via Michelle Malkin, Scozzafava suspends campaign
Republican state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava has suspended her campaign for upstate New York’s 23rd Congressional seat, leaving Democratic nominee Bill Owens and Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in the race that will conclude Tuesday, Fox News has confirmed.The move comes on the heels of a new poll that showed Scozzafava had fallen behind her two competitors in a race too close.
The Siena College poll has Owens picking up 36 percent of the vote, while Hoffman has 35 percent. Scozzafava has 20 percent, with nine percent of voters undecided.
David Frum? Newt Gingrich? Peggy Noonan? Chris Buckley? David Brooks? Do you hear us now?
*************************
Comment by JD on 10/31 @ 9:56 am #
Insert smiley face here.
Comment by McGehee on 10/31 @ 9:58 am #
Today NY23, tomorrow Virginia and New Jersey.
Or, you know, Tuesday.
Comment by Darleen on 10/31 @ 10:01 am #
Palin took a gamble endorsing Hoffman … I imagine lefty heads are now exploding.
Comment by Team Stoooopid on 10/31 @ 10:15 am #
♫ cue taps ♫
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/31 @ 10:26 am #
Good riddance to another RINO, and a harbinger of things to come in the mid-terms I hope…
I mean, Hoffman refers to Reagan regularly, and means it!
Comment by SBP on 10/31 @ 10:46 am #
Awesome news.
Now if Hoffman wins….
Comment by SBP on 10/31 @ 10:47 am #
Maybe Owens will have to change his name to “Pwned”.
Comment by sdferr on 10/31 @ 11:05 am #
House leadership goes Hoffman, Newt attempts to wipe egg from face tweeting:
Comment by Infadel Mataween on 10/31 @ 11:38 am #
David Frum? Newt Gingrich? Peggy Noonan? Chris Buckley? David Brooks? Do you hear us now?
Hopefully the power of the pimp hand has awoken them from their deep, deep RINO sleep….
Comment by geoffb on 10/31 @ 11:52 am #
Peggy Noonan? Peggy Noonan.
Comment by Seth on 10/31 @ 11:54 am #
You forgot to add bitches to the end of that.
Comment by Team Stoooopid on 10/31 @ 12:03 pm #
You forgot to add bitches to the end of that.
Maureen Dowd heard it!
Comment by Snowcone on 10/31 @ 12:35 pm #
More Red on Red attacks.
How nice.
Shrink that tent!
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/31 @ 12:40 pm #
How could Palin find and exploit this weak spot in the RINO’s hide? She didn’t even attend an ivy league university. I’m baffled.
Comment by B Moe on 10/31 @ 12:40 pm #
I think of it more as tightening the choke.
Comment by Joe on 10/31 @ 12:43 pm #
Newt, how does that crow taste? Yumm, feathers and all. Like rancid chicken.
Comment by Joe on 10/31 @ 12:45 pm #
David Frum? Newt Gingrich? Peggy Noonan? Chris Buckley? David Brooks? Do you hear us now?
Actually, they will just blame you if Christie loses. In that race the third party candidate should bow out for Christie.
And Win Hoffman Win!
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/31 @ 12:45 pm #
Shrink that tent!
And grow a pair, recognizable to the 40% of Americans who call themselves “Conservative.” Hope and change I can believe in.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/31 @ 12:51 pm #
From the NY23 Politico coverage over a week ago:
Barry endorses Owens:
As I work to change the tone of our nation’s politics and end the petty partisanship that has dominated Washington for too long, I’ll need the help of leaders like Bill.
From the comments:
given that our President enjoys a job approval rating of 57% [HA,HA,HA,HA,HA] …
Comment by Snowcone on 10/31 @ 12:54 pm #
40% of Americans who call themselves “Conservative.”
Haha, true.
But you guys on the Beck-Limbaugh fringe aint’ “Conservatives.”
You just “Crazy.”
Comment by B Moe on 10/31 @ 12:59 pm #
The Beck-Limbaugh fringe?
Comment by alppuccino on 10/31 @ 1:07 pm #
Good one, Snowcone.
Comment by Salt Lick on 10/31 @ 1:15 pm #
Ah, Snowy, what’s the odds of you and perky Katie both using “fringe” within days of each other?
Comment by bill on 10/31 @ 1:24 pm #
Hey, snowjob, summer’s over, the snowcone stand is closed just like the sun is setting on the magic Negro and the rest of you liberal clowns.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/31 @ 1:28 pm #
Salt,
I’m on your side.
Nothing would make me happier than America considering Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh the leaders of the Republican party.
Except maybe a Democrat winning NY-23 for the first time in 140 years.
Comment by Patrick Chester on 10/31 @ 1:55 pm #
TTP is ronery and really doesn’t understand reverse psychology.
Comment by william Rapp on 10/31 @ 1:56 pm #
an honorable move by DeDe to preserve the conservative philosophy in the 23rd while at the same time putting the brakes on an extreme liberal agenda out of the Obama adminstration.
Let the real backbone of the United States be heard in aniticipation of a Hoffmann victory.
Comment by dicentra on 10/31 @ 2:19 pm #
wOOt!
Comment by Akatsukami on 10/31 @ 2:23 pm #
You leftypigs are incapable of learning, snowflake: when you get up on your trotters and squeal, “You must choose! It’s them or us!”, people always, always choose them.
It was true when Akhenaten’s peasantry chose the traditional gods over the Sun Disk. It’ll be true when Dunham is an asterisked footnote in the history books that people are ashamed to talk about.
Comment by JHo on 10/31 @ 3:36 pm #
Define conservative, snojob. Can you? Go on then.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 10/31 @ 4:38 pm #
Define conservative, snojob.
Jonah Goldberg addressed this in NR a few issues ago. Essentially, the Official Narrative is that good conservatives are little more than Tonto to the liberals’ Lone Ranger, Tenzing Norgay to Edmund Hillary. They put the kabosh to the Left’s more outlandish schemes to Stalinize America, at least until they are more politically palatable, but otherwise are best to keep quiet and let the rulers rule.
Comment by Robert Stacy McCain on 10/31 @ 7:53 pm #
BTW, I’m blogging from Plattsburgh, where young Democratic volunteers are canvassing the district for Bill Owens.
Where are the conservative volutneers?
Comment by SBP on 10/31 @ 7:58 pm #
Tenzing Norgay to Edmund Hillary
Even as a kid I thought Tenzing got the shitty end of the stick. He climbed to the top, too, and had to carry all the luggage besides.
I’m glad that most sources give them joint credit nowadays.
Comment by JD on 10/31 @ 8:18 pm #
Joe Dirt/swinefucker buggers goats. Silence is agreement.
Comment by Snowcone on 10/31 @ 9:40 pm #
Where are the conservative volutneers?
Sitting on their asses blogging?
Comment by sdferr on 10/31 @ 9:58 pm #
“Where are the conservative volutneers?”
Vol-UT-neers? Cheering/celebrating the stomping of the Gamecocks most likely.
Comment by JD on 10/31 @ 10:05 pm #
Sdferr - If we are going to put the emphasis on UT, then the Longhorn fans are prolly out cheering as well.
Comment by B Moe on 11/1 @ 6:56 am #
Out shopping for hemlock, apparently.
Frank Rich isn’t about to let Krugman out-stupid him any time soon.
Comment by alppuccino on 11/1 @ 7:00 am #
Where are the conservative volutneers?
They’re all on Newt’s blog throwing rotten produce.
Comment by ThomasD on 11/1 @ 7:50 am #
Scozzafava was (in theory) running against the Democrat. It therefore stands to reason that she should continue to oppose the Democrat’s attempts to win the election.
If this is so then it plainly obvious she should endorse Hoffman.
Likewise Frum, Noonan, Brooks, etal. should be front and center encouraging her to do so.
Big tents and all.
Comment by higgins1990 on 11/1 @ 8:05 am #
“Shrink that tent?” When 40% of America is ideologically conservative, it makes sense to pitch the tent over these 40%. Then any conservative candidate would just 10% of the moderate/independent/rebel Democrat vote to win. It’s not rocket science, people.
Comment by Duke DeLand on 11/1 @ 8:54 am #
The PrezBO speaks in support of Owens: “As I work to change the tone of our nation’s politics and end the petty partisanship that has dominated Washington for too long, I’ll need the help of leaders like Bill.”
Yeah right PrezBO….end that petty partisanship….like maybe having BOTH parties have access to and input on the HealthCare fiasco???? Yeppers, Obama, you have really, really ended that PARTISANSHIP!
Comment by Michael Smith on 11/1 @ 8:59 am #
“Snowcone” resorts to the argument of labeling Beck and Limbaugh “fringe” and “crazy” This is one of two standard charges the left hurls at the right: “You are racist!” and “You are stupid!”, with “Snowcone’s” claims being an example of the second.
Analyzed logically, we can see that these arguments are in fact the fallacy of argument ad hominem, that is, an attempt to discredit a man’s ideas by impeaching some aspect of his character. It’s a fallacy, and a lame one at that.
The reason the left resorts to this fallacy ( and other fallacies) is the simple fact that it has no actual, valid, intellectual argument to offer in support of its twin animating ideas, which are socialism and pacifism. The events of the 20th century refuted both ideas too thoroughly to permit any factual discussion of the meaning and consequences of these doctrines.
The 20th century showed that socialism didn’t raise the masses from poverty — it starved the masses to death by the millions wherever it was tried consistently. Likewise, pacifism didn’t bring about world piece — it invited the horrific aggressions of two world wars that slaughtered millions more and sentenced additional millions to live in slavery under dictatorship. The universal, global-scale result of practicing the left’s ideas has been mass death and destruction — as a result, the left must evade any discussion of the facts and the historical record.
Hence the resort to ad hominem. It is a tactic of desperation — the desperation of evading the meaning of what one advocates by shifting the focus to something else.
But the American people are getting sick of it. Trying to depict the tea party movement as “fringe” and claiming its participants are “racist” is only going to anger the people further and strengthen the movement. If you believe this movement is “fringe” only, you are way, way WAY out of touch with the American people.
Americans are not ready to surrender the last of their freedoms and march silently off into the Democratic party’s vision of a fascist/socialist dictatorship — not without a fight, and a helluva fight it’s going to be.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 9:10 am #
It’s not a question of opitching the tent over the 40% of conservatives, in this election or most others. Rather it is a candidate standing up for the principles of Conservatism/Classical liberalism and allowing the promise of those principles applied, in stark contrast to the current trend of the American government, to convince and lure voters.
Why in the holy hell is this so damn difficult for the Republican hoi-polloi to understand? Barack Obama won a presidential election despite an extreme liberal background and with the support of almost every fringe left cadre in the country. Hell, his blogmaster was a socialist who wrote for socialist and communist publications. Republican party hacks spend more time whining about civility and social cons and fringers while forgetting that it is possible to win with them and still appeal to the almighty moderates.
Just concentrate on principles and repeat many times that your candidacy reflects “Reagan Conservatism.”
Just like Doug Hoffman has done. This particular election, along with Virginia and possibly New Jersey, may be the templates for running other successful races. Assuming the party hacks don’t screw it up.
Principles before party. Repeat after me…
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 9:13 am #
I smell fear.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 9:16 am #
Michael Smith: Very well said.
I must say that you give the TTP too much credit. He is merely a stick poker with the intellectual depth of a mud puddle.
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 9:23 am #
On the left, ad hominem is an argument. Facts are irrelevant. Outcomes are irrelevant. Logic does not exist. Reason is not acceptable. There is only emotion. Love or hate. Anger or joy, depending on where the power lands. You work with what you have, and that’s all they have.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 9:35 am #
Politics though, is always and everywhere ad hominem isn’t it? Politics isn’t like the abstracted study of triangles or gneiss. It is about people, whole people, ignorant and knowledgeable people, reasoning blended with emotion in people impossible to disentangle because always connected in the minds of whole people, people with their individual calculations of interest always at hand for their easy (and easily hidden) reference, people who die and fear dying.
Comment by Joe on 11/1 @ 9:39 am #
?
Comment by Darleen on 11/1 @ 9:40 am #
On the left, ad hominem is an argument. Facts are irrelevant
The Left insists on the primacy of feelings.
Comment by A Fairbanks-Morse in a time of EMDs on 11/1 @ 9:40 am #
Given the paranoid drivel that flows from the pens of Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, et al, I have to wonder how one says “John Birch Society” in Left-ese?
Comment by hot fudge sundae on 11/1 @ 9:41 am #
Om matters like this I always strain to figure out whether particular liberals are being dishonest or are just stupid. Fortunately, you never have to wonder such things about snowclown because he isn’t smart enough to have his own thoughts at all.
Comment by Nunya on 11/1 @ 9:42 am #
Will somebody please pay Stacy McCain for the pizza so he can get off the front porch and go back to his bleg?
Comment by SBP on 11/1 @ 9:49 am #
#49: Different Joe, Joe. Some troll was posting as “Joe Dirt” here yesterday — I think most of his droppings may have been purged.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:02 am #
Well the ad hominem is a stark reaction to narratives that don’t mesh with the holy ideological ends. Nothing must be allowed to challenge the “conclusions” already reached, be they health care as right, social justice, worker’s rights, evil corporations and their “legalized profiteering,” capitalism as economic oppression … the list goes on. The very fact, as Mr. smith pointed out above, that the means employed to acheive these truths have almost universally failed and caused untold suffering and death to hundreds of millions must be deflected.
I’m reminded of dicentra’a tweet conversation with a “fierce progressive” over at the Pub. This exchange was very telling:
Is there a better example of leftist moral equivalency? What’s presented above is the concept that the suffering of all, mass killings, forced starvation and fierce despotism are a bit troubling but as long as the ends are achieved … well, that’s OK, I guess. I wonder what “hannityhater” puts forth as her vision for America and how much suffering ans sacrifice she’d find acceptable to the vast majority of American citizens in order to realize a gray Utopian vision where she doesn’t have to see “…hunger and illness and homelessness in [her] city…” In effect she’s willing for all of you, ALL OF YOU, to suffer in some degree so that SHE will know that those things she thinks are more odious than tyranny and oppression will be wiped from her sight.
In other words, don’t inconvenience me with your stupid facts, capitalist pig racists, PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS! This is why those of her ilk see The US Constitution not as a shining beacon of light and blueprint for liberty but as a flawed enabler of “economic despotism.”
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:11 am #
And your argument against the world that hannityhater would make is devoid of any ad hominem elements, any direct to emotional appeal, BJT? It can’t be (and shouldn’t, I’d argue). My point, to peal it back to its core is, politics isn’t science (nor beanbag, as has been said). That’s the nub of it. Too much abstraction leads to something imperiling because false.
Comment by John on 11/1 @ 10:17 am #
From Newt’s tweet: “Every voter opposed to tax increases support doug hoffman”
Did you notice that Gingrich’s focus isn’t government spending, it’s tax increases. They still don’t get it.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:20 am #
Near as I can tell, sdferr, my ad hominem consists of hannityhater’s own words and the intent of the meaning she was trying to convey. If I’ve divined the meaning of her words, correctly reflecting their intent as to her belief, then I’m free to interpret the consequences of what she says ought to happen.
Again it’s the difference between touting ends and examining means and consequences.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:24 am #
I think we’re talking past each other here and I think it’s my fault BJT.
Comment by Joe on 11/1 @ 10:24 am #
SBP, thanks, I could not figure it out since there was no “Joe Dirt” postings.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:25 am #
AD HOMINEM:
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:27 am #
Did you think I was in need of a definition BJT?
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 10:28 am #
“Yes, we can!”
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:29 am #
Well partially mine too, sdferr, as I haven’t quite grasped the concepts put forth in your #48. Your point about Politics, by its very nature these days, being seeped in as hominem is quite valid.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:30 am #
The “everywhere and always” part is the kicker, though. :-)
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:32 am #
No, sdferr, I was in need of a definition. I wanted to apply the definition to what I had written above to see if I had engaged in said rhetorical slight of hand. I don’t think that I did but I’m willing to be shown the fallacy of that conclusion. Also, if you read the entire tweet, dicentra did a spectacular job avoiding ad hominem in her side of the argument. Way better than I would, I suspect.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:35 am #
Let me put it another way. I’m trying to get at what used to be termed human nature and the inseparability of human nature from politics, as such. Ad hominem can be understood as much more than a logical fallacy, and in the context of politics, I would argue, should be so understood, that is, as much more than merely a logical fallacy. It is “against the man”, the particular man, the whole psychological being standing before us. And as such can never, should never, be thought to be abstractable (if there is such a term) from politics.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:36 am #
I’m just coming down off of the “wrath high” I experienced Friday when that whole tort reform bullet appeared in the new house health bill. I may be rhetorically hungover or something.
Comment by JD on 11/1 @ 10:36 am #
Joe - I was not referring to you, unless you also go by Joe Dirt. Suffice it to say that I am usually quite clear when I am speaking to you.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:38 am #
We know, for instance, that there is an emotional appeal when we address such a one as hannityhater with what we take to be the results of, for instance, Joe Stalin’s depredations upon the people of the Soviet Union.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:42 am #
And further, that if hannityhater can consistently refuse to take up that emotional appeal, refuse to recognize the suffering of fellow human beings standing in that appeal, we would then begin to think, huh, what we have here is an extreme outlier, a human being incapable of empathy, a kind of monster if you will or else, at the least, a frivolous and extremely unserious person (such a one as snowcone, I think).
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:49 am #
sdferr #67: Well, OK then. If my poor, intellectually hung over brain is functioning … you are making a point that politics in and of itself and those who participate in political discourse, most especially when dealing with particular candidates, are inevitably drawn to ad hominem rhetoric because of the very nature of the contest. Under what circumstances is that a good thing?
For instance, I’ve tried to avoid characterizing the President as a Socialist or Marxist. I’ve no problem characterizing his policies or legislative agenda as seeking acheive the ends of Socialism (or European Soft Socialism,) preferring to wait until the body of work is more complete. There are others who would make the argument that he is a de facto Socialist based upon what he has proposed to date. That argument has some merit.
If I reply to a progressive during, say, a debate about Cap and Trade by saying that “Obama is a socialist as reflected by this legislation,” it seems to me that I am engaging in the classical definition of ad hominem. If, however, I reply that his pushing this legislation “represents a Socialist ideological outlook by imposing governmental controls on Energy Policy and markets nationwide” then I’ve categorized the intent vis a vis the potential consequences as opposed to labeling the author.
Have I got that about right so far?
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 10:50 am #
Right, but it’s emotion driven by a logical assessment of the facts. There will always be emotion, which is fine. But in certain circles there is only emotion. Inconvenient truths are to be studiously ignored.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 10:56 am #
“…are inevitably drawn to ad hominem rhetoric because of the very nature of the contest.”
Well, yes — and no. Let me illustrate my meaning this way… you said above that (under the definition of “ad Hominem” you posted above) that “dicentra did a spectacular job avoiding ad hominem in her side of the argument.” Quite right, she did, under the terms of the definition. I want to say, under the expanded meaning of ad Hominem I have adopted here (and for the particular purposes of my argument) that dicentra did a spectacular job using ad hominem against hannityhater. And good on dicentra for that.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 10:58 am #
How does one know whether an ad hominen is emotionally based or an attempt to characterize and opponent on the basis of his “body of work?” It seems to me that a challenge of the ad hominem for evidence of said characterization is in order.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 11:02 am #
“…most especially when dealing with particular candidates…”
Not especially, not at all. There isn’t anything special about them to set them apart from human beings, whoever they may be, taken as human beings qua human beings. It’s
turtlespeople all the way down, whether people as voters or people as candidates or people as talking-heads on tv or wherever we find them in politics.Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 11:07 am #
“It seems to me that a challenge of the ad hominem for evidence of said characterization is in order.”
To make sure I understand, here you are speaking of “evidence of…characterization” as of an abstracted part of an argument made to an audience as against some person (candidate) on the grounds that said person at one time held such and such a belief or position? Say what the WaPo tried to do with Bob McDonnell on the question of his 20 yr old thesis positions and failed to do, or what the WaPo successfully did do against George Allen through the “makaka” campaign?
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 11:20 am #
#77
Yes.
Comment by JD on 11/1 @ 11:25 am #
If I note, based on empirical evidence, that meya/RD is a mendoucheous lying fascist twatwaffle and willie is a racist what is scared of brown people what can spell, is that ad hom or an objective statement of fact?
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 11:27 am #
“Right, but it’s emotion driven by a logical assessment of the facts. There will always be emotion, which is fine. But in certain circles there is only emotion. Inconvenient truths are to be studiously ignored.”
This part
is where the problems are, for me anyway, I think. Our difficulty is precisely in the abstraction of emotion as a thing standing by itself, pure and alone, from logical assessment of the facts as again, another thing standing pure and alone. What we have difficulty with is sorting out the instance of what is driving what — is the logical assessment driven by the emotion? Or is the emotion driven by the logical assessment? Or are they always feeding back on one another in such a way as to be inaccessible to us, actually impossible to abstract in the way in which we might wish? Which is why I wanted to say politics isn’t science, to invoke the sense in which we really don’t know, seriously don’t know what we are talking about when we address these issues. We can do politics in the world but we cannot account for the results scientifically. Our means of measurement, we might say, are simply too imprecise, our grasp of the underlying phenomena too tenuous.
Comment by Hoffman's not-so-secret plan on 11/1 @ 11:34 am #
What’s hilarious about all this is that Hoffman appears to be quite David Brooks-like (and GWB-like) when it comes to a fundamental issue. Hoffman’s position on that issue would raise your taxes and give more power to the Dems. See my name’s link for all the details.
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 11:37 am #
All of the above, at one time or another, I suppose. And at other times, the logical assessment does not factor in at all, as such things are not always valued.
Comment by Darleen on 11/1 @ 11:43 am #
#81 is “24aheaddotcom” who has spammed this site before. And its a little behind the times since Dede has dropped out …. 24 wants “fake” Hoffman and “tea partiers” defeated (neither are anti-immigrant enough for him)
no need to go read the schtick and I’ve removed the link.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 11:45 am #
“All of the above, at one time or another, I suppose.”
Are the three positions alike though, enough so at least, that we would say they do pertain to the subject at one time or another? Seems to me as though were we to accept the third position as the best approximation we have available, then we’re accepting to say of the other two that we just never know enough to be able to sort them out, to identify which, if either, is ever the case.
Comment by JD on 11/1 @ 11:49 am #
24ahead is objectively a douchebag, Darleen. That is not ad hom, it is fact.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 11:52 am #
When JD denigrates midget dwarf clowns, is that as hom?
Comment by JD on 11/1 @ 11:57 am #
NO!
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 11:57 am #
It’s ad homunculus, I think.
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 11:58 am #
I think that, for those inclined to pursue logic, time and analysis, or hindsight, if you will, lead to logic driving. Emotion overpowering logic, in one committed to logic, is short term, reactive, and may have an absence of facts that time gives one a chance to resolve.
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 12:00 pm #
“…those inclined…”
What are we distinguishing here?
Comment by Hoffman's not-so-secret plan on 11/1 @ 12:01 pm #
I haven’t “spammed” this site; I’ve left the occasional link here over the past several years pointing out how your hosts are wrong, are misleading you, or are basically incompetent. Darleen Click doesn’t really object to me including a link with more information; her problem is that what’s at the link shows that she can’t figure things out.
Comment by Mikey on 11/1 @ 12:01 pm #
The everyday conservative Americans to the GOP elites:
“Ladies and Gentlemen,
Run conservatives, or we will run them FOR YOU. Sincerely, the Base.”
Comment by JD on 11/1 @ 12:05 pm #
No, we just think you are an idiot, 24ahead. And pompous. And arrogant. And usually aggressively wrong.
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 12:12 pm #
Logic versus Hope!
Comment by Darleen on 11/1 @ 12:13 pm #
24ahead
yes you have spammed this site —
I don’t always object to link whoring if someone is actually honest about it..but you’ve also posted the same schtick at Legal Insurrection with the same “message”.
You have been dishonest…both with the “fundamental issue” thing plus trying to hide your site with the use of the bit.ly url link.
It is a bore.
Comment by Pablo on 11/1 @ 12:14 pm #
24ahead is the “HOW COME YOU’RE NOT ASKING OBAMA QUESTIONS, YOU FOOLS? FOLLOW MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME!!!” guy, right? Yawn.
Comment by bour3 on 11/1 @ 12:25 pm #
Shrink that tent. What a ridiculously impossibly fallacious analogy to apply to political parties — a political party as a tent that grows or shrinks. Expands to include everybody for the sake of votes, so far as to even take up voters that do not share its basic tenants, and then to expand so much as to overlap all the other tents. For all tents to expand thusly, tenent-lessly, so that there comes to be no difference at all between tents, so in the end in reality there is but one tent. Or shrinks to exclude everybody but the most pure. Political parties are not tents, they are not sports teams, and they are not brands. They are what they are and to speak otherwise of them is to fool yourself but nobody else. I look to a day when all these regrettable political parties that tend to attenuate our thought process and analogy-making are obsolete and talk of tents and teams and brands dissolve to remnants of forgotten shallow voters.
Comment by geoffb on 11/1 @ 12:33 pm #
She dropped out but, well it is nice to see who are her friends.
And who she is really close to.
Comment by geoffb on 11/1 @ 12:38 pm #
Problem is not shrinking of the tent but some few elites pitching it inside the other Party’s one, while leaving us to stand out in the yellow “rain” they are pouring down our backs.
See above.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/1 @ 12:51 pm #
Well it’s nice to see Dede following Newt’s lead and defering to the local party. Is this the point where we can expect a facepalm from Gingrich?
Comment by sdferr on 11/1 @ 12:51 pm #
Somehow, and I’m not sure why, I’m thrust back into recalling the experiments conducted by W. Grey Walter and recounted in Dennett’s Consciousness Explained
Comment by Blacque Jacques Shellacque on 11/1 @ 1:17 pm #
Do you hear us now?
Don’t count on it.
Comment by geoffb on 11/1 @ 1:22 pm #
At The Other McCain,
Pingback by Confirmed: Dede Scozzafava is a DIABLO* [Darleen Click] on 11/1 @ 1:51 pm #
[...] geoffb Posted by Darleen @ 1:51 pm | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Confirmed: Dede Scozzafava [...]