Can we have a Mitt Romney/Tom Cruise debate to settle the issue, pls?
 

Reading this blog can feel like listening to The Hold Steady (and I mean that in a good way) and this is a good example
 

Thanks. Um...what does that mean, anyway? Or should I just take the compliment and not ask?
 

No one should come near being president of the United States if he believes that a religion is something one is "in favor of," or the opposite, whatever that might be. "Opposed to"? "Disdainful of"? "On a crusade against"?

Still less should such a person come near being president of the United States, or of the Podunk Rotary Club, if he finds himself categorizing any religion as 'favored' or 'opposed' IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS.

How can someone whose religion is so much a part of his public identity make a gaffe so outrageous?

All three of the Republican front-runners would be DQed by now by wildly profilerating thumbsucker-pieces in the media -- Giuliani making comments that obviously alienate the Republican base, Romney flip-flopping and fumbling, and McCain hitched to the anchor of Iraq and disembowelled arthroscopically on The Daily Show last week -- if there were anyone to replace them, in order to insure that the 2008 election has some kind of horse-racey narrative that keeps people tuning in...


Romney. What a moron. And clearly a fourth-class American, in this quotation at least.

Standing Eagle
 

Listen to The Hold Steady -- a great band -- and you'll get it.
 

That guy Dickerson from Slate was on NPR just now trying to claim that the insane meaninglessness of Romney's answer about his favorite book would work in his favor:

Romney, he said, looks like a guy who's really prepared for everything. So if this was an unscripted moment, that might "actually work to his political benefit."

The media is DESPERATE for a credible Republican candidate. I'm serious. DESPERATE.

"Battlefield Earth" -- BECAUSE it's such a dumb answer, and so impolitic -- is a good thing for this candidacy.

Up is down, black is white. Whatever's necessary to keep the storyline alive.

Meanwhile, however, William F. Buckley is administering last rites to the GOP in the National Review (Saturday I think it was).

What a joke these pundits be.

Standing Eagle
 

Oh My God.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

Have these counterintuitivists no sense of logical decency, at long last?

Dickerson: http://www.slate.com/id/2165373?nav=tap3

How does a pundit with a vested interest in two competitive primaries and an interesting general campaign -- despite the fact that there is NO PLAUSIBLE CANDIDATE and NO PLAUSIBLE RATIONALE for the GOP in the coming cycle -- spin an insane comment by the candidate everyone was counting on to be the sane fallback from McCain (if Iraq means an isolationist electorate) and Giuliani (if he's too flamboyantly liberal)? Watch in horrified awe, and try to believe that this is the 'smart' analyst, whose work ISN'T on deadline.

Romney says Battlefield Earth is a favorite book. What do we conclude?
...
>ri-keet<

>ri-keet<


Um...


"There is no obvious stratagem behind it, which means Romney, the most meticulously arrayed and perhaps the most careful of the candidates, may be giving us a peek at a robust inner goofball. Voters like to get a little glimpse of the authentic core in their candidates and Romney's team has been trying to show this side since their candidate can appear affected. It's why [...] Romney and his wife joke about his corny sense of humor. Nothing could be more regular than the irony-free love of schlock found in overwrought thrillers written by self-aggrandizing madmen" (that last sentence supposedly tongue-in-cheek, but it can't really be tongue-in-cheek, cuz then the article negates itself).


Look on our press, ye powerless, and despair.



Oh, and get this: I just remembered this: Dickerson went on to claim on NPR that maybe Romney hadn't picked a more sensible favorite book because he was "too busy studying up on actual issues, things people care about." Has ANYONE, ANYONE in the media EVER said anything like that about a Democrat in the last fifteen years?

This provided the segue for the sheeplike NPR host to bring up the debate tonight -- at which of course all the Republicans will be trying to "distance themselves" from President Bush, i.e., from what Republicanism ITSELF has been for six of the last seven years.


SE

And here's one more laugh riot to bring us beyond the brink of tears: this is what Dickerson calls 'evidence' for the claim that Romney is a scripted and prepared guy who can benefit from a little goofiness in his campaign. This is the entirety of the case for that claim:

"Romney is a man who likes to prepare. In the months before announcing his presidential bid, his foundation donated to social conservative groups that he now hopes will support him. He once seemed to enjoy distancing himself from the NRA, but before running for the GOP nomination he joined the influential gun lobby. So, it was a pretty good bet that among the current crop of candidates, Romney would have the most calculated reading list."
 

Richard - May I suggest that you devote one post a week to SE's exclusive use? You could title it, "The Standing Eagle Still Refuses To Stand Down" or something like that. Just put in the title, no content, and let him comment away to his heart's desire. Everyone who wants to read the comments, can do so; everyone who doesn't, can avoid them. Then, you could employ an automatic block for any other attempted communication.....

Just a thought.
 

4:02 --

You just WISH you could type this fast.


Scrollin' is easy, by the way -- not as easy as pimpin', but easy.


I submit to the judges that these posts were relevant to this thread. Not always the case, admittedly.


Typing Eagle
 

Relevance is easy. Thoughtfulness, concision, that takes work.
 

Six words:

Identify thoughtlessnesses.

Unconcision I cop to.

SE
 

Explain how thoughtfulness can exist without concision and I'll take you up on that.
 

Ever heard of Hegel?


A lot of thoughtful people need editors. Glenn Greenwald also comes to mind.

I think the burden of proof is on you to wed those two concepts. Sometimes more evidence and more complex argumentation are needed, for the sake of clarity.

A concession: If I had longer to work on my posts for this blog, yes, they'd be shorter.

Would they be more thoughtful? Only marginally so.

SE