Much of @HawleyMO CPAC speech self-advertised his suffering for the pro-Trump cause. Big mistake. For the pro-Trump movement, victimhood is not an end in itself. For them, their victimhood is a justification for abusing others. They don't want martyrs. They want righteous bullies
@HawleyMO Trumpism is not a system of ideas. It's simple bully worship, the kind you saw in schoolyards. Nobody in pro-Trump world cares about any of @HawleyMO half-cooked policy ideas. They only care about Big Tech to the extent that Big Tech is getting in the way of their bullying fun.
@HawleyMO And just as a schoolyard bully will one day target this kid, and the next day target that one - and the third day target the most sycophantic suck-up in his entourage ... so Trump can and will take almost any position on almost any issue, and the pro-Trump movement will follow.
@HawleyMO You want to position yourself as Trump's successor? Don't waste time taking about issues. Show yourself the next meanest bully. Belittle people near Trump to show that the outgoing monster can't protect them from you. Trigger their blood lust, and prove you can satisfy it.
@HawleyMO Make a cruel "joke" about Don Jr. dating a woman older than himself
Make another about Ted Cruz's COVID weight gain being the real reason he hurried home from Cancun.
Mock the idea of a "second gentleman." Mock mask-wearing.
Then wait for Trump to be indicted, and you're it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In an early episode of "Mad Men," the young striver Peggy Olson faces a traumatic experience. The principal character, a man whose life is built upon falsehood and evasion, offers his life advice: "It never happened. It will amaze you how much it never happened." 1/x
With the Tanden nomination, we are watching congressional Republicans put Don Draper's advice into effect.
They supported a profoundly corrupt, cruel, vituperative, and generally immoral and unethical president at the head of an inept and unethical administration. They knew it!
But of course those senators never said so. They were scared and they were shamed. Maybe they stopped some bad things - or at least they tell themselves they did. But the experience had to have been profoundly humiliating for almost all of them. And these are not humble people.
It's like when distilled alcohol arrived in Europe after 1400. Human beings had long experience of wine and beer. But distilled liquor spread carnage through unprepared societies. Took a long time to learn to cope with it. Broadcast media => social media an almost equal shock
Question I've been thinking about today. Was Ingrid Bergman a victim of "cancel culture" when she was caught in a firestorm of scandal in 1950 for having a child with one man while married to another? If not, why not? thevintagenews.com/2018/02/07/ing…
I don't mean this question as a random puzzle, it's helping me develop an idea about why so many feel that it's different to lose a movie career in 2021 for posting conspiracy theories on social media than to lose a movie career in 1951 for an unsanctioned love affair.
When John Lennon was quoted that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, he triggered a wave of boycott against the band (even though he was expressing worry about declining spirituality, not boasting about his success) rollingstone.com/feature/when-j…
Of all the Senate-confirmed jobs, OMB director is one that would seem to call for *utmost* deference to the president.
Unlike judgeships, it's not a lifetime appointment.
It is not a separate cabinet department, it functions within the Executive Office of the President. 1/x
Unlike, say, directorships of NIH, or NASA, or NOAA, the OMB directorship legitimately answers directly to the president. The budget drafted by OMB is always and only a *proposal* to Congress, which has the ultimate deciding power always. 2/x
And if Congress doesn't like what it's hearing from an OMB director, guess what? Congress has its own in-house functional equivalent, director of the Congressional Budget Office. 3/x
So about the below tweet, which I somehow didn't see until today. I get the point Jim_Jordan *imagined* he was making. But the point he is *actually* making is more interesting ...
Yes it's true that wine drinkers are somewhat better educated than beer drinkers and somewhat higher income. But the starkest divide between beer and wine is gender, not class. Women prefer wine over beer by a margin of 2 to 1; men prefer beer over wine by a margin of 3 to 1
Saying "We're a party for beer drinkers, not wine drinkers," is an alcohol-benchmarked way of saying, "We're a party for men, not women."