Dave Chappelle

 There is apparently a heap of controversy over Dave Chappelle's latest stand-up special on Netflix. I've never seen anything but a few clips of Chappelle's work over the years, but I at least know that he specializes in taking his comedy right up to the edge. Much of his targeting is towards White people, but in this special he targets Trans people.

There are two different takes on this. 

The first is that Chappelle represents a broader problem at Netflix, where they produce so much content that some of it is especially hurtful. The article at the link runs through some of it. However, it's difficult to conclude that Netflix itself is discriminatory towards Trans people, since so many Trans people who work for them are upset.

The second is roughly that Chappelle specialize in controversial and largely juvenile takes on gender and sexuality issues, and if you don't want to watch it than you shouldn't. One argument that Yglesias has been making for months now is that activists - especially culturally left activists - have a tin ear for what is actually popular.

I suppose there is a third take - that Chappelle is right - but that's not worth engaging in. He's not.

This is one of those messy issues where basically a lot of people are right. Chappelle targeting Trans people is more or less punching down. Comedians who punch down are verbal bullies. Chappelle seems to get that when he concludes by saying he doesn't have a problem with Trans people, he has a problem with White people.

Yglesias teases this out in a way that's interesting. Basically, Black elites are like White elites in that they largely support LGBTQ issues, but the general support for these issues among Black voters is much, much weaker, BUT it's not non-existent. As Yglesias puts it, Black voters may not actively support LGBTQ issues, but they vote for people who do. Chappelle's quip about White people feels like a targeted barb at the sort of White people who put a "Hate has no home here" sign in their front yard, but vote against building affordable housing that might bring poor or minority groups into their school district.

Polling on Trans rights in particular is all over the place. Generally speaking, progress like this is largely supported, but often if it's done without drawing attention to it. Yglesias shows the polls that show an astonishing 66% of Americans agreeing that Trans people should be allowed to serve in the military, but a similar number 62% believing that Trans people - mostly women - should be required to play on teams with their sex at birth. At the same time, 54% say that gender is determined by birth sex and also 63%  saying that Trans rights are either about right or could be improved.

It's just a mess, and so picking battles over what is exactly important and what isn't is largely impossible. However, coalitional politics suggest that doing work quietly on controversial issues is better than picking loud public battles that alienate median voters.

People like to point to Republicans nakedly brutal power politics, but the reality is that Republicans campaign on roughly popular messaging before pivoting to plutocratic service. They don't tout their unpopular positions, so much as place themselves in opposition to less than popular Democratic positions. No one wins an election on cutting Jeff Bezos' taxes.

Democrats should campaign on popular things but do righteous things.

When Is A Scandal Not A Scandal?

Men are pigs.  This is news?

Twelve Secret Service Agents apparently took advantage of Colombia's significantly more lenient prostitution laws while preparing for Obama's trip down there.

When discovered, they were relieved of duty.

I guess I'm missing the scandal here.  Because people doing bad or distasteful things is only scandalous in the very Victorian/Edwardian sense of the word.  I suppose in some ways they represent the government, but then again, they are supposed to be, you know, "secret".  They did not actually break any laws, but because their behavior was considered unacceptable, they were suspended.

Where is the scandal here?  There was no cover-up.  There was no one in elected or political office at play here.  These were individuals - albeit acting in a group - who behaved poorly and were censured for it.

Maybe it's just the slow news period between the Clown Car being put up in blocks on Mitt's lawn so he can appeal to rural voters.  Maybe it's the neo-Victorian moral posturing of much of our media.  But I don't understand what the need is to focus on this story for more than a few minutes of slightly bemused summary.

This is the sort of thing Letterman or Stewart should be focusing on.

The State Of Our Union Is... Meh

If Tom Selleck gave the SoTU, he would create hamburger waterfalls 

in accordance with our native ancestors wishes.

So, we pivot from the "WTF was South Carolina thinking" moment to "Why is Obama such a huge, quivering failure?" moment as we get ready for the State of the Union address.

AP has a story up about how Obama is a huge, quivering failure because he laid out all these wonderful goals last year, right after Gabby Gifford was shot and Congress agreed to play nice for 15 minutes.  And then... Wha happen?

Absent from the story, and likely absent from any coverage of Obama's struggle to achieve any legislative milestones this year, is the fact that the GOP became entirely an obstacle and not a partner in governing.  This cannot be over-stressed.

The public is already on board with this narrative, as Congress has approval ratings within the margin of error of zero.  I don't think Obama will have trouble selling this idea when he ramps up his campaign.

But it is distressing that a President who has had the most legislative success of any President since LBJ, if not FDR, would be labelled a failure.

I mean, aside from keeping the GOP from defaulting on our debt, extending payroll tax credits and ratifying START and a trade agreement with South Korea, what has Obama done since the LAST SotU?

Oh, yeah.....

Oakland, The Land Of Oaks

Yesterday, Oakland was shut down by a general strike.  That happens roughly almost never in America.

Was it in the NY Times?  I didn't see it.  I just looked and saw nothing.  It's one the front page of the Guardian, including coverage of the Oakland police using tear gas on protestors.

OWS has really thrown the Grey Lady for a loop.  They know they can't openly identify with the rabble, because their subscribers are all working down on Wall Street.  No one under 40 actually buys newspapers anymore.

And despite the "liberal" tag the Times has, it's still a staid, slow moving vehicle that is temperamentally conservative.

So, while they are paying a great deal of attention to the chaos, unrest and assault on democracy in the name of financial stability in Greece, they just don't seem to know what to do with the chaos, unrest and defense of democracy against financial hegemony right down the road from them.

Charlie Pierce Is The Jon Stewart Of Bloggers

Get me out of here.  Pierce just brought the whupass!

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/david-brooks-wrong-inequality-column-6537797

For me, the aggravating thing about Brooks is that he's not stupid. Not in a Rick Perry sort of way.  He often begins his pieces with observations that are at least in the ballpark of being right.

You then wait for the inevitable "Brooks Pivot" where he goes from making a rational point about the issue at hand to beating some old tired conservative talking point to death.

And you can see Ross Douthat doing it, too.

Hard to whore yourself at the Grey Lady if you're an conservative "intellectual".

What Does Tucker Rhyme With?

Last year, Tucker Carlson visited our fine school on an admissions trip.  He was - according to those who met him - delightful.  And this includes my Beloved And Even More Aggressively Liberal Wife and Gentleman Jim who still subscribes to the Worker's World Weekly.

And so you wonder if maybe guys like Carlson just run a schtick on TV.  I saw Joe Scarborough wandering around the Fourth of July festivities, and he seemed really pleasant.  Maybe it's all an act.

But then I see this and I have to believe that, no, it's not an act.  The act is the pleasant facade they put on when they have to.  But deep down there is something rotten in their hearts.  Something putrid in their souls.

Providing of course they have one.

The Guardian

Look to your right.  No, your other right.

I added The Guardian homepage to the blogroll.  Recently, they have upped their US coverage, especially in their digital version.  When the Fabulous, Lovely, Desirable If Slightly Microbial At The Moment Wife and I were in Ireland this summer, we could go down to breakfast and grab a copy of The Guardian or The Times and read actual news.  Yes, there were more numerous tabloids to browse as well.  But the presence of real newspapers was a delight.

I've increasingly used The Guardian as my source for news, because it's just, well, better.  They have a left wing slant, so that's nice, but that allows them to cover stories like OWS much more thoroughly.  Check this out.  That's a graphical representation of the story with just facts when you click on the wee bullseyes.  Yet it tells you so much more than interviewing the 1%ers about how their fee-fees are hurt by the dirty rabble outside their offices.

Or check this out.  Nice, clean reporting of last night's debate.  The analysis was sharp, yet didn't overwhelm the reporting.  I might quibble with Romney being described as the frontrunner, but I guess you have to call him that, even though he seems congenitally unable to crack 30% support.

I'm not ready to jettison The Grey Lady completely, but I heartily endorse checking out the Limey Contender to the throne.

And don't get me started on their international coverage.

Screw You, Rush

I don't usually waste my time on Rush Limbaugh, but he's said two things in close proximity that need highlighting.  The quote above, in case you can't read it, says, "These protestors who are actually few in number, have contributed nothing.  They're parasites.  They're pure, genuine parasites.  Many of them are bored, trust-fund kids, obsessed with being something, being somebody.  Meaningless lives, they want to matter."

The picture is of a World War II veteran marching with OWS.  But it's more than that.  Unions have joined, too.  Of course, in Rush's world, unions are moochers and parasites, too, because... Screw you, that's why.

And then there is the rapidly rising fame of Sgt. Thomas.  He was one of those troops that we were supposed to be supporting.  But I guess when they get home, screw'em.

Next is this unbelievable item. Rush goes off on Obama for sending in a Ranger company to fight the Lord's Resistance Army because, wait for it, they're Christians.  See, Obama's a Muslim, so naturally he's sending American troops to help jihad.  Did he ever think to look up exactly WHAT the LRA is?

Of course not.  This is the modern GOP in a nutshell.  Limbaugh has long been the voice of the mass of GOP voters and the specifics of his criticism are less significant than they reflexive, tribal nature of his take on these two stories.

OWS has struck a nerve in the US and around the world.  It is increasingly made up of people who are not "trust fund kids" but genuine middle class workers or the skilled unemployed.  The LRA is pure, unadulterated evil.  But OWS is not Limbaugh's tribe.  And Obama isn't in Limbaugh's tribe, so anything he does is de facto wrong.

I think it's wrong to dismiss Limbaugh completely as being a talk radio buffoon (though he is).  Limbaugh represents that hard core 27% of the population who will never, ever do anything that might reflect well on the people outside their tribe, even if it hurts their country.

My mother-in-law pondered at dinner the other night, "Why was no one supporting Hunstman?"  We all quickly agreed that at 3%, he has captured all the non-crazy GOP votes that he will ever get.

Being a conservative, Limbaugh Republican is to have a cognitive disorder.

Damned Librul Media

Say what!

The good folks socialists at Pew have done a study of the media treatment of the various people running for America's Worst Job.  Who got the best treatment and who got the worst.  That sort of thing.

As you might be able to see, the top people in terms of favorable stories are in order, Perry, Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Romney, Santorum, Paul, Hunstman, Gingrich, Pawlenty and, wait for it... Obama.

Gingrich actual has a higher percentage of negative stories than Obama (35% to 34%) but then again, he's Newt Gingrich.  And his favorable stories are at 15% compared to 9% for Obama.  Pawlenty is also at 30% negative, but as you may remember, he dropped out of the race because he's a terrible, terrible candidate.

Interestingly, Huntsman and Paul clock in with identical 21% positive/17% negative/62% who the hell are you again?  This is interesting because the media can't understand why Huntsman isn't catching on just like the 25 year old libertarians who live in their parents basement can't understand why Paul isn't catching on.

Palin's 31/22 +/- spread is just inexplicable.  While I believe that McCain's slim chances at becoming president were ended by his inexplicable choice of Caribou Barbie as his running mate, and I will never forgive him for foisting this no-talent grifter on to the American body politic (which she has humped like it was Glenn Rice after a few bottles of Bartles and Jaymes), but the media has kept her around when she should be expunged from the national discourse like a nasty dose of the clap.

Perry's 32/20 split is likely part of the earlier hagiography that goes into new candidates.  I would guess those numbers have cratered along with his campaign.

Romney runs slightly negative at 26/27, presumably because he's the frontrunner who isn't actually leading.  Plus, his Mitt Romney, Cyborg.

But the real numbers here are Obama's 9/34.  Now, I am willing to cede that a lot of this comes from the fact that Obama has to govern - and has to govern over divided government at a time of unprecedented obstruction from the minority party.  The whole debt ceiling thing reflected well on no one.  But this survey also includes when we shot bin Laden in the face.

Typical of this is the recent stories about fundraising.  Obama has raised more money than the rest of the GOP field combined.  He has done so without relying on potentially toxic contributions from Wall Street (the way Romney has).  Most of these donations have been small donations.

Yet, when you read about Obama, you read about a candidate who has real "problems with the base" and an "enthusiasm gap".  How do they explain the fundraising numbers?  They don't.

Sun Tzu said that it is best to be underestimated by your enemies.  Maybe this will rebound to Obama's advantage.  OWS is changing the political debate in this country is a good way.  They are creating space to the Left in a discourse that has largely been captured by the Right.  And as we can see from the Pew study, a lot of those criticisms about Obama from the Right (and the Left) have been internalized by the press.

Obama is still in trouble, but I also think it's still his race to lose.

And the media will be very surprised when he wins.

The Times We Tolerate

I opened the NYTimes webpage this morning and the top two stories were on Mitt Romney.

He's apparently raising more money on Wall Street than Obama.  Wow, who could've guessed THAT!  Penetrating investigating reporting, Times.  I bet if you dig deeper you will find he's raised more money among Republicans.

I'm glad that the Times has devoted so many pixels to the guy who is trailing Herman Cain for the GOP nomination.  That's awesome.

But I had to scroll down almost to the bottom to see a mention of the global sweep of OWS rallies yesterday.

This is why people mock the Times.  The biggest story of the fall is happening outside their very windows and they want to tell us that Romney is raising money on Wall Street and is Mormon.

When does the Guardian open their American paper again?

Oh, Come On!

I told you I would be using this pic a lot.

So, my morning routine involves waking up to an alarm on my iPhone and reading my emails and the NY Times homepage in bed.  (I don't HATE Steve Jobs.)

I awoke to this piece of "reporting".  They find a bunch of guys who have philosophical qualms about accepting unemployment insurance.  The spokesman for this point of view is a conservative political thinker who wants to replace the income tax with a sales tax.  Needless to say, all those who want to end UI are from Texas, and needless to say, they almost all take the UI checks anyway.

They throw in this quote for "balance":

“If you would have asked me five years ago, I would have said no, because I always considered myself a Republican,” said Ms. Gorski, 50. “But now being in this position, with a college education and lots of work experience behind me, I find myself swinging more liberal, and more Democrat. And that would never have happened before.”

That reminds me of the old joke about a Democrat being a Republican who lost just lost his job.

There is also some wanking about whether or not UI benefits dissuade people from looking for jobs.  Yes, in a situation of nearly full employment, I could see how getting a check might keep some people at home.  But with chronic high unemployment if someone is not looking for a job because of UI, there are ten people who WILL take that job.  You can argue about the moral failings of that individual, but you can't fault the system that keeps literally millions of people out of poverty, keeps families in their homes and keeps at least a meager demand flowing through the system.

Do you want to know what the potential power of Occupy Wall Street is?  It's in fighting this BS treatment of economic need by power elites and that includes "even the liberal" New York Times.

I'm glad that some conservative middle class guy in Texas doesn't like UI but cashes the checks anyway.  It's interesting that there is a minority of people in UI who don't like the system, precisely because it functions as it is designed to.

But it's freaking irrelevant, too.

Still, in the cold calculus of political expediency, I hope those mouth breathing idiots in the GOP adopt this Dickensian sense of unemployment insurance.  I'd like to see them throw millions of people into poverty.  I'd like to see the backlash THAT creates.

You want to rail against all forms of government spending?  Own the consequences.

Well, That Was Quick...

Man, I spent most of the late winter through the summer flogging the Perry candidacy as a perfect mixture of the man, the moment and the movement.  Now he'll be gone before the frost is on the pumpkin.

We have two stories.

In the first one, Perry wants to invade Mexico to kill drug dealers.  Now some of this seems like a way to cover his tremendous gaffe of saying that we should not punish children for the sin of their parents.  I know that was in the Bible and stuff, but it was the hippy part of the Bible and therefore non-operational.

The second one is... Well... Go read it.

Now, in the "This is good news for John McCain" view of the news - in which anything that happens is good for the conservatives - there might be a silver lining for Perry.

His campaign has unraveled in three strands:

First, he's a lousy debater.

Second, he tried to keep girls from getting cancer from sex and sex is icky so...

Third, he insufficiently hated on brown people.

Invading Mexico and killing drug dealers might be a disaster in terms of policy, but it certainly shores up weakness number three.

Having a ranch called "Niggerhead" might help him rally those conservatives for whom sticking a finger in the eye of political correctness is the reason to get out of bed in the morning.  That might help erase weakness number two.

As for number one, I suggest some sort of ventriloquist.

New York Magazine

First they get Frank Rich, now Jonathan Chait.

I guess they got tired of people buy their magazine because they thought it was The New Yorker.

At any rate, we can now stick a fork in The New Republic.

Two Good Posts On Why Tom Friedman Sucks

Friedman takes complicated, nuanced ideas and phenomena and reduces them to simplistic bumperstickers that any disinterested person can understand.

Friedman is the one force that unites Left and Right in our politics.  Both sides hate him.

Required Reading

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/plus-a-change-twitter-town-hall-dept/241542/

My dear mother was appalled at President Obama taking questions via Twitter.

But as Fallows points out above, average people tend to ask better questions than our professional journalist caste.

Shocker.

Dear Lord These People

Fair and balanced...

I'm nitpicking here, I'm sure, but the Pravda on the Potomac (aka Politico) just said that Obama may have made negotiations difficult by giving a "partisan" speech.  Interesting turn of phrase, since that was exactly how Boehner, Cantor and Ryan described it - partisan, political, so on.

Look, if Obama's speech, in which he laid out a clear vision of what the social contract of this country is and then points out exactly how he disagrees with the GOP and what he would do to balance the budget is "partisan" then so is the GOP's "serious" budget proposal.

The parties are ideologically opposed.  I think we all understand that (well, I sometimes wonder if Obama really understands that or if he believes all that bipartisan who-haw he spouts).  Any in depth discussion of an issue is bound to lead to disagreements.

It is clear that the GOP has no interest in negotiating with the party that holds the Senate and the White House.  Boehner and Cantor have both declared the plan DOA.

And it's Obama that's being partisan?

If You're Curious, You Should Ask

I've been reading a lot of newspaper and online articles about the budget battles and how Obama and the Democrats have to shift to cutting mode because "of the public's increasing concern about the debt".

Now, the debt is a real issue.  But the debt exists for a reason.  Here are the reasons:

Here's another chart, showing what would happen to the deficit (as opposed to the debt) if we do NOTHING - including let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

Well, looky-there!

So, dealing with the deficit/debt is not a difficult accounting problem, it's just a question of raising taxes for the most part.  Which won't happen until we get Democrats back in control of Congress.

But I want to go back and look at the idea that the "public" is upset and clamoring for action on the debt.

CBS actually, you know, asked people what was the most important issue facing the country today.

Economy/Jobs - 51%
Other - 27%
Deficit/Debt - 7%
Health Care - 5%
Hunh?  What was the question? - 4%
Education 3%
Wars 3%

I guess, in the spirit of Jon Kyl, they rounded to the nearest 50.

Bloomberg found more concern about the debt

Unemployment - 43%
Deficit/Debt - 29%
Health Care - 12%
Wars - 7%
Immigration - 3%
Other 4%
Honey, there's someone on the phone asking questions - 2%

Still, not seeing close to a majority or even a plurality obsessing about the debt.

Let's assume that 29% of the American people are really, really concerned about the budget situation.  That's their number one concern.  More than jobs or war or health care or swarthy brown people sneaking into the country.

Let's cross reference that number (29% give or take) with an NBC poll asking people their opinion on the Tea Party:

Very Positive - 13%
Somewhat Positive - 16%
Neutral - 20%
Somewhat Negative - 14%
Very Negative - 30%
Tea?  I like coffee - 7%

Hunh!  Look at that.  People who have a net favorable view of the Tea Party make up... 29% of the population.  What are the odds?

When asked if you are a member of the Tea Party, we got these responses:

Yes - 25%
Hell, No - 67%
Depends - 3%
I said I like coffee, damnit - 5%

Yes and depends.... 28%.

So, in the world of our political media, we can see the indelible impact of this minority movement known as Teatards Teahadists Teabaggers the Tea Party.

They make up less than a third of the population.  They are old, white and conservative.

And their agenda has become the nation's agenda.  Not because they enjoy majority support, but because they enjoy a majority within the majority of the House of Representatives.

It sounds like Obama is going to come out and make a truly "serious" speech about raising revenues, cutting defense spending and reining in health care costs.

But the caterwauling from the Tea Party Grand Old Party will be treated with equal seriousness and we will get Ryan talking about how taxes will kill job growth in the absence of evidence that makes it true.  Speaker Agent Orange will announce it DOA.

My question is: will the news media that fell all over themselves fawning over Paul Ryan be as starry eyed at an ACTUAL plan to end the deficit?

NPR Needs To Borrow Rachel Maddow's Balls

Brave, brave Sir Robin would like to thank you for your pledge to NPR.

Wow, tell me if you've heard this stupid story before.

James O'Keefe comes out with a video that has an ostensible "liberal" (defined herein as someone who believe the earth is round and Jesus did NOT, in fact, ride a dinosaur into Jerusalem) saying something that sounds "teddibly uncivil".

The liberal institution recoils in horror and fires said target of Mr. O'Keefe's video.

Days pass.

Unedited version of the video appears effectively exonerating the target.

Hunh! Well, hoocodanode!

I can distinctly remember hearing about the Shirley Sherrod thing driving through western Colorado.  I was thinking to myself, "Self... who gave the OK to fire this woman after a few hours or hyperventilating media coverage."  And Self could not come up with an answer.

When she was exonerated by the subsequent release of the unedited tape, I thought to myself, "Self, James O'Keefe will now join Pauly Shore, Yasmine Bleeth and Screech from Saved By The Bell in the scrap heap of people who were famous for no fucking reason."

But once again, Self was woefully ignorant.  When O'Keefe surfaced again, like a roach when the light is flicked on in a Motel 6 in Pensacola, I thought to myself, "Self, no one is going to believe this asshat, right?"

Oh, Self, when will you learn?

So, O'Keefe targets NPR. NPR responds as any good liberal institution does by firing anyone associated with this, including people who have the same last name as the dude in the video.

Then, we find out  O'Keefe judiciously edited his video to make the dude look bad.

Two things.

The next time James O'Keefe releases a video, the media should treat it the way they treat an opening of a WalMart in Wichita.

And the next time O'Keefe comes after a "liberal" institution, that institution should say, "James O'Keefe is a lying punk.  We stand by our employees when they are attacked by mendacious little pricks.  If O'Keefe has tape of our employees, we can safely say that these tapes are fabrications.  Our lawyers will be handling this, and any other shit O'Keefe has in store from now on."

Really, Ira Glass was right.  You have to fight fire with fire a bazooka.

Oh, and NPR?  If you're taking hardass lessons from Ira Glass?  You've already lost.

Evan Bayh To Join Fox News

Evan Bayh's view of the world.

So... Evan Bayh is joining Faux News.  Shocker.

I guess there weren't enough lobbying jobs open on K Street?  Or maybe Chris Dodd politically cock-blocked Bayh from the glamorous job where he might actual catch a come-hither glance from a bubble-headed bleach blond so he went with the backup?

The Democratic Leadership Committee served a purpose once, much like the human appendix.  In the DLC's case, they had to remind Democrats that being pro-worker was not necessarily the same as being anti-business.  I get that.  The regulatory state reached too far in some areas.

But after the Gingrich Revolution (Reaganism without the intellectual capacity), the DLC became redundant.  They became DINOs.  Now, in many ways, this has led to the increased polarization of our politics.  Evan Bayh could always sit down with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and find a way to invade another country or further bankrupt the middle class.  Bully for those guys!

But given what we know to be objectively true about what Fox News does and what it means to political discourse in America, let me the first millionth to say: "Evan Bayh, you are a complete douchecanoe."

You are John Edwards' hair without the principles.  At least Edwards only wanted to screw one person who wasn't his wife.

Bayh wants to screw you all.

Shorter NYTimes: Christie Is A Lying Blowhard

Governor Christie makes his case.

The Times ran a profile of Christie's "accuracy".  Turns out he really doesn't have much of it.

He speaks off the cuff and without facts to back him up.  He browbeats his opponents verbally with invective rather than engaging their points or simply makes up fact and data to support his position.

If he was a student of mine, he would be failing.  Since he's a Republican politician, he's a media darling.

I guess we can applaud the Times for finally pulling back the curtain on this freakshow, but the word missing from their coverage is "lying".  I realize that Richard Perez-Pena probably went to a very good school and needs to show he can use more nuanced language, but maybe he should just come right out and say that Christie is lying.

Of course, it could be that Christie is just a bullshit artist.  A Bullshit Artist is different from a Liar or a Truthteller.  Liars and Truthteller have a relationship to the truth.  Liars knowingly violate the truth; truthtellers are knowingly loyal to it.  Bullshit artists simply don't care what the truth is.  The reason I know this is because a philosophy professor at some university in New Jersey wrote a book about it.

Whatever the reason, the more I think about it, the more I think this goes back to Reagan.  We tend to lionize what a nice man Reagan was.  But he could be an aggressive prick, too.

And the GOP loved him for THAT more than his "nice" qualities.  They loved the way he spoke about hippies  and "welfare queens" and all those "different" people.

Reagan was not a nuanced man, but today's GOP is like watching Reagan without nuance or self control.