G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
1. ABC’s Carol Simpson tweeted: “Gen. Petraeus? Shocked by the military hero’s admitted moral lapse. But why? He’s a man.”
Could read: “Gen. Petraeus? Amazed by the military hero’s military heroism. But why? He’s a man.”
Or: “Paula Broadwell? Shocked by the status seeking woman’s apparent moral lapse. But why? She’s a woman.”
2. Just about every commentator and journalist believes that Paula Broadwell’s husband, Scott Broadwell, wrote a letter to Chuck Klosterman at The Ethicist in the New York Times seeking advice on his wife’s ongoing affair. But the letter just doesn’t jibe:
My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
It seems strange to talk about the CIA as a “project”. Count me among the skeptical on this and everything else surrounding the timing of the scandal.
3. Ross Douthat tweeted a link to a post of his from the summer about Obama’s strategy of nullifying Mitt Romney’s support among the white working class (rather than trying to win their vote outright):
Viewed from a certain angle, these two approaches would seem to be at cross-purposes. (Why pander to blue-collar whites in your ad buys if you’re just going to alienate them on immigration policy or welfare?) But if the goal isn’t to win disaffected working class whites so much as to render Romney sufficiently radioactive that they mostly just sit things out in disgust, then the two-track approach makes considerably more sense. In that scenario, Obama doesn’t need these voters to like him, so he can afford to direct his policy pandering elsewhere; he just needs them to dislike his opponent enough to declare a plague on both houses and stay home.
As Douthat points out, this seems prescient given Sean Trende’s piece on the disappearing white voter.
4. I’ll throw Jezzie a bone here. A writer in their stable at least entertains the nature v. nurture debate after research showing that boys with exposure to high levels of testosterone in the womb is associated with greater impulsivity for the 8 – 11 year-old boys in the study.
5. Noah Millman offers his intuitions on demographics, the election, and the Sailer strategy.