Sorry, but this is a terrible anaysis by Mr Kilgore. It almost seems like concern trolling.

- Was the public behind the Clinton impeachment until it became clear that he wasn't going to be convicted? No. Would they have been behind it if he had been? No, and for good reason. This part of Ed's argument is so obtuse - apples and oranges - that I wonder if even he believes it (maybe so!).

- Who is generally horrified by the idea of Impeachment? The political class/people in DC. The 'American People'? Not so much. Impeachment of Bush and especially Cheney would probably be quite popular. They are hated - esp. Cheney. DC in general is hated, too, because that 'town' is so horribly self-involved that it doesn't do its job serving the public interest very well. Its job right now is to impeach a rogue president. If either Bush or Cheney isn't convicted, so be it - you will have Senators on record voting to convict or aquit, and some of them will be running for reelection, and a formal record of at least some of this administration's crimes.

Rosenberg is right. Kilgore (and Drum) don't quite get it: impeachment isn't about 'revenge', in this case, and it needn't be 'catastrophic' and almost never used. If you never use a tool, you lose it. The founders put it there for a reason. If you don't impeach these guys, who do you?

Posted at July 27, 2007 6:25 AM in response to Impeachment Questions

I would guess every area is a little different. Here in Chicago (the 'fourth coast'?) most regular work-a-day neighborhoods (like mine) have something like the following scenario: a large 1BR or normal 2 BR apt in an old but perfectly OK building costs between $700-800/month to rent; to buy the same place (with granite countertops and central AC) costs between $125-230k. Where's the big profit?

Unlike DC perhaps, and definitely unlike NYC, Chicago has tons of good solid brick rental housing stock - mile after mile of it - all the same, but good. Yet it seems that on every block somebody is building (or gutting for) new condos (also all the same), even in the more marginal neighborhoods. I assume they're doing it not because they see a market need, but because money is relatively cheap: they do it because they can. I think a lot of doofuses are going to lose money here...FWIW.

Posted at August 27, 2006 10:36 PM in response to Housing Bust?

We should call the other party the 'Republic' party once for every time they use 'Democrat. It isn't the same grammatically, but it does point out how absurd the whole thing is. A moronic tit for tat is not only appropriate, but perfectly so. At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would remind that assholes (and The Devil, BTW) love for their targets to engage with them when they slander, but they HATE to be simply laughed at.

Posted at August 1, 2006 10:10 AM in response to "IC"-Y

This is also a specifically American phenomenon. Is Tony Blair a great speaker? Is the average English pol? No, but they are at least mostly competent; if you watch Question Time on CSPAN, you can see that most Brit pols can at least express themselves coherently in their own language. Not so most American pols - nor many American people. Our language is debased - we just don't care about it that much. Simple as that.

Posted at June 19, 2006 11:11 AM in response to Why Can't Anyone Speak

The general newspaper approach seems to be to take some work, and then shift the dial two or three notches in the "less interesting" direction before publication.

God, you are so right, Matt. It's a reflex, obviously - less interesting = more serious. A weird, sublimated puritanism. It's probably just some ancient form substituting for forgotten substance ('anybody remember why we do this?').

Posted at May 12, 2006 1:16 PM in response to Where My Ho's At?

Bush 41: Plenty of enemies abound. ... Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, narco-trafficking, people killing each other....

The Bush Wit is the gift which keeps on giving. That peculiar witless wit.

It's ultimately humiliating for the country to be saddled with this low rent psychodrama - a far more directly humiliating thing than people around the world wondering about Clinton's cock. This is flailing pathos which affects millions of destinies. The psycho stuff is a sideshow, but don't imagine for a second that this pathetic character - as such - isn't at the front of minds all around the world. It's a Very Special Dr Phil for a worldwide audience.

This is no criticism of Mark for pointing this out (on the contrary). This isn't overwrought at all. It's there. Bush's dad's name is on the very building, for pity's sake.

Interesting to compare Bush and George Allen in this context. Allen seems to be the same kind of resentful, bullying, con artist as W, but with less sublimation of these qualities (I think Allen is quite a bit less intelligent). I can see why nominating Allen in '08 makes a kind of progressive (small 'p') sense - it's a whittling away of pretense.

Great stuff Mark. I've never seen this mentioned either.

Posted at May 12, 2006 12:28 PM in response to Parricide at the CIA?

(sorry to comment on my on comment, but..one more thing):

The obvious corollary to 'if everything's a joke, nothing is' is its reverse, 'if nothing's a joke, everything is': voila, Colbert. The spirit of comedy is not going to get snuffed out without a fight.

Posted at May 11, 2006 5:31 PM in response to Colbertgate Resolved

this is designed not to amuse, but to wound, to goad, to irritate. It is not comedy;

This implies a profoundly squalid and postmodern comception of what comedy is. 'Was Colbert funny?'is a bit of a fatuous question, because it misses the point. The short version is: a culture which isn't sure what to be serious about also isn't sure what to laugh about - it's both or neither. Exhibit A: the harmlessly transgressive satire of 'Team America: World Police'- funny, but ultimately cowardly and dumb. Matt and Trey are proud to claim that they make a joke of everything. If everything's a joke, nothing is.

(long version here
and here.)

Posted at May 11, 2006 5:24 PM in response to Colbertgate Resolved

IOW, Rush is being rewarded (for bending over) with a token version of something which should be our general policy anyway. Nice strategy.

I´ll spew 10% less known-carcinogens into the air if you give me an enormous tax break.

I´ve kidnapped your child and will beat him only once a day if you pay me x million dollars.

I (a Dem) have been watching Rush here in Chicago for years, and I think this is the final straw. Mediocrity, thy name is Rush.

Posted at April 26, 2006 7:10 PM in response to Network Neutrality

I don't think revenge - strictly speaking - would be the problem. For one thing, 'revenge' in the current political climate is also known as simply 'tough politics' (when the Republicans do it).

No, the problem is that scattershot, diffuse lines of attack, however individually warranted, simply aren't very effective. Maybe I'm just rephrasing your statement. Patent and petty 'revenge' on a wildly broad scale could very well turn voters off, but it wouldn't mean that most of the complaints at hand would be baseless; it's one thing to predict how something might be percieved, but another to judge the merits. The idea that the dems *could* be 'equally corrupt' even if they wanted to be, is laughable (that takes time in power!). But I agree with you that there is a boringly reflexive 'pox on both houses' impulse in America.

Revenge is indeed best served cold. Winning is the best revenge. All those cliches!

Posted at April 25, 2006 3:00 PM in response to Where'd the Money Go?