Hi Dave! I have a cold.
One thing we can say about the primaries: they’re done shifting. No more weird poll changes. For the rest of the campaign, Romney’s #1, Santorum’s the insurgent challenger, and Gingrich is done.
Know what I think is coming soon? A “Santorum as Romney’s running mate” narrative. Once the media shifts into a two-man-race narrative— either because Gingrich drops out or because he’s finally written off— we’ll start hearing bullshit speculation about a Romney-Santorum partnership (possibly floated by the Romney campaign to get Santorum to drop out and/or to cement the idea that Romney’s on top). Seems pretty standard when two rivals are locked in, i.e. Obama/Clinton. Bored pundits will babble about how Santorum could boost Romney’s image with the conservatives who have been skeptical of him. Blah blah blah. I just wrote every op-ed that will get published in April.
I don’t get how you can think it’s OK to associate someone’s comments with someone else. Rush Limbaugh isn’t Mitt Romney. They’re different guys! They’re in different gross bodies! They think some different stuff!
I think “not the language I’d have used” is synonymous with “horrible” in this context. It’s not the language I’d have used, but just because it’s not forceful doesn’t change its meaning. This sounds like splitting hairs to me. Are we really going to ignore the obvious, normal meaning of words and use semantics to criticize Romney? “Not the language I’d have used” = Rush bad. (I’ll bet his decision to avoid forceful wording has a lot to do with Limbaugh’s popularity among conservatives— but also, who cares? Point is, Romney isn’t calling people sluts.)
Prediction for Kucinich: TV show. Backup prediction: some kinda thinktank type of deal. Center For American Progress or whatever.
I’m not saying the New York media is indicative of the media overall! Just that it’s the clearest example I saw. One example of a thing is not every example of that thing! My general impression at the time was that the Murdoch-owned media had a pro-Republican bias and that most of the rest had a pro-Democratic bias. I think that’s still true, but maybe slightly less. A lot of it is very subtle and probably unintentional; one of the major things I noticed was that conservatives were called “conservatives” way more often than liberals were called “liberals”, creating the impression that liberals were the default while conservatives were a “them”. Here’s the New York Times’s ombudsman acknowledging in 2004 that it leans liberal.
I’m with you on wanting to fire Ray Kelly. But obviously, that wouldn’t help if his replacement did things the same way. So what would you propose to demilitarize the police? What would your dream candidate propose doing?
Hey Hal! Thanks for clarifying that what happened between us at karaoke was not fucking. I’m somewhat relieved.
I don’t think it wrong to associate the things Moore, or Olbermann, or Carville say with Democrats, in general. There are individual Democrats who disagree with some of…