Are aggressive progressive policy initiatives actually a boon to legal conservatism? Michael Barone, Realclearpolitics:
Some 14 state attorneys general are trying to raise the issue in court, and pending state laws outlawing mandates could raise the question, as well. Those state laws are obviously invalid under the supremacy clause unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Is it?
I would expect an Obama nominee to decline to answer. But Republicans may not take such a response as meekly as they did when Ginsberg declined to answer dozens of questions back in 1993. They might press harder, as they did in 2009 when they prompted Sotomayor to declare, to the dismay of some liberal law professors, that she would only interpret the Constitution and the law, not make new law. Just raising the health care mandate issue helps Republicans given the great and apparently growing unpopularity of the Democrats’ legislation.
Another set of questions could prove embarrassing for Democrats who have lauded Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade for creating a right to privacy that includes contraception and abortion. “How can the freedom to make such choices with your doctor be protected and not freedom to choose a hip replacement or a Caesarean section?” asks former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey in The Wall Street Journal. “Either your body is protected from government interference or it’s not.”
McCaughey also notes that in 2006 the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Oregon ruled that the federal government couldn’t set standards for doctors to administer lethal drugs to terminally ill patients under Oregon’s death with dignity act. So does the Constitution empower the feds to regulate non-lethal drugs in contravention of other state laws?
Such questions may not persuade an Obama nominee to rule that Obamacare is unconstitutional. But they can raise politically damaging issues in a high-visibility forum at a time when Democrats would like to move beyond health care and talk about jobs and financial regulation. Stevens apparently timed his retirement to secure the confirmation of a congenial successor — but some Democrats probably wish that he had quit a year ago, when they had more Senate votes and fewer unpopular policies.
Now is not the time for collegiality and “good man” gesturings. As I noted in my previous post today, it is my contention that the perfect conditions exist for a kind of ideological “Borking” of whatever liberal activist judicial nominee Obama puts forward — with the proviso that the attacks be intellectual and based on judicial philosophy, and that they avoid the kind of ad hominem debasements that conservative nominees have often been subjected to.
Republicans mustn’t fear how the media will portray their questions; they must recognize that no matter how well they stick to points of judicial philosophy, they will themselves be painted as desirous of maintaining the white patriarchal power structure and enforcing a status quo that gives an unfair advantage to profiteers, “big business,” etc.
But the truth is, such attacks are wearing thin as a rhetorical strategy. Once everyone is called a racist or xenophobe at some point based on a particular policy position, virtually no one takes such attacks seriously beyond their potential to silence a critic who wearies of offering a (quite unnecessary, most tacitly realize) defense.
The kinds of questions McCaughey raises are a good start. Treat the American public who watches and listens to the proceedings as if they are adults capable of comprehending fine distinctions and contradictions. Stick to the principles. And in so doing, the GOP can go along way toward showing itself to be tethered to the liberties many Americans are beginning to feel are being taken away from them and granted to the government as their de facto overseers.
My prediction is that Obumbles will not nominate a white man, even if such a candidate was off-the-charts Left and he believed that confirmation would be assured. He wants the media to have the raw material which will consist of Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, et al. questioning the nominee, so that his media lackeys can ask where the “faces of color” in the Republican Senate caucus are (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
I agree that it’s time to try this approach. The standard nominee question set is not working well for us. Plus, it’s high time that GOP people got used to being accused of being racists and patriarchs and started letting that roll of easier. One needs a thick skin to be in politics, something our president should have realized before he started (not that a narcissist like him would realize that he indeed had any failings).
I don’t hold a lot of hope for a good outcome, though, since my despair is great. However, I don’t want others to join me in despair. It’s better to fight with whatever you have in you. Every now and then I try to educate those in meatspace who seem to be willing to listen, and I hope that someone listening in will at least start to question their presumptions.
It is not easy, but no one said it would be.
Now is the time for all good men to thank God that Arlen Specter is an out and proud dirty socialist now.
Abso-frikkin-lutely. Hit ’em hard, hit ’em often. Take no chances and take no prisoners.
Etc, etc.
Sauce for the gander.
This post deserves more commenting, but the fight is still in the last post. For now, anyway.
Some (Steyn as well as other pundits) are arguing that it might be a good time for a constitutional convention. I understand that the states can call for one if there are enough of them. HCR is a huge unfunded mandate on the state’s dime, let alone what it’s doing to the many states that already have programs in place (which is the way it should be from a Federalist perspective). I think that the uprising of most of the states against this bill would have a huge impact, even if nothing were actually done in a convention. Sure, we have way too many statists out there as it is, but perhaps they really don’t know what it really means to live under such a system until it’s pointed out to them in excruciating detail. They think they’re just going to get some free stuff, which of course doesn’t even begin to describe what’s happening.
“are arguing that it might be a good time for a constitutional convention.”
For what? An amendment? A new Constitution? Who, exactly, would represent each state? A convention now would turn out a menu of “rights” that the government will deem to deliver to us.
Fill out your form and and get a set of rights based on how we fit the physical mold, believe mythology, what job we work, who we have sex with, what country we emigrated from, where our school district is and how much we make in relation to the lowest-paid employee in the company.
The problem with a constitutional convention is that only those who don’t have to show up for work can attend the whole thing. I’m not sure what kind of constitution one gets from a group like that, but I’m pretty sure it won’t be one I could live under.
I’d be for a Constitutional convention that began and ended with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, having decided to scrap everything legislated since.
A do over, if you will — with the only change to the founding documents being “and this time we fucking mean it” scribbled in the margins.
I’d be willing to settle for one amendment that limits the scope of the Commerce Clause. Something like, “It means enforcing interstate contracts, and that’s about it. Not health care; not growing pot in your back yard. Just ensuring that interstate trade is reliable.”
Intended to create in the United States a free trade zone, (and did so with spectacular success), we might look to the intention of the commerce clause business as an honorable teaching, and learn the lesson to be opposed to protectionism in outbound-inbound trade practices as well. But damned straight we need to get a firm handle on the o’erweening Congress jerking us around by means of stupid interpretation. Fuckin A.
The thing about Constitutional conventions – once you open it, there’s no way to control it. It can’t be limited to some single question, and you may actually end up with a completely different outcome than anyone expects. Like a brand-spankin’-new Constitution.
It’s a crap shoot, basically. Which makes people (quite rightly) nervous.
All information sources, beyond our own senses, are selling only one thing, trust. Once that is gone it is usually gone for good. The best that can be hoped for after a long rehab is “trust but verify”.
For now we are still at the “who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes” stage, and going downhill still.
The thing about Constitutional conventions – once you open it, there’s no way to control it. It can’t be limited to some single question, and you may actually end up with a completely different outcome than anyone expects. Like a brand-spankin’-new Constitution.
It’s a crap shoot, basically. Which makes people (quite rightly) nervous.
We generally get the government we deserve, mojo. We didn’t exactly revere our first Constitution.
I’m pretty sure that three-fourths of the states would have to ratify any amendments as well as a new constitution. There are still enough red states to keep anything insane from happening I think. Maybe.
Anyway, I just want the spectre of a convention thrown in the faces of congress so they’ll back the frell off. I don’t know if it would amount to much, though I like Jeff’s idea of rolling it back and scribbling in “this is what we mean, morons,” as appropriate. Alternately, the commerce clause needs to be fixed, because otherwise federal encroachment is basically unlimited, as it appears to be now.
i’d settle for constitutional reeducations camps for proggs @ gitmo
If you mean the Articles of Confederation, SW, it was a good attempt but fatally flawed in it’s total lack of tax authority. And it got blind-sided and replaced by the current document after a convention to “fix it”.
Levin went off on the SEIU Exec-VP guy today, together with his suspicion, he says, that amnesty for illegal aliens is coming. Git ready, says he. Fight it to the death. Defeat it. Monstrous racists, these progg Service-Union goons, says he. He isn’t wrong.
I agree with cranky-d. We are fighting an ideological struggle which has been building for generations. When I was in the service, I learned to fight for my life with any means possible. It is no different now, except we are using words and ideas as weapons.
The thing about Constitutional conventions – once you open it, there’s no way to control it.
Not true. Any document produced would have to be ratified by the states.
it does sound fairly nerve-wracking though
Or not. In which case the union would be dissolved, as I understand it.
Shhh. Keep your eye on the ball.
Levin is just worried some brown person is going to take his job.
what is Team Dirty Socialist hoping Team R does I wonder… compromise?
Let John McCain give’er the old college try again, would be my guess.
It’s just… I think that’s a fight they’re ready to have I think, the ones that are pushing this.
And I think it will be a cacophonous distraction from a fiscal conservative message.
And I really don’t understand why that makes me a griefer and a troll and tandem.
and I am not working with nishi she sent me a picture is all
and she is very pretty did you know that? She looks a lot like I pictured her with a mischievous glint in her eye.
Herman Cain?
And I really don’t understand why that makes me a griefer and a troll and tandem.
Because even if there is the threat that it becomes a cacophonous distraction – if we don’t fight it we’re fucked. Long term. Fucked. In the not good way.
Part of the problem is that they (and I include Nishi in that ‘they’) have control of the majority of the media. We don’t have to be haters to be haters. If they’re going to lie and cheat … well, shit game over, right? If we just hold up our arms because the narrative is going to go the wrong way … we may has well just give up.
I’m not willing to do that, though.
But what if the fight is choreographed from the start?
I think there’s a script already.
I’m working up a bill of particulars for you.
I also think there are those on Team DS what are ready to have someone rid them of these troublesome Blue Dogs.
They saw what happened to Team R with its lobsterpot hoochies and Arlen and Meghan’s daddy and et cetera.
If they send the blue dogs over to Team R, what do you suppose happens to Team R in the long term?
um…
actually that’s ok Mr. guins I’m good
No, you’re not.
It’s possible that the timely idea will spread like wildfire. It’s happened before, after all, both in good directions and bad.
Liberty has got an awful lot going for it. And the monsters in this movie aren’t urging liberty: they’re urging control of everyone and everything with themselves at the wheel … who’s always harping about a wrong side of history again? It’ll be pretty funny when they’re hoist on their own petard. Or Claymore, whichever.
Improvise. Ad lib. Adapt and overcome. But you can’t just hide in the closet and hope it goes away.
Make it about fiscal responsibility. Uncover and broadcast the Democrats true motivation: that they are just trying to expand their voter base and create more entitlement dependants. What would most “independant” voters think if they read Nishi’s wet dream of a future society?
So we show them.
there’s this:
pant crease
Make it about fiscal responsibility.
I like this cause it demonstrates faith in conservative ideas.
What I fear is less the hateyness that Carin talks about at #30, cause she’s right it’s a given, but more that the argument proceeds with a tacit assumption that Team R knows your average hispanic would never buy what Team R’s selling.
A sort of blame the customer mentality.
That would be fatal.
And I see shades of it a lot.
hmm
I meant to say your average illegal immigrant, or even your average hispanic
Are Americans selling the abrogation of their own laws these days? Cause cool, we can go down to the market and simply get ourselves some stuff we want in that event. What thief wants to hear they can’t be stealing what don’t belong to them anyhow?
I just mean there’s a presumption sometimes that something there is in hispanics what naturally gravitates to dirty socialism.
nishi certainly thinks so.
It’s an idea that should be challenged I think.
Socialism, in whatever its forms, is hardly what I’d describe as natural, so thinking people could be written such that they’d naturally take to the most unnatural of juryriggs just don’t seem natural, somehow. As to the southerners from the farther south, they gonna have to make account for themselves. As my old kitchenmate from El Salvador used to say, “that ain’t my yob.”
‘feets, repeat this on the blackboard 10K times:
“Sarah Palin is not my enemy, nor is she the enemy of Team R. She’s been portrayed as evil, wicked, mean and nassty by the denizens of Team Dirty Socialists because she is feared by them; because her strong core beliefs and values are hated by them; because she represents the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that’s currently visible from the cheap seats, those who are angry and ready to vote.”
Oh, and “Nishi is a mouth-breathing neotene with Dirty Socialist longings”.
That might help somewhat.
yes.
oh. yes to what Mr. sdferr said I mean.
Mr. serr8d they said I wouldn’t have to go through the reeducation.
I have a note.
I completely agree with Jeff here. The Republicans should ask substantial questions, and the nominee should substantially respond. But it never goes that way, does it?
because she represents the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that’s currently visible from the cheap seats, those who are angry and ready to vote.
I like how you put that.
I wish I could believe.
happyfeet, I just saw your #42. Why don’t you and nishi take a long walk off a short pier? Just kidding!
tribalism is chic to a progg
‘feets, there’s no flesh and blood miracles on our side of the aisle. We just don’t grow the fake Jesus – Savior – Messiah sorts like the other side does. Ours have warts and scars; if the didn’t, the other side would invent ’em.
retards are proggs so they like abortions like davidbrooks
“y” is here, if you need it.
I am not a fan of charisma in politicians that’s for sure. But you can’t insist on uncharismatic candidates I guess.
It sure would be a lot safer though.
I think it’s neat how Mr. Daniels is as unitey as he seems to be around here.
Jeff, did you see the Cashill thing today at American Thinker? The Ayers connection is solidified now, pretty much. Barack Obama is NOT a writer.
If it’s Romney – Paul or Paul – Romney, I’ll feel worse than I did when I pulled for Palin – Palin.
I don’t think there is such a thing as an average hispanic.
In fact, I think Team R should open up both barrels on anybody who implies such a thing.
If it’s Romney there’s a lot of people what will reassess the virtues of despair I think.
Put more plainly B Moe I think we should avoid articulating the idea that the Democrats just want to mint themselves a new crop of voters.
is less the hateyness that Carin talks about at #30, cause she’s right it’s a given, but more that the argument proceeds with a tacit assumption that Team R knows your average hispanic would never buy what Team R’s sellin
Why? I mean, are you saying that hispanics are just coming (here) for the goodies the Dems are handing out? Because most immigrants I know come here for the America they’ve dreamed of. Freedom. Opportunity. All that good stuff. If that’s not why hispanics are coming here then fuck them. They can stay down where they came from.
the dumb dumb is speaking to soro’s dick
The Descent of Liberalism Beran article does suggest a unifying, universalizing tale of individuality in the human person, shattering the farcical tale of identity politics in opposition to it. Humanness discovered in the individual human would be a novel story falling on many ears passing by these days. That isn’t to say however, that the story has to be told all Beethoven’s Ninth Finale style though. More like a scratch and sniff might work better.
My mil was an immigrant. When she got here, she shunned anything that resembled her birthland. She wanted to be American.
That’s what is lacking. People moving here who don’t care so much about being american. They want to be [x] while living here.
It’s troubling.
or the race neutral obama dildo
no I’m not saying that
I didn’t say that
I didn’t hint that even
I don’t think that
not even a little
Put more plainly B Moe I think we should avoid articulating the idea that the Democrats just want to mint themselves a new crop of voters.
And why is that? It’s the truth. Make them defend themselves. Their defense changes the conversation but however they spin it they’re boxed in.
let’s move to america and be stupid like hf
what I was saying is that I fear an immigration debate premised on a tacit assumption that conservatism is in opposition to the politics of our immigrant friends more than I fear a debate what tars Team R with hateyness
obami grifter speaks
I think it’s as untrue as it is unhelpful, Mr. Froman, unless we make it true.
tired stupidity. fuck the illegals you progg loser
I think Team R should open up both barrels on anybody who implies such a thing.
Team R marketeers should run an enrollment gimmick.
I know I’d sign up for a shot at first squeeze.
Also, just so you know Carin, when you recommended the article and I found you’re comment, I went straight to your blog and the link. So, not what you said before, that nobody whatevers when you points it out. Cause, not true. I whatevers. But not your fault I was late getting going and JG had posted less’n three minutes after I started. Just so’s you know, it’s good what you did.
do trolls think?
I hear thunder when you speak, Abe.
your average hispanic
Who is that? My boss (a black man born in Honduras whose first language was Spanish but speaks flawless English)? My grandson’s other grandmother, who doesn’t know how to speak Spanish? Marco Rubio? Cameron Diaz?
WHO are you “averaging” as “hispanic”? Is that like trying to “average” Asians?
so “rule of law” = “hateyness” thanks progg for the update
How about the tact that Social Democrats are using illegals and using them to rub the noses of all those immigrants, Latino and others, in the fact that they were SUCKERS!!! to do it all by the rules.
there’s average all kinds of people… it’s data set against data is all
I do it all day long.
Say you want to talk to the average hispanic woman 25-54 who enjoys premium ice cream, for example.
But I just meant that Team R shouldn’t presume that hispanics are inimical to Team R values. Cause I think Team DS is counting on Team R to mint them up some voters more than they are counting on actually minting themselves up a crop of voters..
So do you take issue with the statistics cited in the posts I put up? Because it seems to me that the profs cited have no reason to suggest that Mexicans are not, on the whole, assimilating.
Just because you don’t want it to be true out of some sense of cultural inclusion doesn’t make it “untrue.” And if it IS true, then pointing it out as a function of identifying and correcting the problem seems ENTIRELY helpful.
Am I wrong? And if so, why?
Oh, so now Darleen gets on the Offenstrain. Have a save trip.
Oh. So these hypothetically open-minded Hispanics could come to believe in free markets, individual autonomy, and all that other classical liberal stuff unless we insult them somehow, in which case they’ll turn 180-degrees and vote the exact opposite.
Is that the way you think of these people?
…
RACIST.
Yep it is, an sorry I meant have a safe trip!!
I hadn’t thought about it before but now I kinda do. What do you think of many different kinds of cookie dough ice cream instead of just the chocolate chip? That’d be my ice breaker.
I think I’d also apologize for the terrible, terrible racism of Team R. But, we’d talk about ice cream first.
“I don’t think there is such a thing as an average hispanic.
In fact, I think Team R should open up both barrels on anybody who implies such a thing.
Jackpot BMoe.
Do that in the strongest fashion. Point out that the identity politics card-game players merely view them as another special interest group, baced on race, instead of having individual national and regional heritages. Show them that team R respect this individual identity more than the multi-culti crew, and ergo has more respect for them as individuals…
From there it’s a small step to showing how team DS simply wants to bribe them for their votes with other people’s money, like they have with other victimhood groups; use the friggin word socialist/communist in the discussion of taking from one group to bribe another. South Americans inderstand what socialism and communism is better than many low information Americans. And, if asked how they’d feel having to pay high taxes so that other future victimhood groups be paid off I’m pretty sure you’d find they wouldn’t be down wif that!
These folks aren’t idiots. And I think you’d be surprised at the number of legal immigrants that wouldn’t be down with freely giving illegal immigrants the same gift of citizenship they had to work so hard for. A side benefit might be proving to them that La Raza is also treating them as just another racial monolith to be exploited for political support, instead of the individuals that they actually are-and that they would sell them out however they felt necessary to get a power seat at the team DS power table…
I might suggest that breadpudding is warm ice cream with bread in it and see how that went over.
I know lots of for real hispanics that believe in free markets, individual autonomy, and all that other classical liberal stuff that won;t vote for Team R ever ever if that’s what you mean.
But your statistics… I don’t remember them describing a relationship between acculturation and voting. I think that’s moire the crux of the argument.
Put plainly… I don’t think it’s a given that amnesty would perforce inaugurate dirty socialist voters. But by the end of Team R’s debatings it might very well be what happens.
ok those are good tips
Good idea, sdferr. You’re officially invited to help run one of our focus groups.
Even though I’m partial to ButterPecan?
Jeff, seriously. You’re a brilliant literary critic. You remember everything I knew, because I purposely forgot it. Hang in there, because I can only contribute a bit and I have to leave. Best to you and all.
Team R should go hard anti-Mexican and throw the doors open for everybody else. They would fucking own the hispanic vote.
(This post is total sarcasm meant only to mock the notion of an average hispanic, no actual malice toward Mexicans was intended.)
Nishit finally passed out, huh?
Sorry for rambling.
In short, Hispanics don’t consider themselves all alike based on race as, say, black Americans have been taught to-so to speak-by historical as well as socio/political forces especially over the last 50 years. In the manner if Europeans that many here may be more familiar with, South Americans in particular tend to be waaaaaayyyy more provincial.
Point out that the progressives would rather view them that way for the convenience of expanding team DS’s political power at the expense of their personal individuality. Additionally, show how team DS are Marxist socialist, concepts many know and hate from their original country, and want to exploit them as a group to get there; and how La Raza hypocritically is helping them, not to benefit the immigrants themselves but to increase La Raza’s power…
I hope that cleared up the what I was thinking.
nah the shit heads break the “law” like vdh says
link
Just in case I forget, I denounce and condiment all of you racisty racists.
Thanks JD, I was afraid I ws getting soft and all…
I’m glad to hear I still have that hard, hard, racisty edge on.
You know, for fun and profit!
ok I retract the term of art “average Hispanic”
lather, rinse, repeat
Yeah. Giving amnesty to millions of low skill voters that don’t assimilate well is probably not “perforce” giving the party that panders to identity politics and gives out “free” shit while preaching class warfare any kind of electoral advantage. Perforce.
I blame the fact that Team R comes across as very racist. In translation, I mean.
“Team R should go hard anti-Mexican and throw the doors open for everybody else. They would fucking own the hispanic vote.
(This post is total sarcasm meant only to mock the notion of an average hispanic, no actual malice toward Mexicans was intended.)”
I dunno BMoe,
Most of the South Americans I know say the Mexicans are like the hick-tard trailer-trash taco-billies of Hispanics.
I mean, since they’re all naturally racisty racists, maybe we could get the legacy media’s team R-as-racists meme to work in our favor if we followed your advice!
ok but Mr. G… but at some point Team R is going to have to adapt…
I’ll be curious to see.
Once Hugo gets done screwing over the Columbians (he thinks, I don’t) there’ll be a heap of locals from that general area willing to climb on board team classical liberal I’d wager. Course, it (Hugo’s wet dream) probably isn’t going to happen in the first place, so we can just go with, “So, how’d those Farc dudes work out for ya?”
How can you preach fiscal responsibility, happyfeet, if you are unwilling to address some of its major causes?
You can answer that but I have to go lift weights, because I’ve been lazy today.
You’re a moron hf. I don’t enjoy saying it, but adapt to fucking what? Bilingual education? Multiculturalism? Expansion of the welfare state? Free taco Tuesdays? These people flee Mexico because it is a shithole and we’re supposed to pat them on the head when they bring the shithole with them? This is part of the Democrat business model. They’re as good at it as they are incompetent at running the educational system. And I’m not convinced that the latter isn’t by design.
“…isn’t by design.’
Nah, they just don’t know any better.
Absolutely right, questions on principles that highlight how radical progressives are relative to the average American voter. Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn. Who could/would make this case effectively?
That is my point, Bob. Exploit the internal racism of the hispanic community. According to nishi and hf we have lost the Mexicans anyway, so lets capitalize on the fact that all the other hispanics hate Mexicans and go after the rest of them.
“Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Graham, Cornyn, and Coburn.”
Not one, that I can see. Not one. Damn, don’t that beat all?
I don’t think we should “go after” anyone. Some things are what they are. And some people will be drawn to concepts like liberty, individual freedom, personal responsibility, etc … Others will not. I suspect that there is not a hell of a lot of crossover between those groups.
“…some people…”
Specially the ones who’ve already lived a time under the thumb of totalitarians. Those ones are easy.
We were goofin’ about that JD. We want straight up knuckle-dragging, good-ol-American racism, not the south of the border variety :)
Oh, I know you were all kidding, Bob. I was just thinking out loud.
I am being sarcastic, JD. Trying to point out the foolishness of trying to stick all hispanics into a single box.
I am explicitly arguing against the idea we already lost the Mexicans idea Mr. Moe.
I said it in words and everything.
How can you preach fiscal responsibility, happyfeet, if you are unwilling to address some of its major causes?
I don’t understand the question.
I already brought forward your nicely expressed argument capsule from yesterday.
I just … I wish I had some lucky charms.
I just … I wish I had some lucky charms.
The dirty socialists are always after me lucky charms.
These ones didn’t do it for you hf?
this is kinda nifty to see I think
imaginationative
Nazis on the moon? Yikes.
we still have the habanero popcorn at work…
we need to give it a try
No, BMoe, I get that. I wasn’t even criticizing. I was just thinking that if you have to market the ideas of individual freedom, liberty, etc … that if the audience has not already bought in, they are not likely to be predisposed to said concepts.
Oh, my bad. Let me try again.
lawl….how can you preach fiscal responsibility
Read Campbell. It demographics. HOW is it not inevitable…?
pretzel logic.
GUM!…lol ;’)
<3
heh
Well, when you put it that way…
I think preaching fiscal conservativeness is a signal that a.) Team R gets it and b.) That in the future when they have power that Team R also will still get it.
Fiscal responsibility isn’t preaching it’s doing.
And it’ll have been many moons since anyone even tried.
lulz…u used to be a thinker happy. now your arguments are ridikkulis.
there is NO CULTURE WAR. Its an event like glacialization. Small government and less spending doesn’t appeal to women and minorities who have the vote now.
it’s over. Cultural Evo 101, once something changes it can’t change back ever. ENTROPY!
you can pretend ur not racist but you have to show people. PERCEPTION IS REALITY. Govern like proggressives, it’s your only hope.
NOT palin, bell curve, genes, low info vs academics, recording artists like Li’l Nell, scientists, tv producers!
;-)
GUM!
That parody of nishi would make a great blog post.
Team R might not be the life raft what our little country can cling to that it appears to be.
I feel this very strongly sometimes.
If Team R is a leaky lifeboat, Team dirty little socialist is the torpedo or iceberg that caused the lifeboat to be needed.
Howsomever small or little our country might think itself, it’s not going to fit in any life raft. Still too big, really, and of course, still getting bigger. We’ve got to mine and drill and winnow and cure day to day just to keep on keeping on. Backwardation with the Obama’s just won’t work. Ever.
Must have bacon, I mean.
We have to… it’s like at home in Texas. They were talking about mining the uraniums. I said yes we should mine the uraniums.
And the guy what was mom’s friend person, he said but but bit this and this and also this.
And I said we need to figure this this and this out. But our little country has to be able to do these sorts of things. It’s just not a good road to go down where we can’t.
And he said we should go get some chicken fried steak and mom thought that was a good idea so off we went.
*but* I mean not bit
Except talking about them to brainstorm a strategy. You only do that when you’re a racist what is afraid that the brown ones who are better than you in their souls will take your job.
where did I say we shouldn’t brainstorm?
if I said that then it was very wrong of me to say that.
Are my hard edges showing again?
I’ll sip some tea. That usually calms me.
Not my yob to take your job. That’s Obama’s yob.
oh what I meant was you said two posts on illegal immigration? That’s not very helpful I don’t think. And I said it is but you disagreed. A ball was involved.
thanks I will go find
they might hear us is the problem.
Mr. Jeff that is not a particularly fair characterization of what I said I don’t think as far as fair characterizations go.
here?
Apparently pancakes are very inevitable is the point.
oh. italics fail… the first par was you quoting something I said
but no the point is that it’s a choice for Team R to put immigration per se on its agenda… instead of framing it as part of a broader fiscal responsibility agenda is what I meant
Team R doesn’t really have a choice what the next agenda item is, since Team dirty little socialist wankers runs Congress and the Executive.
but insofar as it comes up on their agenda they have a lot of latitude as to how to approach it… from going full tancredo to getting their McCain on to taking a tack like how Jeff models (#39) with the fiscal responsibility
italics you realize that this is war
As I have said, I think the “that is a fucking lie, and you are a fucking liar” approach is a sound strategy. But, the MSM and asshats like Nishit will get all hot over trying to make conservatives out to be evil racists, not matter what the topic. It is like they already have Teh Narrative written.
“…it’s a choice for Team R to put immigration per se on its agenda…”
Because I don’t (truly don’t) pay enough attention to such like things, I have to wonder, besides AmnestyGraham, is this happening with others? Like the Senate guy McConnell (and I mean, of course, of his own free will and not in response to moves made or forthcoming from the Democrat side) or someone else in the Rep camp driving the issue to a head?
sorry bout the absent italicos where they go there.
I wonder. Except for Tancredo and Graham I don’t know who on Team R is raring to go on immigration.
That’s a wonderfully good point.
Are italicos some fancy Euro type of italics?
They’re the ones that attacked hf’s choice word in what he wrote up there JD.
No idea, sdferr.
italicos are treacherous
That they should be thinking about the necessity of a defense of the issue from the point of view of our (not to say their) principles, is what we want to be done. But thinking about a possible attack and how to cope with it, isn’t making the attack oneself. Is all. I still agree with bh on this though, despite what Harry Reid may say (and mostly because Harry Reid is stupid, more than that he’s just a liar all the time, which he is that too), namely to say with bh, this issue really shouldn’t work too well for the Democrats net-net. This isn’t the time. They have much much bigger worries.
“…it’s a choice for Team R to put immigration per se on its agenda…”
Given the fact that Congress just ran roughshod over the expressed will of the electorate, doing so again on an issue like Immigration reform, which is even less popular, would seem like a bad bad bad idea looking towards the November elections.
Or to Potterize it, italiacto besprühen.
I find all who agree with me to be incredibly wise as well as snappy dressers.
By the way, just saw this, “SEIU officials: Stern to resign“.
From the story:
That pretty much sums up this reckless administration.
On the matter of amnesty, the Republicans do have a choice when it comes to standing up for restoring the value of citizenship, the sanctity of elections, and the rule of law. The related issue of taking a stand against the left’s perversion of our electoral process through voter fraud will make for a very powerful and popular political rallying point.
Linda Douglass just left as well. Rats flee sinking ship, maybe?
Goodnight, all.
“The related issue of taking a stand against the left’s perversion of our electoral process through voter fraud…”
Akin to education, I’m inclined to think this is an issue best dealt with at the local level by a concerned citizenry jealous of their rights. And shotguns, pitchforks cudgels, and stuff, if need be.
‘night, JD.
I’m hoping that it’s a sign of some massive investigation we’re about to hear about, sdferr. Probably too optimistic by far.
You know what, grieferfeet? Jeff’s characterization of you was spot on. Own it.
no it wasn’t I don’t think so I don’t have to own it cranky in fact I explicitly reject it
Of course. It doesn’t change the facts, though.
I can’t talk to you when you’re like this.
The problem is, grieferfeet, you’ve been impossible to talk to for a long time now. You’re the one who has changed. Like I said, own it. Or don’t,whichever. Unless you’ve always been a griefer and just hid it for a long time.
You know, I was once one of your biggest fans around here. I posted some of your comments on my blog (whatever that means). Now, I don’t know what to think, except that Jeff has been right for a long time, and I’ve been wrong. I fully admit he might see things much sooner than I.
Whatever. I’m just a cranky guy (hence my adopted name) commenting on a blog. Take it for what you think it’s worth.
I am not a griefer cranky.
That is just propaganda.
I am your friend.
Does it violate any constitutional tenets for Americans to be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, creed, religion, sexual orientation, physical ability, etc? If it is unconstitutional for any of these groups to be discriminated against, is it constitutional for some Americans be discriminated for? Is it possible to discriminate for one group without discriminating against another. Are all Americans equal before the law? If you insist that it is OK for US law to recognize race, how do you define race? What race is President Obama? How much African-American blood does it take to be black and qualify for federally accorded privileged status? Do you see the nasty slippery slope the progressive line of thinking leads to?
“Sorry for rambling.”
What Bob Reed calls rambling I call Chicken Soup for the brain 8-)
“Are my hard edges showing again?”
Jeff,
With less than 39 minutes pumpin the metal (the time between post #106 and #124) those edges aren’t gonna stay very hard ya Girly man;)
Us? We’re Henry VIII, We are.
Hush!
Na, na-na na, na na na, na-na naaaaaa.
Don’t tell me to Hush!
One of SEKS’ blogs is link whoring, again.
Interesting that in a post about hackery, Lemieux asserts that Goldstein is a “winger” who “do[es]n’t also know anything about constitutional law, except that the framers intended the Constitution to enact the 2008 platform of the Texas Republican Party”.
Interesting self-referential ploy, there. I like Scott’s complete willingness to make fun of himself, while making fun of others.