I haven’t read it or talked to a single person who has, but this new book by Greg Gutfield sounds interesting.
It’s called How To Be Right, and it’s about persuasive techniques for arguing with liberals.
Now, Gutfield is a smart and funny guy. Perhaps his book is mainly jokes and funny one-liners, or perhaps it’s truly substantive. I do know that we can use all the help we can get in that arena, so I think it’s worth a look. Read the comments at Amazon and decide for yourself.
Commenter “Oldflyer” writes, comparing reactions to Obama and Rubio:
In 2008 we elected a first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he was smooth, hip, and glib; and of course, a minority. Now, people seem to think we should elect another first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he is smooth, hip and glib.
I respond briefly here, and commenter “parker” points out that one big difference is that Rubio loves this country.
Later Oldflyer adds
Neo, I realize that there are great differences between Rubio and Obama; but there are disturbing similarities in the way people react to attributes that have little to do with governing.
The question Oldflyer raises involves the tension between what we imagine would be a more ideal world (whether it really would be more ideal is another question, one I’ll not take up in this post—but see Leibniz for starters) and the world in which we find ourselves. In that latter world, voters don’t soberly analyze the candidates with their brains, they react strongly with their guts as well. In fact, we humans do this all the time, and I’m not at all sure it’s such a bad idea, because it’s when gut and brain work in tandem that I think we make our best decisions. It’s when the gut overrides the brain (as with the more naive of Obama’s supporters, the ones who should have known better) that we run into big trouble.
But I actually don’t see similarities in attitude towards Rubio and Obama, except extremely general ones that are just statements of fact (they’re both seen as young, telegenic, minority, and somewhat hip). The differences between them are huge; parker has pointed out one, but there are many, and another is that Rubio is no leftist, although he may not be quite as conservative as you’d like.
One of the main differences between Rubio and Obama in terms of people’s reactions (the thing Oldflyer is concerned with) is that many voters seemed mesmerized and almost seduced by Obama—under a spell, as it were. I don’t see anything even remotely like that with Rubio. Nor does he encourage that sort of thing in any way (unlike Obama)—which is an important distinction, too, that goes to the question of degree of narcissism. Lightworker? Hardly.
And all the praise for Rubio’s youth and relative hipness is not really praise for those things per se, as they were with Obama—as though these traits confer on the bearer some special abilities to govern, or particular wisdom (they do not!). In evaluating Rubio, the praise for those attributes comes from how they could enhance his appeal to the low information voter, the moderate/Independent voter, and/or even the disaffected Democrat voter.
In other words, the traits don’t necessarily appeal to conservatives in and of themselves, but they are considered pluses by the more practical among us because they can attract people to the GOP side who otherwise might not be attracted. This may not be what elections are all about, but it’s a huge part of what they’re about, especially because the GOP is not a majority party in this country.
That doesn’t mean other factors should be ignored; I don’t choose candidates merely in terms of electability (a word that’s become anathema to some, and a concept I tend to shy away from). But that’s what we’re talking about here, at least in part. I also happen to think that Rubio is a smart guy with basic conservative principles (yes, he made a mistake on immigration a couple of years ago, but I accept his explanation although you may not) and a rare ability to get concisely to the heart of the matter. There are abilities he’s been displaying more frequently recently.
I’m not in the least disturbed by his ability to appeal to the young and those who are looking for a regular guy who “understands” them. I’m heartened by it, because I acknowledge that—since voters seem to care about these things—it’s better to have a candidate who displays them.
[NOTE: Don’t take this post to mean that Rubio is now my #1 candidate. If I were voting in a primary today, I’d face a tough choice. I know my top three are Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, but I’m not sure of the order. Maybe that’s the order, but I expect it to change over time. It already has. And I am virtually certain that whoever is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him or her in the general. Some of the candidates would make that almost excruciatingly difficult, though).]
[ADDENDUM: Rubio is now starting to exhibit donor appeal, which is also important unless you’re Donald Trump (and there’s only one Donald Trump, except for Michael Bloomberg). The Times reports that a prominent conservative donor has now thrown his support to Rubio:
Mr. Bush and several other candidates, including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had competed fiercely for Mr. Singer’s blessing.
In a letter that Mr. Singer sent to dozens of other donors on Friday, which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Singer described Mr. Rubio ”” who was elected to the Senate in the Tea Party wave but has been embraced by the party’s Washington elite ”” as the only candidate who can “navigate this complex primary process, and still be in a position to defeat” Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.
He praised Mr. Rubio’s message of optimism about America’s future, his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his ability to make a persuasive case to voters as key reasons to support him…
Mr. Singer…gave more money to Republican candidates and causes last year than any donor in the country…
In recent years, he has frequently deployed his network to cultivate up-and-coming Republicans who he believes can help expand the party’s demographic appeal. Among them are Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and Mr. Rubio himself, whom Mr. Singer backed early in his 2010 race when many of Mr. Singer’s peers sided with Charlie Crist, then Florida’s Republican governor ”” a moment that was seen as a turning point in the race.
Expect more donors to follow. Here’s Singer’s bio.]
Have you noticed that Rubio is now more of a target since his performance in the Wednesday debate?
I think it’s obvious why the left finds him a formidable opponent: young, quick, able to deliver a blow without looking mean, Hispanic, and the closest thing the Republican roster has to hip. Does that mean he’s my favorite candidate at this point? No; I prefer Cruz. But my gut tells me Rubio will go further.
You can see the way the left’s attack on Rubio is likely to proceed, because it’s now picking up. Oh, and Jeb Bush (not exactly the left, but one of the very bottom tier of candidates in my book if not the bottom) is using the same approach, because even after Wednesday evening’s debacle for him he continues to see it as in his best interests to attack Rubio.
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection describes the reports in US News and the NY Times:
…[T]eam Jeb is selectively “leaking” it’s oppo-research files on Rubio…
There’s nothing inherently wrong with oppo-research dumps. That’s why oppo-research is done. And if there is a damaging skeleton in Rubio’s closet, let’s find out now.
But in this case it smells vindictive and petty, a way to overcome Jeb’s downward spiral not by attacking the leaders in the polls ”” Trump and Carson ”” but by attacking Rubio out of spite.
Looking at the substance of the articles, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes that:
…[N]one of this [the accusations the Bush campaign has released about Rubio] is a secret, and Rubio has already answered these issues ”” repeatedly, in some cases. But another line hinted to donors that Mitt Romney and his campaign got scared off of Rubio when they looked deeper: “Those who have looked into Marco’s background in the past have been concerned with what they have found.” The “those” in that quote apparently is supposed to refer to Romney’s people, who back in 2012 vetted Rubio, among many others, as a possible VP candidate. The Romney people—in the person of Beth Myers, a till-now Bush supporter who was in charge of Romney’s VP vetting process—vehemently deny the claim.
I had thought that one of Bush’s assets (with whoever thinks he has assets) was his rep as a nice guy and a Party man (as opposed to party animal). But he seems all too willing to trash one of the party’s up-and-coming possible leaders in order to supposedly help himself. But it’s not going to help him—IMHO, nothing will help him because, as I noted a year and a half ago, he is a candidate without a constituency and without appeal.
Look for more and more and more articles in the future from the liberal and leftist press on Rubio’s finances (here’s a beginning). Another thing I’ve noticed is “helpful” newcomers to blogs, who have suddenly arrived post-Wednesday-debate in order to drop some sharply-worded comments about Rubio.
It’s not just Rubio, of course. Whoever becomes the frontrunner or is considered a particular threat will become the target. This is politics, and the candidates had better be ready for it.
And then there are those who just play fools on TV.
On what planet has Charlie Rose been residing till now?:
“CBS This Morning” host Charlie Rose was shocked Thursday morning when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio stood by his stance that the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Americans about the cause of the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.
“[Last night] I said Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi,” Rubio said in a post-debate interview. “There’s no doubt about that, Charlie.”
Rose defended Clinton by blaming intelligence.
“The CIA was changing its own assessment of what happened there,” Rose told Rubio.
“That’s not accurate,” Rubio countered…
se was baffled as to why the former first lady would lie about Benghazi.
“If you’re calling her a liar by saying she perpetuated a lie, then why do you think she did that? What was her motive?” Rose asked.
For your viewing pleasure:
Jonah Goldberg points out something that the MSM has been purposely ignoring:
Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field. But…most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black. One could argue that he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white and he was raised in part by his white grandparents…
He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally ”” at least, until he became a Republican politician. And that probably explains why his race seems to be such a non-issue for the media…
How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.
Not strange at all. The left and much of the MSM has been slandering black conservative figures for a long time (Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas, for example) as not-black, Uncle Toms, traitors to their race, or worse. The only surprise with Carson is that the media hasn’t gone that route yet.
That they haven’t is probably a tribute to several things. The first is that he’s so soft-spoken and obviously a nice guy. Secondly, his poll numbers are not so high yet that they have to take him seriously, and seriously take him down (watch for it, though, if he becomes the frontrunner or the nominee). And thirdly, he occupies the odd position, as Goldberg has pointed out, of being someone the media had already lionized for his accomplishments before they realized his conservative politics. It would be hard to turn on him too viciously now; the contradiction would be noticeable, although they’d do it anyway (and ignore the discrepancy) if they felt they needed to. Easier, though, to ignore the fact of his blackness and the extent of his GOP support.
One would think that, in a sane world, the fact that Carson is black and is one of the GOP leaders would make liberal pundits admit that GOP voters must not be as bigoted as the MSM and the Democrats previously thought (or previously claimed) they were. Now, that’s a story. But it isn’t a story you’ll hear much about. In fact, the leftist line about Carson and bigotry is that Carson is a bigot for criticizing Muslims who want sharia law.
Only two days left, but still worth celebrating.
I’ve always had a certain devotion to caramel. But ever since the dread hand of chocolate-induced migraine descended on me several decades ago, and chocolate became a distant, poignant, and beautiful but bitterweet memory for me, caramel has become even more precious and beloved.
Unfortunately, there are three big problems with it. Only the first is obvious: it’s very fattening as well as sugar-laden. The second problem is that the quality of caramel has gone way way down over the years, with the ascendance of corn syrup as the main ingredient in all but the fancy gourmet varieties (and even some of them).
But it’s the third that is the unkindest cut of all to me, although you may never have even noticed it: the fact that it is very difficult to find a caramel-flavored or caramel-laced product that doesn’t also include chocolate. The culinary powers-that-be seem to have decreed that if it’s good with caramel, it’s even better with caramel plus chocolate. Of course, you can still get caramel squares—if you want to put your teeth at risk. And you can still get caramel topping for a sundae. But ice cream, cake, other caramel candy—nearly all has that soupé§on of chocolate that gives it that extra kick and makes it off-limits to me.
Come to think of it, maybe that’s for the best.
[NOTE: This is a slightly-edited repeat of a post from 2008.]
No doubt all of my readers, being unusually well-informed people, were already aware that today is National Candy Corn Day.
But did you know it is estimated that in this country twenty million pounds of the classic treat (invented in the 1880s) are sold every year? I personally might be responsible for approximately a ton of that if I gave in to my worst impulses. However, I keep my addiction in tightly-controlled check.
It is part of my penance to confess here that I really love the dreadful stuff and always have (and if you take this poll, you’ll see that I’m far from alone). Once I even went to a Halloween party dressed as a piece of candy corn, and believe me I was already a grownup.
Apparently I am not the only adult who has dressed up as candy corn on Halloween. And no, I didn’t look like this—more’s the pity (although to be technical, isn’t she dressed as two pieces of candy corn, the body and the hat?):
I am not alone in my shameful liking for the tricolor tooth-destroyer. I heard on Fox News (can’t give a link here because I was unable to find the information online) that candy corn is the Halloween treat most often stolen by parents from their kids’ Halloween stash. I believe this to be undeniably true. It is a guilty, shameful secret for most, but I am glad this is finally seeing the light of day.
Even some fanatically health-consciously vegans seem to crave candy corn although alas, the treat is off-limits to them because of its animal-related ingredients. Animal ingredients? If you doubt my words, just take a look:
Sugar, Corn Syrup, Confectioner’s Glaze, Salt, Honey, Dextrose, Artificial Flavor, Gelatin, Titanium Dioxide Color, Yellow 6, Yellow 5, Red 3, Blue 1, Sesame Oil.
Gelatin and honey must be the big no-nos. But happily, a thoughtful vegan (are there any other kind?) mother has come to the rescue with a recipe for candy corn so complex and labor-intensive that it undoubtedly reflects a devotion to the stuff even more intense than mine. Try it if you dare—and if you are insane.
There are various gourmet variations on candy corn, and I’ve sampled quite a few in my day. To my mind they can’t compare to good old Brach’s. But after watching the following highly informative video, I may just try some Goelitz:
And here’s a burning question I was reminded of by the video: do you eat your candy corn in sections? And, if so, do you consider the top to be the yellow part or the white part? I’ve always seen the little white triangle as the “foot” of the candy corn, but I learned when I designed my costume years ago that most people see it the other way. For those who might be inclined to disagree with me, I offer the following exhibit from the realm of science:
I’ve heard it opined that the reason the GOP capitulated on the budget is that they want Hillary Clinton to be elected, because they prefer being the opposition party to having to accomplish anything. But I don’t think that’s the reason, although my explanations are only slightly less pernicious. Heck, maybe they’re even more pernicious.
I’m assuming that when Ted Cruz called the deal Boehner’s “golden parachute,” what he meant was that Boehner would be assured of a lucrative post-Congressional future if he pleased the lobbyists and moneyed interests. But what about the others? Here are my theories:
They don’t think most people except a fringe of activists are paying attention, and they think that’s just a small group of extremists who don’t really matter.
They think most people in America want them to stop squabbling and avoid shutdowns, and that this will gain them votes and not hurt the GOP presidential candidate either.
Naturally, as with nearly all politicians, they want to placate their donors and big business.
They live in a Washington DC bubble and will continue to do so, unaware of the depth and breadth of the rage against them.
Even if turned out of office as a result, they (like Boehner) are constructing their own golden parachutes.
As I said, I don’t think they want Hillary to win. They just don’t think this will help her win.
When someone is in power, the idea of cutting government spending goes against the grain. As time goes on, power and more power is seductive, and it takes an unusual person to hold fast to the ideals of small government in the face of such temptation.
Reflecting more on last night, I want to emphasize Cruz’s leadership role.
Yes, I was happy to hear the substance of Cruz’s criticism of the MSM. But that’s been done before, in particular by Gingrich and by Trump, as well as by random others here and there. But of greater importance than that was Cruz’s sudden turn as leader.
That was unexpected (for me, anyway). Although I know he’s a brilliant guy with strong opinions, Cruz has been the maverick for so long that it was somewhat of a surprise to see him lead the charge. He showed very good leadership instincts as well as courage, and the others sensed it and responded by following.
Neither Cruz nor anyone else had taken that leadership role in previous debates. The MSM wanted them to attack each other, and after all it’s a debate, and so for the most part they were happy to follow the MSM lead and do so. Cruz turned the tables, replacing the MSM as “leaders” with himself as leader of the Republican candidates, at least on that particular issue.
When Gingrich had mounted a similar attack in 2012 on the MSM during the debates, he hadn’t take the same leadership role. How did Cruz do it? Instead of just talking about himself, or even talking about the MSM generally, he talked about what the MSM had done to all the other candidates in this very debate, and gave colorful and pointed specifics. This is what bonded him to the group, which is part of the leadership role—the group members must recognize him as a leader and see his leadership as benefiting them and joining with them emotionally, if only temporarily.
It will be very interesting to see if any of this continues. It will also be of interest to see if it raises Cruz’s poll numbers. I would imagine it would, but voters are fickle and unpredictable, especially this year.
But even if it doesn’t help Cruz, this could help the party as a whole. One of the main criticisms of Republicans is their bitter divisions, and Cruz has been regarded as one of the most divisive of all. If that perception of Republicans can be overcome—if they can disagree civilly and yet be seen to be friends who have each other’s backs—that can help dispel public distaste for the entire brand.
Roger L. Simon points out how CNBC moderator John Harwood lied during the debate last night:
But more than that, the debate revealed something I had thought about before, but never seen so clearly ”” how bias can affect the brain, almost make it dysfunctional. I assume John [Harwood] is an intelligent man…Nevertheless, Harwood did something extraordinary. He lied about Rubio’s tax plan in the exact same way not once but twice ”” once at the debate and once about two weeks before the debate. What made it extraordinary was that Harwood had apologized for that same lie the first time on Twitter on October 14 and then lied again Wednesday night as if he didn’t remember his own apology and correction…
Cognitive disorder? Quite possibly. I submit that media bias (and the moral narcissism from which it stems) can be so strong that it is akin to a brain disease. It literally renders you stupid or makes you disbelieve what you know to be true. Bias has hallucinogenic properties. Who knew?
Simon is coming down on the “fool” side of the old “fool vs. knave?” debate that we’ve had so many times on this blog, about so many people, both in politics and in the media. In effect, what he’s saying is that bias has made Harwood into a fool for the purposes of Rubio and the debate. Perhaps; perhaps. But I’ll offer some other possibilities.
The first is that perhaps Harwood has always been a fool. Perhaps he’s not an intelligent man, merely one who is good at parroting the politically approved line and stringing some words together. Perhaps he’s risen in the ranks for that and other reasons that have more to do with personality and sucking up to the right people, and perhaps he’s never really been tested because he lives in a liberal bubble. So maybe he’s just not that sharp, and doesn’t remember or didn’t understand the tax issue very well to begin with.
Now that I’ve stated that possibility, I must say that it’s not my leading theory. My leading theory is the “fool and knave” theory, and it works like this: the first time Harwood made the error on Twitter, it was as Roger Simon describes. Harwood’s pre-existing bias towards Rubio and Republicans made him jump on a “fact” that made Rubio look bad, without really stopping to think. In other words, his bias made him stupid. But once told of his error he had to issue an apology, which is the sort of thing a person tends to remember. So it’s very possible that, although he actually did remember his error, bringing it up again was the calculation of a knave who doesn’t expect it to backfire on him.
That was for two reaons. The first is that the MSM is used to getting away with it. If a lie is asserted often enough and loudly enough by the media, it becomes truth for most of their readers. The challenges and corrections go unheard for the most part, or they aren’t believed even if heard and even if true. Harwood probably thought that, between him and Rubio (as between Candy Crowley and Romney), he’d automatically be the more believable.
In addition, the liberal MSM (much like their hero, President Obama) fully believe themselves to be the smartest people in the room, and in many instances have, not just feigned contempt for Republicans, but true and heartfelt contempt for Repubicans. So they believe they will win any exchange with a Republican, even if they themselves are lying and the Republican is telling the truth. Maybe even especially if they are lying and the Republican is telling the truth. They believe in their own role as omniscient narrators, and believe that the public sees them that way as well. Can the omniscient make mistakes? Of course not.
But even beyond that, Harwood may have doubted that Rubio would challenge him at all. Harwood and his fellows have such contempt for the GOP candidates that there’s a good chance he thought that Rubio was unfamiliar with Harwood’s previous error, and/or that even if Rubio tried he would not be able to explain the math of his own tax proposals, or that Rubio wouldn’t have the guts or quickness to challenge him and to keep challenging him.
Does any of this matter? Not if the American people don’t care. Polls consistently show that voters think the media is biased (70%, according to this poll), But biased in what way? Towards right or left? The most recent poll I could find that asked those all-important questions is this Gallup poll from last month, and it tells an interesting tale.
In that poll, 40% of Americans trust the media. This is a great deal higher than it should be, and it is concentrated in Democrats, the majority of whom (55%) still think the media trustworthy. This compares to 32% of Republicans (who are these people??) and 33% of Independents who agree. The interesting question of “biased in what direction?” doesn’t seem to be reported in that poll, but it was asked in this similar one from a year earlier, with the following results:
Nearly one in five Americans (19%) say the media are too conservative, which is still relatively low, but the highest such percentage since 2006. This is up six points from 2013 — the sharpest increase in the percentage of Americans who feel the news skews too far right since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.
That number who think the media is biased to the right as been going up, not down, and my guess is that it’s still going up as America moves more to the left—or at least, as the Democratic Party moves more to the left. That is probably the audience Harwood is used to playing to, and part of the reason he may feel immune. And despite what should be his ignominy after last night, he’s probably correct that most Democrats won’t notice or care. Case in point: Ezra Klein on last night’s debate and the media’s role in it:
Cruz’s attack on the moderators was smart politics ”” but it was almost precisely backwards. The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks ”” but that’s because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.
Klein quotes several exchanges between the moderators and the candidates in his attempt to back up his claims, but somehow—somehow—he misses Harwood’s incredible faux pas regarding Rubio. I’m sure it’s just an oversight—after all, Ezra Klein is also one of the smartest people in the room. And if you were a Democrat reading that sort of thing as your daily diet, you’d never hear about Harwood’s demonstration of both his bias and his stupidity, and you would continue on your merry way.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a very full explanation of the substantive issue (Rubio’s tax proposal) involved in the Harwood-Rubio exchange.]
It turns out that instead of a snoozefest, the third debate was fascinating. And it was all thanks to the incredibly clear anti-GOP bias of CNBC.
What am I talking about? Group dynamics, that’s what.
I’ve studied groups and I’ve run groups. Groups don’t just happen because you get a bunch of people together in a room, even if they’re sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” There comes a time in the life of a collection of people when they become a group, even if only temporarily—even a group of people that’s pitted against each other in competition, like the candidates tonight. If you give them a common enemy against which to unite, they sometimes become a group, and that’s what happened this evening.
It took a little time. Even though the candidates knew they were in enemy territory with these moderators, I think even they were surprised at the extent of the bias and the sharpness of the “gotcha” questions. So it took a while to know how to react.
Cruz was most definitely the leader, the first to go on the offensive against the moderators. And what an attack it was! Take a look:
That was the turning point. After that, the rest of the candidates caught on, one by one—except for Kasich, Paul, and Bush—and let the moderators and the MSM have it. They also refused, after a while, to bash each other, and explicitly called the moderators out on that goal, too. Rubio was particularly strong tonight, but several of the others were impressive as well, once the “unite against the common enemy” idea took hold.
“You changed the entire trajectory of the debate” Sean Hannity rightly said to Cruz, whose leadership was, to me, one of the most striking things about his performance. And Trump noted the group bonding thing: “There was a certain camaraderie up there tonight” he told Hannity.
It may not last. But he’s correct—it was there. And it was probably the last thing the CNBC hosts intended.
[ADDENDUM: Interesting comment at Ace’s:
I have committed liberals on my Facebook saying the debate moderation tonight was biased and unfair. To the Republicans!
The national reverberations out of this could be interesting.
Indeed.]