In Which Douchehat Buries the Lede...

...so he can make shit up instead.

"The silver lining for liberals, though, is that this rightward turn hasn’t touched younger voters yet. With 18- to 29-year-olds, Democratic identification remains high, and Obama’s approval ratings are still up over 60 percent."

Methinks that might have some implications for his thesis in this op-ed. And I think it is more than a "silver-lining."

Dueling Posts on Geithner

Big Daddy Beardy slaps D Brooks like a bitch. Yes, that's right. I am purposefully prejudicing you in favor of Our Glorious Leader. Deal with it.

Douchehat

is a much better blogger than he is an editorialist. That is all.

Trenchant Commentary on Right Wing Hyperventilators

Here.

Barthes and Philosophy

"In a late interview (1978) he said that if he had to define himself it would be as a ‘philosopher’, adding ‘which does not refer to a degree of competence, because I have had no philosophical training. What I do is philosophise, reflect on my experience. This reflection is a joy and a benefit to me, and when I’m unable to pursue this activity, I become unhappy.’ This sounds a little feeble, and perhaps only a writer with a strong anti-bourgeois career behind him could afford to be so bourgeois. But the claim is interesting if we take it seriously rather than feebly, and of course by ‘reflection’ he doesn’t just mean musing on the meaning of life. A stronger version of the same proposition appears in Camera Lucida, where Barthes says he has always wanted to argue for or argue with his moods (‘J’ai toujours eu envie d’argumenter mes humeurs’), not in order to justify them, and still less to fill the text with his own individuality but to use this individuality as part of a formal study of the subject (‘une science du sujet’). Barthes is saying, I take it, that he has always wanted to convert his moods into arguments, or find the arguments underlying them or stemming from them. It’s a classic theoretical, intellectual enterprise; but it starts in the subjectivity that most theories just don’t know what to do with. It’s the place where the two Roland Barthes meet: the objective social scientist who was always a bit subjective turns out to be the same person as the subjective writer who likes to think theoretically about things."

Huh?!

So let me get this straight: an unpopular Democratic governor, who not a few months ago was down double digits to his challenger, is barely defeated by his Republican opponent in the middle of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and an uninspiring Democrat loses in Virginia. Meanwhile, the wing nuts' chosen savior loses a solidly conservative congressional district to a Democrat...this is bad news for Obama and the Democratic Party how? This shows the resurgence of the Republicans how?

How does this not show a party in disarray? What am I missing?