Powered by TypePad

« EJ Dionne Tells US What Republicans Think (I Leap From A Ledge) | Main | Andrew Sullivan's Heroic Self-Appraisal »

February 04, 2010


Jack is Back!


This dovetails well with the preceding post about EJ and his understanding of Republicans and Democrats. As I noted there in the thread, maybe he had a head's up from the Gallup people and has snuck into DC Chinatown for some Mongolian Bar-B-Que and lively conversation with the bartender there.


Pacific Islanders (excepting Filipinos) are generally dependent on the government for handouts, so another self-interested group pulling the lever for the Dems?


--In general, the larger group of Asian-Americans tend to be more Democratic and more liberal than average Americans.--

So much for Asians being smarter than everybody else.
As further evidence, it was the liberal Democratic hero FDR who placed Japanese Americans in concentration camps, right?


It is a mystery to me, too, TM. Roosevelt's solicitor general lied to get Japanese Americans interned.
Democrats regularly support racial quotas which hurt high performing Asian students.

Maybe it's just that they tend to live in large cities and have adapted the views of the majorities there.
I cannot figure it out.


Also, I'm no sure how one could ever really know this for a fact, but some people say that Prop 8 in california (anti-gay marriage) was passed because so many African Americans turned out to vote for the O.


There really are no liberals any more .. most are now called moderates, while those rabid pols are "Progressives".

Ran / Si Vis Pacem

I prefer a different yardstick: Libertarian v Statist, or Individualist v Statist. Put in a framework of Liberty and Tyranny - the meanings of Liberal and Conservative are pegged to something intellectually tangible.

While most of my Jewish confreres are statist, a growing number of us are heading in what would be called a libertarian-conservative direction. I'm doing my best - especially with things like getting the young lads into Boy Scouts.

Great blog.


Paul Zrimsek

If what I see in comment sections is any indication, every liberal in America self-identifies as a "Goldwater conservative".


every liberal in America self-identifies as a "Goldwater conservative".

LOL. And then there is my 100% Dem-voting boss who calls himself "an Andrew Sullivan conservative." I have no words for that.

Jim Miller

If I recall correctly, George H. W. Bush carried the votes of Asians in 1988. (Caveat: Small numbers in the exit polls, so there would be a big sampling error.)

Danube of Thought

I saw California polling after the Prop 8 vote indicating that it lost by a pretty good margin among whites, but carried overwhelmingly among blacks and Hispanics.

An "Andrew Sullivan conservative" is no doubt an avid reader of conservative pundit Kevin B. Phillips.

Joseph Evans

I wonder, how much does one need to know about American politics and economics in order to correctly self-identify? The party of self-interest probably rules. After all, isn't it true that most people vote the pocketbooks?


--And then there is my 100% Dem-voting boss who calls himself "an Andrew Sullivan conservative."--

Jeebus, porch.
Hope you were rubber gloves at work.


Or you could "wear" them instead.


a lot of American liberalism has its roots in redressing the wrongs of slavery and the Jim Crow era, by attenuating those wrongs while applying them to more people.

Can one be a "What's in it for me?" liberal?

Is there any other kind? Remember that Democrat-written, Democrat-lauded book from a few years back, "What's the matter with Kansas - why can't they see what's in it for them?"


Hey, speaking of black conservatives, there is a guy named Dr. Thomas Sowell. He has written plenty of books but one of his finest is "Conflict of Vision." It is a highly readable, relatively brief, discussion of divergent views in our politics and their roots.

His main point revolves around looking at political philosophy with the extremes characterized by one's view of humanity - are we naturally flawed or capable of perfection by way of reason?

On the "Constrained" side are those like Burke, Adam Smith, Hayek and most of the Founders. They view the individual as capable of great things but trust in no one to be smart enough to be their master. Great weight is placed on societal norms even if some citizens can't articulate or explain their importance. On the "unconstrained" side are Godwin, Rousseau. The past and social norms keep us from achieving perfection and a vanguard can lead everyone towards perfection through reason or being taught how to reason and act properly.

If Left versus Right doesn't satisfy you, Conflict of Visions is a great addition to the bookshelf.


There's also the age thing to consider.

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old." -- ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings in his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14, 1994.

Here's looking forward to many variations on Jennings' theme this November 2nd.


Squishes walk back on NLRB nominee:
he Hill [Washington, DC], by Kevin Bogardus
Two Senate Republicans who previously supported a controversial labor board nominee opposed him on Thursday, putting his confirmation in doubt. Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) backed Craig Becker’s nomination (Snip) Becker, an associate general counsel to both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO, is viewed by business trade groups as someone who could institute parts of the Employee Free Choice Act


Perhaps more on-topic.

"This is a rotten time to be black. Blacks are just going to take it in the chops....Their programs are going to get eviscerated and affirmative action is going to go right down the tubes...Politics have moved right because a lot of middle-class people thought they were taking my money and giving it to poor black people, and they didn't like it and they want their money back." -- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, November 12, 1994.
Melinda Romanoff

Before I get thwacked, Ignatz your query is answered here.

And so is your comment, clarice, ahem.


"Great weight is placed on societal norms even if some citizens can't articulate or explain their importance"

Good point IMO. A medical analogy could be this: The FDA requires that any new medicine be tested and demonstrate effective results and acceptably safe levels of side effects.

Is there a requirement that the medicine have a simple rational explanation? No. If it works, and it's safe, it's good.

Suppose some life saving remedy is derived from a plant used as a traditional medicine discovered by natives in the Amazon jungle.

FDA: Does this medicine save lives?
tester: Yes

FDA: Is this medicine safe?
tester: Yes

FDA: What is the rational explanation for how it works?
tester: The discoverer, a medicine man in the Amazon jungle, claims he was told by his ancestors in a dream that a potion made from the mimbo plant drives evil spirits insane. They flee to the bowels of the Earth and the patient is cured.

FDA: Sorry, this medicine fails the rational explanation test.


Apparently it means something like this in Illinois: Dem nominee for lt. gov was once accused of holding knife to woman’s neck .

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the Republicans will win this one.

Scott Lee Cohen -- a pawnbroker who shocked state Democratic leaders Tuesday night by winning the party's nomination for lieutenant governor -- was arrested about four-and-a-half years ago and accused of holding a knife to a former live-in girlfriend's neck, newly obtained court records show.

The misdemeanor charge against Cohen was dropped weeks later when the woman -- who had just been found guilty of prostitution -- failed to show up to testify, according to those records. Scott Lee Cohen had disclosed his domestic violence arrest during his campaign, but the details did not surface until after he won the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor.

This isn't the only piece of information Republicans might try to use against the Democratic gubernatorial ticket, the other half of which was being sorted out as Gov. Quinn and Dan Hynes ran neck-and-neck with ballots still to be counted.

Cohen's Oct. 14, 2005, arrest came five months after his wife filed for divorce and convinced a judge to give her a temporary order of protection, records show. A status hearing in the divorce case took place Wednesday, hours after Cohen's election-night triumph.

Cohen -- who records show also had federal tax troubles that he says he has settled -- denied in a written statement that he ever hurt the ex-girlfriend or his family. Cohen disclosed his domestic violence arrest when he announced his candidacy, but the details about the knife and prostitution case didn't surface in the campaign, as Cohen was considered a longshot.

Those are the first 5 paragraphs--there are 10 more! Yow!

Gotta luv his explanation: "It was a difficult time in my life." Sounds like it. Nowhere to go but up.


Self-identification is not that difficult.

'Liberal' means generous, expansive and open
(aka, 'progressive')

'Conservative' means tight-fisted (stingy) and closed-ended.(aka, 'regressive)



My boss actually seems somewhat sensible for a Dem of the "I was listening to NPR the other day..." or "I read in the Times that..." sort. He isn't a kneejerk leftist like others at work. But I doubt he signed on to Andi's fan club until Andi turned on George W. back in 2004 over gay marriage.

Anyway, when my boss first mentioned this, I asked him to let me know what positions Sullivan supported that could possibly be called conservative. The subject hasn't come up since.


Ohmigod! Vintage Ann Coulter on what it means to be a pro-Obama pundit--and what it means to be Obama!

In a "Special Report" on the president's question-and-answer session with Republicans last Friday, MSNBC's jock-sniffers Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow produced a museum-quality show:


Unlike the jock-sniffers, normal people watching the president's tete-a-tete with the Republicans only wondered why Obama always responds to imaginary arguments no one made, rather than the questions actually being asked.

That is Obama's signature move: Invent "people" who are "saying" ridiculous things and then encourage the audience to laugh at these made-up buffoons.


Suppose some life saving remedy is derived from a plant used as a traditional medicine discovered by natives in the Amazon jungle.

I realize this is a hypothetical, but this has been tried repeated, and has not worked (Shaman was the best-known example). There does remain a contingent of people who puree various flora and fauna to try to find medicinals, but this approach has pretty much fallen out of favor for a more mechanistic approach.


Anduril, did you ever read the Coulter column about how Olbermann got into Cornell? It is hysterical. I will see if I can find it and post it here.


--Before I get thwacked, Ignatz your query is answered here.--

Thanks Mel, I bookmarked it. Your efforts are very much appreciated.
Seems the mills themselves are moving things. That's pretty encouraging.
My largest property had its nearest mill close last year and we're hoping they'll reopen it this year. Would save me a fortune in haul costs.



My boss actually seems somewhat sensible for a Dem...--

The drugs must be wearing off.


Here's Volokh's take on that "mentally retarded" lawyer search, Eric Holder's firm, Howard, Fine and Howard, is embarked on.


"The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation,MENTAL ILLNESS, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine. Applicants who meet the qualification requirements and are able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation are encouraged to identify targeted disabilities in response to the questions in the Avue application system seeking that information."

Republicans need not apply



What I'm curious about and would like to know the answer to is why Paul Kirk is still voting on the Senate floor?

Brown was certified this morning and yet this afternoon, prior to Brown being sworn in, Kirk was busily voting.

Isn't that illegal?


The Democrats have historically pandered to immigrant groups, and there are various other reasons for those groups tendencies to self identify with liberal values.

Whether the Jews on the Lower East Side and in the Diaspora influenced by Zionism, socialism and the oppression by the Czar and other European "conservative" governments or the Irish and Honey Fitz or Tammany Hall, The Democrats have always been successful in co-opting those blocs.

Main Street America's insularity and innate conservatism did not help the Republicans recruit, and the Dems have been very successful in controlling the message.

At the top of the food chain, it has always been one clique of rich folk versus the other playing off the masses.

Rob Crawford

Isn't that illegal?

Sure, but Democrats are doing it, and, well, "there's no controlling legal authority".


Perhaps the stimulus money will help answer an important question.

-- $233,000 to the University of California at San Diego to study why Africans vote. Jobs created: 12, but seven of those are Africans in Africa.

Ah, peter, yes I did see that one. Another classic.

Rob Crawford

The Democrats have historically pandered to immigrant groups

ITYM "Democrats have historically exacerbated racial and ethnic tensions".


Luv it: Al Franken lays into David Axelrod over health care bill.

"In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s wrath..."


John Fund describing the same meeting:

...when the cameras were turned off and reporters left the room, Democratic senators lit into White House officials about the chaos that has surrounded the issue since the Democratic defeat in Massachusetts. The Hill newspaper reports that Democrats voiced concern about the absence of any new strategy. "It wasn't a discussion about how to get from Point A to Point B; it was a discussion about the lack of a plan to get from Point A to Point B," said a person who attended the meeting. "Many of the members were frustrated, but one person really expressed his frustration."

Lawmakers interviewed after the meeting said nothing much came from the exchange. Some Democrats urged using budget reconciliation to enact changes to the Senate bill, producing a version the House could then pass into law without ever having to run the gantlet of a Senate filibuster. That proposal encountered a buzz saw of opposition from moderate members. "I'm not for using reconciliation for health care -- I'm just not," said Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. "If we couldn't get a bill through the Congress that had broad support, I said we shouldn't have a bill."

In other words, Democrats are no closer to laying out a clear road map to health care than they were when the Massachusetts electoral bomb blew up in their ranks over two weeks ago.


Wonderful, wonderful reading: Pfizer's Bad Political Bet. What goes around comes around.


That was as wise as Lando's deal with Vader on Cloud City, and it worked out as well,


The perils of analogizing on an empty stomach, in the LUN


"Can one be a "What's in it for me?" liberal?

Is there any other kind? Remember that Democrat-written, Democrat-lauded book from a few years back, "What's the matter with Kansas - why can't they see what's in it for them?"


the BBC put their thinkers on it just last week in trying to figure out why folks voted for Brown over Coakley.
The answer is supposedly found in ">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm"> Why do people vote against their own interests?

Your Kansas guy say's we're too stupid to recognize what is in our best interest, while the other guy say's no, we recognize what's in our best interest, but we like good story's better, so that's why in his opinion: "Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. "

There's more such sterling wisdom on display at the BBC link that explains it all.


You know daddy, the only time I thought that was true was during the last election, in an
ironic sense from the way Mr. Frank intend.
Why would one vote for someone who has contempt for business, traditional faith,
the military, the medical profession, pretty
much everything that defines us



To exactly agree with you I post this for the 3rd time.

It remains unbelievable to me that it was said seriously by a US President:

"“We’ve got to make sure that our party understands that, LIKE IT OR NOT, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can’t be demonizing every bank out there,” Obama said."

Who are the guys in that Democrat Party that Don't Like a financial system that is healthy and functioning? Obama obviously, otherwise the notion would have never crossed his lips. How could anyone vote for American Politicians who think a healthy and functioning financial system is odious, and that some other unspoken economic system is preferable.

I find that statement amazing and think it should be our campaign commercial from here on out. PLease President Obama, elaborate on who these particular people in your Party are, and then define what economic system they prefer to one that is healthy and functioning.

Man, I would love the RNC or some decent reporter to demand those answers of this President and if they don't we are missing a once in a lifetime Golden Opportunity to put a stake in the hearts of these Socialists and Marxists for generations.


Asians identify themselves as NDP. They stare through your head, force you to hear, and have you wack your car so they can get a dollar. Cockroaches. They want to run the unions like back home with the triads and, gee, this is better than China! The things lost, but it was close, only because they have the union employees do stuff for money. NDP is going down the hole where it belongs and then it's the unions for forcing us to put up with the things.

Get your camera! photograph a union member sleeping or drinking coffee while you wait on the bus! They explain they don't want to wet themsleves. Revolution is here and I'm starting a blog videoing union members getting that NDP, I mean union, cash. The things want them to pay with their lives, like screwing the pooch.

Liberals do crack and shove it up your nose daily. Conservatives don't.


Oh yippee..following on yesterday's snark--it appears that Patches is in trouble:





Well, of course, there is no quandary about this at all. The notion that such and such immigrant group is inherently "conservative", at least in any political sense that we understand the term in America today, is just another "Conservative" nostrum and one with little basis in reality. How could the majority of Asian immigrants fully grasp the history of this nation or deadly nature our national "Cold Civil War"? (a war conservatives have all but lost, BTW.) In a positive sense, on what histories or traditions, political or otherwise, could they possible draw on to understand this war?

The Progressive narratives, resplendent with its various "victimlologies", revisionist histories, cant and propaganda, and the libel, slander and general persecution of all who apposes them, has permeated our culture to the point where pretty much is our culture. Asians mostly live in Prog strongholds. A clue for JOMers: One can lose one's job in these areas for so much as having been found to make a political donation to a Republican.

On top of all this, the Dem directly pander to them and pump up their every fear.

To them, all they hear is that those nasty, rich, white, GOP fat cats want to shut down their neighborhood schools, but those moral and compassionate Dems, well, they want to make sure that they get special goodies in compensation for what those nasty white Americans did to them. Did you folks miss the CA government apologizing to Asian Americans for that dastardly action of letting them into the country and forcing them to work for a living? For Pete's sake.

This is how they operate. It has always been how they operated. It took a generation or two for just some of the decedents of the great Middle and Eastern European migrations of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries to become conservatives. It is unclear that those who made this "inner migration" where never more than a minority in this group. The those immigrants who knew Central European flavors of socialism where mostly Democrats it would seem to me, and the major enablers of the Democrats version of socialism since 1930. The majority of their descendants continue this tradition.

Once again, JOM'ers seem to have no idea of the nation they live in. Most of you live in this fantasy America.

We hear the old conservative saw "this is a center-right nation". Well, a so called "center right nation" would not vote in Obama and a Democrat majority in the first place. Period. It would not put up with one bit of the preposterous usurpations of Obama and the Democrats this last year. These are as radical as any hard left government in history. Outrage appears to be limited. Have a look at the RAS polls.

A very large section of Americans, perhaps eve a majority of them, are happy with big government so long as they are on the side of things that is getting money, and whatever false narrative supplied to them by the Left is not contradicted. That is the way it is.

Did you relly tihnk that so called "Asian Americicans" are doffernt than anyone other immigrant group or democrat clients?

Did you think that that were somehow more conservative? We hear this about the Hispanics too. We never see much reality behind these notions.

Just more wishful thinking among conservatives and JOM'ers. Heavens, a good third or more of you people are really liberals (in the modern sense) at least economically. You just are not honest with yourselves about it.

The comments to this entry are closed.