Debt Deal Denouement

No way to run a railroad.

By , and
52

Sarah, Steve, and Jonah wonder if the Biden-McCarthy deal marks a return to politics as normal, whether Tim Scott’s bachelorhood will play into the election, and more:

–Nick Catoggio on DeSantis

–Brian Riedl’s debt-limit deal breakdown

-Mike Pence in Iowa

-Dresscode redux

–Voters aren’t happy with Biden… but they’ll take him over Trump

-God’s chicken goes DEI

By , and
Comments (52)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Hartzlk

    I may have missed the critique somewhere in The Dispatch - I certainly can't keep up with all of it - but I'm waiting for a punditry pro to speak about Trump's over personalization of Operation Warp Speed's success.
    Perhaps my memory is faulty, but what I remember is that Trump put Pence in charge of COVID stuff initially. It was Pence that was giving the official guidance to the country at the podium back at the beginning of the pandemic. It was only after it started becoming apparent that the executive branch was getting the job done right that Trump wanted to put his face in front of it.
    I get that a president is allowed to take credit for work that people on their administration do, (i.e., Trump was given the list of conservative judges to appoint from others which resulted in a better list than anything Trump, or most other presidents, could have generated on their own), but I'm getting tired of this narrative that Trump was on the side of the angels during COVID. He looked like a political coward to me.

    Pence would be the best to confirm that my perception was true, but I would be very surprised if Pence was willing to do that. I think he will continue to steer clear of daring to criticize Trump's behavior in office, even if it would mean peeling more voters away from Trump.

    Collapse
  2. Uvaeagle

    The Dispatch Dating app should be your next product line is basically what we’re saying here.

    Collapse
  3. Evw

    Fun Fact to screw with the narrative: a friend who taught the three oldest Trumps when they were in grade school told me, at the time, that the only father who showed up every time for Parent-Teacher conferences was Donald J. Trump.

    Collapse
  4. Uvaeagle

    Not a fan of Sarah putting down singles. Strange to say, but: check your privilege, Sarah? It can be very hard to find a spouse, and it doesn’t mean there is anything lacking in me and other singles. I’m responsible for my aging parents, one of whom has Parkinson’s disease, but according to Sarah, I don’t know what it’s like to be responsible for others. I appreciate Jonah pushing back a little bit.

    Collapse
    1. KFarr

      Also marrieds without children by choice. Parents do not have the corner on empathy.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Lmvega

    Getting back to a lighter point; did Sarah pick the Zaza as the Houston event location just to tweak Steve? It's a swanky hotel a couple of blocks from "Taste of Texas"

    Collapse
  6. BSamuel

    Maddening to hear all the dancing around the elephant in the room re: Tim Scott. It’s not about the bachelorhood and not being a parent. IT’S PEOPLE WONDERING IF HE’S GAY!

    I sincerely believe it’s not a homophobia thing, but wondering why in 2023 would he not feel comfortable coming out? He doesn’t have a public dating record as far as I know.

    I really wish an uncouth person would just ask him on the record so he can address it either way and we can move on.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      A "public dating record", really? We're not talking about a pop star like Taylor Swift here. Viewing politicians the same way as celebrities, is probably one of the problems with the current "politics as entertainment" environment.

      I really don't care about the private lives of politicians, unless they are actually abusing partners or family members. I don't find adultery to be automatically disqualifying, either, although serial philanderers do give me pause, because many such men in politics, also are abusing their power to do so (such as using aides to cover up affairs, or having affairs with the aides themselves, which raises concerns of coercion or worse).

      Unfortunately I find even many Trump critics are being a tad inconsistent by bashing Trump as an "adulterer", yet most liked McCain who left his wife (who loyally waited for him while he was a POW), for a younger, richer woman, and one Bulwark editor himself has had three wives and admitted to cheating on at least one of them.

      Scott's senatorial colleague from the same state has been asked the same question of "are you gay" many times, and has consistently answered "no", yet he continues to be asked the question. If Scott has the same answer, he'll get the same treatment. If he *does* say he's gay, then that becomes a story that probably overshadows everything else. So no, I don't want an "uncouth person" to ask.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        I agree with you in spirit.

        The fact is, though, that Tim Scott is kind of an anomaly in that way. So it’s going to draw comments. It’s going to be mentioned all the time. Just because the media is distracted by buzzy stuff.

        Personally, I don’t think it matters. In a way, Sarah and the others bringing up the fact that he hasn’t had certain important life experiences are making a good point. But I doubt it ends up mattering in any significant way.

        Over on slate.com among the articles about Tim Scott, there is one which I think in its title focuses on virginity.

        It’s actually a very interesting and sympathetic article that delves into his religious upbringing and beliefs, and makes him much more understandable, I think.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rajeev

    There are plenty of reasons why Tim Scott would be a terrible president. Him being a bachelor is not one of them. A bachelor might have some advantages as president. In general, it doesn't hurt to have a different perspective on an issue like this in the White House.

    Collapse
  8. Emily Hodges

    Literally just joined so I could comment on how ridiculous and offensive Sarah’s diatribe on the need to be a parent to run for President.

    For Sarah to say point-blank that unless you’ve raised a child, you’ve never had to consider someone outside of yourself is shocking & the fact that no one really pushed back on it shows there is either a generation gap & this group is skewing older, or they’re completely out of touch with the reality of this country. To then hear Sarah say the type of parent the person is or was doesn’t matter - there’s no rationale to any of this. Mother Theresa was not married & did not have children, yet she’s quoted amongst the top leaders of all time? Sarah, was Mother Theresa incapable of seeing what it looks like to put someone else before you? Or how about Condeleeza Rice? To say on a podcast that Trump somehow has more of an understanding about sacrificial leadership? There are parents who abuse their children & spouses. There are parents who do not consider anyone outside of themselves. Having a child doesn’t bring you to the next level of morality. Neither does having a spouse. I get that you guys only consider your own demographic but just for context, I continuously get to hear what I’m not capable of understanding because I’m not a mother, now we’re adding my singleness not being the result of divorce or widow to the list of limitations placed on my ability to function & interact as a human - thank you so much. For what it’s worth, I would love to be married, I desperately want a family & I don’t know that it will be in my cards. Yet somehow, even with those 2 societal handicaps, I somehow manage to place others before myself on a daily basis. I know it’s a stretch for you guys to believe that motherhood doesn’t make you a better person, but give it a try. There are millions of people in this country who fall into these categories & to disqualify all of us the way you guys did on this podcast was really obnoxious & disappointing. Sarah, in the future - consider taking your own advice before perpetuating such a sweeping generalization & judgement on people like me. We aren’t missing the plugins needed to be a good human & leader.Expand full comment

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ben Connelly

      “ Mother Theresa was not married & did not have children, yet she’s quoted amongst the top leaders of all time? Sarah, was Mother Theresa incapable of seeing what it looks like to put someone else before you? ”

      Great example. Thanks for your comment. While I wasn’t personally offended, that comment of Sarah’s did strike me as tone deaf. By her logic, Donald Trump is a better leader and has better character than Tim Scott, which is a brain-dead stupid thing to say (and I don’t think Sarah literally believes that).

      I do believe it is true that those of us (including myself) who do not have children cannot fully understand what it is like to be a parent, and that becoming a parent changes a person, but there are other experiences in life that you can’t fully understand without having them yourself. I don’t think it means that childless people are always and everywhere more self-centered than parents (I can think of examples of the opposite).

      Finally, the question is about choosing someone to serve as president of the United States. Not someone to serve as the head of a parenting organization. What we should want in a potential president is skill at doing the things that are required of that specific role. The president is not the parent of the citizens of America, but merely their elected representative who manages the executive branch.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      To be fair I didn't get the impression Sarah thought not being a parent was actually disqualifying, just a "weakness". But marriage and Parenthood aren't the only human relationships around, either. Tim Scott obviously loves his mother, and she's been seen at some of his campaign events. Doesn't she count as someone he cares about and puts above himself?

      I do think Steve's point about Trump wasn't just whataboutism, but an attempt to show that just getting married and having kids proves nothing about fitness for office. Not only that, Trump obviously has an entirely transactional relationship with his current wife, and a mostly transactional relationship with his children; he was even quick to turn on Ivanka, probably his favorite child, when she dared to publicly contradict him. Ivanka is now going by "Ivanka Kushner" . Nothing self-sacrificial about those relationships.

      Also found this line of discussion, rather contradictory to the usual TD lamentations that people invest too much emotional significance in the US Presidency, see the President as a Daddy figure, etc. Ok, so if it's a bad thing to do that, then why is it a particularly good thing for the President to actually be a biological father, or a bad thing if he's not?

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Bjjenkins36

      Thank you! That whole line of thought really bothered me too and you've explained it better than I could.

      Collapse
  9. Tom Johnson

    Should Tim Scott’s bachelorhood call into question his fitness to be a senator?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      As I mentioned in another thread, I think the difference is that many people do see the US President as basically the First Father, and therefore might find it weird for a President to not have any children himself. But Senators aren't seen that way.

      But most TD writers actually think it's a *bad* thing to see the President as a father figure. Certainly, Jonah thinks so. I really wish he'd pointed it out.

      PS: it also occurs to me that George Washington, the "Father of the Country", also didn't have any biological children, although he did marry a widow, and had step kids from his wife's first marriage. So maybe that still counts.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Dave in Houston

    Sarah let me down twice in this podcast.

    First, she didn’t explicitly “dive right in”. 😏

    More importantly: as a 51-year old bachelor, I’ve been subjected to the never-married, no-kids critique. It’s tiring and silly.

    Yes, I’ve never been married; would you rather I’d tried and failed? That’s nothing against divorcees, but I think it’s a valid question for someone who uses bachelorhood against someone.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      Sarah actually might think it better to be divorced than never-married, for she once stated on AO that she doesn't understand why marriage rates are declining in the era of no-fault divorce. She even stated that she even personally felt more comfortable getting married because she knew she could easily get a divorce if it didn't work out.

      That comment honestly just made me scratch my head and wonder "Uh, Sarah, do you actually *know* any people who have been divorced?"

      A no-fault divorce may not be as stressful as a divorce in the era that only allowed divorce for cause, and so that requires you to prove (or pretend) that your spouse was a cheater, abusive, etc. But it's hardly a walk in the park, especially if children are involved. (Although to be fair, Sarah also mentioned that she thinks the stakes change once kids are in the picture, that divorce in that case should be taken much more seriously.)

      I certainly get the feeling that many children of divorced parents are very reluctant to marry themselves, as they see very little actual advantages to being legally married over just cohabiting. Certainly, socially there's been a blurring of the distinction, with "partner" mostly replacing "spouse" these days. Women's magazines that once assumed most of their readers had husbands, mostly all refer to their "partners" instead. So if there's basically zero stigma to "living in sin", and you avoid the risk of a nasty divorce, why get married in the first place?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Re: Sarah and divorce, I am not saying this out of any interest in her personal life. But as her name used to be Sarah Isgur Flores, I think she might know something on the subject.

        Collapse
Load More