that is one of the strangest things I have ever seen on so many levels. bizarre.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Quite honestly have no idea what to say

unprecedented?

I'm trying to imagine the pitch meetings

this probably needs its own forum

wtf

can't believe they launched a baby several flights of stairs and then the mayor catches it and tebows. holy fuck

what is the point of that? i dont understand at all. also christie really needs to lose some weight.

Greeks can't form government, over to you Frau Merkel

We live in interesting times

"What if we merge every college and university with Rowan? The South Jersey guys will love that."

JH is still perplexed hours later

I've long thought that the there's a meaningful political division between what I'll call cosmopolitans and parochials. More crudely, my division somewhat corresponds to beltway insiders and everyone else, but I think my labels provide a better sense of what we could the "base".

I'm beginning to see concrete signs of this manifestation, without even looking too hard. In Arkansas, for instance, Bill Halter (the cosmopolitan) unsuccessfully challenged Blanche Lincoln (parochial) for the Dem nomination for Senate seat. Lincoln of course ultimately lost in the general to Boozman. Now, in the AR 4th, we see Cotton (cosmopolitan) leading quite comfortably over two parochial candidates. And thenI read this about Nebraska which shows how national groups succeeded in defeating Bruning but weren't able to get their guy the victory. Now, you could see this and say my cosmopolitan v. parochial doesn't really explain much. Or you might say since I live in Arkansas, which lags the rest of the country by 10 years, there's nothing new here that the rest of the country hasn't experienced. Or that my categories are too slippery to be much used. What about Lugar losing in Indiana you'll ask.

But I'll disagree. I think for the most part, the cosmopolitans are cleaning the parochials' clocks. Citizens United v. US is a big part of this. I think the Tea Party is a bunch of cosmopolitans trying to control a bunch of parochials, which works sometimes. Again, looking at AR 4 you see national tea party groups endorsing cotton, but the endorsement has raised protests from some local tea party organizations. http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/ar ... -tea-party Note the way in which living South of I-40 is of some importance to some people. Is there anything more parochial than that?

So I'll close by saying that the punditocracy may be missing the way in which cosmopolitans may continue to confound our political system. They might be more than a mass of easily manipulated rubes buying Toby Keith records. Or they might not.

TenuredVulture wrote:They might be more than a mass of easily manipulated rubes buying Toby Keith records. Or they might not.

but I thought the cosmos were manipulating the parochs...?

drsmooth wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:They might be more than a mass of easily manipulated rubes buying Toby Keith records. Or they might not.

but I thought the cosmos were manipulating the parochs...?

They are, and so far it's working. But that doesn't mean there isn't something real happening out here that will unfold in unpredictable ways. I don't know if it will work forever though. There are counter strategies available, there are interesting and as yet unexplored possibilities for new coalitions to form and there are signs that parochial candidates have been outperforming expectations--Santorum is exhibit A. Again, look at Nebraska, where the cosmopolitans attempted to get their guy in by tearing down a frontrunner but ended up with a relatively unknown.

Four polls from Wisconsin out in the past few days since the primary, and Walker's either up outside the margin or just at the margin. Seems like something that will get closer rather than open up, but sitting at 50% is a good sign. Only 20 days till the recall election. Longer till the presidential, but Romney's tied with Obama in these WI polls, and Mitt seems to be doing better in WI than nationally, which is weird and potentially neat.

TenuredVulture wrote:I've long thought that the there's a meaningful political division between what I'll call cosmopolitans and parochials. More crudely, my division somewhat corresponds to beltway insiders and everyone else, but I think my labels provide a better sense of what we could the "base".
[...]
But I'll disagree. I think for the most part, the cosmopolitans are cleaning the parochials' clocks. Citizens United v. US is a big part of this. I think the Tea Party is a bunch of cosmopolitans trying to control a bunch of parochials, which works sometimes.
[...]
So I'll close by saying that the punditocracy may be missing the way in which cosmopolitans may continue to confound our political system. They might be more than a mass of easily manipulated rubes buying Toby Keith records. Or they might not.

That I cut out all the Arkansas stuff clearly exposes me as a "cosmopolitan"...

I think there's something to this, but it seems crosswise as to what's perceived to be at issue in our politics right now. Granted that the cosmos manipulate the parochs on both sides, but it's difficult to envision a true "parochial coalition" of evangelicals, lower-income/less-educated non-whites, and the Occupy crowd: everyone who's basically losing in the modern American economy and/or society. As for a cosmo coalition, the next time jerseyhoya and pacino agree on a candidate probably will be the first; they agree on a handful issues (e.g. same-sex marriage), but don't have nearly the same priority/intensity of feeling about them. But they're both clearly cosmopolitans, and I think proudly so.

You could posit the difference that the Republicans are at core the party of parochials and the Democrats are based around the cosmopolitans (literally, given the partisan alignment of rural vs. urban America), but that would require overlooking how cosmos set the Republican agenda, provide pretty much all the money, and in many cases define/feed their extremism, which is the biggest obstacle to the system's functioning right now. (Just ask Ornstein and Mann.)

jerseyhoya wrote:Four polls from Wisconsin out in the past few days since the primary, and Walker's either up outside the margin or just at the margin. Seems like something that will get closer rather than open up, but sitting at 50% is a good sign. Only 20 days till the recall election. Longer till the presidential, but Romney's tied with Obama in these WI polls, and Mitt seems to be doing better in WI than nationally, which is weird and potentially neat.

well, when you have the slowest growth in the nation, you have to stick with a winner

kansas is a disgusting state full of bigots and women-haters masquerading as legislators. it's really sad.

Joe PItts, PA US congressman, WROTE this:

With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process that has collapsed.

Not in the typical meaning of the word wrote, but yeah

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I've long thought that the there's a meaningful political division between what I'll call cosmopolitans and parochials. More crudely, my division somewhat corresponds to beltway insiders and everyone else, but I think my labels provide a better sense of what we could the "base".
[...]
But I'll disagree. I think for the most part, the cosmopolitans are cleaning the parochials' clocks. Citizens United v. US is a big part of this. I think the Tea Party is a bunch of cosmopolitans trying to control a bunch of parochials, which works sometimes.
[...]
So I'll close by saying that the punditocracy may be missing the way in which cosmopolitans may continue to confound our political system. They might be more than a mass of easily manipulated rubes buying Toby Keith records. Or they might not.

That I cut out all the Arkansas stuff clearly exposes me as a "cosmopolitan"...

I think there's something to this, but it seems crosswise as to what's perceived to be at issue in our politics right now. Granted that the cosmos manipulate the parochs on both sides, but it's difficult to envision a true "parochial coalition" of evangelicals, lower-income/less-educated non-whites, and the Occupy crowd: everyone who's basically losing in the modern American economy and/or society. As for a cosmo coalition, the next time jerseyhoya and pacino agree on a candidate probably will be the first; they agree on a handful issues (e.g. same-sex marriage), but don't have nearly the same priority/intensity of feeling about them. But they're both clearly cosmopolitans, and I think proudly so.

You could posit the difference that the Republicans are at core the party of parochials and the Democrats are based around the cosmopolitans (literally, given the partisan alignment of rural vs. urban America), but that would require overlooking how cosmos set the Republican agenda, provide pretty much all the money, and in many cases define/feed their extremism, which is the biggest obstacle to the system's functioning right now. (Just ask Ornstein and Mann.)

You know, I think in terms of style, Obama is cosmopolitan, but in terms of what he's actually trying to do, he's more parochial. Clinton was the opposite.

But to be a bit clearer, I think the cosmo/parochial divide is more a confounding issue than a substantive one at this point--there's really no one articulating the potential coalition I imagine. There are what we would call conservatives and liberals in both camps. And yes, cosmos set the agenda in both parties, but I still think that with time there's potential in progressive populist movement. Part of it has to do with generational change--my parochial students aren't like their parents and they're certainly not like their grandparents. It's important to note that as late as the 70s, the idea of a Republican party that depended on southern evangelical whites as its base was unthinkable. Reagan brought together what we today call social and economic conservatives under the same umbrella--but had the Carter Presidency gone differently, our political landscape would look very different today.

And I'm assigning Ornstein and Mann in my Spring class.

So, I was logging into my Yahoo email account this morning, when I saw this story featured, and couldn't resist. As much as anything, this turned into a fun exercise in how Yahoo and other crappy news-redistributors bait people on click-throughs. Yahoo's brief one-line summary says there is a SuperPac trying to bring down Barack Obama by calling attention to his association with Jeremiah Wright, and one of its "documents" "refers" to him as a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln."

So of course my gut reaction is, "They are not going to get very far if their strategy is to call Barack Obama another Abraham Lincoln."

When you click through to the story, you find out is a re-hash of a New York Times piece, but the writer (for Yahoo), Dylan Stableford, makes much the same claim as the teaser did:

According to a copy of the plan obtained by the New York Times, the group wants to expose the ties between President Obama--who is referred to as a "metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln"--and Wright's "black liberation theology."

Now I'm thinking, "Is it possible a SuperPac is really comparing Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln like it is a bad thing?"

But of course, when you click through to the New York Times article, and you read something that is responsibly presented, you discover the truth:

Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg wrote:The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”

Obviously, this is very different than implying, as the Yahoo stuff did, that the SuperPac itself is comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln.

But even the Times article provides evidence for why not all claims of a liberal bias in the "main stream" press are off-base. The article begins by strongly implying that the plan in question is all but assured of being executed, awaiting only "final approval" by the billionaire Joe Ricketts:

Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg wrote:A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.

The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.

But, as we learn only later in the article, the plan is one of "several" under consideration, and is really only tied to Ricketts insofar as he asked several different groups to come up with a strategy for how to spend his SuperPac's money.

My guess is, if this ever was under serious consideration (which I doubt), it's dead now: can't imagine a guy who is trying to run a baseball team that is struggling to win games - in Chicago, of all places, the President's home city - wants to stir up a racial fight.

Which means this is all much ado about nothing.