress them up with lies.
posted by amberglow at 5:03 PM on June 1, 2007
Most Americans don't believe in GOP policies and don't want them---they always have to dress them up with lies.
posted by amberglow at 5:03 PM on June 1, 2007
The esteemed Karl Rove: ...
Rove is not a stupid man. He knows that the GOP base is extreme and that when the great middle gets a clear look at them they recoil in horror. (See Circus, Schiavo.) ...
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on June 1, 2007
Rove is not a stupid man. He knows that the GOP base is extreme and that when the great middle gets a clear look at them they recoil in horror. (See Circus, Schiavo.) ...
posted by amberglow at 5:08 PM on June 1, 2007
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I know what "compassionate conservative" really does mean ("I'm a liar"). What I'm asking is what it supposedly means. Here are my two attempts at taking at face value:
1) Unlike other conservatives, I am compassionate. (But then who is the base here? The un-compassionate or the non-conservative?)
2) I am conservative but I am highlighting my compassion. (Why do you need to highlight it? Has the compassion of conservatives been misunderestimated in the public's mind? What compassion, and for whom, specifically has been overlooked?)
posted by DU at 5:17 PM on June 1, 2007
1) Unlike other conservatives, I am compassionate. (But then who is the base here? The un-compassionate or the non-conservative?)
2) I am conservative but I am highlighting my compassion. (Why do you need to highlight it? Has the compassion of conservatives been misunderestimated in the public's mind? What compassion, and for whom, specifically has been overlooked?)
posted by DU at 5:17 PM on June 1, 2007
The uncompassionate conservatives are the base.
They're highlighting their "compassion" so they don't scare the rest of the country off. It's not usually used during primaries but only during the general election when they have to moderate their stances.
Conservative says: Abortions are murder! and i'll reverse roe v. wade no matter what!
Compassionate Conservative says: I'll work towards the culture of life and make sure all life is protected. We all have to value life. blablabla...
posted by amberglow at 5:34 PM on June 1, 2007
They're highlighting their "compassion" so they don't scare the rest of the country off. It's not usually used during primaries but only during the general election when they have to moderate their stances.
Conservative says: Abortions are murder! and i'll reverse roe v. wade no matter what!
Compassionate Conservative says: I'll work towards the culture of life and make sure all life is protected. We all have to value life. blablabla...
posted by amberglow at 5:34 PM on June 1, 2007
Conservative: those evil fags should not have any rights! they're lucky we don't kill them all!
Compassionate Conservative: I believe in the traditional family--a man and woman united in sacred marriage. I will strengthen the traditional family. I don't believe in special rights for any groups. ...
rinse and repeat as needed. I use Conservative here to mean the GOP base.
posted by amberglow at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2007
Compassionate Conservative: I believe in the traditional family--a man and woman united in sacred marriage. I will strengthen the traditional family. I don't believe in special rights for any groups. ...
rinse and repeat as needed. I use Conservative here to mean the GOP base.
posted by amberglow at 5:38 PM on June 1, 2007
Oh right, it should have been obvious from the fact that it's used during the general, not the primary. The primary is for showing the depth of your hate, the general is for showing how well you can lie about it.
posted by DU at 5:56 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by DU at 5:56 PM on June 1, 2007
Actually, Space Cowboy I feel pretty confident I am a far better writer than Taibbi. Not that that is a huge accomplishment. Far be it for me to suggest you're not a terribly discerning reader. But to each his own...
posted by Heminator at 11:37 AM on June 1
At first I thought "geez, Heminator, get over yourself," and then I saw that I had had the first post in that thread, and it was mighty fawning.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:57 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by Heminator at 11:37 AM on June 1
At first I thought "geez, Heminator, get over yourself," and then I saw that I had had the first post in that thread, and it was mighty fawning.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:57 PM on June 1, 2007
I use Conservative here to mean the GOP base.
Curiously, when I use Conservative I mean merely base.
As in Shakespeare's “Small things make base men proud.” (Henry VI, IV.1)
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:06 PM on June 1, 2007
Curiously, when I use Conservative I mean merely base.
As in Shakespeare's “Small things make base men proud.” (Henry VI, IV.1)
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:06 PM on June 1, 2007
No offense, but I don't think quoting Shakespeare in rebutting the GOP is going to do much to eliminate the "ivory tower elitist" liberal image.
posted by DU at 6:11 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by DU at 6:11 PM on June 1, 2007
My bad, Brundlefly. I think Ford's played him in more movies than Baldwin has. And I never for a second bought into pretty-boy Alec as JR -- almost as bad as Sean Connery as a Lithuanian Soviet naval officer.
posted by pax digita at 7:03 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by pax digita at 7:03 PM on June 1, 2007
No candidate who's got a history like his will ever be the GOP presidential nominee.
Repeat after me: Republicans don't give a shit about ANYTHING besides tax cuts. Keep repeating it, tell your friends who think that any Republican goes to church for anything other than networking and keeping up appearances. They could care less if Giuliani had a razor studded collar around his dick if he had a chance to win and would lower their taxes. Jesus is nothing more than a bumper sticker to these people.
posted by any major dude at 7:12 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Repeat after me: Republicans don't give a shit about ANYTHING besides tax cuts. Keep repeating it, tell your friends who think that any Republican goes to church for anything other than networking and keeping up appearances. They could care less if Giuliani had a razor studded collar around his dick if he had a chance to win and would lower their taxes. Jesus is nothing more than a bumper sticker to these people.
posted by any major dude at 7:12 PM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]
Repeat after me: Republicans don't give a shit about ANYTHING besides tax cuts.
That's only some Republicans, and they're way outnumbered now by the religious right in terms of the base of primary voters and primary organizations and machines, which Rove has made a career out of getting into the fold. Many fiscal Republicans have left because of both the focus on funding the religious right, and the whole massive deficit and growing the govt and endless war things. Not all of them are part of the industrial/military complex, you know.
Meanwhile, that whole "surge" bs? They already decided it's a success, and are just riding out the clock -- ...the senior commanders in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus -- want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension. ... a reduction in troops from roughly 150,000 today to 100,000 by December 2008.
Petraeus champions a slightly different approach that would cut the troops down to roughly 130,000 by the end of 2008, ...
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on June 1, 2007
That's only some Republicans, and they're way outnumbered now by the religious right in terms of the base of primary voters and primary organizations and machines, which Rove has made a career out of getting into the fold. Many fiscal Republicans have left because of both the focus on funding the religious right, and the whole massive deficit and growing the govt and endless war things. Not all of them are part of the industrial/military complex, you know.
Meanwhile, that whole "surge" bs? They already decided it's a success, and are just riding out the clock -- ...the senior commanders in Iraq -- Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus -- want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension. ... a reduction in troops from roughly 150,000 today to 100,000 by December 2008.
Petraeus champions a slightly different approach that would cut the troops down to roughly 130,000 by the end of 2008, ...
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on June 1, 2007
amberglow, I'm talking about the "religious right".
posted by any major dude at 7:51 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by any major dude at 7:51 PM on June 1, 2007
any major dude, there aren't enough rich people to put the GOP into office alone, and the poor/middle ones (the overwhelming majority of primary voters) need red meat--immigration, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, terrorists, Muslims/Arabs coming to bomb their malls and put their daughters in burkas, fear, ...
posted by amberglow at 7:53 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by amberglow at 7:53 PM on June 1, 2007
You have to make a distinction between the Falwells and Dobsons and Robertsons and Haggards, etc--who sell the shit but probably don't buy it themselves--and who all tell their parishioners to vote GOP--and the millions who seriously lap it up--those millions are the GOP base, not the ones selling it to them.
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by amberglow at 7:57 PM on June 1, 2007
Heminator just convinced me that Taibbi is the greatest living writer in America.
Oh, excuse me. The greatest motherfucking living writer in America.
posted by fungible at 7:58 PM on June 1, 2007
Oh, excuse me. The greatest motherfucking living writer in America.
posted by fungible at 7:58 PM on June 1, 2007
...White Evangelicals are a cornerstone of the GOP’s base; in 2004, exit polls found Republicans carried white Evangelicals 3 to 1 over Democrats, winning 74 percent of their votes. ..
posted by amberglow at 8:01 PM on June 1, 2007
posted by amberglow at 8:01 PM on June 1, 2007
Amberglow wrote:
You have to make a distinction between the Falwells and Dobsons and Robertsons and Haggards, etc--who sell the shit but probably don't buy it themselves--and who all tell their parishioners to vote GOP--and the millions who seriously lap it up--those millions are the GOP base, not the ones selling it to them.
Amberglow, There are only two kinds of Republicans - the rich and the stupid. The stupid have basically been brainwashed by the Republican media buyout that was facilitated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. If you want to get to the stupid you have to bring back local newspapers and television because they are bombarded daily by multi-national corporate filtered news that is written thousands of miles away from them promoting the "free market" and detailing the evils of unions and trial lawyers. They need to get their news from people in the same situtation as they are instead of some preacher on the take.
The Haggards, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world are funneled billions of dollars through Bush's "faith-based programs" to do their political evangelism from their pulpit every Sunday. These are the people Rove is using to brainwashed their constituents to vote against their own interests. These people are self-described sheep - there is no getting to them. You can expose their leaders time and again and they will flock back to them because they have no where else to go. They don't care about God so much as they are ruled by fear of being "left behind" and one sure way of being left behind is to vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage or abortion.
posted by any major dude at 9:48 PM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
You have to make a distinction between the Falwells and Dobsons and Robertsons and Haggards, etc--who sell the shit but probably don't buy it themselves--and who all tell their parishioners to vote GOP--and the millions who seriously lap it up--those millions are the GOP base, not the ones selling it to them.
Amberglow, There are only two kinds of Republicans - the rich and the stupid. The stupid have basically been brainwashed by the Republican media buyout that was facilitated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act. If you want to get to the stupid you have to bring back local newspapers and television because they are bombarded daily by multi-national corporate filtered news that is written thousands of miles away from them promoting the "free market" and detailing the evils of unions and trial lawyers. They need to get their news from people in the same situtation as they are instead of some preacher on the take.
The Haggards, Robertsons and Dobsons of the world are funneled billions of dollars through Bush's "faith-based programs" to do their political evangelism from their pulpit every Sunday. These are the people Rove is using to brainwashed their constituents to vote against their own interests. These people are self-described sheep - there is no getting to them. You can expose their leaders time and again and they will flock back to them because they have no where else to go. They don't care about God so much as they are ruled by fear of being "left behind" and one sure way of being left behind is to vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage or abortion.
posted by any major dude at 9:48 PM on June 1, 2007 [4 favorites]
Wow, skygazer. You really didn't get the point of my Abramoff piece at all did you? The whole point was that you can get taken in by a guy like him you might even forget what he's done.
The piece would have had more power, if you balanced it out with you know, the truly frightening and egregious aspects of the man.
Like repeatedly remind people he did business with murderers? Which is what I did.
posted by Heminator at 11:25 PM on June 1, 2007
The piece would have had more power, if you balanced it out with you know, the truly frightening and egregious aspects of the man.
Like repeatedly remind people he did business with murderers? Which is what I did.
posted by Heminator at 11:25 PM on June 1, 2007
What any major dude just wrote, with the additional note that some of the rich are also stupid. Most of the stupid rich are not stupid in the same way as the stupid poor; they don't care about Jesus. Instead, they worship Mammon.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:57 AM on June 2, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:57 AM on June 2, 2007
DU: No offense, but I don't think quoting Shakespeare in rebutting the GOP is going to do much to eliminate the "ivory tower elitist" liberal image.
That's sad to hear. Do not attempt to sound intelligent when rebutting a conservative argument. It is bad for your image.
It's reminiscent of: "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Is that the dragging down?
posted by yoz420 at 6:03 AM on June 2, 2007
That's sad to hear. Do not attempt to sound intelligent when rebutting a conservative argument. It is bad for your image.
It's reminiscent of: "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
Is that the dragging down?
posted by yoz420 at 6:03 AM on June 2, 2007
they worship Mammon
Is that anything like mammaries? Because if it is, then I worship Mammon, too.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 6:50 AM on June 2, 2007
Is that anything like mammaries? Because if it is, then I worship Mammon, too.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 6:50 AM on June 2, 2007
Most of the stupid rich are not stupid in the same way as the stupid poor
If the preponderance in my neck of the woods of 28 year old hedge fund managers driving yellow Lamborghinis is any indication, the stupid rich will not remain rich for much longer.
posted by psmealey at 7:41 AM on June 2, 2007
If the preponderance in my neck of the woods of 28 year old hedge fund managers driving yellow Lamborghinis is any indication, the stupid rich will not remain rich for much longer.
posted by psmealey at 7:41 AM on June 2, 2007
oh, speaking of Compassion: CNN -- Ahead of Europe trip, Bush stresses U.S. compassion
posted by amberglow at 9:15 AM on June 2, 2007
posted by amberglow at 9:15 AM on June 2, 2007
Statistically speaking, the best thing any candidate can do to improve their chances of being elected is change their name to George Bush.
posted by tehloki at 8:00 PM on June 2, 2007
posted by tehloki at 8:00 PM on June 2, 2007
Is that the dragging down?
posted by yoz420
Some say that's how Athens ended...
posted by taosbat at 12:08 AM on June 3, 2007
posted by yoz420
Some say that's how Athens ended...
posted by taosbat at 12:08 AM on June 3, 2007
on Rudy--a new poll: ...It finds that 50% of GOP voters are "less likely" to vote for him because of his pro-abortion and pro-gay rights positions; while that 50% is not all that high, a substantial 67% say there's "no chance" they'll vote for him. ...
posted by amberglow at 1:22 PM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by amberglow at 1:22 PM on June 3, 2007 [1 favorite]
« Older Goal, OUCH, No Fair | We're NOT Going to be Friends : Jack White vs DJ Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Vote Giuliani.
posted by psmealey at 8:39 AM on June 1, 2007 [1 favorite]