The New Republic

Might I add, if you are a woman you are out of your mind to support the GOP.

- Sophia

May 2, 2012 at 3:34pm

And it might not end even then. You have undoubtedly heard that the GOP might become even more extreme if the Mittster winds up in the trash bin of history this November, Timothy. I myself think that there is more than an even chance of that happening. You aren't out of your mind if you are a reactionary woman, S.

- liberalref

May 2, 2012 at 3:52pm

Lib has it right and I'd add that several state legislatures and governorships the GOP won in 2010 have been very successful in enacting extreme agendas, something they haven't done at the national level, yet. I don't see them losing many state houses nor governorships soon. They also redistricted themselves into the winning column to boot. Here in NC they did a fantastic job of both (extreme agenda and redistricting). Add all of that together and the GOP will get even more extreme in the fall if (hopefully when) BO wins. You ain't seen nuthin' yet.

- tmmats

May 2, 2012 at 4:12pm

I would agree here that when Romney looses the nomination, it will further bolster the GOP wing-nutters that they "just aren't conservative enough" and that's why they lost the general election. Then they will point to their successful passing of spurious bills at the State and local levels that marginalize minorities, the gay community and turn women into the chattel they once were before "lib'ruls passed all them socialist agenda, PC equal rights, fair pay, homo-SEX-ual marriage bullshit." ----- In 2008, I met a young gay Republican who was a campaign manager for McCain. I asked him how he could support a party that did it's best to marginalize the gay community with regards to gay marriage. His response was if he had a choice he wouldn't be gay and never planned on getting married himself but understood why others would. A nice man whose politics, I suspect, came as natural to him as being gay was. He wasn't a self-hating gay man, very much "out" but he also said he hated "faggots" and when I asked for clarification, he said those very effeminate and very flamboyant gay men that paraded around acting Gay. Illustrating that people can be complex, contradictory and most certainly capable of voting against their own self interest to satisfy other interests.

- singlspeed

May 2, 2012 at 4:39pm

singlspeed, that reminds me of how some Jews (Irène Némirovsky, for example) sided with the European Far Right in the 1930s, thinking, "I'm assimilated, I've converted, I'm not like those offensive shtetl Jews." They ended up in the camps all the same. I wonder how long it will take before that young gay Republican realizes his party would throw him under the bus at a moment's notice.

- zardoz67

May 2, 2012 at 5:21pm

I think that some people have a strangely deep capacity for the strains of masochistic politics, and not just on the Right.

- ironyroad

May 2, 2012 at 5:29pm

I met a gay guy who supports Mitt Romeny.....not gonna lie I was freaking out

- ARealHero

May 2, 2012 at 5:42pm

I can top that. I know a gay Birther.

- zardoz67

May 2, 2012 at 6:08pm

^ Mind=Blown

- ARealHero

May 2, 2012 at 6:08pm

Why is that even a little bit mind-blowing? Would one expect every last gay person to be a non-nutter? What are the odds that this would be the case? Of course, it is very common for TNR commenters to think in cardboard stereotypes. Your Nazi analogy is very offensive, zardoz. I don't like the Christian right one little bit, but to analogize them to Hitler et al. is way over-the-top.

- liberalref

May 2, 2012 at 7:28pm

". . . because even if Romney showed some bravery on this issue . . ." And therein lies the rub. Has there ever been a candidate for President of the United States more craven, spineless, and cowardly than Mitt Romney? A candidate more lacking of a moral compass? He's had his chance at a "Sister Souljah" moment many times and let them pass. John McCain ran a terrible campaign in '08, but at least he had the courage and decency to tell the birther crazies that they were wrong, that Barack Obama was a Christian, a good family man, and an American. Mittens couldn't even stand up to a has been redneck rock star. What else can you expect from a man who avoided military service, yet encourages other people's kids to join up so they can get a free education? Who advises young people to borrow money from their parents in order to attend college or start a business, as if everyone's Dad were a Governor and an auto exec. What a dipshit.

- dubyadoubte

May 2, 2012 at 9:04pm

Excellent comment, dub. I love your invidious comparison.

- liberalref

May 2, 2012 at 9:40pm

Rather obviously, zardoz was not analogizing the Christian Right to Nazis or Hitler. He was analogizing Jews who thought they could behave in such a manner as to evade the threat of Nazism to gays who think that can successfully distinguish themselves from those who are the targets of the extremist right-wing (meaning all of it) in this country. It is a perfectly useful analogy and the psychological processes involved in both cases are more than likely quite similar.

- roidubouloi

May 2, 2012 at 10:18pm

Thank you, roi. You got it. It's those very psychological processes that make Irène Némirovsky fascinating to me. I'll always be grateful for Ruth Franklin's review in TNR for introducing me to her.

- zardoz67

May 2, 2012 at 11:55pm

I think libref is on target above. There is not a single rational reason to believe that the mere fact of being gay means that one is impervious to the Obama birther paranoia, or indeed any other political narrative, sane or otherwise. Indeed, I think a certain level of gay paranoia can easily take the one rather than the other path and end up in bed (so to speak) with freaky right wing whimsy.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 3:26am

Well, libref is also correct about reactionary women. But I don't understand why a woman would be a reactionary. Things were so great in the good old days before we could vote, so forth? You know you do see this in other cultures; some of the most extreme cruelties against women are perpetrated and enforced by other women. But in America, we're not talking about reinforcing the status quo that however difficult might create a sort of security; we are talking about actually going backward and that bothers me. I don't get it.

- Sophia

May 3, 2012 at 3:49am

Perhaps I'm reading more into this than is there, but it sounds like Noah is implying that this turn of events will sink Romney. Seriously? Anyone who already thought the GOP were a bunch of intolerant nutters will feel very self satisfied with this. However I can't really see this twitching the care needle on just about anyone else. After all, there are plenty of actually gay people who an rationalize away their continued support of the GOP, and most people aren't actually gay.

- Nari224

May 3, 2012 at 8:00am

Bravo Tim, Sophia et al. And Lib's comment about the lurch even farther right if (when) Romney loses is dead on. "This is what we get when we don't nominate a true conservative", they'll say. Like a singularity the gop will grow ever smaller and denser, until all that's left is a lone nutcase lying in bed muttering to himself "Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I"

- Tristan

May 3, 2012 at 8:45am

I am not one wit convinced. Z. clearly intended to analogize the Christian right to the Nazis, which has been a favorite move of the left for years and years.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 9:48am

Moonbats continue to lose contact with reality...... January 12, 2012 Gallup Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade by Lydia Saad PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

- mr_rationale

May 3, 2012 at 9:59am

Again with that same dippy poll, Rationale? I think we've discussed this already. "Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal" Yes, when this question is asked point blank the pollsters get the results you cited. Fantastic. But... and this has been shown so many times it's laughable that you feel compelled to again walk down this particular plank... when pollsters ask SPECIFIC questions... about capital punishment, about government spending, social programs, abortion, equal pay for equal work, health care, etc etc etc... take a wild guess what happens. It turns out, we're actually a LEFT leaning country. (The poll results never say, but I'd be curious to know how many pollsters, after asking these particular questions to someone who self-describes as "conservative", is at least tempted to get the person on the phone to acknowledge they're actually a bleeding heart commie liberal. But whatever.) Now Rationale, this should not upset you. After all, you belong to the Ideological Purity Party, the party that says (to steal from Tomasky over the the Daily Beast) "If you're going to let all those brown people and wine-sipping brainiacs into your states, we don't want you anyway." My understanding it is that it's a point of pride with you people that given the option of having a much larger list of party affiliates that may include some who agree with only 90% of the nuttiness conservatives stand for, you'd much rather see the gop shrink down to the point where it's 100% ideologically pure but small enough to drown in a bathtub. Which, hey, is ok with us Moonbats. But stop pretending like anything remotely close to a plurality of America agrees with a single thing today's gop has to offer. They don't. And your numbers are growing smaller year over year.

- Tristan

May 3, 2012 at 10:28am

libref, has your arrogance and fatuousness impaired your reading comprehension? roi got it immediately; why couldn't you? Where did I mention the Christian Right in that comment? You're the one who brought that to the discussion. Most gay conservatives, in my experience, are so out of economic or libertarian beliefs, not religious ones. But those beliefs cause them to ally themselves with a party with a plurality that is inimical to who they are. It's that cognitive dissonance that makes them resemble those European Jews in the 1930s, not that the Christian Right are Nazis.

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 10:32am

Sophia, a lot of women with conservative loyalties don't see themselves as "reactionary" or if they do it's because they misunderstand the word as meaning "having a reaction" or something like that. People often have the weirdest reasons for their political notions and a lot of us don't really have much time for political discussion (or even consciously avoid it). People believe nonsense not because they are stupid but because the nonsense fits some already determined feelings about something (family values are good; America needs to be strong militarily; I am a morally upright person; we should balance the budget because that's what I do at home, etc). A political campaign that would win over such people for more progressive ideas needs to show how those values can be expressed in progressive/liberal terms, not just point out how they are voting against their economic interests. As George Lakoff and others have shown, it's the framing that's crucial, not the detail. Conservatives have been great at framing issues and progressives just seemed to give the whole thing up. There is also a certain fear about being identified as not getting on board with local values -- and that can be a potential Obama supporter in a white rural area as much as a potential conservative Republican in Greenwich Village.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 11:00am

I think what some folks have a hard time realizing or accepting at least, is how a single-issue voter (be it population control, abortion, immigration, gay marriage, anti-gay marriage, etc) can or would consistently vote for a party in which the platform and planks have migrated to extremes. I'm sure many of us have examples of friends, family or acquaintances that, on the whole, appear to be sane and rational people yet particular issues bring out what appear to be the irrational side in them. This explains why an otherwise 'liberal' Black Baptist church, which runs social justice programs, can support anti-gay marriage laws simultaneously the existence of the Log Cabin Republicans where working for equal rights & fiscal conservatism can support lawmakers that vote against the social issues that LCRs support. It also explains why a working-poor Christian man can vote for anti-abortion lawmakers that simultaneously work to defund the welfare programs the working poor person utilizes. I recently read an article in the Science daily about a psychological study that showed when certain individuals self-identifying as straight and exhibiting a considerable amount of homophobia are shown certain images showed attraction to the same sex. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120406234458.htm Fascinating read in that the underlying conclusion was that for individuals raised in controlling and authoritarian households that forbad certain behaviors or ideas, those individuals would internalize their conflicting feelings / views and eventually externalize them as distrust of "others."

- singlspeed

May 3, 2012 at 11:36am

Excellent takedown, Tris. The Heritage staffer is in an ideological bubble which is completely impervious to reality. It is hilarious how the lead moonbat out here tosses that term at informed opponents. Classic projection. Et tu, irony? I am somewhat surprised that you are fond of the hapless George Lakoff. Anyone who gets as far a Politics 101 should be immune to his nonsense. Conservatives have been so great at framing issues that large numbers of Americans reject their positions on a wide range of issues, as our esteemed Tris so eloquently outlined in his fabulous putdown of the fatuous rationale. It is beyond depressing that longtime TNR readers, who had years of exposure to Jonathan Chait, who is a crack policy wonk and brilliant analyst, forget - or never learned - what JC has long known, that there is far more to politics that framing the issues a certain way. Lastly, are you as dishonest as you look, Z.? I hereby inaugurate the Willard Mitt Romney Award and I confer the premier one on you for your last comment. Of course Karl Roid "gets it," which is to say that he affirms your nonsense. He incarnates double standards, ideological loopiness, Manichaean oppositions, cardboard stereotypes, and rank dishonesty. Okay, let's break this down for the clueless. Singl leads off with his comment about "GOP wing-nutters" and you see him and raise him your 'Irene Nemirovsky" remark. Any competent semiotician - and any literate person in general - would ROFLHAO at your disclaimer, because your comment is floating on an ocean of reference. I don't think that singl was referring to the irreligious left, or to libertarians who are socially liberal on many issues, or even to quite a number of staunch economic conservatives who have no use for the religious right. So your poker hand is now bereft of any card higher than a 5. Tell me now just who you were referring to, Z., and make it convincing, otherwise the Mittster Award is yours.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 12:07pm

One can dispute the accuracy or quality of Lakoff's analysis and/or proposals, libref, but a reasonable person would not, I think, casually dismiss them out of hand. "Hapless"? What an odd thing to say. In any case, I read the more practical of the two books (Don't Think of an Elephant!) recently and was struck by the accuracy of some of his points. In particular, I think he is correct that if you have won the framing struggle you can even afford to lose on some issues, because you have successfully moved the markers in your direction and it is difficult to move them back. The tendency of the Dems to flounder around trying to find some way to communicate an issue to the people is always a giveaway that they are not even sure of it themselves. I think the bumbling history of health care reform during the summer of 2009 was a textbook example of the inability of the White House to find the appropriate framing for the ACA and the noticeable skill of the GOP when it came to demonizing it. The cowardice of some of the Democrats about an issue that had been at the heart of progressive goals for fifty years or more was not simply a tactical error or even a personal failing -- it was the absence of precisely the ability to communicate underlying values at which the Republicans have been startlingly adept. Which is exactly what Lakoff -- and others, of course -- has been saying.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 12:59pm

I was not talking about the Christian Right. I was not talking about the Nazis. I was talking about self-hating Jews and self-hating gays, and the analogy between them. Though you are obviously intelligent, libref, the fact that you cannot admit that you have misread my comments, that you have to resort to strawman and ad hominem arguments to attack me, and that you feel the need to drag me into your vendetta against roi (who can out-argue you with one hand tied behind his back IMHO) just shows what an anger-filled, attention-loving, blinkered sycophant you are.

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 1:55pm

Well, I think that "hapless'' is an excellent description for an academic who elevates framing to a high (pseudo) art, as does George Lakoff. Lakoff has all the intellectual acuity of that political expert, Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, who penned that ridiculous op-ed in the Times last August 6th calling down Barack Obama. Let's cursorily review the record of the last half-dozen years: The Republicans framed themselves right out of control of both houses of Congress in 2006, they framed themselves out of the White House in 2008, and I think that they are likely to do so again this year. Their only framing win came when they took back the House in 2008, and flips like this are common for the out party, two years into a new presidency. Let such framing continue ad infinitum! What the Republicans are really the best at is psychological warfare. They are so good at this practice that they can convince leftniks like irony that they are excellent framers, against all the evidence.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 2:53pm

Libref, you clearly don't understand Lakoff's larger argument if that's the best that you can do. The question is not simply election results, but even if it were you would have do a little more than "cursorily review" the most advantageous window of time for supporting your point, and take into account that from 1994 until today the House was in GOP hands for 14 of those 18 years. Again -- the broader point that Lakoff is making (and obviously I'm distilling it down here) is that the control that one exercises over shaping the field of dispute is more important than the detail of each individual outcome within that field. It's noticeable that despite the Democrats having won a number of general elections and having held the Senate, the range of possibility for policy, even with a majority, has been shifted rightward or constrained since the 1980s so that (a striking example, I think) the comments of Richard Nixon on universal health care now sound like the Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. Finally, I'd strongly suggest that your last point retrospectively undermines your whole post, as the "psychological warfare" you describe is precisely what Lakoff was analyzing. It's the nature of that warfare that he was attempting to identify more closely. You don't have to accept his reading of things (or indeed his terminology), of course, but he was attempting to give a more solid account that explained the impressions many people had that the Republicans seemed to win certain ideological arguments when Democratic policies should have been the more attractive. Anyhow, fwiw, I think both Moral Politics and Don't Think of an Elephant! are worth reading if one is interested in this area.

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 3:15pm

The Republicans were bound to bounce back at some point after being in the political wilderness for decades. Their triumph - finally - had a lot to do with the exhaustion and overreach of liberalism, plus demographics, and throw in a little gerrymandering, too. Even when they did take the House in 1994, polls repeatedly demonstrated that large numbers of people didn't know what was in the Contract With America, despite the nonsense from N. Gingrich et al. to the contrary. Again, some framing victory. A mere two days after Drew Westen's pathetic op-ed appeared, our (former) own Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic that "Westen is a figure, like George Lakoff, who arose during the darkest moments of the Bush years to sell liberals on an irresistible delusion. The delusion rests on the assumption that the timidity of their leaders is the only thing preventing their side from enjoying total victory." When you write that I do not understand Lakoff's 'larger argument," translated that means that I do not agree with your agreement with him. J. Chait is a bit better of a political analyst than are Westen, Lakoff, and you, in the same way that Jeremy Lin is a better basketball player than is the mediocre high school dribbler who lives down the street. So yes, again, "hapless" fits perfectly. But delusionaries, have at it! Lakoffism is popular with the hoi polloi.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 3:59pm

You are a nervy little nebbish, Z., referring to my "vendetta" contra Karl Roid. It was him who set on me four years ago, swearing a blue streak. Not a one of you phonies who has lit out after me has called him down for his behavior, because he is part of the circle jerk out here - hell, not part of - he is the leader of it. And he is ideologically correct with you bien pensants. Yes, KR is a veritable Pericles, with his four-letter words. And he is such an Einstein of the intellect that he has described the Republican Party as a "criminal conspiracy." How could I ever aspire to be this brilliant?

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 4:08pm

"When you write that I do not understand Lakoff's 'larger argument,' translated that means that I do not agree with your agreement with him." Correct, and when you write "J. Chait is a bit better of a political analyst than are you," translated that means that I do not agree with your presumption that he would automatically be in agreement with you. Incidentally -- I do in fact see eye-to-eye with you on Drew Westen and if you check back, you'll notice that I also agreed with Jon Chait's take on that piece. I would be slow, however, to see Weston and Lakoff as overlapping in the way you imply. So, chill, libref -- we're not doing liver transplants here (as the production editor at the press said to me once).

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 4:39pm

libref, you're the one who goes out of his way to pick fights with people on here. And you have been needlessly escalating this argument. Why? To reinforce your inflated sense of moral and intellectual superiority over us "phonies?"

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 4:42pm

I notice that you did not respond to my point about Karl Roid's behavior, not surprisingly - what could you say? And I call you out as a phony again because I pick fights with rationale (well, I try to, but she runs away) and you say nothing about that, nor do the other mushers. Why? It's simple. Because rationale is an approved target. KR on the other hand is sacrosanct, as the leader of the circle jerk. Ditto, with the other circle jerkers. They are precious, protected commodities. I don't like cant I don't like phonies, I detest double standards, circle jerks, incestuous thinking, Manichaean categorizing, and Orwellian language, which pretty much means I don't like your MO and that of your kind.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 5:30pm

Read Jonathan Chait's quote which I cited above and see how he yokes Drew Westen and George Lakoff, irony. They don't just overlap, they work off the same fundamental lunacy. You said that you agreed with JC's post last August; may I ask if you ripped him for linking these two hapless "analysts?" My guess would be no.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 5:37pm

libref, when I said "you pick fights with people", I just didn't mean just roi or rationale. I've seen you take aim at plenty of others here. For example, you'll tear into anyone who deigns to use ALL CAPS for emphasis, even though this interface leaves us users with few options to do that. I have tried to explain to you more than once the meaning of my analogy, but no, you've decided I'm a hateful leftist who believes that the Christian Right wants to put gays in death camps. I think the only reason you're attacking me is because roi understood the point I was trying to make. Heaven forbid that you just might have been wrong about something and humble yourself to make an apology. But no, libref's first impression is always correct, because libref is infallible. He is the source of all wisdom, the arbiter of what true American liberals think. And if you disagree with him, you must be a fool or a radical, or both. You're a sanctimonious, paranoid, pseudo-intellectual prick that reads plenty, comprehends little and synthesizes nothing. Your mind is like a pillow that only retains the impression of the last intellectual that slept there. The chip on your shoulder is so large that it can be seen from orbit. When you look in the mirror, you must see one of the towering geniuses of the 21st century. The rest of the world see nothing but a sad, petty little man.

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 6:26pm

Your point was quite clear, zardoz. You are wasting your breath.

- roidubouloi

May 3, 2012 at 7:02pm

zardoz, I also think you give way to much credit when you say "take aim." You cannot aim a bubble of noxious gas. It just expands in whatever direction with no thought behind it at all. :-)

- roidubouloi

May 3, 2012 at 7:05pm

"Even when they did take the House in 1994, polls repeatedly demonstrated that large numbers of people didn't know what was in the Contract With America, despite the nonsense from N. Gingrich et al. to the contrary. Again, some framing victory." Talk about missing the point entirely -- that the details are of little importance once you win the framing battle. Oxymoron at work. LOL

- roidubouloi

May 3, 2012 at 7:11pm

I was wondering when you'd show back up here, roi. Your presence was missed today.

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 7:54pm

"My guess would be no." Good guess, lib ref. And if you could just guess a little farther, you'd see that the reason is that I disagree with JC's characterization of Lakoff, who never said anything remotely like "it's only the timidity of the leaders."

- ironyroad

May 3, 2012 at 8:28pm

Thanks, zardoz. I see I missed all the fun. Been trying to wrap up my 2012 tax filing preparations.

- roidubouloi

May 3, 2012 at 10:11pm

As I am literally forever writing out here, hermeneutical skills are in short supply. I haven't seen any writings by George Lakoff for quite some time, or even anything about his scribblings. So I did a little research. When I googled Lakoff conjoined with timidity, I found quite a number of hits, most from websites who approve of Lakoff, not from revanchist Democrats who don't. So it seems that Jonathan Chait isn't the only Democrat to so characterize Lakoff. And then there is Lakoff himself: it took me mere minutes to find a direct quote from him to the effect that Democrats aren't robust enough in their approach to politics (they are too timid!), they don't advocate for public solutions enough, they don't push for public infrastructure enough, in short, gasp ... they are too timid. And this after just a few minutes of searching on the net. So Jonathan was entirely correct in his characterization of Lakoff, just as I recalled. Further, it is eminently clear that Lakoff falls for the Greenwald Fallacy like a love-starved guy falls for the first woman to give him the time of day. He is a linguist. not a political scientist, so that is not a surprise. Steven Pinker in a devastating review in The New Republic in November, 2006 of Lakoff's book, Whose Freedom?, demonstrated how Lakoff thinks in cardboard stereotypes (no wonder Lakoff is so popular out here!). I went to Lakoff's blog and it is unintentionally hilarious. He is just as deluded as Pinker says he is and as I remember him to be. Also, I found a piece he wrote at AlterNet (posted on March 12, 2012) that contains this gem - he wrote about "so-called" independents "who actually have both conservative and liberal moral systems in their brains [!] ...". And you have fallen for this tripemaster. Good luck with that. Therefore, J. Chait and S. Pinker are far better guides to G. Lakoff than you are, irony, which is not surprising. And I don't say that because I agree with everything that C. and P. write. I had some major disagreements with Jonathan, though I never found him to have mischaracterized anyone's writings. And I probably have even more substantial disagreements with Steven (whom I got a lovely email reply from a few months ago). I was wary from the beginning of a big-think linguist who thought that he had cracked political codes. Lakoff is a classic reductionist, and it shows in his writings. Over to you, i.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 10:45pm

And here we have Z. fellating Karl again. Z. writes about how KR can defeat me in an argument with one hand tied behind his back. Now, this is the same KR who quite a while back - maybe two or so years ago - almost fell over laughing at WoodyBombay's "putdown" of me. Anyone who reads me out here knows that in linguistic terms, I am a descriptivist. I made a remark on one thread that was totally tongue-in-cheek, that was absolutely ironic, where I posed as a grammar maven. WB fell for it and thought I was being serious and KR fell right behind him. I imagine KR's visage to be very like that of the dour farmer in the kitschy painting, American Gothic, by Grant Wood. KR never indicates that he has the slightest sense of humor, but that one time, he was seized by a putative fit of the giggles at a failed putdown. Much more recently, a few months ago this year, I poked fun at KR's worship of Paul Krugman (a worship that he denies; this is a funny story in its own right given that KR has written here that all you have to do to understand issue x in economics is to read a Krugman column). I referred to "St. Paul Krugman" and the roidster charged at me like a bull and said that I was being beastly to the Saint. Just about anyone with a little more than a 10th grade education would have recognized that I was lampooning Karl and not striking out at PK. This is the great polemicist you write about, Z. Your hagiography is at total odds with the facts, but boy are you entertaining.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 11:15pm

When I posted a bit ago, I had missed Karl's failed attempt at refuting me where he buys into the framing nonsense. It is no surprise that he slurps at the trough of George Lakoff's foolishness. Now, Lakoff is infinitely more eloquent than is Karl, but he thinks in cardboard stereotypes and Manichaean terms, just like KR does. It is a marriage made in hell.

- liberalref

May 3, 2012 at 11:22pm

libref, life is too short to waste any more of my valuable time on a vile, twisted, little internet troll like you. Hurray for intolerance, indeed! As Oscar Jaffe would say, "I close the iron door on you."

- zardoz67

May 3, 2012 at 11:43pm

Still displaying your ignorance, lib, and doubling down at that. The point is not whether I agree or disagree with Lakoff, but your utterly lame attempt to offer a counter-example that actually makes Lakoff's point (and ironyroad's), and your evident failure to understand that you have said something "unintentionally hilarious," your favorite phrase, that discloses how ignorant you are. All of course, without so much as a whiff of comprehension on your part. Invariably, when you are caught out saying something stupid, yet again, you insist it was all just a joke. The joke is on you, lib. Everyone here can plainly see that you are a pompous ass with serious delusions of grandeur. Contrary to your highly inflated opinion of yourself, you can barely get one foot out of your mouth before you stick the other one in. But the show is terrific. Keep up the great work!

- roidubouloi

May 4, 2012 at 12:03am

And I am so impressed, lib, that you remember clearly every occasion on which your hauteur has been deflated and feel the obsessive need to reprise and deny, even years later, incidents that no one but you recalls. WoodyBombay had you dead to rights. He very cleverly made it obvious how silly and self-important you are. Stings, doesn't it? Perhaps if you were not so belligerent and could ever make appoint without attacking other posters, we would not all relish watching you step in it.

- roidubouloi

May 4, 2012 at 12:11am

If you had just pursued your dogged internet research a tad further, libref, you would have discovered Lakoff's rebuttal of Pinker's review, published in TNR on October 16, 2006. You know, I have a lot of respect for Pinker, for Lakoff, for Jon Chait and for a few other people with whom I don't always agree, but I am finding any respect I ever had for you disappearing down the drain with a soft gurgle.

- ironyroad

May 4, 2012 at 12:47am

Maybe I'm lost now, but did Romney's campaign fire George Lakoff or something? What a DELIGHTFUL thread!

- W_Bombay

May 4, 2012 at 11:46am

Welcome back, Mr. Bombay. Haven't seen you around in a while.

- roidubouloi

May 4, 2012 at 2:22pm

You gotta accentuate the positive. Or, you know, the contradictions.

- miceelf

May 4, 2012 at 2:55pm