Re. the video game thing: here is my take. I think that Clinton is--intelligently--trying to present the Democrats as the "family" party (not the "family values" party). The one that cares about shit like a living wage, stable employment, social security, health care, all that good stuff.

I had an epiphany while driving through some vast midwestern state not too long ago. PK was with me, and we were listening to the radio--and I had to flip and flip and flip b/c, though I have no issue with gangsta rap for teenagers, I do not want my 5-year old to deal with ethnic slurs, misogyny, and violence quite yet. I don't think he has the critical judgment to understand that that kind of stuff in music can be objectionable, in principle, but still okay, as art. Anyway, we ended up listening to Christian radio b/c that was all there was.

And Clinton's thing with video games, come on: the issue there is labelling. Would I buy, say, a 15-year old boy an ultraviolent videogame? Probably not. But do I think it's *entirely* unreasonable to buy a violent videogame for a 15 year old, but feel uncomfortable realizing that said game can also be pornographic? No. It's not necessarily the same set of priorities I have, but it isn't completely alien, either.

I think that on issues like videogames, misogyny, crappy television, etc., that actually the right and the left aren't all that far apart--when it comes to their own, personal kids. The difference is in what we want done on a broader scale about it. But I think that Clinton has figured out that if you keep the rhetoric focused in a way that people think you are talking about *them*, that it will have cross-over appeal. (I think the same thing would be true about abortion, if we could get past the generalizations onto some specifics, but that's another long comment somewhere else.)

So for that reason, I'm not hung up about the videogame shit.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:18 PM

369

Put me in the anti-Hillary camp, too. I used to really love her, but I doubted her charisma; the last couple of years have largely killed my affection for her, and she doesn't seem any more charismatic.

Posted by somecallmetim | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:18 PM

370

My interpretation of 362.2 is that there's a bloc of people who will look at Clinton, a second legacy presidential candidate, and say enough's enough.

Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:19 PM

371

370: Fair enough.

368: I think that could be pretty compelling. I read a lot of Penny Arcade, so the videogame shit bugs me, and I worry that it's indicative of a more serious set of issues on which I disagree with her. But I'd feel better about her if she took the position you describe explicitly.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:22 PM

372

Ah, but re. legacy, there's a major difference between being someone's *son* and someone's *wife.* Again, this won't matter in terms of the general public's response, and I think Arm is right, but it annoys me, because *most* women who succeed in politics do so (the same way guys do) through connections. Given that most of those in power are still guys, some of the women with connections are gonna end up married to those guys. And then, whoops, sorry lady! You're not qualified.

I mean, think about it: Hillary put her profession on hold (and changed her name) b/c of her husband's career. Now it's her turn, and the fact that she's an ambitious, political-minded woman who married an ambitious, political-minded man--and then did the politically pragmatic thing, and let him go first--means that she's considered a "legacy" candidate in the same way as baby Bush, who rode his daddy's coattails from the time he hit puberty.

Grrr.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:24 PM

373

370--Yeah, that was pretty much it. My parents--outliers, sure, but broadly characterized as Reagan Democrats; both ended up voting Libertarian (gak) in CA in 2004--are both viscerally disgusted with the thought of electing any more family names to the Presidency. They're suspicious now of Kennedys, Bushes, and Clintons almost equally.

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:26 PM

374

and then did the politically pragmatic thing, and let him go first

You're not really arguing that she's even a third the politician that Clinton is, are you, B?

Posted by somecallmetim | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:30 PM

375

368: It isn't that specific thing, it's a stand-in for an entire approach. The patch from the internet that unlocks an easter egg in a video game that can't be legally sold to minors is not cause for Congressional hearings, even if you agree with her on the entire "family" suite of issues.

She comes off overwhelmingly as a nagging busybody. In other words, a more photogenic Ralph Nader. Good to have them in our national discourse, of course, but it's a TERRIBLE image to project in a national election.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:34 PM

376

"nagging busybody" plays just fine many places. My Republican congresswoman gots lots of publicity in the hearings after Janet Jackson's appearance (!?) in the superbowl. Her "no tits on TV" platform gets her lots of support, and she'll probably get re-elected again, despite having about a 170,000 to 140,000 disadvantage in party registration..

Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:45 PM

377

oops, sorry, forgot to sign that last comment

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:47 PM

378

#374: I think people underestimate her.

#375: I think, from the pov of most people who are not programmers, that the GTA (it was GTA, right?) thing is an issue that bears consideration for government regulation, just like music, tv, and movies.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:49 PM

379

I worry about her (well, no -- I wouldn't vote for her in a primary) because of her position on the war. She is still not out front saying that it was a bad, bad, terrible idea. I can get over someone supporting the war initially, but by now they should really be saying "Whoops, I screwed up."

It's not so much the war, as it is a proxy for someone who can be bullied, and so I don't trust them to get anything done against opposition. (I will say that I don't know offhand where all the other Dem. possibilities are on the war -- anyone else who is still as pro-war as she is is also disqualified.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:49 PM

380

377: I don't think Apo saying it's not that she's unelectable, but rather that he doesn't want a nagging busybody to be President. If I may put words in his text box, it's not the woman that he minds, but rather her personal politics.

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:55 PM

381

"nagging busybody" plays just fine many places.

I understand this, but what I don't get is that efforts to restrict marketing to children get NO traction with Republicans. Sex at the Superbowl is a straw man compared to the manipulative commercials aimed at kids' shows. My swing-voting, suburban, Mormon sister has taken to renting DVDs of popular kids' shows from the liberary: the TV is, on anti-consumerist grounds, verboten to her young children. And my only Republican in my adult writing class looked into advertising to children for his research project and ended up writing a quasi-Nadarite final paper.

I mean, if we're going to get all puritanical, why not start with issues that leftist Puritans are good at?

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:57 PM

382

In her continued support of the war, I think she's been following the old strategy of moving to the center before a presidential election. That strategy worked for Bill, but I think following it now is actually insane. There isn't any more center. It's beyond worrying about actual insincerity -- I'm sure they're all insincere -- instead I question her judgment in doing something that obviously comes off as insincere. She's not going to pick up any pro war people from the right by continuing to support the war, and she's lopped much of her support from the left.

Posted by text | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:59 PM

383

See, I'm not on board with the idea that concerns about the content of popular media--and let's be honest, even though GTA isn't legally sold to minors, don't teenage boys play it?--is being a "nagging busybody." I know it's the done thing for liberals to think so, but I think it's a libertarianism position we might want to reconsider.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:00 PM

384

southern democrats and coastal democrats are not necessarily anywhere near each other policy-wise, much less in their ability to appeal to the south.

a lot of southern dems have particular local appeal that doesn't have any coattails for them librul northerners. evan bayh's not an indication hoosiers agrees w/ new yorkers, just that he's got legacy cred, for example.

and if someone like bayh or one of those nelsons somehow survived a primary, they'd probably take as much flak from the various dem bases as from the Rs. herding cats is hard.

Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:02 PM

385

I don't think that the Democrats should try especially hard for Southern votes. Last time around they would have been if they'd won Iowa or Ohio or Florida or Missouri or Arizona or Colorado. The Republicans write off the NW and the NE, and they still win.

The things the South wants are shitty. Not so just things relating to race or abortion, but anti-unionism and hawkishness.

I've really turned into a Yankee bigot, I confess. Southerners are in the driver's seat and they're telling me what's what, and I have to sit and take it, but they're not doing anything to convince me that I should like or respect their shitty, ruined part of the country.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:26 PM

386

"would have won"

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:27 PM

387

if they'd won Iowa or Ohio or Florida or Missouri or Arizona or Colorado.

Yeah, but they didn't win any of those states, and largely for the same reasons they didn't win any southern states. And the big one, Florida, is a southern state. I agree with Tim that "TN, VA, AK, and NC all should belong to us." Florida, too. And if you're taking those states, you'll probably be taking Arizona and Colorado as well.

I've really turned into a Yankee bigot

Whatever makes you feel better.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:43 PM

388

Teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here, but 'the South' doesn't want anything -- it's a geographical region. In which nearly half of the people voted for Kerry. Absolutely we shouldn't sell out anything the left stands for in the hope of attracting more Southern voters, but being rude about the South doesn't do anything to help.

And the food's good down there, if you like fried, which I do.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:46 PM

389

Few or none of the states that Democrats almost won were southern states. Florida is half to a third Southern. Missouri is border.

If I were a strategist for the Democratic Party, I would speak quite differently, but I'm just one single registered Democrat, and I'm sick and tired of being told I should care what those shits think. The stuff they say about my kind is at least as bad as what I'm saying right now, and they can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. If you look at their representatives in the Senate, at least half of them are either nasty or loony or both. And those are the people they choose to represent them.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:48 PM

390

The stuff they say about my kind

What have I ever said about your kind, John?

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:54 PM

391

Like I said, I'm not trying to help. I'm just sick of having to cater to Southern bullshit.

The South may not want anything, but I sure have been hearing a lot about what we have to do for them. We should make a list of the states which we almost won, and see what we want to do there.

The Southern voting results are misleading, because such a high proportion of the Democratic votes are black. The South isn't going to get any blacker.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:54 PM

392

Do black votes count less or something?

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:55 PM

393

We've moved from Hollywood gossip and sexual politics to policy analysis. Am I wrong to think that the trend is usual in the other direction?

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:56 PM

394

Nothing personal, apostropher. But Tom Delay is the person Texas chose to represent them, and he's a nasty piece of work. Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms. Really sinister, evil guys, and people down there seem to love them. I just don't see the purpose of a Democratic strategy keyed on convincing Jesse Helms voters to vote for us.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:56 PM

395

Eh, I just want to leave the door open for them (Southerners who really ought to be liberals) to come back. Lots of people who live in those states are already on our side.

(Although I do know how you feel. That 'Fuck the South' thing that went around after the election? Struck a chord.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:58 PM

396

Jesse Helms won by tiny margins here, John. And the folks who voted against him hated him with every bit the purple passion you do. I guarantee you I hate Jesse Helms more than you do, because he was my senator for 30 years. There are more Southern voters like me than you apparently believe.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:59 PM

397

If Mississippi is 30% black, the Democrats will get 30% of the votes. But that is the maximum from that category, because Mississippi isn't ever going to be 50% black. And getting the white voters is a whole different story. There don't seem to be a lot of swing voters.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:59 PM

398

To be fair, John, only Sugarland gets any vote about Tom DeLay. The state as a whole chose John Cornyn, who's pretty frightening himself.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 8:59 PM

399

I like the South, and I mostly like Southerners.

But I don't hate Clinton's position w/r/t GTA, so we can still isolate and gang up on the apostropher.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:01 PM

400

Well, I shouldn't have said it. But on Yglesias and Drum I was always listening to "moderate" Dems tell me what we would have to do to win over the South, and I ended up deciding that that was our worst possible strategy.

The Cleland election was a last straw. People assured me that it wasn't the smears of Cleland's patriotism that beat him, but the fact that he was thought to be pro-union and too liberal. I just decided to forget Georgia forever right then.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:03 PM

401

400!

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:03 PM

402

I hate you, John Emerson!

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:04 PM

403

If Mississippi is 30% black

Nobody's advocating targetting Mississippi.

There don't seem to be a lot of swing voters.

This is where you're wrong. The Southern states to be targetted are getting younger, experiencing huge Hispanic growth, and lots of in-migration.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:07 PM

404

I think we should all send Emerson grits. And okra. Is there a Grits of the Month club?

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:10 PM

405

OK, if there are Southern states that are winnable, go for it. But normally a lot of baggage goes with trying to do that.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:17 PM

406

Plus, don't forget urbanization. Nashville is pretty Democratic, I think. And there's gotta be a reason why the Texas Republicans went nuts with that redistricting thing.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:21 PM

407

I hate Hillary. She has always supported the goddamned Iraq war, for which she (and Kerry, Edwards, Biden, etc.) should hang her head in shame. She also likes trying to suck up to the Right by signing on to some of their bullshit issues (ban violent video games! pass anti-flag-burning legislation!). The irony is that the Right still hates her, and the Left thinks she's a phony.

Moreover, the fact that she drives the wingnuts insane is a Really Bad Thing. If she is the candidate, the wingnuts will be incredibly energized to contribute money and GOTV. Most people are going to be pretty fed up with Dubya and the rest of the Rethuglicans by 2008. A lot of the people who will show up just to vote against Hillary will stay home if we put up Clark, Warner, or someone else who doesn't drive them apeshit.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:23 PM

408

You people need to look at an electoral map. Kerry lost the southerns states by huge margins. The soft states for us were OH, IA, Nm, and NV.

Posted by somecallmetim | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:27 PM

409

I don't hate her, and I'm pretty happy with her as a Senator. (What I want to know is why Bill won't run for mayor of NYC. The city would fall as one at his feet, and we could break the goddam string of Republican mayors.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:28 PM

410

And okra.

Okra is the worst "food" on Earth. When I am rotting in hell, I'm sure I will be served okra at every meal. And yes, the South sucks massively -- although if someone like Warner or Clark, or maybe a Westerner like Schweitzer, is the Dem candidate, we could take some Southern states. Oh, and God damn the fucking electoral college to hell.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:28 PM

411

Okra is delish. Also grits. And greens. And pretty much all the other southern comfort foods.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:33 PM

412

Okra is the worst "food" on Earth.

Surely you jest. Have you had it pickled or fried?

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:35 PM

413

Nm

Seriously, what's up with your shift key today?

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:37 PM

414

I had most excellent stewed okra once.

Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:39 PM

415

What are the voting stats on migrants to the south, anyway? Are they less likely to vote Republican than multi-generation southerners?

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:43 PM

416

Yes, I have had okra fried. I stand by my comment. Southern food is horrible (although I've never had grits or greens; I assume they suck, too). I actually like black-eyed peas, if they count as Southern.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:43 PM

417

My god, keeping up with Unfogged comment threads is like a full-time job. I think I'll quit, and go see my neglected wife and daughter before they go to bed.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:45 PM

418

Unfogged is the real threat to the American family, rather than the gay.

Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:46 PM

419

I don't want to send Emerson grits. After years of reading Slashdot, I'd have to picture him holding them naked and petrified.

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:46 PM

420

Newt Gingirch was born in Pennsylvania and IIRC spent his early life there.

My sister spent 20 years in SE Kansas, which was plenty southern ofr me, and it seemed like a hellhole. With courtly manners and everything, but a hellhole.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:50 PM

421

The soft states for us were OH, IA, Nm, and NV.

I can't speak from personal knowledgte about OH, IA and NV (although I did read a long article in the NY Times Magazine about the apparent incompetence of the OH GOTV effort).

NM, that I can speak to. I spent every weekday for the 7 weeks until the election as a volunteer at the Kerry HQ in NM, and some weekends, about 300 hours. Since then I've probably spent aat least as much time on NM party politics, and another bunch of time on two other campaigns, a City Council race and even 30 or 40 hours on the upcoming congressional race. All as a volunteer.

In NM, the Democratic party is wilfully ineffective. The party couldn't get out a vote if a voter called every party official and said "hey, where's my polling place?" I blame Bill Richardson, but that may not be a belief based in fact. But the only thing I've seen the party, or the coordinated campaign, effectively do is to get thousands (yes, thousands) of volunteers to mill about in meetings and parking lots. Milling about doesn't really do much for the GOTV effort. Kerry lost NM by 6,000 votes, and it was entirely avoidable. Yes, the electoral college is most unfortunate, and NM has only 5 votes, but it was certainly winnable.

Back when I had hope, I put some stuff on the web. If anyone cares, it's still there:

http://users.hubwest.com/msch/dpbc/dpbc.html

Nothing has changed since then.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:51 PM

422

We had people milling around in Oregon too, which shouldn't even have been a swing state at all. Multi-problem party.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:55 PM

423

I just want to say that I love you all for playing jinx. My boyfriend will not respect the rules of jinx, even though I've totally jinxed his ass fair and square on a number of occasions, counting to ten before he says his name, as required by my understanding of the rules. In the beginning, I tried to explain to him patiently that if we did not obey the rules of jinx there would be anarchy, but appeals to reason were fruitless. Typically I'm left standing apoplectic in a video store, hissing, "You're jinxed! You can't talk until I say your name!" while he makes some absurd claim about needing to be able to talk in a public place, even though it is totally unnecessary to talk while picking out a video, and all I want is his silence while I declare that anyone who does not think that Tia is the smartest, most beautiful, most fascinating all around best person in the world, and any jinxed persons are much inferior, speak now or forever hold your peace, close sentence, no takebacks, this is the immutable truth forever and ever.

That is all.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:55 PM

424

419 - (No offense, Emerson. It's more the petrified part. That's always creeped me out a bit.)

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:57 PM

425

Face it, if the big shift toward Republican dominance was the loss of the Dixiecrats, then to insure Democratic dominance you have to get the South back. Yeah, for the next election, you can try to pick off voters here and there. But the grand strategic sweep argues for a massive effort to win back the south. So you should learn to love it. And think big.

Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:57 PM

426

In NM, the Democratic party is wilfully ineffective.

That's what machine politics'll get ya.

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 9:59 PM

427

Hell, in New Mexico they were even giving out free breakfast tacos to all voters before 11 AM (according to my phone banking script, at least).

Free breakfast tacos and still no turnout! What more does it take, people?!

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:01 PM

428

We had people milling around in Oregon too, which shouldn't even have been a swing state at all. Multi-problem party.

I do tend towards the simplistic explanation, but I don't think it's multiple problems. It's multiple symptoms of the same problem: many of our leaders are much more intersted in preserving their own personal power base than in building the party. Richardson wants to make sure he stays at the head of the DPNM, and if that means cutting the party off at the knees, that's a price he's willing to inflict.

... anyone who does not think that Tia is the smartest, most beautiful, most fascinating all around best person in the world, and any jinxed persons are much inferior, speak now or forever hold your peace ...

I'm holding my, uh, peace.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:03 PM

429

Kansas is in no way part of the South.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:08 PM

430

Hell, in New Mexico they were even giving out free breakfast tacos to all voters before 11 AM (according to my phone banking script, at least).

Where were you calling? I hadn't heard that. I was handling incoming calls on the main telephone line the days before election day (although on election day I moved to handing randomly selected precinct maps and walk lists to randomly selected volunteers) and I didn't get that message.

Every day, the last few weeks, when I got home from campaign HQ there'd be a message on my answering machine from som earnest volunteer back east imploring me to go down to HQ to volunteer. I couldn't find out who was coordinating that, nor how to get my name off that list. I felt bad for those callers.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:11 PM

431

AC -- yes, that's how we got to where we are, but the idea that what we need to do is reverse that trend exactly is ahistorical. What we need to do is find more votes somewhere, but not necessarily right where we lost them.

No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.

The country really is polarized now, and the northern Roockies, Great Plains, and most of the South are the other pole. The SW, Iowa, and Ohio look most promising to me. And some of the less-Southern states too, maybe, but "The South" is theirs.

I think that when a party loses a lot of close elections it's more likely an organizational problem than an issues problem. If the Republicans were winning 55-45 we'd have to change our message, but they aren't.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:12 PM

432

Free breakfast tacos and still no turnout! What more does it take, people?!

Hey, I voted, even without the breakfast tacos (tacos? not burritos?). Absentee, though.

More seriously, the Kerry campaign really didn't do the kind of outreach they should have to the Hispanic community, which was none too impressed with Kerry as a candidate. I'm sure the stuff Michael is talking about played a role too.

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:12 PM

433

SE Kansas is adjacent to Oklahoma and Arkansas (within about 40 miles). It was Southern enough for me.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:14 PM

434

430 - I don't remember which city in NM we called but I'm positive about the breakfast tacos because it was such a bizarre script. We (NY Citizen Action) only called New Mexico once because we had such bad results -- too many "not homes" because of the time difference and none of our group spoke enough Spanish. We were reassigned to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:18 PM

435

I think that when a party loses a lot of close elections it's more likely an organizational problem than an issues problem. If the Republicans were winning 55-45 we'd have to change our message, but they aren't.

Thank you. If I'd had enough brains I'd have said that. Agreed. Losing NM by 6K votes out of 700k isn't a landslide.

More seriously, the Kerry campaign really didn't do the kind of outreach they should have to the Hispanic community, which was none too impressed with Kerry as a candidate.

Being hopelessly congenitally Anglo I can't really have an informed opinion on that. But here I go anyhow. We had a real progressive in the congressional democratic primary. But he lost to the candidate who had Richardson's support, Richard Romero. Romero went on to lose to Heather Wilson in the general, 55-45. I can't help but think that the Hispanic part of the party (notably inlcluding Richardson) didn't do everything it could have for him.

But the party failed to reach out to lots of people. I normally spend about half or a third of my time out in Gallup, where my partner lives. I asked the campaign staff what was being done out there. I was told "we have a coordinator working with the Native American community. If you want to do anything about the 20,000 or so Anglos who live out there, feel free to rent an office and hire a staff, and we'll wish you best of luck." I didn't find that a useful answer.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:23 PM

436

The Kerry campaign seems to have done almost everything wrong. I was one of several trying to get them to deal with the Swift Boat type of stuff, and they essentially refused to do anything at all. We were gathering information and they just refused to talk to us.

In my bad moments, which are frequent, I believe that the Democratic Party is being sabotaged from within. Just basic nuts and bolts stuff was screwed up.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:24 PM

437

I do than you for the effort, Becks. That is bizarre.

No answer was a real problem. I did tallies sometimes for calls going out of HQ. I remember days when we'd made 5,000 calls, done the data entry for all those calls, run the numbers, and got 112 YES answers. And we thought we were calling likely Democratic voters.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:26 PM

438

(although I've never had grits or greens; I assume they suck, too)

You've never had greens? I have personally tried greens in the following forms (list is incomplete) and will personally attest to their non-suckiness:

• Spinach
• Swiss Chard
• Mustard
• Radish
• Kale
• Collard

And those are just the ones I can think of right now.

Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:28 PM

439

No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.

This I would dispute. Democrats do tend to splash their political strategies across the front pages more than the Republicans do, but the whispering through RedState.com etc. seems to indicate that Republicans are serious about increasing their profile--gradually, if necessary--in these areas.

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:29 PM

440

438

Thesis: all greens are better with either butter or shrimp and preferably both.

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:31 PM

441

I friend of mine who's an ABD in related stuff says that the Republican ground game was infinitely better than the Democratic game. They had a fantastic database and fantastic outreach.

Somehow smart Democrats can't convert their knowledge into results. Karl Rove has one year of college at Utah (I think), and he knows more about his subject than 100 PhD's.

PhD's have trouble taking Rove's knowledge seriously, but he's smart and they're dumb.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:31 PM

442

Despite my pseudonym, I am also hopelessly congenitally Anglo, but what I've heard is that the campaign treated Hispanics like part of the Democratic base (i.e. counted on their votes without doing anything for them) instead of treating them like a swing constituency (which they very much are -- Bush is popular in NM and Richardson's opponent in 2002 was John Sanchez). Of course, I wasn't around during most of the campaign, so I don't have much first-hand knowledge. For that I defer to Michael.

Romero is a good guy, but he isn't much of a politician. He's a prime example of the machine nature of NM Democratic politics -- two chances against Heather and he miffed both of them. Remember Eric Serna?

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:32 PM

443

I was one of several trying to get them to deal with the Swift Boat type of stuff, and they essentially refused to do anything at all.

That could have been a bad, but considered, policy decision by the campaign. I tried something simpler.

After the election I learned that the party had names and contact information for 15,000 people who had volunteered during the campaign. I thought that would be very useful information for the 2006 Congressional race. I offered to help them get that data in order so it could be used. The answer I got was, in esse, "we've assigned that task to our most junior and incompetent computer illiterate employee. We're waiting for her to screw it up, then we'll forget it." I believe that's what happened.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:34 PM

444

The Republicans are always trying, which is a big part of their advantage. Even with blacks and Jews and gays.

But no one lays down an ultimatum and say that they HAVE TO win back the 40% of the country where they're not competitive.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:35 PM

445

Michael H S: maybe it's not sabotage, but there's tons of information suggesting that too many high up on the Democratic staff are untroubled by defeat as long as they've still got a job.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:37 PM

446

No answer was a real problem.

There's a cultural problem there; a lot of older Hispanics are reluctant to discuss politics, especially with someone they don't know. My sister canvassed for the DNC that summer and she said their out-of-state organizers were always very gung-ho about pressing people for answers and that often just alienated people (may have even contributed to the low turnout).

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:37 PM

447

I don't think it's so much a matter of smartness as a matter of analytical strategies applied to politics. My sense is that Republicans are more up on the details of institutional structures and how to make use of them while Democrats are more interested in broader questions of policy and social/cultural trends.

I may be filtering this through the tension between social and political history in academic history departments, so I could be completely wrong. Plus I don't think I expressed that very well.

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:38 PM

448

Everything Rove knows is applied, whereas a lot of Democratic brains filter everything through academic jargon first.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:40 PM

449

Romero is a good guy, but he isn't much of a politician. He's a prime example of the machine nature of NM Democratic politics -- two chances against Heather and he miffed both of them. Remember Eric Serna?

Oh yes. I remember AEric Serna. And Phil Maloof. I still have marks on my nose, I had to hold it so hard when I voted for them. I attribute their candidacies to 'loyalty to Glorious Leader" rather than loyalty to the democratic machine - but maybe that's a distinction without a difference.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:41 PM

450

See, but in history you're not going to find too much academic jargon about institutional politics - committee structures, procedural questions, etc. - because there aren't many historians studying it. So there isn't anything to filter wrongly. (Poli sci is something else, but I don't know much about it.) A lot of the stuff in history that's ostensibly about politics doesn't get down to that level, even though people will address policy questions.

I suspect the historians have so little influence that this doesn't matter at all for real life.

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:45 PM

451

There's a cultural problem there; a lot of older Hispanics are reluctant to discuss politics ...

That's very likely. I'm not good with actual interacting with people, so I avoided direct voter contact. But with the telphone banking, a lot of the no answers were literally no answer - often because the phone number was wrong, or disconnected, or the person had moved, or noboday answered the phone.

Certainly an effort to involve people to work within their existing social netwworks and institutions would have been good, and that I didn't see much of.

Democrats are more interested in broader questions of policy and social/cultural trends

Good point. I'm particularly interested in questions such as "we're expecting two thousand volunteers saturday morning, what do we need to do to get them walk lists and maps and back out knocking on doors as efficiently as possible?". Unfortunately, the staff answer seemed to be "don't worry, we know what we're doing, it'll work out". And, of course, it didn't.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:53 PM

452

No one ever says that the Republicans have to win back the West Coast or the NE.

Of course not. They're winning without them. The Democrats, on the other hand, are NOT winning when they don't take a Southern state.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:54 PM

453

I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 10:59 PM

454

in history you're not going to find too much academic jargon about institutional politics - committee structures, procedural questions, etc. - because there aren't many historians studying it.

Is that really true? In my narrow range of specialized reading about history--England and France 1770-1840--there's been a fair amount of analysis of the situations and structures that produced certain policy positions and not others. (And yes, from that reading I could extrapolate that flooding Iowa with good-intentioned Dean-supporters from out-of-state would probably not work.)

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:00 PM

455

A lot of the stuff in history that's ostensibly about politics doesn't get down to that level, even though people will address policy questions.

I don't know much about poli-sci either, but I ran into a number of people with recent poli-sci degrees. Their answer to "how do we get enough volunteers down here to stuff 2,000 fund raising letters?" appeared to be "let's do automated calls to 2,500 possibles and ask them to call here" (I don't know where they got that list). They didn't work through questions such as "If we only have two incoming telephone lines which the six staff members and the fax machine are using, and no person assigned to answer incoming calls, will that really work very well?" They'd have done better with someone who had some experience with managing volunteers. But I'm sure they are very good with policy questions, and writing television ads.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:04 PM

456

I should have emphasized that it's American history I'm talking about. And the best work on the American revolution does focus on institutions. After that? Not so much, though there seems to be a trend towards increasing interest in that kind of political history again. Most of the people interested in Congressional history are still in poli sci, for example, even when they consider themselves historians.

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:06 PM

457

Glorious Leader being who, though? Those elections were pre-Richardson.

(Maloof spoke at my middle school. What an idiot.)

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:09 PM

458

I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?

What's this "we" shit, educated urban person?

Sorry, that's just a joke.

I think it has much more to do with social group affiliation. Republicans are very good at making people feel like they're valued members, participants in the group. I'm on some republican mailinglists, and they're very good at making me feel that they want to include me.

That's why it upsets me so much when Democrats treat volunteers like dirt. The consistent message I get from Democrats is "if you really want to stuff envelopes, put your name on this list and we might call you, but we really don't care who you are or what you think or what you're good at. And please send money"

Of course, it might merely be that the Democrats know me, and find me objectionable.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:15 PM

459

Glorious Leader being who, though? Those elections were pre-Richardson

There you go again, trying to confuse me with "fact" from the main stream media.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong. I haven't been following local politics very long. But I had the impression that Richardson had been around since Emilio Naranjo's day, and maintained his control of DPNM affairs after he left Congress and went to be Energy Secretary, etc. But I'm likely wrong

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:19 PM

460

Apo, we need to switch 4% of the votes, and where they come from is not the issue. The South is more hopeful than the Great Plains and Northern Rockies, but not much more. There are better places to look.

If you're talking about campaigning more effectively in the South (and everywhere else), fine, but in the past this argument has always been about choosing issues and candidates to please southern voters, and I'm reluctant to do that. Based on what I know, southern voters (at least 51% of them) and I think far differently about most things.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:23 PM

461

Democrats treat volunteers like dirt.

My experience too. I think it's because the pragmatic Democratic pros fear and mistrust the Democratic rank and file, who usually have convictions on issues.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:26 PM

462

Richardson has been around for a long time, but my impression was that he was just very ambitious and always on the lookout for personal advancement (as he still is). I wasn't even old enough to vote in those days, but I always thought he was at best a minor player in the machine that kept nominating Serna for various offices and losing when the Greens split the vote. And I doubt he had much influence in the party when he was at Energy; he had enough to deal with right there. But I could also be wrong.

Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:28 PM

463

My experience too. I think it's because the pragmatic Democratic pros fear and mistrust the Democratic rank and file, who usually have convictions on issues.

Possible.

My theory is that the party has bought into the notion that it's all about the money, that if they can just raise enough money and buy enough TV ads pushing the right positions and issues, they'll win. Therefore, volunteers don't matter.

They don't see that the Republicans have won recently because they have the emotional and social allegience of a lot of people, and that's not won with money.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:37 PM

464

I always thought he was at best a minor player in the machine that kept nominating Serna for various offices and losing when the Greens split the vote.

You're probably right. I should read some [shudder] history. eew ick. I just figured we weren't getting candidates of the quality of Serna and Maloof without some political favors being paid for. I assumed it was Richardson making the payoff, but I must admit I'm speculating based solely on prejudice.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:43 PM

465

I don't think the issues are the problem, it's the candidate. Kerry was poison down here. He wasn't even very good in the blue areas. He was a terrible candidate.

As I said earlier, Democrats totally run NC state politics and most municipalities as well. There's no point in looking to TX, AL, MS, SC, KY, etc. But if you can flip just NC and VA, that's 27 electoral votes - more than Florida, more than Ohio, more than all the other target states you've listed combined. And it's achievable - the demographics in both states are moving steadily that way: younger, more urban, more diverse, more educated.

I'm quite certain we could field candidates that can win the mid-Atlantic states. In order to build a working majority, as opposed to a one-time victory, you'll need to do that.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:43 PM

466

He was a terrible candidate.

What was terrible about him as a candidate?

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 11:48 PM

467

criminy. It's now officially tomorrow. I'd best go see my neglected pillows and bed. My thanks to everyone for this discussion.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:02 AM

468

Well understand, I like Kerry. However, just an awful TV presence. His inability to ever say what he was thinking without four dependent clauses was painful. He came off as 1) the bright but insecure kid in class who wants to be sure everybody knows how smart he is and 2) not really possessed of any real passion or charisma.

That's no way to pick a president, but unfortunately, it's the way we do it in 21st century America.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:03 AM

469

410: okra, SO GOOD. you're inspiring me to go out and get some masala bhindi right now. or jhatpat bhindi.

301: are there slang dictionaries like this for other languages? anybody?

Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 4:17 AM

470

A friend of mine in a policy grad program was assigned, just after the elections in 2004, to re-imagine the campaign so that the Democrats would win.

Me: 'Are you allowed to choose another candidate?'

Him: 'Sadly, no. I asked.'

After that we boiled it down to 'keep gay marriage initiatives off the ballot.'

It was a really, really close election, and I agree with Emerson et al. that that indicates an organizational problems. The GOP managed to spin the exit polls to show that Democrats were out of touch with the 'moral values' of the U.S., and somewhere along the line a lot of the policy wonks decided to believe them.

There's nothing wrong with courting the South as long as it doesn't entail jettisoning all the party's values to make everyone like them more. Right now it feels like the Dems lost a beauty contest and are obsessing over the two pounds they didn't lose. Jettison women's rights! That's losing us votes! Keep your head down!

And, really, it's hard to cite any policy issue as the cause given how close the vote was, and given organizational incompetence.

Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 7:15 AM

471

What is it about you people and okra? Blecch. But if spinach counts as "greens," yes of course I've eaten spinach, and it's swell.

Thesis: all greens are better with either butter or shrimp and preferably both.

Can't argue with that. Of course, anything is better with butter or shrimp and preferably both.

I thought we decided after the election it wasn't a "south" vs. "coast" thing so much as an "urban" vs. "suburban / rural" thing?

There's something to that, too. If you made Chicago its own state, the rest of Illinois would be a Red State. But the South is still solidly Red at the presidential level despite having some big cities.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 7:19 AM

472

One thing that Democrats are fighting against is that they are not getting their message out to a large chunk of the population. You very seldom see or hear an effective Democratic spokesperson on the radio or on TV. Even the better newspapers (Times / Post) have been intimidated.

For about 17 years the Democratic party's response to this has been to become more "moderate" and to suck up to people who can give big chunks of money to buy TV time. It hasn't worked; the Clinton Presidency was a very mixed success.

And as I said, after reading people from Georgia, including Zell Miller Democrats, talking about Cleland's defeat, I ended up concluding that there are big chunks of the South that weren't worth bothering with.

Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 7:31 AM

473

From my limited volunteering experience, I'd agree with 458 and 461.

This is a problem that confuses the heck out of me -- how do you heal a screwed up organization? I should be involved in local Democratic politics where I am, but I'm not: a combination of not enough time, and that in my area there's a bit of a Latino-Anglo power struggle going on, and I don't particularly want to come in on either side. (The president of my co-op board is an involved local Democrat, and mostly talks about wresting control of the Community Board away from corrupt Latino politicians. I'm really unimpressed with him, personally, so I tend to assume that everything he's saying is wrong.) In an ideal world, I would be getting involved anyway, but I just don't.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 7:54 AM

474

Then there's those of us who live in such solidly blue states (RI) that there doesn't seem to be any point in getting involved in local Democratic politics.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:19 AM

475

well, m3, you could work to get your republican senator(s) out of office. that'd be a start (although, don't replace them with liebermans [liebermen?]).

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:31 AM

476

republican senator(s)

Wait I thought Linc Chafee was a RINO?? (g) The (s) looks unnecessary as Senator Jack Reed is a Democrat.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:37 AM

477

Or possibly he is a DINO -- I know not.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:38 AM

478

Chafee is a republican. He's I guess a RINO, but there are times... I wasn't sure about the other one (Reed), hence the (s).

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:43 AM

479

474: I'd say the same about NYC, but we have that pesky mayoral problem. I give money, but I should be doing more.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:45 AM

480

Jack Reed is a pretty good Democratic senator, as far as I'm aware.

Replacing Chafee with a Democrat is indeed a noble goal. Chafee talks a good "moderate" game, but he still votes with his caucus when push comes to shove. His family name goes a long way here in Rhode Island, though.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:54 AM

481

Wasn't his dad senator before him? I think I heard on NPR that he, or another republican representative, was extremely popular and personable in the state with family history as well, which was why it was so hard to run against them. Although apparently, the republicans weren't so happy about him being a "RINO," so next year they're going to try and run someone against him (I don't know when Chafee is up for reelection).

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 8:58 AM

482

He is up this year. The Club for Growth (ew) is pushing current Cranston mayor Steve Laffey in the Republican primary. Conventional wisdom seems to be that if Chafee loses in the primary, the Democrat has a much better chance.

And that's probably the most that RI politics has ever been discussed on Unfogged.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:04 AM

483

I think it's the most RI politics has ever been discussed anywhere.

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:05 AM

484

If the parties were reversed, don't you think there'd be a lot of "Don't throw me in that briar patch" activity from RI Republicans? Giving money to Laffey, crossover primary voting if possible, sententious editorials about how "As a Democrat, I fear Laffey's potential for energizing the untapped conservative RI majority? I'm never sure if this sort of thing is a good idea, but Democrats seem to do a lot less of it.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:12 AM

485

Gaaah earnest earnest earnest earnest. Can we get back to the cock jokes? RI politics are so...

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:13 AM

486

cock

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:15 AM

487

...gripping? ...gut-wrenching? ...spine-tingling?

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:17 AM

488

prissy?

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:20 AM

489

Rhode Island cocks.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:20 AM

490

Connecticut is so much cooler. It was founded by a Hooker.

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:27 AM

491

I'm ashamed that the 'postropher beat me to an R.I. Red reference.

Also, RI politics are sometimes interesting.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 9:37 AM

492

Re: 201

Even though the moment has passed I must reply to Frederick.

Firstly, I doubt Illinois law applies since we were not in Illinois.

Secondly, as I stated, I was four years her senior, not five. Coincidently I am four years older than my wife, and we have been married nearly 24 years now.

Thirdly, I don't recall saying anything about sex, you naughty naughty boy.

Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:49 AM

493

how do you heal a screwed up organization?

I'm planning on backing my daughter for President but she won't be eligible until 2021.

So I dunno. I also should be involved at the local level but can't seem to find the time.

Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 11:51 AM

494

Thirdly, I don't recall saying anything about sex, you naughty naughty boy.

Actually, I didn't say in 201 that you had had sex with said 13-year-old girl. Since we had been (mostly) talking about sex, I did assume that was what you meant. Maybe you just "had a marvelously great time with a 13 year old" taking her to the zoo or something. Nothing wrong with that.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 12:14 PM

495

JR-D brags that he saw ScoJo's boobies.

A media counterstrike? Or merely coincidence? You be the judge.

Posted by Lex | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 1:23 PM

496

Due to how far this thread has drifted, I read 495 and thought "J.R., Democrat from where?"

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 1:28 PM

497

Not from North Carolina, most likely.

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 4:16 PM

498

468: Well understand, I like Kerry

My apology for toddling off while you were still answering my question. At midnight my head turned back into a pumpkin.

His inability to ever say what he was thinking without four dependent clauses was painful

I'm thinking that causation runs the other way. That is, in a person towards whom one is inclined favorably, peculiar locutions are an endearing foible. For those whom one is inclined against (in the metaphoric, not literal, sense) it's confirmation of one's low opinion. Compare "people misunderestimate me" with "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

I think this is not unusual reasoning:

473: I'm really unimpressed with him, personally, so I tend to assume that everything he's saying is wrong.)

Here's a totally fictional example. All names are changed, and are used pseudonymously:

P1: Tia thinks X

P2: I want to move upwards on the list of people with whom Tia might have sex

Ergo, I like X, I've always liked X, I liked X before X was even invented, and I like X more than anyone else could possibly like X.

Of course, in this example sex is just a proxy for a whole constellation of things, such as status, employment, amusement, money, etc.

This is exactly the sort of reasoning I used to blame Richardson for Serna.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:15 PM

499

Hey, how come Ogged failed to mention this important news item from the same story to which he linked?

Sienna Miller has been painting with her breasts. The on-again-off-again sweetie of Jude Law has been in character to play Edie Sedgwick, one of Andy Warhol's entourage, in "Factory Girl" and she's been using her breasts to paint large canvases, which she has displayed in her London home. She explains: "I've got rooms covered in [bleeps]."

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:19 PM

500

500!

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:19 PM

501

P1: Tia thinks X

P2: I want to move upwards on the list of people with whom Tia might have sex

Ergo, I like X, I've always liked X, I liked X before X was even invented, and I like X more than anyone else could possibly like X.

Kramer (on "Seinfeld") evidently had the same approach:

Waiter: Anything to drink? Some wine, perhaps.

Mickey: I like Merlot.

Karen: I love Merlot.

Julie: I'm crazy about Merlot.

Kramer: I live for Merlot.

Waiter: We're out of Merlot.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:27 PM

502

O tempora! O mores! That we could have descended to the point of quoting Seinfeld episodes!

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:44 PM

503

That we could have descended to the point of quoting Seinfeld episodes!

Fuck. Yet another faux pas.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:45 PM

504

I don't agree, but.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-11-06 6:58 PM

505

498:

And this kind of reasoning (which is perfectly natural, and I've just copped to indulging in it) has been exploited to incredibly successful effect against Democratic presidential candidates in the last few elections. The whole "Gore is a big liar, or at least somehow, shifty" thing; "Dean is a wild-eyed lunatic"; "Kerry is an effete snob" -- none of those are provable or disprovable, but to someone who thinks they're true, almost anything, no matter how inoffensive, is fresh confirmation. Once you have the media talking about such an impression as the conventional wisdom, it's maddeningly difficult to root it out, no matter how silly it is.

(The 'Kerry is effete' thing really, really puzzled the hell out me. War hero, who at 60 or so is still an athlete, and the kind of athlete who's doing stuff for fun rather than Bush's sort of grimly determined fitness program, with a history of dating beautiful women culminating in marrying a hot (within reasonable standards for a woman of his age) billionaire: that his political opponents managed to spin that sort of life history into a picture of Kerry as insufficiently virile just astonished me. They're really good.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 7:45 AM

506

The "Kerry is effete" thing bugged *me* because "effete" means "worn out," rather than "effeminate."

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 7:50 AM

507

'Effeminate' is one of the meanings of 'effete'; after 'barren', 'overly pampered and soft', and I would guess (not bothering with the OED atm) probably a later meaning conflating 'pampered' with 'feminine'.

Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 7:59 AM

508

not bothering with the OED atm

wait, wait, if I understand the etymology of "glans" this will all go much better!

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:02 AM

509

Not unless the etymology of 'glans' involves 'lubricant'.

Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:10 AM

510

Mineshaft denizens tend to avoid eye contact, preferring to check out likely partners with a sidelong glans.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:13 AM

511

Oof!

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:20 AM

512

Cala, you're confusing use and men's shlongs.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:21 AM

513

LB-- I saw a thread on MYDD about a Republican Congressional district accessible from New York via Metro North--District 19--that you might get involved in. The incumbent Sue Kelly sells herself as a moderate, but she doesn't appear to be.

Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:28 AM

514

512: Dis stinks, hon.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:31 AM

515

We throat a din for wrens.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:41 AM

516

Tia, 514 is hott. I am a fool for trying to respond in kind.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:42 AM

517

Nonsense, SB, you are the ungendered monarch of Mineshaft puns. (Maybe some affordable housing advocates could announce that they tout a din for rents?)

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:03 AM

518

preferring to check out likely partners with a sidelong glans.

Amply demonstrating the vas deferens between the men of the Mineshaft and the women of the Banana Lofts.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:18 AM

519

Aha! "We tout a deference"

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:28 AM

520

LOL, apostropher. Well done. The way you got to 1200 in the "Innocence" thread was really sleazy, though.

As for effete, in addition to "effeminate," another definition of it is "soft or delicate from or as if from a pampered existence." I'm sure the Rethuglicans were happy if referring to Kerry as "effete" brought either or both of those senses of the word to people's minds. Of course, Bush probably had a more pampered upbringing than Kerry did, but the Rethugs never let facts get in the way.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:29 AM

521

Didn't Safire use 'effete' in one of his alliterative contributions to a Nixon speech? (a la 'nattering nitwits of negativity')

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:32 AM

522

Apostropher, not conforming to the highest ethical standards in increasing the size of Unfogged comment threads degrades the moral fiber of this country.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:33 AM

523

...soon we'll be posting about dogs in comment threads. Dogs!

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:34 AM

524

Add ROCK HARD inches to your throbbing Unfogged comment threads! Discreet shipping, all major credit cards accepted.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:34 AM

525

521

Agnew instead of Nixon, and the phrase was "effete Eastern intellectuals."

Posted by Kyle | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:35 AM

526

Apostropher is in my head

Apostropher is in my head

The blog grows; the glans shows;

You oughta know this stuff is lame

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:36 AM

527

We may have reached the point where actual blog posts are now superfluous.

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:37 AM

528

I know that "effete" *now* gets used to mean "effeminate." But that's because people are wrong.

Normally, mind, I'm not a language Nazi. But for some reason this one really annoys me. Probably b/c it's so obvious that the reason for the slippage is simple sloppiness.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:47 AM

529

I know that "effete" *now* gets used to mean "effeminate." But that's because people are wrong.

I'm not sure that's right. Apparently, that "fete" is from the same root as "fetus," and "effete" means lacking vitality, specifically, like one who has already given birth. So the connection with the feminine isn't an error.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:55 AM

530

Also, "nattering nabobs," not "nattering nitwits".

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:52 AM

531

I was wondering how long it would take someone to point that out. "nattering nitwits" sounds better to my ear though.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:53 AM

532

Yeah, who says "nabobs"?

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 12:02 PM

533

28: Are you using an idiosyncratic definition of "half"?

Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:14 PM

534

533: No, he is using an unorthodox definition of "good".

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:47 PM

535

#529: Huh, okay. My bad.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:56 PM

536

529: On the other hand, you can't go wrong with "epicene".

Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 8:59 PM

537

536: Well a lot depends on context with this sort of thing.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:01 PM

538

I think "epicene Eastern intellectuals" would have done very nicely. But who am I to write lines for an Agnew?

Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:04 PM

539

Right I'm down with that -- I'm just not prepared to say, "you can't go wrong with 'epicene'" -- seems to me there are plenty of contexts where it would not be the appropriate term.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:09 PM

540

Rather than not speak and express tacit agreement, let me note that I quite liked Match Point. I just think that as a manner of either objective run-time or subjective time perception, far less than half of the film is suspensful. Much of it reminded me, thematically, of Crimes and Misdemeanors, though I wouldn't put MP at the same level of quality as that.

Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:20 PM

541

I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster has, as its first definition of "nicety," "the quality or state of being nice." Is that legit? I know people use it that way a lot, but I always thought the proper meaning of the word was "subtlety." What say you, grammar mavens?

http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nicety

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:29 PM

542

"usage mavens"

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:30 PM

543

I think it works if you take it in the more archaic sense of being 'nice': not merely the modern sense in which nice=pleasant, but nice meaning orderly and with a fine attention to detail. Think of the following attempt at faux Jane Austen: "Her dress was nice in it's simplicity and propriety.... The nicety of her attire attracted the approbation of the observers."

I wouldn't use 'nicety' as 'the quality or state of being pleasant', but for 'the quality or state of being precise' I think it works.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:46 PM

544

The OED has "niceness" as its first definitional group but makes clear that that usage has become obs. Most of the definitions within this group have also become obs., with the exception of the phrase "to a nicety," which can be rendered "completely," "accurately," or "precisely [and prissily]." The next definitional group relates to "nice things," most of which are active. Here we get, roughly:

a luxury, a dainty food, a minute distinction, a skill requiring accuracy, a detail of etiquette.

I associate "nicety" with fussy roles for social etiquette, but that's just my first knee-jerk reaction.

Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:47 PM

545

Drat it, I have a messed up 'it's' up there. My commenting is not nice.

(And I'm here writing a memo that has to go to a client tomorrow morning, which suggests that I need to worry about my proofing.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 9:50 PM

546

M-W New Int'l 2d explains:

Nicety ... 1. Quality or state of being nice; specif: obs a. Folly; light conduct. b. Ignorance, simplicity. c. Pleasure; lust. d. Self-indulgence; luxuriousness; excessive elegance. e. Modesty, reserve; also, prudishness.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:00 PM

547

The discrepancy between c. and e. must have led to some interesting conversations:

"Madam, I applaud your exquisite nicety."

"You cad!" (Strikes him with fan, and flees, weeping, from the room.)

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:05 PM

548

There's a name, I think, for the group of words that are their own antonyms. But I can't remember the word, and the only examples I can think of are cleave and sanguine - and sanguine isn't quite it's own antonym. But yes, that's why having a cigar and bushy eyebrows to wag while making indelicate suggestions can be so helpful in eliminating ambiguity.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:16 PM

549

gak. Are excessive apostrophes contagious? "proof" is another word with lots of strange meanings. One day I must look up the etymology.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:18 PM

550

You're probably thinking of "sanction". This came up on Car Talk a while ago. (Not just there, of course.)

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:19 PM

551

Antagonym?

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:22 PM

552

Also.

A word that serves as its own antonym could be autoparasemous. Maybe.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:23 PM

553

Contranym, which I'd never heard before.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:29 PM

554

Sanction. That's a good one. I can see where I got from sanction to sanguine. But sanguine (bloody) and sanguine (optimistic) are pretty strange bedfellows to cohabit in the same word.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:32 PM

555

Some uses of "hew".

Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:34 PM

556

Dang, SB beat me to it. "Sanction" is a weird word:

This Court cannot sanction the defendant's conduct! Accordingly, I am imposing sanctions on the defendant.

Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:35 PM

557

Good explanation of "sanguine" in the word history.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:36 PM

558

557: thank you. One day I gotta learn how to use those internets.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:47 PM

559

I find the concept of the retronym interesting - a phrase created because a word now requirs a modifier to express its original meaning, like "acoustic guitar," "silent movie," or "regular coffee."

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 10:56 PM

560

Is there a term to describe when metaphoric extensions survive, but their referents change? I'm thinking of 'dogs of war", which (I think) started with 'dog' in the sense of 'a device for holding something back, like a chock' (lathe dog, fire dog, dog the hatches!) and which now seems to refer to people who are like Dobermans

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:04 PM

561

started with 'dog' in the sense of 'a device for holding something back, like a chock'

Nope, it's Shakespeare: "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" (Julius Caesar, I think?) In context, clearly canines rather than fasteners.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:07 PM

562

I understood the Shakespeare quote to refer to dogs in the sense of chocks. Those great seige engines which threw things - ballistae? mongowhatsits? and their cousins - were cocked, and then held by dogs. To let slip the dogs meant to fire the missile (I think. I may be wrong). So, I'd thought, "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!" Meant to loose the reins, the chocks, to let slide the things that held back the forces of war.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:17 PM

563

This page says Shakespeare's "dogs" refers to soldiers. But it doesn't offer any analysis or proof.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:20 PM

564

Looking at the full quote, I can't absolutely refute that, but it doesn't ring true. After all, by Shakespeare's time they were using cannon, rather than catapults, making the idiom you describe unlikely to be one that Shakespeare would use.

But I'm working off what sounds right to me, rather than a reliable source, so I could be wrong.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:24 PM

565

And this page, though it doesn't answer the "dogs" question, says that "havoc" was a military command meaning, basically, "take no prisoners" and was banned by Richard II.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:25 PM

566

I haven't found any online support for my assertion that catapults, trebuchets, mangonels, and the like were held cocked by a dog.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:26 PM

567

And this page says that the "dogs of war" are " The horrors of war, especially famine, sword, and fire."

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:27 PM

568

Yeah. The tone of the phrase is 'release uncontrolled forces', much more than 'fire an aimed weapon'.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:27 PM

569

But there's got to be another good example of what you're talking about in 560. "Tow the line" might be going there, if I could figure out what it could reasonably mean.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:32 PM

570

The cite in 567 just takes us back to Shakespeare; I'm sure that reading, which was similar to B's reading, it not unknown or uncommon.

If he had written "and let slip the dogs of fire!" would you accept that he was talking about removing the andirons?

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-12-06 11:42 PM

571

Maybe it's the 'let slip" part that I find persuasive. You 'let slip' reins. You 'let slip' chocks. Chocks, andirons, lathe dogs all work when they're kept from slipping. If the andirons slip on the floor, you've got a problem. When a lathe dog slips, the work piece stops turning. If you let slip the reins, the horse runs free. If you let slip the reins of war, war runs free.

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 12:09 AM

572

Where I don't buy it is that in context, the phrase has the sense of starting a process you can't stop or control. If dogs=fasteners, letting them slip=taking one shot. Anthony isn't calling for a single attack; substituting "Take aim, and fire" into the speech wouldn't work. He's saying "Start the uncontrolled bloody chaos of war", which seems much more like 'loose the [canine] dogs" than "fire a weapon".

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 12:14 AM

573

According to this page:

DOGS OF WAR (or war dogs). War dogs of the middle ages were especially fierce and trained to kill men, as in Shakespeare's phrase "Cry 'Havoc!' and loose the dogs of war." They were a varity of mastiff. Wardogs were brought over to the new world by the Spanish were especially devastating to the locals. They would use the dogs to execute natives as they saw fit, the natives not being Christian had no rights.

Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 12:17 AM

574

If he had written "and let slip the dogs of fire!" would you accept that he was talking about removing the andirons?

Well, no. That just wouldn't make sense. While andirons do contain a fire, they're more an aid to piling the logs than a restraint. In the absence of andirons, you don't have fire spouting uncontrollably into the living room, you have a less-tidy pile of logs.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 12:19 AM

575

559: "regular coffee" does not "require a modifier to express its original sense" -- the modifier is superfluous. If you walk into a coffee shop and order "coffee" no modifiers and they bring you a decaffeinated, I think you would have cause to feel like they were acting weird. In "decaf coffee" the modifier is required (but the noun itself can be omitted).

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 5:41 AM

576

569: the phrase is "toe the line" and it means "walk within the prescribed boundary".

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 5:49 AM

577

I know what the orginal phase is -- if you look back at 560, I was suggesting that it might be a candidate for a cliche so commonly misunderstood that, in the minds of many speakers, its metaphoric referent had changed (to something, I'm not sure what, where 'tow' rather than 'toe' makes sense).

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 6:00 AM

578

Oh I see, I misread your post. I didn't know "tow the line" was a common usage.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 6:55 AM

579

Adding on to my 576, it is a mistake (here in NYC and its environs) to order a "regular coffee" when your meaning is "one with its innate caffeine intact" -- "regular coffee" is generally taken to mean "coffee with a lot of milk and sugar in it". If you order coffee and the person taking your order asks "regular?" the proper response (if you do not care for lots of milk and sugar) is "no, black". Come to think of it I can't remember the last time I heard "regular" in its "not decaffeinated" meaning -- if you want decaf you ask for it. I guess at parties I have heard hostesses pointing to the two pots of coffee and saying "this is regular, this is decaf." But again here, "regular" is not part of the phrase "regular coffee", it is serving as a predicate adjective.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 7:05 AM

580

I have a riddle: name a word that, if you change one letter, becomes the antonym.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 7:40 AM

581

Not a perfect antonym, but (l/n)ight is close.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 7:52 AM

582

pretty good. not the one I was thinking of, though.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 7:53 AM

583

How have we not mentioned "inflammable?"

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:24 AM

584

Also, "moustache"

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:24 AM

585

But that never properly means fireproof, does it? It just looks as if it should.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:25 AM

586

Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:28 AM

587

walk/balk, kinda, but I bet that's not what you were thinking of either.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:38 AM

588

Mine are more latinate, and are near-perfect antonyms.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:43 AM

589

How about, god forbid, "cut the mustard"? Drives me batshit crazy when people use that.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 8:58 AM

590

I had no idea that was wrong. On the assumption that it is, what's right? "Cut the muster"?

I can't actually make literal sense of either.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:05 AM

591

This page says it's not wrong.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:11 AM

592

Another page that says it's ok.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:12 AM

593

I always thought it was "cut the cheese". No?

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:16 AM

594

The frustrating thing is that I'm almost positive I've been stumped by Tia's question before, and I still can't remember the answer.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:17 AM

595

Well, I made this riddle up, but it's self-evident enough that I'm sure lots of people have thought of it.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:18 AM

596

Oh that makes me feel better.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:19 AM

597

I mean it's self-evident when you're already contemplating the words. Sensitive Weiner.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:21 AM

598

proscribe/prescribe? Probably not, but what the hey.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:26 AM

599

I'm betting SB's answer is the one Tia was looking for.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:30 AM

600

ungendered monarch

I do have a gender, it's just (for no particular reason now other than tradition) undeclared.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:30 AM

601

I don't care what the pages say. "Cut the muster" is from a muster roll: you cut it by deciding who to include and who not to include. Not to "cut the muster" means you're not good enough to take into battle. "Cut the mustard" makes no goddamn sense at all.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:30 AM

602

(It also works for proscription/prescription obviously.)

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:31 AM

603

Hey, SB is teh winner.

Okay, I have another riddle. I'll forever regret that I heard this one when I was a kid and didn't have the cognitive capacity to solve it. No googling, now, and no answering if already know it.

There's a door to Heaven and a door to Hell. They are guarded by two identical men, one of whom always lies and the other of whom always tells the truth. You have one question in order to establish which door to choose. What should you ask?

(NB. There is more than one correct answer to this riddle. In fact, there are more than two.)

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:32 AM

604

I am teh pwn on this riddle.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:33 AM

605

Of course, the question is, "Where did Ewan MacGregor wind up?"

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:37 AM

606

Hey, SB is teh winner.

Woo hoo! Me too, since I placed my bet prior to Tia awarding the prize.

603 -- when you ask the question do both of the men answer or do you have to ask just one of them?

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:39 AM

607

Hey, SB is teh winner.

Hooray!

I am also teh pwn on the riddle. Speaking of which, thank goodness heaven and hell aren't guarded by the Paradox Dragon.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:40 AM

608

Sorry, JO, you're right, that was ambiguous. One man, one question.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:43 AM

609

"Cut the muster" is from a muster roll: you cut it by deciding who to include and who not to include. Not to "cut the muster" means you're not good enough to take into battle.

I can't buy this without some citations. While it's possible, I'm not familiar with any army where the officers sorted through their troops before battle, and let the lousy ones sit safely behind the lines. Wouldn't that create a perverse incentive?

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:43 AM

610

How does "tow the line" not make sense? It can be nautical. To "tow the line" for someone would presumably mean that you're pulling their cargo, or at least helping them to pull it. Therefore if, say, Glenn Reynolds is said to be "towing the Republican line", you get an image of Reynolds helping them transport their garbage.

I know the idiom with precedent is "toe the line", but what if this is an alternative idiom that makes just as much sense? "Toe the line", incidentally, conjures an image of someone going up to a line (maybe a line in the sand, say) but being unable to cross it. Toeing the line, but not really committing to go the distance. Kind of like only getting your feet wet.

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:44 AM

611

Ooh, fun! Puzzles!

Name a word whose pronunciation changes when it is capitalized.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:45 AM

612

603: "If I were to ask you..."

Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:45 AM

613

Wordorigins thinks otherwise:

The OED2 has it deriving from the slang sense of mustard meaning the best (flavorful, what makes something else taste good). O.Henry uses the word in the 1904 Cabbages and Kings in this fashion. The phrase cut the mustard comes from about the same period, first appearing in print a year earlier. The cut refers to harvesting the plant. If you can't cut the mustard, you can't supply what is best.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:46 AM

614

Hmm. I am teh ringer.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:47 AM

615

Apo, have you heard this? No cheating.

Also, there's another way to go about it. The unprissy will figure out the set of all possible answers.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:48 AM

616

611: reading/Reading comes to mind.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:49 AM

617

616: Very nice. Not the one I was thinking of, but now I have two.

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:51 AM

618

How is the city name Reading pronounced? I thought it was pretty much the same as the gerund reading.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:52 AM

619

Polish/polish.

Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:53 AM

620

LB wins!

(That didn't take long.)

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:55 AM

621

Seems very easy that way, Tia. Cologne/cologne, for instance.

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:56 AM

622

Teh ringer?

So, in the Paradox Dragon, the second head has to be the one that alternates, since neither of the others could say it was lying (third panel). Then in the first panel the outer two heads seem to agree that it is one question -- which would be paradoxical -- but the first says "You must ask one question, then you have to guess which is which," which is a stronger statement. So the first head is the lying head, and you don't have to guess which is which. Except then in the second panel, the second head must be telling the truth (since it lied in the first panel), and the third head shouldn't be saying that the second head is lying. Contradiction.

Standpipe, when do I get posting privileges on your blog?

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:56 AM

623

618: I believe it's pronounced as if it were spelled "Redding"

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:56 AM

624

[slaps forehead] Ah I see now ... Never mind!

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:58 AM

625

It may depend on whether it's Reading, PA, or Reading, UK? The first is "redding."

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:59 AM

626

623: Thanks. Now I can avoid embarrassing myself in suburban PA. What about "King of Prussia"?

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 9:59 AM

627

'a'/'A'. The first is pronounced 'uh,' the second 'ay'.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:00 AM

628

What about "King of Prussia"?

That's pronounced "Springfield".

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:01 AM

629

Tia--

Ask a question to which you already know the answer, e.g. "What color is the sky on a sunny, temperate, cloudless day on the planet Earth?

If the person questioned answers correctly (Blue), then that 's the door to heaven, and vice versa.

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:01 AM

630

Now I see I have been playing Monopoly wrong all of these years!

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:01 AM

631

I think "King of Prussia" is pronounced how you think, but "North Versailles" is pronounced Ver-sayles.

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:01 AM

632

631 -- so the "North" is silent?

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:02 AM

633

629, But then how do you know which door is which? Your mouth has been sewn shut by this time.

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:02 AM

634

Teh ringer?

Um, that was a brain-o. Disregard.

Standpipe, when do I get posting privileges on your blog?

As soon as you find it.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:03 AM

635

New Prague, Minnesota, is pronounced "Noo Prayg."

Pierre, South Dakota, is pronounced "Peer."

Huron, South Dakota, is pronounced "Urine."

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:04 AM

636

629: Chopper, you don't know who is guarding which door. If the truth teller is in front of Hell, you're screwed using your approach

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:04 AM

637

Newfoundland, NJ is pronounced with the accent on the second syllable. Takes a little getting used to.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:05 AM

638

Ah. Your riddle sucks.

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:06 AM

639

If I were to ask the other guy ...

Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:06 AM

640

Are you sure? I thought it was pronounced "Pier."

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:08 AM

641

Not me. I don't suck. It was your riddle.

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:08 AM

642

Then there's Thames Street, in Newport, which is pronouned "thaymes."

And New Athens, IL is pronounced "New Ay-thens."

Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:09 AM

643

Any why isn't "pear" a homonym for peer/pier instead of pare, anyway?

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:09 AM

644

(vein popping)

Since if you were SOLVING the riddle, you would say the whole question, I can only presume you have heard it before, in which case, you are SPOILING it for people who are solving it now. Besides, there is another approach that I take it you prisses haven't thought of.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:09 AM

645

Also.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:12 AM

646

Sequim, WA: "Squim"

Puyallup, WA: "Pugh-WALL-Up"

Spokane, WA: "Spoh-CAN"

Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:13 AM

647

Moreover.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:14 AM

648

Gotta mention Chicago's Goethe=go-ee-thie.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:14 AM

649

Worcestor, MA is pronounced wuster.

Dorchestor, MA is pronounced dorchester.

funny that,

Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:15 AM

650

But Tia, who hasn't heard that riddle?

Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:20 AM

651

Chopper, evidently.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:21 AM

652

Do you know

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:26 AM

653

what would be

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:27 AM

654

really evil?

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:27 AM

655

If far too early

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:28 AM

656

someone like me

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:30 AM

657

willing to fight dirty

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:31 AM

658

getting interrupted?

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:31 AM

659

to get what she wants

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:31 AM

660

(don't even try it Weiner. I'm far too determined.)

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:33 AM

661

decided to post

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:34 AM

662

15 or 16

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:34 AM

663

Hey, what's going on in here, guys?

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:35 AM

664

until Ogged closed the thread?

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:35 AM

665

consecutive comments

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:35 AM

666

Tia does seem to have found my "must close the thread" button.

Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:35 AM

667

You all really must listen to this new Sufjan Stevens album, Illinoise Annoys A Noisy Oyster.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:35 AM

668

Ogged, you are a bastard.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:36 AM

669

Tia, I never had you pegged for a number-slut.

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:36 AM

670

Is it a "dominate the sidebar" thing?

Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:37 AM

671

She was going for 666, beasty little thing.

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:38 AM

672

Ogged got what I wanted.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:39 AM

673

The number of the beast was recently shown to be, in fact, 616. So Tia wins anyway.

Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:40 AM

674

#610: That people imagine "tow the line" meaning exactly what you're saying is one reason that it's entered the language; but since that's not where it comes from, that's a retroactive rationalization for a mistake, rather than an origin, and as such, it's annoying.

"Cut the muster / mustard." Huh. If the OED says "mustard," I'll accept that, but I'm so horrified by it that I think I'll just erase both phrases from my own usage for the rest of my life.

Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:42 AM

675

That people imagine "tow the line" meaning exactly what you're saying is one reason that it's entered the language; but since that's not where it comes from, that's a retroactive rationalization for a mistake, rather than an origin, and as such, it's annoying.

Tell me about it. This is why I changed all my Monopoly cards to read "Get Out Of Gaol Free".

Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:47 AM

676

Far too late I realize that if I had really wanted to make that work, I needed to set up as many browser windows as I needed with my complete comment, and then press post accross all of them consecutively. I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you damn...

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:47 AM

677

644: I was kidding.

Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 10:50 AM

678

Y'all were evidently pwned on my riddle.

Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 2:06 PM

679

I acknowledge defeet of my dogs theory. May I cry Hammock! and let sleep the dogs of war?

Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 3:08 PM

680

May I cry Hammock!

No I had dibs.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 3:09 PM

681

You dog!

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-13-06 3:29 PM

682

Last night when we were in line buying tickets for Match Point, I overheard the teenage boys in front of us talking about which was gayer: Brokeback Mountain or Tristan and Isolde. Their conclusion? Brokeback Mountain was gayer but Tristan and Isolde was gayer. I felt amused to be in the presence of kindred spirits and distressed that those kindred spirits were 15-year-old boys.

Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01-15-06 10:24 AM

683

683 is the 12th number in the Jacobsthal sequence

Posted by aretino | Link to this comment | 01-18-06 7:58 AM

684

Jakobsthal sequence -- there are 683 ways to tie a necktie using 10 turns.

Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01-18-06 8:08 AM