Apparently you can't do political blogging any more, b/c no one responds to it. Too much thinking when one is only trying to put off doing things that count as "work."
I think this is a good point, and might say something about the whole issue of "appealing to the heartland." It explains why the Dems are urged, by some, to be less supportive of abortion rights, to use more god talk, etc. On the other hand, the right doesn't distance itself so much from its own fringe, and yet it succeeds. I think this needs more analysis.
A SSM (I like L2R's abbreviation) is by its nature disingenuous. Clinton wouldn't have uttered the OSSM (Original Sistah Souljah Moment) if aging black militants were a serious political force within the Democratic party. Otherwise, he would risk losing as many of them as he stood to gain in Reagan Dems.
Bush, OTOH, would never offer a SSM ("compassionate conservatism" doesn't denounce, though "restore honor and integrity" surely does) because his party is dominated at the grass roots and in the leadership by the Sistah Souljahs of the right.
In general, SSM frequency and amplitude will vary inversely with the presence of radicals on the side of the candidate uttering them.
I think you're both right, which is precisely why defining SSMs as repudiating extremists doesn't quite capture what's really going on. It's more "playing against type" than moving to the middle.
Yes, I think the idea of "playing against type" is more useful. Plus it doesn't have a confusing acronym that one wants to read as "same-sex marriage."
Bush would likely have more credibility with the voters in pursuing a quick pullout of Iraq than a Democrat would, but that doesn't mean that Bush actually will follow this strategy.
At the same time, a Democrat calling for a draft would have less credibility than Bush would, even though this would be going against type for the Democrat.
The actual position - not just the positioning - affects how effective the strategy can be. It may be true that _only_ Nixon could have gone to China in the 1970s - but _even_ someone like Nixon could not have gone to China in the 1950s or early 1960s.
Side note: I'm not sure "playing against type" is all that great for an acronym either: PAT makes me think of football.
Why will no one face the real issue? Namely that Sistah Souljah's sordid list of villany includes a) choosing one of the lamest rap handles of all time, b) sucking as a rapper, and c) contributing to the ruination of the incredible, rhyme animal, Public Enemy. This woman needs her name extinguished from the pop culture. Homework assignment is to find a better example of this phenomenon that we can build a catch phrase around. (and that does not refer to the unfortunate Mr. Rector).
I have to say that Souljah is one of the most motivational authors out there. I really look forward to the release of her new book. I am positive that I will enjoy it just as much as the other two that I have read.
Apparently you can't do political blogging any more, b/c no one responds to it. Too much thinking when one is only trying to put off doing things that count as "work."
I think this is a good point, and might say something about the whole issue of "appealing to the heartland." It explains why the Dems are urged, by some, to be less supportive of abortion rights, to use more god talk, etc. On the other hand, the right doesn't distance itself so much from its own fringe, and yet it succeeds. I think this needs more analysis.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 2:12 PM
A SSM (I like L2R's abbreviation) is by its nature disingenuous. Clinton wouldn't have uttered the OSSM (Original Sistah Souljah Moment) if aging black militants were a serious political force within the Democratic party. Otherwise, he would risk losing as many of them as he stood to gain in Reagan Dems.
Bush, OTOH, would never offer a SSM ("compassionate conservatism" doesn't denounce, though "restore honor and integrity" surely does) because his party is dominated at the grass roots and in the leadership by the Sistah Souljahs of the right.
In general, SSM frequency and amplitude will vary inversely with the presence of radicals on the side of the candidate uttering them.
Posted by son volt | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 2:14 PM
I think you're both right, which is precisely why defining SSMs as repudiating extremists doesn't quite capture what's really going on. It's more "playing against type" than moving to the middle.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 2:38 PM
Yes, I think the idea of "playing against type" is more useful. Plus it doesn't have a confusing acronym that one wants to read as "same-sex marriage."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 2:47 PM
Yeah, that's why it's okay for an ostensibly political blogger to diary-blog but not for angsty fourteen-year-olds to do the Xanga thing.
Posted by the verbing noun | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 3:30 PM
Bush would likely have more credibility with the voters in pursuing a quick pullout of Iraq than a Democrat would, but that doesn't mean that Bush actually will follow this strategy.
At the same time, a Democrat calling for a draft would have less credibility than Bush would, even though this would be going against type for the Democrat.
The actual position - not just the positioning - affects how effective the strategy can be. It may be true that _only_ Nixon could have gone to China in the 1970s - but _even_ someone like Nixon could not have gone to China in the 1950s or early 1960s.
Side note: I'm not sure "playing against type" is all that great for an acronym either: PAT makes me think of football.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 3:32 PM
Why will no one face the real issue? Namely that Sistah Souljah's sordid list of villany includes a) choosing one of the lamest rap handles of all time, b) sucking as a rapper, and c) contributing to the ruination of the incredible, rhyme animal, Public Enemy. This woman needs her name extinguished from the pop culture. Homework assignment is to find a better example of this phenomenon that we can build a catch phrase around. (and that does not refer to the unfortunate Mr. Rector).
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 4:23 PM
but eeeeyyyyeeeee haaaaardllyyyyyy kneeeeeeeewww haaaar
It had to be done. Carry on.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 4:56 PM
Baa - with a little taste of the bass for you.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-16-04 9:14 PM
Velleman's a prophet and I think you oughta listen to
what he could say to you
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-17-04 8:09 AM
benjamin a I question your blackness you call yourself black but we'll see if you'll play this.
What hath sistah souljah to do with public enemy? I've forgotten that part of the story...
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-17-04 9:41 AM
She does a little shouting on "Apocalypse 91," and was probably Minister of something-or-other. I blame Professor Griff more, anyway.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-04 10:08 AM
Griff did more harm, I agree. But Souljah was suckier.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-17-04 10:17 AM
I have to say that Souljah is one of the most motivational authors out there. I really look forward to the release of her new book. I am positive that I will enjoy it just as much as the other two that I have read.
Posted by kadryne | Link to this comment | 03-10-05 1:19 PM