Well, I’m guessing the upspoken caveat here is, “provided these small-government insurgents don’t say anything, you know, unhelpful.” But be that as it may. Chris Stirewalt, Washington Examiner:
Republicans may manage to find a way to fail in the most favorable political climate for their party since the New Deal Democratic majority got bounced out on its ration book in 1946.
But the signs for November continue to point to an absolute thrashing for the Democrats and, more surprising, a revitalization of Republicanism.
The dire warning from the rump of the old Republican Party was that insurgent candidates who embrace a purer, more liberty-minded form of conservatism would be a disaster.
The old GOP grandees who have never met an incumbent they didn’t like preached disaster, but so far, the small-government rebellion is doing more good than harm.
You don’t say. You mean conservatism/classical liberalism might actually sell, were it presented unapologetically? To the proles, even?
[…]
If the Tea Party libertarianism coursing through the Republican Party is helping to break down the old racial divides in Southern politics, then it has already been a benefit to the GOP.
It’s still an open question how the other small-government insurgents will fare this fall in less reliably Republican states.
Florida’s Marco Rubio, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Nevada’s Sharron Angle are all facing tough tests in their Senate bids. Their success or failure will depend on how badly damaged the Democratic brand is this fall and whether the outsiders are able to run credible campaigns.
Charlie Crist’s self-centered ideology, Nevada’s worst-in-the-nation unemployment and Kentucky’s wide ornery streak offer hope for all three. But losses in any of those races will prompt the Republican old guard to preach doom and gloom about the new wave of the party.
But if a loss or two is the cost for infusing some youth, color and enthusiasm into the GOP, many will say that it was worth the price.
Yes. Right up until the GOP gives us, say, Romney for 2012.
— Which, if they did, would be very unhelpful, to borrow a phrase — though Romney is, by all accounts, a good man, and isn’t likely to give his opposition many “openings” with which to dishonestly frame him. Other than that he’s on the right, I mean, and so therefore is already stupid, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, godbothering, an enemy of the poor, of women, of children, of the working man, and of the immigrant lusting after liberty, and a supporter of Big Business unfettered by regulation — which ravenous monster is out to poison the planet and turn us all into zombie consumerists drooling over our iPads. But that’s all just nitpicking, really.
So we’ve got that going for us.
****
update: Fearless populist opinion leader Patrick Frey today takes another swipe at those who don’t share his pragmatism:
If only Republicans had doubled down on the apology and backed Barton to the hilt! What a missed opportunity!
. . . to completely fuck ourselves.
Let’s say it together, outlaws: persuading the public doesn’t matter. Elections don’t matter. Only principles matter. Precious, precious principles that can’t be put into effect because we have nobody in power.
— And we’ll have nobody in power because we all know that conservativism / classical liberalism won’t sell unless it’s packaged as centrist Democrat “compassion,” complete with all the big spending goodies and the special interest promises. And unless we remember to constantly apologize for its tenets — and our own principles — so as to “persuade” people it isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be. Which, kind of makes me wonder why any of us support it to begin with.
Funny thing is, once “conservatives” are elected as a result of behaving like centrist Democrats they’re expected to act on their promises. And so — surprise! — they end up governing like Democrats.
But fuck it. At least they are in power. And that beats your precious OUTLAW! principles any old day!
Because it’s better to be in power and call yourself a conservative (albeit one that governs like a Democrat, lest you fail to win over the public, backing such an odious thing as conservatism) than to be a conservative and try to get yourself into power by being who you are.
Pragmatism.
Maybe somebody should start a party for conservatives who are afraid of their own conservatism. It’d be kinda like Jews for Jesus, only with fancier wine and assorted cheeses at the booster parties.
READER POLL!
The helpful media will back Romney or Huckabee. Like they did with McCain. It’s the democrat’s version of “vote for the worst” strategy that brought us Sanjaya. The GOP falls for it every time.
Sanjaya had great hair, though.
Like Romney!
defective people? Oh wait, there is a (D) after his name. Nevermind.
We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people — and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about — these are average, good American people
In short, this is the Law of Anyway. When I am told that I am too strident, that the Left will just demonize the GOP as (blank)ist or (blank)ophobic, I can only reply that they’re only going to hate, demonize, slander and smear me anyway. That’s what Demunist Commiecrats do. Scorpion and the Frog crossing the Nile parable and all that.
Other than Duncan Hunter early on, and arguably Fred Thompson for about two weeks in the middle, what conservative was even in the primaries for the GOP in 2008?
I could see a Chris Christie doing it one day–but he knows he has to at least complete his term as governor to do so. Sarah Palin? I like Sarah but I serious doubt she is going to run.
With Romney in the White House and Smeg in Sacramento….
I got nothing. This just doesn’t inspire me.
a little good news.
You cannot be in favor of small government and take a social security check, or drive on roads, or expect them to clean up the oil. Hypocrites.
If only Republicans had doubled down on the apology and backed Barton to the hilt! What a missed opportunity!
. . . to completely fuck ourselves.
Let’s say it together, outlaws: persuading the public doesn’t matter. Elections don’t matter. Only principles matter. Precious, precious principles that can’t be put into effect because we have nobody in power.
I see Joe is trying to hide behind a pseudonym, like we cannot tell it is you. Good Allah, you are one dishonest little fuck.
matter. Elections don’t matter. Only principles matter. Precious, precious principles that can’t be put into effect because we have nobody in power.
Of course, then you have the democrats who have absolutely no principals. Yea.That’s working out so well for our country.
Uncompromising principled argument? Huh.
We need to focus group this.
I think that was already focus grouped Nov 2009. Turns out empty platitudes work better.
Your wrong Carin, the democrats have exactly one principal: the end justifies the means.
The rest, as they say, is commentary.
Ernst – I think that may be true for some, but not all. Many are just your typical hypocrites who achieved their positions of power by uttering liberal platitudes they knew would resonate.
Does Nancy have any principals? No. Or Al Gore?
I would have more respect for these folks if they walked the walk. I think they’re all fucking liars. Socialism is merely the ism they’re using to get their power and money.
“…persuading the public doesn’t matter.”
You’re doing a bang-up job persuading people here, whoever you are, aren’t you? And that’s an indicator we ought to follow your prescriptions? It is to laugh.
Because we all know that conservativism / classical liberalism won’t sell at all unless it’s sold as centrist Democrat “compassion,” complete with all the big spending goodies.
Funny thing is, once “conservatives” are elected on such platforms, they’re expected to act on their promises. And so they end up governing like Democrats.
But fuck it. At least they are in power. And that beats your precious OUTLAW! principles any old day!
I see Joe is trying to hide behind a pseudonym, like we cannot tell it is you. Good Allah, you are one dishonest little fuck.
God, sometimes you are just stupid.
Rather than attack me, why don’t you take on his position.
I admit it. I am embarassed that my position crossed over and matched that of Patterico’s.
“…take on his position.”
Who would that be Joe? That is, are you contending that it was not you posting # 10, and that JD has guessed wrong?
I believe I have already taken on his position a number of times without your prodding, Joe.
His position gives us candidates who are afraid to debate as conservatives even during Presidential debates. McCain passed over opportunity after opportunity, all so he could look “civil” and retain some kind of discursive high ground.
How’d that work out for him?
Ever think some Americans might just like hearing the truth — and not carefully-parsed, insubstantial platitudes designed to prevent the opponent from finding “openings” with which to reframe what’s being said?
And yes, I think we need to focus group my #22. Just to be safe.
we have a president what is now proactively unemploying people for no purpose but to impress upon our impoverished and hapless little country an object lesson with respect to the indubitable and uncompromising righteousness of his cocksucker dirty socialist Chicago street trash ideology and I don’t see how Boehnerfag Team R is going to move the dial if it doesn’t make way for some non-pussy non-Romney non-Meghan’s coward daddy elements to participate in their fag-ass little party.
Rather than attack me, why don’t you take on his position.
Apparently you are not capable of reading, Joe. Actually, it appears to be a comprehension problem, as you previously quoted my disagreement.
I apologize, to everyone else, for derailing this in pointing out his asshattery, yet again.
We should focus group #24 too, while we’re at it.
You forgot bumblefuck, happyfeet. Just sayin’
Many are just your typical hypocrites who achieved their positions of power by uttering liberal platitudes they knew would resonate.
Does Nancy have any principals? No. Or Al Gore?
Self-aggrandizement is the end, by means of liberal platitudes. As was fully explained by Michael Corleone at the beginning of The Godfather, Part II.
OK, since I’ve maybe posted here only once and am not known, this will probably not go down well but here’s my fiscal conservative perspective…
In FL we have a new guy, iduuno something Scott, running for gov. vs. the GOP MOR chipmunk lookalike Bill McCullom (McCallum/McWhatever). Scott ran all kinds of cool anti-washington, fiscal conservative ads and I was looking forward to voting for him. The Chipmunk hit back with mud concerning Scott’s healthcare company being fined for fraud, but I wrote that off as the usual politico bs. Because I ONCE gave money to ONE politico, Guiliani’s presidential campaign, I am on some sort of GOP mailing list. Well a couple weeks ago I started getting junk mail from Scott’s campaign all about abortion. Then he starts sending out crap about how he’s opposed to stem cell research. Stupid. Not every freaking thing that a person believes, not every freaking principle that a person has, is a campaign issue for every freaking office. Stupid, stupid, stupid politically. And this after polls are showing Rubio (whom I like, mostly because he’s not grandstanding on the “A” word, even though it’s more of a senatorial issue than a governor one) trailing that worthless pos might-as-well-be-a-democrat Crist. Now the Chipmunk is hitting back by pointing out that Scott’s companies paid hospitals to do abortions. Stupid. This is why GOP will lose. Not because they lack principles (OK, guys like Crist & the Chipmunk do), but because they can’t limit their campaigns to issues the voters care about. If they can’t limit themselves, how can we expect them to limit government?
You may fire when ready, Gridley…
an indubitable bumblefuck and also we have final GDP numbers for 1Q coming out tomorrow
I think as a warning we should never follow the Team R candidate discussed glowingly on the pages of Time magazine. It’s a trick.
Many people agree, especially in this election cycle.
wtp I think you are dead on in your analysisings
#32 was directed @ #29, by the way.
WTP —
That’s fair. I tend not to care much about social con issues, particularly in a Presidential election.
Christie is an example of doing it right. New Jersey’s fiscal state is horrible and he is focusing on that issue as his primary reform issue (and enough homeowners paying significantly more than the national average get it). But rather than buying into the bullshit from the teachers union, he just takes them on on public. Off the cuff. Without teleprompter. And he is doing a pretty good job.
someone should explain to president bumblefuck that that is a way bigger “fuck you” than McChrystal ever contemplated contemplating
“Off the cuff. Without teleprompter.”
This is an example of seeming, into which you buy without consideration Joe. ‘Off the cuff’ means what, that Christie hasn’t thought through his principles and how those principles intersect with the practical situation he has inherited as Governor? No. Or that he hasn’t thought carefully through what he will say about the teacher’s unions and their bosses? No.
You elide his principles and the manner in which they motivate his actions, while keeping faith with the voters of N.J.
The Feds are certainly doing their part to piss people off.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/24/arizona-dem-accuses-federal-agencies-nixing-conventions-immigration-law/
sdferr, Christie can do it “off the cuff” not because he has not thought about it, because he knows what he is talking about. He is prepared. That is the whole focus of his governorship, getting New Jersey’s fiscal house in order.
Mitt Romney is smart, but he seems focused trying to think fifteen moves ahead on matters of political perception rather than substance. Which is why he did not get the nomination in 2008 and why it is unlikely he will ever be president.
So did his principles and the shape of government to which they lead come first Joe? Even before pulling the wool over the eyes of the drones? Even before his decision to simply tell the truth about the awful state of N.J.’s fiscal situation? You’re a dishonest fella if you can’t say what puts your own recent contentions into default. And it seems as though you can’t.
wtp @29, I could be described as a social con, but can’t disagree with anything you said. That was something I hated about the Cal governor primary race. By the time it was over, I hated’m both.
“Yes. Right up until the GOP gives us, say, Romney for 2012.”
I guess that means people who want something different beeter get up and vote in the primaries then. Otherwise you will get whomever the primary voters chose.
Outlaw, baby.
Undeterred British Forge Ahead With Drilling Plans*
too-scared-to-drill Americans sulk as dependence on foreign oil rises
[…] Times are changing. Yesterday's methods of analysis don't work anymore. Race-based politics are out, and "Small-government insurgents may save the GOP." […]
? Time to pull the stick out of your ass.
I am not an expert on Christie. I know he ran as a fiscal conservative. He apparently had a very good grasp on how fucked up New Jersey’s fiscal situation was–becuase on a modest home your monthly property tax bill is practically a mortgage payment in itself. I do not think Christie pulled the wool over anyone eyes, since he ran to fix the budget. And now he is trying to fix the budget. Christie is geting resistance from the teachers unions, who have such great accomplishments like Newark spending more than $20,000 per student and getting…less than stellar results from those students. But hey, those union members teach those kids because they love it. But don’t you dare make them contribute to thier own premium health care or cut their built in salary escallators. Because those union members don’t love that.
But hey, according to the Democrats those kids may be defective. Oh wait, that was in Pennsylvania, and a democrat said it. So Nevermind.
This post gets to the central paradox over the group we term the pragmatists. They’re not particularly pragmatic. They just appeal to it with a very shallow analysis.
So deflect and avoid, eh Joe, throw a gratuitous couple of cussing insults, chaff the air with bullshit and you think no-one will notice your dishonesty? Maybe you have it right, maybe such methods will prove persuasive. I can’t say for others but I can tell you you’re getting nowhere with me. But you mean well, don’t you?
Now where have I heard that before?
Oh, and no fire from me wtp @ 29. In fact, I think you should definitely comment more.
Ha! Those students told to remove their American flag shirts on May 5th? Suing the school for 1st amendment rights violations. I like it…
sdferr, what position did I promote that was dishonest? Seriously. I did not agree with Jeff, Sowell, and Rush’s take on Barton (although I agree Boehner should have handled it better)–but so what? Why bring it up again. You really want to debate that with me? Go on Patterico’s site and challenge him on it. I agree with Jeff otherwise.
I may disagree with you on things, but I support the William F. Buckley principal of voting and promoting the most conservative candidates who can win. I agree with that 100%. I like what I have seen of Christie because he stands for his convictions of fiscal conservatism and reform. He also does it well on the stump, without a teleprompter. I could care less about most social issues on the federal level–I want the federal government to focus on defense/national security and controlling spending.
Did you write # 10 Joe? Can’t you answer that simple question, asked already at 21?
Yes. Did you really think that was Patterico? Well, let me clarify, I wrote “My name is P.F. and I am a pragmatist.” I did not bother answering your question at 21 because I did not pay attention to it.
Every other word was from Patterico’s post today. So no, I did not write that part. I did not link it. Go over to his site and see.
I’m not going to jump to your command Joe. I don’t read at Patterico very often, to say the truth of it. Very rarely and for the most part only if necessary, due say, to a link spoken to in a post.
You can ignore whatever I write that you choose, that’s fine with me. I don’t mind your idiotic insults either, such as suggesting I may have thought, as you put it “Did you really think that was Patterico?”
You asked in 52 above: “I did not agree with Jeff, Sowell, and Rush’s take on Barton (although I agree Boehner should have handled it better)–but so what? Why bring it up again. [?]”
“Why bring it up again”, you ask? After you reintroduce the subject in this thread by means of your silly sockpuppeting? Stop and think about that for a moment, if you will. Does it still make sense to ask the question “why bring it up”? I don’t think so anyhow.
As to the rest of the questions asked and unanswered, I suppose I should assume that either you haven’t bothered to read them or that you find them uninteresting, and so can’t trouble yourself. Which again, is fine.
On the other hand, you have expressed a concern with being persuasive in political matters, for the purposes of winning voter’s votes. As I’d pointed out above, such a concern may be valid, but the methods to achieving it aren’t in evidence in your techniques. Whether you consider that proposition is also up to you. It may not be worth your time. You’ve no doubt got a handle on that.
[general shit-stirring]
[bad joke]
[off topic link]
sdferr, I probably should not have brought it up. Although if you went to the post and saw it you would see it was related to this thread.
LB @ 43,
At election time, I’m often reminded of a piece I read in MAD Magazine when I was a kid. I’ve looked for the original on the web but can’t find it, so I’ll try to reproduce here from memory:
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were running for the house
When Tweedle Dum smeared Tweedle Dee by calling him a louse
Said Tweedle Dee, “since Tweedle Dum has raised this vicious stink,”
“Tweedle Dum”, says Tweedle Dee, “is nothing but a fink”
“Tweedle Dee”, said Tweedle Dum, “that’s a nasty thing to say”
Then whispered to a columnist that Tweedle Dee was gay
Now I hear that Tweedle Dum was spotted at an orgy
To hell with both, election day I’ll write in Georgie Porgie.
Wtb has a point and he must be in Florida. Scott’s ads initially were almost all on fiscal conservative issues. He actually nicknamed his ads “the Conservative Minute” and those ads, focusing on fiscal restrain, immigration and a couple of other issues were highly successful and put Scott in contention with McColuum. I think what happened is when all of the crap came out about his business dealings, his campaign (wrongfully) decided to shift ads to social issues, as Scott’s record is less questionable than his economic record. Its a shame because I think if he stayed with fiscal principles, he’d be fine. As it is, McCollum and Scott are shooting barbs backing forth via ads about abortion and stem cell reasearch (McCollum apparently took planned parenthood money).
“…I probably should not have brought it up.”
There isn’t anything wrong – in principle – with bringing up something that’s on your mind Joe. Nothing at all, that I can see. It would be simpler, however, to acknowledge the fact that it’s on your mind from the outset: we might have saved ourselves the trouble of this intervening extraction of your identity, for instance.
Furthermore, there isn’t anything — again, in principle — with your making a straightforward argument that ‘practicality’ in political speech, whatever that is, stands in far greater need at the current time than political principles — such as given voice by Rep. Barton in his so-called initial apology. Of course around this particular website you are going to have a harder go of that argument than you would somewhere else I’d guess. But hey, that would be good from the point of view of meeting the strongest of challenges and defeating them, wouldn’t it?
It would be best though, I think, to keep the emotional outbursts out of said argument and stick to the proofs. Where serious about the thing, leave aside the unserious stuff and bring your best argument. You’ll likely find as many willing and honest interlocutors here as anywhere else I can think of.
this was a verboten idea in the media just weeks ago
Turns out the pragmatists might be wrong about the importance of the framing of the message versus the facts it conveys.
How shocking to think that the American people inundated daily by advertising half truths and news framing would be able to see through the bullshit and discern what are the important bits for themselves.
“the $787 billion stimulus was largely misspent and badly targeted”
And the even greater tragedy is that this reduces to the standard liberal plaint “if only we’d spent more and better.”
This is the Bullwinke theory of economics. They’ll pull a rabbit “this time for sure!”
Also, “most economists” must be like “most climatologists.”
OT, but the BP watchers here might find this worth a read.
Yes, that’s exactly the position being taken in fact.
It’s almost like you can crank out dumbass New York Times columns much, much quicker than careful econometric studies.
wouldn’t that be hysterical if we trucked the Chinese into buying worthless oil assets just as America embraces clean energies like windmills and also someone had a links the other day about how you could cook with shit gas
bh, for some reason it was hard to make it through this Mankiw piece without a feeling of depression setting in, taking that depression every-which-a-way.
Somebody’s architect sis’ and not-architect brother are so very alike in their writing. You could tell they were related just by reading.
Sorry for a bit of thread drift, but has anyone seen this piece at the CSMonitor? It’s about a Fire Chief in Alabama who decided “Damn the bureaucracy, full speed ahead!” and implemented a blockade of his local waterway.
Given my penchant for saying stuff like “just bring in your dredgers and your skimmers and MAKE the Coast Guard fire on you,” stories like this give me some hope that there remain a few hardy souls who don’t look upon King Hussein of Chicago to bless their every action.
I couldn’t recommend that Mankiw piece sdferr just linked more highly.
Those who follow such things will especially enjoy the bit on the extreme Romer irony.
Hayek just called Mankiw and said, “Yep.”
Squid, Darleen caught that story awhile back (14 days).
Heh.
A sympathetic review of Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society. Sowell is a man minded toward small-government, in principle, it would seem, due to a cast of mind favoring modesty in intellectual endeavor before the grinding realities of the world, which is to say, the whole.
oh. I meant *tricked* … stupid letters… but also this is from your article
these people employ 23,000 Americans, which is many… any one of which is a better person and better American than our cocksucker bumblefuck president
I hadn’t realized Joe was quoting Frey. Who proves his point about Barton by, wait for it, citing a poll.
I wonder how many people answer polls with what they think the pollsters want to hear, or with what they think they are supposed to say/feel; and I wonder what would happen if just once the GOP actually got around to pointing out that the emperor is naked, rather than apologizing every time one of its members breaks ranks and laughs at Barry’s schwanz.
From that post:
Wait, they misrepresented his statement in the poll that was supposed to prove Frey’s point?
Exactly!
“…they misrepresented his statement…”
Who else did this, I wonder, continuously and repeatedly?
The man keeps breaking all my assorted bullshit and irony meters. I should send him a bill.
I’ll have to read that Sowell review after I get done mowing the lawn. We’re stuck in this pattern where it rains every day for four or five days, and then we get a one day break in the pattern. Anyways, it’s a good book. But like most of his books, you’ve seen the argument before. If I ever get the chance to meet him, I’m going to ask if he ever grows weary of having to refute the same progressive idiocies over and over again.
Because Government knows best: EPA classifies milk as oil. So dairy farmers get to live up to the same regulatory rules as the o’l bidness.
Tautology, thy name is Frey!
Mr. Dan has this at his blog here
But, but…he still LIKES BIG OIL!
Just an insertion here to bring to mind the ongoing argument, where it has been and where it will presumably lead. This horseshit about insistent honest conservatism not having a concern for winning votes is still nothing more than strawman horseshit, it should be clear.
I have no idea what this means exactly
but it’s funny.
So the judge divested yet this was still used for short-term propaganda purposes by the ignorant and/or dishonest?
How can this even be possible?
It means a rube just realized the shakedown created a slushfund, ‘feets.
They are already starting to eat each other over how best to spend somebody else’s money.
Just for grins:
@85 — But I don’t understand. How can you be principled, and still want to win? Can those two things possibly go together?
Truth? The only link between the two I can lay down at the foundation is that achieving what is better is the aim. So the ‘principle’ is aimed at what is better and not at what is worse, as is the desire to win, for the sake of arriving at what will be done for the better and not for the worse.
I think hopefully there’s at ;east one cousin-fucking piece of shit Louisianan what’s about to get a big fuck you right to his face
Or maybe we could try it like this, cousin-fuckers… if BP goes bankrupt you get to eat shit and Mary Landrieu has to get her fuckme boots on and whore it up in D.C. more pity money.
Howzat sound?
link
ok I might could have proofread that
cute sorta kinda
Barton should have apologized to the American people for what he saw Obama doing to our country.
The link hf shared is exactly what I feared.
Which consultants does BP hire to administrate and set up the fund? Probably someone related to a Podesta.
What legal firms get hired? Oh…
Maybe Goldman Sachs can be the banker…
All SEIU clean up crews
Democrat donor toxic waste haulers
Those would be the above board, technically legal, on the books parts of the fund.
What were the off the record deals? Former and disgraced White House party planner to get a million dollar a year gig at a BP closely held subsidiary making non existent fruit baskets for non existent meetings that are not attended by a contingent of well paid but brand new directors of the non board?
But no, we can’t double down because one of our guys stutter stepped and did a boo boo… no, no.. we are way too busy eating our young… or maybe proving our conservative bona fides excoriating… no, destroying… some 4th tier, 5th columnist blogger at the Pahrump Herald-Bugle for a series of willful… willful mendacities and coverups… destroyed.
I live in the district of the hon. Ms. Capps (D) I believe the only two things she does is vote Yes on every Democrat environmental/green scheme idea and No to every thing to do with the war on terror.
And wear a blue old lady suit. Everything else except remembering to applaud during any speech by Nancy Pelosi eludes her.
Do I go all out to take her down and get real leadership…. or do I instead go after some hayseed republican columnist from the Bougaloo, LA Flash for having a greatgrandpappy who once drove a mule train of Confederate chewing tobacco into a Union ambush? Or do I hound, yes, hound the local paper into issuing corrections that they then print in the lower left hand corner on page 6?
Oh yeah… and what have we come to when the Kennedy’s a leading the push and shove at the pork trough?
Evidently this whole new economy thing has screwed the trust fund pooch
And by the way, that quote of Patterico by me at #10 was not intended to promote Frey’s position. It was me being a trouble maker (which I occasionally do). I was inartful in my snark. egrets.
There is some cross over between me and Patterico on the underlying point. I still believe the BP Obama deal is less about shake down and coercion and more about insider cronyism and corruption. While Obama can threaten the tyranny of the federal government, BP had potential tricks available to it (in fact that safety escape is still available).
Although if anything, realizing that Patterico supports something only pushes me the other way. Irrational? I have a theory of conservative blogging that if Pat is on one side of an issue and Jeff’s on the other, smart money is on Jeff.
And I definitely was not suggesting Paterico’s use of reader polls has merit.
But again, Obama would never engage in Quid Pro Quo! Would he?
If Obama can do it to BP (even if BP has an “arrangement” with Obama), that merely justifies his being able to do it to companies who don’t have such a relationship with the King, and so will be harmed, rather than helped. Which may just push them to make preemptive agreements with the King. Just in case.
And that’s what Barton said: he doesn’t want to live in a country where companies can be treated that way. BP was the occasional; the emblem. Because what was happening was happening here and now. But they are merely an objective correlative for Barton’s concern, as he phrased it. In fact, they had almost nothing to do with Barton’s apology, one could argue, save for their usefulness as an immediate example.
I agree Jeff that the process BP and the White House engaged in, before a lawsuit was even filed, should have been more open and public. The White House should have engaged Congress (in autority to negotiate in the first place and in the review of the final settlement). Obama is negotiating for us all and we should all have some say in it. That way potential abuse by coercion or corruption can be monitored.
Somehow I don’t see this WH game of “Law and Order” continuing much longer before someone seriously blinks. The gulf states, some of which were already in deep financial doodoo, are hemorrhaging.
BBH, I reckon that somewhere so far off the record you can’t see the tone arm there’s suggestions to call out the Louisiana Guard, with the mission of telling the Feds (especially the EPA) “Go home. Stay there.” I know it gets floated, sotto voce, around here once in a while.
Regards,
Ric
watch some commie herstory at glenn beck:
My Page Name
Oh, and I just saw this:
BUUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Joe, you’re such a dork.
Regards,
Ric
If you want a candidate that holds to your views, you must get that candidate nominated by one of the two major parties. (Whatever office.)
The hard left/far left/whatever left took over the Democrats and have been using them to push their agenda. So be it.
In the USA, because the federal and state constitutions call for ‘winner take all’ elections (no – that is very ingrained and will not be changed without a lot of years and work – which ain’t there yet), realistically you have to deal with Democrats and Republicans*.
So…which party is more likely to be conducive to what you want?
Infiltrate the Republicans, do the door-to-door stuff, run for preceinct delegate – push them in the direction you want, get friends involved so that they also make that push.
You will not get candidates at any level espousing what you desire if you are not involved in a party at the ‘farm’ level.
I know – Eisenhower. And where else than a near-utterly-consuming-all-life-on-earth-war do you find someone who has not been working his way through state and local politics?
Yeah. Thought so.
It is a long march, my friends. And the first phase is to Take Over the local Republican Party.
Got to hot-wire something and that vehicle is pretty clean and ready to go.
Towards Mikey’s comment about becoming a precinct delegate, unlike many options, this is something you can actually do with a decent likelihood of of success.
That’s why I’ll further recommend you consider doing this within the Democratic party.
*Yes – the Whigs went away…to where? They became either (a)Democrats; or (b) Republicans.
Merry Christmas. Happy New Year. Joyous Kwanzaa.
When a decision is forced onto people they decide…according to those that are around them physically, right then?
And that initial enforcement may make a person ever more strident as an enforcer of what the enforcer demands?
And if the enforcer ever reaches a lull in what he can do or what needs to be enforced?
Nicolae Ceuceasceu.
Ric, Oh. Baby. Obama. Let me re-write:
“Obama
is[should be] negotiating for us all and we should all have some say in it.”I am pretty sure Obama was actually negotiating for Obama in that meeting with BP.
That’s (111) at least steadfastly obtuse Joe. It elides the scheme of government, for one. It says nothing about ‘negotiating’ under what authorization, nor to what ends that negotiation would be accomplished, nor why those ends would not be done as well or better without the executive’s interference.
Our ‘say’ is presumed to have been taken up in the laws on the books, which it is Obama’s job as executive to enforce. If further say need be had by us through our representatives, let them pass new law. If justice is to be done, let that be done in courts of law, which are created for that purpose. (You may hear, if you listen, echoes of Rep Barton’s lament at the loss of the rule of law you’ve disdained.)
So we have Arizona vs the Fed on immigration, the Gulf states on the verge of open rebellion, and the rest of the country facing potential oil shortages.
The Chicago bag man may have to flee with the WH to Or-ee-gone soon.
And btw. Don’t believe for a second the BS the press tries to peddle. Immigration is as a hot a fighting issue here in Cal as you’d ever want to run across.
One of our burbs, 75 – 80% Hispanic, recently passed a resolution in their city council voting to back Mexico/the Feds against Arizona’s law, where upon several other local burbs said “Fine, we won’t do any business with your anti-American asses then”. (Their Mayor smartly obstained herself from the vote.)
Joe Barton Speaks mostly truth, but inarticulately blunders into a gaffe that puts his supporters on the wrong side of an issue polling at 82% (support for escrow fund) and supporting headlines like “Barton(R) apologizes to BP”.
Pragmatic solution – denounce the gaffe and require Barton to apologize and move on to talking about your agenda
Purist solution – embrace the gaffe and use the opening as a way to keep talking about the underlying problem – the Administration extortion of BP
Stan McChrystal Speaks mostly truth, but lets his staff repeatedly gaffe in a way that puts his supporters on the wrong side of an issue that would poll similiarly (military respect for civilian authority)
Pragmatic solution – denounce the gaffe and require McChrystal to apologize
Purist solution – embrace the gaffe ? don’t post about it at all? Outlaw-ish!
What was it that Barton said in his initial remarks that was false motionview, ’cause I think I missed that part somewhere along the line?
No idea what you’re going for with the McChrystal parallel you’re drawing, mv.
It’s a framing thing bh.
We wouldn’t understand.
If framing is this easy, I have an idea.
Let’s frame it that they’re pedophiles and we’re attractive action heroes.
Get to work, mv.
Nuance peoples – nuance.
– And the McChrystal thing. Simply taking one for the team. Obumma is rather beset right now, and just did what any good precinct organizer would do. He needed to buy some time with the press and the voters, so he threw the good General under the bus.
The question he seeks to avoid, the one almost burning the paint off the walls in the oval office. Why are we still in Afghanistan if we don’t seriously intend to finish it.
The Left seems to be silently suffering their bleeding ulcers, but unwilling to openly take him to task. If you look at what he’s done, he’s steadfastly followed the Chaney doctrine, and now has completed the exact plan with Patreaus back in charge. Where are the voices of outrage in all of this, the Slut Huffintons, moveon.shit, Halitosis, and Jane hampster-face. Let loose the dawgs of righteous indignation already.
– Should be a hoot.
That would be Lon?
What was it that Barton said in his initial remarks that was false motionview, ’cause I think I missed that part somewhere along the line?
Three little words: “So I apologize”
America shouldn’t have ganked BP for to make a slush fund to cover Chicago street trash’s ass.
The whole world saw it and they will remember.
When you say stuff like this, I’m inclined to ignore you. That’s about as simple a take on it as I can imagine.
Also, what ‘feets said.
Let’s frame it that they’re pedophiles and we’re attractive action heroes.
Does Mark Foley and losing the House in 2006 ring a bell?
Ditto bh. That’s plain old horseshit motionview is peddling.
It does.
Some nobody was all gay with his pages. Pragmatists fell all over each other to apologize rather than press their strongest points.
When you say stuff like this, I’m inclined to ignore you. That’s about as simple a take on it as I can imagine.
It’s simple so it’s wrong? I have no problem with anything else Barton said. Would you liked me to dress it up in psuedo-intellectualoid jargon?
Also, what ‘feets said.
‘feets is running some semi-automatic babble program that looks like but is not quite language.
It’s amazing how a straight-up fascist like Obama can bully a few sectors in so little time and “conservatives” will still rally around the need to state things perfectly the first time.
Some nobody was all gay with hisunder-age pages. Pragmatists
fell all over each other to apologize rather than press their strongest pointscovered for him until it was too late.FIFY
Give it a try. Seriously. Is this an actual stance or is it how you feel at this particular moment?
I asked what was false, and you return “So I apologize”? How was it false? Barton didn’t mean it? He was lying, he wasn’t apologetic? He wasn’t appalled at what he saw as an abrogation of the rule of law?
Motionview, I don’t accept your label, purist, to describe what is advocated for here amongst the outlaws.
It is my duty, as a citizen of the USA, to uphold the Constitution and defend personal liberty. Doing so is not being purist, it is being honorable.
Honor is what separates those advocating for principled and limited government, and those pragmatists that would trade liberty for security, and principals for popularity.
Be honorable, not cowardly. The country needs you.
Hey now. Easy there sport. Feets does good.
What you see now is the Left apologizing for O’s ham handed approach to the whole mess. My guess is that originally O’s handlers made the strong recommendation that he delegate and stay above the fray, but lacking political savvy, he saw it as an opportunity to “look tough” and regain electorate support.
Problem is, very few people, outside of a Reagan, can pull that off without looking like a bully. This sort of outright extortion just rubs salt in the wound.
I’m sorry. I feel the need to say this for comedic emphasis.
Mark Foley? What? Because of his great love of red herrings?
You argue like old people fuck.
I asked what was false, and you return “So I apologize”
You’re right, it wasn’t false. It was stupid, tone-deaf, and inappropriate as he was not the aggrieving party.
His was the scheme of government being trampled, or was that unclear to you motionview? His was the stance that wrong was being done, ostensibly in his name even, and he wanted no part in that. Who is tone deaf here?
sdferr? Obtuse? I did not realize you were such a constitutional scholar. Okay let them sue BP. Guess what, they can sue BP now. Opting into the deal is voluntary. I said if they are going to cut some deal, then get congressional authorization for it. Congress can say no. Or yes. Even Barton gets a say.
Or get congress to make such deals illegal. Becuase guess what, while they may be bad public policy, they aren’t illegal right now.
Of course BP could just declare bankruptcy and call it a day.
“Opting into the deal is voluntary.”
Opting into the deal, as has been shown to you before, could very well be succumbing to a shakedown or strong-arming tactics Joe. But you write out the possibility. Again. That’s obtuse, again.
Joe, I swear to the sweet baby Jesus, you just don’t understand what a shakedown means.
I’m sorry. I feel the need to say this for comedic emphasis.
Mark Foley? What? Because of his great love of red herrings?
You argue like old people fuck.
It sounds like you’ve borrowed ‘feets babble program. Or do you really think that months of “Foley(R) getting all gay on underage pages, Republican leadership stands by doing nothing” had nothing to do with losing in 2006?
Listen, the low info voters decide elections. I didn’t make that true, but all the votes count, even from the left half of the normal curve.
Motionview has brought both McChrystal and Mark Foley into a discussion about… congressional hearings involving BP.
Because he’s on point. And it’s very easy to speak perfectly the first time.
Any of this ringing a bell with you yet?
one of your more awesomer wiki profiled I think:
Sierra Casady was born in Iowa, and Bianca was born in Hawaii. When Sierra was about 5 years old and Bianca 3, their parents separated. The girls lived with their mother, Christina Chalmers, an artist and singer of Native American and Syrian ancestry who grew up in Iowa.
In 1998, at about age 18, Sierra moved to New York City. Two years later, she moved into a tiny apartment in the Montmartre district in Paris, France, to pursue a career as an opera singer, studying at the Conservatoire de Paris. During this period, Sierra lost contact with Bianca, who was living in New York City. Bianca studied linguistics and sociology, and pursued her passion of visual arts and writing. She also collected a variety of tattoos, and was known to attend “ironic,” white-held “Kill Whitey” parties in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.*
here they perform on French tv a song about two young sisters what get … raped by dad. here is the cd version of the song.
here you can hear the opera training
wow plus the unicorns, they make love as one vomits a rainbow
one of your more awesomer wiki *profiles* I mean
Kill whitey indeed. And more goddamn opera, please, the world will need the laughs after whitey’s gone.
that first youtube link is really one of the best most interesting striking magical things I’ve seen in many moons
Motionview has brought both McChrystal and Mark Foley into a discussion about… congressional hearings involving BP.
After a week of web arguments on BP and Joe Barton I’d seen that JeffG hadn’t posted on McChrystal, which I believe would be a really difficult subject for a purist to discuss while staying consistent with purist principles.
bh brought up pedophiles and framing, and if you don’t see Foley/2006 as an appropriate rejoinder I can’t help you.
Too late, motionview.
You’re already an internet sensation and the higher ups are deciding how to deal with you.
Under the bus, I’d say.
Better luck next time.
Disingenuity should take you far motionview. As I had noted before, you seem to be very good at this framing stuff. God only knows the Democrats will be delighted to have you on board.
all of the stupid happens quite apart from anything you can say about it I think… just don’t want to be a Boehnerfag.
Just don’t.
At some point the Left is going to have a bitter hard decision to make, hard for them, lacking as they are, in any principles.
Do they back a losing horse in the face of overwhelming proof of failure to the very end, or simply admit they’ve been had.
I don’t see any real evidence, beyond the multi-digit growing deficit, that O has managed to effect even the bare beginnings of a real socialism, so where is the reason or need for fidelity among the chronically unfaithful.
Are they simply confused, shocked, what?…..
Anyone…….Bueller……
Oh, and motionview? The reason the Republicans lost Congress in 2006 had very little to do with Foley.
They lost because they weren’t living up to their fiscally conservative principals, and the base stayed home.
Then they gave us McCain for president, a man that never had a principle he wouldn’t trade for a chance to be on TV.
See, it’s not the principals that are a loser for the GOP, it’s the lack of will to live up to them. Now it’s got the the point where even wishing they had principals draws sneers of “purist”.
LBascom, I agree with because they weren’t living up to their fiscally conservative principals, and the base stayed home. IMO the rest of that fiasco was the low info voters and Foley.
sdferr, bh, okay–shakedown! It is not a matter of being obtuse. I just do not care that much. I am not stopping you from doing something about it. Knock it out of the park.
Can’t say I am surprised by this though…
BP = F.O.O.
Friends of Obama
I have a feeling that in the coming months he will need all the friends he can exploit.
Romney is just another rich guy who wants to be President. Worse for him, everybody knows it. For some reason people see right through him. In 2008 he had the highest negatives of all the GOP candidates.
The GOP is spent. It’s been spent since 2000. The only thing they’ve had going for them since then is that they’re not Democrats. Well we classically liberal capitalists aren’t Democrats either, so we don’t need that. The fact is guys, the GOP isn’t even worth parting out. They have no candidates, no ideas, nothing. Yes, they’ll be successful in November, but their success will only last as long as they don’t remind independents why they don’t like the GOP, and then we’ll have the Democrats back. This cycle isn’t going to end well for freedom.
I think it’s time to cut the knot.
Cutting the knot is one thing. Divining a viable political alternative, quite another. However we get there, the country needs a breather, a chance to catch our collective breaths and get back to real problem solving if its at all possible. Maybe the quiet of a few years of cronyism while we get it together wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Another cup of tea anyone?
“I just do not care that much.”
That much has been plain from the beginning. It is true moreover not merely of your unconcern (or rather, positive hatred) toward BP, but of the governmental scheme Rep Barton holds as a higher good, a thing above the oil industry you cynically cited as his interest. You could care less, nor could bother to understand why your caring would matter in the least. So you will have deserved, as the saying goes, the government you get. Lastly, the lip service you pay to Jeff’s better grasp of the issues is only that, and empty lip service too boot. You don’t stand with Patterico, nor Cynn, nor meya, nor AJB, nor Ace, nor Allah you say over and over again — except that you do. No-one’s fooled. I’m not sure you can even fool yourself.
sdferr, oh you got me dialed in. Not.
As for BP, it was in bed with the Obamaites well before this mess and I definitely think it is responsible and should pay for it over the American tax payer. As for Barton, it is ironic you are being so…so….Boehneresque in demanding ideological unpragmatic purity and message on this subject. I thought Barton misspoke and if my view was closest to anyone’s it was probably Ace’s. Okay, I guess that makes me a cynical pragmatist on this issue. I still agree that Jeff is always right when Patterico is on the other side of a point. Okay. But you are entitled to your own view. Go, Send Barton a donation.
I think it’s time to cut the knot
I’m for insurrection. The GOP still has the necessary infrastructure, time to storm the palace and replace the leaders.
Why reinvent the wheel?
Still you don’t get it Joe. And prove yourself once again. It isn’t about Barton. I’m not concerned that you should retract your statements, as Boehner was of Barton, for the sake of fooling the rubes like you. Better, I think, that you should voice them over and again as you have done here, though as I’ve noted before to you, perhaps with a modicum less emotional outburst and a bit more weight: however, that will be as you choose. I’ve asked too that you not lie about what I’ve said, but again, this will be your choice.
Amen, Darleen.
The frequency of calls I get from the GOP has been decreasing. One reason is that I haven’t given them any money for going on 8 years now, and another is 1) my berating them for never getting that I didn’t take my wife’s last name when we got married and 2) telling them emphatically that I don’t give money to an organization that supports profligate government spending at a rate only slightly less ruinous than that of the other party.
There are lots of things I haven’t posted on. But I’m sure McChrystal has been mentioned here, if not by me, then by others.
Now, as a “purist,” what would I have trouble with again, motionview? Because I can assure you I haven’t stayed away from any story because it would trouble my principles. Only because I post when I what about what I want, and I haven’t been following McChrystal.
Would you like me to dress that up in pseudo-intellectual jargon for you and make it all Outlaw-ish? I have a feeling that’s what I’ll need to do anyway to confirm your opinion of me.
As for my opinion of you, you confirm it every time you leave a comment. Go. Help the GOP strategize. We “purists” don’t want to “win,” anyway, so why bother hounding us. Let us just sit here in the wilderness while you do the real work of deciding when and how best to sell out your principles for votes, or when and how best to hide your conservatism to appeal to the “low-info” voters you need to snow your way back into power.
— Where you’ll be hamstrung with respect to what you can say or how you can act. Unless, of course, what you’re going for is some Trojan Horse backdoor coup. In which case, don’t forget to infiltrate the press.
Dick.
As far as the “purist” solution for McChrystal goes, the reminder that he speaks for himself is always useful. The rest would depend on your position regarding the behavior of military leaders.
Dick.
As my day has started off ruined, I’ll see you all next week. By then, this site should have completely fallen off the Alexa rankings. But don’t worry. There are always sites like motionview’s to keep you all going. Pragmatism sells; all else is pseudo-intellectual purist bullshit and fake Outlaw-ery.
Take your cues from McCain. Now there’s a guy who’s good at saying the things he needs to to win.
sdferr: I’ve asked too that you not lie about what I’ve said, but again, this will be your choice.
Oh Baby Obama. Leave me alone! Stop stalking me.
I am really not even sure what you are saying anymore sdferr, so if anyone thinks I am speaking for sdferr, I am not. sdferr speaks for himself. I do not speak for sdferr. Nothing I say should be attributed to sdferr. If you want to know what sdferr has to say, look at what sdferr has to say.
sdferr – Your points were as direct, and about as subtle, as an anvil to the forehead, yet it appears to have not made a mark.
I am not surprised you would take that position JD.
Then again JD, maybe you dig sferr’s reference to Socrates and Agathon above. Not that there is anything wrong with it, I am not judging, I just don’t swing that way.
Stick with defending Barcky Obumblefuck, Joe. And the emo. Those are your strengths. Oh, and calling people the ghey. That hurts.
Defending Barcky Obumblefuck? Now that hurts. I am definitely not defending that fuck nut.
Now boys, joe is just experiancing a temporary(I hope) blind spot, PTS induced myopia from the oil leak I believe.
I suggest you just agree to disagree on that topic.
Please. I can’t bear to hear joe tell us for the thousandth time how he doesn’t care what the Obama administration does to BP. All that dis-interest is bordering on the obsessive.
LBascom, I care more what BP is doing to us. I also care what Obama is doing to us. The only difference is the harm BP is doing to the gulf, while terrible, pales in comparison to the harm Obama is doing to the country.
LBascom, you have to remember if you take a position that people disagree with here, you have to respond to like a dozen people demanding you respond to them. It gets to the point that I have people telling me I am for Obama and defending his policies. It makes you want to bang your head on the desk.