P.J. also came up with the line about Hillary being "America's Ex-Wife."

The man can write.

PJ O'Rourke hasn't been "amusing" in years. He hasn't been relevant, interesting, or noteworthy, either. His most important contribution to current society is to inspire shamed Republicans into deciding that maybe they want to call themselves "Libertarians," too.

Yes, because the Republicans have done such a fabulous job controlling spending. I believe it was President Clinton that balanced the budget, and Pres. Bush that undid all of that progress.

I hear she has lovely lobes. Although she did hook up with Brad Pitt so she can't be too bright.

Pocket Ninja: His most important contribution to current society is to inspire shamed Republicans into deciding that maybe they want to call themselves "Libertarians," too.

That was Republicans that did that.

Pocket Ninja: PJ O'Rourke hasn't been "amusing" in years. He hasn't been relevant, interesting, or noteworthy, either. His most important contribution to current society is to inspire shamed Republicans into deciding that maybe they want to call themselves "Libertarians," too.

Translation: His views are different than mine, therefore I do not like him.

PJ invented neoconservative foreign policy. Read the epilogue of "Holidays in Hell" if you doubt me. It's really uncanny. And it's not a bad idea to take your policy/political inspiriation from humor writers. I would like our environmental policy to be devised by Carl Hiaasen and the late Edward Abbey.

Nabb1: Translation: His views are different than mine, therefore I do not like him.

Seriously: What columns, books, or articles by P.J. Rourke over the past four years have you found interesting and insightful?

Also: The Republicans really, really, really shouldn't stress government spending at the moment. If the Iraq war did nothing else, it exploded the myth that wars are good for the economy.

zorgon: PJ invented neoconservative foreign policy

?
no, that was actually think tank policy wonks who did that. pj traveled the world on rolling stone's tab making fun of foreigners.

his political humor seems like it's stuck in the early 90s. i like him, but he's like the sinbad of political comedians.

/women be shoppin'
//democrats be spendin'

Obdicut: Seriously: What columns, books, or articles by P.J. Rourke over the past four years have you found interesting and insightful?

Eat the Rich is an excellent and funny book on economics
This (new window) is actually a scholarly look at The Wealth of Nations that should be required reading for entry-level college econ classes. i recomment it

Obdicut: Seriously: What columns, books, or articles by P.J. Rourke over the past four years have you found interesting and insightful?

He's written some good columns for The American Spectator and the one linked in this submission is rather good. (Why the .pdf, though? Very irritating.)

Also: The Republicans really, really, really shouldn't stress government spending at the moment.

Republicans betrayed any semblance of fiscal restraint and is probably one of the main reasons they have fallen out of power and are on the ropes. I think it would be a fine thing if they came to their senses on this, and though I'm not holding my breath, that's no reason that those of us dismayed with the failure of the GOP to live up to the fiscal conservative policies it once held dear are going to roll over on the issue.

Angelina Jolie is farking ugly! There I said it.

muzzrphochr: Angelina Jolie is farking ugly! There I said it.

Thank you ,Thank you. I have wanted some affirmation on this for a long time now.

muzzrphochr: Angelina Jolie is farking ugly! There I said it.

When did Angelina Jolie get a reputation for being stupid?

I'm not suggesting she's a super-genius, but from the few times I've heard her speak in interviews she seems to be pretty smart. (Brief marriage to Billy Bob obviously the exception)

If PJ really wanted to make a "pretty girls are dumb" joke, I think it was a swing and a miss.

Albo

Eat the rich is 1998. That's 10 years ago.

The "Wealth of Nations" book looks interesting, but I'm going to go ahead and doubt that it's scholarly. Or rather, I'm going to doubt it introduces anything new about The Wealth Of Nations into discussion, since it's one of the most highly discussed and critiqued books of all time. I'll read it.

Republicans betrayed any semblance of fiscal restraint and is probably one of the main reasons they have fallen out of power and are on the ropes. I think it would be a fine thing if they came to their senses on this, and though I'm not holding my breath, that's no reason that those of us dismayed with the failure of the GOP to live up to the fiscal conservative policies it once held dear are going to roll over on the issue.

I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "roll over on the issue"? I'm not getting your gist.

And I haven't read a column by O'Rourke in years that actually made me think that he was coming up with something new, or being brave in his analysis. He used to be rather important to my political identity, a way for me to distinguish the parts of the Republican ideology that I liked.

Then he backed Bush, even after the invasion of Iraq. He backed the invasion of Iraq. He failed to ever take responsibility for doing either of those things, instead blaming, basically, Gore and Kerry for not being attractive enough candidates to vote for.

His "sixteen obvious points that Bush should make" column was an incredibly juvenile, depressing, asinine piece of crap. I think that one, more than any other, made me ask, "What the fark happened to your brain, P.J.?"

Whoops. Second part of my post above should go to Nabb1. Sorry.

Obdicut: I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "roll over on the issue"? I'm not getting your gist.

Because the patented response from the left on the issue of budgetary restraint is to blow off the notion by arguing the Republicans have no business complaining about spending. P.J. O'Rourke has never, ever been in favor of the kind of spending we have seen, so why even respond with "The Republicans really, really, really shouldn't stress government spending at the moment" when he comments on it? Yes, yes, they damned well should stress government spending. If not them, then someone needs to.

Unright: When did Angelina Jolie get a reputation for being stupid?

I thought the same thing. Some very pretty girls are also very smart, for instance, the actress who played Winnie Cooper.

Unright: When did Angelina Jolie get a reputation for being stupid?

I don't think she is stupid, but she certainly didn't get to where she was in life for intellectual accomplishments.

And if you elect Republicans to control government spending, you're marrying Bea Arthur for her looks.

Nabb1: Because the patented response from the left on the issue of budgetary restraint is to blow off the notion by arguing the Republicans have no business complaining about spending. P.J. O'Rourke has never, ever been in favor of the kind of spending we have seen, so why even respond with "The Republicans really, really, really shouldn't stress government spending at the moment" when he comments on it? Yes, yes, they damned well should stress government spending. If not them, then someone needs to.

Frankly, I can name more Democrats who have controlled spending than I have Republicans, at the moment. Allen Boyd and the rest of the "blue-dog" Democrats, for example.

P.J. O'Rourke supported the war, from the start, without ever thinking of it in terms of spending-- or, if he did think about it, apparently he bought the "it'll pay for itself" bullshiat. So he obviously was very much in favor of the largest and most egregious amount of spending in recent years.

I miss Tsongas.

The GOP is the party of small govt?



Since when??

Nabb1: P.J. O'Rourke has never, ever been in favor of the kind of spending we have seen, so why even respond with "The Republicans really, really, really shouldn't stress government spending at the moment" when he comments on it?

Because he lays blame on one party while ignoring the fact that the other party has been at least as bad (if not worse) at handling our country's finances.

Why insult her? Because he's got nothing.

Nabb1: Yes, yes, they damned well should stress government spending. If not them, then someone needs to.

that's like saying that convicted arsonists need to stress fire safety.

and o'rourke is being obtuse because democrats have actually been the far more fiscally responsible party in recent history.

Are you suggesting we look to Republicans for financial responsibility? I think that's called cognitive dissonance.

DarthBrooks: The man can write.

Holidays in Hell is one of the funniest books I have ever read.

"Some people are worried about the difference between right and wrong. I'm worried about the difference between wrong and fun. " -
O'Rourke, P.J. (1989), Holidays in hell. London (Picador),

The quote comes from this speech (PDF) from last winter.

He's not dead-on as often as he used to be, but this is damn good:

They say that if you impeach George Bush, everything will be fine. Or if you nab Ted Kennedy for a DUI, the nation's problems will be solved. But unfortunately it's just not that simple. The problem is not really politicians. The problem is politics. Politicians are chefs - some good, some bad-but politics is road kill. The problem isn't the cook. The problem is the cookbook. The key ingredient of politics is the idea that all of society's ills can be cured politically. It's like a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it. The fruit cocktail is fried. The soup is fried. The salad is fried. So is the ice cream and cake. And your pinot noir is rolled in breadcrumbs and dunked in the deep fat fryer. It is just no way to cook up public policy. Politics is greasy. Politics is slippery. Politics can't tell the truth. But I don't blame the politicians for this. Because just think what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. "No, I can't fix public education. The problem isn't funding or teachers unions or lack of vouchers or absence of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damned kids."

And the one-liner of the year:

The two most frightening words in Washington are "bipartisan consensus." Bipartisan consensus is when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.

/vote McCain - y'know, for gridlock

Gulper Eel:

The two most frightening words in Washington are "bipartisan consensus." Bipartisan consensus is when my doctor and my lawyer agree with my wife that I need help.

That's beautiful.

burndtdan: and o'rourke is being obtuse because democrats have actually been the far more fiscally responsible party in recent history.

I'm sorry, but I don't hear any Democrats talk about cutting spending, at all. I want to see someone reel in rampant government spending, but instead of actually discussing the merits of that issue, all you really get in these discussions is criticism of Republicans, which is fine. But, I'm not buying into the "fiscal responsibility" of Democrats when there solution seems to be more taxing and even more spending. It's laughable.

under a republican president, non-discretionary spending has ballooned. under a democratic president, the budget was in surplus.

face it, cons - the GOP is the party of big government and limited personal freedom. in other words, pretty much the opposite of conservative.

Nabb1: I'm sorry, but I don't hear any Democrats talk about cutting spending, at all.

Have you read anything by Allen Boyd or heard of pay-go?

And under the Bush white house, funding has been given out far, far more for ideological reasons than ever before. The result is that, comparatively, the Democrats now support more results-based approaches than the Republicans.

Unright: When did Angelina Jolie get a reputation for being stupid?

I'm not suggesting she's a super-genius, but from the few times I've heard her speak in interviews she seems to be pretty smart. (Brief marriage to Billy Bob obviously the exception)

If PJ really wanted to make a "pretty girls are dumb" joke, I think it was a swing and a miss.

Concur. And the Billy Bob thing may be attributable to the fact that he's a sex god (or so I hear whispered through the hills of Arkansas).

And I like PJ. I say this as a critic of his writing, not of his views: Britney might've worked better.

FlashHarry: face it, cons - the GOP is the party of big government and limited personal freedom. in other words, pretty much the opposite of conservative.

So we have two "big government" parties, then. That's a real shame, and a sad commentary on the direction of this country.

Nabb1:

more laughable than cutting taxes and spending? one is fiscally responsible. one is not. can you figure out which one is which? the modern GOP sure can't.

and as for dems cutting spending - they want to stop the multitrillion dollar clusterfark in iraq. that's a helluva place to cut spending, pal.

Nabb1: I'm sorry, but I don't hear any Democrats talk about cutting spending, at all.

Because the republicans are going on and on about it?

Nabb1: FlashHarry: face it, cons - the GOP is the party of big government and limited personal freedom. in other words, pretty much the opposite of conservative.

So we have two "big government" parties, then. That's a real shame, and a sad commentary on the direction of this country.

i agree. but the dems are far more fiscally conservative (most of 'em, anyway) than the republicans. in fact, that's why i vote democratic most of the time. i want smaller government and more personal freedom. 50 years ago, i would have been a republican!

Nabb1: I'm sorry, but I don't hear any Democrats talk about cutting spending, at all.

the definition of fiscal responsibility is not cutting spending. it is balancing the budget. cutting spending is fiscal conservatism.

o'rourke didn't say "cut" spending, he said "control", and in direct relation to the deficit. that's what fiscal responsibility is. it's controlling your spending to maintain a balanced budget. look at the numbers, it was the democratic president that balanced the budget in the past 30 years.

and to the point of defending the republicans, it has been the republican presidents that have each grown the deficit. they have not been conservative or responsible.

this isn't a question of your opinion of party platform, it's a question of pure numbers, and the numbers disagree with you.

Obdicut: Have you read anything by Allen Boyd or heard of pay-go?

Yes, I have, but Congress has been dodging it because it will force them to address the looming AMT disaster. The Democratic Congress declined to address it this year, admitting that it would be catastrophic to them in November. Cowards.

And under the Bush white house, funding has been given out far, far more for ideological reasons than ever before.

Bush is an unmitigated disaster to fiscal conservatives. I have been saying that for years.

Republicans preside over one of the biggest financial meltdowns in American history, and Democrats are to blame.

That dog won't hunt.

Gulper Eel: /vote McCain - y'know, for gridlock

nobody is safe and no wallet invulnerable when the legislature is in session.

bulldg4life: Nabb1: I'm sorry, but I don't hear any Democrats talk about cutting spending, at all.

Because the republicans are going on and on about it?

I'm saying they should, not that they are.

FlashHarry: i agree. but the dems are far more fiscally conservative (most of 'em, anyway) than the republicans.

Increasing taxes to make up for massive spending may be "responsible" in the sense that you are trying to balance the ledger, but it is not conservative. Conservative philosophy favors limiting spending when things get out of balance.

Jaboobinator: Yes, because the Republicans have done such a fabulous job controlling spending. I believe it was President Clinton that balanced the budget, and Pres. Bush that undid all of that progress.

This...

As for Angelina Jolie's brains... who are we to judge?? I don't recall having heard her make any stupid statements. She doesn't sound like a dingbat in her interviews.

Generation_D: Republicans preside over one of the biggest financial meltdowns in American history, and Democrats are to blame.

I wouldn't say the Democrats are to blame, but I don't think they will fix it. I think Obama's budgetary policy may make it worse and drive this country to the brink of economic collapse.

Nabb1: So we have two "big government" parties, then. That's a real shame, and a sad commentary on the direction of this country.

This actually reminds me of the funniest thing I've read of PJ's lately. It was for a British publication, describing the primary.
Something like:

"America is a one-party state, but just like Americans we've got two of them"

Nabb1: Yes, I have, but Congress has been dodging it because it will force them to address the looming AMT disaster. The Democratic Congress declined to address it this year, admitting that it would be catastrophic to them in November. Cowards.

So when you said that you hadn't heard any Democrats talking about fiscal spending, you meant "except for Allen Boyd and the 44 other blue-dog democrats"?

Bush is an unmitigated disaster to fiscal conservatives. I have been saying that for years.

First of all, you haven't been saying it for enough years. 8 years would have been a great number to say it for. Less than that, not so useful.

Second of all: The Bush white house is not just Bush. There were no Republicans bucking him before his approval ratings dropped, there were no Republicans (other than Olympia Snowe) protesting his insane ideological revamp of every scientific governmental body. (Personally, I think the true damage Bush has done is by farking up scientific funding to the point where we may find ourselves quickly technologically surpassed by Europe and Japan in biotech.)

The GOP as a whole is very much responsible for Bush's policies, and the country, in general, understands that.

burndtdan: look at the numbers, it was the democratic president that balanced the budget in the past 30 years.

It was a combination of a Republican Congress and a moderate Democrat in the White House. Once Bush got in and started rubber stamping the GOP budgets, things got ridiculous. Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.