Every time I see Gavin Newsom I just think about how he would be a pretty good pick to play the Pacino role in a Devil's Advocate remake. Not in the "omg he's Satan" kind of way, more in a just look at him kind of way.
Thanks again, guys. And Matt, it's so nice to hear someone who outright loathes Newsom as much as I do. Group hate isn't usually my thing, but for him I'll make an exception. He and his ill-fitted chino-wearing, veneered-toothed smile royally fucked the kids of California during COVID. In a moment when he could've made California's education system the envy of all other states, that motherfucker did the opposite, choosing a trickle-down rollout of absolutely nothing of benefit for children, and then acted like it was all out of his hands. What a cocksucker. I don't visit the French Laundry in Napa very often, but if I ever saw him there (or anywhere else), I would 100% tell him what a rat bastard POS he is and I hope his children someday leave him in a rest home choking on jell-o with a recently parolled orderly forcing him to make blankets a la Ben Stiller in Happy Gilmore.
On that note, all of the people running (or whatever the fuckery they're posturing about) for the presidency seem to be more intent on bitching about what other people are doing or have/haven't done than having an actual platform, especially one that is even remotely useful to the American people. In short, they are boring the shit out of me.
I went to sun City as a kid. It has all the awfulness of Vegas, but with absolutely nothing to do for kids, plus a lot more racism. The drive there from Johannesburg was crazy too.
I had the pleasure of meeting Little Steven many years ago, when I was working at a Waldenbooks (RIP) in the San Fransisco Bay Area (RIP?). He was wearing his trademark bandana. Indeed, from head to toe, he looked like he just stepped off the stage. He bought a huge stack of books, of various genres — on-tour reading, I imagined — and took all of my recommendations as I walked him around the store. It was obviously him but to confirm, I signed him up for our preferred reader program. Sure enough, the form read: Steven Van Zandt , New York, NY. I told him I liked his music, and he said, “Oh, thank you very much.” Very cool, nice guy.
When I excitedly told my chain smoking, fossilized manager, she had no idea who he was, which infuriated me.
Moynihan’s take on this recent ‘we’re going to flatten South Gaza now’ is beyond belief, how he shrugs this new low off like its nothing. ‘Go to a zone’. Its insane, the North is getting carpet bombed, so go South everyone. Now go and find a somewhere to stand while we destroy the South. These people can’t go anywhere, they’re not allowed to travel. Moynihan seems to think this is reasonable. Come on.
For someone who claims to understand the conflict in Ireland, it’s unbelievable that he can’t see that this offensive is counterproductive. All it will do is bolster hate for Israel; whether from an Islamist or secualr perspective. Kemele opened up the possibility for reasonable discussion on this, I sense he was hoping someone would have the sense to admit this offensive is only going to make things worse. But no, the IDF chicks look hot so MM will just dig his heels in with his blinkered hawkishness. Even his favourite pompous Englishman, Hitchens, had compassion for these people.
They keep bragging about having Matt Duss on weeks ago as if they don't seem to view anyone who dissents from their (well mainly Moynihan, but Welch is only somewhat more moderate) rabid and full-throated defense of basically all of Israel's tactics in this war as either as a braindead SJW or Islamist terrorist.
It is also getting pretty tiresome hearing the gang explain for the millionth time that Hamas's civilian casualty numbers are not trustworthy without commenting on whether the actual civilian casualty numbers are problematic even if they are less than half of what is being alleged.
As someone who agrees with the hosts on a lot of issues, it is hard to listen to Israel segments lately less so because of their positions but because they insist on discussing the issue every episode while repeating the same few points every time without any evolution in their positions based on events on the ground since 7/10.
I think there needs to be some real dissent from a guest on the show. They mentioned there would be a “pro-Palestinian” (my words) guest soon. Hopefully that’s true. But to date, there’s been only one guest who even moderately disagreed, and it didn’t produce much in-depth back and forth. Let Kmele moderate.
What's the alternative? Just leave the hostages in Hamas prisons to be gang raped and tortured forever? And let Hamas get away with 10/7, thus proving to the world that terrorism and mass murder is a completely legitimate tactic?
If you have a better suggestion for how to free the hostages and disarm Hamas without bombing and invading, we are all ears. Please share!
Yes, Hamas should be defeated. But, I think the conversation on the podcast would benefit from a genuine engagement and debate on two questions: 1) can Hamas be defeated to the extent we all hope? 2) is Israel doing all it can to limit civilian casualties?
The first question invites a longer term discussion of a bigger picture. The second would really benefit from some kind of military or diplomat guest who could speak to the trade-offs (even assuming Hamas is happy to entrench itself and multiply its own civilian casualties).
I’m in almost full agreement with you but I just think the podcast would benefit from some more discussion along these lines.
Maybe a bit of an odd observation, but I wonder if we should have viewed Kimberly Guilfoyle hooking up with Trump as something of a red flag about Newsome.. Using hindsight, she seems to have a "type", a kind of slick, oily, entitled and pompous suit wearer. For all the reasons we don't like Trump's sons, are the same reasons we don't like Gavin.
Chris Christie's campaign has accomplished exactly what it's goal was from the beginning minus getting a few digs on Trump, put out public sound clips that will allow him to sign his next ABC/NBC/CBS/etc political contributor contract as the "rEsPeCtAbLe RePuBlIcAn."
Christie was a great example that sometimes people overthink things, and the simple, straightforward answer is correct. Was Chris Christie going to be our president? No. Why not? Because he was a fat guy, and the American people aren't going to elect a fat guy president.
He raised money in a tax advantaged way while creating a news hook for media appearances in which to audition for more media appearances. (Actual) mission accomplished.
Contemporary conflict between the hawkish right and the anti-war right is a strange one. Traditionally the right has been anti-war. Always. Setting aside the War of Independence where many of our labels simply don't translate very well, the Republican party was founded in response to the fact that conservatives weren't willing to act on their principles because of how seriously they took the prospect of war if they did and how desperately they wished to avoid it. It was the right which resisted and opposed joining the first world war and were the most vocal opponents to the second. It was the anti-war right which also opposed the Marshall Plan on the same grounds -an isolationist 'America first' mentality rooted in fuck-everyone-else self interest. It is the left which has been largely responsible for US involvement in most of its wars, who are far more comfortable with change and the cost it demands. From James Madison's declaration of war in 1812, to Polk's declaration of war on Mexico in 1846, to the cessation of South Carolina and the attack on Fort Sumter (Calhoun, Pickins, Jefferson Davis, all Democrats take your pick), to the Woodrow Wilson's participation in the Great War, to FDR's involvement in World War 2.
Now Eisenhower and Korea is an exception but Eisenhower is an exception to everything being the only politician to have been endorsed by both parties. He also laid the foundation for our involvement in Vietnam because it was his administration which oversaw the deployment of irregular American forces being sent over to monitor the offensive equipment and foment which Russia was importing there but with orders not to become involved (the commander of that mission whose name escapes me but would be responsible for what would become our Special Forces program advocated for direct involvement in 1955 or 1956 if I recall correctly alarmed at the scale of weaponry he saw being smuggled in. It is a terrifying thought how much might have played out differently had we listeneded). This also marks a change within the right where it become more amenable to conflict. Still responsibility for active US participation there greatly rests primarily with Kennedy and Johnson.
I feel I should mention that I see most of these wars as necessary and I believe the world was better for them in spite of their cost and I stand by our decision. So don't take this as a "Democrats Bad" sort of sentiment, even if I find individuals like Wilson and FDR utterly reprehensible.
Now defensive wars can be ideological, and can be avoidable, but demand a hell of a lot more nuance than I can bring in a post like this. So I am not going to touch on the various American-Indian wars or the very complicated kinetic conflicts of the Cold War nor the War on Terror as that occurred in living memory and I am sure noone here needs to be reminded how minimal our interest in the ME was prior to Sept. 11th.
In any case, long story short, the anti-war and insular right is the core of American conservatism and always has been. As with most things, this country is at its best when it is united and both parties are striving together toward common goals where compromise can bring their disparate views into alignment.
Also, neoconservatives are the best conservatives.
Single party states do suck - you guys need to plan a State of Illinois week timed with Dem convention. Moynihan should move here now because there is at least 6 months of deep dives to do here...
Whenever I’m chatting political corruption with friends from other cities, and I want a “hold my beer” moment, I ask “did The fucking Economist do a long form article on YOUR city’s messed up open-air corruption bazaar?”:
And here’s a recent great example of the West Loop’s Alderman Conway being explicitly offered a “solution” to his crime ridden migrant encampment problem if he simply voted for some ultra progressive tax policies. The Mayor’s deputy didn’t even deny the quid pro quo when asked by the Tribune in a real Sean Connery “that’s the Chicago Way” moment.
Fun fact, Alderman Conway previously tried to unseat Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx of Jussie Smollett fame. His crazy ideas like car jacking should be treated as violent crime instead of property crime was too conservative for the Cook Country Democratic primary.
As a conservative who won't vote for Trump in 2024, the idea that everyone but Haley should drop out to challenge Trump is pretty darn funny. Just...no.
Coming off the midterms, DeSantis was clearly the biggest threat to Trump and Trump knew it, which is why he's spent tens of millions attacking DeSantis and almost nothing attacking anyone else. And it's worked. Had every non-Trumper in the party coalesced behind DeSantis right away, we may have had a real race, but it's much too late now. Trump will be the nominee unless something truly crazy happens, so it doesn't matter anymore who gets behind who or who drops out, imho.
It’s just such a conundrum right now. How do you eliminate Hamas without eliminating the Palestinian civilian population!? I just kind of Israel was a little less sloppy. War is messy and evil.
The fact that Dave Smith has a chance to be the libertarian party candidate is all you need to know about the party. Dave is a self-righteous populist.
Appreciate you guys helping me stay sane.
That’s the foundation of the podcast, sister. I bet Matt and Michael hear this whispered to them daily by closeted heterodoxes in NYC
Hear, hear.
Every time I see Gavin Newsom I just think about how he would be a pretty good pick to play the Pacino role in a Devil's Advocate remake. Not in the "omg he's Satan" kind of way, more in a just look at him kind of way.
I don't see this prettiness at all. To me, he looks like someone who would've been a frightening televangelist in the 80s.
Thanks again, guys. And Matt, it's so nice to hear someone who outright loathes Newsom as much as I do. Group hate isn't usually my thing, but for him I'll make an exception. He and his ill-fitted chino-wearing, veneered-toothed smile royally fucked the kids of California during COVID. In a moment when he could've made California's education system the envy of all other states, that motherfucker did the opposite, choosing a trickle-down rollout of absolutely nothing of benefit for children, and then acted like it was all out of his hands. What a cocksucker. I don't visit the French Laundry in Napa very often, but if I ever saw him there (or anywhere else), I would 100% tell him what a rat bastard POS he is and I hope his children someday leave him in a rest home choking on jell-o with a recently parolled orderly forcing him to make blankets a la Ben Stiller in Happy Gilmore.
On that note, all of the people running (or whatever the fuckery they're posturing about) for the presidency seem to be more intent on bitching about what other people are doing or have/haven't done than having an actual platform, especially one that is even remotely useful to the American people. In short, they are boring the shit out of me.
Matt’s Lou Reed impression? 👌
I went to sun City as a kid. It has all the awfulness of Vegas, but with absolutely nothing to do for kids, plus a lot more racism. The drive there from Johannesburg was crazy too.
I had the pleasure of meeting Little Steven many years ago, when I was working at a Waldenbooks (RIP) in the San Fransisco Bay Area (RIP?). He was wearing his trademark bandana. Indeed, from head to toe, he looked like he just stepped off the stage. He bought a huge stack of books, of various genres — on-tour reading, I imagined — and took all of my recommendations as I walked him around the store. It was obviously him but to confirm, I signed him up for our preferred reader program. Sure enough, the form read: Steven Van Zandt , New York, NY. I told him I liked his music, and he said, “Oh, thank you very much.” Very cool, nice guy.
When I excitedly told my chain smoking, fossilized manager, she had no idea who he was, which infuriated me.
Moynihan’s take on this recent ‘we’re going to flatten South Gaza now’ is beyond belief, how he shrugs this new low off like its nothing. ‘Go to a zone’. Its insane, the North is getting carpet bombed, so go South everyone. Now go and find a somewhere to stand while we destroy the South. These people can’t go anywhere, they’re not allowed to travel. Moynihan seems to think this is reasonable. Come on.
For someone who claims to understand the conflict in Ireland, it’s unbelievable that he can’t see that this offensive is counterproductive. All it will do is bolster hate for Israel; whether from an Islamist or secualr perspective. Kemele opened up the possibility for reasonable discussion on this, I sense he was hoping someone would have the sense to admit this offensive is only going to make things worse. But no, the IDF chicks look hot so MM will just dig his heels in with his blinkered hawkishness. Even his favourite pompous Englishman, Hitchens, had compassion for these people.
They keep bragging about having Matt Duss on weeks ago as if they don't seem to view anyone who dissents from their (well mainly Moynihan, but Welch is only somewhat more moderate) rabid and full-throated defense of basically all of Israel's tactics in this war as either as a braindead SJW or Islamist terrorist.
It is also getting pretty tiresome hearing the gang explain for the millionth time that Hamas's civilian casualty numbers are not trustworthy without commenting on whether the actual civilian casualty numbers are problematic even if they are less than half of what is being alleged.
As someone who agrees with the hosts on a lot of issues, it is hard to listen to Israel segments lately less so because of their positions but because they insist on discussing the issue every episode while repeating the same few points every time without any evolution in their positions based on events on the ground since 7/10.
I think there needs to be some real dissent from a guest on the show. They mentioned there would be a “pro-Palestinian” (my words) guest soon. Hopefully that’s true. But to date, there’s been only one guest who even moderately disagreed, and it didn’t produce much in-depth back and forth. Let Kmele moderate.
I agree. It seems they cant relate to the idea you can be against this bombardment without being some kind of rabid Islamist.
What's the alternative? Just leave the hostages in Hamas prisons to be gang raped and tortured forever? And let Hamas get away with 10/7, thus proving to the world that terrorism and mass murder is a completely legitimate tactic?
If you have a better suggestion for how to free the hostages and disarm Hamas without bombing and invading, we are all ears. Please share!
Yes, Hamas should be defeated. But, I think the conversation on the podcast would benefit from a genuine engagement and debate on two questions: 1) can Hamas be defeated to the extent we all hope? 2) is Israel doing all it can to limit civilian casualties?
The first question invites a longer term discussion of a bigger picture. The second would really benefit from some kind of military or diplomat guest who could speak to the trade-offs (even assuming Hamas is happy to entrench itself and multiply its own civilian casualties).
I’m in almost full agreement with you but I just think the podcast would benefit from some more discussion along these lines.
Tactical deployment of special forces? I don’t know. Surely destroying a whole city and leaving multitudes homeless and hopeless isn’t he way to go.
Thank you, lads. It has been a shit day.
All is well, the shift is over.
p.s. how’d you know about my Bakersfield flashbacks?
Look at the big brain on Brown.
cheers.
Maybe a bit of an odd observation, but I wonder if we should have viewed Kimberly Guilfoyle hooking up with Trump as something of a red flag about Newsome.. Using hindsight, she seems to have a "type", a kind of slick, oily, entitled and pompous suit wearer. For all the reasons we don't like Trump's sons, are the same reasons we don't like Gavin.
Chris Christie's campaign has accomplished exactly what it's goal was from the beginning minus getting a few digs on Trump, put out public sound clips that will allow him to sign his next ABC/NBC/CBS/etc political contributor contract as the "rEsPeCtAbLe RePuBlIcAn."
Christie was a great example that sometimes people overthink things, and the simple, straightforward answer is correct. Was Chris Christie going to be our president? No. Why not? Because he was a fat guy, and the American people aren't going to elect a fat guy president.
He raised money in a tax advantaged way while creating a news hook for media appearances in which to audition for more media appearances. (Actual) mission accomplished.
Who else thought Moynihan was going to talk about all the babes Kissinger dated?
wait, whaaat? is there a tumblr account devoted to this??? tell me more
There should be.
https://www.whosdatedwho.com/dating/henry-kissinger
Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
Of which, Liv Ulmann (Ingmar Bergman actress) has to be the weirdest.
Contemporary conflict between the hawkish right and the anti-war right is a strange one. Traditionally the right has been anti-war. Always. Setting aside the War of Independence where many of our labels simply don't translate very well, the Republican party was founded in response to the fact that conservatives weren't willing to act on their principles because of how seriously they took the prospect of war if they did and how desperately they wished to avoid it. It was the right which resisted and opposed joining the first world war and were the most vocal opponents to the second. It was the anti-war right which also opposed the Marshall Plan on the same grounds -an isolationist 'America first' mentality rooted in fuck-everyone-else self interest. It is the left which has been largely responsible for US involvement in most of its wars, who are far more comfortable with change and the cost it demands. From James Madison's declaration of war in 1812, to Polk's declaration of war on Mexico in 1846, to the cessation of South Carolina and the attack on Fort Sumter (Calhoun, Pickins, Jefferson Davis, all Democrats take your pick), to the Woodrow Wilson's participation in the Great War, to FDR's involvement in World War 2.
Now Eisenhower and Korea is an exception but Eisenhower is an exception to everything being the only politician to have been endorsed by both parties. He also laid the foundation for our involvement in Vietnam because it was his administration which oversaw the deployment of irregular American forces being sent over to monitor the offensive equipment and foment which Russia was importing there but with orders not to become involved (the commander of that mission whose name escapes me but would be responsible for what would become our Special Forces program advocated for direct involvement in 1955 or 1956 if I recall correctly alarmed at the scale of weaponry he saw being smuggled in. It is a terrifying thought how much might have played out differently had we listeneded). This also marks a change within the right where it become more amenable to conflict. Still responsibility for active US participation there greatly rests primarily with Kennedy and Johnson.
I feel I should mention that I see most of these wars as necessary and I believe the world was better for them in spite of their cost and I stand by our decision. So don't take this as a "Democrats Bad" sort of sentiment, even if I find individuals like Wilson and FDR utterly reprehensible.
Now defensive wars can be ideological, and can be avoidable, but demand a hell of a lot more nuance than I can bring in a post like this. So I am not going to touch on the various American-Indian wars or the very complicated kinetic conflicts of the Cold War nor the War on Terror as that occurred in living memory and I am sure noone here needs to be reminded how minimal our interest in the ME was prior to Sept. 11th.
In any case, long story short, the anti-war and insular right is the core of American conservatism and always has been. As with most things, this country is at its best when it is united and both parties are striving together toward common goals where compromise can bring their disparate views into alignment.
Also, neoconservatives are the best conservatives.
Single party states do suck - you guys need to plan a State of Illinois week timed with Dem convention. Moynihan should move here now because there is at least 6 months of deep dives to do here...
Funny you should mention that....
Whenever I’m chatting political corruption with friends from other cities, and I want a “hold my beer” moment, I ask “did The fucking Economist do a long form article on YOUR city’s messed up open-air corruption bazaar?”:
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/01/12/chicagos-political-system-is-set-up-to-produce-corruption?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=17210591673&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-bKhnZ_yggMVaEdHAR3BcgLvEAAYASAAEgJnx_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
And here’s a recent great example of the West Loop’s Alderman Conway being explicitly offered a “solution” to his crime ridden migrant encampment problem if he simply voted for some ultra progressive tax policies. The Mayor’s deputy didn’t even deny the quid pro quo when asked by the Tribune in a real Sean Connery “that’s the Chicago Way” moment.
Fun fact, Alderman Conway previously tried to unseat Cook County States Attorney Kim Foxx of Jussie Smollett fame. His crazy ideas like car jacking should be treated as violent crime instead of property crime was too conservative for the Cook Country Democratic primary.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-chicago-homeless-negotiations-encampments-20231115-qzhk7byd65hzhostymnxi76ug4-story.html
Did anyone else notice that Brandon Johnson literally demonized those who disagree with him in regards to immigration as “an unclean spirit”
As a conservative who won't vote for Trump in 2024, the idea that everyone but Haley should drop out to challenge Trump is pretty darn funny. Just...no.
that's actually my fondest fantasty! who do you like?
Coming off the midterms, DeSantis was clearly the biggest threat to Trump and Trump knew it, which is why he's spent tens of millions attacking DeSantis and almost nothing attacking anyone else. And it's worked. Had every non-Trumper in the party coalesced behind DeSantis right away, we may have had a real race, but it's much too late now. Trump will be the nominee unless something truly crazy happens, so it doesn't matter anymore who gets behind who or who drops out, imho.
Did we just become best friends? This was my assessment and where I ended up precisely
(I'm a conservative Trump refuser)
It’s just such a conundrum right now. How do you eliminate Hamas without eliminating the Palestinian civilian population!? I just kind of Israel was a little less sloppy. War is messy and evil.
The fact that Dave Smith has a chance to be the libertarian party candidate is all you need to know about the party. Dave is a self-righteous populist.
He said a couple months ago that he wasn't running.
Just running his mouth.
Awwww. Love the Pogues reference. RIP Shane.