Really. Abandon all hope. Because these guys are our new spokespeople.
Exit question: how does one “agree with Allahpundit,” and then complain that the Democrats have taken an ad and willfully misinterpreted it to cause an outrage?
I mean, does the astounding disconnect really not register?
Stop being fucking victims.
Christ. Conservatives deserve to wander in the wilderness so long as they continue to accept the premises that Democrats foist upon them, and then scurry about trying to fit their behavior inside parameters that have been defined for them by their ideological enemies.
Call me when “conservatives” are ready to get serious. Because as it stands, our high-traffic spokespeople seem content to play by the left’s rules while humping each other for traffic.
****
update: In an addendum to his post, William Jacobson links back here and writes:
I’ve been criticized for having a victim mentality because I pointed out the distortion by the left-wing blogs, yet still don’t think the ad should have been run by the RNC. The two points are not inconsistent. As I well know, the left-wing blogs are shameless and dishonest in their ability to distort. I agree that such distortions should not shape our conduct. But the RNC, being an organization which has to carry a larger message and organizational effort, needs to be more careful in how it makes its point. What the RNC does as an organization affects not just the RNC, but candidates down the line. An individual blogger or non-party entity has no such concern. Take away the James Bond theme, and the video is compelling, effective, and appropriate for a national party to run.
Let me be clear here: you can criticize the video on its rhetorical / aesthetic merits, and that’s fine. But when you suggest that the GOP shouldn’t be running such ads because they force candidates down the line to have to answer the “arguments” made by the cynically “outraged” left, you are necessarily shaping conduct.
It is well and good that the GOP be more careful about how it makes its point if the concern is that the point was not made effectively. It is NOT well and good to express “concern” when the concern being expressed is that a completely predictable reaction by the left could negatively affect “not just the RNC, but candidates down the line.”
The fact is, were GOP candidates to refuse to allow progressives to frame debates by tacitly legitimizing their complaints — if instead, they threw such disingenuousness directly back into the faces of those peddling it — these candidates would have nothing to fear. Better still, they’d be liberated to expose (and explain) how such tactics are intended to work, and why they are so intellectually dishonest.
Jacobson argues that he has been criticized here because he “pointed out the distortion by the left-wing blogs” and yet still doesn’t “think the ad should have been run by the RNC.”
But that’s not what he was criticized for. Instead, he was criticized for saying that the ad shouldn’t have been run by the RNC because the RNC simply has “to be more attuned to how their message will be received and whether they’re giving their opponents easy opportunities to distort it.”
If you are going to concede “that such distortions should not shape our conduct,” it makes little sense to agree with an argument that maintains the RNC needs to shape its conduct around the ease with which opponents may distort it.
And stop letting progressives define you. Pussies.
Hey, guess what? Every time they distort your message, you have an opportunity to stand up and shout “That’s a fucking lie, and you’re a fucking liar.”
Try it. Really. Or get comfortable in your positions as boot licking whipped dogs hoping for scraps to come your way.
?
Allah just wants to get flamed.
Traffic! Profit!
Oh. Darleen already covered this in an update.
Excuse this post.
No, no. Loved it. You rawk, Jeff.
Jeff
Did you see what CA voters did on May 19th? When millions of dollars were spent by the usual Proggs that NOT voting to raise taxes would Hurt The Children? When all media was telling CA voters they were SELFISH if they open up their veins yet again?
The measures went down TWO to ONE.
The coming purge in the GOP will not be to kick out evangelicals, it is shaping up to be slapping these pussies until they either leave or get with the program.
Stockhold syndrome indeed … they lick the Progg boots that will always kick them.
er….”When all media was telling CA voters they were SELFISH if they did not open up their veins yet again?”
Boss,
You are saying what needs to be said. This post is sorely needed.
jeff no dummy that be allen
I agree that the RNC should not have made the ad. But only because it’s insufferably lame. Lamer than lame. Wallowing in lameness juice and mainlining lame into its veins.
Merely replaying Pelosi sans adornment is sufficient: she’s so far beyond parody that not even Iowahawk could make her look more ridiculous.
I guess I agree with Allahpundit. The ad was just lame. Lame on every level. It wasn’t interesting, it wasn’t funny, it borrowed copyrighted music too freely, it was dopey, and stupid and, if a person is honest, did mean very much to imply democrats (and their leader Pelosi in particular) are cowardly backpedaling pussies, an while “pussy” is short for cowardly and backpedaling is also arguably kind of sexist and misogynistic. I’m sure DIck Cheney got and will get worse in stupid genital puns but damn, is this the RNC’s idea of an appealing advertisment for conservatives?
Paging General Powell…
Now that would be a fine application of the cluebat.
why not goof on pussy pelosi? hurt progg feelings?
rewrite: “and while “pussy†is short for “cowardly and backpedaling”, in common parlance – it is also arguably kind of sexist and misogynistic. I’m not impressed with anyone who likes to take that kind of shot.
Okay. Back to my cave.
Having given up.
On the plus side, nobody will have to write to Patterico and tell him how insufferable I’ve become.
Later.
Sarah, is it just arguably sexist and misogynistic? Or do you believe that to be the intent? One can argue all sorts of things…
i mean that to the proggs slandering ms ca with a diatribe by a ghey loser is no big deal but mocking a box of rocks idiot like peloser is a no go area
toughen up bitches
BTW, the ad never use the term “pussy” in any way shape or form. So, is the word that isn’t used at all intended in a sexist and misogynistic manner?
I’m fucking sick of conservatives wasting any time criticizing conservatives – you know, that they are doing it wrong. FOCUS PEOPLE.
Someone producing something you don’t feel comfortable with?Fine. Produce your own crap. Sniping from the sidelines is counterproductive.
All criticisms of Democrat women are misogynistic and sexist, unless those criticisms are made by the right sort. It’s because someone like Pelosi, or sometimes Hillary are all women rather than individuals.
pussy pussy pussy .
I hope pussy Obama fails.
ms California is the one that gets it and the other laughs after anything past two syllables. Their reign is nigh over.
If you’re talking about the lameness, fine. If you are talking about how the GOP should agonize over how their “message will be received and whether they’re giving their opponents easy opportunities to distort it,†then you are part of the problem.
Own it.
Now, I really am going away. Because the surrender sickens me.
Puke it up, Jeff. You’ll feel better.
Is it just me? I am not impressed with ads that imply someone is a dick or a pussy with a stupid play on words. LAME.
where’s your ad hun. ain’t that difficult to do unless you only like to bitch. open playing field on this here intertubes!
LAME, or sexist?
I got you all linked up, “Full Metal Saturday: Marisa Miller”.
Not that the ad wasn’t crap and lame in about a half-dozen other ways. For one thing, the bond gag, all pussies aside, is distracting from, not making a case against, the gravity of Pelosi and her ilks game. Just fail.
Hey, I feel free to bitch about ads officially sponsored by the RNC with the rubber stamp of Michael Steele. They could hire better talent.
Was this ad so amateurish you think it is an amateur ad? Vanity ads I don’t think I give a hang about.
Newrouter, I don’t see the RNC busting a path to my door to pay me to make ads. Which may be the only smart decision they ever made.
Pablo, Lame is the worst crime. Pussy/dick puns are lame.
Even if they were trying to be sexist, they didn’t do it very well. If you’re going to take that kind of shot, at least do it so well that even those who are OUTRAGED have to stifle their laughs between the foamies.
@32
you got something better produce it and show it. this intertube thing is useful that way
That wasn’t my question.
And get real about the gender connotations of “pussy”. It’s not llke they don’t exist.
SarahW
Obviously your mileage varied, but I wouldn’t have seen the “pussy” part if not pointed out by the Lovely Ms. Andie (who is yearning for Obama’s touch) … I figured it came out of CIA = secret agents schtick and CIA figured in Goldfinger. Parodies indeed are pretty much taste specific but I was no more “offended” by it then by that silly Trim the bushes ad.
where the hell are the videos mocking all these jackass losers: frank, dodd, peloser, murtha,jackson, biden, et al: comedy central. pussy conservatives.
Comment left at Hot Air. That’s not all that they are full of.
False choice, I guess, Pablo. THe ad sucked. Maybe if it hadn’t I would think any sexist smirking was worth it.
vagina gazing you pussy
Oh, “lame” also isn’t the accusation being leveled. “Vile”, “vulgar”, “below the belt”, “misogynist”, “sexist”, etc…
Is it those things?
Huh? The choices are “Yes, it is sexist.” and “No, it isn’t sexist.” If you’ve got a “maybe” you’d like to explain, then by all means…
Politico now has a follow-up story by the same author proclaiming “GOP Rep. rips ‘reprehensible’ video”. Wasn’t achieving this precisely the point of the first story?
Darleen, I was busting the chops of a pretty girl who was shaking with rage at the “vile” “moronic” republicans who would call Pelosi a pussy. I pointed out the overreaching and exaggeration of the complaint. That’s not what happened. That doesn’t rescue the ad from being sucky though.
Yup.
And our spokespeople are happy to oblige. They get to feel superior about their having taken the highground while at the same time distancing themselves from the EXTREMISTS.
And the left, well, they just win period.
Kudos!
Fucking quitters.
The ad isn’t what its represented to be. I think there was some vulgar smirking re: “democrats galore” but its not what was first represented to me “THE RNC CALLED PELOSI A PUSSY!!!! I’ve taken pains to point that out to some people ready to be super-offended.
I do have this very odd idea that ads ought to sell product to their intended audience, though. I don’t think this as sold the seriousness of Pelosi’s lying.
That doesn’t rescue the ad from being sucky though.
Taste on whether the ad was “well done” or not is not THE issue here.
Is it sexist/misogynist or not?
I say “no.”
I don’t think it sold the idea that the RNC is the answer to moderates who might be disgusted with Pelosi’s crookedness and backpedaling.
But more that that, can’t they hire some decent writers? Cant they spend on music? Can’t they get some production values? Christ, can’t someone given Dave Buge or the like a call if they want a humorous ad?
Its my issue, Darleen. Taste. RNC has bas taste in ads. This is why I agree with Allahpundit.
Call Dave Burge? A blogger?
Dave lives outside the beltway. That’s just not done.
To be perfectly fair, Pelosi’s not a pussy, but an asshole.
But ‘asshole’ seems masculinely gendered, so ‘pussy’ will have to do.
Unless those Libertarians have some better name for her. They’re so daring and cute and wise and all.
SarahW
AP isn’t making the case that ad was amateur, his nuts have crawled up into his abdomen because he thinks the Leftcultists will BE OFFENDED by teh sexism and WE SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
How much time do you suppose Andie spent finding a backbencher to go on the record with Teh OUTRAGE!!???!!!
Some days you’re a cuddly Republican, other days you’re a homophobic, regressive bigoted loser. Which, I’m told, is reprehensible.
And I think there was some sexist smirking about the allusion to Democrats being pussies. At least its arguable. You’re not from Mars, you know its true. I hear Happyfeet call them that fourteen times a day and it doesn’t actually offend me. I know what he means. I heartily enjoy the aptness of his descriptions and the force with which they are made. But I think the RNC laying out $$$ for ads like that is a scandal. That’s not the place for smirking about funny names.
Thanks for the consideration, folks!
Peace out.
SarahW
And make no mistake… Earnest ads from the RNC will have the Leftcultists pointing and squealing that Cons/Reps/Libertarians are anal, uptight, old farts who can never just “let go” and fool around.
There comes a time to tell the Andies, Hamshers, Marcottes, Taylors, et al, to Talk to the Hand, Bitches.
We should know better than to trust the RNC to do make any kind of ad at any time.
AP shouldn’t agree with the lefty outrage or even count it as mildly valid.
Actually AP has made the case for both premises. Bad ad, bad idea to sell RNC that way. Both.
BTW SarahW
Anything that JeffG has done in his style of edgy humor has had the usual Vagina Warriors screaming like banshees.
So much for anything that makes fun of the cultists.
You’d think after all these times that Charlie Brown would figure out that to really kick that football he has to aim at Lucy’s head and kick hard.
If it’s Calvin ball then make some rule changes that help you, you stupid GOP. Don’t play their rules, damn. Dems aren’t trying to help you except into a grave.
“Bite me” is a response, or better yet just laugh at them, loud and long. Makes ’em sputter.
Thanks for the consideration, folks!
Peace out.
OK, I had written “Jeff could also make a good ad, but nobody seems to know who he is,” but then I deleted it, having thought better of it.
no demorats are wusses and moderates are assholes you stupid female genitalia.
I may be right, I may be crazy . . .
Keep America Safe
Keep Gitmo Open
Close the White House
I’m not opposed to funny ads, Darleen. They should be devastatingly funny, and drive the message home. WIth all the talent dripping out of the blogosphere it boggles that a lame bond gag is used to dilute the seriousness of what she did. It doesn’t point it up, it distracts. That doesn’t mean any funny ad would distract, just that one does.
Jeff could write great ad copy. Love to see him make an ad and get paid money that deserves to be paid.
who knew david frum was a tranny
Jeff, if he had video editing software he could go viral. That’s what I think.
pelosi/she’s got nice tits
yeah..i said it!
So what is true about Mrs Pelosi? She lied.
And what is true about the press? They are intent on helping her get past this bump in the road. They will not question her mercilessly until she stomps away in rage or distress. They will write stories like this which do their damned level best to obfuscate the issue and provide all the cover they can.
SarahW
Watch this 2009 Clio winner. Production values, great retro music, tongue-in-cheek winking that lets everyone in on the fun and guess what?
These people aren’t interested in civil discussion, they want everyone NOT in the Leftcult to SHUT THE FUCK UP or DIE.
Republicans have to stop going all Vichy.
fourteen? No wonder I have headaches in my head. The ad I thought was off in the sense it didn’t connect with respect to the seriousness – Sarah is right about that… someone said it very well I think it was Mr. Goldstein. brb for so I can explain more better.
God I loved Asteriods Deluxe.
my two mommys say
dick cheney hates pussycats
i heart u nancy!
it was here. Mr. Goldstein said Will this give the CIA the requisite cover Graham hopes it will, preventing it from taking further steps to embarrass the Speaker?… that was Bob not Miss Lindsey, but that’s not the point. The point is that the RNC’s ad should have attacked that cover. Nancy, who lies and lies and lies, said what she said about our pansy faggot CIA. The CIA has to own that. The CIA has to stand naked before our little country, revealed by Nancy Pelosi to be the lying faggot pansies we all know deep down in our hearts they are. It is very suspenseful, the RNC admakers seemed to sense that much, and creating a sense of suspense was a clever idea. Nancy says the CIA are a bunch of liars. What’re the faggot pansies gonna do about it? That is the interesting question what the RNC ads should have left in the minds of the audience. You know who would make a great CIA agent is that Allah.
“Conservatives deserve to wander in the wilderness so long as they… scurry about trying to fit their behavior inside parameters that have been defined for them by their ideological enemies.”
It’s a pathological syndrome, way too deeply and collectively embedded to change except through the shock therapy of a leader. I’ve never seen a moment of greater opportunity for a leader to emerge. The corruption, malice, idiocy, hypocrisy and incompetence of modern liberalism and its handmaiden media should be something a sharp conservative leader could take on while sleepwalking. What does it say about the vision or character of current conservative politicians that none, apparently, sees it.
Production values, great retro music, tongue-in-cheek winking that lets everyone in on the fun and guess what?
Sexist ad? Here’s your statuette
Anyone that even tries to appease these shrieking harpies is an idiot.
Allahpundit needs an girlfreind honestly and not Megan Mcdouschestick
You know how they did this ad. A bunch of RNC brass got together in a meeting and decided it all together. Because creativity always flourishes in a committee setting.
I think that is the main lesson of both Dilbert and those great 10th rewrite Hollywood blockbusters.
Jeff,
#58 is a bit melodramatic. I know you could do it, but I wonder if you have the interest in doing it.
The meeting
f**kin bitch and moan. do your on ad peloser.
Look I’ll admit it was a stupid attempt to get at a very serious issue. But Lindsay Gramnesty, he’s a special kind of fool. Is this what the new braintrust which were given operational control of finances brought forth, a mouse
Pelosi does mean ‘furry’ in Italian. Just sayin’
it is just WRONG to make fun of Demorats
But it’s pretty much the end of the day and at the end of the day, which is now, pretty much, I don’t think it’s bad at all that there’s a lively discussion about how when the RNC maybe implies that Nancy is a pussy, and also by extension maybe implying all dirty socialists are pussies, are we meant to suppose that there is also an inference that Nancy is a narsty cunt? Or merely a feculent cooze maybe? There are those what say we should never ever imply that the Speaker of the House is a vile narsty cunt no matter the verisimilitude, and then there are those who say that we should tattoo it to her forehead. I say this is a false choice, and that the voters in November sent a clear message for us to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward together as a nation united.
So are we united “that Nancy is a narsty cunt?” Or is our unity that she is “a feculent cooze”?
I need definitions of terms before getting behind either one. Both seem plausible.
i liked how O! called cheney a pussy
why do demorats call liz cheney a pussy?
Can’t we just talk out of both sides of our mouths on every side of the issue? That’s much more comfortable for us. Remember, playing both ends against the middle isn’t just a strategy. It is a way of life.
We need to bring back dueling, for politicians, pundits and activists only. Pay-Per-View to go to reduce the debt. If it’s to be bread and circuses might as well do some good.
This is just outstanding! Here we are debating whether or not Pelosi is a pussy and/or is the ad sexist. The correct response to all of this is:
That was not what the ad was about and you bloody well know it!
Whatsername wrote an article earlier with the axpress purpose of diverting attention. Guess it worked.
Oh, and I should add:
That was not what the ad was about and you bloody well know it! Now, did Pelosi lie or did the CIA? Put up or shut up. Stop trying to change the subject.
Big D,
Look back at the way these Republicans covered Plame, Iraq, Haditha, Jamil Hussein, the Edwards scandal, the TNR-Beachamp scandal, Palin, the beginning of the surge, Sadr, and Maliki’s attack on Sadr’s brigades. Helping the Democrats change the subject seems to be their m.o. doesn’t it?
Unfortunately, the standard tactic of the left works once again.
Remember, a racist/misogynist is a Republican that is winning an argument.
You are correct TCR. You would think they would have learned the lesson. I read Darleen’s piece earlier and laughed. I thought that there was no way anyone would take this story seriously. Not only was I wrong, but I am nowhere near drunk enough to laugh at this any longer. I should work on the latter.
Big D,
Yep, and if more Republicans learned that rolling over and playing dead in order to help a select few in their number stay on good terms with the MSM did untold damage to Republican causes they might be a functioning party. As it is…
try opening a door for a lesbian…
ya’know/ cuz ur nice..
if looks could kill!
Well, yannow, Jeff – you can’t just blurt out what you really think. It could easily be misconstrued by the hoi polloi. Better let the professional message boys handle it. They know how to talk to those people…
In quick order:
1. The RNC spot could have been done better, but it gets the point across.
2. Republicans need to permanently stop worrying about whether they “offend” someone. Or something they say can be “misunderstood.” Just tell the truth. If the truth offends you, you’re the one with the problem.
3. Isn’t it time Michelle Malkin got called out? She’s the one who brought Allahpundit out of his self-imposed retirement. She’s the one who promotes him to the skies. She’s the one who facilitates his stupidity having a wide audience. She’s the one who reaps the financial rewards for the heat he generates on HotAir. She’s the one whose actions state to her the paycheck is far more important than the conservative cause she claims to champion.
There, I said it! Your speaker’s a fucking PUSSY! A giant, suppurating cunt upon the body politic! I only hope she’s not contagious…
[…] 3: Jeff Goldstein is considerably less than amused with the tut-tutting from William and […]
99
I heard one time Kristol saying that Conservatism was akin to white blood cells in the body politic.
So I’m thinking now its fairly obvious our little country has an auto-immune disorder. Weird shit keeps cropping up and folks just go with it. There’s no slowing it down – not laws, nor rational argument, nor common sense. The MSM & GOP & Dems are symptoms, not cause, tho.
Sorry. I blame the ether.
name calling just means us rethuglicans have no argument, or so the moonbats told me.
In the heart of every Republican burns the desire to be another Bob Michels.
Maybe, urth. But the next soporific do-gooder who tells me I need to “respect the other” is still gonna be pullin’ my boot outta his ass.
I tried to leave a comment on ‘Legal Insurrection’ (well, it was me or the Disaronno, but mostly the Disaronno I think) instructing all those so-call ‘Right-Wing’ pundits and the new ‘moderate’ leadership of the new ‘moderate’ Republican party (who will never get another red cent from me, if collectively they merge left) who disapproved(s) of this particular RNC video, to Kiss my Ass. Because for 8 years, PRESIDENT George Bush was subjected to much worse. Fuck ’em.
So, Allahpundit, Charles, John McCain (& his fat-assed daughter), that sumbitch with a fedora, and whoever else comes out against this video, can form a line.
Fuck ’em all.
111. That’s gotta be good karma, ya think? )
thats cool, mojo. Kill the chicken, scare the monkey.
But maybe, since we’re surrounded by chickens, we should kill the monkey and see what happens.
No I do not think Mr. Allah should be fired I would more better like to see him grow in office. He’s not evil just ungodly tedious and I will never ever understand how everyone says he used to be teh coolest cause he’s not even slightly suggestive of cool I don’t think. Nope. Maybe this is how he behaves when he has to repress all of his inherent hypothetical coolness cause of he would be fired for real if he said what he was really thinking. That’s entirely possible I think.
let the monkey watch
I give up
Good, then shut the fuck up and let the grownups try to argue out a plan that will work.
Piss off Charlie.
Charlie (Colorado), just who the fuck are you to tell Jeff to STFU? I’ve never heard of you, and after tonight I hope I never hear of you again. If I do, it’ll be too soon.
FUCK OFF.
OT – As I head out back to fire up the smoker, I wanted to wish all of you the best. Memorial Day is a special day to me and I hope it is with you as well. I will proudly fly the national colors with the Marine Corps flag right underneath. Even with the troubles lately, this is still the greatest country on Earth. We owe a gratitude to those who made the supreme sacrifice that we can never repay. Remember them tomorrow and Monday. All the best to you and yours.
-Dave
personal../ we go to the graves every year/
all our family….
plant flowers etc….
i wanted to plant corn on my dads grave but the otre sibs nix’d it..
but dad would laugh!
big time/ thanks vets
oh, charlie is a spectator, thinking grownups are looking out for him. silly foolish boy who nobody knows and no one will remember, until he cheats on his taxes.
Charlie (Colorado) is a lot opaque I think as far as to what his actual point might be.
He got into an argument over at JOM with Rick Ballard who preferred Jeff’s take on this thing to some piece that Charlie liked. Plus for whatever reason, Charlie has some ongoing animus with Jeff.
Charlie
I think you’ve confused “adult” with prison bitches. You can, of course, disabuse me of my preception of your willingness to bend over for The Left.
Charlie Colorado? HMMMM, I’m thinking that you are somewhere close to the flatirons,yes? It occurs to me that Boulder is not far from our host. Perhaps you could arrange to meet him in person to deliver your request.
Ok.
Goldfinger Synopsis: A Boullion Organizer plots to knock off Fort Knox and destroy the world’s economy.
RNC: Pelossy Galore!
Random Penguins: gO!dfinger
o but charlie just got himself some nutrisystem which he’ll be blogging about. ooh, he’s gonna be head to head with American Idol.
You could be on to something there, ‘feets. I was there when he used to be a riot, but he could say “fuck” back then and be edgy and whatnot. Plus I think the legion of social cons that throttles him daily is fucking with his perspective.
let the grownups try to argue out a plan that will work
Serr’, down to “Mixology Bleg” and do a button-hook.
Dar’, stop-and-go at “Leftists Rage Against MSM.”
Haps’, go long. Down by “Rumsfeld’s rejoinder” is good.
Ok. On sixty-nine, then.
Ready, break!
Also he’s very consistent in his pose what he assumes. It’s very phoning it in and predictable to where I would be very concerned if Jeff were that monochromatic and hollow. I would say hey Jeff are you okay cause lately to me what I think is you’ve seemed monochromatic and hollow and then Jeff would probably say something surprising what I didn’t expect and I would feel like maybe I was stupid to have said anything.
On the other hand that one post where Allah was like hey let’s everybody pay my student loans was appalling.
Exactly, guins. Good point. I really don’t think Charlie communicated what he meant to communicate if he meant to say something coherent.
Pablo
Plus I think the legion of social cons that throttles him
Um… I’m probably on the soc-con side and know quite a few soc con women and we are NOT offended by sex. Please don’t lay blame for wimpitude on us.
What Darleen said in #133.
I give up looking for M’chelle at Target.
Republicans=Pussies Galore
I don’t recall any previous animus with Charlie (Colorado). But then, I don’t know who he is, either.
So there’s that.
Guess I can let the animus begin now, though.
No no no no no. It’s not about kicking out evangelicals or anyone else. It’s simply a matter of gaining socially conservative Republicans’ agreement that although the party will seek generally conservative social outcomes, at the point where such a policy comes into conflict with individual liberty, liberty generally wins out. For example, government should seek to limit abortion, but ultimately abortion should remain legal.
I think religious conservatives can be convinced that religion is best protected by a legal regime of political and economic freedom. I can’t see a reason for kicking out any of the GOP’s current constituent groups. Social conservatives need to understand that they’ve had their at bat, and they struck out.
yours/
peter.
This Steven Crowder video turned up in the YouTube “what’s related” thingie for the RNC ad.
Funny.
I just watched it again to try and get a handle on some of the bellyaching. And as is often the case when people don’t know what the fcuk they’re doing, the problem is simply that they tried to do too much in the ad.
Pelosi as incompetent, evil Bond villain vs. spy agency. Fine. The problem is that they chose to cloak the whole spot in that (For the Cleverness!!!) while also trying to make the point that her feud is with the Democrat CIA chief while the Democrat White House (embodied by the pussy Gibbs) ducks the whole thing.
So with those things in mind ending it with “Lack of leadership” makes perfect sense. As does “Democrats galore.” The internal logic works perfectly well and isn’t sexist in the least. Just a lame attempt to keep within a theme which doesn’t work when the focus is off Pelosi.
Unfortunately they were too mesmerized by their “cleverness” to notice how stupid, incompetent and convoluted teh message was. It’s the sort of thing that happens when people don’t know what the hell they’re doing.
Oh. I just read the JOM thread. Seems Charlie works for Roger and co. now. So that gives him license to say things like my problem with PJM was that they stopped subsidizing me.
— While preaching the necessity of honesty.
Charlie is therefore a disingenuous fat fuck who feels the need to protect his fedora cash, I’ve come to believe.
Me, I don’t much feel like fighting for conservatives like him anymore, because they care about their piece of the pie moreso than principles.
Fuck you right back, Chuck.
103. It sure gets the point across that Republicans are fuck-up dweebs, who can’t even tie their own shoelaces, let alone make a passably effective ad about the fatuous, cowardly liar Pelosi and the serious lack of honesty and disgusting gamesmanship with the fate of the nation she is representin’ on behalf of her party. if that was the point you were referring to. An issue that ought to persuade and ought to win, shared in an awkward, amatuerish on every level, unfunny, uninteresting Bond gag with a gender hook for bonus cooze-gravy.
I will not stick up for that ad. Pussies notwithstanding, it was still stupid and a distraction, and poorly made with a creaking, cranking, depends wearing pop-culture reference to a bond villianous the persons most in need of persuasion would get maybe if they watched their parent’s Austin Power’s DVD’s.
villainess, rather. Cheezit crackers.
Stick up for it on principle, attack it on merit.
I have no problem with that.
But then, I’ve been told to SHUT UP — this time by yet another “conservative”. Who writes for Pajamas.
THEY WILL BE THE VOICE OF CONSERVATISM! AND YOU PROLES KEEP FUCKING IT UP WITH ALL YOUR EXTREMISM!
Hey, Charlie (Colorado) —
Here’s an idea: take me on on the merits. No little backbiting lies about me or hit and run comments.
Tell me to fuck off on the merits, brother. I’m sure you have it in you.
ANd what Abe said : “Unfortunately they were too mesmerized by their “cleverness†to notice how stupid, incompetent and convoluted teh message was. It’s the sort of thing that happens when people don’t know what the hell they’re doing.”
Only I tremble any paid talent for the RNC thought that was a clever gag.
Lemme see if I understand this correctly. The RNC is backing down from an ad that might be a bit offensive if you deliberately misconstrue its intent. I’m wondering where all these easily offended people were when all the Bushitler rhetoric was coursing across the internet in great waves.
The reality is the left had no class, logic, or even sanity and yet they won the battle of popular opinion. Why? Because they realized you don’t have to defend yourself if you keep attacking.
The RNC is so punch drunk it doesn’t realize this simple truth. To them I say this: Get off the fucking mat and FIGHT, goddamit!
I give up
I give head.
So what was this time at bat you’re speaking of, Peter? The last election? John McCain is neither a social con nor did he swing the damn bat. One lost election and you’re looking for people to pitch over the side? You might want to rethink that.
Charlie parenthetical Colorado is mean I decided. Hey there’s an update. oh. What I think in my head about the update is that it’s a lot duh that the legal insurgent guy’s post was occasioned not by the RNC ad but by the Politico article. That’s what I think anyway. And that matters rather a lot and goes straight to the weight or force of his arguments. If you follow.
I do. Good point.
The ad seemed to me, way back last thread, like it started out almost cleverly anti-Pelosi and got committeed into flailing nonsense, in a stupid effort to appear not-“sexist.”
But it’s not okay — it doesn’t work — to be “sexist” (or not) in a half-assed (or -pussied) accidental way. Go for it or don’t.
And do, because why the hell not? RNC ads aren’t made to get anybody laid.
(But it is cool when they inflame Allah’s misimpression that he’d be so gettin’ laid right now if others’ Republican-ness weren’t continually cockblocking him.)
Man. My Twitter ears are BURNING right now!
Happyfeet said-
“…the voters in November sent a clear message for us to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward together as a nation united.”
I disagree. What the voters made clear in November, and really, all the time, is that they want effective leadership.
Unfortunately, the MSM, Obama’s lies and ineffective GOP leadership (along with an ineffective McCain who refused to lay into Obama) and other factors, like the economy, and the lousy way McCain handled that, convinced enough voters that Obama could be an effective leader.
Voters may not like partisan bickering if no one leads or comes up with good alternatives, or fails to communicate good alternatives.
Reagan battled with the Democratic Congress a lot, but he was an effective leader who could communicate to most voters, so he got their support. And he didn’t let them weasels set the narrative or twist what he was saying or doing.
Our government was set up for partisan “bickering.” Our liberty is secure when Congress is not united (except in the case of war). When Congress is united we get crap like TARP, more debt, inflation, pork barrel spending, etc., and they create far more problems than they ever solve. Not to mention erode our liberties, create bigger brother (government) and raise our taxes.
Bipartisan efforts almost always help the left. Compromise nearly always helps the left.
No, fuck Congress being united. We need effective leadership AND communication. The GOP needs to take lessons from Dick and Liz Cheney (and Jeff!). Dick Cheney’s approval rating is going up because he’s clearly demonstrating leadership, effective communication (without a teleprompter) and they are telling the truth (democrat talking points be damned).
Dick Cheney is the titular head of The Frontier Party. The Frontier Party will defend basic freedoms with their last bullet. And I agree with happyfeet. “Pussy” brings to mind a vagina that still has some use. It’s used for cowardice among Frontiersman, but it still has that tinge of playfulness and horniness that could only be associated with a cooter that’s been regularly maintained.
If there was a word for “beef liver that’s been set out in the sun for a couple days”, that would be the one I’d use for Pelosi.
Also, I think in times of ridicule Pelosi, nothing would beat sped up video of Pelosi’s presser with Yackity Sax playing in the background.
bennie hill gets chased
by a nan pelosi face
time for gabriel
Let the Cheney-Cheney ticket make the new ads. They are not a bunch of pussies or dicks.
What Mr. Jacobson demands is impossible. There are infinitely many ways to distort a message.
Let me be precise; if you send a message, and it is misinterpreted by your target audience, then it is your responsibility to adjust your message so that your audience understands what you are trying to convey. But if your political opponents dishonestly attack you, you fight them with all your strenght. If you are pushed, you push right back.
[…] to Protein Wisdom homepage « I give up [UPDATED] | Home | May 24, 2009 Depussification Regimen [Dan […]
Happyfeet said-
“…the voters in November sent a clear message for us to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward together as a nation united.â€
I disagree. What the voters made clear in November, and really, all the time, is that they want effective leadership.
Unfortunately, the MSM, Obama’s lies and ineffective GOP leadership (along with an ineffective McCain who refused to lay into Obama) and other factors, like the economy, and the lousy way McCain handled that, convinced enough voters that Obama could be an effective leader.
Well, I think Happy is right, though. IN a sense. All that Hope and Change bullshit. Too many voters (and “moderates”) bought it. It was what he RAN on . Mature people should have know it was just bluster.
Or it could use the very similar “Yakety Yak” by “The Coasters”. The refrain of “Yakety yak, Don’t talk back.” fits the Pelosi-CIA relationship.
I agree with Professor Jacobson that the RNC should not have produced this particular video. I think the James Bond theme made it a lot less effective, and straight-up footage would have done the trick. On the other hand, I agree with the point made here that we shouldn’t pay any attention to how the Left (aka the Administration) will distort the message of anybody speaking the truth, because the Left (aka the Administration) has proven that it WILL distort the message of anybody speaking the truth. To wit, the day after Sarah Palin declares her candidacy, an article runs in the White House Times, whoops, I mean The New York Times, interviewing various women opining that she won’t be able to do the job because she has children (among others a personal trainer who analogizes to her own experience- SHE wouldn’t be able to do it), but after Pelosi exhibits strange and crazy behavior that should get her taken out of office for incompetence, the White House (letting it stand) Times publishes an editorial by one of its resident plagiarists defending Pelosi the “stylish grandmother.” It’s a clear double standard. And who cares? It’s a double standard because they are LYING and they are going crazy doing an obfuscation dance to prevent anybody from finding out. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!! It’s not like he’s ordering Congress to create his own private slush fund out of which he can dole out handouts and increase his power (It’s good to be the king). It’s not like he’s dispensing with the rule of law in his take-over of private industries. Oh, no.
That’s true, Carin. However, the Independents and Moderates who voted for Obama also believed his many lies, which were designed to make Obama look more centrist.
I suppose in a sense, that voters who don’t do even the simplist and basic research about Obama (or our history, the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, etc.) might actually believe that a kumbaya Congress and President working hand-in-hand to bring about the golden utopia of hope n’ change is a good thing. Perhaps that’s what Happyfeet meant?
At any rate, I suspect many of those voters are beginning to have buyers remorse, and more will follow suit when they see the consequences of Obama’s socialist plans.
Not enough voters do research to see what candidates records are, and despite having a thin record, Obama has demonstrated his socialist tendencies through and through. But lots of voters missed that, by choice or apathy or convincing themselves they are too busy to spend a few hours looking into it (if that).
However, once voters start getting hit in their wallets n’ purses, when the cap n’ tax, looneyversal health-rationing, inflation, unemployment, and a shitload of new regulations, the only ones who will still be enchanted with Zero are the hardcore leftists.
I only hope he doesn’t do too much damage between now and then. I also hope we get some classic liberals/conservatives/libertarians with a pair of brass ones. It sure would be nice to see Liz Cheney running for office, but perhaps she’s more effective training the GOP how to counter leftist tactics.
Their “time at bat” that I can see would be Reagan which was not a “strikeout”. In recent times the strikeouts have been, Ford, GHW Bush, Dole, and McCain. Not a Social Conservative among them. More Socialist-conservative.
The abortion issue which you bring into this for some reason is inherently one that revolves around when does a, constitutional protected, human become one. It is an issue that is political and should be settled by political means. The controversy is because it wasn’t. Judicial fiat is an order not a settlement or compromise.
The only ones in the Republican Party that need kicking, possibly out if the shock of the kick doesn’t wake them up, are the Socialist-cons. They are the Trojan horse in the big tent.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness.
Seems pretty clear which one is the sin qua non.
[…] of right-blogosphere limpwristry (in the first update to that post) and Jeff’s subsequent exhortation to finally grow the blank up and stay that way, kindly allow me to point to a clip from PJTV […]
So Iam Fleming was a sexist misogynist?
#142
Then would you agree it’s a start? Look. The other side are street fighters and the entrenched RNC wants to play like gentlemen and women. No. They wanta street fight give em a street fight. Did it piss any proggs off? It did. Good. There are no rules. Don’t pretend there are.
What’s the difference between Nancy Pelosi and the Panama Canal?
One’s a busy ditch.
peter jackson
With all due respect, what are you talking about? “Time at bat”? Save for a few Nannystate Rightwingers (who are only distinguishable from Nannnystate Left wingers by the topic of what they want to control by law) the vast majority of “Religious Right” a)don’t want their own rights stepped on and b)want to be left alone thank you very much.
Who is more threatening — the righty wanting p0rn filters on library computers or the lefty wanting government controled thermostats in your house?
Darleen,
I’m referring specifically to the portion of his commentariat that regularly dumps on him with extreme vigor. SoCon might not be the best descriptor. Reactionary Con might be better. You aren’t part of that set nor is Juliette. But it exists, and Juliette is certainly familiar with it.
Ric Caric molests underage goats.
People who bash on social conservatives do so not because of any objective problems with the movement nor any actual misdeeds by its leaders or those very few who end up in power. They do so because they want to be free to do whatever they want without feeling guilty, not realizing that guilt comes from within, not from others in power. President Bush was a social conservative but his social conservatism wasn’t the problem with his presidency, it was his lack of fiscal conservatism beyond cutting taxes.
That combined with a complete unwillingness to fight back when attacked combined into making even people who otherwise would support him join hands with scum like Michael Moore and Bill Ayers and attack him.
Hey Big D
Oh but he is a social conservative, just a secular one. Instead of appealing to a religious point of view, the social order he holds above all else is predicated on service. “Country First,” remember?
But really it’s beside the point. I’m not talking about political orientation of any particular politician, I’m talking about the political attitude of the party itself, it’s hierarchy of values, and the political message it brings to the public debate. Their time at bat has been the past decade, which the Republicans have inarguably squandered.
Well first, it’s not like the entire point of my post isn’t that NO ONE should be pitched over the side. And second, it’s three lost elections, two Congressional elections and one Presidential election. A couple more election cycles like the last two and there’s simply not going to be a GOP anymore.
(I only just got here and haven’t gone through the thread because I want to say this, so I’ll throw in a preemptive “attaboy/attagirl” to anyone else who also saw this and chewed on it.)
This concept blows my mind:
“Force”? As in, gun to the head? GMAFB. The correct response to being interrogated about those “arguments” is to look at the quizzer as if he/she/it has lost his/her/its mind and ask, “What on God’s green earth makes you think there’s even a hint of substance to that question?”
And if the questioner describes this video, reply, “Oh, that video. I actually saw that video. Did you? Or are you basing your question based on what other people have told you about it?”
Seize the initiative, turn Alinsky’s rules back around on the attacker, and make them pay with flop sweat in front of their peers.
Cheney-style.
Bullshit – The same could have been said about the Dems in 2000 and 2002. They did alright.
“Really. Abandon all hope. Because these guys are our new spokespeople.”
This guy gave us something like a dozen posts and updates on “dijongate.” And now you give up on him?
True. He’s not hopeless.
Amen!
Darleen!
I believe you’re right. But now the many have to wrest control of the Republican agenda from the Nannystate Rightwinger few and advance a freedom agenda by which we all may be left alone to pursue our lives and livlihoods.
yours/
peter.
But now the many have to wrest control of the Republican agenda from the Nannystate Rightwinger few
peter you are still arguing a Straw Soc-Con. Exactly what RW Nannystate legislation is overwhelming the GOP “agenda”? Is parental notification in cases of abortion a Nannystate law or one that recognizes that the parent rather than the state is paramount in the child-parent relationship? Is opposition to Same Sex Marriage a Nannystate stance denying equality to gays or is it a rational, adult response to a radical attempt to reduce marriage to a mere State defined institution?
Exactly where have RW Nannystatist held sway in the GOP?
Yes, the Left would have you believe so since they have framed even the mildest restrictions on abortion or questions on SSM as MEAN EVIL CONTROLLING RETHUGLICANS!!!
Ever since Obama won the Left has been the major contributor of “advising” the GOP to shove all godbotherers out of the GOP (or pen them up like the Left does sheeple minorities) “if you ever want to win again.” As IF the Left was trying to help the GOP. Ha.
oh. Mr. Ben… that was just in parody of how our dirty socialist president jousts with his straw mens.
Read again.
There are those what say we should never ever imply that the Speaker of the House is a vile narsty cunt no matter the verisimilitude, and then there are those who say that we should tattoo it to her forehead. I say this is a false choice, and that the voters in November sent a clear message for us to put aside the partisan bickering and move forward together as a nation united.
I didn’t mean nothing by it.
If lust and hate is the candy, if blood and love tastes so sweet, then we… we give em what they want I think, Darleen. Republicans need to get off their stupid asses and aggressively market civil unions if they want stand a chance of preserving marriage as we know it. They need to get off their stupid asses like yesterday.
oh. if they want *to* stand a chance of preserving marriage… after that they could stand up for states rights with respect to legalizing drugs. Unless they’re Lindsey Graham, whose hobbies include fondling young boys, sashaying demurely, and inserting anal bleaching earmarks into unrelated legislation.
[…] G at Protein Wisdom: Conservatives deserve to wander in the wilderness so long as they continue to accept the premises […]
Pajamas Media is a lot the Dan Quayle of internet journalism I think.
Sweet. Potatoe Media.
aggressively market civil unions if they want stand a chance of preserving marriage as we know it.
the GOP can’t seem to aggressively market LIBERTY let alone CU’s. And you know as well as I do, hf, that in CA that’s what we already have, but it isn’t enough for the Left “utopians”.
BTW, radiohost very conservative Mike Galagher is in total agreement – he sees CUs as the best course for preserving marriage.
It’s too late in the day I think to prevail probably but I think it would be a good way to develop a message what would resonate with younger people and with African Americans especially and the marketing itself could help rebrand the party outside of the dirty socialist NPR framework it’s mired in. It may be though that civil unions might prove a powerful wedge what could cleave for real everyday gay people from the dirty socialist front groups what pimp them.
Suppurating sphincter. It covers both bases, it’s alliterative, likely true, has no ‘oh so offensive’ sexual connotation, but it’s gross as hell.. Kinda like Botox Barbi herself.
Oh wait, is “Botox Barbi” sexist? Damn, I can’t win..
What Republicans need to do is have a bigger tent with more people, like maybe a bunch of Democrats and the people who like their ideas better.
There are two problems Darleen.
1. Public moralists generally don’t fight to preserve freedom, rather they TRADE FREEDOM AWAY in exchange for policies that serve their public morality goals. I’ll let you provide your own list of freedoms traded away by the Republicans as I’m sure it’s as long as mine.
2. The Republicans are really really good at attacking the identities of entire classes of Americans in the course of their moral crusading who then proceed to vote against the GOP en bloc.
I’ll say it again: it’s not about whether or not social conservatism has a place in the Republican Party; clearly it does. Rather, it’s about whether or not establishing social conservatism in society by force of law is the cardinal goal/bias of the GOP, the value to which all other values are subordinate.
yours/
peter
And maybe they could start calling themselves the Republican Socialist Party. Then they might could even get Billy and Bernadine Bomber on board.
Take that, Mr. Obama, sir!
The Republicans are really really good at attacking the identities of entire classes of Americans in the course of their moral crusading
cite, please.
Let me be clear here: you can criticize the video on its rhetorical / aesthetic merits, and that’s fine.
Absolutely. If I’d been going for a filmic metaphor for Pelosi, it would’ve been something like this or this.
That doesn’t mean that we should allow them to derail the actual issue at hand (that Pelosi is a really shitty liar) into a discussion of “sexism”.
That they WILL try to derail criticism by such tactics is a given. People like Patterico and Prof. Jacobson are still operating under the assumption that these people are interested in an honest debate.
They aren’t.
You’re going to have to show me where this has actually happened. The left and the MSM and, indeed folks like you, make big noise about how the SoCons is a cardinal goal of the GOP, except the instances where that’s actually true are very thing on the ground.
If SoCon principles are the main goals of the GOP where, then, are:
1) A Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion?
2) A Constitutional Amendment preserving marriage as between one man and one woman that’s gotten more than a half-hearted push in Congress?
3) A major revision of divorce laws?
4) Any federal push to overturn court decisions protecting pornography as protected speech?
5) Nationwide abstinence education or the removal of sex education entirely from school curricula?
6) A nationwide school voucher program?
When you say that repubs shouldn’t be worried about how their message could be distorted I agree. However, they should most certainly care about how the public perceives that ad. That’s rule one in communication. Your a great poet but a lousy pitch man
Jeff, take off your ideological blinders. You attack conservatives for playing the lefts game and tackling the issue on the left’s terms but then you, and your fellow bloggers, attack the left for not playing by their game and using their terms.
You talk about intention and then you throw it out the window for hidden intention when the left is involved. Calling all people on the left cynically outraged and embracing needlessly venomous language instead of actually presenting your case as if against someone arguing in good faith.
it’s about whether or not establishing social conservatism in society by force of law is the cardinal goal/bias of the GOP,
cite, please.
Humph! I see mojo @ 104 beat me to “suppurating”. I suppose it is obvious.
attack the left for not playing by their game and using their terms.
You talk about intention and then you throw it out the window for hidden intention when the left is involved.
Clueless or dishonest?
:::sigh::: later, all, off to Descanso Gardens for wandering and photography.
actually presenting your case as if against someone arguing in good faith
They aren’t doing anything of the sort.
“There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge.” … Hmmm, maybe we need more ether! At the least it would help us see things from the leftard point of view.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30690.html
Jimmie, have you read the GOP2008 Platform? Almost all of these things are in it.
Let me repeat: “It is well and good that the GOP be more careful about how it makes its point if the concern is that the point was not made effectively. It is NOT well and good to express “concern†when the concern being expressed is that a completely predictable reaction by the left could negatively affect “not just the RNC, but candidates down the line.â€
This makes no sense. You’re going to have to flesh it out for me.
I attack conservatives for playing by the left’s rules, certainly. I attack the left’s rules as being antithetical to legitimate debate and as the enemy of intellectual honesty. There is no disconnect there when the objective is to bring back a useful exchange of ideas.
I believe I’ve made the case for cynical outrage on a number of occasions, but here, let me just note briefly that those now carping about sexism are the same folks who spent months running down Sarah Palin, and weeks tearing at Miss California.
I’m not an essayist writing in a contextual vacuum. This site has archives.
I don’t believe the standard bearers of the left who are loudly proclaiming sexism believe any such sexism is evident here. Which is why I called them cynically outraged.
Those who DO believe there is sexism here are not the objects of my criticism. Those leftists are simply wrong and, worse, have become so stupid that they are beyond debating.
Only someone who hasn’t understood how interpretation works alongside intentionalism makes such arguments. The fact is, that I’m arguing that the carping is cynical and disingenuous suggests that I have determined intent.
Lying about your intent doesn’t change it.
I believe that Peter Jackson has a different definition of Social Conservative than what I and others arguing do. What they sound more like what I referred to as Socialist-cons. The big nanny-state government ones that “call” themselves Republicans and conservatives because it serves their electoral purposes.
The most perfect example is NYC Mayor Bloomberg. McCain would be another along with his tag-along Lindsey. They will mostly do well (conservative wise) on the military and foreign affairs because these are Government activities. They fail in domestic policy where they then act as lighter weight-class progressives.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30690.html
I think you missed a fundamental point in that article, namely that we’d had prosperity for so long that many grew disconnected from the idiocy of the old left. Well, the old left is new again and that means your argument is not as forward-looking as you seem to think.
Incidentally, Charlie (Colorado) writes for PJM. I’ve asked him to make his case why people like me should shut the fuck up and let adults like him speak for conservatism.
Somebody let me know if he ever gets up the balls.
I no longer think that folk like JWP are stupid enough to believe that remaining popular with people that hate and despise them him is a legitimate goal. I suspect they’re just protecting their turf as “spokes people.” Fine let them protect their turf. No one needs them. No one ever has needed them and every cause that has ever been ceded them has turned to disaster. Pay them no mind, traffic or money. Be done with them. Let them go the way of the newspaper. The world will be better off.
No he’s not.
Whoops, that should be “hate and despise them”
This issue will be the death of any hope for liberty. Push back, push back hard and swiftly. Sweet Jeebus on a stack of pancakes… do we not understand that eight years of constant ridicule and caricature, often deeply vulgar, worked for the Leftards? Of course, corner a media spokesbot for the Left or the DNC, and he will disavow briefly the shocking vulgarity of putting W’s face on Hitler’s body, and then go on to justify the comparison in measured, talking head tones. Without the palpitating vulgarity, naturally. Meanwhile, in private every Leftard and DNC operative is smiling and chuckling under their breath, knowing full well that the perpetual character assassination in all its Unhelpful Tone From Which We Democrats Distance Ourselves is a winning strategy.
Ridicule works. See Alinsky, Saul.
This reminds me of two related minor items that illustrate the self-defeating character of the surrender of language. If any of you heard recently Steele talking to some cardboard Democrat tool about “empathy” and the SCOTUS, recall his pathetic rejoinders. The money moment was when the Democrat spoor in the shape of a man said something like ” We like empathy. If the Republicans want to run against empathy, they are welcome to do so.” And Steele went “But but but we like empathy too!”
Fool. I can’t claim to debate stuff like this on air, but at least he could have said something non-reactive and accusatory… and true! Like “This man next to me and his party want to deny you the rule of law. You had better pray, if you end up in court, that your judge in the Democrat future has some sort of empathy or personal preference for you, because that is what will substitute for law if my opponent gets his way. Your case won’t be judged on law but feelings, in some large measure. We will no longer be equal before the law, because in the Democrat world the law will no longer be paramount in a courtroom, but intended to be subject to your judge’s personal prejudices… the very opposite of justice applied equally.”
“My opponent is running on prejudice and discrimination put into law. Period. Why do you want to make bigotry a feature of the courtroom, pal?”
—
The other issue of words I mention is this noxious formulation “giving back to the community.” Even so-called conservatives use this vile trope. To “give back” implies that one has “taken from” someone else. Yet when exhortations to charity are made nowadays, you often hear “give back.” Say “give,” but never “give back.” The dishonesty of this subtle phrasing spreads into the rest of life. You go work your way through school, you pay your own way, you get or make a job, you offer services in exchange for pay or something else. Yet it is now a commonplace that responsible citizens have to “give back.” Fuck you, give backers. The gubmint takes by force and gives to other people these stolen goods, who gladly take them. People who vote consistently to steal from their neighbors. If anyone needs to give back it is the government. Consider… when anyone tells you to “give back” they are implying you take, you are greedy and gluttonous. Lest anyone think this is hair-splitting, I suggest that this is one of the insidious ways that our language is being redirected into portraying every person as an ant in a collectivist colony, not free to act and responsible to everyone for anything when put on the spot. It is very much in the spirit of Newspeak in “1984.”
Well said, GO.
[…] currently being cataloged (along with other reactions) by The Other McCain, Little Miss Attila, Protein Wisdom, & The Sundries Shack. Personally, I’ll start taking said Left-outrage more seriously […]
#Comment by Swen Swenson on 5/24 @ 11:20 am #
Humph! I see mojo @ 104 beat me to “suppuratingâ€. I suppose it is obvious.
It’s the smell, Swen. The nauseating smell of self-righteousness and disdain.
Well, Jeff, I guess I had better go live under a political bridge in the wilderness, as this sort of thinking is not moderate and inclusive enough to be tolerated in the GOP.
What are those glistening stones on the horizon, sunk halfway into the sand? Looks like the weathered visage of Lincoln, mired in the ash heaps of the Republic.
I don’t get that either. Do you not see who’s in charge of everything? Have you not noticed their behavior? Are you fucking blind?
Demonization works, unless it’s countered properly.
Not just demonization uncountered works though, as we see. Outright lying and purposeful obfuscation on matters of principle (particularly the unconfessed principles which guide B. H. Obama) works too. This lying then gets cast into “flip-flops” and 180 degree turns as if these were merely pragmatic responses to unforeseen exigencies and prudent dealing, though we understand they are nothing of the sort, having been long planned and privately well characterized by the men and women undertaking them.
95% of you will not see your taxes raised. Not raised. No new tax upon you. 95%. Never think it.
C. All of the above.
I’m not opposed to putting filters on the computers in the children’s section of the library — I think we all have a responsibility to see that children are supervised and protected — but I am opposed to those who would treat us all as children, no matter what their cause. It’s that C.S. Lewis thing:
It makes little difference to me why someone is sticking their nose up my behind, It’s the cold nose up my behind I object to.
Speak for yourself Christopher Taylor. I have a perfectly functional conscience. I dislike those social conservatives who want to use the power of government to force me to conform to their conscience. I fail to see how meddling in others’ personal business is “conservative”. But then I suppose that’s why I isn’t one.
religion helps for so you won’t be so scared when you die I think but it’s broken if it makes you scared about how other peoples live
I’m not opposed to putting filters on the computers in the children’s section of the library
I am, primarily because THEY DON’T FUCKING WORK.
They’re a feel-good excuse for abdicating responsibility on the part of the parents or others who may stand in loco parentis (e.g., teachers) and letting access to information be at the whim of a third party.
I know of one case where a teacher couldn’t even access Amazon.com because the well-meaning person (read: idiot) who configured the school’s “filter” decided to block “commercial web sites”.
I would have less objection if the responsible adult (teacher, librarian) could easily override the restriction on a site, but that’s generally not the case.
Not to mention, don’t even TRY to find a good recipe for marinating chicken breasts.
Oh. And all you cockfighting aficionados? SOL.
Humph! Four more years under the rule of Botox Barbi and Obi Won, and the Democrats will be so discredited no one will vote for one as dog catcher. To quote an old southern sheriff, ‘they’ve stolen more chain than they can swim with’.
If he’s this Tom Swift type he’s so incomplete on money and systems he’s probably not worth wasting the time. Self-impressed, probably. Perceptive, evidently not so much.
People who are trying to plan a trip to Scunthorpe, Lincolnshire, Dildo, Nova Scotia, or Fucking, Austria are out of luck, too.
Also, it’s quite common for political blogs to be classified as “hate sites” by these “filters”.
Huh… link eaten twice in a row.
In case anyone runs afoul of a “filter”, see:
p e a c e f i r e dot o r g
A party platform isn’t a “to-do” list but a wish list built by a committee consisting of people with various interests all of which they have in varying degrees of importance. Abolishing the Department of Education was in the GOP 1996 platform. Could anyone say, without being laughed to scorn, that the GOP actually tried to do anything close to that?
I’ll go back to my original question. What SoCon issue can you cite that the GOP has pushed as a primary issue (as you say the SoCon agenda has been) in the past ten years? Heck, I’ll make it easier. Just go with the last five.
Where’s the abortion amendment? For that matter, where’s the “moderate” compromise to repeal Roe v Wade which would give the people of each state the ability to decide the matter for themselves within the democratic process?
Snicker, snort, guffaw! That fedora guy reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield, except ‘no respect’ is all the respect he deserves.
JHoward —
Yeah. This Charles fellow does seem very self-impressed now that he’s gotten a gig writing for PJM.
I had no idea he was even there, to be honest. Guess he doesn’t like that I went after them for turning into the very thing they purportedly set out to do battle against.
He wants to be a ‘respected’ opinion shaper. Unfortunately, he thinks that bleating at the “extremists” will make him so.
It doesn’t. It just means he’s still not over getting picked on in junior high, and this is his last attempt to sit at the cool table for tray lunches.
SET ME STRAIGHT, CHARLIE!
Detailed, straight-setting observations he made nine months ago are already obsolete, Jeff. This one may have much catching up to do, also potentially delaying posting more of those nifty-cool film clips he’s hewn his persona from.
Demonization works, unless it’s countered properly.
Absolutely. It’s about time we started doing some of our own.
There was a silly comment way back there about Jeff being a great poet but a lousy pitchman. That is so paper-thin and ignorant I can’t quite come up with a vulgarity appropriate for it. I’m in advertising, and one thing you always, always, always do is identify the audience for your message. If you think you should be designing a message with the express purpose of keeping the MSM and the moonbats docile, you might as well run video of an aquarium. This whole macrocosm enveloping old media, new media, TV, cable, print, the intertubes, and so forth, is large enough for many messages and please note: The audience is NOT homogenous. Calling Pelosi a pussy made me laugh, and guess what? She is one, and the truly vulgar part is the rest of Pelosi outside of her pudenda, growing in toxicity as you go north and past the greasy eyebrows and into the skull. Of course a leftard will object to any mockery of the Left and its idols. But that spot is not intended for the Left, I promise you. Those voters out there who have a queasy feeling about this new era of the Congress of Hope and Change, and especially the theatrics of Pelosi may just find that spot rather amusing. I promise you that merely airing video of her contradictory statements would interest virtually no one. The satire and mockery are the spice that get the intended audience to notice. To this day the Left mocks Sarah Palin despite the fact that she presents no plausible political threat. To them it is just great fun. To this day they mock Bush. There is plenty to mock there, but he is politically irrelevant. So why do they do it? Aren’t there bigger fish to fry? An exercise for the reader.
At any rate, I’m through with the nuanced objection that “the other side calls the shots.” That is not a mature assessment of the state of affairs, but rather a recipe for failure. What leader would approach a problem with the view that “we have to play by their rules?” What company or enterprise would even bother to set out if that were the attitude? You would not invest in a company where the management’s first comment on its prospects was “The competition runs the show.” On the other hand, what if the management’s approach was “We will not only beat them at their own game, we will play by our own rules and win customers with what we have to offer in clear contradistinction to the competition.” You might think they had, at minimum, a chance of success.
The fact is we have a culture, especially pop culture, that is inimical to liberty. I would love to see how one expects to revive a taste for liberty amongst our people by defending liberty in the most oblique, insipid and equivocal terms. To react is to be pwned. To attack is to lead.
While we’re talking about poorly crafted political whatnot, and I know some of y’all say it sometimes and I’m not calling nobody out but “porkulus” and “spendulus” are both embarrassingly weak, ineffective and dorky coinages what fail to land anything close to an acerbic punch.
I kept waiting and waiting for somebody else to say it.
The way the Democratic Congress and Lord Barry are titillated by the stimulus bill, I’ll wager it’s made of latex and powered by two D cells.
True enough and you’re right about them giving parents a false sense of security, but at least I can support the intent if not the implementation. Drug laws? Not so much, and they don’t work either.
Stubb’s Chicken Marinade and cheap red wine, 50/50. That’s all you need to know about cooking chicken. Or at least all I know about cooking chicken!
Something that always bothers me about this issue is how so many of our pragmatic, lawyerly betters always wear “tactics” and “messaging” as fig leaves over their own nebulous views.
When I read them, I just don’t see the brilliance. I see vague half-thoughts that remind me of what I had just seen mouthed by a talking head or pollster on TV the night before. Charlie, an immodest man with much to be modest about, seems to be a pretty good example of this.
If they want to talk “tactics” and “messaging”, how about they drop all their oft-repeated, soft bromides and start wowing us with some detailed essays.
I can’t seem to raise Charlie either here or at JOM.
Maybe the wine coolers wore off.
#237 Hear, hear. I recall hearing noted pantywaist David Frum call into Mark Levin’s show… Frum spent the entire time basically rehashing one simple point that need not be repeated: Republicans keep losing! Yes, Dave. We know And what was his nuanced, moderate, tactical prescription? You had to wait until the last few seconds before Frum would lift the skirt and show a little leg… and the leg was tattooed with four items. Give in on gay marriage and abortion, find ways to tax people to pay for everyone’s healthcare, buy into some of the left’s environmental agenda, and one other thing that escapes my mind now. All four were just what you would expect… Democrat Lite. He rushed through these things in less than five seconds as if he were embarrassed about them. Sheesh.
With regard to messaging and tactics and language, please see:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/67181
“The president is off “empathy†as a requirement for a Supreme Court justice and is now talking about someone with a “a practical sense of how the world works.†This is vacuous nonsense, of course, for several reasons.”
Can it be more clear that the issue of language is paramount today in politics? The Teleprompter Jesus and his staff fish around for the right terms to hook people. They are angling for a certain audience with the tastiest verbal hook. They don’t think, not even for a minute, that they are free to use any terms they like, even though “they run the show.” We must not adopt their same terminology. We do not intend the same things they do. The more we buy into their chosen terms, the more we are bound by them. Break out.
I think the sum total of Charlie’s thoughts equals, “Shut up, I don’t like what you’re saying.” He’s already given his best shot. If he came back we’d just see a lot of bullshit that reiterated that majestic analysis.
I wonder if Simon realizes that paying people to take the conventional wisdom and distill it to… the conventional wisdom isn’t a unique selling proposition. Not all Pajamas people are this way but they sure dropped a lot who weren’t and have been hiring a lot who are.
Couldn’t agree more, GO. With #211 as well.
That’s why protein wisdom is my blog of choice.*
*Sounds like an old cigarette ad, doesn’t it?
#241
I enjoy smoking Protein Wisdom, filterless. The heady aroma is like a breeze of liberty, and the rich taste outlasts those other stale brands, like Pajammies. Or Rod Dreher.
Protein Wisdom… the first choice of the outlaw.
Yes, I think this is correct. I have no problem with folks who are personally conservative — socially and fiscally — in fact I applaud their prudence and wisdom. I do have a big problem with the Jerry Falwell’s of the world if only because so many of them want the government to force on others standards of behavior they don’t adhere to (don’t get me started on Rush Limpbaugh). But you’re right, these folks aren’t really social conservatives, there’s little conservative about being moral busybodies and priggish scolds.
I guess I’m a ‘mind your own business’ conservative :D
Heh, I like it, GO.
I for one like rolling my own protein wisdoms with those nice American Spirit loose tobacco pouches.
It’s all a matter of strategy and tactics. There are jokes one makes in private, where you know your audience and have a sense of a private context that you wouldn’t tell in a public setting. This is how society works. I personally think the RNC ad was ‘ok’ but that the Bond theme didn’t really make a lot of sense, except to help the ad be less dry. But I don’t understand how making a pussy joke does anything but hand someone a hook to divert an issue – so you can come back with similar jokes the Dems have made with a ‘gotcha’? It -might- be one thing if it were such a hoot that teh funny ruled, but this wasn’t all that.
Just because they’ll pick at anything doesn’t mean you hand them ammo to pick at. To get into a side-argument doesn’t ‘heighten the contradictions’ as the left might say; it muddies them.
The RNC doesn’t need to give a yuk to the faithful, it has to win over a middle. Some of these people, like it or not, may be unduly swayed by a pussy joke.
Again, it is venue and audience. The RNC isn’t Protein Wisdom – does anyone believe for a second that the humor on this site would make sense to a large outside group? It is a matter of irony and depth – there is a culture here.
Not to say that one should never go for the edginess, but that’s a matter of time, place and conditions. But I submit that ‘Democrats Galore’ is at best sophmoric for the venue.
I disagree with the proposition that to ‘watch what we say’ means handing over the framing to the left. Rather, it is an understanding of culture, of understanding what to challenge, when and how, so as to create the best impact.
To see a pussy joke as a gateway or means test – that we wouldn’t want anyone to join the club who can’t get past it – is to trade righteousness for effectiveness.
Here’s a vid that mocks Pelosi with great effectiveness, is edgier, and doesn’t hand them the diversion opportunity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izpU4YJ0ZAA
Pajamas Media is a lot the Dan Quayle of internet journalism I think.
Thanks, SS, but I blame happyfeet.
You have to believe the “pussy” was intended as sexist, rather than as a reliable referent to Pussy Galore of Bond fame, jFry. If you believe that was the intent, say so.
Otherwise, don’t ever try gardening with a spade ever again. And spooks? Well, just ask Coleman Silk about that…
Lots of things can be used as hooks. Hell, simply writing about a female, a homosexual, or a black while being conservative yields charges of sexism, homophobia, and racism.
It may sound reasonable to counsel denying them the hook. But it is more reasonable to take away fishing pole.
I think Jesus said that.
Did the RNC ad say pussy ?
Democratic party blog? Kicking Ass. Yes, donkey, but also the more vulgar common saying.
Fortunately, this alienated the middle and we’ve won all elections since ’04.
And what is it precisely that goes into that “understanding of culture, of understanding what to challenge, when and how”? What is the metric?
This is not a trick question. I really want to see if I can walk you through this, because you seem open to hearing other viewpoints.
I don’t need to know the intention of “pussy” to have an idea of the effect. I don’t even have to assume it is sexist; certainly some will be turned off by the rudeness of the word. I can’t determine the intent; the fact that one can make a case for a reliable referent doesn’t change the fact that many will take it as a pussy joke. This is not dissimilar to Obama’s “you can put lipstick on a pig” joke. He certainly had plausible deniability that he was not calling Palin a pig, but he certainly got the added yuks from that association.
Then I suppose that all of these people were up to the necks in self-Lefteous OUTRAGE over there being a Bond character by that name. Oh, the humanity. This is ridiculous. Had the Left cared one iota about this, the Palin is a Cunt stuff proved how mendoucheous they are. Lieberman in blackface shows how disingenuous they are. Condi the House Negro shows how duplicitous they are. Simple fact is that they will moan sexism, racism, homophobia for simply not agreeing with the Left.
BAN BOND BOOKS AND FILMS!
Why not? Was “Pussy” mentioned in the ad? No. Was it alluded to by way of the Bond theme? Yes. Was what was being alluded to intended as a veiled shot at all females? Of course not. How can you determine that sexism was not the intent? Simple: what does the ad have to do with females in general?
“Many” took Bill Bennett’s remarks as racist. Many took Tony Snow’s use of “tar baby” to be racist. Many believe GOPers talk in racist, sexist, homophobic code.
You’re fighting a losing battle until you take back ownership of your own words and get over the fact that you have to tell people that their interpretations are flat out wrong, and that yes, such a thing as incorrect interpretation exists, regardless of what your Derrida-infused cutout of a freshman lit teacher told you.
OCTOPUSSY!
A party platform isn’t a “to-do†list but a wish list
Whatever.
No, wait a minute. Are you serious? What document published by a political party describes better than their fucking PLATFORM what they’re all about? Seriously, if not a party’s platform, what could possibly satisfy you as evidence of a political party’s policy positions?
I’ll go back to my original question. What SoCon issue can you cite that the GOP has pushed as a primary issue (as you say the SoCon agenda has been) in the past ten years? Heck, I’ll make it easier. Just go with the last five.
Mike Huckabee.
Where’s the abortion amendment?
In the GOP platform. The Federal one anyway. The Tennessee legislature just voted to amend their constitution this month to remove protection for a woman’s right to abortion. Guess which party is pushing it? I’ll give you two guesses.
For that matter, where’s the “moderate†compromise to repeal Roe v Wade which would give the people of each state the ability to decide the matter for themselves within the democratic process?
Well you got me with that one. But probably only because, being a Supreme Court ruling and not a law, Roe v. Wade is not subject to “repeal.” Either the ruling is at some point overturned by the Supreme Court, or the Constitution must be amended.
That “Sweatin’ to the Socialists” vid talked about Pelosi’s “imbecilic” behavior.
That’s a shot at the differently abled. Plus, the swimsuit theme and Pelosi? Attempts to objectify women and is ageist as well as covertly sexist.
Plus, showing Pelosi’s giddy laughter at the sight of Obama and suggesting she has a type of girly crush? POSITIVELY REEKS of MANDINGO! Which is at the core of southern fried racism.
I could go on and show you how the whole thing — from the sweatbands to the shorts — is meant to invoke Richard Simmons and to imply that progressives are akin to mincing homosexuals, but I think I’ll let you wallow in your own homophobia without me pointing it out specifically.
Y’all are forgetting the rampantly sexist context I think and forgetting how Andie Coller’s hardhitting piece reminds us that even erstwhile presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee took the time to pen a poem that begins:
“Here’s a story about a lady named Nancy / A ruthless politician, but dressed very fancy.â€
Good Lord. Not in my name you sexist fat fuck.
Remember when the words “call me” were racist? When it was racist to call someone articulate, or inexperienced? Even skinny?
I am calling for all movie companies to immediately remove all movies with the words puss and puss from their circulation. Failure to do so makes them complicit in this hate-crime.
Holy crap, how come no one put a warning on that link to “Sweatin with the Socialists”?
It made Triumph of the Will seem like a Dora the Explorer video.
Despicable. Truly despicable.
De-“spic”-able, bh?
You just made the list.
“Holder”? I barely know her.
MISOGYNISTIC RAPIST!
I see you moving those goalposts. Upthread, you talked about the GOP’s “hierarchy of values” and how the SoCon agenda was “the cardinal goal/bias of the GOP, the value to which all other values are subordinate”.
Having some SoCon stuff in the platform says nothing at all about where they sit in the “hierarchy”. You have to actually prove that the GOP has moved to pass that agenda above all other parts of the platform to prove that the GOP has made “other values are subordinate”.
If your original point doesn’t work any more and you want to change you position, then say so. Don’t try to sneak the finish line up a few years to make your job easier.
I’m not quite sure the right way to tell you this, but Mike Huckabee is a person, not an issue.
However, I’ll let your rhetorical shorthand (that Huckabee embodies the entire SoCon agenda) slide and note that you just shot a huge hole in your own original point. If the SoCon agenda was the “cardinal goal” of the GOP, then Huckabee certainly should have been the establishment party choice. So who was that McCain guy who ran against Obama anyhow?
Okay, that’s one state out of 50. And it hasn’t happened in Congress, not nearly enough to bolster your contention that it’s the “the cardinal goal/bias of the GOP”.
Maybe and maybe not. The Constitution does give Congress the power to rule issues entirely off-limits to the SCOTUS. If the SoCon agenda, and we can agree that abortion is at the very top of that, was so very powerful inside the GOP, thre would definitely be a real push to pass a law then put that law out of the reach of the SCOTUS. But that hasn’t happened either.
That McCain guy was Meghan’s daddy, Jimmie, what I heard. She’s quite open about it.
Well, hell, happyfeet. I guess we’d better listen to her!
The Constitution does give Congress the power to rule issues entirely off-limits to the SCOTUS.
Where?
I’m going to let you all in on a secret. “Strategy” is how those of us on the status quo gravy train keep fresh ideas out and our own pockets lined. It is much more important than elections, liberty, prosperity, ethics, honesty, consistency, logic or loyalty. Just saying…
Oh really? It’s misogynist because it focuses on female body image, inferring that fat women are unworthy! Also, you filthy neanderthal Republicans can’t make an argument against a strong woman with out taking shots at her physical form. I was shaking just watching it, so offended was I.
A kindergartener could write this shit. For Politico.
You mean the word that does not appear in the ad? That word? Did you watch it?
Andie Coller is a racist for attacking a black man with a neo-mandingo stereotype. Black does not equal sexist, you bigot!
You’re on fire, Pablo. You [insert offense de jour], you.
Do you make jokes like this at your local hospital’s burn unit, JHoward?!?!
This blog needs a thorough denunciation.
Darn sockpuppets.
Whew. For a minute there, I thought I was gonna get arrested for a hate crime.
I thought Waco was just and proper.
Oh, you mean the other guy in the 2008 presidential campaign this here social con what signs his comments “McGehee” swore he would never vote for if he was the nominee? That Mike Huckabee?
“The Constitution does give Congress the power to rule issues entirely off-limits to the SCOTUS.
Where?”
He’s probably referring to article III, sec 2:
“In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”
SBP – Article III, Section 2.
It’s not clean, but it is quite possible.
I haven’t moved anything. You asked for a cite about specific policies, I provided you with a link to the RNC’s own website that states their beliefs and support for the policies you listed, and you attacked the authority of my cite, so then I questioned your susceptibility to evidence. Your implicit argument that social conservatives hold no significant sway in the GOP is absurd. For starters, if what you’re implying were true, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, nor would “controversies” such as gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, reproductive cloning, flag burning, the war on drugs, the war on illegal Mexican workers, or school prayer even exist if the Republican Party didn’t have an absolutist position staked out on each of them.
It’s not clean, but it is quite possible.
That’s been off the table since Marbury v. Madison, so I don’t see it changing.
Marbury v. Madison didn’t try to interpret out of existence any explicit language in the Constitution. SCOTUS didn’t get that blatant until much later.
And I’m unaware of anything SCOTUS has done since then, either, that has been found to deny Art. III Sec. 2.
I say, if SCOTUS wants to strike down an original provision of the Constitution, make them do it in so many words. They don’t have the guts.
implicit argument that social conservatives hold no significant sway in the GOP is absurd
excuse me, peter, but you held that the SoCon (aka religious right) had had “their day”. Do they have influence? Certainly, to the ever lasting animus of the Frums, Powells and other Democrat-lite “Republicans” who wish those godbotherers just shutup like the Dems are able to order amongst their pet minorities.
The platform is, indeed, a “wishlist” and every faction of the party gets to Christmas tree it, just as the Dems platform. But where is the GOP Kucinich introducing bills that hold to those wishes?
And Chris Taylor is right…one of the huge reasons I left the Libertarian Party was that they substituted “legal” for “moral”. As I said previously, while I don’t want the complete banning of all abortions, I will not stop from saying that the vast majority of them are immoral. I don’t want the government to outlaw adultery, but that doesn’t make it moral.
Too often the so-called social liberals equate moral judgment with a call for law, not because they misunderstand those of us that make moral judgments but because they don’t want any discomfort from anyone, not even the social pressure of someone saying “hey, you are an ass if you did that”. They don’t seek liberty with responsibility, but some sort of protected libertine-ism.
Fuck that shit.
Which is the real reason for that “hate crime” bill being discussed in another thread. To shut up those who might say they don’t like something one of the left’s protected species does.
“I say, if SCOTUS wants to strike down an original provision of the Constitution, make them do it in so many words. They don’t have the guts.”
What they would probably do is wait until some constitutional right got denied and a person was left with no recourse because of the limit on jurisdiction. Then the court would be resolving the tension between the two constitutional provisions: the one granting the right and the one that congress used to remove the right. Or the court would wait until different circuits and lower courts started using different standards with no way for the court to reconcile them. In that case, it might be an equal protection violation to follow the congressional limitation on jurisdiction — so again the court is resolving a tension between two constitutional provisions.
Darleen,
Narciso used ‘Republican Eloi’ at JOM. It’s the first time I had seen it and it seems fitting.
No, I asked you for a cite to prove your contention that the SoCon agenda is at the front of the GOP’s agenda. You didn’t do that. What you did was to prove something that didn’t require proof — that SoCons have a place at the Republican table. Well, duh.
I sympathize with a lot of the complaints and concerns of libertarians, but they go too far in terms of policy recommendations. Likewise I sympathize with the complaints and concerns, of say, Jerry Falwell (when he was alive) about moral decline. Again, he went to far in his policy recommendations and ideas.
The problem is that a society cut adrift from shared, absolute ethical guidelines and generally agreed upon virtues has two choices: Anarchy or tyranny. Anarchy when we all act like we can do anything we want and no one has a right to say now… or tyranny when we pass endless laws to try to force people to be good. As C. S. Lewis said (and I’m paraphrasing) the more laws a nation has, the more lawless it has become.
or tyranny when we pass endless laws to try to force people to be good.
Chris
Dennis Prager on more than one occassion has said (paraphrased) if we are so much a “free-er” and better society because those awful Judeo-Christianist have lost their social sway, how come we have oodles and oodles of more law concerning the most minute of social interactions?
I do not sympathize with meya since she is a lying mendoucheous fascist. Prolly a communist/socialist/collectivist/redistributionist shit-for-brains as well.
Exactly the point: the less internal and social pressure people have to be good the more external legal pressure is required to punish people for being bad.
I don’t so much sympathize with meya as deeply desire to study her in a clinical setting.
meya would be a lot more fun if it went for a govt-limiting SCOTUS instead of all the time it coming around just to throw dust in the air.
Wow. I’ve been off-line for a couple of days and missed this brouhaha. Ridiculous. You’re spot-on that the GOP truly has its head up its ass if it’s taking flak for this ad.
Has anyone pointed out that Pussy Galore redeems herself? She’s actually a rather positive character. Where’s the slight again?
Well, not to be too vulgar but Y-not is right. Pussy always redeems herself. She is a very, very positive character.
Vertical Smile on the other hand. That slut was a menace.
And, Pussy Galore was hardly the “worst” female character name in a Bond film. Chew Me was.
Uncle. You guys win. I give up too. I take it all back. Actually, the GOP is perfect as it is. Black, Hispanic, and gay voters don’t shun the party or their candidates. Neither do young people. Non-Christians really like it when Christian values are forced upon them by the state, and they don’t find it alienating at all. And yeah, looking at a situation with competing rights, like that between an woman and her unborn offspring, and deciding that the woman may actually have a claim to some right, well that’s just libertinism. So is thinking that gay Americans might have the same freedom of association rights that non-gay Americans do… crazy talk, all of it.
So is thinking that gay Americans might have the same freedom of association rights that non-gay Americans do
Where are gay people denied freedom of association?
Are you talking about gay marriage?
If so, let me point out that Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid ALL OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE (Pelosi, as usual, tries to play all sides of the issue).
If gays think that Democrats favor gay marriage any more than Republicans do, they’ve been grossly misled.
Actually, the GOP is perfect as it is. Black, Hispanic, and gay voters don’t shun the party or their candidates. Neither do young people. Non-Christians really like it when Christian values are forced upon them by the state,
fer crissakes grow a pair, peter
peter
if you have stopped crying in your light beer, read this and get back to me.
Why don’t you hold your breath and kick the floor while you’re at it?
Look, here is my point and I’m glad you walked smack into it. The SoCon agenda is not the GOP’s first priority and it never has been. The notion that it is was born on the left and pushed by a complacent media to scare voters away from the right.
The more we push the facts of the matter on people, the more we push back the lies of the left. But if we aren’t willing to shove, and shove hard, then we’re always going to get crap.
As for the rest of your tantrum, well, hey. I understand the need to lash out and say stupid shit.
If I did, Darleen, would I’d suddenly start wanting to use the power of government to compel the social outcomes I like? If so, you go ahead and keep them. But I won’t apologize for supporting freedom. And I’m so pissed at you for calling me a libertine I could spit.
Peter, the people trying to use the government to bring about a certain set of social outcomes are the gay marriage folks. The vast majority of people will never consider a union of two men to be equal to the union of a man and a woman, but have accepted the idea of equivalent legal arrangements under a different name.
But for some reason there’s a core of people who simply refuse to take what’s been offered to them and demand the term “marriage” be applied to them. These people have shown themselves unwilling to do the hard work of convincing their fellow citizens, and have thus resorted the forcing the matter through the courts.
Am I wrong or do you support same-sex marriage, which the use of government power to redefine, over the objections of the American people, a social/cultural institution?
To the extent that has happened, it has been to defend the traditional definition of marriage, which SSM advocates attacked.
But as we have seen, it is no longer acceptable to defend traditions against attack.
There isn’t really a nationwide effort to amend state constitutions and the Federal Constitution to ban any legal semblance of marriage for consenting homosexual American adults
The point you’re missing is that EVERY MAJOR DEMOCRAT HOLDS THE SAME POSITION ON GAY MARRIAGE.
The reason they hold that is because VOTERS ALSO HOLD THE SAME POSITION. OVERWHELMINGLY.
Now I, personally, don’t think think the government has any business being involved in marriage (any type) in the first place, but if there’s one PRACTICAL difference between the positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties on this issue I’m not able to see it.
Peter, the people trying to use the government to bring about a certain set of social outcomes are the gay marriage folks.
True—for themselves. Like straight people already have.
The vast majority of people will never consider a union of two men to be equal to the union of a man and a woman, but have accepted the idea of equivalent legal arrangements under a different name.
Fine, Rob: civil unions for everyone. Let the churches and mosques and synagogues and temples define what is Holy Matrimony. But in the eyes of the state, they are all civil unions. Perfect.
Why can’t the Republican Party support that?
The point you’re missing is that EVERY MAJOR DEMOCRAT HOLDS THE SAME POSITION ON GAY MARRIAGE.
Dude, I’m sorry, I don’t give a flying fuck what the Democrats think. They’re wrong too.
Why can’t the Republican Party support that?
That’s what I’d prefer, and I’ll support any politician who advocates that. There aren’t many of them, though, because it is a loser at the polls.
I mean, gay marriage can’t even pass in California, Peter.
What makes you think it would be a winning issue in national politics?
Now I, personally, don’t think think the government has any business being involved in marriage (any type) in the first place, but if there’s one PRACTICAL difference between the positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties on this issue I’m not able to see it.
We are of the exact-same mind.
See, you Spys, and Darleen, and GeoffB, and even Jeff… you’re all liberal capitalists, like me, you just don’t want to admit it.
Peter, fast zombies assault New Zealand, Jackson, you’ll find much to like here. However, I’ll take about half of that zeal and trade it in for slower societal change of the Burkean sort.
Not because I disagree.
I mean, gay marriage can’t even pass in California, Peter.
What makes you think it would be a winning issue in national politics?
What’s important isn’t the current position, it’s the trend. One of the wonderful qualities of Americans is, I believe, a uniquely refined sense of fairness. It’s what’s enabled us to overcome racism. Gay marriages are currently legal in five states. There are now thousands and thousands of legally married gay couples, and no one can point to even a scintilla of harm that it has done to “traditional” marriage. I believe that a majority of average Americans, once they get a chance to think about it, will support gay marriage, and it wll be sooner rather than later.
Why can’t Republicans get in front of that?
Peter, I can’t speak for the others, but I don’t believe I’ve ever denied that I’m a liberal capitalist.
Classical flavor, of course.
McGehee!
Am I wrong or do you support same-sex marriage, which the use of government power to redefine, over the objections of the American people, a social/cultural institution?
Now we both know that you got your social/cultural institutions, and you got your social/cultural institutions. Like, say the institution of private property and the institution of slavery. One is a prerequisite to civil society, one is a brutal social horror. How can we differentiate the two? It’s easy once we get our brains involved.
NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Peter, I can’t speak for the others, but I don’t believe I’ve ever denied that I’m a liberal capitalist.
Classical flavor, of course.
I stand corrected.
LIBERAL CAPITALISM, FUCK YEAH!
I’m a Whig. A Whig watching an Adolphe Menjou, Erich von Stroheim film.
Not sure of the ending yet, but it’s looking like Menjou marries a young Laurence Olivier.
Simpler times, those.
See, I was going to say prions. Or, maybe I’d say Burke a few more times and hope sdferr would break out some enlightened dudes from the continent.
However, I’ll take about half of that zeal and trade it in for slower societal change of the Burkean sort.
I totally understand this position. I’m the Burkean sort myself. It’s taken me 25 years as an adult to get where I am. But here I am.
Don’t fuck up your strut, young blood. Don’t hold in your mind what you don’t hold in your roll.
Jeff, are you aware that there is a Modern Whig Party They started a little more than a year ago, by Afghanistan and Iraqi war veterans. They have thirty freaking thousand members.
When pressed about his party affiliation, F.A. Hayek referred to himself as an “old Whig.”
yours/
peter.
John Locke FTW, beyotches.
“A Whig watching an Adolphe Menjou, Erich von Stroheim film.”
Okay, I could google that or just admit I’m young and ignorant.
googling comes up with Friends and Lovers. maybe.
I cannot either agree or disagree on the liberal capitalist thing because as I said in #205 I don’t know what the definitions of the words peter is using are. I only know they do not match with mine.
Agreeing that both the Republicans and the Democrats are, in reality, opposed to SSM does not a position make.
I am opposed to SSM but would accept civil unions.
I am opposed to abortion but wish only for the overturning of Roe to allow the states to decide this issue politically not by fiat.
I am opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells for research but would only wish to see there be no government funding and not a private ban.
I support legal immigration and believe the process should be made easier to those who wish to become productive Americans and harder for criminals.
I am against flag burning.
I believe that the effects both on the USA and the entire world of the “war on drugs” have been worse than the drugs. Freedom has been the main casualty.
If students want to pray, I’m fine with that and it wouldn’t be such an issue if it weren’t for the Public School monopoly.
I mostly vote Republican because they come closest to these positions of the two major Parties. Not perfect but at least in that Party there is room to fight for those positions. Also it has been my experience over a lifetime that politicians of the Democratic Party can’t be trusted with power. They will do or say anything to have it. Some Republicans do too but the Democrats are all addicted hopelessly to power. Until they cure that addiction and purge it from their Party I can’t support them ever.
Oh yeah, I’m a gun owner, I vote, I support all of the constitution, and Heller is nice but the 2nd is still under attack by, you guessed it, Democrats.
Something I like about protein wisdom? I’m not really what you’d call stupid. But, I feel stupid around here from time to time.
I’m not a Whig. Slavery is not something a Party should have arguments about. A Party wishy-washy on that is too “moderate” and “pragmatic” to live.
and Heller is nice but the 2nd is still under attack by, you guessed it, Democrats.
Yeah, but half of the Democratic party supports gun rights too. The gun prohibitionists are over. They’re toast. I personally believe it was the concealed carry movement and John Lott who killed gun control.
Based on Heller, the (loony/leftie) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Heller INCORPORATED the Second Amendment, making it apply to states and localities, just like the First and Fourth Amendments have been.
When the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of the Second Amendment, it’s over. Now if only we could get the rules for owning automatic small arms liberalized, then our victory will be total.
Sorry, liars, power addicted, can’t trust as far as could throw, Empathy and foreign law Scotus picks.
bh,
Any one who suffered through enough to feel as you do about MVA could never be stupid here or anywhere.
Good night, way late here.
I’ll let the mask slip for a bit. Then I’ll pretend it never happened. I started telling Jeff to stop writing at pw a few years ago.
I’m a bad man. And Jeff’s a very talented writer. So, sue me.
Late night honesty. I denounce myself.
Don’t, concerned friend is never a bad thing.
Now to sleep if my wife is ready.
[…] Jeff G jumps in with another good slam against the handwringing on our side, from folks who worry way too much about how the ad, or anything at all we may say or do, will be received by dishonest Leftists who will always, always, always paint such as clearly representative of our immutably evil nature anyway: Let me be clear here: you can criticize the video on its rhetorical / aesthetic merits, and that’s fine. But when you suggest that the GOP shouldn’t be running such ads because they force candidates down the line to have to answer the “arguments†made by the cynically “outraged†left, you are necessarily shaping conduct. […]
Because, as several people have pointed out to you (and you know very well yoruself), the vast majority of the people DO NOT WANT IT.
Perhaps those people, like people inside the Republican party, have actually engaged their brains instead of their emotions. Perhaps they’ve reckoned that we now have a definition of marriage that is not arbitrary and applies evenly to everyone. Perhaps they’ve figured out that if they move the very bright line that currently defines marriage to a place determined by what a group of people say they really, reeeeeeaaaaaalllly want, then is becomes nearly impossible to defend that line when the next group of people want you to move it to include what they really, reeeeeeeaaaallllly want. And, at risk of providing evidence larger than a scintilla, that is exactly what has been happening in those more progressive countries that have already moved their lines (c.f. Canada, for one).
Those same folks probably already pondered that there’s a damned good reason marriage, as it is currently defined, has been one of a precious few pillars of a stable civil society for, oh, a few dozen centuries now and maybe we should go very slow before we take the sledgehammer to this one because when it crumbles, no matter how it crumbles, there’ll be no putting it back. Ever. They no doubt have figured out that the Law of Unintended Consequences is very likely to be a Godzilla-sized, atomic fire breath spewing, city-wrecking bitch on this issue and maybe we shouldn’t shrug that off quite so blithely.
In other words, maybe on this issue, as with so many others, Americans are using their heads.
But, hey, go on and believe that it’s those damned SoCons and their mystical abracapocus powers that have ensorceled the GOP to ruin.
since peter is [afraid, disdainful, unwilling] to read at my link of why the SSM debate is NOT about “equal rights” or nasty Republicans trying to force godbothering values down his throat, an excerpt or two:
What peter continues to miss in his Christainists forcing the icky values stuff down my throat!!! is that current law never defined marriage as much as it recognized an already established institution and allowed the participants standing in court where it concerns the rights and obligations of the institution – mostly as it pertains to the children produced by the man and woman.
This country’s citizens ARE CENTER-RIGHT in their values/principles. Any number of polling data demonstrates that. Obama was NOT elected as the raging leftist (good lord, to this day when I talk to any number of people still besotted with him they refuse OUTRIGHT refuse to consider any of his policies as “leftwing” — Obama is just being practical, what can you expect with this mess, it’s just an emergency measure and be gone once we are out of this mess, Obama is just helping GM, yadda yadda yadda) so one cannot point to the election of a cipher who ran as a church-going moderate as American rejection of center-right principles.
The Left and MSM have been excellent at creating Straw Conservatives and the pantywaists and handwringers of the inside the beltway “Republicans” who worry about being struck from the cocktail party circuit refuse to call them on it, preferring to attack conservatives with a “shutup you icky suburban, childraising, churchgoing UNCULTURED crowd!”.
If the Republican party is DOOMED, it is NOT because of the so-called godbothering wing.
Oh… btw, the California Supreme court will issue their opinion on Prop 8 tomorrow.
Glen Reynolds made a point a week or so back I thought was on target. It isn’t that the social cons have taken over the party. After the drunken-sailor spending binge the Republicans went on the fiscal cons left and are off calling themselves Libertarians.
Reagan won big in 1980 by uniting the fiscal cons and the social cons. Yeah, the Republicans need to be more inclusive, all right. But not by shafting the only remaining group in the tent. They need to convince fiscal cons all that small government talk is serious this time, and it’s going to be a bit like convincing your wife you can be trustworthy after being caught in the sack with someone her best friend. Not an easy sell.
Pushing out the social cons makes the party Democrat-lite, and that’s not a party that will win elections. Or deserves to. Why would anybody support a party like that?
Oh… btw, the California Supreme court will issue their opinion on Prop 8 tomorrow.
Just out of curiosity, has a court ever given itself the authority to rule on a change to a constitution before? There is a great deal of anger here in California. I can’t decide which would be better – for the court to abide by the will of the people or for that anger to boil over in an orgy of long-overdue political housecleaning.
The question before the court is whether Prop 8 is simple amendment or a more sweeping revision. If it’s the latter, it must go through the Legislature, and that what’s the suit opposing Prop 8 alleges. Volokh explains here and concludes that it is a simple amendment and is therefore constitutional as enacted.
Pablo
The suit, joined by CA Atty Gen Jerry “moonbeam” Brown takes two approaches. One, as you said above that it is a revision and Two, that marriage is a “fundamental right” and therefore citizens have absolutely no say on it whatsoever. (which is weird then because that makes any judge can redefine marriage at will even to allowing polygamy)
tsotha
I’m in SoCal and anger aside, this state is so politically screwed up our anger means bupkis … we are so gerrymandered no state legislative seat has changed parties in YEARS…NONE. We are effectively a banana republic in our own right.
Rumor has it that as California goes begging to Obama for Fed money the Feds will make a requirement that Prop 13 be overturned first.
If that even is partially true, you will see anger on a scale unprecedented in this state.
Yes, Pablo, I understand what the stated reasons behind the suit are. But it’s all just a fig leaf. We’re in emanations of penumbras territory again.
Rumor has it that as California goes begging to Obama for Fed money the Feds will make a requirement that Prop 13 be overturned first.
Oh, now that would be interesting. In an explosive “hit the deck!” kind of way.
Oh, and Darleen, did you hear Moonbeam wants to be governor again? No word on whether he’s planning to take Linda Ronstadt back to the African nudist colony.
I lived through Moonbeam’s governing before …. So Cal still suffers horrendous traffic jams due to his fuckups (don’t build it and they won’t come).
I will march on goddamned Sacramento with a torch and pitchfork if they even consider getting rid of Prop 13.
That’s because California is in a state of constitutional gobbledygook. I’m merely pointing out that the authority to decide this was given to the court, it did not assume it for itself. Although I think it did just that when it legalized SSM. Also, I don’t think it should be trying to answer the question on the validity of pre-Prop 8 ssm’s. If Prop 8 holds, marriage is unquestionably defined. There is no legal basis for them to make exceptions to the definition, and the state can only recognize as marriages those that fit the definition.
I am opposed to SSM but would accept civil unions.
This position never has made a lick of sense to me. You oppose gay “marriage” … unless its called something else? Is that supposed to be a compromise? Do you oppose rape, unless it is called “nonconsensual canoodling?”
Contracts between individuals are bad?
It’s easy, but I don’t see what marriage has to do with either.
The point of civil unions is to address the actual reasons SSM proponents claim makes them want marriage, while preserving actual marriage as what it is.
Which has naturally led to comparisons to “separate but equal,” which has led inevitably to the gay bloc pissing off the black bloc which agrees with mainstream Americans that being black and being gay are not the same thing.
Inter-identity-group squabbling aside, the question ultimately comes down to, have SSM proponents been honest about why they want SSM? And the evidence is that no, they have not.
The way I was raise4d, you don’t reward that kind of dishonesty.
Libertarianism is the closest thing our little country has to a reset button. Either that or killing all the journalists, but I say why choose. I agree a lot with peter except for how hostile he is to the Christian peoples who I think did a very good job raising me and serving nutritious hot meals and helping out with bail that one time.
Chris Taylor
I understand and support same-sex couples who want to have an enforceable contract to protect their partnership – from medical decisions to property rights to adoption of children. I do not want them included in marriage because they are not the same as hetero couples. Male and female are not fungible, which HAS to be assumed to make the claim that gay and straight couples are “the same.”
This is where the rubber meets the road on radical agenda — if SSM advocates are honest about just wanting protection rather then criminalizing anyone that refuses to celebrate “gay marriage” then domestic partnerships or civil unions will be perfectly acceptable to them.
This is like separating honest environmentalists from Leftists in green garb — ask them about nuclear power — a person honest about wanting clean energy will be a hearty advocate of nukes. Powerhungry misanthropes reject it out of hand.
The point of civil unions is to address the actual reasons SSM proponents claim makes them want marriage, while preserving actual marriage as what it is.
They’re marriages with a different name. That’s all they are. Calling them something different doesn’t change that, and it doesn’t help to have the government endorse marriage under two names and churches only one, and I fear that will end up with religion losing to state power.
As a married man, I beg to differ.
I’ve already stated the reason for my opposition to SSM — that a marriage is a union of one member of each sex. Eliminate that, and there is no logic to keep from defining marriage to mean anything up to and including the relationship between the deranged middle-aged spinster down the block and her 103 cats.
Cats can’t agree to binding contracts, McGehee. Neither can minors.
I don’t much care about polygamy, personally.
The only reason you’re stuck on people being able to agree or being old enough to agree to binding contracts is a legal structure. It is illegal to marry someone of the same sex in most states presently; that’s being changed by a tiny number of loud activists and well-meaning or credulous people who want to seem nice or don’t think through what they’re told. So the whole “contractual ability” argument is fallacious.
The only reason you’re stuck on people being able to agree or being old enough to agree to binding contracts is a legal structure.
Sorry, you’re simply not making any sense here.
It is illegal to marry someone of the same sex in most states presently
Used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race in many states.
So?
that’s being changed by a tiny number of loud activists
I think you’re arguing with someone else, Christopher. You may want to go back and read what I’ve written in this thread and others on the same topic.
“You oppose gay “marriage†… unless its called something else? Is that supposed to be a compromise? ”
People seem to think separate but equal works. Me? I think its just fine as a step some people, and progress, needs to take. All for it.
meya
People seem to think separate but equal works.
That’s a non-starter. Male and female are not fungible; therefore, male/male or female/female couplings are NOT THE SAME as male/female.
Sorry, you’re simply not making any sense here.
Allow me to try again.
The reason you find objection with anyone marrying when too young or non human as you state it is “because they cannot sign or agree to a contract.”
The only reason that a contractual agreement is necessary is because the law is presently structured as to
a) require a contract
b) limit contracts to those who are legally able to sign them
Thus, the law is what makes your objection valid, not some objective, absolute truth. Contractual agreements are as structured in our society based on law.
Now, in the past, gays could not “marry” because law did not permit them to. Or, as you point out, two people of different ethnic backgrounds were not legally permitted to marry in some states. They were as impossible to wed as a fish and a man because it was contractually invalid, because the law was defined in such a way as to deny that.
Laws change.
Thus, your argument that these faux marriages (tables, fish, children) is not an issue or is not comparable to gay marriage because contracts and laws do not permit it is simply invalid. Those laws you appeal to can change, just as previous laws against gay marriage.
If you want to oppose a man and a little girl marrying you’ll have to find something other than “the law is agin’ it,” and cannot thus shrug aside that concern in a discussion of gay “marriage” for the reason of present legal structures.
I see what you did, there.
For once.
[…] currently being cataloged (along with other reactions) by The Other McCain, Little Miss Attila, Protein Wisdom, & The Sundries Shack. Personally, I’ll start taking said Left-outrage more seriously […]
whey protein is great for supporting those muscles that are workout heavily’`.