Archives For: Dick Morris Award Nominee

Von Hoffman Award Nominee

Sep 11 2012 @ 11:54am

He should really be ineligible for this award; the competition doesn’t stand a chance. No pundit is as relentlessly wrong as Morris. Glossary here.

Von Hoffman Award Nominee

Aug 11 2012 @ 12:20pm

by Patrick Appel

"I don’t think [Paul Ryan] has the slightest desire to be vice president. While it is a good stepping stone to the presidency even for those who don’t achieve the office through death of a president, I don’t think that is Ryan’s ambition," – Bruce Bartlett, in an article published yesterday titled, "Paul Ryan Will Not Be Mitt Romney’s Running Mate"

Von Hoffmann Award Nominee

Jun 29 2012 @ 12:15pm

A reader calls me out:

I love the Dish and all, but sorry – citing an American Bar Association survey is hardly "calling" the outcome. If you had come out in March and said, "Roberts will be the deciding vote in upholding the ACA," then that would have been calling it. Besides, what about your statement published at Reason last week?

[SCOTUS] will strike down the mandate alone.

If anything, you should nominate yourself up for a Von Hoffmann award on this one.

Busted. I'm not clairvoyant. And Reason forced me to predict something. But in the original, I cited the Dish, not me personally. And we did air and link to the argument that Roberts would save the ACA.

(A glossary of all the Dish Awards can be found here.)

Von Hoffman Award Nominee

May 10 2012 @ 5:03pm

"It won't happen," – Andrew Sullivan, in response to the question, "Will Obama Come Out For Marriage Equality Before The Election?"

Von Hoffmanns All Round! Ctd

Apr 27 2012 @ 11:04am

A reader quotes me:

A friend told me last night over a Jager that I romanticized politics. I'm not sure I do. But predictions and narratives and personalities are integral to readable political journalism. It is a theater at times, and the performances require aesthetic and human judgments as well as technical and policy ones.

I don't know that you romanticise politics as a whole. But you do need your dragons to slay. There are many topics in which you are measured and consistent, pleased with incremental progress and able to recognise setbacks and their significance.

But when you recognise a dragon – a person you perceive to be a dangerous threat to the ideals you hold dear or to the body politic – well, you tend to kick the spurs in and charge, sword in one hand, lance in the other and the shield of common sense left behind. Palin is one; Hillary Clinton another, for large bits of the '90s and portions of the '08 campaign. Radical Islam was another, in the wake of 9/11. I wouldn't quite call it pure romance.

You are far more cognizant of the flaws in your heroes than the virtues of your enemies, and you seem to admit of other, neutral persons or institutions to which you attitude can be mixed and measured (the Church is your curate's egg of the moment). But for your dragons – there seems to be no madness they might not drive us, no annihilation they might not wreak, and thus any attack is permitted to defend against their depredations. Having a dragon to destroy seems to give you the vim needed to run your treadmill everyday. You can't quite work Robot Romney into one – he's too sane and bland, and it seems to depress you. I think that was part of your soft spot for Santorum – now there was an authentic nutter who could be counted on to breathe fire when provoked.

That's always been about the size of it, to me. Me with my PhD in Knowing Fuck All About Psychology. But nobody loves reading you for your cold logic, Andrew. All your fans are fans of your passion. Vim-less political writers all turn into Tom Friedman after a while, and thanks be praised, there's never a worry of that with you.

Von Hoffmann Award Nominee

Apr 25 2012 @ 11:10am

Newt Gingrich has basically conceded. Which means it's time to dust off this YouTube:

Von Hoffmanns All Round!

Apr 24 2012 @ 11:40am

Jim Newell runs down all the worst primary predictions, including yours truly. Yes, my Palin paranoia got the better of me at times, but I did cop to my error (and was thrilled by it). Dish fave:

Bill Kristol, the publisher of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, is the most notoriously wrong-all-the-time political commentator in America.

The vocal advocate behind such hits as "the Iraq war will go swimmingly" and "Sarah Palin would be a great vice presidential candidate" typically spent most of this campaign season incorrectly speculating, or "reporting," on which candidates would join the race. In a way, this made Kristol useful. We knew, for example, that a Rudy Giuliani for President 2012 campaign — however unlikely that ever was — would definitely never materialize after Bill Kristol wrote this on June 8, 2011: "I’m told by two reliable sources that Rudy Giuliani intends to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. He may throw his hat in the ring soon."

A sad excuse: Romney was so obviously the likely candidate we hacks did our best to come up with other possible scenarios. It was called "keeping hope awake."

Von Hoffmann Award Nominee

Jan 27 2012 @ 1:44pm

Chris Rock, on Newt Gingrich, back in the Clinton days:

Von Hoffmann Award Nominee

Jan 19 2012 @ 12:38pm

"If Rick Perry runs, he'll win, right? Barring some unforeseen scandal I don't see how he loses," – Matt Yglesias, June 9th, 2011.

Von Hoffmann Award Nominee, Ctd

Nov 11 2011 @ 6:39pm

A reader counters the nomination of James C. Moore's prediction that Perry will win the presidency:


"I think the GOP probably will nominate Perry, and probably regret it," – Andrew Sullivan, October 3rd, 2011.

Another adds:

I think you failed to see the sarcasm in Moore's original post. And knowing his past writings against George W. Bush, I just don't see him as a big Perry supporter.

A sentence with two probablys doesn't qualify for a quality VHA. But I'll take my lumps.