It is way too cold for late April. I must migrate to the south, if I can. Last night was some discussion of what I would do to get a job at the University of Hawaii. It may not get as dire as that but Chicago weather isn't helping right now.
Kennedy was such a whiny wuss. Oh come on. That's so not Frank's point--he's making a claim about epistemology (or perception), not one of history, though we could argue about how the two differ. I can't tell if you're just kidding around or what, but to lob JFK (or, better, LBJ) as a counter-example to the narrative Frank is describing is totally useless. That said, I don't know how on earth the Dems could have made the case that the GOP would abandon values voters right after inauguration. But we are, in fact, seeing it. Also, if you hear of any high-end inebriation...
Wasn't lobbing a counter-example at Frank but at the Right's rhetoric. Despite the rhetoric of the Repubs, Dems can field candidates who are high-born or hypnotized by some fancy idea. And it work out in their favor. Or now that I think about '63, maybe not. Go Obama?
I had the same reaction you did to the Lovecraft discussion: obviously feeling a cultural gap due to his lack of understanding of the Lovecraftian mythos, he dove into the entire published works of the man at once as if for a term paper. It's really the term paper we always wished we could write as students: this stuff stunk, even though everyone else thinks it's so great. Just because it's a common impulse, doesn't make it right. Lovecraft understood power and powerlessness, awe and wonder, shame and failure, which are the essential elements of fear, terror; that he expressed them in the way he did just makes it a bit harder to grasp, but then any author has to be taken a bit on their own terms, right?