Certainly, many Fox News viewers must have been shocked Wednesday night by Rich Lowry’s comments to Megyn Kelly:
“Look Trump attacks everyone but she’s become a much bigger target. And I think part of what’s going on here is that last debate. Let’s be honest, Carly cut his balls off with the precision of a surgeon.”
.@FoxNews owes me an apology for allowing clueless pundit @RichLowry to use such foul language on TV. Unheard of!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2015
Fox is becoming the anti-Trump network, as Trump himself has noticed and, whatever its effect on Trump’s campaign, I’m not sure that is a wise marketing strategy for Fox. The populist anti-Washington “mad as hell” voters who like Trump are a huge part of Fox’s viewership. Nor are the Trump voters a negligible component of the electorate:
Americans are “fed up” with politics, suspect the wealthy are getting an unfair edge, and think the country is going in the wrong direction, according to a new Bloomberg Politics poll that lays bare the depth and breadth of the discontents propelling outsider candidates in the Republican presidential field.
The survey shows that 72 percent of Americans think their country isn’t as great as it once was—a central theme of front-runner Donald Trump’s campaign. More than a third prefer a presidential candidate without experience in public office.
Three of the four candidates leading the Republican field fit that description: Trump, the first choice of 21 percent of registered Republicans and voters who say they lean that way, followed by neurosurgeon Ben Carson with 16 percent, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13 percent, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina with 11 percent.
My suggestion last night on Twitter:
The whole pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump thing: Can everybody just de-escalate that and focus on how the Democrats are ruining America?
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 24, 2015
People need to calm down about this primary campaign. We are still four months away from the Iowa caucuses. If Trump is your favorite candidate, OK. If you hate Trump, that’s OK, too. But there’s no point in conservatives denouncing their own friends and amping up the all-or-nothing rhetoric as if nothing else mattered.
Six months from now, in late March, a lot of people are going to disappointed that their favorite didn’t get the nomination, but so what? As long as the eventual Republican nominee wins in November 2016, conservatives generally will be happy, while liberals generally will be freaking out in paroxysms of rage and despair.
Imagine the disconsolate tears of liberals when Hillary loses. Be happy.
There is no segment of the alt-right obsessed with IQ tests. That’s simply a statement generated by your preening foolishness.
What you’re telling everyone is that you never read any of this literature. Thanks for your input.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the reduction of social research to psychology and anthropology and the reduction of these two to biology is the defining feature of the collection of publicists which has gathered around Ron Unz. Steve Sailer cannot go for two days without returning to a discussion of psychometrics and his comment boards are shot through with people vitriolic on the subject.
There are other segments of the alt-right. There are the goldbugs over at the von Mises Institute, the functional pacifists and historical fabulists who write for Wick Allison’s rag and Antiwar.com, the bogus agrarian Wendell Berry admirers collected around Jeffrey Polet, and the redoubtable Rockford Institute, at which there’s a bit of this and a bit of that. They’re united by one thing: the conviction that they’re better people than those of the conventional right. Tiresome crews.
The article Derb had posted was a parody of “the talk” black men give their sons.
No, it was a parody of what NPR-type white journalists fancy black men tell their sons. No doubt some do that and no doubt some of them give their sons uptight lectures about the danger of falling asleep and drowning in a bathtub. Irrational risk assessment is not all that uncommon.
Wear hi-tops this time
Derb a racist, when Derb was nothing of the sort.
The real John Derbyshire is a ‘racist’ in the clinical sense and has claimed the term. That’s bog standard in and among that intellectual coterie. They are quite persuaded that heritable factors in human development are the only one’s worth discussing. That has some interesting consequences among their acolytes.
Derbyshire dealt with the accusation you make on the supposed vitriolic
attack you reference. The target of that “vitriol” is still on good
terms with Derb even after that review.
Accusation? Read the review. It’s likely still online. It is what it is, which is completely unreasonable.
There is no indication from Mr. Ponnuru’s occasional remarks on Derbyshire’s escapades that he has anything but a sour tolerance for the man.
It’s an idiot term, as can be seen from it’s frequent application to the Republican presidential nominees. When you’re the Republican presidential nominee, you define what an authentic Republican is, not some combox clown.
That aside, however disappointing and irritating John McCain or Jeb Bush may be, they still have a set of motors and look to a set of interests distinct from that of the political opposition. That some sectaries cannot see it is not their problem.
Initially claimed? You mean a squib written by a publicist when he was about 30?
There are no mysteries about Obama’s birth or parentage, which are as well-documented as that of any other mope born in Honolulu in 1961. It’s a reasonable inference people find the subject attractive not because there is any uncertainty there, but because it gives some people kicks to fancy they’re in the know and the sheeple are not.
The problem is that there alternative scenarios not only contradict all the period evidence (which they simply deny or claim are forgeries), they are nonsensical tout court. These include contentions that two impecunious college students undertook expensive and time-consuming international travel so that Obama, Sr. could introduce his pregnant girlfriend to his wife back in Kenya, or that a pregnant Ann Dunham must have decamped to Seattle in the summer of 1961 and birthed her child on a day trip to Vancouver (of which evidence is nil), or that Frank Marshall Davis must have sired Obama. That Davis lived in a village on the north side of Oahu nowhere near the Dunham’s residence in Hawaii Kai, that the Dunhams had only been on Oahu for about four months when Obama was conceived, that the association between Ann Dunham and BO Sr. is perfectly explicable, and that Obama bears no special resemblance to Frank Marshall Davis is not considered an impediment to this hypothesis (these idiots just claim the two look alike).
Who said they were evil? ‘Evil’ does not describe them. ‘Stupid’ does. And that’s not the President’s fault.
?
What is the contrary of a working politician? Politicians without flaws may be found in this cohort, apparently? Oooohhh… its an empty set. Sooo clever. Like, they’re all flawed, so we should just accept that pols are gonna mix a teaspoon of dog shit into every gallon of conservative ice cream. Hey. its only a teaspoon, choose a flavor (color, really; it all tastes like dog shit now) and choke it down.
Ppppbbbbbtttttt….
“Working politicians”
I know when jargon is being employed in furtherance of a fanciful notion.
John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Mike Huckabee have all been the recipients of it
If I claimed it started with Reagan, how vociferously would you argue in defense of some long-forgotten rino?
The results of Buckley’s years as a doddard are still haunting NR and it is unlikely to recover from it.
There is no indication that Buckley was ever in any sort of mental decline other than that which happens in normal aging. Peter Brimelow, quite alone, has tried to retail the notion that he was, based largely on an account of one evening at dinner. No serious person would pay any attention to that.
Offer a coherent sentence, and I might offer you an argument. You’ve not done that here.
The establishment alters in details but is always anti-conservative and wimpish. Compare Dewey’s campaign against Truman with Romney’s against Obama, and with the Boehner/McConnell against any Dem opposition.
You are simply in error, as Jeb Bush, Fiorina and Carson can testify. In addition, Trump doubles down for no good reason, as in his attack on Paul starting the last debate.
Further, he interprets legitimate differences of opinion as attacks. Not surprising, i suppose, because it’s a weakness of narcissists.
You’re confused. There is no abiding set of conflicts or common theme which places Thomas Dewey in any sort of thread with Boehner and McConnell. Dewey was a bourgeois proponent of clean government in contradiction to Tammany Hall; that’s a dispensation in New York politics which antedated the New Deal and it was Dewey’s baseline more than anything else. He was also a Republican who accepted various sorts of New Deal-type legislation. There was a large spectrum of opinion in the Republican Party at the time on such questions, and Robert Taft was not a likely agent for wholesale dismantling of New Deal measures, whatever people imagine he stood for (he was an advocate of federal urban renewal legislation, among other things).
The conflicts Dewey was a part of just do not map well to contemporary conflicts, which concern state allocation of capital through various means. Cruz and McConnell were not on the floor of the Senate arguing over old-age pensions or labor law, but over whether favored industries should be getting cheap credit (Cruz arguing no, McConnell implicitly yes). It’s conceivable Dewey and Taft might have had this argument (as the ExIm Bank then existed, but pushing that sort of thing was not a Dewey signature).
About 2 years before the boy child Lowry kicked him tot he curb and tried to ruin his life.
Richard Lowry is 47 years old.
Derbyshire was not a staff editor, but a contributor paid piece work.
There is no indication that Lowry had any interest in ‘ruining his life’, merely removing him from the masthead. NR has a brand and an editorial mission. If Derbyshire’s in conflict with that, it’s perfeclty appropriate to let him go.
I haven’t done which?
Are you saying I haven’t offered a coherent sentence or I haven’t offered you an argument?
Cuz the very first fucking sentence is coherent
Maybe its only incoherent to working rinos
He sounds a lot like Vox Day. I frequent his site regularly (mostly lurking). The discussion is not mainstream, but often goes off on weird tangents.
You seem to be getting involved with minuscule policy differences rather than major issues.
The Boehner/McConnell weakness—the thing that has made Trump’s simplistic platform popular—is their repeated tactic of talking big in opposition to Obama, then folding like a flimsy stepladder when he threatens “government shutdown.” Which started with Gingrich vs Clinton, by the way.
And to go back in time, Taft (known as Mr Republican) was very much a conservative for his time, and opposed much of the New Deal that Dewey had compromised with.
If we elect a Republican who insists on flooding the country with third-world immigrants, it will be no reason for conservatives to celebrate. If we continue importing people who have no understanding whatsoever of our traditions and our form of government, we’ll never elect another conservative to national office again.
Done
You miss the point, but that’s not a surprise. Lowry is in conflict with the brand, and that hasn’t made a bit of difference. Derb, OTOH, was never in conflict with it.
By the that definition so are you and I.
Congrats. You actually got something partially right.
Thanks for revealing that you have little contact with intellectual reality. Sailer is noted for his interest in IQ. there is a huge difference between interest and obsession. By your lights you’re obsessed with appearing to be pedant. By my lights, you are simply interested in appearing to be so.
Some are, some aren’t.
Steyn doesn’t abide fools easily. NR is now run by fools.
Go easy on Deco. He’s our resident faux intellectual and is often in over his head.
Ajudged idiotic by an idiot. Check.
Their problem is that their difference makes little difference. Bush’s misrule was a disaster for the country.
Sailer is noted for his interest in IQ. there is a huge difference between interest and obsession.
In his case, no. It’s a defining feature of his social thought. His votaries would not deny that.
Both Bush and Fiorina are narcissistic as well. Trump seems to like Carson, but holds Bush and Fiorina in contempt. I don’t blame him.
Since when did the ‘brand’ include Derbyshire’s investment in the notion of human biology as a source of human behavior?
It is a major but not a defining feature. I’ve read a lot of his stuff and know what he has to say. Nice to know you can read the minds of his “votaries.”
How much have you read NR over the years? I’m just wondering how on God’s green earth you became so naive. That is an issue that has been speculated on for a long time among several writers on NR. It’s only since the boy-child Lowry has taken over that there has been fear shown on approaching the issue.
Given the idiocy one finds in the “mainstream” that group is not in the least interested in being mainstream.
I think Vox Day is an autodidact eccentric with interests all over the map. He bought into a substrand of Austrian economics at one point (Peter Boettke et al) and was assuring people in vehement terms that we were headed for a catastrophe. That was about five years ago.
You haven’t read much about the man’s behavior during his last years. The man was in obvious mental decline. Lowry’s hiring is only one good example of that. There were many other things that not even a man of your low talent would have missed had been paying any attention. Brimelow wasn’t the only one that saw it. Get out and catch up sometime.
Vox day is far, far from being alone in predicting economic disaster. The red flags were flying 5 years ago for anyone that cared to pay attention. There are far more flying now, and the voices are becoming even more insistent. Investment advisors of my personal acquaintance are strongly advising clients to get into cash, and the retirees in my church that are handling their own retirement investments are all on tenterhooks.
Anyone that ignores the signs is a fool and they are going to get burned.
How much have you read NR over the years?
Varied from one time period to another. Fairly regularly at the library from 1979 to 1985 and 1994 to 2012. Looked at the online offerings several times a week since 1998.
Liberal critics who wish to tar NR as raaaaacist generally quote one editorial written in 1957. If you rummaged through back issues of NR, you might find some endorsement of Derbyshire’s eugenicist chatter (other than what was written by Derbyshire himself and Steven Sailer during his brief run as an NR contributor). It has never been a particular interest of the magazine.
I didn’t say it was “a particular interest.” However to say it was never dealt with is silly. I don’t think NR is racist, but by the definition you have applied, it is.
You’re not in a position to be making ex cathedra statements, your delusions to the contrary.
Investment advisors of my personal acquaintance are strongly advising clients to get into cash,
You need to be talking to more knowledgeable advisers.
I’m afraid when someone predicts economic apocalypse and it does not show for a period of time equal to north of 80% of an ordinary business cycle, you figure they’re in the attention-seeking business.
Speak for yourself.
Well, Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature is likely available at an academic or downtown public library near you. Spelunk through it and maybe you will find something in 60 years worth of bi-weekly issues.
You obviously have not a clue what is meant by the term. As an attempted insult it is contemptibly lame.
is their repeated tactic of talking big in opposition to Obama, then
folding like a flimsy stepladder when he threatens “government
shutdown.”
Not sure what that has to do with Thomas Dewey, who cut his teeth in public life prosecuting gangsters.
And to go back in time, Taft (known as Mr Republican) was very much a conservative for his time,
I’d call him an idiosyncratic pest.
Now you’re simply descending into incoherence.
Of course you would call him a pest. Taft represented the mainstream of the Republican party of the midwest. Dewey was a solid representative of what later became known as the Rockefeller wing, who were solid libtards.
weasel too
Not surprised you don’t like your own standard.
Sam Francis, Joseph Sobran also
Day has not predicted an “apocalypse.” Also, what has been happening over the past month and half was predicted by those men you seem to hold in contempt.