To flesh this idea out, if there are multiple people who want to participate in the book club for a given book, you could ask them to write a post explaining their interest or expertise, and then let people vote in the comments or by recommendations on who should get to participate.

Posted at July 21, 2008 4:46 PM in response to A Proposal for Improving the Book Club and the Community

Awesome. Who knew I could annoy him so much. Thanks to everyone for standing up against this crap.

Ross, I'm not buying your book. If you want to send me a press copy, I'll give it a read.

Posted at July 21, 2008 8:27 AM in response to Signing Off

Dear Reihan,

I don't think you know what "nationalism" means.

Sincerely,

Reece

Posted at July 17, 2008 8:38 PM in response to A Question Of Nationalism

I appreciate that we agree that there is a substantial possibility that Obama now believes that this was the right policy. However, that does nothing to justify the policy. It just means that his view of the world is skewed. The point of this post was to point out that the view of presidents can often be unnecessarily skewed by the environment in which they operate. After all, I was walking down the street not at all concerned about plots against the president or even random gun violence. The President has such massive protection not because such threats are real, but because the loss caused by him getting shot is much, much larger than the loss if I get shot. The risk may very well be the same, but the damages are bigger for the president.

So, keep that in mind--policies may not be justified and right even if they represent Obama's actual position.

Posted at July 17, 2008 8:03 AM in response to The Frightening World of Presidents (formatted)

I honestly think that people in this nation, for better or for worse, look to government to help them solve their problems.

One question:

WHO FUCKING CARES?

That's what government is there for. Governments exists to solve problems. If we didn't have problems, we wouldn't have governments.

Posted at July 16, 2008 7:40 PM in response to A Fool's Errand

I had much the same concern, but from a different angle. Like you wondered in an earlier blog post whether Obama was serious about his new FISA position. However, if he is serious, I see it rather as the end of civil liberties as we have lived them throughout the majority of our lives. Put another way: The President's responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, and not merely protect us against vaguely defined military and criminal assaults. For our security is actually compromised--not protected--by government intrusions into our liberty and illegal programs.

That is why we must be on guard. Even if Obama becomes President, we cannot simply assume that he is doing everything in our interest. The Constitution is there to protect us.

Posted at July 16, 2008 8:03 AM in response to The Frightening World of Presidents (formatted)

Well said, Libertine. His ideological slight of hand is obviously what got me a little frustrated with this cheap-goods line.

What he is doing is trying to provide an after the fact justification for ideologically-based polices using the unstated and unintended consequences of those policies.

And let's be clear, this is a tour. He tried to sell that line on Bill Moyer's program last week, and now he's trying to sell it here. I am sure he'll say it again where ever he pops up next to shill his book. He is trying very hard to create a new meme about Republican policies. I hope we can make sure he doesn't get very far with it.

Posted at July 16, 2008 7:56 AM in response to Ross Douthat's Mendacity Tour

Dammit TPM, institute an editing function. Every time I copy and paste, things get screwed up. I tried reformatting it, but I didn't make any difference.

Posted at July 15, 2008 7:08 PM in response to The Frightening World of Presidents (formatted)

Well, I'm glad Libertine posted.

Jim, I just wanted to let you know that I read your entire post. It's long, but a good read.

Posted at July 15, 2008 5:59 PM in response to So Near, and Yet So Far

Look, Douthat, even this post is dishonest. No one in your party or on your side sat down face to face with the American public and said, "We're going to implement policies that will ensure your wages stagnate, but instead of growing wages, you'll get cheaper goods from China. See, the way it works out, you'll have more stuff but without any more money. How's that sound to you?"

The Republicans didn't strike that deal with the American public. Instead, they said, we can't raise the minimum wage because you'll lose your job. They said, we must lower taxes on the richest people in this country, because if we do, then they will create more businesses and grow the economy. Those were the arguments you were making. No one was talking honestly about making wages stagnate while allowing cheap Chinese imports to lower the cost of living. It's ridiculous.

You're going to have to do a lot more than find CYA excuses for terrible policies if you want to get your party back in power.

Posted at July 14, 2008 2:41 PM in response to Grand New Party and Political Narrative