The Small Tent

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

He could really use turning his inspiration on, but on the merits, Romney should feel good and not like a loser coming out of Iowa. One hour and a half or so event in a liberal state does not make or break a Republican race (liberal Republicans more tolerant of Huckabee’s nanny-state tendencies) for a guy whose covered a lot of ground in a year.

Iowa is such a "liberal state" that it went for Bush in 2004. It went for Gore in 2000, but only by .31% of the vote; Bush arguably did better there that year, in real as opposed to butterfly-ballot terms, than in the ur-swing (i.e, not "liberal") state of Florida. If Iowa is a liberal state, then so is New Hampshire (which went for Bush by a similar margin in '00, and for Kerry in '04); so, arguably, are New Mexico and Nevada, Colorado and Ohio. Put another way, if Iowa is a liberal state, then there's no way a conservative party should have any chance in an American general election.

Comments

Wait, I thought the official Romney "Iowa doesn't matter" talking point is that Iowa is filled with knuckle-dragging Creationist anti-Mormon Jesus freaks. Now the problem is that those latte-sipping, Volvo-driving elitists favored the Baptist minister over the Massachusetts technocrat?

I think I need to read more of Lopez's incisive political commentary to figure out what to make of all this.

In any case, it's laughable for Lopez to argue that Romney lost Iowa because he failed to pander to its preference for the "nanny-state". If that preference existed Romney would have pandered to it.

Posted by JB | January 5, 2008 4:10 PM

My favorite little piece of that article is that K-Lo seems to think that Huckabee's rise is being driven by liberal, nanny-state Republicans instead of the hard-core evangelicals that are really in the driver's seat.

Boy, they will really say anything to convince themselves that this Huckabee fellow can't win, won't they?

Posted by Lev | January 5, 2008 4:14 PM

Isn't Romney's economic history (especially healthcare) more nanny-statist than "Sales Tax" Huckabee? Plus, what does it matter in a primary if a state is liberal? You're only seeing your party members vote, even if they only sign up at the door. If Iowa only had one Republican in it but he was the most conservative guy in America, only his opinion would count, not the gay married interracial couple adopting a baby while burning the American flag. (Brian Griffin is god)

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 4:16 PM

I've never met Ms. Lopez, and I can't recall ever seeing her speak. I do wonder if she's as stupid and clueless in person as she is in print.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 4:22 PM

I've never met Ms. Lopez, and I can't recall ever seeing her speak. I do wonder if she's as stupid and clueless in person as she is in print.

amen! i'm glad ross pointed to this, it left me scratching my head. much of political writing is as factually falsifiable as sports writing; there's so much nth-order analysis. but this was a howler that made you wonder if the individual was stupid...i mean, k-lo is supposed to be a political junkie right??? i know she moderates the posts to *the corner*, so unfortunately there isn't watcher for the watcher.

Posted by razib | January 5, 2008 4:56 PM

Oh, K-Lo is probably my favorite guilty pleasure. Yes, she is that stupid.

She also develops giant crushes on Rep. politicians
that cloud her mind. Try googling k-Lo + Santorum or K-Lo and Mitt Romney. Delicious, I promise you!

Posted by Eduardo | January 5, 2008 4:57 PM

Ross,

I am glad you addressed this post. I read it earlier today and was just aghast. I really was waiting for the punchline and when there was none I read it again to see if I was missing something.

A couple of points/questions.

- This whole "Iowa's not such a big deal" approach going on at The Corner is ridiculous. Of course Iowa qua Iowa is not a big deal (that is, its size and/or demographic make-up are nothing special) and even its "first in the nation" status could be ignored. No, the reason Iowa is a big deal is that Romney chose to make it a big deal. His entire strategy was based on winning big in the early states and he spent a lot of money, built a big organization and invested a lot of time in Iowa in hopes of making that happen. So yes K-Lo, Romney should feel like a loser coming out of Iowa.

- Is National Review doing long-term damage to itself? Maybe I haven't been reading it closely enough but is there a single Huckabee defender on The Corner? I know that this whole episode has seriously soured me on NRO and I can't help but wonder if others feel the same.

- Huckabee’s nanny-state tendencies I am somewhat sympathetic to government sponsored health care so I don't say this as a rip on Romney, but how does state-mandated health insurance for children not count as a "nanny-state" tendency?

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 6:23 PM

"K-Lo" has written many substance-free comments over the years, but that one might well be the sustancetest-freest.

And yes, she fantasy doodles Mitt in his Mormon Nightie on her 3-ring binder cover.

Posted by Bill | January 5, 2008 6:38 PM

Yes, but winning political points against Kathryn Jean Lopez is like using an Abrams tank to take candy from a baby. I've often wondered whether she's actually a mole employed by The Nation to discredit National Review.

Posted by iskndar | January 5, 2008 6:52 PM

Yes.

I'd add that the Corner could be very much improved by adding a comments section. They're sometimes good, but some of the posts on there are either blind dumb or plainly wrong on a checkable point of fact. I think a healthy fear of the commenters might help to put a damper on some of the nonsense.

Posted by southpaw | January 5, 2008 6:59 PM

Eduardo replies: "Oh, K-Lo is probably my favorite guilty pleasure. Yes, she is that stupid.

She also develops giant crushes on Rep. politicians
that cloud her mind. Try googling k-Lo + Santorum or K-Lo and Mitt Romney. "

Yeah, I remember some of her Santorum delusions. When that sick, sad freak was on his way to being bounced out viciously in his Senate race, she was pushing him as a strong contender for the presidency in 2008. It was as surreal as if she'd been bragging about using santorum (the substance, not the sick, sad freak) as a condiment.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 7:15 PM

She's one of many conservatives on the scene who are so childish that anything they don't like automatically becomes 'liberal.' It's every bit as idiotic as 'Bushitler' and 'Democrat Party,' if not more so.

Also, isn't K-Lo the one who, after he got bum-rushed out of the Senate, went on and on about what a great Supreme Court Justice Santorum would make?

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 5, 2008 8:15 PM

She's one of many conservatives on the scene who are so childish . . .

Perhaps. But she's not so childish that she follows the suggestion of sex columnist by insulting the honor of a good a decent man by using his last name as a synonym for the vile byproduct of a sex act. No to do that requires a monumental level of immaturity: the type of immaturity that thinks it's funny to call people named Deuce, "Douche" and a mindset so adolescent that it obsesses over the sex life of a random blog commentator.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 10:34 PM

Rick Santorum is a demented and corrupt bag of dogshit who was rightfully ejected by the people of Pennsylvania after a career spent enriching himself and spreading nonsense on behalf of the Repiglican Party. For further information check this out:

http://www.bobcasey.com/feature/51things/default.aspx

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 5, 2008 11:46 PM

Jim Keane/MoeLarryAndJesus/NoBushPigsPlease/TortureisWrong writes: For further information check this out: http://www.bobcasey.com/feature/51things/default.aspx

Amazing Jim! Thanks! I can't believe Santorum's former opponent has a list of criticisms of Santorum. That's some crack research there bud.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 6, 2008 12:36 AM

"I can't believe Santorum's former opponent has a list of criticisms of Santorum."

Yes, it's almost as amazing as a wingnut Opus Dei member saying Rick Santorum is a "decent man" with "honor," when in fact he was just another torture-loving gay-bashing voter-ousted Bushpig.

I just hope he was never left alone with the Husk Formerly Known As Terri Schiavo.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 12:46 AM

Of course Iowa is a liberal state. You have to understand how this works. First of all, to even be considered the "real America" a state has to have voted for Bush at least once. From there, having a 50-50 record, Iowa is clearly more liberal than most of the country.

Posted by mad6798j | January 6, 2008 1:32 AM

"Perhaps. But she's not so childish that she follows the suggestion of sex columnist by insulting the honor of a good a decent man by using his last name as a synonym for the vile byproduct of a sex act. No to do that requires a monumental level of immaturity: the type of immaturity that thinks it's funny to call people named Deuce, "Douche" and a mindset so adolescent that it obsesses over the sex life of a random blog commentator.

Posted by Mark Adams | January 5, 2008 10:34 PM"

A sex columnist is supposed to be funny. Who is more childish, the bigot or the bigot's target. Dan Savage was using humor to stand against a bigot when he compared being gay, like Savage, to bestiality. Santorum is a sick fuck. Who the hell sleeps in the same bed as a dead fetus? That's just sick. When a guy like Savage, who gets e-mails that freak him out from the biggest perverts in the country, thinks somebody is a sick fuck, they are a sick fuck. Also, it was just so obvious Santorum was just another gay-bashing closet case. Not every homophobe is a Ted Haggard, but Santorum is their poster child. Maybe if he started learning to like himself, he could discover what morality truly is instead of using it to channel and justify his sacred hatred of other people.

Posted by Reality Man | January 6, 2008 5:14 AM

I suspect the only reason she's kept around is because someone has to do the grunt work on the Corner. Occasionally she writes columns (that appear nowhere but in national review) and they are pitiful.

Posted by banco | January 6, 2008 7:21 AM

MoeLarryAndJesus, you pitiful creature. No, really, I pity you. Nothing but endless compassion. I mean, what kind of life have you had, where clearly your sole pleasure is being a troll at a conservative website? Let me put you in contact with a shrink or psychologist. Perhaps you just need a woman? Maybe a man? We can pull through this, Moe, sweetie, just have a little faith and hope.

Posted by WillBarrett | January 6, 2008 8:19 AM

K-Lo has never struck me as either an honest or sensible or even well informed commentator on anything, so this is little surprise.

However, the Corner generally does a good job of having some interesting back and forth between posters and occasional e-mailers, even if they do treat each other (and especially K-Lo) with kid-gloves sometimes. I can see why they might be wary to add straight up comments.

I often wish that there were some sort of happy medium to comments. Even on blogs where the commenters are good, things tend to get drowned out and confused pretty fast. Some sort of crafted letters to the editor format might work better, where only the best stuff gets posted, with only the best and well organized follow-ups, so that you can actually follow the discussion.

Posted by Bad | January 6, 2008 1:36 PM

Kathryn Jean Lopez, who is every bit as vacuous as this article suggests, is an ongoing embarrassment to the National Review. It has perplexed me for years why they continue to employ her. I believe she writes a weekly column for NRO and posts very frequently at the Corner and the other NRO blogs. I can only surmise that she still enjoys an association with them because (1) she puts out a tremendous amount of work product, and a decision has been made to favor quantity over quality, and (2) Mr. Buckley's successors have decided "Hey, it's just the website, how much harm could she do?"

The answer to (2), I think, is a lot. Her adolescent cheerleading for Rick Santorum (which included an outrageous assertion that Ed Rendell's poll numbers showed Casey only up by 4 on Santorum with a weekend left in the race) and almost Teen Beat obsession with Mitt Romney have completely discredited her and the magazine that signs her paychecks.

Her posts to the Corner are seldom more than two or three lines of nonsense with some unsupported platitudes thrown in, or a link to some article she was able to understand. Now, I realize it is a blog, and given to hit and run types of writing, but there is often some substantive discussion among other participants. Not Ms. Lopez. I truly think she lacks the intelligence to engage in meaningful dialogue. She also steadfastly fails to take on other writers who call her out on her assertions. I think you have to assume that even she realizes she lacks the intellectual wherewithal to defend herself.

Short version: yeah, she's really pretty dumb. But amusing in that "watching people slip and fall on ice is kind of funny" way. And I'm a republican and former NR subscriber.

Posted by spider01 | January 6, 2008 1:53 PM

I just want to endorse everything that "spider01" wrote. Ms. Lopez is an embarrassment. At the same time, though, I think people like Andy McCarthy and Mark Levin do just as much damage to NRO's credibility as Lopez.

Posted by Marc | January 6, 2008 4:58 PM

I just looked up what the synonym for Mr. Santorum's name means. I have nothing but dislike and contempt for Mr. Santorum's politics. His desire to provoke a war with Venezuela annoys the hell out of me. But that sex columnist (I'm not certain that sex columnists ought to exist to begin with) is utterly repulsive. What sort of person has thoughts like that going through his head? Santorum might be a contemptible fool, but Savage has truly lowered himself into the mud with this one.

Posted by Hector | January 6, 2008 11:40 PM

Oh lawdy! Mammy, fetch some smelling salts and roll the fainting couch over to where Hector and Mark Adams are at!

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 6, 2008 11:46 PM

Hector writes: "I just looked up what the synonym for Mr. Santorum's name means. I have nothing but dislike and contempt for Mr. Santorum's politics. His desire to provoke a war with Venezuela annoys the hell out of me. But that sex columnist (I'm not certain that sex columnists ought to exist to begin with) is utterly repulsive. What sort of person has thoughts like that going through his head? Santorum might be a contemptible fool, but Savage has truly lowered himself into the mud with this one."

Fortunately the First Amendment and homicide laws protect the rights of sex columnists to exist even though you don't like them, Hector. Who knows, perhaps someday you'll even have sex and you'll pick up a few tips from Savage's column.

In any event Santorum is a particularly disgusting and corrupt demagogue, and I think Savage's use of his name is the most brilliant bit of guerilla politics I've ever seen. You'll never forget the association, will you? And that's the point.

It's interesting that Santorum and Macaca Allen will never be able to clean their respective froths off, and it couldn't have happened to two slimier swine.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 7, 2008 12:10 AM

ML&J,

Let's not forget that Savage's move was prompted by Santorum equating homosexuality with bestiality. I think that comment and point of view is "utterly repulsive," if I may borrow Hector's phrase. I would further add that Hector's rhetorical question applies to Santorum, too: What sort of person has thoughts like that going through his head?

Can you really blame Savage who, when faced with such disgusting, bigoted vitriol, simply chose to respond in kind (albeit a little more creatively)? I don't.

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 7, 2008 2:52 AM

Actually, Santorum didn't equate homosexuality with bestiality. He equated _the legal case_ for Lawrence vs. Texas with the _legal case_ for bestiality, and in point of fact he was correct.

I happen to think that homosexual acts ought not to be against the law, and I'm agnostic about whether they are or not a sin. But I think that the right to privacy basis on which that Supreme Court Decision was made was extraordinarily weak. A nebulous 'right to privacy', unfettered by any moral bounds, does offer potential justification to the proponents of incest, adultery, polygamy and beastiality, as well as to the aficionados of anonymous bathroom sex, hole-in-the-wall nightclub encounters, "Real Dolls" and similar depravities.

I think that the opponents of homosexuality may be wrong, but to call them bigoted is silly and anachronistic. Was St. Paul a bigot?

Posted by Hector | January 7, 2008 9:37 AM

Hector asks: "Was St. Paul a bigot?"

Of course he was. And so is Pope Ratzinger.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 7, 2008 11:36 AM

I should have known better than to ask a rhetorical question.

Do you think that the Carpocratians, who despised the straight orientation and exalted homosexuality, were also 'bigots'? What about the ancient Athenians and the medieval Muslims who said much the same thing. Isn't it rather silly to force twentieth century fads and fashions on first century thinkers? your idea that nobody has the right to say that some sexual acts are better than others, is absurd. something so absurd only a modern man could believe it. it doesn't make me a bigot to observe that the New Testament takes an extremely dim view of homosexual acts.

Posted by Hector | January 7, 2008 6:03 PM

Hector again: "Do you think that the Carpocratians, who despised the straight orientation and exalted homosexuality, were also 'bigots'? What about the ancient Athenians and the medieval Muslims who said much the same thing."

In certain areas you lack any semblance of critical thinking ability, Hector, and this is one of them. The Carpocratians, Athenians, and "medieval Muslims" didn't "despise the straight orientation" any more than you do. (Well, I assume you don't.) This is the kind of crap spread against people by their enemies, of course, which is why homosexuality is known in some places as "the English disease."

The Carpocratians are known of solely through writings by some of your early Church fathers. If you ask me if I think it's likely that those men were bigots and liars, "of course they were" is my best response. This sort of thing is akin to the blood libel which the Church took so very long to denounce.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 7, 2008 10:39 PM

Uh, actually, Moe, the Carpocraticans did despise the straight orientation. They held beliefs remarkably similar to the 'Histrioni' in the Borges short story. The Carpocratians believed that the world cannot end until every evil possibility has been enacted and the maximum amount of sin has been committed, so by sinning now they were exhausting the possibilities of sin and hastening the coming of the kingdom of heaven. This belief was what led them to break the teachings of Christ in every possible way, including through homosexual orgies. It's true that the Church did make up accusations of homosexuality against people like the Templars, the Bogomils, the Marcionites, etc. But in the case of the Carpocratians they were dead on.

and yes, medieval Muslim world was infamous for its widespread pederasty. just read the arabian nights for once- do you think a bunch of Jesoids wrote that? or read a bit about the ghastly things that went on after the fall of Constantinople, including the grisly fate of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras and his sons.

And actually, I think you mean 'the German disease' at least that's what it was called in the 1920s. and no, i'm straight, very much so.

Posted by Hector | January 7, 2008 11:38 PM

Hector, the current Catholic Church is as famous (or infamous) for "widespread pederasty" as any institution in recent memory - and in this case we have dozens of court cases proving it. So I guess you can add one to your list.

And no, I said "the English disease" because that's out there - but if you want to add "German disease" you're just supporting my point, unless you think the Germans were saying that about themselves.

Please tell me who your sources for this crap about the Carpocratians are if they're not your early Church fathers, or admit you're just spreading more smears.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 8, 2008 12:58 AM

The Catholic Church never endorsed or institutionalized pederasty or other sexual perversions in the way that the medieval Muslims did. Again, read a bit of medieval muslim literature- they even acknowledged it themselves!

Of course my sources for the Carpocratians are the early Church fathers. There is no other source extant. Naturally we can expect that they would be critical. Nevertheless, we can learn something about the Carpocratians by the writings of their accusers- it's unlikely that the patristic denunciations would make up the _facts_ out of whole cloths- or else why would their criticisms of the different heresies vary in detail?

There is a 'lost gospel' around today ("Secret Gospel of Mark") that purports to claim that Jesus Christ was homosexual. The early Church fathers knew of this book and claimed that it had been invented, or at least adopted, by the Carpocratians, which seems to imply that the Carpocratians celebrated homosexuality.

Posted by Hector | January 8, 2008 2:48 PM